The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Louis VI the Fat]

i imagine this part is 100% word for word accurate, given that it is unredacted transcription of the offending document:

The highlighted text below was contained in the original draft of the document drawn up in 2000 for a discussion on immigration policy - but deleted from the version published in 2001.


1) The emerging consensus, in both the UK and the rest of the EU, is that we need a new analytical framework for thinking about migration policy if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government's economic and social objectives.

2) Indeed, over the medium to longer term, migration pressures will intensify in Europe as a result of demographic changes. But this should not be viewed as a negative - to the extent that migration is driven by market forces, it is likely to be economically beneficial. On the other hand, trying to halt of reverse market-driven migration will be very difficult (perhaps impossible) and economically damaging.

3) Chapter 4, focusing on the Government's aim to regulate migration to the UK in the interests of social stability and economic growth, argues that it is clearly correct that the Government has both economic and social objectives for migration policy.

4) The more general social impact of migration is very difficult to assess. Benefits include a widening of consumer choice and significant cultural contributions. These in turn feed into wider economic benefits.

5) In practice, entry controls can contribute to social exclusion, and there are a number of areas where policy could further enhance migrants' economic and social contribution in line with the Government's overall objectives.

6) It is clear that migration policy has both social and economic impacts and should be designed to contribute to the government's overall objectives on both counts. The current position is a considerable advance on the previously existing situation, when the aim of immigration policy was, or appeared to be, to reduce primary immigration to the 'irreducible minimum' - an objective with no economic or social justification.

Thanks.

This shows that indeed this has become distorted by excitable rightwing newspaper columnists into being a 'plot' to make Britain multicultural. There was no plot.

[Furunculus]

Thanks.

This shows that indeed this has become distorted by excitable rightwing newspaper columnists into being a 'plot' to make Britain multicultural. There was no plot.

1) if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government's economic and social objectives. There is NO acceptable social objective to migration, i am not a play-thing

4) Benefits include a widening of consumer choice and significant cultural contributions. why is someone insisting that i am subjected to greater consumer choice via social contributions?

5) In practice, entry controls can contribute to social exclusion, why do i care about social exclusion of migrant groups?

6) It is clear that migration policy has both social and economic impacts and should be designed to contribute to the government's overall objectives on both counts. The current position is a considerable advance on the previously existing situation, when the aim of immigration policy was, or appeared to be, to reduce primary immigration to the 'irreducible minimum' - an objective with no economic or social justification. why does a policy of leaving people alone to lead their own lives have a negative conotation, i don't want your intervention

no Louis, there is nothing remotely good, and everything contemptible about that released document.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I didn't say it doesn't. Of course, overpopulation would result in extremely depressed wages, as would mass immigration. But for the UK, that would have to be an influx of millions and millions of people.

3 million in 10 years plus 1 million illegals. That's "millions and millions", isn't it?

Thanks.

This shows that indeed this has become distorted by excitable rightwing newspaper columnists into being a 'plot' to make Britain multicultural. There was no plot.

I think it has been exagerated, but not distorted. The report clearly indicates that some in the government wanted to import a solution to their "social objectives", that is a disturbing agenda, is it not?

It essentially says, "the locals aren't what we want, so we'll get new people in".

[Beskar]

The report clearly indicates that some in the government wanted to import a solution to their "[Government's economic and] social objectives"[sic], that is a disturbing agenda, is it not?

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The report clearly indicates that some in the government wanted to import a solution to their "social objectives", that is a disturbing agenda, is it not?

No, I'm afraid that is not what the report says.

Take the much reviled sentence below, for example.

The emerging consensus, in both the UK and the rest of the EU, is that we need a new analytical framework for thinking about migration policy if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government's economic and social objectives.

The report does not say that migration ought to be maximised on behalf of governmental objectives. Nor that the objective is to maximise immigration. Nor does it speak of migration for governmental objectives.
The sentence is 'read backwards' in the alarmist press, as it were: 'the government has social objectives, these consist of maximising migration contibution'. Ergo - 'mass immigration on behalf of social engineering!'.

Quod non! The sentence does not even mention an increase in immigration - it is completely neutral about that. The report goes on, from what I gather, to expand on what is meant with the new analytical framework: more emphasis on skilled workers, more emphasis on migration that benefis Britain instead of the immigrants. This is the 'new analytical framework' the reviled sentence speaks about, and which is needed to, and I'll paraphrase the last bit of the sentence, 'improve the contribution migration has on Britain's economy and social fabric'.


The same holds true for the rest of the report. The report is completely misread, turned into an alarmist, sensationalist parody of itself, that has no ground whatsoever in reality.
I would say that the reporters at the Telegraph and the Daily Mail are severly lacking in reading skills, but it is of course much worse than that. It is a clear and deliberate distortion of the truth. A distortion that is swallowed hook, line and sinker because of deep-seated frustration about mass immigration.

I shall happily join the ranks of those who think mass imigration has meant very little for the quality of life in the UK, join those who wish Labour had decreased instead of increased immigration, but I'm not going to misread plain English because of it.

[Beskar]

No, I'm afraid that is not what the report says.

Take the much reviled sentence below, for example.

The emerging consensus, in both the UK and the rest of the EU, is that we need a new analytical framework for thinking about migration policy if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government's economic and social objectives.

The report does not say that migration ought to be maximised on behalf of governmental objectives. Nor that the objective is to maximise immigration. Nor does it speak of migration for governmental objectives.
The sentence is 'read backwards' in the alarmist press, as it were: 'the government has social objectives, these consist of maximising migration contibution'. Ergo - 'mass immigration on behalf of social engineering!'.

Quod non! The sentence does not even mention an increase in immigration - it is completely neutral about that. The report goes on, from what I gather, to expand on what is meant with the new analytical framework: more emphasis on skilled workers, more emphasis on migration that benefis Britain instead of the immigrants. This is the new analytical framework the reviled sentence speaks about, and which is needed to improve the contribution migration has on Britain's economy and social fabric.


The same holds true for the rest of the report. The report is completely misread, turned into an alarmist, sensationalist parody of itself, that has no ground whatsoever in reality.
I would say that the reporters at the Telegraph and the Daily Mail are severly lacking in reading skills, but is is of course much worse than that. It is a clear and deliberate distortion of the truth. A distortion that is swallowed hook, line and sinker because of deep-seated frustration about mass immigration.

I shall happily join the ranks of those who think mass imigration has meant very little for the quality of life in the UK, those who wish Labour had decreased instead of increased immigration, but I'm not going to misread plain English because of it.

The long version of my post.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Conciseness is a form of art.

[Beskar]

Conciseness is a form of art.

I liked your reply better as an actual informative reply. Though I prefer my sentence inspired from 'Princess Bribe' because I like that movie and the sentence was straight to the point (though the flaw of not explaining the point, tends to cause trouble for me).