|
|
Post by Red Rackham on May 18, 2023 14:22:48 GMT
There are plenty of people, people who were in Blairs administration, who claim Blairs immigration policy was a conspiracy against the people. Blair flatly refused to listen to his own ministers concerns over the issue, in later years both David Blunkett and Jack Straw both apologised for the levels of immigration under Blair. Anyone against free-flowing immigration was assumed to be a racist Tory, a view supported by the BBC’s reluctance to debate the issue and endorsed by Labour’s promotion of multiculturalism.
Blair wanted all immigrants, whether illegal or not, to be treated 'generously'. Soon after entering office the new Labour government announced that all immigrants whether deemed to be illegal or 'suspect' asylum seekers would be guaranteed the right to have their cases heard by a British judge. This was seen across the world as the beginning of a new tolerance in the UK. The rest is history.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 18, 2023 16:16:40 GMT
It's true that immigration started rising sharply after the Blairites gained control, mainly due to the decision not to impose transitional controls on workers from the A8 states.
But that doesn't mean it was negligible prior to that. In fact from the early sixties through the late 90s immigration average over a quarter million annually, the overwhelming majority of it from the 'New' Commonwealth. By the turn of the century the 'coloured' population had risen from effectively zero in 1950 to almost the 5 million that Enoch Powell projected in 1968 (actually 4.6 million in the 2001 census).
So while it's comforting to want to blame the Blairites for everything, it's not very factual. The immigration disaster was already well on the way long before Blair arrived on the scene.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 18, 2023 16:57:34 GMT
To add a little flesh to the bones, foreign migration into Britain during the Blairite regime (1997-2009) totalled 5,394,000. In the period since, under a succession of Conservative governments (2010-2022), the corresponding total is 7,335,000. Source |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on May 18, 2023 17:21:08 GMT
To add a little flesh to the bones, foreign migration into Britain during the Blairite regime (1997-2009) totalled 5,394,000. In the period since, under a succession of Conservative governments (2010-2022), the corresponding total is 7,335,000. SourceDan if what I'm reading is accurate and I believe it is, then during the period 1997 - 2010 net annual immigration quadrupled... www.theguardian.com/news/2015/mar/24/how-immigration-came-to-haunt-labour-inside-story |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 18, 2023 17:24:40 GMT
It's true that immigration started rising sharply after the Blairites gained control, mainly due to the decision not to impose transitional controls on workers from the A8 states. But that doesn't mean it was negligible prior to that. In fact from the early sixties through the late 90s immigration average over a quarter million annually, the overwhelming majority of it from the 'New' Commonwealth. By the turn of the century the 'coloured' population had risen from effectively zero in 1950 to almost the 5 million that Enoch Powell projected in 1968 (actually 4.6 million in the 2001 census). So while it's comforting to want to blame the Blairites for everything, it's not very factual. The immigration disaster was already well on the way long before Blair arrived on the scene. It was a slow motion disaster in a way until Blair. Then it accelerated away. Most people, rightly or wrongly, were comfortable with the level of migration before that (largely because its effects were limited to small areas) although the Rushdie affair did raise some early warnings as to severe cultural problems on the horizon. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 18, 2023 17:30:35 GMT
Net migration isn't a very useful metric if what we are trying to discover is the change in the non-British population over a period of time. Reason being, the net migration figures usually cited by politicians include the comings and goings of British citizens as well as foreigners. In any given year the number of Britons leaving (emigrating) is anywhere between 50 and 100,000 greater than the number returning (immigrating). The net effect is to make the net migration figures look lower than they really are if it's foreigners we're concerned about but then that's something venal politicians will always look to minimise. At least until they're in opposition.
I should add that the figures given above are gross immigration figures; the net migration figures (excluding British citizens) are somewhat lower but the fact remains that more than a million more immigrants (net) have arrived in the post-Blair years than did under his watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 18, 2023 17:34:05 GMT
What do you think motivates them to want to do that? And does the conspiracy have a historical root? It may be partly an altruistic approach in that it becomes more difficult to go to war with countries when many of the ethnic groups are not of the nations involved. A bit like the Japanese in WW2 in the US. It was difficult to engender hatred in the populace of the Japanese if many citizens were ethnically Japanese. Having a mix of people in any country makes unified action as regards aggression or defence more difficult to direct. It also helps to destroy the democratic process as 'representation' becomes ever more a visual as well as a political representation. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 18, 2023 17:39:36 GMT
Are you suggesting that might have been a motivation for advocates of a multi-cultural (actually multiracial) society?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2023 17:41:45 GMT
To add a little flesh to the bones, foreign migration into Britain during the Blairite regime (1997-2009) totalled 5,394,000. In the period since, under a succession of Conservative governments (2010-2022), the corresponding total is 7,335,000. SourceDan if what I'm reading is accurate and I believe it is, then during the period 1997 - 2010 net annual immigration quadrupled... www.theguardian.com/news/2015/mar/24/how-immigration-came-to-haunt-labour-inside-storyWas never anywhere near a million, forecast for next year, eh Red? Stop blaming Labour. The Tories are the party of high immigration. They might talk low immigration but the figures talk the exact opposite. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 18, 2023 17:52:53 GMT
Are you suggesting that might have been a motivation for advocates of a multi-cultural (actually multiracial) society? Its possible it certainly was the thinking in the considerations of the some European leaders post the Great war. Having citizens spread around created more difficulties for actions against a specific citizinery. Of course there were some who just hated the British and sought ways to destroy the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on May 18, 2023 17:59:52 GMT
Was never anywhere near a million, forecast for next year, eh Red? Stop blaming Labour. The Tories are the party of high immigration. They might talk low immigration but the figures talk the exact opposite. I absolutely agree that this government like previous Tory governments in spite of promises and pledges have done precious little to address immigration. But please, be under no illusion that it was Blair who opened the immigration floodgates. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on May 18, 2023 18:16:53 GMT
What do you think motivates them to want to do that? And does the conspiracy have a historical root? It may be partly an altruistic approach in that it becomes more difficult to go to war with countries when many of the ethnic groups are not of the nations involved. A bit like the Japanese in WW2 in the US. It was difficult to engender hatred in the populace of the Japanese if many citizens were ethnically Japanese. Having a mix of people in any country makes unified action as regards aggression or defence more difficult to direct. It also helps to destroy the democratic process as 'representation' becomes ever more a visual as well as a political representation. According to Harvard professor of political science Robert D. Putnam (See OP) the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of trust becomes. People in diverse communities "don't trust the local mayor, they don't trust the local paper, they don't trust other people and they don't trust institutions". Putnam said it's not just that we don't trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don't trust people who do look like us. In short, according to professor Putnam, multiculturalism and diversity increases the likelihood of tension and aggression. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 18, 2023 20:03:17 GMT
Are you suggesting that might have been a motivation for advocates of a multi-cultural (actually multiracial) society? Its possible it certainly was the thinking in the considerations of the some European leaders post the Great war. Having citizens spread around created more difficulties for actions against a specific citizinery. Of course there were some who just hated the British and sought ways to destroy the UK. I believe many would happily seek to destroy British cultural values, whether they be from the in-group or out-group based on historical events. Yet, this 'multicultural' phenomenon isn't restricted to Britain. Sweden would be an apt example of the change multiculturalism has had on its society. If you look across North America, Europe and Australia even, it is in these nations where the championing of multiculturalism takes place. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 19, 2023 8:20:09 GMT
Are you suggesting that might have been a motivation for advocates of a multi-cultural (actually multiracial) society? Its possible it certainly was the thinking in the considerations of the some European leaders post the Great war. Having citizens spread around created more difficulties for actions against a specific citizinery. Of course there were some who just hated the British and sought ways to destroy the UK. I don't think this is historically accurate. After the first world war the allies, prodded by Woodrow Wilson and his Fourteen Points, opted for 'self-determination' of minority populations particularly in the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires, as well as the (re-)creation of an independent Poland and Baltic Republics. This resulted in many new independent states from what had been multicultural empires.
We have to look elsewhere for the root causes of contemporary multiculturalism, particularly in western liberal democracies. It scarcely exists anywhere else except as a colonial legacy in places like Singapore and Malaysia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 19, 2023 8:36:41 GMT
I think the important innovation was the notion that not having a large ethnically distinct community within your national borders was some kind of sizeable moral failing. This then computed into a duty of care - i.e. to find a way to increase the size of such communities and make sure they don't get fed up and go somewhere else.
I think it's unlikely we will discover the historical roots of this idea because the idea doesn't stand up on its own merit when presented starkly - it's, frankly, daft. It has been smuggled into the conversation by using it as a starting assumption - hence "if we are going to make multiculturalism work, we are going to need to implement x,y,z"
My best guess is that it is probably Soviet in origin
|
|
