|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 9, 2023 17:09:23 GMT
... One would think that if reduction in legal migration would be popular, a vote winner, if there were no barriers to making it happen overnight the government would make it happen overnight because it is in their own self interest. When all is said and done MPs are all shallow vote grabbers driven to retain their positions in Parliament. That it isn't happening suggests there is something else at play that is stopping them.
I don't believe there is a single poll or survey on record anywhere - and they started doing them in the late 50s - confirming that the public want more immigration rather than less. So why hasn't any political faction ever capitalised on the obvious electoral advantage this presents?
In fact on those rare occasions when a non-mainstream faction like the BNP, or early-stage UKIP, has attempted to do so the mainstream political class along with its close allies in the opinion-forming class always close ranks to prevent the heterodox notion from gaining traction with the voting public.
You are just repeating the same question I'm asking. Why don't they if there is nothing else at play that is stopping them from doing so. Why not take the easy win and get the votes it woult bring? Doesn't make any sense for them not to unless there is something else at play that is preventing it. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 9, 2023 20:09:38 GMT
I was hoping that you might have an answer to that conundrum.
It's not of course a new problem, immigration has been on the agenda of things to fix since the early 50s, if not earlier.
As Winston Churchill complained to Ian Gilmour the editor of the Spectator at that time (1955): "I think it is the most important subject facing this country, but I cannot get any of my ministers to take any notice."
Plus ça change...but what's your view?
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jun 9, 2023 20:38:28 GMT
Churchill was dumped after WWII, and he went ga-ga after his return. But did the many ordinary people who saw him as a wartime saviour really worry about the influx of foreigners?
The whole scene was red meat to the KBW scribbles around London, and the NF and its BNP supporters.
There’s plenty of animosity being whipped up — but is it really going to matter while the country tries to work itself out of the problems Brexit has led it into…?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 9, 2023 21:18:34 GMT
"Churchill was dumped after WWII, and he went ga-ga after his return."
In what sense did he go 'ga-ga' after returning to office in 1951?
|
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 9, 2023 22:34:26 GMT
I was hoping that you might have an answer to that conundrum. It's not of course a new problem, immigration has been on the agenda of things to fix since the early 50s, if not earlier. As Winston Churchill complained to Ian Gilmour the editor of the Spectator at that time (1955): "I think it is the most important subject facing this country, but I cannot get any of my ministers to take any notice." Plus ça change...but what's your view? As I've said to you previously my belief was that the government thinks Immigration is necessary and cannot afford to stop it 1) Skill gaps due to a lack of appropriate education and on the job training 2) Jobs people just won't do at economically viable remuneration 3) economy is based on a pyramid scheme and requires perpetual growth with a high ratio of workers to retired 4) birth rate has been too low over the past 30 years leading to an imbalance between young and old. You said this isn't true though, and if that is the case I don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 9, 2023 23:23:52 GMT
Or the one in England for that matter.
In less than 25 years.
It could, which is why it should be monitored and controlled, and ensuring their is no reliance on it that prevents sensible control of it. No it couldn't, you're talking nonsense and I think you know it. Who is going to stand up and say African and Asian mothers should have fewer babies? That's where the global population explosion is happening, but if you have white skin you dare not mention it. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 10, 2023 8:25:21 GMT
colbops: I'm a little surprised to see you trotting out the tired old canards as justification for mass immigration, although I sense you may not really believe them yourself and are offering them up as examples of what you think successive governments have believed in. But I suspect even our political leaders may have become dimly aware that the economic and fiscal arguments for have been fatally holed beneath the waterline (this happened as long ago as 2008) and, as noted earlier, that the Myth of Replacement Migration is just that, a myth. I think it was former Tory MP David Willetts who going on for 20 ago now told us that in order to maintain the support ratio at current levels the EU (which then included the UK of course) would need to admit 800 million migrant workers by 2050. No there's something else going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 10, 2023 8:27:31 GMT
It could, which is why it should be monitored and controlled, and ensuring their is no reliance on it that prevents sensible control of it. No it couldn't, you're talking nonsense and I think you know it. Who is going to stand up and say African and Asian mothers should have fewer babies? That's where the global population explosion is happening, but if you have white skin you dare not mention it. Actually Asian and African birthrates and the attendant population explosions need not concern us unduly if we resolved to let nature run its course and build stout defences instead.
If we declined to become involved nature would run its course and equilibrium would be restored in the form of pre-colonial population levels.
|
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 10, 2023 9:29:45 GMT
colbops : I'm a little surprised to see you trotting out the tired old canards as justification for mass immigration, although I sense you may not really believe them yourself and are offering them up as examples of what you think successive governments have believed in. But I suspect even our political leaders may have become dimly aware that the economic and fiscal arguments for have been fatally holed beneath the waterline (this happened as long ago as 2008) and, as noted earlier, that the Myth of Replacement Migration is just that, a myth. I think it was former Tory MP David Willetts who going on for 20 ago now told us that in order to maintain the support ratio at current levels the EU (which then included the UK of course) would need to admit 800 million migrant workers by 2050. No there's something else going on. I'm certainly not trying to justify mass immigration. I'm just trying to rationalise why it is that governments don't seem to make any tangible progress in controlling it when it is overwhelmingly what the UK wants, needs for sustainability purposes, and would be very much in MPs interests when it comes to popularity and votes. I still think there is an issue with the UKs economic system that needs to be addressed. I would be much more comfortable with the concept that existing workers were contributing towards their own and future generations of pensioners rather than paying to support current pensioners. That to me is a more sustainable model. What people think and the truth can often be two different things but what they think will ultimately drive their decision making. MPs just need to believe that immigration is necessary and that things would go horribly wrong if they stopped it overnight to cause them not to put measures in place to stop it. While some MPs are principle driven and want to go in a certain direction regardless of the consequences they are few and far between. Most tend to be more pragmatic and will be driven by the advise they get. There are powerful lobbyists that influence them and the advise/ guidance they get. I can see employers might prefer to suppress wages by having a bigger pool to recruit from, and to save money investing in people via training in favour of poaching someone who doesn't need it. I can see that suppliers might want to increase demand by having a bigger local market fighting over the goods and services they provide. There are lots of scenarios one can come up with that might explain why lobbyists might want to push the idea that immigration is essential. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 10, 2023 9:48:15 GMT
In the fifties, the UK had one of the best education systems in the world and a social system that supported and amplified the value of such.
The best explanation i have heard is the importation started to quell a rebellion in Caribbean which was, at the time, suffering from high levels of unemployment + left insurgency. There was no real skills or labour shortage in the UK - that was repainted later to explain how the interests of the Uk people had been traded away for political purposes. After the ball got rolling, various covert vested interests made it difficult to stop (as Churchill noted).
Now the corruption has been fully institutionalised, the UK government would apparently prefer a general insurrection over reducing immigration.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 10, 2023 10:04:37 GMT
My own view is that even if the managerial elite wanted to call 'halt' the 'system' as currently installed and configured will not permit it. It's nothing at all to do with economics or pensions but something much more elemental, an almost classic instance of AI in action. My Theory, What It Is |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Jun 10, 2023 10:18:27 GMT
In the fifties, the UK had one of the best education systems in the world and a social system that supported and amplified the value of such. The best explanation i have heard is the importation started to quell a rebellion in Caribbean which was, at the time, suffering from high levels of unemployment + left insurgency. There was no real skills or labour shortage in the UK - that was repainted later to explain how the interests of the Uk people had been traded away for political purposes. After the ball got rolling, various covert vested interests made it difficult to stop (as Churchill noted). Now the corruption has been fully institutionalised, the UK government would apparently prefer a general insurrection over reducing immigration. I can only speak for my family being Londoners yet one went to Scotland and 4 to Canada, all single young men and at that time London had a lot of bombsites. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 10, 2023 10:42:55 GMT
My own view is that even if the managerial elite wanted to call 'halt' the 'system' as currently installed and configured will not permit it. It's nothing at all to do with economics or pensions but something much more elemental, an almost classic instance of AI in action. My Theory, What It Is I don't buy that either Dan. You've got a bit of cart before the horse going on, and I don't think that it is realistic to believe that the government believes the UK must have even more immigration at the volumes seen today because it must have even more multiculturalism tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 10, 2023 10:53:33 GMT
Let's continue the discussion over in the Mind Zone, where you can tell me where I'm going wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jun 10, 2023 12:38:07 GMT
"Churchill was dumped after WWII, and he went ga-ga after his return." In what sense did he go 'ga-ga' after returning to office in 1951? There are many references to Churchill's health and accompanying "conditions" from the later part of the war onward — not least by Lord Moran, his doctor, whose later revelations upset many people.
Churchill was 76 when he became prime minister again in 1951, and he was not in good health. Because of his health and (politely described as) his growing evident inability to focus on paperwork, he was not expected to remain in office for long. But he constantly prevaricated — and his chosen successor, Eden, was also seriously ill.
He had a serious stroke in June 1953, and his mental and physical condition deteriorated. But the public and Parliament were only told that Churchill was suffering from exhaustion. Because of concerns that he was slowing down both mentally and physically, he [was?]"retired" as prime minister in 1955. Although he remained as an MP and father of the house until 1961, he seldom appeared in Parliament, and his personal life was increasingly "supervised" by his close family...
|
|
