|
|
I see. Is that 'racism' as in "I dont like immigration" or real racism as in "I think foreigners are inferior" (or worse!).
Short...! 
The UK saw the largest increase in population ever between 1997 and 2010. Not just a peak, but a spike. Solely due to immigration. I'd argue that your "...educating brits to be more tolerant and globally focussed" however is an intellectual sleight-of-hand; it implies that we are intolerant, or not tolerant to a sufficient degree. Yet we are one of the most tolerant nations in the world. Intolerant? Turkey is intolerant (for example, it imprisons more journalists than any Western nation). The Middle East states are intolerant. Myanmar is intolerant.
I do agree though with your last line above. Consecutive governments have failed on those areas.
Largely driven by Gordon Brown's post-2000 financial mismanagement. Deliberately excluding house prices from the inflation index led to a rapid rise in house prices. "I've ended boom-and-bust" whilst ignoring the nations personal debt mountain of £1 trillion in credit debt, ie an economy that was driven by debt spending not underlying economic growth. I digress, sorry
Wholly agree MP's should be moved out of London. On a whole different 'rant' we should have curtailed their habits in 2007 when the expense scandal broke. If I want to work at the other end of the country, I don't expect my employer to essentially subsidise my housing, allowing me to flip my primary and secondary residence for expense and tax purposes. We sold off a perfectly good barracks at the time; we should have converted it into 650 apartments and told MPs "here is your London accommodation, at a subsidised cost. Choose to live anywhere else at own expense".
Institutional racism. I do not disagree that there are not racists in the Police, any more than I would disagree that there are racists in any other walk of life, or saints for that matter. But most of the police officers I know, from Dorset, Hampshire, Kent, Hertfordshire, London, Cheshire, Kendal, Glasgow, and Yorkshire are perplexed as to where this 'institutional racism" exists, or where the idea comes from that the police are such. The McPherson report jumped through a variety of intellectual hoops to arrive at the conclusion that the Metropolitan Police Service was institutionally racist, taking a narrow definition of 'institutional racism' as being unwitting, unconscious, and unintentional, rather than any inherent overt policy of discrimination, or the allowance of overtly racist language and behaviour.
Read para 6.3 - it contradicts itself regarding use of the word 'coloured', then goes on to use in in Para 6.4 Despite condemning use of the word "coloured" to identify someone who is such, 6.17 criticizes police offers for attempting to be 'colour blind'. Racism being
I suppose this is racist, then. If I move to another country, I am expected to integrate and abide by their customs. I certainly couldn't celebrate England's win tonight in a pub in Saudi Arabia, for example, or be drunk on the street. If I hold hands with my partner I can be expected to be arrested. When do the Saudi police "take account of the nature and needs of the person or the people involved" or "accept the need to adapt their professionalism, quality of service and their legal and wider responsibilities to the needs of a continually changing population. The goal is to provide services that are applicable and accessible to all citizens regardless of their ethnic background"
They don't. The attitude of the Middle Eastern countries can be summed up as "our way or the hard way (leave)". I have no problem with immigration, but I would expect anyone coming to our country to integrate into it, and adopt our customs, our society, and not the other way round.
We have a very definite need for many skills, agreed. The long-term solution is to re-instate those skills through education and training (agreeing with a point you make later re lost skills), skills which were once organic but we have now lost. Its not just Government; British industry is loathe to invest in it's workforce. In the IT sector almost no one wants to train staff in new skills, they would prefer to recruit someone externally who already has them. Which leads to an artificial skills shortage of its own making.
But not all earning migrants (clumsy term, sorry, its late, I'm tired) contribute a net benefit beyond taxation. Many send the majority of their earnings back to their families. So whilst the Government sees some tax revenue, the economy sees little benefit. iirc the known cost impact of this is several billion per year.
Its also fair to say that a significant number of immigrants are not 'economic migrants', but benefit migrants. And thats before we get into those who are smuggled in, "living" on the black economy or held in economic bondage.
As for these very major costs that migrants have not incurred, I presume every migrant is a working adult sans family, e.g. children, who require schooling, who "grow up here", and in large numbers require that public services now require a large number of translators. And lets not even get into the very real impact of trying to teach a multi-language class. Or cater for numerous different religions. To raise these issues is not racist, its raising a very real issue. And thats before we take into account that our national infrastructure is not expanding at a rate to accommodate the huge rise in population. We need to build a city the size of Liverpool every year to address the housing shortage alone. We live on an island, assuming we could afford to do that, how long before we run out of land? I don't want to live in a land that is housing from Land's End to John O'Groats.
The NHS doesn't need more money, it thoroughly deserves far better senior management, and a Government determined to push through financial and management reform, not privatisation, reducing deadwood and waste. But the NHS is an example of institutional self-selection. I trust your daughter has recovered.
We have some common ground! Hoorah!
Erm, its not a politician saying now, its a politican admitting to real motive behind his Governments immigration policy for the entire 13 years it was in office, 8 years ago... and it was hardly complex. In a sentence, it was importing votes at the cost of our culture.
Isn't tarring everyone with the same brush somewhat, discriminatory, or worse, stereotyping. Wasn't a large organisation accused of something similar. Sorry, I'm teasing Debating on the 'net is fine, but it lacks the non-verbal clues that one is trying to be light-hearted and not atagonistic or obtuse
No one can ever state for sure the motivation of an electorate. I will respect your belief, because I could argue the opposite but would similarly be arguing from belief or anecdote as you.
I would agree that immigration was a factor. It was for me. Not the only one, perhaps not the largest one. But certainly not on the grounds of racism. But here we run into a problem, because - in my opinion - the definition of 'racist' is now so broad. I could be accused of racism simply because I believe that we should be able to control our borders. There is nothing overtly racist in that statement.
I certainly don't recall any such language and imagery, and nothing "blaming all our problems on either foreigners or those with residence rights". I do recal very real debate over the impact of uncontrolled immigration, in terms of financing the welfare bill, the NHS, housing, processing applications, illegal immigration, etc.
Yes, like controlling immigration?
I haven't a clue what you are referring to here?
I'm quite familiar with the way the EU is run, with the flimsy veneer of "democracy" that are MEPs, and the EU's argument that the Commision and Council are 'elected' by us citizens because we elect our Government, who in turn select the Commission. Which is trite. The EU pass Articles , which each member state is obliged to enact through its own legislation and Regulations which each member state is obliged to follow. Membership of the EU and the free market is conditional - not optional - on free movement, ie uncontrolled immigration between countries of the EU. So we do not control our borders. This is not 'racist scape-goating' nor a tabloid joke.
We are in violent agreement here! I live in Glasgow. It was amusing to listen to the SNP state - bizarely - "we want independence from the UK and control our own destiny... and join the EU".
No argument here. Yep, Govt project management is abysmal, partially because no one can say "no" to scope creep, civil servants play the pension game (never make a decision, it might bite them in the backside, "no" is the easiest answer), too many people liking the "new shiny" - I'm looking at you, GDS and Agile project "management" - etc. I've got the gunpowder if you've got the match?
Slight disagreement, the law failed for a perfectly valid reason; it would have led to bad law. The MP responsible actually agreeded with the sentiment of it, but objected to the phrasing of the legislation and how it was attempted to be bought in. Regards the negotiations, yep its a shambles. But remember that politicians involved have never had to negotiate anything, so didnt know the golden rule of never declare your position before entering, and have left the actual work to civil servants who cannot negotiate contracts with national suppliers; and whom dont wish to, because it will affect their non-exec directorship on retirement... but I suspect that whilst we differ on point, we both agree in principal here!
Yes, yes, and yes! Simple fact is, no one on either side of the House had a Plan B because no one expected the public to vote to leave. (a simple fact that seems to escape journalists and QT presenters when Corbyn et al criticize the Govt for being 'unprepared'). Simply put, we should have been going in far harder at the outset. Because negotiation is about need and greed. We should have started by handing the western EU states a bill for several hundred billion marked "services rendered 1939-1945". (thats tongue in cheek, btw).
But, the EU have demonstrated an unwillingness to negotiate, too. When David Cameron tried to negotiate a better deal, he did warn that a failure to agree one would lead to a referendum in the UK. The EU response? A very public warning that we "would be punished" if we voted to leave! Sorry, but that to me really encapsulated why we should leave.
Anyway, its late and this post is long enough |
|
Author: nabby
26-11-2019 01:50:51