PDA

View Full Version : Labours 'Economic' immigration policy


IndieHibby
10-02-2010, 09:41 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7198329/Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7198329/Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants.html)

It seems there was indeed a political/social aim to unfettered immigration into the UK :confused:
CropleyWasGod
10-02-2010, 10:08 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7198329/Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7198329/Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants.html)

It seems there was indeed a political/social aim to unfettered immigration into the UK :confused:

Not my reading of it at all.

1. there are deleted parts to the document. Can only speculate what they said.

2. the document may not be genuine.

3. even if it is, it is 10 years old.

4. the "draft policy document" never saw the light of day. In other words, it never became policy. Was probably discussed, and discarded. Happens all the time in commerce and government. "what if.... etc etc".

Heaven forfend that the Telegraph might be having a go at the Labour party in an election year.
Woody1985
10-02-2010, 10:12 AM
How low can these people stoop? Allowing people in to meet their own political agenda. And they wonder why people hate them!

The thing that irks me in the whole immigration arguement is that it's used to pull the wool. When they talk about immigration they refer to non-EU people which is pretty much irrelevant due to the low numbers.

Yes, they are getting tougher on non-EU members. However, most of the migrants are from eastern europe which do not go through the same controls.

They can state they're tough on immigration and be accurate but they're pulling the wool on technicalities.
CropleyWasGod
10-02-2010, 10:24 AM
How low can these people stoop? Allowing people in to meet their own political agenda. And they wonder why people hate them!

The thing that irks me in the whole immigration arguement is that it's used to pull the wool. When they talk about immigration they refer to non-EU people which is pretty much irrelevant due to the low numbers.

Yes, they are getting tougher on non-EU members. However, most of the migrants are from eastern europe which do not go through the same controls.

They can state they're tough on immigration and be accurate but they're pulling the wool on technicalities.

That's just the reaction the Telegraph and the Tories want, though. Get people to look at the headlines and not the story itself. The story is... as I interpret it.... there was a discussion, and it went nowhere else.
hibsbollah
10-02-2010, 10:26 AM
Im not sure what the outrage is about. Is it because a)they wanted to encourage immigrants at all?, because b)they wanted to encourage migrants for social cohesion reasons not economic reasons or because c) they lied about it?

If its c), fair enough, the Labour Party should be more open about its beliefs and not be scared of the argument. If its a) or b) though, these are fairly well understood arguments that shouldnt shock anyone. We need skills that can only come from increased immigration (unless you want to spend billions retraining Brits who're underskilled/dont want to work) and theres an argument (which some people disagree with) that the more multicultural a society is the more successful it is. I dont see anything scandalous in the story:confused:
IndieHibby
10-02-2010, 10:29 AM
That's just the reaction the Telegraph and the Tories want, though. Get people to look at the headlines and not the story itself. The story is... as I interpret it.... there was a discussion, and it went nowhere else.

But why do you think the Telegraph have printed it? I mean, if people didn't genuinely feel that there was a problem with immigration (and many, many people do) then this would be a non-story, would it not?

Even if one subscribes to your (very generous) interpretation of the story...:wink: [They compared the original published version against the 'sexed-up' (tee-hee) version and found that there were 6 out of 8 instances where the 'social' agenda' being referred to had been removed]

What's that all about then?
CropleyWasGod
10-02-2010, 10:39 AM
But why do you think the Telegraph have printed it? ?

... because it's an election year.

Anything that embarrasses the Government is fair game, whether it's justified or not.
Phil D. Rolls
10-02-2010, 02:49 PM
Immigration fueled the property boom of the last decade. Those who could were either selling, or buying to let, property based on the numbers of new arrivals to the UK.
IndieHibby
10-02-2010, 03:35 PM
... because it's an election year.

Anything that embarrasses the Government is fair game, whether it's justified or not.

There is just no winning with you, is there?
CropleyWasGod
10-02-2010, 04:40 PM
There is just no winning with you, is there?

Eh? You asked the question, and I answered it as I see it. My answer is based on my cynicism about politicians, and the agenda of media outlets when it comes to election time.

From now until election day, the media will be full of this type of story, all designed to give an edge to that particular organ's favoured party.
Leicester Fan
10-02-2010, 04:41 PM
Voting trends indicate that migrants and their descendants are much more likely to vote Labour.What amazes me is that anyone is surprised.

This has parallels with the Dame Shirley Porter scandal in the early 90s
[/URL][url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/sleaze-scandal-strips-dame-shirley-porter-of-her-title-585946.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/sleaze-scandal-strips-dame-shirley-porter-of-her-title-585946.html)
where she was convicted for selling council owned flats in Westminster because home owners were more likely to vote Tory, for which she was fined £37million (tbf she's gone to Israel to avoid payment).
LiverpoolHibs
10-02-2010, 06:09 PM
What amazes me is that anyone is surprised.

No surprise here, but mainly because it's absolutely ludicrous.

Mass migration - both EU and non-EU - and the maintenance of a 'reserve army of labour' has been absolutely integral to the operation of the economic system in Britain since the end of WWII (well actually forever but especially since then). Had the Conservatives been in government been in power this need for an under-paid and exploited labour army wouldn't have suddenly disappeared. The only difference is that they'd probably have been even more brutal than Labour have been in 'throttling' the supply of this labour (ie. booting them out once the supply-demand paradigm re-adjusted), even more brutal in the treatment of asylum seekers (as opposed to migrant workers), even more brutal in the immiseration of the rights (wages, union recognition, health and safety, benefits) of immigrants and even more brutal in maintaining discrepancies in the cost of labour between 'native' and immigrant labour.

The idea that the Labour Party have brought in large amounts of immigrants to act as a new voting base or to fundamentally alter the make-up of society is bizarre conspiracist nonsense.
Leicester Fan
10-02-2010, 08:24 PM
No surprise here, but mainly because it's absolutely ludicrous.

Mass migration - both EU and non-EU - and the maintenance of a 'reserve army of labour' has been absolutely integral to the operation of the economic system in Britain since the end of WWII (well actually forever but especially since then). Had the Conservatives been in government been in power this need for an under-paid and exploited labour army wouldn't have suddenly disappeared.



The idea that the Labour Party have brought in large amounts of immigrants to act as a new voting base or to fundamentally alter the make-up of society is bizarre conspiracist nonsense.


Labour has overseen an unprecedented rise in immigration, which has led to a rise of about three million in the UK population since 1997...
LiverpoolHibs
10-02-2010, 08:29 PM
...

Sorry?
Woody1985
11-02-2010, 09:49 AM
Immigration fueled the property boom of the last decade. Those who could were either selling, or buying to let, property based on the numbers of new arrivals to the UK.

What impact has that had on the shortage of council houses?

People who may have been able to afford to rent someones buy to let property may now be taking u a council house because the prices are out of reach.

Certainly, when I look to get my own place I won't be able to afford 5/6/700pcm for a nice house and will have to resort to a council house, if I can get one, in the region of 3/400 pcm.

I'm not blaming the lack of affordable housing on immigration here, just posing an arguement as it seems you are highlighting their contribution to the property boom as a good thing.
Leicester Fan
11-02-2010, 04:13 PM
Sorry?
You're forgiven.
lyonhibs
13-02-2010, 12:44 AM
Unless I'm missing something, where in the Tory (sorry......) Telegraph article does it even remotely specify which type of immigration it is talking about??

Was it those nasty Eastern Europeans, the volumes of which the government may have misjudged and subsequently poorly planned for, but over which they had naff all legal control thanks to that pesky wee thing called "The European Union".

Maybe it was referring to asylum seekers coming from war torn regions of the world, daring to seek a better life.

Or maybe foreign students on visas?

Or maybe skilled migrants with qualifications trying to apply them over here....

etc etc.

Such a vague article over such a multi-faceted and complex issue leaves The Telegraph looking frankly amateur.

Were any other media outlets a tad more specific regarding what particular type of immigration this nasty "Multi-cultural, open door" policy was aimed at??