Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

IWCA statement on BNP

Joe Reilly said:
What about Wolverhampton, Bradford, Leicester, Birmingham...?
Click to expand...

224,623 people in the East Midlands were born abroad – 5.83% of the local population.

342,269 people born abroad were living in the West Midlands in 2001, according to the Census, up about a quarter over 10 years.

235,424 people born outside Britain live in Yorkshire and the Humber – 4.74% of the population.
 
Durutti you're wrong. Councils do have sons and daughters, they just don't have it indefinitely i.e. you can only pass it on one generation. Some housing Associations also do it. There are also schemes like this:

http://www.westminster.gov.uk/services/housing/housingoptions/hregister/family-quota/

I've already said that an increased population, whether from birth rates or immigration means you need more social housing. When in fact social housing is being cut. Immigration is a fact of life, what do you suggest we do, ban it? The same as increased birth rates are often a fact of life.

What solutions do you suggest other than building more social housing?

And what does community control of where people live mean in concrete terms? What different policies would you suggest?

Because sons and daughters, with such a massive lack of social housing, would do jack shit to solve the housing crisis.

TRAs should definitely have a big input into social housing, along with elected representatives. However I can't imagine many TRAs saying that homeless families shouldn't be a top priority, and if they did I would question why. Again it would come back to a need for more social housing.

And you're absolutely right, it is a simple solution, but a costly one for the rich.
 
On the subject of Sons and Daughters...

A key element of Gordon Brown's strategy to win the next general election is probably illegal, according to expert analysis commissioned by the UK's equality watchdog and seen by the Observer

An interim report, written by one of the country's leading think tanks for the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), highlights grave doubts about the government's pledge last week to allocate more social housing to "local" people...

Its unpublished interim Social Housing Allocation and Immigrant Communities report, marked "not for circulation", notes that local authorities have experimented with giving priority on housing lists. It states: "Some local authority social housing allocation policies gave priority to certain social characteristics. For example, different local authorities gave different priority to a local connection. This had the potential to unintentionally discriminate against migrants and longer settled minority ethnic communities, who may have few relatives in the UK or a lesser period of settlement."

The report adds: "There was no evidence that allocation policies discriminated against white groups. There was a small amount of evidence that some social housing policies unintentionally discriminated against minority ethnic communities."

The analysis suggests the government's flagship policy could trigger a number of legal challenges against local authorities by groups who feel they are being unfairly treated.

Tim Finch, head of the IPPR's migration team, said: "Giving some priority to local people is not unreasonable in principle; in practice, it will be hard to implement in a way that is not discriminatory or even illegal."

It is unclear whether the final full equality commission report, to be published this week, will contain the IPPR's claim that prioritisation will result in discrimination claims. A commission spokesman declined to comment. But the final report will provide further evidence - beyond that published by the commission last year - that the idea that immigrant groups jump the housing queues is largely a myth.

The IPPR concludes that migrants to the UK over the last five years make up less than two per cent of the total number of people in social housing. It found that some 90 per cent of people who live in social housing are UK-born.

"The problem is one of perception not reality," Finch said. "IPPR research shows there is no bias towards new migrants, but because social housing is in such short supply, local people feel aggrieved if even small numbers of migrants are housed ahead of them."

Last night, a leading refugee charity said that any move to reprioritise refugees' social housing needs could backfire on the government.

"Not only will it discriminate against some of the most vulnerable in our society, but it will undermine the government's goal of greater community cohesion," said Sandy Buchan, chief executive of Refugee Action. "The spectacle of homeless refugees sleeping rough and begging in the streets is hardly going to win public confidence in the prime minister's management of either housing or immigration policy."
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/05/labour-brown-local-homes-illegal
 
Do you trust the Blairite IPPR who are cheerleaders for neo-liberal mass migration and provided the intellectual arguments (such as they were) for the first Welfare Reform Bill?
 
treelover said:
Do you trust the Blairite IPPR who are cheerleaders for neo-liberal mass migration and provided the intellectual arguments (such as they were) for the first Welfare Reform Bill?
Click to expand...

“neo-liberal mass migration” is a term that conflates different phenomena in a profoundly unhelpful way. It also confuses cause and effect: neoliberalism has deepened the global inequality that has increased levels of “economic migration”. Trying to stamp out the latter will not vanquish the inequality, all you’ll do is punish the poor sods trying to make a dignified existence for themselves – it would be fruitless and immoral.

As for the reliability of the IPPR, I don’t know much about them but I can’t see a problem with the summary of their analysis in this instance. Can you?
 
Jeff Robinson said:
“neo-liberal mass migration” is a term that conflates different phenomena in a profoundly unhelpful way. It also confuses cause and effect: neoliberalism has deepened the global inequality that has increased levels of “economic migration”. Trying to stamp out the latter will not vanquish the inequality, all you’ll do is punish the poor sods trying to make a dignified existence for themselves – it would be fruitless and immoral.
Click to expand...

The free movement of capital brings the free movement of labour in its wake. The primary reason immigration is welcomed by the likes of the CBI is that it helps drive down wages and conditions.

Is is therefore "fruitless and immoral for the poor sods trying to make a dignified existence for themselves" in unions like Unite striking to maintain their jobs, wages and conditions?
 
MC5 said:
224,623 people in the East Midlands were born abroad – 5.83% of the local population.

342,269 people born abroad were living in the West Midlands in 2001, according to the Census, up about a quarter over 10 years.

235,424 people born outside Britain live in Yorkshire and the Humber – 4.74% of the population.
Click to expand...


The ethnic minority population at the last time of counting was over 4.5 million. If this is not the result of mass immigration what figure would in your mind suffice?
 
Joe Reilly said:
The ethnic minority population at the last time of counting was over 4.5 million. If this is not the result of mass immigration what figure would in your mind suffice?
Click to expand...

Joe,

You clearly believe that a figure of 4.5 million immigrants represents a major problem for the white working class people of this country. Seeing as how these people are already here, and in your opinion, are already the cause of significant social problems, how do you propose the problem should be dealt with? I hope the answer is not "send 'em all back."

Sorry that last sentence was a cheap shot. Genuinely interested in the answer though.
 
butchersapron said:
It's not a question - it's an attack based on bullhsit preconceptions.
Click to expand...

Really? To quote Joe himself:

"Ok so if an immigration figure of 4.5 million is not at all significant, when in your view might it become socially, economically, and politically significant?

At 6 million? At 9 million? At 15 million?"

Clearly, and in some ways I agree with him, Joe believes that high levels of immigration cause social, economic and political problems. Clearly, he also believes that a figure of 4.5 million is already too high. I'm interested in what solutions he proposes to deal with the situation.

I'm also sure that he is more than capable of answering for himself
 
Signficant doesn't mean problem. He's talking about the response from the w/c not some party - is this so hard to understand? I suppose it is if you don't place w/c understanding and experience at the heart of your politics. Of course he can answer for himself, i just think your pathetic attempt to trap him into a send them home reply demonstrates very well every fault the left has as regards even discussing social issues. Cowards and dogmatists. Never a good mix - but what a social scene eh?
 
Joe Reilly said:
The ethnic minority population at the last time of counting was over 4.5 million. If this is not the result of mass immigration what figure would in your mind suffice?
Click to expand...

bit of a lame point though, you're talking about immigration over the last hundred (or more) years

its not particularly high compared to many european countries and i doubt any country in the world hasnt experienced similiar diversity over such a large time frame

people move about, get over it
 
butchersapron said:
Signficant doesn't mean problem. He's talking about the response from the w/c not some party - is this so hard to understand? I suppose it is if you don't place w/c understanding and experience at the heart of your politics. Of course he can answer for himself, i just think your pathetic attempt to trap him into a send them home reply demonstrates very well every fault the left has as regards even discussing social issues. Cowards and dogmatists. Never a good mix - but what a social scene eh?
Click to expand...

I think your paranoid response to an honest question demonstrates exactly why the left remain an isolated sect with no influence in working class areas. Its always easier to interject with some smart-arse comment and a bit of name-calling than to answer questions honestly isn't it? I'm sure you get a great response in working class areas when you go out door-knocking with that attitude.
 
Danny Rose said:
I think your paranoid response to an honest question demonstrates exactly why the left remain an isolated sect with no influence in working class areas. Its always easier to interject with some smart-arse comment and a bit of name-calling than to answer questions honestly isn't it? I'm sure you get a great response in working class areas when you go out door-knocking with that attitude.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure BA would not class himself as part of 'the left'?

Seems to me that those most worried about any influx are those who live in areas with no ethnic minorities and apparently want to keep it that way.
 
I still don't see how anyone can think a population increase of 1.7 million in the UK from immigration in the last 40 years is that significant. Especially when you consider that the population in the UK in last 200 years has gone up from 10 million to 60 million as a whole and in the 40 years from 1901 to 1941 the population went up by 12 million.

The answer, as durutti said, is a simple one. Built more social housing, build up stronger unions and build up a better support networks.

Immigration is a fact of life, and people can bang on about it until the cows come home, but surely answers are needed. And as no-one on here seems to be suggesting sealing off the borders or throwing people out of the country I can't see what else the answer is other than the above.
 
Danny Rose said:
I think your paranoid response to an honest question demonstrates exactly why the left remain an isolated sect with no influence in working class areas. Its always easier to interject with some smart-arse comment and a bit of name-calling than to answer questions honestly isn't it? I'm sure you get a great response in working class areas when you go out door-knocking with that attitude.
Click to expand...

To answer such a dishonest question is to treat the issue with contempt. As is to try and paint someone into a racist corner for your own little party victory. Your agenda is clear. I've dealt with your misreading of the previous posts - now say something.

Danny/bristol - do we know each other? :D
 
Danny Rose said:
Really? To quote Joe himself:

"Ok so if an immigration figure of 4.5 million is not at all significant, when in your view might it become socially, economically, and politically significant?

At 6 million? At 9 million? At 15 million?"

Clearly, and in some ways I agree with him, Joe believes that high levels of immigration cause social, economic and political problems. Clearly, he also believes that a figure of 4.5 million is already too high. I'm interested in what solutions he proposes to deal with the situation.

I'm also sure that he is more than capable of answering for himself
Click to expand...


First off, the query was posed to MC5 who argued that there was no 'mass immigration' at all. He didn't answer and has continued to avoid putting a figure or percentage on what might constitute 'mass immigration' for him. Naturally one has to wonder why?

It is also noticeable that the link I made between the free movement of capital and as a consequence the free movement of labour has also been side stepped. Again given the number eager to engage in futile moralising why is this?

Well in this case I'd venture it is because the arguments in defence of mass immigration from the left sound not dissimilar to the defence of mass immigration emanating from the commercial and political elite.

Does this mean this country's oligarchy are secretly left-wing or does it mean that the left automtically genuflect as soon as race is a factor?

If the latter is indeed the case is it any wonder that sections of the indigenous working class are increasingly looking to the BNP to look out for their interests?
 
No, it does not mean that this country's oligarchy is secretly left-wing. This country's oligarchy, like every other oligarchy, does not support free movement of labour which would mean no legal distinction between native and immigrant, automatic incorporation of migrant labour into local union agreements and so on. What the bourgeoisie actually supports is precisely unfree movement of labour, as it is this which allows them to force the race to the bottom on us. The irony is that if there genuinely was free movement of labour, there would probably be less actual immigration - certainly there would be no point in an IREM shipping workers into a Lindsey. Barges cost good money.

The problem is that the left does not make this argument to people, thinking that people will view them as mad. Probably true - but then not so very long ago, very many more people thought Griffin mad. Non-mainstream politics hates a coward, and the left are reduced to the UAF type denunciations of "Nazi scum" which nobody takes seriously.
 
MC5 said:
Seems to me that those most worried about any influx are those who live in areas with no ethnic minorities and apparently want to keep it that way.
Click to expand...

Seems to me like your experience of talking to people from ethnic minorities on this issue must be severely limited if you believe that bollocks.

The people with most reason to be wooried are those most likely to be adversely effected by high rates of migration. Most Black and Asian people are not suprisingly against large scale immigration...
 
Joe Reilly said:
First off, the query was posed to MC5 who argued that there was no 'mass immigration' at all. He didn't answer and has continued to avoid putting a figure or percentage on what might constitute 'mass immigration' for him. Naturally one has to wonder why?

It is also noticeable that the link I made between the free movement of capital and as a consequence the free movement of labour has also been side stepped. Again given the number eager to engage in futile moralising why is this?

Well in this case I'd venture it is because the arguments in defence of mass immigration from the left sound not dissimilar to the defence of mass immigration emanating from the commercial and political elite.

Does this mean this country's oligarchy are secretly left-wing or does it mean that the left automtically genuflect as soon as race is a factor?

If the latter is indeed the case is it any wonder that sections of the indigenous working class are increasingly looking to the BNP to look out for their interests?
Click to expand...

Wonder and distort all you want.

Technically speaking the “indigenous people” of this country are the Welsh and the Cornish, who moved West when Julius Caesar and the boys decided to visit. Not to mention the Picts and Scots, one of JC’s successors Hadrian, who built a wall to keep them out. After that it was pretty much party time with Angles, Saxons, French and whoever coming to these shores.

'Mass immigration'? Go figure.
 
tbaldwin said:
Seems to me like your experience of talking to people from ethnic minorities on this issue must be severely limited if you believe that bollocks.

The people with most reason to be wooried are those most likely to be adversely effected by high rates of migration. Most Black and Asian people are not suprisingly against large scale immigration...
Click to expand...

My formative years were spent next to a fire with a pot of curry and, chippati's by the fire, with live chickens squawking in the back yard.

Many Black and Asian people fought for many years to have their relatives settled here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PR1Berske
Johnny Mercer's witness statement
Replies
15
Views
740
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
PR1Berske
Autumn Statement 2023
2
Replies
58
Views
2K
Dogsauce
Dogsauce
teqniq
Abortion deleted from UK Government-organised international human rights statement
2 3
Replies
85
Views
3K
two sheds
two sheds
platinumsage
Chancellor's statement live
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
280
Views
8K
stdP
stdP
agricola
Parents' victim statement edited to spare feelings of driver who killed child
Replies
25
Views
916
nogojones
nogojones
Back
Top Bottom