Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Labour's Immigration Policy
http://
Even though the 'man in the street' knew this anyway, Ed Milliband will be saying in a speech that the last Labour Government were wrong on immigration.
Thoughts?
Even though the 'man in the street' knew this anyway, Ed Milliband will be saying in a speech that the last Labour Government were wrong on immigration.
Thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip_flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
modeller, I agree, dont vote for mainstream political parties. They are empty shells that depend upon the tribal and classist "I cant stand Tory snobs so I vote Labour" or "I vote Tory because because Labour are common". Being empty shells they get taken over by relatively small gangs like "new labour" or "Cameron's cronies", small gangs of 20 or 50 people who have their own subversive agenda and do not care about the people or country. As you have spotted Cameron's gang just lied about immigration to get votes and Milliband is doing the same.
You also might have noticed that Cameron's crew also lied about dealing with the banks and the Lib-Dems lied about tuition fees. These are not small lies, they were central planks of the parties' manifestos. They utterly destroy democracy. There is no point in voting if you insist on voting for parties that do the opposite of what they say. It is you fault as a voter. You are conspiring in the destruction of democracy.
The British must stop voting Labour, Tory or Lib-Dem and truly hold the politicians to account.
You also might have noticed that Cameron's crew also lied about dealing with the banks and the Lib-Dems lied about tuition fees. These are not small lies, they were central planks of the parties' manifestos. They utterly destroy democracy. There is no point in voting if you insist on voting for parties that do the opposite of what they say. It is you fault as a voter. You are conspiring in the destruction of democracy.
The British must stop voting Labour, Tory or Lib-Dem and truly hold the politicians to account.
Gromit, a booming economy? No, the noughties "boom" was a credit boom in the West, there was no real GDP growth - see: Immigration, house prces and boom economics at http://
More talk! More reviews! And is the Labour party focussing on the right area when they talk about EU immigrants. Many like the Polish come here for the work and when done go home to enjoy the fruits of their labour.
No mention about the immigrants from outside of the EU who not only settle here permanently, bring up huge families, bring their sisters, brothers, parents and uncle tom cobley and all and even can't be persueded to leave even with a bounty as they can get more sponging on the state.
We should start with a ZERO immigration policy and expel all those that commit crimes.
No mention about the immigrants from outside of the EU who not only settle here permanently, bring up huge families, bring their sisters, brothers, parents and uncle tom cobley and all and even can't be persueded to leave even with a bounty as they can get more sponging on the state.
We should start with a ZERO immigration policy and expel all those that commit crimes.
murraymints, we are not back in the 1970s. What is happening now is 600,000 people from abroad coming here every year. All attempts at creating work for the people of England come to nothing because 80% of new jobs are taken by immigrants. 600,000 is a huge number, vast, epic, comparable with some of the largest migrations in human history. This migration is occurring into a tiny island. The English are being failed by the media, the fourth estate which should be protecting their interests but is full of poststructuralists who want polarization and ruin.
Johnysid
There was no boom? The Uks productivity was growing nicely in the noughties. Productivity growing meant we were producing more, selling more and exporting more. That led to real increases in our GDP.
All that ended with the banking crisis (which had nothing to do with immigration).
http://
There was no boom? The Uks productivity was growing nicely in the noughties. Productivity growing meant we were producing more, selling more and exporting more. That led to real increases in our GDP.
All that ended with the banking crisis (which had nothing to do with immigration).
http://
Johnysid
/// The British must stop voting Labour, Tory or Lib-Dem and truly hold the politicians to account. ///
But what is the alternative, UKIP or something similar to some of the Anti-Immigration Parties that are springing up in Europe?
http://
/// The British must stop voting Labour, Tory or Lib-Dem and truly hold the politicians to account. ///
But what is the alternative, UKIP or something similar to some of the Anti-Immigration Parties that are springing up in Europe?
http://
To put Johnysid's 600,000 into perspective (assuming the number is correct of course), 600,000 is twice the population of Coventry. It is also more than the population of Glasgow.
The only cities with a higher population than the number of immigrants arriving on our shores each year are London, Birmingham and Leeds.
The only cities with a higher population than the number of immigrants arriving on our shores each year are London, Birmingham and Leeds.
gromit, the "boom" was a credit led "boom". Production increased but borrowing increased even more. In the link I gave ( http://
"Given that the volume of debt rose to exceed our GDP and the growth in debt exceeded the growth in GDP during Labour's custodianship of the economy it is clear that there was no real economic growth in the UK, just an increase in asset values due to immigration that could be used to raise loans! "
"Given that the volume of debt rose to exceed our GDP and the growth in debt exceeded the growth in GDP during Labour's custodianship of the economy it is clear that there was no real economic growth in the UK, just an increase in asset values due to immigration that could be used to raise loans! "
AOG, I have the same problem. I want to vote for an anti-racist (where race is passive qualities), pro-English party. The English Democrats look interesting - see http://www.voteenglish.org/ . UKIP is not beyond the pale.
Whatever the problem of finding a party, the postmarxists in the media need to be confronted by everyone who cares about about people, nature or the future. Whenever we see journalists deliberately polarizing the news, demonising the English and forcing globalization on us we should react against them.
Whatever the problem of finding a party, the postmarxists in the media need to be confronted by everyone who cares about about people, nature or the future. Whenever we see journalists deliberately polarizing the news, demonising the English and forcing globalization on us we should react against them.
sandyRoe, the use by the new Left of "race" as a a tool to create a revolutionary dialectic rather than "class" has been documented and is well known. The fact that most ordinary folk are unaware of this change is not a conspiracy, its just the result of the media becoming so dumbed down that they never consider the background philosophy of political movements.
"With respect to understanding race and social relations this change [to a postmodern approach] gives primacy to ethnic and racial difference and the need to reorganize society according to this theme. In other words, postmodernists strive to open society instead of providing a more efficient means for resolving conflicts. As opposed to even some Marxists, postmodernists want this expansion to be an ongoing process, one that does not stop with the triumph of any group. In Marxist terminology, the dialectic of difference never reaches an end." (Murphy and Choi 1997).
ie: no reconciliation or integration, instead multiculturalism and conflict. The aim of New Labour in importing millions from abroad was to create the continuing polarization required for revolutionary politics.
This was all current, postmarxist, left wing politics in 1997 .
Murphy, J.W. and Choi, J.M., (1997). Postmodernism, unraveling racism, and democratic institutions. Greenwood Publishing Group.
"With respect to understanding race and social relations this change [to a postmodern approach] gives primacy to ethnic and racial difference and the need to reorganize society according to this theme. In other words, postmodernists strive to open society instead of providing a more efficient means for resolving conflicts. As opposed to even some Marxists, postmodernists want this expansion to be an ongoing process, one that does not stop with the triumph of any group. In Marxist terminology, the dialectic of difference never reaches an end." (Murphy and Choi 1997).
ie: no reconciliation or integration, instead multiculturalism and conflict. The aim of New Labour in importing millions from abroad was to create the continuing polarization required for revolutionary politics.
This was all current, postmarxist, left wing politics in 1997 .
Murphy, J.W. and Choi, J.M., (1997). Postmodernism, unraveling racism, and democratic institutions. Greenwood Publishing Group.
sandyRoe, consider Andrew Neather's explanation (Neather was a member of Labour's inner circle):
"It didn't just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year, when the Government introduced a points-based system, was to open up the UK to mass migration." http://
http://
http://
http://
http://
"It didn't just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year, when the Government introduced a points-based system, was to open up the UK to mass migration." http://
http://
http://
http://
http://
We are told that the policies and laws that emanates from Westminster are a result of the superior knowledge possessed and available to the MPs as compared to the general public but in reality they are a result of public outcry and investigative journalism.
The housing bubble , unlimited credit , tax evasion , immigration problems, benefit fraud , repeat offending following soft sentencing, to the dumbing down of GCSEs. etc etc. All these are widely known to the general public but they come as a great surprise to our so called superiors.
Even the police frequently act only after an exposé by the press.
The housing bubble , unlimited credit , tax evasion , immigration problems, benefit fraud , repeat offending following soft sentencing, to the dumbing down of GCSEs. etc etc. All these are widely known to the general public but they come as a great surprise to our so called superiors.
Even the police frequently act only after an exposé by the press.
Gromit, that Labour deliberately encouraged immigration is not just a matter of public record and an evident fact from the immigration data, the very question that we are answering is an admission of this by Milliband!
On the subject of postmarxists shifting from classism to racism as the means of provoking division, where have you been for the past 20 years? Every other political debate now has to step gingerly over the racist/antiracist booby traps deployed by the new Left. Just look at this forum, had it been around 40 years ago all the condemnation by the Left would have been about CLASS, now it is about RACE, with race being crazily extended to include nationalism and religion. Read up on the philosophy of postmodernism and postmarxism if you want to understand New Labour and British politics over the past 20 years.
On the subject of postmarxists shifting from classism to racism as the means of provoking division, where have you been for the past 20 years? Every other political debate now has to step gingerly over the racist/antiracist booby traps deployed by the new Left. Just look at this forum, had it been around 40 years ago all the condemnation by the Left would have been about CLASS, now it is about RACE, with race being crazily extended to include nationalism and religion. Read up on the philosophy of postmodernism and postmarxism if you want to understand New Labour and British politics over the past 20 years.
Johnnysid:
Your bandying around of terms like 'postmodernism', 'postmarxism', 'poststructuralism' is a little embarassing. You are treating these things as though they are clear-cut, homogenous political ideologies, and they aren't. They're all fairly broad-brush intellectual movements which attack the idea of historical narrative from various angles and that's about all they have in common. I also think it's fairly pretentious and irritating of you to throw these terms around when there's no reason for them to be particularly well-known to people outside of academia. If you're going to use them on a forum like this, it's incumbent on you to demonstrate exactly what you mean by them - they are not really terms with much of a singular, standard definition and they're used in a lot of different ways. What you're currently doing them is chucking them around and then just telling people to 'read up' - it's quite an arrogant way of debating with people.
Your bandying around of terms like 'postmodernism', 'postmarxism', 'poststructuralism' is a little embarassing. You are treating these things as though they are clear-cut, homogenous political ideologies, and they aren't. They're all fairly broad-brush intellectual movements which attack the idea of historical narrative from various angles and that's about all they have in common. I also think it's fairly pretentious and irritating of you to throw these terms around when there's no reason for them to be particularly well-known to people outside of academia. If you're going to use them on a forum like this, it's incumbent on you to demonstrate exactly what you mean by them - they are not really terms with much of a singular, standard definition and they're used in a lot of different ways. What you're currently doing them is chucking them around and then just telling people to 'read up' - it's quite an arrogant way of debating with people.
Kromo...: "Your bandying around of terms like 'postmodernism', 'postmarxism', 'poststructuralism' is a little embarassing"
My apologies for embarrassing you. The reason I have introduced postmarxism is to explain how the Left has changed. After 1989 it had to find a new path, the Left did indeed become post-men.
The British Left has always been far more extreme than the media has reported. Jack Jones, General Secretary of the TUC was a paid Soviet spy, almost all of New Labour were far left Trotskyists and Stalinists - Jack Straw even wrote a letter to the Guardian admitting proudly that he was a Stalinist. This is all a matter of public record, not wild accusations - see The Roots of New Labour http://
After 1989 the Left could no longer dream of Global Communism. The class struggle had failed because it could not sustain a continuing revolution. Left wing philosophers such as Derrida (poststructuralist) and Lyotard (postmodernism) had been applying Marxist materialism to general philosophical issues during the seventies and eighties and this approach gave rise to the political philosophy of postmarxism. There is an excellent review of postmarxism by Meyerson at:
http://clogic.eserver.org/2009/Meyerson.pdf
Postmarxism shifts the polarising factor necessary for revolution from setting classes onto one another to stirring up racial differences. This is perfectly clear from postmarxist texts.
The new Left are either heavily influenced by postmarxism or fully postmarxist - as I pointed out above, every other political debate on a wide range of subjects now has race dragged into it. The Labour Party is run by a small clique who are selected from university left wing groups and groomed within the administration of unions. Their political philosophy has always been highly academic and far to the left of what is acceptable to the voting public (again, this is a matter of public record, not a conspiracy theory).
That Kromo... believes the readers of this forum might not appreciate being introduced to the real motivations of those who imported millions of people from overseas in the past decade and a half, or find the explanation of these motivations "arrogant", is perhaps giving the readers too little credit.
My apologies for embarrassing you. The reason I have introduced postmarxism is to explain how the Left has changed. After 1989 it had to find a new path, the Left did indeed become post-men.
The British Left has always been far more extreme than the media has reported. Jack Jones, General Secretary of the TUC was a paid Soviet spy, almost all of New Labour were far left Trotskyists and Stalinists - Jack Straw even wrote a letter to the Guardian admitting proudly that he was a Stalinist. This is all a matter of public record, not wild accusations - see The Roots of New Labour http://
After 1989 the Left could no longer dream of Global Communism. The class struggle had failed because it could not sustain a continuing revolution. Left wing philosophers such as Derrida (poststructuralist) and Lyotard (postmodernism) had been applying Marxist materialism to general philosophical issues during the seventies and eighties and this approach gave rise to the political philosophy of postmarxism. There is an excellent review of postmarxism by Meyerson at:
http://clogic.eserver.org/2009/Meyerson.pdf
Postmarxism shifts the polarising factor necessary for revolution from setting classes onto one another to stirring up racial differences. This is perfectly clear from postmarxist texts.
The new Left are either heavily influenced by postmarxism or fully postmarxist - as I pointed out above, every other political debate on a wide range of subjects now has race dragged into it. The Labour Party is run by a small clique who are selected from university left wing groups and groomed within the administration of unions. Their political philosophy has always been highly academic and far to the left of what is acceptable to the voting public (again, this is a matter of public record, not a conspiracy theory).
That Kromo... believes the readers of this forum might not appreciate being introduced to the real motivations of those who imported millions of people from overseas in the past decade and a half, or find the explanation of these motivations "arrogant", is perhaps giving the readers too little credit.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Technology17 mins ago
Spam & Scams25 mins ago
Technology27 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles27 mins ago
