Quizzes & Puzzles2 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.
@JohnnySid.
If you expect your hypothesis to be taken seriously, you need to present some independent corroboration of it,rather than just stating opinion as fact, and to date, you havent - all you provided us with is links to newspaper stories and personal blogs - the "political thoughts" blog. Is that your blog, by the way? 5th time of asking, still no response.....
To attempt to equate the mass migration patterns both within and from without europe as some sort of grand conspiracy of "the left" and especially new labour is, frankly, a reach.
Did Labour do what they could to discourage immigration? No, they didn't - but the beneficiaries of such migration has not been Labour -quite the contrary. From an economic and business perspective, the greatest beneficiaries were the migrants themselves, and business, who like nothing more than pressure on the labour market to drive their costs down.In my opinion, Labours handling of immigration during their years in office was characterised by an overly cozy relationship with big business and incompetence, coupled with their statutory obligations as a member of the EU. What is telling is that, despite all the pre-election rhetoric, David Cameron and the coalition have been able to do almost nothing to bring down the net number of migrants to the UK - that alone should tell you that this is an issue largly beyond the control of a national government, rather than a leftist conspiracy.
If you expect your hypothesis to be taken at all seriously, you have to support it with independent corroboration. To refuse and deride such requests is a cheap rhetorical trick, one that suggests you have no such independent verification. It is the same sort of cheap rhetorical trick as presenting as an established fact that Jack Jones was a soviet spy, or that Jack Straw was a stalinist, without offering links or references to independent corroboration or original text.
More evidence of some serious and considered thought, and less use of rhetorical tricks and exhortations would go a long way to engaging with your prospective audience.....
If you expect your hypothesis to be taken seriously, you need to present some independent corroboration of it,rather than just stating opinion as fact, and to date, you havent - all you provided us with is links to newspaper stories and personal blogs - the "political thoughts" blog. Is that your blog, by the way? 5th time of asking, still no response.....
To attempt to equate the mass migration patterns both within and from without europe as some sort of grand conspiracy of "the left" and especially new labour is, frankly, a reach.
Did Labour do what they could to discourage immigration? No, they didn't - but the beneficiaries of such migration has not been Labour -quite the contrary. From an economic and business perspective, the greatest beneficiaries were the migrants themselves, and business, who like nothing more than pressure on the labour market to drive their costs down.In my opinion, Labours handling of immigration during their years in office was characterised by an overly cozy relationship with big business and incompetence, coupled with their statutory obligations as a member of the EU. What is telling is that, despite all the pre-election rhetoric, David Cameron and the coalition have been able to do almost nothing to bring down the net number of migrants to the UK - that alone should tell you that this is an issue largly beyond the control of a national government, rather than a leftist conspiracy.
If you expect your hypothesis to be taken at all seriously, you have to support it with independent corroboration. To refuse and deride such requests is a cheap rhetorical trick, one that suggests you have no such independent verification. It is the same sort of cheap rhetorical trick as presenting as an established fact that Jack Jones was a soviet spy, or that Jack Straw was a stalinist, without offering links or references to independent corroboration or original text.
More evidence of some serious and considered thought, and less use of rhetorical tricks and exhortations would go a long way to engaging with your prospective audience.....
Kromo.. thank you for confirming my statements above:
As you said: "Postmodernism and poststructuralism predate postmarxism. By several decades. " and I also said this above, pointing out that postmodernism and poststructuralism inspired postmarxism.
Kromo.. "I don't have any problem with your characterisation of modern-day Left wing movements as postmarxist..."
Yes, they have changed haven't they? Race is taking the place of class.
Where we disagree is when you say "...but I think then to make the logical leap that this meant immigration levels over the past 20 years has been 'controlled' somehow is nonsense. Global migration patterns aren't something governments have ever really been able to control - all they've been able to do is react to them."
If you look at immigration and migration graphs the big leap in numbers occurs immediately after 1997. By 2003 the numbers have doubled. See the graph headed Net Migration to and from the UK 1991-2008 at http://
Couple this with Blair's statement that this was wanted by the UK government and was done for the benefit of the UK and Neather's evidence that it would rub the noses of the right in diversity then we have a prima facie case for a deliberate increase in immigration for ideological purposes. You have already agreed that this ideology is postmarxism and postmarxism is the ideology of using the polarisation due to racial tension as a revolutionary pressure. (The modern analogue of using class differences for this purpose in Marxist ideology).
You may say this is "paranoid" but paranoia is about imaginary changes. Immigration has risen, the government was postmarxist, the new political discourse is about racism/anti racism. It is a strange to use the word "paranoia" to describe not fears but the exposition of real events that have actually happened! Its like saying that a person is paranoid because they believe that the government intercepts mobile phone calls or paranoid because they say the banks are collapsing.
I am against racism, totally against it. My neighbours in Croydon are British, if their children burn their locality it is because of appallingly bad government. It has nothing to do with race; I dont change because I have been on holiday and got a sun tan. My British neighbours in North Croydon were invited here and dropped into a neighbourhood where everyone was new. Yes, everyone is a new resident in a scarcely structured social environment. My son lives in North Croydon and was asked where he was from "I come from round here" he replied, "No, really, where are you from?" He was asked again. And people are surprised that there is a problem and simply condemn their fellow Britons as criminals without questioning what is happening.
As you said: "Postmodernism and poststructuralism predate postmarxism. By several decades. " and I also said this above, pointing out that postmodernism and poststructuralism inspired postmarxism.
Kromo.. "I don't have any problem with your characterisation of modern-day Left wing movements as postmarxist..."
Yes, they have changed haven't they? Race is taking the place of class.
Where we disagree is when you say "...but I think then to make the logical leap that this meant immigration levels over the past 20 years has been 'controlled' somehow is nonsense. Global migration patterns aren't something governments have ever really been able to control - all they've been able to do is react to them."
If you look at immigration and migration graphs the big leap in numbers occurs immediately after 1997. By 2003 the numbers have doubled. See the graph headed Net Migration to and from the UK 1991-2008 at http://
Couple this with Blair's statement that this was wanted by the UK government and was done for the benefit of the UK and Neather's evidence that it would rub the noses of the right in diversity then we have a prima facie case for a deliberate increase in immigration for ideological purposes. You have already agreed that this ideology is postmarxism and postmarxism is the ideology of using the polarisation due to racial tension as a revolutionary pressure. (The modern analogue of using class differences for this purpose in Marxist ideology).
You may say this is "paranoid" but paranoia is about imaginary changes. Immigration has risen, the government was postmarxist, the new political discourse is about racism/anti racism. It is a strange to use the word "paranoia" to describe not fears but the exposition of real events that have actually happened! Its like saying that a person is paranoid because they believe that the government intercepts mobile phone calls or paranoid because they say the banks are collapsing.
I am against racism, totally against it. My neighbours in Croydon are British, if their children burn their locality it is because of appallingly bad government. It has nothing to do with race; I dont change because I have been on holiday and got a sun tan. My British neighbours in North Croydon were invited here and dropped into a neighbourhood where everyone was new. Yes, everyone is a new resident in a scarcely structured social environment. My son lives in North Croydon and was asked where he was from "I come from round here" he replied, "No, really, where are you from?" He was asked again. And people are surprised that there is a problem and simply condemn their fellow Britons as criminals without questioning what is happening.
"I also said this above, pointing out that postmodernism and poststructuralism inspired postmarxism"
Well, you've a funny way of expressing it then:
"The Marxist/postmarxist inspired cultural movements of postmodernism and poststructuralism... "
Incidentally, you still haven't justified your appallingly sloppy use of these terms - they are incredibly broad basket terms which encompass a lot of things. They are not straightforward ideologies - they're more like general intellectual movements. Quite aside from the fact that you're using them so badly, not many people will be familiar with these terms because they're not generally used outside of academia. It's actually quite rude to spout fairly obscure jargon and just expect everyone around you to follow - you are responsible for making your arguments clear and intelligible to others.
---
"
If you look at immigration and migration graphs the big leap in numbers occurs immediately after 1997"
For one thing, this does not prove that immigration was 'orchestrated' by New Labour. The graph just above the one you've referenced demonstrates a steady long-term increase in foreign-born members of the population (or at least those documented by the census) between 1951 and 2001. For another, higher immigration levels do not in themsevles prove that said immigration was deliberately deployed for racial purposes. In 2001, for instance, there were 158,000 people in the UK born in the United States - a pretty large chunk of the 400,000 or so foreign-borns you're claiming were specifically deployed for racial purposes. Also consider the numbers of, just for the sake of another example, French migration which has lead to huge French populations in some parts of London.
I don't see how Blair's statement or Heather's constitute any kind of evidence other than how immigration or foreign-born populations in Britain were perceived. They do not back up your elaborate conspiracy theory of micro-managed migration.
"You have already agreed that this ideology is postmarxism and postmarxism is the ideology of using the polarisation due to racial tension as a revolutionary pressure."
Actually, I said it was more concerned with identity politics more broadly - not just race. Modern day left movements are concerned with gender and sexual identities (and sometimes in religious/spiritual ones), and also redefining class in terms of identity politics and continuing to use it like that. It is not a straightforward deployment of race - it's about identity politics, which sometimes involves race and sometimes doesn't.
Well, you've a funny way of expressing it then:
"The Marxist/postmarxist inspired cultural movements of postmodernism and poststructuralism... "
Incidentally, you still haven't justified your appallingly sloppy use of these terms - they are incredibly broad basket terms which encompass a lot of things. They are not straightforward ideologies - they're more like general intellectual movements. Quite aside from the fact that you're using them so badly, not many people will be familiar with these terms because they're not generally used outside of academia. It's actually quite rude to spout fairly obscure jargon and just expect everyone around you to follow - you are responsible for making your arguments clear and intelligible to others.
---
"
If you look at immigration and migration graphs the big leap in numbers occurs immediately after 1997"
For one thing, this does not prove that immigration was 'orchestrated' by New Labour. The graph just above the one you've referenced demonstrates a steady long-term increase in foreign-born members of the population (or at least those documented by the census) between 1951 and 2001. For another, higher immigration levels do not in themsevles prove that said immigration was deliberately deployed for racial purposes. In 2001, for instance, there were 158,000 people in the UK born in the United States - a pretty large chunk of the 400,000 or so foreign-borns you're claiming were specifically deployed for racial purposes. Also consider the numbers of, just for the sake of another example, French migration which has lead to huge French populations in some parts of London.
I don't see how Blair's statement or Heather's constitute any kind of evidence other than how immigration or foreign-born populations in Britain were perceived. They do not back up your elaborate conspiracy theory of micro-managed migration.
"You have already agreed that this ideology is postmarxism and postmarxism is the ideology of using the polarisation due to racial tension as a revolutionary pressure."
Actually, I said it was more concerned with identity politics more broadly - not just race. Modern day left movements are concerned with gender and sexual identities (and sometimes in religious/spiritual ones), and also redefining class in terms of identity politics and continuing to use it like that. It is not a straightforward deployment of race - it's about identity politics, which sometimes involves race and sometimes doesn't.
"The Marxist/postmarxist inspired cultural movements of postmodernism and poststructuralism... "
Postmodernism and poststructuralism were inspired by Marxist materialism and have developed further under coexistence with postmarxism - they are active cultural movements.
I can see that I will never convince Kromo.. that the failure of Labour to tackle the doubling of immigration was because, being postmarxists, they encouraged it and wanted it and may even have deliberately planned it. Certainly, as postmarxists, it seems glaringly obvious that they encouraged and wanted it - Blair and others have openly admitted this was the case - but Kromo and I will have to agree to differ on this.
Postmodernism and poststructuralism were inspired by Marxist materialism and have developed further under coexistence with postmarxism - they are active cultural movements.
I can see that I will never convince Kromo.. that the failure of Labour to tackle the doubling of immigration was because, being postmarxists, they encouraged it and wanted it and may even have deliberately planned it. Certainly, as postmarxists, it seems glaringly obvious that they encouraged and wanted it - Blair and others have openly admitted this was the case - but Kromo and I will have to agree to differ on this.
@JohnnySid.
Not just Kromo who disagrees with your thesis. Pretty much all posters here. You have provided only opinion as evidence, and when challenged, can only claim that it is "obvious".
And, despite being asked repeatedly if the blog you have linked to as corroboration is your own, you have failed to answer.
Immigration has certainly become a hot topic, and a divisive one. It has become difficult to discuss calmly and rationally, largely because it is such an emotive topic. Its also probably true to say that the tensions associated with immigration become greater in a time of austerity.
But, mass economic migration is a global issue. Europe is seen by most economic migrants as a prime destination, and, given the inequalities within the EU, one of the unintended consequences of the free movement of goods and citizens is that you will get mass economic migration within the EU zone as well. This is where the politicians fell down - incompetence and lack of vision rather than some grand conspiracy.
Not just Kromo who disagrees with your thesis. Pretty much all posters here. You have provided only opinion as evidence, and when challenged, can only claim that it is "obvious".
And, despite being asked repeatedly if the blog you have linked to as corroboration is your own, you have failed to answer.
Immigration has certainly become a hot topic, and a divisive one. It has become difficult to discuss calmly and rationally, largely because it is such an emotive topic. Its also probably true to say that the tensions associated with immigration become greater in a time of austerity.
But, mass economic migration is a global issue. Europe is seen by most economic migrants as a prime destination, and, given the inequalities within the EU, one of the unintended consequences of the free movement of goods and citizens is that you will get mass economic migration within the EU zone as well. This is where the politicians fell down - incompetence and lack of vision rather than some grand conspiracy.
Kromo: "Actually, I said it was more concerned with identity politics more broadly - not just race. Modern day left movements are concerned with gender and sexual identities.."
True, but this article is about Immigration. Postmarxism is a philosophical tautology in which there are no truths and postmarxists have got no idea why they believe in any of these things, it is gang phenomenon.
True, but this article is about Immigration. Postmarxism is a philosophical tautology in which there are no truths and postmarxists have got no idea why they believe in any of these things, it is gang phenomenon.
"when challenged, can only claim that it is "obvious". " No, I have given numerous links and references, unlike those who maintain that a pro-immigration Labour could not possibly have been in favour of immigration, permitting and encouraging it. It seems that those who reject Labour's role in immigration simply deny any evidence, even rejecting Blair's open admission that he and Labour were pro-immigration.
"Postmodernism and poststructuralism were inspired by Marxist materialism"
As is pretty much any modern intellectual movement you'd care to name. The ones you're talking about are also influenced by Nietzche (far more so than Marx imho), Gramsci and the other usual suspects. Sorry, JS, but given that you explicitly said that PM/PS are 'inspired' by postmarxism, you seem to have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
"I will never convince Kromo.. that the failure of Labour to tackle the doubling of immigration was because, being postmarxists, they encouraged it and wanted it and may even have deliberately planned it."
Yes, I'm quite proud to say I'm generally unconvinced by people who put forward terrible, badly-supported pseudo-intellectual arguments.
" being postmarxists, they encouraged it and wanted it and may even have deliberately planned it. "
This, for instance, is an utterly bald assertion that you've completely failed to support. Your argument is essentially this:
The Labour Party has (like most modern left-wing parties) a broadly postmarxist influence -> postmarxism is interested in race (which is a fallacious thing to focus on because it's interested in identity politics generally) -> immigration has increased over the past 50 or so years -> therefore the Labour Party controlled immigration.
This argument simply assumes that governments have decisive levels of control over global migration patterns or the economic forces which generate them. You have also read the left-wing response to immigration as some kind of evidence of their control of it. Yes, I think there's good reason to be totally unconvinced.
As is pretty much any modern intellectual movement you'd care to name. The ones you're talking about are also influenced by Nietzche (far more so than Marx imho), Gramsci and the other usual suspects. Sorry, JS, but given that you explicitly said that PM/PS are 'inspired' by postmarxism, you seem to have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
"I will never convince Kromo.. that the failure of Labour to tackle the doubling of immigration was because, being postmarxists, they encouraged it and wanted it and may even have deliberately planned it."
Yes, I'm quite proud to say I'm generally unconvinced by people who put forward terrible, badly-supported pseudo-intellectual arguments.
" being postmarxists, they encouraged it and wanted it and may even have deliberately planned it. "
This, for instance, is an utterly bald assertion that you've completely failed to support. Your argument is essentially this:
The Labour Party has (like most modern left-wing parties) a broadly postmarxist influence -> postmarxism is interested in race (which is a fallacious thing to focus on because it's interested in identity politics generally) -> immigration has increased over the past 50 or so years -> therefore the Labour Party controlled immigration.
This argument simply assumes that governments have decisive levels of control over global migration patterns or the economic forces which generate them. You have also read the left-wing response to immigration as some kind of evidence of their control of it. Yes, I think there's good reason to be totally unconvinced.
I should answer LazyGun's assertion that it is "Not just Kromo who disagrees with your thesis. Pretty much all posters here." Most posters simply agreed that Immigration was a Labour policy and have left the subject. There is a die hard left wing group who cannot bear the truth even though Blair admitted wanting mass immigration and Milliband is telling you it was a mistake.
Kromo: "What an idiotic thing to say.", "you still haven't justified your appallingly sloppy use of these terms", "I'm generally unconvinced by people who put forward terrible, badly-supported pseudo-intellectual arguments. " .....
I am not here to be insulted and postmarxists always will always gang up on people. Bye.
I am not here to be insulted and postmarxists always will always gang up on people. Bye.
LoL
His logic also extends to debate and argument. Anyone who points out the flaws (and there are many) in his argument are postmarxists, entrenched lefties, all ganging up on him , the bringer of truth.
What an infantile way to debate.
It has been pointed out, repeatedly, and most especially in Kromos last post, that you present your opinion as bald fact. You repeatedly fail to offer any independent corroboration of your thesis, and we are "extreme dogmatic lefties " if we fail to agree with you.
Despite many requests, you have repeatedly ignored reasonable and polite questions about whether the "political thoughts" blog you link to is your own work.
And then, you pick up the football, and run off home, sulking... ahh well...
His logic also extends to debate and argument. Anyone who points out the flaws (and there are many) in his argument are postmarxists, entrenched lefties, all ganging up on him , the bringer of truth.
What an infantile way to debate.
It has been pointed out, repeatedly, and most especially in Kromos last post, that you present your opinion as bald fact. You repeatedly fail to offer any independent corroboration of your thesis, and we are "extreme dogmatic lefties " if we fail to agree with you.
Despite many requests, you have repeatedly ignored reasonable and polite questions about whether the "political thoughts" blog you link to is your own work.
And then, you pick up the football, and run off home, sulking... ahh well...
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Crosswords42 mins ago
Film, Media & TV57 mins ago
