BS: The BNP conundrum

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:27 AM

Ooh! the deletion of Guest Sam H's last post gave me the 100!

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:30 AM

Well, Keith, if your views on immigration are not the same as those of the BNP how do they differ?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:35 AM

1. The Torygraph is not necessarily the best source of fact, and the article betrays an obvious spin.

2. However, buried in it: -

"Officials said the higher immigration figures over the next five year took account of the huge influx of workers from eastern Europe."

3. So, Keith, you plan to change EU law how?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:41 AM

My views on immigration are broadly represented by the cross party (MAINSTREAM parties) group of elected parliamentarians called Balanced Migration.
http://www.balancedmigration.com/

That is a million miles from the racist policies of BNP.

Now, unless you can substantiate your disgusting insult, I hope you will do the decent thing and withdraw the statement and apologise.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:46 AM

Keith,

In spite of everything, I still overestimated you.

Your telegraph article about "record" immigration contains no support for its own claim, or yours. The "record" or "unprecedented" nature of immigration remains an unsupported throwaway comment.

The article is in any event 2 years old and whatever rate of immigration existed at the time, existed at the height of the economic bubble. We all know that since then a lot of migrant east european citizens have returned home and the article itself specifices that it is that group which was responsible for any notable increase.

Look HERE for some recent home office figures and you will see that the total number of work permit entrants was down 12% on 2008 figures, let alone 2007 figures or earlier, when things were booming.

And, knowing the lies that are spouted about asylum, note that 72% of asylum claims were refused in Q2 2009. Hardly a tidal wave there.

The Telegraph article about "English" population density is as mendacious and spurious as you are. As I have already said, you need to compare eggs with eggs. If you want to compare "England" (a region of a country) then compare it with comparable regions of comparable countries. To compare a region with a whole country is to lie, to distort or just to be plain stupid. You choose.

And you still miss the point. The way to deal with an influx of working taxpayers that need public services is, duh!, to provide more public services! It really is that simple.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:47 AM

Richard,
1. The facts in the article are impeccable ONS statistics.Which are you challenging?
2. Yes I know. Your point?
3. I was only asked to verify my claim that levels are unprecedented.
In this atmosphere I am going to stick to facts.

Now withdraw your insult and apologise please.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:52 AM

Royston, I made it clear that by current levels I meant "10-15years"
The ONS figures quoted give figures within that timescale.
I find no period in history with higher figures.
I defy you to find any.

I am not missing or making any point, just stating facts that you keep challenging.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:54 AM

Keith,

Learn to read. The article only contains ONS statistics about total population growth. The biggest drive in population growth is the birth rate, not immigration. The article contains no data whatever to suggest or prove that there is "record" immigration. It contains no data about overall immigration rates in 2007 or earlier. Therefore it contains no data to support contemporary immigration being at "record" or "unprecedented" levels. That claim is simply spun out of an unrelated dataset.

Refer to my comments about how the press make you think you know something in the Sharia Law thread.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:58 AM

Keith,

in response to your 05:52

The 10-15 year projection is of TOTAL POPULATION NUMBER

It is not a graph or dataset or projection about immigration rates.

THERE IS NO COMPARATIVE IMMIGRATION DATA IN THAT ARTICLE.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 06:01 AM

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?id=260
Here are the official immigration statistics.
I can find no period with higher figures and nor can you.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 06:32 AM

Keith, it's a ten year spread. I specifically suggested that immigration was probably higher in the 1935-1945 period and in the 50's / '60s baby and immigration booms. If you restrict the time period enough then you can make anything a "record".

The point is that you claimed we are in a "record" or "unprecedented" era of immigration now. The telegraph article, which was a distortion and which you mis-read, is a two years old set of lies.

Now, even the two year old ONS figures you've found show that in the years 1998-2007, the peak immigration rate was in 2004. In 2007, when the Telepgraph wrote their helpful article, the rate was lower than in 2004. So whichever you slice it the Telegraph were lying when they claimed a "record" level in 2007 and you are grossly incorrect to be referring to the same fallacious claim in 2009.

And the wider point is that if you had come here and said that you were worried about what all the facts prove are sharply falling immigration rates in 2009 as compared to 2004-2007 and a large-scale return of migrant workers to their home countries, then we could have had an honest discussion.

However you came here with a load of out-of-date hysteria, mis-understood (I suspect deliberately) data, and you assert that this should be the basis of an adult debate?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: theleveller
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 06:44 AM

To base an argument for or against immigration on numbers alone is missing an important factor – population age. The UK population is ageing rapidly; a third of us will be over 55 by 2025. With a declining birthrate from the late 80s to the early 2000s and an increase in women waiting until their 30s and 40s to have children, this poses problems. Who will look after us in our old age? Who will run our essential services? Who will fill the skills gap that we are already experiencing?

Here's a section from a BBC article:
"In a dramatic and unprecedented demographic shift the number of young people is dwindling while the older sector of the population rapidly expands.

The underlying cause is that we are living longer and having fewer children - well below the replacement rate of 2.2 per woman - but the size of the baby boomer generation, who are just starting to retire, is accelerating the trend.

By 2014, projections suggest, over-65-year-olds will overtake the under-16s.

And by 2025, the number of over-60s will have passed the under-25s for the first time. "

For me, the answer is obvious: we need immigrants. Anyone have a better answer?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 07:04 AM

As an aside....
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/News/DailyBulletin/941304/Royal-British-Legion-rethinks-BNP-donation/0B210C745B16A32205A3D414589B48

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 07:54 AM

I posted about the current 10-15 year period.
I said the level is unprecedented.
That was true.
I am sorry that you do not approve of the period I chose.

I posted about England.
I said it was about the most densely populated country.
That was true.
I am sorry you do not approve of the country I chose.

I have posted no views about immigration, just those facts.
What I got back was hysterical abuse.
I have been called fool, liar, fantasist and accused of having BNP's racist views on immigration even though I expressed none.

I was a fool, but only for thinking it possible to hold a rational debate on immigration with people like you.

Have this thread to yourselves then.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 08:23 AM

We may be misunderstanding each other on the time period thing.
You said " I specifically suggested that immigration was probably higher in the 1935-1945 period "
If you mean higher than now or any time in the last 15 years then you are wrong.
For someone with such strong views to be so ill informed is amazing to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 08:46 AM

I do not immediately see anything on the "Balanced Migration" page to which you refer, Keith, that sets out policies, although I do see a set of scare stories.

What are the policies of that group, and how do they differ from those of the BNP?

And how do you propose to change or disapply EU law so as to exclude Eastern European labour?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 08:51 AM

Richard, I am not debating immigration with you.
Balanced Migration's agenda is easy enough to find.
The MPs who form it would be grossly insulted at the BNP link you seek to make.
Beware of libelling yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 09:00 AM

Here are some facts:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=950


Net migration last year fell below natural population growth for the first time for a very long time. Ever since 2007 (the date of the Torygraph article you cite) net immigration has been substantially below the projections you feared.



In fact, as of 28th August this year http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/News-By-Industry/Services/Travel/Visa-Power/Net-migration-to-UK-falls-to-lowest-in-five
And before you say "Oh, the Times of India" - it's actually from a Reuters feed.

Come on Keith - tell me how your immigration policy differs from the BNP's. I'll start by assuming you are not planning to sink ships, or throw people out of aeroplanes somewhere over Africa.

Right now, all I see from you on the point is that you don't want Johnny Foreigner here.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 09:07 AM

Richard, you were able to tell me that my views were the same as BNP, without me even expressing them.

That was an unpleasant lie for which you have not apologised.

I have directed you to an organisation that reflects my views.

I have had enough abuse and false accusations here.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 09:10 AM

Here's what the border agency says.


So that's settled then: the BNP immigration policy is based on untruth and racialism. On what else do they assert that they have any sensible policies?

Have you noticed that on their websites even their supporters don't like thier policies for a dirigiste economy (curiously, the point at which I might have the most interest in them if I thought them capable).

What about national service? The idea that you can take a bunch of idle thugs into the army for a year or so, and turn them into a bunch of fit active thugs with automatic weapons who will be the only people who can vote? Yes, I can see that one working. Not.

Or the Heath Service - the BNP will repatriate migrants - so removing mostly fit young people with no need for long-term services, at the same time as getting rid of piles of doctors and nurses. Not very convincing.

Any more for any more?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 09:14 AM

Here's a nice pocket comparison tool for politics

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 09:21 AM

Might I intervene to suggest that the use of 'Torygraph' for 'The Daily Telegraph' is one of those facetious cliches more liable to undermine than support an argument? It strikes me always as one of Private Eye's less felicitous coinages: tendentious and self-righteous, assuming a sort of knee·jerk shared leftiness among all 'right-thinking' contributors to the thread which might well, as I say, alienate as many as it will persuade in support.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 09:26 AM

Oh, incidentally, over on the fake mudcat Sam Hudson is announcing his victory in debate against ButterandCheese. ROTFLMAO

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 10:01 AM

Richard Bridge. "nice pocket comparison tool for politics"

Here's the BNP policy on capital punishment, and a finer example of newspeak has not come my way all afternoon. "Restoration of capital punishment for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers as an option for judges in cases where their guilt is proven beyond dispute"

So presumably anyone who's not found guilty beyond dispute (Is this the same as beyond all reasonable doubt, and if it is why can't they say so?) will just face a jail sentence ?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 10:07 AM

keith, how can you continue to be so dense. You haven't proven anything about England's relative pop density because you haven't managed to make a like for like comparison. You've compared a region of the UK with a set of entire countries and to do so is meaningless.

You claimed that we were now experiencing record immigration levels and when you were put to proof you came up with a two year old article with data about total population number, not immigration. All the actual evidence about immigration blows you out of the water on 2007 as well as 2009 grounds.

I still suspect immigration was greater 35-45 and Windrush era but, as I said, I can't find data. What I know, I assert as fact. What I don't know I propose as a theory, suspicion, feeling etc. You would do well to learn and read better in future.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Emma B
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 10:19 AM

"Formed in 1982, it (the BNP) was, in its early years, very similar to the NF in its ideas, policies and support. From the late 1990s onwards, however, the party embarked on a programme of "modernisation" under its new leader, Nick Griffin.

Learning from the successes of French Front National, the party tried to give up its skinhead image, swapping bovver boots for sober suits.

How genuine the conversion has been may be gauged by the party's constitution which is still, and I quote from it, "wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples" and believes in restoring "the overwhelmingly white make up of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948".


While one might rightly be cynical about the rebranding of the BNP, what has indubitably changed is the nature of its support.

During June's Euro elections, the polling organisation YouGov conducted a survey of about 32,000 voters, including more than 1,100 BNP supporters.
About half the BNP voters, YouGov found, were out-and-out racists, many of whom would probably have supported the party in its pre-modernization days

But they've been joined by a swath of new supporters whose hostility towards immigrants is shaped less by old-fashioned racism than by a new-fangled sense of fear and insecurity. Many are traditional Labour supporters who now feel abandoned by the political mainstream, anxious about their future

Little will sway the views of the hard-line racists, YouGov's Peter Kellner believes. But those drawn to the BNP because they have become alienated from the mainstream political process should not simply be dismissed as bigots by the mainstream.
It is the failure to engage with them, and with their fears and concerns, that helped pave their way to the far right."

Kenan Malik - discussing the decision to include the BNP on the panel of Question Time
full article

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 10:34 AM

EmmaB, Jeddy and Joe,

You have all made similar points about how to deal with the disaffected.

I have posted here on many occasions that the bases of progressive social policies should be:

Wage depression - ruthlessly enforce a fair minimum wage so that all workers receive the same minimum protection.

Social housing - build more of it.

Schools - build more of them

Hospitals...and so on.

The answer is not for working folk to start falling on each other like dogs in an effort to tear out what they believe is the best deal for themselves at the expense of the wider community. That is what BNP politics are: greed, selfishness, entitlement and hatred of "them", "the others" etc.

There can never be any toleration of people who actually believe that the way to improve a society is, in effect, to have a 'cull' - whether that be extermination or transportation.

I and people like me are campaigning for that sort of political dialogue but it justs get harder and harder to get past the Keith's of this world who have just wilfully decided that we are "swamped", "flooded", "deluged" etc etc, by a "tidal wave" of "unprecedented" and "unnecessary" or "unjustified" immigrants that are "crowding" this scepted isle, blah blah blah.

As you can all see, it doesn't matter how much evidence piles up against them, they just won't change the tape that runs on a loop in their head. Ultimately it is pointless and you just have to leave them behind.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 10:49 AM

Hello Sam, you great stupid gobshite. You are probably too thick to realise this, but it is a principle of British law that, before a person can be convicted, their guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. IE., there is no such thing as two classes of sentence depending on how convinced the jury is about the accused's guilt. Obviously the BNP are planning to dismantle this crucial pillar of the British legal system without telling anyone.

Unlike many prominent members of the BNP and other assorted detritus of the far right, neither I nor anyone I know, has ever murdered anyone, or committed an act of paedophilia, or blown up a pub or a supermarket out of a disliking for the clientele. (As a matter of fact, nobody I know has ever blown up a pub or a supermarket, full stop.)

You keep some very strange company there Sam. Bet you don't half feel at home.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Emma B
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 11:16 AM

Government figures published in Agust show that net migration to the UK dropped by 44% in 2008.

The Institute for Public Policy Research highlights the fact that the drop is largely explained by rapid increases in the emigration of non-British citizens from the UK – up 50% in 2008.
This trend is particularly marked for migrants from new EU member states – net migration from these countries was just 14,000 in 2008, down from a peak of over 80,000 in 2007.

There is strong evidence that migration responds to economic conditions – people come to the UK when there are jobs, and leave when there aren't.

Ippr's Head of Migration, Tim Finch said: "ippr has pointed out for some time that migration flows go in cycles, and these latest figures for 2008 indicate that after a number of years in which net migration was high, it is now declining sharply – almost certainly because of a combination of the economic downturn, the short term nature of much migration from new EU countries, and the impact of stronger controls and management put in place by the government.

"There has been a lot of irresponsible scaremongering about immigration in recent years which was based on the false assumption that high net migration into the UK was inevitable for years to come.

As our recent report on re-migration showed, migration flows go both ways and we now need to be thinking about how our managed migration systems can continue to attract and retain the migrants we need to help our economy to recover and grow."

statistics taken from Office for National Statistics Migration Statistics Quarterly Report, August 2009, available at : http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=15230


Unforunately all too many people believe the scare 'statistics' of the Daily Mail that 'prove' we are "swamped", "flooded", "deluged" etc etc, by a "tidal wave" of "unprecedented" and "unnecessary" or "unjustified" immigrants that are "crowding" this scepted isle,


For example, although the largest numbers of immigrants to the EU in 2006 were recorded in Spain, Germany and United Kingdom among these countries only Spain also had high immigration relative to its population size.

The highest rate of immigration was, in fact, recorded in Luxembourg, followed by Ireland, Cyprus and Spain.
These four countries had significantly higher rates compared with other Member States, while for Germany and the United Kingdom, immigration per 1000 inhabitants was close to the EU-27 average.

Eurostat, 'Recent migration trends: citizens of EU-27 Member States become ever more mobile while EU remains attractive to non-EU citizens'.

So in reality the immigration rate for the UK is around the EU average; in other words a global – or at least European – phenomenon.

To also discover how papers like The Daily Mail use misleading crime stats to make readers frightened of foreigners and falsely claim the NHS is about to treat "A million failed asylum seekers" check out Mail Watch

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 11:19 AM

There's no point answering Sam H, the post will be deleted and then it will make even less than sense than at present, if you can imagine such a thing.

But to expand my own argument, it is simple.

Stop all scroungers - including the home-grown scroungers who vote BNP because they reckon that as soon as the foreigners are in the ovens then their own incapacity benefit will be 50k a year and they'll get a council penthouse.

Make damn sure that all employers pay at least a fair minimum wage to all workers. That is TAXPAYING workers.

Make sure that all taxpaying workers pay a fair and progressive income or other tax.

Then we can start really delivering proper social provision to the taxpaying and or needy citizens of this great nation regardless of the colour of their skin or their original birthplace.

If it works in most of the rest of Europe (Germany, Scandinavia, Netherlands, France -OK, not sure about France- and Spain) then why should we be so stupid as to not get the message?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 11:21 AM

To Keith A:

Everything that Emma said at 11:16.

Maybe one of these days we might actually flush you all the way around the bend.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 11:50 AM

Emma, please view the alternative views on the same figures by this cross party group of MPs.
http://www.balancedmigration.com/pressreleases/Commentonipprre-migrationreport.pdf
http://www.balancedmigration.com/pressreleases/CommentonONSdata27August2009.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 12:14 PM

Royston, you have now added "dense" to the list of insults.
I might take that as a joke had you not already called me shit talker, fool, fantasist and liar.
I will not debate with such an abusive, foulmouthed protagonist but if you must keep challenging those two facts I will keep replying.

BBC has done the research on immigration levels. Figures are here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2002/race/short_history_of_immigration.stm

Your other argument is just that you do not regard Enland as a country.
Everyone else does, including ONS.
It is the country I live in and where I experience the overcrowding of services and environmental degradation.
It is also the country where the overwhelming majority of immigrants to Britain choose to settle.
Do you consider Scotland a country?
If not, please try and convince a Scot.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: ButterandCheese
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 12:48 PM

Please do not feed the troll

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 01:07 PM

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40833000/jpg/_40833669_nicholas_soames_bbc_203.jpg

Talk about a swelling population!

Keith, you need to re-check the facts. I gave you the links. Net immigration is not the threat that you said it was.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 01:11 PM

Oh just go and do one Keith.

Your latest URL, which you probably read as carefully as all the others still has no comparative data. Just a sprinkling of random numbers - example: after the war 157,000 poles settled here. It gives no year on year data that we can compare with current data. That was in any event just a side-thought on my part. The substance of our dispute, as I said from the outset, is that we are not experiencing "record" or "unprecedented" immigration of any sort, and that has been proven by me and by others.

England is no more an adminstrative country than is Kent or Essex or Hertfordshire. The ONS has stats for those as well. To make a comparison you have to compare like for like and when you compare administrative countries then GB is not "about the most densely populated..." which was your ridiculous claim. Even England doesn't meet that claim but to compare it with the whole of France, as you did, is fatuous in the extreme and serves only to boost your paranoia and that of certain others.

Here's an example of like for like. Greater London density: 4,761/km2 as opposed to Paris at 20,164/km2 - that's 5 times the population density of London.

Or you could compare UK / France as I did earlier.

Basically all your assertions about immigration are shown to be false and I don't much care whether you or Sam H hear the truth from me or from Emma B or from whomever.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 01:25 PM

Hells Bells, I have now plodded through most of the tendentious crap in the Balanced Migration booklet. I see one point of difference from the BNP so far - no plan for large scale emigration of previos immigrants.

What I do see is a lot of out of date (2006/7) assumptions and logical fallacies: it has all the hallmarks of an attempt to rationalise a set of wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 03:58 PM

" Net immigration is not the threat that you said it was."
I said no such thing.Another false allegation from Richard.

Royston, you are wearing me down. Can we both agree on these statements and I can leave you to it.

1. Of those countries of comparable, or larger, size and population to that geo-political entity called England, only two have a higher population density than said entity.

2. The level of net immigration has dipped this year as a result of the recession. Over the previous 15 years it has been high. I and others, including the Telegraph, say that those years included "record" or "unprecedented" rates but you think there may have been a higher rate sometime around middle of 20th Century.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: ButterandCheese
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 04:07 PM

actually the myth of mass immigration is just that a myth

The latest official figures show that in the year to December 2008, net immigration to the UK was 118,000, down 44 per cent on the previous year. 512,000 people migrated to the UK and 395,000 left in 2008

-Office for National Statistics. 2009-08-27

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 04:08 PM

Sam, I find myself in a quandry, because your behavior is so objectionable. And we don't know how many individuals we are dealing with underneath the same Guest names that keep popping up. It might be helpful - if indeed you actually *care* about these thngs you comment upon - if you became a constant member and discussed these matters seriously. Of course you'll recieve flack, but you don't seem to care too much about that, so there should be no problem.

I find your behavior frustrating, because you do not engage in the discussion by making any genuine case (bar random comments about "scroungers") for those disenfranchised working class peoples, that you presume to speak for. It is deeply frustrating for me, as someone from a working-class background myself, I might sympathise with some of those complaints, if they were shown to be substantiated rather than simply the product of empty and hate-fueled propaganda promulgated by far-right politicians seeking power. I'd really like to know the truth. I don't believe that 'statistics' can answer for the degree of discontent among the working classes today. I's like to know what's going on.

Does economic migration serve the *broader economy*, but nevertheless harm the *working classes* economically and socially?

I don't personally know. But I'm discomfited enough by the continued and building murmurings amongst the working classes in particular, to feel it is an issue that needs to be addressed - with them directly, in person, by those in power.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: ButterandCheese
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 04:13 PM

The BNP no more care about the working clsses than do the major political parties, they're just using them to gain power, feeding them the lines they want hear, or should I say think they want to hearSame cynical BS time after time. The talking heads change the word and the attitude don't

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 04:16 PM

Butter & Cheese I agree.
In fact aren't they prepared for an err genocide of sorts against the very same so-called 'white trash', which are currently their meat and drink?!

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: ButterandCheese
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 04:26 PM

no working class, no disabled (mental and physical) , no non whites. I'm surprised that old chestnit Arayan Races hasn't reared it's head...but I foget, the BNP are respectable aren't they? (not)

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 04:56 PM

Keith, you have said little else!

If your memory is that bad, try these words from you "Royston, this article gives all the ONS statistics to support the headline "Record Immigration sees UK poulation soar."
"Record" in this context means unprecedented.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567068/Record-immigration-sees-UK-population-soar.html"

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:09 PM

No Keith, you're still talking rot.

The figures just don't add up for you. England has about 52m people on about 130,000km2. If you look at comparable populations then you get to places like Congo, Burma, South Africa. All have very low densities. As I said at the beginning of this argument the reason for that is these places are inhabitable by humans. You do get Italy, which has 500/km2 - a lot more than "England" but as anyone knows, this is not a country bulging at the seams with people hanging onto coastal clifftops under the groaning pressure of the bloated population. The same as this country is a largely empty, green and welcoming place, as is Holland (also a greater density than England.) So your point is what?

You get S. Korea at about 48.5m people and 100,000km2; quite a lot denser than England and quite harmonious.

So no, there is just no evidence that England is more densely populated than comparable land-masses or geo-political units or whatever. If you seek to compare England with deserts, jungles and rocky mountain ranges then I will call you very much more than just stupid.

We can agree on the current immigration rate issue. We can agree that there is presently no rate of net migration that is unusual, high, unprecedented. We can agree that net migration is reducing, dramatically and that migration is not a "problem". So WTF did you start all this shit for?

We can agree that you were wrong to say there is a contemporary "record" or "unprecedented" rate, we can agree that the Telegraph were talking bollocks when they said it was a contemporary issue in 2007.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: ButterandCheese
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:14 PM

The Torygraph talking rubbish. What else is new?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:38 PM

Crow Sister,

To sustain whatever standard of life we think we have, and the one we aspire to have in our ever-extending old age, we need either a shed-load of extra taxpayers and service-providers each year or we need to all start paying a lot more of more progressive taxes and still find quite a lot of extra tax-payers each year. Year on year.

Governments need to ensure proper regulation of the labour and finance markets so that every job is a proper job. A job that has a minimum fair reward that allows each worker to participate in society to a commonly agreed minimum and reasonable standard.

If working people respond to the current laissez-faire feral capitalism by acting like bloody slavering hyena, fighting each other for the last scraps of flesh on the carcass, then all is lost. That way lies BNP politics.

Suppose the BNP took power and "kicked 'em all out". Where are our dentists, doctors, nurses, builders, agricultural workers? The "entitled" white majority have for years found "trades" to be somehow beneath their great entitled heritage. We now have several generations of illiterate dunderheads with stupid and pointless "degrees" in media science and tourism & leisure etc etc. BNP Britain is a truly terrifying place. We simply can't live without the immigrants who bring to this country a sense of diligent work and study ethic that it seems "the indigenous" have to a significant extent decided is beneath them.

I know that bloody pop density figures are ridiculous and pointless but the debate is dominated by people like Keith and The Telegraph and until we pull down their stupid totem poles of numpty facts and distorted figures, it seems we can't even approach a serious discussion about social need, social costs, social work and the issue of who on earth is going to do it (the work) and pay for it (the society)

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 05:57 PM

""If the people of the UK feel their lives are being adversly affected by the population exposion, they have every right to try to correct the problem and do it now.

Once all of your farmland is under houses it's too late.""

Pdq, it seems you don't have the capacity to understand verbal communication, so I have a suggestion you might like to try out.

Go to Google Maps, and choose the "Satellite terrain option". You will see the British Isles as seen from an orbiting satellite. Zoom in until the shape and size of the towns is just discernible.

All of that green stuff is open country. You will now be able to see for yourself just how little of that farmland is under houses.

Your population explosion is in reality,...........a damp squib!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 06:08 PM

Thanks for the elaboration Royston, elements of what you had to say I was aware of, others I was not. But I think to be honest too many of these 'discussions' miss the essentials by presuming that everyone knows the score. I've always been a socialist but I believe in hearing out all people, and especially those who's voice may not be well represented. In a democracy the voice of the masses, must be honestly heard and addressed - whatever their feelings are founded upon. Who is going to convince them, that it isn't Johnny Foreigner (with a Polish name this time) that left them with a two week labouring job rather than full-time employment, but the results of rampant Capitalism? I feel sad for some of my peers, some got the 80's council house pay-off, some got the lower middle class aspirational loadsa-money leg up, and the rest were left to scavenge on the skeletal carcass of industry which Thatcher left them. Thatcher shattered the working classes, and the BNP is the swarm of flies left in her wake.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 06:21 PM

""To also discover how papers like The Daily Mail use misleading crime stats to make readers frightened of foreigners and falsely claim the NHS is about to treat "A million failed asylum seekers" check out Mail Watch""

Better still read the statements of Josef Goebbels. That will tell you not only HOW people can be misled with bogeyman stories, but also WHY that is a very effective political tool, and WHAT can be achieved by using it.

A very small group of thugs, led by a scruffy and insignificant house painting ex corporal managed to use it to take over most of Europe, and most of Russia.

Ring any bells?

Don T