BS: The BNP conundrum

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

I don't understand how anyone can miss the fact that it is all Thatcher's fault.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: ButterandCheese
Date: 28 Sep 09 - 09:17 PM

I wouldn't give that dreadful woman that much credit, besides the problems go much further back than that

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: jeddy
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 12:51 AM

phew!!!!!

after wading through so many charts, numbers and ping ponging of surveys and stuff i am knackered. some of which i found helpful but some were labourious and confusing.

glad we have finally got back to what this thread should be, which is trying to find a way to educate people of these facts and getting them to look at the tactics for what they are.

while i have no idea how the recession came about, i do know that the government have been wasting our money for years building up to it.

NHS. (as i understand it)
hospitals closed and sold.
more managers and less staff.
more equipment but not more personel to run it.

look anywhere and you will see waste.

councils, schools, roads.. all money being wasted.

this is what the average person is worried about, the price of things going up while wages stays the same.
they worry about their job security, which as you good people have shown is misplaced.

there are so many of us who can see where the government is going wrong, why can't they?

they are paid a fortune, they didn't even have to pay for their own lightbulbs FFS, how are they supposed to relate?

this is the reason the BNP have even had a mention in the polls.

my brain hurts in frustration!!!!!!!

take care all

jade x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: theleveller
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 03:16 AM

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

The reason more houses are needed is not becaause of immigration, it's becuase we have a population that is living longer and, as a result of social trends, there are more single person households who require accomodation. So, perhaps the answer would be compulsory euthenasia at 70 and enforced co-habitation. Hell, it makes as much sense as stopping immigration.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Gervase
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 03:17 AM

Crow Sister and Jeddy have 'got it'; it's a complex issue that can't be settled by assumptions and name-calling.
As I've said before, Keith isn't a BNP supporter or a racist or a fascist - he's just like many of us; bombarded with figures and aware of a widely-held perception that there has been more inward migration (a less emotive term than immigration perhaps) in the past decade than there was when we were younger.
If that perception is wrong, then it's not going to be shifted by accusing people of talking shit, talking rot, being fools or any number of insults. The people flinging the insults around are no doubt sincere in their beliefs, and have the facts to hand to back their arguments, but shouting at someone and belittling them is not going to help win the case. I hope, for our children's sake, that the people adopting that tack aren't teachers.
Any non-partisan outsider viewing this thread could be forgiven for seeing a couple of bombastic bullies shouting down and ridiculing someone.
But that would just be a perception, of course, and they don't count...
As an aside, instead of simply giving a link and saying, "there it is; go figure", it would help the debate hugely for those of us who are less informed if the poster could give a brief but accurate precis or summary of the link, explaining exactly why it is important.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 03:21 AM

Richard, you quoted me try to justify your falsehood.
But, I made no value judgement and expressed no emotion about any projection.
To say I expressed "fear" is a plain lie.
Your conduct towards my posts here has been beneath contempt.

Royston, this is how I will leave the population thing.

Irrefutable fact.
The ONS refers to England as a country of Britain and gives its population density as 398/sq.km. in 2009.
Irrefutable fact.
No major country on the planet except N.Korea and Bangla Desh are more crowded.

Not a false comparison.
I make no comparison.
I merely offer two facts for rational assesment by intelligent people (but please don't feel excluded Richard dear).

On the immigration rate thing I will refer again to the Telegraph.
It is not a rabble rousing tabloid, but a reputable and respected publication. It is in the mainstream of intelligent political debate in this country
It is right of centre by UK standards, but would be centre left in USA.
You can disagree and challenge what it says as I often do, but you can not just dismiss it as "bollocks".
They desctribed recent rates, from ONS figures, as record rates of immigration.
It was not challenged by ONS, government, Home Office, BBC, Guardian or anyone else I know of.
Only you.
Again, intelligent people can make up their own minds. (Richard dear, just do the best you can with whatever you have got.)

I have not expressed a view and do not intend to.
I may submit the published views of others when I get a moment.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 03:30 AM

Keith, if you cannot read and understand what you yourself have said I cannot help you.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 03:44 AM

Jeddy, the idea that "waste" of money is the cause of the recession is fallacious. As Keynes demonstrated (and the "New Deal" in the USA) government expenditure adds to economic activity. Thatcher showed us the converse, namely that taking money out of the economy reduces economic activity.

The recession's immediate cause was that borrower defaults on housing loans in effect took money out of the economic system, so that the function of banks to recycle savings into expenditure to fuel economic activity was impaired.

To go one stage further back, the unwise loan decisions were made for two reasons.

First, banks are regulated to have to hold reserves of a certain percentage of their book assets, precisely so that the probability of bank failure if too many savers want their money back at once is reduced. Creative accounting enabled the circumvention of those rules and the reation of "assets" in the form of derivatives that could as a result of small overall changes in economic conditions swing wildly in value - even to negative value.

Secondly, the remuneration structures in banks favoured employees who gambled in such derivatives over those who dealt with solid longer term investments, so the gambling bacame rife.

Both of those things were anabled by Reaganite and Thatcherite deregulation of banks and bank-like operations.

That deregulation also enabled the one-way removal of money from the host market (eg, in the case of UK banks, the UK) to foreign owners (say, in the case of HSBC, to Hong Kong and Shanghai) so creating a deflationary effect if not compensated by inward investment.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Gervase
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 03:49 AM

I know the BBC might be viewed as a right-wing organisation, but the history of migration it gives in here in the link Keith provided is interersting.

In 1945, Britain's non-white residents numbered in the low thousands. By 1970 they numbered approximately 1.4 million - a third of these children born in the United Kingdom.

That would imply that from 1945 to 1970, some 467,000 people settled in Britain - which averages a shade under 18,700 a year.

Some 83,000 immigrants from the Commonwealth settled in the UK between 1968 and 1975

So, not including when Amin was kicking out the Ugandan Asians who have now become such a central part of our economy, we were averaging just under 12,000 a year. Uganda accounted for 80,000 in 1972.
Then we fast-forward...

Between 1998 and 2000, some 45,000 people arrived from Africa, 22,700 from the Indian sub-continent, 25,000 from Asia and almost 12,000 from the Americas. Some 125,000 people were allowed to settle in the UK in 2000.

To me, and to many others, that would seem to indicate that inward migration in the past decade has reached unprecendented levels. Yes, it may now be waning, but the perception remains that immigration, for whatever reason, is higher today than it was in the past.
For some people that is a source of concern - for all sorts of reasons, many of them irrational and stoked by malevolent propaganda from the far right. But is is still an issue that needs to be addressed with care, courtesy and with facts.

If you start flinging insults you will lose people. And if you lose people like Keith and me, then you have done the BNP's job for them.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Gervase
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 03:53 AM

Oops - maths wrong there by a factor of 100 per cent!
Between 1945 and 1970 we are looking at an average of around 37,000 people a year settling in the UK. It is still hugely less than in the past decade.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: theleveller
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 03:59 AM

To form assumptions based on population numbers or density is grossly over-simplistic. A true picture can only be obtained by considering demographics, social trends, regional variations and, of course, people's needs and aspirations . Relate this all to government income and expenditure and then – and only then – can you reach a true picture of the benefits or otherwise of immigration. All the rest is simply propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 04:05 AM

Gervase,

Keith is a lost waste of space. He's just out looking for fatuous ways to justify his own preconceptions...comparing England or UK to Bangladesh. Or to deserts or jungles so that he reckons we appear "overcrowded". So I will continue to regard him with contempt. Yes Keith, you quoted some facts to support the lies you tell yourself and intelligent people decided you were an idiot.

You see once Keith stops going on about England being a bit like the Congo in terms of comparing the population densities, he - and you - are still faced with the fact that we are not "overcrowded" and we *need* immigrants.

So Keith, anything sensible to contribute?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 04:41 AM

Royston, a record rate of insults for a single post!

We do need and benefit from immigrants, but people disagree on how many.
How many would you say?
Any limit?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: GUEST,Norman Smith
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 04:42 AM

Well done Keith, you won yet another round. Keith is BRITISH. We respect you sir.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:00 AM

Sam H and Norman Smith - get back under that rickety-rackety bridge before I fetch Great Big Billy Goat Gruff to you.

What I fail to see explained in any of the BNP "literature" (for want of better term) is how it proposes to disapply the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights which the Human Rights Act 1998 embodies :

The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to death or executed.

Answers on a post card to my address at Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:01 AM

That would be, of course, precisely the wrong reason to respect Keith, even if he had won another round. The reason to respect him, if correct, would be for his mastery of sources and arguments, irrespective of his nationality or colour.

With that, Keith, I hope you can agree.

For the purposes of this post and this post only, I do not propose to debate the factuality or otherwise of Keith's sources or arguments.

The purpose of this post is merely to underline the racism of Guest Norman Smith and to hope that Keith will openly distance himself from it.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: theleveller
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:27 AM

"BNP "literature" "

Very poor quality - the print comes off when you use if for the only purpose that it merits.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Gervase
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:29 AM

Keith is a lost waste of space
The arrogance of that remark beggars belief. You might as well say that the majority of the British population is a lost waste of space. Survey after survey highlights perceptions of immigration and population density as matters of real concern to British voters. To dismiss anyone voicing such concerns as fatuous, foolish or unnecessary is to hand the issue to the BNP.
You may well feel satisfied at your deft command of the facts and your ability to 'destory' misconceptions, but you really do yourself and the anti-fascist cause no favours.
So, no prizes for 'hearts and minds', I'm afraid.
To address the points you make - ye, we do need immigrants. Our agricultural and health sectors would collapse without them. It's a message that needs to be put across strongly and with the facts.
'Overcrowding' is another matter. Do you know what? I really don't know what to thing aboput the issue.
I live in rural West Wales, where sheep outnumber people. Overcrowding to me is an abstract concept. If I lived in Bradford or Tower Hamlets I might feel differently. Even here in West Wales, however, I have met people who say they will vote BNP because they believe Britain is overcrowded and that no other party is seriously addressing the issue.
The BNP makes great play of claiming that white working class residents find it difficult to get social housing and that 'immigrants' find it easier. Those claims lodge in the minds of voters - people who would not necessarily vote BNP, but who might nevertheless begin to harbour a perception that there is something 'wrong' with the system. There is a pressing need to look at such claims and calmly and accurately address them, using language that anyone can understand and which does not alienate anyone who might nurse such a perception.
You will get nowhere if you stand on a soapbox and shout insults. It might make you feel good, but you'll find yourself merely preaching to the choir while the rest of the congregation has wandered off to St Nick's down the road.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:39 AM

"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."

Growing up during the eighties, I recall well the 'tone' of Thatcherite Britain (if not *precisely* the policies and economics generating that), I recall that there seemed to be a general devaluing of more traditional trades. Everyone was expected to 'better themselves' (whatever that really meant?) and 'aspire' (ditto). It seems to me that there was a major political PR campaign, in which the right wing press were fully complicit, to effectively undermine working peoples personal pride in their traditional trades, and engender a belief that you had to be getting 'somewhere'. In retrospect, that "somewhere" was an utterly vacuous no-where, with it's foundations in nothing of any real substance or essential worth to society.

I don't think that working class folks all just spontaneously decided that traditional trades were somehow 'beneath' them, I think it was a long-term process of brainwashing by Tory media and government, which has left us with a deficit in skilled people to fill those core roles in our society.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:52 AM

Norman,Sam and similar Guests, do not even try to ingratiate or associate yourselves with me.
We have nothing in common.
You are not welcome here.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:54 AM

No Gervase,

We're down to brass tacks here. Or chicken and egg stuff.

Sections of the British public are brainwashed with this Daily Mail / Telegraph bollocks. You can discuss and debate with some people who, when they realise that the truth is rather different to the perception, they put aside the propaganda and join in the real debate.

Sorry, Gervase, but Keith stands as an exemplar of the active instigating and propagating of the brainwashing and misinformation - he has done nothing but actively to seek and then to twist and distort information to suit his preconception or his agenda, whatever it is, and to try to package the nonsense up and sell it to others.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 06:02 AM

Blimey, I did all that by stating 3 facts!

Do you think we should have any limit to inward net migration Royston?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: theleveller
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 06:08 AM

"I don't think that working class folks all just spontaneously decided that traditional trades were somehow 'beneath' them,"

Absolutely! In most instances their jobs were destroyed, especially in the mining, steel and many manufacturing industries. For that, we can blame the likes of Thatcher, McGregor, Hesseltine etc. Even the newer coalfields have now been closed and dismantled - twice a day I pass the remnant of Gascoigne Wood in the Selby coalfields, scene of the famous 'bull-run' and subsequent police brutality during the '84 conflict. Similarly, in Hull, the docks and the fishing industry have been dismantled - no wonder we have such fertile ground for the BNP's lies to take root.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 06:40 AM

On the subject of limits on net inward migration, there are limits and yes, they are necessary.

The government introduced a points-based screening system in 2008 for visa and related work-permit applications. Every applicant has to show a case on grounds including their particular skills or their business offering being useful or necessary to the country and they are also rated on their assets and ability to support themselves, as well as family links and associations in this country. There was evidence introduced earlier in this thread I think as to the extent to which this system has resulted in better turnaround of applications and rejections, I don't have figures to hand but maybe someone else can oblige?

So the limit is not an absolute number - that would be crazy - but rather the system is intended to ensure that only qualified and necessary or beneficial applications are approved on a case-by-case basis, very many are rejected.

Now we can talk about this system and we can debate what types of application are necessary or desirable to our society or economy but there is no point framing a discussion about "uncontrolled", "unlimited" or "untrammelled" immigration; because there is no such thing. There is only controlled and regulated and restricted migration to this country.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Gervase
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 07:06 AM

From an earlier post:
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
Yes, it is hard if you see it as a wilful and deliberate attempt to misinform. I don't believe it is.
If you look at the figures provided by the BBC, which Keith first cited, you will see some raw data which has the capacity to alarm some people.
If you don't see that then you clearly don't understand how people tick. The BNP does, and it exploits that.
To counter the propaganda of the BNP people need to know a number of facts which are not easy to find:

1) how many people are arriving annually in the UK.
2) how many of those are arriving legally.
3) how many of those are arriving illegally.
4) how many are working and making a net contribution to the British economy (in what sectors and for how much).
5) how many are claiming benefits or living in social housing and are in effect dependent on the state.
6) how many people are leaving the UK annually.

I have not been able to find an accurate source for those figures. If someone can, then that would be a good start to the debate.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Gervase
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 07:44 AM

And to repeat a quote from the other BBC link analysing the rise of the BNP:
...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 and distrustful of any figure of authority.
Shouting at people like that and calling them names won't work.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 07:50 AM

Some of the figures you requested Grevase.The components of immigration
12. The three major components are:

Economic migration.
The present government have trebled the number of work permits issued from 43,000 in 1997 to 129,000 in 2007. Dependants are additional.
Family reunion.
The government changed the rules in June 1997 to permit marriage to be used as a means of immigration. The numbers have since risen by 50% to about 42,000 a year.
Asylum.
The government have sought to tighten the system and have made a number of improvements. However, they are still not removing as many as are rejected each year so the pool of illegal immigrants continues to grow. Applications are currently running at about 30,000 a year.
Illegal immigration
13. There are three main sources of illegal immigration - those who enter illegally on the back of a truck, visitors and students who overstay their visas, and rejected asylum seekers who the authorities fail to remove.

14. In June 2005, a government commissioned study gave a central estimate of 430,000. Migrationwatch updated this to 475,000 (Briefing Paper 11.6). In March 2009 a study by the London School of Economics suggested a central estimate of 725,000 of which 518,000 were thought to be in London. The government continue to be opposed to an amnesty - for good reasons (Briefing Paper 11.7).

The briefing papers were issued by Migration Watch.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 08:21 AM

I note that Keith has not accepted my invitation to reject one of the troll's expression of respect effected principally because Keith is British. That is somewhat disappointing.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Gervase
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 08:25 AM

Richard, are you trying to contribute something positive to this discussion or are you merely interested in point-scoring?
"Norman,Sam and similar Guests, do not even try to ingratiate or associate yourselves with me.
We have nothing in common.
You are not welcome here" says it clearly enough for me.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 08:25 AM

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 05:52 AM

Norman,Sam and similar Guests, do not even try to ingratiate or associate yourselves with me.
We have nothing in common.
You are not welcome here.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 08:27 AM

Richard, you are such a silly.
Bless.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 08:31 AM

Gervase, the facts are that Keith posted links to reports of allegedly "unprecedented" immigration as if they were a cause for current concern. Naturally he now says that he was not "afraid" - and I infer that to be because steely eyed lantern jawed real men never admit to feeling fear - but the only tenable readings of his consistent postings are that the alleged immigration and the reported projections were damaging and called for extraordinary measures to restrict immigration.

But in fact the reports were two years out of date and since then net inward migration has fallen by more than projected, is now below natural population growth (ie the excess of births over deaths) as a cause of total population growth and is continuing to fall.   

Additionally, he posted as if we were one of the most densely poulated areas in the world - but in fact produced a skewed comparison by weasel wording. Normally as a lawyer I would respect the talent if not integrity of a fellow weasel, but here it was both transparent and unworthy.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Gervase
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 08:58 AM

To be honest, to base an argument about population on a couple of years' figures is facile. The argument has to be based on trends. On the longer-term figures we have, the trend over the past decade has been substantially higer than for previous decades. That is what people are concerned about. The fact that the past two years have seen a net migration deficit is important, but we will need to see if that trend continues.

You may feel that the UK's population density is irrelevant. Perhaps, but this is where we have to return to perceptions. For sure, the Yorkshire dales, the Highlands of Scotland and the uplands of Wales have very few people, but the major conurbations are very densely populated, and incomers have always headed for the conurbations.
The unspoken fear of many is the "ghettoisation" of many parts of our larger cities, coupled with a perception that many immigrants appear not to wish to integrate with the existing population - particularly those coming from a very different culture (Polish and Irish incomers are harder to spot and therefore harder to point the finger at than Somalis or Afghans). In that sense, relative population densities are important to people and should not be dismissed.
However uncomfortable the subject, it should be engaged with and not avoided or pushed aside as irrelevant.

As Peter Kelner says in Kenan Malik's BBC analysis, "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.
"But just as fear is driving many towards the BNP, it is also shaping much of the response to the BNP. The result is an incoherent and illiberal reaction, vacillating between demonising the BNP and pandering to its prejudices."

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 08:58 AM

VIth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights :

In a Schedule to the Human Rights Act 1998.

The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to death or executed.

Well ?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 09:07 AM

Richard dear,
"the facts are that Keith posted links to reports of allegedly "unprecedented" immigration as if they were a cause for current concern"

Don't you remember at all?
I only posted those links because grumpy old Royston said I lied about unprecedented immigration, and I had to justify it.

Now be a good boy and say sorry for those nasty things you said about me and the troll folderols.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 09:16 AM

Some observations on the Migration Watch papers, in bold.

Economic migration.
The present government have trebled the number of work permits issued from 43,000 in 1997 to 129,000 in 2007. Dependants are additional.
Family reunion.

In the same period, UK unemployment levels fell year on year, proving that those work permits were necessary and desirable to our economy and society. As we established earlier in this thread, large numbers of migrant workers have returned home at the end of their permits or as a result of the recession

The government changed the rules in June 1997 to permit marriage to be used as a means of immigration. The numbers have since risen by 50% to about 42,000 a year.

This statement is not entirely correct and taken out of context, as it is, it is a little disingenuous and does not represent a useful discussion. In 1997, the goverment removed the "primary purpose" rule, which said that parties to a marriage had to prove that the primary purpose of the marriage was not to gain entry to the UK. This led to some contentious and allegedly inhumane situations.

Even having taken out the primary purpose rule, it remained for applicants to prove that they could provide adequate accommodation for themselves and any dependants without recourse to public funds and that they could financially support themselves and dependants without recourse to public funds.

Since 2004, new rules have been brought in to deal with sham or forced marriages.

Some more complete details are HERE on the migration watch website. Keith, if you find a website you like then please quote it more fully so as to ensure that your fact snippets don't cause people to be mislead

Asylum.
The government have sought to tighten the system and have made a number of improvements. However, they are still not removing as many as are rejected each year so the pool of illegal immigrants continues to grow. Applications are currently running at about 30,000 a year.
Illegal immigration
13. There are three main sources of illegal immigration - those who enter illegally on the back of a truck, visitors and students who overstay their visas, and rejected asylum seekers who the authorities fail to remove.

14. In June 2005, a government commissioned study gave a central estimate of 430,000. Migrationwatch updated this to 475,000 (Briefing Paper 11.6). In March 2009 a study by the London School of Economics suggested a central estimate of 725,000 of which 518,000 were thought to be in London. The government continue to be opposed to an amnesty - for good reasons (Briefing Paper 11.7).

I don't think anyone would deny that the government failures to remove failed asylum seekers or other known 'illegals' is a bad thing for everyone - notably for the illegals themselves who remain either in detention centres or on the worst margins of our society.

But I ask, what is your point? If everybody agrees about this, and believes we need to get our act together on removals.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 09:34 AM

More on the subject of Asylum;

In 2007 there were 23,000 applications for asylum, continuing a declining rate since the peak of 84,000 applications in 2002

In 2006 a new process was developed to deal with all new applications in a much quicker and efficient way (6 months from application to decision). A separate process was created to clear, by 2011 a backlog of 400k-450k applications.

The source for this is in the NAO report of earlier this year. Executive summary HERE

It gives a warts and all view of the asylum process and how removals are proving the biggest problem.

However against a backdrop of falling numbers of applicants and a lot of good, concerted effort to deal with removals it seems at this rate even Keith will be able to sleep safely at night; because the whole thing just isn't as scary as many seem to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Gervase
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 09:41 AM

Thank you for those figures Royston - to my mind it's almost criminal that the Home Office hasn't got all the information readily accessible on its website for anyone to see at a glance. That one act along would help to demolish many of the BNP's arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 09:42 AM

Thanks Royston.
The page was updated last April.
This was the situation then.
5. Foreign immigrants are now arriving at the rate of about ½ million a year - or nearly one a minute. Allowing for those who leave, net foreign immigration reached 333,000 in 2007.

6. Meanwhile British emigration has risen in recent years and was 96,000 in 2007. This gives a net increase for 2007 of 237,000. These current levels of immigration are 25 times higher than at any time in our history (Briefing Paper 6.1).

Unprecedented indeed!
25 times higher no less.
What would that be down to now Royston?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: jeddy
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 09:55 AM

keith,
i have no doubt you are not a supporter of the BNP or are a friend of trolls.
i understand your need to be vindicated, and to answer anything you find to be offencive to you. but please for the sake of simple minded folk like me that are reading this, let some of it go?

it isn't about figures, it is about public perception.
although facts and figures are very important, what is even more so is explaining what they mean in a way that us normal people understand.

thanks for the post richard, i am going to have to read that about three times before i can understand it, but i am grateful for you trying to explain.
it isn't that i am thick, just not up to posh words.

i know the banks are mostly to blame for the recession, but the government hasn't exactly built up a reserve of money.
i remember something about selling our gold when prices were low, because they were so desperate for funds?

see, if i was an outsider reading this, i think i would have been put off by us lot assuming i knew the facts to begin with and that i understood the situation completely.

i respect your factual brains and ways of thinking, but most of us need things spelt out abit more clearly. as does the public.

take care all

jade x x x x x

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 09:59 AM

Jade,
Yes you are right.
I will now "wind my neck in."
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 11:17 AM

No need for confusion Jeddy.

Put simply, Keith is desperate to prove or persuade that we are drowning under a tidal wave of uncontrolled and unnecessary immigration.

To do this he will dredge up polemics and half truths from various sourcers and then lie about them and twist them around a lot to suit his objectives. He will find various facts and figures and mis-represent them for the same reasons.

He asks people to comment about the issues rather than the figures and then just refuses to address those issues and...guess what...goes back for another go at misrepresenting some new information.

Take the latest post. Let's assume that 2007 net arrivals were 237,000 (or even 333,000 - it doesn't matter). Keith thinks, because he read it in a migration watch polemic of April 2009, that this is 25 times greater than at any point in our history.

Yet Gervase quite rightly calculated from one of Keith's other sources (BBC) that between 1945-1970 there were on average 37,000 immigrants annually, which makes the 2007 figure either 6 times or 9 times greater than in the whole 25 years 1945-1970.

Keith gave you half the truth about marriage-related immigration policy and half the truth about asylum and work-permit entrants. You just need to ask yourself why he keeps doing this. This is what the BNP do. They insinuate things, they tell half the truth.

I don't think Keith is a BNP supporter, but he has an axe to grind about immigration. He is not someone who has been lied to and who is seeking proper information; he is someone desperate to prove - against all the facts - that there is a far greater problem around immigration than there really is. At least that is the conclusion from his actions here.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Gervase
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 11:24 AM

...which makes the 2007 figure either 6 times or 9 times greater than in the whole 25 years 1945-1970.
...which is precisely the sort of statistic that concerns people, and the BNP exploits those concerns.
I accept, though, that setting it against net unemployment and demonstrating that the majority of those people are either contributing to our net worth or have now gone home is the more nuanced and difficult element - and that's why it's a pity the figures aren't posted up as plain as a pikestaff for all to see.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 11:28 AM

And what is immigration down to now?

Annual immigration statistics for 2008 and quarterly immigration figures for April to June 2009, covering migration from Eastern Europe, asylum applications and removals and voluntary departures, were published by the Home Office on 27 August 2009.

The figures show that work applications from the eight accession countries have continued to fall in 2009. In the second quarter of this year there were 26,150 applications from workers in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia and the Czech Republic - down from 46,070 in the same period in 2008.

The number of Bulgarian and Romanians applying for accession worker cards also continues to fall. There were 580 applications in the second quarter of 2009, a fall of 43 per cent, compared to the same quarter in 2008.

The Office of National Statistics (ONS) published figures earlier the same day that show net-migration fell to 118,000 in 2008, from 209,000 in 2007, the lowest since the eight accession countries joined the EU in 2004.

In the first half of 2009, 30,435 people illegally in the United Kingdom were removed or voluntarily departed from the country, including 2,550 foreign prisoners. The latest figures also confirm that a total 67,980 people were removed or voluntarily departed in 2008.

Individuals seeking asylum in the United Kingdom has remained broadly at the same level over the past four years. It is less than a third of the level when it peaked in 2002. Applications for asylum in the second quarter of 2009 were 6,045 compared with 5,830 in quarter two 2008. The Home Office is now concluding 60 per cent of new asylum cases within six months.

Numbers reducing dramatically with magnificent progress on removals. Keith might even consider reducing his medication at this rate.

Source - UK Border Agency

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 11:34 AM

Gervase @ 11:24

I agree totally and have posted here many times that there needs to be an honest debate about the real figures, the real problems and the real reasons why we need immigration any why it is sustainable, subject to ironing out issues like refusals and removals.

People who have been fed the lies deserve the truth and deserve the opportunity to take that on board and rethink their assumptions.

But I will continue to hold in contempt any person that goes out there actively looking for lies or misrepresenting information in order to assert, reinforce and propagate the lies in order to mislead even more folk.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Royston
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 12:30 PM

Gervase @ 11:24

I just want to check you didn't misunderstand my earlier post, because I could have chosen my words better;

You correctly calculated that between 1945-1970 there were an average of 37,000 immigrants each year.

That made the 2007 figure either 6 or 9 times greater than any one year 1945-1970. At least that is the correct assertion I had in my head while I was typing.

However, I wrote that 2007 was 6 or 9 times the whole period 1945-1970, which is something quite different and quite wrong. That would indeed by quite a shocking statistic.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 01:19 PM

Do you mean me Royston?
I think I preferred the insults to these insinuations.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 01:25 PM

Keith gave you half the truth about marriage-related immigration policy and half the truth about asylum and work-permit entrants. You just need to ask yourself why he keeps doing this. This is what the BNP do. They insinuate things, they tell half the truth.

Nasty insinuation and smear.
I posted the exact page part containing the figures Gervase asked for.
No selection at all.
Notice the paragraph numbers.
Here is the page http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/what-is-the-problem

Will I get an apology this time from the new no insults Royston?

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: ButterandCheese
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 01:26 PM

Who tells the truth? Who tells the lies? Those are the real questions, the hard questions.

Subject: RE: BS: The BNP conundrum
From: jeddy
Date: 29 Sep 09 - 01:27 PM

thanks for being patient with me royston. like the majority of people i have no head for figures, mainly due to a teacher who made me feel stupid for getting too in front of the class doing maths when i should have been doing english.

i do not agree with misrepresenting the facts, but these figures are very easily confused. i am willing to give keith the benifit of doubt,i do wish instead of getting into willful arguments maybe we should be talking about what those figures actually mean and how to get this info out there into the public to reassure them.

i have had enough information to make me think that we are clearly not in danger of being swamped.
we are not in danger of being the minority in our own country.

you all don't have to get into the ' i am right' thing. although i understand the temptation.

name calling, on whatever side only makes who you are arguing with more likey to dig their heels in and to be more and more inflamatory back.

take care all

jade x x x x