Windrush

Discussion of the latest Peak Oil news (please also check the Website News area below)

Moderator: Peak Moderation

Post Reply
User avatar
Potemkin Villager
Posts: 1412
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:58 am
Location: Narnia

Windrush

Post by Potemkin Villager »

I am seriously wondering why this forum is so silent about the events leading up to the resignation of the much loved, especially in her south coast consistency, ex Home Secretary, the popular and highly empathetic Amber Rudd?
The Stone Age represents 99.99% of mankind's existence on this planet. Francis Pryor
User avatar
PS_RalphW
Posts: 6054
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Cambridge

Post by PS_RalphW »

I reported her departure for lying to the house in the government forum. No response to my comment. The early results from the local elections seem to indicate little change apart from the total extinction of ukip. Rudd is a loyal and relatively honourable MP, and so was politically doomed.
User avatar
Potemkin Villager
Posts: 1412
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:58 am
Location: Narnia

Post by Potemkin Villager »

What I really notice about your part of the world, every time I visit, is that nothing ever changes much really.

Going forward, would you agree that this could be problematic?
The Stone Age represents 99.99% of mankind's existence on this planet. Francis Pryor
User avatar
PS_RalphW
Posts: 6054
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Cambridge

Post by PS_RalphW »

Not sure who or where you are referring to, do you mean me and Cambridge?
User avatar
Potemkin Villager
Posts: 1412
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:58 am
Location: Narnia

Post by Potemkin Villager »

PS_RalphW wrote:Not sure who or where you are referring to, do you mean me and Cambridge?
No I am not picking on you or Cambridge in particular. I think it is the general disconnect between the political world and reality where they sell themselves on radical policies and change and then do uturns at the drop of a hat serving up a token falling on a sword shrouded with mealy mouthed sophism.

Immigration and border control of some sort is obviously needed by any country. Introducing retrospective rule changing aimed at specific groups who have a legal right to live in a country can only be described as a purge.

There does also seem to be another type of purge going on specifically in the crazily densely populated South East which is widespread gentrification driven by an uber property price bubble.

If the state gets away with purging one specific group the question arises as to who will be targeted next and so on. One group in particular are EU nationals living and working in the UK who cannot take much comfort from the glib assurances of the great leader. Come to think of it UK nationals living in EU countries probably aren't too wowed either.
The Stone Age represents 99.99% of mankind's existence on this planet. Francis Pryor
User avatar
BritDownUnder
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:02 pm
Location: Hunter Valley, NSW, Australia

Post by BritDownUnder »

You have a good point about retrospectivity if that is a real word.
The problem with immigration to the UK is that right from the get go it never seemed to be openly discussed but was for the last 70 years imposed from above and anyone objecting got shouted down as a racist and fascist. The public never seemed to get asked their opinion on the matter.
Probably the lack of public empathy (White-British anyway) for the Windrush people is along the lines of 'We weren't asked if we wanted them in, in the first place and we are not much bothered about their predicament now. We have enough of our own problems to think about others'.

I just see it as another small group being betrayed by the government of the day. They are not this first and won't be the last. Farmers, Fishermen, Maxwell pensioners spring to mind. In the end everyone will get betrayed but that may be going off topic.

Also take your point about the crazily populated South-East. However there are issues with immigration and sustainability even in sparsely populated Australia, or at least the heavily populated growth constricted capital cities.

Like most things this won't end well.
G'Day cobber!
johnhemming2
Posts: 2159
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:01 pm

Post by johnhemming2 »

BritDownUnder wrote:The problem with immigration to the UK is that right from the get go it never seemed to be openly discussed but was for the last 70 years imposed from above and anyone objecting got shouted down as a racist and fascist.
People have always migrated. Birmingham, for instance, was built on migration originally from the counties around Birmingham then wider in the UK which then included Ireland. Then when Ireland became independent migration continued to Birmingham from Ireland and migration also came from other Commonwealth Countries.

The main limit was technology although there was also a question of what economic benefits there were from migrating (lots of people emigrated from England to commonwealth countries - for example - Britdownunder implies you are one of those).

As a result of technological changes migration has become easier. Hence the original migration was bottom up based upon the fact that for decades people had the right to migrate to the UK, but did not try to do this for a combination of reasons.

In many ways Enoch Powell did a lot of harm to the debate about migration and what restrictions there should be on it by mixing up the issue of migration policy with questions of race and religion.
User avatar
Potemkin Villager
Posts: 1412
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:58 am
Location: Narnia

Post by Potemkin Villager »

BritDownUnder wrote:
However there are issues with immigration and sustainability even in sparsely populated Australia, or at least the heavily populated growth constricted capital cities.

Like most things this won't end well.
I think all the points you make are part of the mix. It is probably true to say that by now, the people living in Australia, when the Europeans first arrived, have subsequently wished that they had stringent immigration control measures in place at the time.

There are (at least) two issues here. One is how a society deals with and controls immigration and the other the antagonism and prospect of die off due to overcrowding and population overshoot. There seems to be an unthought through idea that former can be some sort of answer to the latter which sadly it very likelyis not. It can however win votes and be used as an activity to show that "somthing is being done".

I wonder just how many immigrants, legal and illegal, there actually are in the UK? A million, 5 million, 20 million? Laying aside any legal or moral issues, should widepread immigrant repatriation be proposed as an, I believe flawed, solution to overshoot, what are the mechanisms to be employed to shift such very large numbers somewhere else on the planet and what would the repercussions be?

Even if, say the UK population could be reduced by 5 million, it is not clear that this would make a measurable impact on population pressure or what the unintended consequences would be.
The Stone Age represents 99.99% of mankind's existence on this planet. Francis Pryor
fuzzy
Posts: 1388
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: The Marches, UK

Post by fuzzy »

johnhemming2 wrote:
BritDownUnder wrote:The problem with immigration to the UK is that right from the get go it never seemed to be openly discussed but was for the last 70 years imposed from above and anyone objecting got shouted down as a racist and fascist.
People have always migrated. Birmingham, for instance, was built on migration originally from the counties around Birmingham then wider in the UK which then included Ireland. Then when Ireland became independent migration continued to Birmingham from Ireland and migration also came from other Commonwealth Countries.

The main limit was technology although there was also a question of what economic benefits there were from migrating (lots of people emigrated from England to commonwealth countries - for example - Britdownunder implies you are one of those).

As a result of technological changes migration has become easier. Hence the original migration was bottom up based upon the fact that for decades people had the right to migrate to the UK, but did not try to do this for a combination of reasons.

In many ways Enoch Powell did a lot of harm to the debate about migration and what restrictions there should be on it by mixing up the issue of migration policy with questions of race and religion.
Yes people have always migrated. People have always murdered. Are you suggesting it is a good or bad thing for the people who are already living in a country to have unlimited immigration? The fact that you [and your group] always use the fraud of emigrants eg to Oz shows your non argument. At the risk of stating what even a politician already knows: since Oz has entry restrictions, it is the proactive and successful leaving the UK - vs- fraudsters, moonbeam chasers, criminals, and those prepared to run the race fastest who arrive here. Basically your attitude [and the old money/private education system driving the marketing of it] is making this place a dump fast. The public knows this which is why politicians never ask our opinion about it.
johnhemming2
Posts: 2159
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:01 pm

Post by johnhemming2 »

fuzzy wrote:Are you suggesting it is a good or bad thing for the people who are already living in a country to have unlimited immigration?
To me it is obvious that we should have limits on immigration. I have probably said this in this forum a number of times. It is not an issue I have changed my view on over time and I don't think I have ever called for immigration law to be abolished.

In the particular post, however, I made the point that originally limits on migration existed not through law, but because it was difficult to migrate.

As migrating became easier limits needed to be imposed. Then a mistake was made when the EU expanded to include Eastern Europe of not having any limits on numbers. For the avoidance of doubt I think there should have been a limit on numbers post expansion.
Post Reply