UK: Brown resigns

The fact that they then took it out on non-EU migration when the public got angry will be something that will take a lot for me to forget.

Is this some kind of BNP rally? The public, by and large, has not "got angry". I fear some loud mouthed bigots (not just the Duffy woman) are hijacking the agenda.

Is this some kind of BNP rally? The public, by and large, has not "got angry". I fear some loud mouthed bigots (not just the Duffy woman) are hijacking the agenda.

Tremula, this isn't the first time you've read something and totally gone off the rails in interpreting it.

Let's slow down here and remind you who you are trying to defend.  A party whose prime minster responded to a situation of their own making by announcing that the Labour party was going to make sure we had "British jobs for British workers".  Who exactly sounds like the BNP and bigoted in that case?

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the Eastern Europeans nor that in their position I wouldn't have come to the UK when there were only TWO other countries that allowed free migration at that time.  Instead of allowing any transitional limitations, which they were allowed to impose, the Labour party stupidly allowed some very big, very impoverished countries to have free movement into the UK.  This country wasn't prepared, and Labour should have foreseen the numbers and anticipated the reaction in the public.  This has nothing to do with Eastern Europeans as people or their culture. The fact is that if transitional controls had been in place when they entered the union, they'd have total free migration right now (in most countries) and the election outcome would have been a lot different.

Transitional agreements would have spread the migration over more of the EU and allowed economic opportunities to develop in the new member countries as the other benefits of the EU took effect.

So instead of admitting their mistake and pointing out the benefits of immigration and explaining the importance of EU free movement, Labour imposes more restrictions and fees on an already highly regulated and fee-taxed group of immigrants who had nothing to do with the public's reaction.  Instead of addressing the problem of a lack of adequate council housing caused in part by Thatcherite programs but exacerbated by a lack of investment in replacing what was sold off, Labour made immigration control a part of their manifesto.  GRRR.  Labour is tough on immigration!  

I believe in the European experiment, and I actually believe in eventual universal open borders as a goal we work for in our future. That's world-wide, and not just in Europe.  Not instant open borders, but a goal to seriously work towards at some point in human history. It might be idealistic, but it's hardly the aim of a BNP member.  Please keep that in mind next time you try to prove Godwin's law.

I am sure you don't mean to dismiss everyone whose view upsets you as a bigot, ignorant, or otherwise not worthy of holding a discussion with, so I await your return to discuss the meat of what we're talking about in a grown up way.  I am sure you have some other defence than calling people who disagree with you a Nazi.  If not, then the election probably went the way it should have.

Tremula,
Even immigrant communities have said that there has been too much over the last few years. And as far as your BNP comment, they are racist, most of the people that have come from eastern europe are white so don't try and play that card. Immigration is immigration, colour is irrellevent.
The argument that anyone that is concenred about it is racist is the one used by people who do not accept it is a valid concern, clearly you are one of them.

[mod hat on]

OK people, lets keep it civilized. Thank you!

Some more personal comments edited.  Please keep it on topic.  If you have an issue with my editing pm me.

In case Tremula has any doubts about the public's thoughts about this:
http://www.visioncritical.com/2010/04/labours-immigration-policies-seen-as-failure-by-most-britons/

In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,991 British adults, three-in-four respondents (75%) believe the immigration policy of the Labour Party has been “generally a failure” or “more of a failure than a success” during the last 13 years of government.

And even the pool of potential Labour leaders recognise it as something they ignored or failed to address through showing how Labour was tough (GRRR!) on immigration:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/14/ed-balls-labour-election-leadership
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/14/miliband-brothers-progressive-labour-leadership

Whether or not the public actually has anger over immigration matters little if the political parties either see it as an issue that has raised their ire (Labour, Lib Dems) or is actively trying to exploit the dissatisfaction. (The Conservatives) Or maybe even exacerbate it.
Labour has allowed this issue to be captured and distorted by the right and has tried to use it itself for political gains.  And people who label anyone who discusses it rationally as a bigot doesn't help matters.  Where does that leave us?  We can't discuss immigration or the way our politicians handle it unless it's in a populist diatribe in the Mail or a populist appeal in a political party manifesto?  

All three main parties came up with really stupid ideas to try to deal with something that is over and done with.  We won't ever have another surge in migration if a country joins the EU because whoever is in charge won't allow that country free migration for years after they join.  Overall, non-EU migration didn't surge when Labour took office unless I am missing a change to the law other than the "primary purpose" change. [edit: If I am wrong, I totally welcome the correction.] And no, I don't think that non-EEA immigrants coming in under EEA rules (family reunification) should be counted as non-EEA immigrants, although I think they often throw the numbers off.  Tweaking like preventing people from switching status on a visitor visa was probably justified, but drafting the BCI hardly was.  I am sure immigration has fallen, but part of that is because Britain isn't all that attractive in terms of opportunity at the moment.  That will change, but even without the BCI, we wouldn't have a replicated migration like when those 10 Eastern European countries joined the EU.

But all three of them can make all the "We are tough on immigration. Grrrr!" noises they want.  All they are doing is being ridiculous and allowing the right to dominate the discussion of immigration.  Of course, we know they are all foolish because people coming to these forums generally understand immigration better than the average Briton.  That's not because we're wonderfully enlightened, but we need the information out of necessity.  That and the media can't benefit from the game of exploiting immigration stories if the public had a general understanding on how it works.

Maybe I was intemperate; maybe not. When I see a discussion suddenly turn to immigration, I wonder what is going on. Part of my job involves hiring agency workers for a public sector organisation. We mainly do audit and financial support stuff. We have had a lot of trouble getting English temps to stay longer than a week; they don't like the jobs we ask them to do - for a start a lot of them don't know how to do simple arithmetic, and they think accounts work is "boring". This stopped when the agency started sending us Eastern European people - we have a guy from Hungary, and girls from Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and they are all fantastic! Friendly, hardworking, careful, thorough, etc. My regular bus driver to work in the morning is Polish, and he is a real artist at driving a 12 tonne bus.

Moreover, I really do not like people who have a bee in their bonnet about immigration.

I voted Tory as i believe they are the ones to sort out all the crap left by Labour over the last 5 years - immigration, anti-social behaviour, crime and justice, benefit culture, lack of defence funding, health and safety overload, increased bureaucracy, budget deficit, unbalanced human rights policy...the list goes on.

Immigration was one of many things i mentioned. I did not hijack the thread and turn it to this subject, i was making the point that i believe the best possible outsome of the election was a Lib/Con coalition. In that post i listed a number of reasons why i did not this time vote labour. The fact that one of them was immigration does not make me a BNP supporter, a racist or a bigot. .

I am curious what are the various perspectives on how Labour has gone wrong?  

I've only been watching British politics for the last 3 years or so, but watching Labour in that time they've seemed to lack vision and leadership.  I have no idea what they stand for aside from "whatever will get you to vote for us." 

They'd float a policy idea, wait to see what the public reaction was, and then press forward or back down based on the response.  If you don't believe that, Google "labour backs down from."  There are results from the BBC, The Telegraph, The Independent, etc, all with stories about some idea Labour put forward, only to bail on it a few days later when it proved unpopular.  That strikes me as incompetent and out of touch with the electorate.  They need a leader they believe in, and some fresh blood to come in and re-energize the party, which looks to be exhausted of ideas after such a long time in power.

For what it's worth, I don't think the Conservatives have done any better job of getting out any message other than "We're not Labour," but until the first debate and the Clegg/Lib Dem surge, they didn't need to.

I think it goes in cycles. Labout get into power and do a lot of good in their first and second term but then they lose their way, become out touch and revert to their old tax and spend routine. The country is a mess.

interesting comparison.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/fight-club-are-we-living-1979-all-over-again-1633061.html

The Tories come in and in their first term make a lot of difficult decisions to clear up Labours legacy, they become very unpopular. By the second term things have turned around and people are happy as the upturn continues. Argentina is encouraged to invade the Falklands again as a quick war always helps.... By the third term they too have lost touch, sleaze becomes an issue and they veer increasingly to the right.

By this time labour have reinvented themselves and get back in and so it starts again.

As per my first post, very hopeful that the con/lib coalition will work and be the start of something different.

Maybe I was intemperate; maybe not.

My vote: yes.  When you start telling a group of immigrants they are bigots and Nazis, you really should check yourself.

Is this some kind of BNP rally? The public, by and large, has not "got angry".

What country have you been living in?  From memory (and this may be wrong), you actually aren't an immigrant in the UK.  So when you have virtually everyone you know bash immigrants to your face and virtually every political show features immigrant bashers -- mostly spewing incorrect information, then we can talk.

There's no question you were being intemperate, tremula.  For the record, I am the one who isolated the is issue of immigration.  As an immigrant, it is an issue that is important to my day to day life.  To assume my concern is racist or even xenophobic is quite a leap, especially when I was just trying to find out e.b's views without being a jerk.  That immigration became a focus on a forum full of immigrants hardly should come as a shock or remotely justify that charge about the BNP.

I am curious what are the various perspectives on how Labour has gone wrong?  I mean for some of you, the answer is probably just that 'they aren't Tories'.  

I am somewhat hesitant to believe you are actually interested in the answer to your first question, given your second statement - but hey, let's give it a shot.

A short list:

-By biggest - pandering to populist opinion rather than actually forming real policy based on experts in the field not just "experts" (i.e. the people within the party that actually have no experience in the field they are commenting on)

-Having a horrible awkward, out-of-touch PM and not having the nerve to toss him.

-Being the happy to live off of the Bank's money, unchecked, in the good years and then tossing the Bank's under the bus when the public was unhappy, regardless of it being more the fault of government than the Banks.

-"I have eliminated the cycles of boom and bust" -- all MMMMMEEEEE!!!

-"I cannot be responsible for a global recession" -- not MMMMMEEEEE!!!

- While GB did not create a global recession, the UK was the first in and the last out.  Not managing it properly, IS Labour's fault.

-The manner of Bank bailout.  I don't mind the concept and supported Obama's type of bailout but GB again proved he knows nothing about money.  We are still dragging in the weight of the UK bailout while the US is out of it and made a tidy profit.

-Attack on Bank bonuses -- cheap populist approach and actually not the cause of anything

-Pushing classism, which I find disgusting.

-Pushing the public sector to being 52% of our economy, while the GDP that the public sector creates is NIL.  Everyone chew on that when you think about the jobs that will actually pull us into better economic times.

-Being willing to lie, when he knows better -- "the Tories want to take £6B out of the economy with the NI cut, which will cause a double dip recession"

-Failing to deliver on promises -- EU treaty

-Agreeing to Iraq war and making up the "reasons" afterwards

-Selling the gold at 10 year low.  Again, this just shows his completely lack of sense.  Loads of people will say hindsight and all that -- but everyone advised him at the time it was stupid.

-Immigration -- slamming highly skilled workers to cover his EU ineptitude, when highly skilled workers are arguably the most important immigration sector

-ID cards


I think that will get us started. 

Given your thoughts that most people must be against Labour just because they "aren't Tory," you may be interested to know I only started looking at the Tory party because they "aren't Labour."  Labour turned me fully against them.  No other party entered into that decision.

And if anyone responses with Tory supporters are "selfish bastards" with the follow up that Tory supporters are only such because they have been handed everything in life and were lucky, like the last thread on this topic, don't bother responding.

Not voting labour for me was a really simple decision. I just asked myself the following questions.

Have the problems/issues affecting this country that concern me been created since Labour came to power?

If not, then these problems must have already been there so have Labour been capable of effectively recognising and dealing with them since they came to power?

If labour has been unable to recognise or solve a problem after 13 years then its time to let someone else try.


simples......

/news/uk/this-britain/fight-club-are-we-living-1979-all-over-again-1633061.html[/url]

The Tories come in and in their first term make a lot of difficult decisions to clear up Labours legacy, they become very unpopular. By the second term things have turned around and people are happy as the upturn continues. Argentina is encouraged to invade the Falklands again as a quick war always helps.... By the third term they too have lost touch, sleaze becomes an issue and they veer increasingly to the right.

I think your timeline is slightly wrong....the Falklands was during the Conservatives first term, people were not happy, but as you point out, Argentina were encouraged to invade the Falklands which created a huge upsurge of national pride which Thatcher used to her advantage with a quick return to the electorate for a 2nd term, when she then proceeded to use to destroy the industrial base of the UK. Also helped by a right-wing media attack on Micheal Foot....the reason she won a 3rd term was mainly down to the split in the Labour party