Another point about rules of origin is the so-called hub economy. This means that I buy cheap stuff from a low wage country, and resell at a profit. In the single market, all fine, I buy t shirts from Bangladesh for 20p, and resell for 2 quid in the EU. But as a 3rd country, the UK would now pay tariffs on the resold goods, as they are not UK made. But firms in the single market can still do this without tariffs.
Well, is there any future for UK firms in this kind of trade? Maybe, if the tariffs are low. It's exciting, isn't it, this brave new world?
Is it racist to repeat the legitimate fears of your constituents? He felt that he was obliged to do so. There was one description, which I will not repeat, which was racist. The bottom line is that he attacked the amount of immigration.
I would say it's not racist to repeat legitimate fears but it was racist to incite fear in the already fearful, legitimate or not. Whether he meant it deliberately or was rhetorically hypothesizing the immigrant situation with a politician's careless disregard for consequences, I don't know. I don't even know if that matters if the results are the same?
Interesting and complex politician. I see he believed that the murder of Mountbatten (amongst others) was a USA/MI6 collaboration! I also see that he was one of the very few Unionist politicians to refuse membership of the Orange Order!
Is it racist to repeat the legitimate fears of your constituents?
What "legitimate fears" were these?
You clearly haven't read the speech. Come back when you have
So, do you consider that "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man" is a legitimate fear? What about "wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places"? What about "The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people", is that a legitimate description of the situation?
The question isn't were people expressing these fears, they clearly were (and, in many cases still do). The question is were/are these fears legitimate and backed by evidence?
Powell was reporting what he had been told. The purpose of his speech was to have more controls on immigration.
Is it racist to repeat the legitimate fears of your constituents?
What "legitimate fears" were these?
You clearly haven't read the speech. Come back when you have
So, do you consider that "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man" is a legitimate fear? What about "wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places"? What about "The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people", is that a legitimate description of the situation?
The question isn't were people expressing these fears, they clearly were (and, in many cases still do). The question is were/are these fears legitimate and backed by evidence?
Powell was reporting what he had been told. The purpose of his speech was to have more controls on immigration.
... by broadcasting and validating racist bullshit.
Are you accepting that it is reasonable to want a mortgage rebate if there are “too many” immigrants in your area, or that is unreasonable not to be able to refuse to rent to people on the grounds of race ? (Cos that is presented in that speech as entirely unproblematic.)
Is it racist to repeat the legitimate fears of your constituents?
What "legitimate fears" were these?
You clearly haven't read the speech. Come back when you have
So, do you consider that "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man" is a legitimate fear? What about "wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places"? What about "The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people", is that a legitimate description of the situation?
The question isn't were people expressing these fears, they clearly were (and, in many cases still do). The question is were/are these fears legitimate and backed by evidence?
Powell was reporting what he had been told. The purpose of his speech was to have more controls on immigration.
Can you answer the actual question? This isn't whether or not people told him that, no one denies that people said those things.
The question is, were those fears legitimate?
And since you brought it up, would more controls on immigration actually address the real needs? A racist to took the statements of other racists and proposed a racist 'solution' to what racists presented as a problem ... but if the 'problem' was baseless then the whole argument collapses. Were women being denied a hospital place to give birth because migrants were taking all the beds? Were parents unable to find a school for their children because the children of immigrants had taken all the places? Were "ordinary English people" becoming a persecuted minority because they were white (as opposed to being persecuted for being racists)? Without that basis of actual, real, legitimate problems the whole racist edifice of his speech was built on sand, sand that would be washed away by exposure to reality.
Is it racist to repeat the legitimate fears of your constituents?
What "legitimate fears" were these?
You clearly haven't read the speech. Come back when you have
So, do you consider that "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man" is a legitimate fear? What about "wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places"? What about "The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people", is that a legitimate description of the situation?
The question isn't were people expressing these fears, they clearly were (and, in many cases still do). The question is were/are these fears legitimate and backed by evidence?
Powell was reporting what he had been told. The purpose of his speech was to have more controls on immigration.
Can you answer the actual question? This isn't whether or not people told him that, no one denies that people said those things.
The question is, were those fears legitimate?
And since you brought it up, would more controls on immigration actually address the real needs? A racist to took the statements of other racists and proposed a racist 'solution' to what racists presented as a problem ... but if the 'problem' was baseless then the whole argument collapses. Were women being denied a hospital place to give birth because migrants were taking all the beds? Were parents unable to find a school for their children because the children of immigrants had taken all the places? Were "ordinary English people" becoming a persecuted minority because they were white (as opposed to being persecuted for being racists)? Without that basis of actual, real, legitimate problems the whole racist edifice of his speech was built on sand, sand that would be washed away by exposure to reality.
BIB.....I had no such fears myself, but as I did not have access to the minds of the complainers, I cannot answer.
Is it racist to repeat the legitimate fears of your constituents?
What "legitimate fears" were these?
You clearly haven't read the speech. Come back when you have
So, do you consider that "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man" is a legitimate fear? What about "wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places"? What about "The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people", is that a legitimate description of the situation?
The question isn't were people expressing these fears, they clearly were (and, in many cases still do). The question is were/are these fears legitimate and backed by evidence?
Powell was reporting what he had been told. The purpose of his speech was to have more controls on immigration.
Can you answer the actual question? This isn't whether or not people told him that, no one denies that people said those things.
The question is, were those fears legitimate?
And since you brought it up, would more controls on immigration actually address the real needs? A racist to took the statements of other racists and proposed a racist 'solution' to what racists presented as a problem ... but if the 'problem' was baseless then the whole argument collapses. Were women being denied a hospital place to give birth because migrants were taking all the beds? Were parents unable to find a school for their children because the children of immigrants had taken all the places? Were "ordinary English people" becoming a persecuted minority because they were white (as opposed to being persecuted for being racists)? Without that basis of actual, real, legitimate problems the whole racist edifice of his speech was built on sand, sand that would be washed away by exposure to reality.
BIB.....I had no such fears myself, but as I did not have access to the minds of the complainers, I cannot answer.
You don't have to have got into their minds. Simple question, was there a lack of maternity beds? And, if there was was that because immigrants got preference for the beds? Was there a lack of school spaces? And, if there was was that because children of immigrants were given those spaces? Those are questions of simple fact. You lived in Wolverhampton at the time, were those sort of things actually happening in Wolverhampton? If they weren't happening then any fears people had were not legitimate.
I think it is widely accepted that Rishi Sunak is one of the most competent people in a cabinet that includes Matt Hancock and Gavin Williamson.
Argued repeatedly for delaying the lockdown, had the scientists behind the "Great Barrington Declaration" in to speak to Johnson in September, and thought up the overly complex 'Eat Out To Help Out' scheme which was responsible for around 20% of infections when it was running.
Just think what Dominic "a lot of our imports and exports go through Dover" Raab would have done.
Well, I'll concede that on competence he was less shit than Raab, but made the decisions that were more consequential and so far has racked up a higher body count.
One of the things that made Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech even more unacceptable was that he had been at the forefront of recruiting nurses from the Caribbean in 1960s, I've seen news footage of his visits to do this, and again doctors from Pakistan. At the time he was Health Minister.
Is it racist to repeat the legitimate fears of your constituents?
What "legitimate fears" were these?
You clearly haven't read the speech. Come back when you have
So, do you consider that "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man" is a legitimate fear? What about "wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places"? What about "The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people", is that a legitimate description of the situation?
The question isn't were people expressing these fears, they clearly were (and, in many cases still do). The question is were/are these fears legitimate and backed by evidence?
Powell was reporting what he had been told. The purpose of his speech was to have more controls on immigration.
Can you answer the actual question? This isn't whether or not people told him that, no one denies that people said those things.
The question is, were those fears legitimate?
And since you brought it up, would more controls on immigration actually address the real needs? A racist to took the statements of other racists and proposed a racist 'solution' to what racists presented as a problem ... but if the 'problem' was baseless then the whole argument collapses. Were women being denied a hospital place to give birth because migrants were taking all the beds? Were parents unable to find a school for their children because the children of immigrants had taken all the places? Were "ordinary English people" becoming a persecuted minority because they were white (as opposed to being persecuted for being racists)? Without that basis of actual, real, legitimate problems the whole racist edifice of his speech was built on sand, sand that would be washed away by exposure to reality.
BIB.....I had no such fears myself, but as I did not have access to the minds of the complainers, I cannot answer.
You don't have to have got into their minds. Simple question, was there a lack of maternity beds? And, if there was was that because immigrants got preference for the beds? Was there a lack of school spaces? And, if there was was that because children of immigrants were given those spaces? Those are questions of simple fact. You lived in Wolverhampton at the time, were those sort of things actually happening in Wolverhampton? If they weren't happening then any fears people had were not legitimate.
I have no idea. I was a single 20 years old at the time and I had no idea about such things.
Is it racist to repeat the legitimate fears of your constituents?
What "legitimate fears" were these?
You clearly haven't read the speech. Come back when you have
So, do you consider that "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man" is a legitimate fear? What about "wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places"? What about "The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people", is that a legitimate description of the situation?
The question isn't were people expressing these fears, they clearly were (and, in many cases still do). The question is were/are these fears legitimate and backed by evidence?
Powell was reporting what he had been told. The purpose of his speech was to have more controls on immigration.
Can you answer the actual question? This isn't whether or not people told him that, no one denies that people said those things.
The question is, were those fears legitimate?
And since you brought it up, would more controls on immigration actually address the real needs? A racist to took the statements of other racists and proposed a racist 'solution' to what racists presented as a problem ... but if the 'problem' was baseless then the whole argument collapses. Were women being denied a hospital place to give birth because migrants were taking all the beds? Were parents unable to find a school for their children because the children of immigrants had taken all the places? Were "ordinary English people" becoming a persecuted minority because they were white (as opposed to being persecuted for being racists)? Without that basis of actual, real, legitimate problems the whole racist edifice of his speech was built on sand, sand that would be washed away by exposure to reality.
BIB.....I had no such fears myself, but as I did not have access to the minds of the complainers, I cannot answer.
You don't have to have got into their minds. Simple question, was there a lack of maternity beds? And, if there was was that because immigrants got preference for the beds? Was there a lack of school spaces? And, if there was was that because children of immigrants were given those spaces? Those are questions of simple fact. You lived in Wolverhampton at the time, were those sort of things actually happening in Wolverhampton? If they weren't happening then any fears people had were not legitimate.
I have no idea. I was a single 20 years old at the time and I had no idea about such things.
And @Telford, knowing that Powell travelled to the Caribbean to encourage nurses here and equally put out a plea for Pakistani doctors in the early 1960s, do you think it was right that he should turn against those people he personally had invited a few years earlier when he gave the Rivers of Blood speech in 1968?
Is it racist to repeat the legitimate fears of your constituents?
What "legitimate fears" were these?
You clearly haven't read the speech. Come back when you have
So, do you consider that "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man" is a legitimate fear? What about "wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places"? What about "The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people", is that a legitimate description of the situation?
The question isn't were people expressing these fears, they clearly were (and, in many cases still do). The question is were/are these fears legitimate and backed by evidence?
Powell was reporting what he had been told. The purpose of his speech was to have more controls on immigration.
Can you answer the actual question? This isn't whether or not people told him that, no one denies that people said those things.
The question is, were those fears legitimate?
And since you brought it up, would more controls on immigration actually address the real needs? A racist to took the statements of other racists and proposed a racist 'solution' to what racists presented as a problem ... but if the 'problem' was baseless then the whole argument collapses. Were women being denied a hospital place to give birth because migrants were taking all the beds? Were parents unable to find a school for their children because the children of immigrants had taken all the places? Were "ordinary English people" becoming a persecuted minority because they were white (as opposed to being persecuted for being racists)? Without that basis of actual, real, legitimate problems the whole racist edifice of his speech was built on sand, sand that would be washed away by exposure to reality.
BIB.....I had no such fears myself, but as I did not have access to the minds of the complainers, I cannot answer.
You don't have to have got into their minds. Simple question, was there a lack of maternity beds? And, if there was was that because immigrants got preference for the beds? Was there a lack of school spaces? And, if there was was that because children of immigrants were given those spaces? Those are questions of simple fact. You lived in Wolverhampton at the time, were those sort of things actually happening in Wolverhampton? If they weren't happening then any fears people had were not legitimate.
I have no idea. I was a single 20 years old at the time and I had no idea about such things.
And @Telford, knowing that Powell travelled to the Caribbean to encourage nurses here and equally put out a plea for Pakistani doctors in the early 1960s, do you think it was right that he should turn against those people he personally had invited a few years earlier when he gave the Rivers of Blood speech in 1968?
I am shocked that he took these actions if he was a racist.
Have you read or heard the Rivers of Blood speech? and read it knowing that the person giving it had invited Commonwealth nurses and doctors to come to this country to support the NHS? Because that speech was not just racist it was a trigger leading to what you describe as the race riots of the 1970s.
If you bother to look up what the 1970s race riots comprised, you would find that they were protests against the enabling of marches through areas of cities with larger immigrant populations by the National Front and other far right groups. And the National Front rose in the wake of that Rivers of Blood speech.
(Having, for my sins, known one of the NF leaders who went on to be tried for incitement to racial hatred in 1985, I know he was influenced by Enoch Powell.)
Have you read or heard the Rivers of Blood speech? and read it knowing that the person giving it had invited Commonwealth nurses and doctors to come to this country to support the NHS? Because that speech was not just racist it was a trigger leading to what you describe as the race riots of the 1970s.
If you bother to look up what the 1970s race riots comprised, you would find that they were protests against the enabling of marches through areas of cities with larger immigrant populations by the National Front and other far right groups. And the National Front rose in the wake of that Rivers of Blood speech.
(Having, for my sins, known one of the NF leaders who went on to be tried for incitement to racial hatred in 1985, I know he was influenced by Enoch Powell.)
Powell was never any sort of supporter of the National Front. None of the 1981 riots had anything to do with the National front.
Where did I say either that Enoch Powell was a supporter of the National Front or that the 1981 riots were to do with the National Front?
Your answer is a complete non sequitur, totally ignoring the points discussed. I said that Enoch Powell's actions gave impetus to the National Front, not that he supported it. And that the 1970s riots, that you brought up, were not the race riots you categorised them as.
And seeing as you keep pushing the 1981 riots were not race riots either, having lived through them and had one of the events go past my front door at the time. They were about conditions at the time and were inner city riots.
Where did I say either that Enoch Powell was a supporter of the National Front or that the 1981 riots were to do with the National Front?
You didn't. You merely said that he inspired them
Your answer is a complete non sequitur, totally ignoring the points discussed. I said that Enoch Powell's actions gave impetus to the National Front, not that he supported it. And that the 1970s riots, that you brought up, were not the race riots you categorised them as.
Who were the participants ?
And seeing as you keep pushing the 1981 riots were not race riots either, having lived through them and had one of the events go past my front door at the time. They were about conditions at the time and were inner city riots.
Events? There were major riots in most big towns and cities. I knew a black pastor quite well who took part in the 3 day riots in Wolverhampton. I asked him why he took part. He said that he was young and it was fun.
My last post on Mr Powell. I will not be replying to any other posts on the subject. However, if any of you insist on having the last word, I guess that's up to you.
My last post on Mr Powell. I will not be replying to any other posts on the subject. However, if any of you insist on having the last word, I guess that's up to you.
This is an appalling example of passive-aggression. You fail to engage repeatedly in people's critique about a very sensitive subject and then you declare the discussion done by an unsubtle implication that anyone who responds further is the one with the problem.
I would call you to Hell but following the same play book, you've made clear that other people's feelings are of so little importance to you that you would just ignore such a call.
Oh well, you have found a way for me to keep my record of never calling a shipmate to Hell, so, thanks, I guess!
So now, I am (rightly) in trouble but let's get back to the point about Brexit.
Those that spent 4 1/2 years calling anyone who spoke out about the dangers and insanity of Brexit 'antidemocratic' or 'enemies of the people' or 'traitors' or whatever, now want us to stop mentioning all the things that show that project fear was actually project reality. My personal favourite, though tragic, is the fishing boats that are tied up in harbour as the theoretical gains in fishing territory have been totally eclipsed by the loss of market.
IANAL, but if I were, and were I to be cross-examining you in court, I would be at the stage of hitching my robe more comfortably upon my shoulders...
And I'd then ask a dozen or so question and proceed to enquire of the judge if it were a suitable time for lunch and asking if the usual warning could be given. That would have left the witness sweating over what would be facing him after lunch, and his lawyers equally worried, unable to talk to their client.
I wonder if ex-pats have been sold down the river? There were early promises that everything would be the same, after Brexit, but there seem to be various income requirements, length of stay rules, 90 days in Spain, changes to health benefits. Maybe not so good if you are elderly?
Is it racist to repeat the legitimate fears of your constituents?
What "legitimate fears" were these?
You clearly haven't read the speech. Come back when you have
So, do you consider that "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man" is a legitimate fear? What about "wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places"? What about "The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people", is that a legitimate description of the situation?
The question isn't were people expressing these fears, they clearly were (and, in many cases still do). The question is were/are these fears legitimate and backed by evidence?
Powell was reporting what he had been told. The purpose of his speech was to have more controls on immigration.
The problem is, you described them as the legitimate fears of his constituents. Not just the fears of his constituents. There's a difference.
As much as it's popular to whack those 2 words together, you shouldn't do it unthinkingly. Fears may be real and genuine without being legitimate. They may be real and genuine and yet completely irrational and contrary to evidence. They might basically be phobias.
Added to which the response to legitimate an illegitimate fears would need to be different.
Real and genuine fears that are not legitimate need to be addressed by working through why people have fears that are not based on any reality - if people are concerned that there are insufficient maternity beds (one of the fears reported by Powell) but there is no lack of maternity beds then people need to be informed of the facts by people they trust, or if there are shortages but these are unrelated to migration then that needs politicians to address the underlying problems. Advocating for stricter controls on migration when migration isn't a problem does two things: 1) it doesn't address the problem (and, in some cases may make things worse - a shortage of maternity beds could be eased by employing more nurses from overseas), and 2) it creates an impression that these illegitimate fears are legitimate and feeds the racist/xenophobic narrative that there's a problem with migration.
Of course, if these were legitimate fears, and that there was a shortage of maternity beds because immigrants were being given priority, then Powell might have been right. But, I don't think those fears were legitimate then - any more than the contemporary fears of migrants living off the welfare state are.
Added to which the response to legitimate an illegitimate fears would need to be different.
Real and genuine fears that are not legitimate need to be addressed by working through why people have fears that are not based on any reality - if people are concerned that there are insufficient maternity beds (one of the fears reported by Powell) but there is no lack of maternity beds then people need to be informed of the facts by people they trust, or if there are shortages but these are unrelated to migration then that needs politicians to address the underlying problems. Advocating for stricter controls on migration when migration isn't a problem does two things: 1) it doesn't address the problem (and, in some cases may make things worse - a shortage of maternity beds could be eased by employing more nurses from overseas), and 2) it creates an impression that these illegitimate fears are legitimate and feeds the racist/xenophobic narrative that there's a problem with migration.
Of course, if these were legitimate fears, and that there was a shortage of maternity beds because immigrants were being given priority, then Powell might have been right. But, I don't think those fears were legitimate then - any more than the contemporary fears of migrants living off the welfare state are.
Exactly.
The problem is that the easy political win comes from stoking those fears rather than actually addressing them.
I'm the past 15 years the Tory party has deliberately stoked fears on immigration (whilst doing nothing in government to deal with the actual issues - I.e. public service funding). The Labour Party has not stood up in this fight and has taken the approach of acknowledging the fears without countering them whilst setting out plans to deal with the actual problem. Up until 2009 this strategy was arguably successful but since the Crash and austerity and Brexit, the Tories have successfully blamed migrants and/or the EU for their own failings.
Given that at the end of the line for all this, real people suffer, there is an inescapable conclusion: this is an evil policy.
Labour needs to do more and be braver but I maintain my ire for the likes of Farage and the Brexservative Party who deliberately and consciously Stoke these flames.
The GOP in the States are possibly finally learning the costs of that approach. Maybe.
I think it is a bit pointless to discuss immigration with someone who doesn’t regret voting for Enoch Powell, even with the benefit of half a century of hindsight.
It's an odd fact that most people (I've no idea about Telford) who say they want less immigration, actually don't.
Polling is very clear that what drives concerns about immigration for the majority (though not all) is concerns about public services. What they actually worry about is access to the NHS and resources for schools. The problem is that immigration is a major source of NHS staff and immigrants make a net contribution. Hence reducing immigration increases the stress on public services.
The problem remains the deliberate, mendacious attribution of blame for the strain on public services on immigrants.
It's also demonstrable that if you want better health services then move to an area with lots of migrants - resources are allocated by population, and migrants are younger and fitter (they've come to work, not retire) and hence don't need health services as often.
It probably doesn't work as directly with schools, because working age migrants are more likely to have children. But, most migrants tend to see education as very important and are thus more likely to do what they can to assist their children. So, if you go by league tables of exam results, schools in catchments with lots of migrants will probably be higher up the table than otherwise comparable schools in catchments with fewer migrants. But, factors such as quality of housing, youth facilities, average income in the area etc will dominate.
It's also demonstrable that if you want better health services then move to an area with lots of migrants - resources are allocated by population, and migrants are younger and fitter (they've come to work, not retire) and hence don't need health services as often.
It probably doesn't work as directly with schools, because working age migrants are more likely to have children. But, most migrants tend to see education as very important and are thus more likely to do what they can to assist their children. So, if you go by league tables of exam results, schools in catchments with lots of migrants will probably be higher up the table than otherwise comparable schools in catchments with fewer migrants. But, factors such as quality of housing, youth facilities, average income in the area etc will dominate.
This is true but I was talking on a National level where the data is clear cut.
One small pedantic point: healthcare resources are not simply allocated by population; there are complex formulae to try to make allowance for levels of deprivation .
I had to laugh at Pascal Lamy's comments, (French business man), who described the Brexit deal as the first negotiation in history, which began with free trade, and discussed what barriers to erect. Not original, I know, but snappy.
There were a couple of long formarticles out recently that described the negotiations. While a lot of the criticism has rightly focused on Johnson, insufficient focus has been placed on Frost, who comes across as a ludicrous figure (part Partridge/part David Brent):
"He gave us a four-box grid with different modes of negotiating: teenager, tank, mouse and leader,” said a British negotiator. “He said the EU tends toward the first two, and the UK is too often a mouse. We needed to be the leader in the room."
Instead of which, he and Johnson looked like two refugees from a stag party, who had somehow been thrust into clothes not their own - and far too small for them...
I know looks aren't everything, but would you even trust a pair like that to shine your shoes?
I think it is a bit pointless to discuss immigration with someone who doesn’t regret voting for Enoch Powell, even with the benefit of half a century of hindsight.
There were a couple of long formarticles out recently that described the negotiations. While a lot of the criticism has rightly focused on Johnson, insufficient focus has been placed on Frost, who comes across as a ludicrous figure (part Partridge/part David Brent):
"He gave us a four-box grid with different modes of negotiating: teenager, tank, mouse and leader,” said a British negotiator. “He said the EU tends toward the first two, and the UK is too often a mouse. We needed to be the leader in the room."
I'm sorry but when anyone calls for Leadership, or calls for people to act as a Leader, I can only think of G*ry Gl*tt*r.
Comments
Well, is there any future for UK firms in this kind of trade? Maybe, if the tariffs are low. It's exciting, isn't it, this brave new world?
Is the Hell thread still alive?
I would say it's not racist to repeat legitimate fears but it was racist to incite fear in the already fearful, legitimate or not. Whether he meant it deliberately or was rhetorically hypothesizing the immigrant situation with a politician's careless disregard for consequences, I don't know. I don't even know if that matters if the results are the same?
Interesting and complex politician. I see he believed that the murder of Mountbatten (amongst others) was a USA/MI6 collaboration! I also see that he was one of the very few Unionist politicians to refuse membership of the Orange Order!
No, it was closed. I'm afraid I don't really care enough to open another one, as Telford simply (or maybe wisely) ignores them anyway!
I just like playing Judges and Villains - well, I am in my dotage now - but I apologise for perhaps being tangential.
... by broadcasting and validating racist bullshit.
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much...
The question is, were those fears legitimate?
And since you brought it up, would more controls on immigration actually address the real needs? A racist to took the statements of other racists and proposed a racist 'solution' to what racists presented as a problem ... but if the 'problem' was baseless then the whole argument collapses. Were women being denied a hospital place to give birth because migrants were taking all the beds? Were parents unable to find a school for their children because the children of immigrants had taken all the places? Were "ordinary English people" becoming a persecuted minority because they were white (as opposed to being persecuted for being racists)? Without that basis of actual, real, legitimate problems the whole racist edifice of his speech was built on sand, sand that would be washed away by exposure to reality.
BIB.....I had no such fears myself, but as I did not have access to the minds of the complainers, I cannot answer.
Well, I'll concede that on competence he was less shit than Raab, but made the decisions that were more consequential and so far has racked up a higher body count.
(lots of links if you look it up, but this is a History and Policy discussion of immigration and the NHS)
I thought you were on about another poster
I have no idea. I was a single 20 years old at the time and I had no idea about such things.
I have never thought about it before but I would have to answer "No".
O dear. So do you now admit to being a racist, perhaps retrospectively, along Enoch Powell lines?
I do hope not.
Not really although there were race riots in the 70s and the 80s
I am shocked that he took these actions if he was a racist.
If you bother to look up what the 1970s race riots comprised, you would find that they were protests against the enabling of marches through areas of cities with larger immigrant populations by the National Front and other far right groups. And the National Front rose in the wake of that Rivers of Blood speech.
(Having, for my sins, known one of the NF leaders who went on to be tried for incitement to racial hatred in 1985, I know he was influenced by Enoch Powell.)
Your answer is a complete non sequitur, totally ignoring the points discussed. I said that Enoch Powell's actions gave impetus to the National Front, not that he supported it. And that the 1970s riots, that you brought up, were not the race riots you categorised them as.
And seeing as you keep pushing the 1981 riots were not race riots either, having lived through them and had one of the events go past my front door at the time. They were about conditions at the time and were inner city riots.
My last post on Mr Powell. I will not be replying to any other posts on the subject. However, if any of you insist on having the last word, I guess that's up to you.
This is an appalling example of passive-aggression. You fail to engage repeatedly in people's critique about a very sensitive subject and then you declare the discussion done by an unsubtle implication that anyone who responds further is the one with the problem.
I would call you to Hell but following the same play book, you've made clear that other people's feelings are of so little importance to you that you would just ignore such a call.
Oh well, you have found a way for me to keep my record of never calling a shipmate to Hell, so, thanks, I guess!
So now, I am (rightly) in trouble but let's get back to the point about Brexit.
Those that spent 4 1/2 years calling anyone who spoke out about the dangers and insanity of Brexit 'antidemocratic' or 'enemies of the people' or 'traitors' or whatever, now want us to stop mentioning all the things that show that project fear was actually project reality. My personal favourite, though tragic, is the fishing boats that are tied up in harbour as the theoretical gains in fishing territory have been totally eclipsed by the loss of market.
You see the parallel?
AFZ
And I'd then ask a dozen or so question and proceed to enquire of the judge if it were a suitable time for lunch and asking if the usual warning could be given. That would have left the witness sweating over what would be facing him after lunch, and his lawyers equally worried, unable to talk to their client.
The problem is, you described them as the legitimate fears of his constituents. Not just the fears of his constituents. There's a difference.
As much as it's popular to whack those 2 words together, you shouldn't do it unthinkingly. Fears may be real and genuine without being legitimate. They may be real and genuine and yet completely irrational and contrary to evidence. They might basically be phobias.
Real and genuine fears that are not legitimate need to be addressed by working through why people have fears that are not based on any reality - if people are concerned that there are insufficient maternity beds (one of the fears reported by Powell) but there is no lack of maternity beds then people need to be informed of the facts by people they trust, or if there are shortages but these are unrelated to migration then that needs politicians to address the underlying problems. Advocating for stricter controls on migration when migration isn't a problem does two things: 1) it doesn't address the problem (and, in some cases may make things worse - a shortage of maternity beds could be eased by employing more nurses from overseas), and 2) it creates an impression that these illegitimate fears are legitimate and feeds the racist/xenophobic narrative that there's a problem with migration.
Of course, if these were legitimate fears, and that there was a shortage of maternity beds because immigrants were being given priority, then Powell might have been right. But, I don't think those fears were legitimate then - any more than the contemporary fears of migrants living off the welfare state are.
Exactly.
The problem is that the easy political win comes from stoking those fears rather than actually addressing them.
I'm the past 15 years the Tory party has deliberately stoked fears on immigration (whilst doing nothing in government to deal with the actual issues - I.e. public service funding). The Labour Party has not stood up in this fight and has taken the approach of acknowledging the fears without countering them whilst setting out plans to deal with the actual problem. Up until 2009 this strategy was arguably successful but since the Crash and austerity and Brexit, the Tories have successfully blamed migrants and/or the EU for their own failings.
Given that at the end of the line for all this, real people suffer, there is an inescapable conclusion: this is an evil policy.
Labour needs to do more and be braver but I maintain my ire for the likes of Farage and the Brexservative Party who deliberately and consciously Stoke these flames.
The GOP in the States are possibly finally learning the costs of that approach. Maybe.
AFZ
Which may, or may not, prove something...
Polling is very clear that what drives concerns about immigration for the majority (though not all) is concerns about public services. What they actually worry about is access to the NHS and resources for schools. The problem is that immigration is a major source of NHS staff and immigrants make a net contribution. Hence reducing immigration increases the stress on public services.
The problem remains the deliberate, mendacious attribution of blame for the strain on public services on immigrants.
AFZ
It probably doesn't work as directly with schools, because working age migrants are more likely to have children. But, most migrants tend to see education as very important and are thus more likely to do what they can to assist their children. So, if you go by league tables of exam results, schools in catchments with lots of migrants will probably be higher up the table than otherwise comparable schools in catchments with fewer migrants. But, factors such as quality of housing, youth facilities, average income in the area etc will dominate.
This is true but I was talking on a National level where the data is clear cut.
One small pedantic point: healthcare resources are not simply allocated by population; there are complex formulae to try to make allowance for levels of deprivation .
AFZ
"He gave us a four-box grid with different modes of negotiating: teenager, tank, mouse and leader,” said a British negotiator. “He said the EU tends toward the first two, and the UK is too often a mouse. We needed to be the leader in the room."
I know looks aren't everything, but would you even trust a pair like that to shine your shoes?
I totally agree
No wait, I don't have any friends.
I'm sorry but when anyone calls for Leadership, or calls for people to act as a Leader, I can only think of G*ry Gl*tt*r.