Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would also like to see Democracy explain himself.
    Offline

    14
    Everyone is getting a bit touchy, what did people expect? Come on politics is a load of bull.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This is a surprise eh? :holmes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maze.e)
    Tories will be Tories....leaking information and blowing it out of proportion.
    I love how even though Labour are clearly breaking social and moral boundaries, this still leaks back to being something about the Conservatives. Childish.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by RooKnight)
    I love how even though Labour are clearly breaking social and moral boundaries, this still leaks back to being something about the Conservatives. Childish.
    The thing about politics its dialectical, there are two sides to everything. It just depends where you stand on an issue.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maze.e)
    The thing about politics its dialectical, there are two sides to everything. It just depends where you stand on an issue.
    Been reading too much Derrida?

    When you say 'politics is dialectical, it just depends where you stand on the issue.' Do you mean if you happen to be in favour of mass immigration, this is no problem for you, you can ignore the fact that the government lied to the public for the last decade about their true intentions and immigration policy, given that they knew what they were doing was against the people they supposedly represents wishes (but was very much in their interests in terms of staying 'in power') - just ignore it all and pretend its all the Tories despite the irrefutable evidence - is that what you mean?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Read this on the mail yesterday, was quite interesting to read how there may have been a secret agenda on allowing an influx of immigrants in. The idea that the 'doors of immigration' had been swung open for most of Labour's rule since the turn of the century now makes perfect sense.

    Looking back at the time that Nick Griffin was on Question time, the Labour MP's on the panel refused to directly answer any questions relating to immigration; mainly being Mr. Straw formerly from the foreign office, I now know why he was tackling the questions in such a round about way!

    Then again, the timing of the leak of this document also seems fairly convenient seeing as we're coming close to an election within the next 4 months or so.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    :blah: :blah:

    Will social conservatives ever give up on "social engineering" conspiracy theories?
    And will you ever give up denying what's blatantly obvious?

    Immigrants are much more likely to vote Labour.

    Labour has allowed mass immigration over past 13 years.

    So putting two and two together.....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes with the minor difference that one is unprecedented and irreversible cultural and demographic change that was implemented by subterfuge because Labour knew they could never get away with admitting their real reasons for such high levels of immigration - because no one wanted it.

    The other was more people owing property...
    Thatchers 'everybody needs to own a house policies' encouraged people to borrow money like never before. Her economic liberalism led to a decline in moral values, rampant individualism and consumerism. ( even though she was very conservative on that aspect).

    As for the impact of immigration I am more optimistic than most people here, but history will tell us if we were right to worry or not.

    So anyway: everybody does it
    Offline

    14
    As it stands, the Telegraph article isn't clear. The phrase "social objectives" is very vague and broad. What in particular is being referred to? The article makes a big fuss about the inclusion, but doesn't bring us any closer to knowing what was written about.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kolya)
    As it stands, the Telegraph article isn't clear. The phrase "social objectives" is very vague and broad. What in particular is being referred to? The article makes a big fuss about the inclusion, but doesn't bring us any closer to knowing what was written about.

    In which case it's perfectly typical of any of New Labours New Speak.


    Heres a nice insightful analysis by Janet Daley of what Labour were up to with their open door policy.

    "Immigration: a plan to alter the nation's soul"

    So now we know what Labour's immigration policy was really about. The "open door" was not simply held ajar in order to admit a fresh workforce that would help to fill gaps in the growing economy. Nor was it just a gesture of hospitality and goodwill to those who were fleeing from repressive or inhospitable regimes in order to seek a better life. Both of those aims would have been credible – if controversial and not thought-through in all their consequences. And so would the longer-term view that dynamic, cosmopolitan societies are generally healthier and more productive than in-bred, isolated ones, or that immigrants who tend to be ambitious for themselves and their families could help to counter the passivity and defeatism that tend to be endemic in the British class system.

    But as it turns out, the policy was motivated by something far more radical and fundamental than any of this. The full text of the draft policy paper composed in 2000 by a Home Office research unit – the gist of which had already been made public by a former Labour adviser – was released last week under Freedom of Information rules. Properly understood, it is political dynamite. What it states quite unequivocally was that mass immigration was being encouraged at least as much for "social objectives" as for economic ones. Migration was intended specifically to alter the demographic and cultural pattern of the country: to produce by force majeure the changes in attitude that the Labour government saw itself as representing.

    Tony Blair's "forces of conservatism" speech; his improbable presentation of Britain as a "young country"; the advocacy of a multicultural society which would have to reassess its own history, replacing traditional pride with inherited guilt: all of this could be facilitated by a large influx of migrants whose presence in the population would require the wholesale deconstruction of the country's sense of its own identity.
    This may all sound rather far-fetched now, but try to recall just how much hubris the New Labour tide brought with it in the beginning: the contempt for history and the Year Zero arrogance with which they set about "modernising" the nation's institutions. It was, in this respect, a prime example of the new direction which Left-wing parties were forced to take in the wake of Marxism's collapse. Having lost the great economic argument of the 20th century, the Left had to switch its focus to society itself: if humanity could not be transformed through the redistribution of wealth and the socialist command economy, then it would have to be transfigured by altering social relations.

    The object of the exercise was still to produce, in the words of an old Left-wing protest song, a "new world" based on a "new man". But now the new man ( sorry, "person" ) would be formed not by changes in the power of capital or the ownership of the means of production, but in cultural attitudes and behaviour. The revolution now had to be confined to what went on in people's heads: to their values, their assumptions and their reactions to each other.

    The phrase "altering consciousness", which had once meant awakening the proletariat to its own economic enslavement, now referred to raising awareness of social injustices, such as intolerance of cultural differences, social inequality, or discrimination against minorities. But the subtext was always self-examination and personal guilt: the indigenous Briton must be trained (literally, by the education system) always to question the acceptability of his own attitudes, to cast doubt on his own motives, to condemn his own national identity and history, to accept the blame even for the misbehaviour of new migrants – whose conduct could only be a reflection of the unfortunate way they were treated by the host population.

    Included in this programme for the newly constituted British psyche was a whole package of subliminal assumptions, which were adapted from the Old Left stable: international solidarity rather than national sovereignty, collective values rather than personal conscience, and "social equality" rather than individual achievement. It was a peculiarity of New Labour's vanity that it actually tried to persuade the country that, under the miraculous Blair dispensation, it could have both sides of these dualities at the same time. But the full consequences of the new country that it envisaged, and the role that immigration was to play in the creation of it, broke the most basic rule of the democratic process: the electorate was never told it was voting for that.

    The goal was a social revolution abetted by the influx of a huge variety of diverse cultures, which would provide both the need and the pretext for reshaping British life. It may have been relatively new (at least in Britain) as a specific political policy, but it was much of a piece with the conventional objective of Left-wing political movements, which is to transform human nature.
    When you decide whether to give your support to a party of the Left or of the Right, you are actually making a judgment about what you think politics is for. If you believe that it is the function of government to alter or determine people's perceptions and responses – their innermost feelings about themselves and others – then you will probably opt for the Left. If you take the view that the state should concern itself only with behaviour – with what people do, especially insofar as it affects other people, rather than what they think or feel – then you will be more likely to veer to the Right. So this is really a question of whether you want politics to be concerned with what goes on in people's heads as much as with events in the objective world.

    But of course, at least since the 1960s, when "raising consciousness" became the refrain of every group that sought change in any sphere, almost all parties have had to talk this way to some extent. It has become part of the politician's acknowledged brief to suggest ways in which the internal lives and attitudes of voters can be influenced or directed. There is scarcely a party leader now who would dare to say that these matters are none of his (or any government's) business.

    Almost no one seems prepared to discuss the obvious danger: that if politics becomes a replacement for religion by taking upon itself the responsibility for transfiguring human nature then politicians, of all people, become the prophets and the priests. Just at the moment, I can't think of a more absurd idea.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...ions-soul.html
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    In which case it's perfectly typical of any of New Labours New Speak.


    Heres a nice insightful analysis by Janet Daley of what Labour were up to with their open door policy.

    "Immigration: a plan to alter the nation's soul"



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...ions-soul.html
    To be honest, that kind of ridiculous piece doesn't help those objecting to the leaked Labour objective. Rather than carefully taking Labour to task, it's some grand, general, woolly ramble about the "new Left" and its ideology. That doesn't help criticise Labour's objective; it's just another piece for the bin of ideological rambling. I am disappointed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    :blah: :blah:

    Will social conservatives ever give up on "social engineering" conspiracy theories?
    "I saw the title, decided I didn't like what I saw so blanked it and went back to my own little Labour world"

    Try reading the stuff first
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shortarse1)
    "I saw the title, decided I didn't like what I saw so blanked it and went back to my own little Labour world"

    Try reading the stuff first
    No, I think Democracy is perfectly justified here. The document in question is an early draft of another document that has been in the public domain for 9 years. Considering the early drafts are usually compiled by interns and the lower downs, it's not surprising there are going to be 'gaffs' in these early versions. Moreover though, I can't get hold of the original document save for the mined quotes in the article.

    In short, this is very much clutching at straws for conservatives criticising Labour's immigration policy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    :blah: :blah:

    Will social conservatives ever give up on "social engineering" conspiracy theories?
    Conspiracy theory?

    No, this was a NuLieBore middle finger up to the white working classes. You might perhaps be in favour of the ghettoization of communities such as is happening now, personally I am not.

    Such 'social engineering' HAS happened, trap immigrants in a culture of dependency on the state to ensure votes. Were British people given a referendum on whether we wanted an influx of foreigners?

    I don't see how Thatcher can be held personally accountable for a decline in moral values. Governments aren't in control of our morals or value systems, they cannot MAKE us immoral.

    It's fine for the Notting Hill/Islington elite to preach to the East End of London or Bradford about the benefit of immigrants, but I dare say they know otherwise.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see how Thatcher can be held personally accountable for a decline in moral values. Governments aren't in control of our morals or value systems, they cannot MAKE us immoral.
    I think you must be referring to my post. In Thatcher's case one of her explicit aims was a return to an old fashioned type of morality which she didn't achieve, the success or failure of her plan is thus partly linked to her.
    Whilst what you say is true, a system (Thatcherism + New Labour) which creates the bankers and politicians we often complain about must be held responsible to some extent for the decline.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Here's an original source of the uncovered document http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pdfs...lAnalysis2.pdf

    In particular there is this disclaimer in the document;

    This study is for discussion purposes only and does not constitute a statement of Government policy. In particular, this study is intended to be the start of a process of further research and debate – by identifying both what we know from existing data sources and analysis, and where further analysis is required.
    Funny how the Telegraph and the Mail failed to mention that....
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 28, 2010
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.