Labour and immigration
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
nickgusset  Shizzlehurst 23 Feb 17 2.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Why oh why do people keep saying that Labour are the party of mass immigration? [Link] Enforced removals from the UK decreased by 8% to 11,637 in year ending March 2016 compared with the previous 12 month period (12,661). In the year ending March 2016, there were 13,193 enforced returns. This includes 11,637 enforced removals and 1,556 other returns from detention. For more information see the Enforced returns section below. The number of passengers refused entry at port and who subsequently departed has increased by 9% in year ending March 2016, to 17,752 from 16,302 in year ending March 2015. The number of passengers refused entry at port and subsequently departing has been increasing slowly since 2012. In the year ending March 2016, provisional data show there were 5,692 returns of foreign national offenders (FNOs), using enforcement powers or via deportation. This was an 8% increase on the previous year (5,277). from [Link] These figures are a lot lower than under the last labour lot.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| hedgehog50 Croydon 23 Feb 17 4.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Why oh why do people keep saying that Labour are the party of mass immigration? [Link] Enforced removals from the UK decreased by 8% to 11,637 in year ending March 2016 compared with the previous 12 month period (12,661). In the year ending March 2016, there were 13,193 enforced returns. This includes 11,637 enforced removals and 1,556 other returns from detention. For more information see the Enforced returns section below. The number of passengers refused entry at port and who subsequently departed has increased by 9% in year ending March 2016, to 17,752 from 16,302 in year ending March 2015. The number of passengers refused entry at port and subsequently departing has been increasing slowly since 2012. In the year ending March 2016, provisional data show there were 5,692 returns of foreign national offenders (FNOs), using enforcement powers or via deportation. This was an 8% increase on the previous year (5,277). from [Link] These figures are a lot lower than under the last labour lot. Maybe because in 1997 net migration was 48,000 a year and rose rapidly, almost trebling in one year to 140,000 in 1998. It didn't to fall below 100,000 again. Between 1997 and 2010 (the New Labour years) net migration averaged 200,000 per year, five times higher than under the Major government of 1990-1996. The rate of inflow between 1997 and 2010 equated to one migrant arriving every minute.
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
  Hrolf The Ganger 23 Feb 17 4.30pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Why oh why do people keep saying that Labour are the party of mass immigration? [Link] Enforced removals from the UK decreased by 8% to 11,637 in year ending March 2016 compared with the previous 12 month period (12,661). In the year ending March 2016, there were 13,193 enforced returns. This includes 11,637 enforced removals and 1,556 other returns from detention. For more information see the Enforced returns section below. The number of passengers refused entry at port and who subsequently departed has increased by 9% in year ending March 2016, to 17,752 from 16,302 in year ending March 2015. The number of passengers refused entry at port and subsequently departing has been increasing slowly since 2012. In the year ending March 2016, provisional data show there were 5,692 returns of foreign national offenders (FNOs), using enforcement powers or via deportation. This was an 8% increase on the previous year (5,277). from [Link] These figures are a lot lower than under the last labour lot. Don't make this about party politics again. Labour will lose Stoke and loads of other seats until they put the existing populations needs before the needs of immigrants.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| OknotOK Cockfosters, London 23 Feb 17 4.41pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Don't make this about party politics again. Labour will lose Stoke and loads of other seats until they put the existing populations needs before the needs of immigrants. And if Labour don't lose Stoke? I think they're more likely to lose Copeland aren't they? Especially with Nuttall's "problems".* It's fair enough people thinking Labour are the part of mass immigration really because the largest immigration obviously started under them. Under the coalition and Tories it has arguably become "worse", but Labour still started it. *It's pretty low to claim you lost friends and even were at Hillsbrough when you weren't. Even now he claims he was there, when his friends from the time and teachers all say he never mentioned it and was never thought to have been there.
"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 23 Feb 17 4.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by OknotOK
And if Labour don't lose Stoke? I think they're more likely to lose Copeland aren't they? Especially with Nuttall's "problems".* It's fair enough people thinking Labour are the part of mass immigration really because the largest immigration obviously started under them. Under the coalition and Tories it has arguably become "worse", but Labour still started it. *It's pretty low to claim you lost friends and even were at Hillsbrough when you weren't. Even now he claims he was there, when his friends from the time and teachers all say he never mentioned it and was never thought to have been there. Labour should easily be winning by elections at the moment and the fact that they are sweating on Stoke is an indication of their catastrophic standing.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| OknotOK Cockfosters, London 23 Feb 17 5.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Labour should easily be winning by elections at the moment and the fact that they are sweating on Stoke is an indication of their catastrophic standing. Not disagreeing with that but you said "Labour will lose Stoke". I'm not so sure they will - although you never know with polling being as it is - and if they don't I'm asking whether that calls into question the remainder of your conclusion? It may not but I will be interested to hear the narrative on Jeremy Corbyn if they win both by-elections. It would actually be a decent achievement, but not sure it will be reported as such.
"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Pussay Patrol  23 Feb 17 5.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by OknotOK
Not disagreeing with that but you said "Labour will lose Stoke". I'm not so sure they will - although you never know with polling being as it is - and if they don't I'm asking whether that calls into question the remainder of your conclusion? It may not but I will be interested to hear the narrative on Jeremy Corbyn if they win both by-elections. It would actually be a decent achievement, but not sure it will be reported as such. How will it be an achievement? It's been a safe labour seat since the beginning of time
Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 23 Feb 17 7.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by OknotOK
Not disagreeing with that but you said "Labour will lose Stoke". I'm not so sure they will - although you never know with polling being as it is - and if they don't I'm asking whether that calls into question the remainder of your conclusion? It may not but I will be interested to hear the narrative on Jeremy Corbyn if they win both by-elections. It would actually be a decent achievement, but not sure it will be reported as such. It really wont. It would normally be a minimum expectation in mid term. If they don't win convincingly they will surely be obliterated in the next general election
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nobody sussex 23 Feb 17 7.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Great response Hedgehog. It seems to have silenced our resident red !!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| OknotOK Cockfosters, London 23 Feb 17 9.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
It really wont. It would normally be a minimum expectation in mid term. If they don't win convincingly they will surely be obliterated in the next general election I disagree. Given - they were sitting in second or third in polls on both constituencies at points In light of the above retaining both seats (no idea if they'll do it or not) would represent a moderate success and definitely something they could build on. Losing both seats would be a disaster. Winning both can only be seen as a success. Edited by OknotOK (23 Feb 2017 9.11pm)
"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 23 Feb 17 9.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
Maybe because in 1997 net migration was 48,000 a year and rose rapidly, almost trebling in one year to 140,000 in 1998. It didn't to fall below 100,000 again. Between 1997 and 2010 (the New Labour years) net migration averaged 200,000 per year, five times higher than under the Major government of 1990-1996. The rate of inflow between 1997 and 2010 equated to one migrant arriving every minute. The Governments,of course,in the post war era that were in power during the greatest % increase in immigration (something that overall has greatly enriched our country not to mention kept the NHS going for 60 years) were The Tories, when it rose by over 4,500% from 1953-62.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| elgrande bedford 23 Feb 17 9.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by legaleagle
The Governments,of course,in the post war era that were in power during the greatest % increase in immigration (something that overall has greatly enriched our country not to mention kept the NHS going for 60 years) were The Tories, when it rose by over 4,500% from 1953-62. Really I just looked at some figures,and between 1953 till 1962,the population rose from 50 million to 53 million....now I have never been any good at maths,but that doesn't sound like 4,500%
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.