I am afraid TFC and myself rather highjacked the CHP thread on this subject, so have started a proper one.

Will cut and paste as necessary from CHP, where our opposing stances are self-apparent

while the general undertone of alan's post is sound, there are certainly some aspects that jar - e.g......
1) Excepting the original convict exports, Australia is and always has been a multi-cultural society ..... As denial of this has been put as the mainstay of the argument, I would contend that whole basis is thereby flawed.

2) There seems to be a confusion between accepting there is a God, who could be Jehovah, or Allah or any other, and then narrowing it by implying that He should be the Christian version ...... In any case, I think it is more than stretching a point to contend Australia (or UK) is a Christian country and part of Australian culture ..... At best, the majority are almost certainly agnostic and probably care 10 times more for their cricket and rugby teams than any religious leaning.


For all that, and though I am a great supporter of freedom of choice and speech, I equally accept that in a "free" society there is the contradiction that that freedom has and must have limitations.

Almost but not entirely as and aside ......

Earlier in this thread, there were gripes about the heavy Asian population in Dewsbury and Halifax and Bradford and the effect on the locale .... While that is certainly so, it has been conveniently forgotten that the (grand)fathers and thus their direct families, were invited and encouraged to come over to man the wool mills and do all sorts of relatively menial tasks that the indigenous whites did not want to touch ...... No right to gripe now!

There as also a very interesting programme on Radio 4 a couple of weeks ago about this sort of thing, though it was focussed on Glasgow ..... The Asian family in question told how, when they came over with only a few pounds to their names, they were prepared to work far harder than others and as a result made a great success of their lives ..... In fact, though the mother still speaks in heavily accented English, the family was clearly more than welcome in their neighbourhood.

Surely it is the relatively small number of indolent and/or fanatical and/or criminal element who are the bane and who deserve our opprobrium ...... this may and should be applied to Asian or black or oriental or white alike, though the easy focus is on those of different skin colour

Cynic,
So as a defence we are back to the point where we debate how long one has to have their ancestry in a country before one is a member of that country??? I would suggest that 5 minutes or 5 millenia is irrelevant. The important part is to behave and act to the accepted norms.
I know this opens up a debate about indiginous criminals acting outside the acceptable norms, but we lock them up and take away their rights, because we can no longer stick them on a boat elsewhere.
As to the religious aspects, Australia is a Christian country. This is not defined by how many people attend church every Sunday, or the viewing figures for "Songs of Praise". It is the quality that defines legislature, morals and the like. A loose thread to hang together by. You would never describe India as a christian country, but it is the single largest religion in many areas, though still in a minority when measured by the aggregate of other religions.
Finally, my ancient ancestors almost certainly came over to defend the UK at the behest of Ethelred the Unready, but it gives me no right at all to spoil the lives of my neighbours, run around as if I were still in those far back days, or demand "Danegeld" of the government. My ancestors were invited, the Carribean and Asian immigrants of the last century were offered the opportunity. There is a huge difference.
Alan

"no right at all to spoil the lives of my neighbours" ... that to me is the nub of the matter, for though you do not say it, i know you intend it to be far more far-reaching.

confess i do not understand how you differentiate between "your ancestors" and the black/asian immigrants who were also "invited" ...... i would certainly agree that they were invited with the tacit understanding that they would (ultimately) blend into "our" society, and in the main, they almost certainly have.

just to nit-pick ...... indian law is still soundly based on the laws of england and their (Hindu/Sikh etc) moral principles are sometimes different from "ours" but generally perfectly acceptable to "us" too.

No. I mean what I write.
I am taking either a common sense / usage view of the word neighbours, or the classical legal view of the word. Either mean much the same in this context, and no more at all.
I have no intention of the sentence being more far reaching, and perhaps there is another issue in this debate (nationally, not here on these boards). People Infer things that are not implied and take debate to be a racial attack.

by more far-reaching, i was not at all implying other than one has a social and indeed moral obligation to live in general harmony, which means neither sacrificing the goat on the front lawn nor playing objectionably loud music nor stabbing a guy just because he is "different" nor even sunbathing naked in full and open view of the general public (naturist locations excluded!) ..... or in German/Jewish parlance, be a Mensch not a Schlock (even if you are a goy!)

Patricia Hodge states that long term British citizens should take priority over recent immigrants in the social housing queue. She is rounded on by her own colleagues and Ken Livingston, who say this is a racist thing to say and that she is wrong. They accuse her of firing support for the BNP by such a statement.
I suggest that the current system actually fires support for the BNP.
So the question is, Who has the right of the argument. Which is more damaging to race relations? A system that is bias toward those who have lived here their entire life, or one that treats new arrivals equally from the moment they arrive?
Now there is a debating point.
Opinions?
Alan

easy ..... Patricia Hodge ..... and you know my stance overall on immigration and integration makes many contributors here look 10 miles right of Oswald Moseley

Not so easy.
I read that having family or friends to live with puts you lower on the list than arriving at Heathrow pleading asylum. This cannot possibly be right. All other modern nations insist that if they grant you the right to stay there, you must be self sufficient and that includes housing.
The net effect is that those who have already contributed to the wealth of the nation have to remain in shared conditions with other generations, struggling to get on the housing ladder and unable to gain access to social housing while newly arrived immigrants are given a home (free till they find work) and have got on the housing ladder by buying the damn thing before the locals can even move out from living with Granny! This is on the basis that they might contribute something in the future.
No. This is positive discrimination, and I abhor that term because all discrimination is negative to someone, in this case those who have the most right to be protected from discrimination. If this puts me 10 miles right of Oswald Moseley, then history has misjudged a man who was clearly a communist!! Either that or your assertation is way off mark, for the view expressed above is smack bang in the middle of common sense and decency toward all people, regardless of origin. It is also the view that the vast majority of this country hold. If they are blindingly wrong, where does that leave democracy? But they are not wrong, democracy is alive and well, and the reason why the BNP (whom I personally have no time at all for) increase their support and gain a stronger voice.
Alan

Another point(s) that springs to mind.
Oswald Moseley has the claim to fame of wanting to discriminate wildly against the immigrant population, and that is a terrible thing. But can someone please enlighten me as to why discrimination against an existing population is so holy and righteous. It strikes me that it the same cat, skinned differently, but we are almost breastfed these days on the idea that one is terrible and the other is an act of intelligent and reasoned behaviour!! The real modern day Oswald Moseley is the one shouting from the rooftops that one class of person be given preferential treatment over the other. That is the argument of those who oppose Hodges statement.
On the subject of intelligent, the liberal classes have long sneered at those who believe that the only real advance is no discrimination at all among the population and that the influx of immigrants must be tightly controlled. For 50 years they have trotted out their mantra that to think any way other than they do is ignorant, uneducated, Sun reading nonsense and bigotry of the worst order. I think it is time to address that too. It is no longer good enough to answer a majority view by saying the majority do not have an understanding of the issues, or by attaching the label Nazi or Facist and hoping the argument goes away. It hasn't. it is stronger than ever.
So now is the time to ask; "If these liberal policy makers are so very clever as to spot how everyone else has it so wrong, how come 50 years of their policy has actually achieved worse race relations and demonstrated their inability to convince the population of their argument. To manage to harden attitudes to the contrary". Perhaps the non-liberal side of the debate has now earned the right to throw words like ignorant, uneducated, Guardian reading bigotry about. And answer the difficult questions with the label communist.
I love a good debate as much as anyone (more than most), but if, after 50 years of debate and evidence I was so demonstrably wrong, even I would accept the opposing viewpoint, or at least give it the chance to prove itself equally wrong.
Alan

Alan having little better to do this morning other than beaver away in the office(!)

Property inflation has been rampant for the last 10+ years and has little to do with the increase in the immigrant population. Nevertheless, if we take that being a property owner is almost an innate right, then it is indisputable that there is a shortage of low(er) priced housing stock, especially in the wealthier regions of the country. The policy of selling off council house stock has arguably worsened that situation, though of course, one was only ever a tenant.

Your opening sentence actually confuses two issues i.e. the political asylum seeker (us Jews in 30s or the African Asians more recently) and the economic refugee or straightforward immigrant as seemingly permitted under EU law (for simplicity, I shall lump them as one).

The former is something of a special case, whereas I think we are really intending to debate the latter.

While your objection to positive discrimination certainly has moral or even general validity, we are starting from an existing scenario where there are already large (some would say excessive) numbers of economic refugees. Those who arrived in 50/60s not only came under a different set of rules (effectively invited to fill an economic need), but have generally integrated into society.

IF what I read is correct, it is the influx over the last 10 years or so, exacerbated by the massive expansion of EU membership with its accompanying freedom of movement, that has caused so much potential unrest.


So, given the irreversible status quo (new immigration policies may be in the wings), if we want to help (young) people onto the property ladder, then I would have no qualms in discriminating in favour of those who have already garnered enough citizen points, however imperfect or relatively arbitrary that system may be.

=========

As an aside, Genghis Khan and his rampaging horde are generally portrayed as no more than bloodthirsty barbarians, whereas the truth is very different.

Similarly, Oswald Moseley may just be a misunderstood Communist in a black shirt as you assert. However, he and his band of disciples had all the appearances of acolytes of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, and that is how history will judge him, until such a time as it is re-written.

"No rising star in the political firmament ever shone more brightly than Sir Oswald Mosley. Since by general assent he could have become the leader of either the Labour or the Conservative Party. What Mosley so valiantly stood for could have saved this country from the Hungry Thirties and the Second World War". - Michael Foot, M.P.

"The greatest comet of British politics in the twentieth century . . . an orator of the highest rank. He produced, almost unaided, a programme of economic reconstruction which surpassed anything offered by Lloyd George or, in the United States, by F. D. Roosevelt... He has continued fertile in ideas.. These ideas came to him by inspiration . . . Interned quite absurdly under Regulation 18B during the Second World War. . . He was never anti-Semitic - only opposed to a Second World War for the sake of Jews elsewhere. He was never unpatriotic - only indifferent to German conquests in eastern Europe... A superb political thinker, the best of our age". - A.J.P.Taylor

"A man who had aimed throughout his life at what he might describe as a Greek idea of excellence . He is anxious to synthesise the impulses of religion and science ... In the field of ideas he was a creative force... His tremendous talents as a platform speaker and parliamentary debater were available to give maximum effect. If events had so decided and awarded him the supreme office he would not have lacked the dedication nor the courage" - Earl of Longford

"He had an impeccable record in the First World War . . It was silly to intern Mosley during the Second World War. He was not in the least unpatriotic, any more than he was anti-Semitic or in favour of revolution by force.. . He had, I think, greater natural political talent than any survivor of his generation from the First World War" - Sir Colin Coote

"Attentive, considerate and infinitely courteous. . . he talks like a statesman who may be in the wilderness but who knows he is not finished yet... Sir Oswald believes in a consensus government, with people from the parties, the universities, public life and the army.. . Would go to the stake for Britain and her people" - Geoffrey Moorhouse

"A man of powerful will and bold intelligence, self-disciplined, by no means lacking in shrewdness or even humour, a spell-binding speaker, a truly formidable figure". - Colin Welch

"In his extraordinary career as soldier, politician, socialite, international sportsman, he had known most of the prominent people of his time.., a spectacular career". - George Murray

"He might have been able to lead either the Conservative or the Labour Party and in either case . . . I should have joined him. I discerned in him . . . this kind of quality of leadership that I discerned in only two other men during all my period of political life. One is Lloyd George and the other is Churchill". - Lord Boothby

"The stuff of greatness - more than a spark of genius". - John Blake

Diana Mosley - Loved Ones
IT may be considered inappropriate to include a short memoir of Oswald Mosley in a book about friends. We were married for forty-four years, my knowledge of him and my love for him can obviously not be compared with the affection I bore the other characters I have tried to describe. As I shall never write his biography, which on the political side has been adequately done by Robert Skidelsky and is certain to be done again, and as his autobiography My Life was a highly-praised bestseller when it was published in 1968, all that seems necessary is a short account of the man himself in private life, and perhaps to clear up one or two mysteries....

the quotes are rivetting ..... to repeat ..... history tells it differently, as is far from uncommon, and will continue to do so until it is rewritten.

leave it with you.