I don't follow politics myself as it's corrupt from top to bottom but i was curious as to which places in the UK were traditional labour voting areas.

I would imagine there has always been strong support for labour in working class/poor areas and possibly places where the mega rich few who control every aspect of yours and my life have always felt lack of control over many policies in these areas.

If these few mega rich people could get people elected who were sympathetic to their own causes and basically against the traditional working classes i believe they would attempt to do so.

Do you think this is one reason why the few mega rich who control the UK have targeted traditional working class areas with the importation of various groups of immigrants to try to promote right wing political parties which the traditional labour voting workers might vote for thus giving the status quo more power over working people and also poor people?

Absolutely not, no.
Its pointless as both the labour and tory parties are full of shit in equal measure, they managed to take over the unions a long time ago so there's no need to worry about labour anymore.
In fact, they have no fear from UKIP or the BNP either, they have it all in the bag, doesn't matter who gets voted in because there are no national parties of any quality whatsoever to choose from.
The UK Libertarian party is gone afaik, no way of voting for it, so.... meh basically.

so why do you think certain areas have been targeted with immigrants andyh?

I would just like to understand the reasons.

humanspirit wrote:
Its simple economics, they go where the jobs are and they've always been in the city areas, particularly London, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds.
In Ireland its just Dublin 90%, Cork 9% and bugger all anywhere else.
You might see some immigrants here and there rurally in hotels and till workers in petrol stations for example but thats all over the country if you get my drift, so there's no deliberate choosing where they go, simply where they expected them to inevitably go.
The groundwork was already in place for lining this up with the destruction of industry early on, especially in the north of the UK which instead became a tourism hub and an area for rich southern retirees to buy up.

In a word, no. And you'll forgive me for saying so, but I believe anyone who starts to think like that is falling for the hype just as 'they' have planned it.

'They' being the people who run the country - the wealthy. Always has been so and always will be, no matter what colour badge they wear, I'm afraid.

Furthermore...immigrants are not 'imported' (any more). They come here of their own free-will and who could really blame them? Not to steal our jobs, or our women (eurgh) but to earn money.

More often than not they will fall prey to unscrupulous employers and landlords who will take full advantage of their eagerness to earn money and have a roof over their heads.

Once again...our 'government' are fully aware of this. 'Communities' of immigrants may develop, but this is simply a natural human phenomenan. Brits also do the same abroad. Primarily, they'll go where housing is cheap and there are still plenty of jobs for fairly obvious reasons. Nothing more magical than that about it.

Imo, the reason we still have such a gaping chasm between the rich and poor is precisely because people continue to fall for the charade and tick a box when requested/intimidated into doing so. It's almost as if they're giving consent for things to continue as they are, in my eyes at least, which is why I have nowt to do with it.

As Andy said, whoever they are and wherever they're from, doesn't really matter who they vote for, long as they vote. Same outcome whatever as the game is rigged.

humanspirit wrote:
What does this mean?

Ab Origine wrote:
It means that because there used to be rich employment and business interest spread across the whole nation that have since been closed down long ago, any new arrivals would inevitably arrive and congregate around the pickings that are left...simple as that basically.
Thatcher kicked things off IMHO and perhaps some others before her even, the closure of the british railways for example, shipyards, steel yards, coal mining, metal mining, milling, car plants...the list just goes on and on and its all gone. Fucked off to China.
Unless you have some tech skills or healthcare skills then you are screwed basically.

andyh wrote: I'll go further than that. Even if there were some quality parties, it wouldn't matter who got voted in. Leaders and party members are transient. The State is constant. Put a good leader in there and the State will squash them. We need to be looking behind the charade of Parliament.
Starting with the Queen and City of London Corp.

knobmeup wrote:
Indeed.
They do have the power though should they choose to wield it, although as you say because of that situation I can't see it ever coming about.
It would literally take an armed uprising and then even after that, some key people behind the money scenes would have to be dealt with and measures put in place to stop it happening again, so not only an armed uprising but a clever one to boot.
They have all the aces tbh.

Ultimately andy, all statutes must still receive Royal Assent. She signs em off ofc with nay a whisper. Can't see her doing that if the Bills presented her are contrary to her or her mates' interests though. Can you?
Ie, Parliament is ultimately toothless.

knobmeup wrote:
Yep, I agree totally

I once read a comic about a character called Oliver Cromwell. He were a bit of a cunt but hey, there was a Parliamentarian with teef

So you don't foresee far right councillors or mp's being voted in far more than say 20-30 years ago or that labour,lib,con will turn further to the right to gain popularity?

To believe some people are not imported to work is a little naive In my opinion.

Unfortunately because many immigrants come from countries where wages are poorer than the UK and quality of life is worse in some respects they can be used as modern day slaves by people who take advantage in their own communities and beyond.

Obviously this has and will have knock effects for other workers and people competing for certain types of work in the UK.

Personally i don't see a positive aspect to imigration for poor or working class people such as myself.

I am not promoting any form of racism or dislike to any law abiding immigrant i must add.

humanspirit wrote:
I agree completely, but they aren't being 'imported', are they?

Semantics aside, my point was, who's responsible for they way things currently are? Certainly not immigrants.

Ab Origine wrote:
[quoteSemantics aside, my point was, who's responsible for they way things currently are? Certainly not immigrants.][/quote]

Totally agree,they are being used to achieve or try to achieve various aims for the mega rich few.

probably my choice of words but for example back in 2010 the Telegraph-

A new report commissioned by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) revealed for the first time the true scale of immigration prostitution and trafficking.
At least 2,600 women were confirmed as being trafficked into England and Wales and forced to work as prostitutes, it found.

A further 9,200 sex workers at brothels and other premises were considered to be "vulnerable migrants" working unwillingly in the sex trade, but whom researchers could not be certain had been trafficked.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/79...ritish-brothels.html

It's disgusting, but nothing new, unfortunately.

As long as it's illegal it will remain so.

This isn't immigration though, it is people trafficking. This is possibly where I've misunderstood your post.

humanspirit wrote: I would question the legitimacy of those figures. I'll tell you why. Why is the Association of Chief Police Officers particularly looking at immigration into the sex industry? Because the sex industry has a dubious legal status. Why don't they look into the amount of illegal immigration that takes place in more 'legitimate' industries? Because people might actually realise then that the whole society is dependent on exploitation. By associating illegal immigration with something that is assumed to be exploitative, the implication is that only exploitative, immoral industries such as the sexy trade take advantage of illegal immigration. Of course, this is total crap, the sex industry is not even close to being the biggest exploiter of migrant labour, apart from anything else there are roughly zero openings (no pun intended) for heterosexual male sex workers.

I personally don't think there has been a deliberate ploy to create division in urban areas, but immigration is just a very easy way to divide and conquer the population, and can easily be used to incite negative sentiment and deflect attention away from the real culprits behind the general malaise. Channel 4 are doing a progamme about it in the next few days, I keep seeing it advertised, and sure enough they have the stereotypical white van men in the trailers saying "they all get houses, they're nicking all our jobs...", etc, etc, ill understanding, or not understanding at all, the economic factors which are really leading to an increasing underclass and general poverty. You don't want to worry about people filling jobs in Britain, you want to worry about jobs being exported overseas. Or, indeed, corporations who control every major resource and industry deciding that they don't need workers or jobs at all in the future.

The same people who whinge about immigrants almost without exception support things like workfare (until they suffer at its hands) and think that benefit claimants are scroungers, and it's good for them to work for their money. But then complain when there are no jobs. It's just a basic lack of logic.

In terms of voting and the parliamentary process, I've lived in numerous constituencies in the UK. In every single one, the same party has either controlled it since it was created, or for my entire life. In one of the constituencies I lived in, the MP has been in the House of Commons since 1959. That should tell you how much point there is in voting.

Sex trafficking goes on all over the world and not always for that matter against the wishes of some of the women involved....again as mentioned earlier the places where they come from are truly shit, far worse even than the UK.

Should we have another 'do immigrants take jobs or benefits?' thread? /evil cackle

andyh wrote: This is another important point, of course, the sex trade is always portrayed as street prostitutes from darkest Peru being incited at knife point to perform degrading and unsafe acts down a back alley (no pun intended again). This is not reality, or it's only one part of reality.