Immigrants.

[Dandyman]

Really? Would you like to comment wether you think brovians statement was racist?

No. He was saying that the War left this country severely lacking in resources and needing to re-build itself. Immigration, primarily from the "New Commonwealth" but also from Ireland, provided much of the labour in key areas such as the NHS and big city transport that allowed the post-war recovery. A fairly standard view in most modern history/sociology/economic history textbooks I would have thought.

 

[algie]

Why result to slagging Looney off?It's a sign your losing the argument and you will.Don't get involved in something thats out of your depth.Wether you like or dislike his views you might as well stay clear of him as he will eat you for breakfast.He is a little bit more educated then most.

 

[enigma]

No. He was saying that the War left this country severely lacking in resources and needing to re-build itself. Immigration, primarily from the "New Commonwealth" but also from Ireland, provided much of the labour in key areas such as the NHS and big city transport that allowed the post-war recovery. A fairly standard view in most modern history/sociology/economic history textbooks I would have thought.

Thank you. I would have thought this was what was implied from the start. Despite Looney's self proclaimed intelligence, he still needed this spelt out. Says it all really.

 

[enigma]

Why result to slagging Looney off?It's a sign your losing the argument and you will.Don't get involved in something thats out of your depth.Wether you like or dislike his views you might as well stay clear of him as he will eat you for breakfast.He is a little bit more educated then most.

Only in your mind swastika boy.

 

[looney]

Oh right sorry, that part of his post was so f***ing obvious I didn't think there was an IQ on this board low enough to not understand it but clearly I over-estimated you. Would you like to educate me as to how 2 world wars left us in a position of economic and social might?

Rarley have I come across someone as stupid as you. That is clearly not the point or in disagreement.

The point was wether a statement that Britain, ie overwhelmingly white, was capable of rebuilding under its own steam.

NHS was irrelevant, that was a Utopian project not about rebuilding the economy.

 

[Lokki 7]

So you agree with this as well then?

If I said before the British turned up in India and Africa there societies were tired stagnent and finished.

It's not comparable as a statement so the question is meaningless. The raping and pilaging the British subjected the African and Indian sub-continant to in order to enhance our economic might, with no regard for local culture, customs or society was an appalling abuse of power.
A few tens of thousands of immigrants being invited to Britain to reinforce the depleted workforce was a positive injection we should all be grateful for. Both examples were economically and not racially motivated.

 

[looney]

No. He was saying that the War left this country severely lacking in resources and needing to re-build itself. Immigration, primarily from the "New Commonwealth" but also from Ireland, provided much of the labour in key areas such as the NHS and big city transport that allowed the post-war recovery. A fairly standard view in most modern history/sociology/economic history textbooks I would have thought.

Thats not what he said, he made a racist statement. If you cant see that your dumber than i thought.

 

[Lokki 7]

NHS was irrelevant, that was a Utopian project not about rebuilding the economy.

If you think the NHS is irrelevant in the building of the economy then you really are as stupid as I thought.

Rarley have I come across someone as stupid as you.

You should get out more. Actually, for the sake of society maybe thats not such a good idea afterall.

 

[Dandyman]

Thats not what he said, he made a racist statement. If you cant see that your dumber than i thought.

He said immigrants brough fresh ideas and a work ethic. How does that imply that the "natives" were lazy or stupid ?

 

[Publius Ovidius]

.

My family fought to defeat fascism (and got medals for it) not to defend racist gibberish.

war mongerere....BURN HIM

 

[enigma]

He said immigrants brough fresh ideas and a work ethic. How does that imply that the "natives" were lazy or stupid ?

I think Looney's white power beliefs make him think that the Whites didnt need anyone elses help.

 

[Simster]

This is turning into a classic looney thread where he takes an argument between the rational and the stupid, the proceeds to plumb the depths of utter gibberish and complete turd, the likes of which we never thought were possible - to the point that everyone else has forgotten what the f*** the original question was.

 

[Dandyman]

war mongerere....BURN HIM

sussed me out, Dave.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

he he...

I used to have Roberson Jam Gollywogs.

Does that make me a facist?

 

[looney]

Right heres what really happened.

When the war ended Britain could not afford fancy scemes like the NHS which if memory seves me correctly began to be set up in the early 50's(51 to 55 I beleive). The 2 biggest problems Brittain faced other than financiall were changing factories from munitions etc to civilian purposes and finding work for demobbed men, neither by definition required an influx of Foreign Labour.


The first wave of immigrants arrived on the ship Windrush on On 22 June 1958, 13 years after the end of the war in which according to brovian whites were hoplessly sitting around without a work ethic or the inspiration to do anything.

If you wanted a year when the labour market began to significantly tighten to require immigrant labour then I would say 1957 as that was when the female paticipation rate in the labour market/economy began to significantly rise. And surely logic would dictate it was because we were doing so well that we required the extra help.

so how well does what actually happen square with what brovian said?

Well I'm sure as hell not wading through 20 pages of (probably) racist abuse but I will say this: Immigration has been the saving of this country. Before widespread Commonwealth immigration began in the 1950s this country was finished, two world wars had left us drained. The new arrivals bought in fresh ideas and a work ethic

But dont take my word for it even though I have studied economic History of the UK, google it up for yourself.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/labour_market_trends/century_labour_market_change_mar2003.pdf

This one shows that a large grwoth in GDP was due to a change in infrastructure.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...+1945+1955+tables+UK&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=5

 

[looney]

No. He was saying that the War left this country severely lacking in resources and needing to re-build itself. Immigration, primarily from the "New Commonwealth" but also from Ireland, provided much of the labour in key areas such as the NHS and big city transport that allowed the post-war recovery. A fairly standard view in most modern history/sociology/economic history textbooks I would have thought.

Obviously not a standard veiw at all, in fact a pretty ignorant one(See my post above).


So was Brovian wrong? Racist or just plain ignorant?.

 

[algie]

Bit quiet on this thread now

 

[looney]

I think Looney's white power beliefs make him think that the Whites didnt need anyone elses help.

I think your stupidity knows no bounds. White power movements are largly a myth in the UK.

 

[looney]

Bit quiet on this thread now

Yep, I claim victory and the ignorant lefties have been routed, the truth has prevailed.

Its funny how you can really yank people along who have done no research into the topic they are debating.

 

[Dandyman]

Right heres what really happened.

When the war ended Britain could not afford fancy scemes like the NHS which if memory seves me correctly began to be set up in the early 50's(51 to 55 I beleive). The 2 biggest problems Brittain faced other than financiall were changing factories from munitions etc to civilian purposes and finding work for demobbed men, neither by definition required an influx of Foreign Labour.


The first wave of immigrants arrived on the ship Windrush on On 22 June 1958, 13 years after the end of the war in which according to brovian whites were hoplessly sitting around without a work ethic or the inspiration to do anything.

If you wanted a year when the labour market began to significantly tighten to require immigrant labour then I would say 1957 as that was when the female paticipation rate in the labour market/economy began to significantly rise. And surely logic would dictate it was because we were doing so well that we required the extra help.

so how well does what actually happen square with what brovian said?

Well I'm sure as hell not wading through 20 pages of (probably) racist abuse but I will say this: Immigration has been the saving of this country. Before widespread Commonwealth immigration began in the 1950s this country was finished, two world wars had left us drained. The new arrivals bought in fresh ideas and a work ethic

But dont take my word for it even though I have studied economic History of the UK, google it up for yourself.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/labour_market_trends/century_labour_market_change_mar2003.pdf

This one shows that a large grwoth in GDP was due to a change in infrastructure.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...+1945+1955+tables+UK&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=5[/url]

Firstly get your facts right. The NHS was established on 05 July 1948 and the Empire Windrush landed at Tilbury on 22 June 1948. The Windrush was largly carrying West Indian ex-Service Men and is only a symbol of immigration rather than an indicator of mass migration which happened mainly during the 1950s and 60s.

When you have a better grasp of history I might be bothered to continue the debate.