Posted on 02/08/2010 5:48:27 PM PST by Steelfish
February 9, 2010 We're Living In Broken Britain, Say Most Voters
Peter Riddell
Voters are deeply pessimistic about the state of Britain today, believing that society is broken and heading in the wrong direction, a Populus poll for The Times has found. Nearly three fifths of voters say that they hardly recognise the country they are living in, while 42 per cent say they would emigrate if they could.
But worries over the pace of social change and dislocation are balanced by the belief that life will get better, according to the survey undertaken at the weekend. It suggests that 70 per cent believe that society is now broken, echoing a Conservative campaign theme of the past two years, while 68 per cent say people who play by the rules get a raw deal and 82 per cent think it is time for a change.
The snapshot of Britain also confirms, however, that the battle between the parties has tightened with Labour two points up at 30 per cent. Women, working-class people and Tory voters were more likely to say that they hardly recognise their own country.
Overall, 64 per cent think that Britain is going in the wrong direction and just 31 per cent believe it is on the right track. This is a widely used measure of mood in the United States where 57 per cent of people think America is going wrong and 37 per cent believe it is on the right track.
It is not all gloom. Three fifths (60 per cent) of those polled say they look to the future with optimism, against 38 per cent who are looking forward with anxiety. While 45 per cent say Britain’s best years are behind us, 50 per cent say that they are still to come.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Not as long as they continue to allow the Muslimization of their country. The combination of insane immigration policies, generous welfare programs and huge Muslim families is a formula for culture death. Anyone who is content to sit back and hope that things get better is delusional.
The result of 16 consecutive years of Labour rule.
If we had two consecutive 8-year Democrat presidencies, the result here would be much the same. Far, far too long a period to hand your country over to people who fundamentally hate it and only want to ruin it.
But, thank goodness, they’re politically correct. And they have diversity and multiculturalism.
Please stay in your own country and fix it. In my circle of friends, there are 3 new couples from England - complete libtards. I actually had to remind one that American values bred a generation of people who saved their sorry ashes, a couple times. Didn’t matter - we’re all rednecks. I asked why they came here and the replies were all the same, “For the job.” Just once I would like to hear one of them say they respected our American values. 0-3 on my scorecard.
It's not that I'm denying it. I just don't like it said in an English accent.
Why don’t we send Britain all of our muslims? They will let anyone in.
the Labour government did it on purpose.
1. multiculti the country to get rid of British culture
2. accuse Conservatives of racism when they object
Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
Ministers hoped to change the country radically and ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’. But Mr Neather said senior Labour figures were reluctant to discuss the policy, fearing it would alienate its ‘core working-class vote’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222613/Labour-let-migrants-engineer-multicultural-UK.html
Part of the devisive motivation by Labour ministers was ‘to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’. The former Labour adviser said the Government strategy was in part, to try to humiliate right-wing opponents of immigration. It is said that Labour ‘deliberately let migrants in to make Britain more multicultural and so that Tories could be accused of racism’.
http://www.prlog.org/10396583-disgraceful-truth-of-the-labour-immigration-strategy.html
Oh and don’t think the Left isn’t doing that here too.
Good post!
I think you have gotten hold of the issue in a way that is a little more useful than most of the thinking about GB and the rest of Europe that I read here.
For folks who are really dyed-in-the-wool multicultural socialists, they just can’t hear other world views. The liberal elites of GB and Europe are never going to budge as long as they can reassure themselves that their brand of wisdom is the only truth.
American liberals are facing the realities of national beliefs as they confront, after Scott Brown and the over-priced meeting in Nashville, the tea party movement. For months they belittled, scolded and minimized the movement, because it didn’t reflect their own sense of “obvious truth.”
In Europe and GB the elites are even more surrounded by a constantly reassuring chorus that everything is OK. They will not change their minds until they, too, have to confront a political movement that is actually out in the streets.
I only hope that Europe is strong enough for that process to play out without the bloodshed that has characterized European politics for so long.
Incidentally, your British friends (acquaintances?) will probably adapt to the core notions of American liberty in time.
some hints:
to explain opposition to abortion, say,”We love babies.”
to explain self-defense, say, “We share an American duty to assist in enforcing the laws.”
to explain aversion to the nanny-state, say, “We prefer to conduct our charity privately with our own money and our own effort rather than by confiscating other peoples’ money through taxes and delivering assistance through over-paid bureaucrats.”
My experience is that these lines work a little better than the other lines I have tried to use with friends from across the Atlantic.
LLS
I say send all the 3rd worlders back to where they came from and put a moratorium on all further immigration for at least 20 years.
Obama is using the same playbook here to destroy America.
/rant on!
I'm learning that the more absolute I am about being unapologetically pro-life, the less combative others are. Either they are closet pro-lifers, or don't want to deal with me.
* Abortion stops a beating heart.
* Just because an unplanned pregnancy is inconvenient, why kill the baby?
* I believe in pro-choice, too, up to the point of conception.
* Rape? Very difficult, but maybe she's heal better if she could convert a horrible violation into an act of life/love for her baby. Adoption is a gift of love.
* And my favorite when asked "what-if" for my daughter. My answer is clear. Her actions have consequences to her - not the baby. She might miss some school, have to explain some things - she'll make it up, she'll survive. And her responsibility is to make sure the baby survives too. She'll be stronger for it.
The important thing is that she knows my convictions, which she does. Nothing easy about it. No quick fix. Pray for strength, guidance and wisdom!!
/rant off!
You are right- the parallels are hard to miss.
Changes in citizenship and the regulation of the country’s borders shifted to the federal government only after the Civil War. Responding to abolition and emancipation, Americans in 1869-71 debated the meaning of citizenship; the result was a series of laws and amendments to the constitution-including the Naturalization Act of July 14, 1870-that decisively re-located citizenship from state to federal jurisdiction.
In 1882 came the Chinese Exclusion Act along with the first Immigration Act passed at the federal level to exclude entire categories of foreigners. Thereafter, federal regulation of migration increased. The subsequent Act of 1888 provided for the expulsion of immigrants. The heavily restrictive national origins quotas legislated in 1921 and 1924 effectively ended the mass migrations of the nineteenth century.
Only about 500,000 legal immigrants entered the U.S. in the whole of the 1930s. About a million entered in the 1940s, including World War II refugees. By contrast, of course, the U.S. accepted over 1.5 million immigrants, counting only legals, in the single year of 1990 alone.
The Great Immigration Lull was ended dramatically by the 1965 Immigration Act. Typical of so many Great Society reforms, it was passed amid much moralizing rhetoric and promptly had exactly the opposite of its advertised effect.
U.S. immigration policy was not transformed without debate. There was a debate. It just bore no relationship to what subsequently happened. In particular, staunch defenders of the national-origins quota system, like the American Legion, allowed themselves to be persuaded that the new legislation really enacted a sort of worldwide quota, no longer skewed toward Northern Europe-a policy easily caricatured as "racist" in the era of the civil-rights movement-but still restricting overall immigration to the then-current level of around 300,000. (A detailed account of Congress's deluded intent and the dramatic consequences appears in Lawrence Auster's devastating The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism, published by AICF.)
Today, it is astonishing to read the categorical assurances given by supporters of the 1965 Immigration Act. "What the bill will not do," summarized Immigration Subcommittee chairman Senator Edward Kennedy: "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same ... Secondly, the ethnic mix will not be upset . . . Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia . . ."
Every one of these assurances has proved false.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even so, Labour might form the next government if the election were to be held now. The Conservatives are leading, but not by enough to win an outright majority of seats. This means Labour could negotiate a coalition with the Liberals, and stay in power--and nothing would change in the UK. :(
That could easily be Detroit.
And yet, a majority of American voters put Obama in the White House.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.