rotekz wrote: 
You're right, it was from patterns and intentions, just before the conclusion. I didn't say they preferred Tory, merely that the Tories won and that migrants were moving away from Labour. Indecisiveness, along with the rest of the electorate, would have to mean less loyalty to Labour on their part, no?

 RichardPrins wrote: 
The part you quoted was not from the conclusion section and cannot be described as the conclusion of the report. Also the crucial part of your quoted section is as follows:

There is no evidence that BAME support is shifting decisively in the direction of a different political party. Rather, many BAME voters are now as unsure about which way to vote as the rest of the electorate.

It is a prediction of INDECISIVENESS and nothing more.

There is no evidence or data to show that migrants now prefer to vote Tory. 

 rotekz wrote: 
No, I already pointed out that the report reached a different conclusion then you did. I did not and would not say they no longer vote for Labour. The majority probably still does, but the report, once again, makes the case that the trend is away from Labour. The tables (as well as the list of minority MPs) already showed there is some (limited) variety.

Well, the BBC does make up stuff on occasion, but that's not really relevant here.

 aflanigan wrote: 
They were screenshots of the report that Richard himself linked in the first place. Read it.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
The first two sets of data were from the report that YOU linked. Are you trying to say your report is no good? The BBC report used 2010 election data. Do you accuse the BBC of making stuff up? The fourth set of data came from the electoral commission after the 2005 election. Again are you trying to say they got it wrong? This smacks of desperation.

Now. Produce 2015 data that shows migrants no longer vote Labour. Until you do the figures that we have are those of the 2005 and 2010 general election that show migrants overwhelmingly voting for Labour. If you are going to say they no longer do you have to back it up with figures that show it.

 

 rotekz wrote: 
So you consider a single photo which may well have been photoshopped as comprehensive data to establish the voting habits of a certain class of people?

EDIT: Richard caught this as well.

 rotekz wrote: 
I might have missed it, but what was your (cold) hard data? Surely not the article by "Migrant Watch"? Or, for that matter, the tables from the report that conclude that there is a trend away from Labour among migrants?

The main winners in the elections were UKIP (like Trump, not likely to be supported by migrants) and the SNP. Big losers: LibDems, and Labour in Scotland (likely due to the SNP).

Until we have data for 2015, your air is as hot as mine.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
I am the only person using actual data. You are talking about a theoretical trend for indecisiveness. It amounts to nothing whilst all the voting data shows overwhelming support for Labour. You have nothing to show that migrants changed their previous propensity to vote Labour. Produce voting figures to show migrants no longer favour Labour.

 rotekz wrote: 
The report already showed the trend based on a study up to 2015 (you would need to look at the cited study).

I don't know if there's concrete data for 2015 post-election w.r.t. minorities/migrants. More data will likely not convince you anyway.

And that's based on the trend of your previous posts.

 RichardPrins wrote:
This is a presumption and is not followed up with any data. All data produced so far shows overwhelming migrant support for Labour. 

Saying they were unsure who to vote for before the 2015 election does not in any way mean they were going to vote Conservative. 
 

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Please provide figures that show migrants no longer overwhelmingly vote Labour. Actual data. Until you do it's all hot air.

 rotekz wrote:

The first article talks about what happened before 2005 (in conspiratorial terms no less). That was addressed in the earlier report. A different trend with regards to voting has been apparent.

It's no secret that migrants were and are allowed to migrate to European countries. It's been happening since the 60s. It was, and still is, relatively cheap labour. That's fine by most when the economy is doing well (and certain jobs, often low-paid, can't be filled easily). It then becomes a problem when this is no longer the case.

The second article said their vote might be decisive, and it turned out to be either false (if you counted on them to vote Labour) or true (if they decided to vote something else esp. Tory).

As mentioned earlier, the Tories won anyway (and if I remember correctly most polls got it wrong).

 kurtster wrote: 
So I take it that you will not mind us all referring to you as an illegal American?

 RichardPrins wrote: 
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pressArticle/83

Was Mass Immigration a Conspiracy?

Mass immigration is an entirely different matter. The question now is how did it happen and what can be done about it. Was it all a Labour conspiracy? Was it sheer incompetence in government? Or was it wholesale retreat in front of the race relations lobby?

Landmark

The strongest evidence for conspiracy comes from one of Labour’s own. Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, popped up with an article in the Evening Standard in October 2009 which gave the game away.

Immigration, he wrote, ‘didn’t just happen; the  deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000…was to open up the UK to mass immigration’.

He was at the heart of policy in September 2001, drafting the landmark speech by the then Immigration Minister Barbara Roche, and he reported ‘coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn’t its main purpose - to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.

That seemed, even to him, a manoeuvre too far.

The result is now plain for all to see. Even Blair’s favourite think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), commented recently: ‘It is no exaggeration to say that immigration under New Labour has changed the face of the country.’

It is not hard to see why Labour’s own apparatchiks supported the policy. Provided that the white working class didn’t cotton on, there were votes in it.

Research into voting patterns conducted for the Electoral Commission after the 2005 general election found that 80 per cent of Caribbean and African voters had voted Labour, while only about 3 per cent had voted Conservative and roughly 8 per cent for the Liberal Democrats.

The Asian vote was split about 50 per cent for Labour, 10 per cent Conservatives  and 15 per cent Liberal Democrats.
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31062699

Election 2015: Migrant voters 'could be decisive'

The report highlighted a challenge for the Conservatives, particularly over migrant voters.

At the 2010 election, 16% of black and ethnic minority voters chose the Tories; 68% voted Labour.

Generations of migrants had formed an image of Labour as the party that "protects migrant and minority interests, in contrast to the Conservatives", the study said.

Conservative chairman Grant Shapps acknowledged there was a "big challenge" ahead for his party, but stressed "things were changing".

"I am the first to accept that people don't necessarily move to this country and immediately think of voting Conservative.

 rotekz wrote: 
It mentions it is one particular district in Birmingham, and that is was organized by a young Muslim female councillor (along with another councillor). We can't know if they are all (recent) migrants either.

However, despite that you can still come up with a massive generalization, despite a report that claims a different trend? A list of ethnic political representatives shows more variety as well.

 kurtster wrote: 
and DAT'S the name of dat tune!
 

 Prodigal_SOB wrote: 
East Saint Louis Toothaloo?

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Well after that the font gets too difficult for us old timers to read.   It is still January though isn't it?   I know there's no baseball yet.
 

 
  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11585886/Better-Labour-meetings-are-segregated-than-men-only-says-Harriet-Harman.html

Here is a picture of a Labour party rally in Birmingham last year.  What are the two things that jump out at you?



Not only is the audience 99% muslim but they are gender segregated as well. In the UK!

Labour has the migrant vote sown up.

 rotekz wrote: 
See my previous answer. It still applies regardless of individual snapshots.

There are several of those views in the report and it's summed up at the end, which was used in my first post that referenced this report. From 2005 on, the overall trend is changing, i.e. away from Labour.