Bolitics The New Condem Government

[TrentVilla]

If he was saying "all" immigrants were only intent of ripping us off that would be xenophobic but when he is seemingly saying those coming to contribute are okay and those that aren't, well aren't then I personally don't see that as being xenophobic.

[rendelc]

If he was saying "all" immigrants were only intent of ripping us off that would be xenophobic but when he is seemingly saying those coming to contribute are okay and those that aren't, well aren't then I personally don't see that as being xenophobic.

Agreed .  If this was the case everyone i know would be an xenophobe. 

[blandy]

If he was saying "all" immigrants were only intent of ripping us off that would be xenophobic but when he is seemingly saying those coming to contribute are okay and those that aren't, well aren't then I personally don't see that as being xenophobic.

It's not, you're right.I agree

 

I guess the subtext is what's important. It's a bit like the deserving poor and the undeserving poor.

While there will always be people who will try and take advantage of things available - from MPs and Bankers to people with few skills and no income or whatever, the subtext is perhaps that there's a notion that a massive amount of people are coming to the UK solely to  "freeload" on our NHS or Benefits system.

 

I'm not sure that this is actually the reality - so effectively what Cameron and the Express and Mail etc. are doing is talking up something that isn't a problem as a big problem and then saying "look at us doing something about it" and appealing to people who either perceive  perhaps understandably, given the distorted coverage, that there's hordes of immigrants coming here and taking our [whatever], or people who just don't like "them foriners"

 

In a recession, particularly when the Gov't is cutting services and they are therefore under more stress, blaming "foriners" is an easy get out for the politicians and an easy choice for people who don't see the underlying causes.

 

That's not to say that various parts of the country don't have problems - for example if you live in an area where large numbers of say seasonal farm workers come and pick crops, the town population may soar, overloading all kinds of services. But not due to freeloaders, due to demand v Capacity to cope.

 

I'm not sure that there's a simple solution, but I do know that the cause isn't freeloading foriners - that's just divide and rule stuff.

[TrentVilla]

If he was saying "all" immigrants were only intent of ripping us off that would be xenophobic but when he is seemingly saying those coming to contribute are okay and those that aren't, well aren't then I personally don't see that as being xenophobic.

It's not, you're right.I agree

 

I guess the subtext is what's important. It's a bit like the deserving poor and the undeserving poor.

While there will always be people who will try and take advantage of things available - from MPs and Bankers to people with few skills and no income or whatever, the subtext is perhaps that there's a notion that a massive amount of people are coming to the UK solely to  "freeload" on our NHS or Benefits system.

 

I'm not sure that this is actually the reality - so effectively what Cameron and the Express and Mail etc. are doing is talking up something that isn't a problem as a big problem and then saying "look at us doing something about it" and appealing to people who either perceive  perhaps understandably, given the distorted coverage, that there's hordes of immigrants coming here and taking our [whatever], or people who just don't like "them foriners"

 

In a recession, particularly when the Gov't is cutting services and they are therefore under more stress, blaming "foriners" is an easy get out for the politicians and an easy choice for people who don't see the underlying causes.

 

That's not to say that various parts of the country don't have problems - for example if you live in an area where large numbers of say seasonal farm workers come and pick crops, the town population may soar, overloading all kinds of services. But not due to freeloaders, due to demand v Capacity to cope.

 

I'm not sure that there's a simple solution, but I do know that the cause isn't freeloading foriners - that's just divide and rule stuff.

 

Agreed and the blame element ties in with my previous post.

[peterms]

If he was saying "all" immigrants were only intent of ripping us off that would be xenophobic but when he is seemingly saying those coming to contribute are okay and those that aren't, well aren't then I personally don't see that as being xenophobic.

 

You miss the point.  What I said, and was asked to justify, was that the tories are playing to the xenophobe gallery.  Your comment is about whether or not Cameron is a xenophobe.  These are two quite different things.

 

His remarks are intended to appeal to people with suspicion, fear and even hatred of foreigners.  He links immigration with the stories about health tourism, looking for benefits and getting council houses which are pushed every week in the press and repeated by people who have read it.

 

Obviously he doesn't associate himself with simple-minded racism - that would be madness for anyone outside a fascist party.  He's a little more subtle.  His remarks are intended to reinforce the perception that foreigners coming in is a problem, combined with saying they're not all scammers and "bogus asylum seekers" (ever seen that word used outwith that phrase?) and fake students, and we're doing something about all those bad ones.  The very act of repeating the concepts, rather than challenging them, reinforces the kind of thinking that is shared by a group of people for whose votes the tories and Ukip are competing.  There's a common enemy, we're defending you against this great threat, so back us.

 

Possibly he feels a little grubby appealing to this type of voter; I imagine he probably does.  But he does it anyway.  The outcome of his actions is to reinforce xenophobia for political advantage, and that happens regardless that he's probably not personally a ranting xenophobe.

[peterms]

...and off they go.

 

David Cameron must toughen up, say senior Tories David Cameron is under pressure from senior Conservatives to adopt tougherpolicies on immigration after the Tories were upstaged by the UK Independence Party in the Eastleigh by-election.

Conservative MPs are also demanding that the Prime Minister takes a harder line on the Liberal Democrats and gives a bigger role to Lynton Crosby, the party’s combative Australian strategist.

The Tories finished third in Eastleigh as the Lib Dems survived recent scandals to retain the seat. Ukip came second after a surge in support that raised Tory fears about the general election in 2015.

Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, said that the result was a “sign of things to come” and predicted more advances for his party in next year’s European election and in 2015.

One Cabinet minister told The Telegraph that Mr Cameron must respond to the setback with “firm action” on immigration, especially the potential arrival next year of Bulgarians and Romanians.

He said: “We need to do a lot more of the things that our core supporters want us to do. The first priority should be immigration.”

Michael Fabricant, the Tory vice-chairman who helped run the Eastleigh campaign, said the party must “focus on the economy, immigration, crime, Europe” and not be distracted by “side issues”.

Mr Fabricant posted a series of messages on the Twitter website, saying the Conservatives needed to do more to “connect” with voters.

“The Conservative voice is muffled and not crisp. It does not clearly project Conservative core policies or principles,” he said. “With Ukip clearly announcing policies the public want to hear, we must do the same.”

A poll showed that 55 per cent of the Eastleigh voters who backed Ukip this week named immigration as the most important issue in the election. Mr Cameron and his allies attempted to play down the Ukip surge as a protest vote with no wider political significance.

But another Cabinet minister described the Eastleigh result as “a seismic moment” that Conservatives must take “very seriously”.

A third minister, a close ally of Mr Cameron, admitted that policies such as gay marriage had contributed to the Eastleigh setback. “We get that has been a problem and we cannot and will not be raising issues like that again which will alienate the grassroots,” he said.

One senior Tory backbencher said: “We’ve insulted Ukip and been soft on the Lib Dems. That has to change and Lynton is the person to do that.”

Mr Crosby, who oversaw the Tory campaign in 2005, is now expected to conduct the party’s Eastleigh “post mortem” and consider how Conservatives can make gains in other Lib Dem seats in 2015.

Edited March 1, 2013 by peterms

[Chindie]

I honestly couldn't give much less of a **** what any anonymous senior politician says, let alone a Tory one.

[chrisp65]

 

I don't think I'm xenophobic but I am worried about the EU and immigration. On the EU, I cant support anything that you can't vote out, nor anything where they will not publish accounts. 

 

On immigration, its just the numbers of people here that is the problem, After Holland, we are the most densely populated country in Europe. If we had a similar density as France we would only have about 29m people. As for ethnicity I couldn't care less. Don't mind if 10m 5th generation English born people move out and then more immigrants move in as long as the numbers reduce.

 

There is another side to this. It seems if you are worried about overcrowding you are automatically labelled as xenophobic/racist by some people.

Secondly we have reached the point where we do not have enough land to feed the population. That cannot be a good thing. A third thing is, if you look at the best countries to live in for quality of life, of the top 20, only 3 have a denser population. And of those 3, two  are  comparatively small countries, together they are about half the size of Ireland. 

 

 

http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/

 

We are not a densley populated country. We are a country where over 90% of the land mass is natural or agricultural with dense towns and cities along the way. There is a massive amount of room left and there is more than enough land to feed ourselves and export food to others.

 

Take a drive along the M4, from Bristol to London the view on both sides is almost entirely greenery to the horizon on both sides. You drive past Newbury in a couple of minutes, you then drive past nothing but fields for 20 minutes until you get to Reading, which you pass in five minutes and so on. This is the over developed south remember, now unless there are secret towns with no road access that I don't know about, there's lots of space left.

 

Build some new towns.

 

Try Driving from Calais to Toulouse, its about 9 hours drive you'll pass 3 cities the rest is farming, Or try Brest Dijon. Again 3 cities, about 8 hours the rest are fields. Or Bordeaux Strasbourg, 2 cities 9 hours driving, fields everywhere. Puts our  2 hour drive from London to Bristol into perspective don't you think

other countries being even more sparse doesn't make our country 'full' though

I couldn't care less how many people are in France, in fact actually I could. If the people of europe want to come here to work and to try and progress rather than lovely France that is good news.

 

I have no issue at all with urbanisation, development or immigration. Bring it on.

 

That is not the same thing as liking shit stupid housing projects, poor amenity, or benefits for people that haven't contributed. I really do think that people confuse terms and just presume some words are bad. Is it bad (for us) to import good quality skilled educated workers? Is it bad that foreign companies might want to build their factories here? If they don't, who's going to be paying in so you can draw your pittance of a token state pension?

 

Let France be less populated with less building. Let it become a genteel slow moving quiet quaint yesteryear holiday destination for wealthy hardworking urbanites from all over the world that are based in the UK.

[colhint]

it doesn't work like that though does it. With a bigger population, you need more of everything, schools, hospitals doctors, roads etc. Now you can say just build them. But where. The cities are already dense. So if an extra 100,000 move to Brum, where are you going to put another 5 hospitals. You cant just extend the existing ones. How would people park there? parking is already awful. How many extra buses and trains would be needed. The only way to do it would be new towns. And what would that entail. Your 2 hour trip from Bristol to London would soon be a 3 or 4 hour trip.

 

As for France being a genteel slow moving yesteryear holiday destination. It has been recognised as being a better place to live than the uk for quality of life for at least 20 years

Edited March 1, 2013 by colhint

[chrisp65]

No really, it is as simple as building some new towns and some new roads. Triangulate out off the 3 lane motorway you already have so not all traffic is going on the same road at the same time.

 

It's the limited thinking of Britain that is choking us. Don't stick more longer trains on the same single track. Build another track (hey, might even bring some real competition).

 

What is the obvious end result of not expanding? When we stop immigration and the population still grows do we have state control of birth rates? No, we will have the same small minded piecemeal victorian stylee expansion, with traffic jams and failing expensive public transport. Much better than a thought out new town I'm sure.

 

There are around 1500 towns in the UK, if each town was funded to build 500 family homes, well thats space for an extra 2.25 million people. Imagine the push on the economy would get if every town needed the brickies and plasterers and m&e consultants and delivery drivers and sandwich shops to build 500 houses or flats. Imagine the extra cornershops and chippies we'd need.

 

Move on or die as far as I can see.

I'm not a big fan of the whole Victorian thing, but they built a town by building a bridge for a railway to a dock. We would not build a dock because there are newts, and anyway there's no railway, and anyway a bridge is really expensive and anyway all the plumbers would be Polish.

[Ads]

A massive blow for access to justice this week.

The ABI have really poured some honeyed words (or more likely cash into pockets) to completely destroy a multi-billion pound tax paying sector.

The result? Your insurance will remain high and probably increase, if you're injured you will have some unqualified chimp acting for you with a much higher chance of negligence, if you can claim at all.

Higher premiums, greater strain on the NHS, increased unemployment, lower tax revenue. Genius.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Ads

[snowychap]

Could you give us a bit more info/detail so we have a relatively clear idea of what has happened?

I'm guessing something to do with health insurance(s)?

Edited March 2, 2013 by snowychap

[snowychap]

Forgot this was going to the vote yesterday:

Commons backs plans for secret courts

MPs have voted to back plans to allow more civil courts to examine secret intelligence in private, despite calls for more safeguards.

MPs from all sides had tried to press for so-called secret courts to be used only as a last resort.

But the government successfully saw off the challenge.

Cabinet minister Ken Clarke said it was "common sense" for sensitive evidence to be admissible in trials without intelligence sources being exposed.

Two Labour amendments, which attempted to introduce extra safeguards, were defeated by 297 to 226 and by 298 to 225 - government majorities of 71 and 73 respectively.

Shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan said he was "disappointed" with the result, but would look to the the House of Lords to "bring some balance to the government's plans" when the legislation returns there.

'Unfettered discretion'

Ministers are concerned that millions of pounds have had to be spent settling civil claims which the government was prevented from challenging successfully, because that would have involved revealing secret intelligence in open court.

The government has already introduced more safeguards to the legislation currently being scrutinised by Parliament, ensuring that judges and not ministers decide when so-called closed material proceedings are used.

But some MPs argued that secret courts should be used only as a last resort when national security outweighs the public interest of having open justice.

Seven Liberal Democrats MPs rebelled to support Labour's amendment, which would have put in place this public interest test, including president Tim Farron, deputy leader Simon Hughes and former minister Sarah Teather.

But several former Labour ministers chose to back the government's position, including former Home Secretary Jack Straw and former counter terrorism minister Hazel Blears.

Minister without portfolio Ken Clarke, in charge of the bill's passage, said "enormous" improvements had been made since the legislation was first drafted and judges would have "unfettered discretion" to decide whether to hold proceedings in private.

This, he said, could only happen in national security cases where the safety of British citizens or threats to international order were possible and not situations where governments had simply "made a pig's ear" of things.

"We have every protection on the face of the bill," he told MPs. While the government had accepted a large number of amendments to the proposals, he said further calls for change amounted to "human rights lawyers clasping at straws".

'Standards of general justice'

Ahead of Monday's debate, Lord Woolf - a former Lord Chief Justice and crossbench peer - said the government's amended plans would retain "the standards of general justice" while ensuring that all sides can put their case and judges are not "blindfolded" by not being able to test certain evidence.

"They will ensure that both the government and the claimant are given the greatest opportunity to put their case and that concerned citizens will have the benefit of a final judgement on whether serious allegations have foundation," he wrote in a letter to the Times.

But Conservative MP Andrew Tyrie, who rebelled against the government, said he believed Lord Woolf was mistaken and too much power would lie in the hands of the government.

"They (the amendments) are really about the kind of society we want to live in, about whether people can get to hear the case made against them, and whether we can keep legal safeguards we have had for generations," he told MPs.

Responding to Lord Woolf's intervention, Reprieve - which campaigns to uphold the human rights of prisoners - said it was "hard to see how a case in which you cannot hear or challenge the evidence used against you can be described as meeting the standards of general justice".

The government suffered a series of defeats on the proposals in the House of Lords in November and is likely to encounter continued opposition when the legislation returns to the Upper House in the coming weeks.

Oh dear.

[snowychap]

Edit: And I'd be interested to see what happens if his (ex-)wife's defence is successful. Surely that can't look too good for him at sentencing and might negate some of the 'early' guilty plea?

Defence unsuccessful.

Not sure who gets sentenced first. It might be fun to have them consecutively in the same court and have them cross on the stairway up to and down from the dock (that's going on how courtrooms look on the telly).

[TrentVilla]

The kids must be so proud.

 

Send them both down I say.

 

In other news I see Cameron has dusted down Thatcher's TINA speech to try and keep the right of the party sweet.

[Awol]

In other news I see Cameron has dusted down Thatcher's TINA speech to try and keep the right of the party sweet.

The actual Conservatives in the Conservative Party have noticed that there is an alternative to Dave's brand of Blairism though. It might not be an alternative that could win a general election, but they could vote for it without feeling soiled afterwards. If someone is genuinely a centre right voter than Cameron is no choice at all next time around.

[privateer]

  ****, has anyone else seen the end of that word removed Stephen Twigg's nose on Question Time?

[coda]

Pryce and Huhne both sentenced to eight months.

[tonyh29]

seems rather high , more so when there is already precedent of people lying about  speeding points  and getting lesser sentences  ..or was their crime more than just the points thingy ??

 

I.e BMW UK head got 6 weeks for it a few years back if I recall  and there was a another case recently where a judge jailed them both for 28 days and then released them an hour later

[tonyh29]

Good, they both seem a right pair of words removed.

 

 

can't disagree  , but I'm not sure that is a valid reason for locking people up , other wise Tony and Cherie would have been locked up and the key thrown away years ago