Immigration - The Real Issues.

Today David Cameron gave a speech on the growing anxiety over immigration in the UK. He attacked the Labour Party for making the subject taboo and overly sensitive (which I believe is correct, it is hard to discuss immigration without being accused of racism, or in fact over-sympthisation).

It seems in the last 12 months immigration has become a hot-topic in the international realm, last year Angela Merkel announced that multiculturalism in Germany had failed. And only this week France banned Muslim women from wearing the Niqab and the Burqa in public places. Both were met with relative public support.

Today marks the turn of the UK to have its say multicultural Britain and the fears the British public seemingly have. Now I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a lot of this tension is not because of mass immigration, but because of "islamification" (which for many reasons is a ridiculous concept, however I'll play along).
Mass immigration in my opinion is not a tension point, don't get me wrong people are aggrieved by the idea. "Bloody foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs" springs to mind. (Again, a ridiculous myth in most cases) and there is anecdotal evidence that "They bring all their family and sponge of our government", however this is a minority and there is a much greater number of British Nationals doing the exact same thing they criticise immigrants of doing. The irony is not lost.

The tension arises due to "islamification" and the rise of "militant, extreme muslims". The growing number of newspaper reports regarding home-grown terrorists panders to the Daily Mail reading, BNP supporters, who look for somebody to hate to express their inner brute on a sector of society. Like the French, there are some
in Britain who are intimidated by the unknown and those whose religious beliefs differ to theirs. In fact, just today a YouGov poll showed that 66% of Brits polled supported a ban of the Burqa.

How long until we see a Burqa ban in the UK?

Yet, the focus of today was not the wild, racist clammer of 'islamification' but the discussion of high immigration. There is a downside to immigration. The number of workers coming through is simply too high, Britain in many places is already over-populated, the need for immigrant workers needs to come down. The Coalition has announced policies to bring the number down, they are implementing a points system, which decides how beneficial the worker will be to the UK's economy (which is of course what the government looks at when considering its workforce), it also looking into cracking down on sham marriages and the handling of student visas. Immigrants who come to the UK should be highly skilled, adding something that British workers can not, we don't need immigrants to come and do the low level, unskilled jobs, we should be pushing British people to do them. The real problem is benefit culture, many are happy to not work and seek benefits instead of taking a job they do not want to do. Would I want to do an unskilled job? Probably not, would I? If I had to.

As long as we have a benefit system that allows workers to be better off sat on their sofas rather than working we will always have a problem with immigration. The government has announced its plans to curb this
culture, introducing the universal credit and slashing benefits for those who refuse a job. Which is a step in the right direction.

Without the solution the issues of immigration will continue to fester and grow. Cameron talked of those who do not learn English and refuse to intergrate, and he  is right to criticise these people. It seems confusing, even silly that somebody can enter the UK workforce without being able to speak English. It is not about
attempting to make immigrants British (because what is it to be British?) but for them to enter into our societies and learn the basic principals of the western world. Attempts to set up Sharia courts and to not abide by our laws (mistreatment of women) is a slap in the face to the government which has welcomed them
to the UK.

Of course, the UK has benefited enormously from immigration, which has allowed skilled workers into the country and brought new cultures with them. We should also be cracking down on illegal immigration and helping asylum seekers with a legitimate claim to safety.

Quick note on Vince Cable. Keep your criticisms private, stop throwing your toys out of the pram.

Is the Internet sending us backwards?

The internet is becoming ever more prevalent in British politics. The rise of social networks, especially Twitter and YouTube are to thank for this. Modernisation of politics - finally. In the run up to the 2010 general election, all three candidates aimed to use the internet to appeal to younger voters, arguably the Lib Dems and the Tories utilised this new media to their advantage the best.

But the internet isn't all glitz and glamour for politics. In fact, exactly the opposite could be said to true. Is it modernising politics? Or is it reinforcing the old, negative sterotypes of British politics? You know what I'm talking about; the Tories hate the NHS, the poor and anybody else who isn't a billionaire. The same for the Labour party; love benefit culture and do as the unions tell them too. Lib Dems; erm? Irrelevant? I kid.

The easiest target for this reversal of political thinking is obviously the incumbent government. Which just so happens to be the Tories. So what do people do? They criticise them for being like "evil Mrs Thatcher" (by the way, people hate her, yet they still call her Mrs Thatcher - that's respect for you!!!). Cameron's Tories are miles apart from Thatcherism (to the disdain of many Tories right-wingers), but yet still the critics wade in.

Viral posters hammer home the negative sterotypes

Making their misguided criticisms even more absurd is the fact that we are in a Coalition government, with the Lib Dems, who are far from Thatcherite. 

One issue with social media is that it is even more short-termist than the papers. The papers have scandals and stories that go on for days, on Twitter, trends change in hours and people's knowledge is diluted to snippets they read with #hash-tags in front of them.

Constantly bloggers/tweeters criticise the Tories for cutting everything. But lets not forget, 13 years ago, Labour did not inherit a massive deficit from the Tories. It is the Tories who are mopping up the mess left behind. 

Names such as UK Uncut and 38 degrees keep popping up, but as Robin alluded to in a previous post, they must choose their battles wisely. They can not try to save everything, because it is not the Tories fault that everything can't be saved. Cuts are needed. But the Tories aren't cutting everywhere, they have prioritised and people must remember this. Yes things will be tough, but shouting loudly isn't going to get you anywhere, because Labour wouldn't be doing anything differently. 

And if you disagree with that, then simply - you are wrong. Why do you think Ed Miliband hasn't come up with an alternative to New Labour yet? Why do you think Andy Burnham hasn't come up with a different idea to the English Bacc and Academies. Ed Balls is still shouting on about "the deficit he never created". The only person making any noises aren't on the front benches, namely Peter Mandelson and David Miliband. (Read George's post below)

The problem with social networking sites, is that they are littered with Liberals, far too liberal as well. Without making sweeping generalisations, some are anarchists, they like to criticise everything, because that is the easy thing to do. It's like the 10 o'Clock Live Show 24/7 for these people. They have given rise to partisan blogs, including (the very good) Left Foot Forward, (the not so good) Political Scrapbook and gives a voice to many columnists who are so biased their heads must be up their arses not to notice - yes that's you Toynbee! 

It's not just the left that does the bashing, the right are at it as well. Guido Fawkes for example. Letting Boris Johnson write in The Telegraph is like asking a 6 year old how we should fix the deficit - with ice cream please.

Rant over - for now.

Hypocrisy in the House of Lords.

There are moments in politics that I find myself chuckling away when I read what is happening - today is such a day. (I am aware this is possibly the uncoolest statement made by a 19 year old)

Regardless, I'll continue. The debate on the Alternative Vote (AV) has been raging for a while now, the Liberal Democrats made it one of their four key policies in their manifesto and would have refused to join the Coalition without "a bankable" offer from the Tories on an AV referendum (public vote).

WHAT IS ALTERNATIVE VOTE

Under the AV system, voters rank candidates in their constituency in order of preference.

Anyone getting more than 50% of first-preference votes is elected.

If no-one gets 50% of votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their backers' second choices allocated to those remaining.

This process continues until one candidate has at least 50% of all votes in that round.

BBC News

Why do the Lib Dem's want it so badly? AV is a more representative of people's votes, currently we use a First Past The Post (FPTP) system which means one candidate can win with less than 50% of the popular vote. Crucially for the Lib Dem's they feel the FPTP is hurting them, in 2010 they won 23% of the popular vote, but they didn't receive anywhere near 1 in 4 seats - closer to 1 in 10 in fact.

Vote Yes on May 5th

In May when the Coalition was formed, the Tories gave the Lib Dem's their assurance that a referendum would be held on AV. But it has been anything but easy since then. The House of Lords has refused to pass the bill as it stands and yesterday announced that they have given their support to the bill, only on the condition that 40% of the electorate votes on it. Meaning 4 in 10 people most vote (either way) on 5th May 2011.

Firstly, this makes the job of the No2AV campaigners unbelievably simple, if they can convince enough people to NOT vote at all, they'll "win". It doesn't matter if 39% of the electorate turn out and ALL vote yes. The AV bill still won't "be legitimate" and will count for nothing. So Yes2AV campaigners really have to step up their game, especially on the back of an announcement by YouGov that AV and FPTP are neck and neck in the polls.

Finally, lets get back to the title - hypocrisy. Yes, the hypocrites in the House of Lords have decided that the AV vote isn't safe for us mere mortals to have - but for them, it is fair game. A hereditary peer has sadly died and because he was important in the House of Lords, all 786 peers will have their chance to vote and rank in order their preference for a new peer to replace him.

One rule for one, but sadly not for all.

Yes to fairer votes. Yes to Av.

Lockerbie Bomber & The Day Justice Died.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines justice as "fairness in the way people are dealt with". 


Yet today we found out that Labour had traded any type of justice for the families of the 270 victims that were killed in the Lockerbie Bombing for commercial reasons (specifically oil)


Headlines today make highly disturbing reading:

The Guardian: Labour government did 'all it could to secure release of Lockerbie bomber'.
The Telegraph: Cameron attacks Labour after report finds government aided bomber release.
The Independent: Labour 'did all it could' for Libya.
BBC: Ministers 'wanted Lockerbie bomber released'

I could go on and on. It is irrefutable that Labour (and more specifically it seems, David Milliband) played a massive role in the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi. Megrahi was sentenced to life imprisonment after being the only person charged with the terrorist attack. He appealed the verdict on separate occasions, only to have his appeal quashed. 


Yet in August 2009 he was released on compassionate grounds as his doctors informed the authorities that he had three months to live, as he was dying from terminal prostate cancer. At the time, the majority of Scottish people disagreed with the release of Megrahi, whilst in the UK the 45% of people believed the release was more to do with oil than compassion.


The decision was ultimately made by the Scottish Justice Minister, but Jack Straw the then UK Justice Minister had said that Megrahi shouldn't have been allowed to be up for release, but quickly changed his tune when he realised it "wasn't in the UK's best interests".


The shocking notion that this was more to do with oil than compassion isn't just fantasy, Liberian leader Colonel Gadaffi's own son admitted that there was an "obvious" link between trade and the release. 

David Cameron said at the time:

"But if this is about genuine release on compassionate grounds, I think it is wrong.

"This man was convicted of murdering 270 people. He showed no compassion to them. They weren't allowed to go home and die with their relatives in their own bed. And I think this is a very bad decision."

The report released today (commissioned by David Cameron) "showed UK ministers changed their position on Megrahi due to commercial considerations, including lobbying by BP, in Libya." - strangely enough, the lobbying by BP was always denied by all parties (what a surprise, BP doing something bad!) Ministers still argue that they were not affected by any external pressures. Yet the report goes on to say:

"..every area of government were attempting to facilitate the release of Mr al-Megrahi's release to go back home to Libya."

Cameron concluded on the report by saying:

"For my part, I repeat - I believe it was profoundly wrong.

"The fact that 18 months later the Lockerbie bomber is today living, at liberty, in Tripoli, only serves to underline that."

WikiLeaks noted that he could even have up to five years to live.

Vile celebrations were held when Megrahi returned home.

For those of you who wondered, injustice is defined as "a situation where there is no fairness or justice" - harrowing in its appropriateness.

It is time somebody came to the defence of Michael Gove.

***Reader warning - controversy will follow***

Michael Gove for those who don't know, is the Education Minister for the Coalition and has frequently been in the news, portrayed as a bumbling idiot who wants to take education back to the 19th Century. But is all the lefty-rhetoric insulting Gove justified in any way?

I'm going to go out on a limb here, with the knowledge that 75% of readers are going to vehemently disagree  with me and say - no.

The Telegraph led today with an article about "soft" A-Levels, by saying:

"A guide compiled by the Russell Group, which comprises 20 top universities including Oxford and Cambridge, to be released today, will advise students which A-level courses are favoured by admissions tutors."

Now apologies for those who this offends, but unsurprisingly media studies, art, photography and business studies weren't on the list. (I did business studies at A-Level and it was a piece-of-piss!) The courses on their own hold their own merit, but as preparation to study a university degree - they hold no weight.

Call me draconian, but I wouldn't like to see people waste £27,000+ if they aren't going to get a value-added degree from it. These subjects are vocational, not educational. Although, I'd say it is a bit offensive to say "Are you trying to avoid a challenge?" (As it does in the document) - because I'll tell you, my hardest challenge would to be draw more than a stickman in Art!

Gove himself said today:

"A generation have been betrayed by Labour ministers who denied poorer children the chance to go to top universities," 

He is referring to the fact that children were ill-advised when picking A-Levels. He seems within his rights to say this:

In 2004, about 15,000 non-academic qualifications were taken in schools. By 2010, this had risen to about 575,000.

Andy Gardner, a career adviser and representative of the Institute of Career Guidance agrees saying "state school pupils had faced a torrent of misleading information until now".

The average 16 year old

Previously Gove has come under heavy criticism regarding the English Baccalaureate, which focuses on English, Mathematics, two Sciences, a Foreign Language and History or Geography. Interestingly, The Russell Group continue to say:

By not studying at least two of the following subjects – maths, English, geography, history, any of the three pure sciences or a classical or modern foreign language – "many degrees at competitive universities will not be open to you"

Hmmm. So Gove wants to focus on subjects which will help you get into a top university. What a cretin! More interesting is that 7/10 people back the Bacc.

Which isn't surprising when last year more than one third of university entrants did not have "any recognised entry qualifications". As I've said before, university education needn't be the norm, it doesn't have to be the natural progression for students, Lefties will tell you that for the next generation of students university is more of a risk for students, so maybe it is time we stop pushing university down students throats (just like it was forced down mine) and consider apprenticeships and vocational studies.

Brilliantly, the readers of The Guardian have some funny comments on this, read them here.

When growth is actually bad for you.

Hidden in the depths of the BBC is an article pointing out that the UK manufacturing sector has grown! Thankfully there are less biased organisations out there, who make this good news easier to find. The BBC is still blaming the UK & USA for the problems in Egypt. Bloody BBC! - but I'll save that for another time!

Back to the good news - after last week's disappointing negative growth, or flat growth, depending on if you take out the factor of snow (which yes, is actually crucial), today the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply (CIPS) has announced that the UK manufacturing sector has expanded at its fastest pace since records began.

Good news for manufacturers

The boost has come from surprisingly high levels of demand from within the UK and abroad. But in the messed up economy we have inherited from Labour, high growth is actually bad. Bad I say.

How can growth in manufacturing be bad I hear you ask? Didn't evil Thatcher crush it 30 years ago? Surely a revival is good? Nope, nada. The growth is leading to inflationary pressure and as I've explained before, inflation in the UK economy right now, is very bad. The problem here is that the manufacturing sector uses a lot of raw materials and the cost of these materials is also rising at a high rate, leading to cost-push inflation (simply costs pushing up prices). More inflation will lead to the MPC voting for an increase in interest rates and then things really get tough.  

We will be paying for Labour's mistakes for decades to come.

It's been a while since I had a go at Labour, mainly because they are swanning along in the political world doing sod all. Perfectly reasonable for them to do so mind, watch the cuts hurt the public and instantly win the vote of the disgruntled - no brainer.

Since Thursday I've been intrigued by Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) - not the coolest thing to be interested I know! The notion of PFIs was raised on the 10 O'Clock Live show (which if you haven't watched is amazing). PFIs are essentially loans from private companies, but with interest rates that are more similar to Wonga.com rather than your high street bank.

PFIs put cash upfront to fund certain elements of government spending, including building new schools and hospitals. They then essentially rent the buildings back to the government - but at a massive cost to the taxpayer. The craze started under the Conservatives in 1992, but really took off under Blair and Brown, let's not forget Brown was Chancellor under Blair and made these types of decisions. To highlight the cost of PFI funding, here is a run down of how much each project cost originally and how much we'll pay back. For a quick summary, there are 920 PFIs, costing around £64bn but we will pay back £267bn!!!

One such PFI is Innisfree (the irony that the company name includes "is free" will not be lost on you) ran by a Mr David Metter. Heard of either of them? Nope. Neither has 99% of the general public. But taxpayers are paying his company, massive amounts of money, to the total of approximately £60m. One project he has funded cost £118m, but the taxpayer is set to pay back £1.2bn, 10 times the original value.

Future generations will have to break the bank to pay PFIs back

The whole idea of PFI stinks of New Labour, "spend, spend, spend" should have been their election slogan. Their continuous desire to keep spending when the coffers were empty was abhorrent and dangerous. So now they sit comfortably in Opposition whilst the Coalition gets blamed for trying to sort out their wretched mess. If the government didn't have enough money in the Budget for these new buildings, then they simply shouldn't have built them - that is the point of having a budget, isn't it? Liam Byrne's note back in May summed it up: "I'm afraid to tell you there's no money left" - sadly because of Labour's profligacy. 

Liam: An Introduction

Hello readers! Thought I best get my introduction in before Josh did, nobody likes being last!

So where to start? I got into blogging as a bit of a revision technique when I started uni and got a bit carried away and became an avid blogger. You can see what I discussed here.

Politically, I'm on the centre-right of British Politics, but to be honest with most of the social policies in Britain today to be left/right wing is like splitting hairs. I support the deficit reduction plan that the government is undertaking, but I'm not a fan of all the measures, specifically the VAT hike.

In my small bio, I named Ian Bell and David Laws as my favourite people. The reasons for Ian Bell are simple, the man is a cricketing genius, technically superior to any batsmen of our time. But back to serious talk, David Laws is my favourite politician. He's essentially my beliefs personified a social liberal. Small government is the way forward!

So beyond politics, I cover a bit of economics in my blogs. I would say my discussion on economics is still useful for myself as a revision tool, but hopefully you'll enjoy my analysis as much as previous readers.

I'll also have the occasional pop at organised religion. It seems Atheism might run wild in this blog and I'd say that says a lot about modern day culture, the more educated we become, the less we need to rely on a "God" to make us feel safe. As Nietzsche once said "God is dead". I think religion is a dangerous tool, with extremists of all faith using it as an excuse for violence and bigotry.

Finally, I hate Tabloids. They ruin people's lives for a story and cater to the ignorant masses. 75% of their stories are inaccurate and/or bullshit.

Quick fire round:
Involvement in the EU: Unsure.
Raising Tuition Fees: Yes.
Devolution: Stupid.
Daily Mail: Gahhhhh.
Liberal Democrats: Sellouts!