George Eaton @georgeeaton 3 mins Labour spokesperson tells me: "Peter Hain does not speak for Labour on foreign affairs...Labour is fully committed to a two-state solution".
Makes sense, there's a point at which it's no longer realistic to evict the Israeli settlers. So what are they going to do, run an apartheid state forever?
I've lost track of the politics now... is it considered more unacceptable to push for two states because that undermines Israeli's sovereignty, or for one state because that implies a criticism of Israel's illegal settlement building?
I guess that Labour can't be seen to go against the official US government view, but as Hain notes in his speech, there are already voices in the US acknowledging that a two-state solution will soon be impossible. So he'll probably be right in a couple of years time.
One-state is Galloway stuff, you're supposed to pretend to think that a two-state solution is going to happen but never do anything to make it actually happen. That way Israel can control the territory and take over bits of it little by little without letting the people living in it vote to elect the government that's really in charge of them, on the grounds that it's only temporary and they'll have their own country there eventually.
A two-state solution would entrench any perceived 'apartheid' - Jews would be banned from living in the (Palestinian) West Bank, and Arabs would be seen as a 'dodgy' fifth column in Israel in perpetuity.
There's also Bane of Souls, a criminally underpriced novel about a barbarian chap trapped in a city wracked with murders, and Journey to Altmortis, featuring the surprisingly popular dwarven thief-bastard Roger the Goat [for the avoidance of doubt, Roger is not based on pb.com's respected gentleman of the same name].
@Morris Do you have samples of your books available? Authors (especially new ones) often provide the first chapter or three from their novels to pique the interest and loosen the wallets of potential new readers.
A bill to ban zero hours contracts to get its second reading on 28th February.
Needs a bit of work I think. As it stands the effect of s1(2) is that everyone who is on a qualifying zero hour contract is fired the moment the Bill came into force!
Hmm. What will be the position of, for example, a bank worker in a hospital? They are on contracts which do not specify the hours to be worked but have none of the features specified in 3a, b or c. Presumably they are not zero hours contracts!
George Eaton @georgeeaton 3 mins Labour spokesperson tells me: "Peter Hain does not speak for Labour on foreign affairs...Labour is fully committed to a two-state solution".
Makes sense, there's a point at which it's no longer realistic to evict the Israeli settlers. So what are they going to do, run an apartheid state forever?
I've lost track of the politics now... is it considered more unacceptable to push for two states because that undermines Israeli's sovereignty, or for one state because that implies a criticism of Israel's illegal settlement building?
I guess that Labour can't be seen to go against the official US government view, but as Hain notes in his speech, there are already voices in the US acknowledging that a two-state solution will soon be impossible. So he'll probably be right in a couple of years time.
One-state is Galloway stuff, you're supposed to pretend to think that a two-state solution is going to happen but never do anything to make it actually happen. That way Israel can control the territory and take over bits of it little by little without letting the people living in it vote to elect the government that's really in charge of them, on the grounds that it's only temporary and they'll have their own country there eventually.
A two-state solution would entrench any perceived 'apartheid' - Jews would be banned from living in the (Palestinian) West Bank, and Arabs would be seen as a 'dodgy' fifth column in Israel in perpetuity.
EiT - thanks for clarifying, seems a sensible read
Sunil - I don't think people are too fussed about a separation where they are permitted to live in their own country, and forbidden from living in the other if it's a mutual restriction... wouldn't "apartheid" normally refer to enforced separation in a single state with large power asymmetries? Not, of course, that I would dream of adopting any position on whether that is the current situation in this case.
....but that looks almost like a principled stand.... shocking.
Wait till we find out what Cammie's principles are when Eurosceptics and kippers eventually decide to tell tell him. Another 'triumph' for John Major Cameron.
[Labour say] "We will come forward with proposals [as the bill progresses] to facilitate and not hinder foreign prisoner removals. [This is] weak and chaotic [leadership] from the prime minister and the home secretary on this so-called flagship bill."
So the idea is to take the opportunity to play games by introducing further amendments which will expose the splits in the Tory position, presumably ultimately forcing Cameron to whip in favour of something which his backbenchers will oppose.
Fortunately the Conservative backbenchers have the intelligence and discipline to see that coming a mile off and fall in with the whips to avoid that embarrassment for their leader, eh?
''Wait till we find out what Cammie's principles are when Eurosceptics and kippers eventually decide to tell tell him. Another 'triumph' for John Major Cameron. ''
The government's mishandling won't be the headline now though.
'Labour blocks moves to make deporting foreign criminals easier'
Mr. Anorak, samples are ready to be downloaded for free from Amazon et al. I have been considering putting the approximate sample sections up on my site, as well.
*cough* And whilst awkwardly plugging, and before the moderators attack me with big pointy sticks, my first traditionally published story should be out later this year. It's a short ghost story, part of an anthology due out (roughly) in March, called Malevolence.
''Wait till we find out what Cammie's principles are when Eurosceptics and kippers eventually decide to tell tell him. Another 'triumph' for John Major Cameron. ''
The government's mishandling won't be the headline now though.
'Labour blocks moves to make deporting foreign criminals easier'
Natch.
Bit hard for anyone to believe that load of old cobblers and spin as Eurosceptics are dancing away on John Major Cammie's last vestiges of authority over his own backbenchers.
''Bit hard for anyone to believe that load of old cobblers and spin as Eurosceptics are dancing away on John Major Cammie's last vestiges of authority over his own backbenchers. ''
Wonder if the Mail's readers will believe it when its splashed all over the front page tomorrow....
Nicholls indicates Tidal Bay is heading to Aintree, also importantly Long Run could well be there.
If Long Run runs - And I actually hope he doesn't (Though it looks likely) - Tidal Bay will NOT carry top weight as he is rated 5 lbs lower. Tidal Bay came close at the Welsh national carrying top weight, and he was closing at the line which indicates the old boy has bags of stamina still.
Backing him at 25-1 Each Way, that price won't be available on the day I can tell you now.
@Morris Do you have samples of your books available? Authors (especially new ones) often provide the first chapter or three from their novels to pique the interest and loosen the wallets of potential new readers.
Pah! The prices Morris Dancer charges for his books is already stupidly small. Sir Edric's Temple, which I read for the third time last night, retails for less than a quid. Don't be such a skinflint, risk your 99p. If you enjoy the book you will have had several hours of dirt cheap entertainment. If you don't like it you will have lost, gulp, 99p.
P.S. Sir Edric's Temple made me laugh out loud more often than any book since my first reading of Tom Sharpe's "Riotous Assembly", and that was in 1979 and it cost me more than 99p.
''Bit hard for anyone to believe that load of old cobblers and spin as Eurosceptics are dancing away on John Major Cammie's last vestiges of authority over his own backbenchers. ''
Wonder if the Mail's readers will believe it when its splashed all over the front page tomorrow....
"Labour votes not to deport foreign crims" - a bad day for the blues...
David Cameron Faces Tory Rebel Defeat over Immigration Vote
David Cameron's hopes of averting another embarrassing revolt by his own MPs over immigration appeared to have been dashed after the rebels dismissed the latest government concessions.
Home secretary Theresa May tabled a last-minute amendment to the keynote Immigration Bill before MPs which would allow the government to strip terrorist suspects of their UK citizenship.
But as the crucial all-day debate got under way in the Commons, there were clear signs that the rebel Tories demanding tougher controls were not going to back down, with claims that the concession failed to answer their concerns.
The tory rebels weren't the ones who were forced back down. Cameron was.
There's no way to spin that as anything other than yet another humiliation and crushing blow to his already crumbling authority. Eurosceptic tories now know for certain if they pile enough pressure onto Cammie he will fold like a cheap pack of cards. Superb master strategy that one and guaranteed not to come back to haunt him in the weeks and months ahead.
"I wonder if an underlying feeling matters more than policies."
Yup, I think you are spot on, Mr. D., the overwhelming majority of voters don't know what policies are being put forward and would understand most of them if they did, but they do understand sentiment - they know how they feel.
"Cameron comes across as an alright chap (in general)."
That is probably because you live at 534ft above sea level and so suffer from long term hypoxia. To those of us with normal levels of oxygen and nutrients reaching our brains Cameron comes across as an unprincipled spiv, wholly unfit to hold a great office of state and completely incapable of leading a squad of ducklings across a fire bucket much less a great nation. I wouldn't cross the road to piss in his ear if his brain was on fire, except for the fact that there doesn't seem to be anyone better in any party.
Farage is a bon oeuf, but not I think a PM and Miliband "is the sort of chap we used to describe at school as an utter spastic"*.
Mr. Pork, point of order - you just listed things that are obviously contradictory being written as though they were synonymous. By including Cameron it (contrary to your own view) makes it appear that he's the opposite of Major and that those who say he's the same are propagandist IngSoc types.
If Amanda Knox is found guilty and the US refuses to extradite her, it'll be interesting to see what happens the next time the Americans attempt to extradite a suspect from Italy.
The US would have grounds for non-extraditing Knox simply because of Double Jeopardy, I would have thought. Shame we in the UK are not so resolute in defending our Anglo-Saxon freedoms.
If a superior court orders a retrial (which is what happened here, AIUI) then double jeopardy doesn't come into play.
Mr. Pork, point of order - you just listed things that are obviously contradictory being written as though they were synonymous. By including Cameron it (contrary to your own view) makes it appear that he's the opposite of Major and that those who say he's the same are propagandist IngSoc types.
I wouldn't worry about getting too pedantic. You can be 100% certain this won't be the last time he's compared to John Major now. This was never the 'endgame' for the tory rebels. As you shall see soon enough.
Sorry, Mr. Llama, missed your post until Mr. Charles mentioned it.
I look at the leaders relative to one another, not the ideal (an Aurelian sort of chap). Miliband's atrocious, and whilst Clegg has some merits (occasionally) he's such a flagrant EU-phile I couldn't possibly back him.
By not being a demented Marxist backstabbing economically illiterate greenist zealot or an unpatriotic sort Cameron wins by default. Or, at least, the other two leaders fail to a greater extent.
I do wonder does anyone actually understand what all the nonsense in the HoC is about today? I suspect like me most voters wont have a clue and even fewer will be remotely interested. However if tomorrow's newspaper headlines are that Labour voted down a proposal to expel foreign criminals, that should go down well in the shires and UKIP land, where they will be burning effigies of little Ed rather than raising their glasses of rioja to him.
"Labour votes not to deport foreign crims" - a bad day for the blues...
And the electioneering literature
Labour: Standing up for foreign criminals in your area....
Hmmm. Humphreys (or whoever): "So, minister, you're criticising Labour for supporting the passage of a Government bill through Parliament, if I understand it correctly?"
Minister: "Yes, that's right. We think it's disgraceful that Labour want to make it harder for foreign criminals to be deported"
Humphreys: "I see. Now, looking at this amendment, didn't the Conservative home secretary say in the debate that supporting the amendment would make it harder to deport foreign criminals?"
Minister "...."
Humphreys: "I understand, positions can change. So can I take it that the next Conservative government would support this amendment passing into law?"
Minister "well, we'd love to, but actually we're not allowed to"
And so on. It's not an easy position to run, unless you're UKIP and not bound by the prospect of being in government.
Curiously he is still prime minister and will be until May 2015.
Curiously I never claimed they would topple him. They'll just keep eroding his authority away but by bit and watch him suffer till he does what they tell him.
"Labour votes not to deport foreign crims" - a bad day for the blues...
And the electioneering literature
Labour: Standing up for foreign criminals in your area....
The alternative is that Labour voted against a badly drafted amendment Tory ministers didn't have the guts to oppose.
Why would they oppose it ? They agree with the sentiment but can't support as it is illegal.
You answer your own question.
I wouldn't waste your time. The Cameroons will just keep deluding themselves this is a triumph for John Major Cammie regardless of the bleeding obvious.
Now, you chaps who fancy a wager on the next GE, listen to authentic voice of Yorkshire:
"By not being a demented Marxist backstabbing economically illiterate greenist zealot or an unpatriotic sort Cameron wins by default. Or, at least, the other two leaders fail to a greater extent."
No mention of flat-caps, whippets, trips or coal-fields there.
I keep forgetting to comment (in response to TGOHF and others) that, although this is dreadful for Cameron, it certainly isn't without risk for Labour either. I guess they feel they co-operation with LDs is a useful element, among others.
Nobody's bitten on this one though: can anyone think of an example of a governing party whipping its MPs to abstain on an amendment government bill in recent history (as opposed to free vote, for or against)?
And so, in normal circumstances, you should. However, Mr. Charles, I recall we have an outstanding bet and other that it involved a bottle and our respective clubs (you wouldn't want to dine at mine) I cannot recall what it was, so I am less tempted to rise to your bait than I otherwise would be.
"Labour votes not to deport foreign crims" - a bad day for the blues...
And the electioneering literature
Labour: Standing up for foreign criminals in your area....
The alternative is that Labour voted against a badly drafted amendment Tory ministers didn't have the guts to oppose.
Why would they oppose it ? They agree with the sentiment but can't support as it is illegal.
You answer your own question.
I wouldn't waste your time. The Cameroons will just keep deluding themselves this is a triumph for John Major Cammie regardless of the bleeding obvious.
I am reminded of that song from Monty Python and the Holy Grail about Brave Sir Robin. How did it go?
Brave Sir Robin has s**t his brick, Brave Sir Robin
"Labour votes not to deport foreign crims" - a bad day for the blues...
And the electioneering literature
Labour: Standing up for foreign criminals in your area....
The alternative is that Labour voted against a badly drafted amendment Tory ministers didn't have the guts to oppose.
Why would they oppose it ? They agree with the sentiment but can't support as it is illegal.
You answer your own question.
I wouldn't waste your time. The Cameroons will just keep deluding themselves this is a triumph for John Major Cammie regardless of the bleeding obvious.
I am reminded of that song from Monty Python and the Holy Grail about Brave Sir Robin. How did it go?
Brave Sir Robin has s**t his brick, Brave Sir Robin
Forget the principle of the bill the challenge is for Cam to spin the moronic back-bench revolt (and others) as not being another case of the "bastards".
Forget also that I think it ludicrous that Cons MPs can pick & choose according to their own personal tosspot whims which govt business to support and which to rebel on.
Cam sorts this by pointing at the opinion polls, reflecting that the country is split on the issue and that it is a matter of conscience and that he is relaxed that there is a healthy debate on the matter.
He then says that if people are pointing to the EU as the source of these problems then they know which party to vote for in GE2015 as the only one that will actually give them a choice on the matter.
What a complete nonsense from start to finish. We should be making immigration easier, not harder.
Absolutely. Those who want to curb immigration want to make us poorer.
Mike: you, me, antifrank and others all benefit from immigration (excluding the impact of house prices in Kensington, of course).
Vast numbers of people in the UK find that it makes their working lives more uncertain, and their wages subject to downward pressure. So it is entirely rational for them to oppose immigration.
To support immigration you need an adequate way to mitigate the impact on large numbers of current UK residents. A big part of this is managing the numbers so that, on a macro level, we get most of the economic benefits but the cultural dislocation can be asimilated.
And so, in normal circumstances, you should. However, Mr. Charles, I recall we have an outstanding bet and other that it involved a bottle and our respective clubs (you wouldn't want to dine at mine) I cannot recall what it was, so I am less tempted to rise to your bait than I otherwise would be.
We do. I rather boldly bet that Cameron would still be Tory leader after the 2015 election...
How this story plays out depends entirely on media spin quite frankly. I can barely follow who has done what so the average bod won't have a scooby doo. Ammunition for UKIP in the medium term I suspect, the rain and Schumacher are today's main news.
What a complete nonsense from start to finish. We should be making immigration easier, not harder.
Absolutely. Those who want to curb immigration want to make us poorer.
Those who support mass immigration seem to like the idea of making the rich richer and the poor poorer... then justifying it on an government GDP figure that means nothing to poor families
Indeed, Mr. Isam. It would be interesting to compare the location of residence and work/salary of those who are so pro-immigration with those who are uncertain, and those who are very much against large scale migration.
He won't be doing that for much longer because the kippers are hardly going to just roll over because of this. Have you forgotten all the immigration posturing from the tories that preceded last May's local elections? How did that turn out again? Why on earth would tory rebels stop now? They want firm red lines, renegotiation details and red meat on the EU so this is just the start. Once the kipper VI starts creeping up as we get closer to May they won't be shy in demanding more. So if the EU elections then turn out to be bad for Cameron will they stop then? Will they heck.
He then says that if people are pointing to the EU as the source of these problems then they know which party to vote for in GE2015 as the only one that will actually give them a choice on the matter.
Yeah, we know. He's been saying that ever since he announced his Cast Iron Referendum Pledge yet the kipper rise just kept right on going as he did so.
What a complete nonsense from start to finish. We should be making immigration easier, not harder.
Absolutely. Those who want to curb immigration want to make us poorer.
I think the opposing side to that is this:
Places like 'Silicon Roundabout' exist because it is easy for any aspiring tech person to pack their suitcase and turn up, safe in the knowledge that (so long as their development skills are good enough) they will have no problem landing a job with a start-up and doing exciting work. The reason people choose to start their business there is the same reason that developers from across Europe flock to be there.
You can choose to implement a bureaucratic system based on quotas and form filling and civil servants. But if you do so, and you impose such a barrier on business then it won't be a question of NewTechCo Ltd moving to Krakow, it will be a question about whether WhizzBangCo Ltd is formed in Shoreditch at all.
There are clearly positives and negatives to an open door immigration policy. In the seventeenth century Oliver Cromwell threw open the gates to this country - allowing Jews and many others in - and that open door policy lasted until the beginning of the First World War. It clearly caused enormous pain to various people over the following three hundred years, such as in (for example) the traditional textiles industry in the UK, as new immigrants in East London undercut them.
It's fine to say: we want a more selective approach, and we want to leave the single labour market of the EU. It is almost certain this would lead to greater social stability and cohesion.
But is it also equally true that this would have costs.
One can fall on either side of the debate - one cannot, however, claim that any approach is without costs.,
Today's goings-on are farcical, pure and simple. Anyone who says otherwise is simply ignoring what is in front of them. It won't budge a single vote but will add to the already well-developed meme that the government are an unmanaged shambling shower.
What a complete nonsense from start to finish. We should be making immigration easier, not harder.
Absolutely. Those who want to curb immigration want to make us poorer.
Those who support mass immigration seem to like the idea of making the rich richer and the poor poorer... then justifying it on an government GDP figure that means nothing to poor families
There isn't a finite amount of work available. So more immigrants can be of overall benefit to everyone.
There will be losers from any social change (the increase in female participation in the workforce was bad news for less able men). That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. It means that we have to look to help those who potentially lose out.
What a complete nonsense from start to finish. We should be making immigration easier, not harder.
Absolutely. Those who want to curb immigration want to make us poorer.
I think the opposing side to that is this:
Places like 'Silicon Roundabout' exist because it is easy for any aspiring tech person to pack their suitcase and turn up, safe in the knowledge that (so long as their development skills are good enough) they will have no problem landing a job with a start-up and doing exciting work. The reason people choose to start their business there is the same reason that developers from across Europe flock to be there.
You can choose to implement a bureaucratic system based on quotas and form filling and civil servants. But if you do so, and you impose such a barrier on business then it won't be a question of NewTechCo Ltd moving to Krakow, it will be a question about whether WhizzBangCo Ltd is formed in Shoreditch at all.
There are clearly positives and negatives to an open door immigration policy. In the seventeenth century Oliver Cromwell threw open the gates to this country - allowing Jews and many others in - and that open door policy lasted until the beginning of the First World War. It clearly caused enormous pain to various people over the following three hundred years, such as in (for example) the traditional textiles industry in the UK, as new immigrants in East London undercut them.
It's fine to say: we want a more selective approach, and we want to leave the single labour market of the EU. It is almost certain this would lead to greater social stability and cohesion.
But is it also equally true that this would have costs.
One can fall on either side of the debate - one cannot, however, claim that any approach is without costs.,
"Progressives" like to paint the immigration debate as two extreme sides, them wanting open borders and appealing for immigrants to come, with people like me and UKIP wanting zero immigration.
The truth is they hold the extreme view of open borders/encouraging immigration, while we hold the centre ground of controlled immigration.
The opposite of their view is BNP style zero immigration/repatriation.
Indeed, Mr. Isam. It would be interesting to compare the location of residence and work/salary of those who are so pro-immigration with those who are uncertain, and those who are very much against large scale migration.
The arguments over economics that emerge in debates over immigration, the EU, or Scottish independence are almost beside the point. The economic impact of increasing/reducing immigration, leaving/staying in the EU, voting Yes/No is frankly pretty marginal in the scheme of things. Regardless of the decisions that are made, the UK (or an independent Scotland) are and will remain wealthy countries,
What really motivate people one way or the other are social and cultural concerns, and identity.
I think Mick is overstressing the Cam/Major thing.
We are at a very different point in history now compared to then, for a start.
I don't need to stress it one way or another because we've already had the comparisons the last time chaos like this broke out and this was after last May's elections. Not well before May like this time.
Conservatives are more divided under David Cameron than with John Major, say voters
THE majority of British voters believe the Conservative party is more divided now under David Cameron than with former Prime Minister John Major.
''There will be losers from any social change (the increase in female participation in the workforce was bad news for less able men). That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. It means that we have to look to help those who potentially lose out. ''
I'd love to be a fly on the wall as you trotted this out at a working men's club in Kent or Lancashire. Or on a building site. Goodness me.
He won't be doing that for much longer because the kippers are hardly going to just roll over because of this. Have you forgotten all the immigration posturing from the tories that preceded last May's local elections? How did that turn out again? Why on earth would tory rebels stop now? They want firm red lines, renegotiation details and red meat on the EU so this is just the start. Once the kipper VI starts creeping up as we get closer to May they won't be shy in demanding more. So if the EU elections then turn out to be bad for Cameron will they stop then? Will they heck.
He then says that if people are pointing to the EU as the source of these problems then they know which party to vote for in GE2015 as the only one that will actually give them a choice on the matter.
Yeah, we know. He's been saying that ever since he announced his Cast Iron Referendum Pledge yet the kipper rise just kept right on going as he did so.
wrt the polls, the Kippers have been on the retreat slightly of late haven't they? The drift back has begun.
I agree with you about the rebels, that said. All of a sudden we have 303 different principled positions by Tory MPs on everything from immigration to chemical weapons.
It is farcical.
There have been some pretty senior voices recently pointing at the suicidal tendencies of such behaviour but lord knows whether they will sink in.
We are in the bizarre situation of GO's economic growth story not only having to convince the voters that the Cons are winners but of having to convince many of his backbench MPs also.
''There will be losers from any social change (the increase in female participation in the workforce was bad news for less able men). That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. It means that we have to look to help those who potentially lose out. ''
I'd love to be a fly on the wall as you trotted this out at a working men's club in Kent or Lancashire. Or on a building site. Goodness me.
It's just as well then that I posted it on a website with a strong tendency towards theoretical political debate rather than used it as a script in a working men's club or a building site.
There isn't a finite amount of work available. So more immigrants can be of overall benefit to everyone.
There will be losers from any social change (the increase in female participation in the workforce was bad news for less able men). That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. It means that we have to look to help those who potentially lose out.
Err, this bill has nothing to do with how much legal immigration we should allow. It's about deporting foreign criminals, improving controls on illegal immigration, and dealing with the problem of people using the NHS free of charge when they shouldn't be doing so.
"Mr Raab's amendment, which has the backing of more than 100 MPs, was given time by the Speaker this morning.
It proposes curbing the power of judges to halt the deportation of foreign criminals who claim a right to family life in Britain under the European Convention on Human Rights."
If we want immigration to make us richer, then it seems very reasonable to choose those most likely to do so. Unskilled, non-English speakers are much less likely to be net contributors to the economy than highly qualified migrants with fluent English.
Unless you plan to have an open door, abolish the welfare state and have shanty towns like at Marble Arch, there will be a degree of selection. We can argue what the numbers and skills required should be, but the principle is the same whether we are looking for Latvian plumbers or Indian Engineers.
There isn't a finite amount of work available. So more immigrants can be of overall benefit to everyone.
There will be losers from any social change (the increase in female participation in the workforce was bad news for less able men). That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. It means that we have to look to help those who potentially lose out.
Err, this bill has nothing to do with how much legal immigration we should allow. It's about deporting foreign criminals, improving controls on illegal immigration, and dealing with the problem of people using the NHS free of charge when they shouldn't be doing so.
The second of these begs the question on why the immigration was illegal in the first place.
The first and third are largely mindless grandstanding on essentially trivial topics.
There isn't a finite amount of work available. So more immigrants can be of overall benefit to everyone.
There will be losers from any social change (the increase in female participation in the workforce was bad news for less able men). That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. It means that we have to look to help those who potentially lose out.
Err, this bill has nothing to do with how much legal immigration we should allow. It's about deporting foreign criminals, improving controls on illegal immigration, and dealing with the problem of people using the NHS free of charge when they shouldn't be doing so.
It's about more than that: it (as I understand, and might be wrong) allows the state to make people stateless.
Before this bill, dual citizens could be stripped of their British citizenship. This bill will allow people with only British citizenship to have it stripped.
The second of these begs the question on why the immigration was illegal in the first place.
The first and third are largely mindless grandstanding on essentially trivial topics.
Trivial to you perhaps, but not to everyone else. Most people think it's pretty objectionable that foreigners convicted of the most serious crimes can end up staying here, at taxpayers' expense, on completely spurious grounds.
It's just as well then that I posted it on a website with a strong tendency towards theoretical political debate rather than used it as a script in a working men's club or a building site.
Of course its true about the rise of women at the expense of less able men, but even that I find has been a double edged sword for some single female acquintances
The pool of marriageable men 'with prospects' has shrunk somewhat!
He won't be doing that for much longer because the kippers are hardly going to just roll over because of this. Have you forgotten all the immigration posturing from the tories that preceded last May's local elections? How did that turn out again? Why on earth would tory rebels stop now? They want firm red lines, renegotiation details and red meat on the EU so this is just the start. Once the kipper VI starts creeping up as we get closer to May they won't be shy in demanding more. So if the EU elections then turn out to be bad for Cameron will they stop then? Will they heck.
He then says that if people are pointing to the EU as the source of these problems then they know which party to vote for in GE2015 as the only one that will actually give them a choice on the matter.
Yeah, we know. He's been saying that ever since he announced his Cast Iron Referendum Pledge yet the kipper rise just kept right on going as he did so.
wrt the polls, the Kippers have been on the retreat slightly of late haven't they? The drift back has begun.
So you're with Seth O Logue on this one. That in itself should be a warning that you're beginning to clutch at straws and not on the side of common sense. He too thinks the kippers are somehow going to fade from here. This is a political betting site so see what the odds are on the kippers suddenly falling back from where they are now and thus having a pretty disasterous EU election. The kipper vote of late has been basically static with small spikes up and down. It won't be for much longer though. I'm hardly going out on a limb by thinking the kippers are going to have a very good EU election. It's pretty much what most people think. That would be preceded by a rise in their VI, same as last May. A rise that could possibly end up taking more from labour than the tories just so we are clear. So you may end up in the bizarre situation with a kipper surge but the tories still maybe even having a crossover. What would the rebels do then? I think you know the answer to that one. Claim it's because they are now being tougher on the EU and immigration and this will all spiral well out of Cammie's control.
It's about more than that: it (as I understand, and might be wrong) allows the state to make people stateless.
Before this bill, dual citizens could be stripped of their British citizenship. This bill will allow people with only British citizenship to have it stripped.
That is a terrible idea on so many levels.
I tend to agree on that point, but antifrank seemed to think it was about the question of how much (legal) immigration we should allow.
If we want immigration to make us richer, then it seems very reasonable to choose those most likely to do so. Unskilled, non-English speakers are much less likely to be net contributors to the economy than highly qualified migrants with fluent English.
Unless you plan to have an open door, abolish the welfare state and have shanty towns like at Marble Arch, there will be a degree of selection. We can argue what the numbers and skills required should be, but the principle is the same whether we are looking for Latvian plumbers or Indian Engineers.
It's not. Latvian plumbers get in whether they speak English or not. Indian engineers do not. UKIP are right on this: you do not get to control your borders if you are an EU member state. We can debate all we like; nothing changes that simple fact. In the same way, Spain has to look after hundreds of thousands of British immigrants who speak no Spanish and make no net contribution to the Spanish economy.
The second of these begs the question on why the immigration was illegal in the first place.
The first and third are largely mindless grandstanding on essentially trivial topics.
Trivial to you perhaps, but not to everyone else. Most people think it's pretty objectionable that foreigners convicted of the most serious crimes can end up staying here, at taxpayers' expense, on completely spurious grounds.
It's all rather Dangerous Dogs Act, don't you think?
I tend to agree on that point, but antifrank seemed to think it was about the question of how much (legal) immigration we should allow.
Wasnt that the point of another of the proposed amendments? (The one restricting immigration from Romania and Bulgaria?) The crazy thing about the amendment allowing the Government to make people stateless is that it isnt some crazy backbench amendment - it's a Government one. Supported by the Lib Dems! (On the grounds that it wont affect many people, you couldnt make this stuff up.)
"A man died when he fell from a bridge over the M1 in Hertfordshire and a Good Samaritan driver who came to his aid was then killed by a passing vehicle."
I'm absolutely astounded that the Army have been brought in to help out flooded communities in Somerset. Admittedly, the Army has capabilities beyond us, such as bridging equipment, but this type of thing is tailor made for the UK Fire and Rescue Service. We have the equipment, we have the numbers, but above all we have the skills and motivation to get involved. Utilising the Army, whilst you've got hundreds of firefighters from all over the country itching to get involved makes me almost think the government were playing politics!
I'm absolutely astounded that the Army have been brought in to help out flooded communities in Somerset. Admittedly, the Army has capabilities beyond us, such as bridging equipment, but this type of thing is tailor made for the UK Fire and Rescue Service. We have the equipment, we have the numbers, but above all we have the skills and motivation to get involved. Utilising the Army, whilst you've got hundreds of firefighters from all over the country itching to get involved makes me almost think the government were playing politics!
Surely it depends on what they want to achieve? Sure, the fire service can help with pumping and rescuing people, but it could well be there's something more fundamental involved: for instance, temporarily breaking down flood barriers or as you say, bridging. Even the construction of new pumping stations larger than the temporary HVPs the fire service has available. Even transporting HVPs into rural areas along with fuel and supplies.
It makes sense to get the military down there to see what they can help with. I bet the respective fire services are there as well.
If we want immigration to make us richer, then it seems very reasonable to choose those most likely to do so. Unskilled, non-English speakers are much less likely to be net contributors to the economy than highly qualified migrants with fluent English.
Unless you plan to have an open door, abolish the welfare state and have shanty towns like at Marble Arch, there will be a degree of selection. We can argue what the numbers and skills required should be, but the principle is the same whether we are looking for Latvian plumbers or Indian Engineers.
That's not true.
If you enforce property rights, there is no way for a shanty town at Marble Arch. Migrants are rational. Giving away your life savings to starve to death on the cold streets of London is not a rational thing to do.
People bring up this shanty town as if it were a realistic proposition. It's not. If you can afford the passage from Balngladesh (equivalent to a whole year's income) you do so because you think you can build a better life here. If you know that you will come, and have no home and no realistic prospect of a job, then you will better off staying.
Of course, in the late 19th century people gave up a whole year's income to leave for the East Coast of the US (where population densities in Boston, Phildephia and New York were greater than in Eastern or Southern Europe). They went without hope of public assistance.
And were there shanty towns?
No, of course not.
We had an open door policy in the UK from about 1640 to 1914. You will note that those dates pretty much match the time when Britain was great.
But even if they weren't, it would be an irrelevance.
Pretty much the only thing that stops the tyranny of governments is the ability of people to leave places with bad governance. France - by behaving stupidly - will lose many of its most productive people.
Free borders is the greatest weapon against poor behavior by governments. It is what allows people to escape tyranny and to build better lives.
So what if you face more competition in the workplace? Why is that my concern? And why should that even be the concern of the state?
Comments
Labour sewing up the "foreign born" and "criminal" demographics for 2015.
Sir Edric's Temple is the most recent. It's a rollicking comedy, starring the least heroic man in fantasy: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sir-Edrics-Temple-ebook/dp/B00GCAF2CI/
There's also Bane of Souls, a criminally underpriced novel about a barbarian chap trapped in a city wracked with murders, and Journey to Altmortis, featuring the surprisingly popular dwarven thief-bastard Roger the Goat [for the avoidance of doubt, Roger is not based on pb.com's respected gentleman of the same name].
Labour will vote AGAINST Raab amendment on Immigration Bill. We've just gone from farce to shambles.
I'm sure all posters of whatever political stripe will agree that she is worth watching.
Do you have samples of your books available? Authors (especially new ones) often provide the first chapter or three from their novels to pique the interest and loosen the wallets of potential new readers.
Presumably they are not zero hours contracts!
Sunil - I don't think people are too fussed about a separation where they are permitted to live in their own country, and forbidden from living in the other if it's a mutual restriction... wouldn't "apartheid" normally refer to enforced separation in a single state with large power asymmetries? Not, of course, that I would dream of adopting any position on whether that is the current situation in this case.
[Labour say] "We will come forward with proposals [as the bill progresses] to facilitate and not hinder foreign prisoner removals. [This is] weak and chaotic [leadership] from the prime minister and the home secretary on this so-called flagship bill."
So the idea is to take the opportunity to play games by introducing further amendments which will expose the splits in the Tory position, presumably ultimately forcing Cameron to whip in favour of something which his backbenchers will oppose.
Fortunately the Conservative backbenchers have the intelligence and discipline to see that coming a mile off and fall in with the whips to avoid that embarrassment for their leader, eh?
The government's mishandling won't be the headline now though.
'Labour blocks moves to make deporting foreign criminals easier'
Natch.
*cough* And whilst awkwardly plugging, and before the moderators attack me with big pointy sticks, my first traditionally published story should be out later this year. It's a short ghost story, part of an anthology due out (roughly) in March, called Malevolence.
Wonder if the Mail's readers will believe it when its splashed all over the front page tomorrow....
Nicholls indicates Tidal Bay is heading to Aintree, also importantly Long Run could well be there.
If Long Run runs - And I actually hope he doesn't (Though it looks likely) - Tidal Bay will NOT carry top weight as he is rated 5 lbs lower. Tidal Bay came close at the Welsh national carrying top weight, and he was closing at the line which indicates the old boy has bags of stamina still.
Backing him at 25-1 Each Way, that price won't be available on the day I can tell you now.
If this continues at Bahrain (both tests 2 and 3 happen there) then Red Bull is screwed.
Still time to get on top of it, but even if they do they've effectively lost the whole first test, unless they can get in serious running tomorrow.
P.S. Sir Edric's Temple made me laugh out loud more often than any book since my first reading of Tom Sharpe's "Riotous Assembly", and that was in 1979 and it cost me more than 99p.
And the electioneering literature
Labour: Standing up for foreign criminals in your area....
That about cover it?
The tory rebels weren't the ones who were forced back down. Cameron was.
There's no way to spin that as anything other than yet another humiliation and crushing blow to his already crumbling authority. Eurosceptic tories now know for certain if they pile enough pressure onto Cammie he will fold like a cheap pack of cards. Superb master strategy that one and guaranteed not to come back to haunt him in the weeks and months ahead.
twitter.com/TomBage/status/428837364988133376/photo/1
That would be fun! :-)
*lights touchpaper and satnds well back*
Mick didn't you post the same about the huge loss to Cameron's authority when he got stuffed over Syria??
Curiously he is still prime minister and will be until May 2015.
As you shall see soon enough.
I look at the leaders relative to one another, not the ideal (an Aurelian sort of chap). Miliband's atrocious, and whilst Clegg has some merits (occasionally) he's such a flagrant EU-phile I couldn't possibly back him.
By not being a demented Marxist backstabbing economically illiterate greenist zealot or an unpatriotic sort Cameron wins by default. Or, at least, the other two leaders fail to a greater extent.
The alternative is that Labour voted against a badly drafted amendment Tory ministers didn't have the guts to oppose.
UKIP wins.
Again.
Minister: "Yes, that's right. We think it's disgraceful that Labour want to make it harder for foreign criminals to be deported"
Humphreys: "I see. Now, looking at this amendment, didn't the Conservative home secretary say in the debate that supporting the amendment would make it harder to deport foreign criminals?"
Minister "...."
Humphreys: "I understand, positions can change. So can I take it that the next Conservative government would support this amendment passing into law?"
Minister "well, we'd love to, but actually we're not allowed to"
And so on. It's not an easy position to run, unless you're UKIP and not bound by the prospect of being in government.
I was self-evidently right. You still don't grasp that he's been forced to cave in to his own backbenchers?
Curiously I never claimed they would topple him. They'll just keep eroding his authority away but by bit and watch him suffer till he does what they tell him.
Lab decision to vote against (rather than abstain on) Raab amendment is a gift to Cam. Rebels get thr vote but Lab get blame for killing it
Now, you chaps who fancy a wager on the next GE, listen to authentic voice of Yorkshire:
"By not being a demented Marxist backstabbing economically illiterate greenist zealot or an unpatriotic sort Cameron wins by default. Or, at least, the other two leaders fail to a greater extent."
No mention of flat-caps, whippets, trips or coal-fields there.
Nobody's bitten on this one though: can anyone think of an example of a governing party whipping its MPs to abstain on an amendment government bill in recent history (as opposed to free vote, for or against)?
And so, in normal circumstances, you should. However, Mr. Charles, I recall we have an outstanding bet and other that it involved a bottle and our respective clubs (you wouldn't want to dine at mine) I cannot recall what it was, so I am less tempted to rise to your bait than I otherwise would be.
Make the middle class who are creaming all the benefits of immigration poorer certainly.
For others, its an altogether more complex different story. Hence the 'party of the working class'
Brave Sir Robin has s**t his brick, Brave Sir Robin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8
*chortle*
One fears the Mercedes engineers might die laughing before the first race.
Bugger. I know embedding tweets is verboten, I just wanted the link to appear. Sorry.
[Sir Edric is *not* based on David Cameron].
Edited extra bit: a Sir Edric-related tweet this morning had something of Sir Robin about it.
So: Philipino Nurses and French Bankers YES, Bulgarian gangsters and Arab Jihadis NO.
You wouldn't let just anyone into your house, why should the same not apply to the country?
Forget also that I think it ludicrous that Cons MPs can pick & choose according to their own personal tosspot whims which govt business to support and which to rebel on.
Cam sorts this by pointing at the opinion polls, reflecting that the country is split on the issue and that it is a matter of conscience and that he is relaxed that there is a healthy debate on the matter.
He then says that if people are pointing to the EU as the source of these problems then they know which party to vote for in GE2015 as the only one that will actually give them a choice on the matter.
Vast numbers of people in the UK find that it makes their working lives more uncertain, and their wages subject to downward pressure. So it is entirely rational for them to oppose immigration.
To support immigration you need an adequate way to mitigate the impact on large numbers of current UK residents. A big part of this is managing the numbers so that, on a macro level, we get most of the economic benefits but the cultural dislocation can be asimilated.
Ammunition for UKIP in the medium term I suspect, the rain and Schumacher are today's main news.
Conscience?? It's a government bill and he's been forced to cave in on it because he's scared his own backbenchers might defeat it.
Yeah, we know. He's been saying that ever since he announced his Cast Iron Referendum Pledge yet the kipper rise just kept right on going as he did so.
Places like 'Silicon Roundabout' exist because it is easy for any aspiring tech person to pack their suitcase and turn up, safe in the knowledge that (so long as their development skills are good enough) they will have no problem landing a job with a start-up and doing exciting work. The reason people choose to start their business there is the same reason that developers from across Europe flock to be there.
You can choose to implement a bureaucratic system based on quotas and form filling and civil servants. But if you do so, and you impose such a barrier on business then it won't be a question of NewTechCo Ltd moving to Krakow, it will be a question about whether WhizzBangCo Ltd is formed in Shoreditch at all.
There are clearly positives and negatives to an open door immigration policy. In the seventeenth century Oliver Cromwell threw open the gates to this country - allowing Jews and many others in - and that open door policy lasted until the beginning of the First World War. It clearly caused enormous pain to various people over the following three hundred years, such as in (for example) the traditional textiles industry in the UK, as new immigrants in East London undercut them.
It's fine to say: we want a more selective approach, and we want to leave the single labour market of the EU. It is almost certain this would lead to greater social stability and cohesion.
But is it also equally true that this would have costs.
One can fall on either side of the debate - one cannot, however, claim that any approach is without costs.,
Something I think the kippers and the tory rebels have probably noticed by now.
We are at a very different point in history now compared to then, for a start.
There will be losers from any social change (the increase in female participation in the workforce was bad news for less able men). That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. It means that we have to look to help those who potentially lose out.
"Progressives" like to paint the immigration debate as two extreme sides, them wanting open borders and appealing for immigrants to come, with people like me and UKIP wanting zero immigration.
The truth is they hold the extreme view of open borders/encouraging immigration, while we hold the centre ground of controlled immigration.
The opposite of their view is BNP style zero immigration/repatriation.
What really motivate people one way or the other are social and cultural concerns, and identity.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall as you trotted this out at a working men's club in Kent or Lancashire. Or on a building site. Goodness me.
I agree with you about the rebels, that said. All of a sudden we have 303 different principled positions by Tory MPs on everything from immigration to chemical weapons.
It is farcical.
There have been some pretty senior voices recently pointing at the suicidal tendencies of such behaviour but lord knows whether they will sink in.
We are in the bizarre situation of GO's economic growth story not only having to convince the voters that the Cons are winners but of having to convince many of his backbench MPs also.
"Mr Raab's amendment, which has the backing of more than 100 MPs, was given time by the Speaker this morning.
It proposes curbing the power of judges to halt the deportation of foreign criminals who claim a right to family life in Britain under the European Convention on Human Rights."
>>>> Labour and the LDs voted against this.
Nighthawks 17 last night:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10605581/The-800000-people-living-in-Britain-with-little-or-no-English.html
If we want immigration to make us richer, then it seems very reasonable to choose those most likely to do so. Unskilled, non-English speakers are much less likely to be net contributors to the economy than highly qualified migrants with fluent English.
Unless you plan to have an open door, abolish the welfare state and have shanty towns like at Marble Arch, there will be a degree of selection. We can argue what the numbers and skills required should be, but the principle is the same whether we are looking for Latvian plumbers or Indian Engineers.
The first and third are largely mindless grandstanding on essentially trivial topics.
Before this bill, dual citizens could be stripped of their British citizenship. This bill will allow people with only British citizenship to have it stripped.
That is a terrible idea on so many levels.
Of course its true about the rise of women at the expense of less able men, but even that I find has been a double edged sword for some single female acquintances
The pool of marriageable men 'with prospects' has shrunk somewhat!
So you're with Seth O Logue on this one. That in itself should be a warning that you're beginning to clutch at straws and not on the side of common sense. He too thinks the kippers are somehow going to fade from here. This is a political betting site so see what the odds are on the kippers suddenly falling back from where they are now and thus having a pretty disasterous EU election. The kipper vote of late has been basically static with small spikes up and down. It won't be for much longer though. I'm hardly going out on a limb by thinking the kippers are going to have a very good EU election. It's pretty much what most people think. That would be preceded by a rise in their VI, same as last May. A rise that could possibly end up taking more from labour than the tories just so we are clear. So you may end up in the bizarre situation with a kipper surge but the tories still maybe even having a crossover. What would the rebels do then? I think you know the answer to that one. Claim it's because they are now being tougher on the EU and immigration and this will all spiral well out of Cammie's control.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-25960081
"A man died when he fell from a bridge over the M1 in Hertfordshire and a Good Samaritan driver who came to his aid was then killed by a passing vehicle."
It certainly won't be the last now.
It makes sense to get the military down there to see what they can help with. I bet the respective fire services are there as well.
UKIP shotgun fully loaded up !
If you enforce property rights, there is no way for a shanty town at Marble Arch. Migrants are rational. Giving away your life savings to starve to death on the cold streets of London is not a rational thing to do.
People bring up this shanty town as if it were a realistic proposition. It's not. If you can afford the passage from Balngladesh (equivalent to a whole year's income) you do so because you think you can build a better life here. If you know that you will come, and have no home and no realistic prospect of a job, then you will better off staying.
Of course, in the late 19th century people gave up a whole year's income to leave for the East Coast of the US (where population densities in Boston, Phildephia and New York were greater than in Eastern or Southern Europe). They went without hope of public assistance.
And were there shanty towns?
No, of course not.
We had an open door policy in the UK from about 1640 to 1914. You will note that those dates pretty much match the time when Britain was great.
But even if they weren't, it would be an irrelevance.
Pretty much the only thing that stops the tyranny of governments is the ability of people to leave places with bad governance. France - by behaving stupidly - will lose many of its most productive people.
Free borders is the greatest weapon against poor behavior by governments. It is what allows people to escape tyranny and to build better lives.
So what if you face more competition in the workplace? Why is that my concern? And why should that even be the concern of the state?