Strange for 13 years of New Labour government the system was fine,but as soon as the numbers start going down the system is crap.
But Chris Bryant's comments are hilarious.
'"People want a bit of honesty on immigration, so the home secretary should look at how to measure immigration more accurately as a matter of urgency," he said.'
Best stick to the chocolate oranges and porn filters,probably more mileage there.
Strange for 13 years of New Labour government the system was fine,but as soon as the numbers start going down the system is crap.
But Chris Bryant's comments are hilarious.
'"People want a bit of honesty on immigration, so the home secretary should look at how to measure immigration more accurately as a matter of urgency," he said.'
Best stick to the chocolate oranges and porn filters,probably more mileage there.
I really can't believe some of the abject nonsense Labour are coming with. I've no problem with HHOO opposing - but pretending black is white adds no credibility to their messaging whatsoever.
@Easterross Earlier in the year I had a great few days in Edinburgh where I gave a talk at the Scottish Parliament. I came away believing that if I had a vote it would be for YES.
The country is so different with a separate legal system, cultural heritage and even its own banknotes.
I imagine your recent holiday in Italy convinced you that the bel paese should exit the EU.
@Easterross Earlier in the year I had a great few days in Edinburgh where I gave a talk at the Scottish Parliament. I came away believing that if I had a vote it would be for YES.
The country is so different with a separate legal system, cultural heritage and even its own banknotes.
Mike you have hit the nail on the head. Scotland feels like a totally separate country from England in particular. Every evening when I hear London journalists announce or pronounce on government policies etc I find myself saying "doesn't apply to Scotland". There is so little left that holds the country together that even an arch unionist like me often feels we should get on with it, break loose and knuckle down to make the new independent Scotland a success. It would lead to the rebirth of the centre-right in Scotland because we would no longer be seen as some sort of quasi-imperialistic representative of the English Tory party.
@Easterross Earlier in the year I had a great few days in Edinburgh where I gave a talk at the Scottish Parliament. I came away believing that if I had a vote it would be for YES.
The country is so different with a separate legal system, cultural heritage and even its own banknotes.
The fact that it can be so different within the union is rather the point isn't it.
I tend to agree with you tim. However something is changing. Almost as if in our globalised world people are hankering for some kind of tribal identity that four nations as one can't produce. My Tory voting brother was tempted to support yes last time we discussed it - he's been there 7 years - his reason at the time being he's fed up with Britain intervening in places (Syria) where we no longer have the capability to do so.
Just to make it clear I have made no allegations about Philip Morris or any other companies and individuals.I have just pointed out that the system of the same person acting as media adviser for the party in government and lobbyist for private clients is prone to abuse.
Do you think Ed Miliband should do as he said, and release information of the lobbyists he has been seeing?
The system isn't built to count people in and out, it has never been. So you'd be an idiot to base your immigration policy on counting people in and out as Cameron has.
The Labour government certainly didn't seem to have any interest in counting people in and out. Despite the fact that that is the most basic thing that an immigration system should surely do.
So you base a system on what? Allowance people to turn up as they feel like it and then working out what the Government response has to be when you suddenly realise loads more people live here than you thought. Great.
Accept the EU has free movement, you counter that by changing the rules on the benefit system so that recent immigrants from the EU or elsewhere do not qualify for income-based benefits. For everyone else we should have a points system. Yes I agree any liberal democracy needs immigrants, but we should get to decide who joins our club and who doesn't.
Easterross - I don't know Scotland that well, but my own feeling is that the Tories up there are stuck in the 1950s. There's no equivalent of the modern Essex man Tory of the last 30 years. That the Party is largely full of upper middle class landowners who watch rugby.
I read the piece and it really didn't "suggest" anything like that to me. What it did seem to suggest that a Prisoner Transfer Agreement was used as a quid pro quo for an arms deal. The PTA was signed and under Libyan pressure did not specifically exclude Megrahi, but the arms deal wasn't signed for some reason. And then Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds rather than under the PTA anyway.
Personally, I am a bastard and think prison is a good enough place for a mass murderer to die. But while this story does gives us a little more detail about the murky goings on of the Blair and Brown governments with a nasty regime, it doesn't add anything to whether the Scottish government released him under pressure from the UK government.
Having said that, a PTA presumably allows us to ensure that British citizens do not have to rot in Libyan gaols, which is a good thing.
Just to make it clear I have made no allegations about Philip Morris or any other companies and individuals.I have just pointed out that the system of the same person acting as media adviser for the party in government and lobbyist for private clients is prone to abuse.
Do you think Ed Miliband should do as he said, and release information of the lobbyists he has been seeing?
But having dinner with lobbyists two years ago(yawn) is rather miniscule compared to employing a media adviser who doubles up as a lobbyist for private clients for four days a week.
"But the Immigration Service Union has criticised the move, saying it will be harder to ensure that illegal immigrants ordered out of the country have actually left.
The union blames the general lack of effectiveness of embarkation controls on under-investment by the [Labour] government."
'I really can't believe some of the abject nonsense Labour are coming with. I've no problem with HHOO opposing - but pretending black is white adds no credibility to their messaging whatsoever.'
It's laughable,if the crime numbers keep going down that will be next to get trashed.
A sample of 5,000 is inadequate to measure migration but a sample of 1,000 is adequate to measure the voting intentions of over 40 million people.
Easterross - I don't know Scotland that well, but my own feeling is that the Tories up there are stuck in the 1950s. There's no equivalent of the modern Essex man Tory of the last 30 years. That the Party is largely full of upper middle class landowners who watch rugby.
Possibly because being Essex Tory Man was about taking command of your own destiny, which in Scotland translates into a yes vote?
"That the Party is largely full of upper middle class landowners who watch rugby"
My Comedy Post of the Day.
That over 10m UK voters gave them more MPs than any other party is of course false consciousness.
Plato, I was of course referring to Scotland - if you actually bothered to read my post fully. The Tories tend to get around the 15% mark in Scotland. I'd love to know how many Scottish members the Party has. I can't believe it's that many.
@Plato "And it became apparent that a new sort of poverty was being created: one that was bred by dependence on government spending. This welfare underclass had far more complex problems than the old unemployed working class: hopelessness and myriad social deprivations could not be cured by temporary financial help.
However the official Left doctrine of redistribution refused to take this into account for the longest time."
This is a massive problem as this new "welfare underclass" does not really believe in mobility. However, it seems increasingly unlikely that jobs will move to them at present, for reasons both of education and geography, as illustrated by the comments about Wales in a previous thread.
So as these people are unemployed and often unemployable, what do we do with them? No party has yet attempted to answer this problem.
WRT a definition of the Midlands (re your comments on seats), do you take the BBC/Electoral Calculus definition of W.Mids and E.Mids? and leave E Anglia as a separate territory? Let me know and I will come up with the seats.
'I really can't believe some of the abject nonsense Labour are coming with. I've no problem with HHOO opposing - but pretending black is white adds no credibility to their messaging whatsoever.'
It's laughable,if the crime numbers keep going down that will be next to get trashed.
A sample of 5,000 is inadequate to measure migration but a sample of 1,000 is adequate to measure the voting intentions of over 40 million people.
I remain perplexed why Labour scrapped the controls in 1998 [well I know why they did but you know what I mean].
IIRC when the crisis struck, Labour tried to bring in some massively complex IT system to count everyone in and out but that failed [no surprise there then] and so we're stumbling along with survey based estimated rather than actuals.
We manage to know how many are in work, claiming benefits or whatever that are in the millions but we can't work out who's coming in and out as migrants?
Immigration stats are already widely disbelieved - Kippers will make hay with this stuff.
The approx same number of Scottish voters chose the SNP/Tory and LDs in GE2010 - its down to the concentration of those voters that accounts for the number of seats.
Your characterisation of Tories as rugby watching middle class landowners is a keeper. What's your beef with watching rugby for Heaven's sake?
Would watching soccer be more acceptable over a pint? Lots of Welsh Labour voters watch rugby!
"That the Party is largely full of upper middle class landowners who watch rugby"
My Comedy Post of the Day.
That over 10m UK voters gave them more MPs than any other party is of course false consciousness.
Plato, I was of course referring to Scotland - if you actually bothered to read my post fully. The Tories tend to get around the 15% mark in Scotland. I'd love to know how many Scottish members the Party has. I can't believe it's that many.
I agree - and moving State jobs to places of high unemployment as Labour did doesn't help in the long run. Those areas just disguise the problem rather than fix it.
TBH, I think only something really drastic re corp tax/business rate exemptions for small firms will return these areas to a more entrepreneurial mindset. I associate Newcastle and other great cities like Liverpool as Victorian triumphs, but they've steadily lost their spirit and become ghettos of victimhood in too many areas. Places like Merthyr have unique issues because of their terrible transport links - but there's no reason why businesses can thrive in the Highlands of Scotland, yet can't make a go of it in N Wales. We are less reliant on the physical movement of goods than ever before to do business - if Cornwall can do it...
And Yes Please! East Anglia is definitively a separate block with a distinct identity.
@Plato "And it became apparent that a new sort of poverty was being created: one that was bred by dependence on government spending. This welfare underclass had far more complex problems than the old unemployed working class: hopelessness and myriad social deprivations could not be cured by temporary financial help.
However the official Left doctrine of redistribution refused to take this into account for the longest time."
This is a massive problem as this new "welfare underclass" does not really believe in mobility. However, it seems increasingly unlikely that jobs will move to them at present, for reasons both of education and geography, as illustrated by the comments about Wales in a previous thread.
So as these people are unemployed and often unemployable, what do we do with them? No party has yet attempted to answer this problem.
WRT a definition of the Midlands (re your comments on seats), do you take the BBC/Electoral Calculus definition of W.Mids and E.Mids? and leave E Anglia as a separate territory? Let me know and I will come up with the seats.
The approx same number of Scottish voters chose the SNP/Tory and LDs in GE2010 - its down to the concentration of those voters that accounts for the number of seats.
Your characterisation of Tories as rugby watching middle class landowners is a keeper. What's your beef with watching rugby for Heaven's sake?
Would watching soccer be more acceptable over a pint? Lots of Welsh Labour voters watch rugby!
"That the Party is largely full of upper middle class landowners who watch rugby"
My Comedy Post of the Day.
That over 10m UK voters gave them more MPs than any other party is of course false consciousness.
Plato, I was of course referring to Scotland - if you actually bothered to read my post fully. The Tories tend to get around the 15% mark in Scotland. I'd love to know how many Scottish members the Party has. I can't believe it's that many.
Possibly his point is that they have ONE MP and a handful at Holyrood, only thanks to list system. They are totally insignificant in Scottish politics today, most of their natural supporters are now voting SNP.
Also trying to compare watching rugby in Wales with same in Scotland , would be comparable to quoting Morris Dancing in England
The approx same number of Scottish voters chose the SNP/Tory and LDs in GE2010 - its down to the concentration of those voters that accounts for the number of seats.
Your characterisation of Tories as rugby watching middle class landowners is a keeper. What's your beef with watching rugby for Heaven's sake?
Would watching soccer be more acceptable over a pint? Lots of Welsh Labour voters watch rugby!
"That the Party is largely full of upper middle class landowners who watch rugby"
My Comedy Post of the Day.
That over 10m UK voters gave them more MPs than any other party is of course false consciousness.
Plato, I was of course referring to Scotland - if you actually bothered to read my post fully. The Tories tend to get around the 15% mark in Scotland. I'd love to know how many Scottish members the Party has. I can't believe it's that many.
I have no beef with watching rugby. But it's very much a minor sport in Scotland, similar to England but unlike Wales. If you're happy with the Tories polling 15% in Scotland, fine. I always assumed your Party was more ambitious.
Not sure designing a benefit system aimed at deterring the least likely group of people in the country from claiming benefits is a logical starting point.
You're usually good with figures, so I suppose you can back that up.
But as far as I know the Habitual Residency Test does not start from the premise "have you lived in the UK for 10 years?" and maybe it should. And we should end ridiculousness like, for example, resident Poles being able to claim Child Benefit for children living in... Poland.
Another of my novels went to the publishers editor yesterday, I won't bother sending you a copy, it has some BIG words in it.
Another? Can you let me know what the previous published masterpieces in your oeuvre are? As with paddling and swimming, I'd like to see the difference between your semi literate, incoherent prejudices and a novel wot you wrote.
'Although it's as logical as Dave's idiot pledge counting a small sample of them all out and counting a small sample of them all back in again.'
It was also New Labour's idiot pledge.
'A £1.2billion ‘electronic borders’ system which is supposed to protect Britain from illegal immigrants, terrorists and foreign criminals descended into shambles last night. The Government sacked the U.S.-based firm paid by Labour to introduce the programme after it was hit by chronic delays. As a result, 100million journeys a year in and out of the UK will continue to go unrecorded by officials in charge of the massive ‘e-Borders’ project.'
I tend to agree with you tim. However something is changing. Almost as if in our globalised world people are hankering for some kind of tribal identity that four nations as one can't produce. My Tory voting brother was tempted to support yes last time we discussed it - he's been there 7 years - his reason at the time being he's fed up with Britain intervening in places (Syria) where we no longer have the capability to do so.
An intelligent bloke would recognise that we could have made a difference in Syria eighteen months ago (c.f. Hopi Sen). We have Sentinel and GR4; we have Cyprus. Syria is a modern-day Bosnia or Rwanda (depending on your time-of-the-month).
An intelligent bloke would have recognised that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan were largely at the behest of Scots: Blair, Brown, Robertson, Reid: Whether they were right (as Tories supported them) cannot be placed just with "rUK". True we were not equipped fully for these roles - thanks Gormless McBruin - but lots of 'strange' UORs secure lots of "thank-you" jobs from the Italian-state's arms-industry.*
An intelligent bloke would have known that....
:draw-your-own-conclusions.
* Hoon and the tale of the Iveco Panther are well-known:
What on Earth is going on the Gib border? I keep seeing dozens of tweets about huge delays of 5hrs or more.
Yes, it's madness here at the moment!
The background: we have decided to create an artificial reef for wildlife habitat reasons off the end of the airport runway by dropping concrete blocks in the water.
The Spanish don't recognise that we have any territorial waters and claim Spanish sovereignty up to the Gib shoreline. Spanish fishermen use that area of our waters illegally and drag nets along the seabed. The blocks will stop that and remove the livelihood of the local Spaniards.
I live in the centre of town and the traffic queues were reaching my front door yesterday which is about the 7 hour waiting mark. I was taking out cold water for the drivers for a few hours that evening.
The Royal Navy is under orders to be as non-confrontational as possible which is inflaming local opinion. Our Man in Madrid isn't much use either ... and apropos of nothing is Giles Paxman, Jeremy Paxman's brother.
The approx same number of Scottish voters chose the SNP/Tory and LDs in GE2010 - its down to the concentration of those voters that accounts for the number of seats.
Your characterisation of Tories as rugby watching middle class landowners is a keeper. What's your beef with watching rugby for Heaven's sake?
Would watching soccer be more acceptable over a pint? Lots of Welsh Labour voters watch rugby!
"That the Party is largely full of upper middle class landowners who watch rugby"
My Comedy Post of the Day.
That over 10m UK voters gave them more MPs than any other party is of course false consciousness.
Plato, I was of course referring to Scotland - if you actually bothered to read my post fully. The Tories tend to get around the 15% mark in Scotland. I'd love to know how many Scottish members the Party has. I can't believe it's that many.
I have no beef with watching rugby. But it's very much a minor sport in Scotland, similar to England but unlike Wales. If you're happy with the Tories polling 15% in Scotland, fine. I always assumed your Party was more ambitious.
"That the Party is largely full of upper middle class landowners who watch rugby"
My Comedy Post of the Day.
That over 10m UK voters gave them more MPs than any other party is of course false consciousness.
That is actually a very good description of the typical rural Scottish LibDem! The majority of Scottish farmers are rugby supporters and vote LibDem. The Scottish LibDems have a Viscount and a Baronet among their dozen MPs.
The typical Scottish Tory member in the urban areas is someone who started life in a very solidly working class family, living in social housing who by their own efforts has managed to promote themselves into the property owning middle class. Their children or grandchildren were the first members of the family to go to university and are now lawyers, doctors, accountants and teachers.
The typical member in a rural area is a widow, usually of an accountant, lawyer or bank manager. The men tend to be ex-military or those farmers who haven't defected to the LibDems since 1987. There are very few major landowners I can think of who live in Scotland and are Tory voters. There are also some I know who are active members of the SNP. Few support the Labour party because they see it as an urban group, stuck in the class wars of the late 19th century who believe private ownership is evil and everything should be in the public sector.
Only been to Gib once and have to say that landing on that runway put hairs on my chest! I almost managed to get run over by an airport truck whilst walking across it. The idea of a runway like a level crossing hadn't quite sunk in...
What on Earth is going on the Gib border? I keep seeing dozens of tweets about huge delays of 5hrs or more.
Yes, it's madness here at the moment!
The background: we have decided to create an artificial reef for wildlife habitat reasons off the end of the airport runway by dropping concrete blocks in the water.
The Spanish don't recognise that we have any territorial waters and claim Spanish sovereignty up to the Gib shoreline. Spanish fishermen use that area of our waters illegally and drag nets along the seabed. The blocks will stop that and remove the livelihood of the local Spaniards.
I live in the centre of town and the traffic queues were reaching my front door yesterday which is about the 7 hour waiting mark. I was taking out cold water for the drivers for a few hours that evening.
The Royal Navy is under orders to be as non-confrontational as possible which is inflaming local opinion. Our Man in Madrid isn't much use either ... and apropos of nothing is Giles Paxman, Jeremy Paxman's brother.
I almost managed to get run over by an airport truck whilst walking across it. The idea of a runway like a level crossing hadn't quite sunk in...
Hehehe yes, it's an experience for the uninitiated! The only reason we get away with having a roadway/pedestrians straight across the middle of an international airport in todays Health'n'Safety mad world is because technically it's an RAF base which grants landing slots.
New commercial pilots have to get a special chit to land there too as the approach is so tricky. Can't turn left into Spanish airspace without prior per-plane consent etc etc.
So that's 40,000 JSA claimants from the EU alone. Not sure how much they're claiming, if it's only the single person's JSA that's £150,000,000 a year. Plus many of them will have families, so many will be claiming the couples rate, add Child Tax Credit, Housing Benefit, Council tax benefit, Child benefit, free prescriptions and dentistry... not to mention non-EU claimants. In fact it says there is a total of 371,000 non-UK citizens, many of whom are claiming ESA and other ill health benefits, which tend to be more generous than JSA.
Actually I see you have been economical with the truth, as there may be less than 7,000 Poles claiming JSA but the total is a little under 12,000 when you add in ESA claimants and lone parents (claiming Income Support). Who will be getting more than the JSA claimants.
Now the paper does say the figures aren't very good because it is based on the nationality of people when they first applied for an NI number. So some of them may in the meantime have qualified fully or partly for my residency-based benefits. I don't know what the average benefit claim is including all benefits, but if it is £150 a week then those people are costing us 3 billion a year. Well worth looking into, I would say.
On topic, steady as she goes. One point to be considered is that the negative campaigning by Bettertogether (described approvingly on here as 'strangling' the Yes campaign) isn't having much traction with either decided Yes voters or DKs, and doom-laden warnings are going to have less and less resonance as time passes. Also if BT and associated parties eventually do produce a carrot, how much credence will they be given as people who have belittled Scotland's ability to survive independently (implicitly or explicitly) and issued endless threats of how punitive an rUK would be to an independent Scotland? I've been told that the Yes campaign is husbanding its financial resources till next year (not having non-resident, dodgy oil tycoons* to bankroll it); I'm pretty sure the Yes campaign will be ramping up significantly as time goes on.
The Royal Navy is under orders to be as non-confrontational as possible which is inflaming local opinion.
There is an internet rumour that the SD Victoria, who arrived in the harbour a few days ago, has some very interesting guests on-board. Why Serco needs a "multi-purpose off-shore vessel" does not help the tin-foil folk....
I'm a pretty fearless flier, but coming into land on what looked as short as a garden path did make me cross my fingers!
I've great sympathy with those who are stuck waiting to cross - I was trapped in Ceuta/Morocco for about 8hrs in searing heat trying to get over to Gib. The border police decided to divert officers to catch illegals breaking through the fence...and spend 20 mins looking at every passport...
I almost managed to get run over by an airport truck whilst walking across it. The idea of a runway like a level crossing hadn't quite sunk in...
Hehehe yes, it's an experience for the uninitiated! The only reason we get away with having a roadway/pedestrians straight across the middle of an international airport in todays Health'n'Safety mad world is because technically it's an RAF base which grants landing slots.
New commercial pilots have to get a special chit to land there too as the approach is so tricky. Can't turn left into Spanish airspace without prior per-plane consent etc etc.
I know, I used the figures you presented to show a possible £3bn cost of paying benefits to non-nationals. You now seem to be ignoring those figures and to have moved on to Channel 4 anecdote to prove your case. But those items are a bit problematic for your view...
Sarah Clarke, a solicitor who handles benefit cases for CPAG, said one of the key factors in whether you pass that test or not is how long you have been in the country before you make a claim.
In most cases, that means that you would have to be in this country for one to three months before you could expect to get any kind of handout.
So much for benefit “tourism”, if what that means is staying in the country for a short while and sponging off the state at the same time. Anyone who came here with that intention would find themselves with nothing to live on for months.
That mainly only tells us that benefit claimants have mostly complied with immigration laws, which is a bit of a truism really. Most illegal immigrants will not want to announce their status to the government by rocking up to a Jobcentre and signing on.
TUD..Your little rant puts you in the category of a tartan tim. I know it is difficult for someone like you to grasp the concept but some people do have productive lives away from PB..Try it out , you might lke it.. Don't forget to hitch up your wee tartan skirt when you go wading.
TUD..Your little rant puts you in the category of a tartan tim. I know it is difficult for someone like you to grasp the concept but some people do have productive lives away from PB..Try it out , you might lke it.. Don't forget to hitch up your wee tartan skirt when you go wading.
An author too ashamed to publicise his work? That's a new one (though understandable in the circumstances).
Not really, if fewer old people leave you need to let more people in to do work and have children (assuming constant birth rates among the people already here)
Fair enough, that means we need more information about who leaaves to decide whether we let people in, and who. Of course quite a lot of old people immigrate as well, as quite a lot of younger people who have settled here then bring their elderly parents in.
And that's without taking into account skills gaps.
I fully support a points based system so we let suitable people in who will be of benefit to the country.
All irrelevant for Dave though, he supports free movement in the single market and movements in and out cannot be controlled.
To a point. We can tell Somalis to f~~~ off, for example. And if too many EU citizens come here, we ought to reduce the quota for non-EU citizens.
There is an internet rumour that the SD Victoria, who arrived in the harbour a few days ago, has some very interesting guests on-board. Why Serco needs a "multi-purpose off-shore vessel" does not help the tin-foil folk....
Yes, I know a little more about that stopover at the high security part of New Mole than some.
TUD..An author who writes under a nom de plume .. There are a lot of them, the most famous recently is JK Rowling, a Scot I believe. I doubt she is ashamed . Anyway ,it allows me to have a very pleasant lifestyle.
Mr. Divvie, if you're after a good book why not try Journey to Altmortis? On the US/UK Amazon sites it's currently got mostly 5* ratings.
Making good progress with the comedy, although I'm mildly irked that an otherwise perfect line cannot be used because it's anachronistic [the comedy's a fantasy, and even with leeway it's too much].
For those wondering, the line (internal monologue) was: It's about as tempting as a handjob from Edward Scissorhands.
I'm not too surprised. The Yes side has had some issues, particularly regarding currency. The problem (even if No wins) is that devolution is unutterably and unfairly lopsided. It discriminates against the English, because Scots MPs can vote on devolved matters that affect England but not their own constituents, and it's a slow road to separation because power is continually drifting from London to Edinburgh.
We need a properly considered federal solution. And anybody who wants to carve up the England of Alfred the Great into weak-kneed, bedwetting regional assemblies needs a slap. An English Parliament is the only real way forward.
Salmond is a canny Scot. He knew all along he won't get full indy. But he will get Devomax as a consolation which is Indy all but in name. Probably better !
Feels like you are rewriting history here.
While I expect the same outcome, I don't think it was a great masterplan. Don't forget how keen the SNP was to have DevoMax on the ballot and how frustrated they were that the government wouldn't spell out what they meant by a further transfer of power following a vote to stay in.
stories have got silly.
like this one?
"Alex Salmond has been warned about making exaggerated claims about the potential benefits of North Sea oil to an independent Scotland after asserting that future reserves are worth £300,000 a head for every Scot."
Equivalent to not for each person. 1.5 trillion divided by 5 mill is 300k equivalent, probably equivalent to 5k a year or so but over time a lot, particularlry if invested in an oil fund. If Scottish GDP today is more than everywhere except London and SE without the oil, then the oil is truly a bonus to add 20% to GDP. Not that silly Carlotta eh?
We can do whatever we want.Stop people emigrating, encourage more to emigrate, get out of the single market, whatever But within parameters set by 13 years of Labour misrule, and without the information to base his policy on, Dave can really do sod all but posture (and keep some students out).
There fixed it for you.
Actually I agree with many of the things you say. The student thing is stupid, they are (mostly) the sort of people we should be encouraging, although there is probably a subset of people who are not really students and using it to get round immigration controls. And shooting your mouth off to give soundbites is no way to make policy. (Although all politicians are prone to that, and while I hoped Dave would be better, I'm not going to vote against him because of it).
The immigration system is in complete chaos, which seems to have been a deliberate policy of the last Government - and, yes, the incompetence may even date to the the last Tory government (which even I voted against in 1997). There are ways of sorting it out, policies along the lines I have been suggesting may even be some of them. But the Government needed to start a whole root and branch review of the immigration and benefits systems on its first day in office in 2010 if it was going to have a chance. Alas, it has not been fleet-footed, radical, or rational enough.
Tom Newton Dunn tweets: "I suspect @David_Cameron will be rather pleased with Vince Cable's attack on Tory "obsessing" about immigration. @nick_clegg won't be."
Morning all. I reckon Eck will be fairly chuffed with those numbers. He has come from further behind in the past and won. The problem for those of you who are English is that the vote will not come down to an economic argument or world politics. It will come down to emotional ties.
It is like the Devolution campaign all over again. The Tories were the only party who said voting Yes to Holyrood would effectively see the beginning of the end of the UK. Barely 15 years later, the only things which Scotland shares with the rest of the UK are the Monarchy, the armed forces and taxation including welfare (and even that will change in 2015). Virtually every other aspect of the daily lives of Scots is controlled by the Salmond Government in Edinburgh, not the Cameron government in Westminster.
The vote will largely depend on who actually goes out to vote. We will have Eck applauding the success of Robert the Bruce in June. We will then have Eck cheering on a Scottish team opposing an English team in Glasgow at the Commonwealth Games. People are jokingly suggesting the Mel Gibson film of Braveheart will be shown on STV on the evening of 17th September 2014. It just needs the BBC or another London broadcaster to talk about the English world cup team of 1966 or miscall a British item as English in the days before the vote and more people will pile into the Yes camp on the day.
It will all be about emotional ties and in that respect, Eck currently holds all the cards. Add to that, if as I have suggested for more than a year, David Cameron by then looks like he will be heading back to Downing Street the following year, Salmond will play the anti-Tory card and that is one the Scottish Labour Party has little or no prospect of negating.
Some of us have not been greatly impressed by much of the Better Together campaign and frankly the intervention of Gordon Brown will now only see more votes pile into the Yes campaign. Even Scots now realise in increasing numbers that the man was responsible for the hardship most of us have faced in the past 3 years. It wouldn't make them vote Tory but it may make them vote Yes.
very sensible comment without bias, rational and factual.
Tom Newton Dunn tweets: "I suspect @David_Cameron will be rather pleased with Vince Cable's attack on Tory "obsessing" about immigration. @nick_clegg won't be."
Mr Gillighan is unforgiving
"When the Coalition came to office in 2010, net migration was 252,000 — the highest ever. In 2011, it dropped to around 200,000. And in the 12 months to September 2012 it had fallen again, to 153,000.
It is starting to look like the Government’s promise to cut net migration to below 100,000 a year, once dismissed as impossible, will be kept. But step back a little, and there’s rather a serious problem. Unknown to most voters, it turns out that the entire basis of British immigration policy — indeed the basis of most discussion on the subject — might not be worth the paper it’s written on.
You probably think the net migration figure is derived from something such as, say, counting people when they enter or leave Britain. When officials scan your passport, presumably they are tallying up the numbers, and the immigration status, of those passing through?
They aren’t.
“E-borders”, the Home Office scheme designed to keep track of who is entering Britain, has gone the way of nearly all government IT projects — enormously over budget and years overdue. The passport scans are simply for checking names against a terrorist or criminal watchlist. E-borders may eventually help count migration — but not until at least 2018.
The figure is actually calculated by a giant extrapolation, using the International Passenger Survey, which involves face-to-face interviews with randomly selected passengers at airports and ports. It’s a large survey, with around 700,000 interviews a year. But the vast majority of those are tourists, holidaymakers, business travellers or other short-term visitors.
The problem with an English government is twofold. The first is that it will emasculate the Westminster government - which is no bad thing - but means UK politicians will never go for it.
The other thing is that it will in no way devolve power to a more local level, as England is too big.
We do need to avoid having too many levels of government. One model might be the division of powers between England and Scotland where there are some things where the UK government's writ really does not seem to run.
I would make England herself a radically federal country with Devo-Max type powers devoved to as small units as people want - probably counties, but maybe cities or regions. The English government would maintain a very few functions (such as strategic transport) and also audit of the local governments. The English parliament need be only part time and meet for a few days a year.
" The accuracy of the interviews relies on getting a fair sample across all nationalities and entry points. But figures obtained by The Sunday Telegraph show that in 2010, 76 per cent of all the survey’s interviews with immigrants were conducted at Heathrow.
Just 1 per cent — 31 interviews — were done at Dover, one of the biggest ports of entry, and only 4 per cent — 115 interviews — at Stansted, a major destination for low-cost flights from eastern Europe.
Key immigrant nationalities are under-represented too. In 2010’s survey, the number of Somalis identifying themselves as immigrants was just three. The number of Jamaicans was three, too. Only 103 Poles — out of a total of 8,294 — identified themselves as long-term immigrants.
That points to another problem: interviewees may not tell the truth (whether intentionally or otherwise — if their English is poor, it might just be that they didn’t understand the questions).
Polish immigrants, in particular, often come for less than a year, doing a succession of short-term jobs with brief trips home in between. Anyone in that position doesn’t count in the statistics at all.
Westminster council, which covers the migrant mecca of central London, says the government figures bear little resemblance to the reality. That’s a key problem, since the council’s funding — and services — depend in part on those same figures.
Mr. Lilburne, that would create a huge set of rivalries and anatagonism, I think. London versus the rest of the country, north versus south, and it'd take about six minutes before we had a political War of the Roses.
England and Englishness is a single coherent identity. Carving it up is not on.
I agree with you that UK politicians will not want an English Parliament, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have one.
Just to make it clear I have made no allegations about Philip Morris or any other companies and individuals.I have just pointed out that the system of the same person acting as media adviser for the party in government and lobbyist for private clients is prone to abuse.
Do you think Ed Miliband should do as he said, and release information of the lobbyists he has been seeing?
But having dinner with lobbyists two years ago(yawn) is rather miniscule compared to employing a media adviser who doubles up as a lobbyist for private clients for four days a week.
How can you tell it is minuscule if you don't know who was there, what was said and what deals were done? (*) And why has Miliband proved so reluctant - for over eighteen months - to say? Surely you must think that is a little suspicious? Or is your tin-foil hat only tuned to Conservative frequencies?
As for Crosby being a media adviser and working for others: I don't know myself, but are you sure there are no people working for the unions or other outside organisations working for Labour as well?
(*) You see what I've done there - passed the same stupid innuendo and smears people are using against Crosby against Miliband. Except the Crosby situation is much clearer than that of the Miliband meeting.
Interesting development. Don't subscribe to Sky myself - I did for a bit but stopped years ago. This similar to the Netflix model re content creation. BT has gained 500 000 new customers for it's rival sports channel in the last few months - very impressive stuff. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/article3826806.ece
"BSkyB has accelerated plans to reach into the 13 million British households that do not subscribe to paid-for television with the launch of a cheap set-top box to access its internet streaming service. Amid mounting competition from streaming services such as Netflix and LoveFilm and BT’s impending assault on the television sports market, viewers who cannot afford or do not want to subscribe to full satellite TV packages will be able to use the boxes to gain short-term access to Sky’s sports and films through its NowTV offering.
Jeremy Darroch, the chief executive of Sky, said that the company would spend between £60 million and £70 million over the next year developing NowTV and other new services in response to an explosion in demand for non-traditional TV...
The number of satellite subscribers connecting their Sky Plus HD boxes to the internet jumped by 1.7 million last year; the number of downloads from its on-demand service increased fivefold; and the number of rentals from Sky’s movie download service was up 200 per cent, the company said. Mr Darroch said that Sky would add several new channels to its catch-up television and mobile services this year. It is also developing several original TV dramas as it tries to cement its appeal with existing subscribers and reach potential new viewers.
Just to make it clear I have made no allegations about Philip Morris or any other companies and individuals.I have just pointed out that the system of the same person acting as media adviser for the party in government and lobbyist for private clients is prone to abuse.
Do you think Ed Miliband should do as he said, and release information of the lobbyists he has been seeing?
But having dinner with lobbyists two years ago(yawn) is rather miniscule compared to employing a media adviser who doubles up as a lobbyist for private clients for four days a week.
How can you tell it is minuscule if you don't know who was there, what was said and what deals were done? (*) And why has Miliband proved so reluctant - for over eighteen months - to say? Surely you must think that is a little suspicious? Or is your tin-foil hat only tuned to Conservative frequencies?
As for Crosby being a media adviser and working for others: I don't know myself, but are you sure there are no people working for the unions or other outside organisations working for Labour as well?
(*) You see what I've done there - passed the same stupid innuendo and smears people are using against Crosby against Miliband. Except the Crosby situation is much clearer than that of the Miliband meeting.
Charlie Wheelan had a Number 10 lobby pass when he was Political Dir of Unite. Crosby doesn't have one.
The problem with an English government is twofold. The first is that it will emasculate the Westminster government - which is no bad thing - but means UK politicians will never go for it.
The other thing is that it will in no way devolve power to a more local level, as England is too big.
We do need to avoid having too many levels of government. One model might be the division of powers between England and Scotland where there are some things where the UK government's writ really does not seem to run.
I would make England herself a radically federal country with Devo-Max type powers devoved to as small units as people want - probably counties, but maybe cities or regions. The English government would maintain a very few functions (such as strategic transport) and also audit of the local governments. The English parliament need be only part time and meet for a few days a year.
That's basically the Swiss model and it works quite well. The national government is a panel of ministers, with the leadership rotating every year to avoid anyone building up a personality cult. Most policies are decided locally, often by referendum.
The problem is that an increasing number of issues are not really soluble locally, or even nationally. So perhaps we need both stronger local government for greater identification with the solutions and stronger international government for issues like the banking crisis, tax avoidance and (if you believe in it) climate change?
I don't detect any great voter interest in strong local government in England, though, outside regions like Cornwall with a very strong local identity. Ironically it would need to be generated top-down.
Anybody read loopy Peter Hitchens column today? He's out done himself this week - He actually thinks the Tories would like to cut off our beloved Queens head!
Equivalent to not for each person. 1.5 trillion divided by 5 mill is 300k equivalent, probably equivalent to 5k a year or so but over time a lot, particularlry if invested in an oil fund. If Scottish GDP today is more than everywhere except London and SE without the oil, then the oil is truly a bonus to add 20% to GDP. Not that silly Carlotta eh?
Only if the pixies suck it out from the rock; transport it to markets via unicorns; build the well-heads with the aid of leprechauns; and deposit the used, rusting hulks (after the wells are dry) up Wee Ecks ample arse. Apart from that: craic-on....
I think you are advocating something rather like the Holy Roman Empire. What goes around, comes around I suppose.
You are right, there seems to be little appetite for local government, although if you suddenly gave local councils more responsibility and tax raising powers people might start to take an interest. If Hampshire County Council had the same areas of competence as the Republic of Texas, people might sit up and take notice.
Equivalent to not for each person. 1.5 trillion divided by 5 mill is 300k equivalent, probably equivalent to 5k a year or so but over time a lot, particularlry if invested in an oil fund. If Scottish GDP today is more than everywhere except London and SE without the oil, then the oil is truly a bonus to add 20% to GDP. Not that silly Carlotta eh?
Only if the pixies suck it out from the rock; transport it to markets via unicorns; build the well-heads with the aid of leprechauns; and deposit the used, rusting hulks (after the wells are dry) up Wee Ecks ample arse. Apart from that: craic-on....
Labour Top 50 targets with no candidate selected yet:
Broxtowe (3rd August) Bradford East Dewsbury Brent Central Pudsey (8th September) Brentford & Isleworth Dundee East Dunbartonshire East (2nd September)
How can you tell it is minuscule if you don't know who was there, what was said and what deals were done? (*) And why has Miliband proved so reluctant - for over eighteen months - to say? Surely you must think that is a little suspicious? Or is your tin-foil hat only tuned to Conservative frequencies?
As for Crosby being a media adviser and working for others: I don't know myself, but are you sure there are no people working for the unions or other outside organisations working for Labour as well?
(*) You see what I've done there - passed the same stupid innuendo and smears people are using against Crosby against Miliband. Except the Crosby situation is much clearer than that of the Miliband meeting.
If all you could find about Ed Miliband and lobbying is a meeting he supposedly had with lobbyists two years ago,it just magnifies the ridiculousness of your post.
The current case is of a very senior figure in government who works very closely with the PM(he`s working for the party I hear you say,but he`s there to sell the policies of the government) simultaneously working for other private organisations of which we know very little about(because his client-list is a secret).Former Tory MP`s understand that there is a conflict of interest issue which seemingly passes you by quite easily either for deliberate failure or inability to understand the issue at hand.
But I have read the comments of more astute SNats who post at 'The Telegraph'* and 'ARRSE'**: Apparently only an eejit takes Wee-Eck's misquote at face value. Most blame the "Unionist" MSM for failing to understand "The Fat One"'s (pbuha) mumblings***....
How can you tell it is minuscule if you don't know who was there, what was said and what deals were done? (*) And why has Miliband proved so reluctant - for over eighteen months - to say? Surely you must think that is a little suspicious? Or is your tin-foil hat only tuned to Conservative frequencies?
As for Crosby being a media adviser and working for others: I don't know myself, but are you sure there are no people working for the unions or other outside organisations working for Labour as well?
(*) You see what I've done there - passed the same stupid innuendo and smears people are using against Crosby against Miliband. Except the Crosby situation is much clearer than that of the Miliband meeting.
If all you could find about Ed Miliband and lobbying is a meeting he supposedly had with lobbyists two years ago,it just magnifies the ridiculousness of your post.
The current case is of a very senior figure in government who works very closely with the PM(he`s working for the party I hear you say,but he`s there to sell the policies of the government) simultaneously working for other private organisations of which we know very little about(because his client-list is a secret).Former Tory MP`s understand that there is a conflict of interest issue which seemingly passes you by quite easily either for deliberate failure or inability to understand the issue at hand.
The meeting two years ago shows that Labour as just as many problems. Earlier on you admitted that Miliband should say who he met: so why doesn't he? Saying it is ridiculous to bring it up because it was under two years ago is, well, ridiculous. Especially as Tim was going about the late 1990s earlier.
So how about Charlie Whelan and Unite having access to the top of Number 10? Or any of the other cases, especially the ones involving the unions?
The point is that you should apply the same standards to Labour as you are so keen to the Conservatives. Except you cannot.
I answered your question so why don`t you answer mine first?
Do you think there is a conflict of interest issue with Crosby working for Cameron and simultaneously working for private clients who are affected by government policies?As I already pointed out,former Tory MPs seem to think there is a problem here but I would be interested in your views on this subject.
Anybody read loopy Peter Hitchens column today? He's out done himself this week - He actually thinks the Tories would like to cut off our beloved Queens head!
They wouldn't go that far but anyone who thinks Cameron and Osborne care about anything but themselves is a fool.
Yet another terrible day for Labour and Ed Miliband. The immigration thing ought to be the government's problem, but Dave can just turn round and say, 'Yes, the figures probably aren't as robust as we'd like, but that's the fault of the previous government for mucking up the IT project.' Ed must curse that Tony Blair and that Gordon Brown for being the spectacular incompetents they were, he really must...
But I have read the comments of more astute SNats who post at 'The Telegraph'* and 'ARRSE'**: Apparently only an eejit takes Wee-Eck's misquote at face value. Most blame the "Unionist" MSM for failing to understand "The Fat One"'s (pbuha) mumblings***....
*** I also have a bit of knowledge when it comes to the productive sectors of the economy....
He certainly does not spout anywhere near as much guff as the unionist fibbers that is for sure. Have to laugh at "The Telegraph" that well known fount of knowledge on Scotland, most of those at the paper would struggle to get closer than "it is up north somewhere".
Your second source has an appropriate ring to it , they however may be talking out of it Dear dear Fluffy , I have just read a selection of comments on your ARRSE , some richard heads on there , makes Guido's site look intelligent.
Do you think there is a conflict of interest issue with Crosby working for Cameron and simultaneously working for private clients who are affected by government policies?
Is it much different from someone who works with private clients, goes to advise a political party, and then goes back to private clients? Or someone who is a minister and knows that when he retires from politics he would like a couple of well-paid sinecures "advising" companies who were affected by his policies while in office?
I agree there is a potential conflict of interest in all these cases, but trying to separate Government off from the real world will not work.
In any case we know that the tobacco companies (for example) are opposed to plain packaging, even Cammo knows this, so there's not much of a problem if Crosby tells him on their behalf?
Having said that, we would be in a better place if Cammo had been honest about what he had said to Crosby. There's no reason why he should not, and publicity tends to negate the power of lobbying.
Do you think there is a conflict of interest issue with Crosby working for Cameron and simultaneously working for private clients who are affected by government policies?
Is it much different from someone who works with private clients, goes to advise a political party, and then goes back to private clients? Or someone who is a minister and knows that when he retires from politics he would like a couple of well-paid sinecures "advising" companies who were affected by his policies while in office?
I agree there is a potential conflict of interest in all these cases, but trying to separate Government off from the real world will not work.
In any case we know that the tobacco companies (for example) are opposed to plain packaging, even Cammo knows this, so there's not much of a problem if Crosby tells him on their behalf?
Having said that, we would be in a better place if Cammo had been honest about what he had said to Crosby. There's no reason why he should not, and publicity tends to negate the power of lobbying.
I would argue there is a slightly more serious conflict of interest issue here as Crosby is working at the higher echelons of government and working for a lobbying company at the same time.
I would echo that transparency is the key to negate lobbying and hence the request for Crosby to publish his client list.It is interesting that the government is committed to bring in legislation for lobbyists to make their clients public but only after 2015 when Crosby would no longer work for the Tory party.
And if Crosby can say loudly that he did not have conversations about plain-packaging with the PM,why couldn`t Cameron say the same?
He certainly has a way with weasel words. The Lisbon Treaty Referendum was a humdinger. I really don't know what was wrong with telling the truth "if it has already been signed I don't think there's much we can do about it".
Mind you, he is nowhere near as assiduous and creative a liar as Tony Blair.
I hope they add "managing to make Farage sound more sane on immigration than Government ministers" onto the benefit side of any cost / benefit analysis they undertake.
@Tim I am not sure about tourist bonds but I hope they have the facility to reimburse the bond money quickly when the passenger returns.Any controversy around that will stop the tourist in-flow completely from those parts.
Comments
'@labourpress: UK migration figures 'a best guess' - including response from @ChrisBryantMP http://t.co/wUP2H5fg3j
Strange for 13 years of New Labour government the system was fine,but as soon as the numbers start going down the system is crap.
But Chris Bryant's comments are hilarious.
'"People want a bit of honesty on immigration, so the home secretary should look at how to measure immigration more accurately as a matter of urgency," he said.'
Best stick to the chocolate oranges and porn filters,probably more mileage there.
They even speak a different language.
LOL Coming from a labour politician, that really takes the cake!!!
What on Earth is going on the Gib border? I keep seeing dozens of tweets about huge delays of 5hrs or more.
http://order-order.com/2013/07/23/two-years-since-ed-promised-lobbying-dinner-details/
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1296802/Government-sacks-e-Borders-supplier.html#ixzz2aKdEO7Je
So you base a system on what? Allowance people to turn up as they feel like it and then working out what the Government response has to be when you suddenly realise loads more people live here than you thought. Great.
Accept the EU has free movement, you counter that by changing the rules on the benefit system so that recent immigrants from the EU or elsewhere do not qualify for income-based benefits. For everyone else we should have a points system. Yes I agree any liberal democracy needs immigrants, but we should get to decide who joins our club and who doesn't.
I read the piece and it really didn't "suggest" anything like that to me. What it did seem to suggest that a Prisoner Transfer Agreement was used as a quid pro quo for an arms deal. The PTA was signed and under Libyan pressure did not specifically exclude Megrahi, but the arms deal wasn't signed for some reason. And then Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds rather than under the PTA anyway.
Personally, I am a bastard and think prison is a good enough place for a mass murderer to die. But while this story does gives us a little more detail about the murky goings on of the Blair and Brown governments with a nasty regime, it doesn't add anything to whether the Scottish government released him under pressure from the UK government.
Having said that, a PTA presumably allows us to ensure that British citizens do not have to rot in Libyan gaols, which is a good thing.
"That the Party is largely full of upper middle class landowners who watch rugby"
My Comedy Post of the Day.
That over 10m UK voters gave them more MPs than any other party is of course false consciousness.
But having dinner with lobbyists two years ago(yawn) is rather miniscule compared to employing a media adviser who doubles up as a lobbyist for private clients for four days a week.
"But the Immigration Service Union has criticised the move, saying it will be harder to ensure that illegal immigrants ordered out of the country have actually left.
The union blames the general lack of effectiveness of embarkation controls on under-investment by the [Labour] government."
'I really can't believe some of the abject nonsense Labour are coming with. I've no problem with HHOO opposing - but pretending black is white adds no credibility to their messaging whatsoever.'
It's laughable,if the crime numbers keep going down that will be next to get trashed.
A sample of 5,000 is inadequate to measure migration but a sample of 1,000 is adequate to measure the voting intentions of over 40 million people.
"And it became apparent that a new sort of poverty was being created: one that was bred by dependence on government spending. This welfare underclass had far more complex problems than the old unemployed working class: hopelessness and myriad social deprivations could not be cured by temporary financial help.
However the official Left doctrine of redistribution refused to take this into account for the longest time."
This is a massive problem as this new "welfare underclass" does not really believe in mobility. However, it seems increasingly unlikely that jobs will move to them at present, for reasons both of education and geography, as illustrated by the comments about Wales in a previous thread.
So as these people are unemployed and often unemployable, what do we do with them? No party has yet attempted to answer this problem.
WRT a definition of the Midlands (re your comments on seats), do you take the BBC/Electoral Calculus definition of W.Mids and E.Mids? and leave E Anglia as a separate territory?
Let me know and I will come up with the seats.
IIRC when the crisis struck, Labour tried to bring in some massively complex IT system to count everyone in and out but that failed [no surprise there then] and so we're stumbling along with survey based estimated rather than actuals.
We manage to know how many are in work, claiming benefits or whatever that are in the millions but we can't work out who's coming in and out as migrants?
Immigration stats are already widely disbelieved - Kippers will make hay with this stuff.
Your characterisation of Tories as rugby watching middle class landowners is a keeper. What's your beef with watching rugby for Heaven's sake?
Would watching soccer be more acceptable over a pint? Lots of Welsh Labour voters watch rugby!
TBH, I think only something really drastic re corp tax/business rate exemptions for small firms will return these areas to a more entrepreneurial mindset. I associate Newcastle and other great cities like Liverpool as Victorian triumphs, but they've steadily lost their spirit and become ghettos of victimhood in too many areas. Places like Merthyr have unique issues because of their terrible transport links - but there's no reason why businesses can thrive in the Highlands of Scotland, yet can't make a go of it in N Wales. We are less reliant on the physical movement of goods than ever before to do business - if Cornwall can do it...
And Yes Please! East Anglia is definitively a separate block with a distinct identity.
Also trying to compare watching rugby in Wales with same in Scotland , would be comparable to quoting Morris Dancing in England
But as far as I know the Habitual Residency Test does not start from the premise "have you lived in the UK for 10 years?" and maybe it should. And we should end ridiculousness like, for example, resident Poles being able to claim Child Benefit for children living in... Poland.
Indeed , Tartan Tories.
'Although it's as logical as Dave's idiot pledge counting a small sample of them all out and counting a small sample of them all back in again.'
It was also New Labour's idiot pledge.
'A £1.2billion ‘electronic borders’ system which is supposed to protect Britain from illegal immigrants, terrorists and foreign criminals descended into shambles last night.
The Government sacked the U.S.-based firm paid by Labour to introduce the programme after it was hit by chronic delays.
As a result, 100million journeys a year in and out of the UK will continue to go unrecorded by officials in charge of the massive ‘e-Borders’ project.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1296802/Government-sacks-e-Borders-supplier.html#ixzz2aKkcGKh9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
What figures did Labour base it's immigration policy on, then?
Although as a non-partisan I cannot believe that we do not make a simple check, such as recording passport numbers on entry and exit.
An intelligent bloke would have recognised that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan were largely at the behest of Scots: Blair, Brown, Robertson, Reid: Whether they were right (as Tories supported them) cannot be placed just with "rUK". True we were not equipped fully for these roles - thanks Gormless McBruin - but lots of 'strange' UORs secure lots of "thank-you" jobs from the Italian-state's arms-industry.*
An intelligent bloke would have known that....
:draw-your-own-conclusions.
* Hoon and the tale of the Iveco Panther are well-known:
http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.co.uk/2005_07_01_archive.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1497096/Christopher-Bookers-notebook.html
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2009/02/snatch-soldiers-vehicle
The background: we have decided to create an artificial reef for wildlife habitat reasons off the end of the airport runway by dropping concrete blocks in the water.
The Spanish don't recognise that we have any territorial waters and claim Spanish sovereignty up to the Gib shoreline. Spanish fishermen use that area of our waters illegally and drag nets along the seabed. The blocks will stop that and remove the livelihood of the local Spaniards.
Here's a good summary of the confrontation over the last few days:
http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=30220
This is what the Spanish did in revenge - they effectively closed the border by insisting on searching every single vehicle crossing.
http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=30237
I live in the centre of town and the traffic queues were reaching my front door yesterday which is about the 7 hour waiting mark. I was taking out cold water for the drivers for a few hours that evening.
The Royal Navy is under orders to be as non-confrontational as possible which is inflaming local opinion. Our Man in Madrid isn't much use either ... and apropos of nothing is Giles Paxman, Jeremy Paxman's brother.
And what has watching rugby got to do with anything? And who are these middle class landowners that are 15% of the electorate?
As I said, Comedy Post.
The typical Scottish Tory member in the urban areas is someone who started life in a very solidly working class family, living in social housing who by their own efforts has managed to promote themselves into the property owning middle class. Their children or grandchildren were the first members of the family to go to university and are now lawyers, doctors, accountants and teachers.
The typical member in a rural area is a widow, usually of an accountant, lawyer or bank manager. The men tend to be ex-military or those farmers who haven't defected to the LibDems since 1987. There are very few major landowners I can think of who live in Scotland and are Tory voters. There are also some I know who are active members of the SNP. Few support the Labour party because they see it as an urban group, stuck in the class wars of the late 19th century who believe private ownership is evil and everything should be in the public sector.
Crikey - what a nightmare!
Only been to Gib once and have to say that landing on that runway put hairs on my chest! I almost managed to get run over by an airport truck whilst walking across it. The idea of a runway like a level crossing hadn't quite sunk in...
Thanks for that insight.
Re Highland Craic - what lessons do you think could be transferred to rural Wales that've worked for your colleagues in the Highlands?
New commercial pilots have to get a special chit to land there too as the approach is so tricky. Can't turn left into Spanish airspace without prior per-plane consent etc etc.
So that's 40,000 JSA claimants from the EU alone. Not sure how much they're claiming, if it's only the single person's JSA that's £150,000,000 a year. Plus many of them will have families, so many will be claiming the couples rate, add Child Tax Credit, Housing Benefit, Council tax benefit, Child benefit, free prescriptions and dentistry... not to mention non-EU claimants. In fact it says there is a total of 371,000 non-UK citizens, many of whom are claiming ESA and other ill health benefits, which tend to be more generous than JSA.
Actually I see you have been economical with the truth, as there may be less than 7,000 Poles claiming JSA but the total is a little under 12,000 when you add in ESA claimants and lone parents (claiming Income Support). Who will be getting more than the JSA claimants.
Now the paper does say the figures aren't very good because it is based on the nationality of people when they first applied for an NI number. So some of them may in the meantime have qualified fully or partly for my residency-based benefits. I don't know what the average benefit claim is including all benefits, but if it is £150 a week then those people are costing us 3 billion a year. Well worth looking into, I would say.
One point to be considered is that the negative campaigning by Bettertogether (described approvingly on here as 'strangling' the Yes campaign) isn't having much traction with either decided Yes voters or DKs, and doom-laden warnings are going to have less and less resonance as time passes.
Also if BT and associated parties eventually do produce a carrot, how much credence will they be given as people who have belittled Scotland's ability to survive independently (implicitly or explicitly) and issued endless threats of how punitive an rUK would be to an independent Scotland?
I've been told that the Yes campaign is husbanding its financial resources till next year (not having non-resident, dodgy oil tycoons* to bankroll it); I'm pretty sure the Yes campaign will be ramping up significantly as time goes on.
*http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/01/libya-alan-duncan-links-oil-cell
Conceived in Helensburgh though!
You need to measure emigration - if fewer people leave, we obviously need to let fewer people in.
I've great sympathy with those who are stuck waiting to cross - I was trapped in Ceuta/Morocco for about 8hrs in searing heat trying to get over to Gib. The border police decided to divert officers to catch illegals breaking through the fence...and spend 20 mins looking at every passport...
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-benefit-tourism-scare-sent-packing/8050 http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-how-many-migrants-are-on-the-dole/9148
That mainly only tells us that benefit claimants have mostly complied with immigration laws, which is a bit of a truism really. Most illegal immigrants will not want to announce their status to the government by rocking up to a Jobcentre and signing on.
I know it is difficult for someone like you to grasp the concept but some people do have productive lives away from PB..Try it out , you might lke it..
Don't forget to hitch up your wee tartan skirt when you go wading.
On an unrelated note, does anyone know if there's a single word to describe a plague victim?
An author too ashamed to publicise his work? That's a new one (though understandable in the circumstances).
Edit: fixed quotes
Corpse
Anyway ,it allows me to have a very pleasant lifestyle.
Making good progress with the comedy, although I'm mildly irked that an otherwise perfect line cannot be used because it's anachronistic [the comedy's a fantasy, and even with leeway it's too much].
For those wondering, the line (internal monologue) was:
It's about as tempting as a handjob from Edward Scissorhands.
I'm not too surprised. The Yes side has had some issues, particularly regarding currency. The problem (even if No wins) is that devolution is unutterably and unfairly lopsided. It discriminates against the English, because Scots MPs can vote on devolved matters that affect England but not their own constituents, and it's a slow road to separation because power is continually drifting from London to Edinburgh.
We need a properly considered federal solution. And anybody who wants to carve up the England of Alfred the Great into weak-kneed, bedwetting regional assemblies needs a slap. An English Parliament is the only real way forward.
If Scottish GDP today is more than everywhere except London and SE without the oil, then the oil is truly a bonus to add 20% to GDP. Not that silly Carlotta eh?
Actually I agree with many of the things you say. The student thing is stupid, they are (mostly) the sort of people we should be encouraging, although there is probably a subset of people who are not really students and using it to get round immigration controls. And shooting your mouth off to give soundbites is no way to make policy. (Although all politicians are prone to that, and while I hoped Dave would be better, I'm not going to vote against him because of it).
The immigration system is in complete chaos, which seems to have been a deliberate policy of the last Government - and, yes, the incompetence may even date to the the last Tory government (which even I voted against in 1997). There are ways of sorting it out, policies along the lines I have been suggesting may even be some of them. But the Government needed to start a whole root and branch review of the immigration and benefits systems on its first day in office in 2010 if it was going to have a chance. Alas, it has not been fleet-footed, radical, or rational enough.
"When the Coalition came to office in 2010, net migration was 252,000 — the highest ever. In 2011, it dropped to around 200,000. And in the 12 months to September 2012 it had fallen again, to 153,000.
It is starting to look like the Government’s promise to cut net migration to below 100,000 a year, once dismissed as impossible, will be kept. But step back a little, and there’s rather a serious problem. Unknown to most voters, it turns out that the entire basis of British immigration policy — indeed the basis of most discussion on the subject — might not be worth the paper it’s written on.
You probably think the net migration figure is derived from something such as, say, counting people when they enter or leave Britain. When officials scan your passport, presumably they are tallying up the numbers, and the immigration status, of those passing through?
They aren’t.
“E-borders”, the Home Office scheme designed to keep track of who is entering Britain, has gone the way of nearly all government IT projects — enormously over budget and years overdue. The passport scans are simply for checking names against a terrorist or criminal watchlist. E-borders may eventually help count migration — but not until at least 2018.
The figure is actually calculated by a giant extrapolation, using the International Passenger Survey, which involves face-to-face interviews with randomly selected passengers at airports and ports. It’s a large survey, with around 700,000 interviews a year. But the vast majority of those are tourists, holidaymakers, business travellers or other short-term visitors.
In 2011, the total number of interviews with immigrants was just 2,620 and with emigrants — British people going to live overseas — was 1,824. From this base, the net migration figure is constructed..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10206641/Flimsy-facts-undermine-our-migration-debate.html
The problem with an English government is twofold. The first is that it will emasculate the Westminster government - which is no bad thing - but means UK politicians will never go for it.
The other thing is that it will in no way devolve power to a more local level, as England is too big.
We do need to avoid having too many levels of government. One model might be the division of powers between England and Scotland where there are some things where the UK government's writ really does not seem to run.
I would make England herself a radically federal country with Devo-Max type powers devoved to as small units as people want - probably counties, but maybe cities or regions. The English government would maintain a very few functions (such as strategic transport) and also audit of the local governments. The English parliament need be only part time and meet for a few days a year.
" The accuracy of the interviews relies on getting a fair sample across all nationalities and entry points. But figures obtained by The Sunday Telegraph show that in 2010, 76 per cent of all the survey’s interviews with immigrants were conducted at Heathrow.
Just 1 per cent — 31 interviews — were done at Dover, one of the biggest ports of entry, and only 4 per cent — 115 interviews — at Stansted, a major destination for low-cost flights from eastern Europe.
Key immigrant nationalities are under-represented too. In 2010’s survey, the number of Somalis identifying themselves as immigrants was just three. The number of Jamaicans was three, too. Only 103 Poles — out of a total of 8,294 — identified themselves as long-term immigrants.
That points to another problem: interviewees may not tell the truth (whether intentionally or otherwise — if their English is poor, it might just be that they didn’t understand the questions).
Polish immigrants, in particular, often come for less than a year, doing a succession of short-term jobs with brief trips home in between. Anyone in that position doesn’t count in the statistics at all.
Westminster council, which covers the migrant mecca of central London, says the government figures bear little resemblance to the reality. That’s a key problem, since the council’s funding — and services — depend in part on those same figures.
"The England of Alfred the Great"
So you are prepared to cede Cumbria to Scotland, Yorkshire to a Norwegian freebooter and Northumbian independence?
England and Englishness is a single coherent identity. Carving it up is not on.
I agree with you that UK politicians will not want an English Parliament, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have one.
As for Crosby being a media adviser and working for others: I don't know myself, but are you sure there are no people working for the unions or other outside organisations working for Labour as well?
(*) You see what I've done there - passed the same stupid innuendo and smears people are using against Crosby against Miliband. Except the Crosby situation is much clearer than that of the Miliband meeting.
"BSkyB has accelerated plans to reach into the 13 million British households that do not subscribe to paid-for television with the launch of a cheap set-top box to access its internet streaming service. Amid mounting competition from streaming services such as Netflix and LoveFilm and BT’s impending assault on the television sports market, viewers who cannot afford or do not want to subscribe to full satellite TV packages will be able to use the boxes to gain short-term access to Sky’s sports and films through its NowTV offering.
Jeremy Darroch, the chief executive of Sky, said that the company would spend between £60 million and £70 million over the next year developing NowTV and other new services in response to an explosion in demand for non-traditional TV...
The number of satellite subscribers connecting their Sky Plus HD boxes to the internet jumped by 1.7 million last year; the number of downloads from its on-demand service increased fivefold; and the number of rentals from Sky’s movie download service was up 200 per cent, the company said. Mr Darroch said that Sky would add several new channels to its catch-up television and mobile services this year. It is also developing several original TV dramas as it tries to cement its appeal with existing subscribers and reach potential new viewers.
Go figure.
The problem is that an increasing number of issues are not really soluble locally, or even nationally. So perhaps we need both stronger local government for greater identification with the solutions and stronger international government for issues like the banking crisis, tax avoidance and (if you believe in it) climate change?
I don't detect any great voter interest in strong local government in England, though, outside regions like Cornwall with a very strong local identity. Ironically it would need to be generated top-down.
I think you are advocating something rather like the Holy Roman Empire. What goes around, comes around I suppose.
You are right, there seems to be little appetite for local government, although if you suddenly gave local councils more responsibility and tax raising powers people might start to take an interest. If Hampshire County Council had the same areas of competence as the Republic of Texas, people might sit up and take notice.
Broxtowe (3rd August)
Bradford East
Dewsbury
Brent Central
Pudsey (8th September)
Brentford & Isleworth
Dundee East
Dunbartonshire East (2nd September)
How can you tell it is minuscule if you don't know who was there, what was said and what deals were done? (*) And why has Miliband proved so reluctant - for over eighteen months - to say? Surely you must think that is a little suspicious? Or is your tin-foil hat only tuned to Conservative frequencies?
As for Crosby being a media adviser and working for others: I don't know myself, but are you sure there are no people working for the unions or other outside organisations working for Labour as well?
(*) You see what I've done there - passed the same stupid innuendo and smears people are using against Crosby against Miliband. Except the Crosby situation is much clearer than that of the Miliband meeting.
If all you could find about Ed Miliband and lobbying is a meeting he supposedly had with lobbyists two years ago,it just magnifies the ridiculousness of your post.
The current case is of a very senior figure in government who works very closely with the PM(he`s working for the party I hear you say,but he`s there to sell the policies of the government) simultaneously working for other private organisations of which we know very little about(because his client-list is a secret).Former Tory MP`s understand that there is a conflict of interest issue which seemingly passes you by quite easily either for deliberate failure or inability to understand the issue at hand.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/54229/lynton-crosby-must-drop-lobby-interests-tories-tell-cameron
But I have read the comments of more astute SNats who post at 'The Telegraph'* and 'ARRSE'**: Apparently only an eejit takes Wee-Eck's misquote at face value. Most blame the "Unionist" MSM for failing to understand "The Fat One"'s (pbuha) mumblings***....
:face-palm:
* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10198532/Alex-Salmond-North-Sea-oil-worth-300000-for-every-Scot.html#disqus_thread
** http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs-news-analysis/197495-scottish-independence-round-2-a-305.html
*** I also have a bit of knowledge when it comes to the productive sectors of the economy....
Fascinating
The current case is of a very senior figure in government who works very closely with the PM(he`s working for the party I hear you say,but he`s there to sell the policies of the government) simultaneously working for other private organisations of which we know very little about(because his client-list is a secret).Former Tory MP`s understand that there is a conflict of interest issue which seemingly passes you by quite easily either for deliberate failure or inability to understand the issue at hand.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/54229/lynton-crosby-must-drop-lobby-interests-tories-tell-cameron
The meeting two years ago shows that Labour as just as many problems. Earlier on you admitted that Miliband should say who he met: so why doesn't he? Saying it is ridiculous to bring it up because it was under two years ago is, well, ridiculous. Especially as Tim was going about the late 1990s earlier.
So how about Charlie Whelan and Unite having access to the top of Number 10?
Or any of the other cases, especially the ones involving the unions?
The point is that you should apply the same standards to Labour as you are so keen to the Conservatives. Except you cannot.
It's a stupid attack line. Are you really sure
"And here they are, it's Tom and That Other Bloke..."
"The tension is mounting..."
SPLASH!!!!!!!!
"Oh, that wasn't their best effort - let's wait for the scores"
I answered your question so why don`t you answer mine first?
Do you think there is a conflict of interest issue with Crosby working for Cameron and simultaneously working for private clients who are affected by government policies?As I already pointed out,former Tory MPs seem to think there is a problem here but I would be interested in your views on this subject.
.....
At least the race sounds interesting. Might watch the highlights. Presumably they won't cut away to diving.
Your second source has an appropriate ring to it , they however may be talking out of it
Dear dear Fluffy , I have just read a selection of comments on your ARRSE , some richard heads on there , makes Guido's site look intelligent.
I agree there is a potential conflict of interest in all these cases, but trying to separate Government off from the real world will not work.
In any case we know that the tobacco companies (for example) are opposed to plain packaging, even Cammo knows this, so there's not much of a problem if Crosby tells him on their behalf?
Having said that, we would be in a better place if Cammo had been honest about what he had said to Crosby. There's no reason why he should not, and publicity tends to negate the power of lobbying.
IIRC Mr Crosby will be working solely for CCHQ from 2014 so this point will be moot.
Thanks for your reply.
I would argue there is a slightly more serious conflict of interest issue here as Crosby is working at the higher echelons of government and working for a lobbying company at the same time.
I would echo that transparency is the key to negate lobbying and hence the request for Crosby to publish his client list.It is interesting that the government is committed to bring in legislation for lobbyists to make their clients public but only after 2015 when Crosby would no longer work for the Tory party.
And if Crosby can say loudly that he did not have conversations about plain-packaging with the PM,why couldn`t Cameron say the same?
Mind you, he is nowhere near as assiduous and creative a liar as Tony Blair.
I wonder which method they would be using to estimate(guess) the number of illegal immigrants leaving the country due to this pilot scheme
I hope they add "managing to make Farage sound more sane on immigration than Government ministers" onto the benefit side of any cost / benefit analysis they undertake.
I am not sure about tourist bonds but I hope they have the facility to reimburse the bond money quickly when the passenger returns.Any controversy around that will stop the tourist in-flow completely from those parts.