ChatterBank3 mins ago
Before You Put Your Cross Next To Labour Ask Yourself, Why Should We Expect Labour To Behave Any Differently Than They Have Done In The Past?
28 Answers
http://
/// In comments which will pose a huge headache for Ed Miliband, Sir Stephen also admitted the decision to throw open Britain’s borders at a time when other countries were imposing transitional controls was ‘political’. ///
/// The remarks risk re-igniting the debate about Labour’s record – for which the Labour leader recently apologised. ///
/// Yesterday, it also emerged that ex-Labour Cabinet minister John Denham had written to Chancellor Gordon Brown and Home Secretary Charles Clarke to warn the new arrivals were having a huge impact. ///
/// He said the Government failed to recognise what was happening in constituencies like his own in Southampton, where wages were driven down by as much as 50 per cent, A&E departments came under strain and 1,000 migrants attempted to sign up for an English-as-a-second language course in a single day. ///
/// In comments which will pose a huge headache for Ed Miliband, Sir Stephen also admitted the decision to throw open Britain’s borders at a time when other countries were imposing transitional controls was ‘political’. ///
/// The remarks risk re-igniting the debate about Labour’s record – for which the Labour leader recently apologised. ///
/// Yesterday, it also emerged that ex-Labour Cabinet minister John Denham had written to Chancellor Gordon Brown and Home Secretary Charles Clarke to warn the new arrivals were having a huge impact. ///
/// He said the Government failed to recognise what was happening in constituencies like his own in Southampton, where wages were driven down by as much as 50 per cent, A&E departments came under strain and 1,000 migrants attempted to sign up for an English-as-a-second language course in a single day. ///
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
They will not behave any differently and anybody who thinks otherwise is mistaken.
It is in their DNA to tax and spend - they believe that the State is the only organisation capable of spending money sensibly (when in fact quite the reverse is true).
As far as immigration goes there is nothing in Mr Milliband's pronouncements that indicates they will try to limit the numbers arriving here. Even if there was, it needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. It is interesting that Mr. Denham has chosen to highlight the problems in his own constituency. Similar problems are widespread across the country and any benefits that may be apparent from unlimited numbers of unskilled migrants settling here (and they are very arguable to say the least) are quickly outweighed by the demands on services that they bring with them. It's a pity that Mr Denham and a few of his colleagues did not voice their concerns on behalf of their constituents when the UK threw open its doors to the new eastern European EU members.
Of course there is no reason to believe that a Conservative led government will behave any differently. If the last five years are anything to go by I think it is safe to say that it would not.
It is in their DNA to tax and spend - they believe that the State is the only organisation capable of spending money sensibly (when in fact quite the reverse is true).
As far as immigration goes there is nothing in Mr Milliband's pronouncements that indicates they will try to limit the numbers arriving here. Even if there was, it needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. It is interesting that Mr. Denham has chosen to highlight the problems in his own constituency. Similar problems are widespread across the country and any benefits that may be apparent from unlimited numbers of unskilled migrants settling here (and they are very arguable to say the least) are quickly outweighed by the demands on services that they bring with them. It's a pity that Mr Denham and a few of his colleagues did not voice their concerns on behalf of their constituents when the UK threw open its doors to the new eastern European EU members.
Of course there is no reason to believe that a Conservative led government will behave any differently. If the last five years are anything to go by I think it is safe to say that it would not.
That is just the say of a career Diplomat who seems to be confessing to doing a terrible job when he worked as Blair's EU representative.
The Labour Government did under estimate the numbers that would arrive, but even if they had guessed correctly, they could not stop them coming.
The same is true of the Romanians and Bulgarians who can now come to this country under the Coalition's Government. The same numbers did not arrive because our economy was stagnant in 2014.
It is a very weak argument because the reason the Poles could come here hasn't changed. If (by some miracle) our economy starts to boom again, that will attract more migrants again. Not voting Labour won't change that.
The Labour Government did under estimate the numbers that would arrive, but even if they had guessed correctly, they could not stop them coming.
The same is true of the Romanians and Bulgarians who can now come to this country under the Coalition's Government. The same numbers did not arrive because our economy was stagnant in 2014.
It is a very weak argument because the reason the Poles could come here hasn't changed. If (by some miracle) our economy starts to boom again, that will attract more migrants again. Not voting Labour won't change that.
Today's Conservative campaign has surely transcended the heights of optimism in a way never before seen. Vote for us, they say, because otherwise the SNP would have too much say (and who cares that this is because Scottish politics is broken in the wake of our shortsighted intervention prior to the referendum and perennial neglect of the country?); and Labour are also bad on immigration. Nothing positive to say about the Conservative party whatsoever. I've never seen such optimistic and hope-filled campaigning.
“…but even if they had guessed correctly, they could not stop them [the Poles] coming.
Yes they could have, Gromit. When Poland, (along with nine other eastern European countries, seven former members of the Eastern Bloc and three of the Soviet Union) joined the EU in 2004 they were not able to immediately take advantage of the usual free movement rules. Apart from the UK only the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Sweden, Cyprus and Ireland allowed unrestricted access from those new states. All the others imposed restrictions allowed under the accession treaty, some of them for the full seven years that the treaty allowed. It was patently obvious that with the larger economies such as Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy and so on restricting access, the UK was going to be a magnet and so it proved. The Labour government was explicitly warned of the likely influx but stuck by its estimate of “around 13,000 per annum. Had it imposed restrictions similar to the other major economies it is likely the migration would have been more evenly spread.
“ Why do those who don't work and pay no income or council tax allowed to vote?”
I often ask myself why the principle of “no taxation without representation” should not apply in reverse, Dave. Of course the problem is that people like pensioners who survive just on the State pension (but who may have paid tax and NI all their lives) and the chronically long-term sick would be disenfranchised along with all the layabouts who have no intention of ever working. If a way could be found round that problem I’d be all for it.
Yes they could have, Gromit. When Poland, (along with nine other eastern European countries, seven former members of the Eastern Bloc and three of the Soviet Union) joined the EU in 2004 they were not able to immediately take advantage of the usual free movement rules. Apart from the UK only the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Sweden, Cyprus and Ireland allowed unrestricted access from those new states. All the others imposed restrictions allowed under the accession treaty, some of them for the full seven years that the treaty allowed. It was patently obvious that with the larger economies such as Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy and so on restricting access, the UK was going to be a magnet and so it proved. The Labour government was explicitly warned of the likely influx but stuck by its estimate of “around 13,000 per annum. Had it imposed restrictions similar to the other major economies it is likely the migration would have been more evenly spread.
“ Why do those who don't work and pay no income or council tax allowed to vote?”
I often ask myself why the principle of “no taxation without representation” should not apply in reverse, Dave. Of course the problem is that people like pensioners who survive just on the State pension (but who may have paid tax and NI all their lives) and the chronically long-term sick would be disenfranchised along with all the layabouts who have no intention of ever working. If a way could be found round that problem I’d be all for it.
Gromit
/// The Labour Government did under estimate the numbers that would arrive, but even if they had guessed correctly, they could not stop them coming. ///
I think that they could have done, because why did the Labour government at that time throw open Britain’s borders at a time when other countries were imposing transitional controls?
/// The Labour Government did under estimate the numbers that would arrive, but even if they had guessed correctly, they could not stop them coming. ///
I think that they could have done, because why did the Labour government at that time throw open Britain’s borders at a time when other countries were imposing transitional controls?
"... and perennial neglect of the country?"
What perennial negelct would this be, Jim. Since the "temporary" Barnett formula was introduced in 1978 (which even the person who devised it admits is "fundamentally flawed") Scotland receives a tidy sum more per capita than England. It is estiamted that Scotland and Northern Ireland have been sheltered from more than £800m of cuts during the last few years because of the largesse of the English. So it seems the "perennialism" may have ended.
What perennial negelct would this be, Jim. Since the "temporary" Barnett formula was introduced in 1978 (which even the person who devised it admits is "fundamentally flawed") Scotland receives a tidy sum more per capita than England. It is estiamted that Scotland and Northern Ireland have been sheltered from more than £800m of cuts during the last few years because of the largesse of the English. So it seems the "perennialism" may have ended.
Sadly both our two main political parties (and now the Lib Dems as they are in a coalition) have been very lax in dealing with immigration for the last 30 or 40 years.
Last Sunday I went up to Central Birmingham (near where I live) and sat in a pavement café watching the world go by.
As I watched the people going about their shopping it horrified me to realise that only about 10% of the people walking past me were what you may call "white British".
There were Asians, Afro Caribbean, Chinese / Oriental and a few that were obviously "Eastern European" of various types.
As a white Englishman I realised that I was in a small minority.
This country has changed dramatically in the last 30 or 40 years due to immigration so I don't think you can blame just Labour.
Last Sunday I went up to Central Birmingham (near where I live) and sat in a pavement café watching the world go by.
As I watched the people going about their shopping it horrified me to realise that only about 10% of the people walking past me were what you may call "white British".
There were Asians, Afro Caribbean, Chinese / Oriental and a few that were obviously "Eastern European" of various types.
As a white Englishman I realised that I was in a small minority.
This country has changed dramatically in the last 30 or 40 years due to immigration so I don't think you can blame just Labour.
As I watched the people going about their shopping it horrified me to realise that only about 10% of the people walking past me were what you may call white British.
VHG, you announce how horrified you are every time you step out in Birmingham. Isn't it about time you became aware of it on a full-time basis?
VHG, you announce how horrified you are every time you step out in Birmingham. Isn't it about time you became aware of it on a full-time basis?
I had to laugh when I read the question.
Labour were responsible for the longest period (15 years) of economic prosperity since WWII.
You're right, AOG: we don't want any more of that kind of thing! Let's stick with the increased immigration, zero-hours contracts, and 1 million relying on food banks, while we sell off all our most successful companies and infrastructure to the Russians, Chinese, and Spanish, etc.
Labour were responsible for the longest period (15 years) of economic prosperity since WWII.
You're right, AOG: we don't want any more of that kind of thing! Let's stick with the increased immigration, zero-hours contracts, and 1 million relying on food banks, while we sell off all our most successful companies and infrastructure to the Russians, Chinese, and Spanish, etc.
TheChair
/// I had to laugh when I read the question.
Labour were responsible for the longest period (15 years) of economic prosperity since WWII. ///
I don't know where you got that from, but I got this from;
http://
*** the Tories won the 1951 election, and an era of prosperity helped to keep Labour out of power for 13 years. ***
*** In the 1960s, under the leadership of Harold Wilson, a rejuvenated Labour Party clawed its way back to power. ***
*** But the new administration was bedevilled by economic problems, leading to the devaluation of the pound and in 1970, the Conservatives returned to power. ***
*** By 1974 Labour was back, winning two elections in the same year, but facing new problems. ***
*** After the surprise resignation of Harold Wilson as party leader, Jim Callaghan became prime minister. He quickly found himself presiding over an economic crisis, requiring a hefty international loan and cuts in public spending. ***
*** But the final straw for many voters was the sight of the country being paralysed by union disputes during the "winter of discontent". ***
/// I had to laugh when I read the question.
Labour were responsible for the longest period (15 years) of economic prosperity since WWII. ///
I don't know where you got that from, but I got this from;
http://
*** the Tories won the 1951 election, and an era of prosperity helped to keep Labour out of power for 13 years. ***
*** In the 1960s, under the leadership of Harold Wilson, a rejuvenated Labour Party clawed its way back to power. ***
*** But the new administration was bedevilled by economic problems, leading to the devaluation of the pound and in 1970, the Conservatives returned to power. ***
*** By 1974 Labour was back, winning two elections in the same year, but facing new problems. ***
*** After the surprise resignation of Harold Wilson as party leader, Jim Callaghan became prime minister. He quickly found himself presiding over an economic crisis, requiring a hefty international loan and cuts in public spending. ***
*** But the final straw for many voters was the sight of the country being paralysed by union disputes during the "winter of discontent". ***
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.