My earlier question raised the conundrum of the (alleged) comparative costs:
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question75 2200.html
Though I must say nobody came up with a very convincing explanation.
It was excellent to see Mr Woolas �doorstepped� by the delightful Ms Lumley. He was clearly out of his depth and extremely uneasy without the benefit of a briefing paper and one or two departmental �minders� to work his strings. At one point I thought Joanna had her hand up his back forcing his head to nod in agreement when she put her questions and points of clarification to him.
As for
whiffey�s denigration of Ms Lumley, her �tedium� is only apparent because she (along with many others) has what she considers a valid argument. Unlike many others she will not simply be fobbed off by nonentities such as Mr Woolas, who simply trot out the usual government mantra and expect to win the argument by dismissal of the dissidents. I�m sure she�d far rather a New Town be constructed near her home that was to be inhabited by ex-servicemen and their families than to be surrounded by some of the other exciting �new blood� that this government seems so keen to import.
You must remember, of course, that this is the same Mr Woolas who said just a couple of weeks ago that the illegals living in the �jungle� in Calais were not queuing to get into the UK, but were being kept out by one of the most rigorous border control regimes in the world. Even if it were true, to believe that the two were somehow mutually exclusive clearly demonstrates his logic.
I just hope he makes as good a job at keeping the
sans papiers out as he appears to be trying to do with the Gurkhas.