Because of this story in the left-leaning Huffington Post, I thought it worth taking a few moments to explain what a foreign student is. Remember that I worked in the Immigration Dept of the Home Office for several years, some time ago, including on the public counters and answering telephone enquiries, so have a lot of insider knowledge.
For this I am ignoring the case of EU citizens, as we don't have the same kind of control over their movements and it would muddy the waters to attempt to factor them into this post.
The UK's purpose for foreign students was that they could learn to the high standards of higher education we have long had in this country and then take that back to their home country where they can deploy that knowledge and skill-set to improve the way that nation is in some way. It has never been intended as a route to employment here in Britain since the Immigration Act under which we were then operating was passed, quite some years previously.
At the time, I was operating under that law as amended (many times!) including on several occasions by the then current Labour government. This is not a 'Theresa May' thing!
Therefore this (rather skewed and inaccurate) piece in the HuffPo is largely a nonsense. It is indeed the current oft-voiced criticism of 'foreigners stealing our jobs' for one reason or another that was the reason for that formulation of the original legislation in the first place. Therefore the expectation was that overseas students would leave our country when their studies were complete – or within a reasonable period thereafter, at any rate.
There might be slight confusion in some people's minds in that – while they are studying (nothing to do with what follows) – such students on longer learning periods, such as at University, are usually permitted to take employment. This, though, is for the long-established practice of in-vacation short-term jobs, such as my brother did during the years he was at uni (he kept hot drinks vending machines cleaned and re-stocked, by the way).
Overseas students are not 'deported' at the end of their study time (plus a few months, typically) which, incidentally, would be at public expense. Tourists and other visitors to our fair nation are not deported either – unless they remain beyond their allowed time here, sometimes extended thugh so it doesn't happen all that often.
No: the deliberately emotive d-word is clearly intended here to slant the piece to generate outrage – a standard Lefty tactic, of course.
Incidentally, if someone's immigration-related circumstances change significantly, then there has always been provision to apply for an extension or (in appropriate circumstances) permanent residence. I do not believe that has been removed, nor is it likely to be.
Finally, all the facts about coming here to study are made clear to those applying to do so. If they don't agree with those conditions, then we're not forcing them to come here. If, as the HuffPo writer claims, it's different in other countries, well then perhaps one of those might have been a better choice for this individual.
The bottom line is that I have no sympathy whatsoever, having dealt with many thousands of students from abroad in my time – including a small number who were trying to worm their way in on a permanent basis, though most were genuine. Despite the (rather convenient?) arguments elsewhere in the piece, the writer of the linked piece comes across as perhaps not having come here on a genuine basis...
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Friday, 17 July 2015
Saturday, 19 October 2013
Mark Reckless MP on BBC Daily Politics
This is very good, with Andrew Neil quite firmly quizzing both Mark Reckless (the MP for the constituency just a hundred metres up the road my home) and Atul Hatwal (Director of the Migration Matters Trust) on the subject of immigration and its employment-related effects.
It's a useful eleven minutes, so I present it here in its entirety, for your interest...
It's a useful eleven minutes, so I present it here in its entirety, for your interest...
Monday, 16 September 2013
You Can Come Over
I am grateful to Alan W Collins (the one-time Twydall Tory) for pointing me toward this very clever campaign video on behalf of Romanians who feel that Britain's approach to them earlier this year was wrong-headed and unfair.
It was, although the underlying sentiment about being rather full-up in these small islands was and is valid – though that's because Labour let in a good four million new migrants during their dozen or so years running Britain. The consequence of that is that whoever was next in line – whether good, bad or whatever – was always going to get something of a raw deal.
This video, though, makes some telling points about the real Romania; and as my own Romanian friend has let out in his tweets and other comments, what it contains is confirmed to in at least some aspects (others haven't come up) by the 'man on the ground'.
Therefore I have some sympathy with this, and can see that although neither side in that controversy is at any particular fault, prevailing circumstances led, perhaps predictably and inevitably, to such a clash. Fortunately, the British governmental campaign has now been canned (it really was the wrong approach), but – as the video says (though, unaccountably, in an American-sounding accent) – we can still 'come over' anyway...
It was, although the underlying sentiment about being rather full-up in these small islands was and is valid – though that's because Labour let in a good four million new migrants during their dozen or so years running Britain. The consequence of that is that whoever was next in line – whether good, bad or whatever – was always going to get something of a raw deal.
This video, though, makes some telling points about the real Romania; and as my own Romanian friend has let out in his tweets and other comments, what it contains is confirmed to in at least some aspects (others haven't come up) by the 'man on the ground'.
Therefore I have some sympathy with this, and can see that although neither side in that controversy is at any particular fault, prevailing circumstances led, perhaps predictably and inevitably, to such a clash. Fortunately, the British governmental campaign has now been canned (it really was the wrong approach), but – as the video says (though, unaccountably, in an American-sounding accent) – we can still 'come over' anyway...
Friday, 30 August 2013
Weekly Political Digest – 30 August 2013
Issues big and small, international, national and local, abound this week...
Syria is the Kobayashi Maru
Star Trek movie fans will be well aware of the Kobabyashi Maru simulation used on training exercises at Starfleet, and introduced in the second Trek movie The Wrath of Khan. It has been referenced several times since, in later Trek productions of one kind or another. It was a no-win scenario and was a test of character only – unless one cheated and re-programmed the simulator to make it able to be solved, as one James Tiberius Kirk apparently did...
There is no doubt that the biggest news this week has been over the Parliamentary recall to debate the possibility of UK involvement in a military action against the Syrian Assad régime following their use of chemical weapons against their own people, including children. Specifically, air strikes were being considered, in principle at this stage, in a two-vote arrangement the second of which would have come later.
These are always difficult decisions to take, and this one – perhaps more so than others, perhaps just the same but this time we're handling it more democratically – has been just like the Kobayashi Maru. There is no 'right' answer, as I have today tweeted, yet each side of the argument to go in or not believes it alone is right.
Unless a way could be found to forensically (to use the in-vogue term) remove Assad and those he commands who commit these acts, we could not even be a form of 'international police'. Whether or not we should intervene in another country's affairs, especially bearing in mind what has tended to happen in previous cases, is another question.
I have some sympathy for the decision-makers, because it is a very close call in practice: not because the issues are small, but because even a big pull in one direction is countered by a different by equally large pull in the opposite direction. It really is like that. I am not surprised, therefore, that even our own Medway Members of Parliament were split on the vote, with two of them voting one way and the third walking through the other voting lobby.
Back to the 'Maru': as a test of character, it certainly brought out the strength of PM David Cameron's character, though not backed up properly by the Number Ten machine and Conservative Parliamentary Whips' Office, which have rightly come in for strong criticism. Cam made his case, made concessions to the leader of the opposition, and put the question before the House of Commons.
As Dan Hodges (among others) covers in his 'blog post today, Ed[ward] Miliband behaved abominably, as did members of his party who revelled at the defeat of the Government's motion as a political success, as that was (as always) all that really mattered to them.
It comes as little surprise that Dan Hodges has, at last, resigned from the Labour party – who are no doubt rejoicing over that as well. As is so often the case, there is a lot of good, solid stuff in the Hodges piece and I recommend spend five minutes or so reading it all the way through.
Of course, it is equally unsurprising that local (and no doubt others whom I do not follow) sycophantic Labourites are fawning over Miliband's 'victory' and finding yet more ways to lick his boots. They show themselves up by so doing, as the Hodges piece clearly demonstrates – and I can if required provide links to others in the know who have confirmed what he has said, such as Toby Young, here, and (update) the Mail here. There are others... If there were the need for a new reason to feel disgust at Labour and their supporters, here it is in spades.
Unusually, Fraser Nelson is, I think, very much overstating the severity and significance of this defeat for Cameron, which he has done a few times before, though not to this extent. Never again can his stated support be taken as genuine. There are matters that need to be sorted out, especially now the hard lesson has (I hope) been learned that Mili-E is not to be trusted and his assurances can count for nothing.
In the final analysis, the defeat last night might see our standing within at least some sections of the international community weakened for a while, and it could harm the (admittedly largely fictitious) 'special relationship' we supposedly have with the USA; but in the longer term I have a feeling that history will soon enough show that, on balance, it was the better outcome, though not by a large margin.
This extract from an important document on the feasibility of an operation such as that being proposed makes for sobering reading, though, and I dread to think how much it might have cost us in resources as well as the most important resource of all – our Armed Forces' lives – if we had committed to the air strikes and whatever might lie beyond.
Meanwhile, other countries will no doubt make their own decisions about whether to intervene in Syria, and in what way. This little island, despite its significance on the world stage, is but one relatively small nation among hundreds on Planet Earth. Yesterday's debate and vote showed also that we are one of the more democratic, with Parliament trumping the Executive where necessary...which is exactly as it should be.
The Militax
Staying with Mili-E for a few minutes: Michael Gove is on form as usual in exposing the Labour leader's latest wheeze to get you and me to fund his party from the public purse. This is standard practice for the Left anywhere in the world, near enough, and probably always has been, so it's hardly a surprise.
The best weapon against this very bad idea, though, is as always exposure to the public gaze – and this is exactly what Michael Gove is doing at the linked article. It covers a fair amount of ground, and is well worth a read, which will probably take eight to ten minutes (it looks longer, but a few medium to large size photographs give a misleading first impression of its length).
Meanwhile, ongoing money-laundering exploiting any route that is open to them, Lefties in positions of authority and Unions continue to come to notice, such as this one regarding some £64,000 passing from Tower Hamlets to what is a UNITE Union establishment that includes union recruitment facilities and, apparently, considerable pressure to join.
I leave it to readers here to follow the link and read the post by Ted Jeory, and the comments beneath, the latter taking a mix of sides, though I spot the methodology of those trying to suggest that 'it's all okay', so perhaps it's advisable to stay especially alert when reading those.
Abbott on the Landscape
This telling-it-like-it-is piece by Stephen Pollard in The Express hits lots of nails on the head regarding the ghastly Diane Abbott, Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington. The headline concerns Labour's real intentions regarding immigration, none of which comes as a surprise to me (and probably not to many others by now, either) but he also catalogues a fair amount of other useful information by which we might gain an insight into this character.
Interestingly, when Ms Abbott was a regular on the BBC's This Week, the contributors to the LiveChat sessions had her well sussed, even then, so there really is nothing surprising to any of us who were regulars on the LiveChat. For everyone else, read and learn...
On the related topic of foreigners claiming UK benefits, the Mail reports that the numbers of these have increased by over forty percent during the past five years (a Labour government legacy, still not fully tackled in the coalition situation) to some 400,000 and costing billions of Pounds every year.
Again, it's not unexpected by those of us who have been conscious of what was happening during the Labour years and how much of it was effectively semi-permanently locked into our nation, so reversing the trend was deliberately made almost impossible by Blair, Brown and Co.
You might remember that, not long before the Coalition was formed, statements came trickling out about how things had been rigged (for want of a better word) by Labour in a number of areas – so it has been public knowledge for a long time.
Of course, knowing about something is not the same as being able to deal with it, and this one will, I suspect, take several years to remedy...and probably can't be done without a Conservative overall majority in the House of Commons.
Not So (Sha)nice...
The holographic receptionist at Brent Council that I mentioned a little earlier this month is, unsurprisingly, coming in for some stick. Even The Guardian has a mostly negative report on her – though, perhaps predictably, their biggest gripe appears to be the loss of a public sector job because Shanice supplants such a human employee. They also point up Shanice's "lack of compassion".
Ah, well: you can't win them all, as the saying goes...
Medway Matters
BBC News Kent has reported on a claim that our local council's free periodical Medway Matters is 'biased toward the Conservatives'. This is a bit strange for a publication that, for all its faults (and it has them) has remained essentially the same for something like a decade, and I have not noticed any slant suddenly appearing, so why wasn't this ever brought up before?
In practice, it continues to cover quite a wide range of topics, mostly without any politicians being mentioned, quoted or pictured at all, apart from the regular ward-by-ward contact page inside the back cover.
The truth is that, when there is a political involvement in anything included in the magazine, it almost universally means Cabinet members, or perhaps the mayor or deputy mayor. These are all Conservatives, but only a minority of them (under a third, in fact).
Now, I have made so secret of my dislike of the Cabinet system that was inflicted upon us by the then Labour government in 2001, and which Eric Pickles has now allowed councils to scrap if they so choose. it is the continuation of that inappropriate and non-democratic institution that is the real cause of this separation between the 'élite few' and all the other elected members. It has nothing to do with the opposition, several of whose members were featured in the magazine a few years ago in page-long specials on each.
Indeed, it has been a de-politicisation of Medway Matters that has meant that series of features has never been revisited, and I am pleased about that. It seems to conform with the long-standard governmental guidance on how such publications should be edited and presented.
Of course, in Labour-run councils the boot is on the other foot; yet I am not aware that Conservative oppositions have ever made such complaints in those councils. I am ready to be corrected on this if I have missed something; but I shall be just as critical of any such as I am of Medway Labour.
All that is now needed is to get rid of the Cabinet-and-Scrutiny structure and give everyone elected to the Council back their equal voting status, as per Eric Pickles' wise-headed provision. That would also bring the elected Council closer to its electorate.
Labour, though, seek only party political coverage as usual, so again have missed the real target in pursuit of self-interest. After all, they want coverage for their members in the magazine, titling it back to more political coverage than now. That is their true motive, and it is so transparent. I'm not taken in, and nor should anyone else be.
Truth Goes The Gallo-way
Finally for this week, here's a short video that seems to show Respect's Georhe Galloway first making a truly outrageous claim on the Iranian television channel with which he is associated, and then denying it in the House of Commons, courtesy of Trending Central.. It looks very much like a GOTCHA..
Syria is the Kobayashi Maru
Star Trek movie fans will be well aware of the Kobabyashi Maru simulation used on training exercises at Starfleet, and introduced in the second Trek movie The Wrath of Khan. It has been referenced several times since, in later Trek productions of one kind or another. It was a no-win scenario and was a test of character only – unless one cheated and re-programmed the simulator to make it able to be solved, as one James Tiberius Kirk apparently did...
There is no doubt that the biggest news this week has been over the Parliamentary recall to debate the possibility of UK involvement in a military action against the Syrian Assad régime following their use of chemical weapons against their own people, including children. Specifically, air strikes were being considered, in principle at this stage, in a two-vote arrangement the second of which would have come later.
These are always difficult decisions to take, and this one – perhaps more so than others, perhaps just the same but this time we're handling it more democratically – has been just like the Kobayashi Maru. There is no 'right' answer, as I have today tweeted, yet each side of the argument to go in or not believes it alone is right.
Unless a way could be found to forensically (to use the in-vogue term) remove Assad and those he commands who commit these acts, we could not even be a form of 'international police'. Whether or not we should intervene in another country's affairs, especially bearing in mind what has tended to happen in previous cases, is another question.
I have some sympathy for the decision-makers, because it is a very close call in practice: not because the issues are small, but because even a big pull in one direction is countered by a different by equally large pull in the opposite direction. It really is like that. I am not surprised, therefore, that even our own Medway Members of Parliament were split on the vote, with two of them voting one way and the third walking through the other voting lobby.
Back to the 'Maru': as a test of character, it certainly brought out the strength of PM David Cameron's character, though not backed up properly by the Number Ten machine and Conservative Parliamentary Whips' Office, which have rightly come in for strong criticism. Cam made his case, made concessions to the leader of the opposition, and put the question before the House of Commons.
As Dan Hodges (among others) covers in his 'blog post today, Ed[ward] Miliband behaved abominably, as did members of his party who revelled at the defeat of the Government's motion as a political success, as that was (as always) all that really mattered to them.
It comes as little surprise that Dan Hodges has, at last, resigned from the Labour party – who are no doubt rejoicing over that as well. As is so often the case, there is a lot of good, solid stuff in the Hodges piece and I recommend spend five minutes or so reading it all the way through.
Of course, it is equally unsurprising that local (and no doubt others whom I do not follow) sycophantic Labourites are fawning over Miliband's 'victory' and finding yet more ways to lick his boots. They show themselves up by so doing, as the Hodges piece clearly demonstrates – and I can if required provide links to others in the know who have confirmed what he has said, such as Toby Young, here, and (update) the Mail here. There are others... If there were the need for a new reason to feel disgust at Labour and their supporters, here it is in spades.
Unusually, Fraser Nelson is, I think, very much overstating the severity and significance of this defeat for Cameron, which he has done a few times before, though not to this extent. Never again can his stated support be taken as genuine. There are matters that need to be sorted out, especially now the hard lesson has (I hope) been learned that Mili-E is not to be trusted and his assurances can count for nothing.
In the final analysis, the defeat last night might see our standing within at least some sections of the international community weakened for a while, and it could harm the (admittedly largely fictitious) 'special relationship' we supposedly have with the USA; but in the longer term I have a feeling that history will soon enough show that, on balance, it was the better outcome, though not by a large margin.
This extract from an important document on the feasibility of an operation such as that being proposed makes for sobering reading, though, and I dread to think how much it might have cost us in resources as well as the most important resource of all – our Armed Forces' lives – if we had committed to the air strikes and whatever might lie beyond.
Meanwhile, other countries will no doubt make their own decisions about whether to intervene in Syria, and in what way. This little island, despite its significance on the world stage, is but one relatively small nation among hundreds on Planet Earth. Yesterday's debate and vote showed also that we are one of the more democratic, with Parliament trumping the Executive where necessary...which is exactly as it should be.
The Militax
Staying with Mili-E for a few minutes: Michael Gove is on form as usual in exposing the Labour leader's latest wheeze to get you and me to fund his party from the public purse. This is standard practice for the Left anywhere in the world, near enough, and probably always has been, so it's hardly a surprise.
The best weapon against this very bad idea, though, is as always exposure to the public gaze – and this is exactly what Michael Gove is doing at the linked article. It covers a fair amount of ground, and is well worth a read, which will probably take eight to ten minutes (it looks longer, but a few medium to large size photographs give a misleading first impression of its length).
Meanwhile, ongoing money-laundering exploiting any route that is open to them, Lefties in positions of authority and Unions continue to come to notice, such as this one regarding some £64,000 passing from Tower Hamlets to what is a UNITE Union establishment that includes union recruitment facilities and, apparently, considerable pressure to join.
I leave it to readers here to follow the link and read the post by Ted Jeory, and the comments beneath, the latter taking a mix of sides, though I spot the methodology of those trying to suggest that 'it's all okay', so perhaps it's advisable to stay especially alert when reading those.
Abbott on the Landscape
This telling-it-like-it-is piece by Stephen Pollard in The Express hits lots of nails on the head regarding the ghastly Diane Abbott, Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington. The headline concerns Labour's real intentions regarding immigration, none of which comes as a surprise to me (and probably not to many others by now, either) but he also catalogues a fair amount of other useful information by which we might gain an insight into this character.
Interestingly, when Ms Abbott was a regular on the BBC's This Week, the contributors to the LiveChat sessions had her well sussed, even then, so there really is nothing surprising to any of us who were regulars on the LiveChat. For everyone else, read and learn...
On the related topic of foreigners claiming UK benefits, the Mail reports that the numbers of these have increased by over forty percent during the past five years (a Labour government legacy, still not fully tackled in the coalition situation) to some 400,000 and costing billions of Pounds every year.
Again, it's not unexpected by those of us who have been conscious of what was happening during the Labour years and how much of it was effectively semi-permanently locked into our nation, so reversing the trend was deliberately made almost impossible by Blair, Brown and Co.
You might remember that, not long before the Coalition was formed, statements came trickling out about how things had been rigged (for want of a better word) by Labour in a number of areas – so it has been public knowledge for a long time.
Of course, knowing about something is not the same as being able to deal with it, and this one will, I suspect, take several years to remedy...and probably can't be done without a Conservative overall majority in the House of Commons.
Not So (Sha)nice...
The holographic receptionist at Brent Council that I mentioned a little earlier this month is, unsurprisingly, coming in for some stick. Even The Guardian has a mostly negative report on her – though, perhaps predictably, their biggest gripe appears to be the loss of a public sector job because Shanice supplants such a human employee. They also point up Shanice's "lack of compassion".
Ah, well: you can't win them all, as the saying goes...
Medway Matters
BBC News Kent has reported on a claim that our local council's free periodical Medway Matters is 'biased toward the Conservatives'. This is a bit strange for a publication that, for all its faults (and it has them) has remained essentially the same for something like a decade, and I have not noticed any slant suddenly appearing, so why wasn't this ever brought up before?
In practice, it continues to cover quite a wide range of topics, mostly without any politicians being mentioned, quoted or pictured at all, apart from the regular ward-by-ward contact page inside the back cover.
The truth is that, when there is a political involvement in anything included in the magazine, it almost universally means Cabinet members, or perhaps the mayor or deputy mayor. These are all Conservatives, but only a minority of them (under a third, in fact).
Now, I have made so secret of my dislike of the Cabinet system that was inflicted upon us by the then Labour government in 2001, and which Eric Pickles has now allowed councils to scrap if they so choose. it is the continuation of that inappropriate and non-democratic institution that is the real cause of this separation between the 'élite few' and all the other elected members. It has nothing to do with the opposition, several of whose members were featured in the magazine a few years ago in page-long specials on each.
Indeed, it has been a de-politicisation of Medway Matters that has meant that series of features has never been revisited, and I am pleased about that. It seems to conform with the long-standard governmental guidance on how such publications should be edited and presented.
Of course, in Labour-run councils the boot is on the other foot; yet I am not aware that Conservative oppositions have ever made such complaints in those councils. I am ready to be corrected on this if I have missed something; but I shall be just as critical of any such as I am of Medway Labour.
All that is now needed is to get rid of the Cabinet-and-Scrutiny structure and give everyone elected to the Council back their equal voting status, as per Eric Pickles' wise-headed provision. That would also bring the elected Council closer to its electorate.
Labour, though, seek only party political coverage as usual, so again have missed the real target in pursuit of self-interest. After all, they want coverage for their members in the magazine, titling it back to more political coverage than now. That is their true motive, and it is so transparent. I'm not taken in, and nor should anyone else be.
Truth Goes The Gallo-way
Finally for this week, here's a short video that seems to show Respect's Georhe Galloway first making a truly outrageous claim on the Iranian television channel with which he is associated, and then denying it in the House of Commons, courtesy of Trending Central.. It looks very much like a GOTCHA..
Saturday, 17 August 2013
Weekly Political Digest – 16 August 2013
Although I started compiling this on the stated date, other matters have unavoidably intervened, so it wasn't completed until Saturday evening...
Ed and Shoulders
It has been a terrible time for Labour party leader Ed[ward] Miliband, who is now back with us. As commentators all over have been saying, his shadow cabinet members haven't exactly been helpful and forthcoming during his absence, and now some of them – along with a few backbenchers – are metaphorically bumping him with their shoulders (it's the best visual metaphor I thought would fit what is going on).
Most notably, shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham has 'warned' the party leader regarding their policies or lack thereof. The move has been seen by at least shrewd observer as having possibly been motivated by a sense of self-preservation by Burnham, fearing demotion out of the shadow cabinet in the much-rumoured upcoming third reshuffle under Mili-E.
There have been others, faithfully documented as they happened in Guido's Miliband category of posts. This also includes Ed-M's egging at an outdoor public appearance (resulting in a whole host of jokes, and the creation of the delightful term Omniscrambles), while elsewhere his personal popularity rating received another blow when it was revealed that it looks as though more than six in ten people just don't like him. Here's Ipsos MORI's pie chart, courtesy of Mike Smithson, showing how this figure is made up.
Finally on Ed[ward], the Spectator's James Forsyth confirms the reason I mentioned a week or two ago for the Labour leader's silence during these past several weeks, that he was concentrating on getting ready for the party conference. James tends to be correct on matters such as these (and many others) so perhaps we need to give the benighted one a bit of leeway on this occasion...
Bryant's Immigration Shambles
Labour's Chris Bryant, the shadow immigration secretary, made such a disastrous job of an interview earlier this week, in which he was tackled on the content of a speech that incorrectly criticised two major UK employers (Next and Tesco), that he has probably jeopardised his position, and I'd expect him to be either demoted or moved sideways to another subject area in the above-mentioned reshuffle, if it does indeed happen.
The interview on BBC-4's Today programme can be heard here, along with comment from the Speccie's David Blackburn. Matthew Holehouse at the Telegraph has highlighted the key differences between the original and hurriedly re-written Bryant speech; further comment of note is at ConHome.
The revised version of the speech can be read here; and it's still not exactly a good one in the areas where it has been 'corrected'.
Here's FullFact's point-by-point analysis of the Bryant speech. Although, reading through it thoroughly, one can't help get the feeling of a particular slant here and there – which is not uncommon at this site – but there's some useful information in this fact-check nonetheless. So, read with caution, but do check it out if you are interested in the detail it presents.
Unite4Len
That is how Len McCluskey's Twitter account is designated. Note that it is 'Unite for Len', not 'Len for Unite'. This looks like a Freudian slip that tells us which of them is the servant and whose is the real agenda that the union is intended (expected?) to pursue...
Rail Fare Rises
The latest developments on this perennial (almost weekly, in fact!) topic is that here in Chatham local Labour folk have been doing what I and others were doing just a few years ago: handing out leaflets to commuters. The difference is that, back then, rail fares had been shooting up hugely under the Labour government of the time (around ten percent in each of two consecutive years, in fact: I have the precise figures on file) and the general rule was for a so-called 'RPI + 3%' rise here in the south-east.
Labour are now protesting that it has been brought down to RPI + 1%, as former Gillingham MP and one-time transport minister Paul Clark acknowledges in this fairly short radio interview. Although he tries hard, he does stumble here and there, and it is quite to see where the truth is getting blurred.. At least he admits that a future Labour government would 'probably' keep the RPI + 1 formula that has been introduced by the Coalition Government.
He certainly has trouble with the question of railway funding and makes the usual mistake of equating money in to results out. He also refers at one point to the level of 'subsidy' – not the total amounts being invested. As always with Labour, if it isn't coming from the public purse, it doesn't count...
I am also not aware of any increase or reduction in the figures regarding accidents and fatalities, nor even such delays as those caused by signal failures – and I am decades-long enthusiast, user and observer of our railways, especially here and the up and (to a lesser extent) down routes. Listening attentively, one picks up on one of the standard Labour lines "totally unacceptable", said no fewer than three times by Mr Clark in these few minutes.
Overall, there's a lot of 'spin', but it's quite easy to see through much, most or (by the really perceptive) all of it, and it certainly disagrees with the leaflets that Labour have been handing out to commuters this week...
The Future
These weekly digests have been very popular (well, relative to other posts here, both now and when I was a full-on political blogger), so it looks like the format is here to stay. I shall keep it under review, though, rather than assume this is 'the answer' for all time.
With that, I think this is enough for the week: it doesn't always have to cover a lot of topics, although sometimes that is necessary or at least desirable. This week I have left out some less useful material on nurses, A-levels (despite the results having come out this past week) and some material that could fit just as sensibly into this week's Sunday Slot – so those last ones I am keeping bookmarked until then..
Ed and Shoulders
It has been a terrible time for Labour party leader Ed[ward] Miliband, who is now back with us. As commentators all over have been saying, his shadow cabinet members haven't exactly been helpful and forthcoming during his absence, and now some of them – along with a few backbenchers – are metaphorically bumping him with their shoulders (it's the best visual metaphor I thought would fit what is going on).
Most notably, shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham has 'warned' the party leader regarding their policies or lack thereof. The move has been seen by at least shrewd observer as having possibly been motivated by a sense of self-preservation by Burnham, fearing demotion out of the shadow cabinet in the much-rumoured upcoming third reshuffle under Mili-E.
There have been others, faithfully documented as they happened in Guido's Miliband category of posts. This also includes Ed-M's egging at an outdoor public appearance (resulting in a whole host of jokes, and the creation of the delightful term Omniscrambles), while elsewhere his personal popularity rating received another blow when it was revealed that it looks as though more than six in ten people just don't like him. Here's Ipsos MORI's pie chart, courtesy of Mike Smithson, showing how this figure is made up.
Finally on Ed[ward], the Spectator's James Forsyth confirms the reason I mentioned a week or two ago for the Labour leader's silence during these past several weeks, that he was concentrating on getting ready for the party conference. James tends to be correct on matters such as these (and many others) so perhaps we need to give the benighted one a bit of leeway on this occasion...
Bryant's Immigration Shambles
Labour's Chris Bryant, the shadow immigration secretary, made such a disastrous job of an interview earlier this week, in which he was tackled on the content of a speech that incorrectly criticised two major UK employers (Next and Tesco), that he has probably jeopardised his position, and I'd expect him to be either demoted or moved sideways to another subject area in the above-mentioned reshuffle, if it does indeed happen.
The interview on BBC-4's Today programme can be heard here, along with comment from the Speccie's David Blackburn. Matthew Holehouse at the Telegraph has highlighted the key differences between the original and hurriedly re-written Bryant speech; further comment of note is at ConHome.
The revised version of the speech can be read here; and it's still not exactly a good one in the areas where it has been 'corrected'.
Here's FullFact's point-by-point analysis of the Bryant speech. Although, reading through it thoroughly, one can't help get the feeling of a particular slant here and there – which is not uncommon at this site – but there's some useful information in this fact-check nonetheless. So, read with caution, but do check it out if you are interested in the detail it presents.
Unite4Len
That is how Len McCluskey's Twitter account is designated. Note that it is 'Unite for Len', not 'Len for Unite'. This looks like a Freudian slip that tells us which of them is the servant and whose is the real agenda that the union is intended (expected?) to pursue...
Rail Fare Rises
The latest developments on this perennial (almost weekly, in fact!) topic is that here in Chatham local Labour folk have been doing what I and others were doing just a few years ago: handing out leaflets to commuters. The difference is that, back then, rail fares had been shooting up hugely under the Labour government of the time (around ten percent in each of two consecutive years, in fact: I have the precise figures on file) and the general rule was for a so-called 'RPI + 3%' rise here in the south-east.
Labour are now protesting that it has been brought down to RPI + 1%, as former Gillingham MP and one-time transport minister Paul Clark acknowledges in this fairly short radio interview. Although he tries hard, he does stumble here and there, and it is quite to see where the truth is getting blurred.. At least he admits that a future Labour government would 'probably' keep the RPI + 1 formula that has been introduced by the Coalition Government.
He certainly has trouble with the question of railway funding and makes the usual mistake of equating money in to results out. He also refers at one point to the level of 'subsidy' – not the total amounts being invested. As always with Labour, if it isn't coming from the public purse, it doesn't count...
I am also not aware of any increase or reduction in the figures regarding accidents and fatalities, nor even such delays as those caused by signal failures – and I am decades-long enthusiast, user and observer of our railways, especially here and the up and (to a lesser extent) down routes. Listening attentively, one picks up on one of the standard Labour lines "totally unacceptable", said no fewer than three times by Mr Clark in these few minutes.
Overall, there's a lot of 'spin', but it's quite easy to see through much, most or (by the really perceptive) all of it, and it certainly disagrees with the leaflets that Labour have been handing out to commuters this week...
The Future
These weekly digests have been very popular (well, relative to other posts here, both now and when I was a full-on political blogger), so it looks like the format is here to stay. I shall keep it under review, though, rather than assume this is 'the answer' for all time.
With that, I think this is enough for the week: it doesn't always have to cover a lot of topics, although sometimes that is necessary or at least desirable. This week I have left out some less useful material on nurses, A-levels (despite the results having come out this past week) and some material that could fit just as sensibly into this week's Sunday Slot – so those last ones I am keeping bookmarked until then..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)