Labour’s obsession with an open-door immigration policy has hit its core vote hardest, writes Alasdair Palmer

The Labour leadership seems finally to be waking up to the fact that the party’s immigration policy has not been popular with what has traditionally been seen as its core vote: Britain’s white working class. The development appears to have taken Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary, by surprise. She reacted to a report commissioned by her department that found that many working class whites feel “betrayed” by saying that “the report shows there are real complexities around perceptions [of Government] held by the white working class.”

“Real complexities?” The reasons why the working class feels betrayed actually reduce to one fairly simple fact: they have paid the costs of increased immigration without reaping any of the benefits. They compete for low-skilled, poorly-paid jobs with immigrants who are willing to work longer hours for less money. The white working class is not affluent, so can’t take advantage of the opportunities to eat at ethnic restaurants or to employ nannies, plumbers and builders at low wages that delight those who are better off (such as, for instance, Labour ministers and MPs). They are the ones who find that, because many immigrants are even poorer and more in need of services such as council housing and medical care than they are, there is a longer queue for those benefits. The better-off already own their homes, and they don’t live in the poor neighbourhoods into which immigrants settle, so their children do not have to go to schools where many of their class-mates do not speak English.

Labour’s immigration policy turns out to have been a very effective campaign tactic in the class war – only with the twist that, in this case, Labour has been on the side of the haves rather than the have-nots. The wonderful thing about dramatically increasing immigration in the way Labour has done over the past decade is that advocates of that policy can present it to themselves not as a way of forcing down the wages of the poorest Britons to the great advantage of the employing classes, but as an altruistic attempt to help the impoverished of the developing world. They see it as an exercise in compassion and social justice.

Advocates of unrestricted or very high levels of immigration into Britain often seem simply to have deluded themselves into portraying what is actually a piece of economic self-interest as high-minded philanthropy. Still, underlying the question of how many people from developing economies we should welcome into Britain, there is a very fundamental issue about the basis of rights, and who owes how much to whom.

On one side, there is the rationalist, universalist view, which says that the basis of rights and entitlements is “human-ness” – and that morally, every government should treat every human being in exactly the same way. On the other, there is the view that governments can never be more than the guardians of the interests of the particular group of people who elect them and contribute to them. That is why, as a member of a particular nation, you have a right to a voice in deciding what laws govern your society, but outsiders do not. It is also why you also have an entitlement to benefits that is not universally shared.

Labour’s policy on immigration has been based on the rationalist, universalist view. That is why its immigration policy, with its insistence that every immigrant has exactly the same rights as long-standing members of British society, has come into such sharp collision with the views of the white working class. They think that the Government should recognise that it has special obligations to its own citizens which it does not have to humanity in general. They, along with most of the rest of us, are sceptical of any politician who claims to be following “universal reason”, especially when the “rational policy” requires sacrifices from people who are not politicians. Most British citizens think that the British Government has no obligation whatever to extend to arrivals from Third World countries the benefits to which only being a citizen entitles you.

That reaction does not depend on ethnicity. The majority of Britons, from all backgrounds, are not willing to contribute indefinitely large amounts to the welfare of immigrants, or to sacrifice the larger share of benefits which would be otherwise be theirs – and they do not accept the claim that reason and social justice obliges them to do so.

Labour’s policy, however, has been based on the assumption that that is precisely what everyone should be willing to do. But they haven’t dared to argue it openly. That’s why they have used the smear of “racism” to prevent discussion. Ms Blears now says she wants “an open debate”, but I doubt that’s true. Will anyone believe Labour ministers when they insist that their immigration policy is an example of social justice, and not a cynical ploy to advance a narrow sectional interest? There is only one answer to that question, and Ms Blears knows who it hurts most: Labour.

Jaguar Land Rover's Indian owner Tata bought the marques in March

Sorry but there not British any longer -

“Jaguar Land Rover is in trouble. Nothing new there. Ford sold the two British carmakers for reasons beyond its own dire finances.

But what is causing jaws to drop is how readily the Indian industrial giant Tata is going cap-in-hand to the UK government asking for financial assistance, less than nine months after acquiring the brands”.

When Tata paid $2.3bn – at the time £1.15bn – for Jaguar and Land Rover, it was well aware that massive and sustained cash injections would be essential to preserve, or even rebuild, their upmarket reputations.

Jaguar Land Rover’s overall parent Tata Group is an industrial behemoth with revenues of $62.5bn and $5.4bn profits in the year to March.

Tata Motors, India’s largest automobile company and Jaguar Land Rover’s direct owner, is just one of 115 subsidiary companies listed on Tata Group’s website.

Tata must support its own companies and the British Government must not bail them out (We have nothing left anyway, we are up to our arm pits as it is)

We must always remember if we give to one then as sure as eggs are eggs others with quickly follow – please sir can we have some more springs to mind.

Give to One Give to All

Extracts from BBC NEWS Friday, 18 February, 2005, 00:01 GMT

also see (SEE 16 December 2008)

E-mail this to a friend     Printable version

Royal Mail loses postal monopoly

The Royal Mail’s 350-year monopoly is to end at the start of 2006, 15 months earlier than previously planned.

The UK’s postal service market will be fully liberalised from 1 January 2006, regulator Postcomm announced, following three months of consultation.

From that date, any licensed operator will be able to deliver mail to business and residential customers.
Royal Mail, which controls 99% of the market, welcomed the news but the main postal union said it was “ill-advised”.

The Communication Workers Union (CWU) warned the decision will place “the country’s cherished universal service in jeopardy”.

The CWU also criticised what it said was a “competition at all costs” ethos which it says will put the Post Office at a serious competitive disadvantage to its European rivals.

They really need-n’t have worried as it looks like (16 December 2008) The Prince of Darkness has agreed to sell it, or part of it off to the Europeans. H’mm wonder who and how long someone has been working on this behind the scenes.
Someone must have been floating this in the European Market place, wonder who…….

(SEE 16 December 2008)

My personal view is “If its that bad WHY DOES SOMEONE WANT TO BUY IT ” nothing to do with bad Management then !!!!

However, the Royal Mail and consumer watchdog Postwatch have welcomed the decision (Just a minute aren’t Postwatch supposed to look after The Royal Mail for US – or perhaps not look who controls them BERR its the Prince of Darkness again).

“We’re ready,” said Royal Mail chief executive Adam Crozier.

“We recognise that the regulator is getting on with his job, and welcome faster competition as long as it comes without unfair restrictions on Royal Mail.”

“Royal Mail must have the freedom and flexibility to set the right prices, based on real costs,” Mr Crozier added.

“If that happens, I think the new competitive environment will succeed. Competitors are already targeting profitable business mail. We need to compete with them on price as well as service if we are to keep the universal service in business.”

In the new market, Royal Mail will still be required to provide a universal postal service for first and second class mail of one delivery and one collection each working day at a uniform price throughout the UK.

‘More choice’

Consumer body Postwatch chairman Peter Carr welcomed the announcement.

He said: “Ultimately this will lead to more choice, and hopefully a better service.”

However, he said there were still issues to be addressed, such as cost of access to the Royal Mail “pipeline” for letters.

Until now, competition in the £4.5bn market has been restricted to 30% of the value of the letters market and to companies handling bulk mail in batches of 4000 letters or more.

Full market opening means that licensed operators can collect and deliver any mail, from single letters to bulk mailings.

They can set up collection boxes, provide collections and deliveries between businesses, offer tracked mail services or mail deliveries at a guaranteed time.

Operator codes

Postcomm will shortly publish arrangements for the new multi-operator market.

These will include a code of practice to ensure mail companies co-operate on issues such as the forwarding of mail and handling mail that is returned to sender and a separate code to safeguard the integrity of the mail.

At present, Royal Mail alone is exempt from VAT, which means it has a significant price advantage over rival firms, and Postcomm said “competition issues” would be addressed.

But the CWU union fears the change is too much too soon.

It says the regulator has moved in a way that is “completely out of step with the carefully managed approach” set out in European legislation.

“In so doing, Postcomm has placed significant extra pressures on the Royal Mail Group at a time when it is undergoing far-reaching internal and external changes,” said CWU deputy general secretary Dave Ward.

“The upshot will be to place very real pressures on Royal Mail’s ability to meet its universal service obligations.”

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/business/4274335.stm

In November 2007, the Daily Telegraph reported[5] that he (Mr Crozier) had received a 26% pay increase in base pay, taking out £1,256,000 in 2007.

His achievements in this year included
Shrinking the workforce by 45,000.
Closing 4,600 post offices.
With another 2,500 to follow.
The goal of this reduction in workforce and in retail outlets was to increase profitability of the corporation.
Which had made a profit of £537m in 2004/5.
Dropping to around £300 million in 2005/6.
Dropping to £233 million in 2006/7.
To the point where the corporation was running a £10 million/annum trading deficit in 2007).

Good record – must be due a knighthood (Prediction)