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.

Report: UK database could be privately managed  31/12/08

(I can’t believe it ! look where the report has come from)

By DAVID STRINGER
Associated Press   (eTaiwan News – 38 minutes ago)

A proposed British database intended to store details of every phone call, e-mail and Web site visit made in the U.K. could be managed by a private sector contractor under government plans, the Guardian newspaper reported Wednesday.

Such outsourcing would be accompanied by tougher legal safeguards to guarantee against leaks and accidental data losses, the newspaper said, citing a consultation paper.

However, involving the private sector in handling such sensitive data is bound to generate more trouble for the plan, particularly given a series of high-profile losses of computers, disks and hard drives storing such material in recent years. The steady stream of data blunders has kept the spotlight on the way the government handles _ or mishandles _ its citizens’ information.

Britain’s Home Office will consult the public and communications industry on the proposals starting next month, but declined to say on Wednesday whether an option for a private company to manage the database will be included in documents circulated for discussion.

The government previously dropped plans to include the proposal in the annual legislative program announced earlier this month, saying more debate was necessary.

Civil liberties groups have expressed concern about the database, which would create an unprecedented store of information on each individual’s private communications in hopes of tracking the movements of criminals or terrorists.

Ken Macdonald, who stepped down as Britain’s director of public prosecutions in October, said the plans to create a database are the stuff of a “paranoid fantasy.”

“No other country is considering such a drastic step,” Macdonald was quoted by the Guardian as saying.

Such a database would provide “a complete readout of every citizen’s life in the most intimate and demeaning detail.”

“The notion of total security is a paranoid fantasy which would destroy everything that makes living worthwhile,” he was quoted as saying. “We must avoid surrendering our freedom.”

Intelligence agencies _ including the Government Communication Headquarters eavesdropping center _ complain that their ability to intercept or trace records of exchanges between criminal or terrorism suspects is being compromised by a failure to address advances in technology.

Security officials say terror suspects now commonly use combinations of phone calls, SMS messages, Internet chat rooms and instant messaging to discuss plots _ meaning investigators need access to a wide range of data.

In a speech in October, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said the planned database is vital if communications data is to continue to be used to fight crime. She said such data had been used as evidence in around 95 percent of recent major criminal cases.

Responding to technological changes “is not a government policy which is somehow optional. It is a reality to which government needs to respond,” Smith said.

Smith said that the database won’t store the content of calls, e-mails or Internet use _ but would include details of times, dates, phone numbers, e-mail addresses and Web site URLs.

“To ensure that we keep up with technological advances we intend to consult widely on proposals in the New Year,” a Home Office spokesman said Wednesday, while speaking on condition of anonymity in line with ministry policy.

Police and intelligence services currently rely on billing information stored by Internet service providers and telecommunication companies to trawl a suspect’s phone contacts or Internet use. Figures released under Freedom of Information laws show British police paid 8.6 million pounds ($12.5 million) to cell phone companies for access to records in 2007.

From The Sunday Times December 28, 2008
by Jonathan Oliver, Political Editor

Lord Mandelson is preparing to make concessions over the part-privatisation of Royal Mail after warnings that up to 100 Labour backbenchers will rebel against the government over its plans.

The business secretary is expected to offer a statutory guarantee that no more than about a third of the postal service will be sold to the private sector.

Labour rebels have been concerned that Mandelson’s plan, rushed out just before parliament’s Christmas break, is a “slippery slope” towards full-scale privatisation.

However, last night a senior government source said Mandelson was ready to give ground to the rebels: “The potential for rebellion is huge. There need to be clear reassurances that we have no intention of pushing further.”

Under Mandelson’s scheme, between 25% and 33% ( *For Now just watch this change when things are quieter) of the postal service will go to a foreign buyer. The government would take on responsibility for Royal Mail’s £7 billion pension deficit, making the business more attractive to a potential private investor.

Mandelson believes the injection of private sector capital and management know-how is essential. However, Labour rebels are concerned that the plan breaches Labour’s manifesto commitment not to privatise the service.

Writing in The Sunday Times, Neal Lawson, chairman of Compass, the centre-left think tank, said the party’s unease was shared by senior ministers.

“There was known to be disquiet all around the table when the decision was debated at the last cabinet meeting of the year,” he said. “At least 100 Labour MPs will mobilise against any form of Post Office privatisation.”

The rebels also want private companies using the Royal Mail network to pay higher charges. They claim the access charge is too low, meaning the government is effectively subsidising the foreign-owned delivery companies that “piggy back” on Royal Mail.

In a show of strength, the rebels are expected to table a Commons motion when parliament returns in the new year.

Jim McGovern became the first member of the government to quit over the issue when he resigned last week as parliamentary private secretary to Pat McFadden, the postal affairs minister. The Sunday Times has learnt that other government aides are considering their position.

John Grogan, MP for Selby and one of the rebel leaders, accused the government of betrayal. “A promise is a promise,” he said. “Pat McFadden signed off a policy of a wholly publicly owned Royal Mail just three months ago. There is an alternative public investment programme, which the unions are willing to implement.”

Gordon Brown has a majority of 63, so only 32 Labour MPs need to vote with the opposition for the government to lose. Labour whips believe about two dozen backbenchers would vote against any involvement of the private sector, but more moderate rebels can be won round.

The Conservatives say they support private sector investment but believe the commitment on pension liabilities is “a mortgage on future generations”.

( * My Comments )

THE number of girls getting pregnant and leaving school at 16 has soared since a rise in benefits to teen mums, it emerged yesterday.
A shock study has estimated an extra 45,000 babies were born to poor teenage mums in the year after Government rules were changed.

My Comment  (Well, Well who would have expected that then – certainly not the VERY WELL PAID AND SUPPOSEDLY EDUCATED MINISTERS AND MP’s WE ELECTED. (WELL YOU ELECTED – I CERTAINLEY DIDN’T) – Its was pretty obvious to us simpleton’s …………….. along with dozens of other hair brained schemes like rewarding villains with all expenses paid holidays to name just one.

Many youngsters stopped using birth control after the money went up, claims a study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Between 1999 and 2003 ministers boosted the amount worst-off families could claim from £39 a week to £56.76 – an increase of 45% – due to the introduction of Working Families Tax Credit and an increase in Income Support.

The boost was equivalent to an extra 10% on the average claimant’s total household income.

It meant the benefits available to a young mum would be almost double what a couple who stayed in education at sixth form would get. The figures come weeks after Karen Matthews, 33, was convicted of kidnapping and imprisoning her daughter Shannon, nine, in Dewsbury, West Yorks.

Matthews had never worked in her life and was able to claim up to £286 a week as she had given birth to seven children by five different fathers.

Although many families benefited from the extra cash, the study found a minority of claimants apparently got pregnant to become entitled to it.

The report, Does Welfare Reform Affect Fertility?, (YOU JUST COULDN’T MAKE IT UP COULD YOU – SHOULDN’T YOU HAVE DONE THIS BEFORE CHANGING THE ALLOWANCE _ YOU CAN’T REMOVE IT NOW ((HUMAN RIGHTS)) ) stated: “We have shown that more generous Government support coincided with an increase in births among the group most affected by the reforms. We also see evidence of a decline in use of contraception. Our results indicate a sizable response in child-bearing among the group affected.”

Extracts from Daily Star 25/12/08 by tom.savage@dailystar.co.uk

23 December 2008

Anger as Mandelson threatens to sue HBOS merger challengers

By Tom Gordon, Scottish Political Editor

SOURCES CLOSE to Alex Salmond last night accused Lord Mandelson of trying to “stack the deck” against those challenging the merger of HBOS with Lloyds TSB after they were threatened with huge legal bills unless they dropped their case.
Lawyers acting for Mandelson, the business and enterprise secretary, told the Merger Action Group (MAG) that unless it halted its legal fight, Mandelson would “pursue costs against each of the group’s identified members”.

However if the six-member group, which challenges the merger proposals at the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London tomorrow, were to drop its case, Mandelson would “wholly exceptionally waive his claim for costs”.
advertisement

The ultimatum was delivered to MAG’s lawyers on Friday afternoon, demanding they withdraw their appeal by 5pm the same day. The group declined.

Malcolm Fraser, the spokesman for MAG, said last night: “I can confirm that our lawyers did receive a letter from Lord Mandelson’s legal team on Friday inviting us to withdraw our appeal. This invitation was declined.

“In the public interest, we are determined it should go ahead.”

The letter, from Adam Chapman of the Treasury’s Litigation and Employment Group, which represents Lord Mandelson’s Department of Business, was addressed to Ian Forrester, the Brussels-based Scottish QC representing the action group.

The six named are Dan Macdonald, of Macdonald Estates; Malcolm Fraser, the architect; Peter de Vink, the Scottish financier; David Alexander, of property firm DJ Alexander; Tim Noble, of Noble and Co; and Mark Shaw, chief executive of Hazledene Group.

A source close to the first minister said: “This indicates real concern in the UK government that there is a substantial case to answer about the behaviour of Lord Mandelson towards his responsibilities and the clear lack of the promised level playing field.

“We think the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has been badly spooked by Mr Justice Barling’s wise decision to hold the case under Scottish jurisdiction despite the protestations and intense lobbying of the Treasury’s legal team. Lord Mandelson … would do well to leave the tribunal to determine the case instead of attempting to stack the deck yet again.”

MSPs opposed to the merger urged MAG to refuse to knuckle under to “undemocratic bully-boy tactics.”

Independent MSP Margo MacDonald, who fears merger would mean huge job losses in her Lothians seat, said: “I find it breathtaking that a group of responsible people whose only motive is the public interest can be subjected to such threats and intimidation by a member of the UK government.

“Why is Lord Mandelson’s legal team employing these outrageous bullying tactics? Is it, perhaps, because they think they are going to lose?”

She added: “I would be very surprised if the pursuit of the MAG members for legal costs is a matter for Peter Mandelson. I would have thought that it is for the tribunal to decide on costs.”

The SNP’s Alex Neil, who on Friday tabled a motion at Holyrood calling on Mandelson to refer the merger to the Competition Commission, said: “It seems to me that Lord Mandelson wants a pair of jackboots for Christmas so he can boot his way right through the UK legal system to get his own way.”

MacDonald, Neil, and Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott pledged support for the challenge when they met MAG spokesman Malcolm Fraser at Holyrood last week.

Scott later raised the matter at First Minister’s Questions, calling on the Scottish government to consider assisting with MAG’s legal costs.

He said last night: “The tribunal is meant to be a way for small business to challenge big government. It is wrong for the Labour government to be so heavy handed.

“I want to know if ministers authorised this letter. Were Lord Mandleson and Alistair Darling aware of this letter?”

The case at the Competition Appeal Tribunal will be held under Scots law, meaning any appeal would be heard at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

Well after todays secret SALE of our nuclear production plant to the US we don’t seem to have much left.

WATER SUPPLY                    SOLD OFF
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY        SOLD OFF
GAS SUPPLY                           SOLD OFF
NUCLEAR POWER                SOLD OFF
CAR INDUSTRY                     SOLD OFF (If we have any left please let me know)

Due To Be Sold

THE POST OFFICE                Should be available before the next election, its obviousley being wound down.
(just so everyone will agree that it needs selling).

THE POST OFFICES PARCEL FORCE       -      UNDER OFFER

In The Process Of Being Prepared To Be Sold

All UK Hospitals  – Looks Like Thats Well Underway Via the PFA schemes

A proposed British database intended to store details of every phone call, e-mail and Web site visit made in the U.K.

Come to think of it I can’t think of a single thing we have left that is owned by The UK.

The government has sold its last remaining shares in the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment in Berkshire to an American company.

The move means Britain no longer has any stake in the production of its Trident nuclear warheads.

We Sell Off yet another vital UK Asset

Opposition MPs have criticised the sale, but the Ministry of Defence said Britain’s “sovereign interests” had been protected.

The fee paid by California-based Jacobs Engineering has not been disclosed.

The sale of British Nuclear Fuels’ stake means Jacobs has control of one third of Aldermaston’s operating company, AWE Management.

The other two thirds were already in private hands. They are split equally between American defence giant Lockheed Martin and the British plc Serco.

Aldermaston is responsible for the production of warheads for the Trident nuclear deterrent programme and its planned replacement.

The Conservatives said the government must explain the move.

Defence spokesman Gerald Howarth said Aldermaston was “critical to Britain’s nuclear deterrent capability”.

Opposition MPs on the sale of the Aldermaston weapons plant

“I’m not anti the United States,” he told the BBC. “What I’m absolutely determined is that the United Kingdom should have total control of its independent nuclear capability.

“And I think the people of this country will want to know that… their politicians are in command of the research and development of this capability.

“We’re happy to have the support of the United States, but policy-wise it must be in the hands of the United Kingdom.”

Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey said: “The whole argument used for Britain having a separate weapons establishment is that this is required by the non-proliferation treaty, as technology sharing is not allowed.

“We must therefore query the rationale of a US company having a majority shareholding in AWE. How does this all square?”

The sale was announced in a one paragraph statement on the BNFL website.

The Lib Dems said it was staggering that Parliament had not been properly informed.

The safe operation of AWE will remain unaffected by the sale
Ministry of Defence spokesman

Their Treasury spokesman, Vince Cable, also said it was “a terrible time” for the government to sell its share because it would not get the best possible return for it.

The Ministry of Defence insisted Britain’s strategic interests had been “taken into account”.

A spokesman said: “It is the UK government, not AWE, that sets the UK’s nuclear policy.

“UK sovereign interests remain protected at all times, as does the independence of the UK deterrent. The safe operation of AWE will remain unaffected by the sale.”

The government said it had retained a “special share” in AWE, which would enable it to fire the operators or intervene on site if necessary.

Aldermaston has been the headquarters for the UK’s atomic warhead capability for more than 50 years.  SELL OFF

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)

LISBON TREATY LITIGATION

UPDATE  25th June 2008  I am sorry to say that I lost and that Lord Justice Dyson did not appear to have taken on board that the government had, in effect, guaranteed to me that they would not ratify the treaty before the hearing, and had breached this undertaking.

Although I was the person who brought the action, it was, in effect, on behalf of all those of us – well over half the population – who wanted our say in a referendum.

Challenge over EU referendum given go-ahead by

High Court

Why I am suing the Prime Minister by Stuart Wheeler

If you are interested in the above please pass this link on to anyone who may be able to help.

Link address http://www.stuartwheeler.co.uk/index.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3864394.ece

Martin