- George Orwell, Animal Farm, Ch. 10
The Coaition has announced that it will cap the number of non-EU skilled migrants allowed in the UK 43,000. It represents a cut of 13% from the 2009 figures. The announcement is the start of a process by which the government aims to reduce overall immigration from hundreds to tens of thousands.The target is yet another compromise between the Lib Dems and Tories, by which I mean the Lib Dems have compromised themselves entirely. In their 2010 manifesto he Conservatives promised an annual limit on immigration, new curbs on unskilled workers, and “transitional controls” on new European Union members. The Lib Dems policies were aimed at beefing up our border controls and they promised to 'introduce a regional points based system to ensure that migrants can work only where they are needed.' I'm not sure how they intended to police that one.
A report in early November by the Commons home affairs select committee says the proposed annual cap on immigration "will make little difference to overall immigration and may do serious damage to Britain's knowledge economy." In the Guardian, Keith Vaz, chairman of the home affairs committee, said: "The government should direct its efforts to tackling those who abuse the system – bogus colleges and visa over stayers – rather than penalising legitimate students."
The committee also quoted evidence from eight Nobel prizewinning scientists of the potential damage to Britain's science base. They told the MPs that it was "a sad reflection on national priorities that the cap would exempt international footballers but not elite scientists or engineers."Tim Finch, of the Institute of Public Policy Research, said the report blew huge holes in the idea of an annual cap: "The cap is a policy constructed to win an election, not to run an efficient immigration system."
While I agree entirely the policy is nonsense, you seem to have misunderstood the nature of coalition politics in this & other posts. It would be nice if the tories had used the opportunity to ditch the crappest policies but unfortunately they are often the ones that made tory voters vote for them. The two parties have to negotiate & accept policies unpalatable to them and because the lib dems are the minority partner, they get less of their policies & swallow more shit. Those who vote Lib Dem may be suprised at the priorities the party leadership chose in the coalition agreement, but if so, they were naive, as a manifesto is not just a list of policies but a discription of their relative importance. No government implements every manifesto commitment made. I don't see how the Lib Dems or tories have been untruthful by entering into a process of negotiation. Anyway, Labour will benefit from picking up disaffected lib dem voters at the next election,no doubt influenced by your propaganda!
ReplyDeleteOf course with the new proposals on benefits there should quickly come a time when the current "unemployed" will be working, epsecially in those jobs that require little skill. So we will no longer need huge numbers of unskilled foreign workers. Someone will have to convince employers to choose native unskilled and often unwilling rather than foreign and often very keen and willing. Clegg is lucky to be in power at all, so he will sell out again and again and again... There is no point in pointing this out, any of us would do the same in his shoes. That is what politicans are paid to do ????
ReplyDeleteSome of these policies, most probably need to happen, I just worry with the speed in which they are happening. Knee jerk springs to mind.
The photos make me feel quite sick particularly as I voted LD to keep the Tories out in line with the Lib Dem campaign locally this makes me want to reach for the ...
ReplyDeleteVery sad to see footballers put above engineers and scientists - could this be a voting thing again? I partialy agree with teresa & eejit (what sort of blog is this that we all agree?) that politicians will do most things to get in / stay in power but it would be nice to think most wouldn't sell their own and the parties soul as the Lib Dems appear to be doing. As the Tories have no soul (Thatcher privatised that along ith everything else) nothing they do surprises me. I would imagine abour are still privately pleased not to be making some of the decisions needed, although you still feel it would have been a bit more rational (now am I being naive?)
ReplyDeleteTony did a marvejous job of setting poor Brown up for the fall and fall they did! This business of benefits for the asking is ridiculous! As well as the job seekers there is a whole army of women who do not work because they have children and they are on what they call "the book" so they don't even show up on the unemployed statistics. This system has single handedly caused the biggest social problem we face and that is "chavedom". Chavs(whoever they may be) are second generation products of a benefit system that robbed them of all ambition and motivation. This has spenned more than one goverment and more than one pary. The thing is once chavs get back to work there will be real unemployement and clearly it is foreigh labour that will have to go.
ReplyDeleteoh and yes all this agreeing is getting a bit uncomfortable.... footballers over scientist!!! What the hell!!!
ReplyDeleteEejit, thanks for your posts. I don't think that I misundertsand the nature of coalition politics - I just object to the Tories pushing through a pretty radical agenda without an appropriate mandate. The bottom line is that the Lib Dems are keeping the Tories in power and their voters were certainly not voting for these policies. A PR referendum seems a pretty small price to ask the Tories when there is a good chance the Lib Dems will lose and in the process of working in coalition wreck their future electoral chances no matter what system is in place.
ReplyDeleteIs the answer: only one of them is an atheist bringing his children up as Catholics?
ReplyDeleteTeresa, obviously one of the cities with big educational problems is Bristol. However, I worked in education in Islington and saw very poor cchildrren in inner-city schools achieving amazing results at primary level.
ReplyDeleteAlso I think the teachers I would take a great deal of offence to your characterisation. The school I visited near Leeds was getting outstanding results despite the social deprivation. The children responded to the high expectations placed upon them. No one was categorising the children second rate citizens.
Perhaps celebrating the success of all state schools rather than picking spots based on demographics would be a good start?
Avacado, are you talking about me?
ReplyDeleteNo Clegg, actually but now that you mention it there are similarities...
ReplyDeleteI was of course being facetious. In an attempt to turn this blog into the religious quagmire that was your previous one.
ReplyDeleteSorry Teresa, posted comment to wrong post.
ReplyDeleteHey Avocado I let you have the last word previously but don't push your luck! The other one was about religion or at least the Catholic church (not always one and the same). For me religion is a political choice as much as anything, I VOTE for Jesus! I am trying to keep this one clean of religion cause I know how unpopular it is but I can turn anything into a religious debate, so please do not provoke me!
ReplyDelete