Following my earlier post on the subject, I wanted to build upon my thoughts on immigration. Now the dominant New Left has decreed it an acceptable area for debate, people from all over the political spectrum seem to be in agreement that we need to restrict it - but just how accurate is this view?

I draw upon an article in the Telegraph by Conservative MP Peter Lilley. Much of it is made of the usual partisan bickering you would expect from an MP, but there are some important points argued:

The greatest public concern about immigration, and the most rational, is rarely mentioned in public debate: its impact on the housing market. Even if Eastern Europeans share dwellings at double the national average, an extra 600,000 people must occupy well over 100,000 dwellings. That is more than half the new homes built each year. Workers from the new member states are not entitled to social housing or housing benefit, but every private dwelling they occupy means one fewer for local residents.

It is difficult to argue he does not have a point. Who could deny that space itself is not finite? Eventually there will have to be upper-limits on the number of immigrants we can welcome, if simply to try and combat overcrowding. These are simple, empirical, geographical arguments.

However of course nothing is that simple, and there are other things to bear in mind. Firstly is the struggle the 'native' British population has in merely replacing itself, as birth rates continue to fall. Surely then at least some immigration would not hamper the search for homes.

Secondly, it has to be questioned whether work restrictions will really be that effective. EU citizenship means workers from Bulgaria and Romania will be free to come to this country anyway. Should they get work, they will be extremely difficult to catch, and if caught, all they will face is deportation back to their country of origin, from where they are free to try again. If implemented, it seems that restrictions would be so difficult to enforce that it hardly seems worth wasting time on.

Lilley offers us economic arguments in favour of immigration restriction:

Precisely because immigrants are often skilled, invariably industrious, and usually willing to work for less than the going rate, the resident population fears their impact on British pay and jobs. Government claims that immigration is economically enriching ring false to those lower down the pay spectrum.

It surely is not deliberate, but notice how his references to immigrants as "skilled" and "industrious" seem to want to draw comparison to the British. Why would anyone think that of us? Lilley continues:

Of course, that is what makes immigration popular with the better-off. They would rather employ a skilled Polish worker than a semi-skilled Brit; and prefer a highly motivated East European to a Briton whose drive is blunted by the knowledge that he can get nearly as much "on the social".

Perhaps there is the answer. Lilley tries to attack the 'better off' for employing the skilled over the semi-skilled, and the highly motivated over those "whose drive is blunted". Perhaps I am missing something, but even the better off do not treat business as attempts at charity. Why shouldn't you employ the best person for the job?

It is all very well to frame this as "countryman vs foreigner", or "stick up for your own", but if you are inclined to believe in a free market you would reject much government involvement in this area, which leaves individual action - and how many people have the time or energy to what is essentially engage in social engineering with national consequences when all they want is a job to be done?

All these people are trying to do is enhance their own lives by seeking new opportunities, taking up jobs where their are shortages, creating new jobs by setting up their own businesses and through their extra spending power, keeping down wage inflation (though this may cause harm when inflation in other areas is higher) and healthily in my opinion exposing welfare, state run public services and the minimum wage for what they are. Leaving aside cultural considerations (on which I feel the argument is stronger) immigration really is a good thing

I oppose these new silly restrictions on new EU members. It totally contradicts the ideal of European intergration, and you cannot have it both ways. It seems bizarre to support the EU yet kick up a fuss when it alledgedly backfires on you. I do not support British membership of the EU, but at least I do support some intellectual integrity.

As subject

Last Sunday a priest said enough, it has gone on for his entire lifetime at 57 years old. At 26 and with the fear that this conflict is the recruiting

Enough is enough when it comes to hurt and hate and bombings and rockets and planes into buildings, and shoe bombs. If I sound woolly here then maybe I am.

If I could wave a magic wand I'd ask our current PM to do the following:

1) Visit Syria 1st and go over the heads of Hizbollah and talk to President Assad. If they get on so well now is the time to ly the chance of peace betweem Syria and Israel as part of a Palestinian settlement

2) Go to Lebanon and see things on the ground and talk to the Lebanese cabinet (including Hizbollah)

3) Visit Tyre or a Southern port under escort of the Lebanese and French (maybe get Chirac along for the ride to show solidarity at a border that our forbears drew up with the Yanks)

4) Then go to Palestine and Israel and moot the idea of UN support similar to this for teh West Bank and Gaza if desired to allow both a right to return and where agreed by negotiation, a right to remain.

5) Cap it off with the sugestion of a tri city area under UN auspices so that Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Ramallah remain linked and united for all, where both citizens can live in peace and vote for their states governments but share intl auspices in terms of security for as long as necessary.

6) Pump the aid into economic development such as desalination plants so that Lebanon, Egypts, Gazas and Turkeys most precious resource water can be pumped south and East to Iraq and Saudi or to compensate for the dams of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers Turkey has already done

7) Invite Israel and Iran to sign a nuclear non proliferation treaty and mutual aid to boths civilian power.

8) Turn the Golan into Intl territory as part of a Kosovo approach of referenda to decide its future status.

Job Done?
Job done?
James Andrew Ware

... Caroline Flint



Behold - latest government scam to address the "obesity epidemic". I had to look twice to make sure this was the BBC and not The Onion.

For those interested, the BBC's guide to healthy living:



How old are we, five?

Conservative Immigration spokesman Damien Green has said the government should limit workers rights to immigrants who wish to come to the UK from Bulgaria and Romania should those countries be admitted to the EU in 2007. He said a new influx could "put unacceptable pressure on public services, on school places, on the provision of housing, which causes big problems for certain local communities".

The government meanwhile it says it hasn't decided whether it will impose restrictions, but Trade secretary Alistair Darling did outline Labour's position:

What we need to do is balance the skills that we require - and yes, our economy does require skills in various areas - and at the same time having a system that is properly managed so we can take care of all the other things we need to consider, like the healthcare system, the education system and so on

I'm going to stick my neck out on this one. I think the main arguments of both parties betray that essentially this isn't an immigration problem at all, its a welfare state problem. It is not the number of immigrants in the UK that is cause for concern, but more simply, the number of people in the UK, period.

As population increases, there are more people to treat for "free", more children to school for "free", more people need to be provided with housing for "free". What the code behind all this is that inflexible state socialism cannot cope with the flexible labour market.

There truly is a serious problem here, but it isn't an "immigration" problem.

As title

According to this General the rules of engagement have a few difficulties and the troop deployment numbers agreed to date by the Intl community.

To use some London colloquial 'sort it outt!' Or give me a flaming teaching post and I could do it with my eyes closed.

As for the French sending the piffling numbers they're planning, shows what the cheesy arsed surrender monkeys are like when the chips are down to paraphrase the sentiments of a few people I know back home. Heres a problem where IMMEDIATE ASSISTANCE is required and was called for here two weeks ago and what do they do talk about weeks re strengthening UNIFIL.

To quote a Sun columnist (though I'm usually loathed to do so) you couldn't make it up.

It was reported today on BBC Radio 4 the world at one that Hamas Pm and Fatah President Abbas of the PLA were in talks about forming a govt of national unity, with the implicit aimof recognising Israel.

Such a move would be a welcome step towards a two state solution.

It was reported on BBC Radio 4 The world tonights programme (10pm DST, 9pm GMT) that Amir Peretz had called for preparations for talks with Syria. Given that there is the Golan disputed between them and the speech quoted by newsnight from Assad, this is all the more necessary to facilitate a peaceful resolution.

Surely it is right to aid the disarming of Hezbollah by concluding a peace with its sponsor, closing the borders between it and Lebanon and Iraq, and then resolving the issues of water and the Golan so that Intl law is implemented even handedly as was called for today by Shahid Malik on Newsnight.

Then its easier to resolve Palestine and dissolve the recruiting mentalities for Al Qeada and whats happenned as our fight is not with every muslim, it is with those who seek to blow us up.

ConHome has set up a new section to cover CF elections and issues

The Conservative Party I joined was, at least I thought, a party of tax cuts. This was a fundamental belief,because it was so intrinsic to our view of government and freedom in general. Reducing taxation is good because it allows people to spend their own money, spending it on whatever they choose, living as they choose.

So what on earth happened?

David Cameron's transport policy review team will propose a radical programme for steep tax rises on air travel and gas-guzzling cars offset by cuts in council tax, VAT and national insurance, it was revealed last night.

Firstly, I do not understand how one can predict how much will be raised from these new taxes? Guessing? Secondly, I am dismayed with the idea of "offsetting": there is no excuse for raising taxes and no excuse bad enough to reduce them.

Leave this aside. Its the big brother, nanny state, INGSOC thinking that bothers me. This is a lifestyle tax, and its the one I dislike the most



Repeat after me:

"I will buy crappy looking cars"
"I will not enjoy cheap air travel"
"I will subscribe to apocolyptic we-are-all-going-to-die style environmentalism"

So I'm afraid Steven Norris, but when you said there had been unanimous agreement that climate change "is the most important challenge to the planet" you were wrong. The biggest challenge we face is still as it always has been, that unendable quest to get our government to do the one thing, the only thing, that it has sworn it never will do...

...leave us alone?

This topic is something I've written about earlier on another forum.

they all need water and power.

They also all need peace.

Plus if you can't remove all the settlers, then Jerusalem and Bethlehem and Ramallah could become the tri city area. Itl terrritory where bothe states citizens could live and work and vote for theur national governments, but have a common UN convened local authority.

Great the resolution is passed tonight re Lebanon as well.

Ok while I've read about the terrorist attacks in London online and heard reports, theres also another story that needs reporting today.

The UN has called for more aid to get to southern Lebanon and the possible offensive by Israel reported in the UK press is delayed by Israel to give the diplomatic route a chance, get a resolution and get Intl forces on the ground.

Its great people have been saved here and full marks to the security services, but lets not let Lebanon go off the ball. Todays events bring the calls for peace to be more clearer than before.

One last thing Islamofacism is not the threat its perversion of religion for extremist purposes. If you see todays events as a crusade the point is missed. The use of force and genocide is not allowed under Intl Law unless agreed at an Intl level (force not genocide!). The trouble is that terrorism cuts across borders and makes this difficult.

To hit it you go for finance, you go for capability and you do it integratedly. I'm not advocating world governance here, I am advocating UN resolutions against terror and more than that that sates then do something about it even handedly like UK and Eire have done over Irish terrorism over the opast years since ( post 9/11 and Bush call to Adams that it ends and it ends now). Its a shame dissidents didn't get the message.

Ok this is a dilemma, can we help Iran out of its situation?

Ok its an oil producing country so it should need power stations that burn oil, right. However thats from an outsiders perspective. Iran is scared at elite level in my guess and scared people react badly when perceived with athreat. Hence their President calling they won't back down in response to the Un resolution inon Monday calling for suspension of uranium enrichment. Further Iran needs power for its own industries if one belives its givt so that it can economically develop without being economically dependent on others when the oil runs out (as reported on Newsnight).

If Iran needs more electric power and we can trust them not to build bombs, can't we supply them the fuel and take the waste back off them,after all what else is the Uk fuel processing scheme for? If we shared technology and overcame trust issues with the Soviets, might Chernobyl have been avoided? That may sound chauvinistic but if the mighty Russians / Soviets got their station wrong, how safe is the Iranian programme? Don't attackIrans might or sovereignty per se offer a way outprovided it obeys Intl law, use sanctions on them more carefully than Iraq under Saddam .

This way out may have to come from an Islamic state such as Kuwait or IRaq and Saudi. BUt again it come downs to this, would a New Middle east see funding of terrorism across the border in Iraq cease? In that sense Iran has to help the IAEA and we have to help it. Do we want the mullahs to gain ground in the structures of Iran? I think not.

Hence sanctions should be targetted in a way that limits production but doesn't lead to an incident or someone leaking secrets or selling the fuel on. Saddam could terrorise his population in the 1990s with a massive land army If we play this one wrong, Irans national sentiment could be reduced and that would be enought to bolster its govts bolshieness out of popular support.

I'm no pacifist but deep level bunkers with uranium inside and smart big explosives or worse still little tactical nukes give me nightmares. There has to be abetter way without sanctions leading to a lack of equipment for maintenance of the plants.

My question is can there be a regional solution to the problem as part of peace between Pakistan and India (over Kashmir) a non proliferation agreement and sharing of fuel technology over the longer term? It means no to terror and yes to peace being the need for all sides. and looking beyond the rhetoric.

what is half sentience?

The BBC Ten occlock news ran with a story that the PM has called for a ceasefire and anyone who is nott half sentient would not do so ( political editor Nick Robinson). A Israeli spokesman calls for10 more days to finish the job off from Israel within 20 mins or so on Newsnight.

An intl force can deliver a bufffer force that EhudOlmert called for today but that requires security and disarmament. Instead of handwringing its time for the Intl community to mobilise and deploy so that any Israeli occupation is time limited. Thats down to to the UN to get the resolution right first time around and the countries being acceptableto all the interested parties (turkey yes, Iran and Syria no as a working guide with JOrdan, Egyypt and the Gulfstates as yes definites to quote from todays papers).

half sentience will be which states fail to back this and why?

The South needs rebuilding (as did Kosovo and serbia after NATO actions) and KFOR style support to block Hizbollah it doesn't need a media circus egging on the protagonists as was risked in Macedonia save to stop civilian (attackson)

Lebanon needs territorial integrity (this is no KOsovo in that sense) and states need to stop treating it as their chess board funding military terrorism there or for SYria as it strengthens Israeli resolve how they deliver. That means Israel and it means Syria and it means anyone else as well save through UN aid or the government there.. A dollar there in anger is a dollar against ever getting back the Golan for Syria. Damascus should note that as should Tehran.

For crying out loud people are dying in Lebanon yes but not in a Chatila way to date so far as we hear here, but its taken years of this (HIzbollah) to bring it to a head. In a post Tsunami world the Intl community can't be so complacent. In that sense the Intl force and a meaningful ceasefire require strength in both mandate and composition funding and sensitivity to a nation Lebanon that has lifted itself up from the problems of the 1980s. That may require Islamic troops on the ground in S\Lebanon from pro western regimes as well as the quartet. That border thats being crossed was drawn up by the uS and UK yes, but also the French. Hence lets not get divided over this and get a workabole Intl force that can disarmn Hizbollah and do the job right this time in partnership with the democratically elected government in that country which has called for said ceasefire.
In this Blair is right provided he gets that ceasefire in a meaningful and sustainable way. Our questions have got to be in the detail of the matter however