Comments on: We have work to do

By: Ringtones Blog

Ringtones Blog — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 09:39:15 +0000

I with you agree :)

By: Margaret

Margaret — Thu, 12 May 2005 10:04:41 +0000

If you Tories really want to be in Government here, in Britain by 2009, it is wake up time.

If we lose the referendum, and the Constitution is implemented, Westminster will have no more power than a County Council. Brussels will be THE GOVERNMENT.(most of our laws are already made there).

Make sure that your leaders are going to oppose the Constitution, and not let it slide. Don’t forget that Clarke, Heseltine, Curry, Taylor and a few more will be joining Blair on the YES side, and the Tories will be shown as split again.

By: Misspent

Misspent — Tue, 10 May 2005 02:31:51 +0000

Longwinded and brilliant in the true Blimpish style. It wouldn’t be a Blimpish post without a quote from a Straussian, would it? But a Stevie Smith reference? I must say kudos on that one.

By: Phil

Phil — Mon, 09 May 2005 22:35:34 +0000

Edwin:

The concern is with the cultural impact of difference, numbers and anticipated overall growth as much as with the infrastructural impact of current immigration and necessarily includes settled immigrant communities. […] The boundary which you imply between recently arrived foreign settler and UK-born person of foreign origin is not useful here.

On the contrary, I think it’s fundamental. Apart from anything else, how can you define “settled immigrant communities” in terms which aren’t either self-contradictory or racist?

Settled immigrant communities don’t stay “immigrant” forever. At one time the people who currently count Asian heads would have been counting West Indians; before that it would have been the Jews; before them, the Irish. Personally I don’t know many Asians, but two of my best friends are a Quinn and a Doyle – and they’re assuredly “as British as you or me”, as the liberal phrase used to go. Give it time. Give it time, and don’t feed the bigots.

By: The Sharpener » Directions

The Sharpener » Directions — Mon, 09 May 2005 20:57:51 +0000

[…] manner to Blair-Brown. The way forward for the right, as I’ve argued before, and as Blimpish hinted at in his post, is to build a coalition. All of us are stronger than some of us, or something l […]

By: Edward

Edward — Mon, 09 May 2005 20:13:37 +0000

Great post, Blimpish. Largely agree. For me the great challenge is to explain our policies in an enthusiastic way (and to adopt bold ones) which shows how they help and are good for *all* of Britain. That has to fit into a new vision of what a Tory Britain would be like. The big thing, really, is that this isn’t “rocket science” but just needs skilled and talented people to do it (and I don’t just mean a leader). I think actually this is where the problem’s been but it is also why it is great there are so many new faces.

By: Edwin Greenwood

Edwin Greenwood — Mon, 09 May 2005 17:43:38 +0000

(phil:) I also think we arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t living in a period of large-scale migration…

MigrationWatch quotes net immigration at 175,000 a year. But when assessing the cultural impact of immigration, the more relevant figure is the change in the relative number of indigenes and migrants, ie gross immigration plus gross emigration, about 300,000 a year. MigrationWatch numbers tend deliberately to err on the conservative side (no pun intended), so true numbers may well be significantly higher. A change of roughly 1,000,000 every three years. Well I’d certainly be inclined to call that “large-scale migration”.

(phil:) … and that a lot of the hand-wringing over immigration is covertly concerned with people who were born here. (Or, in the case of the post of LabanÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s which you linked to, overtly.)

Hmm! Is one attempting to lay a trap here for us nasty racists?

Who’s being covert about anything? The concern is with the cultural impact of difference, numbers and anticipated overall growth as much as with the infrastructural impact of current immigration and necessarily includes settled immigrant communities. The degree of that difference, number and growth is also a factor when considering the impact of particular groups.

The boundary which you imply between recently arrived foreign settler and UK-born person of foreign origin is not useful here. As you say yourself elsewhere, immigration is a complex matter.

By: Edwin Greenwood

Edwin Greenwood — Mon, 09 May 2005 16:59:17 +0000

(dave heasman:) How much risk are you prepared to load onto the housing market if the population isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t increasing with economically-active immigrants? I don't think I understand this. Are you saying that we need a constant stream of immigrants to maintain our ludicrously inflated house prices? That is quite the weirdest pro-immigration argument I have yet heard. Mind you, you might try running it past the editorial team of the Daily Mail. This contradiction between two of their key preoccupations might cause them all to explode.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 09 May 2005 15:46:21 +0000

I disagree with most of my right-wing colleagues on this one. The only upper limit I see on immigration is that enforced by the infrastructure we live with, whether that be housing, services, or whatever else. I’d rather see no quotas, caps, limits, targets or any of the above. Having said that, there is an argument for slowing the rate of immigration to improve the rate of integration, but I’m not sure I buy it personally. The main objection I have, as a right-winger, is that the benefit system as it stands can’t cope with unlimited or uncontrolled immigration, not because all foreigners are lazy, feckless layabouts, but because many of the unskilled workers they replace end up being that way. But that’s more an argument for welfare reform than restricting immigration. I’d rather have a thousand economically active eastern Europeans than one council-estate-living, three-kids-by-three-dads, chain-smoking, alcohol-and-drug-abusing, benefit-claiming single mum. But I’m heartless. And I love a good stereotype.

By: dave heasman

dave heasman — Mon, 09 May 2005 14:35:34 +0000

This “new commuter villages are being developed in a wide belt around London and some of the other major cities. These will be full of bourgeois voters who move there to get away from the hustleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢n’bustle of the big cities,”

hustle’n’bustle/black people/all

Phil’s as bad : –
“make it a requirement of immigrants coming here that they speak English and either be university educated, or if not, must demonstrate a level of educational competence by passing GCSE English and Maths before entering Britain.

We shouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t let in any riff-raff. ”

Except that’s where the jobs that we need immigrants for are – at the riff-raff end.

OK, I accept that unlimited immigration is detrimental, but a few things need to be accepted – particularly from conservatives – if you want to control immigration –

By how much are you prepared to lower GDP growth by limiting immigration?
How much risk are you prepared to load onto the housing market if the population isn’t increasing with economically-active immigrants?
Given that immigrants want to immigrate more fervently than salaried enforcement staff want to keep them out, how much of the trappings of a police state are you prepared to accept on the entire population in order to control immigration>?

What about free markets? A free market in goods and services obviously has losers & winners, as does one in labour. What justification can a free-market exponent have for the dreadful inefficiencies produced by an artificial and expensive limitation on labour market forces?

(as an aside, in London there are endless thousands of South Africans & Australians depressing the wages of skilled clerical and lower-management staff. They are, culturally, far more alien to “native” Londoners than are Londoners of Caribbean or Indian origin.)