Prime Minister David Cameron's high profile stance on immigration has been to reduce it to the "tens of thousands instead of the hundreds of thousands". Since this announcement, the government has struggled to bring net migration to below 100,000- with figures consistently showing twice this amount. The rise of UKIP has shown that immigration is one of the fundamental concerns of British voters, and will be a key issue at next year's election.
In addition to the current points-based system employed by the government, I would also propose an overall cap of 100,000. What has consistently complicated this debate is that restrictions cannot be placed on migrants from the EU, given that the freedom of movement is a key principle of the organisation (along with the free movement of goods, capital, etc.). In response, I would not propose leaving the EU as UKIP do, but instead adjust the amount of Non-EU migrants permitted to enter the UK- taking into account anticipated migration from EU member states. For example, if 30% of migrants to the UK were from the EU in 2014, to allow for a similar influx the following year, the amount of migrants permitted to enter the UK from outside of the EU should be capped at 70,000 (at allow for an estimated 30,000 EU migrants).
In addition, besides the impact of sheer numbers of immigrants on the UK (concerning housing, public services, jobs, etc.) another reason that this attracts so much attention is because of concern over the success of integration of migrants into the UK. Besides the obligation of fluent use of the English language on migrants (whether to be able to do so in advance of moving to this country, or through compulsory studies and qualifications in English- funded through a student loan), I feel that this can be assisted by prioritising migrants from certain countries. Firstly, due to the cultural similarities (from the English language, to sport, food, religion, and so on) half of non-EU migrant places in the UK should be prioritised to those from Commonwealth countries. This should ease integration, while also demonstrating in deeds (not just words) the value the UK still places on the Commonwealth. Secondly, again due to cultural similarities and historically close bonds, a quarter of migrant should similarly be prioritised to potential migrants from the USA. The remaining quarter would be available for the remaining countries from around the world.
Such caps and prioritisation would control immigration in accordance with public concerns, ease integration of migrants within British society, and cement the three most-valued international relationships for the UK: with the European Union, the Commonwealth, and the "Special Relationship" with the USA.
Sunday, 19 October 2014
Sunday, 12 October 2014
News Round-Up: Police Resources & Party Conference Season Overview
Alice Gross Murder Investigation and the issues it raises concerning Police Resources
Over the past month, the investigation into the disappearance of Alice Gross, which ultimately has evolved into the investigation of her murder, has featured prominently in the UK national news. It is difficult to write this post without appearing cold and harsh, but something that has stood out in this case is the amount of resources that have been used. Of course, it is a tragedy that a young girl went missing- and even more so when it materialised that she had been murdered. However, I can't help but think of Alice Gross' case, which has involved the support of many hundreds of police officers and even the resources of the RAF and has been described as the biggest police operation since the 7/7 bombings in London ten years ago; and then also consider how a friend of mine in the police has described how police resources are overstretched and are even struggling to respond to all 999 calls- let along reaching them promptly.
Tragic as Alice Gross' story has been, I can't help but think that there must be many other tragedies across London and the South-East that also demand police support but this isn't being received because they have been devoted to a single, high profile case. If there police resources were not overstretched then, of course, you would hope that every available officer and all other means would be available for every case. But in these times when resources are stretched, I question (though with some trepidation) how right it is that certain cases can be singled out for extensive resources, whilst those not in the media spotlight do not received the same amount of dedication and attention but are no less important than the case of Alice Gross.
Party Conference Season Overview
Now that the principle parties in British politics have all held their party conferences, it is a good time to review UK politics and even to consider the next general election (taking place in just over 6 months' time). Having said this, in spite of how relatively close the election is, it is very difficult to predict with much confidence how it will pan out. I've always found it challenging to take Ed Miliband seriously, with every word he says sounding disingenuous to me. Ed Miliband started his leadership as a man apparently looking to move Labour from the populism of New Labour back to more traditional Labour values. Though not a supporter of traditional Labour policies myself, I can at least respect it for being distinct and having a vision, rather than constantly shifting to reflect opinion polls and the mood at the time- a stance which lacks vision and often ultimately disappoints the majority. However, Mr Miliband seems to me to have spent his entire leadership so far trying to jump whichever bandwagons contradict the Government's policy: from opposition to spending cuts, to banker-bashing. From personal experience and from what I know historically in British politics, I struggle to think of a party leader who seems so desperate to follow the public mood without principles or a vision of their own. Moreover, given Labour's traditional principles and track record on public spending and immigration, I wonder how anyone can trust them when they say that they can be trusted again with public finances, and they understand concerns with immigration. If a Labour government is elected next year, I would be incredibly surprised if they managed to bring immigration down to the "tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands", as the Conservatives previously promised; in addition, a dedication to reduced public spending to confront the government spending deficit also seems incredibly unlikely to me. Considering the bigger picture (not just my opinions!), there seems to be a contradiction in the public's perception of Labour: they are almost always top in opinion polls for overall public support; yet in respect of the economy, and the suitability of their party leader for the position of Prime Minister, (two of the most influential factors influencing voters' choices on election day) Labour consistently come a poor second to the Conservatives.
Then the Conservatives, with whom I tend to have most sympathy, were generally uninspiring at their conference. Two features of their conference stood out for me: on the positive side, I have long agreed with David Cameron's assertion that, in addition to devolution Scotland, there should finally be a settlement to resolve the anomaly that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs can vote on exclusively English issues, while English MPs are unable to do the same for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I also agree that, rather than creating an English Parliament (which would be an expensive and unnecessary institution in my opinion), it would be better to simply have exclusively-English issues handled in the Westminster parliament along with British issues, and prevent non-English MPs from voting on English issues. However, another aspect of the conference that stood out to me was when David Cameron appeared physically angry that Labour had accused him of being untrustworthy on the NHS. Mr Cameron said that the NHS was personal to him because of the illness of his son that NHS staff had worked to alleviate. However, it seemed wrong to me to use his son's experience as a weapon against Labour- particularly when deeds and words do not necessarily reflect each other, which unfortunately often seems to be the case with the Conservatives in government. One glaring example is immigration where, as I said above, the Conservatives pledged to reduce overall numbers of immigrants from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands- but has failed miserably, and lost credibility on this issue. Although the excuse of EU immigration being out of the Government's control is often given to explain why immigration continues to increase markedly, non-EU immigration is still very high and is overlooked. Personally I feel that a cap of 100,000 should be placed and the number of EU migrants per year should be deducted from 100,000 and then be used as a guide for the amount of non-EU migrants to enter the country. I also feel that students and tourists should never be used in these figures, considering that they are only supposed to be here for the short-term and shouldn't be classed as long-term members of our society. Meanwhile, although the Conservatives tend to have the most economic credibility, they similarly appear to be failing to reduce the deficit, which continues to undermine the UK's long term recovery. Promises of tax cuts at the conference, while popular, encourage me to lose respect for them, as it seems to demonstrate a neglect the message of long-term fiscal responsibility in favour of short term populism. It seems far too premature to be promising tax cuts when the deficit remains stubbornly high and the global economy is fragile.
Finally, the two parties fighting out to be Britain's "third party": the Liberal Democrats and UKIP. Whilst, in national polls, the Liberal Democrats attract much scorn, where they have been elected historically they tend to retain public support due to personally-popular MPs in individual constituencies- as proven in the Eastleigh by-election not so long ago.Their message of being more fiscally responsible than Labour, and more socially responsible than the Conservatives, could be a popular one were it to be trusted by the public. Meanwhile, UKIP continue to increase their popularity as a party that apparently represents the masses, and fundamentally reflects their stance on immigration- with their supporters presuming they reflect their attitudes on other policy areas too. Their party leader does effectively present himself as more in tune with public opinion and avoids the clinging to the middle ground of the other three parties. He also appears to tap into working class support akin to Thatcherism in the 1980s, that contrasts with the image of posh, out-of-touch, cliquey leaders of the other parties. The fact that they now have an MP (possible another one as well soon), is a major symbolic boost for them, showing that they CAN win seats in parliament. At present, it seems likely that the Liberal Democrats will cling to most of their seats due to local loyalty, while UKIP will undermine Conservative and Labour support (particularly the former), potentially resulting in a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition next year. We shall see....
Over the past month, the investigation into the disappearance of Alice Gross, which ultimately has evolved into the investigation of her murder, has featured prominently in the UK national news. It is difficult to write this post without appearing cold and harsh, but something that has stood out in this case is the amount of resources that have been used. Of course, it is a tragedy that a young girl went missing- and even more so when it materialised that she had been murdered. However, I can't help but think of Alice Gross' case, which has involved the support of many hundreds of police officers and even the resources of the RAF and has been described as the biggest police operation since the 7/7 bombings in London ten years ago; and then also consider how a friend of mine in the police has described how police resources are overstretched and are even struggling to respond to all 999 calls- let along reaching them promptly.
Tragic as Alice Gross' story has been, I can't help but think that there must be many other tragedies across London and the South-East that also demand police support but this isn't being received because they have been devoted to a single, high profile case. If there police resources were not overstretched then, of course, you would hope that every available officer and all other means would be available for every case. But in these times when resources are stretched, I question (though with some trepidation) how right it is that certain cases can be singled out for extensive resources, whilst those not in the media spotlight do not received the same amount of dedication and attention but are no less important than the case of Alice Gross.
Party Conference Season Overview
Now that the principle parties in British politics have all held their party conferences, it is a good time to review UK politics and even to consider the next general election (taking place in just over 6 months' time). Having said this, in spite of how relatively close the election is, it is very difficult to predict with much confidence how it will pan out. I've always found it challenging to take Ed Miliband seriously, with every word he says sounding disingenuous to me. Ed Miliband started his leadership as a man apparently looking to move Labour from the populism of New Labour back to more traditional Labour values. Though not a supporter of traditional Labour policies myself, I can at least respect it for being distinct and having a vision, rather than constantly shifting to reflect opinion polls and the mood at the time- a stance which lacks vision and often ultimately disappoints the majority. However, Mr Miliband seems to me to have spent his entire leadership so far trying to jump whichever bandwagons contradict the Government's policy: from opposition to spending cuts, to banker-bashing. From personal experience and from what I know historically in British politics, I struggle to think of a party leader who seems so desperate to follow the public mood without principles or a vision of their own. Moreover, given Labour's traditional principles and track record on public spending and immigration, I wonder how anyone can trust them when they say that they can be trusted again with public finances, and they understand concerns with immigration. If a Labour government is elected next year, I would be incredibly surprised if they managed to bring immigration down to the "tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands", as the Conservatives previously promised; in addition, a dedication to reduced public spending to confront the government spending deficit also seems incredibly unlikely to me. Considering the bigger picture (not just my opinions!), there seems to be a contradiction in the public's perception of Labour: they are almost always top in opinion polls for overall public support; yet in respect of the economy, and the suitability of their party leader for the position of Prime Minister, (two of the most influential factors influencing voters' choices on election day) Labour consistently come a poor second to the Conservatives.
Then the Conservatives, with whom I tend to have most sympathy, were generally uninspiring at their conference. Two features of their conference stood out for me: on the positive side, I have long agreed with David Cameron's assertion that, in addition to devolution Scotland, there should finally be a settlement to resolve the anomaly that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs can vote on exclusively English issues, while English MPs are unable to do the same for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I also agree that, rather than creating an English Parliament (which would be an expensive and unnecessary institution in my opinion), it would be better to simply have exclusively-English issues handled in the Westminster parliament along with British issues, and prevent non-English MPs from voting on English issues. However, another aspect of the conference that stood out to me was when David Cameron appeared physically angry that Labour had accused him of being untrustworthy on the NHS. Mr Cameron said that the NHS was personal to him because of the illness of his son that NHS staff had worked to alleviate. However, it seemed wrong to me to use his son's experience as a weapon against Labour- particularly when deeds and words do not necessarily reflect each other, which unfortunately often seems to be the case with the Conservatives in government. One glaring example is immigration where, as I said above, the Conservatives pledged to reduce overall numbers of immigrants from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands- but has failed miserably, and lost credibility on this issue. Although the excuse of EU immigration being out of the Government's control is often given to explain why immigration continues to increase markedly, non-EU immigration is still very high and is overlooked. Personally I feel that a cap of 100,000 should be placed and the number of EU migrants per year should be deducted from 100,000 and then be used as a guide for the amount of non-EU migrants to enter the country. I also feel that students and tourists should never be used in these figures, considering that they are only supposed to be here for the short-term and shouldn't be classed as long-term members of our society. Meanwhile, although the Conservatives tend to have the most economic credibility, they similarly appear to be failing to reduce the deficit, which continues to undermine the UK's long term recovery. Promises of tax cuts at the conference, while popular, encourage me to lose respect for them, as it seems to demonstrate a neglect the message of long-term fiscal responsibility in favour of short term populism. It seems far too premature to be promising tax cuts when the deficit remains stubbornly high and the global economy is fragile.
Finally, the two parties fighting out to be Britain's "third party": the Liberal Democrats and UKIP. Whilst, in national polls, the Liberal Democrats attract much scorn, where they have been elected historically they tend to retain public support due to personally-popular MPs in individual constituencies- as proven in the Eastleigh by-election not so long ago.Their message of being more fiscally responsible than Labour, and more socially responsible than the Conservatives, could be a popular one were it to be trusted by the public. Meanwhile, UKIP continue to increase their popularity as a party that apparently represents the masses, and fundamentally reflects their stance on immigration- with their supporters presuming they reflect their attitudes on other policy areas too. Their party leader does effectively present himself as more in tune with public opinion and avoids the clinging to the middle ground of the other three parties. He also appears to tap into working class support akin to Thatcherism in the 1980s, that contrasts with the image of posh, out-of-touch, cliquey leaders of the other parties. The fact that they now have an MP (possible another one as well soon), is a major symbolic boost for them, showing that they CAN win seats in parliament. At present, it seems likely that the Liberal Democrats will cling to most of their seats due to local loyalty, while UKIP will undermine Conservative and Labour support (particularly the former), potentially resulting in a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition next year. We shall see....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)