30 September 2010
10:5073086#1
I've just been reading John Redwood's blog in which he talks of reviewing a book by Nick Boles.
All Nick's views seem quite reasonable and moderate to me so I am surprised that Redwood sees them as 'radical'.
I'd be interested to hear forumite's views:-
I was sent Nick Boles's "Which Way's Up" to review. The first couple of chapters was full of loyal support for the Coalition government, and discussion of how Lib Dems and Conservatives had a lot in common. It seemed unremarkable.
Then I came to passages on equality. He takes the argument often used by the left that societies like Sweden and Japan are happier ones because they have greater income equality. He suggest instead that these societies are happier because they are more homogeneous, allowing far less inward migration than the UK has experienced in recent years.
Warming to his theme, he devotes a whole chapter to making a series of very radical and contentious proposals on immigration. His critique states that 70% of the new jobs have gone to workers born overseas since 1997. He says:
"We will not be able to sustain a social contract in which schooling and healthcare are provided to all citizens free of charge and are funded by taxation if we continue to allow, every year, hundreds of thousands of people from around the world to join the queues at A and E and send their children to British schools. Nor can we sit back while eight million British citizens of working age are either shun or shut out from all forms of useful economic activity because employers can find migrant workers who will accept subsidence wages to do menial jobs"
There is a raw edge and anger in his language, backed by figures higher than the official ones. His remedies are equally contentious:
"Britain needs a new immigration settlement, involving tighter controls on the number of people who can move into the UK every year (from both inside and outside the EU), greater selectiveness about who is allowed to settle here, tougher financial demands on new immigrants and those who want to employ them, more robust measures to remove those who break our laws, and more intensive efforts to ensure that all those who do settle in Britain adopt British values and become part of a truly united kingdom."
So what does he propose?
1. A cap on the numbers of non EU migrants each year of up to 20,000 to 50,000 - putting a number on stated Coalition policy.
2. Requiring a surety deposit from all non EU migrants. This would be repaid after they had paid taxes here for a number of years, or forfeited if they committed an offence or lived here without paying income tax.
3. For EU migrants the UK should enforce the Directive which only requires a member state to allow free movement for the purpose of residence supported by work income or independent means. "Whenever a migrant from within the EU applies to a central or local government authority for benefits or housing or part of the NHS for non emergency healthcare, that authority should be required to check whether the individual in question has a job or sufficient funds to support themselves in the Uk. If they don't, they should be told to leave the country..."
4. No-one should be eligible for social housing until they lived here for five years.
So what do you think of that? I am sure there will be some strong views out there on such radical proposals.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
30 September 2010
10:5773087#2
I have been reading the same this morning and you beat me to posting on it.
I have to say it all seems very sensible and I fully agree with him. Good stuff.
30 September 2010
11:4873095#3
Can`t see anything wrong with that at all. What does surprise me is that this would actually be seen as "radical". It`s something that we should have been doing years ago. But when did common sense ever enter the equation?
The thing that never fails to amaze me is that the idiots in charge of immigration continually adopt or accept policies that are detremental to this country. ( and they know it! )
We are still yet to pay an even greater price for Labour`s "social enginering", something that they will never be forgiven for.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
30 September 2010
12:0073097#4
based on the short critique posted it all seems to be well thought out.
nothing particularly radical, should keep rogue employers and dodgy immigrant numbers down.
one factual inaccuracy, sweden is going through a lot of social problems due to immigration as evidenced by the fact that an extreme right party holds the balance of power.
i can understand why japan does not get many applications for entry, i like my food to be dead before it is served up to me.
30 September 2010
12:1773104#5
Sweden has found itself (of recent) with almost 15% of its population non Swedish due to its liberal reading of the 1951 Human Rights Agreement.
Mostly from the Bosnian conflict and mainly Muslim.
The only up-side is that it should make a decent plot for a couple of Wallender episodes!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
30 September 2010
12:2673105#6
Sweden has just rel-elected a right of centre Conservative government that has been very successful economically, cutting taxes and growing the economy. They had a most remarkable vote of confidence in the election.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
30 September 2010
12:3773109#7
not enough to gain a majority though barry.
bob
before the bosnians they had many from the dark continent to man(sorry person) the volvo and saab car plants.
the need for labour dries up leaving many on their generous benefits.
30 September 2010
12:5273113#8
Howard, one of the problems is the fact that the 1951 convention allows asylum seekers from civil wars (which have become endemic in the past 50 years).
Look at the English Civil War (1641-1652). Population in UK C. 8,000,000. Deaths C.800,000. Roughly 1 in 10.
In those days no-one had the opportunity to jump on a plane and claim that they were living with a well founded belief of persecution!
I'm awfully sorry but to quote Hobbes 'the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.'
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
30 September 2010
13:0773118#9
Howard - the right of centre government was just 3 seats short of an overall majority with the anti-immigration Swedish Democrats getting about 20 seats. The socialists had their worse result since 1914.
The economic policy of the centre right government for the last four years is similar to ours. Anders Borg, who is their finance minister, has been cutting Sweden's massive welfare state, he reduced unemployment benefit and brought in an earned-income tax credit.
Unemployment there is 8%, but by relying on the private sector to create jobs to compensate for job losses in the public sector has paid dividends. Sweden's GDP is set to grow faster than that of any other western OECD country.
They of course voted not to join the Euro in 2003 and that has certainly helped them along.
All in all Sweden is a very encouraging precedent for David Cameron and bodes ill for Labour.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
30 September 2010
13:0773119#10
that hobbes bloke must have known a millwall supporter.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
30 September 2010
19:3773186#11
Bob, I thought you`d made contact.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
1 October 2010
07:5773211#12
no he is an arse nal supporter howard.
