UKIP ran what I thought was a very professional and effective broadcast for the Local Elections. Except being UKIP it wasn't really about the local elections, it was about immigration.
In one sense I have some sympathy with the UKIP position, in that I think there has been a huge volume of immigration into the UK in recent years and it has put pressure on housing and services. At the very least, it could have been handled better and local councils could and should have been given more resources to cope with the influx of new people.
But, on another level, I think UKIP have got it all wrong on immigration. They were basically saying, leave the EU, get control of our own borders back, problem solved.
If only things were that simple. The USA has control of it's own borders. Has it solved the 'problem' of immigration legal or illegal ? No of course not, there are millions of people in the country illegally.
The fact is the world has changed - the typcical UKIP activist yearns for the past. Everything was better then. We weren't ruled by Brusells but by British MPs - the finest in the world - umm, yes, I can see the problem with this argument. Anyway - the world has changed, 32 million of people come to visit the UK every year. Even more trips are made by UK residents going abroad. Do you think any Government can check or control that volume of people ?
The second problem is that having 'control' of your own borders doesn't give you control of other people's. If you want to deport people "back to where they came from" you have to have the agreement of the country to which you are deporting someone. Surpring to some, but often they are not very keen on ahving people back, that is of course assuming you can establish where they came form in the first place. What you need is some sort of international co-operation, a sort of overarching body that can set rules everyone has to follow, something well, like the European Union.
Friday, 26 April 2013
Wednesday, 17 April 2013
damned by her own supporters - I'm incredulous about the people defending Mrs Thatchers legacy
The following quotes are from people defending Mrs Thatcher policies and legacy - really they ought to
"Scrapping rent controls for the private rented sector meant a reduced role for councils. Before there would be council Rent Officers telling landlords what rent to charge. Now the landlord and tenants are left to negotiate for themselves"
Except of course negotiations have been all one way - higher rents, huge cost for the tax payer in a rising housing benefit bill - what idiocy was this policy? It is a typical example of how a theoretical belief in the 'free market' continues long after the real world shows it has no basis in reality. It has probably done more to entrench poverty and dependency on benefits that anything else.
"Scrapping rent controls for the private rented sector meant a reduced role for councils. Before there would be council Rent Officers telling landlords what rent to charge. Now the landlord and tenants are left to negotiate for themselves"
Except of course negotiations have been all one way - higher rents, huge cost for the tax payer in a rising housing benefit bill - what idiocy was this policy? It is a typical example of how a theoretical belief in the 'free market' continues long after the real world shows it has no basis in reality. It has probably done more to entrench poverty and dependency on benefits that anything else.
Monday, 15 April 2013
UFOs' The Troggs and the Wessex Triangle
I have had a bit of soft spot for Reg Presley of the rock band the Troggs. He wrote some good songs including classic such as "A girl like you".
Describing aliens Reg said "These beings may be 20 years million years in advance of us. What kind of technology must they have."
What indeed - Reg saw great significance in the fact that crop circles appeared appeared in a triangle between Warminister, Wantage and Winchester. "Look at the first few letters of each place, war, want, win. Is that a message or what?"
Well there you have - 20 million year in advance of human and the method of communication is crop circles near town who's first few letters spell out a word they wish to use.
It is confusing though, as looking on a map the triangle could be Frome, Farringdon and Eastleigh - and the messagee "From far east"
Describing aliens Reg said "These beings may be 20 years million years in advance of us. What kind of technology must they have."
What indeed - Reg saw great significance in the fact that crop circles appeared appeared in a triangle between Warminister, Wantage and Winchester. "Look at the first few letters of each place, war, want, win. Is that a message or what?"
Well there you have - 20 million year in advance of human and the method of communication is crop circles near town who's first few letters spell out a word they wish to use.
It is confusing though, as looking on a map the triangle could be Frome, Farringdon and Eastleigh - and the messagee "From far east"
Thursday, 11 April 2013
How many families are claiming £100,000 per year in housing benefit?
The Government's cap on the amount a single household can claim in Housing Benefit, drawing criticism from Conservative Mayor of London Boris Johnson, among others.The Guardian reported that London councils were preparing to rehouse tenants outside the capital as they could no longer find enough accommodation locally that fell within the £400-per-week limit.
However Department for Work and Pensions Ministers have repeatedly stated that the move was necessary to combat excessive claims, often adding that some families cost the state £100,000 in Housing Benefit alone. But just how many of these families are there?
These figures show that over four out of every five Housing Benefit claims are below £100 per week (the equivalent of £5,200 per year) according to the September 2010 figures, while only 70 out of over 4.5 million recipients claimed over £1000 per week, around 0.001% of the total.
Even this is likely to overstate the number claiming £100,000 per year however, as a family would need to claim over £1,900 per week to hit this total. Previous FoI responses from the Department have suggested around five families benefited by this amount.
While Ministers may well feel that those families which do fall into that bracket should be tackled nonetheless, it is not necessarily helpful to the public understanding of the issue to repeatedly highlight what is such a small number of the total, without putting this into a wider context.
While the evidence suggests that there are a small number of Housing Benefit claims of more than £100,000 per year - perhaps around five - these cases are very much the exception rather than the rule. Focusing exclusively on these outliers without first putting them into context, where over 80% of claims are below £100 per week, could distort the debate around this important topic.
Other information drawn out in our FoI request found that larger claims tended to come from larger families, and the average household size for people claiming over £40,000 was six. For more details, do check out the numbers in the request itself, which is available here.
However Department for Work and Pensions Ministers have repeatedly stated that the move was necessary to combat excessive claims, often adding that some families cost the state £100,000 in Housing Benefit alone. But just how many of these families are there?
These figures show that over four out of every five Housing Benefit claims are below £100 per week (the equivalent of £5,200 per year) according to the September 2010 figures, while only 70 out of over 4.5 million recipients claimed over £1000 per week, around 0.001% of the total.
Even this is likely to overstate the number claiming £100,000 per year however, as a family would need to claim over £1,900 per week to hit this total. Previous FoI responses from the Department have suggested around five families benefited by this amount.
While Ministers may well feel that those families which do fall into that bracket should be tackled nonetheless, it is not necessarily helpful to the public understanding of the issue to repeatedly highlight what is such a small number of the total, without putting this into a wider context.
While the evidence suggests that there are a small number of Housing Benefit claims of more than £100,000 per year - perhaps around five - these cases are very much the exception rather than the rule. Focusing exclusively on these outliers without first putting them into context, where over 80% of claims are below £100 per week, could distort the debate around this important topic.
Other information drawn out in our FoI request found that larger claims tended to come from larger families, and the average household size for people claiming over £40,000 was six. For more details, do check out the numbers in the request itself, which is available here.
Monday, 8 April 2013
Thursday, 4 April 2013
Trident - a solution looking for a problem
Trident, David Cameron Prime Minister of the UK asks: "Does anyone seriously argue that it would be wise for Britain, faced with this evolving threat today, to surrender our deterrent?”
Well of course they do David.
Only the retention of our independent deterrent makes clear to any adversary that the devastating cost of an attack on the UK or its allies will always be far greater than anything it might hope to gain,” he says.
In Dave's view countries like North Korea and Iran might do what exactly if the UK didn't have trident ?
North Korea has already threatend to launch a nuclear strike at the USA which in case you hadn't noticed has a lot more nuclear weapons than the UK.
Sorry to have to quote Black Adder - but explaining to the rather dim George the origins of the first world war, Black Adder says: "The idea was that there would be two great power blocks with us, the Russians and the French on one side and the Germans and the the Austro-Hungarians on the other, so that each side would act as the other's deterrant. There was just one slight flaw in the plan."
Baldrick: "What was that?"
Blackadder: "It was bollocks."
Deterence didn't work because people are people.
Well of course they do David.
Only the retention of our independent deterrent makes clear to any adversary that the devastating cost of an attack on the UK or its allies will always be far greater than anything it might hope to gain,” he says.
In Dave's view countries like North Korea and Iran might do what exactly if the UK didn't have trident ?
North Korea has already threatend to launch a nuclear strike at the USA which in case you hadn't noticed has a lot more nuclear weapons than the UK.
Sorry to have to quote Black Adder - but explaining to the rather dim George the origins of the first world war, Black Adder says: "The idea was that there would be two great power blocks with us, the Russians and the French on one side and the Germans and the the Austro-Hungarians on the other, so that each side would act as the other's deterrant. There was just one slight flaw in the plan."
Baldrick: "What was that?"
Blackadder: "It was bollocks."
Deterence didn't work because people are people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)