In The U.S., Rupert Murdoch is best known as the Australian owner of the Fox Broadcasting Company, the parent company of Fox News through which the mogul directs media marionettes such as Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly. Hard as it may be to imagine, Murdoch wields even greater power on the other side of the Atlantic as he revels in the role of ‘decider’ in UK politics. As owner of newspapers such as The Sun and The Times, as well as Sky television, Murdoch has never shied away from politicians’ plaudits and often uses his influence to a worrying degree.

The Sun, as Britain’s most-read newspaper, has long served as the tabloid bludgeon with which Murdoch beats politicians into submission. This was evidenced last week when the newspaper carried out a characteristically contemptible attack on Prime Minister Gordon Brown, formally ending the newspaper and Murdoch’s love affair with the Labour Party. Brown was lambasted as “Bloody Shameful” having handwritten a letter of condolence to the mother of a British soldier killed in Afghanistan. His crime was to have misspelled the name of the soldier in question, which led The Sun to mount its moral high horse and illogically conclude that he was “disrespecting our war dead.” More shameful still was Brown’s reaction, with the UK leader telephoning Murdoch to beg for better treatment.

Brown’s snivelling sycophancy is part of a disturbing trend where politicians cuddle up to Murdoch and his minions in a bid to gain favorable coverage. The Sun’s political zenith came in 1992, when it campaigned tirelessly for the sluggish Conservative Party and was credited by many pundits  for winning the election for then-leader John Major. The Sun’s influence was so unrestrained that, following a policy disagreement, its editor had the impudence to tell Prime Minister Major that he was going to pour “a large bucket of shit” over his head. Tony Blair quickly realized the extent of Murdoch’s power and courted the Australian prior to his 1997 election. The Sun consequently changed sides and supported the Labour Party through Blair’s ten years at the top. In exchange, Blair’s government developed policies in sync with The Sun’s editorial line. One example occurred in August 2003 when The Sun printed a full week of coverage dedicated to criticizing asylum-seekers. One of Blair’s top ministers, David Blunkett, subsequently wrote an article for the paper supporting The Sun’s stance. It later transpired that the campaign was the result of a co-ordinated effort between The Sun and the Government.

Unfortunately for the Labour Party and Gordon Brown, the Conservatives under David Cameron have successfully wooed Murdoch and friends, with The Sun annoucing its switch the day after Brown delivered a major speech at his own party’s conference. Combine the Sun’s headlines with Brown’s disastrous premiership and the Labour Party are destined for a mammoth loss at next year’s general election. Yet as Murdoch and his cronies begin to use their leverage over the new Conservative government, it is British democracy that stands to be the real loser.

Michael Collins, November 2009

michael.mc.collins@gmail.com

As I drove back home today, I was listening to Prudence’s speech to businessmen.

He then used the D-word – dynamism.  I can remember Peter Ryrie using that many times as he tried to dominate student politics in the 1960s at Liverpool University.

I laughed, as we all used to mock Peter for the word. 

Sadly though, I’ve found that Peter died in 2007.

On Social Enterprise Day (19 November) Charlotte Hollins from Fordhall Community Land Initiative was invited to No. 10 Downing Street… 

 

Yes that’s right, Shropshire farmers have been invited to Downing Street! Now, it’s not often that happens…

Gordon Brown organised a lovely reception at No. 10 last week to celebrate National Social Enterprise Day and as a Flagship Social Enterprise (and if you don’t know, that is a business which does NOT work for ‘private profit’ but reinvests its profit for environmental or social benefit) for the West Midlands the FCLI (Fordhall Farm Community Land Initiative) was invited.

So off I went, into the big city of London. There were almost 200 other social enterprises squeezed into the main reception room and the fantastic food was also supplied by a Social Enterprise.

The PM said: “Whatever job an individual is doing for whatever social enterprise in the country, you are doing something very much bigger than simply the task that you are carrying out. You are actually making our country a better, fairer and more successful country.

“You are building communities in this country that, without your help, would not be strong at all. You are making a younger generation see the importance of community solidarity and people working together for the common good.”

It was a great honour to be invited to Downing Street. Whatever your political view, everyone in the room felt as though they were being truly thanked for the work that they do It was a very interesting day, as we even got to have a little nosey around the house! It was a real celebration for Social Enterprise and has inspired me to work even harder. Role on 2010.

Charlotte Hollins

A recent YouGov poll (conducted on behalf of Oxfam) looked into popular perceptions of the proposed ‘Tobin-style’ tax on bank transactions. At a recent meeting of G20 Finance Ministers, Gordon Brown suggested that there should be a global tax on bank transactions. One suggestion is for this to be £5 out of every £10,000 traded (0.05%).

Bank-bashing is alive and well: 63% of respondents said that their opinion of the contribution of the financial sector and banks to society has worsened since October 2008 . 43% supported the idea of a Tobin-style tax in principle, rising to 53% if the money raised would be used to help people worst hit by the economic crisis in the UK and around the world.

Following last night’s X-Factor results show, in which Jedward were voted off the programme, The Conservative Party have released the above poster as a repost to the recent Labour Party attack advert.  Very funny and, more importantly, very timely.

The Labour Party have today cone out an accused the Tories of copying just two weeks after the party produced a poster campain featuring the ‘morphed’ images of Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling onto the bodies of X Factor contestants John and Edward.

Labour HQ recently released a similar advert this time using the faces of Tory leader David Cameron and Shadow Chancellor George Osborn stating that we won’t be laughing if they get elected.

Here’s my suggestion to Brown and Cameron. If you’re going to behave like children and complain that one is copying the other then sort it out like children and take it out into th playground at lunch time.

Mr Cameron, Prime Minister Brown. Please stop treating YOUR voters like idiots. The type of people who even know who these John and Edward characters are are two young to vote for you anyway. Stick to the policies and let’s not get into American style politics which is all style and no substance.

• Yay….Jedward have gone…and give them credit …they lads took it with dignity…but at the end of the day…Louis chose a crap song that left them wide open…previous songs have been so pacy it masked their crapness. No Matter What is a ballad and they were unmasked at last
  

Before all the burning questions could be answered and the remaining finalists could find out if their dreams were to continue there was the weekly group performance to tackle. Wake Me Up Before You Go Go was the high-energy number chosen to kick off proceedings… and what a way to start! The final six, more than aware that his could be one of their last appearances on the hallowed X Factor stage, bounced along to the Wham! Classic in their 80s-tastic white and neon outfits like there was no tomorrow. Next we were treated to a performance from another talent show success story in the familiar form of Susan Boyle. Her stirring rendition of The Rolling Stone’s Wild Horses was followed by a standing ovation from the panel and the entire audience. Once Dermot could be heard it was time to anounce the appearance of one of the greatest female singers of all time and for the audience to go wild once again for Mariah Carey. The curvaceous diva performed her unique vocal gymnastics on the classic love ballad I Want To Know What Love Is. Finally, it was the moment we’d all been waiting for. It was time for the finalists to line up and hear their fate. With fewer names to read out the wait between each seemed endless, until the unlucky two that would be singing for survival were announced… John and Edward and to everyone’s clear surprise, Olly Murs. Singing for survival for the third time in a row the twins sang a heartfelt, if off-key, version of Boyzone’s No Matter What, followed by Olly singing You Look Wonderful Tonight. Next, it was back to the judges to give their verdicts and once Simon, Cheryl and Louis had given theirs, one more vote for Olly would mean deadlock once again. Unfortunately for the twins Dannii just wasn’t won over by their charms and John and Edward were the seventh act leaving the competition.

More X Factor

Mariah Carey Spent all this…and then mimed on the X Factor…Which is supposed to be a show all about live singing

Mariah Carey spends four days in London… and £750,000

Mariah Carey’s four-night trip to London last week is said to have cost £750,000 – lavish even by her standards. The bill included first-class flights for the 40-year-old singer,  £200,000 for bedrooms on the entire top floor of The Dorchester and £12,000 to hire a Rolls-Royce and a Bentley. Topping it all was a bash at Jalouse nightclub in Mayfair on Thursday to promote her new album Memoirs Of An Imperfect Angel.

Guests drank £1,200-a-bottle champagne while watching her music videos on a big screen. ‘Mariah wanted a VIP area complete with white flowers, cupcakes, a white carpet and an £85,000 diamond-encrusted ice bucket,’ says a minion. ‘There was £250,000 worth of Angel champagne on the tables.’…No matter how rich….I find this very distasteful

Stories like the one below make the Maria story even more disgusting

Just five bullets for each soldier: Iraq inquiry leak reveals how British troops went in woefully unprepared

British military operations in Iraq were so badly resourced that some soldiers went into battle with only five bullets each, secret documents have revealed. Troops were put at ’significant risk’ on the front line as they struggled with an ‘appalling’ shortage of rounds, and radios which collapsed in the heat. The kit revelations are among the most shocking contained in hundreds of pages of classified papers leaked in advance of Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry into the Iraq war, which begins on Tuesday.

Leaked Iraq inquiry documents revealed British soldiers had just five rounds of ammunition and insufficient body armour

The reports also suggest that Tony Blair misled MPs and the public in the run-up to the invasion. And they provide damning evidence of Britain’s failure to prepare for the rebuilding and reconstruction of Iraq after the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Incredibly, the Foreign Office unit tasked with planning the post-war country was not established until February 2003 – three weeks before the war started.

The details were contained in two ‘overall lessons learnt’ reports and classified transcripts of one-to-one interviews between military commanders returning from the warzone and Ministry of Defence officials. The documents raise serious questions over Labour’s failure properly to equip soldiers heading for the conflict because of the then Prime Minister’s desperate desire to conceal plans to invade Iraq from a sceptical public. Troops were put at ’significant risk’ during the war because they were ‘lacking in resources’, according to one paper. It said: ‘There were significant shortcomings… critical stores and equipment did not arrive in time. ‘There were significant shortages of small arms ammunition in some units as they began operations. All this represented significant risk.’ One commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel M.L. Dunn of 9 Supply Regiment, Royal Engineers, said soldiers going into action ‘only had five rounds of ammunition each, and only enough body armour for those in the front and rear vehicles’.

The main ‘lessons learnt’ report concluded: ‘Never again must we send ill-equipped soldiers into battle.’ Some Royal Marines from the crack 3 Commando Brigade were deployed to war on normal civilian airlines, taking their battlefield equipment as hand luggage. Astonishingly, some heroes had ‘dangerous’ items, including weapons, nail scissors, lighters and penknives, confiscated by officious airport security staff. Commanders also suffered shortages of light machine guns, armoured tanks and equipment. Tanks had only six hours of protection against chemical and biological weapons. Only 10 per cent of the Army’s vehicles were fitted with decontamination systems to safeguard against such weapons. Morphine was also ‘not available to scale’ which meant some injured soldiers could have suffered unnecessarily. There were also shortages of body armour and desert boots. Communications equipment was plagued by ‘very serious’ difficulties. One commander said the long-distance Ptarmigan radio ‘tended to drop out at around noon because of the heat’. The reports reveal that orders for kit ‘were placed with factories too late for equipment to reach the front line in time’. This life-threatening error came about because then Chancellor Gordon Brown had ordered the Ministry of Defence to reduce stockpiles of weapons and hardware ‘to achieve cash savings’. Training was also short-circuited. The documents say there was ‘very little time’ for in-theatre preparation, which allows troops to grow used to climate, terrain and culture in a foreign land. Shadow Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox said: ‘The accusation that British troops may have died because equipment was not ordered as part of a deliberate political act of deception is one of the most serious charges that could ever be levelled against a Prime Minister and his government. ‘It is essential that the Iraq inquiry uncovers the truth.’ Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Ed Davey said: ‘It now seems Tony Blair misled Parliament about the Iraq war from the very start. ‘These revelations that Blair ordered a secret preparation for war shows an appalling level of incompetence not previously known. As his orders were so secret too few people were able to begin to adequately prepare.’ Sir John Chilcot warned that no one should attempt to lie to his inquiry, which will begin examining its first witnesses in public tomorrow. Tony Blair is expected to be called, but not for many months. Sir John said: ‘Because we have so much documentary evidence, a witness who sought to hold something back or misdescribe something would be on a loser because we already have all the factual underpinning.’

Blair’s war denials held back kit supplies

Britain had been planning the military mission in Iraq since February 2002 – despite Tony Blair’s repeated insistence that conflict was not being considered. The leaked documents appear to confirm that the then Prime Minister misled MPs and the public about the UK’s readiness for going to war. The need to conceal these plans from Parliament and all but ‘very small numbers’ of officials hindered planning for the invasion.

Consequently, this was ‘rushed’ and ‘lacking in coherence and resources’ which caused ’significant risk’ to troops. During most of 2002, Mr Blair stuck to the line that while military action against Iraq could not be ruled out, no decisions had been made and no preparations for an invasion had been put in place. On July 16, 2002, he was asked by Labour MP Donald Anderson, then chairman of the Commons foreign affairs committee, if Britain was ‘preparing for possible military action in Iraq’. ‘No,’ Mr Blair replied. ‘There are no decisions which have been taken about military action.’ Two months later he published a dossier which wrongly detailed Iraq’s ability to deploy weapons of mass destruction, but said: ‘In respect of any military options, we are not at the stage of deciding those options.’ But actually, according to the secret papers, ‘formation-level planning for a deployment took place from February 2002′ – 13 months before the invasion. And in June 2002, the UK attended a special Iraq planning conference on the war with the U.S. and the other coalition partner Australia. Mr Blair’s desire to keep this secret meant that military equipment could not be ordered and reconstruction planning begun until December 23, 2002 – a matter of weeks before operations started. Because of this, the documents state, ‘the planning and preparation for this operation was more rushed than should have been the case’.

But At Least 10 Guys Were Definately Not Firing Blanks

Ten pregnant soldiers sent home from Afghanistan after breaking ‘no sex’ rule

A hundred pregnancy testing kits rushed out to Afghan frontline as pregnancy rate among soldiers doubles

Ten servicewomen have been flown home from Afghanistan after falling pregnant. The women were evacuated under strict military rules which bar expectant mothers from frontline service. There is a strict “no-touching” rule which all 700 women and 8,500 men serving in the warzone are warned of on arrival. Those caught having sex usually face a dressing down from their commanding officer or more serious disciplinary action, depending on the rank and position of those involved. Army sources say that since April, women squaddies have asked for more than 100 pregnancy test kits and 10 came out positive – double the number of the previous six months Last night our source said: “The troops have been joking,  saying that maybe it’s something in the water.” Having “significant” numbers of women serving alongside men has been a new phenomenon for the British Army during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. No women served on the frontline during the Falklands or Korean wars. Although women are banned from frontline infantry regiments, many combat units have female medics or doctors who will go out on patrol or be flown to the scene of an injury and they have often ended up in firefights. Women also serve in significant numbers in the Royal Logistics Corps supplying frontline bases with food, water and ammunition. Last night former Army commander Lieutenant Colonel Robin Matthews said: “You now have large numbers of women serving on the modern-day battlefield in a way that is entirely new in our military history. “Together, both servicemen and women face an uncertain future and, as those bonds of war strengthen, inevitably relationships will develop. “It’s a fact that commanders are steadily learning how to deal with it effectively and they have a Code of Conduct to guide them. Women play a vital role in the Armed Forces and they are certainly here to stay. “Incidents will occur, but their overall effect is minimal. Isolated together in intense circumstances when the next day you could be dead, these figures should not be a surprise. “Perhaps what is shows above all else is that our brave men and women facing the Taliban are really very human.” Surprisingly, those women who do become pregnant while on operations are not held in breach of rules. Our source said: “Pregnant troops are sent home for their own welfare and that of an unborn child. Although they may have broken the ‘no- touching’ rule, little would be achieved by disciplining them.” An MoD spokesman confirmed: “Between April 31 and October 31 this year 10 female service personnel were aero-medically evacuated from Afghanistan because they were pregnant.” The spokesman added: “All personnel are expected to behave within the code of conduct. “If women discover they are pregnant they are returned to the UK at the first opportunity for their own well-being.”

Demi Moore in airbrushing controversy after magazine erases chunk of her hip on cover.

When Demi Moore appeared on the December cover of W magazine, she drew admiring glances for her slender figure and flawless skin. But while most readers are used to a little airbrushing and touch-up on the covers, it appears the 47-year-old has fallen foul of an over-enthusiastic Photoshopper. A chunk of her thigh appears to have been digitally removed from the cover between her hip bone and a casually draped sarong.

There is a good chunk missing from what was her left thigh (our right). Underneath the sarong, the thigh continues but appears to be bulging out an inch more than the photoshopped area.

The mistake was pointed out by eagle-eye commentators and has been the subject of hot discussion on the internet. According to Jezebel.com, W magazine claimed any retouching was done in-house by the staff of photographers Mert Alas and Marcus Piggott. And a spokesperson added the photographers ‘did not do anything unusual or out of the ordinary on Demi Moore for the photo on the cover of W. ‘Demi is an extraordinary beautiful woman and we feel our cover reflects that.’ The actress, who is wearing a Balmain metal mesh and leather dress, was labelled a Demi Goddess in the accompanying article. And, as many internet bloggers and commentators have pointed out, Demi looks so slender on the red carpet that there has been speculation that she had gone under the knife. So why the designers cut out a section of her hip remains a mystery.

Customers furious as water firms rake in £700million

Fat cat water companies will provoke renewed fury when they announce their bumper profits on the back of sky-high bills. Four of Britain’s biggest suppliers – with nearly 19 million customers between them – have made half-year profits totalling over £700million. In April, typical household bills shot up 4.1 per cent to £344 a year. But industry bosses still want bills to rise by an average £31 before inflation over the next five years. Consumer watchdogs and unions have attacked the proposed price rises and say suppliers should be forced to hand back “excessive” profits in the form of lower  charges.

Dave Thompson, of the Consumer Council for Water, said: “We think there should be price cuts.” And Dave Prentis of Unison said: “It is disgusting that we are being asked to pay more when these companies are making massive profits.” But water bosses say they need  billions to replace old pipes, maintain sewers and improve water quality. On Thursday, regulator Ofwat is expected to demand price caps until 2015.

The Conservatives have released this, in response to the departure of ‘Jedward’ from X-Factor, and Labour’s rather poor attempt at this sort of thing the week before last.

Ok, it’s juvenile.

But Labour started it.

So I think it’s worth repeating this, which I knocked up the first time round…

The curse of Jonah Brown has reached the music world.  After firstly dismissing them as “not very good”, last week Gordon dithered and said he hoped freaky Irish twins Jedward did well. Of course their days were then numbered.

The Tories have just activated this campaign on digital poster sites around the country:

You don’t think that meeting between David Cameron and Simon Cowell last week was about more than Tickets for Troops?  No, they wouldn’t, would they?

Twitter has been buzzing today as a result of the publication of an Ipsos MORI poll in The Observer which shows the Conservative lead down to only 6% after a period which has seen Tory leads of up to 20% in some surveys. The UK Polling Report’s swing calculator projects that this would be the outcome of such a result at a General Election:

A poll like this will give a lift to anyone who isn’t an enthusiast for David Cameron’s project to restore the levers of power to the Conservative Party. Gordon Brown and his followers will feel that the game isn’t up quite yet, particularly since the current parliamentary boundaries benefit Labour disproportionately (for example, if Labour and the Tories both polled 36% Gordon Brown would have 333 MPs compared to David Cameron’s 246). The Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, will see an opening for the Holy Grail of a hung parliament and the possibility of negotiating to replace Britain’s bizarre first-past-the-post voting system with something that actually reflects the voters’ wishes.

As I’ve previously posted, I don’t believe the Tories have ‘closed the deal’ with the electorate yet, despite two years of mammoth poll leads and media coverage which seems infuriatingly reluctant to ask the Tories any difficult questions on policy.

Nevertheless, we must remember that this is just one poll. I still remember ‘Wobbly Thursday’ during the 1987 election campaign (yes, I’ve been an anorak for years) when Margaret Thatcher’s poll lead was almost wiped out, and the 1992 campaign consisted almost entirely of rogue polls (only one Gallup poll gave the eventual winner, John Major, a lead in the polls – of 0.5%).

So my instinct about this poll is that it could be merely a blip, but I think it also shows that next year’s General Election might still be an awful lot closer that anyone thinks.

Rooted out by Dreamer (Dreaming of a Labour Free World)

Secret Diary of James Gordon Brown (age 50¾)

Brown and Cameron were both forced to write an apology to Very Rev Dr John Hall, Dean of Westminster Abbey after both leaders used Remembrance Day for a photo-shoot.

The Mirror downplay the incident:

Row over Remembrance Day photo-ops

Gordon Brown and David Cameron have apologised after suggestions that they competed for photo opportunities at a Remembrance Day service attended by the Queen, it has been revealed.

The Daily Mail are more dramatic, as per course:

Brown and Cameron apologise for Poppy Day stunts: Abbey’s fury at BOTH leaders over Remembrance Day photo-shoots

Gordon Brown and David Cameron have been forced to make grovelling apologies after they were accused of exploiting a Remembrance Day service attended by the Queen, turning it into a media ‘turkey shoot’ to win votes.

Everything a Polichicken does is a political stunt.  One day it is Gay Pride, the next Muslim Friends and on the weekend, Dinner with Dictators.  All spun into tales showing compassion, empathy and bravado but all just political stunt after political stunt after political stunt.

Even this “story” could be a political stunt for the non-mentioned Nick Clegg, the Establishment hoping the Liberal Democrats hoover up the disheartened masses that dessert NuGov & the Cameroons.  In the age of spin, no truth is too sacred to be distorted into political capital.

There have recently been calls for a televised debate between the leaders of the three main political parties in the UK ahead of the next general election.

Gordon Brown (Labour), David Cameron (Conservative) and Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat) have all agreed, in principle to the debate and Sky News have been running an online petition to gain support from the public and cement it in history.

The televised debate has been a feature of American politics for a number of years. I remember studying Politics at school and discussing Nixon v Kennedy in the first of four televised debates during their presidential campaigns of 1960.

Nixon had recently been discharged from hospital and campaigned right up until the first debate. He also refused television makeup. Kennedy on the other hand had rested. He was tanned, clean-shaven and well prepared. Nixon looked lost, pale, under-weight and was bearing stubble.

The vast majority of the 80 million television viewers thought Kennedy had won the debate. Even with television footage in black and white, his photogenic appeal is widely held as the explanation why. This explanation is reinforced when we consider listeners on radio throughout the U.S regarded Nixon as the winner.

‘Politics in a new light’

Whatever happens the debate in the UK can be seen as a modernisation of democracy and a necessary step towards more transparent politics in the UK. After the expenses scandal and the failure to present a coherent strategy on Afghanistan, it is up to all three leaders to rest and tan (as it were). The British public needs to be reintroduced to politics in a new light and the leader’s debate is a useful opportunity to do so.

This opportunity should be used not necessarily to attack others, nor persistently dig up manifesto promises which have been fulfilled in times gone by, or what I like to call, ‘recalling the glory years’. Nor should it be used to complain about manifesto promises which the government have failed to turn into legislation.

The leaders need to sew together reputations as clean, honest and committed personalities who have a clear outline for the methods they will use to regain public support and bring politics closer to its people.

In my eyes that is what the general election is all about. It is about bringing politics closer to the people it has alienated. It is about parties fighting for votes from a pool of people who might now abstain. It is about increasing the importance of transparency in UK Politics. It is about committing to reforming the pay structure and perks of MP’s and it is about tabling a coherent, visible strategy for Afghanistan, rather than just echoing Barack Obama every three weeks.

The question of image

Bearing all of this in mind, we can return to the question of whether or not image will determine the winner of the debate as it did so famously for Kennedy during the 1960 Presidential election. Fifty years on it seems that image is more important than ever before. With not only colour, but now high-definition television, the leaders will have to be weary of the problems encountered by Nixon in 1960.

The viewers will be able to measure the depth of individual creases and crows feet on the leader’s face.  If they fail notice it themselves, rest assured it will be printed on tabloid front pages with in-depth analysis detailing ‘the terrain of a modern politician’s face’. In many ways it is an unfortunate aspect of being an important player in politics today, something you must accept is that you will look 60 when you are actually 40 years old.

Having detailed what I think needs to be the focus of the leaders debate and the general election as being based around personable characteristics, it follows that image may well play a large part in determining the outcome. People’s images can create a subconscious confidence in what comes out of their mouth.

In my opinion, any leader looking tired and dishevelled on the night of the debate will find it hard to portray a rejuvenated character who is ready and willing to head up a government for the next four or five years. A leader looking rested, tanned, clean-shaven and youthful may benefit from the ‘Kennedy effect’, presenting the public with a confidence and a readiness which will translate into votes.

By Nick Higgins

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has announced plans to tighten immigration to the UK over fears too many foreigners are moving in.

Britons fear job security as foreigners flock to the UK

The Government recently accepted recommendations from the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to tighten rules allowing workers from outside Europe to enter the country.

The MAC put forward 16 recommendations, all of which will be adopted to ensure the UK’s points-based immigration system does more to support UK workers. 

The new rules mean that from next year onwards, all jobs must be advertised to British workers for a four week period before companies can seek recruitments from outside of Europe.

In a speech in West London, Mr Brown said that a “tough but fair approach” to immigration is needed to ensure those living in the UK with low skills and little job opportunities are helped into work.

According to the Office for National Statistics, the number of Britons unemployed from July to September increased by 30,000, making the UK’s unemployment figure hit 2.46 million.

The Home Office estimates that one in 10 workers from outside of Europe will be excluded from working in the UK under the new visa rules.

Mr Brown said the system is about “managed and controlled migration while ensuring that it serves the national interest.”

The Prime Minister also pledged to review student visas to crack down on people obtaining one to enter the UK before disappearing into illegal work.

But Conservative MP Nicholas Soames told the BBC that the government’s visa system “affects just 20 percent of immigration and will not stop the UK’s population hitting 70 million in 2029.”

The Office for National Statistics estimates the country’s population has risen by 4 percent over the past 8 years, with migration causing much of the increase.

But Mr Brown claimed the British Government’s points-based system has contributed to a 44 percent fall in immigration over the past year.

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said the Brown government is attempting to “shut the stable door long after the horse has bolted.”

“His government’s catastrophic mismanagement of the system has undermined this country’s liberal attitude towards immigration,” he told the BBC.

Prime Minister Brown urged immigrants to accept the responsibilities and rights that come with living in the UK.

“British values are not an add-on for us – an option, or an extra to take or leave. Those who wish to come to our country must embrace them wholeheartedly and proudly, as we do.”

“But people want to be assured that newcomers will accept the responsibilities as well as the rights that come with living here – obeying the law, speaking English, and making a contribution.”

The prime minister said those who wanted to stay in Britain would have to prove their commitment after five years of being in the country by a probation system, which included a clean criminal record.

Survival Tip: Don’t miss the boat!

Remember the kerfuffle over photographers in the Field of Remembrance on Armistice Day?  Both Gordon Brown and David Cameron have apologised to officials at Westminster Abbey.  Good.  Do you think it is possible for politicians to depoliticise anything?  Perhaps not.

As reported on Political Betting:

CON 37% (-6)
LAB 31% (+5)
LD 17% (-2)
OTHERS 15%

At first glance, Labour might think that they have reason to be cheerful. But they would be being far too optimistic.

One swallow a summer does not make, as someone once said. And this poll certainly isn’t the beginning of summertime for Labour. For a start, it’s delayed by over a week – the groundwork being done just after the Glasgow NE by-election. There’s been a decidedly pathetic Queen’s Speech since then, and Gordon Brown has been humiliated at the despatch box by David Cameron over Parliamentary expenses and in the media with the row about ‘free’ elderly care and the backlash from his own side regarding his ill thought-out plans.

This poll strikes me as a statistical outlier in any regard: the change in support is SO marked and there’s been SO little reason for it that there has to be a problem with it. Governments as reviled as this one has been for the last year or so do not simply bounce back overnight for no apparent reason. Winning a by-election in a dead-cert seat that everyone knows they stood practically no chance of losing simply doesn’t cause all the disaffected voters to stop over their cornflakes one morning and thing “Oh, actually I really do like Gordon Brown after all”. Simply speaking, nothing has happened to put the government in a good light. And, nothing has happened to put the Tories in a particularly bad light (except perhaps a small local difficulty in SW Norfolk, which is the sort of thing that’s forgotten even before the end of the news cycle).

This is a flash in the pan. Normal service will be resumed next week when new post-Queen’s Speech polls come out, and the Tories will, as many many people hope and expect, go on to win a convincing victory at the next General Election, which, as far as I’m concerned, can’t be held a moment too soon.

A Pair of Blazing Dynamos

Legitimacy is a a recurring, and thorny, concept in today’s political dialogue. Is President Hamid Karzai’s Kabul regime a legitimate government, and does its legitimacy or lack thereof affect how we should feel about British presence in Afghanistan? Is it legitimate for a cheating MP to chair the Commons’ standards and privileges committee? How legitimate is the selection of a President and a High Representative over fine food and wine? And, of course, the question which has hung like mustard gas over the Labour Party for two years: how legitimate is its leader’s position as Prime Minister?

With the Queen’s Speech this week, the unelected PM geared up for his first election in the office. It is a vote, of course, which he is widely expected to lose. Martin Kettle brought up the Major comparison again this week (is this the start of a meme?): “A fifth year, heralded by a fifth Queen’s speech, is an invariable sign of political weakness [...] This week Gordon Brown became the fifth peacetime prime minister of the universal suffrage era to enter this twilight parliamentary territory.” Five seems a rather large number given Kettle’s qualifications, but undoubtedly the fifth Queen’s Speech is a fag end of  a thing, and many of Brown’s pronouncements – eerily spoken in the voice of an 83-year-old woman – felt a bit like ‘back to basics’: something of a whimper to the faithful. Polly Toynbee talked it up as a “red line” for the election, but Kettle’s bleaker assessment seems more accurate.

If Brown could pass most of these bills, he might  be on to something – but his political capital seems too small to buy him that wish. As The Economist put it, “Labour has entered a strange political netherworld. It is not yet out of government; what it does still matters. But it is not altogether in power either.” This is no fun for anyone except possibly David Cameron, who wrote in The Times this week that, “Dig deeper into any of his plans and you’ll find pettiness masquerading as principle. What we need is radicalism and the Conservatives have proved that we are the only party to possess it.” Few will be convinced by the vision of the Tories as proven radicals, but patience with Labour is wearing thin: an anaemic Queen’s Speech was no real fillip at all. Brown would have been much better off with a Big Idea or two rather than another shopping list.

The European Union enjoyed little in the way of invigorating blasts this week, either. The Times called the choice of its two new leaders an ‘embarrassment’; the FT declared that it was risking ‘irrelevance’. If Brown is having difficulty enthusing the electorate in a titanic struggle between two idealogues, then the EU didn’t even try to excite anyone with its choice of Herman Van Rompuy as its new President and Baroness Ashton as its ‘Foreign Minister’. Ashton in particular seems the last vagiely viable Brit for the post (Milliband and Mandelson weren’t available, Hoon was too connected to the Iraq war); at least Van Rompuy has the laudable achievement of bringing unity to a Belgian government in crisis. Both will be competent, but neither will inspire. Politics, after all, does not have to be exciting to be important; but elected politicians need enthusiasm in order to obtain the legitimacy necessary to govern. Labour’s slim chance of extending its time in office now rests on exciting enough people to grant them that legitimacy; so far, they show as little flair for inspiration as Brussels.