How can we improve immigration policy?
Following on from my earlier entry about the immigration debate, its only fair that I highlight a piece in today's Telegraph by Robert Whelan.
He writes that we have had "virtually uncontrolled mass immigration ... since 1997". He then goes on to say that we have begun "to appreciate the extent to which the survival of the free society can be threatened by the presence within it of large number of people who do not share its most basic assumptions. It is now becoming acceptable to say that not all immigrant groups behave in the same way".
Please don't jump on me or hurl angry emails this way. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with what Mr Whelan thinks. (If it was entirely up to me, I'd opt for the firm but fair immigration system they have in Australia. Its inclusive, rational, and accountable).
Rather, I simply want to ask this; if we do decide, calmly and democratically, that we do need some sensible changes made to our immigration policy to reflect changing circumstances, how might we do so when so many aspects of immigration and asylum policy are determined by unelected human rights judges and supranational conventions entered into without proper accountability?
Can we achieve the sort of immigration policy that we might decide that we may need, and remain within the various international conventions we are bound by, and with all those activist judges frustrating successive Home Secretaries?
I'm sure that some people think we can. But how about those of us who aren't human rights lawyers or lobbyists?
Posted in General on 28 August 2008 by Douglas Carswell
We do not need a national curriculum
As long as there is a State-run curriculum in our schools, there is always going to be a debate over what to include in it.
Yesterday, a roll call of politicians was demanding that the State-run curriculum should include sex lessons for five years olds. Today, we learn that "Black History" will be compulsory in every school for the first time.
I've no doubt that there are some perfectly well-intentioned reasons for wanting to teach both these things. However, I can't understand why it is that we should leave it to government to make the decision for us.
Every time we shop in a supermarket, or buy a car, or choose a home, we are making choices for ourselves about what we feel is best for us. We recognise that by doing it that way, we are more likely to end up with the food, car or house that we actually prefer. Imagine how dreadful it would be if government officials allocated us our food, clothes and the rest...
Yet that is precisely what we have with the State-run national curriculum.
The Tories brought in the State-run curriculum foolishly imagining it would stop children being taught politically-correct nonsense. Instead, it has given control over our children's education to the sort of Whitehall buffoons who daily lose confidential data - and worse.
Perhaps, you think, we need some sort of government oversight over the education curriculum or else every child would end up being taught all sorts of different things, and there would be chaos. Reflect on this; there is no government oversight over the publication of children's books. Yet JK Rowling, BFG and Spot the Dog are commonly read in households up and down the land.
Posted in General on 27 August 2008 by Douglas Carswell
The problem is the defence contractors
According to James Kirkup writing in the Telegraph, the military don't want Defence Minister Des Browne replaced by John Hutton because "Hutton is seen .... as being too close to the defence industry contractors who are unpopular with many service personnel".
At last, the irrefutable truth is starting to emerge; Defence procurement policy is run in the interests of the big defence contractors - not our armed forces. Billions are spent on the kit that the big contractors want to supply, rather than on the things that our armed forces need.
Where, for example, in the Defence Strategic Guidance are there planning assumptions or scenarios that call for two new carriers, or the air-to-air capability of the Eurofighter?
There is little in the current draft Defence Strategic Guidance to justify either project in its current form. Yet the big contractors want them - and so we build them. At vastly inflated cost. And our troops in Afghanistan have to make do without the kit that they need as a consequence.
It seems that the real military - in otherwords not MoD officials - is starting to realise that the way we spend our defence budget needs to change. We need a minister willing to put the suppliers in their place - and axe the Defence Industrial Strategy.
Defence procurement needs to be based on the Defence Strategic Guidance - not on what big corporations can lobby for.
Posted in General on 27 August 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Immigration: the left is losing the argument
On the Today programme this morning, I heard the sound of the left trying desperately to counter attack over immigration.
The left-wing Institute of Public Policy Research has issued a report that claims we have all "underestimated the economic benefits that migrants bring to local economies". Hummmm ....
Until a few years ago, such stuff was orthodoxy. We were being constantly told that large-scale immigration was good for the economy. Indeed, there were articles in the Economist and the Financial Times saying as much - so it must have all been true.
Then along came the brilliant Sir Andrew Green. In the teeth of real nastiness (Deborah Ross writing in the Spectator, March 2004), he challenged the accepted (acceptable?) orthodoxy.
Setting up
Migration Watch
, he has effectively refuted a number of leftist lies.
We are still light years away from having the sort of accountable immigration system that we need. But thanks to Sir Andrew, the unquestioned assumptions about immigration we had been forced to accept no longer go unchallenged.
It was a delight to listen to Sir Andrew Green. As I did so though, I couldn't help wondering about the Today programme. With it
sounding ever more like a radio broadcast of the Guardian, surely its time to question who actually gets to decide what items feature on it and how they are covered? If it’s meant to be part of public services broadcasting, where is the accountability to the public?
Posted in General on 26 August 2008 by Douglas Carswell
Three cheers for Andrew Adonis!
I don't normally praise government ministers. The idea that I might have anything positive to say about the current government rabble will amuse many of my constituents.
However, when a minister does something that's right for Britain, it's time to bite my lip and say so; well done to Labour minister, Andrew Adonis.
Back in January, Adonis wrote that this "September we will open nearly 50 new academies". Now apparently, he wants to massively expand the programme.
Adonis' academy programme means turning lots of State-run schools into independent schools. They'll be "akin to private schools" to use his precise words, funded by government rather than school fees, but allowed to run their own affairs (more or less).
Of course some criticisms can be made; Why aren't academies even more independent? How come it took Adonis so long to only achieve so little? How come Brown blocked the academy agenda before he was PM, yet now backs it?
All true. But the greater truth is that free from the deadhand of the State, academies are doing much, much better than they would had they not been set free. As a member of the Schools select committee in Parliament, I think the evidence is compelling.
Imagine if every school in Britain was set free? What if every child, no matter what their background or circumstance, had the opportunity to attend an independent school? After decades of central control, it might be difficult to, but try to imagine if different schools could grow and blossom each in their own way?
Adonis understands that the more independent education is from State-control, the better the results - for everyone. It's in this direction of travel that education policy now needs to go.
Three cheers!
PS. Labour MPs hate it ...
Posted in General on 25 August 2008 by Douglas Carswell