James Oates

In retrospect the last week may prove to be seen as a turning point. It is not just the defeat of the outrageous government proposal to extend detention without charge to three months. In fact 28 days is still a significant erosion of our freedom by this government. It is not just the fact that this is the first defeat that Mr. Blair has faced in the House of Commons (as opposed to the routine defeats in the House of Lords) since he became Prime Minister. It has also been a good week for the Liberal Democrats in local elections. The progress that we made in Scotland in the General Election has proven to be no flash in the pan- local elections since have shown the Conservatives falling back even further and solid progress for the Lib Dems across the country.

I had a lunch with a Senior Conservative last week. He had attended Sir Edward Heath’s memorial service and was beginning to wax lyrical about the prospect of David Cameron as the new Conservative leader. He was quite positive about the future of the Conservatives, but the definition of “positive” has changed. He said (I paraphrase, since the third glass of wine had already arrived), “Of course we can’t do it alone. We can not come back in many areas of the country, because the Liberal Democrats have replaced us” He paused “I am increasingly convinced that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats can become the government, and as a Conservative, I would even prefer such a coalition”.

There you have it- even an optimistic Conservative believes that as far as the Liberal Democrats are concerned “If you can’t beat them, you will have to join them”.

I do not propose to dwell on the resignation of David Blunkett- this resignation like most in politics is just another game of tactics. I did not like the minister, as a man I feel a certain degree of sympathy for him as a human being- albeit tinged with great relief that he is no longer in office.

In fact Blunkett in office represented all that is illiberal and restrictive about this Labour government. His outrageous assaults on the rule of law and individual freedoms as Home Secretary were a national disgrace-and a far greater scandal that the occasions of each of his departures from office. Liberal Democrats know that we must set limits to state power- and never go beyond them no matter what. The rule of law is absolute- and the 90 day detentions currently proposed are not acceptable at any price. The government exists to serve the people, not to be its gaolers or its nanny. Labour is now prepared to ram through a vast array of unnecessary legislation- and this typifies the entire Blair government- if there ain’t no problem, there ain’t no need to fix it- or you will end up breaking it worse.

Twenty five years ago the United Kingdom took the decision to modernise the Polaris nuclear deterrent and replace it with Trident. At the time, the USSR represented a clear threat to world peace. With background of Soviet power grabs in Africa and South East Asia, the invasion of Afghanistan and the brutal crushing of dissent in the satellite states, the Soviet Union truly was a threat to all the values of Liberalism and Democracy. At the same time Britain committed to take Cruise and Pershing 2 theatre nuclear weapons. It was a difficult, indeed a scary, time but the prospect of the aggressive and dangerous Soviet Union justified our nuclear deployments both an individual state and as a NATO ally. At that time the Labour Party almost destroyed itself after it committed to the spectacularly misconceived programme of unilateral nuclear disarmament and efective withdrawl from NATO.

Today, as we come up to the decision on the replacement for Trident, the world has changed utterly. The Cold war doctrine of “mutual assured destruction” has long been abandoned. Nevertheless, arguably Britain’s armed forces are in a more dangerous environment- we have new military commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq, in addition to long standing deployments elsewhere. Even if we accept the need for an “independent” deterrent (I put this in inverted commas, because the Trident submarines can not be maintained without American support), it is a major question as to whether we need the kind of weapons systems that Trident represents. Although the public cost of a replacement has been indicated as being 20 billion pounds, in fact privately, the Ministry of Defence estimates look more like 30 billion. We can not, by definition, use a nuclear deterrent and our armed forces are more stretched than ever. Why is the government not considering the cheaper options for Trident replacement so that extra funding can be given to our forces in the field?

It is sadly a consistent pattern- the Dome, ID cards, reintroducing nuclear power (without considering other options) reestablishing grammar schools, ASBOS etc. etc.- Labour tries to hold on to power by making it unnecessary to vote Conservative. But the extravagance of the New Labour spending plans will store up huge problems. Wasting billions on an unnecessary and inappropriate weapons system will actively compromise the ability of our armed forces to do their job. The last straw for New Labour may turn out to be forcing their old unilateralists to vote for megadeath.

In our political system there are many experts who attempt to provide information on specific issue areas. In an increasingly detailed world, it is too much to expect lay observers to understand all the ramifications of a given policy. Many of these think tanks do valuable work sorting the wheat from the chaff and coming up with interesting and innovative ideas. However, increasingly there are self appointed experts whose purpose is solely to lobby for a given point of view, regardless of the evidence.

As we have come around to the 18 month anniversary of the entry of 10 new states into the European Union, the issue of immigration has loomed as a topic of discussion. The enormously complex issues of immigration have been reduced to a single cliche: “the Polish plumber”. By and large the UK favours “Polish plumbers”, because we know that we have skill shortages and that Poles are well trained and do the job at the same or better quality as a local plumber and usually for a more attractive price (the same reasons, of course, that the French plumbers have wanted to exclude Polish plumbers from France).

The immigration “think tank” Migration Watch tries not to attack immigration from the New European Union, but they have a clear agenda, which is opposed to immigration generally. The comments which come from this supposedly independent think tank could have been written by some of the more ill informed bigots on the right of British politics. Research that they publish suggests that the UK acquires new immigrants every year that are equivalent in numbers to a “City the size of Bristol” each year. This is nonsense. There is considerable churn in numbers- for example, after substantial growth in the number of Poles working in the UK over the past five years, the Polish Embassy now believes that the total number of Poles in the UK is now fairly stable, though turnover is considerable. The Migration Watch numbers fail to recognize people as they leave as well as when they enter the UK. Given the large number of British Citizens who are emigrating from the UK, if you believe the Migration Watch numbers, there would be more than a quarter of the British population that would be foreign born. In fact the number is 7% and has been stable for some time.

Implicit in the ideas of “Migration Watch” is that immigration subtracts from our national wealth: many people migrate simply to gain benefits from the British welfare system. Yet, for example: of all the many thousand EU-10 individuals who have registered to work in the UK since 2004, the total number of those who have applied for British benefits is a few hundred, and the number of those whose claims have been allowed is under 50. There is no benefits drain- a pure fiction.

The next idea that anti-immigration campaigners come up with is that “they take our jobs”. At a time of near full employment, this is a claim that is pretty hard to justify, but the point is that enterprises can usually only pay workers who add value to their operations. Taking a couple of extreme examples: A Lithuanian Investment Banker might develop proprietary structures for his bank worth millions, he or she will be very well paid, but will pay large amounts of Tax and NI to the UK exchequer as well as spending considerable sums in the UK economy. Another example: even an illegal Hungarian cash paid building worker adds substantial value to their employer- and thus to the UK economy. The benefit may not come directly though income tax payments, but it comes from the fact that the construction activity boosts our economy, and the money that even building workers need to spend to live also benefits our economy. The most mainstream example might be the Slovak student who works in Starbucks. Although not very well paid by British standards, the student can save enough to complete his or her studies upon their return to their home country. Thus most immigration is win-win. The Student gets to save more money and experience in an English language culture. The home country gets a transfer of money- and the UK gets the benefits of the worker- usually including tax benefits while they are in our country- and you and I get better banking services, cheaper construction or even a marginally cheaper cup of coffee served by someone with smile who is not afraid of hard work.

Of course, Migration Watch will say, we are not opposed to legal EU migration- but the fact is that we get benefits from workers no matter where they come from: Australia, India, Morocco or Albania- presumably the countries that Migration watch is most concerned about. Yet, the numbers of workers entering from these countries are broadly stable or even falling. Migration Watch has compromised its integrity by failing to understand economics and distorting the numbers to serve a political point.

After the most disgraceful campaign on immigration that the Conservatives fought in 2004, it is pretty easy to detect “His Master’s Voice” in their spurious numbers. Immigration is a sign of British Success and it is in fact a vital component of British success- After all, my sister, while she lived in Paris for a few years, could find no plumber at all. So, while many think tanks add to the quality of political debate, it would be wise to put a government health warning on some numbers: “Distortions and misleading facts may impair political judgement and cause ill informed voting” or “Migration Watch serves Tory Propaganda and may damage your intelligence”.

There are times when the British media suffers a kind of willful blindness. So much attention has been devoted to the various non-entities contending for the tarnished crown of leadership of the Conservatives. Yet the fact that the Conservatives believe that Liam Fox is a more credible Prime Minister than Ken Clarke probably tells you as much as you need to know about the meaninglessness of the contest. Whether Fox or even the drug tainted David Cameron (“born with a silver spoon up his nose”, as one wit had it) end up as leader is of not much consequence for a very long time, if ever.

By contrast, some dramatic news has been under reported. Few, I suspect, could identify Karbardino-Balkharia on the map. It is a national territory in the North Caucasus, part of the Russian Federation. Earlier this week an armed raid took place against the capital of the territory, Nalchik. At least a hundred people were killed, and the raid is the most deadly since the destruction of the school at Beslan in neighbouring North Ossetia just over a year ago. The implications of this renewed violence are severe. The festering conflict in Chechnya, having spread to Daghestan is now spreading its reach still further. Russian control over a large swathe of strategically significant land, lying close to the key transport links for energy supplies from the Caspian and Central Asia is now very debatable. Further violence is certain, and the crescent of instability seems set to widen. The implications for global energy supplies are significant. This, I think, is the critical news this week- and given the possible future effect on prices at the petrol pump- the British media were looking in entirely the wrong direction.

© 2012 Wycombe Liberal Democrats Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha