The Times, Mail, FT and Independent all cover today's Tory announcement of tougher rules on 'foreign brides'.
The Conservatives will say that potential foreign spouses should be at least 21 (the current requirement is 18) and be required to complete English language tests before being allowed into Britain. The third plank of the plan involves "developing a 'code of conduct' for Entry Clearance Officers and Home Office officials in the UK, which includes separate interviews of the spouse and the sponsor". Damian Green, the party's immigration spokesman, defends the new policy proposals as essential to ensuring new citizens and their dependents are able to integrate into British society:
"Too many young women are brought to England to marry when they cannot possibly integrate with our society. They need better protection. It is not fair on them and it is not good for their integration into this country. Families where English is not spoken are much more likely to have children who struggle at school, and adults who cannot engage in work."
In 2005, 41,560 spouses came to Britain, an increase of 25% over five years.
Danny Sriskandarajah of the Institute for Public Policy Research think-tank told The Independent that the Conservative proposals could be vetoed by the courts because they could be seen to be racially discriminatory and interfere in family life.
The FT's Jean Eaglesham interprets the immigration policy announcement as an attempt to "quell the rightwing revolt triggered by his abandonment of support for new grammar schools."
Meanwhile Education Secretary Alan Johnson told BBC1's Question Time programme that Margaret Hodge was using the kind of language used by the BNP. Ms Hodge said that families that had been in Britain for a long time had a "legitimate sense of entitlement" to priority in social housing allocation. "My problem," Mr Johnson said, "with that is that's the kind of language of the BNP and it's grist to the mill of the BNP." Another candidate for the Deputy Labour leadership - Jon Cruddas MP, whose Dagenham seat borders Ms Hodge's own Barking constituency - said that the correct way of addressing the issue was to increase the supply of affordable housing and not to complain about allocation mechanisms.
"Danny Sriskandarajah of the Institute for Public Policy Research think-tank told The Independent that the Conservative proposals could be vetoed by the courts because they could be seen to be racially discriminatory and interfere in family life."
Did he have a comment on Margaret Hodge's proposals, or did he think that was OK because Labour said it, rather than the Tories.......
Posted by: David DPB | May 25, 2007 at 09:08
And what is the Conservative view on people who go through sham marraiges to stay in the country ?
And would the Tories do like the Labour party is willing to do on terror. where as the labour party will drop the human rights act so they can push through what they want on supposed terror laws. will the tory party drop the race relations act to push thruogh this policy. otherwise they will be just over ruled by europe. Yet again showing the UK can't govern themselves and yet another reason why we should only trade with Europe and not be ruled by them.
Posted by: Vote Freedom | May 25, 2007 at 09:10
Excellent news. This is long overdue and will protect women from forced marriages.
Posted by: Tory T | May 25, 2007 at 09:35
David DPB - yes, he has also had a pot shot at Hodge.
Vote Freedom - a sham marriage is a sham marriage is a sham marriage - I can see why one of the sham newlyweds might try to kick up a fuss and scream about 'yoomun rites' but, from memory it has always been illegal to contrive a marriage (and not just for immigration purposes) and I expect that would be DC's answer to your question. I'm willing to be corrected on this but I doubt even the ECHR would charge in and argue that foreigners have a human right to be able to deceive the Registrar of Marriages.
Posted by: William Norton | May 25, 2007 at 09:41
Tory T,
Of course it won't many faiths will say it is part of their religion. The liberal lefties will say it is just the nasty party being nasty again. And the Tories will back down and then will turn around and say all British people should accept it as a enriching part of multi cultural Britain.
Which is a joke because the very rights all sides fought for through the last century for women. Through the vote and equal pay and recognition will be swept aside due to the fact in the muslim religion women are second class citizens and we wouldn't want to offend them now would we ?
Posted by: Vote Freedom | May 25, 2007 at 09:42
"Danny Sriskandarajah of the Institute for Public Policy Research think-tank told The Independent that the Conservative proposals could be vetoed by the courts because they could be seen to be racially discriminatory and interfere in family life."
I'm afraid the judges have already ruled the government’s law on preventing sham weddings is illegal.
The “human rights” laws at work again.
Don’t the party leaders follow events.
Posted by: 601 | May 25, 2007 at 09:42
Danny Sriskandarajah ought to at least understand the HRA before he starts making such silly comments. The courts don't have a veto, per se, they can merely refer matters which they see as breaching the ECHR back to Parliament. The Minister can then make a "declaration of incompatibility" and the ECHR is overruled. The idea of a "veto" is absurd.
Posted by: Edward | May 25, 2007 at 09:44
These rules get ever more stringent, but there is no evidence that these measures make any difference.
I got married in Indonesia age 19 (she was 20). We have a child. I am white, as it happens.
When I wanted to come back to the UK with her (I was living over there) I had to leave them behind, come back and get a job, then fly out again to sort out visas. The cost at the time was about £250 per visa * 2, total costs of about £2k with all the interviews, flights, etc.
I came back to the UK, subject to certain rules (not allowed to claim any benefits).
Since her English skills were not perfect we tried to get her on an English course. No, sorry, you can't these are only for asylum seekers and for people who have 'indefinite leave to remain' (which you get after 1 year then, now 2 years).
There have since been multiple further changes to the rules, including big hikes in fees, new fees, the introduction of tests.
Now apparently the Tories are proposing a change that would have made my family illegal. As with all the other changes it will have no effect other than to penalise families such as mine.
Why should this be? 18 is quite old enough to get married. You are an adult. You pay taxes.
Since jumping through the various hoops and barriers placed in our way, I now contribute several tens of thousands per year in taxes to Gordon Brown, not that he could care less fromn the obstructions erected to stop us coming here in the first place (let's not forget that I am a British citizen).
What will this latest attack achieve?
Posted by: mike | May 25, 2007 at 09:44
What the Conservative party needs to do is instead of tinkering around the edges on a subject that they can say it doesnt have anything to do with race but we are defending the rights of women.
But actually grow a back bone and stop the mass immigration into this country. We need a system like many other countries in which they only accept people who have enough money to support themselves, a profession in which is needed in the country and can't be done by a citizen of the said country already. and a job reference, family to keep them and a ticket home if all fails.
Unlike this country now which accepts all, hands out homes and benifits without question. How can we have a million unemployed but need unskilled eastern europeans to do jobs?
And since when is it a crime to look after your own first ? Mrs Hodge may only be making her comments to save her seat. But it is true this is Britain and why shouldn't the people of this nation come first or would all people reading this open there own home up to people off the street and allow a bed to a homeless person rather than their own family ?
Posted by: Vote Freedom | May 25, 2007 at 09:54
Danny Sriskandarajah is an ex-pat Australian doing his doctorate at the University of Oxford.
I wonder if he knows any Sri Lankan brides who might read his travel reviews
TRavel
or is he just an opinion writer for hire to get funds for his DPhil fees at Oxford ?
Posted by: ToMTom | May 25, 2007 at 09:58
1. We could reinstate the "main purpose" rule that we had until ten years ago, which would halve the number of imported spouses.
2. No, it is not "interfering with family life", if they are so desperate to be together then the husband can move abroad, can't he?
3. Mike at 9.44, you'd have been OK under Rule 1. My wife also comes from that part of the world and I know what you mean.
Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | May 25, 2007 at 09:59
Yet again the beginnings of a sterile debate. Whatever your views on the ethnic origin of immigrants or their 'net' contribution to the economy - the issue surely is our total population numbers and the density within our tiny land area.Every other controversial issue boils down to, too many people too little space.
Road Pricing - Population density
Shortage of housing - ditto
Waste Disposal - ditto
Carbon Emissions - ditto
As all governments actively encourages increased poulation density through inward immigration AND mindless large family incentives - none of these problems will ever be solved.
Posted by: RodS | May 25, 2007 at 09:59
The Daily Mail is reporting today that bogus asylum claims are costing the UK taxpayer £1bn per year to process. Just imagine what else this money could be spent on to improve the lives of British citizens.
There are many more such examples of financial waste, the EU being one of them. When is the Tory party going to wake up to the popularity that could be generated by promising the British people that we will go back to looking after number one.
Posted by: mark | May 25, 2007 at 10:12
To silence the 'right wingers' after the grammar school fiasco, the party reverts to tried and tested (and failed) methods of appeasement in the form of 'tough on immigrants' language totally inconsistent with the new image of the conservatives under Cameron.
Why is it that a person in the UK can marry at 16 with consent and 18 without yet we want to prevent others from doing so until 21 and only if they can speak English?
150 000 Eastern Europeans come in and there's no concern about English with them. There is already a requirement to learn English before a spouse can get indefinate leave to remain so why an additional burden which in effect means that people will be prevented from entering the UK on grounds of marriage. To suggest it is these people that are the cause of cohesion problems shows an utter lack of understanding of what is going on in the country. The 7/7 bombers were all fluent in the English langauage and were not born abroad!!
This will primarily affect spouses from the Sub continent where people marry at a younger age and is undoubtedly discriminatory and I cannot see how this proposal will overcome the right to family life under the Human Rights Act. Neiter does this prevent forced marriages as the age of marriage is not increased for people in this country marrying abroad.
Posted by: Adam | May 25, 2007 at 10:15
"The 7/7 bombers were all fluent in the English langauage and were not born abroad!!"
No but how much do you want to bet one or both of thier parents did not know English. It DOES make a difference.
"Families where English is not spoken are much more likely to have children who struggle at school, and adults who cannot engage in work."
Posted by: 601 | May 25, 2007 at 10:19
"In 2005, 41,560 spouses came to Britain"
Drop in the ocean compared with Eastern European immigration, which no mainstream party seems able to do anything about.
Posted by: Comstock | May 25, 2007 at 10:28
Its so easy to have a go at Hodge for her comments. The fact that a lot of people agree with her without being members of the neo-Nazis is something that passes critics by. I think she had a good point. She was talking about the fact that the influx of immigrants has placed a huge burden in some parts of the country upon education, housing, healthcare and other such areas. Shes got a point but unfortunately she has the problem of saying something that even in this type of Britain can easily be misinterpreted to mean "get rid of foreigners"...
Posted by: James Maskell | May 25, 2007 at 10:37
"Drop in the ocean compared with Eastern European immigration, which no mainstream party seems able to do anything about."
It is too late to do anything about it now but your party oppossed any restrictions in terms of jobs when they had the chance.
Posted by: 601 | May 25, 2007 at 10:37
'No but how much do you want to bet one or both of thier parents did not know English. It DOES make a difference.'
How? What this proposal is saying that those who don't know the langauage when they arrive here are the problem, not those who were born here, educated here etc. The 7/7 bombers actions can't be blamed on their parents lack of English - what kind of perverse logic is that?
Posted by: Adam | May 25, 2007 at 10:41
Adam, chain migration is a form of migration which offers no benefits to the host community, and works against integration. Allowing from Mirpur to bring in a teenage cousin who doesn't speak English in order to marry her is just an expensive form of overseas aid.
However, I think it would be better simply to reinstate the old primary purpose rule.
Posted by: Sean Fear | May 25, 2007 at 10:52
I refuse to take ANY immigration policy seriously until it makes removing ANY illegal compulsory. No judicial review- just to be 'fast-tracked' out of the country ASAP. I'm afraid this is one area of policy where i fully expect 'tough' words, but FA action!
Posted by: simon | May 25, 2007 at 11:03
So, good proposal, protect this country from excessive inflows and ensure that entrants are at least able to understand the language and culture, and that it is all above board and not some scam to gain a Brit passport.
So far so good.
Now the opposition, the race cards are played, it's unfair to Asians and their culture and their aspirations to come to the UK and freeload and breed and create a bigger and better muslim culture in the old colonial master country. It's not fair, it's intrusive, and that good ole favourite, against the human righhts of someone else who is not British but wants to get into the country.
This will play well with the BNP, as yet another example as to how we no longer have control of our country. Surely we have the right to decide whom we allow in, marriage should not give automatic rights. I don't see many people leaving this country to get married and live in Pakistan or India or somewhere in Africa. It's all one way traffic and the people of this country should have the right to decide who they allow in.
I am becoming so disenchanted, my country hi-jacked, my views excoriated as fascist or racist, and fools governing listening to idiots advice.
DOH.
Posted by: George Hinton | May 25, 2007 at 11:08
I think one thing that would help integration would be a ban on cousin marriage, at least of foreign spouses. It would also lower NHS costs.
However I doubt anything can be accomplished while Britain remains in the EU.
Posted by: Simon Newman | May 25, 2007 at 11:23
George Hinton at 11:08 - 'I am becoming so disenchanted, my country hi-jacked, my views excoriated as fascist or racist, and fools governing listening to idiots advice.'
What you've just written is undoubtedly racist and maybe that's why they would be described as such.
Posted by: Adam | May 25, 2007 at 11:43
Wow. Ms Hodge's comments are the first sensible thing I've ever heard from a Labour MP. Economic migrants who enter our country voluntarily have no right, no right whatsoever, to expect automatic housing or other support from the British state. This is nothing to do with racial issues. The fact is that someone who has lived and worked in this country, paid their taxes and NI contributions and contributed to society, has a moral right to get more priority in social housing than someone who has never contributed anything to Britain. I get more and more fed up with the way that liberals shriek "racist!" whenever anyone questions the immigration situation. I'm not arguing for closing the borders, but the primary responsibility of British services and infrastructure is to the people who have worked here and paid their taxes.
Posted by: Walton 77 | May 25, 2007 at 11:44
Not all foreign spouses are Muslim or come from India or Pakistan. These proposals are fairly sensible but do provoke some amusement from my own American wife who was one of the 41,560 who arrived in 2005. We do not qualify for any benefits or housing, pay far more in than we get out, and since 2005 there have been numerous changes to the rules that have had us jumping through hoops and have cost us an arm and a leg in visa fees, test fees, ILR applications, etc. As someone else, 41,000 is a drop in the ocean compared to asylum seekers, EU migrants and illegals, and at least foreign spouses have a connection with the country!
Posted by: Charlie | May 25, 2007 at 12:08
how this proposal will overcome the right to family life under the Human Rights Act.
Really ? so let us ask what is wrong with English Judges.
The Human Rights act is in essence the enactment in English & Welsh Law of the European Convention on Human Rights of 1951 word-for-word.
The only states in Europe not covered by this Convention are I believe, The Vatican and Liechtenstein.....but here is the list
ECHR
Now Denmark and The Netherlands are both members of the EU and both signatories to the ECHR and both have independent judiciaries, and yet each country has changed the age of brides imported in arranged marriages.
Are English Judges so politicised that they see themselves as a political party ? Do they really see themselves as having an Extra-Parliamentary Opposition role ?
It would be funny if the Lord Chief Justice has to implore Parliament to protect him from the Blair-Falconer Coup to preserve his autonomy now The Lord Chancellor no longer shields the Judiciary from politicians
Posted by: TomTom | May 25, 2007 at 12:08
RodS, 9.59, sorry, which "tiny land area" do you mean?
The UK is 60 million acres, of which around 10% is developed, 90% is farmland, woodland, greenbelt, nature reserve etc. Even in the South East (excl. Greater London), less than 15% by area is developed.
If you just look at housing, all 60 million of us have been squeezed onto about 2 million acres.
And no, building more housing does not of itself (depending where you build them)put "pressure on infrastructure", it's PEOPLE who use schools, roads, hospitals etc not HOUSES. Building more housing (brownfield sites alone would be enough for up to 2 million homes) does not of itself mean more PEOPLE.
Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | May 25, 2007 at 13:27
Re what Charlie says: this is true. To get to the UK as a husband/wife you have to have funds. You are not allowed to claim benefits. So the only people allowed in are contributing to the country.
Posted by: mike | May 25, 2007 at 13:53
The UK is 60 million acres, of which around 10% is developed
Thank The Lord. Most of this land you point at is in Scotland.....and this country is 90% dependent on surface rainwater otherwise it would have to drill aquifers as in Germany.
Let us look at your land
England 50 million people - 130,395 km2
Wales 3 million people - 20,779 km2
Scotland 5 million people - 78,772 km2
N Ireland 1.7 million - 13,843 km2
Comparison North Yorkshire 8,654 km2 with 1 million people
On that basis England would have a population of 15 million
I bet Labour MPs get elected where the population density is greatest
Posted by: TomTom | May 25, 2007 at 14:26
TomTom, either you're wrong or I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
If UK population were spread evenly, England would be 32 million (rather than 50 million).
It is true that Labour tends to do better in towns and the Conservatives in the countryside; by the same token, Labour does MUCH better than the Conservatives in Scotland/Wales which have lower population densities. And the Conservatives seem to do OK in Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea and so on.
If the amount of rainwater sets an absolute upper limit on the number of people who live here, then so be it. But that still doesn't mean that we are a "tiny island" or anything like that. Two noteable European dictators have made the mistake of looking at maps and thinking that the bigger the area you control the better, look where that got them.
My point is, it won't kill us to build a few more houses, that's all.
Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | May 25, 2007 at 15:04
'How can we have a million unemployed but need unskilled eastern europeans to do jobs?'
Vote Freedom, good to see you out posting on your pet subject again.
The reason why we need eastern european workers is that without them every hospital, school, construction project and council service would grind to a halt.
In terms of the use of the phrase unskilled to describe them. I know employers who have utilised Eastern European workers who have always been praised by employers on their work ethic, diligence and technical ability.
The construction industry has suffered for decades on a lack of apprentices entering the industry and migrant labour is the backbone of many new build projects.
If you wish to see a change in the large migrant population taking the jobs that you see as 'your right' then you will need to reorganise the educational system to promote the apprentice schemes and make entering a trade more appealing than being on benefit support.
That however would be on the premise that the BNP have an educational policy and ever being in a position to influence public policy - neither of which will ever happen.
Posted by: Michael Hewlett | May 25, 2007 at 15:06
'How can we have a million unemployed but need unskilled eastern europeans to do jobs?'
Vote Freedom, good to see you out posting on your pet subject again.
The reason why we need eastern european workers is that without them every hospital, school, construction project and council service would grind to a halt.
In terms of the use of the phrase unskilled to describe them. I know employers who have utilised Eastern European workers who have always been praised by employers on their work ethic, diligence and technical ability.
The construction industry has suffered for decades on a lack of apprentices entering the industry and migrant labour is the backbone of many new build projects.
If you wish to see a change in the large migrant population taking the jobs that you see as 'your right' then you will need to reorganise the educational system to promote the apprentice schemes and make entering a trade more appealing than being on benefit support.
That however would be on the premise that the BNP have an educational policy and ever being in a position to influence public policy - neither of which will ever happen.
Posted by: Michael Hewlett | May 25, 2007 at 15:09
TomTom, either you're wrong or I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
If UK population were spread evenly, England would be 32 million (rather than 50 million).
My point is that half the land mass of the UK supports 50 million people - the other half supports 10 million
As for European dictators.....Britain would have lost both world wars to Germany without Russia.
Britain without the Indian Army in both world wars would have been defeated
Britain is a small island with a small population relative to the major land powers of Europe. Both world wars were exceedingly lucky for Britain - most German soldiers died fighting the Russians
Posted by: TomTom | May 25, 2007 at 16:29
TomTom, we seem to have got off the topic, I was was seguing from "overcrowding" to "underhousing", not sure why WW2 is relevant here, actually I was referring to Napoleon.
Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | May 25, 2007 at 16:56
"Britain is a small island with a small population relative to the major land powers of Europe." TomTom
Absolutely ! and England has a higher density of population than Bangladesh.
The main point about our massive over-population is that it is never, ever, mentioned as a context for debate about immigration, housing, energy supply, traffic gridlock, or whatever. We faff about trying to fix small holes in the bottom of the bucket while the tap is left fully on.
Posted by: RodS | May 25, 2007 at 17:02
Two noteable European dictators have made the mistake
not sure why WW2 is relevant here, actually I was referring to Napoleon
Really Mark, you think Napoleon was "two notable dictators"......?
Posted by: TomTom | May 25, 2007 at 17:39
'How can we have a million unemployed but need unskilled eastern europeans to do jobs?'
Actually it's nearer 2 million, plus 3 million on incapacity benefit (many of whom could and want to work). Those of working age and 'economically inactive' are about 8 million. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=12
Posted by: Dave Wilson | May 25, 2007 at 18:28
There's an interesting debate scheduled on Newsnight tonight. This is from the email that Newsnight sent me today:
"FROM GAVIN ESLER
Hello,
Today's Quote for the Day:
"Russia, a country where you never hear of the gangsters of the Russian Mafia any more. Why? Because they are now all in office." - Best-selling writer Frederick Forsyth.
In tonight's programme:
Immigration
A clear majority of British people have told a BBC opinion poll that they agree with the Trade and Industry Minister Margaret Hodge in her controversial comments about immigration. She said "British citizens should always get priority for social housing ahead of immigrant families." Her Labour colleague the Education Secretary Alan Johnson accused Ms Hodge of using the language "of the BNP."
Newsnight's Paul Mason has been hearing the views from the heartland of England - Nottinghamshire - about immigration, and we'll debate the issue with the Labour MP Keith Vaz and the leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin. "
Should be interesting.
Posted by: Christina | May 25, 2007 at 18:59
If UK population were spread evenly, England would be 32 million (rather than 50 million).
Scotland and Wales have a far larger upland area than England. It would not be realistic for people to live in numbers in the Cairgorms for example.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | May 25, 2007 at 19:05
RodS, we can bandy about these statistics till we are blue in the face. Maybe the UK has a higher population density than Bangladesh, but it's lower than the Netherlands. So what?
TomTom, sure, London is more densely populated that North Yorks, so what? How come seven million people want to live in London and only one million in North Yorks?
(This is not say that immigration should not be tightly controlled along Australian lines (one out, one in) but population density is in itself a meaningless statistic.)
The two dictators I meant were Napoleon and that German guy with a black moustache. Kaiser Wilhelm was a king/emperor, not a dictator. Although to be fair, Germany did invade Russia under his watch.
YAA, the still small voice of reason as ever, that is the whole point. If you look on a map, seven million people in Switzerland seems pretty sparse compared to seven million in London, but that's because they are all crowded into a few dense urban areas, the middle bit is just mountains.
Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | May 25, 2007 at 19:13
RodS, we can bandy about these statistics till we are blue in the face. Maybe the UK has a higher population density than Bangladesh, but it's lower than the Netherlands. So what?
TomTom, sure, London is more densely populated that North Yorks, so what? How come seven million people want to live in London and only one million in North Yorks?
(This is not say that immigration should not be tightly controlled along Australian lines (one out, one in) but population density is in itself a meaningless statistic.)
The two dictators I meant were Napoleon and that German guy with a black moustache. Kaiser Wilhelm was a king/emperor, not a dictator. Although to be fair, Germany did invade Russia under his watch.
YAA, the still small voice of reason as ever, that is the whole point. If you look on a map, seven million people in Switzerland seems pretty sparse compared to seven million in London, but that's because they are all crowded into a few dense urban areas, the middle bit is just mountains.
Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | May 25, 2007 at 19:14
It would seem that for every sensible remark that emanates from the Conservative party these days, such as this, there is another silly one to proceed or follow it.
Posted by: Chris Palmer | May 25, 2007 at 19:48
"RodS, we can bandy about these statistics till we are blue in the face. Maybe the UK has a higher population density than Bangladesh, but it's lower than the Netherlands. So what?"
My point was that ENGLAND (not UK) has a higher density than Bangaladesh ( and far higher than Holland - even allowing for the fact that the Dutch reclaimed more living space from the sea)
It matters because 'quality of life' as measured by Air Quality, Road Rage, Noise and Light pollution etc , is now worsening. We know what happens in rat populations when numbers exceed living space. The ONS forecast is 67 million by 2050 - and on current trends the growth will be in SE England.
Posted by: RodS | May 25, 2007 at 20:28
How come seven million people want to live in London and only one million in North Yorks?
I don;t know - but I wish it was 20 million or even 30 million....I want to have London as the most populous city in the world....at least in Sao-Paulo they innovate with housing on the Marginal by using tin sheet and ad hoc housing solutions. London lacks the flair of Sao-Paulo and could learn so much from Mexico City and the City of Paulistas
Posted by: TomTOm | May 25, 2007 at 21:18
"The reason why we need eastern european workers is that without them every hospital, school, construction project and council service would grind to a halt."
Gosh, how on earth did we manage before May 1st 2004?
Posted by: Denis Cooper | May 25, 2007 at 21:52
Immigration policy of both Labour and Conservatives increasingly is to be very nasty to Australians, Russians, and Nigerians, while being absurdly generous to other Europeans. Isn't it both silly and unduely harsh to ban an Englishman from bringing in his 20 year old American wife, when it is official Conservative policy that 25 mn Romanians and 80 mn Turks should be allowed in with no restraint whatsoever?
Posted by: William MacDougall | May 25, 2007 at 22:13
It's too late now. Britain is being inexorably Balkanised in many of it's towns and cities. The problems engendered are going to get immeasurably worse.
I will be condemned as racist by those who haven't experienced "multi-cultural enrichment" at first hand but I couldn't care less anymore as I've now joined the exodus from my home town of Bradford never to return. Let the muslims have it.
Posted by: white flight | May 25, 2007 at 22:20
Any one see the Newnight report just now? It was fascinating to see the section where they interviewed about ten ramblers in Nottinghamshire. Surprise surprise they were all Labour voters.
Nevertheless immigration was a matter of major concern to them. But when the interviewer suggested that politicians might adopt a get tough policy, they all felt unconfortable about it, it wasn't quite nice.
How twee; how British!
Posted by: Martin Wright | May 25, 2007 at 23:28
Mark W - At least we all know what you want more than anything else, as you have said it often enough - houses, houses and more houses. You don't appear to care twopence about green fields, countryside or anything rural. Lets then just follow this through - you appear to want houses everywhere, maybe you fancy yourself as a property manager! (And maybe not). But also maybe you think that with so many more houses that it will be easier to get a mortgage, and maybe they might even come down - but I hope you don't really think that, because it just wouldn't happen! You might remember the new motorways and by-passes that HAD to be built as the only way to relieve congestion on the roads, and what happened, well you must experience it fairly often like the rest of us.
I also think you are playing semantics - 'building more housing .... does not mean of itself more people'. So are the houses to be empty? Perhaps you don't live in a rural area where there have been a lot of new housing estates springing up, and more going up all the time, and definitely not on browfield sites. You know perfectly well that developers avoid brownfield sites if they possibly can, because it is easier mostly to build on greenfield sites (therefore more profit, and that is developer's guiding principal, which is why there area always too few affordable houses built - the developer doesn't get enough profit for them).
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | May 26, 2007 at 00:45
TomTom - sorry but your use of term "small island" in regards to Great Britain is one of those errors that really irratates me; it is the eighth largest on earth so it can't be a small island.
Its a middling sized country, on a large island. Population density is highish at about 48th in the world but really not significantly different from Germany's.
We do need more houses - because of immigration, because of an aging population, because of marriage break ups and later marriages, increasing singletons etc. We need more roads, more rail, more power & water provision, better infrastructure. We need those even if we slammed the doors shut tomorrow.
and those houses need to be houses, with gardens, with space because it's in high density urban areas that crime, social breakdown is at its worst. That means some of the green fields will need to be built on - sorry Patsy but we need growth in villages, county towns not just more boxes in cities. Aspiration isn't just about grammar schools or not, it's about decent homes that children can thrive in.
Posted by: Ted | May 26, 2007 at 01:51
it is the eighth largest on earth so it can't be a small island.
If you applied logic to your statement Ted you would see how ludicrous what you posted above really is.
Relative size is no indicator of absolute size.
Moreover the laundry list you drew up will NOT be provided by any political party at any stage in the future.
If you knew anything about Germany you would not quote statistics as you do. The largest German city is considerably smaller in population than London but probably larger in area.
Germany does not have concentrations of corporate HQs and Government as Britain simply because it is policy to distribute it, to ensure every part of the country is resourced through fiscal transfers.
It is also the case that Western Germany is densely populated in the Ruhrpott...but that was the main industrial centre historically with the rest being in Saxony and Thuringia......post-1946 the relocation of industry to Bavaria changed population and transport links.
German Autobahns like the A555 were built as runways for fighter-jets.
Germany distributed its industry on the basis of a potential war with the USSR much as Britain did after 1935 with Shadow Factories like Rolls-Royce at Crewe.
Bonn, the former capital banned any industrial development in the surrounding areas.
Germany has high population density in certain key cities but not overall - Mecklenburg is empty as are most towns in the East. There is so much more space in Germany overall than in Britain.
The area of England with lowest transport spend in Yorkshire - look at the M62 corridor around Leeds and Manchester and see congestion as cars come in from North Yorkshire - Ripon, Knaresborough to Leeds service businesses
Posted by: TomTom | May 26, 2007 at 06:55
Aspiration isn't just about grammar schools or not, it's about decent homes that children can thrive in.
Posted by: Ted | May 26, 2007 at 01:51
No shortage of houses Ted...it's just they are a bit pricy at £500.000 + and noone has any interest in building cheaper ones, just investor-driven apartments.
Now there's a German innovation for you - all renters to register with the local authority so we know how many persons per m2 and if the landlord is exploiting them.
Maybe in London we could go back to wartime measures and sequestrate houses for housing families....all that space in North London and Sevenoaks....councils have the power to sequestrate empty homes already
Posted by: TomTom | May 26, 2007 at 06:59
I will be condemned as racist by those who haven't experienced "multi-cultural enrichment" at first hand but I couldn't care less anymore as I've now joined the exodus from my home town of Bradford never to return.
I sympathise....it is hard to recognise the 1970s city with Busby's and Brown Muffs and the shops on North Parade and Darley Street with what it has become, and the plethora of niqabs and chadoors - have you seen Coral College, the new Muslim school in the old Belle Vue or the halal shop in Thornton Engineering on Manningham Lane ?
The expansion is dramatic and most peoiple in the South simply classify Bradford as a Muslim city as if noone else lives there....so they have already written it off
Posted by: Bradford | May 26, 2007 at 07:09
Really ?
Posted by: Rob | May 26, 2007 at 07:14
Patsy, re new houses, I am sorted, personally I am not too fussed one way or another, I bought my "three-bedroom two-study" house (no HIPs please we're british) ages ago and have as good as paid off my mortgage.
I'm thinking about the under-35s who can barely afford a "rabbit hutch", even with a ridiculous mortgage (and I suppose to a lesser extent, what things will look like when kids grow up and want to settle down).
Ted, thanks!
Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | May 26, 2007 at 12:56
Mark I started a reply before your last post above, but it got erased as my visiting son-in-law took over the computer!
I wanted to say that I agree of course we need new houses, but at least two points arise from just that statement. One - the houses most needed are affordable houses, but somehow the developers have to be 'persuaded' to provide that type of houseing which doesn't bring in the sorts of profit that they like, and may well mean that they will cut even more corners in the build, then many of them already do possibly affecting safety! And two - wasn't there someone's law which said something like, when you build a road to relieve conjestion that road becomes more congested than the previous road, what I mean is that there will never be 'enough' housing to cater for everybody including immigrants, other aspects of life will have to change as well, less immigration if attainable, but at the same time perhaps more use of contraception across the world. Prince Phillip advocated that a very long time ago, and everybody (the liberal elite - the usual) derided him for that. A friend of mine had a Bangladeshi husband who worked for the UN on the subject of contraception and population limitation, and he died quite young, and I am sure that it didn't help, that apparently he had a really difficult job getting any country interested in trying to limit their population. This may not be as irrelevant as it sounds since all the people born need housing of some sort. Although the UK indigenous population is supposedly dropping, I am sceptical since there absolutely no shortage of youth around this area!
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | May 26, 2007 at 23:32
Hey Bradford,
Coral College is not a Muslim school. You are so biased and bigotted racist that you can't even read the sign on the school building which says non-denominational...
bye
jack
Posted by: jackbradford | July 18, 2009 at 23:24