Tuesday, October 31, 2006

The Stern Report

Coming from, and living in, a country where it rains all the time means that climate change is not a subject about which I can become enthused.
When the seas rise, the lower lying portions of the Clyde Valley might be left underwater.
Who is to say that this would be a bad thing?
Have you been to the lower lying portions of the Clyde Valley recently?
The whole 'climate change' industry is centred on its members' individualistic, secular conceit. The Earth will get warmer - so what? That's what it's always done. Then it will get cooler, just like it's always done.
To believe that human beings can stop the Earth from behaving the way it's always behaved is only proof of some mens' 'lack of humility in the face of nature'.
To believe that we can stop 'global warming' is as facile and stupid as believing that we can stop continental drift.
But yesterday's publication of the Stern Report has been the talk of the steamie, so to speak, once again thrusting this tedious chestnut, this zombie amongst issues of immediate political importance, to the fore.
Yup, you guessed it- we're all going to die. Global warming will wipe us out like mastodons unless we go back to mud huts and candlelight.
The arguments about its merits will keep raging for some time, while the sight of liberal metropolitan mega-consumers wrestling with their consciences and carbon footprints before buying Titus a new X-Box or gifting Jocasta a new MP3 player will provide a Tory hick like me with endless amusement.
Despite valiant efforts to screen out all coverage, some of it still go through - and the bits that did raised an interesting question.
One of the reasons that we must arrest climate change is that if we don't, Africa will be under water (see 'lower lying portions of the Clyde Valley', above).
But how in the name of Gaia and the Ewoks is Africa supposed to develop without burning hydrocarbons? There is no other way of doing it - ask the Chinese.
These days the success of 'development' does not seem to be based upon the increase in niceties like democracy, schools and flushing toilets but upon ownership of mobile phones and British businesses instead. If classical free trade based on comparative advantage were the model used for development, with Africa selling the West cocoa and the West selling Africa microchips, then that would be absolutely A-OK. Everybody wins; anyone still think I'm not a free-trader?
But the global labour arbitrage's nature is such that once Africans produce microchips themselves, or attract enough inward investment to make it worth the while of the Chinese to produce microchips there, then other microchip production will offshore to Africa in order to mitigate labour costs; and whilst we in the West will have cursed our possessions and dressed ourselves in sackcloth, Africa's hydrocarbon usage would just keep growing and growing.
And I very much doubt whether the 'WaBenzi' flagellate themselves with catalytic convertors over the size of their carbon footprints, nor feel any shame at helping keep their continent so poor that Europe's carbon footprint is increased through African migration.

Monday, October 30, 2006

Roach On Global Decoupling

The Chief Economist of Morgan Stanley delivers a dose of harsh reality to the economic mystics-
"All in all, the case for global decoupling is a weak one. The non-US world continues to be heavily dependent on exports as a major source of growth -- with the bulk of that dynamic overly reliant on end-market demand in the US. If, as I suspect, the US consumer now enters a sustained slowdown in a post-housing bubble climate, there will be unmistakable reverberations on US-centric export flows in many major regions of the world. Lacking in internal demand to fill the void left by a US-led shortfall in external demand, and with only limited policy options available to counteract such a development, America’s slowdown could quickly become a global slowdown. Meanwhile, Beijing’s increasingly determined efforts to cool off a runaway Chinese investment boom could transmit an equally powerful downshift through its pan-Asian supply chain and the world’s commodity complex.

Contrary to widespread belief, a US- and China-centric global economy hasn’t changed its stripes overnight. A failure to rebalance has left an unbalanced world highly vulnerable to a slowdown made in both America and China. To me, that means the risks to global growth remain skewed to the downside of consensus expectations, which are currently centered on the IMF’s latest forecast of 4.9% world GDP growth in 2007. Global decoupling could certainly prove me wrong, but I think such a possibility is wishful thinking."

Asylum Anarchy (Continued)

The Herald -

"More than 1000 asylum seeker families in Scotland are facing forced deportation, potentially involving dawn raids, the Home Office said yesterday.

The figure emerged during a visit to Scotland by Liam Byrne, the UK Immigration Minister, who was announcing the creation of two teams in Glasgow to speed up asylum applications.

He said there were 4500 adults and children in 1500 asylum seeker families in Scotland, two-thirds of whom had exhausted the appeals process, meaning they were now living in the UK illegally and could be deported.

He said the Home Office would "bend over backwards" to help them return voluntarily. But he said dawn raids would remain an option of last resort, citing figures from a scheme letting families present themselves for deportation. Of 140 people in 40 families who were involved in September, just one person turned up. "

Who is in charge of this mess?

Hat tip - Migration Watch

Fresh Talent, Old Problems

Despite evidence that it has resulted in the displacement of Scots and that Scotland does not suffer from a skills shortage, the Scottish Executive has hailed its 'Fresh Talent' coloni-immigration initiative as a success; resulting in Poles now preventing Scots from accessing local services.
Seeing as he thinks immigration's 'been of enormous benefit to Britain', maybe Magnus Linklater could help them out.
The Scots, that is.

'Typically Glib And Shallow'

Rames Ponnuru dishes out the sort of criticism of Niall Ferguson, the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University and sometime self-described 'fully paid up meber of the neo-imperialist gang' that all viewers of this blog just love seeing and reading.

Only Migrants Will Suffer from Increased Migration

(Note - I submitted the following article to a national newspaper last Thursday. Its editors have not replied; and although its themes will be familiar, by a stunning coincidence it was being validated the very same day. )
The Home Office’s announcement that 20,000 unskilled Romanians and Bulgarians will be permitted to work in the UK’s agriculture and food processing industries should be of little concern to British citizens worried about their jobs.
The workers most likely to suffer are those who have already come to the UK as migrants.
The government’s Accession Monitoring Report, covering the period May 2004- June 2006, noted that, during that time, 388,265 Eastern European migrants had registered for work in the UK. Of these 18,015 were employed as farm hands; 8,020 as crop harvesters; 3,580 as fruit pickers; 5,030 as food processing operatives in meat; and 6,295 as food processing operatives in fruit and vegetables; a subtotal from amongst these industries of 40,940 people.
Even taking the government’s appalling failure to keep accurate records into account, the extension of employment rights in those sectors to Romanians and Bulgarians is likely to hit these migrants hardest.
These workers are those who have already been hired in place of British citizens. They are the ones who have already helped drive down their industries’ wage rates by being willing to work for less than their efforts might otherwise earn.
Now, if the official statistics are to be believed, the pool from which their labour can be drawn will expand by up to 50% – although the exemption of the so-called ‘self-employed’ from restrictions may increase that figure any number of times.
Within a year the presence of more workers will have caused the wage rates in these industries to fall even further, reducing these migrants’ incomes and, in the very worst case, leading to tensions between migrant groups.
Effecting the displacement of British citizens from British industries doesn’t seem to have been enough for Tony Blair. The only rationale behind this decision seems to have been a desire to displace Poles as well.
To use one of his government’s favourite buzzwords, current migration policy is unsustainable. Immigration has been the Blair government’s Swiss Army Knife policy, a handy tool for all the difficult jobs.
Increasing it has distorted the labour market, dampening upward pressure on wages and adding a little lustre to Gordon Brown’s thin veneer of economic competence while keeping more of our money from our pockets.
It’s also assisted New Labour’s greater ideological goal of erasing the United Kingdom from the map – a policy now bearing fruit, as the proliferation of exotic languages spoken as first tongues by pupils in British schools attests.
However, the most recent unemployment figures show it rising at a time when more and more people are gaining work. The only explanation for this can be that migrants are being employed to do jobs that would otherwise be taken by people such as those long-term unemployed who might otherwise be returning to the market.
Yet at the same time inflation, driven by China’s insatiable demand for resources, is also inching up. The combination of rising inflation and rising unemployment occurring at the same time is called ‘stagflation’, a word to strike fear into the heart of any economist of a certain age.
If current trends continue, then we will not be prepared for the misery stagflation will bring. The failure of government to set an immigration policy that complements the needs of citizens, instead of contradicting them, will only compound the misery.
One does not blame migrants for wishing to come to the UK to work. Poland has had double-digit unemployment for nearly a decade, the consequence of piling post-Communist economic reforms on to an overly rigid, overly regulated labour market. It currently stands at over 15%, the highest in the EU. Under those circumstances it’s not hard to understand why so many Poles have used the Golden Ticket the British government gave them.
And having so many Poles working outside Poland must remove some of the pressure to effect meaningful reforms from the Polish government.
Yet the unfettered access given to Poles and other Eastern Europeans seems to have created the expectation amongst Romanians and Bulgarians that such unfettered access would always be the norm, that markets would never change; so while the Romanian minister for EU integration describes the Home Office’s decision as ‘a little bit strange’, she doesn’t realise that her citizens are going to be the beneficiaries of this expansion at the expense of the previous wave.
No government should ever implement a policy without asking itself ‘Cui bono?’ – who shall benefit? The unskilled British worker hasn’t benefited from the migration of 2004, so they’re unlikely to benefit from further expansion. Neither will the British tradesmen whose hourly rates have been scythed. The only beneficiaries of this kind of migration are the migrants themselves.
But even given the Alice in Wonderland character of British immigration policy, it is an absolutely astonishing irony that the worst affected of all will be migrants.

The Great British Research & Development Fallacy

Ho hum.
This morning, 'The Times' reports that,
"BRITAIN has fallen back in the global race to raise rates of research and development investment, according to official figures published today.

A study by the Department of Trade and Industry shows that the level of research and development (R&D) spending as a proportion of sales has consistently declined in Britain over the past four years, casting doubt on the effectiveness of tax incentives. "
The DTI could have saved the British taxpayer a fortune by asking me the same question.
Earlier this month, 'Personnel Today' reported that,
"Figures show that more than a million manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1997 and the decline is so serious that if the current rate continues all British jobs in the sector will be gone by 2029.

Despite the decline, economists argue that the sector is still vital to the economy with statistics from Barclays bank highlighting a combined turnover of more than £500bn.

Furthermore, 14.5% of the economy is based on manufacturing and 12% of working people are employed in the sector. Yet the haemorrhaging of jobs continues."
The 'haemorrhaging of jobs' is just the global labour arbitrage at work.
As Paul Craig Roberts has pointed out,
"When manufacturing moves abroad, engineering follows. R&D follows engineering, and innovation follows R&D. The entire economy drains away.”
It should surprise nobody that an economy which discards its manufacturing so viciously should neither research nor develop.
In other news, the global labour arbitrage's controllers and beneficiaries can't buy a house in Kensington & Chelsea for neither love nor, it seems, money.
So Yuri and Natasha might just have to go flat-hunting in Manhattan instead.
Shame.

It's A Strange Day When 'The Guardian' Makes More Sense Than 'The Times'...

but Gary Younge's commentary on the midterms slamdunks Anatole Kaletsky's economic analysis on to the mat.
Kaletsky writes,
"The conventional wisdom a few years ago about the terrible dangers posed to the world economy by America’s “twin deficits” has turned out to be quite wrong and a do-nothing approach to fiscal policy, allowing US budget deficits and public debt levels to stabilise at around their present levels, looks about right for the next few years."
James Hamilton doesn't seem to think the 'twin deficits' don't matter.

In The Interests Of Balance...

This is hugely important. I have scanned the archives from that date, and don't seem to have linked to it. There but for the grace of God...
Those of us bloggers who are concerned about militant Islam and the behaviour of militant Muslims have, like all good reporters, duties to ensure we report facts and convey informed opinions - journalistic principles which 'The Sun's' proprietor might sometimes care to bear in mind.
What 'The Sun' did was inexcusable. Will Keith answer the Muslim criticism he deserves for this cock-up in person? Not likely.

The New British People Have Already Been Elected (Or Rather, Employed)

One of the many great services and innumerable small ones that Peter Brimelow has performed for immigration restrictionists has been to keep repeating Bertolt Brecht's acid comment on the East German uprising of 1953-
"The Solution
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?"
Whilst Brecht's observation is certainly on the way to being true in relation to mass immigration, in the United Kingdom it has now become true in respect of workforce demography.
Yesterday, Minette Marrin published a commentary in the Sunday Times entitled, 'Dave’s playing poker with the Tory soul'. David Cameron is not a conservative in any meaningful sense. The Conservative Party has never really been a 'conservative' party, not in the sense in which I understand the word.
However, Marrin reminds one of a gruesome statistic -
"Of course it’s obvious why Conservatives avoid the C-word. They won’t get into office if they use it. It drives most voters into instant hysteria, especially public servants. And cunningly this government has created a huge constituency of public servants out there — 800,000 new jobs since 1997, with one in four people now working for the state — who have an understandable inclination to vote Labour. All that the Conservative party feels it can do about this in practice is to sound as new Labour as possible while hoping that traditional conservatives will not lose faith."
800,000 public sector jobs, and one of four working for the state, in less than ten years sounds pretty much like a new people to me.

We Don't Need No Solzhenitsyn

The last sentence struck me as particularly powerful -
"...if we release ourselves from any responsibility for the actions of our national kin, the very concept of a people loses any real meaning."
Multiculturalism, cultural dry rot focussing on the national kin's negative behaviour, achieves the same result in reverse.
Only societies intent on destroying themselves from the inside out could produce philosophies which say everything that has happened within them has been bad.
And in which already rich men could make more money by demeaning education.
I mean, would you ever catch a Russian writing this sort of guff?

'British to evacuate consulate in Basra after mortar attacks'

Spanking The Beatroot

The Anglo-Irish blogger 'The Beatroot', an expat in Warsaw, now has access to some views on Polish migration which they may not have had before.

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Privatisation Didn't Create A Shareholder Society After All...

according to the 'Sunday Telegraph'.
"The philosophy of privatisation is an unusual one – the business having been stolen from its original owners through nationalisation, does the state then have the right to sell it on to others, decades afterwards? The economic rationale is sound – a business will always have more opportunities to acquire capital in private hands than in public – it’s the moral one that’s a bit shaky."
As conducted by the Conservatives, privatisation was to nationalisation what handling stolen goods is to theft. Indeed it seems that the only thing that mattered at the time was raising money, with the state willing to sell to whoever would give it the most cash - the public were only invited in on the act when it came to British Gas, which at £4.5 billion was too big a pill for the institutions to swallow on their own.
The disposals prior to British Gas were not 'privatisations' in any meaningful sense, but public to private wealth transfers. The only difference between these first transfers and the Russian privatisations of the early '90's seems to have been that - we were doing it.
Nationalised companies which the Conservative government sold directly to institutional investors ultimately belonged to other people. Somebody lost a property right upon nationalisation. A very much equitable, and honest, way of behaving would have been for the government to have trawled through their last shareholders' registers and tried to track down the rightful owners or their heirs, with a view to giving them first refusal.
They didn't do that, instead using the power of the state to continue depriving people of their property as surely as the Labour Party had in order to effect the original nationalisations. Labour freaks are control freaks - Tory freaks are money freaks.
Oliver Letwin, whose area of expertise at N.M. Rothschild was privatisation (.pdf), was once also the director of Margaret Thatcher's Policy Unit.
I wonder if Letwin ever advised on any Russian privatisations.

Wny Econbrowser Is The Best Of The Economics Blogs

Its authors deal in numbers.
On the other hand, the authors of Cafe Hayek, Marginal Revolution and Econlog deal largely in theory.
In my book that distinction makes James Hamilton and Menzie Chinn scientists, while making Don Boudreaux, Tyler Cowen and Bryan Caplan largely mystics.

Putin's David Kelly Moment

In an excellent piece which manages to slap down both Russian nationalism and globalist Russophobia, Mark Ames writes,

"Leaving aside for now the issue of whether or not Putin was "right" in minimizing Politkovskaya's importance in Russia -- technically he was largely "correct" -- what mattered was what his nasty reaction revealed about his character. Any skilled politician would have swallowed his petty grudges and embraced her corpse, squeezing out of it as much political capital as possible. This isn't rocket science stuff -- it's just cynical politicking 101, and it's the right thing to do. Why did Putin's normally adept bloodless skills fail him on this occasion? I think for the same reason that Bush fled from the battle scene on 9/11, snagglepussing at Mach-3 to a snakehole in Nebraska until the coast was long clear, rather than flying straight from Florida to DC and looking the part of the fearless hero. He couldn't help himself. Big, unexpected events reveal the smallness in our leaders."

Absolutely correct. Blair had such a moment upon the death of David Kelly.

Saturday, October 28, 2006

A Well Known Aphorism Relating To Rats And Sinking Ships...

springs to mind when reading Con Coughlin's trash job on the neocons in today's 'Daily Telegraph'.
Two thoughts spring to mind.
Firstly, can Coughlin's comment that many of the neos 'have close associations with the hard Right in Israel' be taken to mean that the 'Clean Break' scenario is true?
And secondly, his comment that "Echoing Oliver Cromwell, Bremer declared "I am the government of Iraq," at an early meeting of Iraq's Governing Council, and later bemoaned the fact that many of those present failed to turn up for subsequent meetings" does rather mirror my own observation that, "Oliver Cromwell, Thomas Fairfax and the rest of them were neoconservatives as surely as Michael Ledeen and Paul Wolfowitz."
Except mine was made two years ago.

Not In The Script

The BBC seems to have gone into the business of importing asylum-seekers, no matter how reluctant they might be.

Justice For Louise Campbell

Although my views on the iniquities of the Scottish Legal Aid system are a matter of record, the refusal of assistance to Louise Campbell in the Scottish leg of her battle against the Christophobic, Scotophobic jihadist Sahjad Ahmed Rana seems perverse, bordering on the bizarre.
In my days on family law's front lines of family law, applications concerning a child's custody/access/residence/contact status seemed to have priority; and the child's domicile is, after all, Scotland.

Nestle Prepared Foods Division Contractor 705...

Friday, October 27, 2006

Britannia No More

It should come as no surprise that criminal gangs are targetting Glasgow's call centres for the purposes of committing fraud.
The city possesses one call centre for just under one out of every 2,000 of its population.
Beat that if you can, Bangalore!
Call centres can only operate successfully amongst populations with disproportionately high numbers of flexible workers - otherwise known as 'poor people'.
Richard Henry Dana only spent two years before the mast; once you're in the call centres, you're there for life.
This disproportionate emphasis on one type of local economic activity is not accidental. All the stuff about Scottish voices being 'helpful for seeking a job' is a load of tripe. They proliferated in Glasgow because the British city hit hardest by the country's deindustrialisation provided them with the only fuels they needed; barrel-loads and barrel-loads of poor people looking for a break, and local politicians desperate to use any artifice at their disposal to paint their patch as not suffering from high concealed unemployment.
No matter what Scottish Enterprise thinks, once the shareholders believe that best value will be delivered by using Indian call-centres the global labour arbitrage will swing into operation and companies that today receive grants to create jobs in Glasgow will send them away instead - another harsh lesson from the market for the Weegies, as if we needed it.
There is an almost astonishing irony in this news becoming public the day after the National Institute for Economic and Social Research published a study on the effects of immigration and the Office for National Statistics published the 2006 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (.pdf); for these pieces of information taken together prove quite conclusively that the United Kingdom's days as a leading economy are over.
Britannia as we know it, or knew it, is no more.
We're through.
Reporting of the NISRE study, which for the life of me I can't find on their website, has tested Peter's maxim to destruction.
If all you read was Craig Stirling's Bloomberg report, you'd think we'd all be pulling money out of our ears -
"Britain's economy received a ``substantial'' boost from immigrants since 2003, the National Institute for Economic and Social Research said.

Migrant workers accounted for 0.9 of a percentage point of the 5.3 percent growth in gross domestic product in 2004 and 2005, according to the institute, whose clients include the U.K. Treasury and the Bank of England.

``The overall impact of immigration on gross domestic product growth is substantial,'' Rebecca Riley, a researcher, and Martin Weale, the institute's director, wrote in a paper published in London today. ``Since adult immigrants do not draw on public spending as children, they are likely to make a net life-time contribution to the exchequer and thus contribute to the welfare of the rest of the population.'' ...

The figures add to a debate about whether Prime Minister Tony Blair's government should maintain the pace of immigration into the U.K., now at its highest rate since the 1960s. While migrants helped keep a lid on wages and inflation, voters are concerned the added population is a strain on police and schools. '
But there was a cloud to the silver lining -
"As many as 600,000 Eastern Europeans have come to the U.K. since 10 nations including Poland and Hungary joined the European Union in 2004, the U.K. government estimates. Since then, the workforce swelled to a record 29 million, pushing up unemployment to a six-year high of 5.5 percent. "
Hmm..
There was a breathless hush in the close from the BBC, while The Times' Gatling seem to be jammed.
All that The Daily Telegraph could do was parrot Bloomberg's headline that,
"The economy received a "substantial" boost from immigrants since 2003, the National Institute for Economic and Social Research said as the government imposed new limits on immigration."
UK Immigration News was largely beside itself with joy -
"Migrant workers have added £36.7 billion - or 3% - to the United Kingdom's wealth since Labour came to power in 1997, independent research published on Thursday, 26 October shows. Almost one-third of that was generated since the accession of 10 nations to form the EU-25 in May 2004.

However, the report, from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said the benefits had not been shared equally, and had probably contributed to a rise in unemployment among unskilled young people."
Hmm...
"The NIESR noted a large shift in migration inflows since the EU was enlarged in 2004. It found workers have been younger than previous immigrants and were also more likely to work in low-skilled jobs, with 60% in this category compared with 20% of the rest of the population. As a result, their wages were much lower than indigenous workers. Migrants taking professional and managerial jobs, however, earned substantially more than their counterparts born in Britain.

Martin Weale, co-author of the study, said: "The economy had probably adjusted to immigration of the type which began in 1998 but the recent inflow from central and eastern Europe can be seen as an economic shock."

He said many new migrants were likely to be in low-skilled jobs affected by minimum wage regulations. This meant that their earnings were less likely to be dampened, in turn leading to a small rise in unemployment - estimated at 0.2-0.3 percentage points - unless they took jobs that would otherwise have been unfilled."
The Independent reported that,
"Migrant workers have added £36.7bn - or 3 per cent - to the UK's wealth since Labour came to power in 1997, independent research published yesterday shows - and almost a third of that was generated since the accession of 10 nations to the EU in May 2004.

However, the report, from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said the benefits had not been shared equally, and had probably contributed to a rise in unemployment among unskilled young people."
Ah yes, unskilled young people. It also reported that,
"It said the Exchequer was benefiting, as many of the new workers had been educated abroad and contributed to tax revenues rather than receiving benefits. The report said this effect was strengthened if the migrants did not stay into old age.
However, it said the influx of workers had probably pushed up unemployment by 0.3 percentage points - or roughly a third of the overall increase over that period."
It was left to The Daily Mail to rally the troops -
"Tens of thousands of Britons have been forced out of work because of the arrival of a wave of migrant workers from Eastern Europe, experts warn.

Authoritative new research suggests almost 100,000 people have become unemployed as a result - though even that may be a significant underestimate.

The findings from the respected National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) are a serious blow to the Government, which has repeatedly insisted there is no link between unemployment and immigration...
The new research concludes that between 60,000 and 90,000 of the rise in joblessness since 2004 can be directly attributed to competition for jobs from foreigners.

That is likely to be a significant under-estimate, because NIESR said its calculations were based on official Government figures that understate the number of foreigners in Britain.

Unemployment in Britain is now rising faster than in any other major European country. Official figures show nearly 1.7million are jobless.
There has been an increase of 242,000 over the last year, the biggest annual rise for more than a decade. It coincides with Britain's decision to open its doors to a wave of workers from new EU members...
Ministers hopelessly underestimated the scale of the influx by predicting just 13,000 would arrive. The real figure so far is close to 700,000....
Martin Weale, the organisation’s director, estimates that economic output is receiving a £39 billion annual boost because of the presence of workers who arrived in Britain since 1997.

But much of the income generated in the UK may be ending up in the pockets of families abroad, as many workers repatriate their wages. Wage growth is being held down because more people are looking for jobs, meaning employers do not have to be so generous to their recruits.

That is good news for borrowers because it allows interest rates to be kept relatively low.
But on the other hand, "wage earners may feel that migration makes them worse off" because their salaries appear to be static, the report said.

Because many of the migrants are in their 20s and 30s, they will are probably making a positive contribution to tax revenue, Niesr said.

Extraordinarily, it calculates that over ten per cent of all 25-34 year olds in Britain arrived in the country since 1998.

Any benefit could be undermined if the migrants remain in the country into their old age, when they are likely to become a drain on the state. "
What has happened here is a classic example of news organisations not telling the truth about the consequences of mass immigration - if they can be bothered reporting it at all.
The sad thing is that the readers of this blog, and of others like VDare, iSteve, Mangans, Dispatches from the Hogtown Front and UK Commentators don't need such studies to tell us what we know already.
In April this year I described the phenomenon of native unemployment and migration induced employment rising at the same time as 'The Smith Effect', after David Smith, who reported its existence nearly a year ago. That this should be happening is not news and should shock no one.
Even The Guardian used to report such stories.
It is also an empirically observable fact that mass immigration results in the displacement of low skilled young people. Again, there is no satisfaction to be gained from saying that reports of such phemonena occurring here are not news, only anger that displacement of its own citizens seems to have been government policy.
Even the displacements of the future are now easy to predict. The next one will involve not Romanians displacing Brits but Romanians displacing Poles. Wait and see.
As for the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings...
Remember that mass immigration has given our economy a boost of £36.7 billion. OK?
In April 2006 the average hourly pay rate for a male in full time employment, from the humblest street sweeper all the way up to the denizens of the City of London's boardrooms, was £11.71. In April 2005 it was £11.29.
Some economy. Some boost.
The Daily Mail put the best spin on the figures -
"The "ridiculous" expanding pay gap between City workers and the rest of the country was laid bare today, official figures revealed.

City workers got record pay rises of up to 21 per cent last year, while the rest of the country got next to nothing.

The startling figures are a reminder of the dramatic divide between the City of London and the rest of the country's 29 million workers."
And when faced with this gross division between rich and poor, Harriet Harman, a daughter of the aristocracy and loyal member of the government who's done more to impoverish poor people than any before it through 'Smith Effect' mass immigration, had the brass neck to say,
"I do take the view that we are in the Labour Party because we don't like to see some people struggling while others are hugely rich."
They struggle now where they didn't struggle before, thanks to her government's anti-British immigration policies.
The American consumer's ability to withdraw equity from their home to spend on flat screen TV's is what keeps the so-called 'global economy' ticking over. Let's hope, and pray, that the bad news is short-term, that James Hamilton is right when he sees signs of the US housing market stabilising and that we're heading for a soft landing.
Because the signs do not look good when the good fixed rate mortgage deals are being scrapped (three and a half years to go...let it all be over by then...)
One good slowdown is all it would take for the wheels to come off the globalist wagon. One stray Chinese missile fired over Taiwanese territory or one stray American patrol in Iran could kick it off.
The key to any kind of fitness, physical or otherwise, is how quickly the host recovers. The extremely difficult question facing the United Kingdom is not how quickly it would recover, but what it would recover with.
Call centres? Don't make me laugh.
Mass immigration?

A bloated welfare state?

Hedge funds?

No, folks, I'd be delighted to say otherwise but I hope you've got a proportion of your holdings in gold.

As for me...well, we have dressed in our best, and are prepared to go down like gentlemen...

Weirdest Criminal Of The Day

Anit-Muslim Backlashes Which Never Happened

Laban Tall has a useful round-up. Some of them weren't even 'anti-Muslim backlashes'.

India's Dangerous Liberalisation Continues...

After this, they'll be wanting to watch something they want on TV next.

Jail Rosie Kane

Rosie Kane jailed.

Bunkers Imagined And Real

Dennis Dale's brilliantly funny narration of life in the Bush Bunker makes an excellent companion piece for Oliver Kamm's 'In defence of the Iraq War'.
Kamm's piece is riddled with intellectual conceit (his comment that "Norman (Geras)’s position is coherent, but predictably his reflections have elicited condescending dismissal from some writers who are – I use a euphemism here – not his intellectual equals" is a classic deployment of the ragged leftist tactic best described as 'trashing your enemies' smarts', long ago exposed by Steve Sailer), self-justification ('In fact many who supported the war have been saying this for a long time'), arrogance ('I wish the intervention had been handled with a seriousness that it lacked, and I am outraged at the unwillingness on the part of the Bush administration to acknowledge its failures'), sophistry ('...my point is that proportionality does not precede the issue of the justice of war aims. Our judgement of proportionality depends on an estimate of the justice of a cause and the costs of not taking military action') and statements of the blindingly obvious ('The war against Nazism was a case sui generis, for Nazism was barbarism without limit and there can be no serious debate about the consequences had we failed to defeat it' - a case I made rather more clearly and directly in The Last Conservative Value).
He attempts to perform The Mother Of All Bait & Switches, writing, "The bloodshed in Iraq reflects the absence of a functioning state. That is a terrible indictment of Coalition strategy. But it is also a challenge to those who opposed our intervention, or – as in Norman’s case - retrospectively withhold their support for it. Regime change in Iraq without Western intervention would have ensured the burgeoning of forces of theocratic barbarism and no countervailing authority."
This is a very roundabout, not very clever variation on Andrew Sullivan's theme of 'we are where we are'. Although those Brits who support insurgents fighting against British troops should be considered guilty of treason, those who opposed the intervention from the outset have absolutely no obligation to defend its consequences.
For Kamm to suggest undesirable outcomes would have occurred had there been no Western intervention when precisely those same outcomes have occurred because of Western intervention is absurd.
And it might be the new meds working on my no doubt pitifully low IQ, but has Kamm just described the natural state of Iraqi society as 'theocratic barbarism'? Is the universal rule of thumb that culture trumps ideology every time finally dawning on him?
He takes a pop at the realist school of thought -
"Some of the most prominent critics of the war, such as Brent Scowcroft, come from the realist school of foreign policy. They would argue that a strong state, even a grossly oppressive one such as Baathist Iraq, would be preferable to an anarchic non-state. The intervention in Afghanistan would be supported on this view, because it replaced a weak state with at least the prospect of a stronger and constitutional order. But in Iraq we have created a situation in which no one has a monopoly of the means of violence. This is a severely destabilising influence on the region, and has given an opening to our direct enemies, Islamist fanatics of the type that planned and executed the attacks of 9/11. "
The thought that Arab Muslim nutters who want to kill Americans now need only traverse Iraq's borders instead of having to queue up for visas and get patted down in Newark by their cousin Ibrahim (Green Card, Failed) doesn't appear to have occurred to him.
The intervention has made it easier, not harder, for Muslims to kill Americans and Brits than it was before.
He then commits the grossest of bloopers, a stinkeroonie for the ages -
"This is an influential argument, and a superficially plausible one in that everyone can see that Iraq is now on the verge of civil war. It is not a position shared by Norman Geras, and for good reason. The reason that Norman would certainly cite is the scarcely imaginable human cost of treating a gangster regime such as Saddam’s as a state actor comparable to other states. Notoriously and disastrously, the Reagan administration aided Iraq in the 1980s on this premise as a counterweight to Iran. But there is another reason, which is that a declared policy of realism often has scant grasp of political reality. One point the much-reviled neoconservatives have correctly identified is the association of Islamist terrorism with the perpetuation of autocratic states in the Middle East. Denied an outlet in politics, dissent emerges in the only part of society open to it: religious fanaticism. Opposing autocratic states – allowing that some are more malign and pose greater risks than others, but opposing them nonetheless – is essential to our security."
Iraq is not 'on the verge of civil war'; it has been engaged in sectarian civil war for some time, an entirely predictable outcome of permitting Sharia law as a source for the constitution.
We deal with gangster states all the time. My American friends share their southern border with one. Provided they leave us alone, most civilised folks will quite happily feel dreadful about what goes on in them while righteously failing to involve themselves in what they correctly see as other peoples' business.
Failure to observe that convention used to be called 'imperialism'.
The reason that Reagan assisted the Iraqis was that they were the ones with oil who hadn't taken American citizens hostage and whose leaders weren't calling their people out on the streets shouting 'Death to the Great Satan!'.
Ideologues like Kamm sometimes forget that history is dynamic, not static, and that absolutely none of us live in an ideal world. If it had been the Saddamians who'd taken the hostages, things might have been different. If George H. W. Bush hadn't ordered Norman Schwarzkopf not to keep on rollin' on to Baghdad, things might have been different.
But Kamm is such an ideologue that his desire to believe, to walk on the true path, makes him forget his Darwin. More often than not, human beings will act in their own interests at all times and under all circumstances. Leaders must make those decisions they feel to be in their nation's best interests - and to criticise Reagan for supporting the Iraqis while failing to criticise his administration for describing the Afghan mujahideen, who were to Al Qa' eda what the Confederate States Army was to the Ku Klux Klan, as 'freedom fighters' makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
That was a real mistake - however, it was also a necessary one given Reagan's greater political goal of destroying the Soviet Union. At that point in time and space, with 40? 50? 60? Soviet tank divisions parked on NATO's lawn, Ronald Reagan must have thanked Allah every day for the chance to make the Hole In The Wall Gang's lives more difficult.
Realism worked elsewhere. Has Kamm ever heard of the Contras? Or did he spend the '80's wandering around in a red beret pretending to be Augusto Cesar Sandino?
Associating Muslim terrorism with autocratic Middle Eastern regimes is not a particularly neoconservative revelation, but one more likely to be reached through the operation of one's eyes, ears and insights. Opposing autocratic states is essential to our security - but there is a perfectly realist way of bringing the buggers down without going full tilt through the door.
Where are the Saudi contras? Sorry, Al 'Qa' eda are the Saudi contras?
Hmm...might not be a good idea to let Saudis immigrate...
Any muscular Saudi secularists out there? Hello? Hello?
Up for for being imprisoned, whipped and beheaded in the cause of liberty? Want to be your country's George Washington?
Good man! Here's 10 million dollars and the goodwill of the American people! Over to you!
And don't forget who your pals are when you've got your hand on the spigot!
Such a strategy would seem to address the problem of terrorism both within and without while rigidly adhering to realist, and therefore realistic, principles.
They' ll throw flowers in our path...what were we thinking...
Then, unbelievably, Kamm goes from bad to worse. Much worse.
He writes,
"The system of containment and inspections could not cope with a despot of Saddam Hussein's turpitude and duplicity. If Saddam had remained in power, our knowledge of and influence over his regime would have been nugatory. The regime would in all probability have endured, first because of its unspeakable brutality – in the aftermath of the first Gulf War the Kurdish and Shiite rebellions were snuffed out with the loss of some 50,000 lives in the single month of March 1991 – and secondly because of the dynastic succession of Saddam’s monstrous sons. We cannot make a reliable judgement on the consequences of allowing a state like this to persist in its internal repression, external aggression and flouting of UN requirements. But there is one thing we can say with certainty. In the last few weeks we have gained an insight into the probable future military capabilities of North Korea and Iran. The fact that we no longer have to worry about the military capabilities of Saddam Hussein and his family – not just now but maybe thirty years into the future – is a gain that may be greater than any of us can now conceive of. For that reason, among others, I insist that regime change in Iraq was right and immensely important. "
That Saddam was bad is not in dispute - he was, after all, 'our son of a bitch'. But to invade and destroy a country on the basis of what the people who might be ruling it in 30 years' time might be capable of?
Come on, Oliver!
It's at this point we cut to the bunker scene -
"In the last fortnight or so I have received quite a large number of invitations to appear on radio and television to argue the case for the Iraq War. I realise this is no reflection on my cogency; the programmes’ researchers state frankly that they have severe difficulty finding anyone willing to represent the pro-war view. I have appeared on some of these programmes debating, respectively, allegedly progressive and also High Tory opponents of the Government’s foreign policies. One thing on which my fellow interviewees and I, and everyone reading this, will be able to agree is that if the defence in the broadcast media of Tony Blair’s foreign policies is left to me, then Tony Blair is in trouble. I appeal to anyone reading this who may have influence in government circles to take this issue seriously. The case needs to be made. If we lose the argument at home, we shall fail to sustain our obligations in Iraq. "
Coincidences are wonderful things.
By chance, I discovered this morning that Kamm is the nephew of Martin Bell, formerly a BBC journalist and one-term Independent MP for Tatton. Bell's successor in the seat is none other than George Osborne, now the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer and an enthusiastic supporter of the intervention.
Perhas Kamm should call on Osborne to ride to his rescue.
He seems to need all the help he can get.

Finding Yourself Proved Right (Sort Of)

"An increase in the number of imprisoned foreigners is a direct consequence of increasing the number of imported foreigners."
The blogger, April 26 2006.
"Britain's biggest prison is housing criminals from 73 different countries, inspectors revealed last night.

It lays bare the scale of the foreign prisoner crisis facing John Reid."
The UK does not have a 'foreign prisoner crisis'. It has a Foreign Criminal Crisis.
Which is itself nothing but an extension of the wider foreigner crisis.

Janitors

When I was a child, the janitor at my father's school owned a former police dog, an Alsatian named 'King'.
As my father would tell the tale, King was extremely effective but slightly demented, growling at the janitor whenever he went towards his wife.
But not even King would have stood a chance against this guy.

Irony Of The Day

The lawyer who prosecuted Michael Barclay for illegally buying prohibited bird specimens is named Andrew Bird.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Children Of Satan III

If Lyndon LaRouche labelled Dick Cheney and Tony Blair 'Children Of Satan II: The Beast-Men', then I suppose the members of The Henry Jackson Society should be delighted to be mentioned in the same breath.
The Boast Men, perhaps?
Hat tip - Tim Worstall.

Apologising To Romanians

'Aelianus', one of the posters at 'Laodicea', has felt it necessary to apologise to Romanians and Bulgarians for the British government's (official) refusal to allow them unrestricted access to the British labour market.
Some parts of their analysis are a little overheated - I mean, would we really have lost the Battle of Britain without Polish airmen? Really? Would we? - but they spontaneously combust when they write,
"There is a poetic justice to the idea of Britain being repopulated by the grandchildren of those people whose countries we either exploited for colonial purposes or abandoned to the Soviets in 1945."
The names of those British losses incurred before anyone was 'abandoned to the Soviets' (an act of 'abandonment' for which none still alive bear responsibility), can be found marked on war memorials in every village, town and city up and down the land. There is little 'poetic' about these monuments - personally, they only invoke profound sadness for lives lost in their prime.
Those who cite Yalta in support of mass immigration might care to reflect upon the horrible losses incurred amongst people who knew little of Poland but who committed themselves to total war for no reason other than that it was their ally.
Eastern Europe's Communist era was characterised by Poles subjugating Poles, Czechs subjugating Czechs and Romanians subjugating Romanians.
And Aelianus might also care to reflect upon the fact that the whines and whinging of unassimilated professional Romanians with media access, like Cristina Irimie, do their cause no good.

James Hamilton On The Scarcity Rent Payable For Resources

Waltzing Mahditilda













Would it be culturally inappropriate to suggest that the fiery and outraged Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali, 'Australia's most senior Muslim cleric', should adorn his headgear with corks?

Challenge Of The Day

Here We Are, Born To Be Kings

Scottish Independentist MSP Jim Mather has taken part in a photoshoot at Glenfinnan, the home of Conor Macleod of the Clan Macleod.
How come there's never a Kurgan about when you want one?

Anatole Kaletsky On Eastern European Unemployment

Anatole Kaletsky has taken a break from suggesting that Londoners should just clear off to make way for foreign bankers to walk the thin Worstallian line between abhorring the euro and favouring immigration.
"The political consequence of this asymmetry of power is growing disillusionment in the East, not only with the EU but even with the concept of parliamentary democracy. The economic effect of forcing Central Europe to abide by deflationary policies designed for the mature economies of the eurozone is the weak demand growth and mass unemployment experienced by the accession countries. This unemployment has been the main driving force behind the huge flow of labour out of Central Europe. And that flood of workers, in turn, has provoked the hostile and ultimately self-defeating rhetoric of the British Government against Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants. "
As far as Poland is concerned that statement is wrong.
This chart shows that Poland's unemployment rate was 16.1 % in 2000; 18.2 % in 2001; 19.9% in 2002; 19.6% in 2003; 19% in 2004; and 17.7% in 2005.
This graph shows the almost vertical rise and subsequent precipitous fall in the Polish unemployment rate during the 1990's; if anything, the recent small falls have not made much dent in an unemployment rate which borders on the chronic.
Whilst it might be true that some unemployment in Poland has been caused by economic interference from Brussels, I would set more store in the IMF Executive Board's report on Poland from earlier this month, which states that,
"(The Directors) underscored that Poland's still-low employment rate points to the need to make labor markets more flexible, especially by lowering the tax wedge and strengthening incentives to work."
The reductions in Poland's unemployment rate could be a function of its flat tax at work - on other hand it might be a consequence of labour reforms.
In 2001, the condition of Poland's labour market was analysed by Central European Review -
"The minority Solidarity Electoral Action (AWS) government announced it would tackle the problem by loosening a rigid labour code and cutting costs for employers...

The offensive will have to include the restructuring of labour laws that impede job creation, such as high payroll expenditure costs, generous sick leave and three months' severance pay for most workers. Employers are also tied by high mandatory social security payments and 35 fully paid sick days per year for every employee. Analysts say that in order to boost economic growth and employment levels Poland must also reduce its minimum wage, re-train laid-off workers, improve education standards and lower taxes for job creators. "
It is noted without irony that CER commenced its analysis with the following words -
"Prime Minister Jerzy Buzek may have to take back his promises that the EU will not be facing an onslaught of Poles flooding its labour market."
Although Poland might be trying put its house in order, it's debatable whether it tried hard enough before it was admitted to the EU - the vote upon which was held in 2003.
The combination of long term economic incompetence and unwillingness to reform at home with open borders abroad was much more likely to have led to the Great Polish Migration, rather than the interference of the Eurocracy. Brussels may have made Poland slightly sicker - but it was pretty sick to begin with.
And its governments will be able to do little to improve 'incentives to work' for as long as Britain's doors are open.

If The Lawyers Take The Lot...

then the clients have nobody to blame but themselves.

Refugees Who Don't Get It

















From the BBC's photojournal', 'Voices of London refugees':
"Ilona arrived in London aged six. The only English words she knew were "apple" and "dog". She began playing for boys' football team Roma United and was soon spotted by a Leyton Orient Ladies scout. Her ambition is to compete - for either Poland or England - in the London Olympics. "
Either Poland or England? From whom was she seeking refuge, if not fellow Poles? The people who keep our country functioning?
"My sense of belongingness to Ethiopia has developed inside me since my childhood. I am also grateful for the hospitality of Britain and she is my other Ethiopia in my heart. There is no conflict of interest between these two countries of mine."
'My other Ethiopia'? Where are our famines? Our wars? Drivel.
"My identity is a mix of being Kurdish, British and very much Londoner. Kurdistan is the love of my life and I appreciate the fact the UK is a democratic atmosphere where you can maintain your ethnicity in a wider society."
And not have to assimilate yourself.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Scotland, India And The Radio

For once I agree with an observation of Tyler Cowen's.
"Radio, which spread in the 1920s, told people what was going on and cemented national consciousness."
"When the peoples of the UK didn't have to speak to each other, the whole damn thing actually worked; and it would be a very interesting study indeed that proposed to study a link between the rise in popular Scottish nationalism and the rise of broadcasting..."
With rare and honourable exceptions, people can only stand listening to others who don't sound like them for relatively short periods before their nerves really start to grate; a fact which should be borne in mind by anyone who thinks that a country capable of producing such a diverse range of cultural activities as Morris Dancing, Am Mòd Nàiseanta Rìoghail, Eisteddfod Genedlaethol Cymru and The Twelfth of July needs more diversity...

A Regional Selective Assistance Award - For Which Region?

The BBC reports that,
"A Dundee wire and cable manufacturer and a recruitment company operating in Glasgow have each been awarded £250,000 to help them create more than 60 jobs.

The cash funding to iCs2 and Hudson Global Resources has come from a Scottish Executive project aimed at guarding jobs and boosting business.

The latest round of Regional Selective Assistance awards will see investment of about £30m, ministers said. "
The 'Hudson Global Resources' referred to couldn't be the same 'Hudson' that sponsored the Commission For Racial Equality (Scotland)'s 'Broadening Our Horizons (.pdf)' conference of June 22 2005?
The international recruitment consultancy?
Could it?
Now, why would an international recruitment consultancy be receiving £250, 000 of taxpayer funds to create 60 jobs just months before the EU's due to be expanded?
Hudson's philosophy of recruitment is narrated on their website -
" Getting the best from talented people begins with a well-crafted recruiting strategy to attract individuals with the capacity for success. It also takes reliable, accurate assessment and methodologies. And it requires effective solutions to engage, develop and retain people, under-scored by a commitment to building a diverse and inclusive workforce."
And all with money provided by taxpayers.
Hopefully the funds will be used to create jobs for Scots - however, if you start seeing adverts for bilingual Bulgarian speakers in the next few weeks you might have a good idea how your money's been spent.

Dean Baker On Trade Between The USA And Ecuador

"The Washington Post reports that a trade agreement with the United States is a major issue in Ecuador's presidential campaign. It repeatedly refers to the proposed agreement as a "free trade" pact. Of course the agreement would not create free trade. It would largely leave in place the protections that ensure high wages for doctors, lawyers, accountants, economists and other highly educated professionals in the United States. It would also increase protectionism by requiring more stringent rules in Latin America for drug patents and copyrights. So, why not save a word and just call it a "trade" agreement?"
Indeed.
The computer programmers forgot to organise a lobby.
And they're can't be any better form of job protection than demanding free trade in other peoples' skills.

Poisoning Pelicans In The Park

I wonder what Tom Lehrer would make of this.

The Real Losers To Romanian Migration

The Daily Telegraph is wrong on immigration.
Then again the Daily Telegraph is almost always wrong on immigration, so that relevation should not be surprising - however this morning it repeats one of the most fantastical of all immigrationist howlers.
Its leader, entitled 'Another empty pledge from the Home Office' and ostensibly on the subject of Bulgarian and Romanian migration, includes the following comment -
"Immigrants have been the lifeblood of this country and it is usually the market that decides their numbers."
Candidates for 'lifeblood of this country' which might rank ahead of 'immigrants' could include - the English language; Magna Carta; Habeas Corpus; the Church of England; the Book of Common Prayer; the supremacy of Parliament; the Bill of Rights; civil liberties; sanctity of contract; and secure banking.
All of these products of British culture (or more specifically English culture - if truth be told the Scots are good at grasping, condemnation and sheepfarming, the Welsh at rugby, looking good in druidical robes and singing - and for the avoidance of doubt and given the Chief Constable of North Wales' prosecutorial preferences, that comment was tongue in cheek) did not require any impetus from inward migration in order to become reality.
Yeah, throughout the course of our national history those clever English b*!tards have royally screwed us. Who needs peace when you can have the House of Stuart? Who needs democracy when you can have witch-ducking? Who needs economic security when you can have failed colonies in Panama?
Also wrong is its assertion that the market has dictated the number of immigrants. If the market had its way, the point would be moot as the country formerly known as the United Kingdom would have ceased to exist. I cannot think of a single occasion when the British people have actually been given a choice as to whether or not they might be willing to open the national door. Immigration, like war, is clearly an issue far too important to be left to the people.
Three criteria need to be in place for successful mass immigration to work, and none of them are present in the UK now - the case in support of that view is made here.
But John Reid has said we're going to get 20,000 unskilled Romanians and Bulgarians, so 20,000 unskilled Romanians and Bulgarians is what we're going to get.
The attitude of some Romanians towards the United Kingdom, its citizens and its history is outlined in another Telegraph piece teasingly titled ''We will invade your market – in a positive way'.
Some of John Bull's more robust sons might believe such a comment, made by 27 year old Romanian recruitment consultant Suzanne Nuridsany, to be less of a business plan than a declaration of war.
It also reports on the attitude of some Romanians queuing up for visas -
"Petrisor Frentoiain, 25, on his 12th failed attempt for a visa, was less generous. He called Britain "racist and small-minded" after being sent back from Scotland last year by the Home Office, without explanation. He left behind his £600-a-week job as an electrician, his two-year-old son and his wife Elaina in Balloch, Cumbernauld, where they have a house with "jacuzzi and electric garage door".

He planned to travel to Greece, buy a fake Polish passport for £200 and re-enter the UK. "They cannot stop me," he said. "I paid my taxes. Britain needs electricians like me."
This man should never be permitted to travel to the United Kingdom ever again. We produce enough grasping native trash without importing more.
As well as paying his taxes (probably a consequence of having been erroneously issued with a CIS4 card, otherwise known as 'a De Menezes'), he should also be comfortable with the idea of paying fines.
If the comment weren't in bad taste, I would say this man thinks our country is nothing more than a cash machine.
Another one who should never be allowed back is Ion Paragina.
"Daniela Paragina, 37, had been waiting for hours for her husband Ion, 42, to emerge with his permit to work as a builder, as he attempted to pre-empt the new restrictions.

"He worked in the UK illegally for four years," she said. "The family urged him to do things properly so he's now working legally on stints and coming home in between. He doesn't want to stay – his life is here with us, our son is happy and doing well at school."
So let him stay.
The more artistic are also standing in line -
"Claudia Racovicean, 20, heading for a pianist audition at the Royal Academy, said she could understand why Britain wanted to impose restrictions. "It's fair enough that they pick and choose. That happens all over the world. After all, you don't want the dross, do you?"
No, we certainly don't. We've had enough Romanian dross already.
It's all a ruse, of course. Anyone who thinks these measures will actually restrict access to the labour market is living on the same planet from which Alistair Darling broadcast the comment, "No-one who deals with immigration fails to realise that we have to have a system which is properly managed, properly controlled."
By the same token that realisation does not automatically validate the supine, sighing 'O well they'll come so we should just all let them work legally' approach favoured by some who should know better. The first responsibility of any government is to defend the borders, the second to ensure that the citizens from whose will it derives its power do not suffer.
In 2004, the Blair government extended the combined length of its middle digits in the direction of the British people by allowing unrestricted inward migration. We're now on the verge of stagflation as a result. If the 2005 General Eection campaign had been running now, it's very possible that immigration alone might have played a far greater role than it did even last year.
Having set out restrictions, the government needs to bite the bullet and enforce them - because failure to do so may result in civil disturbances; and I don't mean between Brits and migrants.
The gobby Suzanne Nuridsany is also quoted as saying,
"...we are hard-working, highly-motivated and speak much better English than the average Pole."
Just as I speculated last night, the groups most at economic risk from Romanian and Bulgarian migration are existing migrants.
And it may only be a matter of time before intense rivalry sets in between old timers from '04 and the newer Balkan blow-ins.
It might be worthwhile keeping an eye out for reports of migrant on migrant violence in Inverness, Slough, Crewe or Wrexham in the first few months of next year.
Hopefully I'm wrong. If I'm not, we know who to blame.