No New Care Homes by Highland Council
Sadly there will be no new care homes.
I am afraid we will be seriously letting down the elderly in our communities in the future. We have a duty of care which is already falling short.
Cut backs must and should be made, but not at the expense of the elderly, many of whom don’t have friends or family to assist in their care at home and are therefore dependent on Care Homes.
Unfortunately most cannot afford the extortionately high rates for their care in these homes either. We must look at providing a decent standard of care at a reasonable rate.
We would be complaining loudly if we were to keep animals at the same standard some of these homes are providing. Our elderly deserve so much more.
Too much money has been spent on Consultancy Experts and on top Management within Highland Council and there should be severe cut backs in those areas thus leaving more monies available for frontline services.
The thought of returning to the days of the workhouse rings in my ears!
Highland Council ‘to drop’ plans for new care homes
Highland Council chiefs have admitted they cannot afford to build five new care homes planned for the region.
Margaret Davidson, who chairs the council’s social work committee, said the £30m needed to meet the commitment was not available.
The council’s ruling administration is set to recommend the plan is abandoned when councillors meet later this month.
New care homes had been planned for Fort William, Grantown-on-Spey, Inverness, Muir of Ord and Tain.
Ms Davidson said that existing homes such as Ach an Eas at Inverness and Grantown were still fundamentally sound and could be kept open.
‘Financial situation’
She said: “We just don’t feel that we can spend this money with the revenue consequences that it would mean.”
She added: “When I visited the five care homes a week or so ago with the convener, there wasn’t one person who said to me they wanted us to build a new care home.
“They wanted to keep what they’d got – the homes they’ve got and the staff group that they’ve got.”
However, Lochaber councillor Donald Cameron said the administration also needed to keep Fort William’s Invernevis home operating.
He said: “There is no reason why Invernevis can’t continue. In five years time or so when the financial situation is better and the bankers have paid their money back to the public purse, we can improve the facilities that are there.
“In the meantime we must retain the 24 local authority beds in Lochaber.”
Councillors are due to meet to decide on the care home plans on 24 June.
HQC in Administration
Sad to see this local company go into administration. Well known for their distinctive logo and road works around the Highlands
I believe they were the company who have just finished the new link road from Milton of Leys to Inshes.
Highland Quality Construction in administration
One of the Highlands’ biggest civil engineering and construction companies has gone into administration.
Inverness-based Highland Quality Construction (HQC), which specialises in road building, had an annual turnover of £20m.
It has been involved in major contracts throughout Scotland, including upgrading the A9 and the M80.
It is understood that the company had been awaiting payment for work on a major road project.
HQC’s directors resigned last Thursday and an administrator was appointed on Friday.
No-one could be contacted at the firm’s Lotland Street Premises in Inverness.
On Monday night lorries and other heavy machinery could be seen which had been stripped of their distinctive HQC logos.
As well as road contracts, HQC operates businesses in shipping, quarrying, recycling and plant hire.
Plans for 550 Nairn homes are thrown out
This development has been refused for the right reasons.
Will the same thought process apply to further development of Tornagrain and East of Inverness? After all the same problems apply…….roads, water supply, sewage and schools.
Small development is fine……but these huge estates are neither welcome or necessary.
I am concerned that the comment below is a threat that some other developer will be allowed to come in and proceed along the same vein.
“Council convener and Nairn councillor, Sandy Park, who gave evidence at the inquiry, said he was pleased with the decision but raised the point that the town would have to adapt in future.”
Time will tell!
Protesters rejoice as ‘weapon of mass destruction’ rejected
By Jane Candlish
Published: 17/05/2010
Plans to build 550 houses on the outskirts of Nairn – described by protesters as “a weapon of mass destruction” – have been refused planning permission by Scottish Government Reporters.
Jubilant campaigners against the Sandown development said officials had made the right decision and it was “a victory for common sense”.
Deveron Homes spent two years and a six-figure sum developing the bid for the western edges of the town, in consultation with Highland Council.
But councillors refused permission for the £100million project in May 2009 amid concerns that roads, schools and sewage works in Nairn would not be able to cope.
The firm appealed and a public inquiry was held in Nairn in March.
In their decision, the reporters, Malcolm Mahony and Alasdair Edwards, said the proposals did not comply with the local development plan, could have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area and that the scale of development would be excessive for the location.
Their ruling said: “We appreciate that it is frustrating for Deveron to face refusal having conducted negotiations with council officers and other interested parties extending over some 17 months, and culminating in a favourable recommendation to the relevant council committee.”
But they said they agreed that the proposals would have meant overdevelopment which was inappropriate for the location and inconsistent with the character of Nairn.
No one from Deveron Homes could be contacted for comment yesterday.
Its proposals for the new estate would have included 138 affordable homes, some rented and some shared equity, with a mix of flats, semi-detached and terraced housing.
The firm also planned a wetlands park, community facilities and business park, and said the scheme would have created more than 500 jobs.
It attracted opposition from residents from the outset, however. Critics claimed the development was too large and that infrastructure, including sewage, roads, education and health facilities, would not cope with the influx of people.
During the public inquiry, the Nairn Residents Concern Group (NCRG) said the consultations run by the developer were “sterile, meaningless and invalid” because Deveron Homes was unwilling to vary the number of houses it wished to build.
Yesterday, a spokesman for the group said the reporters’ conclusions chimed with their own feelings about the development.
John Hart, of Sandown Road, said: “The decision to dismiss the appeal is a victory for common sense.
environment
“We would hope that the Highland Council will now seek to ensure that any development on Sandown Common Good Land is in keeping with the reporter’s observations and that it especially retains the common good aspects of the area, that are clearly defended in the local plan.”
He added: “This development was a weapon of mass construction, whose destructive potential has been unearthed, fortunately before it destabilised the Nairn environment and its gateway.”
John Mackie, of Nairn Suburban Community Council, said: “Everyone I have spoken to is delighted.”
Mr Mackie, of Seaforth Road, added: “This was too big for Nairn. They were talking at one point about four-storey buildings on the outskirts of the town. They would not have blended in.
“We want the area developed but not in this way.
“Unfortunately the developer would not listen to what people were saying.”
Council convener and Nairn councillor, Sandy Park, who gave evidence at the inquiry, said he was pleased with the decision but raised the point that the town would have to adapt in future.
He added: “Obviously there will be development there some day and we would like to see that. It is an important gateway to Nairn.”
Rob Leitch: There is trouble ahead for the Union
A very good article by this young man and worth a read.
Rob Leitch: There is trouble ahead for the Union
Robert Leitch is 21 years old and in the third year of a distance-learning politics degree from the LSE, and has been working in Parliament for a Conservative MP. He is also a party activist in Orpington.
As political commentators pore over each and every inch of the freshly drawn up map of parliamentary constituencies, key areas of analysis will be highlighted and discussed in remarkable depth and detail. One fairly obvious yet fundamentally worrying trend, is the absolute failure of our Party to make any breakthrough in Scotland.
Having seen Conservatism drain from each corner of Scotland in 1997, it is disappointing to say the least that our focused and indeed rather expensive campaigns in certain Scottish target seats bore no fruit at a time of supposed Conservative revival. However, there is an ongoing, deeper concern posed by our latest failed attempts to win back trust in Scotland – the future fate of our historic Union.
The subject of Scottish independence is one that divides many in our Party. There are, of course, strong traditional unionists who will fight tooth and nail for the continuation of the United Kingdom. Yet, in truth, an increasing number seem to be quite frankly fed up with either the democratic inequality provoked by the West Lothian Question or the subsidy provided to individual Scottish citizens by the English taxpayer (thought to be in the region of around £4.5 billion per year at present). Add to this number those Conservatives who believe strongly in the principle of national self-determination and it is perhaps possible to suggest that support for the Union is waning even within our unionist Party.
The Scottish Nationalists, led by the ever slippery Alex Salmond, would have watched Thursday’s results with an element of disappointment. No, not because they failed to add to their rather measly six parliamentary seats, but rather because David Cameron failed to win an outright majority in Westminster. It has long been Alex Salmond’s desire to see a Conservative government in London with little or no mandate from the Scottish people. The fact that we merely managed to cling onto our one solitary seat in Scotland will, however, have been of great comfort to the SNP.
Indeed, despite Mr Salmond’s proposals for a progressive alliance with Labour, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats, one expects that the First Minister’s true yearning is for a minority Conservative government to take shape in London over the coming days. He would, of course, take great enjoyment from arguing that the Scottish cannot be served or represented by a government so fundamentally rejected north of the border.
It goes without saying that calls for independence in Scotland have quietened in recent months, largely as a result of the economic crisis – the Scottish people are wise enough to learn lessons from the nations (Iceland, Ireland and Norway) that once made up the so called ‘Arc of Prosperity’. Yet, a minority Conservative administration that has once again failed to win the respect, trust or backing of any sizeable number of Scottish voters, will undoubtedly re-energise Mr Salmond’s long-term dream of independence.
The Conservative campaign in Scotland will, in due course, be picked over in a rather agonising manner by CCHQ as we attempt to learn lessons for the future. I fear, however, that such a future may simply not exist and in the meantime we are left with an impending risk to the Union. After all, the SNP still hope to push through their referendum about Scottish independence at some point in 2010. Put bluntly, within a few months we could be at the beginning of the end of the Union.
Whilst far more critical issues (starting with the desperate need to cut the budget deficit) will require immediate attention from the new Westminster administration, we should all remember that Scottish nationalists will be salivating at the thought of a weak, potentially divided Conservative-led UK government.
Despite David Cameron’s strong unionist proclamations, even a majority Conservative government would have struggled to hold back the nationalist tide in Scotland. The financial crisis may well have weakened the SNP’s hand for the time being, but our Party’s utterly dismal showing north of the border, coupled with more pressing matters in Westminster, may well provide the perfect recipe for the Union’s death knell.
Regardless of whether we commit to resisting such a scenario is largely beside the point. A messy divorce with serious implications both domestically and internationally make this subject worthy of serious consideration for the new government. The SNP know that our Party’s ability to influence Scottish voters is weak; this could now be their moment to seize.
Eurozone is High Risk
I totally concur with this comment from Iain Dale.
The Euro has been seen as precarious in its means to secure stability in the European financial markets and this has proven to be right. Especially with it being so easy for one country to bring the whole of the Eurozone to its knees, if it does not, or cannot give the necessary support. Greece has been rescued this time by the members of the Eurozone and IMF and hopefully they will fulfil their obligations in repayments, although there is a huge risk that it may not.
Spain, Portugal are to be watched to see if their national situations deteriorate further.
IMF has recently issued loans to Poland last year, Romania Bosnia, Latvia, Hungary and many others who are not in the Eurozone. Had they already been members of this exclusive club, the Euro would have collapsed.
Lib Dem policy of ultimately taking the UK into the Euro in future makes me doubt their sanity!
Comment from Iain Dale, Conservative Blogger
I am both surprised and delighted that Alistair Darling has been so trenchant in telling the EU that Britain will not contribute to a support package to bail out the Euro. Why on earth should we? It is absolutely nothing to do with us. Those of us who warned at its inception that it was unsustainable should take no pleasure at its imminent collapse as the effects will be felt for some time to come. A currency which is formed for political reasons is always going to incur stability problems in difficult economic times, especially when it covers such a massive and diverse area, with economies as different as those of Portugal and Germany. A single interest rate was never going to be appropriate for every country.
No one knows where this sorry saga will end. But it is good that there is cross party agreement that the British taxpayer should not be involved in bailing out the Eurozone.
Leaked email from William Hague on Europe
Many supporters on either side of the fence will feel very strongly about this.
The Lib Dem demonstration yesterday demonstrates that there is little flexibility at grass roots on Voting Reform.Voting reform was on the priority list of Lib Dem topics during the election and certainly very much against the Conservative wishes who prefer a First Past the Post means of election but apparently are willing to look at other possibilities but not Proportional Representation.
The present talks between the two Parties will certainly cause a great deal of dissatisfaction in one or both sides and possibly cost future support.
Unfortunately any Government formed on a botched agreement at this time, will only end in failure.
Time will tell, but one thing is sure, decision must be made very quickly indeed if we are not to see a backlash from the Money Markets on Monday morning.
The Tory letter on Europe in full
This is the full text of a draft memo setting out Conservative attitudes towards Europe headlined ‘Draft letter from Foreign Secretary to Prime Minister’
- guardian.co.uk, Sunday 9 May 2010 00.05 BST
How to promote our national interest in an open and democratic Europe
We have discussed the approach I plan to take at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on Monday when I will have the first opportunity to explain to EU opposite numbers and publicly how the new government under your leadership will implement our manifesto commitments on Europe. It will be important to send an early signal to EU partners and the British people on the broad outlines of our approach. We will need an early collective discussion on a detailed strategy to implement our commitments. As our approach will change British policy across the full range of different Council formations, I am copying the letter to all Cabinet colleagues so that we can all take the same approach.
Our overall strategy has four main elements:
– UK legislation – the referendum lock, sovereignty bill, and ratchet clauses.
– Return of powers on criminal justice, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and social/employment issues from the EU to the UK level.
– Positive agenda of areas where we will engage constructively in the EU.
– Promoting and vigorously defending the national interest through ongoing EU business.
We have agreed that the first should be done as rapidly as possible to demonstrate to the British people and beyond that the UK’s relationship with Europe has really changed. On the second, you have given us the full first term to deliver – we need to manage expectations and explore with partners how to implement our commitment.
The third and fourth will be ongoing.
Reflecting these four strands, I propose the following core script:
“We will be positive members of the EU. We want to work with you to boost global economic growth, fight global poverty, build energy security and combat global climate change. We support the aims of the EU 2020 strategy, for an open, competitive and entrepreneurial Europe, with less bureaucracy and regulation. We are also committed to free trade, open markets, the single market, and European action to boost innovation and competitiveness.
“We are firm supporters of enlargement, and want to see a more muscular EU approach in Bosnia. We want an effective EU response to the top strategic challenges like preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, searching for peace in the Middle East, and engaging with the big powers around the world. We favour an outward-looking Europe, so will want the External Action Service to be a success, working in partnership with national diplomatic services to deliver those objectives we have all agreed, and Cathy Ashton has our support.
“But the British relationship with the EU has changed with our election. We will never join the euro. We will introduce legislation early [I won't pre-empt the Queen's Speech with detail] to implement our commitments: any Treaty change transferring competence or powers would require a referendum; the sovereignty bill; and increased parliamentary controls on any use of ratchet clauses.
“These changes are similar to the position in several other member states – Germany on sovereignty, Ireland and Denmark on reuiring a referendum for major Treaty changes, and Germany again on ratchet clauses. So our partners should not doubt our commitment to the EU.
“Third, we are committed to returning powers from the European level to the UK in three key areas – the Charter of Fundamental Rights, criminal justice, and social and employment legislation. My colleagues and I will explore with partners how to implement these commitments, since we want and will need agreement of our 27 partners.
“Rest assured that we seek engagement not confrontation. But our aim is to achieve these commitments during this parliament.
“Finally on current business, the EU agenda is full with some tough crunch points ahead, particularly on economic, social and justice issues.
“The toughest issue is the economic turbulence in the eurozone. This is a matter for the countries in the euro to tackle, and I am glad that they are doing so. The UK’s national economic interest is best served by a stable euro. As the UK is not in the euro, I have no intention of offering a running commentary on the issue.
“Like others, we will fight our corner to protect our national interests through engagement and influence. Britain’s interests are best served by membership of an EU that is an association of sovereign Member States, not a federal Europe. You will find us firm but fair, playing a leading role, fighting our corner, practical and straight talking.”
I am planning bilateral meetings with my key opposite numbers during my visit to Brussels, to be followed by early visits to Warsaw, Berlin and Paris, plus contacts between Mark Francois and his opposite numbers. We will repeat these messages during those discussions. You have already taken this line in your early discussions with [Sarkozy, Merkel, Zapatero, Barroso and Van Rompuy].
We should hold a very early meeting of Ministers under [your/my] chairmanship to inaugurate the new EU committee, agree our strategy in more detail and look ahead to the key decisions coming up in sectoral Councils and the June European Council. In particular we need to:
– Reach a common view across Government on our overall EU strategy, including how and when to seek to implement our commitments on the three repatriations, and how this fits with the rest of the agenda.
– Decide how and when to communicate this to the British people and to our European partners.
– Agree how to tackle the trickiest issues due to arise in May and June, including: Greece/eurozone and its consequences, the financial issues coming to ECOFIN including the Hedge Funds Directive and Financial Supervision, the first opt-in decisions on Justice and Home Affairs, preparation for the June European Council including national targets for the EU2020 strategy, the EU role on climate change, and Iceland.
I am copying this letter to all Cabinet colleagues.
Highland Council Ditches Care Home Causing Anger
Concern has been justly made on behalf of the Highland Senior Citizen Network.
There have been Consultations published by NHS on care of the elderly, with the proposals on what care should be given in the Community. Unfortunately this has been, and no doubt will continue to be “pie in the sky”.
Lots of rash promises and little more than lip service is provided.
Elderly people are not getting the level of care deserved in their own homes let alone in Residential Care homes.
Reports issued last week regarding the level of care given in private and Highland Council run homes – this is obscene in this
day and age with no excuse possible.
Do our elderly not deserve a little respect after having given their best over the years and paid their taxes for just this purpose.
Social Services have insufficient funding to give a level of care to make life comfortable and there is little
or no respite care or support for carers.
Cut backs will have to be made but this must be at senior management level and not at the front line.
Cost savings can and should be made……..but please dont pull in more expensive consultants to tell you
what is basic common sense.
Bad financial management was not the fault the elderly, but today they pay the price with a poor service.
Liz Gilchrist
Anger as council prepares to ditch care home plans
By Lorna McCann
Published: 30 April, 2010
Highland Senior Citizens Network chairman Dr Ian McNamara outside the existing Ach-an-Eas care home. Iona Spence
PLANS for five new council care homes – including one in Inverness – look likely to be shelved in a move that has outraged campaigners and will test the local authority’s ruling coalition.
It emerged yesterday that Highland Council officials have concluded there is no business case to justify pushing ahead with the new buildings – one of which is supposed to replace the city’s now demolished Burnside care home.
The revelation confirms the worst fears of campaigners and politicians who expressed concern months ago that the Independent/Lib-Dem/Labour coalition was moving towards scrapping the programme altogether.
Dr Ian McNamara, chairman of the Highland Senior Citizens Network, accused officials of creating the business case to fit the administration’s objectives.
“I think it is not unexpected,” he said. “From correspondence obtained from within the administration as early as December last year it was evident the council was looking for a way of framing the decision for local members so the right answer was achieved for business reasons rather than political reasons.”
He previously said the economic recession was being used as a “trojan horse” by councillors who were never in favour of running new care homes.
Councillor John Finnie, leader of the opposition SNP group and parliamentary candidate for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, agreed.
“We were first told of this review in December, only a few weeks after receiving an assurance that the care home programme was proceeding on schedule,” he said.
“My fears that the outcome was predetermined were confirmed when I received copies of correspondence which show an officer suggests that the best approach was ‘framing the decision for members such that the right answer is achieved’.”
Full details of the business case will be made public next week ahead of a full council meeting on 13th May but no decisions will be taken until 24th June.
The study will also include alternative options but senior councillors refused to be drawn on what they might be yesterday.
Lib-Dem Councillor Michael Foxley, leader of the coalition, said: “Whatever happens we will ensure that high-quality residential and nursing care is available to all those who require it – and that we provide the services which enable people to remain safe and secure in their own homes for as long as possible.
“In December 2009 Highland Council asked for a study, by officers, of the business case for building five new care homes. That report will be made available to all members of the council and to the public.
“The chief executive has, however, indicated that it will conclude that there is no business case for the building of the five care homes.”
He added that councillors would listen to those affected before making a final decision.
“That is the right and proper way to deal with a decision of this importance.”
The administration was briefed in confidence on Wednesday about the issue and further group discussions were ongoing yesterday afternoon.
It is understood many councillors are unhappy with the outcome of the review and it has been suggested previously that some may be willing to walk away from the ruling coalition if the care home plan is ditched.
Senior Liberal Democrat politician Danny Alexander, who is defending the Inverness parliamentary seat at next week’s General Election, expressed disappointment at yesterday’s news and urged his party colleagues to argue in favour of pressing ahead with the new homes.
“I hope very much that elected councillors will want to continue with a care home building programme when they meet in June,” he said.
“As I set out in my letter to the council in February, I believe there is a very strong case for the council to continue – on both economic and social grounds.”
At the meeting in June councillors will also be forced to make decisions on whether to cut spending on schools, roads and other vital services.
Over the next three years the authority is faced with making cuts of £36 million and at present the public is being consulted on a range of proposals including the possibility of closing community centres and privatising care homes.
Tomorrow hundreds of pensioners and trade unionists will march through the streets of Inverness in protest at frontline cuts.
Ken Macmillan, secretary of the Inverness Trades Union Council which is organising the parade, is urging people to turn out in force. Without a public show of support he warned key areas such as education and social work would be hit hard.
In a separate move, Inverness councillor Peter Corbett yesterday called on the administration to scrap its proposals to close up to four of the city’s community centres to save £133,000.
l.mccann@inverness-courier.co.uk
EU to take full control over Britain’s Asylum and Immigration Policies
The document below was published by the Bruges Group and gives information answering the concerns of many UK citizens on Immigration.
Lib Dems and SNP want full EU membership and our currency changed to the Euro. Questions must be asked of this logic especially as Greece and Spain are having a very tough time. It has been reported today in the press that the Euro could be abandoned if there is further reductions in the Credit Rating of other EU members – a very worrying prospect.
More often than not the public have been silenced from making their worries known and they are usually connected to the provision of services to Migrants over and above those who already live here.
People who have spoken up have been called Xenophobics and Bigots. This a sad reflection on Political Correctness gone wrong and totally unjust to criticise their concerns in this way!
This article below outlines very good reasons why we should not support any Political Party who promotes the EU and its Migration policy.
Does it not make sense to ensure we look after our present residents jobs needs, along with housing provision, health and education apart from the fact that our rights as Brits is slowly being eroded by the EU.
EU Constitution Threat to UK Border Control
More breaches of the Government’s Red Lines
The Bruges Group has uncovered that the revived and renamed EU Constitution will blow a hole wide open in Britain’s borders allowing the EU to take full control over Britain’s asylum and immigration policies.
The Treaty that Gordon Brown is expected to sign Britain up to next week includes new provisions; these will impose upon the UK the duty to be:
“fair towards third-country nationals”.
‘Fairness’ is subjective. This will allow the European Court of Justice to rule that an Australian style quota policy cannot be used to restrict immigration.
There will also be more costs placed on the taxpayer. The asylum provisions contain a solidarity clause. Under Article 69 c there will be increased demands on the taxpayer as Britain will be expected to share the financial burden of immigration. This will lead to Britain supporting asylum seekers in EU states that have a lower GDP than the UK.
EU expert Dr Lee Rotherham says,
“Once again, the renamed EU Constitution proves to be a Trojan Horse. Now we find that our ability to get a grip on asylum and immigration issues is under threat – our opt out is dangerously undermined.
“When we pick at the details the Government’s case for downplaying the text endlessly unravels. We must have a referendum.”
How the EU’s immigration plans affect the Red Lines
The Benefit System
One of the Government’s so-called Red Lines relates to Britain’s system of benefits. This will be breached because the EU desires that migrants to the UK should receive the same benefits as UK citizens.
Home Affairs
The safe guards will not stop the EU pressurising Britain to hand over these important home affairs powers, thus breaching another red line.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights
The red line relating to the Charter will also be shattered by the EU’s immigration policies because Protocol 22 will make the Charter of Fundamental Rights apply in cases of asylum.
Key provisions of the Treaty
The Bruges Group has argued, now with the support of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, that the Government’s opt-out clauses are not watertight and will not adequately defend Britain’s interests. This will allow the EU to fulfil its long-term plans to take full control over asylum, immigration and Britain’s border controls.
Article 69 1 (a) The EU shall ensure:
‘the absence of any controls on persons, whatever their nationality, when crossing internal borders’
Article 69 1 (c) The EU shall introduce:
‘an integrated management system for external borders’
Furthermore, Article 69 2 will give the EU the power to decide on who and for how long residents of non-EU states, even those from the Commonwealth, will be able to stay in Britain. The European Union will also determine the border checks that those people face.
Article 69a sections 1 and 2 will give the EU full power over asylum and introduce easier immigration for those that it feels should receive subsidiary protection.
Article 69b gives the EU full control over Britain’s immigration policy.
Under sections 2, 3 and 4 of that Article the EU even has the power to determine the rules that apply to people from so-called third-countries; this could end Britain’s close ties with other Commonwealth nations.
The implications of EU control over immigration
If the Treaty is ratified we can expect that the implications will be severe:
A Threat to British Civil Liberties:
* Section 3 of Article 69 even gives the EU the power to force Britain to adopt identity cards without our Parliament being able to reject them
More immigration:
* Mutual recognition of asylum decisions across the EU, allowing asylum seekers who received their status in one EU county to travel to Britain and automatically be given the same rights and benefits in the UK
* Britain being forced to take on the burden of immigrants arriving in other EU member states, particularly those arriving in Southern Europe
* Described as ‘mobility partnerships’ the EU will take control over migration and will make it easier for people to enter Britain
* Refugees that are awarded indefinite leave to remain in one EU country can then come and reside in Britain
* Asylum seekers that have been in Britain for more than five years will also be allowed to remain here indefinitely, regardless of change of circumstances in their country of origin. This will make it almost impossible for the UK to return refugees to their country of origin
A more costly asylum system:
* The EU will replace the minimum standards for asylum seekers with costly mandatory standards to improve their treatment
* The EU will also force the British government to spend more on integrating asylum seekers
* The EU will force Britain to give immigrants and asylum seekers the same access to benefits as British citizens
Ending British control:
* The EU will even take away power from the UK Government to implement the policies by establishing a European Support Office and determining common guidelines on enforcement of the rules relating to asylum seekers
* The EU will create a single process for designating and assessing applications for refugee status
* The EU will also decide, not the British government, who should be eligible for subsidiary protection thus allowing them access to the UK
* The EU will also take control over the UK’s borders by awarding MORE power to FRONTEX (the EU agency for the management of operational cooperation at the EU’s external borders)
Why Brown’s gaffe could get worse
Why Brown’s gaffe could get worse
Gordon Brown’s “bigoted woman” gaffe could spell political disaster for Labour.
Why? Well, 65-year-old widow Gillian Duffy – who Brown called a “bigoted woman” – raised the issue of immigration, a big issue for many voters but one which hasn’t really been addressed in depth during the election campaign.
In many parts of the country, people feel immigration is putting too much of a strain on public housing, medical care and schools.
But they feel their concerns are being ignored by the main parties in favor of “political correctness” and a commitment to multiculturalism.
I met a lot of voters this week in East London, where the far-right British National Party is making much play of its anti-immigration policy. Many people didn’t consider themselves racist or bigoted but said they wanted to see a change.
One man told me: “I think it’s because of the amount of immigrants, particularly in this area. people are fed up with it,” one man told me. “Tighter controls. it’s got to stop. It’s just a small island we live on. It’s too many people here.”
He added the political correctness was preventing politicians from saying more. “Anyone that says anything about anyone that’s not from this country is considered a racist.”
A woman told me immigration was a very important issue for her. “I think we have too many,” she said. “But I don’t believe we shouldn’t let anybody in. We need people from everywhere to bring skills and talents. But I just think their needs to be a better system for it.”
She added: “I think it’s too easy to move here at the moment, too easy to claim everything. There needs to be a harder system.”
Another woman said that while she supports immigration, she worries that there aren’t enough resources for everyone. “It’s getting more people, really,” she said. “We don’t have the jobs our houses to accommodate them all. It’s a big problem, I can tell you.”
One man said the problem isn’t immigration, but the government’s failure to provide for workers. “Where people are brought here to work, we need to have adequate infrastructure,” he said, “houses, schools, hospitals. People can bring in wealth, knowledge and kills, but we don’t accommodate for them.”
The bottom line: there are a lot of every day Britons who feel overwhelmed by immigration – exactly like Gillian Duffy. And they don’t consider themselves “bigots.”
They may very well feel just as offended as she did. And they may follow her example by not voting for Labour.
Gordon Brown Disgraced By His Own Arrogance.
How dare we question Prime Minister Brown on his record! Who is the bigot?
Mrs Duffy asked questions which the majority of people in the UK wanted answered.
The only reason Gordon Brown is mortified and upset, is because he was caught!
This man is not fit to be Prime Minister nor a representative of the people.
Gordon Brown meant every word when he responded to Mrs Duffy.
He is obviously very aware that the immigration issue is a very sensitive one and he has no answers to his huge mistake. I hope Nick Clegg is taking notice on this issue.
His pious arrogant attitude spans down in politics generally.
He was obviously dismayed at being questioned about his policies and only wanted to meet Party supporters and
even looked to blame a member of staff for having put him in front of Mrs Duffy.
There was no mistake, he was caught on camera and tape. Worse still he didn’t even listen to the lady whilst she was talking to him.
His temperament lets him down and this is why he is not a popular Prime Minister.
Sadly this arrogance spans down the political hierarchy, from National Government through to Scottish Government
into local Government at Council level.
This is exactly the distasteful reason people are fed up with politics and politicians.
The public at large are considered idiots with no brains and no ability to understand.
The whole system appears to be corrupt and immoral. The sooner we get rid of this man and his party the better.
Liz Gilchrist
‘Bigot’ Gaffe: Brown Says Sorry To Pensioner
Miranda Richardson and Ruth Barnett, Sky News Online
Gordon Brown has apologised in person to a grandmother after he was caught on microphone in an unguarded moment calling her “bigoted”.
The Prime Minister visited the home of 66-year-old Gillian Duffy who had earlier questioned him on the campaign trail in Rochdale.
He entered the house at about 3.02pm and emerged more than 40 minutes later.
On the doorstep, he told reporters he was a “penitent sinner” and had misunderstood the point Mrs Duffy had been making when they spoke.
“I am mortified by what has happened. I have given her my sincere apologies,” he said.
“I misunderstood what she said. She has accepted that there was a misunderstanding and she has accepted my apology.”
Earlier today, he spent nearly five minutes answering Mrs Duffy’s queries about policy and told her: “It’s been very good to meet you.”
Gordon Brown
Gordon Brown speaks to the media outside Gillian Duffy’s Rochdale home
He smiled at the woman and then got into a waiting car.
However, a microphone picked up his words to an aide as he drove away.
Mr Brown was caught saying: “That was a disaster.
His aide asked: “What did she say?”
Mr Brown replied: “Well, just…You should never have put me with that woman.
“Whose idea was that?”
The aide responded: “I don’t know, I didn’t see her. It was Sue I think…”
Mr Brown went on: “It’s just ridiculous.”
The aide said: “They’re pictures, I’m not sure they’ll go with that one.”
“They’ll go with it,” Mr Brown said.
“What did she say,” his aide asked.
Mr Brown replied: “Oh, everything, she’s just a sort of bigoted woman who said she used to vote Labour.”
Brown Apologies For ‘Bigoted’ Comment
The Prime Minister had been chatting to the woman about her pension credit, crime and education before the gaffe.
She also questioned the Prime Minister about immigrants from eastern Europe and then congratulated him on his education policies in Rochdale as he walked away.
Later, Sky’s Niall Paterson played the mother of one a recording of the Prime Minister’s comments, including his description of her as “bigoted”.
She said she was “very disappointed” and added that the PM owed her an apology.
She told Sky News: “It was very upsetting. I am very upset.
“He’s an educated person, why is he coming up with words like that?”
Pensioner Upset After PM’s Gaffe
Mr Brown has called Mrs Duffy and apologised for his comment. He returned to Rochdale to visit her at her house.
“I have apologised to Mrs Duffy,” he said. “I hope she accepts my apology.”
Mr Brown was played a recording of his words by BBC Radio 2′s Jeremy Vine.
As the Prime Minister listened, he put his head in his hands.
“They have chosen to play my private conversation with the person who was in the car with me,” he said.
“I know these things can happen. I apologise profusely to the lady concerned.
“I don’t think she is that, I think it was just the view she expressed that I was worried about that I couldn’t respond to.”
Speaking on Sky News, the shadow chancellor George Osborne said: “We have found out the Prime Minister’s internal thoughts and I think they speak for themselves.
“The Prime Minister has a lot of explaining to do.”
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg told Sky News it was important to treat people with respect on the trail.
“I think everyone in every walk of life will mutter things underneath their breath which they would not want everyone to know about, but I think in an election campaign in particular, I get this every day, people will say ‘I disagree with this and that.’
“Some people get pretty tough,” he continued.
“You have got to give as good as you get but you have also got to treat the questions you receive with the respect they deserve.”
