What no mention of Phil Woolas?

The BBC happily report Ed Miliband's assertions that 'Prime Minister David Cameron had made ''the wrong judgement'' in keeping Mr Cable in office.'. They don't query whether Ed Miliband made the wrong judgement when appointing Phil Woolas to his shadow cabinet whilst he was under investigation. One law for Conservative leaders and another for Labour ones?

Phil Woolas the verdict

Whilst the BBC lead on Phil Woolas's vow that he intends to take the decision to a judicial review, The Guardian print the whole judgement, here's some extracts to show what the court said about Labour's Phil Woolas:

'"Having considered the evidence which was adduced in court we are sure that these statements were untrue. We are also sure that the respondent had no reasonable grounds for believing them to be true and did not believe them to be true.

...

The statement was false and the respondent had no reasonable ground for believing it to be true and did not believe it to be true.

"It follows in our judgment that the respondent is guilty of an illegal practice, contrary to section 136 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 with regard to those statements."

...

"We are satisfied that the statutory penalties for the illegal practices committed by the respondent are both necessary and proportionate, having regard to the seriousness of the statements made with regard to the petitioner's alleged attitude to the Muslim extremists who advocated violence."'

I wonder what the odds are on David Cameron brining up Ed Miliband's appointment of Phil Woolas to the Shadow Cabinet whilst this acse was pending?

Phil Woolas's 'political suicide'

In September The Telegraph reported that Phil Woolas had said that:

'he and his campaign team never thought of telling lies about his closest general election rival, the Liberal Democrat Elwyn Watkins.

...

Mr Woolas denied that he had falsely claimed Mr Watkins was courting the vote of Islamic extremists who had allegedly made death threats against Mr Woolas.

He said: “My view was that the local Lib Dem party was trying to get support from the side of the spectrum which was being persuaded by those views. By their wooliness on the issue they were giving succour to that vote.

“I saw it as pandering to these votes.”

He denied his claims that Mr Watkins's silence on the issue amounted to an attack on his personal conduct.

"It was not an attack on Mr Watkins, it was an attack on Mr Watkins's political strategy," he replied.

"I do not think he should have needed an invitation (to condemn the extremists). I think it was politically naive of him. If there were leaflets going round saying 'BNP support Phil Woolas', I would say I do not want this support."

The MP said the militant threat in the run-up to the election was genuine and he stood up against it with the strong support of mainstream Muslims.

"There was a fear of violence, there were reports of scuffles, there was an attack on a Labour candidate," he said.

"My strategy was to mobilise mainstream Muslims and the white community against the extremists and to do that I had to highlight it to the white community.

"The Asian community were urging me, by and large, to highlight what they saw as a slur on them."

His counsel, Gavin Millar QC, asked whether an email from his election agent which questioned whether they "could get away" with focusing on Muslim extremists in one of his election leaflets was a legal reference.

Mr Woolas replied: "The idea that I set out to break the law never came into our minds. It would be political suicide, as well as wrong."'

Today I read on the BBC that:

'Two High Court judges have ordered a re-run of this year's General Election campaign in the Lancashire constituency of ex-immigration minster Phil Woolas.'

'Political suicide' Mr Woolas? Maybe Phil Woolas will not stand again after this embarrassment; but then do Labour politicians have any shame? Actually can he stand again? Does anyone know that bit of electoral law?

Also does Ed Miliband have questions to answer having appointed Phil Woolas to his shadow cabinet whilst the matter was still before the courts?

Also note how the BBC article, currently, does not use the word 'guilty' to describe Phil Woolas, just that the court 'heard' the issues relating to the leaflets and the election has to be 're-run'. Why so protective of Mr Woolas BBC?

Phil Woolas's diary

I have been enjoying reading extracts from ex-Labour minister Phil Woolas's diary in The Independent, the delusional nature of some parts is quite hysterical, here's an example or three (my emphasis):

'18 March

Went on 8am train with Gordon Brown and had half an hour together on immigration policy. He's wanting to do a speech but also wants to do more on how we can fill the skill shortages – British jobs etc! He very clearly gets the importance of the issue. GB is more relaxed and confident than I've seen him – probably ever. It's a great boost to my campaign to be seen with him – the reception from the nurses and patients was fantastic and really buoyed me. My own chances are unknown but with the polls nearer together it is not impossible.

...

25 March

...

My feelings are completely mixed. I am enormously proud of the UK Border Agency and have built a good reputation....'

Delusional chap wasn't he, I hope he's better now and that he has decided who to back for Labour leader...

Labour's lies on immigration

During the election campaign the Labour mantra was that immigration was now under control thanks to the introduction of their points system. This line was used to close down the debate and to avoid having to explain why immigration levels had risen so much over the first 12 years of this Labour government. The election has now been and gone and we read in The Mail that (my emphasis):

'Labour's supposedly tough points-based immigration system actually led to huge increases in foreign workers and students cleared to live in Britain, it emerged last night.

...

... analysis published last night showed that, in fact, it increased by 20 per cent - while the number of foreign students went up by more than 30 per cent.

...

Figures released by the Office for National Statistics last week showed net immigration had increased the total population by 142,000 last year.

...

Migrationwatch said Labour ministers had been asked parliamentary questions on the effects of the points system but had not given answers ahead of the election.

However, analysis of fresh government figures shows that the number of non-EU migrants given work permits, or permission to carry on working in Britain, increased by 20 per cent, from 159,535 in 2007 - the year before points were introduced - to 190,640 last year. The total includes dependents.

For students, which came under the points system a year later in 2008, the number of approvals increased by 31 per cent from 208,800 that year to 273,445 a year later.


...

In 2008, Phil Woolas said that 'had we introduced the points-based system a year ago there would be 12 per cent less migratory workers in the country than there are now'.

During the election campaign, Gordon Brown said: 'I think we have got to show people that we are taking tough action and the points-based system we have introduced is changing things. I hope that voters understand that we have got a very tough attitude on this.'

Figures released by the Office for National Statistics last week showed that more than half the 503,000 immigrants who arrived in the year to last September - 270,000 people - were from outside the EU.

At the same time, the number of foreign nationals given British citizenship rose above 200,000 in 2009 - up more than 50 per cent in 12 months.

The ONS also published projections showing the national population will hit 70million in 2029.'

So did Gordon Brown and Phil Woolas deliberately mislead the British public before & during the general election campaign over immigration control? Is it true that Labour deliberately increased immigration so as to 'rub the Right's nose in diversity' as Andrew Teather claimed and to increase their client vote as many others have claimed?

Unsurprisingly I can find no mention of these immigration figures on the BBC news website, indeed the latest news article that comes up on a search for 'immigration' on their website is this report that:

'Detainees at Dover's Immigration Removal Centre are being held for "unacceptably long" periods of time, according to a report.'

The BBC's political agenda becomes clearer by the day and the time for retribution must surely approach.

Phil Woolas explains (update)

A few days back I blogged about Phil Woolas's appearance on the Daily Politics show and his 'explanation' of the immigration/new jobs figures. At the time I said that 'I am confused... ' Well it seems that Andrew Neil has decided to investigate Phil Woolas's claims further, do read the whole piece but here are a few extracts (my emphasis): '...I've now had a chance to study the transcript and to read the statistical explanatory note which goes with the ONS survey. Here are the facts:

...

2. It does not distinguish between immigrants and non-immigrants nor temporary or permanent workers. It simply establishes if you are working in Britain at the time of the snapshot and, among other things, asks if you are foreign or British born. This question -- and the definition of foreign-born -- is laid down by Eurostat, on whose behalf the Survey is down. Brussels controls the definitions and parameters so that it can make like-for-like comparisons across the EU.

3. Though, contrary to the minister's claims, the Survey does not distinguish between immigrant or temporary workers, its rules would tend not to count temporary foreign-born workers. The Statistical note explains: this Survey "is a Survey of private households and excludes people in communal establishments (eg hostels, students living in halls of residence) and people who have lived in the UK for less than six months. Arguably the excluded groups are likely to include disproportionately large numbers of migrants. It would be reasonable to infer from this that estimates of migrant/foreign worker numbers based on the LFS may be a little lower than they should be." (My italics)

4. Let's just pause to reflect what that means: temporary migrants tend to live in communal residencies and many might be here for less than six months. So the Survey is almost certainly an underestimate of the number of foreign-born workers in the British labour force at any one time.

5. Just to be clear, there is no double-counting: to return to the Minister's analogy, the Survey would not pick up the cumulative numbers at an Arsenal game over time -- just the crowd at the particular Arsenal game when the Survey was taken.

6. The number of foreign-born workers in the British labour force has doubled since 1997 (from 1.5m to 2.8m). It is true that foreign-born could apply to the offspring of expats whose children were born abroad, who are now of working age and who have returned to these shores. It even applies to Boris Johnson (who was born in America). But there is no evidence of a massive return of expats since 1997 (indeed the momentum has been the other way). Though the Survey is not directly concerned with immigration it is hard not to conclude that the huge rise of foreign-born in the labour force is directly related to the huge rise in immigration since 1997. If there's another explanation I'd be grateful for it.

Now there are many possible official responses to these figures. Ministers could argue that it is a good thing that foreign workers have come here to do jobs which British-born folk have shunned. They could also point out that there are hundreds of thousands of Brits working and living abroad and that national labour forces are a two-way street in the age of globalisation. What does not look credible is Mr Woolas's explanation on yesterday's show. It would appear to be factually wrong and doesn't stack up. He needs to explain why it was right -- or come up with another one. We'll be sending this note to him.'


Also PM on Thursday analysed the Gordon Brown/John Humphrys Today interview as well as the Phil Woolas one and decides that Gordon Brown was wrong, although if you include older workers then the percentage of net new jobs taken by foreign born workers is 'only' 72%. PM also take on Phil Woolas's football crowd claim and say that 'he is completely wrong'. So Phil Woolas will you come out and apologise for your 'misdirections'?

Phil Woolas 'explains'

Today's Daily Politics programme has Phil Woolas explaining to Andrew Neil that 98.5 per cent of the 1.67m new jobs for those of working age created since 1997 have not gone to foreign workers. I am confused...

More interesting is the second set of figures on foreign born workers in the private sector.

Nice try by Phil Woolas to try and make out that those making these claims are in some way racist. Just look at Kevin Maguire's face as he tries to not get involved in any way.

Phil Woolas

Yesterday Chris Grayling asked Phil Woolas, Minister of State for Borders and Immigration in the Home Office, a question that Phil Woolas either pretended not to understand or deliberately avoided answering. Here's Hansard's record of the exchanges:

"Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con): Over the weekend, we have heard some pretty controversial reported comments by a former adviser to the Government about their immigration policy. May I invite the Minister to put the record straight? What was the motivation behind the very rapid increase in immigration under this Government?

Mr. Woolas: If one takes a responsible and reasonable look at the statistics, one will see that it was an earlier Act that brought about significant increases in immigration in this country. The most significant milestone in the history of migration policy since the second world war,
26 Oct 2009 : Column 7
in my view, was the abolition of border controls in 1994. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I throw the question back at the hon. Gentleman: does he now support the border controls that we have put back into place?

Chris Grayling: I think a lot of people will notice that the Minister has made no attempt to answer my question. What Mr. Neather, the former adviser, said was that the policy of rapid expansion was done to put pressure on the right. Would it not be utterly disgraceful for any Government to decide immigration policy that was in the interests not of the country, but of a political party? Was that what happened?

Mr. Woolas: I do not know to whom or to which reports the hon. Gentleman refers. If he wants to take the views of someone with a political motivation, that is up to him, but I repeat that the Government have reintroduced border controls—electronic borders—despite opposition from the hon. Gentleman.

Chris Grayling indicated dissent.

Mr. Woolas: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head and smirking about it. The facts are that his party abolished border controls, that we have reintroduced them and that he opposes them."

"I do not know to whom or to which reports the hon. Gentleman refers."Really?

Would you pick a fight with Joanna Lumley?

Phil Woolas and Gordon Brown, do you know what you are letting yourself in for?

Who should live in the UK? Compare and contrast

Gordon Brown's government of all the incompetents seems to be trying to find a way not to let the Gurkhas come to live in the Country that they have fought to defend and some have been badly injured in so doing. Meanwhile the government seems perfectly happy to let such as Biyan Mohammed stay in this Country. That's Binyamin Mohammed "a British resident", (who) is an Ethiopian who sought asylum in the UK in 1994. In June 2001, he travelled to Afghanistan his supporters claim this was so as to conquer his drug problems and to see Muslim countries "with his own eyes". Obviously a man with a drug problem would travel to the centre of the world's heroin trade in order to kick the habit; that is obvious! The UK and U.S. authorities contend that he went to train in a paramilitary Al-Qaeda camp. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks Binyam Mohamed went to Pakistan and on 10 April 2002, he was arrested at the Karachi airport by Pakistani authorities as a suspected terrorist. From there he was sent to Guantanemo Bay. It is odd that so many British residents decided that the best place for a holiday/work trip/ drug rehab was Afghanistan or Pakistan, I am sure there is nothing suspicious about it and that they all should be brought back to the UK, given a nice council house and left to do what they want."

"More than three-quarters of Britons want to see jobless immigrants forced to leave UK"

"More than three-quarters of Britons want to see jobless immigrants forced to leave UK"

So reports The Mail:

"The Government has failed to 'get control' of the issue of immigration, ministers admitted today.

Phill Woolas, the Immigration Minister, said he was not surprised by findings of a poll which showed that nearly eight out of ten people believe all unemployed foreign migrants should be asked to leave the UK.

Mr Woolas said the the British people would never be comfortable with immigration until they believe ministers have a firm grip on the nation's borders.

Mr Woolas said: 'The poll figures are not a surprise. They are a concern, and in significant part they are because the public don’t believe that the government has got control.'"

The funniest line of Phil Woolas's is:

"He told GMTV the UK's borders were tougher than that between the United States and Mexico: "We are, on the whole, stopping people getting through," he said."

Ooh that's tough...

Government minister "shoots the messenger" - what a surprise

Apparently:

"Immigration Minister Phil Woolas has accused the Office for National Statistics of "playing politics" with population figures.

He said he was "appalled" at the release of figures showing one in nine British residents was born abroad.

In a letter Mr Woolas describes the decision to release the data as "at best naive or, at worst, sinister". "

Does anyone else find the sight of a Labour government minister accusing the ONS of "playing politics" by releasing statistics at best laughable and at worst disgraceful?

The Damian Green arrest

Phil Woolas was on the Today programme defending the Labour government line that the government were not aware that Damian Green had been arrested. I am sorry but I do not believe it, I cannot see the Metropolitan police arresting an opposition minister on a charge resulting from an investigation launched on the instructions of the government without giving some feedback to the Home Office or Justice department at the least. Apparently the police called the Speaker, the Serjeant At Arms, David Cameron and Boris Johnson but not anyone in the government; does anyone believe that? This affair stinks to high heaven and the truth will come out eventually.

Maybe the "out" is that the government are denying knowing that the arrest had happened but not that they knew in advance that it was going to happen. With this Labour government always try and listen to what they have not said as well as what they have said, there is always "wriggle room".

Meanwhile has there been any investigation of who has been leaking information to Robert Peston and other Labour supporting BBC "journalists"? Does anyone think there ever will be?

I am not generally a believer in conspiracy theories, preferring to believe in the cock-up theory of politics; however there is something not right about the way the UK is being governed by this Labour government. I am genuinely scared that something distinctly unpleasant is about to unfold in the UK and we may be closer to the suspension of democracy than ever before.

BBC Question Time - do they understand irony?

Phil Woolas was pulled from appearing on tonight's BBC Question Time programme, by whom it is unclear although rumours abound that it was because of his recent comments on immigration and disestablishing the Church of England. Whatever the reason, the Labour Government offered Tony McNulty instead but the BBC have plumped for Lord Hattersley instead. It was of course Lord Hattersley who dropped out of several editions of "Have I Got News For YOU" only to replaced the final time by a lookalike tub of lard.

Shutting the stable door...

The BBC are reporting that :

"Migrant numbers 'must be reduced' - The number of migrants allowed into the UK under the points system may have to be reduced because of the economic crisis, an immigration minister says.

Phil Woolas told the Times immigration became an "extremely thorny" subject when people were losing their jobs.

"It's been too easy to get into this country in the past and it's going to get harder," he said."

A bit bloody late? Shutting the stable door after all the horses have got in...

Prove it!

The BBC are "reporting" that

"Prince Charles must prove his claim that GM crops could cause a global environmental disaster, Environment Minister Phil Woolas has challenged.

In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, the minister said it is now down to the opponents of genetically modified food to prove it is unsafe.

"If it has been a disaster then please provide the evidence," he said."

Oddly the BBC and Labour seem less concerned with anyone proving that the claims made for the effects of Man Made Climate Change are correct.