Why the Tories should talk about immigration

TGF UKIP

Taking his lead from Never Neather Nelson, of course Dave won't seriously engage with the subject. Not the sort of thing villagers do, don't you know.

Huw Thornton

Fraser, Fraser, a while back you were urging David and George to base their appeal to the country on how much they could slash public spending.

Are you really trying to dig a new elephant trap for them to fall into?

EyeSee

There is more to the immigration problem as we learnt from the proof that Labour were doing it to undermine the UK. I know from friends in the FO that they are ordered to just stamp visas and let them in, even when they are highly suspicious of the reason for wanting to come to the UK. When we deport them under a proper, legally oriented government can we ship out all the New Labour wasters too? Even suggesting a new law to make it possible might be responsible for a Tory landslide on its own.

Robert Eve

Fraser - agreed!!

Dean

I agree with Huw. You simply don't understand the dynamics of the modern electorate, a significant proportion of which (sufficient to swing an election) is comprised of first or second generation immigrants, who are unusually sensitive to how politicians deal with this issue. As far as I'm concerned, Cameron has got the mood music broadly right on this issue. The Tories have a set of sensible immigration policies (much better than Labour's) and they should certainly highlight this, but not in the hysterical tone so often found on right wing blogs. Apart from anything else, there isn't much we can do about EU immigration (short of leaving the EU) and the Tories should not lay themselves open to accusations that they are promising more than they can deliver.

Austin Barry

2005 Election - 25 May 2005

London Bombings - 5 July 2005

Other failed Islamist bombings - all post 5 May 2005.

Yes, immigration will have more traction this time around.

Lots more traction.

Richard

Immigration is the real issue I urge Cameron to focus hard on the subject and drive home the message this country is not open and they are not wanted here.
I would give my right arm to see the results on the streets of Bradford or Southall.....go on Dave give um hell!!!!
Then write your memoirs as it will be the end of your leadership and like the last 3 leaders you will be another victim.
He wont of course he hasn't got the b**ls.

Carroll Barry-Walsh

Voters need to know 4 things on this topic:-

1. That there will be an open honest debate about who comes, how many and for what purposes. No more shouting "racism" to shut the debate; no more deceit; no more pretending that immigration does not have costs as well as benefits and that both effects are not equally shared by all.
2. Whatever immigration policy is adopted needs to be primarily in the best interests of Britain and the British people.
3. We need to have a clear-sighted debate about the types of people who come here: who is desirable, who isn't. It's not just about numbers; it's also about culture and willingness to assimilate. An uneducated Pakistani bride brought here because of an arranged marriage is not, all cant to one side, of the same value to us as a highly-skilled teacher from the Philippines, for instance.
4. Government policy (at every level) should be designed to ensure full assimilation of all immigrants so that they become British, not just in a formal sense but in a very real sense. So no more translation services; speaking English should be a sine qua non for anyone coming here; no more mini-ghettos full of people living as if they were still back home; no more sensitivity to "their culture"; no adoption of or turning a blind eye to foreign laws / practices incompatible with Western British values/laws etc.

I do not hear these messages clearly from any party but I do know that Labour have taken the opposite - and in my view dangerously wrong position - on all these points.

Grumpy Optimist

But Dean, these people will be voting Labour anyway. The Tories can afford to move a little in this direction both to garner the voters who are beginning to leave and also for that funny old reason - to be democratic and representative of the people whose vote the Tories want. We also need to be heard you know.

Boudicca

5 years ago, after 8 years of Labour's open-door immigration, there were areas of the UK which were still recognisably British but which are now immigrant ghettos.

Many immigrants, Muslims in particular, do not wish or attempt to integrate.

Holding a debate about immigration is long overdue. Labour would prefer to ignore the issue, but they can't because of the BNP. The Tories would do well to start talking about it - because if they don't, others will.

Edward Sutherland

Fraser, is this your post-Neather Damascene moment? I think we ought to be told.

strapworld

Mr Nelson. Congratulation, two months and you have written the word IMMIGRATION!

However, as one of the debates has the subject Immigration, and the one in the North West home of the BNP I find that quite interesting. Cameron had better show some steel and not just the glib "I will reduce immigration by 70%" He must take on Brown for their disgraceful record. He must know Neather and the Immigration watch report on Neather following their Freedom of Information request. He must and better shred Brown and the Labour Party promising that a Conservative Government will never do to the British people what Labour has done. He has to go for the jugular!

But, Mr Nelson, you know the truth of the matter, Cameron will not want to offend anyone so therefore he wont.

Bit late isn't it?

Talking about immigration without mentioning Europe (Lisbon) is like talking about the clap without mentioning f***ing.

Herbert Thornton

The problems facing the Tory Party are -

1. The Party hasn't convinced grassroots Tories that the party has any real intention of either stopping further immigration or of encouraging a reversal of the Islamic element of it - but has instead convinced them that it's policy leans in the very opposite directioin; and

2. Even if the party has had a change of heart, its leader's propensity to change positions according to whichever way he thinks the wind is blowing (remember, for example, grammar schools and the referendum) have made it much too late to convince the electorate that the change of heart has taken place, or is even sincere.

We should not be surprised if the clear dedication of the BNP to dealing effectively with these important issues attracts more and more voters from the grassroots not only of the Tories, but of Labour.

London Calling

Hello Fraser…:)

Before the Neather parade descend upon you Fraser, for which you are duly responsible(too late I see they already have) The question you propose for which the electorate rightfully demands answers to has no radical solutions in the age of cuts. How do you tell the public that apart from strengthening boarder controls to control Immigration there is no money or space to alleviate all the burdens that mass immigration has created. How do you tell families who have waited for years to be re-housed that they will just have to wait longer whilst at the same time the same family has to endure the frustration of witnessing
a new housing project being built close by sorely for the Somali Elders, or as reported a week ago a Somali mother of four who has no right to live here... but we have to give her a council house due to an EU ruling.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253151/Somali-woman-claim-benefits-burden-social-assistance-landmark-EU-ruling.html#ixzz0h2xxMjis

And the list goes on, the burden on our schools and teachers and the impact this has on learning, on our hospitals, jobs and our transport. How do you tell the public that the Government has failed them and apart from a survey patronising the blatant obvious, the truth is there is no money to help services cope or logical solutions that can reverse or repair the damage caused.

No wonder the BNP is gaining support and UKIP spew venom against the EU in response to our loss of sovereignty, Nigel Farage’s
recent attack against the EU whilst presented somewhat rudely had a ring to it considering our democracy and the right to govern our own affairs has been handed on a plate to the EU willingly and a further twist with a no-vote on the Lisbon Treaty .

Talk about Immigration? …go on then…

Roger Davies

Cameron needs to get himself a Rottweiler, politics is not the sport for those that obey the Marquis's Rules. Send for Hague, he knows exactly the foot high to kick Labour in its nether regions. Time to stop pussyfooting on immigration as that is Labour's Achilles heel. Look at Labourlist, the subject terrifies them.

wrinkled weasel

No. They should not talk about immigration. It is irrelevant. Loads of Polish people come to this country to work and are delightful to be with. What we need to talk about is Muslims.

denis cooper

There's only so much the Tories, or any other British politicians, can say about immigration before running up against EU immigration laws.

As far as I can see looking at the relevant articles in the Treaty on the Functioning of European Union, TFEU, there are now only three areas where we retain complete control, rather having a ca 10% say under qualified majority voting ("ordinary legislative procedure").

1. Article 77(3) - we retain a veto on "provisions concerning passports, identity cards, residence permits or any other such document".

2. Article 77(4) - we can still mark our national borders.

3. Article 79(5) - we can still "determine volumes of admission of third-country nationals coming from third countries to their territory in order to seek work, whether employed or self-employed."

And that last, of course, is where the Tories have pitched their own policy to cap net immigration: not because of "racism", but because it's the only place left where there's an unequivocal, solid, legal basis for the UK government to act unilaterally.

To go further on that: the only immigration flows over which we still have complete legal control are those direct to the UK from outside of the EU, as per Article 79(5) TFEU; but if the same people find ways to come here not directly, but via the rest of the EU - as they will - then we do not have complete legal control.

Of course Parliament is still the supreme legal authority for the UK, and could pass an Act disapplying the relevant treaty articles and reclaiming complete legal control, to be exercised by the government under its authority; but that will never happen while we have a pro-EU, pro-immigration Prime Minister, whatever his name.

ed hall

How about a nice pledge to tackle immigration from cast iron dave ?

2trueblue

"Our immigration is handled in a haphazard way" What a surprise. Most things by this government are handled in a haphazard way. There was no preparation for the huge volume of people who arrived. No infrastructure, no process, just open the door. Allowing such an event was criminal and has created untold problems. Liebore are never going to take responsibility for their plan and lack of planning.

The resentment is because it has drawn money away from the services that we have paid for, to provide translation services etc when no other country supplies such facilities. It also robs those arriving with an incentive to learn our language and culture, and thus integrate and contribute to their host country.

5yrs ago people were too comfortable enjoying the boom years and had no real thought about what was actually happening. We were being told that multi-culturalism was good for the country. What about our culture? Look at the government agenda and then look at those who pushed this agenda.

Camerons lack of depth on this matter so far has been disappointing, but he did mention it in his speech. Liebore will screech racist but I think that the public are now a bit more savy about Liebores lies and will trust that the Tories can do better than them on this issue.

At some point the public must make the government of the day speak and deliver for us, our country and culture. That is the least we can expect.

Liebore have shown handsomely that they are not that party. The Tories must help articulate the best way forward for us.

Paul Williams

@denis Cooper Of course Parliament is still the supreme legal authority for the UK, and could pass an Act disapplying the relevant treaty articles and reclaiming complete legal control, to be exercised by the government under its authority; but that will never happen while we have a pro-EU, pro-immigration Prime Minister, whatever his name.

Before Lisbon yes we could disapply treaties, but not anymore. The EU is now our supreme body, Lisbon is a constitution creating the EU as a legal entity above our own country, which is precisely the reason why Cameron can't offer a referendum on it without it being in reality 'in' or 'out', and why we have to ask permission - on our knees - to leave the EU via articles 50/1.

Tiberius

In an episode of "The Young Ones", Neil's parents visit, and when the conversation turns to Felicity Kendall, Neil's father says, "she's the kind of girl I'd like to take care of". To which Viv responds, "funny, I've never heard it called that before".

Fraser, "except our immigration is handled in a haphazard way that creates plenty of bad feeling" is in that league.

AndyinBrum

Out of interest How many of these migrants are elligible to vote?

Vyvyan

Tiberius, you're showing your age. Fraser is too young to remember the Young Ones properly. My favourite Young Ones saying which can be deployed in almost any bad situation (and cheers me up at least) is Vyv with pickaxe through his head saying to Neil (who put it there), "Don't worry Neil, it was bound to happen sooner or later".

Viva El Presidente!

TomTom

Why not leave immigration as it is and simply accept a Darwinian battle for survival ? Nature always asserts itself over the affairs of men

The Three Little Pigs

Clarity. Promise to give me clarity, Dave. Immigrant Heart Surgeons good, Immigrant gang members bad. Even The Spectator commentariat gets confused between EU economic migration, asylum seekers, points based incomers, family reformation, whilst the fiancee to spouse indefinite leave to remain option has most of us foxed.
The purpose of this obfuscation is Neather.
Since the Channel 4 doc we have had no attempt to determine the costly groups. Remember who they were? - yes, those damn Portuguese. Coming and taking our sardines.

Oh the Somalis also might have been a bit costly too

Linda Smith

“And as for Neather, I can’t believe that any more than six of you really want me to blog about him”.

Make me the seventh, Fraser.

Paul Owen

You're quite right. They should talk about it. It's irresponsible and cowardly not to. This is a matter of huge concern to people, particularly Mondeo man, Worcester man or whatever we're calling them now. The Tories shouldn't be banging on about it but they should talk about the need for sensible and effective controls. Even Polly Toynbee admitted at the weekend that immigration can adversely affect the poor and low paid. She then concluded, typically, that government can do nothing about it. This is of course arrant nonsense as other countries prove.

When we are under economic pressure, our services are strained, unemployment is high, we wonder where new jobs are coming from, we don't have enough affordable housing and part of our recession was caused by a housing price bubble how would you not want to talk about immigration ? Sometimes you have to despair about those who aspire to lead the country or do so already.

Frank P

Fraser Nelson

As perhaps one of the so called ‘Six’ who have repeatedly broached the Neather Issue, I personally don't want you to do anything, Jockie. I just want to remind you constantly that you promised to do something - twice - then bottled out; or had orders from somebody not to address it; or found yourself unable to address it. Whatever - you blew it! It was an unforgivable cop-out; it should have been repeatedly addressed from the editorial office of this magazine; it was an admission of treason from inside the loop of HM Government and if you are a true conservative and support the 'Conservative' Party as a potential replacement for the cadre of commies in Downing Street, it should have been used by you as a hammer to beat out their already addled brains - your autistic compatriot's first.

A deliberate attempt to change the demographic constituency of England for electoral purposes and to "rub the Tories' noses in it" should have resulted in first a 30 point lead in the polls for the Tories, followed by a series of riots throughout English provincial cities (changed beyond recognition by this odious policy), followed by the hanging of every member of Brown's cabinet by a lynch mob.

You chose your friends, Fraser. We know where your stand. Your silence was deafening and your changed tune in the above post is therefore off-key, worthless and merely a sign of craven flip-flopping for supposedly strategic motives that reek of confusion and lack of principle. In other words: don't throw us a crumb to appease us and don't talk down your sniffy Caledonian hooter at the Spectator Six ... Jummy. Fuck [pause] You!

Frank P

Tom Tom

Frank P

Tom Tom

"Why not leave immigration as it is and simply accept a Darwinian battle for survival ? Nature always asserts itself over the affairs of men"

Sure, why not? Provided the 'survival of the fittest' is no way impeded by post-Darwinian PC; 'hate'laws and other social engineering bollix imposed against the indigenes by the Stasi - and that 'nature in tooth and claw' is allowed proceed apace. Bring it on!

Derek

Mr. Nelson

“And as for Neather, I can’t believe that any more than six of you really want me to blog about him”.

You promised that you would, though.

You only blog on subjects that are requested by a majority of CHs?

A request by six is not worth a blog, even on the Wall where no quorum is, presently, required?

How many signatures would persuade you to keep your promise?

Why did you promise in the first place?

You don't believe Neather's allegations?

You don't think that the subject is important enough even were Neather's allegations true?

You don't think that the subject is important enough to explain why it isn't important enough?

You don't think some better explanation is required for your failure to write on the matter when you earlier said, twice I believe, that you would?

Why did you change your mind?

Have you been nobbled?

Is that changing now that the Tory Party is beginning to wake up to immigration as a subject which might win them votes?

Rob P

Yes, add me to the Neather list. This is a huge issue, and was confirmed by the FOI policy papers (later 'redacted'; as Frank P notes, your initial promises, followed by silence and subsequent weasel words speak volumes. Would have preferred the article though.

paulg

I would not worry about it- when the time comes they will use it as a stick to beat labour with!

ed hall

Impossible to disagree with @FrankP.
You and Cameron tried to ignore the immigration issue until now. Finally, in panic at the feebleness of the Tory campaign, fear of losing to the worst political party in UK history has led you to dip your toe in the waters, albeit holding your nose with contempt - a subtle anti-immigration message to see whether it improves the poll numbers then the inevitable post-election "our hands are tied by Brussels" shtick.

If it wasn't so pathetically dangerous for the long-term survival of our country it would almost be funny.

AndyinBrum

I'd like a Neather blog, because I'm interested, not because I believe what he said is actually true.

Ta

Yam Yam

Thank you, Carroll Barry-Walsh. That's a most succinct summing-up of exactly the kind of immigration policy most of us have been yearning for all along.

Vulture

Eight. This piece reeks of the craven cowardice so typical of Cameron's faux 'Conservatism'.

They may mention immigration sotto voce, but they won't do a damn thing about it because the EU forbids restriction of immigration.

So we will continue to be swamped by a flood of Islamic peasants who will change the culture of these islands in ways not seen since 1066. You could call it the Muslim Conquest.

And you think that this issue is somehow beneath you to write a blog on. You are yellow, Mr Nelson. You have been nobbled.
No-one will

AndyinBrum

Is it something in the water? Will people stop being such over hysterical drama queens, please?

Rob P

Well, I counted ten requests here for a Neather article (or a deep sense of betrayal for your reneging) so far, so if you 'can't believe' there are more than six, it appears you rely on us having the attention span of a gnat.

Any more for any more? What's the quorum required?

Dorothy Wilson

"So no more translation services; speaking English should be a sine qua non for anyone coming here2

I recently received an invitation from the NHS in respect of one of the regular testing procedures they now offer. Attached to it was a sheet offering translation services in around a dozen different languages [I haven't got the paper in front of me to check the precise number but that is it give or take one either side].

Those translation provisions appeared to be for languages ranged from Somali to Chinese through Urdu, Polish and Romanian. Surely, a number of questions arise from that, including:

1. Why on earth does the NHS fund translation services? If people want to take advantage of tax-payer funded facilities shouldn't they be able to speak English or at least provide their own translators?

2. What level of contribution do these people - or anyone else for that matter - have to make in terms of National Insurance contributions before they are entitled to take advantage of taxpayer funded provisions?

We need to get away from the notion that the NHS and other social services are an entitlement - and apparently an entitlement to most of the world - and remind people that they are actually provided by people who work and pay their taxes.

Publius

Agreed with Frank P and others on Neather. I am afraid Mr Nelson has gone native. That is what the Hothouse Establishment does. Suck you in, or spit you out. Mr Nelson chose the comfortable option.

Ann Bulley

AndyinBrum wrote "Out of interest How many of these migrants are elligible to vote?"

Read Migrationwatch Briefing Paper 11.8 on www.migrationwatchuk.org It reveals that:
"British electoral law provides for the citizens of nearly fifty Commonwealth countries, British Dependent Territories, and the Republic of Ireland to vote in both local and general elections in the UK. The Representation of the People Act, 1918, provided that only British subjects could register as electors. However, the term British subject included any person who, at that time, owed allegiance to the Crown, regardless of the crown territory in which they were born. This included Commonwealth citizens and has never been revised."

Over one million people fall under this electoral law.

strapworld

As the one Fraser Nelson promised to write on Neather ,a promise made on two separate occasions! A promise is a promise and you have decided to break that promise. I do believe that more than six have asked about it since your promises.

Howere, I note your weasel words and support what Vulture has written.

Mr Nelson you are a coward. I am of a mind to send you a white feather, but the significance would pass you by.

However, you write for the News of the World. A newspaper which has had some quite brave journalists in the past. You do not match their actions. Sad really, I did think you were different. Not even a paper tiger more a doormat.

Publius

Over the past few days, my posts have not appeared until long, long after I have sent them. Why?

logdon

And its up to nine.

Like others I have no problem with immigration, per se.

Yesterday I visited my dental practice to be treated by a new Indian lady. She was without doubt the best I've ever encountered. Charming, efficient and best of all co-operative.

A couple of weeks ago my flat tire was fixed by a Polish worker. Again he was almost over the top in ensuring it was all OK, he replaced the wheel jack, tools and small spare I'd used, exactly where they came from in the boot. He didnâ™t have to do that but did.

Two small examples of that thing which oils the hubs of our daily lives. Helpfulness. Friendliness. A desire to fit in.

So to damn all as ingrate scroungers is completely wrong.

What is and this is the whole key. We are admitting thousands from Muslim countries especially Pakistan who tick not one of those boxes. They are here for the money whether work or benefits and sod the rest.

I could go on al length but weâ™ve all heard the same old story so many times many have become inured to the full implication of the other reason they come.

Hereâ™s one from a US bog and as straight from the horses mouth as it gets .

It comprises of the incoherent, the victimisation, the â˜you donâ™t understand usâ™, the ridiculous takiyya and finally the the arrogance of hoped for domination which is a constant and repetitive feature of the Muslim narrative.

Note the defensive posture and pretence of blaming culture rather than the religion which mandates every aspect of that culture. Pretty soon though the gloves come off and the threat of over running the indigenous population surfaces with the hubristic threat of, thereâ™s nothing we can do about it.

âœDon't mix traditional, tribal or cultural bad habits with true Islamic values. Go speak to true worshipping Muslims. Know us first before ridiculing our religion. Repeating stereotypical examples to picture Muslims is bad taste. Why don't you describe the crimes and injustices happening in Europe or the US. To single out Islam as the reason for certain peoples behaviour is unfair. These European countries you talk about will soon be over run by muslims. Fortunately there is nothing you can do about it.â�

posted by : Sam
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 at 08:38 AM

That is our problem. And global problem too.

To dismiss us as a few nut jobs as Frazer insinuates, follows the pattern of minimising the threat so beloved of Labour and also Cameron's Conservatives.

He needs to talk to Melanie Phillips or Jihad Watchâ™s Robert Spencer for an hour or two.

What was it about â™a little learningâ™?

M. Rowley

Mr. Fraser - I'll think you'll find that there are rather more than six contributors here who would have you talk about Neather. But of course you won't. The Conservatives - just like the rest of the political class - have decreed it to be a no-go area. So much for your journalistic integrity.

denis cooper

@ Paul Williams

No, Parliament remains sovereign even after Lisbon - for the time being.

If Parliament passed an Act tomorrow to partially or wholly repeal any of its previous Acts to implement the EU treaties, the UK courts would obey the new will of Parliament as expressed in its new Act - with the sole proviso reiterated and emphasised by Lord Justice Laws in the Metric Martyrs case, that Parliament must make it absolutely clear that the repeal is intentional rather than accidental.

The potential longer term problem is the possibility of judicial drift on this fundamental question, now that Parliament has approved a treaty with an attached Declaration acknowledging the doctrine of the primacy of EU law invented by the lawyers at the EU's Court of Justice:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12007L/htm/C2007306EN.01025602.htm

"17. Declaration concerning primacy

The Conference recalls that, in accordance with well settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States, under the conditions laid down by the said case law.

The Conference has also decided to attach as an Annex to this Final Act the Opinion of the Council Legal Service on the primacy of EC law as set out in 11197/07 (JUR 260) ... "

and given that MPs overwhelmingly voted down Bill Cash's New Clause 9 to counter this Declaration and protect the supremacy of Parliament.

Note that to get the text of this Declaration I simply went onto the EU's website and looked at the Lisbon Treaty in its Official Journal - even though according to the lie told by Cameron the Lisbon Treaty no longer exists as a treaty, and therefore cannot be the subject of a referendum ...

denis cooper

I also think that Neather should not be ignored.

Kevyn Bodman

I would like a blog on the Neather revelations.

Jolly Roger

Ive been reading the Spectator and coffee house articles for the last few months, but never felt particularly inclined to post.

I found the Neather revelations deeply worrying and I was amazed that this wasnt leapt upon by the MSM. I was saddened that the spectator also seems to be part of the MSM conspiracy of silence on the subject of immigration. Why hasnt Neather been properly discussed?

Keith D

I'd like a blog on Neather and the Tories to talk,not about immigration but in particular muslim immigration.

Thats whats taxing us all,in more ways than one.

Chingford Man

I hope I was one of the Neather Six; if not, add me to the list.

Itâ™s a bit disingenuous, Fraser, to claim that there is no interest in this subject. Many Coffee House pieces are really Village gossip. Neathergate certainly is not.

The central allegations, that Labour deliberately used secret mass immigration as a means of gerrymandering its future vote and as destroying the conservative ethos and social composition of the country for ever, could not be more serious.

If people like you wonâ™t address this topic properly then youâ™ll be visiting a lot more places like South Oxhey.

Perhaps itâ™s going to take a BNP breakthrough before certain people wake up to whatâ™s going on in this troubled land.

Sam Hussey

Something has to be done about the Somali problem. The issue lies with their women. Who are very adept at fiddling the benefit system to their advantage. Loads of them have turned up in the UK from Holland and Scandinavian countries for this purpose. No other people are having 4, 5 or even 8 children just so they can get a home. It is a disaster.

Simone

Yes, the Conservatives should talk about immigration, but get Baronness Warsi to do it. She isn't frightened to attack the government and she can speak with authority

Whereas when David Cameron talks about ethnic minorities, he tends to sound insincere and patronizing eg. he makes them all sound downtrodden and disaffected and in need of his help.
He also sometimes make it sound like their presence is useful as political propaganda.

It would be far better if he dropped the identity politics and let the achievements of people like Baronness Warsi speak for themselves. That would show that the Conservatives are not just another pc
party of token gestures. It would also show that they value everyone for what they can do.

Beer Moth

What is disturbing about the Neather case, is the near void it has created in the media, the complete lack of any determination to expand upon this glimpsed revelation. This is a most puzzling stance when taken by publications which might be expected to pursue reported irregularities regarding the Labour government.

We can only wonder, what else might lurk uncovered due to this inertia, and more ominously, what it is that has such a restraining grip on those whose job it is to take this government down, that they fail to act when presented with such a gift.

When all the din is about some idiot accusation of bullying.

Haldane

Fraser,

Let's make a deal - you don't have to honour your pledge to write substantively on Neather, but you do have to explain why you backed out, which, of course, has become the story.

In the meantime, put me down as one of the six.

Archie

Am I eleventh or twelfth in Neatherworld? Lost count; but for those of us who really care, Melanie had something on it a couple of weeks or so ago, if memory serves.

Archie

Speaking of immigration, I suppose that you have all seen this astonishing development, considering the source?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/27/our-borders-are-porous

Dave N

Simone - Would that be the same Baroness Warsi who, on Question Time, denied that there was such a thing as a bogus asylum seeker?
Is that the official Tory view?

Frank P

My God! I think I've got it. Do you think that our esteemed editor realised that by failing to produce the promised article on the Neather Report, the outcome would be that it would be discussed every day on this blog until the general election; whereas if he kept his promise everyone would be so feckin' bored that it would never be mentioned again? What a cunning little C-c-c-c-c-aledonian he is!

John Clegg

Mr Nelson, I have up until now respected your integrity. If you don't give us what we want and write about the "Neather scandal" I shall cancel my subscription and invite others to do the same.

I'll wait to see if you publish this comment and if you don't, I will then post it on Guido Fawkes's site with these details.

logdon

I watched Geert Wilders on NN last night who without a shadow of a doubt get's it right.

His argument is rational, honest, evidence based and resounding with the Dutch public.

He espouses a complete ban on Muslim immigration, no more mosques, no minarettes and a return to Dutch values.

For far too long the creep of Islam has been allowed to spread it's tentacles in Europe. We have our rights trashed time after time in the name of PC and multiculturalism, those rights being transferred to a culture completely inimicable to our tolerant way of life.

As Wilders said, tolerance is great but when that is extended to promotion of the intolerant and insular, unwaivable tenets of a Seventh Century religion whose guiding principles are expansive Jihad leading to dominance, we are in trouble.

Even Emily Maitlis seemed to soften to his persuasive charms. Maybe there is hope, yet?