Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Pop Singer Myleene Klass ‘wipes the floor’ with Labour leader Ed Miliband over mansion tax, at the top and bottom of society the Labour Party aren’t listening to people who put them into power, the Labour Party is imploding because the product is tainted

Dear All

It seems that Labour leader Ed Miliband isn’t looking like a Prime Minister in waiting but more like a dog to kick as you pass it by.

Recently Ed Miliband was dragged over the coals by Myleene Klass, the ex model and Hear’Say singer, she utterly savaged him on TV and wiped the floor that people began tweeting that she should stand for Prime Minister.

To make matter worse, if they can get any worse, he has been mocked for “fewer people in Scotland believing in his leadership than the Loch Ness monster”.

The brutal barb happened during exchanges across the dispatch box during fierce exchanges in Prime Minister’s questions.

And things don’t look too rosy in the Garden from his supporters as there was a failed coup from Labour backbenchers to remove him as Labour leader.

The incident with Mylene Klass on ITV’s Agenda is fairly interesting in that people are getting angry with Labour, voters are leaving the party behind to transfer their votes elsewhere to parties such as Ukip.

On top of that Labour members are leaving the party resulting in Labour branches shutting down.

It seems that the Labour Party could be reaching a tipping point where people of the UK think that Labour’s time is over.

What does Labour stand for?

This is a question asked by many and few if any can answer, the Labour Party is run by a professional elite straight out of University and College, they don’t connect with ordinary people, they don’t take their problems on board and their public service ethos is questionable.

The extent that Mylene Klass tore into Miliband’s proposal for a levy on properties worth more than £2 million shows how deep the Labour Party’s problems are. In Scotland, there is a Labour leadership contest doing on, but that is in the shadow of only 1 in 50 Scots having full trust in Ed Miliband.

Labour is in trouble on both sides of the border, many people I know hope that Labour MP Jim Murphy wins the election to be Scottish leader, but Labour need more than a personality, it isn’t simply about having a smart mouth at FMQs which are a joke.

It is about delivering for people who attend the surgeries of MP, MSP and Councillors, it is about rebuilding trust, it is about new vision, fresh talent and a real commitment to public service.
If Jim Murphy wins, he will need to have a cull because the problems go beyond more than image.

Scotland is different post 18th September, it isn’t business as usual and if the Labour Party do not adjust to the radical change then; they will start to sink towards the levels of Conservative support; more newer parties will enter the market making a return to power very difficult.

Ed Miliband became the leader of the Labour Party through the Union votes, perhaps it is time that voting is restricted to Labour Party members only. At present rather than being the voice of the people, Ed Miliband is looking like someone who doesn’t understand or fails to understand the concerns of people.

Immigration is a problem, his solution is to talk utter rubbish and ignore the ordinary people of the UK, but guess what; they have clicked on to the fact that they can just ignore him and cast their vote elsewhere.

Things for the Labour Party are particularly bad in Scotland, down south you can multiply that problem x 10 and still have room for others.

In 2015, Ed Miliband might not be Prime Minister because he might not have a seat in the House of Commons.

Maybe he should think on that!

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Glock 17 test footage

Labour MSP Neil Findlay is 'closing gap' to be Scottish Labour against Jim Murphy, he says if elected he will campaign against Trident, copying SNP student politics to pander to unpopular Nicola Sturgeon is just risible, guess what Neil, your policies stink

Dear All

In May 2012, I was at the BBC Big Indy Debate, I have written on this before, during the programme, I got to speak, I said that any credible bid for independence had to have a commitment to Nato and a commitment to retain Faslane as a nuclear submarine base.

The Scottish Labour Party is without a leader since Johann Lamont stepped down, three people have put their names in for members to consider, they are Labour MP Jim Murphy, Neil Findlay and Sarah Boyack.

In reality, it is a two horse race between Murphy and Findlay.

Whoever wins that election cannot simply think that there can be business as usual, the Labour vote has collapsed in Scotland, not only that the Labour Party structures appear to be in need of reform, not just in terms of their practices but also who they allow to run their operations.

Scottish Labour needs a new vision, new direction, new ideas, fresh talent and a cull to turn around their decline. They have reached a tipping point where things could turn extremely bad for them, so it is important who the next leader is.

Neil Findlay who is a Scottish Labour leadership candidate has promised to oppose Trident.

On that basis alone, he is showing he isn’t the person to be the leader that Scottish Labour needs in the Holyrood Parliament.  Findlay says he would lobby Ed Miliband not to renew Britain's nuclear deterrent if Labour wins the general election.

That would be a complete waste of time, because the Scottish Labour MPs would be under the control of the House of Commons whips, he also says he accepts defence should remain reserved to Westminster.

This is student politics, this is rubbish, this isn’t the way forward for Labour in Scotland.

Findlay doesn’t get it, his task isn’t to woo the party’s Left wing by promising to oppose the renewal of Trident; his task is to convince people to come back to voting for the Scottish Labour Party if he wins the contest.

Neil Findlay by admitting that Miliband would have the final say rather doesn’t address the real issues for Labour in Scotland, Neil Findlay or Jim Murphy would be the leader in Scotland while Ed Miliband isn’t there.

So, the leadership; isn’t leadership but rather middle management.

The ‘boss’ down the road makes the decisions, the Scottish leader in effective does housekeeping, also as everyone knows, Scottish Labour isn’t a separate party to the Labour Party. 

No one including Ed Miliband is going to devolve control over defence to the Scottish Parliament.

Neil Findlay says he is a contender for the leadership, but, someone should ask him why he is pandering to the nonsense of unpopular Nicola Sturgeon.

Is she going to save your party?

Findlay appearing on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show said the Scottish party should have more autonomy. He says by way of example, that Scottish Parliament should have the power to bring the railways back under public control. He would also like to see the tearing up private finance deals that have funded new roads, schools and hospitals.

Who was it that brought PFI in?

It was the Labour Party, short term thinking to try and make themselves look good, not solving problems but storing up financial disasters which would come back to haunt them in the future. 

Jim Murphy’s campaign has had to move ground to continue to pledge support for existing measures introduced by the SNP who bought the vote. He is also calling for cross-party talks on funding for elderly people’s services, including free personal care, the NHS, pensions and bus passes.

In the early days of her leadership Johann Lamont called for a public debate about the long-term affordability of populist policies such as free prescriptions but she never produced any firm recommendations.

Basically what she needed to say was that there would be no free prescriptions or council tax freezes for rich people, she failed that test and couldn’t get motivated to do anything about it.

Part of leadership is to have the answers to problems, so it is highly unlikely that there will be cross party talks on the issues Murphy mentioned, and still no word about Government or local government reform which was pushed onto the back burners because no one has a clue how to turn round the public sector. It is no good taking the railways into the public sector if the talent isn’t there to run them properly.

There cannot be a return to the 1970’s or 1980’s.

The United Kingdom is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, all the main countries such as America, Britain, China, France and Russia, are all nuclear nations. It is highly doubtful any British Government regardless of party politics will put the seat on the Security Council in jeopardy. 

Neil Findlay could be the next leader of the Labour Party in Scotland, but so far he looks likely to implode their vote.

It may have escaped his notice, but the Nationalists have campaigned on Trident removal at every Westminster and the public has generally said ‘piss off’.

Only an outright idiot would sign up for Trident removal.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University 

Scotland’s ‘jolly fat man’ Alex Salmond says he could have saved Royal Bank of Scotland from the financial crash, Scottish people and politicians take to Twitter to mock his risible claim, he has been a political failure, now he is a hasbeen

Dear All

It appears that there is something possibly wrong with the tap water in the residence of Scotland’s ‘jolly fat man’ Alex Salmond.

Although the Scottish National Party is adapt at trying to re-write history to make them look good; sometimes people take the joke too far.

Alex Salmond leaves the office of First Minister as a political failure.

He lost the Scottish independence referendum because he was stupid, ignorant and small minded. Although he and others managed to cover up for several years their failures as Ministers of the Crown, Scotland isn’t a better country for it.

Law and Order, Health and Education, the big three are all a shambles. During Salmond’s time as First Minister, he was shown to be less than capable of delivering on fairness, equality and social justice for all.

He could argue however, he did deliver that to his clique.

Salmond has become more and more deluded; he claims he could have prevented the Royal Bank of Scotland from collapsing prior to the economic crash. This does beg the question, given his position in politics, the head of a political party which does continual research on economic, how did they all miss it?

Could Salmond have prevented the economic crash?

Hardly, he was writing to Fred Goodwin urging him to press ahead with the disastrous ABN Amro takeover.

It is a bit like urging someone to pour more petrol on the fire which is out of control; RBS dug themselves a hole, and thought they could keep digging to get them out the other side.

For Alex Salmond to claim he could have saved the Royal Bank of Scotland if he had remained working there is utter nonsense, he had a job for a while as one of the bank’s oil economists. He has suggested he could have stopped RBS pursuing the high-risk expansionist business model, and we are to believe the executives would have bought into this and thereby stopped themselves pocketing massive bonuses as they played out their paper game.

When things finally went tits up, the bank had to have a £46 billion bail-out by the UK taxpayer, if Scotland had been independent, the bank couldn’t have been saved. This idea that Salmond has that he is a mastermind is pathetic, he is opportunist, his track record of political failure is by his own hand, he also benefited by the stupidity of others in this case the Labour Party who failed to deliver for the people of Scotland coupled with the Westminster expenses scandal, this effectively done them in.

As he leaves office on Wednesday, Salmond wants to paint himself as new broom for his possible future Westminster return; to that end he is giving a series of tabloid interviews.

In true small man fashion, he accused the BBC of helping the Unionists win the independence referendum. Grudge, grievance and malcontent pours out of him like an open sewer, the people of Scotland killed off Salmond’s referendum idea, his and the SNP’s vision was rejected.

The BBC gave the SNP an easy ride in interview after interview.

His delusion on refusing to accept that the risks to the economy and the pound shows he was never in a position to deliver independence, he dug his political grave by lying and deception.

Opposition parties have since accused him of a “ludicrous attempt to rewrite history”, especially homing in on the RBS bid and the letter Salmond wrote to Fred Goodwin in 2007.

At the time, he said:

“It is in Scottish interests for RBS to be successful and I would like to offer any assistance my office can provide. Good luck with the bid.”

While people were sensing something was going wrong economically and calling for tougher regulations, it was the same year Salmond took the opposite view and called for lighter regulation of the banking and financial services sectors.

The UK has been said by people such as Max Keiser of the Keiser Report to be the centre for fraud in the Western world.

And I doubt many could agree with that sentiment.

Jackson Carlaw, the Scottish Conservative deputy leader, said:

“It is to the world's regret that this view he could have been the saviour of RBS didn’t come to mind when he wrote the infamous ‘gain yersel’ letter to Fred Goodwin. It goes without saying that the First Minister has an ego, but this latest claim is absolutely staggering and utterly risible.”

Willie Rennie, Scottish Liberal Democrat leader, added:

“Alex Salmond’s ludicrous attempt to rewrite history over his support of RBS’ exploits is dealt a fatal blow by his own pen.”

As news of Salmond’s attempt to re-write history unfolded, people took to twitter to rip the utter pish out of him, mockery and derision pour out on Twitter, with Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Tory leader, saying:

“If he was on Apollo 13 they’d have landed on the moon.”

Since he didn’t land on the moon, it now appears he is howling at the moon, what a piece of luck for unpopular Nicola Sturgeon having such a loose cannon making rather stupid statements.

On twitter, I noted he couldn’t save the right to a fair trial in a government that he personally controlled, so the idea he could save a bank from collapse is risible.

I think the expression…. ‘Bam’ has real currency here.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Monday, November 17, 2014

Open letter to Nicola Sturgeon, you think you can issues demands and be a ‘kingmaker’ in Westminster politics, Labour leader Ed Miliband won’t be calling you for help to get into Number 10, he can’t afford to associate with a crank who wants to abandon Trident

Dear Nicola

As Scotland’s new unpopular Nationalist leader you think you are going to be a ‘kingmaker’ in the 2015 Westminster General election.

That is so funny to be worthy of comment, not yet First Minster and already the nonsense spews out of your mouth like vomit.

In what can only be described as a bizarre intervention, you say you will put Ed Miliband in No 10 if he abandons austerity measures and removes Britain's nuclear arsenal from Scottish waters.

No, you won’t, at best you have seen the Unionist camp experience difficulties, but things are going to be changing politically in Scotland.

Better Together may have closed, but new groups have decided to spring up with the objective of getting the best candidates in an area into political office.

The Scottish Nationalists can demand Ed Miliband scraps Britain’s nuclear base in Scotland, but you will not get it, you will not even get a serious meeting around the table.

In 2010, the former fool to hold the office of SNP leader said, that he would put 20 MPs into Westminster and hold the balance of power, but when it came right down to it, no one was mental; enough to vote SNP.

The SNP don’t do big internal politics but you are too stupid, too petty and too student union.

As to abandoning the deficit reduction programme, that isn’t likely either, as the incoming government will work through the previous government spending plans until they get into a position to tinker, and that’s what is in store, tinkering.

We are looking at a coalition government, because of the rise of Ukip who down south at least have the prospect of gaining seats.

There is no deal to be done with the SNP.

A Nuclear United Kingdom means we keep our permanent seat on the Security Council.

In a rewriting of history, you say you won’t do a deal with the Conservatives in the event of a hung Parliament.

The SNP did deals all the way through the minority 2007 SNP Government to get budgets through.

You are just an unsophisticated hypocrite with a small town mentality devoid of being able to look at the bigger picture. Given the SNP got it spectacularly wrong on the EU which was fairly straight forward, the concept you have an idea of how the defence of the realm is achieved is bizarre.

After all you have Englishman Angus Robertson as defence spokesman …. what a poor joke.

People in Scotland rejected independence in a referendum less than two months ago, and they have no option but to reject you again for Westminster.

I notice that my point of lack of talent in the SNP seems to have struck a chord as you are having to import people as candidates, and guess what when I heard, my first thought was it would be candidates from the two minorities you closely associate with.

Time for a quote:

 “if you are white working class and heterosexual you are shit out of luck dealing with the Sturgeon Empire”.

But the opening up of candidacies to non SNP members isn’t as open as it appears is it?

Jeane Freeman.

Will you have a few white working class and heterosexuals sprinkled around to create the illusion of diversity and equality? Carefully selected to be much like the sheep that sit behind you in Holyrood unable to generate any ideas or produce vision, content to rake in the salary and expenses. Getting the cronies in is about the extent of your vision as you seek the defence of buffers to hold onto power.

Also, I laughed at how you have betrayed your SNP members who have worked hard to have the chance to stand for public office, but as you know Nicola, you are a rat, and rats have no loyalty.

Stay away from big ideas about scrapping Trident; your time has passed even before it has begun.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Thursday, November 13, 2014

FMQs: Scotland’s ‘jolly fat man’ Alex Salmond racks up his 215 FMQs appearance, he leaves office as a failure howling at the moon about how shipbuilding jobs loss would be “betrayal” of Scotland, the numb nut isn’t bright enough to understand the orders are coming, they have been promised

Dear All

Did you notice the historic event which has happened today?

Scotland’s ‘jolly fat man’ Alex Salmond did his last FMQs.

Did you notice that Scotland stopped?

Did you notice any tears in the streets?

Anyone saying don’t go?


Support groups?

No one in Scotland cared about Alex Salmond leaving his post, so much for his popularity; it’s fickle is it not!

As per usual, Salmond used his last FMQs to try and be a statesman, he isn’t, as expected the SNP clique were full of praise for their ‘hero’ as he fades away.

What will remain however is his legacy of failure and the memory of his love of 5 star hotels.  

Alex Salmond has written to David Cameron demanding assurances over the future of thousands of Scottish shipbuilding jobs.

In an independent Scotland, they wouldn’t be a shipbuilding industry, how many jobs did unpopular Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney when they did their Govan mercy mission when BAE wanted to shed 835 jobs?

They saved zero!

The British MoD will be placing warship orders within the UK, that’s Scotland to you and me, they have to consider the bigger picture; the idea of the order going to France is nonsense. If Cameron did this, his reputation would be mud.

And it would lose him the election….. trust must be maintained.

If Salmond is good at anything it is homing in on the gullible for votes, so he used the shipbuilding story to get in “betrayal” of referendum promises. This is because of what Admiral George Zambellas, the First Sea Lord, said yesterday the deal could go to France.

Zimbellas maybe an Admiral but he gets no final say, not even a hearing.

UK Ministers indicated that the deal to build 13 Type 26 frigates would be go to BAe on the Clyde in the event of a referendum No vote. That is the bottom line, the issue isn’t worth exploring further unless they change their mind, and they won’t because they can’t.

Salmond told MSPs the remarks:

“These remarks (by Zembella) are deeply troubling. They come not from some functionary in the Ministry of Defence, but the head of the Navy and this Parliament will ensure that the commitments and promises that have been made are honoured to the Clyde workers.”

These remarks by Salmond are also deeply troubling because they highlight how stupid and ignorant he is on military procurement and the wider political picture.

Alex Salmond is no Staesman, because a statesman would know a done deal when they saw it.

Tory leader Ruth Davidson said:

“Admirals don’t awards contract, the MoD awards contracts.”

And they only do so because the Cabinet has already made the decision for them, they do the paperwork.

The thinking bit has been done elsewhere.

In his last appearance, the chamber wasn’t all big hugs and kisses as Labour MSP Jackie Baillie had a go at him.

She said:

“We know the First Minister was passionate about independence. The tragedy is that he was so blinkered by that passion that Government actions to tackle poverty, reduce inequality and deliver social justice were pushed into second place.

Bailiee added:

“His legacy as First Minister will be his failure to use the powers at his disposal to make Scotland a better place.”

His last appearance done, his shift completed, there is little else to say but his career ends in failure.

Well done Alex Salmond, you will be a legend on toilet walls!

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University 

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

EU court rules ‘benefit tourists’ can be excluded from welfare schemes in a landmark ruling, the case highlights the problem of not having an internal EU immigration policy through-out Europe, time the EU politicians ‘grasped the nettle’ of reforming the organisation in a meaningful way

Dear All

Just as 2014 had all eyes in the UK fixated on the Scottish independence referendum, 2015 is shaping up to be firmly focused on the EU despite it being a Westminster election.

What has focused the agenda this way?

The rise of Ukip led by Nigel Farage, the party has tapped into a strong undercurrent of discontent that ordinary people across feel because of the way they have been treated. Previous decisions made by the mainstream parties in the past have come home to roost, it isn’t just voters who are deserting them; their rank and file members are feeling they have no common cause to continue their support. If you can’t get heard in your party, what is the point of continually supporting it or even voting for it?  

Ukip is expected to do well in England. Already Douglas Carswell’s re-election has caused the mainstream political parties to rethink their previously entrenched positions. The Labour Party due to its problems hasn’t signed up for a referendum on the European Question of should we remain as part of the EU.

There is a strong case for leaving the EU.

Equally, a strong case could be made to stay in and reform the organisation, the real trouble is that this has never happened properly despite several treaties by member states. At present there are 28 members of the European Union, much has changed since the early days of the EU when the focus was on better trading ties with the club.

Over the years we have seen good things come out of the EU such as the European Court of Justice and the judgements made on Human Rights have benefited people in Britain. The real trouble with human rights is the law, but the people who put their interpretation on it which has rendered in some cases bizarre judgements. Law in itself is very interesting as a topic because it touches on other policies and how they are enacted or curtailed.

On the issue of immigration, the EU policy is free movement of Labour.

What does that mean?

It means if I wished to go work in Poland and there was a job for me, I could just up sticks and potter off to live there. By the same token if someone from Germany wished to come and teach at Glasgow University and was offered a position, they too could come over and setup a new life.

The reality of the EU policy of free movement of Labour has gone wrong; it isn’t free movement of Labour but in effect just free movement. Sometime ago, I wrote about my idea for an internal EU immigration policy which in my mind was sorely needed to address this problem. Although the UK Government is trying to put in measures, the solution needs to be an EU wide solution and not just a British response to a domestic crisis. This should have been sorted out in a proactive rather than reactive manner which we now find ourselves in. 

The UK has been in the EU for circa 40 years, that is a long time to be a member, but the direction of travel hasn’t always been on the right road. Nation states need to be able to exercise their sovereignty more than they have been able to do so, un-hampered by Brussels. That doesn’t mean decisions should be green lit by a Nation just on the basis of dislike or to get a government out of a local difficulty, the rules should be based on fairness. I have always believed that an internal EU immigration policy was always the way to go, rather than things being done piecemeal by legal judgments and verdicts. 

Under my idea, each EU country would set criteria for people from other EU states who wished to live there; this would be done by the host country in conjunction with the EU. This would mean each Nation state sets a criteria which would apply to everyone from outside that country who is an EU citizen, it would mean that the same rules would apply to a German, a Frenchman, a Polish man or a Romanian if they wanted to live in there.

An EU court has ruled what is termed benefit tourists can be excluded from welfare schemes. It seems to me that rather than this situation of piecemeal which is a running sore and source of annoyance which doesn’t satisfy anyone, they would be better adopting my idea right across the entire EU.

Anyway, the European Court of Justice has declared EU member states must have 'the possibility of refusing' social benefits to 'economically inactive' EU citizens. This is the start of a recognition that free movement of Labour must not now been seen as purely just free movement. We aren’t anywhere near an internal EU immigration policy because there isn’t the political will for it, especially by the German leader Angela Merkel who is said to be opposed any restriction to the current setup.  

Now, Britain can ban European Union migrants from claiming "special non-contributory cash benefits" for up to five years, this is a landmark judgement in Luxembourg. In many ways it is long overdue but doesn’t fix the problem but it is certainly moved the ground a little.

The EU courts have ruled that it is up to the member states’ own Government, not Brussels, as to how it will draft the appropriate legislation that that excludes foreign, European nationals from claiming social assistance benefits. If you look at this in isolation, you would be tempted to think it is unfair as a first reaction, but there is a wider picture to consider were the rules have been abused by people who aren’t residents dubbed benefit tourists, in some cases they claim for their children, who aren’t even in the country.

That is entirely wrong, it is an abuse of the system and it should be stopped.

The landmark ruling has other implications such as allowing countries to assert their national sovereignty over out-of-work welfare benefits. Importantly, the European Court of Justice has stopped unemployed migrants from using human rights legislation to appeal against measures blocking them from benefits.

Although, this is legal, I feel the way this has been gone about doesn’t sit well, because the entire situation is in need of reform, and I keep coming back to it being an EU wide solution. Ironically, this test case was brought to the Court from Germany; it confirmed that governments can treat European jobseekers differently from their own nationals. The case involved two Romanian nationals, Elisabeta Dano and her son Florin, who were refused benefits in Leipzig because she "did not enter Germany in order to seek work there".

She and her son have been residing in Germany since November 2010.

The Court said:

"One of the conditions for a right of residence is that economically inactive persons must have sufficient resources of their own."

A Germany internal EU immigration policy it appears. If you google on my previous posts and comments elsewhere, you will find I also stated a criteria need to be set along those lines regarding funds and other relevant issues relating to employment. I used an analogy previously regarding the people wanting to study medicine, if a person was rejected after applying because they had no qualifications, it won’t be discrimination or an injustice, it would simply be that they didn’t fulfil the criteria, the person may not like it but that didn’t stop them in the past preparing to make their transitional move. 

And at the same time, they would have no recourse to EU human rights laws because there isn’t unfairness attached to the ruling. This is the bit that is a problem for some people, in general people should have access to justice, but justice cannot and shouldn’t be used to patch over political holes in the dyke.

The Court said:

"The directive on free movement of EU citizens and the regulation on the coordination of social security systems do not preclude domestic legislation which excludes nationals of other member states from entitlement to certain ‘special non-contributory cash benefits’, although they are granted to nationals of the host member state who are in the same situation.".

The European Commission has welcomed the judgment as bringing "more clarity" to the rules on EU free movement.

It gives a temporary fix which doesn’t address certain wider issues that need to be debated. And that is another of the systematic problems; politicians don’t want to debate this openly because of the nature of the topic.

So it is left to the Courts to decide matters.

Whereas people are willing to shout ‘racist’ for political advantage, when judgment comes via the Court, they can’t exercise their brand of political fascism to exploit a situation for votes.

But really there should be the political will by politicians on this matter.

Unsurprisingly there has been a lot of failure to lead. We elect politicians because we realise we can’t have the political will of mob enacted, politicians are supposed to the safeguard of reasoned judgement, abandoned in pursuit of their own political personal agendas.

2015, although a Westminster election is probably going to be dominated by the EU, Ukip should improve their situation, but they could do more by adopting a reformist platform to run alongside their desire for an in/out referendum rather than leave others to do the spade work. This landmark judgment actually works very well for Ukip because it gives in some way recognition of their stance that a problem exists, it also helps the Conservatives to a degree but it does nothing for the Labour Party.   

Labour need to adopt the idea of an internal EU immigration policy….. but won’t!

Labour leader Ed Miliband says he is the descendent of immigrants, fair enough; his problem is getting the ingenious population to vote for him.

He keeps saying, ‘I am on your side’!

According to the polls, people don’t seem to believe that statement which could be a real problem for him.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University