Politicians - please appeal to our hopes and aspirations rather than exploiting our fears

The immigration issue is taking centre stage in British politics and looks sure to be an important debate in next year's election.

But listening to the debate, and hearing Nigel Farage and Russell Brand on this week's Question Time, it is clear that there is a lot of emotion but very few facts around the issue.

Most arguments against immigration at current levels are, it seems to me, emotional rather than factual - so it's harder to change people's views.

There are a few points that need to be made.

Nobody is in favour of 'welfare tourists' coming to this country purely to take advantage of our benefits system.

Nobody has offered any real evidence that there are welfare tourists - and if there are what the scale of the issue is. Most people are agreed that the majority of people coming here make a positive economic contribution to our country and its cuture.

We should be proud that we live in a country that takes care of its weaker members.  The disadvantaged, the disabled and the sick.  This is what makes us better than most other countries and we shouldn't

Nigel Farage claims that the population of the UK has risen from 57 million in 1990 to 63 million today and that the main reason is immigration.

But there are other reasons for population growth.

In 1990 average life expectancy in the UK was 75.88.  By 2012 it had risen to 81.50. So an additional 4.2 million people are alive in the UK due to this factor alone.

And these older people don't work - so we need more workers to service their needs and pay tax to contribute to their pensions and care provisions.

Nigel Farage is also worried that "Without immigration control Government cannot plan because they don't know how large the population will be." This is complete nonsense. We are not communist China. We we have an open emmigration policy and not knowning how many people will leave the coutry isn't a problem either.  Neither do we control the right to have babies - unless UKIP has plans in that direction - so cannot control population size that way either.

UKIP is worried that there are no controls on immigration.  But, in effect, there are.  EU citizens come here because we have work for them. If the jobs run out they won't come any more. At the moment we have jobs - so we need them to come and they want to come.  It is not rocket science.

The bigger problem is with the countries they leave because we are taking their youngest, brightest most ambitious citizens.  It was called a brain drain in the 70s when the right warned that taxing high earners would make them leave this country.

In retrospect we should have bought the air tickets for Fred Goodwin and his cronies - it wouldn't have cost the £38 billion the bail-out of RBS cost.

UKIP claims to be changing the face of British politics. This is laughable - a bunch of ex-Tories who want to take us back in time instead of embracing the future is the last thing we need.

We need politicians who will offer people hope and appeal to their aspirations - not exploit their fears.

Our politicians are failing us and it is time for change - but UKIP isn't the answer.

The View From Surrey: Time for Allardyce to Go?

The View From Surrey: Time for Allardyce to Go?: West Ham fans seem torn on the question of whether time should be called on Sam Allardyce. And listening to his interview on Talksport thi...

Time for Allardyce to Go?

West Ham fans seem torn on the question of whether time should be called on Sam Allardyce.

And listening to his interview on Talksport this morning won't have helped.

In fact the media seems to be divided on this question. Some think he is a dinosaur while old school pundits like Alan Brazil and Andy Gray lob him easy questions while talking about him being a "proper football man"(whatever that means - presumably not like Wenger, Mourhino or even Roy Hodgson) and ask what it is that West Ham fans expect?  "You know what you'll get with Allardyce - he'll keep you in the division".


Well are they sure he will?

If we hadn't somehow managed to win 4 games in February we'd be looking at the Championship fixture lists right now.

What we want is a team to feel proud of and to be entertained. We not expecting Champions League Football any time soon (if ever) - but we want to see good football at the Boleyn - preferrably with West Ham playing some of it.

Few would now argue that Sam was the right appointment when he joined the club.  He sorted many of the problems we had and got us promoted at the first attempt and then achieved a fantastic 10th place in our first season back.

But that doesn't mean he is the right man to be at the helm now.

Ricardo Vaz Te scored the winner at Wembley but no one is suggesting that means he should be playing up front for us for the next 5 years.

Remember we came up with Southampton - who changed their manager half way through the following season to much derision - only to have it proved an inspired decision.

The arguments for changing manager now are strong:

• Last season wasn't good and a backward step from our first one back. This one is shaping up to be as bad.
• We finished last season without a single First Team player under the age of 25.
• The only young player to have emerged is Ravel Morrison - who is also the most talented player we have seen at the Boleyn for years - and Sam seems unable to manage him.
• Not a single youth team player has broken into the First Team (apart from cameos) since Sam arrived.
• Let me repeat that - not a single youth team player has broken into the First Team (apart from cameos) since Sam arrived.
• It's not just that we don't like the style of football - there doesn't see to be a long-term plan or strategy that supporters can buy into and get behind. Everything seems to be geared to hanging on to a Premier League place until we get to the Olympic Stadium. But what happens then? Doesn't it matter if this plan doesn't work after we are in there?
• WE NEED A LONGER TERM PLAN THAT TAKES US BEYOND MOVING TO THE OLYMPIC STADIUM

We are fortunate in that, while they aren't billionaires, our owners do care about the club. Contrast David Sullivan's call to Talksport. Some of what he said may have been ill advised - but he spoke from the heart without the caginess you usually get from Sam.

They have shown the ambition that all supporters crave from their owners - and taken the opportunity to move to a fantastic new stadium - with its attendant risks.

But it is now time for them to thank Sam for his work during his time at West Ham and look for a brighter more energetic manager with a 5-year plan for the club - it's what they would do in any of their other businesses and they would be making a mstake if they think football management works differently.

A Scottish Referendum for England?

Opinion polls have shown support in Scotland for independence flatlining at around 25% (while support in England and Wales for break-up of the union has been slightly higher!).

Around 44% of Scots are against independence and 31% don't know.

There seems to be a general acceptance across the UK that this is a matter for the Scots to decide, that they should hold a referendum, and if the majority are in favour of independence they can 'do one' as far as the rest of us are concerned.

I don't have a problem with this and think the Scots should make their own minds up. Let's see if Inverness likes being governed by a parliament in Edinburgh any more than one in London.


But I do believe there are some specific points here that the rest of us should have our say on if there is an unlikely Yes vote.

Indications are that Scotland would like to maintain 'currency union' with the UK (they want to use sterling rarther than their own currency), keep the monarchy and 'cooperate' on defence.

Shouldn't the English and Welsh be asked how they feel about this?

Are we comfortable with an independent country using our currency when we have seen what the smaller economies of Greece, Portugal, Ireland etc have done to the Euro and the price Germany has had to pay?

And why do they want our Queen (though they might possibly feel different under Charles III) - can't they get their own monarch?

They should also have their own army - just in case we invade again.

These must be matters on which the rest of the UK has its say.

I call for a referendum on these issues should independence come to pass - otherwise what the hell does independence mean apart from the Scots poking their tongues out at the English?

If you choose to leave home you can stand on your own two feet and not come home every night to have your meals cooked and your washing done. I would make them use their own language too if I though it was feasible.

And I also call for all Scots in the the UK parliament to withdraw from the debate - that's you Michael Gove, Danny Alexander and Iain Duncan Smith.  In fact I would go further and ask those with obvious Scottish lineage to absent themselves as well - so Cameron can leave the room whenever you like.

Are you behind me on this?  Join the campaign! Better still - you start a campaign and I'll join yours!!

Racism in Russian Football

There has been condemnation around the world of the recent racist behaviour of CSKA Moscow Football Club and the failure of the European Governing body (UEFA) to take firm action.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/sports/soccer/uefa-orders-partial-ban-on-fans-in-cska-moscow-racism-case.html?_r=0

But aren't calls for stricter punishments for clubs and their fans over this kind of behaviour misguided?

There are undoubted issues over racism in a number of Eastern European countries - at least by the newly enlightened standards of many Western countries.  But don't for get we had these problems in the UK and the USA not too long ago - indeed they are still being tackled.

So how did we arrive at a better place more accepting place?

Through education and familiarity. It became harder and harder for British fans to abuse opposition black players when their own team's best players were of ethnic origin.

So what's required among the fans of CSKA Moscow is education, understanding and tolerance and I don't think we are going to achieve that through stricter punishment.

Does anyone really believe we can batter tolerance into anyone - let alone groups of young men?

Of course when you are angry at these people's behaviour it is natural to want them punished - but in the longer term a more measured approach is required.

It's easy to be superior but who among us knows for sure we wouldn't exhibit the same standards of behaviour if we hadn't had a Muscovite upbringing and cultural background?

They say that before you criticise someone you should walk a mile in their shoes. At least then you are a mile away. And you have their shoes.

Leaving this issue to referees to sort out at matches is, by the way, ridiculous.  The protocol is that if a player is being abused he should inform the referee, who will then locate a stadium official who is supposed to tell the stadium announcer to tell fans to stop the abuse.

1 What language is this all supposed to take place in?  The referee was Romanian, the player being targeted is from the Ivory Coast and the stadium officials are Russian

2 I have been a Premier League stadium announcer. Nobody understands what you say during the game - let alone a Romanian referee in the middle of the pitch

3 The idea that fans might stop their abuse because the stadium announcer tells them to must have been dreamt up by an official who has never been to a football match

The only way to curb this outrageous behaviour is not to be outraged - but to find a way to engage with these fans so that they can be educated and included. On the face of it you would think that football was the perfect medium through which to do this - but they don't seem to be trying hard enough.

Solution to University Education Costs at a Stroke

I've started this blog on my wife's instructions - she is fed-up with listening to me banging on.

Actually that's not true.  She is fed-up with having to pretend to listen to me banging on.

So I'll keep this first post short and simple in the hope I don't alienate more people.

I can solve most of the issues Governments have struggled with over University education at a stroke.

We can reduce the cost of university education in an instant.  We could reduce the burden of most student loan debt by at least a third.  We can improve the quality of education. We can ensure that students are better prepared for the workplace when they leave university.  We can make university a more worthwhile experience and more accesible.

How?

Most degree courses (apart from a few obvious vocational ones such as medicine and law) could be done in 2 years rather than 3.

Obviously most students would have to work a little harder and watch a little less daytime TV.

But then students work as little as 15.9 hours per week (during term time), as evidenced by figures for students studying for Business and Administration Studies students at Leeds Metropolitan University, who have 9.9 hours of scheduled work and 6 hours of private study a week (source Times Higher Education Supplement August 2013).

Reducing their course to 2 years would only increase their studies to 23.85 hours a week - which would still leave time to watch Deal or No Deal and Neighbours.

Having to put more effort in at University would also surely make students better prepared for the 37.5 hours a week or more that will be expected of them in work.