If ever there was a need for ministers to have a chat with one another that need is now. It may perhaps lead to an end to the garbled messages coming from Frank Field and Teresa May for instance and it could also end the idea that businesses as opposed to people are the electorate.
Teresa May promised control over immigration yet Willets and Hove say it will harm business to impose a cap on immigrants.
Just to highlight 'the problem', Sky News showed a Chinese businesswoman who caters for visits to the far east, saying she needs people who have the language skills and that's why she needs immigrants. Adding, that there is a shortage of language skills in Britain.
Why was a Chinese woman permitted to set up this business which has no capability to trade and is intentionally not reliant on the British workforce? - Answer = government policy which tells us that globalisation is good for Britain.
But that was only one business, what about the other 'skills' we don't have? - Answer = They won't tell us because their excuse is built on lies.
The simple way to deal with immigration is to tell the people what skills they are lacking and then the people can go get them. Secondly, that business needs are placed second to social needs in terms of employment. i.e. Go get tough with businesses which are hiring foreign labour rather than training the indigenous workforce in whatever skills they say are lacking, and they won't then be making demands upon government and people like Willets and Hove will begin to see that this country belongs to the people and not to some Chinese Businesswoman who takes immigrants who can speak Chinese, on trips to the far east.
Frank Field is blaming single fathers for the ills of an overburdened benefits system I see. He says we (as in the people), need to lose our 'obsession' of getting single mothers into work. He's obviously either not bothered reading the ConLibDem policy on this or he's deliberately trying to unhinge it. Some of what he says is right incidentally, except he places the blame on single fathers for being out of work, rather than on businesses for failing (or refusing), to hire them.
He also appears to consider that the government has no duty or responsibility in this social problem which affects the entire nation, as he is calling for benefits to be stopped for those who refuse a job.
He may have forgotten that we have over a million illegal immigrants in the country and I doubt that they can all be picking potatoes.
He may also have forgotten that his government stopped training indigenous nurses and doctors and hired them instead from India and Pakistan and the Philippines.
So much so, that now 40% of our NHS is staffed by immigrants whilst millions of indigenous Britons (many of whom are single fathers), remain UNEMPLOYED.
His government interfered with the natural cycle of business, yet is not able for some inexplicable reason to interfere (or rather take social responsibility) in other businesses.
They really do need to get their heads together because fathers are not unemployed by choice, they are unemployed because no one cares about society. Hence, we have a policy to get mothers into work rather than praising the benefits to a child of having a full-time mother. And they are trying to turn society against unemployed single fathers instead of asking themselves what they did as politicians to help the people they asked to vote.
Until politicians switch their minds on to the real needs of society instead of harping on about what business wants, then we will remain doomed to destruction as a people and also as a country.
I'm afraid this is a forgone conclusion unless politicians start to represent the views of the people.
Generally speaking, fathers want to be able to provide. Mothers want to mother. Governments need to take notice of the fundamental needs of people rather than listening to some Chinese woman who came here to set up a business to make herself rich.
People are not only the last thing on the minds of those in government but government itself is actually working against the people.
Oh, I wonder when Frank Field will let on who the single fathers and drug traffickers are, and whether he'll tell the people that they are mostly IMMIGRANTS?

“it could also end the idea that businesses as opposed to people are the electorate.”
ReplyDeleteGlad someone else has spotted this. I caught the tail end of a news item, in which someone from the government had asked business leaders if they could cap immigration. “They reluctantly agreed”.
Mass immigration from 1948 has never benefited Britons, only made the already rich, richer. If immigration and globalisation is good for Britain, then why is it the taxpayer is supporting the economy through their taxes?
Quality of life for Britons is the true measure, and that would be much greater had immigration/globalisation never occurred.