Having just received my Take Home test for Political Analysis, I am annoyed. When we were given them, out lecturer said that history students get an extra week just because they have a little bit extra work to do, fair enough. Ive no idea how much work they have but i’ll accept it. Where my problem lies is that he also said certain members of the module have been granted extensions simply because they are campaigning for Boris in London. This is ridiculous when all of us are campaigning, as BUCF are im sure. Why then should Boris campaigners be given an extension when no one else is. If this module was going to grant this extension, they shouldnt have given their test over council election week. End of
The House of Lords has today suggested that the Government has exaggerated just how beneficial immigration is.
Inquiry chairman Lord Wakeham told Sky News: “We recognise that immigrants to this country do a good job, but there is no economic benefit to the resident population and it is damaging to low-paid workers.”
The minister for Immigration, incidentally also the minister for the West Midlands and Hodge Hill MP Liam Byrne, started his response to the report by clarifying that ‘the report doesnt demur…that migration added about £6 million to our economy in 2006′. I would consider those figures to be quite visual of the benefits of immigration to our economy. Byrne goes on to state the importance of gaining the right level of immigration, a notion that few would disagree with.
But of course the ‘right’ level is normative. In an era of globalisation such as we are in now, no one can conceivably say all immigration is negative. It is valuable beyond monetary terms in Culture, but has other economic value as well. If immigration were to be capped too high, then we would lose out to our European counterparts on valuable employees from abroad, lowering our status on the international scene. Also, it could see a decrease in the level of Foreign Investment. Being a culturally diverse, globalised economy has clear benefits, which attracts investment from abroad.
I cant see a clear answer to this problem. I dont agree with setting a maximum percentage or target, because as we all know, the economy is cyclical. We should be looking at immigration in terms of the status of the economic cycle, and not just filling a quota, and trying to keep within a maximum.
This is my first Post so I apologise if it doesnt meet the high standard we’re used to.
It has been proposed that School Pupils across Britain will have to pledge an oath of allegiance to the Queen. This has been put in place in an attempt to give students a sense of belonging, as well as increase a sense of ‘British-ness’. There is also discussion as to a ‘British National Holiday’.
I like the idea of attempting to create a national pride. I must say i do enjoy seeing all the Flags of St. George that appear everywhere just before England get beaten on Penalties in the football. But swearing an oath to the Queen seems to be to be a slightly empty attempt. I like the idea of a British Day; a chance to hold village fairs and get a day off work and just generally be proud to be British.
This proposition has come up with much opposition, especially outside of England. Some of this may be because of the Six Nations, especially after England have lost to both Wales and Scotland. But there is a problem with people who do not feel British being made to swear allegiance to the Queen.
As much as I respect the Queen, I don’t feel that forcing people to pledge allegiance will make students have any more sense of belonging. So I will avoid pledging my allegiance to the Queen, but I will enjoy a few cold ones at our British-ness Day. Anyone fancy joining me in a ’cheers’ to Britain?