Governments are under enormous pressure especially in Britain where both main political parties are pressing for immigration to be an issue at the next general election with a race to the bottom of who can impose the strictest controls. They face conflicting pressures: significant levels of resistance to increased immigration in public opinion on the one hand, and sound economic and social rationales for the relaxation of entry barriers on the other. By creating a true property-owning democracy, Margaret Thatcher ensured that the vast majority of us have an active interest in a Conservative ideology. A masterstroke. What we must not allow to happen is the likes of Nick Griffin redefining the narrative – contrary to the evidence – around immigration.

The massive inflows associated with European Union accession led neither to the displacement of local workers nor to increased unemployment in the UK. Simulations following the European Union accessions of 2004 suggest that output levels in the United Kingdom and Ireland, which allowed large-scale inflows from the new member states of Eastern Europe, would be 0.5–1.5 percent higher after about a decade, and the net fiscal figure for the United Kingdom at the present time is ± 0.65 percent of GDP. Given that the recovery of our economy is so fragile, it would be madness to place more restrictions on immigration, and it isn’t the reason we have a legion of NEET’s across the country – it’s Labour’s failure in education that has let a generation of young people down.

It is easy to make cheap platitudinous statements defending the Labour government’s abysmal record in education (remember its slogan Education, education, education), but the hard work of the pupils and teachers is irrelevant if it is directed (by the government) toward means that give them and the country so little benefit.

Can anyone say that more choice, more competition, more efficiency, more responsiveness to parents and more resources spent on actual teaching wouldn’t be the best thing to do? Because that’s what would happen under a Conservative Government.

Students don’t get suitable careers advice and end up not picking suitable A-Levels for their choice of university/career/life simply because no-one told them what the implications of their choice were. Can anyone tell me how Conservative policy isn’t the right thing to do instead?

The Labour party’s response to the crisis in education is simply to extend the pain by raising the school leaving age in an attempt to delay the consequences of their failure to live up to expectations they set in 1997. As a way to improve educational standards, and to act as a cure for unemployment evidence shows this to be suspect. Is it any surprise that social mobility has decreased under Labour?

We have the plans to fix a broken education system, it’s time to tell that to the people on the doorsteps. We must not pander to populist calls for more restrictions on immigration.

Posted by Administrator on behalf of Thomas Byrne; you can visit his personal blog here

James Purnell’s announcement last week that he is stepping down from Parliament is a great shame to anybody who wants politics to achieve progressive ends.  I have written before about how Purnell underestimates the ideas put forward as part of the ‘progressive Conservative’ umbrella.   Having said that, his contributions, particularly since leaving the Cabinet, have been genuinely thought provoking and pretty compelling.  Read last week’s speech at the LSE as an example and compare it with Miliband’s particularly substance light Demos speech yesterday.

Despite the protestations of the likes of Liberal Conspiracy (and quite a few left wing friends of mine) who still seem to detest Purnell, we should all be sad that people who are radicals and thought leaders think it is better off for them to be outside of Parliament rather than inside.  What does that say about the health of our politics and our political process?  Witness, as well, the announcement by Tony Benn before the last election that he was resigning from Parliament “to devote more time to politics.”  Or the fact that, love him or hate him, Daniel Hannan prefers to be outside rather than within Parliament.  Or even the resignation of the likes of the highly talented Bryan Gould a few years ago.

It is worth reading Kenneth Morgan’s excellent life of Keir Hardie, or looking at the causes of Chartism and the other great radical movements to understand the emphasis placed on gaining working class and radical representation inside the House of Commons.  Indeed, that is one of the many things that sets British radicalism aside from continental radicalism.  What does it say about the modern House of Commons that so many people of radical views feel that the best place for them is outside of Parliament?

Of course, there are many potential reasons for this.  The growth of unelected institutions, at a national, European and international level has, undoubtedly weakened the power of Parliament.  The judiciary, rather than elected decision makers, plays an increasingly activist role. The power of the 24 hour media has probably diminished the capacity for ‘thinkers’ to gain breathing space whilst under the media spotlight.  The power of the party hierarchy and the whips has undoubtedly grown, to the detriment of a healthy democracy.  The rise of the blogosphere and think tanks means that radical ideas can potentially gain as much emphasis when expressed outside of Parliament than outside.

There is little doubt that political reform is urgent and overdue.  The role of Parliament undoubtedly needs to be strengthened.  It is, surely, tragic that some of the best thinkers and most talented politicians no longer see being in the House of Commons as being the pinnacle of political life.

Andy Murray is, almost without doubt, the best British tennis player since Fred Perry.  Sadly, he is not getting the credit he deserves from too many people.

I was amazed at how many people said to me last week that they were rooting for his opponents because they didn’t like Murray and his so-called “attitude”.  Clearly, people would prefer their tennis players to be fresh faced, “well-spoken” embodiments of middle England than sportsmen with a relentless focus on winning.   There is a reason why he has already achieved so much more than people like Jeremy Bates or Tim Henman.

We have a choice to make.  We can either expect our sportsmen to be dedicated winners, with a real eye on constant self improvement or we can expect them to have a “nice attitude.”

The Australian cricket team; Mohammed Ali; McEnroe; Phil Taylor and Eric Bristow; Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus…  The list could go on and on.  But all have been condemned at one point or another for their attitude.  And all of them are winners.

Frankly, I prefer sportsmen to have a focus on winning and constantly improving their game.  For too long, British sport had been plagued by a satisfaction with being second best.  I’m happy that somebody like Murray is utterly focused on improving his game and becoming the best.  I’m not massively bothered about what part time sports fans think about that.  When he starts winning Grand Slams, as I have no doubt he will, then his ‘attitude’ and focus on winning will have been entirely vindicated.

Barely a day goes by without another acknowledgement of this Government’s failure to help those who placed the most faith in it.  Only last week, one report showing that 13% of children in the UK are living in poverty was followed by a devastating critique from a Government body of New Labour’s record on inequality.

According to the National Equality Panel, “comparison with measures based on tax records suggests that this is the highest level of income inequality since soon after the Second World War.”  Read that sentence again and then ask yourself the very simple question – what is a Labour Government for?  After 13 years of Labour Government, inequality has widened and social mobility has gone backwards.  That is most certainly not what people signed up to in 1997.  What would Keir Hardie or Nye Bevan have thought of this?  Come to think of it, I would imagine that the likes of Hugh Gaitskell and Roy Jenkins would have been shocked.  Even Ramsay Macdonald would have been horrified.

That such a report comes out and Labour ministers are not utterly shamed by the findings says so much about what the Labour Party has become.  The party that was once, “a moral crusade or it is nothing” has been reduced to a mere political calculating machine.  Nowhere in the Ministerial statements about the report were there any new ideas about how the problem could be resolved and how poverty and inequality could be reduced.

The report makes quite clear that the accident of birth plays far too important a role in determining life chances.  It makes quite clear that too many children are let down by education in deprived areas.  That is why radical new progressive Conservative policies are aimed at establishing new schools in the most deprived areas and introducing a pupil premium where schools are given extra money.

Tackling inequality and poverty will be one of the priorities of an incoming Conservative Government.  Labour have failed the poorest in society.  It is now up to us to ensure that life chances are not decided at birth; the causes of inequality and poverty are tackled; and that Britain becomes a fairer society after 13 years of Labour’s diminished hope and broken promises.

We should be saluting the fact that, according to the latest version of the British Attitudes Survey, we are now one of the most socially progressive and liberal societies in Europe.  That is a cause for enormous celebration.

The most marked finding is that he survey shows that fewer than a third of people believe that homosexuality is wrong, compared to 68% in 1993.  True that it still too many but it is a massive step in the right direction.   The survey also shows that Britain is towards the “more tolerant” end of the spectrum on almost every major social issue. According to the survey, this spread in social liberalism has been most marked amongst the over 60s.

I disagree with Tony Blair on many things, from the war in Iraq to his pandering to the Daily Mail and the widening inequality and declining social mobility of the past 13 years.  But credit should be given where it is due and his Government does have to be praised for making the country a more socially liberal place to live.  They were right to get rid of the repellent Section 28, right to allow gay adoption and right to introduce civil partnerships.

Indeed, it is probably unarguable that the social reforms introduced by Blair’s Government makes it the most important socially reforming Government since the great Wilson and Jenkins abortion, contraception and homosexuality  and censorship reforms of the 1960s.  It is just a shame that the first major acts of Gordon Brown’s Premiership, over cannabis, casinos and drinking hours were utterly illiberal – setting the tone for a thoroughly illiberal Premiership.

Social liberals and progressives, including myself, realise that we still have a long way to go on a whole range of issues, but there is a little doubt that massive strides have been made in the past twenty years or so.  I have little doubt that David Cameron’s Government will be a thoroughly socially liberal one.  Society has moved on to the extent that no Government would dare introduce a Section 28 equivalent.  Although a handful of reactionaries remain, society itself is much more progressive and liberal.  And we should be very grateful for that.