Coffee House

Nuclear should never be ‘the last resort’

22 October 2013

10:45 AM

22 October 2013

10:45 AM

Yesterday’s agreement between the French state-owned company EDF and the UK Government regarding the ‘strike price’ for the electricity that will be generated by Hinkley C should be welcomed by everybody who cares about our environment, our economy and the security of our energy supplies.

It’s taken three political parties, three Prime Ministers and two governments eight years to reach this point. Over this period, David Cameron has gone from espousing an investment-deterring policy of nuclear generation as ‘a last resort’ to welcoming the environmental and economic benefits of the industry in the shape of the deal that should pave the way for the construction of Britain’s first new nuclear reactor for a generation.

As someone involved with the development of the pro-nuclear energy policy developed by the last Labour government and largely retained by the Coalition, I know that any effective nuclear programme in the UK requires a deep and lasting political consensus. The deal to broker the development of Hinkley is extremely important, but, such is the complexity of the nuclear industry, it does not mean that the other nuclear sites earmarked for development in England and Wales will necessarily occur.

[Alt-Text]


Our nuclear programme doesn’t just require a political consensus, it requires intellectual commitment and a strong political stomach. The global recession, soon followed by the tsunami which overwhelmed Japan’s Fukishima nuclear plant, gave politicians of all colours the opportunity to walk away from nuclear. We didn’t. Spare a thought, too, for those long-suffering civil servants who, throughout changes of government and an ever-changing cast-list of energy ministers have retained the ‘corporate memory’ underpinning new nuclear policy and who have delivered the latest progression in the shape of the Hinkley deal – it is on their shoulders that the successful implementation of nuclear policy rests.

Britain’s nuclear renaissance still requires some intensive midwifery – as does the development of Hinkley itself. By the time Hinkley C starts generating electricity in 2023 (assuming this timescale is met) it’s likely that Britain will have a different government and Prime Minister to those we have today.

In welcoming Ed Davey’s statement in the House of Commons, I asked him to produce a plan in which the ’critical path’ for the development of our other new nuclear sites – including Moorside in my own constituency – could be laid out. This plan should establish milestones for the development of the sites, with clear accountabilities for the public and private sector in meeting these timescales and should be aggressively driven. Market intervention? Undoubtedly. But if the deal for Hinkley C has shown anything it is this: if we want an energy policy that increases our energy security, helps bolster our economic and industrial policy and helps us to meet our environmental objectives then market intervention is here to stay.

Jamie Reed is Labour MP for Copeland.


More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.



Show comments
  • Bill Brinsmead

    Jamie Reed, ex bagman to the former Labour Leader at Cumbria County Council, now in the pocket of the nuclear industry that provides 50% of the jobs in his constituency.

    Laugh or cry.

    • Daniel Maris

      Cry.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        No, lad, you laugh at that. The nukes will be on-line 24/7, at least, unlike your windmill stupidity, which won’t be on when needed, leaving people cold and in the dark. That’s the socialist greenie nuttery that’s cryable.

        • Daniel Maris

          The average downtime for nuclear power stations is around 12% pa I believe. Do you know better? If you really thought they operate 24/7 you are truly displaying your ignorance.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Scheduled and planned downtime is not of consideration, lad.

            You are ignorant and poorly educated, and would have no way of knowing and understanding that, obviously.

            • Daniel Maris

              “Scheduled and planned downtime is not of consideration within the industry” – that’s a stupid sentence for such an intellectual powerhouse as yourself grandad. You said 24/7. Just admit you were caught out and walk on.

              Not all of the 12% is “scheduled and planned” in any case. Sometimes downtime is necessitated by emergency procedures e.g. the French nuclear reactors that had to shut down in the very hot summer of a few years ago.

              • the viceroy’s gin

                As I say, scheduled and planned downtime is not of consideration within the nuke and fossil power provision industry, as compared to the unscheduled downtime presented by the windmills so much beloved by you greenie nutters.

                But you’re too ignorant and poorly educated to understand that, as we’ve previously established.

                And laddie, you’re also too ignorant to understand it, but hot weather shutdowns are planned outages, occurring in precisely determined time frames each year, not the intermittent and random outages presented by your beloved windmills. Shutdown maintenance is scheduled during these outages, rather than the considered decision to build additional cooling to keep such plants running. It’s a cost-benefit calculation. These are not “emergency procedures”.

                But again, you’re ignorant and poorly educated, and couldn’t know this.

                • Daniel Maris

                  Look grandad, you said they operate 24/7 which is untrue.

                  You’re now compounding your original error by claiming that there are never any emergency shutdowns in nuclear facilities which is patently absurd.

                  Just be gracious and admit you got it wrong. Try a little pinch of humility with your main meal of arrogance. You might find life more appealing.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Of course it’s true, lad. Fossil and nuke plants are up 24/7, other than the planned and scheduled outages, unlike your windmill fetishes, which go down randomly and are thus redundant cost sinks.

                  And no, laddie, I have made no claim about emergency shutdowns. You did, however, re the French plants, and your claim is false. Those were not emergencies, and you’d know that if you weren’t a greenie muppet.

                  Your ignorance and poor education is showing as usual, lad .

                • Daniel Maris

                  Sorry, grandad, if a reactor has to be shut down because of hot weather that makes it impossible to cool the reactor, that is an emergency because absence of coolant was never planned.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, lad, your statement is false, but you’re too ignorant and poorly educated to understand the reasons why it’s false.

  • dalai guevara

    All socialist economies in dire need of cash (the US, the UK, Australia) need to make things. They need to make things to sell to foreigners and pay the bills. That’s why we are selling our energy supply to the Chinese and the French now, there is no other reason. We need to make cash, by spending more on energy later. A vicious circle of socialism. Sell now, spend more later.
    The mind boggles.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      You mean, you socialist nutters have sinned. Speak for yourself, lad.

    • HookesLaw

      We are not selling our energy supply – we are paying for it. Someone else is providing it and building it and we are paying for what it produces.
      The reason we are paying the price we are is because we will need it and labour spent 13 years avoiding this problem like all the other ones.

      This was labours great failure, they ran away from and avoided all the decisions, from pensions to power.
      Who can blame them, whenever a govt actually makes a decision all the useless nobodies then come out from under their stones and complain – because all people want is other people’s money spent on them.

      This government should be credited with taking a lot of decisions, but I doubt the press which has its own agenda will congratulate it or give it a fair hearing.

      • dalai guevara

        Do you not speak English properly? You heard me: we are s e l l i n g it to buy it back later for more.
        Topless is more!

        • HookesLaw

          I comprehend English perfectly, you clearly do not.

          • Nicholas chuzzlewit

            The most incomprehensible participant on this site is asking somebody if they speak English. Priceless.

          • dalai guevara

            You clearly require metaphor training.
            Read some Shakespeare and switch off that TV!

        • Nicholas chuzzlewit

          You, a person who communicates perpetually via incomprehensible riddles, are asking somebody else if they speak English! I have heard of irony but we now need a new word for what you have just come out with.

      • Nicholas chuzzlewit

        Actually, Gordon Brown quite deliberately took some spectacularly bad decisions relating to pensions. My favourite was the denial of ACT relief following the receipt of dividends by private pension funds. This decision contributed more to the destruction of private pension provision in Britain than just about anything else. What was once the envy of the World (unlike the NHS), is now a shadow of its former financial robustness. Brown’s measures drained between £150 and £200 billion from these funds which Labour wasted on electorally useful ‘white elephants’ while ruining the retirement ambitions of thousands. There is often talk of imprisoning bankers, accountnts etc for financial mismanagement and if this ever comes to pass, a cell should be reserved for messrs Brown and Balls, the most notorious financial mismanagers of them all..

      • the viceroy’s gin

        No, what you socialist Camerluvvies are doing is forcing the People to pay for your wasteful windmills, and you’re forcing the People to pay for the costly nuke plants required to make up for your beloved windmills’ ineffectiveness in power generation.

        And all this because you Camerluvvies are global warmingist nutters, and don’t care how much debt you pile up, and how much you impoverish the People with your greenie stupidity.

        When your boy Dave’s head is mounted on a spike in 18.5 months, don’t bother asking why, because you socialist kooks are here today celebrating the stupid reasons why.

        I’m going to laugh when the Millipedes make hay off this stupidity. It’s going to be hilarious.

        • dalai guevara

          Windmills aren’t ‘wasteful’. They produce energy when the wind blows. Extra energy.
          What? You cannot deal with extra energy? Hahaha. You need an engineer, tovarishch!

          I am the Dalai Guevara, engineering your life whether you want me to or not..

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Yes, windmills are wasteful. I wouldn’t expect an ignorant and poorly educated envirowhacko like you to understand that, and you don’t, but it doesn’t change matters, laddie.

            • dalai guevara

              You need an engineer to help you out here.
              I will volunteer as part of my charitable contribution to society. You will see no monies from me for your foreign coal, gas and nuclear, tovarishch. Not a penny, dime in some other places.

              • the viceroy’s gin

                Masquerading as an “engineer” again, are you, laddie? Sorry, but no, you are an ignorant and poorly educated socialist nutter, as we’ve previously established.

  • the viceroy’s gin

    So the global warmingist nutters get their way. The windmill wastes will go merrily on, even though they can’t provide firm power capacity and are a threat to leave everybody cold and in the dark. So redundant capacity must be built, and since the global warmingist nutters fantasize that the evil carbon dioxide is a threat to roast us all alive, the far too costly option of nukes has been chosen, to bury the People in debt and further erode their standard of living.

    And a Millipedal member of the LibLabCon clones steps into the Speccie teenagers’ sandbox, to crow victory. How fitting.

    We are all socialist Cameluvvies now.

    • dalai guevara

      Tovarishch – has no one told you yet?
      When the wind blows, windmills produce energy.
      When the wind does not blow, windmills don’t.
      Incidentally, no one r e l i e s on windmills, not even the Danes and Germans.
      Go figure.

      • Daniel Maris

        He’s impervious to reasoning and 99% fact-free.

        • Hexhamgeezer

          Like your (con) fusion blather?

          • Daniel Maris

            We’ll see…some interesting developments going on and they are certainly making more progress than the hot fusionists ever did in 50 years.

          • Daniel Maris

            Just in case you think LENR is all about shady Italians and nutjobs working in their garages:

            http://www.eurotrib.com/comments/2013/1/12/53836/7713/3

            Toyota have replicated Mitsubishi’s discovery of LENR transmutation. This has now been published in a proper scientific journal.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        You global warmingist nutters love you some windmills, laddie.

        • dalai guevara

          The “Atomkraft, nein danke” movement is far more ingrained in society than you think. It is a good 50 years older than the Denialingpole position.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Is this some sort of global warmingist nutter encrypted message for the rest of the greenie nutter underground, lad?

            “The chair is against the windmill. The chair is against the windmill.”

            “Jean has a long solar powered mustache. Jean has a long solar powered mustache.”

            • dalai guevara

              Ah ba non!
              Guf is Danish ice cream topping, you uneducated stooge.

              • the viceroy’s gin

                …nobody gets anything you global warmingists blather, lad.

                • dalai guevara

                  Your man Sir John is dynamite.
                  I wrote a one line poem inspired by his insight.

                  just ice justice unjustified!

                  nb. when you’re worried about warmism, why not just leave the fridge door open when your solar panels generate at peak? Problem solved.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …you socialist nutters don’t solve problems, you cause them, lad.

                • dalai guevara

                  Leave the fridge door open, tovarishch
                  Problem solved.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …see above rule.

                  Sorry, lad, but re you socialist nutters, the rules are immutable.

                • dalai guevara

                  et tu tovarishch, another hope for changer?
                  wrong website, lad.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Yes, you are wrong for this website, and every other, lad.

                • dalai guevara

                  You just hope for changed me there. I saw that, so did everyone else.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …few see what you socialist nutters see, lad .

    • Daniel Maris

      So when the energy storage problem is fully addressed as it will be, is there the slightest chance you are going to stop banging on about wind turbines?

      • the viceroy’s gin

        You are an ignorant and poorly educated socialist nutter, and have no clue about any of the greenie nonsense you spew .

        • Daniel Maris

          You sound like one of those old timers in the Hollywood westerns from the last century who drank whisky from a jar and spouted gibberish through their beards.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            I bet even those people are more intelligent and better educated than you, lad.

      • Fred Smith

        How is the energy storage problem to be addressed? What signs are there that this will happen?

        Don’t say pumped storage for which we don’t even have the potential capacity in the UK to address the problems.

        • Daniel Maris

          Well I did say pumped storage. It is part of the solution. It doesn’t have to be on the mainland – you can create artificial islands as Belgium is planning to do.

          However I think Highview’s liquid nitrogen looks like it could be a major winner.

          http://highview-power.com/wordpress/?page_id=295

          I tipped Space X long before they delivered, so take my tips seriously.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Again, you are an ignorant and poorly educated socialist nutter, and have no clue about the nonsense you continually spew .

            • Daniel Maris

              I was right about Space X. We’ll see if I am right about Highview.

              • the viceroy’s gin

                It’s amusing that you think to be “right” about something. 😉

                • Daniel Maris

                  Elon Musk is running a billion dollar business now.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Is that statement supposed to mean something, or are you just blathering incoherently again?

      • Nicholas chuzzlewit

        To infer that energy storage is even ‘close’ is a gross misrepresentation of reality.

        • dalai guevara

          closer than Thorium

          • the viceroy’s gin

            …says the ignorant and poorly educated socialist nutter.

        • Daniel Maris

          Pumped storage is perfectly feasible as of today – we have a huge facility in North Wales.

          Other strong candidates (all being trialled) are liquid nitrogen, compressed air storage, and producing hydrogen or methane which is then stored.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            None of them even remotely close to economic viability, not that an ignorant and poorly educated socialist nutter as you could ever understand that, obviously.

            • Daniel Maris

              You would have scoffed at the possibility of 7MW wind turbines 20 years ago.

              We’re getting there.

              http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2013/ee/c3ee41973h

              • the viceroy’s gin

                I think what you mean to say is that you global warmingist nutters are stealing the People’s cash, at gunpoint, and stuffing it into your greenie envirowhacko schemes, which impoverishes the People and steals their livelihoods.

                And nobody’s clicking on your idiot links, lad. We all know you ignorant and poorly educated dolts have nothing intelligent to offer, by definition.

  • telemachus

    Reed is well known for his support of the nuclear industry. Sellafield, the nuclear reprocessing plant (and therefore a major beneficiary of Hinckley C) is in Copeland his constituency and the nuclear industry is the main employer in the area.

    He also shies away from uncritical support :

    “My hon. Friend mentioned the economic estimates done by a German economist on the amount of money spent on nuclear technology and nuclear research and development. Are we talking principally about the civil nuclear sector? Is the military nuclear sector also included? He also mentioned the IAEA. It does not exist to promote the nuclear industry; it exists to give it some kind of international regulatory framework.”

    [Department of the Official Report (Hansard), House of Commons, Westminster (2008-01-22). “House of Commons Hansard Debates for 22 Jan 2008 (pt 0016)”. Publications.parliament.uk. Retrieved 2012-07-31.]

    • neotelemachus

      The cut and paste troll strikes again. You are not actually telling us anything we want to know numpty.

  • dalai guevara

    Fine. The nuclear door salesman got their deal. It will be their last, not the last resort. The British populace is not receptive to this kind of scaremongering,
    knowing full well that they sit on trillions of cubic feet of gas.
    Ergo, this is all about paying off our bankster debt. In Briatin we do not blame foreign banksters for the mess we’re in, simply because we can’t.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      Actually, it’s a pay off to you global warmingist envirowhackos.

      • dalai guevara

        Hahaha, yes nuclear pays for windmills, when gas is for the picking below your feet. Sure.
        No, this is the Greek scenario playing out, a creditors’ asset grab, selling you something you don’t need.
        Go figure.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          Actually, it’s selling something you socialist nutters want to sell, which we don’t need.

          • dalai guevara

            But toys are so much fun.

            They are fun, not unsafe, dirty and expensive like nuclear. The engineers have even designed out all the edges and bits where you could bang your head. Not that this would be of any benefit in your instance.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              What would an ignorant and poorly educated socialist nutter like you know about what engineers have designed, lad?

      • Nicholas chuzzlewit

        You forgot to call him ‘lad’ which always give me a good laugh.

  • Russell

    Nuclear might be the only option left to remove UK governments and allow this country to make its own laws, decide who it lets in to the country and who it refuses or deports.
    The Front Nationale in France is now leading in the polls (25% compared to 21 and 22% for the socialists Ed’s pals and the centre right Camerons chums)…….hopefully the UK electorate will wake up and a similar position to arrive here in the UK with UKIP as the most popular party.

    • dalai guevara

      FPTP will make that impossible. Nothing to do with Bruxelles, at all, as always.

    • Dan Grover

      I appreciate that you “hope” that will happen, but you don’t really think it actual ever will, do you?

      • Wessex Man

        There will probably be more UKip MPs in Westminster after the next election than Lib/Dems and I really do believe!

        • Dan Grover

          That’s pretty bold! I wouldn’t necessarily say they won’t get a higher vote share – though personally I think it’ll collapse a lot come the vote – but how many constituencies are there where they actually command a plurality? That’s what’s important. The Lib Dems have lost a lot of national support, but their “thing” has always been as effective local politicians; A lot of politically apathetic people will prefer a decent, hardworking local MP that they know, irrespective of their colours, which is why they manage to get MPs. Can UKIP really say there are any areas where they will command the plurality of a vote? Possibly whichever seat Farage targets, but anyone else?

      • Russell

        Either that or I think there could well be serious riots and civil disobedience. Governments really need to listen when the electorate are angry over things like immigration changing the country they were born in and live in. Multiculturalism is not wanted by (I suggest) the large majority of the electorate. If I want to see nothing but black and Asian faces and Burkhas etc. I travel abroad and observe that country’s laws and cultural practices. I would not emigrate to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia and expect to see hundreds of churches with women bathing topless on the beach and pubs open 7 days a week selling alcohol.

        • Dan Grover

          Well, what other countries do is really neither here nor there. It’s got nothing to do with us, nor what we should do.

          And I’d like to know more about why you think there will be serious riots or civil disobedience. Is immigration as big a problem as you think? I get that you care about it a great deal, but it’s not wise to assume that a large proportion of the population share your views. In 2005 Michael Howard ran on a much more traditionally right-wing basis compared to either Hague before him or Cameron after him, and wasn’t rewarded with victory (even in voteshare, let alone seats). UKIP aren’t a new party, yet they’ve never won a seat, and by your own estimation there’s a huge proportion of the vote they should have been hoovering up as the only anti-EU and anti-Immigration party in the country. Why does this political will you attest you never correspond to voting patterns?

          Given that, thus far, there has been no mass civil disobedience, UKIP have never won a seat and all other aspects of the political world to the right of the Tories have died off completely, I’m curious as to what you think has happened in the last 3 years since the last election that means we’re living in a different world now.

          • Russell

            The reason a majority of the electorate have not been particularly concerned for many years is the lies and mis information put out by labour during their 13 years in government, about immigration, and labours policy in filling this country up with immigrants for political reasons has now come to light and is being shown to the electorate.

            The pro EU Labour party with misfits like Baroness Ashton and Mandelson and the Kinnocks troughing at our expense and the pro EU Tories and Libdems as well as the BBC hiding the truth about the cost to the UK taxpayer of our membership of this corrupt club is fianlly being shown to the electorate.
            Labour spent 13 years lying and covering up immigration, the NHS, and almost every area of government, which denigrated this country and really they should be on trial for treason to the people of this country.

            • Dan Grover

              You’re moving the goal posts now, Russel. First you said “the large majority of the population” didn’t want multiculturalism and this is why it’ll cause rioting. You also heavily suggested that our country is heading in a direction whereby at some point in the future when you look outside all you’ll see are black and Asian faces. Now you’re saying that people actually “aren’t concerned” but that it’s because they’ve been lied to. Well, they can’t both be true. Either the people are apathetic because the big three parties are so good at lying (though what lies could change people’s views about their own experience of immigrants is beyond me) or they’re really angry, ready to kick off and know full well the effects. Which is it?

              You also didn’t really answer my question about what you think’s changed in the last three years to bring about this change.

              • Russell

                You’re doing a bit of labour spin now Dan. If you read my comment, you would have seen I said

                “The reason a majority of the electorate have not been particularly concerned for many years is the lies and mis information put out by labour during their 13 years in government, about immigration”

                I did NOT say “all you will see are black and Asian faces” you made that up, you were telling a porkie.
                I didn’t say people aren’t concerned, I said they weren’t concerned when labour was hiding the truth with lies and spin for 13 years (see above again) another porkie.

                What has happened in the last 3 years is that Labour are no longer the government (thank God), and this government has shown through scandal after scandal like the NHS/Stafford etc, the Police (Hillsborough/Mendez/even Mitchell the extent to which labour influenced the police and the NHS and every area of the public sector cover things up and lie. Documents showing that labour were doing mass immigration for political gain etc. they were and are a disgrace.

                • Dan Grover

                  I saw what you wrote, Russell. Did you?

                  Russell: “I did NOT say “all you will see are black and Asian faces” you made that up, you were telling a porkie.”

                  Russell: “If I want to see nothing but black and Asian faces and Burkhas etc. I travel abroad”

                  Note, you didn’t say “some”. You said “nothing but”. If your suggestion was not that this is what the UK will eventually become, then why’s it relevant to the discussion? If you’d said “If I wanted to learn about other cultures and practices, I’d go abroad” then that’s one thing. But you said “If I wanted to see nothing but black and asian faces I’d go abroad”. Was this just a bit of arbitrary trivia about you?

                  Russel: “I didn’t say people aren’t concerned”

                  Russell: “The reason a majority of the electorate have not been particularly concerned for many years is”…

                  OK, Russell!

                  As for your final paragraph, as deplorable as all that is, what does it have to do with people’s views of immigration? Presumably most sane and logical people’s view of immigration is determined by their answer to this question: “On balance, has immigration in this country made my life better, or worse?” Hilsborough and Mitchell has nothing to do with the answer to this. Stafford has nothing to do with the answer to this. The government’s motivations for wanting immigration also has nothing to do with the answer to this. You talk about Labour’s lies about immigration, but that doesn’t seem to sit well with the idea that people are ready to kick off and start rioting because of their disgust at immigration. What lies have they been told that previously made them think “I don’t mind this immigration stuff” but, upon discovering the lies, now make them think the only solution is public violence? What has Labour’s disgraceful record (and on that we agree!) got to do with the people’s propensity towards rioting?

                  Face it, Russell; You got a bit excited and you can’t back up your predictions. It’s OK though. It’s OK.

            • HookesLaw

              And by your intent labour will be returned to power for another 5 years.
              Mr Grover spells it out to you in words that a 5 year old could understand and you ignore it.

              • Hexhamgeezer

                Lets hope enough people ignore your short term ahistorical proposals. Lots vote UKIP and Labour get in? So what? We’ve got Labour-lite now. What UKIP are about is a long term turning round of your soft and centre-left supertanker packed with the daveednicks, the civil service, the Beeboids and so on. Your happy with that and good for you. Happy with marginal rearrangement of the deck chairs, which is your righ,t but don’t try to tell us that a daveednick replacing a davednick is any cause for despair or celebration.

          • Daniel Maris

            “Well, what other countries do is really neither here nor there. It’s got nothing to do with us, nor what we should do.” You forgot to add the “far off” for the full Neville Chamberlain effect.

            • Dan Grover

              I’m not convinced topless beaches are a matter for national security. I meant what they do in terms of their customs and what THEY choose to allow shouldn’t affect what we do.

          • foxoles

            ‘In 2005 Michael Howard ran on a much more traditionally right-wing basis compared to either Hague before him or Cameron after him, and wasn’t rewarded with victory (even in voteshare, let alone seats)’

            Michael Howard actually *won* in England – 70,000 more Tory votes in England than Labour. Overall, the Tories (32.4%) came within 3% of Labour (35.2%).

            • Dan Grover

              And he probably had barnstorming success in Surrey, too, not to mention his own constituency. But he didn’t win the election by any metric, either voteshare or seats. I’m simply stating that people had a largely anti-immigration candidate to vote for, and they voted in Tony Blair for the third time running. If they care about immigration, it’s clearly not that far up their list.

          • http://www.facebook.com/will.kettel Will Kettel

            “Is immigration as big a problem as you think?”
            When a poll was conducted to ascertain the greatest failings during Labour’s tenure by far and away the issue which came back time and time again was what was termed as: “allowing immigration to reach ‘unacceptable levels'”. Furthermore, I think even more people would be disgruntled if they read an interview with Andrew Neather , a former labour speech writer, who in 2009 cooly admitted that mass immigration was a deliberate policy to transform the political spectrum and render the traditional conservative position out of date.(see link below) This was a policy borne out of a malicious, shallow and misguided mindset, a policy which I might remind you, was never put to a vote or opened up to public discussion. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here