As I observe from afar:
It is funny that all I can remember about former PM John Major is that he tucked his shirt tails into his underwear. Former English PM Boris Johnston had lots of charisma, until he became too absurd and too broken. He had taken over from the rather dull May, solid and dependable but hardly exciting. Former PM Cameron dressed smartly and had something about him, rather like former PM Blair. Nowt to say about the Truss disaster. The exotic Sunak was not a rich old white bloke but a younger rich brown bloke. I struggle to remember anything he did.
Then came Sir Keef Stammer, with a landslide victory, which was not won but by a decisive rejection of the governing Tory party. Sir Keir was not inspirational, and while not Scottish, he came across as a dour leader, without any charisma whatsoever, perhaps like Gordon Brown. He speaks with a posh accent, and I don't really know how this goes down with those who don't speak thus, but it must be a disconnect. But I can't remember leading political figure in the UK with a regional accent.
I really don't think anyone would be electable in Australia now if they spoke was such an accent. It is too loaded with wealth and privilege.
Sir Keir, I'm sure a decent and honourable person, who did get some some good legislation through to improve the lives of the English citizens. But no one could say he was inspirational. If only he attacked the rich...practically and verbally, which is what a Labour leader should do.
Which brings us to his replacement, Andy Burnham who does seem to be inspirational, with good political credentials. I've yet to hear him speak, so that will be something interesting. Burnham picks up the huge majority of parliamentary seats from Starmer's Labour Party, and he really must take advantage of this to improve the lives of the average English citizen in an obviously public manner. A bleeding heart about immigrants will not cut to the chase. The loud citizens of England have made this clear, and I think it goes deeper.
This is rather like Australia. Most people know we need immigration to sustain our country, but it needs to be very controlled. The perfect example was immediately post Covid when there weren't enough workers in the country to staff businesses, and then there was a flood of migrants. In my opinion, too many refugees from one country doesn't work. Take in refugees from all over the world but not huge numbers from one country. Apparently assimilate is a bad word, so I suggest less numbers from one part of the world with a careful monitoring of numbers, will mean better integration into Australia.
.jpg)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think most people support sensible immigration when it is planned around housing, infrastructure and jobs, and successful integration is easier when migration levels are steady and newcomers have every opportunity to become part of the wider community.
ReplyDeleteSimpler link for Andy Burnham's 29 June speech.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u3Mpk_zUmc
GB give billions to the French to prevent boats leaving French shores to no avail.
ReplyDeleteImmigration costs money and orderly immigration can be managed
One of the biggest issue is that the majority of illegal immigrants are young men ill educated and unemployable so that immediately becomes a huge problem. They have to live on welfare paid for by ordinary British taxpayers who are struggling
As for Burnham he has built an image …let’s see how that plays out….As long as he looks after the real PM, the longest inhabitant of No 10, then he might realise he is there to serve the cat first and then the people of GB
Does Starmer really speak with a posh accent?
ReplyDeleteAssimilate: to become similar or of the same substance
ReplyDeleteIntegrate: to make or form into a whole.
When speaking of immigrants, I prefer to use assimilate, whereby the new people learn our ways and become similar while still retaining some of their own ways, but working for the good of the country they have come to. "Live by the rules of the country your feet are standing in."
I would see "integrate" as becoming wholly Australian, something that happens in families a few generations after the first assimilations.
I also agree with a varied intake rather than hundreds all at once from a single country. And snub me if you wish, but they should be vetted as to religious beliefs and lifestyles. If they are found not suitable, applications should be denied. If immigrants escape violent lifestyles (gang warfare etc) and then perpetrate the same here in their newly chosen country, they should be sent home.
I also wonder just how many immigrants we can afford, given that our governments continue to slash funding for this and that after allowing manufacturing to be sold to other countries leaving many out of work, and selling off previously owned government utilities which allowed private owners to jack up prices, to the point where only the rich can afford electricity ( exaggerating a bit here) and we don't have housing or infrastructure enough for the people already here, yet immigrants are coming in waves and given homes.