Comments on: Prime Minister’s press conference http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/04/01/431 Every day the Prime Minister's Spokesman meets a small coterie of political journalists known as 'the lobby' for a topical chat, or 'briefing'. Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:38:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: Chris Lightfoot http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/04/01/431#comment-719 Chris Lightfoot Mon, 05 Apr 2004 17:38:00 +0000 http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/04/01/431#comment-719 If we want to maintain a constant level of economic growth, that implies a particular level of immigration to fill those jobs which are being created and can't be filled by people already in the UK (either because they already have jobs, or because they don't want to do low-paid jobs). So if you start from the economic target, that determines the immigration rate. If we want to maintain a constant level of economic growth, that implies a particular level of immigration to fill those jobs which are being created and can’t be filled by people already in the UK (either because they already have jobs, or because they don’t want to do low-paid jobs). So if you start from the economic target, that determines the immigration rate.

]]> By: Lodjer http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/04/01/431#comment-718 Lodjer Mon, 05 Apr 2004 16:34:56 +0000 http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/04/01/431#comment-718 On the immigration figures, TB kept saying that he didn't want to put an arbitrary figure on immigration levels. I don't imagine anyone wants an arbitrary figure on it, how about the right figure on it Tony? Yes you can't put a level on asylum - that would be wrong, but immigration is a different situation. There should be a figure on it, one which benifits everyone as best it can. "the housing shortage is not a function of immigration, the housing shortage is a function of not enough houses being built" If there is a housing shortage equation, it would have on one side the number of new homes, and on the other the population increase. Given that immigration increases the population, then immigration is a part of the housing shortage. Maybe not a big one, but it is a contributing factor. On the immigration figures, TB kept saying that he didn’t want to put an arbitrary figure on immigration levels. I don’t imagine anyone wants an arbitrary figure on it, how about the right figure on it Tony? Yes you can’t put a level on asylum - that would be wrong, but immigration is a different situation. There should be a figure on it, one which benifits everyone as best it can.

"the housing shortage is not a function of immigration, the housing shortage is a function of not enough houses being built" If there is a housing shortage equation, it would have on one side the number of new homes, and on the other the population increase. Given that immigration increases the population, then immigration is a part of the housing shortage. Maybe not a big one, but it is a contributing factor.

]]> By: PapaLazzzaru http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/04/01/431#comment-706 PapaLazzzaru Fri, 02 Apr 2004 18:49:49 +0000 http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/04/01/431#comment-706 Yup - I'm a firm believer (because it has long been proved the case) in the notion that no matter how smart or secure you think your system is, somewhere there'll be SOMEONE, maybe only that one person in the world, but there's ALWAYS at least one person or organisation who can beat it. I guess the point comes down to the fact that at the very least there has to be one point of human interaction at core level in even the most secure system - and of course that opens up the whole can of worms of human failings blah-de-blah. In this particular case, being a government project, it would be sub-sub-sub-sub-contracted out to some mate of TB or whoever - bringing in vastly more points of human failure into a system that by its very nature could never be truly secure. At the same time it seems to be a sad fact of life that politicians are far removed (or have removed themselves, in all liklihood) from normal life as we plebs know it. This shows every day in government interpretations of concepts like truth, justice and honesty. I'd be willing to lay money that probably not one single one of them REALLY knows the meaning of true security (ie: you tell NO-ONE, not even Cherie at dinner); as we saw during the Gilligan-Campbell-Kelly fiasco the fact that a lackey such as Alistair Campbell was allowed to mess about with intelligence documents shows that as far as the government is concerned, security procedures are things which only we, the great unwashed, need concern ourselves with adhering to - "they" are all above such considerations. Yup - I’m a firm believer (because it has long been proved the case) in the notion that no matter how smart or secure you think your system is, somewhere there’ll be SOMEONE, maybe only that one person in the world, but there’s ALWAYS at least one person or organisation who can beat it. I guess the point comes down to the fact that at the very least there has to be one point of human interaction at core level in even the most secure system - and of course that opens up the whole can of worms of human failings blah-de-blah. In this particular case, being a government project, it would be sub-sub-sub-sub-contracted out to some mate of TB or whoever - bringing in vastly more points of human failure into a system that by its very nature could never be truly secure.

At the same time it seems to be a sad fact of life that politicians are far removed (or have removed themselves, in all liklihood) from normal life as we plebs know it. This shows every day in government interpretations of concepts like truth, justice and honesty. I’d be willing to lay money that probably not one single one of them REALLY knows the meaning of true security (ie: you tell NO-ONE, not even Cherie at dinner); as we saw during the Gilligan-Campbell-Kelly fiasco the fact that a lackey such as Alistair Campbell was allowed to mess about with intelligence documents shows that as far as the government is concerned, security procedures are things which only we, the great unwashed, need concern ourselves with adhering to - "they" are all above such considerations.

]]> By: Roger Huffadine http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/04/01/431#comment-705 Roger Huffadine Fri, 02 Apr 2004 18:16:16 +0000 http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/04/01/431#comment-705 If you have read comments on ID cards before then you will know that I havn't yet worked out what the cards are for..... walking along the other day and thinking of useful identity things like DNA profiling, I got to thinking about genetic engineering - my conclusion was that by the time the government has ID cards that can carry enough information securely so as to avoid identity theft - we will be at the point in genetic engineering where one could spoof DNA profiles by messing around with the structure of genes - and the whole excercise will have been pointless ;-) :-( If you have read comments on ID cards before then you will know that I havn’t yet worked out what the cards are for…..
walking along the other day and thinking of useful identity things like DNA profiling, I got to thinking about genetic engineering - my conclusion was that by the time the government has ID cards that can carry enough information securely so as to avoid identity theft - we will be at the point in genetic engineering where one could spoof DNA profiles by messing around with the structure of genes - and the whole excercise will have been pointless ;-) :-(

]]> By: Gregory Block http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/04/01/431#comment-704 Gregory Block Fri, 02 Apr 2004 14:58:56 +0000 http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/04/01/431#comment-704 When the debate on ID cards begins, we'll see just how much truth there is to "no longer a civil liberties objection". You can't roll some kind of fuzzy 9/11 "the world has changed" comment past the majority of people who actually care about this issue, and however powerful the invocation of the image of crumbling world trade centers may be to the case for it, the image of 1984 is just as easy to paint - and no less powerful in the minds of individuals once one has done so. These competing images leave no common ground on this issue: ID cards *are* the slippery slope. Alone, they prevent nothing; and everything they allow is precisely where 1984's imagery matters most. When the debate on ID cards begins, we’ll see just how much truth there is to "no longer a civil liberties objection". You can’t roll some kind of fuzzy 9/11 "the world has changed" comment past the majority of people who actually care about this issue, and however powerful the invocation of the image of crumbling world trade centers may be to the case for it, the image of 1984 is just as easy to paint - and no less powerful in the minds of individuals once one has done so.

These competing images leave no common ground on this issue: ID cards *are* the slippery slope. Alone, they prevent nothing; and everything they allow is precisely where 1984’s imagery matters most.

]]> By: PapaLazzzaru http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/04/01/431#comment-703 PapaLazzzaru Fri, 02 Apr 2004 05:54:40 +0000 http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/04/01/431#comment-703 Personally I think the whole row is symptomatic of our whole political system. Look at the facts. Beverley Hughes lied (she didn't "intentionally mislead") - let's make no bones about it. She lied, end of story - and she got caught out. So how is it possible for TB to say she "acted with integrity"?!?! The fact that she lied to the country means absolutely nothing, and is no cause for recrimination - because she behaved with integrity in going to TB and saying "I should resign". Rubbish! If she had any REAL integrity, she wouldn't have lied in the first place. And that's where the symptoms of todays political sickness lie - because we (well, them!!, the politicos) have now demonstrated without any doubt that they have lost touch completely with the real meaning of words like truth, trust, honesty, integrity, competence and lies. Why is it that successive governments always seem to think they know better than anyone else - surely there are enough lessons in the past to suggest that trying to mislead the country always backfires? Anyway, I am only glad she has gone - and I hope the Tories keep on David Blunkett's case; I refuse to accept he knew nothing about it... Personally I think the whole row is symptomatic of our whole political system. Look at the facts. Beverley Hughes lied (she didn’t "intentionally mislead") - let’s make no bones about it. She lied, end of story - and she got caught out. So how is it possible for TB to say she "acted with integrity"?!?! The fact that she lied to the country means absolutely nothing, and is no cause for recrimination - because she behaved with integrity in going to TB and saying "I should resign". Rubbish! If she had any REAL integrity, she wouldn’t have lied in the first place. And that’s where the symptoms of todays political sickness lie - because we (well, them!!, the politicos) have now demonstrated without any doubt that they have lost touch completely with the real meaning of words like truth, trust, honesty, integrity, competence and lies. Why is it that successive governments always seem to think they know better than anyone else - surely there are enough lessons in the past to suggest that trying to mislead the country always backfires?

Anyway, I am only glad she has gone - and I hope the Tories keep on David Blunkett’s case; I refuse to accept he knew nothing about it…

]]> By: Chris Lightfoot http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/04/01/431#comment-702 Chris Lightfoot Thu, 01 Apr 2004 23:03:42 +0000 http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/04/01/431#comment-702 "The second point in relation to ID cards is that I think there is no longer a civil liberties objection to that in the vast majority of quarters. There is a series of logistical questions, of practical questions, those need to be resolved, but that in my judgment now, the logistics is the only time delay in it, otherwise I think it needs to move forward." -- well, that and the fact the the things are expensive and won't be any use (see comments passim). I wish one of these people would ask him what ID cards would be useful for -- presumably he thinks they'd be useful for something, but I'd love to know what.... "The second point in relation to ID cards is that I think there is no longer a civil liberties objection to that in the vast majority of quarters. There is a series of logistical questions, of practical questions, those need to be resolved, but that in my judgment now, the logistics is the only time delay in it, otherwise I think it needs to move forward."
– well, that and the fact the the things are expensive and won’t be any use (see comments passim). I wish one of these people would ask him what ID cards would be useful for — presumably he thinks they’d be useful for something, but I’d love to know what….

]]>