Three recent letters to the press on nuclear dangers, on Windrush exploitation, and on Boris Johnson ducking accountability

Thee  recent letters  to the press on nuclear dangers,  on Windrush  exploitation, and on Boris Johnson ducking accountability:

25 February 2020

Morning Star letters

Len McCluskey avoids mention of the most regressive and last century policy his myopic Union has foisted on Rebecca Long Bailey (“Why Unite is endorsing Long Bailey and Burgon for Labour leader and deputy,” February 25)

Len writes about Unite’s support for the flagship policy of a green industrial revolution to support “the transition to sustainable energy and free jobs”

But Unite, along with the GMB, are  also cheerleaders for the dinosaur energy strategy of backing dirty, dangerous, and very expensive nuclear power, which undermines delivery if the Green New Deal. Len should be promoting the high skilled, well paid jobs that will be needed to close down and decommission  the existing clapped-out nuclear plants.

Len also fails to mention his support for replacing Trident, a policy forced on a very reluctant life-long nuclear disarmer Jeremy Corbyn, and included in Labour’s otherwise progressive manifesto.

This policy will cost the taxpayer £205 billion
(£205,000,000,000), and was inexplicably uncosted in the Labour  manifesto.

If RLB is to succeed in winning the leadership she needs to be transparent about this malign nuclear twin-track, and preferably dump both.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
24 February 2020
Your report that the Windrush Review by Wendy Williams is mulling over whether to proclaim institutional racism has engulfed Home Office considerations over

immigrants from Jamaica. ("Home Office is racist, said report into Windrush," TheTimes

Front page report, Feb 21)

Indeed, concerns raised  in Parliament involving Caribbean workers have a long history.

For instance, on the 4^th February 1859 Lord Brougham presented a petition to Parliament on the  Immigration Act (Jamaica) “from emancipated labourers, and others, of Arnatto Bay, in the Island of Jamaica, complaining of a Bill having been passed, without due consideration and in great haste, seriously detrimental to their interests.”  (_{https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1859/feb/04/immigration-act-jamaica-petition;} HL Deb vol 152 c106) ₁₀

The Bill related to the immigration of free labour to the island, and the Petition prayed that it should be disallowed. The petitioners complained, it said, that the Petition had been passed through the Legislature with such haste, that they had no opportunity of raising their voice against its enactment, They further stated that there was no want of labourers in that country, and that all attempts which had been made to obtain a further supply of them had proved absolute failures. and they therefore “prayed that their Lordships would, by an address to the Crown, use their influence to prevent the Royal Assent being given to the measure.” _{Royal assent}

Just over a hundred years later, some 15 years after the post–war Immigration Act had been passed, and a year after the Commonwealth Immigration Bill had been passed into law (https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/acts/commonwealth-immigration-act-1962)the Home Office told MPs in a written answer – under the heading Commonwealth Immigrants (Deportation)- asking about the total number of deportation orders which had been considered under the Commonwealth Immigration Act, by stating:

“Up to 20th March [1963], 571 recommendations were received in respect of Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Irish Republic. Forty-nine have been the subject of successful appeals and thus called for no further action; [The Home Secretary] had considered 371, and made 198 deportation orders. Among the balance of 151 awaiting consideration were 26 cases in which appeals were pending.”

HC Deb 28 March 1963 vol 674 cc172-3W
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written-answers/1963/mar/28/commonwealth-immigrants-deportation)

The current day political imbroglio has long history.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 24 February 2020

To: daily mail letters
Boris caught short

 

Andrew Pierce in his Monday politics column (24 February 2020) mentions that Boris Johnson cut short his latest Peoples' Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) after just 19 minutes live on Facebook, claiming there were no more questions to be answered, when  actually the Facebook site shoed there were 4,624 more waiting. Nine of those were from me.

on the unpublished Russia report, on Boris’s afternoon ‘tech lessons’ with American entrepreneur Jennifer Arcuri when he was London Mayor, on the ducking of the election interview with Andrew Neil, on Boris’ 30 year vintage conspiracy to facilitate GBH on a fellow journalist for doing his investigatory job in one of Boris’s dodgy ex Eton chums.

I  cannot imagine why our esteemed Prime Minister did not want to answer these.