Randall talks of 'moral gangrene' and he is right. I have sent out a
number of articles about the political chaos Brown has created. But
the Ghurkas are different. They stuck with us steadfastly while our
other "allies" left us in the lurch. These 'allies' turned against
us but they - like our actual enemies, are now our "partners" in the
EU.
Which is the more deserving ? This IS a moral question.
xxxxxxxxxxx cs
================================TELEGRAPH 1.5.09
Betraying the loyal Gurkhas is yet another symptom of moral decay
The mishandling of the veterans' right to residence tells us a lot
about the shortcomings of Mr Brown's leadership, says Jeff Randall.
deadly disease that is sweeping through Downing Street: moral
gangrene. As it infects the limbs of Government, rotting the body
tissue of Gordon Brown's administration, the stench of terminal decay
becomes unmissable.
The bungled attempt by Mr Brown and Jacqui Smith to fix immigration
rules against Gurkha veterans was the latest symptom of a political
necrosis that is destroying the Prime Minister's authority. Labour
remains in power but its purpose is dying, eaten away by a cascade of
incompetence and turpitude.
It is bad enough that the Government cannot put an effective brake on
the runaway train of MPs' expenses. But when ministers urge the
betrayal of friends - willing, brave, disciplined people - who stuck
with us through dark nights, when weaker folk threw in the towel, you
can be sure that British decency is on death row. Full marks to those
on all sides of the House who refused to sign the execution papers.
Included in that list is Keith Vaz, the member for Leicester East.
His voting record and dubious behaviour make him an unwelcome ally.
Under normal circumstances, it's a sound rule of thumb to be against
what he is for and vice versa. But so special is this occasion, we
will make an exception.
Mr Brown's mishandling of the Gurkhas' right to residence tells us
much about the shortcomings of his leadership. Its priorities are
warped. It provides succour to those whom we owe nothing, while
starving our extended family. It still believes that spin is an
effective tool. It is fundamentally unpatriotic. Worst of all, it is
spectacularly inept; in need of adult supervision. It cannot be
trusted even with small change.
Mr Brown told Parliament that the United Kingdom could not admit all
former Gurkha servicemen because to do so would cost the country £1.4
billion. His calculation almost certainly overstates the bill - and
the Prime Minister knows it. But, for the sake of argument, let's
accept his cooked-up figure. That's too expensive for British
loyalty, is it? Foolishly, perhaps, I had always thought we were
bigger than that. It doesn't seem much for nearly two centuries of
unswerving allegiance to the Crown and 26 Victoria Crosses.
Say it slowly and "one point four billion pounds" can sound like a
lot of money. But in the grand scheme of Government waste, it is
barely a round of drinks. To be precise, £1.4 billion is 0.2 per cent
of the Chancellor's Budget for this year (£671 billion). It is the
Whitehall equivalent of what Miss Smith claims for bath plugs, patio
heaters and fruity films - a handy little extra.
By 2010-11, Alistair Darling plans to spend £9.1 billion on
international aid. Intriguing. We can afford such largesse for some
wretched places across the globe, but are unable to cough up a
fraction of that to help out Nepalese warriors who are prepared to
die - and do so - fighting under a Union flag.
Whom, I wonder, do we value more highly than the Gurkhas? Which
corrupt regime is swallowing development hand-outs that could have
gone to them? Round up the usual suspects. In order to find £1.4
billion, the Government does not need to look beyond the horizon.
Here at home, it's the sort of sum that ministers lose down the back
of their sofas. Social protection, ie the welfare budget, has been
jacked up to £189 billion, part of which is squandered on the Prime
Minister's deeply flawed tax-credit system. In recent years,
fraudulent claims have drained, on average, more than £1 billion a
year from the public purse. Who would you rather fund, social
security cheats or retired Gurkhas?
Ministers suggest that allowing all ex-Gurkhas access to Britain
could mean another 100,000 (plus dependants) joining the 6,000 who
have settled here since the rules were last changed in 1997. From
where does this estimate spring? Campaigners on behalf of Gurkhas
believe that the number would be nearer 10,000. But even if Mr Brown
were correct, so what?
Gurkhas are not regarded as layabouts. Yet, according to Number 10,
they will become an unaffordable burden. How so? Didn't this
Government tell us that immigrants provide an invaluable boost to the
economy? Yes, it did. The precise figure peddled was a £6 billion
uplift between 2001 and 2006.
Setting aside the Treasury's financial case against the Gurkhas,
which, given its recent forecasting record, looks even more
ridiculous than Mr Brown's video on MPs' expenses, what about the
immigration issue? Do we want thousands more aliens entering an over-
crowded island?
Answer: of all the foreigners ushered into Britain by Labour over the
past 12 years, it's hard to think of a more deserving and less
troublesome group than the Gurkhas. At the funeral of Queen Elizabeth
the Queen Mother, a display of traditional Britishness that defied
Labour's ghastly Cool Britannia, Gurkha pipers bade farewell to Her
late Majesty with a haunting lament. They joined in a day of
mourning, woven into our national fabric by a shared history.
That was then; today, it's a different story. The Chancellor has run
out of money, and his boss is desperate to unpick our country's debt
of honour. One dreads to think what Queen Elizabeth would have said
about this.
In contrast, Downing Street seems to have no qualms about admitting
significant numbers from countries which many of us would regard as
hostile to our national interest. For instance, it is estimated that
there are 250,000 Somalis here. Their unemployment levels are high
and educational attainments among the lowest of ethnic minorities.
Not all of them share a devotion to British values. Yet, apparently,
they are fast-tracked past Gurkhas.
And what about the Russians? Nobody knows the exact figure, but
embassy officials guess there could be 200,000. Some Russian
residents, such as Boris Berezovsky, claim the figure is at least
double that. Do we have a duty of care to them? Are they all asylum
seekers? Could we count on them for unconditional support, as we do
the Gurkhas, if the game turned nasty? No.
The UK's population is forecast to increase from 61 million to 70
million by 2028. About 70 per cent of that increase, nearly seven
million people, will be due to immigration. If that is the case, a
few thousand more Gurkhas will barely be noticed. It's unthinkable
that these extraordinary soldiers should be excluded.
Until this week, Nick Clegg's impact on Westminster theatre had been
that of an ice-cream girl: he was noticed only after the main players
had left the stage. On Wednesday, however, he grabbed the spotlight
and stuck it to Mr Brown for having "no principles and no courage".
He accused the Prime Minister of "doing a shameful thing".
Mr Clegg was right. The stink from moral gangrene is sickening
Posts
