I have said it before, and I’ll say it again – Davis has the better policies, but Cameron will win the election with more Conservative policies than Labour. That’s the simple truth.
Now, while Cameron’s campaign replied to my questions within a reasonable period, Davis’ campaign has actually answered my questions! I have included their reply below:
The following message was sent on 27 Oct.
It bounced back because of an error in the address from this end..Herewith what was sent:
A future Conservative Goverment under Mr Davis’ leadership would not countenance ‘regionalisation’ by the back door, any change in government would be as a result of the wishes of local people.
The very firm ‘no’ vote for regional government in the NE indicated that people should be consulted and their views taken notice of.
Mr Davis does not believe in quotas – you don’t get the best people by favouring unfair discrimination for one group or another.
We already have compulsory ‘pension’ savings via National Insurance. It is far better to provide the framework that supports & encourages savings of all kinds, including pensions, than take money from citizens via taxation. Having destroyed pension savings it is essential to restore confidence in the security of saving for the future. We do this more effectively through tax breaks for savers, than taxation.Ann Palmer
David Davis Campaign Centre
I agree with the gist of this but I think three things should be noted:
- National Insurance is NOT compulsory pension savings – it is income tax which, at least in theory, pays for today’s pensioner’s pensions. While the payment of National Insurance provides eligibility for certain benefits, those are drowned by other benefits available to those of retirement age and is, for most people, of no value. I should like to note, though, that I am not in favour of compulsory saving.
- David Davis will not allow positive discrimination – good.
- David Davis has previously commented on the need for an English Parliament and his reply seems to be an attempt to distance himself from any commitment
Coincidentally, BBC Radio 4′s Today programme spoke to John Hutton this morning about the need for more coloured people in the civil service. What complete nonsense.
If there are fewer suitable applicants who happen to have one skin colour or another it is completely acceptable that there be different proportions of each ethnicity. What possible benefit can there be in ensuring a ethnically representative civil service? Do all black people have a particular take on filing that we cannot possibly do without? Is there something that Asian’s can bring to the Freedom of Information Act that a white person cannot fulfil? Of course not. Ethnicity has nothing whatsoever to do with competence and, if it did, it would come out of a meritocratic interviewing process, not out of quotas.
And the generalisations have another dimension too. Immigrants from Jamaica may share a cultural attitude but it is unlikely that their English-born children will. But the quota would not make that distinction anyway because it is based on skin colour. If you’re from Tooting, Delhi, Leicester or Addis Ababa you’ll be treated the same – more valuable to the Civil Service than someone of ‘native’ colouring (even if that means they’re Polish or Greek).
This discrimination by the government should be called what it is, racism. If a white person applies for a job who is more competent than a black person (or other ‘underrepresented’ ethnic group), we can safely assume that some applicants will not get the job so that the quota is not breached. Should ethnic minority applicants question whether they got their job on merit?
My e-mails to Nazia Kosar earlier this month give more information about my opinions on this matter: click here.
[Technorati: Race, Colour, Racism, David Davis, David Cameron, Conservative, Tory, Tory Leadership, John Hutton, Discrimination, Positive Discrimination, News and Politics]
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
