Woolly but not Liberal

The outwardly benign immigration Minister, Phil Woolas (left), made the unusual step this week of choosing the New Statesman to set out in the simplest terms Labours pernicious policy on asylum seekers.

He had intended to exploit the 'gaffe' by London Mayor, 'Bonkers Jonkers' who had argued for a possible amnesty for illegal long-term asylum seekers. Woolas's argument (and indeed Home Office immigration policy) was clearly aiming to appeal to the least tolerant and most ignorant elements of Labour Party support. He spoke of the Government preventing asylum seekers from "going to the front of the queue for jobs and benefits." Using such bloke-down-the-pub vernacular obscured the reality for tens of thousands of people in the UK. Those asylum seekers who have been rejected are not entitled to benefits and are also denied the right to work. They're not even in the queue. He also asserted an amnesty would increase people trafficking but offered no supportive evidence.

I'm not sure why any Government press officer would have suggested the "Staggers" as a suitable publication for Woolas's pitiful logic and pitiless outlook. Unsurprisingly, the piece attracted severe criticism from the readership. Johnson, on the other hand, emerged as pragmatic and compassionate for having suggested a realistic resolution to this intractable problem.

In the States there was a similar but bi-partisan move toward amnesty in 2006 when the McCain-Kennedy Bill was laid before Congress. The Bill was killed by both sides; hope for some peace of mind for families who had lived, worked and paid tax in US for 20 or 30 years was destroyed by political pip-squeaks spouting the same nonsense as Woolas.

But there is an altogether more sinister consequence to Labour's 'tough, no nonsense' immigration agenda. The shameful Home Office policy of finding any pretext, however remote, for declaring dangerous places 'safe for return' reached a new low this week.

Darfur is synonymous with the ethnic cleansing of the Sudanese Africans by the Government backed Arab militia, the Janjaweed. In the last six years over 200,000 people have been murdered in Darfur, five million displaced - the whole population terrorised.

The 3,000 Sudanese people who have made it to the UK have found this country is not a safe haven for the persecuted and are now threatened with deportation. Last week failed asylum seeker, Adam Osman, 32, was flown back to Khartoum. He had pleaded to our UK Border Agency, he could expect a very hostile 'reception' from the police if he were deported. He was spotted by security police at the airport who followed his car to his house and on arrival, shot him dead in front of his family.

There is now institutional cynicism in the Border Agency, asylum seekers are seemingly all deemed bogus. Woolas and UKBA officials must be aware the President al-Bashi of Sudan was charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court earlier this month. To proceed with any more deportations would effectively make our Government accessories to further killings of persecuted peoples.

Still an Apprentice

It is not news to learn Ken Livingstone wishes to be London Mayor again. It is also hardly a revelation to discover the London Labour Party has been trawling the lists of members for a suitable figure to prevent Ken being the candidate again.

Alan Sugar is the latest name. But we've been here before. Greg Dyke was proclaimed by the Evening Standard in 2007 as the perfect 'stop Ken' candidate. This is nothing more than wishful thinking. Had Dyke been selected or if the LLP really loses its marbles and selects Sugar then Ken will, as before, stand as an independent, split the opposition vote and win.

I'm not sure there is much political acumen being deployed when a party is even contemplating adopting Sugar or 'Sir Alan' as he fastidiously prefers. He has a few positive attributes; high public profile, successful, decisive. But to even appear as a competent candidate for such a responsible position requires political skills Sugar patently does not have.

The following quote captures his approach to problem-solving, "Common sense prevails that someone like me who tends to cut to the chase, so to speak, would be the right kind of person to look after a city like London .... I've always been one of those people that walks in the office in the morning and says 'this is what we're going to do'."

A job like London mayor is not simply about strong, unbending leadership. It requires experience in judging what is good advice and having the humility to take it. How would Sugar's billious and often personal attacks on his colleagues lead him to make the right choices on nursery care provision?

Ken has a long way to go to climb back into the Mayor's seat especially when 'Bonkers' Johnson has been preceived to be making a fair fist of the job so far. Livingstone ran a pretty lacklustre campaign last year and yet came quite close (53% to 47%) despite Labour going 'below sea-level' in the simultaneous local elections. William Hills are offering Ken at a tempting 14/1 for 2012 while Boris is evens and Sugar a measly 10-1.

Sir Alan enjoys the political insult too much to succeed but certainly he has a memorable turn of phrase. Asked about Lib-Dem MP Simon Hughes's chances in 2004, he looked deadpan as usual and exhaled, "If thirty-five years in business has taught me one thing - you can't polish a t*rd."