New town for Bucks under 'secret' Tory plan?

Bucks Free Press: New town for Bucks under 'secret' Tory plan? New town for Bucks under 'secret' Tory plan?

THE Conservatives have been accused of covering up a secret report which recommends potentially building a new town in Buckinghamshire.

The Telegraph reported on Sunday that tens of thousands of homes could be built in two ‘garden cities’ to combat the national housing shortage.

Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Warwickshire have reportedly been earmarked as potential sites for the developments.

Prime Minister David Cameron supported the idea in a speech nearly two years ago – but Whitehall officials are reportedly ‘panicking’ about whether the document should be made public.

The Tories are concerned about a backlash from voters in historically safe seats if the report is released before next year’s general election.

The report is understood to be fewer than 50 pages long and recommends building at least two communities, modelled on Letchworth and Welwyn which were created in the first wave of garden cities.

New Government planning guidelines, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which critics say weakens the protection of the countryside, could allow the developments to happen.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg told MPs last week: "I believe in garden cities and [that is] why, as a Government, we are committed to publishing a prospectus on them, which I very much hope we will do as soon as possible."

A source close to the Liberal Democrat Leader told The Telegraph the row over the public publication of the report was "purely political".

Tim Farron, the Lib Dems’ party president, said: "It is time to break the log jam. This report needs to come out now and come out quickly.

"The Tories are displaying a Nimby attitude towards garden cities."

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls has pledged the biggest programme of new town construction seen in decades if Labour wins the general election.

The party is committed to building 200,000 new homes a year by 2020.

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:00am Tue 14 Jan 14

BucksComment says...

When will someone ask the real question: "Why do we need more housing"?

Simple solution - 2 children per family and one in, one out immigration

result: no population growth, no need to dig up our green and pleasant land
When will someone ask the real question: "Why do we need more housing"? Simple solution - 2 children per family and one in, one out immigration result: no population growth, no need to dig up our green and pleasant land BucksComment

11:16am Tue 14 Jan 14

big don g the 1st says...

BucksComment wrote:
When will someone ask the real question: "Why do we need more housing"?

Simple solution - 2 children per family and one in, one out immigration

result: no population growth, no need to dig up our green and pleasant land
What a stupid idea - 2 children per family, what are you on?!
[quote][p][bold]BucksComment[/bold] wrote: When will someone ask the real question: "Why do we need more housing"? Simple solution - 2 children per family and one in, one out immigration result: no population growth, no need to dig up our green and pleasant land[/p][/quote]What a stupid idea - 2 children per family, what are you on?! big don g the 1st

11:39am Tue 14 Jan 14

legiopatrianostra says...

big don g the 1st wrote:
BucksComment wrote:
When will someone ask the real question: "Why do we need more housing"?

Simple solution - 2 children per family and one in, one out immigration

result: no population growth, no need to dig up our green and pleasant land
What a stupid idea - 2 children per family, what are you on?!
But he's right, net immigration alone has contributed to an increase of 3million persons, if Turkey, Serbia and others who are set to join the EU are given free movement then this will increase further. So people need to accept the fact that if this is to continue then either population needs to be controlled or more houses will need to be built.
[quote][p][bold]big don g the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BucksComment[/bold] wrote: When will someone ask the real question: "Why do we need more housing"? Simple solution - 2 children per family and one in, one out immigration result: no population growth, no need to dig up our green and pleasant land[/p][/quote]What a stupid idea - 2 children per family, what are you on?![/p][/quote]But he's right, net immigration alone has contributed to an increase of 3million persons, if Turkey, Serbia and others who are set to join the EU are given free movement then this will increase further. So people need to accept the fact that if this is to continue then either population needs to be controlled or more houses will need to be built. legiopatrianostra

12:21pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Edgar Brooks says...

Backed up, no doubt, by enforced sterilisation of both partners, once they've reached your arbitrary quota; in most countries this would be known as "mutilation," but not in your Utopia, of course.
Backed up, no doubt, by enforced sterilisation of both partners, once they've reached your arbitrary quota; in most countries this would be known as "mutilation," but not in your Utopia, of course. Edgar Brooks

12:38pm Tue 14 Jan 14

legiopatrianostra says...

Edgar Brooks wrote:
Backed up, no doubt, by enforced sterilisation of both partners, once they've reached your arbitrary quota; in most countries this would be known as "mutilation," but not in your Utopia, of course.
Not sure he was suggesting a 'nuclear' option, nevertheless, one would hope that it never comes to that but if the world population continues to grow, undoubtedly it might be one option in the future, either that or nature will take its own course along with the misery that ensues.

Anyway, while armageddon isn't quite upon us yet, I would have thought having child benefit for two children and ensuring sustainability/quali
ty of life would be the primary consideration.
[quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: Backed up, no doubt, by enforced sterilisation of both partners, once they've reached your arbitrary quota; in most countries this would be known as "mutilation," but not in your Utopia, of course.[/p][/quote]Not sure he was suggesting a 'nuclear' option, nevertheless, one would hope that it never comes to that but if the world population continues to grow, undoubtedly it might be one option in the future, either that or nature will take its own course along with the misery that ensues. Anyway, while armageddon isn't quite upon us yet, I would have thought having child benefit for two children and ensuring sustainability/quali ty of life would be the primary consideration. legiopatrianostra

12:40pm Tue 14 Jan 14

holtspurman says...

BucksComment wrote:
When will someone ask the real question: "Why do we need more housing"? Simple solution - 2 children per family and one in, one out immigration result: no population growth, no need to dig up our green and pleasant land
We are a small island with finite resources, why do we need to keep letting people in? Reduce the immigration to an absolute minimum for 5-10 years, get those that are living here working (Brits and immigrants). Get the country manufacturing again rather than buying and we will be in a better place.
[quote][p][bold]BucksComment[/bold] wrote: When will someone ask the real question: "Why do we need more housing"? Simple solution - 2 children per family and one in, one out immigration result: no population growth, no need to dig up our green and pleasant land[/p][/quote]We are a small island with finite resources, why do we need to keep letting people in? Reduce the immigration to an absolute minimum for 5-10 years, get those that are living here working (Brits and immigrants). Get the country manufacturing again rather than buying and we will be in a better place. holtspurman

12:52pm Tue 14 Jan 14

big don g the 1st says...

By all means limit immigration but to limit the size of families is a bit much. how about putting the over 80s to sleep too?

What would happen if a couple had one child already but the woman gave birth to twins? would they have to choose one and get rid of the other?!

This plan could lead to the need for future immigration. If 75% of couples have 2 girls there would be a lot of women left on the shelf (or more lesbians). And no bin men, scaffolders, funfair ride erectors etc...
By all means limit immigration but to limit the size of families is a bit much. how about putting the over 80s to sleep too? What would happen if a couple had one child already but the woman gave birth to twins? would they have to choose one and get rid of the other?! This plan could lead to the need for future immigration. If 75% of couples have 2 girls there would be a lot of women left on the shelf (or more lesbians). And no bin men, scaffolders, funfair ride erectors etc... big don g the 1st

12:56pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Monty Cristo says...

Perhaps any new city would be placed somewhere along the HS2 track route and being a city, one would perhaps expect the HS2 train to stop there.
If it did so of course, it would impact the saving in travel time elsewhere......
But perhaps it now makes sense why the Government are insisting HS2 be pushed through.
And the Government would understandably be anxious to keep it all secret from the electorate before the next election - imagine living in a nice village that then a) gets Hs2 by it and b) gets swallowed up into a new city......nightmare scenario.
Perhaps any new city would be placed somewhere along the HS2 track route and being a city, one would perhaps expect the HS2 train to stop there. If it did so of course, it would impact the saving in travel time elsewhere...... But perhaps it now makes sense why the Government are insisting HS2 be pushed through. And the Government would understandably be anxious to keep it all secret from the electorate before the next election - imagine living in a nice village that then a) gets Hs2 by it and b) gets swallowed up into a new city......nightmare scenario. Monty Cristo

1:00pm Tue 14 Jan 14

BucksComment says...

I'm not sure you could enforce sterilisation, but you could certainly make it financially beneficial.

If any couple could not/would not have kids then they could auction off their allocation.... Families with 4+ kids are as much to blame as the nasty foreigns for the population increase.
I'm not sure you could enforce sterilisation, but you could certainly make it financially beneficial. If any couple could not/would not have kids then they could auction off their allocation.... Families with 4+ kids are as much to blame as the nasty foreigns for the population increase. BucksComment

1:02pm Tue 14 Jan 14

BucksComment says...

Monty Cristo wrote:
Perhaps any new city would be placed somewhere along the HS2 track route and being a city, one would perhaps expect the HS2 train to stop there.
If it did so of course, it would impact the saving in travel time elsewhere......
But perhaps it now makes sense why the Government are insisting HS2 be pushed through.
And the Government would understandably be anxious to keep it all secret from the electorate before the next election - imagine living in a nice village that then a) gets Hs2 by it and b) gets swallowed up into a new city......nightmare scenario.
This suggests a government capable of planning and thought....
[quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: Perhaps any new city would be placed somewhere along the HS2 track route and being a city, one would perhaps expect the HS2 train to stop there. If it did so of course, it would impact the saving in travel time elsewhere...... But perhaps it now makes sense why the Government are insisting HS2 be pushed through. And the Government would understandably be anxious to keep it all secret from the electorate before the next election - imagine living in a nice village that then a) gets Hs2 by it and b) gets swallowed up into a new city......nightmare scenario.[/p][/quote]This suggests a government capable of planning and thought.... BucksComment

1:39pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Studentbob says...

legiopatrianostra wrote:
Edgar Brooks wrote: Backed up, no doubt, by enforced sterilisation of both partners, once they've reached your arbitrary quota; in most countries this would be known as "mutilation," but not in your Utopia, of course.
Not sure he was suggesting a 'nuclear' option, nevertheless, one would hope that it never comes to that but if the world population continues to grow, undoubtedly it might be one option in the future, either that or nature will take its own course along with the misery that ensues. Anyway, while armageddon isn't quite upon us yet, I would have thought having child benefit for two children and ensuring sustainability/quali ty of life would be the primary consideration.
That might sound good, but the powers that be recognise, however much they try and hide it, that for an economy like the UK's to continue to grow, it requires an ever increasing population - fodder, if you like.
The market will determine our population figures - not politicians.
If you accept the market economy, then you also have to accept everytthing that comes with it; inequality, price inflation, free movement of people (fodder, or slaves) and money (corruption, tax havens), scarcity of resources, and unemployment/poverty
.
[quote][p][bold]legiopatrianostra[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: Backed up, no doubt, by enforced sterilisation of both partners, once they've reached your arbitrary quota; in most countries this would be known as "mutilation," but not in your Utopia, of course.[/p][/quote]Not sure he was suggesting a 'nuclear' option, nevertheless, one would hope that it never comes to that but if the world population continues to grow, undoubtedly it might be one option in the future, either that or nature will take its own course along with the misery that ensues. Anyway, while armageddon isn't quite upon us yet, I would have thought having child benefit for two children and ensuring sustainability/quali ty of life would be the primary consideration.[/p][/quote]That might sound good, but the powers that be recognise, however much they try and hide it, that for an economy like the UK's to continue to grow, it requires an ever increasing population - fodder, if you like. The market will determine our population figures - not politicians. If you accept the market economy, then you also have to accept everytthing that comes with it; inequality, price inflation, free movement of people (fodder, or slaves) and money (corruption, tax havens), scarcity of resources, and unemployment/poverty . Studentbob

1:51pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Monty Cristo says...

Potential Proposal:
- child benefit should only be paid for the first 2 kids.
- People should be taxed more if they have more than 2 dependents, since their family places more of a burden in terms of provision of education and health - and this should be discouraged after a certain point.
- Limit the number of immigrants, who arguably tend to have more kids

Problem with the proposal : who is going to pay for the care of the old, the number of which will drastically increase in future years as people live longer?
It's not simple is it? A vicious circle, need more people (who need housing) to pay for the old, who will themselves eventually get old etc etc ad infinitum.
Potential Proposal: - child benefit should only be paid for the first 2 kids. - People should be taxed more if they have more than 2 dependents, since their family places more of a burden in terms of provision of education and health - and this should be discouraged after a certain point. - Limit the number of immigrants, who arguably tend to have more kids Problem with the proposal : who is going to pay for the care of the old, the number of which will drastically increase in future years as people live longer? It's not simple is it? A vicious circle, need more people (who need housing) to pay for the old, who will themselves eventually get old etc etc ad infinitum. Monty Cristo

3:41pm Tue 14 Jan 14

BucksComment says...

Not really, you do have a period where there is a lack of balance, but that will eventually (within a generation) flatten itself out.

The only alternative is to have a massive war and famine to get rid of 20% of each of the age groups.
Not really, you do have a period where there is a lack of balance, but that will eventually (within a generation) flatten itself out. The only alternative is to have a massive war and famine to get rid of 20% of each of the age groups. BucksComment

4:21pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Gaulnut says...

Limiting the number of children per family is a realistic option, there is a country with a billion people already doing it... It has nothing to do with sterilization or exterminating one of a twin! If you have twins, there is no consequence in China as it is generally beyond your control, and if you have a second child then you get a large one off tax bill that is means related.

I'd prefer the one-in one-out option, although completely unrealistic with our large dependence on foreign student business.
Limiting the number of children per family is a realistic option, there is a country with a billion people already doing it... It has nothing to do with sterilization or exterminating one of a twin! If you have twins, there is no consequence in China as it is generally beyond your control, and if you have a second child then you get a large one off tax bill that is means related. I'd prefer the one-in one-out option, although completely unrealistic with our large dependence on foreign student business. Gaulnut

6:34pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Flashheart says...

I have 3 children, and pay through the nose for everything!
Try finding a car that takes 3 proper child seats. S-Max, Disco and 1/2 doz more
Try finding a discounted "Family Ticket" that caters for a family of 5.
Check out the food bill each week, let alone keeping them warm and dry...

I have been to the vet's to stop the madness!!!
I have 3 children, and pay through the nose for everything! Try finding a car that takes 3 proper child seats. S-Max, Disco and 1/2 doz more Try finding a discounted "Family Ticket" that caters for a family of 5. Check out the food bill each week, let alone keeping them warm and dry... I have been to the vet's to stop the madness!!! Flashheart

10:57pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Contax says...

I agree with compulsary sterilisation whe a couple have 2 children, if your second is twins think your self lucky but you only get the maximum 2 x child benefit. Trouble is women could cheat by IVF.
It's time more cheap terraced 1 and 2 bedroom houses and 1 bed bungalows for old people are built, this would mean people in not fully occupied family homes could be re housed. In Bucks they would only want to build the expensive homes on green belt land with easy access to London, the state should build the cheaper homes as builders won't as they make less profit
I agree with compulsary sterilisation whe a couple have 2 children, if your second is twins think your self lucky but you only get the maximum 2 x child benefit. Trouble is women could cheat by IVF. It's time more cheap terraced 1 and 2 bedroom houses and 1 bed bungalows for old people are built, this would mean people in not fully occupied family homes could be re housed. In Bucks they would only want to build the expensive homes on green belt land with easy access to London, the state should build the cheaper homes as builders won't as they make less profit Contax

3:10pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Kania 2000 says...

What, Stone Bassett again!
What, Stone Bassett again! Kania 2000

6:58pm Wed 15 Jan 14

legiopatrianostra says...

Studentbob wrote:
legiopatrianostra wrote:
Edgar Brooks wrote: Backed up, no doubt, by enforced sterilisation of both partners, once they've reached your arbitrary quota; in most countries this would be known as "mutilation," but not in your Utopia, of course.
Not sure he was suggesting a 'nuclear' option, nevertheless, one would hope that it never comes to that but if the world population continues to grow, undoubtedly it might be one option in the future, either that or nature will take its own course along with the misery that ensues. Anyway, while armageddon isn't quite upon us yet, I would have thought having child benefit for two children and ensuring sustainability/quali ty of life would be the primary consideration.
That might sound good, but the powers that be recognise, however much they try and hide it, that for an economy like the UK's to continue to grow, it requires an ever increasing population - fodder, if you like. The market will determine our population figures - not politicians. If you accept the market economy, then you also have to accept everytthing that comes with it; inequality, price inflation, free movement of people (fodder, or slaves) and money (corruption, tax havens), scarcity of resources, and unemployment/poverty .
That's one of the main problems with mere growth as opposed to quality of life being a marker for a successful economy.
[quote][p][bold]Studentbob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]legiopatrianostra[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: Backed up, no doubt, by enforced sterilisation of both partners, once they've reached your arbitrary quota; in most countries this would be known as "mutilation," but not in your Utopia, of course.[/p][/quote]Not sure he was suggesting a 'nuclear' option, nevertheless, one would hope that it never comes to that but if the world population continues to grow, undoubtedly it might be one option in the future, either that or nature will take its own course along with the misery that ensues. Anyway, while armageddon isn't quite upon us yet, I would have thought having child benefit for two children and ensuring sustainability/quali ty of life would be the primary consideration.[/p][/quote]That might sound good, but the powers that be recognise, however much they try and hide it, that for an economy like the UK's to continue to grow, it requires an ever increasing population - fodder, if you like. The market will determine our population figures - not politicians. If you accept the market economy, then you also have to accept everytthing that comes with it; inequality, price inflation, free movement of people (fodder, or slaves) and money (corruption, tax havens), scarcity of resources, and unemployment/poverty .[/p][/quote]That's one of the main problems with mere growth as opposed to quality of life being a marker for a successful economy. legiopatrianostra

7:26am Thu 16 Jan 14

Robert.M says...

Stop giving immigrants obtaining benefit for housing, stop giving them child benefit, make them pay for NHS treatment until they have paid at least 2 years NI and tax, do not allow them here unless they have guaranteed employment, and if they become unemployed within the first 2yrs send them home. Also make sure that they have a reasonable command of the English language before they settle here.
Stop giving immigrants obtaining benefit for housing, stop giving them child benefit, make them pay for NHS treatment until they have paid at least 2 years NI and tax, do not allow them here unless they have guaranteed employment, and if they become unemployed within the first 2yrs send them home. Also make sure that they have a reasonable command of the English language before they settle here. Robert.M

10:12am Fri 17 Jan 14

Peter Cyprus says...

Studentbob wrote:
legiopatrianostra wrote:
Edgar Brooks wrote: Backed up, no doubt, by enforced sterilisation of both partners, once they've reached your arbitrary quota; in most countries this would be known as "mutilation," but not in your Utopia, of course.
Not sure he was suggesting a 'nuclear' option, nevertheless, one would hope that it never comes to that but if the world population continues to grow, undoubtedly it might be one option in the future, either that or nature will take its own course along with the misery that ensues. Anyway, while armageddon isn't quite upon us yet, I would have thought having child benefit for two children and ensuring sustainability/quali ty of life would be the primary consideration.
That might sound good, but the powers that be recognise, however much they try and hide it, that for an economy like the UK's to continue to grow, it requires an ever increasing population - fodder, if you like.
The market will determine our population figures - not politicians.
If you accept the market economy, then you also have to accept everytthing that comes with it; inequality, price inflation, free movement of people (fodder, or slaves) and money (corruption, tax havens), scarcity of resources, and unemployment/poverty

.
So we must keep letting it grow? What happens when there is no space to build? Do we then return to high rise building which has been shown to have detrimental effects on the inhabitants. Thus thinking is only stoking up problems for the future.
[quote][p][bold]Studentbob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]legiopatrianostra[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edgar Brooks[/bold] wrote: Backed up, no doubt, by enforced sterilisation of both partners, once they've reached your arbitrary quota; in most countries this would be known as "mutilation," but not in your Utopia, of course.[/p][/quote]Not sure he was suggesting a 'nuclear' option, nevertheless, one would hope that it never comes to that but if the world population continues to grow, undoubtedly it might be one option in the future, either that or nature will take its own course along with the misery that ensues. Anyway, while armageddon isn't quite upon us yet, I would have thought having child benefit for two children and ensuring sustainability/quali ty of life would be the primary consideration.[/p][/quote]That might sound good, but the powers that be recognise, however much they try and hide it, that for an economy like the UK's to continue to grow, it requires an ever increasing population - fodder, if you like. The market will determine our population figures - not politicians. If you accept the market economy, then you also have to accept everytthing that comes with it; inequality, price inflation, free movement of people (fodder, or slaves) and money (corruption, tax havens), scarcity of resources, and unemployment/poverty .[/p][/quote]So we must keep letting it grow? What happens when there is no space to build? Do we then return to high rise building which has been shown to have detrimental effects on the inhabitants. Thus thinking is only stoking up problems for the future. Peter Cyprus

4:59pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Studentbob says...

If by "we" you mean the government, then yes, because our political leaders seem incapable of offering an alternative; growth at any cost is their raison d'être. Of course it's unsustainable in the long term, and many of them probably know that, but they're not going to admit it are they?
The trouble is, that until the British people wake up and stop believing the spin about the poor, or the immigrants, or whoever happens to be the target of hate at the time, then the government can continue shafting us in order to keep the share prices up.
'Cos that's what's important, innit?
If by "we" you mean the government, then yes, because our political leaders seem incapable of offering an alternative; growth at any cost is their raison d'être. Of course it's unsustainable in the long term, and many of them probably know that, but they're not going to admit it are they? The trouble is, that until the British people wake up and stop believing the spin about the poor, or the immigrants, or whoever happens to be the target of hate at the time, then the government can continue shafting us in order to keep the share prices up. 'Cos that's what's important, innit? Studentbob

3:34pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Scarletto says...

According to the leak via Nick Clegg one of the two sites is Gerrards Cross! What a sensation! Wow... Which GX area could be developed?
It will be unpopular with many. Why didn't David Cameron announce this?
According to the leak via Nick Clegg one of the two sites is Gerrards Cross! What a sensation! Wow... Which GX area could be developed? It will be unpopular with many. Why didn't David Cameron announce this? Scarletto

9:03pm Mon 20 Jan 14

OctoberW says...

BucksComment wrote:
When will someone ask the real question: "Why do we need more housing"?

Simple solution - 2 children per family and one in, one out immigration

result: no population growth, no need to dig up our green and pleasant land
and would that include bringing all those who have emigrated back from abroad?
if you look at the figures you will find that most of the welfare budget is spent on those people who have retired.. Now how exactly are we to finance them with a smaller working population due to your limit on families to two children?

'Robert.M says...

Stop giving immigrants obtaining benefit for housing, stop giving them child benefit, make them pay for NHS treatment until they have paid at least 2 years NI and tax, do not allow them here unless they have guaranteed employment, and if they become unemployed within the first 2yrs send them home. Also make sure that they have a reasonable command of the English language before they settle here'

think you might need to check those 'facts' The vast influx of ONE person when the gates were opened to Romania had a job lined up when he arrived.... most immigrants put more into the country than they take out
In fact they are less likely to claim benefits, or take social housing than UK residents...http://w
ww.bbc.co.uk/news/uk
-24813467
http://www.theguardi
an.com/uk-news/2013/
nov/05/migration-tar
get-useless-experts
[quote][p][bold]BucksComment[/bold] wrote: When will someone ask the real question: "Why do we need more housing"? Simple solution - 2 children per family and one in, one out immigration result: no population growth, no need to dig up our green and pleasant land[/p][/quote]and would that include bringing all those who have emigrated back from abroad? if you look at the figures you will find that most of the welfare budget is spent on those people who have retired.. Now how exactly are we to finance them with a smaller working population due to your limit on families to two children? 'Robert.M says... Stop giving immigrants obtaining benefit for housing, stop giving them child benefit, make them pay for NHS treatment until they have paid at least 2 years NI and tax, do not allow them here unless they have guaranteed employment, and if they become unemployed within the first 2yrs send them home. Also make sure that they have a reasonable command of the English language before they settle here' think you might need to check those 'facts' The vast influx of ONE person when the gates were opened to Romania had a job lined up when he arrived.... most immigrants put more into the country than they take out In fact they are less likely to claim benefits, or take social housing than UK residents...http://w ww.bbc.co.uk/news/uk -24813467 http://www.theguardi an.com/uk-news/2013/ nov/05/migration-tar get-useless-experts OctoberW

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree