OK, it’s not quite up there with the all-time greats such as ‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts’. But the front page splash in this morning’s Daily Mail – headlined ‘Immigration: the great lies’ will probably be worth just as many votes to the racist right.
The article it accompanies purports to be objective coverage of a House of Lords economic affairs committee report on Britain’s immigration policy. But the hyperbole kicks in with the first par and just doesn’t let up.
‘Labour’s justification for mass immigration was torn to shreds by experts last night … landmark study … devastating cross-party report … ruthlessly exposed …forced to accept the social harm from migration, with little or nothing to fall back on.’
There’s plenty more where that came from in the editorial, too; the report ‘explodes a nuclear bomb beneath the government’s case …alas, it may already be too late to undo much of the damage.’
The Daily Telegraph plays the story with a straight bat. Unfortunately, its leader writers take it upon themselves to present us with ‘the brutal truth’, in language scarcely more temperate than that of its tabloid counterpart.
‘Labour’s immigration policy finally exposed,’ we are informed, without being told when it was ever supposedly hidden. The government, it seems, has ‘lost control of our borders’. I must have been imagining those long lines I thought I saw at passport control last time I passed through Heathrow.
‘As recently as the 2005 general election, the Conservatives were accused by Labour of “playing the race card” for raising concerns about immigration,’ the leader splutters indignantly.
That might just be because they did, of course. Here’s a direct quote from Tory MP Andrew Lansley: ‘Immigration, an issue we raised successfully in 1992 and again in the 1994 European election campaign, played particularly well in the tabloids and has more potential to hurt.’ He evidently didn’t see the need to add that it plays particularly well in certain broadsheets, too.
None of this is to argue that such a major issue should be airbrushed out of public debate. Serious coverage of the controversy surrounding immigration is entirely legitimate. But taken in aggregate, articles such as those cited above have a huge impact on the climate in which the arguments are had out.
If the British National Party does find itself with a seat – or even two – in the London Assembly next month, then some journalists may just want to ponder the tone of what they write.
Meanwhile, politicians should have the courage of the neoliberal convictions they apply in all other instances. Either liberalisation maximises economic welfare or it doesn’t. If it does, governments should dismantle immigration controls with the same alacrity with which they once scrapped capital controls.
New Labour’s forthcoming immigration points system – and this, or something like it, is supported in principle by Respect Renewal’s only MP – effectively welcomes 25-year-old computer nerds, 30-year-old entrepreneurs and multimillionaires of any age into Britain.
But there is a lot of dirty work to do in this country. Those who want to do it should be allowed to live here legally and not be criminalised for their willingness to get their hands dirty. Even if they do not happen to be white.
Posted at 14:36, 1 April 2008
Comments (6)
It makes my piss boil, to be honest. It is just the most blatant propaganda. Judging from the summaries I've read of the report, it sounds to me like all it's doing is stating the obvious, albeit with the kind of sceptical slant you'd expect from a committee which includes a few instinctively nationalistic conservatives with a small 'c'.
I think they've probably quite willingly overlooked the role played by migrant workers in subsidising the low inflation, low interest rate lifestyle of Middle England. But other than that, what they're saying is that immigration is not quite the wonderful boon to capitalism that New Labour makes it out to be. But at least they've made the following disclaimer:
While the government has overstated the economic benefits, it is important to stress that we did not find large losses, and we recognise the valuable contribution migrants make.
But the papers seem to have overlooked that part. No matter how many BNP candidates are elected, these people will never ponder the tone in which they write; not until they've forced the government of the day into the most hardline immigration policy ever, and probably not even then either.
O/T but two small pieces of good news for lefties this afternoon: NUT members vote 3-1 to fight their rubbish pay offer, and the NUS 'reform' proposals fell according to the Guardian.
You often find yourself discussing immigration with people who are not racists, but feel threatened by more competition in the labour market, for housing etc. We must be clear that if the Tories were in power they'd have done the same things on immigration because it's benefited employers.
Galloway's support for a points system in principle is not the same as support for allowing billionaires to move about freely - it's a bit dishonest to suggest that, Dave.
I notice that you don't contest the actual findings in the House of Lords report - that the government grossly exaggerates the economic contribution of immigration. In fact, if you use GDP per capita instead of going on about GDP increases, you find that immigration has a negligible and possibly negative impact on GDP in this country.
Any discussion on immigration will always be exploited by the racists. That is a constant and we always have to oppose the bigots. That does not mean just putting a minus where our political enemies put a plus and vice versa. There is little doubt that New Labour's enthusiasm for immigration is based upon the hope that it will bring in skilled labour without having to invest in training, liberalise the labour market and partially inhibit wage inflation. Demonising the immigrants at the same time splits them and the existing workforce and helps to push them into low paid jobs.And if they are "illegal" the employer does not even have to pay the minimum wage.
There will always be immigration. The crucial thing is to give those immigrants full employment rights ( particularly to Agency workers) and full access to benefits. And the unions need to gear themselves up to launch a unified push to massively increase union density.
None of this means that we can simply portray immigration as a good thing.We are not Norman Tebbitt inviting them to get on their bikes, jumbo jets or sinking boats.We poach skilled workers from poor countries that desperately need them.The left needs to take the issue of world poverty seriously. At the moment 90% of activists on this are from the churches and voluntary groups.We must refuse to retreat to sectarian sniping about Jubillee 2000, Oxfam and Fair Trade.But, of course, they do not provide a semblance of a full political response to world built on exploitation.Only the socialist left can come up with that analysis and the systematic campaigning to solve these problems.So why the hell are we so obviously absent from this fight? Dave's columns are often full of points about the deficiencies of the left. But his is the biggest default and we rarely discuss it.
All very true, other than the idea that the management of tabloids would somehow be upset if their work resulted in BNP candidates getting elected.
They'd LOVE that to happen, just as they'd LOVE another race riot, especially if it involved Muslims.
It would be a big story. Big story = big circulation = big money.
It would also be a story that fitted very neatly with their narrative about the coming race war. Blame for the coming race war of course rests with the government (rather than themselves or the BNP for instance) for their failing to 'take heed' of the demands of their readers, and so just positively *forcing* the poor darlings to vote BNP (or riot).