The wealthy right-winger Yvette Cooper has just been on television intoning Labour’s new mantra “It isn’t racist to be worried about immigration.” This should be challenged robustly at all times. Above all, it is very, very racist for politicians to go around saying “It isn’t racist to be worried about immigration” when they are using it nakedly and cynically to bid for the votes of racists.
I can never recall any by-election that got as much BBC publicity as that in Rochester, not even Hillhead or Warrington. The BBC and media establishment are continuing their massive promotion of UKIP at all times. The Labour Party is responding by pandering to racism. Yvette spoke of the “race to the bottom in the labour market”. The country’s real problem is the race to the bottom in the fascist market.
Promising 1.000 new uniformed border guards as their headline policy initiative is a pretty impressive spurt by Labour in this fascist race.
It shows how sour politics have gone when it takes the Confederation of British Industry to inject some sense from a liberal perspective into the immigration debate. Over 60% of CBI embers say that immigration has benefited their company. Only 3% believe it has hurt their company. Immigration is a tremendous boon to the British economy. Without it we would be deep in recession. Nor is it in the least responsible for the growing wealth gap. The period of highest immigration into the UK coincided with the period when social mobility and social equality were making the most progress.
That people still fall for the old con-trick astonishes me. Don’t blame Britain’s 100 billionaires, multi millionaire bankers or grasping landlords for your poverty – look! blame that foreign-looking poor man over there. He is eating a bit of cheese. He has taken that cheese from the mouths of your children!
It is primal and it is ludicrous, but the appeal to atavism can work and Labour are seeking to profit from it.
The Labour Party’s deliberate conflation of the unrelated questions of corporate, banker and executive rapacity, the exploitation of the workforce, and immigration is deeply, deeply, shameful. There was very little Yvette Cooper said that Nigel Farage would not second. But that, after all, was the purpose of the exercise.
Today’s attack in the synagogue in Jerusalem was on the site of the Deir Yassin massacre of 1948.
How many western newspapers are going to mention that?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04pvjw9/newsnight-18112014
Cooper with Wark on Newsnight. 3mins 50secs in
Cooper was a Blair Babe.
Fighting talk: Labour’s Harriet Harman, left and Yvette Cooper, who both voted for the Iraq war
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1391862/Blairs-babe-just-warlike-men-says-MP-Bob-Marshall-Andrews
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/28/article-1391862-0B67EC7E000005DC-625_224x423.jpg
:::
O/T
Blair ‘has seen Chilcot findings’: Letters detailing conclusions of public inquiry into Iraq war are sent to main participants
Tony Blair is thought to have seen the findings of the Iraq War Inquiry
Chilcot report has faced long delays but could be published in new year
David Cameron previously said report would be published in 2014
Former Home Secretary Jack Straw is also thought to have seen findings
Whitehall source says the letters were sent out ‘some time ago’
By Jack Doyle for the Daily Mail
18 November 2014
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2838627/Blair-seen-Chilcot-findings-Letters-detailing-conclusions-public-inquiry-Iraq-war-sent-main-participants.html
@Mary: Did all the Blair babes vote for war? Sort of explodes the pre-Thatcher myth (which I believed…) that if only women were in charge the world would become free from war.
it seems that in 2016, the US presidency will be fought between a Clinton and a Bush… and in this case the Clinton, it seems, is the more warmongering.
Funny old (western) world!
One female MP I have huge respect for:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1es3InZuWs
She was the first UK politician to say live on air that the war with Iraq was illegal – even before Kofi Annan “came out” on BBC World Service.
Greens now up to 8%. There is hope…
Another day of hope:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysva-csAg8A
I can only see a few of them who voted against it here. May those on this list be praised.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2862397.stm
PS So pleased too to see that Alex Salmond voted against the war.
No problems emigrating to Israel, as long as you are Jewish or related.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return
Effect
See also: Aliyah
Since 1950, 2,734,245 Jews have immigrated to Israel.[11] Hundreds of thousands of non-Jews have received Israeli citizenship, as the law confers citizenship to all offspring of a Jew (including grandchildren).[12]
Difficult if you are Palestinian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return
[craigmurray.org.uk – common anti-Semitic sock, original name forgotten. Deleted]
@Mary: Interesting list. It seems that most of those who voted against the war were already established as MPs before the Blair era. I think Helen Clarke was a Blair babe, but I seem to remember that there was a campaign against he and eventually she resigned/got de-selected.
That was a very, very, dark period in our nation’s history, and it is not so long ago. The chief UK-based protagonists are unfortunately still at large, enjoying the rewards of their outrageous actions, but the current crop of MPs seem to have a little more independence of mind, perhaps because of petitioning groups like 38 degrees and change.org.
It has still got worse since then because it seems that the blackness that befell the British Parliament subsequently spread to the previously anti-war and pro-human rights EU. I think Blair buddies Merkel & Sarkozy may have had something to do with that. What’s next? A Polish EU President, it seems…
Another good current article about Chilcot:
http://rt.com/uk/206619-chilcot-inquiry-letters-warning/
Perhaps Norman Baker resigned his ministerial position to give him freedom to discuss the current problems with disclosure.
Really think this is non point when it’s taken into account that immigration results in a Net “”substantial” contribution” to the Treasury; surely these services would be stretched even thinner if it wasn’t for the immigration “windfall” ?!
Well, we know the BBC’s devotion to not just pasting the latest press release from the government, don’t we? Here’s the other side of that one:
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/1.5
3. The claim that migrants make up 8% of the population and contribute 10% to GDP has a fatal flaw. It does not include UK-born dependent children of migrants. If they are included we find that migrants make up just over 10% of the total UK population. Since their contribution to GDP is 9 .8%, they are not adding proportionately more to GDP, as the government claims.
4. The Prime Ministers claim regarding a 0.5% economic growth rate starts with an exaggeration. Originally the Treasury claimed that net inward migration would add 0.4% to GDP growth. This was based on the simple calculation that net migration would, in one year, add 0.4% to the working age population. It took no account of the fact that migrants and, later, their dependants add to the overall population.
5. The most recent Government Actuarys Department (GAD) principal projections (130,000 a year net migration) show that in the period 2003 2031 migration will add 5.2 million to the total population and nearly 3.8 million to the working age population. This equates to an average compound growth rates of 0.30% and 0.34% respectively. So, using the governments very simplistic basis of equating growth in GDP with the growth in the working age population, the increase in GDP each year would be 0.34% but the population would increase by 0.3% each year so the benefit per head per year would be about 0.04%. This works out at 7 per head per year or 14p a week. This calculation takes no account of additional infrastructure costs nor of the costs of congestion to which immigration on this scale will add considerably.
6. On other occasions government spokesmen have claimed that approximately 15% of the UKs trend growth depends on migration. In fact, trend growth is about 2.75%. Since 0.4 is 15% of 2.75, this amounts to the same claim, expressed differently to make it look more impressive.
7. We note that major economic studies in the US, Canada and Holland have also come to the conclusion that the benefit, in terms of GDP per head, to the indigenous population is very small. Indeed, a Dutch government study published in 2003 found that:
The Gross Domestic Product will increase, but this increase will accrue largely to the immigrants in the form of wages.* The overall net gain in income of residents is likely to be small and may even be negative.
*an appreciable proportion of which will be sent back to the worker’s country of origin, and hence even less available to the treasury…
And given that the current government’s avowed policy is to chop everything in sight to pay off the budget deficit – not that that’s working – no, I don’t think the imaginary benefits of encouraging foreign workers to undercut indigenous ones are likely to offset the decline in NHS viability.
Oh, and just to yet again reiterate this. GDP growth is not a valid measure of economic health. All it implies is an increased number of transactions, which may or may not themselves contribute to the general good. As you would expect from an increased population.
An emetic.
The financial interests of the troughers on the red benches. The corruption within our political system. It should be swept away.
The Business of Lords
How the House of Lords Mixes Politics and Business
http://online.wsj.com/articles/how-the-house-of-lords-mixes-politics-and-business-1415693056
http://graphics.wsj.com/house-of-lords/
Click on any of the photos to get the individual details. Milords Flight, Razzall, Browne of Madingley, Powell and Lamont have the largest number of ‘interests’.
Membership of lobby groups and allegiances to other countries 🙂 is covert.
That people still fall for the old con-trick astonishes me. Don’t blame Britain’s 100 billionaires, multi millionaire bankers or grasping landlords for your poverty …..
Simplistic. Promoting the immigration of cheap labour, rather than being prepared to (a)train your workforce and (b) pay fair wages is a classical profit-enhancer for these very people. They are not personally worried by your opinion, and have no need to deflect attention from their own greed. Which is very well served by reducing labour costs to the lowest common denominator…whether that is found in Warsaw or Dacca.
See: globalism.
I feel divided about immigration. I don’t agree that Yvette cooper’s remark is necessarily racist. It is a complex issue. Few if any countries or communities have risen to the challenge of having a mature debate about it. I don’t claim to know all the answers, but here are a few questions/issues, for what they are worth:
In a globalized, liberal economy such as ours, there are few capital controls, and money flows to where it is treated best. Surely the same right should be accorded to workers as is accorded to capital?
So much for the theory. In practice, immigration does create a strain on housing and infrastructure. There is a link between the UK housing shortage and immigration, surely?
Yes but… all those millions spent on Trident could be diverted to building affordable housing. Cut the military, and there would be enough funds to solve the housing shortage, at least in part.
Yes but.. It would take time as well as money. To retrain all those naval staff as masons, for example. It might be advisable to slow up immigration until the housing and infrastructure are in place.
Many immigrants are escaping from poor or dysfunctional states and societies. It is our moral duty to help those caught up in wars, discrimination, extreme poverty and persecution. But what is the best way to do this? The states from which they escape will remain poor, dysfunctional or both, so although we are improving the lot of those who manage to escape, the problems that caused them to escape in the first place will not have been solved, and those who remain behind will stay trapped in misery. So maybe the real question is: What can we do to help dysfunctional states get back on their feet? (No, I am not a “liberal interventionist”. I’m just asking, that’s all.)
Another question: if the rulers of dysfunctional or very poor states get the idea that they can rely on emigration to get rid of citizens they consider undesirable, this could create a “market” for immigration on a massive scale. As happened with the “Ugandan Asians” several decades ago, when they were forced to leave Uganda and the UK took them in.
Another point: if one country is perceived to be far softer on immigration than another, this one country could be targeted by those seeking asylum. This could explain why none of the European countries wants to be seen as “soft” on immigration: they don’t want to attract more than their “fair share” of immigration (whatever that is). So immigration policies need to be co-ordinated at European level. (Yes, but, if you are “anti-European”, this is not a valid argument, is it?)
I think immigration has probably benefited Britain, on the whole. (It is amusing to see how divided the Right is between atavist/nationalists who are anti, and liberal (pro-)business, who are pro.). But the housing problem remains a concern. Personally, I live outside the UK and could not afford to move back unless I was prepared to sacrifice my quality of life.
Really? The Britain of the sixties and seventies was far more
racist (and sexist) and cruel than it is now. (Domestic Extremist)
Absolutely. I personally remember the signs in East End landladies’ windows: ‘No blacks, Irish or dogs’. Tenants’ rights, incidentally, lol. Lost your job? Out. Now. The pendulum’s swung a long, long way since then.
I should add that of course the the housing shortage is largely the fault of both the Conservative and the Labour parties, so of course Yvette Cooper, even if she is not a racist, is guilt of bad faith.
Baal referred to the viability of the NHS. Viable for the privateers.
Clive’s Private Members Bill The National Health Service (amended duties and powers) Bill has now been published. The Bill will amend the Tories 2012 Health and Social Care Act to stop the increasing privatisation of our NHS.
“The NHS as we know it today will disappear if we continue to allow services to be contracted out to private companies.” explains Clive.
“The Government’s own figures for 2013-14 show that more than £10bn was spent on the purchase of healthcare from non-NHS bodies. If this is allowed to continue it will seriously undermine the capacity of the NHS to provide services in the future, leaving us at the mercy of the private sector. This Bill will halt the rush to privatisation and put patients rather than profits at the heart of our NHS.”
/..
http://www.cliveefford.org.uk/clivepublishesnhsbill?recruiter_id=16
Save our NHS
THIS FRIDAY MPs vote on a proposal that would scrap some of the worst parts of the Health and Social Care Act, and keep the NHS out of TTIP.
To sign the petition asking your MP to save our NHS, type your postcode in here:
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/efforts/save-our-nhs/near/new
Yes the England of the 50s and 60s was racist. But back then the so-called left wasn’t pandering to the racists and begging for their votes by pretending racism was something else and justifiable. Powell evoked sincere horror and disgust, and it was freely expressed by the sort of people who are now afraid of upsetting potential UKIP voters and being attacked as unEnglish. What’s more the political analysis allowed one to point out the real cause of the problems and the real solutions – ones involving redistribution of wealth, curbing the powers of the bosses, spreading genuine democracy. Now the ruling elite are so scared of allowing honest debate of their precious deficit/austerity shock doctrine that they turn to immigration with relief. Let the losers kick immigrants, at least they aren’t kicking our dear friends in the financial sector.
To sign the petition asking your MP to save our NHS, type your postcode in here:
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/efforts/save-our-nhs/near/new
Done, Mary. For what it’s probably worth.
Thanks Ba’al. The petition and campaign to save Lewisham Hospital brought Mr Unt and the ConDems to an abrupt halt.
Sorry Craig I can’t follow you on this one. For me, the best analogy is with justice. Human communities are exclusive, and people are vengeful. Over time, we’ve learnt that it’s much more civilised to deliver justice, and determine “membership” of the community, at the level of the state. When the state resiles from either of these responsibilities, “people” don’t wait around long.
No-one is above racism. I grew up in one of the history’s most tolerant, prosperous and appealing “multi-cultural” societies, 70s and 80s Australia, which I still regard as an ideal. I had italians, greeks, slavs of several flavours, a lebanese, jews, an aboriginal, indians, malays and a large cohort of recently arrived vietnamese in my classes, and as friends, in high school. Later I learnt that the foundation of Australia in 1901 was essentially a racist/exclusive in exercise, to keep out chinese and kanaks, and the impulsion was largely from the union movement and it’s political expression, the new labour party. Australia had the first labout government in the world, and the most progressive social legislation. It acquired a reputation as a workers’ paradise, when the squatocracy who ruled unchallenged until the 1870s had a whole other future in mind. I can’t say 100 years after where the regrettable racism stopped and where the legitimate defense of workers rights began. Niether can I say that the recipe would have worked with one ingredient and without the other.
In any case, social democracies with labour laws and more or less controlled borders, where you can acquire citizenship, are the best model we have, and they’re looking very fragile. The united states, with an economy dependant on an underclass who will never be citizens, is looking more and more like an abomination. Britain shows every sign of choosing the wrong side in this debate.
Let the losers kick immigrants, at least they aren’t kicking our dear friends in the financial sector.
But I am. For me the immigration issue is precisely down to the extension of the old US model – if you can’t make workers in Michigan accept low wages, move the operation to Alabama, where they will – into the even cheaper option of moving the workers, and into a globalised economy. I very well recognise that the individual immigrants aren’t the villains, and there’s no call to abuse them personally. It’s perfectly possible to observe that immigration on the scale we’re seeing is deplorable, without being in the least racist. Tribalist, maybe. But as it’s tribalism which is ultimately responsible for most human progress, that’s not such a bad thing at all.
Habbabkuk, thank you for giving me an opportunity to outline Syriza’s platform for reform as regards their policy towards immigrants. When Syriza takes control, due to the failure and corruption of capitalism in Greece, it will be the first new Socialist government in Europe since the Second World War. I can understand this will worry certain people from privileged backgrounds in other western countries which make a few individuals rich at the expense of millions in poverty. It is under: 6. Deepening Democracy: democratic political and social rights for all: but the whole policy document is well worth reading.
http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/645.php
“There is a democratic deficit in the country. Greece is gradually being transformed into an authoritarian police state.
We are calling for:
The restoration of popular sovereignty and an upgrade of parliamentary power within the political system:
Creation of a proportional electoral system
Separation of powers
Revocation of ministerial immunity
Abolishment of economic privileges for MPs
Real decentralization to create local government with sound resources and expanded jurisdiction.
The introduction of direct democracy and institutions of self-management under workers’ and social control at all levels.
Measures against political and economic corruption.
The solidification of democratic, political, and trade union rights.
The enhancement of women’s and youths’ rights in the family, in employment, and in public administration.
Immigration reforms:
Speeding up the asylum process
Abolition of Dublin II regulations and granting of travel papers to immigrants
Social inclusion of immigrants and equal rights protection
Democratic reforms to public administration with the active participation of civil servants.
The demilitarization and democratization of the Police and the Coast Guard. Disbandment of special forces.
Briar
I think you’ll find the workers and trade unions were dead against mass immigration, with a nod and a wink from the Labour politicians of the day. They
saw quite clearly the effect that mass immigration would have on their terms and
conditions, though they reacted in what would be considered today a racist manner.
It has to be UKIP all the way now, sadly the Lib Lab Con are all tied together as was shown in Scotland Independence and UKIP although not perfect by any means are the only ones saying get out of Europe. We should have learnt that lesson from the collaspe of the Southern EU countries and now relying on ex Communist countries to fill our skills gap is only letting the current crop of liars off the hook to train and educate the UK population. Poaching people from other countries impoverishes those economies as we rob them of the skills needed to devlop their own economies. Open door immigration just has to stop !
Ba’al Zevul siad;
Are you really?
As a thought experiment, how about this proposition;
You are subscribing to the general notions of the racist swine, albeit through a different angle, and based on a nuanced rationale. The globalisation you refer to, has been the extension of the poverty franchise that has been the economic model for the third world for the duration of most of the twentieth century, resultant of which has been the derisory economic progress of the most of the third world countries. Lest forget the ones which have been “liberated/democratised/given freedom” à la Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and a whole host of other countries.
The financial repression that has been the main stay of the Western economic policies (read Anglo US et al axis) has been at its ugliest in the third world, compelling mass migration of workers in search of jobs, who are then further repressed in other countries to create even a cheaper pool of labour, be it in Qatar, or UK!
The helping hand of the racists who are damn busy bashing immigrants helps to create the conditions that the immigrants will accept even less as rewards for their work, perpetuating the “race to the bottom” syndrome.
The emotional responses throughout this thread clearly are indicative of an immature and incoherent understanding of the issues that have little bearing on reality or facts surrounding the issues of immigration.
Simple fact is no one would like to give up their own lands, families, friends, and creature comforts, and launch into an unknown and at times dangerous futures, without a damn good underlying reason; hunger, poverty, and hopelessness.
However, given the tsunami of the indignations the debate here and elsewhere is not about why are we living in poverty, whilst a handful few are living off the fat of the land? The sad fact is thrust of the debate is why the other poor swine of a different colour, language etc, is taking bite to eat or even dare to go to a hospital to get some relief from pain and discomfort he/she maybe experiencing.
I dislike to get involved in any debate around here, recollecting the bicycle debate in which it was advocated that cyclist ought to be ran over/shot/hung and banned from roads! The fact is even on this board the lunacy of the zeitgeist is common currency albeit with a nuance.
The 800 pound gorilla in the room; deliberate and prevalent policies of financial repression are nowhere to be subject to any debate or be deserving of any attention.
Has anyone ever asked this simple question; “why are we encouraged to hate and dislike one another?” We being the poor, ie you and I and anyone else who has less than six million pounds cash fluidity!
A charmer.
Ukip’s Mark Reckless suggests EU migrants should be sent home – reaction: Politics Live blog
LIVE Updated 11m ago
Rolling coverage of all the day’s political developments as they happen, including reaction to Mark Reckless’s comments about EU immigrants being forced to leave the UK and David Cameron and Ed Miliband at PMQs
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/19/ukips-mark-reckless-suggests-eu-migrants-should-be-sent-home-reaction-politics-live-blog
“why are we encouraged to hate and dislike one another?”
Frequently. And have come to the conclusion that this is instinctive behaviour, reaching right back to our pack-ape ancestry. Still, we manage on the whole not to eat immigrant children, unlike chimpanzees, so there is hope yet.
in which it was advocated that cyclist ought to be ran over/shot/hung and banned from roads!
Largely, and I hate to spoil it for you, in macabre jest. My personal preference is that they are safely confined and mounted on bicycle-generators to produce useful energy for the national grid.
I am unrepentant in my inclination to radically restrict immigration to the UK. If this were possible, it wouldn’t be a death-blow to globalist economics, but it would be a nasty knock. I fail to see how this is racist, and can only assume the Humpty Dumpty principle is at work here – “a word means what I choose it to mean”. I am not proposing to eject those already here, and I don’t base my thinking on skin colour (deplorable as fake-tan orange is) or any other racial attribute.
The constant accusations of racism levelled by the over-empathic Left at anyone who dares express a contrary view on the matter suggest groupthink is at work. Anyone with reservations about immigration magically becomes kin with the BNP and UKIP, boo, hiss.
But because the BNP and UKIP exploit the issue, doesn’t mean there isn’t an issue.