Sir Starmer’s speech
on immigration earlier this week had obvious echoes of the words of Enoch
Powell more than half a century ago, and repeated attempts to pretend that
there is no similarity between the words used by the two men look like simply
digging an already big hole a bit deeper. I accept that it was almost certainly
unintentional. Starmer would have been about 6 in 1968 when Powell delivered
his infamous speech, and the coterie of advisers and speech writers around him
probably even younger. Lack of a direct memory of Powell’s speech – or even of
the man himself – is understandable, even if it demonstrates a certain lack of knowledge
of political history. The bigger problem isn’t about whether he was or was not
aping an odious politician of the past, deliberately or otherwise – it’s about
the extent to which what looked like extreme views in 1968 have become part of
the political mainstream, not just for Reform Ltd but also for the Tories and
even Labour. Starmer’s words would have been anathema to Wilson and the Labour
Party back then, yet their modern-day counterparts are falling over themselves
to justify and amplify them.
There is another
unpleasant aspect to the words used by UK parties when referring to migrants,
which is that it sees them largely in terms of their value (or cost) to the UK
economy. So, low-paid (which isn’t the same as low-skilled, although one would
be hard-pressed to glean that from Starmer’s words) bad, high-paid good. Rarely
do any of our politicians seem to see migrants or would-be migrants as human
beings with aspirations and needs. There’s also an interesting paradox in the
fact that the low-paid are doing work for which it is proving difficult to recruit
UK labour, whilst at least some of the higher-paid jobs are easier to fill
locally. Who is ‘stealing’ whose jobs? Whether the higher-paid jobs can or
cannot be filled locally, and whilst bearing in mind the caveat that high-paid
isn’t always the same as high-skilled, attracting what are seen as being the ‘brightest
and best’ from elsewhere has an inevitable knock-on effect on the society and
economy of those countries losing those people to the UK. It’s a modern form of
colonialism.
Even amongst those
brave souls in the Labour Party who are speaking out against the proposed
changes, there is a degree of objectification of the people involved. Take the
words of a former adviser to Mark Drakeford, quoted here:
“To have a sustainable indigenous population requires a fertility rate 2.1.
The UK rate is 1.4. This means our indigenous population is shrinking and aging
and we are completely dependent on immigrants to remain a viable country”.
What could be more neo-colonialist than outsourcing the responsibility for
maintaining population levels (even supposing that to be a good thing anyway,
but that’s a subject for another day)? And where is the consideration of the
impact on those other countries of losing the people of an age group likely to
be child-bearing? Moving a perceived problem elsewhere doesn’t ‘solve’ it.
Migration is a
complex issue which involves real people living real lives. Reducing it to a
cost-benefit analysis, and treating migrants as units of economic production is
dehumanising. But it’s what we get when politicians decide that playing to
prejudice is more likely to win them votes than attempting to conduct a serious
conversation around the issue. Starmer is part of the problem, and what he has
to offer is no solution.
Posts
6 comments:
Such a difficult subject. Involves all kinds of uncomfortable propositions. I have been discussing this with Britishised Muslims a lot.
1. I had no strong views about this until relatively recently.
2. The underlying problem is the birthrate. If its 1.4 and not 2-3 the problem becomes that wider society is not facing the birthrate problem. Creepy that Drakeford used an aide to talk about this, and didn't do so himself.
3. Other countries have tried over the years to tackle low birthrates: Roman Empire. Napoleonic France, USSR, modern Hungary, modern Japan.
4. You hit the feminism problem, which can't be dodged. Feminists have screwed the thinking of women, teenage girls and the rest of us.
5. Many women are unsuited to having children. The 2.4 average is made up by the other women who go to 4 (as was commonplace amongst Plaidies in Swansea in the 80s including me.
6. The sad thing, based on observation, is that feminists bully other women and the rest of us. The result has been disruption of normal human behaviour, particularly sadly to be seen in the minds of teenage and thirty-somthing females.
7. The irony is that many immigrants are (thankfully) immune from this virus and are quite happy with women being women, and liking say 4 children.
8. Its hard to face, Borthlas, but Catholics and Enoch were right to warn us.
9. Where do we go from here? I remember a BBC Radio documentary some years ago which pointed out the demography of this - that women receive all kinds of State subsidies, that this was irrational and damaging eg to birthrate, but that there was nothing to be done because of the force of female opinion and votes. So I leave the feminism-created problem without having solve it. I admit.
10. As for the narrow issue of immigration, lets start with a historical fact. That immigration started in the form of WW2 Central Europeans, and morphed into the labour requirement of London Underground and the hapless managers of the UK Textile industry in N.England.
11. Asylum: Wales should apply international law stricly and insist that applicants cannot travel through to Wales via a safe country.
12. England immigration control: England needs to decide if its going to have a system (control, including deportation) or not. The US may have decided for England. That England can and should. It can be done. Australians would say the same. England needs civil servants who want to do this (cf American Tom Homan) and have the the knowledge too. Ditto Cabinet ministers. An enormous cultural change, its true.
Wales should eventually be allowed to decide for itself too.
This wasn't really about birthrates at all - a subject for another day, so I'm not going to respond to all the points you make. I will say, though, that your use of the phrase "birthrate problem" presupposes that falling birthrates are a bad thing. It's not an assumption which I share. A reduction in overall population levels in a resource-constrained world has advantages, although it does mean rethinking our economic models. That is partly why it's too large a subject to address in a brief comment. Whether women choosing to have fewer children is really down to bullying by feminists is a somewhat sweeping and simplistic assertion, to say the least - and one with which many (including myself) would disagree. I'm not sure what to make of your comment about some women being "unsuited to having children". If that's a way of saying that some women simply can't for medical reasons, then it's a simple statement of fact, but it otherwise looks highly judgemental.
On migration, which was the real point of the original post, your comments seem to be replicating the starting point of Labour/Tory/Reform politicians, in believing that immigration is inherently a 'problem', and in treating those involved as numbers (or economic units in the case of many politicians) rather than as people. I'll accept that there are different views as to what the 'right' level of migration is and how it should be handled, but a nation which claims 'compassion' as one of its core values should surely start by looking at people rather than numbers.
I came to this slowly and reluctantly. But we must face it. We are facing social breakdown. No political party will have the answer. Culture (religion?) are upstream of politics
I'm not entirely sure that I understand the point you are making here, but I think it is a suggestion that migration, or a low birthrate, or some combination of the two, is going to cause a social breakdown. I can't immediately see how there would be a causal relationship there. I'm not even sure that I understand what a social breakdown is or what its characteristics might be. I suspect, however, that it's more likely that any consequences follow not from the demographic facts themselves but from the responses to them, which is a rather different question.
I would be disappointed to learn that your judgement on this ‘odious politician’ came from reading second hand and at the times much spun views about his speech ,or as Plato put it ‘Noble Lies’ , without having met the person. I kind of met him as I sat next to his table in the Commons Tea Room one afternoon ,and my host warned me to be careful what I said as he could follow Welsh conversation. So, dare I claim a nodding acquaintance?
You are right the speech contents is today part of mainstream political dialogue ,and in fact a weekly magazine that I will not name in case we get a knock on the door from the Old Bill drew attention to this naming Tony Blairs 2005 speech along with Wee Gordon Brown s ‘British jobs, for British people’ and concluded that most Prime Ministers in the Union Parliament spout this stuff after a drubbing in the polls.
Enoc Powell was one of the cleverest men in the House in my lifetime ,along from the other side of the debate – Woy Jenkins. One thing is for sure ;the political system is not suited to them as they believe in their principles and can draw down on their intellect to make their case. The system is set up to make mediocrity look good when they reach a position of power and have their ‘ten minutes of fame ‘and then be instantly forgotten – for more details ,see ‘Yes Minister.’
In England, the issues raise is now more visible than when he spoke and the English find their identity and culture under threat and they feel threaten ,so much so they are so intimidated that they shy away from flying their own flag. Is this the revenge of Glyndwr on them, as their system of government in Wales from the start ,and enshrined in the 1536 Act planned the destruction of our culture and language?
To Johathan, I am on board with the direction of your post – wise words as always.
"...the English find their identity and culture under threat..." Firstly, there is a question about whether we can really treat "the English" as a homogeneous group who all feel the same way. I'm not at all convinced that it is true; it seems to me that feelings are much more nuanced than that. Secondly, a 'threat to culture and identity' is an interpretation placed on what some people feel, but what does it really mean? Do they feel that their language - the most widely used international medium of communication in the world - is somehow under threat? Surely not. Do they feel that they are being forced to change aspects of their way of life to accommodate people who choose to follow different customs? Again, surely not. Are you certain that it's actually anything broader than not wanting to have people who are in some way different living amongst them, or maybe simply wanting someone identifiable to blame for their plight? That people might feel in some way disadvantaged or left behind by the way society has changed is an obvious statement of fact, but the driver for that is more about inequality, or more specifically the way in which resources have become increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Whose interests are served by transferring the blame for that disadvantage away from those who are accumulating the resources and onto those who look, sound, or behave differently? The problem with current-day political rhetoric is that it confirms and legitimises the idea that 'other' are to blame - but again, whose interests are served by that?
Post a Comment