There is little left to say about Gordon Brown’s disaster yesterday. Roy Greenslade has summarised the press coverage this morning and it tells its own story. But, there is one element of this business that bothers me greatly.
In the context of the most personality-driven and presidential general election campaign I can remember, the story is all about Gordon Brown’s hypocrisy and political demise. Immigration is beginning to get more of an airing, but not in substance … only in terms of it being a legitimate topic for concern or debate. That worries me in itself.
But, my main worry has to do with generalisation and categorisation.
We have learned over the years not to categorise people. We should not speak about ‘homosexuals’, but ‘homosexual people’ (in the context of church debates, for example). We refer to ‘disabled people’, not ‘the disabled’. Yet, we have stigmatised politicians (greedy wasters) and bankers (greedy wasters) in a way that is undifferentiated, lazy and even destructive. And now we are doing it with ‘immigrants’.
Forgive the reference (and I am not equating these in terms of the gravity of the phenomena), but whenever we categorise groups of people we run the risk of misrepresenting and misjudging the truth or the reality. Look at the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda… or the Jews in Weimar Germany. (Remember the paediatrician in Portsmouth whose house was targetted by the anti-paedophile mobs?) So, when conducting important discussions about immigration into our small island, the language we use matters.
So, when we speak of ‘immigrants’, to whom are we referring? And when we speak (as yesterday) of ‘Eastern European immigrants’, do we really intend to lump them all together in one negative category? And when we listen to the vox pops from Rochdale estates in which we hear that housing and jobs are going to ‘them’, precisely which houses and jobs are being denied to the English? And would they do these jobs anyway?
Reality is always more complicated than headlines. But, given that we live in a blame culture – in which everything has to be someone else’s fault – anyway, how do we find the language for an intelligent and informed debate about immigration instead of the generalised and (undifferentiatedly) categorised demonisation we see at the moment? Just because lots of people are concerned about immigration (or their perception of it) does not mean we are right to use it as a cheap way of appearing populist or winning votes.
I shrank with embarrassment when I saw Brown’s gaffe. But I also wondered why the gaffe became the story instead of immigration becoming the issue. And I also wondered what it would feel like to be a tax-paying, socially responsible Eastern European immigrant in England this morning – or how our newspapers would handle the news that British emigrants were being demonised in countries where they also were entitled to live.
April 29, 2010 at 1:04 pm
I’m glad you wrote about this. I don’t know if you’ve read this response, but it’s worth a look. An excerpt:
“The slow, sad realisation that the political culture in the UK is such that no politician has any choice but to grovel to the bigots. Because standing up and explaining to them instead that immigrants make a massive contribution to the economy, let alone that all people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of nationality, citizenship or contribution, would be political suicide.”
(It’s also a good indication of what happens if you have unmoderated comments on a public post about something controversial…)
April 29, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Here is a link to the same article in today’s Guardian.
April 29, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Nick, for perhaps the first time since I atarted reading your blog, I agree with every word.
We have always been a tolerant people. Karl Marx was hounded across Europe by governments who were afraid of his ideas. He found sanctuary here, and is buried here.
It is so easy to look for someone to blame when things go wrong. Hitler blamed the Jews, we now blame Polish immigrants for our housing problems.
I think (I hope) we are better than this.
KK
April 29, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Thank you mr. Baines. This can not be said often enough. In my own country, the Netherlands we have to deal with similar sentiments, personified by a highly unpleasant man named Geert Wilder. That is a name I am sure also ring a bell in Great Britain. While I disagreed with the attempts to keep him from speaking out, I even more vehemently disagree with the sentiments he is voicing. More and more I ask, where is the love in everyone’s heart?
April 29, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Thanks Nick, good balanced response to a classic British lazy media coverage.
Do we think the journalists really had Mrs Duffy’s best interests as heart when they chased her and told her about Brown’s gaffe? No, they wanted “ordinary upset elderly white lady from the north” to fit their cultural generalisations and stereotypes and propagate the immigration story in a cheap and negative way.
I’ll be checking my clip-mic carefully on Sunday tho…
April 29, 2010 at 3:37 pm
The gaffe became the story instead of immigration becoming the issue because Labour have stifled public opposition to their immigration policy by using epithets such as “racist”, “bigot”, “nazi”. The media is well aware of this and has connived with the politicians to achieve the end result- political paralysis over the problems.
The politicians know that mass immigration is a major concern, the media know its a major concern, they just will not discuss it in terms that people want it discussed- ending mass immigration. This is what people want, but oh no, the politicians and media know so much better than we do!
April 29, 2010 at 4:17 pm
I am a migrant living in the UK and I am very tired of all migrants being referred to as one amorphous group. We aren’t. There is an enormous difference between an illegal immigrant and a student paying international student rates and spending a lot of money in the UK. There is a difference between a highly skilled migrant and a migrant from within the European Union. Gordon Brown’s constant reference to the points based system every time he is asked a question about migration, even when the question refers to EU migration, which is not affected by the points based system, is annoying and doesn’t help anyone’s understanding of the situation.
Yes non-EU migration has been tightened up in recent years, by targeting the highly skilled and work-permit groups. Nothing has been done, and nothing can be done, about EU migration. I don’t believe that most people complaining about migrants are aware of the facts. We are not permitted to apply for any benefits or tax credits. We have to reapply for visas several times during our stay, at huge cost. We work, we pay tax, we engage with our communities.
Massive unskilled EU migration has caused problems for many communities, I understand that. But blaming the much smaller numbers of skilled workers for that, and targeting them with tighter rules and migration caps (as the Tories are proposing), does nothing to solve the problem and the constant rhetoric about the “problem” of migrants is not pleasant.
A sensible debate on this issue, particularly by the media, would go a long way.
April 29, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Nick,
Inspired post – I have been uncomfortable with the issues you raise for a long time. I dispair when I read of generalised categorisation of people or groups which as you says, accuses them of being something that they are not.
In my working life I was responsible for Equality and Diversity policy, training and advising my boss on the issues – a vital HR function, designed to ensure fair treatment for all, but one which is generally disparaged as being PC (another label). I also had Health, Safety and Environmental Protection responsibilities again, regarded as being PC rather than a key contribution to keeping the workplace, the environment and people safe.
The reality is how many of us are descended from migrant ancestors. My own family background it traceable back to Ireland and Scotland, which I think is quite common – I consider myself as English or British as I was born in the East End of London, as were the four generations before me.
Migration deserves an ‘informed’ debate, without pandering to those whose extremist views are both nonsensical and dangerous.
April 29, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Eric,
How is it that you know what it is that people want, if public debate has been stifled?
I don’t particularly want to end mass immigration, or talk about ending it. I’d like to see an end to the inequalities (in standard of living, tolerance, etc) that lead to it, but I’m not under the impression that disallowing or limiting immigration will actually achieve that. Of course, I’m perfectly willing to accept that what I want may not be what others want.
April 29, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Song,
Opinion polling, it happens. The government community survey, that happens all the time too.
My point on “the public debate” is that it is not a debate. There is no questioning the dominant wisdom that mass immigration is all good all the time. Is it really?
Labour have known since 2000 (via IPSOS/MORI polling) that consistently 70%+ of people have had enough of mass immigration. “The public debate” also suffers the attention of the usual suspects (with good intentions no doubt) attacking anyone who questions the policy as “racist” etc. Is this debate? Who speaks for those with the dissenting opinion? Who speaks for the majority?
On your point of inequalities, mass immigration INCREASES inequalities- decrease in GDP per-capita, wage suppression, less services, overcrowding leading to higher rates of mortality etc. Less to go around generally, remind me why anyone in their right mind would want this, as opposed to a policy of managed, skilled migration which is what was in place for years before New Labour opened the door wide.
April 30, 2010 at 7:40 am
There is one important consequence of the issue of significant rises in immigration that has been raised by responsible and socially caring commentators.
The consensus underpinning the post- war Welfare State is built upon the premises that we have a community of interest. It is like the old Friendly Society movement which had its 19th Century roots in the northern working town and which gave rise to the Building Societies, Mutual Insurance societies, burial clubs, Christmas clubs, Trades Unions etc. There was a lot of personal contact/respect within known and, to a degree, homogenous groups. Gatecrashers would not have been popular or tolerated within that original tradition.
Mindful of those origins, we need to caution ourselves that if there develops – for whatever reason, rightly or wrongly- the idea that people are entering illegally ( and let us remember the resentment controversy is largely centring on unlawful entry) then it does undermine that underlying premise of mutual support.
In short, the willingness to support a public option may be significantly undermined if the public mood feels that the “club liabilities” are being expanded by the “trustees” without proper consultation.
Former Labour advisor Andrew Neather disclosed that there were some in the Government who saw the significant expansion of immigration of recent years as a way of spiting the more socially conservative- forgetting that many of those are located in the Northern former industrial towns. It is this that has fuelled the anger more than the immigrants themselves, many of whom find kindly responses on an individual basis even from those who speak against the policy in general terms
April 30, 2010 at 8:37 am
Martin, thank you – a helpful perspective.
April 30, 2010 at 11:15 am
Eric,
My point on “the public debate” is that it is not a debate. There is no questioning the dominant wisdom that mass immigration is all good all the time. Is it really?
That’s not the impression I get from the popular press at all.
On your point of inequalities, mass immigration INCREASES inequalities-
I don’t believe this to be the case in the grand scheme of things.
I’m sure that mass immigration can cause difficulties locally and I do think it is important to address those difficulties. But immigration happens because people think they can have a better life in one location than another, and the reason they think that is at least partly to do with inequalities from one country to the next.
Having lived for approximately two thirds of my life in a country with a significantly higher standard of living than the UK I can understand why people might want to relocate — with all the inconvenience and risk involved in starting over — in order to have a better life for themselves and their children.
This is not a new phenomenon. I’ve seen it pointed out today that Flemish clothmakers in the 14th century, Sephardic Jews in the 16th century, and Huguenots in the 17th century all contributed to Britain’s tradition of welcoming immigrants. Again, I recognise that mass migration, especially when it is relatively sudden, does strain local resources and communities. But I don’t think that reducing it or making it more difficult will address the underlying causes, which may well lead to worse problems later on.
Martin,
What happens if the community of interest is actually global? The organisations you speak of seem to me to be groups which foster co-operation among members but possibly also competition with some other groups; people in these communities “look after their own” but perhaps leave behind those who belong to another group or to no group. At what point is that competition destructive? Is there a more universally co-operative model?
What happens when people do resent legal immigrants, not just those who have entered unlawfully? I’ve seen a lot of this in the last few days. I don’t think it’s accurate to state that resentment is largely against immigrants who enter the country unlawfully. I think the resentment is against any group of people perceived as a threat.
April 30, 2010 at 6:22 pm
I guess the ultimate in categorisation is “them” and “us”. That is clearly exclusivity and wrong isn’t it?
Well is it? Don’t we all have a need to belong somewhere and doesn’t that mean that others don’t belong there. I have an “us” which is my family, I have an “us” which is the company I work for, I have an “us” which is the people who share my faith, I have an “us” that is the people who share my nationality, culture and ideals. Some people have an “us” which is Liverpool FC. I have a “them” which is French people because I am not French, I have a “them” which is females because I am a man, I have a “them” which is homosexuals because I am not one.
These are not wrong, it is what we do with them and how we label others that matters. It is when we don’t listen to them and hear their stories, it is when we don’t respect their right to be different and to think differently, when we stop loving them.
I do have a problem when the “them” try to become part of my “us”, not by becoming like the us but by trying to tear it down and make it something else or nothing at all, ot by just taking from it, because I have a responsibility to all my “us”.
When somebody marries into our family I expect them to try to understand our culture and respect it, just as we will welcome them and respect theirs. When somebody comes to live in my country there is a culture and an approach which they need to respect, just as we should welcome them and help them to adjust and understand.
Sometimes that isn’t what happens, and then I feel abused and taken for granted. That may not be OK in todays PC language, but it is how I feel and it doesn’t make me a bigot it makes me somebody who belongs to something special, that they are happy to share with others, but only if it is respected.
So please, I am happy to love and respect others, but please let them respect me. I have a respect for many immigrants but i do want them to respect my country and its ideals, not just to take the money and run. I have respect for a lot of great people, but I do need them to respect my beliefs too. Is that asking too much?
April 30, 2010 at 8:09 pm
c2drl,
Don’t we all have an “us” that includes all humanity?
April 30, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Song,
You have not ventured to explain why the life chances and dreams of Britons should be relegated and reduced to accommodate those from abroad who wish to improve their lot. If you are going to suggest that “we are all the same” I think you miss the fundamental point of why nation-states exist. They do not exist as empty vessels which people can graft themselves onto as *they* choose. They are not economic vehicles which economic units can gravitate to as *they* see fit or as the market demands.
“I don’t believe this to be the case in the grand scheme of things.”
Unfortunately for your line of reasoning the economic “downside” to mass immigration and its social ramifications are becoming well understood in Britain. It began with a report into the economic “benefits” by the House of Lords in 2008 which found the economic “benefits” to be entirely negligible. This report followed race riots earlier in the decade, terror attacks from segregated muslim immigrant communities, and numerous other provocations which lead many to question the wisdom of “multiculturalism”. To then discover that the economic “benefits” we had been told about didn’t actually exist was a kick in the pants. GDP per capita decline, wage suppression, social segregation, ghettoization, terrorism & political extremism, higher crime, higher mortality, overcrowding, congestion, resource scarcity, and a general entrenchment of inequality. Who actually wanted *any* of this?
This was followed by the release of research by sociologist Dr. Robert Putnam which established that ethnic and cultural diversity actually undermines civic society. But weren’t people told “Diversity is Strength?” Apparently not. “Diversity” undermines what binds the state together and reduces the very community cohesion which most in Britain took for granted. Again a negative outcome which sees the life quality of Britons reduced.
So after being made aware of the evidence, the question to you Song is should the people of Britain really have to pay in economic and sociological terms to accommodate mass immigration (because *they* decide to move) but also pay a third time in terms of reduced civil rights and civic society? I consider this cost too high Song.
Indeed I would be inclined to take your view more seriously if while advocating mass immigration to Britain you had actually stuck around to see the consequences. A cheap shot perhaps but I and millions like me LIVE the consequences of your liberal views Song, we KNOW the damage being done to OUR society by your views. You have no right to lecture that you “know best”.
Again I ask to *anyone* on this blog; given the intolerable downsides to mass immigration who would expect British people to vote for it? A rhetorical question of course because no Briton has EVER been asked to vote on the matter! Entirely my original point on the so-called “debate”.
PS.Happily, further evidence is released today that the inequality that immigration entrenches and enforces actually kills people. All concerned, give yourself a pat on the back!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8652074.stm
May 1, 2010 at 7:19 am
Song,
You are right insofar as the Co-operative/ Friendly Society movement was a ” self help” model, but it is none the worse for that. There is surely good overseas evidence that the micro- credit movement does more for poor people’s real welfare than many large scale programmes
from UN/ NGO initiatives.
My intelectual early journey took in EF Schumacher with his ” Small is beautiful” mantra. I modify that after hearing Austrian Leopold Kaur (?) Schumacher’s inspiration that
” apprropriate is beautiful”.
I think this means that whilst, say, response to a Haiti or Katrina needs a big response, rebuilding the economy is best done from the bottom up.
I offer for occasional exploration the idea that history does not suggest that we humans are much good at the kind of big scale stuff that your
(implied) International Welfare State idea involves.
Neither the Soviet intellectual model, nor the corruption of so much international aid leads me to consider, that maybe we are nudged away from such models.
The Good Samaritan was a small scale response, the Tower of Babel – a self delusional effort at scaling up human ambition.
Nick, is there potential theological guidance that
the Big Human Organisation model ought to be
approached with caution?
May 1, 2010 at 8:58 am
Song,
I did not answer your second point.
The anxiety over immigration is multi- layered, ranging from the racial purists to the pragmatists. Often folk who oppose immigration are kindly on an individual level. Some Nazis would not have passed their own racial purity laws, Mussolini had a Jewish mistress and Petain a Jewish speachwriter. ( In France ” old ”
Jewish families resented the unsophisticated new ones from the East.
I worry that ” anti-racists” can be both unsophisticated in their understanding of how complex the problem can be, and sometimes little better than those they condemn. ” They hate immigrants – we hate them” seems neither an ethical advance, nor a good model for going forward in accordance with the Prince of Peace.
I ought to say that I am not “soft” on intolerance and when the National Front was around in the 1980′s did give evidence against their Chairman as the only non police witness, when he was convicted and given a suspended sentence for incitement. That does not stop me from wrestling with the problems with – God willing – an open and creative mind, which sometimes requires empathy outside our comfort zones.
May 1, 2010 at 11:22 am
Martin,
I offer for occasional exploration the idea that history does not suggest that we humans are much good at the kind of big scale stuff that your
(implied) International Welfare State idea involves.
I was not intending to imply an International Welfare State; I do think it is easier for people to relate to and manage small communities, and that larger organisations can easily become so complex that they can be destructive rather than supportive.
But I worry that drawing a line around a small community can create a sense of competition, a sense of “us” vs “them” (which c2drl mentions) which does not reflect the reality that all human beings are worthy of respect and care. When I say the community of interest is actually global, I refer to the fact that everything we do affects others and it is not sufficient to only look after our own.
I do not hate people who hate immigrants, but I do think they are wrong.
May 1, 2010 at 11:39 am
Eric,
What makes you think I have left the UK? Check your assumptions. I moved to the UK approximately one third of my life ago — not, in case it isn’t obvious, for economic reasons. Indeed, had I stayed in my country of origin I would almost certainly be enjoying a much higher standard of living (as I am “helpfully” reminded by parents and friends when I visit, or when they visit me here). I choose to stay in Britain for personal reasons.
I don’t deny that mass immigration can cause problems locally, and I’m sorry that you are so upset about these problems. I do wonder whether you understand my point — which is that individuals migrate in response to a perception of inequality. People move here because they think life here is going to be better than life in their country of origin. If mass immigration is happening it is because all those thousands of people believe they will be able to have a better life.
“You have not ventured to explain why the life chances and dreams of Britons should be relegated and reduced to accommodate those from abroad who wish to improve their lot.”
You have not ventured to explain why someone living in relative poverty in another country — poverty brought about partly because of the behaviour of citizens of this country — should be forced to remain in that situation.
Why should my dreams or yours be more important than someone else’s?
May 1, 2010 at 11:47 am
Eric,
Furthermore, your link to the BBC article is a bit puzzling. There is discussion there of inequality, but mostly inequality of habits: people who smoke and drink more have much poorer health. There is nothing in that article which suggests immigration (mass or otherwise) as a cause of poor health.
Bearing that and your other assumption (about my place of residence) in mind, I really don’t know that I can trust any of the other “evidence” you have volunteered.
May 1, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Song – For the avoidance of doubt- ” so do I!!”
.
I do try to get inside the thinking of those with whom I disagree. I recall one old lady in our Church who told me she was frankly uncomfortable around people of Indian origin. She was perfectly affable but apparently uncomfortable. I knew her family was old Indian Army but my real breakthought in understanding was when I visited her home and noticed a photo of her grandmother – a rather distinguished Indian lady. Coping with that in Colonial India whilst living in an Army environment must have been a complicated issue for her, and her own journey explained her own muted apparent “intolerance”, which was rooted in her previously unsuspected conflict about her own identity.
Maybe an unusual story but perhaps they all are.
May 14, 2010 at 10:54 am
Please stop perpetuating the tiresome falsehood that a paediatrician was hounded by a mob, it’s simply not true.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4719364.stm
Otherwise you raise a good point.