Another day, another disingenuous dirge from the Master of spin.

Gordon Brown, with Charlie Whelan firmly up his bumper, delivered a major speech in Shoreditch Town Hall yesterday.

You can smell the whiff of panic, sense the atmosphere in the bunker as that speech was written.

“it was time for mainstream politicians to present a “united front” against those who did not value a diverse Britain and wanted to end immigration just because they did not like immigrants.”

“Mainstream politicians” – Marginalise the BNP. Tick!

“United front” ‘- Get Unite in there somewhere’ Tick!

“Did not like immigrants” – Racism! Racism! Yeah! Tick!

Within hours he was forced into an embarrassing climb-down on the actual figures by the only man with a full set of teeth left in government – the Gordon brown appointed Sir Michael Scholar, who has been guarding his statistics with Rottweilian devotion.

Despite the Prime Ministers insistence that we should look at the figures – “the figures, the figures, they’re down I tell you!” – it is not the width we should be concerned about, but the quality.

To talk of ‘net migration’ is as disingenuous as to talk of halving the deficit, rather than attacking the debt.

‘Net migration’ is easily manipulated by voters choosing to leave the country. They have been in droves.

The Britons who are leaving fall into two, and only two, categories.

They are retirees who have sufficient pension and capital to maintain themselves without burden to another country. They are not retirees who rely on tax credits, or pension top-ups, or cold weather payments. They are self-sufficient entities who have taken their capital and fled to somewhere they can live in peace without being a financial burden on health services. No other country would allow them to settle if that was not so.

Or, they are highly skilled workers who can demonstrate to another country that they will add value to that country, and support their self and family.

It matters not what colour those Britons are, nor how they acquired their British citizenship, the fact remain that they have gone, and taken their assets both physical and financial, with them.

They, then, are the minus side of Gordon’s equation.

Now let’s look at the additions to his Lordships equation.

The vast majority of those who qualify as ‘migrant workers’ to Britain are not a burden on services. You are either sick, or you are working. If you are working you are not a burden on the health service. Your children could be on the education service, but last time I heard we were complaining that those workers had left their children at home and were still getting child benefit.

The vast majority arrive from other European Countries. This inevitably means that English is not their first language. Some may be remarkably fluent, but not all. Some may be technically highly skilled, but like Daniel Ubani, we might be better off without their services.

Daniel Ubani was unusual in that he obviously originally hailed from a sub-Saharan country, but the bulk of the migrant workers come from the same European stock as we do, and hold vaguely similar values.

So we are left with a large number of ‘economic migrants’ who bring neither capital nor particular skills to this country, but who are prepared to do the manual labour that so many Britons despise these days.

They are prepared to live in garden huts, they sleep five to a city toilet block, and they work like blazes and send the bulk of their money home. Yes, they may well pay taxes, and we are grateful for their input, but they are scarcely likely to want to stay in the country, they will return to their families, so why should we complain of their presence?

However, what Gordon Brown has left out of the equation by clever use of the word ‘migrant workers’ are the large number of people who currently walk our streets who have no occupation, are not a worker in any sense – for they are forbidden to work by law.

They are the ‘failed asylum seekers’, and the ‘illegal immigrants’.

Not, note, the successful asylum seekers, those who have genuine reason to fear persecution, and have demonstrated so to the UK Border Police, although I would take issue with some of the grounds given as ‘persecution’.

Walk the daytime streets of any big city in the UK, and you will find yourself amongst the throng of economically inactive multi-culturalism.

They don’t look like European migrants to me, they speak in many tongues, they certainly don’t appear to be at work ‘contributing to our economy’, they lean against shop fronts on street corners, and their wives fill the market places like a cloud of bluebottles.

Who are they Mr Brown? They are not your ‘net migrants’ hard at work packing carrots in deepest Norfolk. They are not caring for our elderly in their homes. They are just ‘there’, supported by someone, housed by someone, fed by someone, clothed by someone.

I am prepared to accept that some of them, a few hundred maybe, have faced unimaginable troubles in deepest Rwanda, they have my sympathy; I understand that some of them were born in Britain and it is not their fault that they cannot find a job;, but not thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions even, of economically inactive faces who stare impassively into the middle distance, quite content that they have become our responsibility.

They are the people we need to talk about Mr Brown, so would you mind not fudging the issue with your talk of net migration, and how highly skilled migrants contribute to our economy. We know that. We weren’t complaining about them.

Could you get back on track and talk about the millions, black, white, and rarely Chinese, who manage to shop, stay dry, warm, entertained, mobile and in communication with their friends and relatives without any sign of contributing to our economy?

They don’t appear to be taking ‘British jobs from British workers’ as you said. Why would they? They seem to be managing just fine as it is.

1
Elvera
April 1, 2010 at 12:35

” There but for the Grace of God go I……”

2
Alan
April 1, 2010 at 12:56

Hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers; where are all these people fleeing from and why are they crossing continents to get here?

The bulk of immigration does not come from the EU.

If you want to see the figures find the link in that piece to the ONS, download the zipfile “2 series (LTIM calendar year)” and view the spreadsheet “2.01a LTIM Citizenship 1991-2008.xls”. Of the 2.7million net non-british influx nearly two thirds comes from the Commonwealth.

3
John Pickworth
April 1, 2010 at 13:15

“… and rarely Chinese”

Now there’s a truth, which might also be extended to many from South East Asia.

Strange how the most self-reliant, industrious people comprise the smallest component of the new-comers? Are they perhaps smart enough to make their own way in their homelands and have no need to seek a place in the golden isles? I talking here of the genuine migrants, not those in hock to the snake head gangs and people smugglers.

The reason I ask is because I suspect we’ve made it even more difficult for these people while holding the door wide open to others. Yeah, that would be about right wouldn’t it?

“Sorry Mr Lin. No can come with your savings, can do spirit and enterprise.”

“Welcome Mr Abdul. Britain welcomes you, your extended family and may we all profit from your goat herding skills.”

And before anyone bites, this isn’t about race… its about cultural differences and attitudes to self-reliance and making your own way in the world. There are good and bad in any race/culture but some traits are self evidently abundant while others are lacking (generally speaking) between lets say different ‘upbringings’ and backgrounds.

I find it remarkable then that even those who think immigration is a good thing should encourage (or at least facilitate) those least likely to contribute to their own and the wider community’s betterment?

And then there are the asylum seekers which, as Anna highlights, are prevented from working but welcomed never-the-less.

I believe that if Labour had its own way they really would shut the door on the industrious Poles and increase immigration from Sub-Saharan countries instead. The big question is why?

4
Uncle Marvo
April 1, 2010 at 13:37

Just a couple of comments on this “Commonwealth” thing.

The official language of the Commonwealth is English. Many Commonwealth countries don’t speak it.
There is nothing in the Commonwealth “constitution” or “rules” that says that people of Commonwealth countries have any right to live and/or work in the UK, or indeed in any other country of the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth is fluid. I believe the last one to ask for membership is Yemen, which worries the shit out of me.

Of the member countries of the Commonwealth, at least one is known to fund, train and offer refuge to terrorists, notably one Mr Bin Laden, and at least one other is known to train its people in how to get to Britain, to stay in Britain, and to claim full benefits in Britain without having any need or desire to work, ever.

Of the remainder of countries, the great majority would not have a Briton living in their country, although some of the countries have an arrangement whereby their people can live and work here and can the retire back to their home countries, where the weather is better. At least one of the “nicer” places will allow Brits on holiday, but with an immigration regime which wastes at least half a day of said holiday in a queue.
At least three of these countries are ruled by a dictator.
Nearly all of them have beaten Britain (in the guise of England, Scotland or Wales) at football, cricket and rugby, fact fans.

Lastly, anyone who thinks that the world is fluid and any country should accept anyone from any other country because they are only where they are through an accident of birth is barking, and/or a member of New Labour.

And no, I’m not a racist, nor do I support most of the policies of the BNP.

Sorry, feeling ranty. Not Ranty, I hasten to add.

5
Elvera
April 1, 2010 at 15:17

Uncle Marvo April 1, 2010 at 13:37
“…………..because they are only where they are through an accident of birth is barking,……..”

Woof Woof!!

6
Rog
April 1, 2010 at 15:44

Listening to a lady immigrant from Afghanistan today on LBC.
She employs endless immigrants as cleaners but on the dot after 6 months of work they simply disappear. Apparently at that point they become eligible for many different types of benefits/credits and working isn’t worth it any more.
This well spoken very grateful immigrant employer was seething at the abuse of this Country……….join the queue.

7
changing name to protect me
April 1, 2010 at 19:08

Got to work at 7:30 this morning. By 8 I had two Slovakians behind me and 6 Indians. All contractors, all brought in purely because they undercut their British equivalents. They are no more technically savvy nor are they any more professional than many Brits I’ve worked with in those roles. They are though, very cheap.

There are also several Kiwis, Australians and South Africans here for different reasons.

I was unemployed for 5 months last year.

Brown’s Britain.

8
Gloria Smudd
April 1, 2010 at 20:12

Oh leave poor lovely Gordon alone will you? Numbers clearly aren’t his thing and it must have been terrible for him being Chancellor all those years. It must have been like one long Sums test – yuk!

He does have a moral-compass to contend with as well, you know. And he can’t see out of one eye.

No wonder he had to sell all that horrid gold.
**********
(oh, I’m sorry – I appear to have gone mad)

9
Bob
April 1, 2010 at 21:31

A relative recently came in from Australia after a ten year absence and said it felt like he’d landed in the wrong country.

With all the space they have in Australia, the immigration is tightly controlled, and they only take in the immigrants they want – not all-comers.
Like many of our problems, it will not be corrected until we withdraw from the EU.

Here’s an example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/7538866/Rapist-refugee-given-permission-to-marry.html

.

10
Bob
April 2, 2010 at 00:14

http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/UKIPminimanifesto2010.pdf