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.