By Philip Honour
Jack Straw’s performance on Question Time yesterday evening could have been a lot worse, but choosing a sitting minister very nearly worked to Nick Griffin’s advantage. By being tied to carefully crafted government lines, at times Jack Straw came across as the archetypal New Labour bad guy - full of spin and lacking substance on the key issue of the night, immigration.
Although Jack (and Labour in turn) came across as the party that stands up for equality, the lack of clarity on this key issue caused me to cringe. Although it's crucial that we do not form knee jerk policies with catchy tag-lines (we don't need another British jobs for British workers incident) it is time for an open and honest debate on immigration that covers all the concerns of the British public.
Our silence on this issue cannot continue. Jack Straw’s long winded answer proved that, on immigration, we are lagging behind the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in the fight to engage with the public about an issue that is always going to prove controversial.
It's also important that we all accept that the rise of the British National Party has happened on Labour’s watch. There is no point shrugging our shoulders and blaming a lack of trust in politics or the recession or rising unemployment. I am not saying it is entirely our fault but we need to stop denying any responsibility.
If we start to be honest with the electorate about our shortcomings, conversations can begin on the doorstep and we can start to form policies that will bring people back to Labour. If we continue not to have these difficult conversations both internally and with our supporters (past and present) we may as well admit defeat now.
The next election will not be won and lost on which party talks the toughest on fascism and the BNP, but it will be on the issues that make people vote for extremists. Question Time showed up the gulf between the thinking in the Cabinet and the Labour grassroots but, more importantly, the gap between Labour and the public.
If we aren't concerned by Jack Straw's performance last night when it came down to the nitty gritty discussions on policy - and that same wider problem within Labour - then we are not fulfilling our role as grassroots activists – holding our party to account on the issues that are crucial to the public.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Brace yourself, 'cos his son's clearly got the politics bug too..
Mike
You need to read more carefully, this might explain why you never actually answer a point. No where did I say that I didn’t agree with "open borders" and you certainly aren’t talking to a British Bulldog by any stretch of the imagination. My Grandfather arrived here just after the first world war.
Personally I’d open borders to all so long as they worked and paid their taxes. I would not allow benefits of any sort though and I would charge for services like NHS treatment for at least 5 years. I would also insist that immigrants learnt our language with a matter of months.
I would also drastically cut benefits to Brits who wont do the work that requires us to hire in Romanians to do. So I would actually be tougher on the people I have perhaps defended in my blogs. I just wouldn’t ring my hands in angst and wonder why they didn’t vote for me. Id know exactly why.
Just because I seek to point out why some elements of the electorate are fed up with Labours immigration controls (think that might actually be an oxymoron by the way) doesn’t mean that I am. Nay I’m a big fan.
I've already said, open borders will mean change. They are designed for countries who wish to move towards greater co-operation - but you don't agree with that, as you have already said.
Not really impressed with the 'Bulldog Brit' mentality
You don’t half excuse your leaders easily on the forecasts, of course forecasts are often wrong but never to that degree.
Migration responds to economic conditions – people come to the UK when there are jobs, and leave when there aren’t. So the drop in numbers has nothing to do with government policy, (well it does but only as an indirect consequence of poor management of the economy).
Lets also be clear here we have not had a decrease in numbers of arrivals or a drop in total numbers resident, all we have had is a decrease in the rate of increase. Which is nothing to shout home about.
Also lets be clear these are government statistics and we all know how NuLabour have massaged those in the past don’t we.
1. Whether he still agreed with the BNP on the subject of British Muslim women wearing hijabs
2. Who out of his party and Nick Griffin's has killed the most innocent muslims
That Griffin didn't get the questions seems to confirm he was nervous, badly-prepared, not that good at debating, or a bit intimidated.
http://www.gautammalkani.com/about_londonstani.htm
I think the case for Turkey is much more about having an Islamic country in membership and it is the size and population which is one reason for caution - as well as the fact that some don't really want a Muslim country in membership. There would certainly have to be some 'phasing in' but I'm more concerned about their human rights record than anything else - still some improvements needed there. Mind you, the Germans were keen enough to take in thousands of Turkish guest workers without offering their children citizenship in the past which makes their opposition rather hollow.
You are quite right, there is at present no provision in EU law outlining the ability of a state to withdraw from EU. Though a country could suspend its laws. The French constitution for example has a specific allowance for this. Suspension of its law is in all but name withdrawal.
The European Constitution did propose such a provision and, following the failure of the constitution, that provision has been carried over to the Lisbon Treaty.
Not that there is any difference between the two of course, except one needed a referendum and one didn’t… Another NuLabour Lie.
Oh come on. You open your doors to close to 100 million people who have previously led a very poor existence under an economically oppressive communist regime and you conclude that only 70,000 will head this way. I would love to know how the factoring went.
True we have very close ties with Poland, therefore we should have known better. Anyone who knows the Poles knows that they have a history of travelling for work and are incredibly resourceful, to assume that they were not going to flock over here en masse was just plain stupidity or it was a lie. One look at the disparity between our min wage and their average salary would have led you closer to the reality
I could kinda follow it if they had got the numbers half wrong but my 10 year old son could have made a more accurate prediction.
Regarding your second point about time scale, the whole point of giving a 5 year period before compulsion was to allow gradual integration rather than arrival en masse and all the problems that this brings.
The main point here though is that Labour made a huge mistake on both issues, to continue to defend this mistake and entrench their position is also stupid. They should at least concede their error and concede the fact that its the poor have paid the price of this mass arrival and introduce policy to dramatically slow down further new arrivals.
Instead of this we get old Jack dishing out the same old bull while the UK government remains the biggest advocate for Turkey joining the EU.
Now Mike just what do you think is going to happen when 70 million Turks join the EU. Can I have aprediction on numbers please!
http://ukinturkey.fco.gov.uk/en/working-with-turkey/projects/eu-action-plan
In any case, many have now returned.
The open border policy is going to exist in any case: and it just so happened that Poles were particularly attracted to the UK for historical and linguistic reasons. Romanians looked towards Italy and Spain for similar reasons. It was probably best to deal with the influx at that time although a crystal ball would have made life a lot easier.
How do you think being so negative about the EU when there is no chance of our leaving benefits the UK?
2. Yes, differently opinioned. I don't agree with that perspective. I think its mildly hysterical.
3. Because Governments like numbers? The Government have always supported freedom of labour within the EU. In principle I think that is right, I also think that the amount of money spent on translations is miniscule in comparison to overall spending. In any case, nearly all the Eastern Europeans I met spoke English and were working in the service industries.
4 & 5 I'm more cynical than you, having been on the receiving end of such misreporting. And lets just suppose that these two stories are 100% true. They are two stories, and other variants on the same theme can be found in the tabloid press and the Torygraph - who have their own agenda. Liverpool City Council switched around the pictures in their register offices to reflect the fact that they were being used for a wide range of functions and this was mis-reported as 'pictures being removed to suit gay activists who had complained' . I was telephoned, gave a quote, which was entirely misreported - saying exactly the opposite to what I had said. The journalist was from the Mail but said she was from a broadsheet paper. So I have little reason to believe this sort of urban myth.
Don't feed those who have their own agendas - they will always find something to misreport and lie about. That's the nature of the beast.
Our esteemed leaders chose to have no limitations because some government bean counter came up with a figure of a few thousand arrivals being the result of an open border policy. This bunch of lawyers and career politicians with no experience of the real world believed said figure and decided that they would not follow other countries in the EU and limit arrivals.
They clearly did not factor in that the UK would be the only country with an open door.
Do you really think that if they had factored this in and the bean counters had then come up with a figure of a three quarters of a million people in 12 months we would then have had an open border policy.
The UK’s biggest problem is that despite its people being the most Euro sceptic its leaders are the seem to embrace every EU directive with pugnacious zeal.
2. I will go with the French. And others. And if you can point me to your foeign policy expertise I shall concede but I think you are no more informed than me, just differently opinioned. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/17/july7.politics
3. So why was there a forecast in the 1st place? If the 'no limitations' policy was not based of forecast immigration what was the basis of the policy. Aside from resourcing of local authorities (and a real annoyance at the NHS and local authroities spending money on translations as opposed to language classes) I actually welcome immigration. Our ageing population profile means we need it both economically and socially.
4 & 5. Given the multiple and independent sources, yes I do tend to beleive that mistakes are made and stupid people do think their ideas through. Again though, they are not urban myths. They are actions that well-meaning people have that just annoy others who are perhaps not so well disposed. Its the same school of thought that is trying to change 'brain-storming' to 'ideas showers' on the back of fearing to offend epilepsy suffers: http://www.epilepsy.org.uk/press/facts/brainstorming
Address the issues, not attack the message!
2. It is wrong - grossly exaggerated
3. No, we chose not to have limitations - that doesn't have anything to do with forecasts. On one level it made sense as in 5 years time there will be no choice in the matter in any case
4 and 5 Do you believe everything you read? Urban myths are usually circulated in exactly this fashion.
2. Londonistan was a term originally used by the French who were worried at the number of Mulsim radicals/terrorists. It took 10 years of requests by the french before a terrorist was extradicted from the UK to France. Just becuase Mad Mel uses the term doesnt mean that it is wrong.
3. Interestingly, most other EU countries at the time did - for exmaple Portugal only allow 6,500 people per year. Finland only allowed people in for jobs where a Finn could not be found. Laughably, Poland also restricted its borders!
4 & 5 :
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/education/s/207/207086_black_sheep_banned_at_nursery.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3367390/Christmas-banned-in-Oxford-by-council-owned-charity.html
Just because we know its stupid doesnt mean that there are not stupid people out there who try and do it.
You must try harder to rebut the real points that BNP voters make instead of writing them off as 'urban myths'.
Agreed, very well put Philip.
Funny though.
Now it looks as though the EU Constitution WILL be ratified and President Tony can take the position he engineered while in office by giving concessions to europe and convincing them that the position of permanent President was actually needed.
I can see the BNP gaining ground now.
But did you notice ; "Now I'm not saying I agree with any or all of the the above sentiment,"
In other words, Mr M is quite happy to post 'perceptions' (that he may well disagree with) as knocking copy on Labour.
And, the second half of the sentence : "but a fairly large % of working class core Labour vote areas do." This leads to an obvious observation : isn't it the middle-class Daily Mail that perpetrates such sentiments? And if so, why?
1. There is no 'uncontrolled' immigration. there are very clearly immigration controls. You can argue that they should be stricter, but controls there certainly are
2. Yes, some Muslims may well be, but what exactly is this 'British way of life'? There is hardly agreement on this to start with. Whilst there may well be some fringe extremists, its daft to try and make out that this is the universal view of British Muslims. And as for the use of Londonistan - anyone who quotes Mad Mel Phillips and expects to be taken seriously...
3. Yes, this was wrong, but how could anyone tell? It certainly wouldn't be anywhere near that sort of figure if current rates are taken into account, but I don't see you pointing this out
4. Urban myths.
5. Urban myths again
Its not possible to amend policy when urban myths are involved, and any government will have to live with open EU pattern of movement.
dealing with extreme Islamists will be harder since the judgment to allow Wilders into the country - if free speech is seen as of primary importance that will make extreme Muslims more difficult to prevent from entry. The only way this could be done is to try and pretend that all are involved in terrorism which isn't the case - that really would do a lot of good for community relations
These sort of points always lead to an expectation that the way to 'beat the BNP' is to adopt their policies. That's capitulation.
There are things which could be done, particularly with regard to housing, but the fact is that some people just don't like foreigners,and they will, therefore, look more favourably upon the BNP
* Uncontrolled immigration over 12 years of labour's watch but without the funding to increase local services has caused much local level anger.
* Pandering to Islam to the extent "Londonistan" develops with some muslims deeply hostile to the British values and way of life
* Government forecasts of 70,000 eastern europeans coming into the UK in the first year after the earstern EU states had freedom to work in UK, but in fact it was 700,000
* Councils (largely leftwing) banning "Christmas", "nativity", "Easter" etc. or worse placing Muslim, Hindu and Jewish festivals on an even footing spending wise.
* PC Britian where simple things like a children's nursery rhyme "ba ba black sheep" or school equipment "blackboard" are deemed as racist.
Now I'm not saying I agree with any or all of the the above sentiment, but a fairly large % of working class core Labour vote areas do.
Labour (and other parties to a lesser extent) can either amend policy to deal with these issues and anger or they can disown the people who hold them.
What they can't do is have a mixture of refusal to believe the opinions exist and lecturing as if to infant school children as to why their views are unacceptable and they have to be protected from seeing legal political parties on the TV.
That is why the BNP have increased support and until Labour get to grips with it they won't be going away.
I choked on my claret when old Jack accused the odious one of having no moral compass.
For a second I thought it was an invitation to become an MP.
OK, he fell apart on Labour's immigration policy and, yup, he's responsible for quite a lotta that (Home Sec 97-01).
But who else could've given a good account of immigration?
Comrade Johnson? Another complete woos (a la Comrade Hain)? Your best bet for next PM? hahaha!
Who else from Labour would you have put up last night?
Defending the indefensible (Labour's immigration policy). Well at least Straw tried!
Labour voters are flocking to the BNP
Yougov poll
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/10/22/what-do-we-know-about-bnp-voters/
I will concede the 'oxygen of publicity' bit but look at your coverage. On your home page today over 505 by volume is BNP related. Its obsessional. The article strap lines say it all:
I was wrong about Jack...
Why I still think the BBC was right to invite Nick Griffin onto Question Time
Bonnie Greer reveals what she really thought of Griffin
Griffin on Question Time: the verdict
Griffin: "We'll use saleable language to control the media - but then every last one must go"
What we can learn from Hope not Hate in juxtaposing far-right policy with reality
When it comes to tackling the BNP we have to start from where people are at, not where we want them to be
But what do you expect from a man that shook the blood stained hand of Robert Mugabe because he saw "... no need to be discourteous" and let the tyrant and torturer Augusto Pinochet, Margaret Thatcher's old comrade in arms, scuttle back to Chile rather than extradite him to Spain to answer charges relating to inhuman activities considered so egregious as to constitute crimes against humanity, even though the House of Lords ruled that the General had no right to immunity from prosecution as a former head of state, and could be put on trial.
Jack Straw was, is and always will be a "man of straw".
So why were so many people disappointed by his performance on Question Time?
The liberal intelligentsia know all these arguments already, but they don't speak to the BNP vote or the potential BNP vote. Last night was a golden opportunity to stick the knife into Griffin properly, but instead we have boosted his standing. Woeful.
We must denby the BNP the oxygen of publicity your contributors scream in articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 14 ....ad nauseum