Tuesday, 10 November 2009

Postman Pat On Immigration

In a candid interview with The Independent, Mr Johnson admitted that Labour's failure to debate immigration had "probably" boosted the BNP's appeal.

"People think we have shied away from a debate on it. They may well be right," he said. "My post bag is bigger on immigration than any other issue. It is a major public concern. The public deserves a rational debate on this, rather than what they sometimes get, which is at the extreme end of the scale."
Anyone think the public is going to get a ‘rational debate’ out of this chap?

No, me neither…
In his interview he made clear that his comments were not a one-off but part of a concerted attempt to regain the initiative and try to convince the public that Labour has learnt from its mistakes and "completely transformed" the immigration and asylum systems.
Ha! ‘Learning from its mistakes’ is what this government is worst at. It never does, because it always goes on to make them all over again…
"Part of its attraction is that it is raising things that other political parties don't raise," he said. "It would take the absence of a national debate as the green light to distort the debate. It has absolutely no inhibition about lying about these issues."
That’s the BNP he’s talking about, not NuLab. Just in case anyone was wondering…
"My issue was about Question Time, not other forums. I think the BNP should be on Newsnight, the Today programme and in newspapers. But Question Time is different."

He fears that Mr Griffin's appearance did more good than harm to the BNP's prospects. "I think that the publicity gave the BNP exactly what it wanted," he said.
It wasn’t the publicity. It was the fact that everyone piled on at once, and that they were recognisably the sort of people that most would cross the road to avoid.

That tends to make the average ‘man in the street’ think to themselves ‘If these are the people opposing the BNP, maybe they aren’t all bad…’
The Home Secretary pledged to debate immigration "at any time" – yet he would still not appear alongside Mr Griffin. "My view is still that I won't share a platform with a fascist. That has been my view for 59 years and I don't intend to change it. I don't have to sit and debate with these people. It does not call the debate to a halt."
He won’t share a platform with a ‘fascist’, yet has no problem whatsoever sitting in Blair’s and Brown’s Cabinet.

Odd…
Mr Johnson's message is that "immigration has been a good thing for this country – culturally, socially and certainly economically". He believes passionately that places like London, Birmingham and Liverpool have been "enriched" by it. But he denied recent allegations that Labour pursued an "open-door" policy to create a multicultural society. "We don't have an open-door policy. It is misleading to say we have got one or that we have ever had one. We manage immigration."
Yes. Just like you ‘manage’ everything else. Badly, or not at all.
Official net migration fell by 44 per cent from 209,000 in 2007 to 118,000 in 2008 – proof, he said, that migrants come to Britain for short periods, work, contribute to the economy and then return home.
Yeah, I think the key is in that word ‘official’, Al…
The Home Secretary dismissed last week's call by Kim Howells, the former Foreign Office minister, for British troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan and anti-terrorism measures to be stepped up here. "I have a huge amount of respect for Kim but I think he is wrong on this. We spend what needs to be spent on counter-terrorism," he said. "If we pulled out of Afghanistan, we would need to spend more money in this country because there would be far more attacks in this country as a result."
This one, I just don’t know. Would there be?

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

If theres an increase in attacks, then it will be down to all the immigrants admitted without the appropriate checks in their hundreds of thousands in the early 2000's.

How the government can claim the soldiers are getting blown to bits in Afshanistan to protect us, when there are god know how many Pakistani's "students" in the UK that simply cannot be accouinetd for is beyond me.

Just to rub salt in the wound, they don't even equip the lads correctly so mroe of them die in a futile effort...

I can't help but think prosecutions for treason are needed...

Anonymous said...

OK, he won't "share a platform" with the BNP. Very noble I'm sure, but who is he going to "debate immigration" with? Bonnie Greer?

Like Peter Hain, Johnson stands on principle to cover the fact that he is denying free speech to those who don't agree with him.

Ken S said...

"My view is still that I won't share a platform with a fascist. That has been my view for 59 years...."

Yeah, I can remember having strong views on the subject when I was ten years old....

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry Julia but you are wrong.

This is only a mistake for Labour if votes haemorrhaging from the indigenous population, exceed the new votes it brings in.

I submit that they don't.

Anonymous said...

Slowjoe:

Re: Anonymous 13:22

I would guess that the calculation is more "nuanced" than you suggest.

1. Are the white votes being lost/immigrant votes being "gained" in marginal constituencies?

2. Is there much that can be done about the problems?

3. Does the labour party/media at large recognise that the BNP is cannibalising the labour vote?

The last point is noteworthy. The Labour party will adamantly argue that the BNP is right-wing, and therefore be reducing the Tory vote in the face of any possible evidence. The fact that the BNP seat are typically in areas with little Tory representation is entirely ignored.

I wouldn't generally know where debates on such things are conducted, but the Labour debate on immigration is hasn't registered on my radar.

If/when it is conducted, (probably after the election) it must surely be painful as few debates in history have been. Internal party debates can be famously blood-thirsty, but in this case, you have justifiable accusations of treason on the one side, and (small numbers of...) genuine terrorists and genuine traitors on the other.

Everyone who has served in the Home office (Straw, Blunkett, Clarke, Reid, Smith, McNulty, Hughes, Johnson etc) is compromised beyond recovery. Blair's legacy has major problems due the the Mullins diaries. And when Labour are out of government, civil servants and SPADs will start coming out of the woodwork to say what went on.

Anyway, what are any party proposing to do about immigrants on the ground? Short of transit camps and round-ups, no effective measures exist, and any discussion is rather metphysical IMO. Were there any policy which was simply, cheap, practical, effective and popular, the three main parties would be advocating it. No such policy exists, hence the BNP are likely to grow in electoral strength for some time.

JuliaM said...

"How the government can claim the soldiers are getting blown to bits in Afshanistan to protect us, when there are god know how many Pakistani's "students" in the UK that simply cannot be accouinetd for is beyond me."

Beats me too...

"This is only a mistake for Labour if votes haemorrhaging from the indigenous population, exceed the new votes it brings in.

I submit that they don't."


That's the danger. What I can see is the indigenous population simply not bothering to vote at all.

"The Labour party will adamantly argue that the BNP is right-wing, and therefore be reducing the Tory vote in the face of any possible evidence. The fact that the BNP seat are typically in areas with little Tory representation is entirely ignored."

Yes, a glance at the electoral map tells anyone with eyes that. Why do they think no-one sees it?

Anonymous said...

Me:

"The Labour party will adamantly argue that the BNP is right-wing, and therefore be reducing the Tory vote in the face of any possible evidence. The fact that the BNP seat are typically in areas with little Tory representation is entirely ignored."


Julia:

Yes, a glance at the electoral map tells anyone with eyes that. Why do they think no-one sees it?


The possible explanations seem to be denial, doctrine (both of which are unconscious) or spin.

But immigration is such a wonderfully difficult thing to tackle, combining EU open borders, ethnic minority customs which cannot be discussed (like cousin marriages), ethnic minority crime which cannot be discussed (like immigration fraud), the lack of control at our borders, deliberate acts of gov. policy, and the structure of the NHS and social security systems.

Any effective response would surely take several years to enact, let alone bed in.

Slowjoe