‘The consequences of another mismanaged bout of inward migration – for services, for housing, for jobs at the bottom of the economic scale and for trust in politics – are potentially massive.’
Something the BBC refuses to acknowledge or accept.
The rise of UKIP has possibly stirred the BBC into action, encouraging them to cobble together some ‘debate’ on the subject of immigration, Europe and UKIP itself.…all circling around the concept of ‘national identity’.
The essence of this post is the bias in Derbyshire’s very abrupt and one sided view of immigration….but I include more thinking on the subject from David Goodhart (and John Denham) to show how out of step the BBC’s views on immigration and nationality are even with mainstream leftwing ‘progressives’ never mind the majority, I believe, of the British Public..of whatever hue or creed.
Victoria Derbyshire started things off last week (56 mins in)….with a statement rather than any argument. She quoted a list of figures illustrating the rapid flow of immigrants into this country in the last decade or so based on the 2011 Census.
Then she brought in Dr Ludi Simpson from Manchester University to comment….he reassured us that what the survey showed was that ‘The Olympics show we musn’t confuse Britishness with whiteness.’…taking up a favourite theme of the Left after the Olympics.
He then told us that ‘most people are relaxed about immigration’.
Simpson is himself hugely pro-immigration and in denial about the downside to mass immigration…he is also a Labour supporter…and therefore might be expected not to say anything that would bring Labour’s secretive and destructive immigration policies under any critical scrutiny.
I’m sure the BBC had no idea of his views…..hence they felt no need for ‘balance’, or indeed any need for comment at all from a sceptical view point on immigration in this case.
David Goodhart from Demos however has a better idea of Simpson’s sympathies as shown in this ironic comment about the Daily Mail quoting Simpson.….…
David Goodhart ?@David_Goodhart
Ha! Well done Ludi Simpson, quoted with great respect in the Daily Mail – if only they knew!!
‘If only they knew!’…..Well they only had to look at his work…I’m certain the BBC knew exactly what he was like as he has worked for them frequently…..
“I hope that Trevor Phillips and others will consider the impact of their divisive comments, and stop claiming things that are untrue, such as white flight, increasing segregatation and the unwillingness of Muslims in particular to integrate.”
Yes….all competely untrue…just urban legend….really.
This had only originally been a post about that small snippet from Derbyshire’s show….a three minute ‘investigation’ into immigration and its impact on Britain by Victoria Derbyshire using a man who is profoundly pro-immigration to comment. There were no other voices and no indepth discussion.
This is a slightly more open and honest discussion of the reaction to the recent mass immigration…ironically from the Asian community on the BBC’s Asian Network…who do not find it completely to their liking….something that perhaps could not be said on the ‘white’ BBC?
After Nicky Campbell indulged in a UKIP bashing phone-in Derbyshire on Monday then goes on to ‘discuss’ the prospect of Romanian and Bulgarian immigration (1 hr 10 mins)when the rules are relaxed in December…..who did she invite onto the show to comment? A man from a Romanian recruitment agency…someone not likely to say that an influx of immigrants will prove any disadvantage at all to Britain.
He didn’t disappoint, telling us not to worry, it will be mostly highly skilled professionals who come here…not a problem…they will be highly beneficial, contributing in a positive way to the UK economy.
Well that’s OK then.….we can relax.
Maybe not.….having made the connection to ‘David Goodhart’ I started to look at his work.…he is from the leftwing Demos think tank but his views on immigration and its effects may chime with many readers of this blog……though not with Operation Black Vote who characterise him as more dangerous than Nick Griffin for his views…..‘Perhaps, however a more dangerous individual comes in the shape of the pseudo liberal intellectual David Goodhart.’
His views being that….. we should have an overarching ‘national identity’, that much claimed racism is purely an excuse for failure, that multi-culturalism has failed and is the cause of segregation…..he values diversity but also an overall unity and national state of mind.
It should be noted that, like the BBC, (despite his views on immigration) Goodhart does not admit Labour’s guilt and deliberate scheming to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’ in its immigration policy as revealed by Andrew Neather, claiming it was a result of well intentioned small acts that snowballed out of control.…
‘When historians come to look back on this period in 100 years time they will surely conclude that, as John Seeley said about the expansion of the British Empire, we acquired a whole new population in a “fit of absence of mind”.’
Ironically an article from his own think tank outlines the radical and damaging effects of Labour’s policy, effects that the BBC refuse to acknowledge in any meaningful way….schools jampacked, the NHS creaking, the welfare system bleeding us dry, the roads overflowing, prisons overcrowded and of course the housing system overwhelmed:
When Polish and Hungarian citizens were given the right to come here, the radical under-estimation of numbers neutered central and local government responses. It left communities and services unable to cope and stoked resentment. Failure to plan, as the old adage goes, is planning to fail.
If, on the other hand, Government has received detailed predictions but feel unable to share or discuss them then this suggests that either the numbers are terrifying or the Civil Service has under-estimated the numbers dramatically once again. If it is the former – which seems likely considering the extreme poverty and under-developed economies of both Bulgaria and Romania – then planting one’s head in the sand is no strategy at all.
Not only would mass arrivals put huge pressure on (already precarious) local services, it would pose a huge threat to the Government’s narrative on immigration.
Fresh immigration from Bulgaria and Romania is not a problem of this Government’s making. It is a legacy they have inherited. But it is the Government’s problem. The consequences of another mismanaged bout of inward migration – for services, for housing, for jobs at the bottom of the economic scale and for trust in politics – are potentially massive.
Goodhart himself underlines the huge dangers of mass immigration for the existence and survival of the Welfare State, the NHS, schools and State provided housing.……and, to the horror of the BBC no doubt, the benefits of a ‘nation state’ (or a ‘national state of mind!)….
‘Much less secure is the survival of a generous welfare state, redistribution of wealth and a strong bond of citizenship—these are threatened by affluence, diversity and individualism. A great effort of political will is required merely to hold on to the welfare state as it is, and enlightened self-interest is likely to be too thin a basis for it; some sense of fellow feeling and shared collective destiny is necessary too. The nation state, the idea of a national story, even the idea of the British people, have all been in retreat in recent years…..[We must] reinforce the continuing value of the nation state as the only feasible site for the sharing and redistribution of resources on any significant scale, as well as for democratic accountability. For that reason it is particularly in the interests of social democrats to preserve it and shape its future.‘
Here is one response to Goodhart from Labour’s John Denham who admits the damaging impact of mass Immigration on the working class and the need for a strong national identity
‘National identity is important; the left needs to make it part of its project; and we need to start the debate on how to do it. The debate will be difficult; mistakes will be made and offence will be taken. But it must continue.
For most of my political life, the left has assumed that any strong British identity would be inimical to progressive politics. We certainly didn’t think that our national identity was important to creating a fairer, more just society. And there are still plenty of people who hold that view. Much of the left is more comfortable dealing with the traditional agenda of equality, tackling social exclusion and opposing discrimination. In a very clear example of this a speaker from the Barrow Cadbury Trust told the Fabian conference in January 2006 “sort out disadvantage and identity will look after itself.” This is simply not true.
These comfortable assumptions are now tumbling. It is now clear that questions of identity, separate communities and disadvantage interact in potentially dangerous ways. Tackling disadvantage cannot guarantee success in dealing with the other issues: indeed, without taking on the challenges of identity and separate lives it is unlikely that disadvantage can be tackled successfully either.
Some of the sharpest conflicts take place in and around the poorest communities and the labour markets in which they work. Here the impact of new, lower cost migration hits the established poor (whilst making middle Britain better off). Here the competition for public resources and the social wage is sharpest.
Many of the issues that have traditionally been on the agenda for the left and centre cannot be tackled unless we can make progress on our collective national identity.
The process cannot be defined by minorities joining the majority; Britain has changed too much for that. The new British identity needs to tell a story about ourselves that works both for the majority and the minorities.
[Goodhart believes] we should have clearer definitions of who belongs, who does not and what each are entitled to; and we should develop better symbols of Britishness.
I agree with both propositions, but they will be limited in their impact.
We should be far more sensitive to the impact of new migration on the poorest communities and their indigenous workforce. Sound migration controls need to be matched to better labour market regulation. The welfare state does need to be run on clear principles of rights and responsibilities, protected by proper systems to verify entitlement.
But important as these are, they are no substitute for developing the story of who we now are and who we now want to become.‘
It is vitally important to consider such views and opinions for a rounded perspective on immigration and its dangers and disadvantages as well as the benefits which are all too frequently ‘pushed’ by the BBC in its attempts to ‘sell’ us immigration.
In my opinion the disadvantages of mass immigration far outweigh any benefits…and of course it would have been nice if I’d had a say in the policy to start with…….another point against the BBC as it also refuses to acknowledge Labour’s Machiavellian intentions behind its immigration policy….refusing totally to report Andrew Neather’s comments…despite them being, or precisely because they were, of a ‘bombshell’ nature likely to destroy Labour completely if allowed to gain traction in the nation’s conscience….especially amongst the core Labour working class voters so treacherously betrayed by the metropolitan elite of New Labour.
David Goodhart’s writing: