ANGRY MOB

Yesterday I tried to point out that the whole notion that immigration was something that we were not as a society allowed to discuss was beyond ludicrious. I updated that post with today's front page of the Daily Mail to demonstrate that the right-wing press are as keen as ever to portray immigration as the great unmentionable topic during this election. Here I am going to look at it in more detail, as well as looking at just what the truth is in respect to immigration in this country.

Firstly, the Daily Mail headline is absolutely laughable: 'Politicians' censorship of any debate on mass immigration explodes...' and easily swept aside by the fact that immigration has been discussed at length by all three parties in something actually called 'a debate'. Considering that these two live debates have been managed by ITV on one occasion and Sky on the other the idea that politicians have been 'censoring' the debate is a complete joke. The main reason people watch the TV debates I imagine is the fact that anything can happen on live TV, that they have a rare opportunity to view politicians without the stage-managed theatrics.

Moving on to the main headline it actually manages to be worse: 'Demonised: The granny who dared to utter the I-word'. No point in going over old ground in dismissing the stupidity of the 'you can't talk about immigration' claim, but look at the word 'Demonised'. Who has really been demonised here? Gillian Duffy for being labelled a bigot in a personal, off-the-record remark by Gordon Brown who in public politely nodded and changed the subject as Gillian started rambling gibberish about foreigners like we are all supposed to (why is it socially unacceptable to challenge such remarks?). Or is it Gordon Brown who is being crucified by the press and has felt the need to offer a grovelling apology to Gillian Duffy despite the fact that her ramblings did seem to be bigoted? I think on the balance of evidence I'm going to suggest the only demonisation taking place here is the demonisation of anybody who tries to step outside the accepted right-wing narrative about immigration - which is: immigration is evil.

Consider Quentin Lett's bizzare defence of Gillain Duffy which is headlined: 'She was magnificent, she was eloquent. And she spoke, I suspect, for millions'. Am I alone in thinking that he must have read a completely different transcript, if the following is 'magnificent' and 'eloquent' then I really need to pick up a dictionary and check a couple of definitions:

...There are too many people now who aren’t vulnerable but they can claim and people who are vulnerable can’t get claim... You can’t say anything about the immigrants because you’re saying you’re – but all these eastern Europeans coming in, where are they flocking from?

Why then, is it so important for the Daily Mail to portray Gillian Duffy as 'magnificent' and 'eloquent'? I suspect it is because here is a voter that just happens to be completely on message with the media narrative on immigration: vulnerable people are being screwed over because immigrants get all the benefits, but of course you can't say anything about immigrants even though they're all 'flocking' over here. Perfect. She is therefore the ideal proponent of the tabloid view of immigration and therefore if the Daily Mail gave the impression that she actually seemed confused, fearful and ignorant, it wouldn't say a huge amount about the kind of person who understands, believes and repeats the tabloid narrative.

I understand that it is not productive to blame Gillian Duffy for having these views, she may well be a passive victim of consistent dishonesty from a poorly regulated press rather than the sort of bigot that buys a tabloid newspaper because it reinforces their view of immigration. It also isn't her fault that she is being made into a faux martyr by the same dishonest newspapers. The only thing I can really do with regards to Gillian Duffy is shake my head in dissapointment that she has been fooled by the press into feeling the need to tackle Gordon Brown about foreigners coming over here.

The reason I am disappointed is that these inane mutterings have consequences for us all. I sometimes get smug comments on this site along the lines of: 'Hey, you moan about people reading the Daily Mail to be angry, yet you do exactly the same! If you don't like it, don't read it, simple.' However, it isn't that simple because whether you read a tabloid newspaper or not, you cannot avoid being exposed to the poisenous narratives that they create.

Think of a tabloid reader as if they were a smoker and the tabloid newspaper is a cigerette. A lit cigerrete is hard to ignore, is has a fiery tip and billows smoke, the smoker inhales the poisenous smoke and then exhales it, often in the vicinity of others. You don't have to be a smoker to inhale this second-hand smoke, nor do you have to be a smoker to see and smell the lit ciggerette. The tabloid press acts in the same way: the headlines scream at you from newstands, whilst any tabloid reader who inhales the message exhales it - frequently - in your company. We are all passive tabloid newspaper readers. The posenous stench is unavoidable.

Everytime you hear someone fearfully talk about the population hitting '70million'; everytime you hear that immigrants / illegal immigrants / asylum seekers are 'showered in benefits' whilst 'hard working taxpayers / pensioners' are left without; everytime people say that there aren't enough jobs because of immigrants; everytime you hear that local schools / hospitals are 'full / stretched / overrun'; everytime you hear people moan about 'elf 'n' safety' or the 'PC brigade' or 'political correctness gone mad'; everytime you hear someone talk about 'open borders / no border controls / unlimited immigration'.

Everytime you hear these things you are the passive victim of a tabloid newspaper.

You may have never read a tabloid newspaper yet you and the rest of the country will have to sit through a third election debate this evening where the three candidates will compete to see who can be toughest on immigration. Once again, you are the passive victim of tabloid smoke being pumped out on immigration. You may not agree with Quentin Letts or Gillian Duffy yet whenever someone claims to speak for the 'silent majority / average man on the street/ on behalf of the hard-working taxpayer' the tabloid press attempts to steal your right to your own individual opinion. Your right to a proper democratic debate has been hijacked by the tabloid press, whether you read it or not, whether you even acknowledge its very existence is completely irrelevant.

It is difficult to change someone's mind about an issue. I had an argument on Twitter today about whether I was being 'dismissive' of the opinions of people like Gillian Duffy, and whether I was wrong to give up trying to engage with such people to change their viewpoint. Firstly, in Gillian's case I really don't think this is her opinion, and secondly in my experience trying to argue against tabloid narratives is extremely difficult - hence why politics, religion and I imagine immigration are topics to be avoided at any dinner party because it'll just turn into a row.

Shifting the existing culture of tabloid narratives is going to be tough, and clearly we have to focus on education the young in media literacy (I teach some sessions on this for the FE college I work in) so that they have a greater awareness that the majority of tabloid newspaper stories are extemely dishonest and designed to further an agenda that has nothing to do with news. One thing I have noticed teaching in areas with virtually no immigration is just how much hostility young people have to immigrants, even though they live in an area in which it just isn't an issue.

Consider the following points taken from research into various immigration issues in the UK:

The main result of the empirical analysis is that there is no strong evidence of large adverse effects of immigration on employment or wages of existing workers. In this respect our findings are consistent with empirical results from international research. There is some weak evidence of negative effects on employment but these are small and for most groups of the population it is impossible to reject the absence of any effect with the data used here. Insofar as there is evidence of any effect on wages, it suggests that immigration enhances wage growth¹.

These figures report the total number of international migrants – that is, without any separation by country of birth. In accordance with the United Nations defi nition, these figures also include British nationals returning after ayear or more abroad².

A Home Office research study found that, in 1999/2000, first generation migrants in the UK contributed £31.2 billion in taxes and consumed £28.8 billion in benefits and public services – a net fiscal contribution of £2.5 billion³.

Work by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggests that around 17 per cent of economic growth in 2004 and 2005 is attributable to immigration⁴

The Treasury estimates that between Q3 2001 and mid-2006 migration added 0.5 per cent per annum to the working age population and therefore supported growth in economic output. On this basis, migration contributed around £6 billion to output growth in 2006⁵.

More recent work by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) found that migration has a positive and growing impact on the public finances. By 2003-04 it was estimated that migrants contributed 10 percent of government receipts and accounted for 9.1 per cent of government expenditure¹⁰.

There is no theoretical reason why immigration need either depress native wages or increase native unemployment. Given that there is a strong long-run correlation between the size of the labour force and employment, there is no “lump of labour”; it is not true to say that there are only a fixed number of jobs to go round⁶.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has performed an extensive and thorough statistical analysis of claimant count data, the Annual Labour Force Survey and the Workers Registration Scheme (WRS). This analysis found no discernible statistical evidence that A8 migration has resulted in an increase in the claimant count rate since May 2004⁷.

we have found no discernible statistical evidence to suggest that A8 migration has been a contributor to the rise in claimant unemployment in the UK⁹.

Vacancies, including those in sectors where migrants are concentrated have been and remain historically high. The magnitude of vacancies in the UK in a given month is far greater than the inflow of A8 migrants⁸.

Most new migrants have no entitlement to social housing... Foreign-born populations who have arrived in the UK during the last five years are overwhelmingly housed in the private rental sector, and not in social housing. New migrants to the UK over the last five years make up less than two per cent of the total of those in social housing; some 90 per cent of those who live in social housing are UK born¹².

Our findings suggest that areas that have higher levels of recent immigration than others are not more likely to vote for the BNP. In fact, the more immigration an area has experienced, the lower its support for the far right. Rather, the evidence points to political and socio-economic exclusion as drivers of BNP support¹¹.

Think back to these points when each party leader talks about the importance of 'reducing' or 'controlling' or 'capping' immigration and consider whether these pledges are being in the best interest of the country. Or, whether they are being made to mollify a huge electoral swathe of people addicted to tabloid smoke. Not to mention whether the politicians are keen to appease the creators of this smoke: the right-wing tabloid press whose dishonest, hateful and shameful reporting has led to this 'issue' taking center stage in the first place.

We all know that any politician or political party brave enough to have a real debate about immigration would be absolutely crucifed by the right-wing press. Yet, we must also realise that whether we inhale it first-hand, or passively inhale it from others, we are all being subjected to the same poisenous message and if we don't want to be poisened we all have to fight for change. A passive smoker no longer enters a pub for a few drinks and comes out stinking of smoke. Imagine a world in which we could enter a pub and not inhale the stench of tabloid lies either. As I said on Twitter earlier: we cannot have a real debate on immigration as long as the tabloid press exists in its current form. It is that simple.

For more on this topic also see the excellent Tabloid Watch.

References

1, Dustmann, C. Fabbri, F. Preston, I. and Wadsworth, J. (2003) The local labour market effects of immigration in the UK. Home Office Online Report 06/03 [pdf]. Accessed 29 April 2010: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/14331/1/14331.pdf

2, A Cross-Departmental Submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs (2007) The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Immigration. Accessed 29 April 2010: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm72/7237/7237.pdf

3, IBID

4, IBID

5, IBID

6, Blanchflower, D. Saleheen, J. and Shadforth, C. (2007) The Impact of the Recent Migration from Eastern Europe on the UK Economy. Bank of England. Accessed 29 April 2010: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/speeches/2007/speech297.pdf

7, A Cross-Departmental Submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs (2007) The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Immigration. Accessed 29 April 2010: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm72/7237/7237.pdf

8, IBID

9, Gilpin, N. Henty M. Lemos, S. Portes, J. and Bullen, C. (2006) The impact of free movement of workers from Central and Eastern Europe on the UK labour market. Department for Work and Pensions, Working Paper No. 29. Accessed 29 April 2010: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/wp29.pdf

10, Reed, H. and Latorre, M. (2009) The Economic Impacts of Migration on the UK Labour Market. Accessed 29 April 2010: http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=649

11, IPPR (2010) Exploring the Roots of BNP Support. Accessed 29 April 2010: http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=743

12, Rutter, J. and Latorre, M. (2009) Social housing allocation and immigrant communities. Accessed 29 April 2009: http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=689

The PC Brigade, is there nothing this band of bandits will not ban? I had thought from reading newspapers that Christian nurse Shirley Chaplin had been told to remove her crucifix necklace for Health and Safety reasons, that the NHS Trust she worked for had a blanket ban on all jewelry. But I was wrong, turns out it was the PC Brigade, at least according to Dr Taj Hargey, who the Daily Mail is keen to point out IS A MUSLIM NO LESS!

Surely he must be absolutely right then, because why else would a Muslim stick up for Christianity? Maybe, just maybe he is just your typical religious nut who thinks that they deserve special treatment because they have 'faith' in a system of pointlessly repressive beliefs. 'What has Britain come to when it takes a Muslim like me to defend Christianity?' wails Dr Hargey, before identifying the real culprit:

As a Muslim, I am filled with despair at the attitude of our politically correct officials towards Christianity.

For me, all true religious faith, if practised with benevolence and humility, can only strengthen our society. To undermine religion is to undermine society itself.

It is no coincidence that as Christianity is repeatedly attacked, so the social fabric of Britain becomes increasingly frayed.

As we lose our strong moral compass, family breakdown and violent crime are at record levels, while our once famous sense of community spirit is evaporating.

In the face of this kind of aggressive secularism, Christians and Muslims should be natural allies...

Equally despicable, however, is that these politically correct busy-bodies don' t even have the courage to be open about their fanatical loathing of Christianity.

Instead, they often cravenly cite 'health and safety', that catch-all term so often clutched at by bureaucrats when they want to shut down something they disapprove of.

Well, what a way to roll out cliched and brainless arguments: society is lost without religion: prove it. Seems to me that we've had religion since ancient times and beyond and throughout history it has been one long list of wars, repression and genocide. This isn't even mentioning the large amount of wars that have purely been about religion, about whose sky fairy is the best.

Consider which society you think best:

Society A: Young girl has sex and gets pregnant, family are utterly ashamed and send girl away to have child secretly and never mention it again, girl is damned in eyes of family. Scenario Two, girl so scared of consequences she is forced to insert a knitting needle into herself to terminate baby.

Society B: Young girl has sex and gets pregnant, she is able to see Doctor in confidence and get all the support, advice and help she needs from a range of sources. She can keep the baby and not be as outwardly shamed as Society A, or she can have an abortion and relevant counselling if needed.

Which seems most civilised, the one in which natural bodily functions, urges and above all youthful mistakes are punished by shame, damnation and rejection; or the one in which humanity steps in and lends some support to a fellow human being?

I know which society I prefer, and it isn't the one that allows religion to determine what is and isn't moral. Morality is not determined by religion, petty values, lack of freedom and sincerely held prejudices are determined by religion. As is the right to exemption from criticism. For example, if you are the head of an international paedophile ring you can expect to be vilified by the press, hunted by the world's police and arrested. Unless, of course, your organisation is a religion, in which case you might be asked to 'repent' but you're otherwise left alone to continue your systematic abuse of children.

The rest of Dr Taj Hargey's article is the sort of drivel that you'd expect to be published in the Daily Mail: everyone's attacking religion, especially the poor Christians, no one respects religion and on and on. But, what does he really expect? Perhaps if organised religion hadn't spent the last few thousand years acting like a bunch of utterly immoral shits then we might have a fonder view of it. Perhaps if Christianity turned the other cheek and actually attempted to live by its tenets then we'd have respect for it.

Or perhaps, we do generally respect Christianity and other forms of religion in Britain, but sometimes a religious person is completely unreasonable in not removing an article of faith that has no place in an hospital ward, just as no piece of jewelry has no place in an hospital ward. This then leads to intolerance from idiots like you, who cry discrimination, when really, if you look at it from a neutral point of view: discrimination is written into your holy books, not NHS Trust health and safety guidelines.

All I know is that every time I read a pointless article like this written by some trumped-up religious bell-end It certainly makes me less tolerant towards the mindless 'faithful'.

There are not many minority groups that the Daily Mail haven't attacked and disabled people are no different. Today - in a wonderful example of what has become of investigative journalism - the Mail have uncovered the shocking truth about disabled parking bays: 'Revealed: Why all those disabled bays stay empty'.

The article seems to sum up everything that makes the Daily Mail and its readers such a depressing force:

The Daily Mail turns legislation designed to ensure disabled people have access to adequate parking facilities in carparks into the chance for parents and others to whinge about how they don't receive similar treatment. Last time I checked having children wasn't a disability and was still a choice people made. I understand parents might want bigger spaces because they have young children and prams etc to get in and out of the vehicle. However, supermarkets do allocate spaces for parents and children and the actual need for this would pale into comparison with someone who is disabled.

The comments are pretty depressing, as is the fact that the article has already attracted 476 of them. This to me sums up the world view of the Daily Mail and its readership. Give them a story about say the need for investigation into whether Britain was complicit in the torture of terror suspects and they manage a paltry 6 comments (most of them barely intelligible rants about how human rights should be scrapped). A cheerful story about the first Winter Olympic gold Britain has won for 30 years and you only get 100 odd comments - and just look at some of them:

The comments on the disabled parking story are pretty soul destroying, some of them from self-righteous, selfish arseholes who smugly claim they have always parked in disabled bays and now they're even more glad they always did. Others come from people disgusted that 'positive discrimination' is allowing disabled people to park nearer to supermarkets than law-abiding-middle-class-families.

If I had to try to specify one quality that the majority of Daily Mail readers have - and I do try to avoid crass generalisations - then I would say it is that they love to whinge and they want to whinge. They buy the Daily Mail so they can read this kind of bullshit and have a bloody good whinge about how unfair the world is when the chap down the road with severe disabilities can struggle into his wheelchair, get himself and it into his car and then drive straight into a parking space almost RIGHT OUTSIDE THE STORE. THE JAMMY, LUCKY BASTARD. IT'S SO UNFAIR ON ME, A TAXPAYER WHO ISN'T LUCKY ENOUGH TO BE DISABLED AND HAS TO PARK IN A SPACE NOT QUITE AS BIG OR AS CLOSE TO THE STORE.

I am extremely thankful that I am fairly fit and healthy and I don't mind walking across a carpark, in fact I'm grateful that I can. If parking slightly further away from a supermarket means I am guaranteeing that someone less fortunate than myself can park a little closer, have room to get out of the car and into a wheelchair etc, then I'm more than happy to do so. If you don't feel the same way as I do, then you're a ignorant, selfish, lazy twat and probably a Daily Mail reader.