Sunday, 28 September 2025

Nasty Labour

 

 

It is 13 years now since Theresa May warned the Conservative Party not to become “the nasty party.”  She then went on to ignore her own advice  by, as Home Secretary,  introducing her hostile environment, most vividly remembered by vans circulating in areas where immigrants had settled, bearing posters warning those who weren’t convinced of their right to be here to “Go home – or else.! “ Even Nigel Farage thought it was unpleasant.

 Although the vans were rapidly discontinued in the face of a public outcry the hostile environment continues to thrive, though we now have a government by a party which used to claim to believe in the international brotherhood (and sisterhood) of man (and women) and only just over a year ago promised  “change”  if it won the election.

Instead we have the  the proposed introduction of Digital IDs, not for the various conveniences that such measures are alleged to bring (more of which later) but to make it more difficult for immigrants to obtain employment.

There is something bizarre or maybe Kafkaesque (or both) in a party called Labour (the clue is in the name) on the one hand pulling out all the stops to bully disabled people into work, and at the same time trying to prevent largely young, energetic  and enterprising people who want to work from doing so.

And it’s not, as a Liberal Democrat spokesperson has pointed out, all that clear how the measure will deter unorthodox immigration via small boats.  Surely the worries at the forefront of such aspiring migrants’ minds  will be the costs and dangers of crossing the Channel, not the ease or otherwise of getting a job.when they get there. They’ll cross the bridge of getting a job should they be lucky enough to make it.

Be that as it may, there can be no doubt that once non-compulsory  IDs for employment purposes are introduced  there will be “mission creep” to extend them to  include a right to rent, a right to use the NHS, right to welfare, right to vote, and, by hook or by crook, eventually, a right to be here at all for everybody, born here or not.

Labour under Tony Blair tried to introduce ID cards.  A coalition led by Liberals fought them off.  We must do so again.  

 At present our government exists with our permission.  Under our inadequate electoral system that permission is rather grudging. Only a third of those who voted actually voted for it and, since the turnout was low, that represents only about 25% of those entitled to vote.  The permission would be more convincing if we had PR and the government could claim the support of a majority, but that’s where we are and Labour lacks the gumption to change it  (I’ve read somewhere that Andy Burnham, who appears to be manoeuvring to challenge Sir Keir Starmer, believes that a “Progressive Majority” comprising Labour, Liberals, Greens and perhaps some Nationalist would have more authority and more courage.  I am sure he is right)

 

With compulsory  ID cards the roles are reversed: we exist  by permission of the state – and no prizes for guessing which minorities would be the more pestered by the agents of authority  to prove they had that permission.

“Papers, please" has never been part of the British peacetime tradition and Labour should not be allowed to drive a wedge towards authoritarianism on the bogus precept that they will deter migarants. 

Rather we need some positive assertions of the valuable contribution immigrants have made and are making to the quality of our lives.

Attending the London meeting of leaders for Global Progressive Action last Friday, Iceland’s prime minister  M/s Kristrún Frostadóttir (the world’s youngest) was asked on the BBC how she had achieved  a Social Democratic victory in a world dominated by far-right populism.  She replied by being positive and telling the truth, not by attacking and criticising her opponents, but by saying what her party believed in and what they would do.

Our leaders  should take a leaf out of the Icelandic book, applaud and promote the values of which we can be proud,  and not resort to feeble and failing attempts to outflank Farage.

10 comments:

  1. The permission would be more convincing if we had PR and the government could claim the support of a majority

    But PR makes it even less likely that the government will be able to claim the support of a majority — or even anybody!

    To take just two examples, Germany and the Republic of Ireland are two countries which both use PR systems, and both currently have governments that were voted for by 0% of the electorate!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In 2024 Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Greens gained 52.6% of the vote between us. Not as big a majority as I would have liked, but a coalition representing all three parties would have the confidence that a majority of those who voted were behind us.

      Delete
    2. In 2024 Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Greens gained 52.6% of the vote between us. Not as big a majority as I would have liked, but a coalition representing all three parties would have the confidence that a majority of those who voted were behind us.

      No you couldn't. You can't just add voters up like that. Just because party A got X-thousand votes and party B got Y-thousand votes means that all (X+Y)-thousand fo those voters would support a coalition made of Party A plus party B.

      Have you forgotten 2010? It was quite clear then that a substantial number of people who had voted for the Liberal Democrats, and a significant number of those who had voted Conservative, were unhappy with the resulting Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government, which, remember, had not been put before the electorate so nobody had actually voted for.

      Delete
    3. For 'means that' read 'doesn't mean that'

      Delete
  2. By the way you never indicated what you think the proper punishment should be for someone who fraudulently attempts to claim asylum as I asked at https://keynesianliberal.blogspot.com/2025/08/more-regardsing-migrants.html?showComment=1757347924315#c5516890677795909298

    Have you had a chance to think? What should be the punishment for that attempt to defaud the British taxpayer (ie, me), and to evade our immigration laws?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The posts from 12th to 16th May on this blog summarise the case for Open Borders put froward by Global Justice Now. The problem is how to make migrants welcome and integrate them into our economy and society. The minority we'd rather not have should be dealt with by laws which recognise their rights as fellow inhabitants of our planet. A letter to the Home Secretary co-ordinated by Refugee Action and signed by over 100 organisations highlights the damage done by the scapegoating of migrants for problems that are our own.

      Delete
    2. That doesn't answer the question: what do you think is the proper punishment for someone who fraudulently attempts to claim asylum?

      Delete
    3. The minority we'd rather not have

      Given that there are far, far more people who want to move here than we could possibly accommodate, surely it is the majority who will have to be rejected?

      Britain is like the Oxbridge of countries: we have, like, a hundred applicant migrants for every place we can feasibly offer. This is good in that it means we can pick the cream of the crop, but inevitably also means that the vast majority will fail to meet the standard, will be disappointed and we must be honest about that and clear about how we will deal with those who do not accept that they were rejected and try to break in anyway. Hence my question: what should be the punishment for someone who fraudulently attempts to claim asylum?

      Delete
    4. I have answered you:
      "...they should be dealt with by laws respecting their human rights."l
      And we are far from "the Oxbridge of countries." Many countries take in more refugee's and migrants than we do - some of them very much poorer.

      Delete
    5. I have answered you:
      "...they should be dealt with by laws respecting their human rights."


      And I’m asking you for specifics as to what those laws should be. Or do you have no opinion on that? That would be unusual.

      And we are far from "the Oxbridge of countries." Many countries take in more refugee's and migrants than we do - some of them very much poorer.

      And many universities let in more undergraduates than Oxbridge, some of them very much dumber. That’s the point: we are like Oxbridge in that e we are the most desired destination, so we can pick the best.

      I think I’ve worked out the problem, which is that you start by assuming the premise that anybody born anywhere in the world is just as entitled to live in Britain as someone British. But this is obviously nonsense, and recognised by almost everyone to be nonsense. A nation is not a boarding-house, it is a home, and your idea is as stupid as saying that I am just as entitled to live in your home as a member of your own family.

      Delete