I did one of my regular stints on the Simon Mayo show earlier, and mentioned the unpleasant billboard campaign being run by UKIP, with huge posters saying "No to unlimited immigration" in the heart of Bristol's most ethnically diverse wards. If you go to one of the higher floors in some of the tower blocks in Barton Hill, that's what you see from the walkway. I also mentioned this in Parliament yesterday. We don't have unlimited immigration, we have pretty tough laws, included the new points-based migration system. I deal every week with people who have been refused asylum or visas. I also receive quite a few emails from people who think the current system is too tough, particularly when it comes to removals from the UK of failed asylum seekers or over-stayers. Anyway, I've already had some feedback from my radio appearance. Not quite a ringing endorsement of my views...
"what a lying slimey new labour moron you are kerry mccarthy telling simon mayo that there has not been unlimited immigration since you got in power.how strange that is when hazel blears in her words said are biggest mistake is opening the floodgates to the whole world when we got in power in 1997,at least blears is honest whatever ever people think about her.lets remind you mrs liar 6 million immigrants have came to the uk since 1997 under your free for all open door policy and now the ordinary people of the uk are paying for this in the mass crime wave and islamic extremism that is speading around the uk like a wildfire,you really made me get my sick bag out with lies after after lies that come from you greedy corrupt gob when you was on simon mayos show , and you wonder why people vote for ukip and the bnp well the reason for that is 2 words=new labour, your hated now by everybody i know and i will make a prediction now i will bet you £100 that you lose your seat at the next election,lets see if you take me up on that bet you smug arrogant new labour loser,get the message quick white working class people like me who voted you lot into power in 1997 hate and despise you now.....peter"
11 comments:
Although if you are concerned about immigration from a prospective/liberal (small L) perspective or indeed if you are an immigrant with voting rights, the Green Party's migration policy is a lot more attractive.
Hmmm. It's off topic, but as a primary school teacher, could I just say that I have taught ten year olds that can speak English as a sencond language that can punctuate better than that. Basic punctuation, I find, is very helpful when trying to organise waves of spiteful vitriol.
I'd imagine this guy's never voted in his life, and probably isn't registered either.
In the midst of all the vitriol one bit that particularly saddens me is that he's probably from West Yorks like me. "are biggest mistake" - the illiterate "are" instead of "our", is always a dead give away for Spen & Batley specials of a certain ilk.
I'll be voting Labour tomorrow by the way and am STILL considering joining the party. Been a testing few days for Labour supporters though.
would you put him down as a doubtful?
We don't have unlimited immigration, we have pretty tough laws, included the new points-based migration system. I deal every week with people who have been refused asylum or visas.
UKIP are referring to the unlimited immigration within the EU as per EU DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC.
The points based system doesn't apply to EU citizens as you well know.
And thanks to the Metock case and the Akrich case in the European Court of Justice, illegal immigrants can also apply to be EU citizens thus granting them right of settlement anywhere within the EU.
I wish MPs especially Labour ones, would actually be honest for once regarding immigration and EU power over this country rather than trying to smear other parties with half truths
I can't agree with most of the comment, immigration has never been a reason I've hated the Labour party for. There are plenty of far more important issues that wind me up.
That said, our system can't be that tough, and life here can't be that terrible for immigrants if they are prepared to travel through a number of "safe" countries to get here. Somalia is hardly just a quick trip across the English Channel.
I don't think that you're slimey or a moron but one word I do agree with in that post is "arrogant". Not you personally but I honestly feel this does accurately sum up the Labour Party in one word. Whenever a member of the front bench does an interview that's precisely how they come across. Darling, Balls, Milliband (oh god, one of the worst), Harman, Blears, Smith, Brown, Straw - they all ooze the feeling that they feel the public are beneath them and they feel nothing but contempt and disdain for them. Sorry, but it's true. I'm sure there are perfectly respectable back-benchers but I haven't found one person on the Labour frontbench who hasn't come across as sickeningly arrogant.
I don't think the Tories would be much better at running the country but I don't get the "arrogant" vibe from so many of their front bench, it's more their back-benchers and their moat/servant expenses claims.
I'm surprised at people still wanting to vote Labour though. Just how bad does it have to get before they won't? Honestly, this is the level that the political system has sunk to in this country - people would vote for a freshly-laid dog turd so long as it was wearing the right colour rosette - and that goes for all parties. Feeling totally disillusioned right now, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I don't live in Bristol anymore, but I did live there during the 2005 general election campaign. As I suspect you will remember, the Tories had one of their 'It's Not Racist to Put Limits on Immigration' billboards overlooking the M32 at Easton. It was as if to say to the reader that the locality was the product of immigration and, as such, immigration needed to be limited.
What the billboard did for me was to emphasise that the Tories' opposition to immigration really does stem from a deep-seated xenophobia. Nothing Cameron has said has done anything to sway me from this view.
The only non-racist argument for having immigration control is ensuring that immigration doesn't put too much of a strain on the country's resources. This implies that in terms of economic migration, as many people capable of supporting themselves as can feasibly be accommodated should be allowed into the country.
Regarding asylum seekers, their cases should always be treated most sympathetically. No one is going travel across the world in a shipping container, at enormous risk to themselves, without extremely good reason. We must surely recognise that in the way we treat them (i.e. not lock them up and not prevent them from making a living).
The Labour Party should be the party which stands up for the least advantaged in society - there aren't many members of society who are less advantaged than asylum seekers.
Furthermore, Labour absolutely must get its message about social justice across far more clearly than it is at the moment, otherwise we will wind up with ten years of elitist rule by the Bulingdon Club. (It would also help if Brown made way for Johnson).
It's tough at the top
The Boiling Frog - I fear you betray your political innocence in defending UKIP's decision to put such posters up in such areas. It's called dog whistle politics - they might purport to be saying one thing, but the subliminal message they're sending is something very different, and they're well aware of that. And the guy who sent me the email is not, I think, talking about Polish plumbers.
@Kerry, would that be the same dog whistle politics as 'British workers for British jobs?
I’m a little surprised at this posting. Surely hate mail gets far worse than this? There are no threats or swearing, unless you edited them out (then again, perhaps reading OH’s blog has left me de-sensitised to such things).
The worst is a few nasty insults and a strong indication he’ll never vote Labour again. The fact he even mentions a party other than the BNP suggests he’s not one of their supporters (yet).
Perhaps we were supposed to be aghast at his English, with the possible implication that opposition on this issue comes predominately from the academically backwards. Well, that may be true, but the man made no educational pretensions, far from it. And when you look at it, the spelling isn’t really that bad; it’s the punctuation (or lack of) that makes it so unreadable. But haven’t you known any people that were witty and fluent in speech but were appallingly bad at written English? Magnanimously give him the benefit of the doubt.
Here’s a thought: would it be helpful for me to post a corrected version, you know, just to be nice ‘n helpful ‘n all, Kerry?
Post a Comment