A progressive narrative on immigration is not needed

In the wake of the Labour leadership struggle, with various candidates grasping for immigration as the explenation for Labour’s defeat, Sunny aks for a progressive narrative on immigration:

here is the dilemma for the left. The public are not easily persuaded by facts. There’s no way of ‘educating them’. The right-wing media exists and it won’t stop printing false stories. And there are lots of traditional Labour supporters who have concerns about immigration (Labour was about 30 points behind in the polls on the issue).

And there is little evidence that those concerns translated into lost votes. Labour had lost millions of voters even before this election, mainly because of Iraq. Nevertheless, Labour was about 30 points behind. So what would a progressive narrative on immigration look like? How do you deal with people’s concerns without sounding like the English Defence League, the BNP or Andy Burnham? How does that narrative offer solutions and hope without encouraging people to be bigots or making them fearful of immigrants?

What’s the narrative? What do you say on the door-step? Thoughts?

Immigration is a red herring. Labour didn’t lose because of immigration, or of not being tough enough on immigration, or because of anything other than a) the shit economy and b) the general public’s slow realisation that New Labour is such a shower of shits even the possibility of a Tory government is no longer quite horrifying enough to keep on voting Labour, as the latter would just do most of the evil the Tories are suspected of wanting to do anyway. That’s it. Now for Burnham, Balls and the Millibands this reality is one that can’t be acknowledged, as they are all part responsible for this. Hence this ridiculous insistence that it was fear of foreigners that led to Labour’s defeat, when the sole good news of the election was the complete and utter defeat of the BNP and its message.

But we on the left do not need to share this illusion. Burnham et all are trapped by their New Labour assumptions, that mixture of private enterprise fetishism and social authoritarianism — we aren’t. We know that if there’s a conflict between “natives” and “immigrants” about council housing the problem isn’t too many immigrants, it’s too few council houses and the solution isn’t to deport more people, but to build more houses! Labour has had thirteen years to address the housing shortage, but chose to bung money at private developers in nebulous schemes rather than allow councils to build new flats, then blames things on those least able to defend themselves, fanning the flames for the BNP.

So what do we need to do? Sunny is wrong to say you can’t educate people — as the anti-BNP campaigns showed in this election, yes you can. This then is the first thing the left in and outside Labour needs to do, to learn from those campaigns and adapt them for use against Labourite bigots and racialist opportunists. We now have the proof that you can racists without pandering, so let’s us that.

The second thing is to hammer the economics. The crisis was not caused by immigrants, nor by the working classes, but one created by the very people New Labour has been courting in the past thirteen years. The core problem is not the migration of labour, but of capital, that people can live In England, work in England and make tmillions in England but do not have to pay taxes in England. That should be hammered into people again and again, together with the radical new idea that gosh, the state needs not be helpless when people need houses, or jobs, or schools or healthcare, but can actually make sure there is enough for everybody, as long as it is willing to actually do so and use its powers for good rather than for illegal wars and petty bullying.

I’m Like, So Totes With You There

From the Bad Science Forum thread ‘Things that really annoy even though you know they shouldn’t’ (71 pages and counting, there’s a lot of irritation out there):

totes-large

lesmts:

There’s a girl behind me on the bus right now who is a member of that sub-species of twenty-something females who believe themselves to exist inside an episode of friends.

She’s talking loudly on the phone with plenty of forced enthusiasm and contrived amiability. She has that put-on slight transatlantic twang and is actually talking about how she and the cretin at the other end should “like, totally bond over coffee”.

I wish I had a masonry drill and a jar of concentrated carbolic acid.

Ooooh, I know.

If I read the word ‘totes’ as a synonym for ‘totally’ one more bloody time I’ll commit hara-kiri with my IV cannula.

Totes=
a] an up-itself word for the more prosaic ‘shopping bag’
or
b] the brand name of a range of mid-priced accessories.

I bet the Totes salesdroid department started this meme running as a marketing exercise, damn their eyes.

A message from our sponsors

Richard “Lenny off off Lenin’s Tomb” Seymour has a new book out, just in time for ConDem(med) Britain: The Meaning of David Cameron:

David Cameron has been sold to the British electorate as a thoroughly modern politician, part Blair, part Thatcher, a one nation conservative with a soft spot for social democracy, the green movement, big and small business, youth, minorities, traditionalists, the armed forces and the old. Has a politician ever been sold as so many things to so many people, at home in fashion magazines as he is at Party conferences? But despite being told, arguably more, about Cameron the man than any other politician he remains vacuous, strangely unformed, a cipher for the real interests and forces he represents. The Meaning of Cameronis an unmasking of the false politics Cameron embodies, and an examination of the face the mask has eaten into.

Pop A Cap On Tick

Not on tick exactly, but close. I’m gobsmacked to learn that you can rent guns for $10. DIY death at discounted prices – only in a certain country…

A commenter on YouTube called this guy ‘the Colonel Sanders of murder’. Exactly.

UPDATE: Compare and contrast:

Yea kids!

(Do they mean wigs or weed, btw?) Cognitively dissonant much, America?

Hey You, Get Off Of My Cloud

Why I don’t do Facebook, reason No. umpty-three…

When it comes to personal data security I’ve always been paranoid, and with good reason. From Techcrunch:

You’ve got to hand it to Facebook. They certainly know how to do security — not.

Today I was tipped off that there is a major security flaw in the social networking site that, with just a few mouse clicks, enables any user to view the live chats of their ‘friends’. Using what sounds like a simple trick, a user can also access their friends’ latest pending friend-requests and which friends they share in common. That’s a lot of potentially sensitive information.

Unbelievable I thought, until I just tested the exploit for myself.

And guess what? It works.

The irony is that the exploit is enabled by they way that Facebook lets you preview your own privacy settings. In other words, a privacy feature contains a flaw that lets others view private information if they are aware of the exploit.

I know Facebook wants us to share more information and open up, but I’m not sure that this is quite what they had in mind.

Video…

Oooh, I dunno, I wouldn’t put it past them, especially with the current requirements placed ISP’s and social networking companies to provide information to security organisations – how better to datamine friends and associates of someone under suspicion, no warrant required?

, “…in future finding out other people’s secrets is going to involve breaking everyday moral rules”.
Sir David Omand, former Whitehall intelligence and security co-ordinator February 2009

I was having this very conversation with my son yesterday, apropos of Charlie Stross’ article on cloud computing and Steve Jobs’ long term strategy for the development of Apple as a data handler.

My son and his iPhone-toting friends may consider me an old fart for being firmly in the open-source using, roll your own cloud tendency, but being what might be considered a political dissident in a vicious neoliberal society I’ve got good reason to be paranoid. And this from someone who read Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson as a teenager and loved it. Now he’s happy just to hand over his data to any old Tomasina, Dick or Harret. Feh, where did I go wrong as a parent?

This latest piece of Facebookery just goes to prove me right and him wrong. Let some corporation have control over my personal details? Not a hope in hell.