Fitting the battle of life

Well it was a great debate this week, with Mark Clarke of Conservative Future and one of our ex-Presidents, Tarit Mukherjee, proposing the motion against Jo Shaw (the Lib Dem candidate for Holborn and St Pancras in the next election) and Lembit Opik MP (yes, the cheeky girl one; it actually took about an hour for anyone to mention it, surprisingly).

The following notes are my own, from what I managed to scribble down. I did not make notes on floor speeches or closing summary speeches; the port was taking its toll.

Prop Arguments

• Prop’s case was based on statistical evidence that the UK is overcrowded, with a population density twice that of Germany and 4x that of France, and a population that’s growing.
• Immigration is the only factor that we can control - fertility and higher life expectancy aren’t something we can deal with!
• Returning ex-pats, refugees and EU citizens can’t be controlled for various reasons, so we must look at those from the rest of the world, economic migrants.
• Immigration takes a toll on public services as it is happens faster at the moment that we have time to plan for (e.g. a new hospital to cope with increased population takes 5 years, a new tube line 10 years)
• It was pointed out that the Tories aren’t racist.
• Having quotas means that migrants know that there is a job waiting for them, public services they can use, and education for their children.
• The worst case scenario, as we have now, is that people turn up not knowing if they have a sustainable job or not, and so put a great burden on us.
• Quotas permit planning ahead effectively.
• Quotas are also a tool of integration, as they demonstrate that we do want those immigrating under a quota scheme in the country, increasing their self-worth and sending a message to the wider community that they should be made welcome because there is a demonstrable need for them.
• The Lib Dems’ own policy on immigration was rubbished.

Opp

•  Prop offered no details: what jobs, in what numbers, what about those who need to come to the UK for other reasons (family reasons were mentioned), and how would it be enforced?
• There must be a cut-off point and that is unfair; harms will result to someone as a result of turning them away.
• The Home Office is already rubbish at keeping track of numbers.
• Targets and numbers are the wrong way to deal with the problems associated with immigration.
• The history of Britain has set up a proudly liberal tradition in this area.
• The net benefit of immigration is £2.5billion per annum, and there are far more diverse benefits to be had as well.
• The country isn’t really overpopulated at all; statistics mean nothing.
• Population shouldn’t be controlled artificially; money is the best control as rich people have fewer children.
• This Tory policy is an unnecessary intervention in the free market: are they really Socialists posing as Tories or what?!
• It is impossible to work out how many people it will be necessary to let in; you cannot predict the future.
• Immigrants don’t come if they don’t think they’ll have a job at the moment anyway.
• If you support quotas as proposed you must support the forced removal of economic migrants when they’re no longer needed as well.

The vote was won by the Opposition by a large margin.

The floor prize was jointly awarded to Cormac and to Ruth.

I just finished reading this story from the Guardian (sorry, it’s just my paper of choice) that has made me slightly angry. They concern remarks made in a leaked e-mail from a Tory mayor:

I am aware Islamic organisations are keen to promote a view that they are peaceful, forward-thinking individuals who wish to integrate into the British way of life.
The policy of clothing the feminine population of Dewsbury in black sack-like clothing from head to toe, the occasional trip out to cause mayhem with explosives and the proposal that all those of homosexual persuasion should be killed by shooting or other means is adequate and practical testimony to the level of progress being made in this direction.

These inflammatory remarks do nothing to help solve some of the problems we have in this country. As much as there is a very small (very small, if I might repeat myself) minority of people in this country who are willing to engage in acts of terrorism, I personally feel that they are not as dangerous as the kind of people who will equate that tiny minority with an entire religious or ethnic group to which they (claim to) belong.

Furthermore, where is the equal outrage from people like this man against all homophobia, for instance? I can’t for a minute believe he truly would like to eradicate homophobia; it is being used as a poor excuse (because again, that is the view of a minority) to make disparaging and damaging remarks against a particular religious group.

I also love how ‘the British way of life’ is trotted out as something that must be defended against all change forever, as if this nation should be stuck in a timewarp, repelling all immigrants and outsiders. There is no ‘British way of life; just look at London. The people and behaviour you might associate with (for instance) white English people living in Camden and Islington is very different, and these are two boroughs right next to each other. Extend the idea to all non-white British inhabitants of these two places and already the ‘British way of life’ is a hodgepodge, smorgasbord, veritable rainbow of customs and cultures. The ‘British way of life’, to me, is about accepting and integrating different cultures by preserving them, not by destroying them and imposing homogeneity.

Mayor Robert Bennett said:

I apologise for any remarks I have made which may have caused offence. I sincerely hope my comments will not undermine the important job of work that has to be done in building greater community cohesion throughout West Yorkshire.

He has rejected calls for him to resign; he is evidently wrong to have done so. I don’t think he can retain any credulity after such remarks, especially as a servant of the public. When he attacks part of that public, even if he later retracts those comments, the damage has been done.