Once upon a time, there was a little boy who believed in the overthrow of the British government and the imposition of Marxism-Leninism on its unwilling people.
Maybe the little boy maybe didn't know any better; you see, he had the misfortune of being a cradle Communist.
The toxic nonsense that infested the little boy's head didn't stop him from being ambitious; no, not at all. He became President of the National Union of Students and sought a media career. He might have done this to gain exposure for, and help spread, his political beliefs. He even became a producer with the BBC.
Then one day the little boy said 'I am not a Communist anymore', and everyone believed him. He wasn't shunned, and was always able to find better jobs than working as a streetsweeper in Doncaster; the sort of punishment he might have doled out to his opponents if he'd ever gained power. He wasn't forced to give up the media access he sought to gain while a Communist; quite the reverse. Somebody even gave him a column in 'The Times', where he became the voice of liberal reason, and lived happily ever after.
Excuse me while I puke.
David Aaronovitch has published an editorial in today's 'Times' entitled 'A revolting parade of who can look toughest'. It is itself revolting.
"Before the PM had shaken the first lean and sinewy business hand at his jobs summit yesterday, the selectively lugubrious duo behind the Balanced Migration group - the MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames - had declared the exercise as destined to fail.
Their argument was that, in certain categories, non-EU economic migrants are still allowed to seek or take up jobs “for which British unemployed people have not had the chance to apply”, and that unless “British unemployed individuals have a first crack at all jobs that become available” how could the Government's unemployment policies be taken seriously? Arrangements permitting foreigners to take up jobs not advertised in Britain, argued the pair, “should be suspended while the recession lasts”. However long that is, and however it is defined."
What is extremely concerning is not that such arrangements should cease, but that they were permitted in the first place. Such a thought is alien to Aaronovitch.
"A flavour of Balanced Migration's attitude towards job-sucking outsiders can be gleaned from their proposals for graduates. They note that foreigners who have taken their degrees in the UK are allowed to stay and work for two years, at the end of which they may apply for a work permit and, if the employer so chooses, keep their jobs. Mr Field and Mr Soames discern a terrible injustice in this because of the “direct competition with British graduates who will have incurred heavy debts in acquiring their degrees” (they have no interest in whether foreign students, who typically pay higher fees, are similarly indebted). Their proposal is that employers should be forced to advertise the jobs of these foreigners, whether they want to or not. "
Ah yes, emotive rhetoric: 'job-sucking outsiders'. To suggest that either Frank Field, a far better British patriot than Aaronovitch has ever seemed to be, or Nicholas Soames (for all his faults) would ever think of non-UK nationals as being 'job-sucking outsiders' borders on the libellous. This is a spastic default to the type of political debate in which Aaronovitch might once have willingly participated; the debate of denunciation, character assassination and lies.
He is a man of the world: One World, where it doesn't matter that you can't get into a university in your own country because its universities have become businesses and make more money by admitting a foreigner than by admitting you. That's your tough cheese, sunshine; they're probably just better than you anyway. Learn your place, or the commissars will rat you out. Now shut up and bugger off to the call centre.
"It is clear to me, if not to the parliamentary pair, that if such a policy were to be enacted any foreign students of reasonable talent would be entitled to feel that Britain does not want them, and act accordingly. We would also soon discover that not a few of these jobs will go abroad. And then there's the issue of retaliation".
If Aaronovitch were a serious public policy intellectual, which the balance of probabilities seems to suggest he isn't, he would be familiar with 'global labour arbitrage' theory. If GLA is true, it isn't going to matter a tuppenny damn who studies what or where, because no matter who you are and what qualifications you have, there will always be someone cheaper than you standing at your shoulder.
He goes on,
"Too bad, because the fact seems to be that we liberals are not winning this fight against the economic and cultural nationalists. I realised this when listening to a Radio 4 programme on the politics of immigration last Saturday. There was a report from Peterborough where some locals were complaining about foreign young men in vans and pressure on parking spaces, and employers were praising the same young men's willingness to pick fruit from orchards that indigenous youth preferred not to visit. "
The fact that he is losing this battle might mean that he was wrong in the first place doesn't seem to occur to him. The example he chooses is a paradigm of his unseriousness; your employers love mass immigration, while you can't get a parking space. The very fact that you can't get a parking space might mean that there are too many people doesn't seem to occur to him. He is proof of the maxim that you can spot a former Communist a mile away; where the facts don't sit with the ideology, you go with the ideology.
I did not hear the programme he refers to - but I would be very interested to know whether the employers who were interviewed were asked three straightforward questions. Firstly, how the wages they are paying staff compare with the wages paid in 2003. Secondly, whether the terms upon which their migrant staff are employed differ in any way from those they offered in 2003. Thirdly, how profitable their businesses are now in comparison to 2003. The answers to those questions might provide some insight into why employers are enthusiastic about migrants.
"It's assumed that Labour is soft on immigration. In actual fact the largest influxes of migrants into this country came during Conservative periods of government - if you look at the 1950s and early 1960s and indeed the situation with Eastern Africa.”
“The situation with Eastern Africa”? He means the time when the Kenyan and Ugandan Asians were expelled, and arrived in a Britain for which they had passports, where they were called “Paki”, and where they became some of the most successful and dynamic citizens this nation has possessed. And this is used by a Labour minister, a Labour minister, to attack past Conservative governments for softness on immigration! I wanted to throw up. "
Those East Asians he praises include Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, an insolent, graceless, arrogant woman who was given the protection of the United Kingdom, has received opportunities far beyond the reach of many of its natives yet who has made a presumably lucrative career out of criticising its perceived injustices. If we're in the business of plain speaking, we might as well speak plainly. Her chances under Idi Amin wouldn't have been too good.
"Of course, they all tell us, none of this is about race and it is politically correct to suggest that it is, as well as an attempt to avoid necessary debate. It's about overcrowding and the prospect of 70 million Britons (a prospect that is most unlikely). It's about jobs (despite migration helping to create jobs). It's about pressure on services (despite migrants disproportionately providing them or paying for them). "
Who has introduced the race issue into this discussion? The voice of liberal reason. Aaronovitch once again proves the truth of Brimelow's Law -
"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal"
This is further proof of Aaronovitch's lack of intellectual seriousness. And where is his proof that migrants either provide or pay for services in a manner out of proportion to their numbers?
"According to one academic study [from a Migration Watch supporter, Dr David Coleman, as it happens], the ethnic community in Britain will grow from 9 per cent to 29 per cent by mid-century.”
I spoke to Sir Andrew (Green) yesterday who, courteous as ever, confirmed to me that “ethnic community” denotes “non-white”. Not, please notice, non-British and also notice that this figure includes anyone classified as mixed-race. Therefore “our society will be changed out of all recognition” means, not to put too fine a point upon it, a Britain which is nearly a third touched with the tar brush".
David Coleman is, or was, Professor of Demography at the University of Oxford, and the victim of the sort of ideological hounding which Aaronovitch might once have endorsed, or even led. It does not occur to Aaronovitch that when the nation's foremost demographer says something about demographics, he should be listened to. No. Instead, his academic rank is reduced and he becomes a candidate for marginalisation and purge. Better get out the brush, Professor, and start familiarising yourself with the Doncaster A to Z.
Ah, the tar brush! The Imperial era utility put-down despised even then, and now only used by the more sophisticated ex-Communist public policy intellectuals! The very use of this expression is even more evidence of how unserious this person is. Who would even dream of using such an expression now?
"No more cant. This is still part of what scares our pusillanimous partymen, who are all now involved in a revolting public auction to show who can be the “toughest” on the economic migrant - that miscreant who comes over and does our jobs and pays our taxes and adds to our pool of talent. And who may well, if Sir Andrew Green is right, be ethnic. "
'No more cant'; quite agree, more in a moment. Migrants do all the things he says; but they also displaced Billy Gallagher. Maybe he just wasn't as good as his replacements.