Immigrants Are Taking The Flack For Cameron's Incompetence

Politicians have never been good at talking about immigration. From Thatcher's concerns of being 'swamped' by immigrants to Gordon Brown's “British jobs for British Workers” speech, the issue has long been embedded within a perverted political narrative- one in which migrants are characterised as leeches, sucking away at the fruits good Englishmen have bequeathed upon them.

David Cameron's speech yesterday did little to distance itself from this. Still tormented by the Eastleigh defeat which saw the Ukip surge trouncing the Conservatives, the Prime Minister unveiled a new set of policies assured to win back the disenchanted. And while the favourite buzzwords needed for any immigration speech were present (integration, assimilation, border controls to name a few), he also used the opportunity to exert some of the harshest policy proposals we've seen come out of CCHQ for a while. Under the new proposals, a migrant job seeker can only receive assistance for six months, will have to face more difficult residency tests and will have less access to the NHS without private health insurance.

Some progressives may accept these proposals. In a time when British families are reducing their living standards, migrants also need to play their part- big society and all that. Besides, voters have consistently worried about immigration, and now the government are taking action. Further, we're just following the Canadians, and everybody loves them.

The insidious bite in Cameron's speech really came through when he spoke about social housing, where he suggested a waiting period between 2-5 years for new migrants wishing to get on the waiting list. Of course, this policy responded to the popular notion that immigrants not only get on the social housing list faster, but also get better residences compared to native Britons. Triumphantly, the Prime Minister claimed that his government would end the 'something for nothing culture' which apparently all immigrants (except for the select few political strategists like to use to assert they aren't racist) ascribe to.

In fact, this proposal actually shows how badly the government have failed to resolve issues in social housing, jobs and welfare. And with the most recent failings- the AAA downgrade and Osborne's flagship 'help to buy' policy heavily criticised following last week's budget, Cameron is now using immigrants as a way to divert attention from his government's incompetence.

Cameron's argument suggests that the number of migrants coming to the UK inevitably causes a shortfall of social housing. Ergo, restrict access to social housing and the problem is resolved. Except, he chooses to ignore the decrease in social housing resulting from Thatcher's 'Right to Buy' , or the 'Right to Acquire' scheme, of which its legacy speaks only of unaffordable rents and the lowest levels of home ownership since 1987. It also disregards the lack of new affordable homes being built- an issue where the Prime Minister's own party bears a great deal of responsibility for. Indeed, the crisis of social housing is not immigrants, but rather the venomous Tory cocktail of greedy landlords and a government more than happy to facilitate them in the name of good business. Depressingly enough, George Osborne's plan is likely to make this existing situation even worse.

The second misappropriation is Cameron's supposed stance on the 'something for nothing' culture, where immigrants supposedly plot from their homelands to come to Britain and live luxuriously off the state. The only problem with this, is that it isn't true. In fact, the DWP indicated in 2011 that less than 3% of benefit claimants were from EU countries. Furthermore, both the 2011 Oxford Migration Observatory report and the ONS Labour Market Statistics report last year indicate that a majority of migrants come to the UK with the intention to work. Seeing that twice as many foreign migrants were recorded in employment compared to those of British-born origin, it seems clear that these migrants would not only be unable to claim benefits, but would also not be eligible for social housing either.

Despite the statistics, Cameron, and many other senior ministers are continuing to peddle populist rhetoric in order to win back voters. While this might be a great idea to Tory strategists and party backbenchers, it will do little to win the hearts of young, Tory moderates, or reinstate trust into the government itself. The truth is that the Prime Minister- once a refreshing change for the Conservatives, is now using a sensitive issue for political advantage. Quite frankly, both British nationals and immigrants deserve a lot better.

A Press Charter is an Unfortunate Necessity

You wouldn't think it at first, but national newspapers aren't too dissimilar from city banks. That might sound a little odd considering their visceral disdain for each other. However, both institutions have historically been significant in the development of British society, and with sourcing first class talent, have developed brand names that continue to resonate globally. Yet, in the sombre aftermath of the post-Leveson inquiry and the parliamentary proposal that has since emerged, it seems that the they also have something else in common- they too, are victims of their own fantasies.

As tabloids and broadsheets go up in arms to resist plans to introduce a Royal Charter and with a possible statutory underpinning, the press have resurrected bygone ‘gloden era’ myths in order to justify operating under a self-regulated code of ethics. Whether through invoking Winston Churchill, or making comical comparisons with China and Zimbabwe, this rhetoric perpetuates a distorted fantasy in which newspaper editors are unfairly thrown into Kafka’s Trial. Claiming their privilege is necessary to hold the powerful accountable, they argue that the forces of evil- lawyers, politicians and Hugh Grant, have colluded to undermine the only institution designed to empower citizens.

Of course, we’ve heard it all before. Nationalised banks like RBS continue to pay out large bonuses despite continually losing money, while even at the height of the financial crisis, bankers and their advocates argued for even less regulation. In both the newspaper and banking industries, the argument remains the same- ‘yes, we acknowledge there were some problems, but we won’t do it again, we promise’.

Most national newspapers took a similar line in calling for bank regulation, acknowledging that financial institutions-particularly those backed by the state, should operate in a way that protects and fulfils obligations to the public. Further, they rightly believed that more light-touch regulation would only evolve into more unfair play, illustrated through the LIBOR scandal. It’s striking then, that these newspapers wish to disregard the problems in their own back yard- the ones that prompted the Leveson inquiry in the first place.

After all, the parents of Milly Dowler weren’t exactly Bob Diamond. Nor were the relatives of British soldiers, Sara Payne or the other victims of the phone-hacking scandal. And this of course, was only the tip of the iceberg. For years, the tabloid press have gotten away with running grossly distorted stories vilifying some of the most vulnerable in our society, including immigrants, Muslims, and the working class. Despite what some of the press may wish, we shouldn’t forget that Leveson’s proposals are not without a precedent.

This isn’t to say that the method in which the charter was born was necessarily right. None of the party leaders, especially Ed Miliband, did themselves any favours by making the agreement look like a back room deal, designed to be political. Yet as The Guardian and The Independent have noted, while the technicalities of regulation may be in contention, the principle of an independent regulator is far cry from North Korean totalitarianism. If an agreed regulatory system is effectively executed, then there is no reason why the press cannot continue to serve the public and hold the powerful accountable. More importantly, an acknowledgement that the press will not be allowed to abuse their privilege will assist in winning back public trust- something that all print media groups require to survive.

During the golden era of The Sun newspaper in the 1980′s, when the newspaper also began running sensational stories based on few facts, a poster on the wall of its news desk read “News is anything that makes a reader say ‘Gee Whiz!’”. Just as the latter phrase became extinct, so has the insidious culture that this dictum built. The British press must realise that to survive, they cannot be exempt from the law. And unlike the banks, I’m not sure taxpayers will be willing to bail them out.

Make No Mistake, Boris Will Survive

News typically isn't made on a Sunday, so today's Boris interview has made much of the Twitterati quite excited. For those of you who don't know yet, Mayor of London Boris Johnson hasn't had the best of days today, after an interview with Eddie Mair on the Andrew Marr show. In the interview, Johnson inadvertently admits to forging a quote whilst working for The Times, colluding with a friend to have a rival journalist beaten up and failing to deny his goals to enter Downing Street. Subsequently, Mair referred to him as a 'nasty piece of work'- a far cry from the cuddly teddy bear pretty much everyone in London regards him as.

Plenty of pundits and bloggers have now predicted the end of Mr.Johnson. After all, he's basically admitted on live TV that he lacks integrity, is slimy and deceitful. How will he be able to communicate with anyone in London again? In fact, some have even suggested Johnson resigns after his traincrash of an interview.

Of course, anyone who knows Boris, will probably tell you that he'll survive. For no matter how much of an oath the Mayor of London may be, he's also tenacious, cunning and charming.  Here are my reasons why the Johnson interview today has made less impact on him than you might think:

1. The AM show has on average about 2 million views each week, making it around 20% of the general audience share. This is compared to the 10.8 million average for Eastenders,  and just under 3 million on an average Question Time Broadcast.  And while the AM show has a higher viewing share than say, The Big Questions or the Andrew Neil Show, if you take into account the % of Londers who will watch it (probably less than 8% of this share) then it's a fairly modest amount. In fact, BARB shows that it wasn't even in the top 10 viewed this week.

2. Even when the Tories were receiving some of the worst polling stats, Johnson won 4% more preference votes than the Labour candidate, Ken Livingstone. Prior to the election, Johnson was voted the most popular politician ahead of national party rivals and mayoral contestants , and in all honesty, he'll probably be remembered more for the Olympics and the Boris bikes, than something he did at The Times more than a decade ago.

3.  While a coherent dataset isn't available, this YouGov report from mid 2011 sees Johnson with over 50% approval rating. In 2012, Boris got 44% of the total vote share, increasing it by over a percentage from 2008. Ken Livingstone, whose popularity peaked in 2000, only recieved 39% (First preference votes. LM elections are done under the AV system). This is despite Boris being very Tory, in a city where Labour made big gains in the 2010 election.

4. I think it's probably common sense that Boris is unlikely to be elected Tory leader. Considering the Tories are well aware of their current crisis, and leaders being 'out of touch' Boris probably wouldn't pick up the nomination, or the PM role. After all, if British voters reacted to populism, Nick Clegg would probably be PM, with Nigel Farage as his deputy (lord forbid).

5.Anyone remember the Clinton/Lewinsky affair?  Clinton's smooth talking and intelligence got him out of that pickle. And if Boris can pull of one of his renowned performances, he'll get rid of the whole issue before you can even say Lewinski. 

iERA Does No Favours For Muslim Students

outreach4islam.com

Most young British Muslims today will make no secret of the pertinent leadership crisis in their communities. From Khutbahs (Friday sermons) recited in Urdu by out of touch preachers to uninspiring mosque committees forged through generations of nepotism, it's no surprise that many young Muslims- myself included, feel disenfranchised by our religious institutions. Despite the best intentions, at a time when Muslims face fundamental questions in relation to both identity and place in Britain, such leaders do little to advance a progressive vision.

Of course where mosque committees have failed, a number of industrious groups powered by creative use of social media, have stepped in to take their place. One group in particular has enjoyed so much success across British university campuses that they have become one of the most recognisable names in Islamic apologetics.

The Islamic Education and Research academy (iERA) have recently made headlines after one of its most prominent Muslim speakers, Hamza Andreas Tzortzis debated the theoretical physicist and atheist spokesman Lawrence Krauss and University College London. Most of the controversy surrounding the debate has so far focused on gender segregation in the seating order, prompting UCL's decision to ban the group. Despite the gesture, this move will do little to wane iERA's popularity amongst the new generation of educated, middle class Muslim students, with access to the organisation's vivacious creative output.

Certainly on the outset, iERA seems like a great concept. Far from the generalisations, polemic and unfounded assertions espoused by classically trained preachers, the organisation offers a more intellectual and charismatic approach to lecturing. After all, it was only after attending an iERA event in my first year at York, that I heard both the scottish philosopher David Hume and the Qu'ran in the same sentence. Indeed, having previously experienced a religious education more akin to military indoctrination, such an approach was refreshing. More importantly, this type of intellectual introspection had the potential to allow both open debate and an active empowerment of Muslim students in the UK.

Yet for the most part, iERA has failed to achieve either of these. Rather, as a number of Youtube videos will show, the organisation often finds itself taking up self defeating positions in attempting to assert forms of moral superiority over other belief systems. No better is this shown than in the UCL debate, where a question on the concept of morality and incest arises. In response to Mr.Tzortzis' question on 'why is incest bad?', Krauss argues that the latter word is contentious- that the term 'bad' is abstract and contextual. Though societies have a tendency to disapprove of it, to place the question in such absolute terms removes both the consensual component of sexual relations, as well as the act of sex in a cultural context. Rather than a philosophical consideration, iERA supporters at both the debate and on social media berated Mr.Krauss for “proving atheists have no moral basis”.

Such misappropriation is far from uncommon, and in some ways is facilitated by the way iERA operates. A simple Google or Youtube search will show that most of its activities have taken place within Islamic societies, or as part of its 'Big Debates' project. The majority of these debates will focus on the merits of Islam over atheism, often seeing Hamza Tzortzis facing off against a prominent atheist spokesperson. But while this might seem like the makings of an engaging and open discussion, a closer looks suggests that the environments in which iERA operate- areas where large congregations of the organisation's purporters can assemble and easily outnumber their ideological opponents, provides obvious advantages.

Furthermore, the tech-savvy folk at iERA know how to do PR remarkably well. In fact, their content is what most young Muslims will probably enjoy watching. Yet, in a Youtube driven culture where instantaneous tropes are the norm, videos showing iERA speakers apparently 'owning' atheists in forced debate , as well as convincing street-level religious conversions captured on camera, give further acclaim to the organisation's influence. No wonder that even young Muslims abroad are turning to iERA.

However, the problem with iERA is that it has been given a fairly easy ride by most Islamic societies. Rather than providing genuine, open intellectual discussions, the conditions in which the organisation functions allows it to proselytize on its own terms, preaching to the converted while using their events to further strengthen their authority within Islamic apologetics circles. And though this might be good at making Muslim students enthusiastic about their faith, it does little to place Islam within the frame of intellectual, scholarly discussion. Despite all of Mr.Tzortzis' enviable charisma and charm, the current structure of iERA events renders the organisation simply as another evangelical group using a public platform to proselytize.

While iERA may provide a more engaging outlet for religious thought, it does a disservice to Muslim students by reducing intellectual debates to oversimplified absolutes. For while such methods might make for a good speech, particularly against an arrogant atheist, it does little to tackle the real issues that young Muslims face in Britain today. Rather, it perpetuates the unfortunate notion that Islamic societies are closed off, unwelcoming pariahs to those not affiliated with Islam. Certainly, this is undesirable in a diverse campus community.