The purpose of a system is what it does. It doesn’t actually matter what you designed it to do, or what you say you would like it to do. If you want to know what a system is for, look at what it does. Our immigration system is a system for increasing the number of people risking their lives by crossing the channel in small boats. It does this very well.
We know what it would take to have a system that reduced the number of people making dangerous channel crossings: we simply have to set up safe legal routes abroad so that asylum seekers can apply directly. We know this works because we did it with Ukrainians. We have accepted something like 100,000 Ukrainian refugees in the last year. Only a vanishingly small percentage came by small boats and then only before we’d set up the systems to process claims in centres abroad. It works, it works well.
The government doesn’t want to do that for, say, Angolans or Iranians and won’t explain why. So instead, we have a system for increasing the number of people taking risky, desperate channel crossings. And until we change the system it will keep fulfilling its purpose.
It is getting rather disturblingly Orwellian here the past few years. They do love a good 3-word slogan: Hands Face Space. Get Brexit Done. Stop The Boats. They may as well just rename themselves the British National Party at this rate. That’s got 3 words.
This is exactly it. It’s horrifying, and it’s also horrifying that they’re proud to be so blunt about it.
We know that traffickers tell their victims that there’s no point running to the authorities because they’ll just be jailed and deported if they do. But now the Government are producing handy infographics the traffickers can use to prove they’re right.
Good interview with the Home Secretary here in which it becomes clear that the Government don’t actually have a plan, they just want to talk about migrants
The bit where she realises she shouldn’t have given a time frame and immediately tries to row it back is a highlight.
“I’m not going to put a timescale on it”
“You just have”
And of course a year is a terrible timescale to bring up, because that’s before the next election* and the last thing they intend is to be judged on actual achievements.
The popular TV Presenter and former footballer Gary Lineker wrote a tweet criticizing the government’s immigration policy, and compared their rhetoric to 1930s Nazis.
So the government has attempted to bully the BBC into sacking or suspending the presenter.
For Americans who may be confused by this, the BBC is a taxpayer-funded broadcaster. However, as it was just a tweet from his personal account, in no sense representing the BBC, I don’t think they have a leg to stand on.
I also agree with Lineker’s comments FWIW. And I think it’s pretty appalling that Braverman tried to strawman his comments by saying he was comparing their policy to “the holocaust”, which is not what he said at all.
I said this early in the thread/Sunak’s term and quoting now in a “just goes to show how wrong you can be” moment:
The stats in this thread are satisfation/dissatisfaction with the government rather than Sunak personally, but as you’ll see if you click through, for practically any group you care to name, dissatisfaction is indeed running at or above that 70% mark. Men, women, old, young, rich, poor, school leaver, graduate, white, ethnic minority, southerners, northerners… the people of Britain are united in thinking Sunak’s Tories are a bit shit.
Two exceptions: Dissatisfaction is as low as 66% among people who voted Tory in 2019, and marginally below 50% among people who intend to vote Tory this time. Which, you know, you’d think those guys could find a little more enthusiasm.
Things are getting a little more awkward over Linekergate.
Lineker was pulled from Saturday’s edition of Match Of The Day, the BBC’s flagship football coverage. Match Of The Day is presented by celebrated international footballers like Lineker (pulled by the BBC), Alan Shearer (refused to appear on Saturday’s show after Lineker was pulled) and Ian Wright (likewise refused to appear). I’m considering offering my services - I may be the best they can get.
Elsewhere, the principled stand taken by the BBC is being unraveled by another of it’s presenters:
Alan Sugar is the business guru on The Apprentice - yeah, the Trump role, in the UK original of the show.
Wildlife presenter Chris Packham took to Twitter to give some “essential balance” on the argument and shared tweets from Lord Sugar – who he claimed was also a BBC employee - criticising transport union boss Mick Lynch over recent strike action.
In the tweets from December 2022, Lord Sugar blasts Lynch saying: “Hello Mick Lynch hope you are happy yourself bringing the country to its knees over Xmas.
“You don’t fool me waiting for the employers to come to table. You love the publicity. Your members would like to earn what you get. Why don’t you waive your salary.”
There’s a little more, but I’m sticking to the fair use guideline I’ve been given.
The BBC (And Lineker) should be thankful that Diego is dead, otherwise he would be livid at what they are doing to his friend Gary and would be tearing them a new one in His own inimitable way (while Gary privately begs him to stop “helping”).
This is a bit of a diversion, but I’ll add a little more to it as it does raise questions about whether the BBC is acting with political impartiality, and to what extent the current conservative government is exerting influence on it (or trying to).
Re the BBC’s sports coverage:
The BBC’s football output remains in chaos, with an unofficial staff boycott continuing into Sunday.
It follows an unprecedented day of turmoil for the BBC’s sport operation, with staff including some of the most recognisable faces and voices downing tools.
Plus, it goes a lot further than soccer coverage being messed up. Where did the concerns regarding impartiality come from? Well, as I posted above, Lineker’s criticism of the government saw him effectively suspended, whereas, for example, Alan Sugar’s lambasting of trades unions was completely ignored. And you have to place this difference in context:
An ongoing KC-led review into Mr Sharp’s appointment as BBC chairman is investigating whether he failed to properly disclose details of his involvement in the facilitation of an £800,000 loan guarantee for the then PM Boris Johnson. He has denied any involvement in the arrangement of a loan for Mr Johnson.
The BBC is also conducting its own internal review over any potential conflicts of interest Mr Sharp may have in his current role as BBC chairman.
[I presume KC = King’s Counsel]
Pressure on Sharp to resign is growing. So, sports programming is a bit iffy, but this story is turning into a pretty interesting watch.
The BBC and Gary Lineker have come to some agreement or other on the social media question, so he’ll be back next weekend.
But how that leaves the BBC management is another matter. Sharp, as Chairman, isn’t supposed to be directly involved with operational matters, so the question for him is more to do with whether he is, or is seen to be, standing up for the BBC’s independence from government or party pressures. The mess caused by standing Lineker down in the first place is, on the face of it, down to Tim Davie, the Director-General (also a previously active Tory).
Lets close this out with some words from the man himself. OK, quick reminder that the Tweet that kicked all of this off was Lineker criticizing proposed immigration legislation aimed at refugees, and noting that the Conservative Party rhetoric around it had a whiff of Germany in the 1930’s. This led to his de facto suspension, a mighty brouhaha, and eventually his reinstatement today.
Of which episode Gary Lineker Tweets:
“However difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away,”
I don’t always agree with Lineker (though I do think his comment in this case was fair), but I will defend his right to say it - the BBC have handled this pathetically badly.
I assumed that was meant to be a loss leader, to ensure, once the decision is reversed, that the eventual inevitable cuts elsewhere look that bit less unpalatable.
