Thursday, 5 February 2009

Reap What You Sow

Though I'm struggling with a migraine today and doped up with codeine, I still managed (just) to get the gist of the dreadful Mary Riddell's article in the Telegraph about the wildcat strikes. The headline gives it away, really: '"British jobs for British workers" is the cry of our worst instincts"', she claims. Well, no: 'out with foreign scum' or 'go home, (insert racist slur here)' would be the cry of our worst instincts. Playing the xenophobia card is a cheap trick by Mandelson et al, to defend the EU system of law that runs contra to our own, denies our own rule of law, our own sovereignty, and for which no-one in the country was permitted to vote.

It is not xenophobic to look after your country's interests first. If there are people who have been laid off or who are already unemployed who can do a job in a local area, they should have first dibs. They shouldn't be expected to schlep off to the local JobCentre Plus to be asked what they are doing to find work, when a firm chooses to ship over hundreds of workers rather than hire people on the doorstep. Nor should the taxpayer be expected to pay for Brits to sit by idly whilst EU workers are brought in to do these jobs; they're already paying through the nose to shore up other EU countries' financial shortfalls as it is. They're paying Child Benefit for EU workers in Britain and they're paying JSA for EU nationals who settled in Britain, legitimately got a job and are now unemployed. Rather than ensuring those two groups get jobs, then, they're claiming that it is perfectly legitimate to bring in yet more workers whilst the unemployed sit at home.

Unlike the rest of Europe, British kids aren't taught two or three second languages: this government thought it would be a good idea to phase them out. 70% of Europe speaks English as a second language. This gives them a transferrable skill which the majority of state-school-educated Brits are lacking. Mainland Europe doesn't make it a priority to hire Brits; Britain makes it a priority to hire anyone from a 'minority'. (Which includes sexual orientation.) The government claims that it is all for giving opportunities to those it perceives as socially disadvantaged - but then condemns strike action as illegal under EU law. It states that it doesn't want to revert to 'protectionism'; protecting the rights of your home labour force isn't the same as protectionism, however, as anyone who's read the Idiot's Guide to Economics can tell you. 

The government finally and grudgingly backed down on the strike action because it was afraid that the BNP would gain in strength and popularity. But I would argue that the BNP only began to gain strength significantly after the government consistently ignored the plea of the strikers - that they would be considered first for jobs in their area - and told them to bugger off and stop behaving like children. Labour is not only breaking its fundamental reason for existence - to protect the rights of the working man - but creating an ever-greater rift in communities by appearing to favour those from outside the country rather than those native to it. Brown's call for 'unity' from the 'British' people during these 'troublesome economic times' seems downright hypocritical and pretty disgusting in consequence.

No discrimination on the basis of age, faith, orientation or gender? No, only on nationality.


  1. Yes... you'd think that one of the fair and unambiguous duties of a state was to protect the rights of its citizens to a job.. or at least to apply for one. The Government (as well as the other parties) has become so wedded to abstract ideas that it's lost sight of their effects and, like the old Communists, is having to force the acceptance of unworkable ideology in the teeth of overwhelming evidence that it just doesn't work.

  2. Wot Penguin said!

    Nice blog. As Arnie said, I'll be back.


Life is to be lived, not controlled, and humanity is won by continuing to play in face of certain defeat -Ralph Ellison