Marjorie Smith
Alan Johnson's justification for sacking Professor Nutt over his refusal to acquiesce with the Government's decision to reclassify cannabis from C to B under the Misuse of Drugs Act is spurious in the extreme.
The main reason that the Labour leadership seems to struggles over this issue is that there is a streak of Christian Socilalist thinking (Straw, Brown, Blair et al) that seems to rely more on the advice of the Association of Chief Police Officers rather than those more well-versed in what is actually happening on the streets. It is an ethos that top-down policy making based on moral certainties are appropriate for how society should govern itself.
The Government seem intent to keep on digging a gigantic hole over this issue and continues to flip flop like a startled fish in a Japanese sushi bar.
It was David Blunkett who declassified cannabis as a Class B to Class C in 2002. Taken on the advice of experts this seemed at the time a reasonable step, only opposed by the indignanti of the Mail and Telegraph brigade. This was shortly followed by the virtual de-criminalisation of canabis in Brixton, implicitly indulged by the Home Office who wanted to test public opinion on attitudes to cannabis.
The forces of reaction made sure that the public furore (mainly confined to the Op-Ed pieces and letters page of the said Mail and Telegraph) was blown-up into a media firestorm that intimidated the Home Secretary and the Home Office to beat a hasty retreat.
Then this was followed by a drip, drip, drip campaign about the dangers of drugs generally and their burgeoning effects on society as a whole. Often juxtaposes with the rare, but still tragic case, of individuals who had adverse reactions to taking drugs. The Government (and especially the Prime Minister) so often in thrall to the Daily Mail eventually caved in to the editorial line of Paul Dacre and performed a policy u-turn.
As Sue Blackmore in the Guradian, so elequently exposed Jacqui Smith's reasoning for reclassifying Cannabis to Class B . "In May 2008 Jacqui Smith announced that she wanted to reverse the decision and put cannabis back to Class B. She said she was concerned about the evidence linking cannabis smoking with schizophrenia, and with the increase in the supply of skunk and other strong forms of the drug.
There was indeed some evidence of a link with schizophrenia but the numbers of people affected are tiny, the risk small, and the reason for the correlation unknown (for example people who are genetically predisposed to schizophrenia may be more likely to smoke cannabis or to find it helpful). Some research even suggests that there is no link and that people diagnosed with "cannabis-induced psychosis" would have developed the symptoms anyway but blamed the drug. And interestingly, since the 1950s there has been a huge increase in cannabis smoking with no change in the rate of schizophrenia."
The other main reason for reclassification was that the stregth of skunk on the street had dramatically increased over the years and that the level of active ingridient (THC) in street level skunk was much higher than 30 years ago.
This simple claim by the Home Secretary reveals the absolute paucity of rationality behing the decision. The reason why skunk is so uchmore popular than it was is precisely because it is stronger and crucially it is widely available due to widespread expert cultivation in the UK. In other words the skunk (then more widely know simply as grass) of 20-3o years ago was widely dislike because of its poor quality, it was viewed as the smoke of last resort.
The valid comparison should have been made between today's skunk and yesterdfay's hashish, such as Red Lebanese, Moroccan Gold etc etc that came in a block and was and probably still is stronger than today's street-level skunk. If you compare apples with oranges you get bizarre results.
Labours rush to heavily increase the criminalisation of today's youth reveals a nasty anti-libertarian streak within the current Government that does society no favours and does young people especially, no favours.
Showing posts with label David Blunkett. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Blunkett. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
IMMIGRATION: LABOUR'S GREAT CONNUNDRUM
By Marjorie Smith
It's the issue that seems to be top of the political agenda in many areas of Britain. A multi-faceted political issue that has no easy answers, no easy solutions and creates differing political tensions amongst many Labour party supporters and wavering voters. It also seems to be a policy area 'that dare not speak its name' in polite Labour society.
The right and centre-right spotted the political benefit of hyping immigration as a stick to beat Labour with several years ago. The drip, drip, drip of political poison over this issue has been led by the obnoxious Daily Express and the right wing pressure group Migration Watch over the past several years. Incredibly, the Express has given over 75% of its front page headlines in the past five years to this issue.
The rest of the right's media forces have also realised the potency of the issue and have waded in on the issue, blithely swallowing any press release issued by Migration Watch as indisputable fact. The Daily Mail recently (24.10.09) even went so far as to run a story that claimed that mass immigration was a secret Labour plot to change the face of Britain.
What is worse is that the Tories have employed a strategy that allows them to keep themselves at arm's length whilst pretending to be compassionate conservatives. They have used well-funded pressure groups such as The Taxpayers Alliance and Migration Watch as attack dogs on public expenditure and immigration policy to distort the political debate in this country so as to paint the Labour party as weak and compliant. Of course this then has the effect of burnishing the Tory party's image as reasonable and decisive.
Immigration was always going to be potentially embarrassing issue for Labour as its internationalist principles would leave it instinctively in a defensive posture when confronted. Despite the public hard line approach of Jack Straw and David Blunkett as Home Secretaries as well as a No 10 edict to radically reduce the number of asylum seekers appealing against Home Office decisions, it is apparent that Labour remains uniquely vulnerable on immigration policy.
It also goes a long way to explain the success of the BNP in exploiting this issue. The Tories have learnt from New Labour's adoption of triangulation. By not commenting consistently on the issue they have allowed the far right to dominate the response from the right. In giving the BNP political space they have managed to give the far-right a modicum of political impact, yet know that this would never be translated into any prospects of success at a general election under the first past the post system and that it would have very, very limited impact on their voter share.
However, the Tories' main benefit is that it will allow them to triangulate and present themselves as the reasonable face of a tolerant Britain that will take steps to (reluctantly, as they claim) to 'properly' control immigration. This will be presented as a necessary step that has to be taken otherwise the BNP would prosper as a result of Labour weakness.
The main political question is what is the strength of feeling on the issue in marginals as well as the rest of the country; what sort of response the party should develop and what argumentation it can deploy on the doorsteps in order to convince voters (and the more reasonable media outlets) that scare stories about immigration should be treated with the contempt they deserve.
It does appear that the issue is a hot potato on the doorsteps both in working and middle class areas and that it is the subject of chatter across the country. It seems to currently inform perceptions of the character of the main political parties and could be a pivotal issue as to how voters make their electoral choices.
From both apocryphal feedback in the mainstream media (and discounting the coordinated efforts of the BNP to hype their support) as well as opinion polls and expert analysis, it appears that the only policy area that the BNP has found traction is in the area of immigration. This is hugely indicative of a much wider problem in that if some people overtly support the BNP, or sympathise with them, over this issue indicates that the concern is much deeper.
At moment, the more the BNP agitate on the issue and Labour isn't perceived to have a coherent response, the more votes are lost in both working and middle class areas. It's not the BNP who benefit in the main from the seepage of Labour support, it's the Tories, content to keep quiet as votes swing their way.
Thus, the issue needs to be addressed at several levels to be able to formulate a distinct message on the doorstep and in radio and television studios over the next 7-8 months leading up to the next election. This requires three different approaches to three very different patterns of immigration. Intra-EU movement of people, economic migration from outside of the EU and asylum seekers.
Firstly, let us nail the lie that we are being swamped by Poles, Lithuanians etc and others from the rest of the EU who take advantage of free movement to move to the UK as the EU works as a one-way street into the UK. Most of the Polish etc. work here for a relatively short time and then return home. The vast majority paying taxes and national insurance, very few claim benefits of any kind. Just to counter the BNP utilising the image of a spitfire as part of their xenophobic propaganda, the 303 Polish Squadron was the highest-scoring RAF unit in Battle of Britain.
More UK people live and work in other EU countries than people from the rest of the UK live and work in the UK. The consequences of closing our borders to citizens of other EU countries (which would require withdrawal from the EU) would have devastating consequences for millions of UK citizens. Not only would UK citizens be unable to work in the rest of the EU, unlike now, but the hundreds of thousands of Britons who live in Spain, France and the rest of the EU would lose their residency rights.
Furthermore, the dreams and aspirations of many hoping to own their own little place in the sun would be shattered. Malaga or Margate, anybody? If we turn in on ourselves our horizons dramatically shrink. It should also be noted that if we ever pulled up the drawbridge with the rest of the EU, then France, Belgium, Holland etc.etc. would have little if any incentive to stop people trying to enter the UK.
Immigration from the rest of the EU and emigration to there also, is clearly a two-way street, where the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages.
The thorniest problem of all is economic migration, much of it initially driven by desperation and despair. People from sub-Saharan Africa, from Turkey, Kurdistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, the poorest parts of China etc. etc, all with a legitimate reason to believe that their lives would be improved if they could enter the UK. Most have a case on hardship grounds alone to merit consideration, yet the age-old problem is where do you draw the line?
The UK also 'suffers' from a unique combination of circumstances concerning immigration, not only do we have a large number of immigrant communities already based in the UK that can act as a support group to new arrivals. We also have a historical link with many countries as the aftermath of Empire, when we rapaciously plundered such places. Thirdly, there is the draw of the emerging universality of the English language
These immigration 'drivers' mean that the UK would likely be the preferred destination of choice for many economic immigrants aiming to enter the EU when compared with many other Member States (although France shares many similarities with its former colonies also being a catalyst). Hence, even if we were the most compassionate people on earth, an open door policy is unworkable.
Therefore immigration controls are a necessity and the more that is done to dissuade immigrants even setting off on perilous journeys across continents the better. There is nothing wrong in rigorous but fair immigration controls. They reward the legitimate immigrant who goes through the system, and deters criminal gangs who exploit the weak and the vulnerable for their own ends.
Labour has a good story to tell on immigration, it is one of fairness, compassion and understanding. But this has to be allied to a recognition that only in times of sustained economic prosperity can entry be granted to those who have the skills or who will fill jobs nobody else wants to do. It is also a fact of life, that as the UK population ages on average, we will need a radically improved birth rate (unlikely) or significant immigration in order e.g. to keep our pensions sustainable, our hospitals and care homes running. As well as the wider economy performing well.
Finally, the furore around the much-maligned asylum seeker needs to be addressed. It is this that the centre-right has succeeded in turning a noble definition into a highly pejorative term now loosely bandied about by many who should know better. As ever, the malicious editorialising of the Daily Express and the Daily Mail have a lot to do with it.
The asylum system was abused, let's admit it, desperate people do desperate things, yet it is Labour who have introduced a high degree of rationality into the system and it is only through perseverance will an asylum system built on intelligent fairness be embedded.
Over the past ten years, the explosion of global communication through the internet and the advent of cheap air travel has revolutionised people's ability to understand their local situation and to compare and contrast life in other countries.
Make no mistake, even under a rabid right-wing Government in the UK, illegal immigration and asylum seeking, won't disappear, it won't even decline, Labour doesn't need to allow itself to be tarred with this brush. As for workers from other EU Member States, that is a zero sum game where we stand to lose a lot more than we could theoretically gain.
The right and centre-right spotted the political benefit of hyping immigration as a stick to beat Labour with several years ago. The drip, drip, drip of political poison over this issue has been led by the obnoxious Daily Express and the right wing pressure group Migration Watch over the past several years. Incredibly, the Express has given over 75% of its front page headlines in the past five years to this issue.
The rest of the right's media forces have also realised the potency of the issue and have waded in on the issue, blithely swallowing any press release issued by Migration Watch as indisputable fact. The Daily Mail recently (24.10.09) even went so far as to run a story that claimed that mass immigration was a secret Labour plot to change the face of Britain.
What is worse is that the Tories have employed a strategy that allows them to keep themselves at arm's length whilst pretending to be compassionate conservatives. They have used well-funded pressure groups such as The Taxpayers Alliance and Migration Watch as attack dogs on public expenditure and immigration policy to distort the political debate in this country so as to paint the Labour party as weak and compliant. Of course this then has the effect of burnishing the Tory party's image as reasonable and decisive.
Immigration was always going to be potentially embarrassing issue for Labour as its internationalist principles would leave it instinctively in a defensive posture when confronted. Despite the public hard line approach of Jack Straw and David Blunkett as Home Secretaries as well as a No 10 edict to radically reduce the number of asylum seekers appealing against Home Office decisions, it is apparent that Labour remains uniquely vulnerable on immigration policy.
It also goes a long way to explain the success of the BNP in exploiting this issue. The Tories have learnt from New Labour's adoption of triangulation. By not commenting consistently on the issue they have allowed the far right to dominate the response from the right. In giving the BNP political space they have managed to give the far-right a modicum of political impact, yet know that this would never be translated into any prospects of success at a general election under the first past the post system and that it would have very, very limited impact on their voter share.
However, the Tories' main benefit is that it will allow them to triangulate and present themselves as the reasonable face of a tolerant Britain that will take steps to (reluctantly, as they claim) to 'properly' control immigration. This will be presented as a necessary step that has to be taken otherwise the BNP would prosper as a result of Labour weakness.
The main political question is what is the strength of feeling on the issue in marginals as well as the rest of the country; what sort of response the party should develop and what argumentation it can deploy on the doorsteps in order to convince voters (and the more reasonable media outlets) that scare stories about immigration should be treated with the contempt they deserve.
It does appear that the issue is a hot potato on the doorsteps both in working and middle class areas and that it is the subject of chatter across the country. It seems to currently inform perceptions of the character of the main political parties and could be a pivotal issue as to how voters make their electoral choices.
From both apocryphal feedback in the mainstream media (and discounting the coordinated efforts of the BNP to hype their support) as well as opinion polls and expert analysis, it appears that the only policy area that the BNP has found traction is in the area of immigration. This is hugely indicative of a much wider problem in that if some people overtly support the BNP, or sympathise with them, over this issue indicates that the concern is much deeper.
At moment, the more the BNP agitate on the issue and Labour isn't perceived to have a coherent response, the more votes are lost in both working and middle class areas. It's not the BNP who benefit in the main from the seepage of Labour support, it's the Tories, content to keep quiet as votes swing their way.
Thus, the issue needs to be addressed at several levels to be able to formulate a distinct message on the doorstep and in radio and television studios over the next 7-8 months leading up to the next election. This requires three different approaches to three very different patterns of immigration. Intra-EU movement of people, economic migration from outside of the EU and asylum seekers.
Firstly, let us nail the lie that we are being swamped by Poles, Lithuanians etc and others from the rest of the EU who take advantage of free movement to move to the UK as the EU works as a one-way street into the UK. Most of the Polish etc. work here for a relatively short time and then return home. The vast majority paying taxes and national insurance, very few claim benefits of any kind. Just to counter the BNP utilising the image of a spitfire as part of their xenophobic propaganda, the 303 Polish Squadron was the highest-scoring RAF unit in Battle of Britain.
More UK people live and work in other EU countries than people from the rest of the UK live and work in the UK. The consequences of closing our borders to citizens of other EU countries (which would require withdrawal from the EU) would have devastating consequences for millions of UK citizens. Not only would UK citizens be unable to work in the rest of the EU, unlike now, but the hundreds of thousands of Britons who live in Spain, France and the rest of the EU would lose their residency rights.
Furthermore, the dreams and aspirations of many hoping to own their own little place in the sun would be shattered. Malaga or Margate, anybody? If we turn in on ourselves our horizons dramatically shrink. It should also be noted that if we ever pulled up the drawbridge with the rest of the EU, then France, Belgium, Holland etc.etc. would have little if any incentive to stop people trying to enter the UK.
Immigration from the rest of the EU and emigration to there also, is clearly a two-way street, where the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages.
The thorniest problem of all is economic migration, much of it initially driven by desperation and despair. People from sub-Saharan Africa, from Turkey, Kurdistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, the poorest parts of China etc. etc, all with a legitimate reason to believe that their lives would be improved if they could enter the UK. Most have a case on hardship grounds alone to merit consideration, yet the age-old problem is where do you draw the line?
The UK also 'suffers' from a unique combination of circumstances concerning immigration, not only do we have a large number of immigrant communities already based in the UK that can act as a support group to new arrivals. We also have a historical link with many countries as the aftermath of Empire, when we rapaciously plundered such places. Thirdly, there is the draw of the emerging universality of the English language
These immigration 'drivers' mean that the UK would likely be the preferred destination of choice for many economic immigrants aiming to enter the EU when compared with many other Member States (although France shares many similarities with its former colonies also being a catalyst). Hence, even if we were the most compassionate people on earth, an open door policy is unworkable.
Therefore immigration controls are a necessity and the more that is done to dissuade immigrants even setting off on perilous journeys across continents the better. There is nothing wrong in rigorous but fair immigration controls. They reward the legitimate immigrant who goes through the system, and deters criminal gangs who exploit the weak and the vulnerable for their own ends.
Labour has a good story to tell on immigration, it is one of fairness, compassion and understanding. But this has to be allied to a recognition that only in times of sustained economic prosperity can entry be granted to those who have the skills or who will fill jobs nobody else wants to do. It is also a fact of life, that as the UK population ages on average, we will need a radically improved birth rate (unlikely) or significant immigration in order e.g. to keep our pensions sustainable, our hospitals and care homes running. As well as the wider economy performing well.
Finally, the furore around the much-maligned asylum seeker needs to be addressed. It is this that the centre-right has succeeded in turning a noble definition into a highly pejorative term now loosely bandied about by many who should know better. As ever, the malicious editorialising of the Daily Express and the Daily Mail have a lot to do with it.
The asylum system was abused, let's admit it, desperate people do desperate things, yet it is Labour who have introduced a high degree of rationality into the system and it is only through perseverance will an asylum system built on intelligent fairness be embedded.
Over the past ten years, the explosion of global communication through the internet and the advent of cheap air travel has revolutionised people's ability to understand their local situation and to compare and contrast life in other countries.
Make no mistake, even under a rabid right-wing Government in the UK, illegal immigration and asylum seeking, won't disappear, it won't even decline, Labour doesn't need to allow itself to be tarred with this brush. As for workers from other EU Member States, that is a zero sum game where we stand to lose a lot more than we could theoretically gain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
