Launching a local election campaign that has the potential to be embarrassing for the Conservative Party, David Cameron’s speech on Thursday about immigration gave clear indication of the party’s desire to energise their core vote. Not only does the issue of immigration have historical precedence within the party (with William Hague and Michael Howard both employing it as a central issue in their respective failed electoral campaigns of 2001 and 2005), but the specific rhetoric and denunciation of immigrant’s failures to integrate effectively in Britain can be seen as a rallying call to the core vote.
Central to Cameron’s speech was the perception that the immigrant communities that have entered the UK without a solid level of spoken English have been destructive to social cohesion and that this has led to “a kind of discomfort and disjointedness in some neighbourhoods”. Cameron went on to say that for future successful immigrant applications, a working knowledge of English will be required (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/14/david-cameron-immigration-speech-full-text).
However, actions will forever speak louder than words, and an ounce of practice is worth tons of preaching. So if there is an argument to be had on language acquisition and social cohesion, then the Government have made clear where their allegiance lies, and it is not with social cohesion. From September this year, ministers from the Con-Dem government seek to cut back on public funding of English for speakers of other languages (ESOL). Under these proposed rules, the state will limit free places to people on active benefits only. For those who claim other benefits, such as housing, income support or tax credits, free places will no longer be available. This is destined to leave thousands of new immigrant families, desperately scraping for a living on low wages, without any professional help in language acquisition.
To suggest that the prior knowledge of English requirement is to increase social cohesion is interestingly juxtaposed with Helen Carter’s The Guardian report of the reaction to the speech in Whalley Range, Manchester. The area is densely populated and is home to ethnic groups originating from the Caribbean, the Indian subcontinent and Africa, whilst there is still a prominent white population - making it a good example of multiculturalism in action (an ideal that, in February, Cameron said had failed in the UK). One man claims ‘‘I don't see why people won't be welcome in this country unless they learn English", pointing to the fact that many English nationals migrate to Europe without much desire to learn the native language. Another claims that “the majority of immigrants will learn English anyway”, and describes Cameron’s speech as a joke (Carter, Helen; http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/15/immigration-david-cameron).
For the majority of people in inner city areas, language is not a barrier to integration and cultural understanding. Rather, a sense of commonality of situation has forged strong connections transcending racial or ethnic boundaries.
Instead of re-enforcing these bonds, Cameron’s speech evoked memories of Enoch Powell’s classically racist ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, by stating that the ‘largest influx’ of immigrants in British history is threatening society, and linking immigrant unwillingness to ‘integrate’ as a source of uneasiness for British people. While setting out a plan for the future of immigration, Cameron suggested that figures in tune with those from the 1980s would be more appropriate. This is certainly an interesting proposal, as it is difficult to think of a more socially cohesive moment in British history than the 1980s, when the National Front never existed and the Brixton and Moss Side riots never happened. Whether it is the Prime Minister’s aims to directly incite such racial tensions would be difficult to prove, but the connotations make interesting reading. As do the remarks on immigrant’s blocking social cohesion through reluctance to learn English; a shared language is important for social relations, but lacking it is a threat to the minority themselves, not the established hegemony.
There is a certain consistency in this speech – it is one that has belonged to every government that adheres to neoliberal principles; it is a response to the burgeoning movement of a united working class, that is forming a strong multicultural bloc in resistance to the policies of the Government. The re-laying of the ‘woeful’ state of the British welfare system in connection with immigration, which Cameron sees as being ‘two sides of the same coin’, is evidence of a government threatened by the rise of a multicultural working class. The point made here is that immigration will always be a problem in a Britain where there is a welfare system in place that allows ‘British people’ not to work, thus creating jobs for immigrant populations;
“The real issue is this: migrants are filling gaps in the labour market left wide open by a welfare system that for years has paid British people not to work.”
The message rings loud and clear to white British people – ‘immigration is high because you are lazy. We won’t allow you to be lazy anymore so get up and fight for those jobs back...’, ‘What jobs?’, ‘Ah...but you miss the point...’.
It is no new phenomenon to see a Prime Minister using immigration to attempt to divide and conquer the working class, it is the pre-packed scapegoat. It comes now at a time when working class conservatism is drifting alarmingly to the far right and it is a clear plea by a party that needs those votes back.
“Put simply, we will never control immigration properly unless we tackle welfare dependency.”
Flipping the Script
Much has been made of the positives and negatives of perceived ‘good’ and ‘bad’ migration. What is almost always forgotten in such debates is that value added judgements on immigration is making those judgements on immigrants themselves. Thus, speaking negatively on immigration assumes those negative points on all immigrants, who are in fact as different and as unique as any other human being (Bralo, Zrinka; http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/15/immigration-david-cameron).
The Prime Minister’s speech on Thursday spoke of immigration with the same classical negative perception and fear mongering;
“Between 1997 and 2009, 2.2 million more people came to live in this country than left to live abroad. That's the largest influx of people Britain as ever had…and it has placed real pressures on communities up and down the country. Not just pressures on schools, housing and healthcare...but social pressures too.”
This line is being used deliberately to force a wedge between all those who are now being abused by government policies, and at the same time detracts from the real problems regarding housing, unemployment and social mobility: there are not half a million immigrants entering Britain each day, but there are half a million jobs being cut by Government.
Further, the idea put across that some immigrants are more deserving than others is indeed a tragic indictment on the ‘freedom’ of this country. A person’s future happiness and stability should not be determined by where they happened to be born, or where their heritage lies, or indeed what language they speak. The pursuit of safety and stability for immigrants and asylum applicants are constantly derailed by the Home Office and the UKBA. A propaganda speech like this aims to make white British people think that immigration is to blame for their social and economic woes, and, in the process, compromise their ability to realise the revolutionary capabilities of a united, multicultural and multiethnic tide.
Jonny Benett, 27th April
Click here for our Big Society campaign page