Home page The theory & practice of Brownology After just two months as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown is settling in and slowly but surely he has begun to improve his personal communications. He still tends to run off longer answers than expected by interviewers since he on occassions is explaining hidden detail. On the other hand when it comes to policy issues he continues to be quite repetitive and will often repeat the same list of policy objectives or assumed successes to several different questions. This, for people listening or watching interviews can be quite off putting. The trick here is for Gordon Brown to have a very short list and then an elaboration list of specific explanations and angles. Angles are the way in which a specific policy or government action addresses something the interviewer, for example, is not raising or perhaps does not appear to understand. The key to communication in this sense is not to be seen to be repeating the same long list. In an interview on Sunday, 23rd September, 2007, with Andrew Marr ahead of the Labour Party Conferenceone one could see these two aspects of Brownology. On the question of the recent financial crisis which was encapsulated in the woes of the mortgage lender Northern Rock, Gordon Brown approached his answers from several angles and in the end provided a very convincing response which essentially strengthened the government's image of competence in the management of the economy. The topic of Education and the National Health Service were somewhat glossed over and were less convincing given that insufficient emphasis was placed on why is it that no British government seems to have been capable of resolving the outstanding issues and in the case of this government, after investing unprecdented amounts of money. Gordon Brown here has learned an old trick used by governments approaching international organizations and funding agencies where in order to deflect the gaze from current failures they come up with proposals for the "next and better stage". The black hole of immigration In marked contrast to his handling of the questions on the financial crisis Gordon Brown began to stumble badly on the question on immigration. The reason for this impression was that he was responding with a proposed solution, a formula based upon Australian practice, using a points system to control the influx of qualified immigrants. Australia is not in the European Union and has not undertaken to allow an unrestricted flow of labour and capital within some single market. Gordon Brown avoided the burning question that there are in excess of 1 million "unknown" immigrants from the new European Union member states here under the "self-employed category" loophole. How Labour power has relied on immigration But there are sound reasons why a leader of the Labour Party woiuld not wish to disturb this trend which is causing considerable upset in many English communities because of the overwhelming influx of foreigners. Historically, the Labour Party has sustained its position in England largely on the basis of the vote of immigrants. This included, initially, a significant support from the Irish from the Irish Republic who can vote in the United Kingdom. Indeed, many such Irish were important supporters of the creation of the Labour Party in Scotland. These have also included the Commonwealth immigrants who came in after the second world war and more recently the less controlled influx from EU member states. Helping immigration It is the easiest game in the world to "support immigrants" who are benefiting from an improvement in their standard of living without in fact doing much to assist them. Immigrants are particularly vulnerable to being influenced in favour of those political parties who do not create problems for them and there is a natural gravitation towards those political parties who are neutral or understanding of their circumstances and thereby bolster their confidence and presence within society. Labour has always been a deft operator in this field in England contrary to the Conservatives. Low cost housing and the property ladder The Labour Party's concern with "low cost housing" is geared not only to the British and mainly English population but also to new immigrants. By way of example, people from Poland working in the United Kingdom and who have come here in the last 3 years now exceed 1 million. This figure is based on industry estimates in the construction and packing sectors and their accompanying family members. Increasing numbers, with their children enjoying a British education, are considering remaining and settling in the United Kingdom. This suggests that something like 50% of the current Government new housing commitments of some 210,000 units within the next three years could be taken up by Polish immigrants alone. Incompetence or dishonesty? The issue of immigration problems is not as Government ministers wish to emphasise, something which can be managed through stronger immigration controls and or Blue Cards for skilled workers. The majority of immigration to the UK is and will come to an increasing degree from Central and Eastern Europe. This is because British governments have signed up to various European treaties and regulations, without involving the British public in such decisions. As a result both the Conservative and the Labour parties have contributed to a situation over which British Governments have no control because of poor decision making based upon a theoretical concept of the free flow of labour which in practice is upsetting communities. All political parties have on this aspects of closer union in Europe failed to give adequate thought to the subsequent government responsiblities and in particular upholding the rights of the current population. The economic impact of immigration The British government has initiated an offensive to argue the benefits of immigration through a Home Office document1 stating that the economy benefits to the tune of £6 billion per annum from the impact of immigration assuming a 0.5% contribution to working age population. This seems to be an underestimate of the true size of the working population concerned and to a large extent the dependency ratio of such workers is higher with some immigrant familes having three to four children against the less than two for average British families. As a result there is a disproportionate diversion of public resources into government provisions for these immigrants. At a time when the cash flow of the Government budget is decreasing this is a potentially perilous situation for the Government since the only option open to Government is more stealth taxes. Immigrant right to vote Something which is becoming an explosive topic and therefore it not even whispered in party conferences is that under existing European Law, which takes precedence over British Law, any citizen of the European member state may vote and stand as candidates in municipal elections where they are resident and of which they are not nationals (Council Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994). These include those who: are European Union citizens, i.e. persons with the nationality of a Member State of the European Union (EU); are resident in the Member State where they would like to vote or stand as a candidate; comply with the conditions imposed by the national legislation of the Member State of residence on its nationals concerning the right to vote and stand in municipal elections. The principle of equality and non-discrimination between national and Community voters and candidates must be observed (European citizens to satisfy the same conditions as nationals of the Member State of residence). In order to take part in elections, citizens must apply to be entered in the electoral roll of the Member State of residence as an expression of their interest in voting. The Member States must make the necessary arrangements to enable them to be entered on the electoral roll in due time before polling day. CybaCity has noted that some members of the Labour Party are recommending a change to European Law, and therefore British Law, so as to enable citizens of European Member States to also participate in general elections in the United Kingdom. So far this interest has not received much publicity in the British media. This right to vote issue, amongst others, is one of the a reasons the Labour Party does not wish to encourage public questions, especially in England, on the considerable disruption of social comity caused by the current intensity of immigration and, in particular, involving citizens of the European Union. There is a subtle and intentional confusion created by the mixing of discussions on immigrants from non-EU member states and those from EU member states. The big issue in fact is immigrants from member states who have recently joined the EU. There have been suggestions that Gordon Brown's "commitment" to low cost housing is also with an eye on the European Union immigrants and workers; the location of such housing projects would be of critical importance to the success of Labour Party strategic plans to convert marginal Labour constituencies in England into "safe" seats over the medium term. Immigrants of voting age, including those from the EU, now total around 2.75 million and this is equivalent to some 40 English consituencies. In terms of the conversion of marginal seats into safer Labour seats this vote, if distrbuted tactically, could perhaps swing 60 constituencies towards Labour (10% of the total in England). Thus, with the West Lothian effect on the one hand (see "What was the West Lothian Question, and why is it important?")and the immigration vote impact on the other, the Labour Party can consolidate its decision-making power in Parliament to impose legislation on the English population without increasing its electoral support amongst the English electorate. This links in with the other Labour Party strategy related to their support of the European Union's "regionalization" which was sold as devolution in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and as "regionalization" in England and concentrated on those areas where the Labour Party was well represented (see "You can't fool all of the English all of the time") The politically correct argument is all about the "economic contribution" of immigration but the main public complaint is that the too-fast pace of change is resulting social disruption; this does not interest the politicians. The other politically correct but amazingly a misrepresentation of the facts is that the United Kingdom has always advanced and been strengthened through immigration. This is bascially not true and there is little economic evidence to support this contention (see "A Nation of Immigrants?"). The marginalization of the population Indeed, the gaping hole in the Marr-Brown interview was the failure to address the issue of the participation of the people of Britain in deciding on such commitments, and others, related to the European Union. In previous interviews on this question, and specifically that of the referendum on the Amending Treaty (re-named constitution), Gordon Brown was not convincing. Others such can David Milliband have tried to argue the case that there is no constitution. This is a disingenuous and slightly absurd position for a British minister to take in Britain where historically our constitution is made up of many separate written documents, court decisions and previous European treaties, none of which is "called" a constitution. On the question of promoting democracy by bringing about a full participation of the people of Britain in decisions which affect them, Brownology is fundamentally flawed in theory and in practice. Indeed, all leaders of all British political parties are completely unconvincing on this issue (see "Britain's anachronistic political parties" and see "Tam Dalyell, where are you?"). The Balkanization of England? The uncontrolled disruption of social comity in England promoted by political party inaction and the preventing of the people of the country to have a greater say in the evolution of their own society is what happened in Hungary during the 19th Century and this lead, under the Trianon agrrement in 1920/21 to the break up on Hungary into many different countries each characterised by populations of former immigrants. The important lesson was that Hungary had tried to enforce assimilation as Gordon Brown is now suggesting. However, at the rate at which the influx is occuring the feasibility of assimulation is low. The only solution, it would seem, is to reduce immigration from the European Union member states. Posted: 23rd September, 2007.