Wednesday, 23 November 2022

Starmer in tune with Labour's immanent xenophobia

 Many people will have seen Sir Keir's speech to British business yesterday as a betrayal of liberal values within the Labour party. The truth is that these have only ever formed a thin veneer on the main body of the party which has always been suspicious of foreigners. One can go back to the Attlee government, so progressive in many ways, which refused to have anything to do with the incipient European common market, in spite of advocacy from Winston Churchill. Wartime restrictions on movement of aliens, including Irish, were not lifted until after the 1951 general election which saw Conservatives returned to power. Later, as a Guardian article lays out:

Home Secretary Callaghan introduced the 1968 Commonwealth Immigrants Act, which placed British immigration policy on an overtly racial footing.

This act also created the phenomenon of human "shuttlecocks". Families, having left east Africa, spent weeks in airport transit lounges as they were shuttled from airport to airport because they could not get into the UK in spite of being British citizens.

The practice of denying citizens entry into the European country whose passport they held was eventually ruled unlawful by the European Court of Justice.

In 1969 Callaghan's amendment to the Immigration Appeals Act removed the possibility of making an effective appeal from those the act was ostensibly meant to benefit. He also introduced a measure preventing British women living with their foreign or Commonwealth-born husbands in the UK.

The 1971 Immigration Act enacted by the Tories was largely drafted by Labour when in power and consolidated the racial basis of immigration policy. It also had the effect of making people who had entered the country legally, illegal immigrants, retrospectively. This meant that they could be removed without any recourse to a court of law.

One wonders whether his war against the import of unqualified labour extends to the speculators from the US, Russia and elsewhere who have done so much damage to the City of London's reputation. Or, is he, like Peter Mandelson happy about the filthy rich as long as they pay some tax?

No comments: