Monday, 15 July 2013

'Color (sic) Run' invades Wembley


I got back to Wembley yesterday evening after spending the day at the wonderful Kilburn Festival to find remnants of the so called 'Color Run' still out on the streets. Immediately irritated by the US spelling and the Dulux sponsorship I looked in vain for any evidence that it raises money for a good cause.

It is an international phenomenon which started in the United States where winning is not the objective - instead runners get covered in coloured powder after each kilometre and take part in a party and clean up at the end.

I prefer the Kilburn Festival. (grump)

Sunday, 14 July 2013

Butt unwelcome at Tulip victory

Tulip Siddiq won a decisive victory in the Hampstead and Kilburn Labour Party selection vote today.

Her victory was preceded by the ritualistic(and highly symbolic)  head-butting of a housing protester, who was wearing a Unite T-shirt, by someone who was thought to be a member of the Labour Party.

Does this report REALLY tackle Brent's housing crisis?

Click on image to enlarge
A report going before the Brent Executive on Monday July 15th lays bare the extent of Brent's housing extent and how it has been exacerbated by the Coalition's changes to benefits.

The graph shows that Brent has been much more affected by landlords ending tenancies than our neighbouring boroughs. 47%of homeless acceptances in 2012-13 were homeless due to the ending of a private letting in the wake of the changes in the Local Housing Allowance. The private rented sector itself continues to grow with 31,784 households living in private rented accommodation in the 2011 Census, compared with 17,043 in 2001. The sector accounted for 28.8% of Brent households.

Unmet demand for housing assistance stands at 10,366 households. This excludes those on Band D who are assessed by the Council Allocations Scheme as having no housing need.

Current demand on the Housing Register, including the homeless in temporary accommodation and those on the Transfer list is just over 19,000 households. In contrast the Council expect to make just 844 lettings of permanent social housing tenancies by the end of 2013-14.


These are allocated thus:

Looking ahead the Report notes the pressures that will be experienced:

1. Local Housing Allowance changes will continue to impact and make it harder for the Council to procure private rented accommodation as landlords will be unwilling to 'engage with tenants in recipet of benefits'.
2. The changes in LHA payable to single people under 35, which limits payment to a single room in a shared house, will mean they will find it increasingly difficult to find accommodation in the private rented sector.
3. From 12th August 2013, over a five week period, the Overall Benefit Cap will limit the total amount of benefit payable to a non-working couple or a single parent to £500 per week, and £350 per week for a non-working single person. The OBC was expected to impact on 2,700 Brent households, but some have taken measures so as to be exempted and the DWP assesses the total as 2,267 now. The bulk of these are in temporary accommodation or the private rented sector.
4. The Bedroom Tax will reduce benefit for rent  for social housing tenants by 14% (average £17.50 pw) with one 'spare room; and 25% (average £32.66 pw) for those with two 'spare rooms'.
5. Many households will be making a minimum contribution of Council Tax for the first time when they are also faced with  financial pressure from other welfare reforms.
6. The DWP is predicting that approximately 40% of claimants currently receiving Disability Living Allowance will not qualify to receive the replacement Personal Independence Allowances. The report notes: 'these claimants will be a high priority for receiving support from the council to cope with changes in circumstances' as receipt of DLA by a member of a household previously exempted them from  the Overall Benefit Cap and Council Tax charge.

The consequences of all this, the report says, is that families are likely to live in over-crowded and poor quality accommodation in the borough rather than move out to cheaper and better quality accommodation outside Brent. 'Unscrupulous' landlords may take advantage of families affected by Welfare Reform by refusing to deal with disrepair issues, knowing that the families will be reluctant to report them for fear of losing their accommodation. Brent Council has therefore drafted a Private Housing Action Plan to deal with these issues.

The report confirms actions already approved by the council including:

1. The introduction of fixed term tenancies by the council with partner housing providers determining their own policies as long as they are 'broadly consistent with the council's priorities'.
2 To use Flexible Tenancies (fixed term tenancies at either social or affordable rent) on the same basis as approved for other social landlords.
3. Introductory or starter tenancies of 12 months will be used for all new tenants in concert with fixed-term tenancies as relevant, 'Five years normally but with shorter and/or longer periods for specified groups/circumstances'.
4. Changes in the Allocation Scheme which means the residence qualification is established through living in Brent at the time of application and continually throughout the last five years. (NB this is a tightening of the previous proposal of living in Brent for three of the last five years).
5. The definition of 'living in unsuitable accommodation', which gives priority under the Alllocation Scheme will be tightened so that 'households with only minor disrepair issues are not being given priority for rehousing'.
6. Households who are over crowded by 'just one room' should not automatically be given priority in the new scheme - each case will be considered 'on its individual merits;.

The Mutual Exchange scheme, originally aimed at providing an incentive to 'under-occupiers' to downsize as as a result of the bedroom tax, will be extended to cover for example those over retirement age who are not affected by the current benefit changes.

The maximum payment for someone wishing to downsize would be £1,000 plus assistance wit removal costs and access to a handyman service. Full payment would be made for a 'perfect fit' exchange and pro rata for others.

It does seem to me that while the Private Housing Action Plan to protect private rented tenants is welcome much of the report is really fiddling while Rome burns. Changing definitions and tenancy arrangements is not dealing with the underlying issue which is a shortage of social housing and the failure (cf Quintain Wembley Regeneration, Willesden Green Library development, Queensbury development, and the Bridge Park/Unisys development) to build truly affordable housing.

The full report can be found HERE

Gary Younge's censored article: Open season on black boys after a verdict like this

Requests are circulating across the internet for the sharing of this article by Gary Younge that the Guardian has decided not to publish.
    Calls for calm after George Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin are empty words for black families

    Let it be noted that on this day, Saturday 13 July 2013, it was still deemed legal in the US to chase and then shoot dead an unarmed young black man on his way home from the store because you didn't like the look of him.

    The killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last year was tragic. But in the age of Obama the acquittal of George Zimmerman offers at least that clarity. For the salient facts in this case were not in dispute. On 26 February 2012 Martin was on his way home, minding his own business armed only with a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles. Zimmerman pursued him, armed with a 9mm handgun, believing him to be a criminal. Martin resisted. They fought. Zimmerman shot him dead.

    Who screamed. Who was stronger. Who called whom what and when and why are all details to warm the heart of a cable news producer with 24 hours to fill. Strip them all away and the truth remains that Martin's heart would still be beating if Zimmerman had not chased him down and shot him.

    There is no doubt about who the aggressor was here. The only reason the two interacted at all, physically or otherwise, is that Zimmerman believed it was his civic duty to apprehend an innocent teenager who caused suspicion by his existence alone.

    Appeals for calm in the wake of such a verdict raise the question of what calm there can possibly be in a place where such a verdict is possible. Parents of black boys are not likely to feel calm. Partners of black men are not likely to feel calm. Children with black fathers are not likely to feel calm. Those who now fear violent social disorder must ask themselves whose interests are served by a violent social order in which young black men can be thus slain and discarded.

    But while the acquittal was shameful it was not a shock. It took more than six weeks after Martin's death for Zimmerman to be arrested and only then after massive pressure both nationally and locally. Those who dismissed this as a political trial (a peculiar accusation in the summer of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden) should bear in mind that it was politics that made this case controversial.

    Charging Zimmerman should have been a no-brainer. He was not initially charged because Florida has a "stand your ground" law whereby deadly force is permitted if the person "reasonably believes" it is necessary to protect their own life, the life of another or to prevent a forcible felony.

    Since it was Zimmerman who stalked Martin, the question remains: what ground is a young black man entitled to and on what grounds may he defend himself? What version of events is there for that night in which Martin gets away with his life? Or is it open season on black boys after dark?

    Zimmerman's not guilty verdict will be contested for years to come. But he passed judgement on Trayvon that night summarily.

    "Fucking punks," Zimmerman told the police dispatcher that night. "These assholes. They always get away."

    So true it's painful. And so predictable it hurts.

Saturday, 13 July 2013

Copland cull continues

The cudgels are out at Copland Community School as the new head and deputy act fast and furious before the end of the term.

I understand that 30 or so staff have already taken voluntary redundancy, some under the implied threat of capability procedures for not delivering 'Outstanding' or 'Good' lessons, if they did not accept the offer - but now a second front has opened.

Heads of Faculty have apparently been asked to submit names of two members of staff  who they wouldn't  mind losing. As in the best gangster movies when they don't produce the two names it is suggested that they go instead. This appears to have been effective in some cases as teachers have suddenly, apparently without reference to agreed procedures, been invited to Formal Capability Interviews.

The question arises as to whether not following the agreed procedures is itself a capability issue.

How this will leave the staffing situation in September 2013, and again in January 2013, is anyone's guess but resignations and redundancies will produce vacancies that will be difficult to fill in the present climate at the school unless huge incentives are offered.

But then the school has not got the money and anyway  it does not have a very good record in terms of incentives and bonuses...


Decision day tomorrow for Tulip, Sally and Sophie in Hampstead and Kilburn contest


Labour Party members in the Hampstead and Kilburn constituency will be voting for the successor to Glenda Jackson as parliamentary candidate. Voters will include some some from Brent wards as the constituency straddles the Kilburn High Road.

Tulip Siddiq has not only been endorsed by Muhammed Butt (photo above) but by other Brent Executive members included Ruth Moher, James Denselow, Michael Pavey and Roxanne Mashari. However this line up is put in the shade by none other than Lord Melvyn Bragg of Hampstead Town who has done so much to bore the nation into submission every Thursday morning on Radio Four.


Clearly mindful of the enormous contribution to local politics and mobile phone sales by  Brent's own youthful Cllr Krupa Sheth (photo above), Bragg says:
Her comparative youth is a great asset to a party which more than ever seeks and needs change. She could be a distinctive presence at Westminster.
Not content with just one Lord, Siddiq pulls in none less than Lord Kinnock (still keen to use five words where one will do)  who says:
Tulip embodies everything that is best about young Labour people – she is energetic,conscientious,highly intelligent,approachable and determined to combat prejudice and injustice anywhere and everywhere.
Her sense of judgement is firm and mature and her commitment to public service is total.
Phew! But I mustn't be prejudiced against her she clearly does have some experience and I have heard that even a grizzled old South Kilburn Estate resident and veteran trade unionist has muttered into his beard that he  might vote for her as the best of  'a poor bunch'! However her claim to have 'saved' Camden's libraries has been controversial among her doubters.
 
I do however have an uneasy feeling that this emphasis on youth in an all-women contest is a bit like the controversy surrounding the BBC and women newsreaders. Youth has become a bit of a fetish with Brent Labour since the victory of the 'Young Turks' in the Executive elections and it could lead them astray.

Earlier this week Siddiq was the subject of an alleged 'smear' campaign when an email was sent around about her family's  involvement in Bangladeshi politics and even President Putin made a guest appearance! LINK


In contrast Sally Gimson (above) has no Brent endorsements, unless you include Kate Osamor  who is said to be interested in the Brent Central nomination. She does have one Lord, Lord Willy Bach, Justice Shadow in the House of Lords who knew her when she was parliamnetary candidate in South Leicestershire:
As CLP Chair I was in a good position to see how outstanding a candidate she was; hard working, great with people, articulate on the doorstep, fun to work with, and above all putting Labour’s case across.
Her endorsements are strong on the NHS and education with many having known her through her children from when they were in Reception Class. She clearly has strong roots in the local community in Hampstead.

Luca Salice, Chair of Camden Chairs and Governors Forum says:
Sally and I had our political disagreements which Sally always handled with frankness, good humour, friendship and good sense. Sally is politically astute and conscious of strategic priorities while aware of the personal and emotional implications of individual decisions. I am sure that Sally will be a first-rate Labour candidate for this marginal seat and will work hard to win Labour votes amongst those who never voted for us or who have abandoned us over the years.
Interestingly Pat Callaghan, Camden Cabinet member for Adult Social Care, endorses both of the above candidates.


The third candidate, Sophie Linden, from Hackney is endorsed by a Lord, Lord Stanley Clinton, but also by  Margaret Hodge MP and David Blunkett. Linden refers to supporting the anti-apartheid struggle and CND in her youth and is endorsed by Bruce Kent:
I warmly endorse Sophie Linden as a Parliamentary candidate. She has hands on grass roots political experience,plenty of vision and ideals and is a hard worker. We need more of her calibre in Parliament.
Blunkett emphasises her experience as an adviser on Education and the Home Office during the  Labour Government.

Linden is backed by several people from Brent including Larry Adebola who says:
I am backing Sophie because what really matters to the people of Hampstead and Kilburn is the lack of affordable house and unemployment. We need a committed and determined candidate who will tackle these issues head on. When I put these issues to Sophie I was impressed by her knowledge and what she wants to do about the issues."
As a Labour outsider there did not appear to be very much difference between the canddiate sin terms of policies but more can be found on their respective websites:

Tulip Siddiq

Sally Gimson

Sophia Linden







Homebase hammered over unpaid labour at its Willesden store


Following insider information that Willesden Homebase (now owned by Argos)  was still using unpaid labour through the Coalition's Workfare scheme it was picketed today by Brent Housing Action, Brent Fightback and Kilburn Unemployed Workers.

The protesters pointed out to customers that people should be paid at least a living wage for the job they are asked to do. Being forced to work for no pay, with the threat that benefits will be removed for non-compliance, just makes matters worse.

With the Homebase and Argos parent group, Home Retail Group, expecting £80m profit this year, they can afford to pay their workers. After all they can afford to pay their CEO £1.1m while at the same time cutting overtime and hours at its Haringey store.

At least one customer decided not to shop at Homebase after hearing the protesters' case and others reduced their purchases. One customer's children started a spontaneous chant of 'Homebase-pay your workers'. Customers were generally responsive and shared their own stories of housing and employment difficulties.

The campaign is asking people to:
  • Boycott Homebase until they agree to pay staff properly
  • Speak to the manager of the Willesden branch and say you don't agree with them using unpaid labour
  • Contact Homebase HQ on 0845 603 6677 or 01908 692 301 or info@homebase.co.uk



Natalie Bennett speaks out on immigration as Teather laments the three party consensus

Sarah Teather, Lib Dem MP for Brent Central makes the front page of the Guardian today, with her criticism of the main main parties on immigration LINK:
Teather, whose Brent Central seat is an area of high poverty and immigration, said her decision to speak out was motivated only by concern that all three main parties had "seen the same opinion polls", and were chasing the anti-immigrant vote with no regard for the consequences. She said: "It's got to a stage where you almost can't say anything else. It's almost unacceptable to say anything else, and that bothers me that there is a consensus among the three party leaders.

"It's stifling the rest of the debate, making people afraid to speak. If you get to a stage where there is no alternative voice, eventually democracy's just going to break down."
Coincidently, Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party did exactly that yesterday, in a trenchant, principled and informed speech given at the Romanian Cultural  Institute. I reproduce it below and am grateful to Bright Greens for bringing it to my attention LINK:


This month, the Home Office, working under the direction of our Tory-Liberal Democrat Government, put out a report on the impact of immigration. It conducted a survey of local authorities and service providers, and found that the presence of immigrants was likely to lead to longer waiting times at GP surgeries, pressure on the number of primary school places due to the tendency of migrants to have more children than the native-born population and “poor quality, overcrowded acommodation, inflated rents, exploitations by unscrupulous landlords…”

Exactly the same data could have been taken, and looked at differently. Longer waiting times at GP surgeries – that reflects the failure of the government to provide adequate investment in the cost-effective, efficient publicly owned NHS, and the disruption caused by the wholesale, top-down reorganisation of the organisation by the current and previous governments, despite their lack of a mandate for the act.
Pressure on primary school places – the failure to make adequate provision for the known number of children, and the misdirection of money into areas where there isn’t need due to the ideological attachment of the Education Secretary to “free” schools.

Poor quality, overcrowded accommodation and exploitation – Britain’s longterm failure to build adequate housing, particularly social housing, and failure to regulate landlords and letting agents, to the point where protests against their abstractions are growing.

In short, it’s simple, the government is scapegoating immigrants instead of acknowledging its own failings and that of the former Labour government.

They are taking the understandable anger of the British public at the shortage and high cost of housing, at the underfunding of public transport and health services, at struggle to find a school place for your child, and trying to direct that to one group of British people.

It’s pernicious, it’s dangerous, and it needs to be challenged.

You might expect the Labour opposition to be standing up to this scapegoating, but no, instead they are pandering to it. The Labour Party has not apologised for taking Britain into the Iraq War, has not apologised for failing to regulate the bankers, has not apologised for the fact that inequality rose in its 13 years in power – but it has apologised for its immigration policy while in government.

But back to today… The Telegraph newspaper quoted Mark Harper, the immigration minister, as saying of the study: “It emphasises the importance of protecting our public services and taking a robust approach against those who come here to exploit our welfare system.”

I entirely agree with the first half of that sentence – although unfortunately this government is, through its policy of austerity and ideological attachment to privatisation, cutting a giant swathe through our essential services.

The second half of the sentence – well it is a total non sequiteur, since the survey was not about benefits, but worse, much worse, a misleading claim.
We’ve seen much focus in recent months from this government about the claim that immigrants are attracted to Britain by benefits. There is simply no evidence of this claim.

You don’t have to just believe me, you can go to the European Commission, not known for picking fights with member governments, which has accused Home Secretary Theresa May of inventing the problem of welfare tourism without providing any proof that EU foreign nationals are abusing free movement rules to claim benefits.

And as for asylum-seekers, research commissioned by the Home Office concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that they had detailed knowledge about the UK benefits system – when fleeing persecution, they usually go where events take them, and when they do seek out Britain, it is usually because they already have family or friends here. And Britain is not especially a target. In 2011, the UK received 25,500 asylum applicants. France gets twice as many – and Britain is 14th out of 27 when looking at asylum seekers per head of population.

The deconstruction of this report is no academic exercise. It’s a critical issue of political debate in Britain.

The facts of immigration

First, it’s important to set the facts straight. It’s very easy to follow the rhetoric of the government and the rightwing media, and think that immigration is one of Britain’s chief problems. Or that immigration has entirely changed the face and culture of Britain.

A study out this week found that generally, Britons think 31 per cent of the population is recent immigrants. In fact the figure is 13% – representing about 7.5 million people. Black and Asian people are thought to make up 30 per cent of the population, when the figure is closer to 11 per cent.

Turn the lens around, and about 5.5 million British people live in other countries around the globe. So the overall scale of exchange isn’t that far off balanced.
Second, it’s important to acknowledge the contribution of immigrants to Britain. The NHS could not operate without immigrant workers. Our social care system, and our education system are significantly dependent on immigrant workers.

If you measure this in financial terms, migrants make a significant net contribution to their funding through their tax and national insurance contributions. They make a net contribution to the UK economy of £3 billion. Because they are often young, healthy, and skilled, their use of public services is limited – much lower than that of the general population.

But of course their contribution isn’t only through employment, whether they are young or old. The grandmother who moves to Britain to be with her family – she might be providing childcare, or she might simply be providing the solidity, the knowledge, the experience of a lifetime. The partner who moves to Britain to be a “house husband” brings not only time and love, but also the cultural experience of a different life experience. The foreign student brings to their local course a whole host of different experiences, knowledge and skills to their local classmates, to the enrichment of all.

The political climate

So where is this attack on immigrants coming from? Politically, the answer is clear. Recently, I had the “pleasure” of being on Question Time with UKIP leader Nigel Farage.

He said there were 80,000 Romanians in Britain, and that the Metropolitan Police made nearly 30,000 Romanian arrests in the last five years. As a smear, it has clearly been effective, and often used.

Actually the figure for Romanians in Britain is, based on the Labour Force Survey, there are around 102,000 Romanians are Britain. That’s at one point in time, the end of 2012.

The arrest figures are over five years – and are actually less than 28,000. And they are only arrests – not individuals. And they undoubtedly include some tourists, not included in the resident figures. Undoubtedly there are some individuals arrested multiple times – and arrests are not charges, not convictions … and we are talking over five years.

The figures around broadly accurate in each individual case, but their manner of assembly deeply dishonest, deeply misleading, and deeply dangerous.

I am speaking today in the Romanian Cultural Institute – and I know that there is offence and worry in Romania about the way it’s people have been painted in Britain, by Mr Farage, by our rightwing media. I can only apologise.

Yet this toxic, dangerous rhetoric from UKIP is not being challenged – instead it is being pandered to. We have in Britain a “race to the bottom” on immigration rhetoric.

Less than two in 10 people in Britain think that immigration is a problem in their local area, but about three quarters are in favour of reducing immigration. That’s the product of this rhetoric.

Genuine, reasonable concerns, wrongly directed

We need to acknowledge people’s real concerns about their standards of living, the future of their children, the problems of housing, of public services, of unemployment and low wages, but we need to lay the blame where it truly lies, not casually, cruelly, dangerously, blame immigrants.

About one in ten new jobs goes to an immigrant. And we have a minimum wage which should be a floor under a balanced labour market. Yet this is inadequately enforced, too low (well below the living wage level at which it should be set), and firms are being allowed to increasingly use zero-hours contracts and forced casualization to provide jobs that no one can build a life on. This is an issue of labour market regulation, not immigration.

We need to acknowledge too that people, particularly in the South of England, are feeling crowded. The London Tube too often feels like you might imagine a sardine in a can does. Traffic congestion is a huge problem, and a huge health threat. Housing cost inflation is out of control.

But there are also a million empty homes in Britain, whole streets and even suburbs tormented by depopulation in the North of England. The congestion comes not due to immigration, but the failure of regional development policy to spread prosperity across the whole of the UK, not just concentrate it in London and environs.

And there is of course grave concern about Britain’s environmental impact on the world. We’re living a “three planet” lifestyle, when we only have one earth. But was Green Party policy makes clear, what we have to talk about is our ecological footprint – we need to get back within the planet’s limits, but that’s true not just of the UK, but the world.

Immigration cap

The government has established an effective immigration cap – promising that net immigration would be reduced “to tens of thousands” by the end of this parliament. Of course this ignores the fact that it has no control whatsoever over one side of this equation – immigration from Britain, the product of a whole host of individual circumstances.

More, it is promising that those coming into Britain will almost all be “the brightest and the best”.

In a speech this month, Tory MP Liam Fox said the government should “have a really good look at the type of people who will benefit our country and help generate wealth and prosperity”. “Nobody should assume they have the right to come to our country because they have relatives already here” – so there goes the right to a family life, acknowledged as a human right…

And more, there’s an important question to be asked about the value judgements here – is a hedge fund trader, who might have a high income, really more valuable than a carer, an arms company executive really more valuable than a beloved grandma? I don’t believe so – indeed the New Economics Foundation did an excellent study showing that for every £1 they are paid, childcare workers generate between £7 and £9.50 worth of benefits to society. By contrast a city banker destroys £7 of social value for every pound they generate.

The impact of the changes

Net migration fell to 153,000 in 2012, from 242,000 the previous year. The number of immigrants coming to Britain fell from 581,000 to 500,000, while the number of migrants leaving the country was up from 339,000 to 347,000.

But asked by  BBC to explain, the Institute of Public Policy Research think tank said this was “in large part” due to a drop in the numbers of international students, with “considerable economic cost” – estimated at £2-3 billion/year (conservatively).

You might expect the Labour Party to be highlighting, focusing on that cost, that loss of fees for our universities, the loss of opportunities for home students to study with a rich range of fellow students, but no, Labour welcomed the fall, saying the “pace and scale of immigration” had been too high. And shadow immigration minister Chris Bryant added that the government, “is not doing enough on illegal immigration, failing to deport, failing to prevent absconding”.

Family reunion

The tightest of the toughening of government rules has been in family reunion visas – we now have among the toughest rules in Europe.

Any British citizen who wants to sponsor his or her non-EU spouse’s visa has to be able to prove that they earn at least £18,600 a year – 47 percent of the British working population last year would have failed to meet the income level for sponsorship. The amount rises to £22,400 to sponsor a child and an additional £2,400 for each further child.)

By the government’s own estimate, almost 18,000 British people will be prevented from being reunited with their spouse or partner in the UK annually as a result of the new rules.

Pick up your local paper and you’ll often read these stories – individuals who’ve made relationships, formed ties, and are understandly bemused, confused, angered, that they can’t live together as a couple, can’t even care for their children in their home country. We are failing these individuals – failing our society by creating this situation.

These rules are unconscionable. They are unfair and arbitrary. And they must be changed.

Proud tradition of asylum

I live in central London around the corner from the Somers Town Coffee House, once the haven for Hugenot refugees from France, fleeing religious persecution. It’s one visual reminder of Britain’s proud tradition of providing refuge to those who need it, particularly political refugees.

But that reputation today is under threat. It’s a subject that I’ll be speaking on another time, but one statistic is telling – in 2012, 27 per cent of initial asylum rulings were overturned on appeal.

And the Green Party has long campaigned against the failure to recognise gender aspects of persecution. The system also fails to acknowledge the persecution faced by LGBTQ people in many countries around the world.

Global damage

The impact of the rhetoric of immigration, of government policies and policies proposals, stretches far beyond immigrants, prospective immigrants and their families.

Recently the government – the Liberal Democrats to the fore – floated a trial balloon suggesting that visitors (not immigrants) from a number of states, including India, could be forced to pay a £3,000 bond, to be repaid when they left the country.

I went on a major Indian evening television show where this was a topic of debate, to explain this didn’t reflect the views of all Britons, and was almost buried under a torrent of anger. Indians were insulted, they were angry, and they were threatening not just not to visit but to withdrew investment flows into Britain. It was unsurprising that David Cameron, who recently visited India with an ‘open for business’ message, quickly reversed the policy, but damage has definitely been done.

Conclusion

In 2011, Green Party conference passed a motion opposing the government’s cap on immigration.

It said we should stop “treating those who are not native to the UK as a problem”. Today, it’s important to restate that.

The approach to immigration of the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour distracts from our real problems – the failure of George Osborne’s policy of austerity, acknowledged now even by that well-known “champion “ of government spending the International Monetary Fund, the deep damage being done to our social fabric by the government’s ideologically driven assault on our public services and the social safety net provided by benefits.

And further more, it is going to have real world, serious, even potentially deadly consequences. The declaring of open rhetorical season on migrants by the majority of our politicians is a signal. It’s a signal to the drunk man in the pub, who wants a target for his abusive tongue, and quite possibly his fists, and is now increasingly likely to find it in someone who is, or he perceives to be, an immigrant. It’s a signal to the irate woman on the overcrowded bus, ready to launch a tirade at a fellow passenger who might be an immigrant.

We have a responsibility to say “enough”. To acknowledge that we need to welcome immigrants, to regard them not as economic pawns, but people, with families, with friends, with feelings – who deserve, and must get respect, and respectful treatment.

Cultural diplomacy begins at home.