h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A new low today from the Daily Express.
http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=824

Headline 'Migrants taught how to scrounge'.

Actual story? The Britishness test that immigrants will be expected to pass will include questions on "how to claim benefits, demand equal rights, make full use of the NHS and get parental leave."

Disgraceful! Imagine letting immigrants know what their rights are, and how the British state works! And 'demanding equal rights' of all things!

If anyone doubts how bad things are at that sorry excuse for a 'newspaper' , just read that article and substitute 'Jew' for immigrant. Why did they focus on the claiming benefits aspect of the story, rather than the using the NHS, or exercising rights such as minimum wage legislation and leave. Or the bits about pubs, or how to buy a house, or how to integrate into British society.

Can there be any doubt about the politics behind stories like this, or what the underlying motivation is?

I agree that the headline is appalling. At the same time, however, the article does raise what seems to be a good point in one regard:

ÒWhat most people want from a citizenship test is that people taking it show an affinity for the country and a commitment to integrate. This test puts no responsibility on them.Ó

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatch UK, added: ÒIt is far more important that people should be aware of the history of the country than get access to the welfare state.Ó

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: ÒWhat ought to be taught to settlers is BritainÕs noble traditions of democracy, freedom of speech and tolerance.

ÒThis is at least as important as how to deal with government organisations.Ó

This certainly seems like a sensible point of view, imo.

I'm not sure what it would mean for a test to measure affinity for the country or a commitment to integrate. How might that work?

Surely it's *not* far more important for people to know their history than to know their rights. I find that hard to fathom. For example, in a UK context, if people don't know that healthcare is free (with a few qualifications), they won't access it when ill. This has serious issues for public health. If people don't know what safety net rights they have in terms of the welfare state, they're more likely to turn to crime in extremis. I've got no problem with a 'Britishness' test including some history, but not to the exclusion of much more important issues. And if we include history, which history?

Davis refers to the UK's "noble traditions of democracy, freedom of speech and tolerance". By all means lets have that included - presumably including the history of how the Tories fought the expansion of the electoral franchise every step of the way.

But the irony is that a key British trait is absent from the list - the British sense of fair play. And that's what's entirely lacking in the article, which assumes completely without evidence or argument that immigrants are (or are predominantly) scrounging, exploiting, dishonest, and manipulative.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: ÒWhat ought to be taught to settlers is BritainÕs noble traditions of democracy, freedom of speech and tolerance.

ÒThis is at least as important as how to deal with government organisations.Ó

The statements above still appear sound to me, so long as issues of rights, sense of fair play, etc. also are covered. The current emphasis seems skewed toward 'rights' at the expense of 'responsibilities.' The two should go hand in hand.

<<"skewed toward 'rights' at the expense of 'responsibilities.'">>

Have to confess I'm getting rather tired of that particular phrase.

<<"skewed toward 'rights' at the expense of 'responsibilities.'">>

Have to confess I'm getting rather tired of that particular phrase.

Bouncy, your riposte almost made me laugh out loud! Truly! Because I'd honestly never heard the phrase before and in fact was patting myself on the back for having coined quite a clever phrase! I'm not joking!

So although I'm sorry that you're getting tired of the phrase, I nevertheless believe it's a very important concept. Along with rights come responsibilities. We forget that at our peril.

Broadly on topic..

I think the press itself has a lot to answer for. Not by being bad, just by being there. Anyone else remember the Labour party conference in the early 80s? Badly dressed teachers and social workers droning on about.. hell, I've no idea, I was ten.

The point is though, that the 'old' business of what conferences did, sorting out policy, deciding on committess, little trivial things like that, aren't TV friendly. Imagine the fun the Tory press would have with the disagreements which now 'rage' behind closed doors (obviously the Tories would be in the same boat, although with a friendlier press).

I'm not sure that 24-hour TV news, which had New Labour enmeshed in spin because they were so desperate not to let stories take on a life of their own, is having a beneficial effect either.

Friendlier Press ? For the Tories ?

I'm sorry Rupert Murdoch contributes to the the Labour Party - not the Tory - and as he owns the best selling newspaper in the country, along with the major sattelite broadcaster - come into the 21st century Pedro.

I also love the idea that the Labour Party became enmeshed in spin because they didn't want stories to take on a life of their own.

That's hilarious.

Mr Blair took his lessons in spin form Bill Clinton, and his pal Mr Cambell took it to new depths.

Of course no Labour politician would say - "good day to release bad news."

"Friendlier Press ? For the Tories ?

I'm sorry Rupert Murdoch contributes to the the Labour Party - not the Tory - and as he owns the best selling newspaper in the country, along with the major sattelite broadcaster - come into the 21st century Pedro."

Oh come on McKay. Surely you cannot think that Murdoch buys into wholesale the New Labour thang in any way? Course not, it is just his papers and news organisations back winners. The actual editorial line from the Murdoch press has not changed one iota, they just need to be seen to back a winner.

If 12 months before the next election it looks like DC might win, expect Murdoch to shift. If Brown get a post leadrship jump and it looks like a 4th labour term then expect the Sun to call it for Gordon.

"Oh come on McKay. Surely you cannot think that Murdoch buys into wholesale the New Labour thang in any way? Course not, it is just his papers and news organisations back winners. The actual editorial line from the Murdoch press has not changed one iota, they just need to be seen to back a winner.

If 12 months before the next election it looks like DC might win, expect Murdoch to shift. If Brown get a post leadrship jump and it looks like a 4th labour term then expect the Sun to call it for Gordon."

Exactly. Murdoch (and therefore The Sun) always back a winner and if Labour looks lost in 2008 then Murdoch will switch allegiance to Cameron's "New Tories". Hilariously, The Sun's editorial staff apparently didn't want to back Labour in 1997 but Murdoch made them do so. This explains their "Are We Being Run By A Gay Mafia?"-type nonsense between elections.

Given how far Labour have moved to the right, it's relatively easy for Murdoch to support Labour now. One of the reasons that spin was such an issue was so important was that Labour had taken such a battering from the press during the 80s. They felt it was important that that *couldn't* happen when they were in government.

And

' Friendlier Press ? For the Tories policies ?' YES.

You forgot a word there, eh? When TB addressed Newscorp execs before the 1997 election, what do you think he said? Given that the Murdoch empire is in rude health almost 10 years later, and now effectively controls ITV as well as Sky, it probably wasn't 'Your time is up, you big Aussie-American neo-nazi ****'.

I'd guess..

The main point of my post was, is that with the media having expanded so much in the last 10-15 years, *any* government would have to pay much more attention to its image, possibly to the detriment of actually running the country.

What about the Sun volte-face on The Millenium Dome when Murdoch's daughter started dating one of the blokes (Mathew Freud) who worked for the company ?

Murdoch's relationship with New Labour goes beyond backing winners.

Do you remember Labour's promise "we will safeguard the freedom of the press and establish an urgent enquirey by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into the concentration of media ownership" ? Mr Blair soon stopped that nonsense when he took charge indeed - he condemned the Conservative Government for trying to tighten regulations on limiting the ownership of TV stations by newspaper magnates. (Who could that be ?)

Then of course there's Wessex Water- which involved Mandelson, Enron, and Irwin Stelzer - who ? Oh the man with a column in Murdoch's Sunday Times - you may like to consider that the owner of a foreign corporation, who pays virtually no taxes in this country, has a considerable say in the reporting of Labour's actions.

Maybe that helps keep scandals like The Dome, Enron, Mittal and the Hindujas brothers off the front page.

All of which undermines my point about media influence how, exactly?

It emphasises that point - it was the bit about friendlier press for the Tories - we've come away from the days of Lord Beaverbrook.

<>

Yeah, you won't find any massively powerful media tycoons from the provinces going gung-ho after the left now, eh?

'"We're not going to have a war, we're going to have the appearance of a war," says the cynical spin doctor in David Mamet's screenplay for the 1997 movie Wag The Dog, about an imaginary conflict created to whip up support for an ailing president. But he might equally have been talking about the 2006 war on Christmas - a war that tells us much about the growing politicisation and sense of entitlement among religious groups in Britain, but which turns out to have been almost entirely invented.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/christmas2006/story/0,,1967367,00.html

Interesting to see how much things haven't changed since this conversation started!

Personally I think the press are a threat to human life, in addition to democracy (such as it is.)

It recently struck me that the main stream media focuses on symptoms (welfare claimants, increased crime etc) rather than causes and it does so disingenuously and dangerously. An obvious example is the constant attack on disabled welfare claimants, misleading people to believe that there are far, far more fraudulent claims than there are (estimated to be about 0.5%) and ignoring £6bn which goes unclaimed.

This clearly affects public perception, stigmatising claimants, and I think both influences and promotes Government policy, ultimately leading to the nightmare of ATOS testing (introduced by Labour, perpetuated by the Coalition) among other ghastliness.

I'm not entirely sure why they do this but guess it's something to do with vested interests.

Interesting you should mention the disability thing. I listened to a BBC "debate" about Motability recently. The broad thrust was the govt give out free cars willy nilly. As someone married to a disabled person who has dealt with Motability, Incapacity Benefit, DLA etc, I knew for a fact that what was being said was completely and utterly wrong.

There was no "balance" because it wasn't based on truth.

The BBC are no better than any other media outlet.

The reporting on the EU debate was slanted as well ~ it all gave the impression that it was about a yes/no option, in actual fact the ammendment was to have an option about re-aligning powers with the EU.