The House of Lords at its exceptional best

jtlross

Interesting the amount of circumlocution and fudging in this post - everything comes in threes. 'ordered, equal and fair'; 'legal, social and political'; 'democratic values, equality, and the rule of law'; 'legitimate, reasonable, but controversial'.

These excessively cagey turns of phrase make you seem shifty; the reason you praise Carey is his frankness on these issues. Why do you constantly hedge and hedge again what you are saying? It seems defensive, and as if you are trying a little too hard not to seem inoffensive.

David Lindsay

Good old George Carey. I always knew that, if they kept him on long enough, then he would say something sensible eventually.

It was Ann Cryer, a member both of the Campaign Group and of Balanced Migration, who told Radio Four in September that her view was that of “an old-fashioned Christian Socialist”: we cannot provide the welfare and the public services that our people have rightly come to expect if we do not even know how many people there are in this country; and we should be using overseas aid to develop such provisions in other countries, not bringing those countries' people over here to put intolerable strain on ours. So there are still a few good politicians knocking about after all.

Her fellow Eurosceptic Labour MPs Frank Field, Roger Godsiff and Ian Davidson are also Balanced Migration members, Field and Godsiff at least from Labour’s Right rather than Left, but nevertheless definitely from the Labour Right, not from any sort of New Labour. The same is true of Peter Kilfoyle, of the old trade union stalwart Lord (Tony) Jordan, and of Betty Boothroyd, Cross Bencher though by convention she must now be. The Muslim Labour peer Lord Ahmed is a member, as is the London-based Kurdish journalist Hazhir Teimourian. Lord Skidelsky was both a founding member and a finishing member of the SDP. Peter Bottomley is a Tory Reform Group grandee. The main glaring absence is of Lib Dems. Don’t they believe in the welfare and the public services that our people have rightly come to expect, or in using overseas aid to develop such provisions in other countries?

Further to Carey’s preference for Christian immigration, we should specifically give priority to those whom we left to the mercy of (Israel-loving, Iran-hating) Hindu nationalists in Orissa, Nagaland and other parts of India; to those whom we more than left to the mercy of the Islamists in Bosnia, and now also in Kosovo; to the Palestinian Christians; to those who have not been persecuted out of existence in our dear NATO and putative EU brother, Turkey; and to those who have not been persecuted out of existence in “liberated” Iraq. At least some of these should appeal, not only to certain Balanced Migration members already listed, but also to Nicholas Soames, Colin Burgon, Michael Ancram (even if he did originally sign up to the Henry Jackson Society), Robert Key and others.

Lee Jakeman

There's too many foreigners in this country.

There you are - straight down the line.

Fergus Pickering

Carey is a perfectly sensible man, unlike the unholy fool in his office at present. Of course Carey's Chistianity (I mean its evangelical bent) may not suit the posh people who post here. My wife drew my attention to this or at least to the mention of it in the Telegraph. Of course we do not take The Times. There are bloody limits to tolerance.

mjt

Is that the thundering hooves of the '1st PC Brigade' charging at the Archbishop armed to the teeth with smear and innuendo and spurred on by a burning desire to take offence on someone else's behalf?

Cuffleyburgers

The fundamental problem we have is that politics is a great career option for the venal and incompetent, the vainglorious and those student union marxists who were kicked off the milkround.

They get loads of money for themselves and for their idiotic projects, and the higher the level of decision making, the more money there is and the less accountability for results, which explains why they are mostly EU federasts.

When the money runs out they just have to send out their enforcers to get more and when that runs out they can print even more. ANd by the time the economy finally goes tits-up the other lot are in and can take the blame.

And the more idiotic projects and laws they set in train the more likely they are get re-elected.

The qualities that make a person productive and valuable in society ensure that in a deomcracy such as ours, he is unelectable, and viceversa.

That is our tragedy, summed up by the fact of a senior establishment figure talking sense is front-page news.

Cuffleyburgers

The fundamental problem we have is that politics is a great career option for the venal and incompetent, the vainglorious and those student union marxists who were kicked off the milkround.

They get loads of money for themselves and for their idiotic projects, and the higher the level of decision making, the more money there is and the less accountability for results, which explains why they are mostly EU federasts.

When the money runs out they just have to send out their enforcers to get more and when that runs out they can print even more. ANd by the time the economy finally goes tits-up the other lot are in and can take the blame.

And the more idiotic projects and laws they set in train the more likely they are get re-elected.

The qualities that make a person productive and valuable in society ensure that in a deomcracy such as ours, he is unelectable, and viceversa.

That is our tragedy, summed up by the fact of a senior establishment figure talking sense is front-page news.

Ken

Neathering?

Nicholas

In the comments to the Times article was this one, the language of which stood out and which perfectly demonstrates the problem:-

"Alexander Johnstone wrote:
What a ridiculous article, the highpoints in British culture and achievement have been achieved through a backlash against Christianity, scientific endevour, militaristic accomplishments- the DNA that Carey talks about "Democratic institutions such as the monarchy, Parliament, the judiciary, the Church of England, our free press and the BBC also support the liberal democratic values of the nation" are hardly venerated, his idealistic viewpoint of little "England" (a fair and pleasant land) is outdated, Britain has moved on, the post imperial malaise is lifting, and a new culture is being sought- immigrants expand and allow new growth for culture and institutional advancement, they are not a problem, the more the merrier".

Uncontrolled immigration is certainly the problem, but the very odd, self-hating, left-wing ideas of the Alexander Johnstones of Britain, as epitomised by the Neather plan to deliberately flood England with immigrants "to discomfort the right", are up there with it.

I bet this wazzock, who blithely writes "the more the merrier", is also a fervent devotee of AGW and sees nothing ironic in the inconsistency of his very odd and loathesome views. My hope is that in the years ahead people like him become a despised and powerless minority. That the grip the destructive Left has held on the throat of Britain, but particularly England, is finally broken free by a tide of honesty and plain speaking.

D K MCGREGOR

Why is this issue always given a good airing before an election , a few half promises are made to address the problems (real) that are caused by uncontrolled immigration. It wouldn't be to take the edge of what some other parties are saying ,surely the establishment doesn't work like that.

Naomi Muse

Archbishop George Carey is right to express his views. He should not be chastised for it. His ability to communicate his observations is important. That's not to say that his words should be accepted chapter and verse without further thought and analysis, but should be scrutinised and seen for what they are, his opinion based on his observations and his expertise.

Some of the unrest in the country can be attributed to too much immigration too fast without integration into the indigenous population or culture.

The concern about the institutions I share across the board and not just the, so called, social institutions for they all interrelate.

Many of our institutions, and along with the social institutions insurers and banks should also be included because of their social impact, are simply out of date in their constituency and have not kept changing as the demands on them from society and their subscribers would expect. They are therefore losing their relevance and viability.

The relentless speed of change also erodes trust because what we thought was there, is not and it's unsettling.

Nothing is constant. Nothing is a 'given'.

It appears that apathy is being blamed for the disintegration of the institutions, but is that really a correct analysis?

Could it also be that the institutions wanting to stay the same and guarantee their comfort zone with current staff and membership or those with a specific interest, has led to a form of constipation in the direction and governance of those institutions which has rendered them as being seen to be irrelevant or not quite fit for purpose any more.

That institutions should become less relevant and less able to deliver what they were originally set up for, is normal, and any institution that fails to see the writing on the Babylonian Wall suffers from lack of vision or even hubris. Both lack of vision and hubris will continue to render an institution even less relevant and even less able to deliver what it should.

At this juncture it would be most helpful if the Archbishop were to put an end to speculation as to whether he stands in line with Neather or this is a different strand of observation.

George J

Carey's barely concealed subtext was 'Stop the islamisation of Britain.' The only phrase he left out was, 'Whatever it takes.'

Respect, dude.

Boudicca

jtlross
January 7th, 2010 11:41pm

The 'pattern of 3s' is a very basic communication tool. All politicians and presenters use it.

As for Carey; he's speaking common-sense, which the PC multi-cultural bridage won't like one little bit. Watch out for a fatwa from our Muslim brethren!

Marbury

This article you're all applauding - what does it actually say? It has a gaseous quality. Lots of anxious gesturing and half-expressed concern, but no discernible substance. Even the good Archbishop seems to recognise this and struggles to explain himself towards the end:

"But what I am saying is that those who seek to live in this country recognise that they are coming to a country with a Christian heritage and an established Church."

Right. And in practice, this means what, exactly? Nothing. I mean, how could they not "recognise" such facts? You can recognise something and disagree with it or seek to change it.

If it's just recognition, that's hardly worth saying. If he wants something more, he should say so. But he can't bring himself to.

It's a deeply silly piece.

Edward Sutherland

The clarity of Lord Carey's eminently sensible comments is in marked contrast the circumlocutions and obfuscations of Mr Blackburn's comments. I am afraid the Spectator has scant credibility on the subject of migration after having done its damndest to kill of the Neather revelations.

denis cooper

A telling sub-heading to Carey's article:

"If we are to stop the extreme Right, we must respond to real fears over the number and nature of those coming to Britain"

and then in the article:

"Last year nearly a million votes were cast for the British National Party. We cannot ignore the fact that such far-right groups exploit genuine concerns about both overpopulation and the ability of this nation to integrate new communities whose values are sometimes very different, even antithetical, to our own.

In Dagenham, where I was brought up, there is a very real danger that a white working-class electorate, alienated by far-reaching social change and largely ignored by the mainstream parties, could vote for a BNP Member of Parliament. This would be a tragedy in our long history of parliamentary democracy. Yet we play into the hands of the far Right if we do not seriously address the concerns that have led to some otherwise decent people supporting modern-day fascism."

So Carey's concerns about mass immigration are really nothing to do with what the people of this country want, but focus solely on how they may eventually react.

Take away the BNP as a mechanism for them to give political effect to their views, and he and his kind would be perfectly content to carry on totally ignoring those views and flooding the country with millions of immigrants because

"we welcome the contribution of both economic migrants and asylum seekers to our lively cosmopolitan culture"

and lacking any deep commitment to democracy we couldn't care less whether or not the bulk of the electorate share our rose-tinted perception.

The people of this country, the established body of citizens, have deliberately NEVER been asked whether they want mass immigration, or any indeed immigration at all, for the very good reason that members of the elite like Carey know damn well what the answer would be; yet this anti-democratic hypocrite has the gall to say that the election of a BNP MP "would be a tragedy in our long history of parliamentary democracy".

Frank P

George J

"Carey's barely concealed subtext was 'Stop the islamisation of Britain.' The only phrase he left out was, 'Whatever it takes.'

Respect, dude."

Agree. But even more respect if he had said what you said, rather than having to have it translated. The time for delicacy is over; in fact it has been over for about 40 years, when those of us who sounded the alarm and explained the nature and tactics of the enemy were told to back off by pusillanimous pricks, who couldn't see any farther than then end of their noses - and their career paths.

Austin Barry

I was struck by this part of Carey's speech:

"...a white working-class electorate, alienated by far-reaching social change and largely ignored by the mainstream parties, could vote for a BNP Member of Parliament. This would be a tragedy in our long history of parliamentary democracy."

Patronising sub-text: 'See what happens when you enfranchise fat, pasty-faced, tattooed, chip-gorging, alcohol-guzzling, Saturday-night-vomiting-and-copulating oiks and their husbands.'

That's what you really think, isn't it Georgie Boy, me old china?

Peter From Maidstone

Austin Barry, I am not sure that the sub-text is there. Carey never struck me as the sort who would have such a dismissive view. Although it does seem to me that your post has merit on its own. Should those who refuse to contribute to society be enfranchised? My opinion is that they should not, but that it should not be difficult to earn the franchise through work or service.

Marcher Baron

Multiculturalism has been an unmitigated disaster. Multiracialism, however, is a different matter. Integration and the understanding that this is a country founded on a Christian tradition in which freedom of worship for other religions (or none) is tolerated would have reduced a lot of social stresses. That and limited numbers of incomers, of course. Flooding social services without knowing exactly how many are here and thus have to be planned for is disastrous.

denis cooper

It would be a simple matter to ask the existing body of citizens directly whether they wanted to increase their numbers through immigration, and if so how many new citizens they wanted each year.

Most referendums pose a qualitative question, "do you agree that ... ?", asking for a "yes" or "no" answer, but there's absolutely no reason why a referendum shouldn't pose a quantitative question, "how many?", asking for a numerical answer.

So in this case "How many foreign citizens do you think should be allowed to settle permanently in the UK each year, with the expectation that they will become citizens and enjoy the same rights as yourself?", with a range of options from "zero" in appropriate steps up to "unlimited numbers" - "Put an X in the box against your preferred option".

Then the median response could be established - ie the level of immigration which half of those who voted thought would be too low, and half thought would be too high - and that would be the annual cap.

But of course our politicians, and the likes of Carey, would never dream of holding such a referendum because they know that most likely the cap would then have to be set at thousands a year, or at the most a few tens of thousands, and what they want is at least hundreds of thousands, and preferably no limit at all.

Look at the Tory party, supposedly "tough on immigration" and yet determined that Turkey should join the EU so that every Turk would automatically gain the right to live and work in the country - with the result that there would be primary immigration of several million Turks, followed by more with family reunion and increase.

There are few British politicians who feel any special sense of duty towards the British people; the great majority, in all three main parties, regard us with disdain bordering on contempt.

Nicholas

denis, one of the tricks used by New Labour is to airily presume to know what "the public" want. The phrase is regularly used in New Labour press briefings and TV responses - "the public want us to" or "the majority of the public think" . . . even after the local and European elections demonstrated how unpopular they and their stupid ideas really are. However, no-one ever challenges these ridiculous statements to ask them how they know that - which could only be ascertained accurately by the sort of referenda you envisage. No, they get these ideas (where they are not blatent lies) from their nebulous "constituents", lobby groups (with agendas) and fake charities. The views of the British public are silent and silenced - and won't be known until we finally get the General Election everyone wants and is waiting for.

It boils my blood when I hear charlatans like Woodward, Bradshaw and Straw presuming to know what I want and what I think without having asked me. New Labour's mandate has run out, their manifesto is being made up as they go along and they still presume to represent us. They are, in every sense of the word, illegitimate.

Beer Moth

Carey and his belated reservations will not matter a jot. Immigrants alien to our culture, came in yesterday in their thousands and they will come in tomorrow just the same. Those who come will send word home that it's easy and more should come.

And yet we will think that by this authoritative call, there is at last something being done to stop the flow.

There isn't.

Cogito Ergosum

One can't help thinking that Enoch Powell said much the same, a long time ago.

Verity

Dennis Cooper writes: "n Dagenham ... there is a very real danger that a white working-class electorate, alienated by far-reaching social change and largely ignored by the mainstream parties, could vote for a BNP Member of Parliament. This would be a tragedy in our long history of parliamentary democracy."

Why, if the electorate voted them in? That's how parliamentary democracy works. The one that gets the most votes win. Why would that be "a tragedy"?

Verity

Ooops! Apologies, bows and flourishes to Dennis Cooper, who I now see was quoting Carey. Please forgive.

Verity

Peter from Maidstone brought up my King Charles’s head – the necessity for the disenfranchisement of the non-contributing sector. This is an issue that is never addressed in the MSM. Yet it is clearly lunacy for people who don’t contribute to the economy to be having a word in how it is managed. There tens of thousands in Britain who cannot speak English and do not understand, nor have any intention of joining, an advanced democracy. Inexplicably, they have a vote. Can non-citizens vote in Britain? If not, is there no requirement in the citizenship exam for being able to conduct their business in English?

I would have thought being a criminal would also impinge on one’s chances, yet bigamists apparently not only get free money for all their wives "as long as the marriage was contracted in a country where bigamy is legal" but citizenship. Does anyone remember when the law on bigamy was changed? Or was it another of those under the radar deals so beloved of sneaky Brown?

Verity

Beer Moth is right.

England/Britain has defended itself bravely, mightily and successfully on the battlefield for centuries. But has been defeated by the toxin within - the psychological war of the Gramsci/Marxist Student Union.

Somehow, the country was afraid to stand up for our laws and the principles upon which they were formed, and our civil, familial society and has betrayed all those who laid down their lives for us.

It beggars belief.

At the risk of inducing yawns, I saw the entire road map in the first photograph I ever saw of Tony Blair as a candidate. I saw sheer evil there. And made my plans to get out. Thank God, because the toxins began to be quietly infused into the bloodstream of our nation the minute they slithered and slimed into office.

And, of course, they chopped out the law of treason.