Thursday, 3 August 2017

How Brexit Britain Can Reset the Immigration Debate | Rachel Shabi | New York Times

LETTER TO NEW YORK TIMES
I'm always surprised when seemingly sane and sensible people call for socialism. Even more so when they call it "progressive"  ("How Brexit Britain Can Reset the Immigration Debate", August 1)
Global worker solidarity? Nationalising transport and energy? "Collectivist sympathies? How very seventies and hardly progressive. Been there. Tried that. Didn't work. 
I have spent my career engaged with China, in Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong. I first worked there in the mid seventies while it was still officially in the throes of the so-called "Cultural Revolution"; that is to say, as a socialist polity.  There was virtually nothing to buy: no consumer goods and food was rationed. I've watched in awe what has happened since. China may call it "socialism with Chinese characteristics", but make no mistake: it's capitalism with Chinese characteristics. 
Further: in Ms Shabi's clear admiration for Mr Corbin's socialism she conspicuously fails to mention his admiration for terrorists. Hamas and Hezbollah are "my friends". He welcomes Islamists to Westminster. He praises the Islamic Declaration of Human rights which has Sharia as its supreme law. 
Does today's Britain really want to be led by a man so compromised?
Finally, Ms Shabi notes with approval Mr Corbyn's manifesto promise that Labour "will not scapegoat migrants nor blame them for economic failures". But how else can this be read than as putting the very discussion immigration beyond the pale?
Put it all together and you have a return to seventies style socialist inefficiencies wedded to unbridled, unquestionable immigration. 
Who, with memory of Britain's three-day work week, would want to return to that?
Not progressive, Ms Shabi, but regressive. 
Peter Forsythe, etc....