![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More politics, sorry!
The whole Bigotgate drama yesterday was quite funny. It is a shame,however, that otherwise intelligent people (by whom, I'm not referring to the Prime Minister) see fit to dismiss the woman in question as a bigot. She implied that Eastern Europeans are coming here and claiming benefits paid for out of UK taxes when they're not 'vulnerable'. This is a reasonable concern to have, because if it's true, it implies an arguably unfair cost to UK taxpayers or bias against people born here, etc. As such, a politician should be able to answer this adequately, based on the facts he has available to him, eg on. something like one of these:
(Of course, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. This page at the Guardian states "Of that number coming in, 68,000 were from Eastern Europe (the A8 Accession countries), 58,000 left - the difference between the two (the migration balance) being 10,000." So, only 10,000 Eastern Europeans came in last year - that's nothing, right? Further down, it says "Poland is now the second highest in this [UK Population by country of birth] table (behind India) with 503,000 people." So at the current rate, we have 50 years' worth of extra people, which suggests that the current figure is not at all representative of what went on over the previous few years. You can bet that which of the 2 figures gets cited in each case will depend on who is doing the citing and to what ends.)
Either way, the woman in question thought this imposed a financial burden and also reflected some form of unfairness. Addressing this should be a simple case of stating relevant facts, not attempting to tar her with the xenophobia brush. If you drop to the level of sticking negative labels on people you disagree with, instead of confronting them with facts and logic, then that makes you the bigot, surely?
When dealing with policies, nothing should be taboo, and nobody should have their opinions dismissed with name-calling. If they're right, they may have a case worth answering. If they're wrong, you should be able to demonstrate this to them. Isn't the politics of facts and information better than the politics of insults and selective information?
PS. I like Polish people. Except my housemates Agnieska and Sebastian when they use all the hot water for the shower. :(
The whole Bigotgate drama yesterday was quite funny. It is a shame,however, that otherwise intelligent people (by whom, I'm not referring to the Prime Minister) see fit to dismiss the woman in question as a bigot. She implied that Eastern Europeans are coming here and claiming benefits paid for out of UK taxes when they're not 'vulnerable'. This is a reasonable concern to have, because if it's true, it implies an arguably unfair cost to UK taxpayers or bias against people born here, etc. As such, a politician should be able to answer this adequately, based on the facts he has available to him, eg on. something like one of these:
- "You're right, and we're working on reducing this problem, with <insert policy here>."
- "We handle the claims based entirely on need, and I assure you that workers from elsewhere in the EU have to follow exactly the same rules as those born in the UK, just as we do in their countries."
- "Actually, fewer than 6000 people from Eastern Europe claim Income-Based Jobseeker's Allowance, so it's actually a very small cost and worth it for the extra jobs that they fill and what they bring to our economy."
- "The amount of extra tax paid by Eastern Europeans in the UK is more than enough to pay for those on benefits so we actually all benefit from these extra workers."
- ...etc.
(Of course, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. This page at the Guardian states "Of that number coming in, 68,000 were from Eastern Europe (the A8 Accession countries), 58,000 left - the difference between the two (the migration balance) being 10,000." So, only 10,000 Eastern Europeans came in last year - that's nothing, right? Further down, it says "Poland is now the second highest in this [UK Population by country of birth] table (behind India) with 503,000 people." So at the current rate, we have 50 years' worth of extra people, which suggests that the current figure is not at all representative of what went on over the previous few years. You can bet that which of the 2 figures gets cited in each case will depend on who is doing the citing and to what ends.)
Either way, the woman in question thought this imposed a financial burden and also reflected some form of unfairness. Addressing this should be a simple case of stating relevant facts, not attempting to tar her with the xenophobia brush. If you drop to the level of sticking negative labels on people you disagree with, instead of confronting them with facts and logic, then that makes you the bigot, surely?
When dealing with policies, nothing should be taboo, and nobody should have their opinions dismissed with name-calling. If they're right, they may have a case worth answering. If they're wrong, you should be able to demonstrate this to them. Isn't the politics of facts and information better than the politics of insults and selective information?
PS. I like Polish people. Except my housemates Agnieska and Sebastian when they use all the hot water for the shower. :(
