Saturday, March 21, 2009

An open letter to Freddie Sayers of PoliticsHome

Dear Freddie,

First of all, I would like to point out that I have not looked at your eye-gouging, pointless abortion of a site since its first week, when I wrote the following:
... having visited the site this morning, my eyes were bleeding so profusely that I have had to go out and get a Braille keyboard. Seriously, I was like a haemophiliac Le Chiffre. With an eye aneurysm. And high blood pressure.

To be honest, what the hell is the point of PoliticsHome? I mean, I've got RSS feeds, and I've willing to bet that most of the other political anoraks that inhabit this 'sphere have got to grips with that technology too.

My sentiments were echoed by Tygerland, who was even more contemptuous.
We need another politics feed aggregator like we need Doughty Street’s acrylic plants back in our lives. Aren’t there enough twatting sites sucking content from other people?
...

Who needs a Bloomberg for politics? Business requires up to the minute information. Minutes lost can translate directly into lost revenues. Politics is an industry of wanky news items about MP’s tawdry sex lives and a never-ending conveyor belt of financial scandals.

And yet, you have continued to send me occasional emails detailing the worthless opinions of your utterly valueless commentators. Usually, of course, I have ignored them but then yesterday I received one of your missives that actively annoyed me.
Never have the views of the Phi100 panel – the daily PoliticsHome survey of senior MPs, journalists and opinion formers across politics – contrasted so starkly with the views of the general public.

Yesterday we reported how across parliament, the media and the think tank community, and across all parties, Hazel Blears’ proposal for a £50 visa tax for non-EU migrants (with the aim of raising £70m over two years for public services) was dismissed out of hand. 70% of the panel rejected the plan - either it was seen as going too far, or not far enough, or going down completely the wrong track.

Results have just come in from the PoliticsHome poll of 1,224 members of the general public, and results could not be more different. An overwhelming 83% of voters support the idea, and the support is almost exactly the same across Labour, Conservative, LibDem and other supporters.

In a new scheme announced today, people from outside the EU moving to the UK to work or study will have to pay £50 extra for visas to help fund public services in areas struggling to cope with immigration. In principle, do you think this is a good or a bad idea?

Hmmmm, let me see...

OK, Freddie-baby, you've asked my opinion, so here it is: not only do I think that it is a bad idea, but I think that it is a disgusting, evil idea. Some will say that your humble Devil is quite unfairly shooting the messenger, but then the last comment on your email was this:
It appears that, as the local and European elections approach, there may have been more sense in Ms Blears’ idea than the experts and political insiders in Westminster appreciate. To voters across the country – and across political parties – taxing non-EU migrants appears to sound like straightforward common sense.

Really.

Let me explain why it is a bad idea, you hideous little turd. And then I shall explain why it is an evil idea. And I do hope that you take this in.

First, it is a bad idea because—with the difficulty inherent in getting here and staying here—those non-EU immigrants tend to be highly skilled. Further, since the new rules came in, employers now have to show—under pain of legal sanction—that there is no native Briton willing or able to do that job. This means that they are not depriving British people of jobs even where I worried about that BNP-pandering, dog-whistle justification.

Yes, I know that Jacqboot Smith's very intention is to "cut in half" the number of "highly skilled migrants coming to Britain from outside the European Union", but that is not a good thing. Why?

Well, first, the very fact that that big-titted fucknuts supports anything should be an indication of its stupidity and ignorant evil. Second, we want skilled migrants: they help to make the industries of this country more productive. And lest you forget, Freddie, you fucking moron, it is the industries of this country that pay the fucking bills; they create the jobs; quite apart from the taxes that the "companies" pay, they pay the wages of the workers who then pay for the public services; they pay for this government's wages, their recearchers, their subsidised fucking bars; they pay for all the fake charities and they pay for the fucking QUANGOs. Making them more productive is the absolute be-all and end-all is this precious social democracy that the Grauniadistas whinge on about.

Second, those immigrants get paid in pounds; then they pay their income taxes, and their National Insurance Ponzi Scheme Contributions (which, since they are skilled workers, are higher than the average); in return, they get restricted access—defined in their Leave To Remain documents—to taxpayer funds, to these public services that you and your ilk hold in such fucking high esteem.

And then, finally, the vast majority of their wages—which, since they are skilled workers, are higher than the average—are spent in this British economy.

The final insult was that you did not see fit, when framing your question to the idiot masses whom you polled, to point out that non-EU skilled migrants already pay far more than a £50 migrant tax. Their leave to remain is some £450, their work permit costs them another £350—is £800 in migrant tax not enough for you gannets?

Further, they are further crippled in finding a job; they must be especially skilled because it costs a business that wishes to hire a non-EU migrant a further £800 to become a sponsor of said migrant.

So, in total, a non-EU migrant nets the state an extra £1600 on top of all of the usal taxes which they pay. And you want to add another £50 to this? Out of £1600, an extra £50 may not seem much, but it will be the final nail in the coffin of some; they will leave and the British economy will be the poorer for it.

So, yes, this measure is stupid; but is it evil? To answer this, I think that one needs to look at one's opinion on apartheid: I, personally, do think that it is evil. You, of course, may not: do you think that apartheid is evil, Freddie-baby?

Despite the stories that I have heard about you, despite your alleged attempts to break private contracts, I am sure that you do. However, you are almost certainly a pig-ignorant moron, so I shall spell out to you why it is relevant.

There are two classes of migrants to this country: the EU and non-EU migrants. The EU migrants can come here, settle, take benefits, have jobs (and send money home if they wish—and many do) and pay no tax and suffer no restrictions—they do not need to fill in pages of forms showing that they have skills. In fact, under EU law, it is actively illegal to discriminate against them. Anything that native Britons can have, so EU migrants can have too.

And then there are the non-EU migrants: they pay a migrant tax, and they have to prove that they have skills. They contribute to the economy and to the Welfare State, but are severely restricted as to what benefits they may derive. They stay here at the whim of the Home Office: did you know, Freddie, that you have to to send your money in advance to the immigration control bureaucrats but that, if they arbitrarily decide that you cannot remain, they keep the money anyway?

And so we create social apartheid: on one hand we have EU migrants—whose rights are enshrined by a court whose opinion trumps that of our elected government; on the other we have the non-EU migrants—whose rights exist on the whim of the Home Office.

And this disgusting state of affairs is one that you would like to exacerbate: this pathetic, arse-about-face, piece of idiocy is what you call "straightforward common sense".

It is not: it is, however, entirely typical of this government's divide et impera strategy. And it seems that you and your gormless master, Stephan Kukowski Shakespeare (whose family were themselves immigrants to this country), are supporters of this apartheid; it seems that the two of you are supporters of the mediocre over the skilled, of the looter over the producer, of apartheid over the equal potential worth of every human being.

To describe my feelings towards the both of you as "contempt" simply doesn't convey the depths of my emotion. And I cannot even begin to describe my feelings towards your respondants, despite your deception of them through your hiding of the actual circumstances. Furthermore, you have put me on the same side as the spivs, weasels, poiticians and media whores of your Phi 100 panel: something that makes me feel dirty frankly, and even less well-disposed towards you.

So here's what I think, Freddie Sayers: fuck you and the horse you rode in on (Stephan Shakespeare). Fuck you right in the face.

Regards,

DK

I shall, of course, let the loyal readers of The Kitchen know if young Freddie responds.

15 comments:

C Hogan-Taylor said...

This has made my (fucking) day. Thank you. Thank you for putting the necessary and correct message in such an appropriately eloquent fashion.

If ever proof was needed over why never to poll the general public on something, this is it. And clearly the BNP tendencies of the Salford massive have been rubbing off on Hazel Blears. What a disgusting thought.

I look forward to FS/SS's response, although I suspect they will be hiding round their respective mothers' houses for some time yet.

Anna Raccoon said...

Allez Devil, allez, allez, allez!

Yo is on top form.......

An Exocet straight into the bowels of PoliticsHome Towers.

no longer anonymous said...

"If ever proof was needed over why never to poll the general public on something, this is it"

Sorry, for a second I thought I was reading Liberal Conspiracy.

I look forward to seeing the Libertarian Party win an election while proclaiming "the masses are stupid". It might be better if you were to ask the question as to why the masses think as they do. Chances are that when people heard of this scheme they weren't thinking of your average skilled Australian coming over to work in the City.

Devil's Kitchen said...

"I look forward to seeing the Libertarian Party win an election while proclaiming "the masses are stupid"."

I am so fucking sick of this attitude, I really am.

I am not the Libertarian Party: I am a libertarian and you know precisely what I think of democracy.

Just because I am a member of a party does not mean that everything that I say is said on behalf of that party -- especially when said party is the fucking Libertarian Party.

It seems that some people are so used to their politicos' toeing of the party line that they find it offensive when someone has an independent thought.

If the party thinks that what I write is offensive, then I am sure that the party will take disciplinary action against me.

DK

Ian I said...

Indefinite leave to remain now seven hundred and fifty fucking pounds plus that stupid life in the UK test. Wife (American) just got hers, took the retards 3 fucking months.

Keep up the good work

no longer anonymous said...

"I am not the Libertarian Party: I am a libertarian and you know precisely what I think of democracy."

My comment wasn't actually addressed to you and for the record I don't think highly of democracy either. Nor though do I believe that the "masses" are ignorant or stupid.

I would be interested to see the result of a poll where the people questioned were told that skilled non-EU migrants made a net contribution to the Treasury. I suspect support for this measure would drop significantly.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Sorry, no longer...

DK

Bishop Brennan said...

Mrs Brennan also had to pay the stupid immigrant tax. Of course, she wasn't entitled to benefits for the first 2 years of our marriage (not that we'd ever claim them - I'm not a fucking looter!). The British embassy in New York seemed rather surprised at the idea that an immigrant spouse would actually work too - I guess that says it all...

I get the point of disincentives for South Asian immigrants to marry their cousins and bring them here (not least as many - at least in Tower Hamlets, where I used to live - appeared to mooch off the state: benefits, council housing, translators for public services rather than bloody learning English...).

But disincentives for skilled workers - and immediate access to benefits for asylum seekers and EU immigrants? Only a regime as incompetent as the Nu-Labour 'government' could think up such a bunch of crap. And clearly this idiocy is shared by the average voter... which might explain why we have such a regime. Jesus wept...

'Fucking stupid little wankstains' says it all. I can't wait to emigrate!

C Hogan-Taylor said...

Er, 'no longer anonymous',

I don't know why I used the word 'over' in that sentence, I apologise. I trust this is what you're taking issue with.

If, on the other hand, you are contending that the general public are well-informed about the reality of immigration control, the tsunami of legislation passed by this excuse for a government that border control officers have to contend with, and the economic necessity that immigrants from all over the world - not just the EU - represent to this country, then I ask you, please, go to a pub, and listen to what people have to say.

They don't understand, they don't know, not because they are stupid - some are, some aren't, naturally - but because they have lives to lead. They have stuff to do. They elect representatives to work such things out for them for precisely that reason.

The problem comes when those representatives ARE those people in the pub. Enter, New Labour, Hazel Blears, Yvette Cooper et al; morons of the first order who think that taxing migrant workers from outside of the EU is a good thing.

It is not, and polling the 'general public', whatever that is, on such things is a total waste of time, for the reasons outlined above. I remember being told that a similar poll conducted some years ago revealed the 'general public' would bring back hanging given the chance. I am fully prepared to accept this is a well known urban myth, but it outlines my point quite well, even if only metaphorically; some people are more informed and better equipped to take decisions than others. Our problem is, they're not in government.

You suggest questioning why the masses think as they do. I would argue they think as they do because the News of the World, The Sun and the Daily Mail are the best selling newspapers in this country. Most people get their daily fill of factless poisonous bile and go on to form opinions about such complex matters as immigration, the economy and global warming, without ever questioning the source. It's not their fault, but don't for Christ's sake ask them what they think. It would be quicker and easier to buy one of those papers.

I am not suggesting a dictatorship; democracy is everything, but you have to be selective on what you go to the country about, unless of course you plan to educate everyone to a standard whereby they are in a position to make such decisions. And I am no different to these people in most regards; I wouldn't dare suggest I know more than Hazel Blears about immigration were it not for the fact that I am lectured weekly by one of the country's leading experts on the subject.

P.S. I don't read Liberal Conspiracy so I don't really know what you're implying.

no longer anonymous said...

"Sorry, no longer..."

No problemo.

"I remember being told that a similar poll conducted some years ago revealed the 'general public' would bring back hanging given the chance."

So would I! Believe it or not there are intelligent right-wingers who believe in the death penalty such as Peter Hitchens and John Redwood, it's not just the supposedly ill-informed populace.

"P.S. I don't read Liberal Conspiracy so I don't really know what you're implying."

Many posters there seem to have an arrogant "we know better than the plebs" attitude. The difference is that, unlike libertarians, left-liberals are mostly wrong (in my opinion of course).

I suppose my general point is that the public are more likely to come to the "right" answer if made aware of the facts. When told about the £50 Visa tax plan I suspect most people (wrongly) assumed that the non-EU migrants were on low incomes from third world countries who take more from our welfare state than they contribute. If they were aware that most are actually skilled and from first world countries like Australia, New Zealand etc they'd probably be opposed to the idea.

"I would argue they think as they do because the News of the World, The Sun and the Daily Mail are the best selling newspapers in this country."

On the plus side these papers are anti-EU and generally pro-capitalist. The social authoritarianism can be annoying but I'd much rather these papers were popular than the Guardian and Independent.

ENGLISHMAN said...

If all of these people are so "highly skilled" why the fuck are they not improving thier own countries ,rather than fuck mine up?Fifty quid? it should be five thousand,it is not more immigrants that we need,it is democracy,the will of the people for the good of the people,our people,no-one elses,that is why this country exists to protect and further our interests,the rest of the world can make its own arrangements,cos we is all equal now innit!

Anonymous said...

The other issue I have is we are taxing those from countries which we have historical ties with i.e. those in the Commonwealth like Canadians and Australians, but EU Countries where we have no such ties are getting essentially preferential treatment.

fewqwer said...

Since when was 'propping up the welfare state' an argument in favour of anything?

The £50 thing sounds daft to me too, but I know a weak argument when I see one.

basementcat said...

As an aside, 'Screw you and the horse you rode in on' sounds better in the Latin: 'Futue te ipsum, et caballum tuum.'

You may also find use for: 'Stercorem pro cerebro habes' and 'Podex perfectus est'

Anonymous said...

The result probably also stems from the confusion between legal (who would pay the £50, on top of the rest) and illegal (who wouldn't, and do not pay anything) immigrants.