Is our compassionate country reflected by politicians?
Statistics do not make a compassionate country, however. So what is the compassionate approach - the approach of which we can be proud?
Don’t forget about my brand new podcast. This week, we went exceptionally viral.
It’s called Whitehall Sources.
This article was first published in The Stornoway Gazette.
I come bearing news from my colleagues at The Times: 64% of respondents to the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey said that they wanted increased levels of taxation and spending to boost schools and the NHS. The study also suggests that 68% of respondents believe wealth should be redistributed from the most affluent to the least well-off.
Mark Spencer, the Minister of State for Food, told us on Monday’s Breakfast programme that the UK is “one of the most compassionate countries in the world.” Mr Spencer is likely correct. Indeed, the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey suggests that, when it comes to giving the government cash to spend and spread around, Scotland is ready and willing to stump up. Perhaps Mr Spencer, though, is too zoomed out. Do you see your compassionate attitudes reflected in policy making?
Immigration has quickly become a focal point of UK politics, again. This is largely because of the (re)appointment of Suella Braverman to the role of Home Secretary. A role she was forced to vacate just the other day for breaching the ministerial code and pinging emails to her personal account and to non-governmental people when she shouldn’t have. Rishi Sunak wheeled her back in when he took office in the latest round of “I’m a Conservative MP, Get Me In There.” She’s had many nicknames in her tenure(s): Cruella Braverman; Leaky Sue (owing to her information distribution strategies); Lazy Susan; you’ve probably invented your own by now.
It is also, though, because of the revelation of the awful conditions in which those who arrive in the UK are being held. The Chief Inspector of Prisons, Charlie Taylor, told Times Radio that he would be “enormously concerned” if he had encountered the same conditions in prisons as exist in Manston processing centre. He described wafer-thin rubber mats to sleep on, overcrowding, difficulty getting fresh air, which, when combined with reports of disease and prolonged “processing” times, paints a picture of inhumane conditions.
English Channel crossings have risen from 8,404 in 2020 to 39,430 this year. Once people get here, they stay: the UK grants 76% of claims, against 34% in the EU. And if claimants fail, they're rarely deported.
Bare statistics do not make a compassionate country, however. So what is the compassionate approach - the approach of which we can be proud?
Both sides of the discussion need to examine their starting point. Some say every person coming to the UK is a benign victim of something-or-other in need of support and aid and assistance. Others say that every person who lands upon our shores is an imposter who just wants to live off the state and do nothing but vegetate on benefits. Neither approach is helpful because extremes in arguments are simply inflammatory.
Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick says the country’s “system is essentially overwhelmed...we don't have the capacity to look after people in the way we want to when they first arrive.” The system is too broken to be compassionate, is what he is implying. Rishi Sunak insists that Britain would always be a “compassionate, welcoming country” despite claims by his home secretary that the country was facing an “invasion” of illegal immigrants. Remember when David Cameron referred to illegal migrants as “a swarm”? Language is important in setting a compassionate approach.
The most recent British Social Attitudes survey showed more Brits have a favourable view of immigration than ever before. If a nation does not control its borders in some way, it is not implementing any immigration policy at all - itself, a cruelty. If a nation has a policy and fails to implement it effectively, as is currently being demonstrated at the Manston facility, it is cruel and heartless. In 2015, 4,900 people waited more than six months for a decision to be made on their case. Now this figure stands at 89,000 people. The system has been breaking and, indeed, broken for quite some time.
The debate often comes down to determining the “right” kind of people we want in the UK. UK Border Force’s clandestine threat commander, said last week that many Albanian men come to the UK purely to work in the criminal underworld, before returning to Albania. Put them up against those fleeing disaster, war, famine, poverty and zero life chances, and you start, quickly, building a league table of those who are deserving and undeserving of compassion.
The Food Minister told us that he wished to stop the “scumbags” who are putting people in small boats - to deter them. This is what the notorious Rwanda policy, which has literally not got off the ground, was supposed to do. Isn’t there a chance that the deterrent model of keeping away the “bad” migrants, is leading people to the gangs and organised people smugglers? Charities argue that if you were to establish safe and legal routes to the UK, the people smugglers would go out of business virtually overnight.
So then, as my history teacher would ask: what is your conclusion? Well, that politicians say they strive to be compassionate, but they are failing. The system is beyond creaking - it has croaked. It doesn’t work and has become cruel. Deterring people from trying to come here seems to be failing and we can’t deal humanely with those who have made it. We have learned that this discussion lacks pragmatism - extreme arguments fuel the opposite of compassion: cruelty. We must be careful in prioritising who we want here. A poorly implemented system in this regard will only punish those who deserve help and the hope of a future. We were all migrants once - something which we would be wise to remember.