Gingrich hit by "Serial Hypocrisy" video

Youtube campaign ad released by GOP hopeful Ron Paul calls out his rival on inconsistencies.

An ever-more confident Newt Gingrich has seen his campaign for Republican Presidential candidate spring into the lead this week. Gingrich has a 11.3 per cent lead over current second place nominee Mitt Romney, and is 12 points ahead of Hermain Cain in the latest Iowa Caucus, according to Real Clear Politics. "It's very hard not to look at the recent polls and think that the odds are very high I'm going to be the nominee," Gingrich told ABC News on Thursday.

But his confidence might have been deflated after a new black-and-white web video from the Ron Paul campaign -- featuring Glenn Beck and several other conservative icons -- accuses him of being two-faced. The two minute YouTube video, entitled Newt Gingrich: Serial hypocrisy, has had almost half a million hits since being uploaded on Wednesday.

The Paul campaign has accused Gingrich of not being a "consistent conservative," and the video reminds viewers of allegations that Gingrich received millions of dollars from Freddie Mac and health care companies, as well as showing him alongside House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, saying that "our country must take action to address climate change" in a TV commercial.

Gingrich said his appearance in the video alongside Pelosi was the "dumbest mistake I ever made," and denies ever working as a lobbyist.

The Youtube ad will not air on television, but the Paul campaign plans to send it to its "far-reaching e-mail list of conservative voters". Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign chairman, said in a statement released Wednesday that his campaign "is making a bold move to debunk the myth that the Newt we are seeing on the 2012 campaign trail is the conservative he has been touted to be all along."

Gingrich's press secretary R.C. Hammond denied any notion that the former speaker isn't conservative enough to be to be president.

"No candidate in the race has achieved more conservative reform of government or spent more time and energy championing the cause of the conservative movement than Newt Gingrich, which is why voters across the country are choosing Newt over Mitt Romney," he said.

With such sharp accusations abound, Republican voters may be worried that whoever emerges from the fight for GOP candidacy might be too beaten and bloodied to compete next November in the ultimate race against President Obama.

 

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Brexit is teaching the UK that it needs immigrants

Finally forced to confront the economic consequences of low migration, ministers are abandoning the easy rhetoric of the past.

Why did the UK vote to leave the EU? For conservatives, Brexit was about regaining parliamentary sovereignty. For socialists it was about escaping the single market. For still more it was a chance to punish David Cameron and George Osborne. But supreme among the causes was the desire to reduce immigration.

For years, as the government repeatedly missed its target to limit net migration to "tens of thousands", the EU provided a convenient scapegoat. The free movement of people allegedly made this ambition unachievable (even as non-European migration oustripped that from the continent). When Cameron, the author of the target, was later forced to argue that the price of leaving the EU was nevertheless too great, voters were unsurprisingly unconvinced.

But though the Leave campaign vowed to gain "control" of immigration, it was careful never to set a formal target. As many of its senior figures knew, reducing net migration to "tens of thousands" a year would come at an economic price (immigrants make a net fiscal contribution of £7bn a year). An OBR study found that with zero net migration, public sector debt would rise to 145 per cent of GDP by 2062-63, while with high net migration it would fall to 73 per cent. For the UK, with its poor productivity and sub-par infrastructure, immigration has long been an economic boon. 

When Theresa May became Prime Minister, some cabinet members hoped that she would abolish the net migration target in a "Nixon goes to China" moment. But rather than retreating, the former Home Secretary doubled down. She regards the target as essential on both political and policy grounds (and has rejected pleas to exempt foreign students). But though the same goal endures, Brexit is forcing ministers to reveal a rarely spoken truth: Britain needs immigrants.

Those who boasted during the referendum of their desire to reduce the number of newcomers have been forced to qualify their remarks. On last night's Question Time, Brexit secretary David Davis conceded that immigration woud not invariably fall following Brexit. "I cannot imagine that the policy will be anything other than that which is in the national interest, which means that from time to time we’ll need more, from time to time we’ll need less migrants."

Though Davis insisted that the government would eventually meet its "tens of thousands" target (while sounding rather unconvinced), he added: "The simple truth is that we have to manage this problem. You’ve got industry dependent on migrants. You’ve got social welfare, the national health service. You have to make sure they continue to work."

As my colleague Julia Rampen has charted, Davis's colleagues have inserted similar caveats. Andrea Leadsom, the Environment Secretary, who warned during the referendum that EU immigration could “overwhelm” Britain, has told farmers that she recognises “how important seasonal labour from the EU is to the everyday running of your businesses”. Others, such as the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, and the Communities Secretary, Sajid Javid, have issued similar guarantees to employers. Brexit is fuelling immigration nimbyism: “Fewer migrants, please, but not in my sector.”

The UK’s vote to leave the EU – and May’s decision to pursue a "hard Brexit" – has deprived the government of a convenient alibi for high immigration. Finally forced to confront the economic consequences of low migration, ministers are abandoning the easy rhetoric of the past. Brexit may have been caused by the supposed costs of immigration but it is becoming an education in its benefits.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.