Show Hide image

In this week's New Statesman | The New Exodus

Plus: Chris Patten downplays the BBC pay-off scandal and slams Grant Shapps for "exceptionally ill-judged" licence fee attack.

BBC TRUST CHAIRMAN CHRIS PATTEN DOWNPLAYS PAY-OFF SCANDAL

AND SLAMS GRANT SHAPPS FOR “EXCEPTIONALLY ILL-JUDGED ATTACK” ON LICENCE FEE

INTERVIEW WITH THE NS’s ED SMITH

On the pay-off scandal: “This is not the most outrageous example I can think of mortal sin.”

On BBC-bashing in the press: “In some newspapers the BBC gets bashed more than President Assad. It’s extraordinary.”

PAUL COLLIER ON IMMIGRATION: WHY THE NOBLE LIBERAL VISION OF MULTICULTURALISM JUST WON’T WORK

PLUS

ANDREW ADONIS ON FRANÇOIS MITTERRAND, THE GREAT DECEIVER

JOHN BEW’S LETTER FROM WASHINGTON: DUBBYA RETURNS TO THE FRAY

THE POLITICS COLUMN: JEREMY HUNT WANTS TO DO FOR THE NHS WHAT GOVE DID TO SCHOOLS – HOW SHOULD LABOUR RESPOND?

GEORGE EATON: “WE NEED HELP TO BUILD, NOT HELP TO BUY”

LAURIE PENNY MEETS NEIL GAIMAN

 

THE NS INTERVIEW: CHRIS PATTEN’S MISSION TO RESTORE THE BBC’S CONFIDENCE AND MORAL AUTHORITY

In a frank and robust interview in this week’s New Statesman, Chris Patten, chairman of the BBC Trust, tells Ed Smith he wants to see the BBC’s self-confidence and moral authority restored after a series of blows to the organisation including the Savile affair and the executive pay-off scandal:

 

“The BBC is the only institution that I’ve been associated with that gets a sense of Schadenfreude about its own problems or mistakes. It beats itself up more. I think we should start to be more positive about ourselves. People get a fantastic service for 40 pence a day. I think the important thing for the BBC is not to lose its nerve. My friends from around the world are amazed that BBC is in the headlines so much. They assume this must be an organisation that everybody is exceptionally proud of. Well, sensible people are.”

Patten contrasts the high regard in which the BBC is held around the world with the way it is pilloried by certain sections of the British press:

“I was thinking the other day that in some newspapers the BBC gets bashed more than President Assad. It’s extraordinary.”

Patten uses the interview to hit back at Grant Shapps, chairman of the Conservative Party, who last month launched a cynical attack on the BBC, questioning the future of the licence fee. Patten was appalled by what he calls the “mis-Shapp”:

“We were appearing in front of a select committee the other day, we’re always appearing in front of select committees, I think we’re now up to 17 in a year, on one issue or another. I said what had surprised me during my period as chairman of the Trust was on the whole the lack of political pressure from anybody. And then just to make it look as though I was a cloth head, the chairman of the Conservative Party launched himself into an exceptionally ill-judged attack on the BBC. . .The chairmen of the Conservative Party invariably have a bash at the BBC in the run-up to elections. I have to say to my eternal shame I did the same. But what was odd [about Shapps’s intervention] was publicly linking an attack on a journalist [the BBC home editor, Mark Easton] with the BBC as whole and the licence fee.”

Patten on the pay-off scandal:

“No-one – nobody sensible – would argue that the way that severance pay had been handled had been other than messy and shabby. It was wrong. The worst damage has been inside, because people have seen their budgets being squeezed and [also] these big pay settlements. Some of these severance payments raised . . . well, not just eyebrows . . .”

“If you then look at a period of seven years from 2006 to 2013, people who left and were paid more than they were contractually entitled, that totalled £6.8m. Which is about what you’d have to pay to televise a football match. This is not the most outrageous example I can think of mortal sin. . . But it was wrong. And it stopped. And it won’t happen again.”

On BBC bureaucracy and creativity:

“That’s exactly what Tony Hall is trying to do at the moment. Strip out some of those layers of bureaucracy that have, among other things, a deadening effect on creativity. . . We definitely have to be faster on our feet.”

“The best drama I’ve seen since I’ve been in this job is the Tom Stoppard Parade’s End, which I thought was magical. Downton Abbey is a huge success. But I’m glad that we made Parade’s End, not Downton. So there is a lot [of good programming] but there needs to be more.”

On his hopes for the BBC:

“Success would be that the BBC was on the way to renewing the charter, at a reasonable licence fee level, which would enable it to go on producing the kind of programming it does now. And for the levels of trust in the BBC to have consolidated and stabilised; I’d like them to be even higher. It’s a great national treasure and it’s important that it should act like a national treasure and be regarded as – not beyond criticism – but as something that we can be reasonably proud of.”

COVER STORY: THE NEW EXODUS

In a controversial essay for the NS, Paul Collier, professor of economics and public policy at Oxford University and author of the new book Exodus: Immigration and Multiculturalism in the 21st Century, argues “liberal intellectuals who dismiss concerns about future migration. . .are being cavalier at other people’s expense” and declares the “noble vision” of multiculturalism incompatible with an egalitarian society.

Collier argues it is time for a sensible conversation about immigration and wants to break the taboo surrounding its discussion:

“Ever since Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech in 1968, serious discussion of migration has been taboo in British social science. I lost count of the number of times I was cautioned while writing my book Exodus not to include anything that could be ammunition for Ukip. In other words, I was told to write yet more policy-based evidence. British migration policy is too important and in too much disarray for this to be defensible.”

He argues that the multiculturalism model is incompatible with a fair deal for the “indigenous population”:

“Liberal intellectuals want to combine rapid immigration, the multiculturalism that entitles migrants to remain within a distinct cultural community, and an egalitarian society. This is a noble vision but unfortunately the desirability of a policy combination does not ensure that it is technically possible.”

“The weight of evidence suggests overwhelmingly that if a society fragments between an indigenous population and a variety of diaspora communities, co-operation will weaken. More surprisingly, diversity even appears to weaken co-operation within the indigenous population: as indigenous networks are disrupted, people withdraw into more isolated lives.”

Refusing to accept this is, says Collier, an indulgence we cannot afford:

“Liberal intellectuals who dismiss concerns about future migration, as distinct from the complaints about its past effects, are being cavalier at other people’s expense. It is the indigenous poor, existing immigrants and people left behind in the countries of origin who are potentially at risk, not the middle classes.”

THE POLITICS COLUMN: RAFAEL BEHR

In this week’s column, Rafael Behr, NS politics editor, explains that Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, hopes to deal with the winter NHS crisis by positioning himself “as the champion of patients against an unresponsive health bureaucracy”:

“Jeremy Hunt, the current Health Secretary, has a third way. He aims to position himself as the champion of patients against an unresponsive health bureaucracy. He takes as his model the approach that Michael Gove has adopted for schools, casting himself as the scourge of complacency in a system that cherishes mediocrity and cares only about doing things the way they have always been done. ‘Jeremy is always going on about what Michael is doing at Education,’ says a senior Department of Health insider. That is the impulse behind calls for Ofsted-style regulation of hospitals and for GPs to offer more appointments outside working hours. Hunt treats problems in the NHS as evidence of the need for reform. Labour says he is dumping responsibility for the fiasco on doctors and nurses.”

PLUS

Eimear McBride wins the first Goldsmiths Prize – a new literary prize in association with the New Statesman

Vince Cable reflects on the past 100 years – and shares his fears and hopes for the future – in the NS Centenary Interview

Rachel Cooke watches the final Downton episodewill ITV realise how bad a writer Julian Fellowes is or keep flogging this dead horse?

Ryan Gilbey reviews Ridley Scott’s film of Cormac McCarthy’s The Counselor

Michael Brooks calculates the risk of an asteroid hit in this week’s Science column

Getty
Show Hide image

Our union backed Brexit, but that doesn't mean scrapping freedom of movement

We can only improve the lives of our members, like those planning stike action at McDonalds, through solidarity.

The campaign to defend and extend free movement – highlighted by the launch of the Labour Campaign for Free Movement this month – is being seen in some circles as a back door strategy to re-run the EU referendum. If that was truly the case, then I don't think Unions like mine (the BFAWU) would be involved, especially as we campaigned to leave the EU ourselves.

In stark contrast to the rhetoric used by many sections of the Leave campaign, our argument wasn’t driven by fear and paranoia about migrant workers. A good number of the BFAWU’s membership is made up of workers not just from the EU, but from all corners of the world. They make a positive contribution to the industry that we represent. These people make a far larger and important contribution to our society and our communities than the wealthy Brexiteers, who sought to do nothing other than de-humanise them, cheered along by a rabid, right-wing press. 

Those who are calling for end to freedom of movement fail to realise that it’s people, rather than land and borders that makes the world we live in. Division works only in the interest of those that want to hold power, control, influence and wealth. Unfortunately, despite a rich history in terms of where division leads us, a good chunk of the UK population still falls for it. We believe that those who live and work here or in other countries should have their skills recognised and enjoy the same rights as those born in that country, including the democratic right to vote. 

Workers born outside of the UK contribute more than £328 million to the UK economy every day. Our NHS depends on their labour in order to keep it running; the leisure and hospitality industries depend on them in order to function; the food industry (including farming to a degree) is often propped up by their work.

The real architects of our misery and hardship reside in Westminster. It is they who introduced legislation designed to allow bosses to act with impunity and pay poverty wages. The only way we can really improve our lives is not as some would have you believe, by blaming other poor workers from other countries, it is through standing together in solidarity. By organising and combining that we become stronger as our fabulous members are showing through their decision to ballot for strike action in McDonalds.

Our members in McDonalds are both born in the UK and outside the UK, and where the bosses have separated groups of workers by pitting certain nationalities against each other, the workers organised have stood together and fought to win change for all, even organising themed social events to welcome each other in the face of the bosses ‘attempts to create divisions in the workplace.

Our union has held the long term view that we should have a planned economy with an ability to own and control the means of production. Our members saw the EU as a gravy train, working in the interests of wealthy elites and industrial scale tax avoidance. They felt that leaving the EU would give the UK the best opportunity to renationalise our key industries and begin a programme of manufacturing on a scale that would allow us to be self-sufficient and independent while enjoying solid trading relationships with other countries. Obviously, a key component in terms of facilitating this is continued freedom of movement.

Many of our members come from communities that voted to leave the EU. They are a reflection of real life that the movers and shakers in both the Leave and Remain campaigns took for granted. We weren’t surprised by the outcome of the EU referendum; after decades of politicians heaping blame on the EU for everything from the shape of fruit to personal hardship, what else could we possibly expect? However, we cannot allow migrant labour to remain as a political football to give succour to the prejudices of the uninformed. Given the same rights and freedoms as UK citizens, foreign workers have the ability to ensure that the UK actually makes a success of Brexit, one that benefits the many, rather than the few.

Ian Hodon is President of the Bakers and Allied Food Workers Union and founding signatory of the Labour Campaign for Free Movement.