You Can't Please All Of The People

You can't please all of the people all of the time but when it comes to the current refugee/migrant/displaced persons (delete as applicable)[1] crisis, it seems that politicians, especially David Cameron and the Conservative government, can't even please some of the people all of the time or all of the people some of the time.

Having been criticised for failing to meet its own targets for limiting immigration, the government finds itself under pressure to allow greater numbers of refugees or migrants into Britain. Even accepting that immigration and asylum are not the same thing, limits on immigration conflict with the well publicised needs of British industry to address the skill shortages they frequently complain about, but for whatever reason people seek to come to Britain, the current levels  of people coming or seeking to come won't enable the government to meet those pesky targets.

Even the language that politicians use to describe the refugees/migrants/displaced persons comes in for scrutiny and criticism. David Cameron's use of the word "swarm" to describe migrants camped in Calais was seized upon and condemned for "dehumanising" them. Since swarm is " a large number of people" it seems a wholly innocent, and accurate description, but some people are ever keen to take offense, especially on the part of others who may be unaware of or totally unconcerned by the imagined sleight. Besides, the people to whom Mr Cameron referred have more pressing concerns than how the British Prime Minister has described them. The fashion for taking offense where none is intended or even inferred spread recently to condemnation of BBC reporter Paul Adams after he asked a migrant in Calais if he was going to ‘go back to the Jungle now’. Despite the fact that Adams was referring to the accepted name for the camp where migrants are staying, he was nonetheless pilloried on social media. Rather than get on their high horse about one word, perhaps these uninformed commentators would have been better employed venting their spleens about the problems the refugees face, not how their camp was described.

Meanwhile the Prime Minister's office was attacked for refusing to answer questions as to whether he would personally take in refugees after Nicola Sturgeon and Yvette Cooper had indicated that they would. The former, asked on Sky TV whether she would take a refugee into her home, answered that she would, but to her credit later called the question "gimmicky," which it certainly was. Cameron has received further criticism despite his announcement that Britain would accept 20,000 Syrian refugees because that figure covers the lifetime of this parliament and is a mere spit in the ocean compared with the 4 million Syrians who have left their country and the 8 million displaced within it.[2] Accepting 20,000 refugees, or 200,000 or even 2 million could be described as an inadequate response given those numbers, but for every person who criticises the response as inadequate, there will be those who claim it to be too many. And opposing those who clamour for more to be done, for more refugees to be accepted, there will be critics condemning the fact that to fund these people's arrival and support in Britain, other services would need to be cut or additional tax revenues raised.

Whether central or local government need to find the money to pay for processing and supporting incoming refugees, local authorities will find themselves under pressure. Local government asylum teams were disbanded several years ago when the number of asylum seekers fell and those already here came under the umbrella of other areas of social services. For local authorities already under budgetary constraints, the cost of processing a whole new influx[3] of refugees would inevitably mean cuts in other areas, cuts that would equally inevitably be condemned, even including by those who want more money spent on the refugees. You can't get a quart into a pint pot; something will have to give, somewhere. Having disbanded their asylum teams, local councils may have to rebuild them to cope since it is improbable that the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) would be able to provide the infrastructure as it was barely coping when responsibility was in the hands of local government agencies in years gone by.

It may be an unpalatable point of view for those who believe that all refugees are deserving cases, but it seems to me that some, not all, but some, of the refugees arriving in Europe, especially those who have landed in Greece and in Hungary, have shown more attitude than gratitude. Beggars, as the saying goes, can't be choosers and to arrive in Greece, a country with its own well publicised and very significant problems, and complain about conditions, or to arrive in Hungary and demand passage to Germany because they don't like conditions in Budapest seems unreasonable. If you have made huge personal sacrifices to flee a country where you are oppressed and in fear for your life, I would have thought they would be happy to be fed and accommodated, however basic that accommodation might be, at least initially.

 Suggestions that European countries should share the load of these refugees may seem reasonable, but it is not as simple as just divvying them up and sending them on their way. For instance Slovakia has said it will only accept Christians; Interior ministry spokesman Ivan Netik said Muslims would not be accepted because they would not feel at home (apparently the country has no mosques). For their part many refugees may be unwilling to be settled in a country not of their choosing.

Just this week I have been invited to sign two petitions on the subject. One seeks to petition the government to accept "its fair share of refugees seeking safety in Europe" although it doesn't actually say what it means by "fair share." Presumably more than the 20,000 the government suggests, but how many is anyone's guess. The other, and it isn't the only one framed in a similar manner, wants to restrict immigration, especially from Middle Eastern countries. Little chance of government pleasing all of the people even some of the time, then.

They say that if you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem and it is easy to slate David Cameron and the Conservatives for their actions or inactions, but the same would be the case if Labour were in power; their solutions would be just as unpalatable to many. What is the answer? I don't have one, but there seem to be plenty of people criticising what is being done; perhaps we should put them in charge of managing the issue.

In fact one might go as far as to say that when we next have a General Election we should put the party that loses and assorted other critics of government into office, after all they always seem to have the answers that the elected government doesn't. Just a thought.

---

[1] Depending upon your outlook. One man's refugee (a person who is outside their home country because they have suffered (or feared) persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, or political opinion) is another man's migrant (a person who moves from one place to another in order to find work or better living conditions). For one reason or another, they are all displaced.

[2] I'm quoting figures given by the BBC on Tuesday here; I am assuming they are correct.

[3] Influx merely means entry, or the act of flowing in, which is pretty neutral. If you want you can call it pejorative by saying it is a synonym of incursion, or invasion, which have negative connotations. You can take offense if you wish, but none was intended.