The Mail thinks the government has kept out too many migrants? Has the world gone mad?

Not six months ago, Phil 'if this one's my arse, which one's my elbow again?' Woolas was hawking his latest tabloid-pleasing carnival sideshow - his 'Australian-style' ponts system. Well, he called it 'Australian-style' despite the Australian system being lenient in comparison, but he explained away the inaccuracy by saying, "If you ignore the Sun reader in this debate you are not going to move it forward."

Maybe it was the reference to the Sun that did it, but the Mail was not impressed. 'Home office controls on migrant workers 'are a con'' huffed James Slack, providing a masterclass in the use of mendacity quotes with his headline. The points system was rubbish, because it didn't keep enough non-EU people out - at least, it didn't keep as many people out as the Mail said it would, Slack could have been arguing with an earlier version of the Mail coverage rather than NuLab spin.

In any case, the points system was a 'con' because it didn't keep enough people out. Keeping people out of the country is what we want!

Except, 'The great sheep shearer shortage: hundreds kept out of Britain because of new visa test'. Oh. The new system makes it too difficult for migrant workers to enter the country. The who in the what now?

The Mail, which supports an arbitrary cap on immigration numbers and attacked the government's less-lenient-than-the-Australian-style points system for not keeping enough non-EU migrants out is now complaining that non-EU migrants are kept out by the government's arbitrary immigration laws. You couldn't make it up! Cottaging! Polar bears! Don't panic Mr Mainwaring! Poovery! Hell in a handcart! Bumsex!

Sorry. Once you start channeling Smellyface, it gets difficult to stop.

From 'ANALYSIS: An immigration cap is firm but fair - and vital for Britain's future':
Anecdotal evidence points to a reduction in training and apprenticeships precisely because businesses know they can turn to migrant workers instead.


Given the choice, few would argue with the prospect of a less crowded Briton[sic], with less unemployment and fewer people languishing on benefits.
Yeah, the government! British jobs for British workers!

Except now:
NAAC executive member Robert Morris, who is himself a sheep-shearing contractor, said: ‘The situation is serious and critical. These guys are world-class shearers who can each deal with up to 400 sheep a day.

‘Unless all 500 of the shearers are allowed into the country, we can’t shear the national flock in time and we will lose thousands of sheep to diseases and other problems.’
What happened to apprenticeships, British jobs for British workers and the notion that we need to keep out as many non-EU people as possible?

What could be the difference between these non-EU people:

Good immigration: Even in a story like this, the Mail can't resist the lure of the downblouse

And these:

Bad immigration: Always illustrated by groups of men, of a certain sort

You don't think...naah, it couldn't be.


Nathan said...

Wow. I hope one day some sub-editor at the Mail is holding two pictures like this in their hands, ready to paste them under the headlines BAD and GOOD. They'll look at one, look at the other, look back at the first one, then lean back and stare at the ceiling for a while. Then they'll throw themselves out of a window.

Nathan said...

Wait, I just realised that they already published that front page.


If whoever mocked it up felt even a flicker of humanity, it seems they were able to suppress it.