Bashing immigrants makes you 'magnificent' apparently
Poor old George Osborne. He must be wishing for the days when he was the Daily Mail’s St George.
Today’s paper sees the chancellor upstaged as belle of the Tory ball; cast aside like a jilted lover in favour of the May Queen, home secretary Theresa May.
Other papers have pointed out that May’s immigration speech was a pack of lies. Despite this, she receives gushing coverage in the Mail, usually a tough audience for a Cameronite.
In no particular order then, here are the top 3 love letters to Theresa May from the Daily Mail:
1. ‘Magnificent Mrs May shows PM the way’
An editorial in the Mail, bearing the headline above, begins:
“As an analysis of the drawbacks of mass immigration, Theresa May’s conference speech was little short of magnificent.
Indeed, this was perhaps the bravest attempt by a mainstream politician to confront the issue – ranked voters’ number one concern – since the bien-pensant Left pulled down the curtain on open debate decades ago.”
Who knew ‘open debate’ on immigration was so rare? Not anyone reading the Daily Mail.
It goes on: ‘After years of arguing these very points in print’, [would these be the points blocked by the bien-pensant Left?] ‘– and being attacked for it by the BBC – this paper salutes Mrs May for finding the courage to voice the thoughts of the vast, disenfranchised majority.’
But just how much courage does it take to say these things if they are indeed ‘the thoughts of the vast majority’?
This leads us on to…
2. ‘Woman with guts to tell the truth’
As has been said elsewhere, on the strain on wages, taking British jobs and financial benefits and costs, May was not telling the truth.
How much ‘guts’ does it take to tell people what they want to hear?
‘Woman with guts to lie and pander to prejudice’ more like.
The Mail adds that ‘while her assessment of the problem is impossible to fault’, her solutions don’t go far enough. Proving, as I said yesterday, that there is always room to move further Rightwards.
All pretty horrible. But don’t worry…
3. She wears nice clothes, like a supermodel
“Anyone who has leopard-print heels and thigh-high latex boots in their wardrobe could never be called a fashion wallflower.
Her style has even been likened to that of supermodel and style icon, 22-year-old Cara Delevingne. […]
The perennially chic politician offset her dress – a red version of which was worn by supermodel Tyra Banks this summer – with black block-heeled pumps and a red, beige and white handbag.”
Tune in next week for another edition of Britain’s Next Prime Minister, when Mother Theresa will be modelling her newest look, anti-immigrant chic, (brownshirt optional).
***
Like this article? Support our work: donate here.
Adam Barnett is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow MediaWatch on Twitter
Sign up for our weekly email by clicking here.
20 Responses to “Top 3 love letters to Theresa May in today’s Daily Mail”
jj
Im not ‘blaming immigrants’ for anything, I have an immigrant mother in fact. But is it reasonable to have 300000 net people per year when we are already struggling to meet the needs of the current population. And no, throwing money at the issue isn’t a long term strategy!
Dark_Heart_of_Toryland
The reason we are struggling to meet the needs of the current population has little to do with immigration, but everything to do with the dogma-driven austerity being inflicted on the country by the Tories. This is not about throwing money at the issue, but you can’t have a functioning infrastructure without sufficient government investment. This is a lesson we should have learned from the damage inflicted by the Tories in the 80s and 90s.
If you’re mother was an immigrant, then surely you should understand the plight of current immigrants. Or do you think that now your family is safely established, the drawbridge should be drawn up to keep out the rest?
jj
She is actually Polish. And she as well as I realise that population levels in this country are going up at a rate unprecedented in recent decades. It has its benefits, like economic benefits, but that’s merely because there are more people. The thing is, the countries that immigrants leave have actually suffered because people have left, take Moldova, which has massive emigration levels out of the country, and this hinders its econonomy and has meant that it remains the poorest country in Europe. Most migrants integrate perfectly well. But there are growing issues in big cities with the growing divide along ethnic lines, tension between communities and plenty of racism from all sides. Poverty in inner cities where large numbers of immigrants brush along with white British people has in part led up to the scenes we saw in Bradford in 2001. We need to sort out the problems resulting from a nets immigration rate of 300,000 per year before we add more kindling to the fire. And I don’t think that having some immigrant heritage is an excuse for ignoring the current issues facing this country. Or are those descendent from recent immigrants not allowed to be against the notion that mass immigration is what this country needs and wants?
Clive Osborne
“The vast, disenfranchised majority” – would that be the 72 per cent who did not vote Tory?
Dark_Heart_of_Toryland
The point remains that migration is an integral part of globalisation. Leaving aside refugees from war zones and political oppression, the majority of economic migrants move because of the lack of opportunity in their home countries. While we have a global economic system which allows the unimpeded movement of money, and produces grotesque inequalities of wealth, then we will have mass migration. If you are concerned about migration, then you need to address the causes of it.
As for poverty in inner cities, this is in large part a result of the same failed economic system which produces mass migration. It is poverty and lack of opportunity which produces divides along ethnic lines.
And no, I don’t think that that the descendents of descendents of recent immigrants should not be allowed to oppose further immigration – I just think it’s a bit hypocritical.