Match of the Day: Lineker v Braverman

Let’s not overlook the emotions the Tories are stirring up – again

My non-Brit readers may find this substack a bit baffling but try to bear with me as it has wider resonance I think. On March 7 the UK government brought in a bill to cutback illegal immigration by heavily reducing illegal immigrants’ existing rights to firstly claim asylum and then fast-track their removal.

Explaining the bill to parliamentarians, the Home Secretary Suella Braverman, said the government believed it was compatible with existing international conventions, but acknowledged, "Our approach is robust and novel, which is why I’ve made a statement under Section 19(1)(b of the Human Rights Act 1998. This does not mean that the provisions of the Bill are incompatible with the Convention rights, only that there is a more than 50% chance that they may not be.”

In other words, there is a better than even chance the bill breaks the Human Rights Act, but they are going to do it anyway. There’s no indication that they would back down if it does prove to be a breach. Quite the contrary, as Braverman later put on explanatory notes for the bill, ‘I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Conventions rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.’

As you might expect, the bill has produced a lot of debate and controversy. But instead of revolving around the spectacle of a British government knowingly being prepared to breach Human Rights, it has peaked around the comments of former England footballer, Gary Lineker.

For those who don’t know of him, then he’s something of a national icon. A brilliant footballer turned brilliant and charismatic sports presenter, and the BBC’s best paid employee. But he’s not on the staff – he’s on a freelance contract – and not doing news. And here’s the rub, because he uses his twitter account to sometimes get political, with a centre left perspective.

No surprise then he was none too keen on the bill and tweeted: ‘Good heavens, this is beyond awful.’ The follow-up in the succeeding twitter debate, is what lit the fire:

‘There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?’

Strong stuff, and it has since then dominated the debate on the issue, with calls for his sacking by the BBC and a debate about BBC impartiality and whether it applies to freelance sports presenters. Frankly, Lineker’s future is a bit of a diversion, but let’s stick with the accusation he made and the language he criticised. Here’s what Braverman said, arguing for the bill in parliament:

In the face of today’s global migration crisis, yesterday’s laws are simply not fit for purpose. So to anyone proposing de facto open borders through unlimited safe and legal routes as the alternative, let’s be honest: by some counts there are 100 million people around the world who could qualify for protection under our current laws. And let’s be clear: They are coming here.

And for good measure she wrote in the Daily Mail – which as a newspaper is something of a Tory mouthpiece:

The completely unacceptable scenes starting to play out on our streets grimly foreshadow the sorts of community tensions we will see if we don’t get a grip. In the face of today’s global migration crisis, yesterday’s laws are simply not fit for purpose. There are 100 million people displaced around the world, and likely billions more eager to come here if possible.

Now, I would still say Lineker’s comparison is somewhat OTT and inexact, but I can also see his point. Braverman is basically saying, back my bill or we will be swamped by a 100 million people invading our green and pleasant land of a mere 65 million. And in case you’re not worried enough, there are apparently ‘likely billions more eager to come her if possible’. Apparently other countries simply don’t cut it as future homes, as she tells us, ‘…let’s be clear: They are coming here.’

This is no slip of the tongue – she kept using and defending that figure in other interviews, attributing it to the UN. No surprise then to find it was a gross mischaracterisation of the real situation. This link goes into the detail: https://fullfact.org/immigration/suella-braverman-100-million-claim/

In summary there are about a 100m displaced people worldwide, but for a start 60m are internally displaced people living within their own country: ‘Full Fact asked the UNHCR about Ms Braverman’s claim, and it told us that the majority of forcibly displaced people remain within their own country, while an estimated 69% of refugees and asylum seekers who do leave their country stay in countries which neighbour their own.’

So, the 100m figure is rabble-rousing nonsense, designed to appeal to peoples’ fears and emotions. And we have been here before. Remember Brexit and Turkey?

During it the Brexit campaign had a massive poster campaign, reading TURKEY (population 76 million) IS JOINING THE EU, then urging ‘Vote Leave, take back control’

The Brexit campaign stated: ‘Since the birthrate in Turkey is so high, we can expect to see an additional million people added to the UK population from Turkey alone within eight years…. it will also create a number of threats to UK security. Crime is far higher in Turkey than the UK. Gun ownership is also more widespread. Because of the EU’s free movement laws, the government will not be able to exclude Turkish criminals from entering the UK.’

Yes, in 2016 Boris Johnson and his allies scaremongered for votes by raising the non-existent prospect of the entire Turkish population decamping to Dover. Inflation has clearly hit the scaremongering index as well, as we have gone from 76m to 100m. Afterwards Johnson lied that he had used the Turkey issue in Brexit, indicating he knew just how immoral and unsustainable that stance was. He knew it then, and Braverman knows it now.

She also echoed the disorder theme further in the interview with the Daily Mail: ‘The completely unacceptable scenes starting to play out on our streets grimly foreshadow the sorts of community tensions we will see if we don’t get a grip.’ Riots on the streets? She is not the first Tory politician to have said things like this and it does not end well – this is a slippery slope.

As a communicator analysing the approach is obvious. This is an emotive narrative appealing to our fears and often prejudices and justifying them. It is also the politics of deliberate division, while seeking to reinforce support from a particular element of the Brexit constituency who already accept the ‘us against the world’ narrative.

An email in her name to Conservative supporters, stated, "We tried to stop the small boat crossings without changing our laws. But an activist blob of left-wing lawyers, civil servants and the Labour Party blocked us." Sunak confirmed the tactic when in parliament he accused the opposition leader Sir Keir Starmer of being, “just another lefty lawyer standing in our way.” Those damned blobs, along with other culture targets – ‘elites’, ‘deep state’ – all being lined up as enemies of the people who just don’t get it. It’s not just in Britain this is happening is it?

So, the shape of the next election seems to be emerging, based around a culture war narrative and the Tories are using the issue to help create so-called ‘clear blue water’ between them and Labour, with illegal immigration swimming in that water. The old ‘one-nation’ Tory Party of having a broad appeal is also drowning in it.

Bizarrely, the fundamental issue, illegal immigration and Britain breaching human rights, has been subsumed in a debate about Gary Lineker’s right to tweet, when quite bizarrely it became the lead story on the BBC News at Ten, the main news programme of the day. Finding his comments and his right to say them leading the news he commented succinctly on Twitter: ‘World’s gone mad.’

Quite. As a former BBC news guy, I really don’t see it as complicated. When I was working there, I couldn’t say stuff like that, while Lineker, as a non-staff sports presenter can.

Again, as a professional communicator, I am also dismayed but not surprised by the focus on Lineker’s tweet as opposed to the wider and more important issue. This is the nature of emotive culture war style narratives – not thinking but feeling. For Braverman this is also a welcome distraction from the actual issue.

An irony here is that many people, including myself, would agree the convention on refugees does need revisiting and revision to account for today’s globalised world. But there is no possibility of a coherent debate and change over time – involving as it must national and international parties – when it is just another emotional weapon to be wielded by politicians of this ilk.

Frankly, she may be worrying about billions wanting to live in the UK, but at present I am somewhat ashamed to be living in a country where a willingness to contemplate international law-breaking on human rights seems to be government policy.