Thread: Something I've been thinking a lot about this week is just how "good", for want of a better word, Home Office comms are. I mean, they're hideous, but they are also effective in their intended outcome, which isn't really to "communicate" so much as undermine opposition. 1/
The "activist lawyers" line was a masterstroke, because despite it being objectively wrong and misleading, there is no way to demonstrate that without them being able to reinforce the message to their target audience. 2/
It also provides them with the perfect cover for their claims that the asylum system is "overwhelmed" despite actual numbers of asylum seekers being down on previous years. "Don't look at us guv. Look at those activist lawyers holding up the process". 3/
Likewise the strategic use of "consultations" with NGOs, INGOs, legal authorities etc. It doesn't matter that all of them say the Home Office can't legally do what it suggests. They can still put out press releases saying they "spoke to UNHCR before implementing plans" etc. 4/
For most of the public that reads as though they have gained the support of the very organisations which are out there condemning their actions at every step. It is quite a striking way of taking out the opposition before it has even managed to start opposing plans. 5/
Then you have the carefully leaked batshit crazy ideas, like wave machines in the channel, or carefully coordinated "trials" of using jet skis to "deter" dinghies crossing the channel. They know they can't actually do these things, but they also know they can stoke outrage. 6/
All of that makes it easier to push through equally abhorrent policies, such as penalising asylum seekers for their manner of entry despite it violating international law, because those policies sound "moderate" in relation to some of the ones leaked. 7/
The problem facing organisations which oppose government plans is that we risk getting sucked into them the minute we do so. They know what they objections are, they might be callous but they aren't stupid, and they have planned for it. 8/
They are treating it as a game, and it is one which, if we are all being honest with ourselves, they are winning. That's why it is so important, and I do this myself so hold my hands up to that, to think before getting outraged. 9/
Personal attacks against Patel might be cathartic, and easy, but they yet again play into the Home Office's hands. Why do you think she is still in post. They can be brushed off and used to make advocates for human rights seem unreasonable at best, unhinged at worst. 10/
No-one ever considers themselves the "bad guys". The Home Office definitely don't. So when attacks get personal, and often misogynistic and racist in the case of Patel, it just helps them reinforce the idea that they are the "righteous" ones. 11/
The same is true when misinformation is used to attack them. There are plenty of genuine things to condemn and oppose, but when we light upon something which sounds juicy but is easily disprovable, they can say we are just making stuff up and discredit legitimate criticism. 12/
We all need to be more strategic about this, because they definitely are. We are getting out manoeuvred for the most part, although some groups are trying hard not to be, but often it is well-meaning social media activists who are hurting us the most. 13/
Outrage is easy. You see a story and rant, we all do it, I definitely do. It's not helpful though. They have planned for it. We become part of their comms campaign. It's time to stop being played and start being more aware in our objections, or we will keep losing. 14/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Since I wrote this thread on @UKLabour's Asylum and Immigration policies several things have been depressingly clear. First off, things are going to get worse. Cooper's announcement of increased immigration raids, and the blinkered defence of them by some, shows this. 1/
The second is how much harder it is going to be for organisations and individuals fighting for migrants' rights. A lot of support over the last 14 years wasn't "pro-migrants rights". It was "anti-conservative". Obviously this isn't new though. 2/
We saw shades of it after the Brexit referendum. People who claimed to be progressive pushing a "good/bad migrants" narrative dividing EU and non-EU migrants. I saw first hand a lot of the hypocrisy of those individuals then, and see it repeating on an even larger scale now. 3/
Okay, a, very, long thread on @UKLabour's asylum and border policies announced today in the #KingSpeech. The short version to start though is that they are, aside from processing applications and cancelling the Rwanda plan, overwhelmingly harmful. 1/ assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6697ac9c…
First off, this isn't new. Anyone remember the Clandestine Channel Threat Commander for example. Secondly, as explained in the linked thread, and as strange as this may sound, increased border security actually strengthens smuggling gangs. 2/
Look, I get it, people like the sound of "Border Security". Thing is, barring a headline grabbing minority, people crossing the channel are't a threat. If Labour are going to re-use Conservative policies I may as well re-use threads debunking them👇 3/
The stories about "gangs" grab headlines, but the reality is that the majority of convictions for smuggling are of people actually making the crossing themselves. All the evidence shows that harsher border policies force more people into the hands of gangs though. 1/
Globally, most smugglers are small groups or independent operators. For example we were seeing a significant increase in "self- facilitated" crossings in the channel, by groups who arrange things themselves without relying on gangs. 2/
As border controls become more focused on criminalising those seeking safety and using "securitised" language, such as making out channel crossings are a national security threat, it makes it harder for these independent crossings, which forces people into the hands of gangs. 3/
Strawman argument from Hodges here. No-one is pretending that immigration didn't play a part in Reform's wins, just that it was the rhetoric and misinformation about immigration they spread rather than migration itself. 1/
Look at Essex for example, where Reform won two of its five seats. It has substantially lower immigration than the UK average, yet higher than average levels of deprivation in parts. This makes people an easy target for messages which scapegoat migrants. 2/
The key thing here is to differentiate between the reality of migration, which is repeatedly shown to have little to no real world impact on people's lives, and where it does it shown to be predominately positive, and the rhetoric around migration, which is highly negative. 3/
Deep breath. Oookay then. Seeing as an earlier thread of mine has generated, shall we say some unfortunate abuse. Let's have a little deep dive into why criticism of Badenoch, Rowling etc is not misogynistic and just reality. 1/
Firstly, let's address the "oh look a man telling women what they think". No, absolutely not. There are numerous issues I will not ever try and talk about because I recognise that I do not have the knowledge or life experience to do so. 2/
I will comment on things such as the gender pay gap, way in which the right to choose with regards to abortion is being criminalised, terrifyingly high rates of sexual offences, and equally terrifyingly low rates of prosecutions etc, because they are things we can all see. 2/
It's #WorldRefugeeDay, so, let's have some facts about those seeking asylum, not more divisive hatemongering. Firstly, most of those seeking asylum in the UK do so because they have existing ties here. That's why arguments such as "France is a safe country" are meaningless. 1/
If you have fled from war or persecution your concept of "safety" is going to be very different from someone going on holiday. You want to be somewhere you know people, have a community, and speak the language. That's why no amount of "deterrents" will stop people coming. 2/
They may not be able to receive asylum, but that is secondary to feeling safe within communities they know. With what are known as "family reunification routes" being all but shut down, people are left with no option but to make dangerous crossings. 3/ ein.org.uk/news/reports-s…