I wonder if the BBC executives really thought about what they were doing by taking on Gary Lineker because he told the truth.
They objected to Lineker saying:
It was the comparison to Germany in the 30s to which they said they objected. But, it was criticism of government policy that really got to them, I think. Lineker was, correctly, calling out the Tories as not just fascist (although he did not use the word) but also as racist.
I suspect the BBC executives never doubted that they had the power to take Lineker on. That must have left them deeply surprised that football and footballers rallied around him.
In itself that shows their incompetence. This is a sport where there is over-representation of those considered to be in minorities in the UK.
It is a sport dependent on players of colour being allowed to come to the UK to play.
And it is a sport where those players, their management and the management hierarchy have taken a stand against racism, and stood up against those who have booed when they have taken the knee to indicate that. Throughout the game people have got used to opprobrium for doing the right thing.
And not just on racism, but on the women's game (which I enjoy) and on LGBTQ+ rights too.
Did they really expect a footballer to say that overt racism using the language of the 1930s was acceptable in that case?
If they did, as they have now discovered, they got that very wrong.
The BBC even got their statement on this issue wrong. They claimed Gary Lineker agreed to stand back from Match of the Day, but it is clear that he did not. They suspended him for standing up to racists, something football has done, and done well.
And now his fellow pundits, plus the commentators, have stood with him. No Lineker they say, then not us either.
This was always going to be a year of strikes provoked by callous government policy. I do not think anyone saw this one coming. And yet it is wholly justified.
The racism justifies it.
So too does the fascism.
But so too does the hypocrisy. I could document, but this commentary on Sky does it so well, I share it instead:
This is dynamite from Kaveh Solhekol on Sky Sports News. Absolutely nails it. He has the Tories and BBC on toast. Well done!! 👏 Take 2 mins and watch👇#garylineker #ImWithGary #MOTD #ToryFascists pic.twitter.com/Ixcnb7gDIz
— Marion Langford 🇺🇦🌠🇪🇺💙 (@LallyLangford) March 10, 2023
The argument is well put. Andrew Neil, Jeremy Clarkson, Alan Sugar and others were allowed right wing views elsewhere in the media whilst working for the BBC and no one stopped them.
Richard Sharp, the BBC chair has gifted £400,000 to the Tories and arranged a loan of £800,000 fir Boris Johnson.
Robbie Gibb is a BBC director. He is a former adviser to Theresa May. Gibb worked for GB News. Lewis Goodall sys Gibb bullied him out of the BBC for his supposedly left wing views.
Tim Davie, the Director General, has been a Tory candidate.
Lineker is not a party politician. He just told the truth about the party the BBC dare not criticise because it is now openly managed in Tory interests and promotes Tories to all positions of political significance. There is a reason why Fiona Bruce has been trending on Twitter. Laura Kuensberg appears biased. Chris Mason always frames his questions from a Tory perspective. Interviewee and panel selection is obviously biased.
But Lineker, they thought, was the one in the wrong.
Lineker, they thought, was the one they could make an example of.
Lineker, they thought, could be isolated.
Lineker,they thought, was an extremist.
But it turned out they were wrong. Because, it turns out, football knows more about discrimination than the BBC does. The current BBC only knows how to do it. Football knows how to spot it and fight it, because it knows the game is dependent on doing so, as is society.
Football can hold its head up high.
The BBC is bust. In an afternoon they suspended Gary Lineker and lied about the sixth instalment of David Attenborough's last major series, which they said they will not broadcast for fear of offending the government. They lied on that too.
If there are two public figures with profound credibility they are Lineker and Attenborough. The BBC branded them both as extremists. The BBC supported the fascists. They were wrong. The BBC has shattered its credibility. Many of us knew it was dubious. Now that is an obvious fact.
But the good thing is that the fight against fascism is in the open. That does not mean it will be won. But it is now clear that it is required. And that is this weekend's good news. Right has to prevail now. We can only hope it will.
And so, today's poll:
Is the BBC now a mouthpiece for the Tories, corrupted by a policy of appointing Tory sympathisers to position of power with it?
- Yes (91%, 1,068 Votes)
- I am abstaining but show me the answers anyway (3%, 34 Votes)
- Don’t be silly (2%, 27 Votes)
- No (2%, 21 Votes)
- Don’t know (2%, 18 Votes)
Total Voters: 1,168
Loading ...Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Unfortunately us in Scotland woke (there’s that lefty word again!) up to the corruption and bias of the BBC about 10 years ago.
It is becoming obvious that the BBC has always been the state broadcaster, it just used to be well disguised in public broadcaster clothing.
The BBC is absolutely stuffed on this one. They have backed themselves in to a corner from which there is no escape. That so many connected with Match of the Day in particular and football in general are standing alongside Gary Lineker shows the strength of feel on this issue. He spoke the truth and those in government did not like it nor being held to account.
Whichever way the BBC goes on this will be bad for it. The veil of independence and impartiality has been well and truly ripped off.
Craig
I expect grass-roots football to support Lineker.
I expect the Football Association will say nothing. Money comes first. No balls.
Richard, the title of this post is brilliant. Pastor Niemueller will hopefully be remembered by you doing so. Thank you for this.
@larry and everyone
I hope they will also remember how evem that – Pastor Niemoller’s famous plea for solidarity – is usually censored (and effectively also censured), because they usually start the quotation with:
“First they came for the Socialists..”,
whereas it actually begins:
“First they came for the.Communists”
in recognition that the Communists (however dismal you may hold their politics to be) were the Nazis main opponents on the streets.
The Socialists and Social Democrats could have held the Nazis at bay long enough for the surge of popularity for the Nazis to ebb away – that was already happening, as in July 1932 the Nazis got 230 seats, adding 123 to their total, and 13.7m votes and 37.3% of the total whereas in November 1932 they lost 34 seats, capturing 196, with only 11.1m votes and 33.1% of the total – but they would work together in a united front, either with each other, or with the Communists.
THAT is the real lesson for the electorate now, when faced with an incipiently Fascist government.
Grr! I’ve committed the “sin” of the “wicked Bible” that left out KEY negative, so that the 10 Commandments read: “Thou shalt commit adultery”!
Thus when I wrote: “but they would work together in a united front, either with each other, or with the Communists.”,
I SHOULD have written: but they would NOT work together in a united front, either with each other, or with the Communists.
“The argument is well put. Andrew Neil, Jeremy Clarkson, Alan Sugar and others were allowed right wing views elsewhere in the media whilst working for the BBC and no one stopped them.”
The issue is evolving. It seems to be about the nature impartiality, but it is really about the real, fundamental nature of the BBC, which is grossly misunderstood; not least within the BBC – and how it is being used by politicians. The BBC is essentially a Chartered Monopoly.
The model for the BBC’s existence is not the BBC. It is the East India Company (EIC); the first and most powerful Chartered Monopoly ever created by Britain. The EIC lost its monopoly too, but tried to hang on to the powers of the Charter without the monopoly. It didn’t work, and it was eventually extinguished. The BBC is no longer a monopoly. It doesn’t understand the constrained nature of its real existence.
The problem for the BBC is that it is trying to insist on acting like a Chartered Monopoly when it lives in a world that has abandoned the principle. It follows the new reality in trying to operate like a business corporation; using freelance staff under short-term contracts, who are not staff. Then it tries to imply its “impartiality” rules as if it was a real Chartered Monoploy. It doesn’t work.
The Conservative do not want to remove the BBC for the sake of an elusive free enterprise (the Conservative Party does not believe in free enterprise; it never did, save for the deluded). They wish to infiltrate the BBC at senior level, then apply Chartered Monopoly rights that have no substance in the real world any more; but within the BBC apply universal impartiality rules over the whole lives of all and sundry who do any work for the BBC; but selectively, based on the right-wing bias they are establishing as “impartial”. Hence, one rul for Andrew Neil; quite another for a football commentator. This could only happen to the BBC, and only because of its Chartered status.
This is simply another example of the total failure of our institutions to function effectively for the population in the real 21st century world.
Agreed – and apologies for the delay in getting to this
I have been moderating between birdwatching
No need to apologise for taking a break.
Correcting my sloppy drafting:
‘Then it tries to apply its “impartiality” rules as if it was a real Chartered Monoploy.’
This is not about ‘impartiality’. It is really a matter of the unsustainable nature of a 17th century Chatered Monopoly structure as if it was functionally competent in the 21st century digital age.
Chartered Monopoly was not designed for the BBC. It was taken ‘off the shelf’ from an old, and vey inappropriate precedent for a world other than pure Monopoly power. The Chareted Monopoly as a viable institution began to falter as early as the end of the 17th century (the EIC had to face constant Charter renewals, shortened to five years under political pressure), and finally was swept aside by the rise of industrial society, early in the 19th century.
The East India Company (EIC) was wholly undone following the Indinan Mutiny, and finally abolished in 1874. The pressure on the EIC was a mixture of politics and money; and government used both to undermine the monopoly Government had created. The BBC, like the EIC, finds it very difficult to resist the power and grip of politicians (especially in the 21st century when politicians exploit their own media power and influence over the public mood at will).
Thank you John for providing the words and framework to my objection to BBC. Other than the fact that fascism rhetoric technique has inculcated our communications system in this country, it is the monopoly and change of culture element that is indeed the problem and appeals to my concerns.
There is an argument to suggest that if the monopoly is managed robustly to the high standards it was set off on, you should not have a problem. Maybe the BBC we have now is the one that John Birt ‘managerialism bequeathed the nation with his cost cutting and culture changes that has eroded quality and trust and allowed fascism to creep in by the back door. There was certainly lots of fuss kicked up about his tenure at the time.
Well done John, an incisive post.
Unfortunate use of the word “right” at the end of the last paragraph Richard 😉
“The people can always be brought to the Govt’s (Tory) immigration policy. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being invaded by migrants, and denounce the woke for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
I changed a few words from the quote:-
“The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” Joseph Goebbels.
So true
This recent idolisation of Lineker by you is interesting..are you aware he dodges paying tax to the tune of £5m according to HMRC
Are you aware he has paid tax on all that income?
And see you aware the BBC wanted this arrangement?
Why are you lying?
Inside Gary Lineker’s tax clash with the BBC, which has left him paying hundreds of thousands in legal fees
“Some presenters, including the former 6 Music presenter Liz Kershaw, say they were forced by the Beeb to become self-employed and to pay their tax through limited companies. ” [..]
“HMRC is demanding [Lineker] pay just under £5m. It is pursuing him under “off-payroll working” rules known as IR35.
“Lineker has appealed, and in a hearing last month his lawyer effectively argued that the taxman should not be pursuing Lineker but the BBC.”
Source: https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/gary-lineker-tax-clash-bbc-paying-legal-fees-2201702
I think Lineker is right
They were notorious for doing this
Are you aware that Gary Lineker has had refugees and asylum seekers living in his house? That’s a reason to idolise him.
Credit where credit is due, and very surprising given its recent form, the Today Programme this morning presented a balanced and fair discussion of the Lineker affair; it devoted its 8:10 slot to the Lineker issue, interviewing Greg Dyke, former DG of the BBC, and Patience Wheatcroft. It characterised its cover as “where power lies in modern Britain”.
Amol Rajan, interviewing, raised the issue around current DG Richard Sharp, and the enquiries he is undergoing, regarding his connections to the Conservative Party, without being suspended.
Both interviewees criticised the BBC for its handling of the Lineker suspension, and were wholly supportive of Lineker’s views, as expressed in the infamous tweet, and his right to do what he did.
I suspect the programme managers might have expected Patience Wheatcroft to “balance” the lefty views of Greg Dyke, as her journalistic career and politics have been to the right. But she spoke very clearly and eloquently in support of Lineker.
Excellent
Aaron Bastani, on Novara Live last night, made the point that the football union (near as damnit) is remarkably solidaristic… (no link, but it’s on y/t)
This is borne out by this statement:
“The PA news agency understands the Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) will fully support any players who do not want to fulfil media duties with the BBC after Premier League matches in solidarity with Lineker and the other pundits – who are former England international players.
A number of players contacted the PFA seeking advice, and the union has subsequently spoken to all Premier League clubs to establish a collective position.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/gary-lineker-bbc-alan-shearer-emily-maitlis-micah-richards-b2298584.html
My sadness is that this has got total news coverage so that the equally egregious act of not showing episode 6 of Wild Isles has been smothered.
To be absolutely accurate in timing it would appear that first they came for truth and David Attenborough.
The Rise of the Nazis is still available on BBC i player – recommended
I might just have to check that out before I pull my tv licence
Got rid of mine in September.
I have to say, I think the clip you posted from the Sky Sports journalist nailed the hypocrisy perfectly.
I am also intrigued how this story has developed over the last few days.
First, Football used to have a “race problem”… and in some quarters maybe still does. However, in the upper echelons of the professional game it is about as multi cultural as it comes…. and this filters out to fans. I suspect that Tory ministers think that “soccer fans” are all middle aged, white, pie eating, beer swilling, Red Wall constituents….. but they are not.
Second, when this story first broke I feared that the real issues of the story were going to get lost in the celebrity hoohaa… and initially it did. But how things change – the issues themselves ARE staying in the headlines but it has broadened into questions about the BBC, corruption etc.. Whoever in Government first responded to the Gary Lineker Tweet must be regretting it.
Third, it is now confirmed that both Messrs. Lineker and Attenborough are National Treasures who between them have the ear of virtually the entire country.
So, What does this mean? Most peoples understanding of policy is generally limited to a Three Word Slogan (harsh but probably fair). “Stop The Boats” – who could disagree? We all want to stop the boats (although many of us in a different way to the Government). Gary Lineker has allowed us to explore beyond “three words” and the Government is terrified because we all know that people get their views/opinions less and less from Mainstream Media and more and more from Celebrities we like/trust. Maybe I am naive but between the two of our National Treasures the Emperor’s Clothes are now seen to be missing…. and not just by readers of this blog. Football and wildlife fans matter more than we do (sorry to break the news to you, Richard, but your tweets are rarely talked about on the Charlton Terraces… but Gary Lineker will be!)
Could this really destroy the Government’s authority?
Given that large numbers of people no longer get their news from “traditional” sources and
And?
And I am devastated by the news from Charlton Athletic?
last line should have been deleted – the idea was covered further up. My bad editing.
I would add that on the odd occasion I am at The Valley I do my best to engage the faithful on MMT and other topics. Funnily enough, without too much success!
Here was I dripping envy at your ability to comment with perfectly edited text; only to discover that you too have feet of clay, Clive; like the rest of us. What a relief!
Good point.
I’m sort of encouraged that, on the football forum for my team which I frequent, the likes/dislikes ratio on the Lineker discussions seems to be in favour of him speaking out, though perhaps only 70/30. I live in an impoverished northern town which voted strongly for Brexit and installed (an absolutely useless) Tory MP at the last election.
You wrote “I wonder if the BBC executives really thought about what they were doing”.
I fear that they (representing powerful politicians and greedy manipulators) probably want to abolish the BBC.
I believe the BBC concept – and much of its past history – is brilliant.
The alternative appears to be ‘news and current affairs’ controlled by advertisers. I don’t want that.
I want a reformed BBC – with a new management team. Is there any chance of having some kind of small-scale citizens assembly in charge and ensuring true independence?
The BBC has created a real problem for itself here.
At a trivial level, it is going to struggle to get any football coverage today (perhaps for a while) apart from pictures of the match. Presenters, pundits, commentators – all are refusing to work, and players and managers are unlikely to give interviews.
As a matter of fact the BBC’s talent (the people on screen and off) could walk into higher paying jobs elsewhere tomorrow if they wished. They just love (or loved) working for the BBC and were willing to work for lower rates for an organisation they really believe in, in the public interest.
Lineker is not going to back down. Football on the BBC may never be the same again. This is really going to cut through.
More importantly it has revealed just how partial and one-sided the BBC has been in applying its guidelines. And how the ruling party has suborned the BBC’s vaunted impartiality. How the BBC runs scared of the people who hold its purse strings. The only way forward is to create new guidelines that are applied impartially across the board. And to rethink the governance of the BBC. It is too important to become a political football controlled by the party in power.
I doubt this is deliberate, but it increases my fears for the future of the BBC and public service broadcasting. Many of the people criticising the BBC hate it and will take any opportunity to pull it down. But it is is now being heavily criticised by its supporters too.
And this is in a context where there are real challenges for the BBC coming up, as youngsters receive so much of their content online from a wide range of sources, not linear television or radio. It got a boost from the royal coverage in the last year but the BBC is not the single national authoritative voice it once was.
Agreed
I agree with the post – totally.
I could bang on about how I want the BBC to be decoupled from the government etc., but the root of the problem is elsewhere.
But what we really need is to come up with a new set of standards for broadcasting and the media – across the board.
Fascism has been normalised really.
For too long we’ve allowed fascism to creep into our daily lives, through fascist practitioners like the Sun, the Express and the Daily Mail. Even the left wing Mirror apes them. The talk radio culture from the U.S. has made things worse. The internet turbo charges it.
We need to isolate the language and techniques of fascism and ban it and censure it when it is used and punish those who use it in the only way they know – by taking their wealth and removing their license.
Winding people up has to stop as a past time of the Establishment .
Promoting hate has to stop as a past time of the Establishment.
Then we can deal with the Establishment.
Of course the BBC has been run with left-leaning biases.
But I get the feeling that it was fairer then, and commentators tended to hold both sides to account. Of course I may be completely biased myself, and you can’t please all the people all the time.
I wonder whether an impartial and independent “bias index” is possible?
Steve raised the issue of Tax.
I was reminded of the gibe of the ‘blob’ which included ‘lefty lawyers’. I don’t expect lefty lawyers who represent asylum seekers or benefit appeals, earn huge amounts.
This is from the House of Commons Library -the aid budget and support for refugees
“Under international aid rules, many of the costs of hosting refugees can count towards the aid budget for the first 12 months refugees are in the UK. This includes basic subsistence costs, such as food and accommodation.
An increasing amount of UK aid has been spent on UK-based refugees, with spending more than doubling from £424 million in 2016 to £898 million in 2021 (rising from 3.2% of the aid budget to 7.5%). Most of this money in recent years went towards providing food and shelter for refugees. Other aid is also spent within the UK. In 2021, this came to £727 million, and included administrative costs, UK-based experts and scholarships.”
Many Right wing lawyers ( some of them Tory party donors I would imagine) earn much larger sums representing clients who wish to avoid tax (legally, of course!!) which the HMRC estimates as £30 billion (and Richard says is an under estimate)
All those people who wish to exclude asylum seekers on the grounds ‘we can’t afford it’ or ‘I have to pay for them to get housing in luxury hotels ( I have seem this on Facebook)’ should perhaps look a bit wider.
As I was taking the short drive home from the office yesterday, I listened to PM for a few minutes where Evan Davies was interviewing John Whittingdale who, unsurprisingly, thought Lineker was bang out of order.
We all know what Whittingdale thinks of the BBC and his past behaviour in that regard, so it made me think that they really don’t give a shit about even disguising what they are doing.
Can anyone explain how to square the BBC’s heightened sensitivity to political impartiality this week with a certain businessman and life peer who continues to present a popular weekly television programme?
Alan Sugar’s profile is massively boosted by his BBC work. Initially a Labour peer under Brown and now a cross-bencher, Sugar has used that platform to support May and Johnson as prime minister, and repeatedly criticised Corbyn. If we need a Nazi parallel, Sugar continued to put out political tweets after being forced to delete one with an image that put Corbyn in a car with Hitler. https://news.sky.com/story/amp/sir-alan-sugar-tweets-picture-of-jeremy-corbyn-next-to-hitler-11310726
Criticising antisemitism is one thing but Corbyn is not by any means a fascist.
Has Sugar promised to say nothing political while he continues in a significant on-screen on the BBC?
Agreed
I’m assuming this is genuine. It is not my enquiry, but a reply to someone else from the BBC about Andrew Neil and his Twitter posts: Source: https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1634539199088021504
Thank you for contacting us with your complaint about Andrew Neil.
Andrew is a freelancer and his Twitter account is a personal one – the BBC is not responsible for its content.
We’d also point out that on Twitter, Andrew states that his views are his own and that he is the Chairman of The Spectator This means that his tweets publicising The Spectator are related to his role there and unrelated to his work for the BBC.
When carrying out his responsibilities for the BBC, he always adheres to the same rules of impartiality as all other presenters.
We hope this reply helps to allay your concerns and we’d like to thank you again for getting in touch.
Kind regards,
BBC Complaints Team
Amazing, in the current context
Hmm, the plot thickens.
That BBC complaints reply is dated 7/7/20. The new regime of Tim Davie had just started, more or less in June 2020. That seems to be the old policy that Davie must have changed – or did he?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/05/bbc-appoints-insider-tim-davie-as-director-general
The new BBC Chairman, Tory Richard Sharp, was appointed by the Tories in early 2021 with loads of controversy attached.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64368504
Things have clearly changed at the BBC since the Tory appointments. It would be interesting to find out if and when the BBC policy changed and who does it apply to. What about comedians doing political satire?
I mean Mock The Week was cancelled last year – seen by some on the right as mostly lefty comedians having a go at the Tory Government.
Here’s what the Spectator thought.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/mock-the-week-deserved-to-be-cancelled/
Are comedians allowed to make any kind of political joke at the BBC now if it questions Government policy?
Jonathan Pie on Gary Lineker – spot on as ever.
Lots of the F*** word in case you don’t like….
https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=1471174806746417
Very good
Did Gary Lineker break BBC Guidelines?
BBC GUIDANCE ON INDIVIDUAL USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA
Source: https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/documents/social-media.pdf
“Actors, dramatists, comedians, musicians and pundits who work for the BBC are not subject to the requirements of impartiality on social media.” [..]
“The extent to which a non-staff member, contributor or presenter is required to comply with the Editorial Guidelines will be set out in the BBC’s contractual relationship with them”
Just to point out another aspect to this – Bravermann cited her husband’s Jewishness as as a reason for Gary Lineker to apologise for his tweet likening the language in her Illegal Immigration Act proposals to Germany’s in the 1930s.
She said ““To kind of throw out those kind of flippant analogies diminishes the unspeakable tragedy that millions of people went through and I don’t think anything that is happening in the UK today can come close to what happened in the Holocaust.”
Has anyone pointed out that Jews and others who were targeted in 1930’s Germany would likely THANK Lineker for highlighting the fascist character of her proposals which are potentially part of the journey down the very same road?
I was in Berlin again recently and visited the fantastic Jewish museum. One of the most powerful pieces was a display of all the legislation passed and language used during the 30s as the rights of Jews and others were steadily eroded and they were denigrated and marginalised.
No-one is jumping to parallels with the death camps and slaughter of the Holocaust in the 40s. However the parallels with what happened in the 30s are only too obvious. It created the climate in which the Holocaust could happen. Dachau is on the outskirts of Munich – local populations knew… and it was not just Jews in Dachau. All opponents of the regime and those deemed undesirable. Probably included ‘lefty lawyers’.
Gary Lineker was dead right and he and his colleagues are to be admired. The corrupt political stooges and placemen at the top of the BBC are the ones who should be thrown out. Sharpe, Davie and Gibbs. That is where our anger should be directed.
Thanks
BBC Scotland have been the WM Propaganda machine for years!
They lost all credibility in Scotland years ago, I’m surprised it’s taken this to highlight how bad the BBC are.
A state owned broadcaster that is far from impartial, run by the tories, for the tories.
It does need to be made a subscription service now, scrap the licence fee and let’s see how great they do then.
But that this is exactly what the Tories want: they will have won with that
What we want us a functioning broadcaster willing to appraise the arguments
Richard,
I do not think the Conservative Party wants to privatise the BBC; what they want is to capture the BBC reputation for ‘impartiality’ (although frankly it is much tarnished – they lost my trust with the wide ranging top management failures of the Savile era); and control the BBC quietly in the shadows of Board and Trust. They could never do that so effectively once the BBC is privatised. The BBC ‘as it is’, also provides a helpless focus of right-wing wrath whenever the Conservatives are looking for someone to blame, or a target to deflect attention from a Government blunder, by rousing public outrage at some manufactured bias against them.
It is the same with immigration. The Conservative Party does not want to end immigration (Brexit loss of ‘free movement’ is already sinking the economy, and they know it perfectly well); what they want is endless outrage about immigration; while the white vans and illegal immigration quietly, one way or another go on cicrculating. The idea they care is an illusion, kept for voters in the Red Wall. Permanent posturing and public outrage is worth far more to the Conservative method of political campaigning (politics is an endless campaign for votes) than real solutions.