Transcription
I don't know what indigenous British is. >> Well, it's somebody who's born in Britain. >> Am I an indigenous Brit? >> Were you born in Britain or Ireland? >> I was born in Britain. >> Okay. So, you're an indigenous. Yeah, that's I mean a Britishborn person, Mick, versus a foreignb born person. I'm trying to say. >> It's foreigners you're talking about then. >> I'm talking about.
So, all right. So, in this video, you are going to see right-wing propagandist Camila Tomminy have a go at trying to get the better of channel favorite Mick Lynch, former RMT boss. But as would be expected, he because he's so genuine, because he is not a politician, because his answers don't come from a place of prearication and lying, he easily handles her. Let's watch.
>> Sounding like a little bit Nigel Farage, who keeps on banging on about alarm clock Britain. He's talking about people in work versus people in welfare. You'll be familiar with the slight change in tone in rhetoric among, funny enough, the working classes about those in welfare. You might have noticed a few videos popping up by brick layers, electricians like yourself, and plumbers saying, "Well, I get up at 5:00 a.m. because I've got a benefits bill to pay." >> Yeah. And they're being they're being cajol into doing that by organizations such as yours. They are because you're Come on, Mick. This is People are on benefits. These are these are Can I just clarify something? Absolutely not. I'm talking about brick layers. Absolutely. >> Well, yeah. Most people who are online and filming funny videos certainly aren't doing it with the say so of the Telegraph. What I'm saying is you can have some sympathy with the position of the hardworking man or woman I do >> ver who think their taxes may be increasingly being spent on welfare claims. >> So what we've got to do is not divide people on the basis of whether they've got a job at the moment or not whether whatever their identity is or where they come from we've got to make sure that everybody gets the opportunity to get a job and it's a a meaningful well-p paid job with a bit of job security so they can move off benefits. >> Yeah. Now, >> if you're better off, >> person the person who had the biggest transition to benefits uh system in this country was of course Margaret Thatcher put the benefits bill up massively because she wanted to move people off the unemployment basis onto >> other welfare benefits. So politicians paid played tricks with that. But one of the main problems in this country I believe is low paid work >> where businesses and this is not a criticism of people entrepreneurs and so on that are running low margin businesses but we do have econ an economy where very many businesses are on tiny margins and exist solely because they're paying such low wages and it's because those wages are so low it's difficult to make the transition from welfare benefits to the benefits of being in work And often it's very punishing. You you get these you get these graphs that are produced every now and again that if you do more than 16 hours or whatever the number is these days, but it has been typically 16 hours, they punish you for taking on part-time work or taking on casual work. Yes. >> Or temporary work. >> Now, we've got to have a system that deals with that. And you got to have some technical people that can come up with some systems that can say, "I'm going to encourage you to get a job. I'm not going to punish you if that doesn't work." Now those brick layers and plumbers and carpenters that I used to work with would be very uh displeased if their sister or their children or their in-laws or their friends were taken off benefits harshly and punished just because they got an issue. So we got to find a system that rewards work. Now that's a very old-fashioned >> social democratic position that most workingclass people believe in. I don't >> I appreciate that. But the other big elephant in the room here that you're not addressing is mass migration since 1997. Now the so-called indigenous British worker I have to address it. >> Well, I think you do because I think the indigenous British worker might argue so this is a capitalist mechanism problem that people came in and undercut their migration and by the way leaprogged them on housing lists. Mass migration is a mechanism of the capitalist economy in the >> Do you agree with mass migration? >> It's a natural facet of what's been going on. >> But did it go too far? >> Well, you'd have to ask George Osborne >> and David Cameron who introduced this policy >> started it, didn't he? >> Well, Blair had a policy about migration that was a successor to the single market economy. Well, net net migration to the UK before brought us into the single market 25,000. Who brought us into the 25 years afterwards? 7 million. Mick. So you telling me your members don't feel that immigration has failed? >> Who brought us into the single market and the four freedoms including the free movement of labor, the conservative party and the master treaty and all of those single market? >> We've agreed brown double down on >> was a Thatcherite policy. >> Okay. >> And it was delivered. Now hang on. >> Yeah. Go on. I don't believe in blaming people uh who have migrated to this country including my parents >> Mhm. >> to seek a better life >> from Ireland to >> during the war. Yeah. During the war. >> Sure. >> And have given a family of five an opportunity. Right. I don't believe in blaming people because they're serving the economy that capitalism has dictated in this country. It's the capitalist economy that has demanded this labor much of which is the low wage economy. >> Exactly. >> The capitalist economy also emptied emptied >> mass migration could have driven wages down. >> The capitalist economy has also emptied the factories and mills of this country. >> Has mass migration driven wages down in >> We'll have to see. I don't know. Have you got the facts and figures? >> Well, I think it's been suggested that it has because Well, you could ask for it. You could ask for when we tried to regulate order back in the naughties whether they were being undercut by Romanians and public regul when we try to regulate that through trade union negotiation and trade union action. You decry it cuz we don't ask people what color they are or where they've come from. >> I remember working on building sites in the 80s in London where London workers were saying we shouldn't allow these northerners onto our sites. >> Sure. But then the other >> you shouldn't allow Jordies and Scotch people really hard you've cited your hardworking parents. Don't you think that there is an argument to suggest that when it comes to immigration policy, one must favoritize quality over quantity? That if people come here and make a contribution, >> I'm not going down the road that the telegraph seems to be preparing and they aren't working and they're taking from state to become fully signed up affiliate of reform. >> No. and all of the racism and disunityity that's going to cause what I see what I see coming out of the Telegraph every day is making space for racism. >> No, absolutely not. Because funny enough, >> if a person such as you, >> yes, >> an educated person, >> chooses to make a distinction about people on the basis of their ethnic or national origin, I would say that you're on the path to racism. No, I'm making a distinction about >> which is what Farage says. >> No, no, you're misunderstanding me. I'm making an assessment of both indigenous Brits, if we can call them that, and indeed >> I don't know what an indigenous Brit is. >> Well, it's somebody who's born in Britain. >> Am I an indigenous Brit? >> Were you born in Britain or Ireland? >> I was born in Britain. >> Okay. So, you're an indigenous. Yeah, that's I mean a Britishborn person, Mick, versus a foreignb born person. I'm trying to say. >> So, it's foreigners you're talking about then. I'm talking about. >> So you're making a distinction based on so foreigners are somehow different to British people. >> Mick, I don't know why you're going down this bizarre line of >> It's your line that's bizarre. You choose to make distinctions about people based on their origins. >> No, Mick, I'm sorry. This is actually getting slightly preposterous. You've reached for the because I don't agree with you because you're on the right, you're a racist and a bigot. And I'm saying that's not the point I'm trying to make. I'm actually trying to align with the point you made at the very beginning of this daily tea, which is that we want to see as many people in work as possible. Yeah. So, I'm saying that in order to >> and we don't want to we don't want to distinguish based on their background or ethnicity. >> But, but I'm I'm not I'm saying we need to distinguish people as to the contribution that we need to encourage them to make to the economy. >> What will you do if somebody is a non-contribution that could be somebody who's in a job that taxpayers, workers have to pay for? That's why the tax burden has gone up. Nick, let me ask you this. Would you rather workers paid more tax or less? >> Let's address your point as we're doing socialism versus capitalism to pay the right tax evil or racist versus non-racist. We need to pay the right tax to run the services we want. I don't know. It depends on the services at an alltime high. It's nearly in the 40s. Should it be in the 30s? An indigenous person as you called them, >> an indigenous British person, >> indigenous loses their job word for disrupes their job and has to go on has to go on unemployment benefit. >> Yes. >> Compared to a foreigner. >> Yes. >> Do you do something about that foreigner that is different to your indigenous person >> who need benefits who cannot work? >> But you made a distinction about indigenous. >> Answer the question. >> Well, you've been talking over me. >> Well, we're having a discussion here. Let me answer that question. I think if somebody genuinely needs employ employment benefit because for some reason they cannot work due to a physical or mental health problem that is so substantial it prevents them from work. >> Well, that's a different thing because they're getting employment benefit. But you were talking about sick there I think. Then of course the well there are two distinctions aren't there. There is sick benefit and there is indeed benefit. >> If you've got a sick non-indigenous person, what do you do with them? If you've got a sick non-indigenous person, I have no problem at all if they have the right to claim benefits to claim benefits. >> Benefits you haven't got the right to. >> But I'm making an economic argument here, Mick. It's nothing to do with the race of the person. I'm asking you, >> you're the one that brought this in >> because I you haven't answered the question. >> You've brought in this point that somehow people are different. >> Can you answer this following question without pointing racist and bigot and suggesting that I am somehow the incarnation of Nigel Farage? It's a really simple question. >> I think you're a fellow traveler. >> Has you don't know me? >> So, there you have it.
And it is genuinely pathetic to watch a so-called journalist like Camila Tomminade tie herself in not trying to justify the phrase indigenous worker. But what makes Mick Lynch so effective here is amongst other things how he astutely clucks the entire strategy of the right-wing media. When she starts citing brick layers and electricians complaining about welfare, I love the fact that Mick Lynch immediately pointed out that this isn't some organic spontaneous working-class resentment. It's a perfectly targeted, highly funded propaganda operation of which reform are at the center of it. And and if you don't believe me, you can go back as far as Cambridge Cambridge Analytica in 2016 where we knew that they were trying to affect political results based on people's Facebook profiles. Um, the billionaire press and their organs in all of the media, particularly things like GB News, feed tradesmen, white van men, working-class white guys, a steady diet of grievance, cajoling them into blaming their struggling brown migrant neighbors or benefits claimments or people with motility vehicles or people with disabilities. They want you to blame them instead of the oligarchs keeping their wages low. It's a cowardly divider rule tactic designed to pave the way for Reform UK to come in and save the day when in reality all they are going to do is continue to strip you dry even more and they're going to give tax cuts to the rich. Trump is doing that in the USA right now. Nigel Farage plans to do exactly the same. Now whether it will work because of the bond markets, we don't know. Liz Truss tried something very similar when she was the prime minister and look where that ended up. But I feel that the pitch has been rolled. There's a lot of lessons that will have been learned from Liz Truss's attempt to do this. Remember that was a budget as well that Nigel Farage said was the greatest conservative budget since 1987. So he definitely agreed with that. That's what he wants to do. Farage is aite in disguise. Okay, that's the reality of who he is. He is going to strip the country dry even more and he's going to make workingclass people even poorer. And I'm really glad that that's the message that McLech pushes. Camila thought she could bully him about. But instead, she got exposed as nothing more than what she really is, which is just a mouthpiece for the owners of Daily Telegraph and GB News. She has no serious opinions of her own, and everything she says should be viewed through the lens of the fact that she is a worker for the Telegraph, which is owned by a private equity fund in the USA via a German media company, and through the owner of GB News or the ownership of GB News, which is basically just Reform TV. Anyway, let me know your thoughts in the comments below. And if you want to see more videos like this, hit the like and subscribe buttons. And don't forget to ring the notification bell so you never miss a video.