Don't discuss or debate - just stick a label on

So, we're meant to be entering a " new" era of grown-up debate when it comes to immigration, are we?
That would explain why Harriet Harman and the carotenous Peter Hain busied themselves doing the rounds of TV and radio studios to condemn Nigel Hastilow, the Tory candidate who invoked the memory of Enoch Powell in an article for his local paper.
In this they were rapidly joined by various Lib Dems and Tory functionaries, including the Party Chairwoman, galvanised into action by Harman and Hain's liberal (?)use of the word racist.
My point here is not to discuss whether what Hastilow said was right, wrong or, indeed, whether it had any merit at all.
What exercises me most is the fact that no one tried to refute what he had to say or posit an alternative viewpoint. As soon as it became obvious that his article wasn't going to genuflect in the general direction of mulit-culturalism, they joined forces to put Hastlow back into the box as quickly as possible, before he had had a chance to frighten the servants.
They achieved this in the manner perfected over a decade or so by our old chums Mandelson, Campbell and Blair and which has now become the default debating style adopted by our supposedly liberal elite. It's a very simple technique. Choose a suitable catch-all pejorative - Little Englander, racist, Daily Mail Reader - and pin it to the offending target as often as possible until you bully them and others who might harbour even faintly similar views into, if not obeisance, at least a form of disgruntled silence. By applying the appropriate label it is possible to stifle any view which deviates from the received wisdom on the EU, democracy, civil liberties, national security and global warming.
Chief among such circumscribed topics is, of course, immigration. Any view of immigration that does not include frequent references to the economic benefits, cultural diversiiy and cheap labour bestowed upon our our ungrateful and unworthy society by a constant stream of incomers is not just unwelcome but actively to be discouraged. Insert the name of the anti-Christ, Powell, into the discussion and grown men and women of a certain persuasion clap their hands over their ears and run around screaming show tunes at the tops of their voices, like kids who refuse to believe it's time for bed.
Anyway, as usual, the tactic worked. Nigel Hastilow emerged from his meeting with the Tory party chairwoman and immediately withdrew as a candidate. David Cameron was able to sigh with relief and we could sit back once more and listen to David Millimetre giving other countries the benefit of his well-founded views on democracy. Not once as the silencers went into action, did anybody point out that:

• What Hastilow did was express not just his own opinion but that of members of his constituents.
• Notwithstanding the efforts of the new Stalinists,it is still perfectly legal to have and express an opinion about thorny subjects, even if none of us feels really truthful anymore saying "It's a free country; I'll say what I like".

Because, of course, this is no longer a free country. Not in the sense that anyone over the age of fifty would recognise it. And,if this is what Cameron and Trevor Phillips would like to characterise as grown-up debate, the sooner we reduce the voting age to 12, the better.