SIMON DANCZUK is the sort of person who tends to give politics a good name. He is by all accounts a splendid constituency MP, and in recent months has campaigned bravely and assiduously to raise awareness of child abuse outrages committed in his seat. Which makes his piece in today's Daily Mail even more dispiriting than it would be otherwise. In it, the Labour MP for Rochdale discusses UKIP's rise in working-class areas (specifically, its surge in the Heywood and Middleton by-election on Thursday) and urges his party to devote more time and energy to the issue of immigration. For the most part the article is a torrent of nonsense. Here are some of the particularly egregious bits: "Labour can no longer ignore immigration" Labour really isn't doing that. Ed Miliband has given three big speeches on the subject. So has Yvette Cooper. The party has even made it the subject of a party political broadcast.

"It’s as though we can only talk about the positive impact of immigration."



No it isn't. Not even a bit. Politicians are forever alleging immigration's "unsettling effects" on neighbourhoods, its depression of wages, its strains on public services and the like.

"Gordon Brown famously refused to debate immigration with the pensioner Gillian Duffy"



No he didn't.



"Every week I meet immigrants in my surgery who’ve been sent here from London because SERCO – a security firm contracted by the Home Office to find homes for asylum seekers – are choosing to house them in areas with lower property prices so they can make a profit."



That's not a downside of immigration. It's a downside of SERCO.



"I’ve spoken to teachers who have had Bangladeshi children sent to their area from London and do not have the resources to look after non-English speakers in an already crowded classroom."



That's not a downside of immigration. It's a downside of crowded classrooms.

"Rightly or wrongly, they claim it’s holding the rest of the class back and their sense of frustration is palpable."



Well, which is it: rightly or wrongly?



"people in the Labour Party think we should never raise the subject of immigration"



No they don't.



"Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation...



Actually, these are quite important.



...the fact is there are too many voters who feel we are no longer able to get rid of those people in Britain who should not be here – and who think we do not control our borders any more."



[...]



"Now this may be bunkum...



Well, is it?



...but whatever the truth...



The truth? Pah.



...this nurse believes it."



No-where does Mr Danczuk draw the obvious conclusion that voters have been told some outrageous tosh on immigration, and that Labour should not patronise them by letting it stand.



"There is a massive vacuum in British politics where immigration is concerned."



No there isn't. David Cameron bangs on about it even more than Mr Miliband.



"Ed Miliband may feel uncomfortable at talking about immigration because he’s the son of immigrants."



In fact he rarely talks about immigration without invoking his parents, who were refugees from the Holocaust.



The biggest flaw in the piece is that it repeatedly demands that something be done...



"Labour can no longer ignore immigration", "raise the subject of immigration", "it troubles me that we in the Labour Party are not part of that conversation", "address some of the more challenging issues", "unless they are tackled head on by the Labour Party...", "they refuse to tackle one of the most important issues of our time", "he has no choice but to grasp the nettle."



...without once saying what should be done. If Mr Danczuk is insinuating that Labour should confront voters with the facts about immigration (polling by Ipsos MORI last year found that they believe its rate to be three times what it is), make the positive case for it and concentrate on providing more housing, better jobs and more effective schools, then he should say so. If he is suggesting something different, he should spell that out too. Yet very rarely do any of those currently calling for his party to Do Something trouble themselves with such details.

If they want more money spent on the immigration system, let them say so (and, preferably, where it should come from). If they want Britain to deny asylum to those fleeing oppression, let them say so. If they want it to end free movement by leaving the EU, let them say that. Darkly allusive comments about "tackling" the "issues" do Labour and the other mainstream parties no favours. UKIP itself would struggle to devise a better recruiting agent.