You are here: Home » Comment »

Nice door closing Ed. But the immigration horse bolted years ago

June 22, 2012 9:02 am

Author:

Mark Ferguson

Tags:

Share this Article

Ed Miliband will this morning deliver a speech on immigration. Now there’s a sentence to be greeted by Labour supporters with trepidation at best and alarm bells at worst….

He has at least learned one crucial lesson from his predecessor. He’ll tell the IPPR that “British jobs for British workers” was the wrong thing to say. What he perhaps should say instead is “British jobs for British workers was the wrong thing to say – especially if you follow it up by calling a lifelong Labour supporter “bigoted” for asking questions about immigration.”

Maybe that’s a bit wordy.

Regardless, immigration is an issue to be handled with care by Labour leaders. It is akin to walking over a rope bridge carrying a narked python. There are multiple potential sticky endings. And in fairness to Ed he seems to realise this. That’s why this carefully worded but ultimately disappointing speech is riddled with so many caveats. Yes, but no. (But yes). (Or was that no?)

But ultimately it’s a carefully structured shutting of the door when the immigration horse wandered off years ago. It’s unlikely to win back any of the former Labour supporters who cite immigration as a problem on the doorstep – so what’s it for?

Miliband will admit that Labour should have taken concerns over Eastern European immigration more seriously. True. But promising to place hypothetical controls on hypothetical future EU ascension states won’t fix that. The speech also appears to disavow Gordon Brown’s handling of immigration, but it echoes many of Brown’s rhetorical flaws – essentially that immigration is good, but we should clamp down on it. A bit. Sort of.

This muddle means Ed risks talking out of both sides of his mouth. It’s speech to Express readers written in the style of a Guardian op-ed, so the message gets lost.

There is no doubt that the need to deal with (legitimate) concerns about immigration is a necessary and established part of the political debate. Yet Labour is (or should be) the party most embedded in the communities that fear immigration most and suffer most harshly from the chilly winds of laissez-faire free market globalisation. From their point of view it looks like “our” jobs are being sent “over there”, whilst “they” are coming “over here”. Which in many ways is true.

Yet the vast majority of British people (and Labour voters) are not racist or even “bigoted”. Mercifully Ed – a man with the likeable habit of thinking the best of people – seems to agree. That’s why he’ll say:

“Worrying about immigration, talking about immigration, thinking about immigration, does not make them bigots. Not in any way. They are anxious about the future. Labour, which is more rooted in peoples’ lives than any other party, must listen to those anxieties and speak directly to them in return. That’s not bowing to the Right. It’s doing what Labour does best.”

But why splash about in the shallow end of this debate? The answers are not simple, but they are fairly obvious. There aren’t enough jobs, poverty is rising and perhaps most crucially of all – there’s a chronic lack of houses. Tackle even one of these and you will reduce fear of immigration – and the impact of immigration on the communities that are hardest hit.

Of course there are cultural concerns too. Anyone who has ever spent any time on any inner city estate will tell you that. But joblessness and the rise of social housing as “last resort” accommodation are at least as at fault as immigration.

The truth is that we may well have an “immigration problem”, but it is dwarfed by and subservient to a far greater problem – too many poor people. Too many people written off, or abandoned in areas with no jobs, no prospects, no hope and no political solution save for “on your bike” (from Bolton to Sunderland).

Talking “tough” on immigration looks easier in policy terms – and in media terms – than building hundreds of thousands of homes and creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs. But our politics should be big enough to have that as an aim, rather than accepting one set of poor people being fearful of another set of poor people as an unalterable and inevitable status quo.

They deserve better than that. Ed Miliband is better than that – and he needs to be brave enough to think bigger than that. Or there’s a real risk that in a few years time another Labour leader will end up giving this speech all over again.

Newham Sue

Comment haiku. Two words: spot on!
SR819

Most surveys and polls show that a large majority are extremely concerned about immigration, and also believe that immigration has been bad for the country. We can’t afford to bury our heads in the sand and must have a coherent policy to counter the Tories’ who want to reduce immigration from the 100s to the 10s of thousands. We are better positioned to deal with the demand side of the labour market, through policies like stricter enforcement of the minimum wage, fines on employers who don’t obey labour regulations etc.

However, immigration concern is not purely an economic thing as you say. The cultural arguments about the loss of shared space, community cohesion, cultural homogeneity etc have to be tackled as well. The social liberals in the party may not be comfortable with that, but we must make the effort. This is why Glasman’s “Blue Labour” ideas could become useful, with his emphasis on social conservativism.

Moreover, we also need to do something about some parts of the country where relation between the white and Asian communities are pretty tense. This has nothing to do with immigration because the Asians there are British, but there are still problems relating to “White Flight” and the apartheid-nature of many schools and residential areas.
- Newham Sue
  
  ……Which faith-based free schools, of all denominations, aren’t helping.
derek

Why doesn’t he apologise for the last new labour government initiating the process that has allowed the conservative to privatise our NHS further.Sadly the more I see Ed and listen to him the falser indecisive and utterly useless he sounds.Good god the labour party is just rotten to the core of indecision at a time when this conservative led government has made so many mistakes that if a labour PM was to copy we’d be out of office by now.Get a grip Ed, stop letting the tories dictate who and what the labour party is, either support the trade unions and the fight against this governments attack on ordinary workers or come clean with your intentions.
- Newham Sue
  
  Totally agree. We’re being far too defensive and need to start dictating the debate rather than merely responding.
KonradBaxter

So when tax, tax loopholes, possible hypocrisy and a chance to whack the government on these issues (and the wider economy) presents itself we see… a speech about immigration? Which as Mark righly points out is a difficult area to address.
Hugh

“there’s a real risk that in a few years time another Labour leader will end up giving this speech all over again”

You think?
SR819

I think it’s right that Ed is addressing immigration; it was the 3rd most pressing issue at the last election and many people think we lost a fair number of votes because we were seen as “soft” on immigration. If you look at the survey below, it shows how concerned British people are about immigration, although the results don’t indicate prejudice either:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2011/02/why_are_we_so_concerned_about_im.html

And like I said, we shouldn’t simply focus on the narrow economic question of immigration from Eastern Europe. There are still tensions within established British communities between white and ethnic minority groups with extensive segregation, and we should look to promote healthier, mixed communities as part of our narrative on immigration as well:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7352125.stm
Sylvia Ashby

A very sensible article.
Peter Barnard

You ain’t seen nuthin’ yet, folks.

In its 2010-based Population Projections, ONS is forecasting net migration of 224,000 a year for 2011-16, and 200,000 a year for 2016-35, for a total of 5.1 million between 2011 and 2035.

ONS say that of the projected increase of 10.5 million in population between 2010-11 and 2035, two-thirds is (directly and indirectly) attributable to immigration.
- Guest
  
  So?
  - Peter Barnard
    
    So, Mr Guest, the British electorate appear to have a largely negative attitude towards immigration on the scale that we have seen in the last decade or so.
    
    You seem unperturbed about the ONS projections, so please feel free to stand on a soap-box and tell people that that two in three extra people in the population forecast to 2035 will be due to immigration, and while you are on the soap-box, tell those listening that it perturbs you not one jot.
    
    The politics surrounding the projected increase, and the ratio between the indigenous contribution and the contribution due to immigration will be rather difficult.
    
    For example, 7 million extra people (due to immigration) will need about 3 million extra houses. Try selling that to the electorate, especially as you try to figure out where these extra houses are going to be placed.
SR819

Given that we can’t control migration within the EU, I think it’s time we got strict on non EU migration. The ONS projections will no doubt be used by the far right to scaremonger about the “immigrant invasion” and the best way to counter that is to show commitment to controlling immigration where we can.
UKAzeri

Well, as you clearly pointed out, there are 2 years to go.

What he said at this stage is long overdue and is the correct amount of detail before key policies in manifesto flesh out the proposals. As an immigrant myself I find his approach highly refreshing and in particular his emphasis on the role of economics in the plight of working people.

However one point has been overlooked!! If I am not mistaken this is the first time I hear Labour leader talking about class!!! Working class!! That’s what the people on estates right up and down the country will hear!! The labour party is back or at least one step closer to representing its core vote!!

Well done Ed!!
- treborc1
  
  The script writers made an error labour tend to not do class, I sure the script writer will be told it’s hard working people.
  
  But all joking aside why now to come out with this.
  
  Something in the wind maybe
JC

If anyone heard John Denham on Today this morning, they’d get a very muddled view of what this is about. There was more about what it wasn’t that the proposals.

If we stopped letting these immigrants having jobs by taking them ourselves the problem would be much reduced. I work in food manufacturing well away from major cities in Devon, and yet often locals refuse to work for these companies. I have seen numerous people turn up for work in the morning, but never come back for a second day (often leaving at lunchtime) as “the work doesn’t suit me”. A job’s a job.
- UKAzeri
  
  interesting, whats the pay like, hours?
  - JC
    
    Depends on the factory. Current one and last one I worked at was £6.50/hour 35 hours/week 9-5. Others have been 6-6 4 days on, 4 days off same rate.
    - UKAzeri
      
      well taking into account rents and other costs doesnt sound too much …
UKAzeri

I think it’s time for me to open the eyes of many here and elsewhere on how immigration works. Forget about EU, short of leaving the union not much can be done… Caps on new entrants are time sensitive and once that goes doors will be open.

Let’s talk of non EU migration. To limit that, we will have to impose a blanket ban on giving out student, tourist and pretty much all other type of visas. Effectively close the door. Basically once a person enters the country, they can claim asylum, regardless what their visa was issued for. Once they do so they are referred to as illegal migrants because they haven’t declared their intention before entering the country. Those who do at a British embassy for example are promptly ejected from the premises. British embassys across the world reject far more applications than they accept.

That’s the reality. The only way is to toughen the rules for visas even more. How? The richer the person the less likely they are to seek asylum in UK. Hence the only way is to allow only rich non-EU migrants to get visas and shut all English language colleges etc.
Natural Labour terretory? )
- Hugh
  
  “Let’s talk of non EU migration. To limit that, we will have to impose a
  blanket ban on giving out student, tourist and pretty much all other
  type of visas. Effectively close the door. Basically once a person
  enters the country, they can claim asylum, regardless what their visa
  was issued for.”
  
  Given that asylum applications are under 5% of immigration, I’m not sure I understand your point.
  - UKAzeri
    
    really? ) please share the source i am quite interested
    - Hugh
      
      You could start here:
      
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jun/26/non-eu-immigration-uk-statistics
      
      http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/immigration-asylum-research/immigration-brief-q4-2011/asylum
      - UKAzeri
        
        These figures, as far as I bothered to read the detail, do not show the total number of people who came in from outside of the EU over the past decades, including dependants and families brought over afterwards. I am tired of ‘polite talk’ on capping migrant numbers and prefer to say it how it is. Those Brits that have to rub shoulders with migrants are somewhat alarmed on both economical and social levels. When Tories refer to capping immigration they are talking of asylum seekers ( and people understand this). All other type of migrants are here under a specific time frame and can only work and have no relationship with the state apart from taxes. Their numbers are tiny and impact insignificant in the larger scheme of things.
        
        I guess I am trying to show what the real issue under the banner of ‘capping immigration’ is. Let’s not beat about the bush.
      - Hugh
        
        It would be easier not to beat around the bush if I had any idea what you were talking about. The first link I supplied gives you annual immigration figures for every year since 2000, their country of origin, some figures on the reasons for immigration (study, work etc), and specific figures for the most recent year on asylum.
        
        I would have thought that was quite helpful for a discussion on immigration.
        
        The second link provides asylum applications over the last decade.
        
        When Tories talk of capping migrants they are not talking exclusively about asylum seekers and people do not understand this. All other migrants are not here under a specific time frame – most obviously with EU immigration. Many also quite obviously can have relationships with the state other than taxes – medical treatment for examples. The recent government analysis found that of 371,000 foreign-born claimants for out-of-work
        benefits, 258,000 were from
        outside the European Economic Area. They were not, needless to say all asylum seekers.
        
        Non EU citizens can apply for permanent resident after certain periods of time, or if they marry
        or have children, for example.
        
        For someone who’s taken it upon themselves to open the eyes of the British public as to how immigration works you seem remarkably ill informed.
      - UKAzeri
        
        I attempted to clarify my initial point in reply to you, perhaps I failed and perhaps my point wasn’t clear enough.
        
        On the doorstep (where it matters) non-EU migration is equated with asylum applications.
      - Hugh
        
        I disagree. There’s some conflation no doubt, but people don’t I think presume the vast majority of immigrants they have seen arrive in the last decade are all asylum seekers.
        
        Asylum seekers make up a small minority of immigration; and they make up a small minority of those taking up permanent residence. To March 2011, the number of people granted settlement (permanent leave to remain) was 223,990 (up from 215,665 to March 2010).
        
        Of those 75,155 were employment related (90,580 in 2010); 56,885 (74,975) were “family formation and reunion grants”; 47,265 (84,300) were for other reasons; and just 7,655 (2,845) were asylum related:
        
        Just 3%; a little over 1% in 2010.
        
        http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/immigration-asylum-research/control-immigration-q1-2011-t/
        
        I’d add that much of confusion I’ve seen comes not from the right but the left, who often insist that the government is powerless to do anything about immigration because: a) most of our immigration is intra-EU, who we have no legal ability to constrain; and b) the remainder are mostly asylum seekers, and therefore it would be morally wrong to seek to restrict this. In fact the majority of immigration is not asylum related, nor from the EU and falls squarely under the governments’ powers to control.
      - UKAzeri
        
        if that’s what the case we wouldn’t see the rise of EDL and such in UK or in Europe… perceptions matter more than stats
        
        in any case I would rather look for a solution that aims to ease conditions for all and redistribute wealth fairly. thats why I am 100% with Ed…
        
        and my initial comment was somewhat misplaced for this thread
      - Lembit Opik’s Lovechild
        
        UKAzeri. You are doing exactly what Milliband said we shouldn’t do; Trying to shut the argument down by claiming it’s abour asylum seekers or about race. It’s not.
        
        No, when Tories and many labour supporters talk about limiting immigration them mean just that. Limiting the total number of people who come into the uk and live here. The population is growing too fast. There are too many people in the country already. We cannot cope with the needs for housing, services etc as it is.
        
        If poeple are truly asylum seekers then they should be let in with open arms.Similarly if the state grants them leave of residence them welcome. However, if the people who try to stay are economic migrants, students who come to study and never go back then they should be kicked out.
      - UKAzeri
        
        disagree.”
        housing, services etc as it is.” nothing was built and that’s what caused hardship for all. same with services
- Lembit Opik’s Lovechild.
  
  You could try throwing out all the people who overtsay visas or past the student courses. Mind you you would have to trash the HR legislation to do that. Hang on, good idea. Go for it.
Brumanuensis

First, as Konrad points out, this is really a case of ‘wrong topic, wrong time’.

Second, even if it were the right time, nothing good can come of a Labour leader talking about immigration. I’m aware there may be a slight ‘Nixon-going-to-China’ aspect in a son of two immigrants talking about immigration, but that was also true of Michael Howard and it didn’t work out for him too well, electorally-speaking. Labour can’t win on immigration, or rather, Labour can’t win on immigration by trying to match the Tories on the ‘tough on immigration’ stakes. We just can’t and all that will happen is that no matter how far to the right we go, the Tories only have to shuffle very slightly to the right and they’ll instantly regain the advantage.

More to the point, a genuinely brave speech would involve telling the British public ‘your concerns about immigration are almost entirely based upon misconceptions peddled to you by unscrupulous tabloids who couldn’t accurately report a statistic if it hit them over the head with a banjo, whilst screaming “I am a statistic”, over and over again’. Why doesn’t a leader of the Labour Party say ‘you know what, immigration increases economic growth, has negligible statistical effects on unemployment and contributes to building a more diverse and less-closeted society, which is ultimately healthy for the vitality of cultural life and democracy’. That would be a brave speech, not another ‘blame the victim’ screed in which immigrants are used as scapegoats for a failure to invest properly in infrastructure like housing.

Annoyingly, the policy content of the speech – except for the bit on restrictions on Croatians - is largely commednable, particularly the sections on Gangsmasters licences and minimum wage enforcement. So the spin about Labour promising to crack down on immigration is detracting from the best parts of the announcement.

On a personal note, one of my ancestors came over from Italy in the early 19th century and established himself in this country. He worked hard, married a local girl and within two generations his family were as British as the rest of them. The people coming over today are just the same. As an internationalist Party, we should be welcoming them and helping them settle down and become citizens. Not trying to sugges they’re unwelcome nuisances who only deserve to be evicted. Poor old Giovanni would have probably been the victim of a smear campaign by the Sun these days.
- Daniel Speight
  
  I would love to agree with you, but…
  
  It’s what people see with their own eyes. If you call yellow pages in London looking for an electrician the maintenance company will most likely send a qualified Pole and his mate. This is from a trade that in my youth had thousands of apprentices yearly through the JIB scheme.
  
  Let’s look another example. I flew out through Gatwick last year. I had a couple of hours to waste so I visited the restaurants looking for something to snack on. Apart from a couple of the staff in the Witherspoon’s pub I suspect almost everyone working in the airport cafes and restaurants was either an EU or other immigrant. Now that’s fine if there is no unemployment in Crawley, but I suspect that isn’t the case.
  
  This losing touch with working class perception is what caused Gordon Brown’s Mrs. Duffy problem. Ed Miliband is quite right to point out that it is a class issue. The employers are happy to keep downward pressure on wages and our political and upper middle classes are happy to have cheap maids, like Baroness Scotland, or plenty of prostitutes and toy boys like …, well pull a name out of a hat.
  - treborc1
    
    http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sweatshops-capitalisms-demons
    
    It was a poor speech, offering nothing to anyone.
    - aracataca
      
      You mean in the way that your posts here offer things to people?
      - treborc1
        
        William nappy rash can be cured ask Mummy
      - aracataca
        
        After you powerful and incisive observations Treborc perhaps AN Whitehead’s observation that ’the safest general characterisation of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato’ should be replaced by ‘the safest general characterisation of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Treborc’
  - http://twitter.com/RF_McCarthy Roger McCarthy
    
    The unemployment rate in Crawley is not that hard to find:
    
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/nov/17/unemployment-and-employment-statistics-economics#data
    
    And is 3.1% or less than two-fifths of the national rate of 8.1%.
    
    Now as an unemployment data statistic myself I know all too well that is not much consolation for the 2,000-odd people behind that percentage – but I don’t necessarily think that waving a magic wand to make all the foreign employees at Gatwick disappear will have that huge an impact on the figures.
  - Brumanuensis
    
    True, but it’s important to ask whether the people working in those positions are displacing British potential employees. Generally they aren’t, although in some cases they might well be doing so. I do think there are legitimate concerns about wage deflation, but these can be countered in better and less harmful ways than blanket restrictions on immigrants.
    - Quiet_Sceptic
      
      What about the impact on housing?
      
      We have planning policies which make it difficult and expensive to build new houses and much of the immigration is focused into existing densely populated areas lacking space for large scale housing development.
      
      If a government is going to allow large scale immigration then surely it must ensure sufficient housing is built.
      
      It didn’t and people are suffering as a result.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        That’s a fair point, but it suggests, as you say, that the government should invest in sufficient housing.
        
        As it is, the effect of immigration upon housing has been exaggerated ( http://fullfact.org/factchecks/migration_social_council_housing_foreign_nationals-18654 )
      - Quiet_Sceptic
        
        Your link refers to social housing but only a small fraction of families live in social housing, most rent or own privately.
        
        The impact would be seen in house prices and rental rates.
- http://twitter.com/RF_McCarthy Roger McCarthy
  
  ‘your concerns about immigration are almost entirely based upon
  misconceptions peddled to you by unscrupulous tabloids who couldn’t
  accurately report a statistic if it hit them over the head with a banjo,
  whilst screaming “I am a statistic”, over and over again’.
  
  Scores a LOL point but I’ve tried variations of that line many times and generally found that people don’t appreciate being called gullible idiots to their faces.
  
  When I started as a political activist in the 1970s those arguments were easier because there was an alternative socialist narrative which most voters were at least vaguely aware of.
  
  Now however the very language of effective dissent has been banished from the public sphere in what amounts to a gigantic corporate Orwellian mind-trick and has to be relearned.
  
  (The essay ‘Dark Age’ by Thomas Frank in the collection Commodify Your Dissent puts this far more eloquently and despairingly than I can – while Mark Fisher’s little book Capitalist Realism comes at the same problem from a more academic angle).
  - Brumanuensis
    
    True, it was more a wish-fulfilment exercise.
    
    Although that said… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1l1XGiXgo0
    - http://twitter.com/RF_McCarthy Roger McCarthy
      
      Clips like that are exactly why I stopped watching Spitting Image.
      
      On the whole voters aren’t stupid – but they are subjected to a level of capitalist propaganda that a Hitler or Stalin could only look upon with hopeless envy.
      
      And that propaganda works because it taps into values and beliefs which are not in themselves contemptible and which deserve respect.
      
      Epistemic closure does not just affect the American right – there are Guardian readers every bit as closed minded as Fox News viewers.
  - Garibaldi
    
    Funny, I thought the “gigantic corporate Orwellian mind-trick” was mainly of socialist origin and execution. A product of the long march through the institutions since the 1960s and the same sort of ‘authoritarian commie makes common purpose cause with capitalism’ that China has exploited so successfully. No good expecting good socialists to rail against the establishment when it is already fervently socialist in mind set. For true insurgency against oppression you need to look to the right. Uh oh. Nobody there. They are all calling themselves socialists too now.
SR819

“Why doesn’t a leader of the Labour Party say ‘you know what, immigration
increases economic growth, has negligible statistical effects on
unemployment and contributes to building a more diverse and
less-closeted society, which is ultimately healthy for the vitality of
cultural life and democracy’.”

To be honest saying that would be a real vote loser. People don’t care about economic growth if it’s benefiting the bosses and undermining workers rate. We could talk about the fact that immigration has had negligible statistical effects on unemployment, but again, this is looking at the aggregate and doesn’t meet local concerns about the undercutting of wages by immigrant labour.

The final point about the positive effects of diversity and the cultural benefits of immigration is, unfortunately, a no go area and will go down really badly with people. There is significant opposition to multiculturalism, and many polls find people expecting immigrants not to distinguish themselves from the “native” population, but for them to assimilate and adapt British values.

I think it’s too late to be trying to convince people that immigration has been good for the country. Poll after poll find that the majority believe immigration has, on the whole, been bad for the UK (although I disagree), and the best we can do is to put in place policies that are credible and ensures people realise we have immigration under control.
- Newham Sue
  
  Not sure I’d agree with your slightly sweeping point about UK populus opposing multiculturalism. In my own highly diverse home of Newham, people from all religions/ races happily sat down to Jubilee street party lunches, side-by-side, enjoying dishes from round the world. They’re cheering on a thoroughly mulitcultural football team and enjoy music influenced by a range of cultures, performed by folk from a real mix of backgrounds – and I’m sure that’s also true of many other parts of the UK
  - SR819
    
    I’m sure there are a fair proportion of the people in the UK have little issue with multiculturalism, but at the same time there is also a fair amount of fear and trepidation when it comes to this subject. For example, related to this are the worrying poll findings by Searchlight last year:
    
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/27/support-poll-support-far-right
    
    “43% of Asian Britons, 63% of white Britons and 17% of black Britons
    agreed with the statement that “immigration into Britain has been a bad
    thing for the country”. Just over half of respondents – 52% – agreed
    with the proposition that “Muslims create problems in the UK”.”
    
    “A Populus poll
    found that 48% of the population would consider supporting a new
    anti-immigration party committed to challenging Islamist extremism, and
    would support policies to make it statutory for all public buildings to
    fly the flag of St George or the union flag.”
    - Hugh
      
      I’m not sure it really helps to conflate multiculturalism and immigration. The latter is how many people come into the country; the former how you go about assimilating them.
      - Lembit Opik’s Lovechild
        
        Or not assimilating them, thereby creating ethnic gettoes which inrease fear among other ethnic groups.
  - jaime taurosangastre candelas
    
    Sue,
    
    if you leave Newham and travel to outside of the capital, large cities and towns in the south east, you will find lots of people opposing multiculturalism. In the large village / small town that I live in (population about 5,000), there is not a single non-white person living. No children at my daughter’s school (school roll about 1,200) are non-white, although not all are British. The catchment area includes a dozen or so small villages for about ten miles all around, in which I am also fairly certain there are no non-white faces. This is the reality in much of the greener parts of Britain. And in that environment, you may get a very different response.
- Brumanuensis
  
  Well, I did say it would be brave, not that it would be popular. This is something that the Labour Party will have to confront at some point; we can’t go on pretending that immigration is a necessary evil, rather than a positive force for good. And like Sue says, in practice people aren’t opposed to actual multiculturalism, so much as a certain perception of what it means. Framed properly, diversity could be a vote-winner, especially with an increasingly multi-ethnic population, where intermarriage is becoming more common.
  
  The evidence on employment was well documented by NIESR’s recent report, from January, which is what I based my claim upon. The evidence on ‘benefit tourism’ is mixed (see an interesting discussion here, http://www.cpc.ac.uk/publications/2012_Welfare_Migration_WP18_Giulietti_et_al.pdf ), but by no means suggestive of a definite correlation. On wages, there is evidence of a small negative effect on wages for some groups, but this is fairly negligible. It should also be set against the increase in economic growth and GDP that immigration can provide.
Daniel Speight

Ed Miliband is caught between a rock and hard place on the immigration issue, but two points he made are encouraging in that at least he is looking for a solution.

The first is that is stupid to be talking about immigration numbers without talking about the free movement of labour in the EU. You can stop all non-EU people entering the UK but that won’t stop the loss of jobs, especially skilled ones, to economic migrants. How this can be tackled I’m not sure unless we take another look at how the EU works and our place in it.

The second is really encouraging. This is from the Guardian’s report.

Miliband argued that immigration should be seen as a class issue, since
the evidence shows lower-paid workers and the unskilled suffer
disproportionately, especially from the impact of cheap eastern European
labour.

Yes it is a class issue. I would add that the skilled working class also suffers in more insidious ways. First the pay rates of skilled workers is forced downwards and second we are no longer training enough apprentices in these jobs.

Talking about a class issue let me add that the likes of Hannan and the crazies on the Tory right may not like the EU, but they certainly like the free movement of labour because it holds down labour costs. Our political class likes it because it provides plenty of maids, prostitutes and toy boys for their pleasure.

So far Ed Miliband has no answer, but at least he is talking about the real problem rather than just throwing tit-bits to the far right like this government is doing.
- Hugh
  
  “The first is that is stupid to be talking about immigration numbers without talking about the free movement of labour in the EU”
  
  No, it’s not, because although EU movement is important, by far the majority of immigration over the last decade has been non EU (and not forgetting that Labour could have but chose not to restrict working rights with the Polish round of expansion).
- aracataca
  
  Informative and intelligent piece Daniel.
- Janiete
  
  ‘How this can be tackled I’m not sure unless we take another look at how the EU works and our place in it.’
  
  You are right to raise this point as it is at the heart of the difficulty facing any government trying to address the problem. I would like to see Labour push for discussions within the EU to revisit this principle or at least to adopt a mechanism to suspend free movement when clear problems arise from it. Employers will always choose to employ a foreign skilled worker in preference to investing in our youth as it’s cheaper.
  - Razvan Constantinescu
    
    Would you perhaps support other countries ‘suspending free movement of goods’ when clear problems arise from it in their countries? Or services? Surely you would expect the rest of the EU accepting our goods and services whilst we restrict their labour migration, would you?
    - Janiete
      
      I am not aware of free movement of goods causing problems in the EU but if if’s happening then yes we need to look at it. People aren’t goods and we shouldn’t treat them in the same way. If the Spanish Government were able to restrict British workers moving to Spain in order to preserve jobs for their own 50% unemployed youngsters it would seem fair to me.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        It might seem fair, but it’s also illegal and contrary to the founding principles of the EU.
      - Janiete
        
        Which is why I suggested we push for discussion on this to recognise difficulties in some countries.
http://twitter.com/RF_McCarthy Roger McCarthy

Excellent analysis.

But neither stopping or managing immigration from Eastern Europe is any longer within our government’s powers – Poles have exactly the same right to live and work in London as my mum has to spend her twilight years in the Costa Del Sol.

So in the absence of any control over EU immigration Cameron and May are cutting off precisely the flow of highly skilled and motivated and often affluent immigrants (overseas students above all) that is economically beneficial and which has much less impact on the lower wage and lower skill segments of the economy.

(and BTW is a Polish plumber or bricklayer really so low skilled? they have toilets and building sites in Poland too….)

And watching the pathetic little snippet of the speech that just got run on BBC News 24 how did we as a party descend from:

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of
their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be
possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of
production, distribution and exchange,

To giving British workers ‘a fair crack of the whip’.

We may be largely powerless to protect ourselves and our people – but can we not at least stop using the language of the enemy?
SR819

Holding a referendum on the EU would be a good idea IMO. If people vote to leave (which I think is likely) then we get control of our borders back, and can control both not EU and EU migration.
- Razvan Constantinescu
  
  Really? that simple is it? Leave the EU and hey presto we have control of our borders, halt global warming, address fish stock depletion and rebuid our economy. And we spend the rest of forever humming land of hope and glory. Niice.
  - SR819
    
    I actually just came across this, which clears up some things that I didn’t know about the Lisbon Treaty:
    
    http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2012/06/22/what-the-lisbon-treaty-actually-says-on-freedom-of-movement-within-the-eu/
    
    If it is possible to stop freedom of movement without leaving the EU, that’s great and should clearly be the preferred option.
    
    I’m not saying this will be a panacea, but control of our borders is crucial if the public are going to trust us on immigration again.
SR819

The thing is, the proportion of people saying there are too many immigrants has hardly budged in over 20 years:

http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/immigration-grown-up-debate.html

And if you look at that link, under the graph “concerns about immigration”, it’s not purely economic or based on pressure on public services. There are also concerns over community tension and threats to way of life. This is why the Tories are so strong on this subject. Their inherent cultural and social conservativism strikes a cord with many people in the country, not just in their core constituencies but in some of ours as well.
Brumanuensis

There’s a good existing way of preventing exploitation of migrant workers and ensuring that any adverse effects of immigration are mitigated.

Unionisation.
- jaime taurosangastre candelas
  
  That seems a bit hopeful. Unless I have misunderstood what many commentators say, most immigrants work in the private sector, and specifically within that, in the sorts of smaller businesses in which unions have very little penetration.
  
  As an abstract, a call for broadening the base of unions throughout society and among all types of employers is of course a principle many will support. But in practice, you would need to clarify what is your essential objective: preventing exploitation of migrant workers, or increasing union penetration of the private sector. They are not the same, and the practical routes to achieving either are very different.
  
  I fully support a “quota and qualifications” scheme for non-EU migrants, as operated successfully by other countries such as Canada. It allows the government to open immigration for qualified migrants to address shortages in key skills, and by default makes it very hard for unqualified non-EU migrants to enter (who are much more likely to end up being a national cost). Couple that with a much more specific challenge on the automatic right of entry of newly married spouses and family, unless they too can contribute in some way.
  - Brumanuensis
    
    It was a call for a increased unionisation, which would be useful given that the trade unions are increasingly over-balanced towards the public sector, in membership terms. I don’t see why the two objectives of preventing exploitation and increasing union penetration are mutually exclusive: employees organised in trade unions enjoy higher wages and better employment protection on the whole and negotiating with a larger organisation rather than with lots of individual workers reduces the power of an employer over their employees.
    - jaime taurosangastre candelas
      
      No, they are not mutually exclusive, but I think some focus of what is the ultimate objective would clarify thinking, and lead to fewer and smaller mis-steps on the path to that objective. Trying to solve two problems at once is often a recipe for solving neither, due to dilution of effort.
      
      It also appears to be seeking to turn back the tide. Union numbers in the UK have declined over the last 40 years. I am glad to see that, not because I dislike unions in themselves, but because unions meddle in political things that are not their business. Unions should represent people in workplace negotiations, and that should be the legal limit of their activity. Activity should be directly attributable to support for specific named people or identifiable groups in collective pay bargaining.
      
      Unions should not be trying to coordinate political action. That is what we have politics and elected representatives for.
      
      My feelings are however of no import. British people collectively seem to care less and less each year about unions, and I am very glad of that.
      
      I heard a London bus driver union man on Radio 4 this morning, trying – and failing – to make a case for the bus drivers to get extra money for working during the Olympics. He was an audible advertisement for everything that is wrong, greedy, short-term, destructive and selfish when unions get involved in politics.
      
      So, to your original comment on increasing of unionisation, no thank you from me, and my comment of “that sounds a bit hopeful” is a reflection of the fact that the British public seem increasingly sensible.
      - derek
        
        I get the feeling you and Francis Maude would be good friends! castigating the low paid and discussing ways of how to screw the next immigrant for less pay.
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        You would have to show evidence of me doing either of those things, which you will not be able to.
        
        Still, never let a total lack of relevance put you off a joke you may find funny, when you think the mob will be on your side, Derek. It is part of the way you are. I wonder, have you ever made an intelligent intervention on LL, or do you prefer to simply sit back and throw eggs at people? It appears the latter. You and Treborc1 seem to be alike in that respect.
      - derek
        
        Rather than disregard it as an irrelevance Jaime? why don’t you just submit a coherent denial of Francis Maude.
        
        I’m pretty chuffed you’ve aligned me with treborc1, he certainly does his best not to misconstrue and misrepresent his words and seem to have a very healthy knowledge of past and present political attributes.
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        You were the one who raised Maude. I am not a performing seal, to respond to whatever you decide to bring up. The discussion was on increasing unionisation.
      - derek
        
        Your a professional and a good decent bloke.Just sort of twisted about the benefits of the trade union movement.
        
        I’m calling for employment place to gear up their trade union presence.All employees should carry their union card and any one without one really has to think again.It’s time we smashed this ice cold freeze with some hot breathe.I ask you as a professional and caring bloke to stand with those who have been the target of people like Maude and others to stand steadfast and oppose these reckless attacks. Joins us together we’re stronger for everyone.
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        I’m sorry Derek, I can understand your passion and acknowledge it for what is is – compassion coming from your heart.
        
        But I don’t run with the mob, or bend my neck to anyone apart from God. I have found through my own experience in life that I am capable of getting better results when I stand on my own two feet. I don’t need others to do that for me.
        
        So, it is a point of principle for me. I wish no one any ill, and if others band together that is OK for them, but it is not for me.
        
        It is a principle I pass on to my children.
      - derek
        
        I’ve sewn many a seed Jaime and planted several visions, I hope I’ve acted in good faith on behalf of my fellow comrades and even if it all turns out to be no more than a speckle of sand, I truly believe that some day someone will make a bigger imprint than I could ever do and many will follow those foot prints left in the sand (no I’m not lubricated? LoL) because the strong and the brave must be like the magnificent 300 and carry this nation forward with a mighty spearhead of collective willingness that it’s right to fight for your rights.
      - Bill Lockhart
        
        There is no “right” to a fat pension the great majority of which is paid for with money which has been taken from other people who thus have less to invest in their own much smaller pensions.
      - derek
        
        Bill, the BMA negotiated their pension deal in 2008, all sides agreed that the pension pot was in surplus, about 1.7% of GDP, the now government has reduced that GPD rate to 1.4%, Bill just playing to the gallery won’t win many browny points but I’m with you in the need to increase the minimum wage and therefore an obvious increase in pension rates for those at the bottom end.The more money taken out of the economy means greater poverty levels, that’s not rocket science just plain common sense.
      - http://twitter.com/mistyblulabour dave stone
        
        In his speech Ed offers an example of an exploitative situation at a chicken factory in his constituency. Workers from Eastern Europe were brought in, given shared accomdation – 20 people to a house and paid £4 an hour. A trade union was brought in, Ed reported, and the situation was sorted.
        
        I know of a similar situation myself – where the employer repeatedly threatens to “bring in more outsiders” if employees refuse to submit to increasingly unreasonable demands/conditions. Unfortunately this is in a non-unionised work place.
        
        It is the un-level playing fields on which unions currently have to operate that is partly responsible for the proliferation of opportunities for unscrupulous employers to take advantage. I’m not sure exactly how the legislation you’re proposing would change the current situation but rather than proposing further legal restrictions on trade union activity I think the vast majority would be better off if there was less.
      - Peter Barnard
        
        Er, we do have constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of expression – with certain broadly-sensible caveats – in this country, Jaime, and that guarantee extends to trade union leaders.
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        Freedom of expression, yes. Freedom of action (as in collective strikes across multiple sectors that are very clearly not workplace related but rather political in nature), not so much.
        
        I will certainly agree that there’s probably a large grey area in between.
        
        I don’t dislike unions, and indeed took my children to see the Tolpuddle Martyrs exhibition in Dorset when we were on our way to Devon. I fully support unions in their prime role of working for their members in representing cases to management, or bargaining about pay. I do however think they should not be involved in politically motivated actions that affect others, like the ridiculous strikes we had last autumn. The unions should not forget that they have a declining membership, and many more people voted for non-Labour parties than voted for Labour. Their destructive power can easily become un-democratic.
      - Peter Barnard
        
        As I remember, Jaime, what you call “politically motivated” strikes were actually strikes to protest against the proposed deterioration in the pensions provisions for public sector employees?
        
        In other words, they were strikes against a deterioration in their terms and conditions, and satisfied whatever the legal requirements are regarding the withdrawal of labour.
        
        As it happens, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for public sector employees and their complaints about the proposed revisions to their pensions.
        
        They are still on a bl**dy good deal, and I caused something of a stir at a CLP Executive Committee meeting last year when I remarked that the reason that you public sector retirees are against the proposals was that, ‘instead of taking six holidays a year, you’ll only be able to take five.’
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        Peter,
        
        the “workplace” or “terms and conditions” aspects of those strikes were a fig leaf. We all know it – witness the mass coordination between the Barons (Dave Stone has told me not to use that phrase, but it is descriptive of how things really work in the union world).
        
        This week, some weak-minded, deluded and selfish doctors went on strike, led into it by some political activists in the BMA, a union just as selfish, greedy and short-sighted as any other. They wanted to protest against “only” getting £68,000 as against £70,250 a year in pensions. These are pensions in which £4 out of every £5 is provided by taxpayer contributions.
        
        How do these doctors reconcile their razor-sharp focus on the pension statement each year against everyone else who comes into their surgery, who is struggling with trying to put enough food on the table that night? They have a soft focus for those people.
      - Peter Barnard
        
        A “union” is a collective and abstract term and by definition (abstracts are not capable of feelings) cannot be selfish, greedy or shortsighted.
        
        Some people – living and breathing specimens of homo sapiens – may be selfish, greedy or shortsighted.
        
        Two other points : (i) your opinion of general practioners is a matter of record on these pages, and (ii) your evidence for £4 out of every £5 is … where?
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        Peter,
        
        (1) I make no mention of GPs in my comments above, so your arrow is not aimed well. Many GPs, and also some other Doctors were on strike.
        
        (2) The figure of £4 in £5 was published by DoH last year (£63 Bn over £83 Bn), is accepted by the Treasury, and also by the BMA. What other proof do you want?
        
        As for your opening comments, if these unions are so abstract and require implicitly some democratic consensus for their actions, can you explain how in the last week, 3 unions – GMB, Unison and the ASLEF – sent scribblers onto these pages to talk up the fire on outlawing Progress, when in fact their members have had no opportunity to tell the Barons how they feel about the matter? Oh no, that’s not how it works. The Barons tell the members how they should feel and vote***. It is truly farcical, only because once they have done so, the Baron’s dogs then come onto LL to boast about how democratic unions are, despite the truth and reality being a very long way away.
        
        *** Do you recall how the GMB very helpfully mailed out the Labour leadership voting forms in an envelope with a picture of Ed Miliband on it, together with a printed endorsement? Neutral? Neutral my bottom.
      - derek
        
        Then average NHS pension is just above £4,000 per ann. working for longer for less isn’t just consigned to the Doctors pensions. All public services pensions were in surplus.
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        Derek, we’ve gone through this several times. The average figure you quote includes anyone who has ever worked with the NHS for a minimum of one year. The actual average pension paid for career-long employees is £14,250.
        
        If someone drove a Lothian bus for 1 year, and then left to go off and do something else for the rest of their working life, would you expect him or her to get the same pension as someone who drove buses up and down the Royal Mile for 45 years? No, you wouldn’t.
        
        Do you really think a nurse (average salary now more than £35,000) who works for a full career gets £4,000 on retirement as a pension? Don’t be so daft.
        
        How is this so difficult to understand?
      - derek
        
        If someone accrues a grade2 65 plus plan pension (=2) in the NHS, serving 15 years would retire on service pension of an average just above £4,000 per ann.
        
        I don’t argue your point, professionals tend to accrue full service pensions, others tend to accrue a third or a quarter although some do accrue in full.
      - derek
        
        I’m also pretty sure that during the 18 year conservative reign of 1979 to 1997 they only adopted two employment laws 1st was a health and Safety law which wasn’t negotiable “COSHH” and 2nd maternity leave. I’m pretty sure part-time rights to pension didn’t enter in to British statue to sometime in the late 90′s.
      - derek
        
        Here’s a link from 2006
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/mar/02/politics.money
      - derek
        
        But their not all qualified nurses are they? not unless your hospital doesn’t appoint care nurses and assistants who tend to be on a few grades lower than a qualified nurses.
      - Stephen
        
        The NHSSS is an unfunded scheme and therefore by its nature can be neither over or under-funded.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        I don’t really see how a legal change along the lines you propose, Jaime, would be compatible with either the HRA or the ECHR. Unions have as much right as anyone else, including the CBI or the National Farmers Union, to undertake political activism. After all, a democracy should not just limit politics to politicians, that would be an unhealthy development.
        
        Dave Stone has given a good example of the situation I had in mind.
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        If a union’s political activism does not result in anyone else at all being inconvenienced, then maybe you have a point. When a school closes down because a few teachers have a whine about their pension and decide to go on strike, and several hundred parents are forced to take a day off work and lose money themselves, then no you don’t. Equally for the 402 day-patient surgeries we cancelled last autumn, and which we are still working through.
        
        People striking for political*** purposes that impact upon other people disgust me. They get a vote every few years, like everyone else.
        
        *** Please note my emphasis. I am not talking about genuine and specific workplace issues.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        I’m not sure how a strike can be effected without inconveniencing anyone. In fact, that’s rather the point of a strike – it wouldn’t be useful if it didn’t disrupt services. It’s annoying, but a small price to pay in a free society.
        
        Surely pensions disputes are both a workplace and a political issue? It may have political dimensions, but changes to public sector employees terms and conditions of employment always have a political dimension.
        
        I mean, using your logic Jaime, we could apply similar prohibitions to demonstrations – which inconvenience people after all – as the participants get a vote every few years. I doubt you’d agree, but I don’t see why strikes have to be singled out for special treatment.
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        Strikes may inconvenience companies or organisations – that is fine, if they are directly involved.
        
        My daughter’s school has 1200 children on the roll, from something like 900 families. The school closed in last autumn’s strike, because enough teachers were selfish enough to go on strike to mean that less than the minimum number of adults were available to open the school (I don’t know what that ratio is, I’m afraid). So 900 families had to make alternative arrangements, 1200 days of education were lost, and so on. That is what I am talking about.
        
        I was however delighted to find in February that when I spent an hour after school talking with the Head Teacher about a number of topics – my daughter, and also a school visit to my hospital and a charity event, I had managed to park so badly that I had “inadvertently” blocked in the car of the teacher who seems to be the chief union agitator, causing him an hour of delay. He was most upset, and very coarse in his language, which caused the Head Teacher to reprimand him as I was a parent and guest of the Head Teacher. I was of course profusely apologetic for my poor parking.
- aracataca
  
  Good point. But let’s face facts this is often very hard to do.
Razvan Constantinescu

Hmm…firstly this seems to be in somewhat contradiction with Labour’s tradition of socialist internationalism. Whatever happen to that ‘Workers of the world unite!’ It sounds to me like: Unite as much as you please as long you don’t come here.

Secondly, as I am sure Ed will appreciate this amounts to protectionism. Protectionism be it of the labour market, good markets or service markets remains against the modern day view of how the markets should work. Not to mention the laws.

Finally, Ed would have considered of course the possibility that Eastern European countries might well be entitled to reciprocate in protecting their markets and local economies from British goods and services. Only during the current crisis of course. After all: what’s sauce for the goose…

Not the finest of Ed’s moment I am afraid.
Razvan Constantinescu

Hmm…firstly this seems to be in somewhat contradiction with Labour’s tradition of socialist internationalism. Whatever happen to that ‘Workers of the world unite!’ It sounds to me like: Unite as much as you please as long you don’t come here.

Secondly, as I am sure Ed will appreciate this amounts to protectionism. Protectionism be it of the labour market, good markets or service markets remains against the modern day view of how the markets should work. Not to mention the laws.

Finally, Ed would have considered of course the possibility that Eastern European countries might well be entitled to reciprocate in protecting their markets and local economies from British goods and services. Only during the current crisis of course. After all: what’s sauce for the goose…

Not the finest of Ed’s moment I am afraid.
SR819

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with protectionism tbh. Too much free trade with the developing world does (and has) undermined domestic industries, leading to mass job losses in traditional working class areas. What free trade has done is redistribute income from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor countries. I can’t see why the Left should support that.

I think if Ed pursues protectionist economic policies he’d get a whole lot of support. I don’t know why the left in the UK are so reticent about protectionism. In the US, Bernie Sanders (a democratic socialist) regularly criticises the flood of cheap goods from China, and offshoring of jobs to India. If we took up that line and criticised Cameron’s obsessed with laissez faire globalisation, we’d be onto a winner.
- jaime taurosangastre candelas
  
  It sounds good, and possibly popular in theory. The problem in reality is that a vast quantity of everyday goods are either entirely or partially foreign in manufacture. So we either all accept a greatly diminished range of things to buy, or we buy the British version that is much more expensive, because of labour rates and other overheads like NI. Once that reality is known, I don’t think a policy of protectionism would be popular at all.
  
  We had some green beans last night. The packaging said they were grown in Kenya, then “chilled” to keep them in optimum condition, and “transported” to the UK in less than 24 hours for “your eating pleasure”. This is ridiculous. It means it is cheaper for the supermarket to contract with a farm in Kenya, and then fly the beans in a special plane with a chiller cabinet to the UK, then distribute them around 1,000 supermarkets, than it is to grow them in the UK. Of course, we have seasons in the UK, and my own green beans at the end of the garden will not be ready for another month. So if we want to eat green beans in June, we get Kenyans to grow them.
  
  Of course, if British workers are prepared to work for 20 pence an hour, and without social protections as Vietnamese workers do, then Britain will be competitive again and your argument will make great sense.It is a difficult problem – how do we protect the wage levels and societal protections in the UK, while also meeting the desires (not needs) of a large group of consumers?
  
  The tension is simple: everyone wants high wage levels and societal protections, no-one wants to pay a lot of money for everyday goods. It seems irreconcilable.
  - http://twitter.com/RF_McCarthy Roger McCarthy
    
    You should ask this question to a Scandinavian.
    
    They indeed have made the choice that they will pay what look to us ridiculous prices for goods and services as a trade off for everyone in that society being able to afford at least a minimal share of those goods and services.
    
    (OK this is a huge simplification but even in the UK we accept that we can’t buy petrol or alcohol or cigarettes or for that matter housing at anything resembling their real cost price – why should this not over time be extended to wider ranges of goods?).
  - Peter Barnard
    
    “If British workers were prepared to work for 20 pence an hour …. ”
    
    What nonsense.
    
    That would translate to doctors working for 60 or 80 pence an hour … which I am sure you would be quite happy to tolerate.
    - derek
      
      In the interests of employment protection Peter, we should have a closed shop policy and absolute unity in these times of savage attacks from this government.
      - Razvan Constantinescu
        
        We should not attempt to respond to savagery by becoming savages ourselves.
      - derek
        
        What? since whence hath the trade union become savage? O’ Brother where art thou?
      - Razvan Constantinescu
        
        You know exactly I did not mean that my friend – that is rather below the belt! And yes, keeping the bread away from people’s mouths on account of their place of birth is savage.
        Doing it in the name of unions might make it a tad tribal (read populist) but still savage.
        
        And you ain’t my brother if you don’t agree with that.
      - derek
        
        A closed shop is 100% union sign up my friend, so nobody gets victimised or short changed.
      - Peter Barnard
        
        I’m not sure that a closed shop policy would be the answer, Derek, although I can understand and share your anger as this government targets the weakest and the lowest-paid.
        
        The answer lies in the continuation of the enlightenment that started about 300 years ago but was regrettably interrupted post-1979.
      - derek
        
        Fair dues Peter, the alienation of a sector of the nation is something to rumble the graves of some great individual humans.
        
        I’m kinda of a one shirt bloke Peter and I’m being to burst out of it with rage.
      - derek
        
        Ooops! or even beginning.
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        What about those who choose not to belong to a union, Derek? How do you allow for those people? It would surely be discriminatory to refuse them work.
        
        I would rather put a needle into my own eye than bend my neck to a union “organiser” or “shop steward” – I do rather better in terms of outcomes when representing myself. It’s not just about pay, it’s about self-respect.
      - Jertzy
        
        I infer from this comment that you must disrespect colleagues who mounted a token strike yesterday as a protest against pension changes proposed by the government, many of whom have much longer and more distinguished records of service to the people of this country than you do yourself.
        
        You are clearly an opinionated little fellow with much to say but don’t you think your opinions might not get a more sympathetic hearing and you yourself be much better able to feel self-satisfied and good about yourself on a Tory blog like Conservative Home?
        
        Give it a go.
        
        Here’s the url:
        
        http://conservativehome.blogs.com/
      - James
        
        If you post on Conservative Home don’t use your real name Mr. Candelas. Use a pseudonym. They don’t like foreigners on Conservative Home.
    - jaime taurosangastre candelas
      
      Not nonsense, Peter. That is the minimum wage of workers in Vietnam, per their Government decree. It is set at $0.34 an hour for 2012, so in sterling £0.20.
      
      Here is an interesting page showing wages for “garment labourers” around the world: http://www.globallabourrights.org/alerts?id=0297
      
      Don’t try to shoot the messenger Peter: it is a fact that around the world, people are prepared – or compelled – to work for considerably less than in the UK.
      
      On your final point, there is no translation. I am fortunate to have skills and experience, so if I was offered £0.80 an hour I would find it easy to take my labour elsewhere. Those without skills or experience do not have that opportunity – and that is a lesson I make sure my children know. No-one on God’s earth owes you a living, so make sure that you work and study hard to make sure that you are never in that position.
      
      I earned about £7,000 a year in 1996 in Serbia as a fully qualified House Officer (equivalent). I arrived in the UK and 2 months later was earning about £30,000, doing exactly the same job.
      
      The wider point is – if you wanted to buy some cotton clothing, as an example – pay £5 for some Vietnamese-sourced clothes, or £40 for exactly the same thing from a cotton mill in Lancashire? It does not matter what your own individual answer is, but across the millions of the British population, you will gain the answer. And this decision is repeated tens of millions of times a day, for all sorts of commodities, needs, necessaries and to use a word you taught me, “fripperies”.
      
      The cult of consumerism in inadvertent alliance with our increasingly highly-waged and societal protections have between them killed our competitiveness for the majority of purchases. I do not believe this has ever been a policy or plan by any government, it just happened.
      - Peter Barnard
        
        Low wages go with a low aggregate production level of goods and services, Jaime. More accurately, a “low per capita production level.”
        
        In the United Kingdom, about 30 million people go to work and produce goods and services to the value of about £1,500 million : £50,000 per person per year. About 30 per cent of these goods and services are exported, so those exported goods and services are “competitive.”
        
        How the heck are you going to sell these goods and services, domestically, if you think that UK employees should be prepared to work for 20 pence an hour so that we are “competitive?”
        
        The nonsense wasn’t in the fact that the minimum wage in Vietnam is 20 pence an hour ; the nonsense was your contemplation that we can only become “competitive” if we pay British workers 20 pence an hour.
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        Peter,
        
        please don’t be so narrow. If you read what I have written, you will nowhere find me positively advocating such a policy. Instead, you will find me using words or phrases like “if…” and “everyday goods”, and “commodities”. I am hardly talking about high end services, some very complex.
        
        Your second paragraph avoids considering that there are multiple levels – or complexities – of production, which surely you already appreciate. Growing vegetables is not as complex as computer programming, or brain surgery, and therefore the human costs of those activities differ. My remarks are clearly aimed at the lowest levels of production.
        
        I’m really not trying to make some far-right free market point at all; this is merely an observation that Mrs Smith would rather buy a packet of perfectly good beans for £1.50 than spend £6 on them just because they were grown in Lincolnshire, and that a 3-pack of Tesco T-shirts will sell rather more than a 3-pack of British made T-shirts because they are 1/5th of the price, and T-shirts are a mere commodity. Of course, individuals have differing motives, but across millions of consumers of EVERYDAY GOODS the cheapest product will be chosen disproportionately, so long as quality is about the same.
        
        This is the world we live in.
      - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David
        
        There is an interesting debate as to whether the “necessity being the mother of invention” effect could mean that the imposition of such barriers would enable the famous British ingenuity to shine: there are huge developments to be made towards room temperature organic magnets, or the development of other super-breathable polymers that, if achieved, could enable us to become both more self-reliant and reduce our global impact.
        
        I suspect, however, that the vast majority would not be willing to put up with the steep step backwards (that would make the “austerity” and “back to 1950s” headlines seem positively forward-looking and progressive) that such barriers would introduce over any time period for the debate to be anything more than academic.
      - Jack Daw
        
        “This is the world we live in.”
        
        No. The world is what we make it. The way in which a society treats its people it is not immutable and fixed like the quantum spin of a sub-atomic particle. If this wasn’t the case politics itself would be entirely pointless.
      - Peter Barnard
        
        Indeed, Jack D.
        
        Notable changes over the last three hundred years or so include the Glorious Revolution and the establishment of Parliamentary sovereignty, the reduction in mercantilism, the abolition of slavery, the Great Reform Act of 1832, the Education Act 1870, the challenges to the House of Lords, universal suffrage, the NI and NHS acts.
        
        Even further back, there was Magna Carta and the establishment of trial by jury.
        
        We would be in a sorry state indeed if people at various stages in history had not challenged the view, “That’s the way the world is, get over it.”
        
        Of course, it is invariably a Conservative default position to defend the status quo as in “Life has never been fair.”
      - Jack Daw
        
        Biblical quotes and paraphrases were very popular in Victorian England to fatalistically justify making no efforts to improve the lot of the destitute, e.g., Matthew 26:11,
        
        “The poor you will always have with you”
        
        and similar.
        
        To which I say – bollocks!
      - Jack Daw
        
        The problem is that British companies choose to have their goods manufactured in China – exploiting the atrocious working conditions, low pay and lack of workers rights in such a country – and then import those goods back to sell at inflated prices to home markets. A Dyson vacuum cleaner is a good example of this practice as is an Apple iPod or iPad or a pair of Nike trainers, all of which are marked up hugely when they are sold in Europe and America. Having goods manufactured in poor countries allows private firms to exploit and abuse workers by proxy in ways that are outlawed throughout Europe and America and rightly so.
        
        European countries CANNOT become competitive by LOWERING workers wages or WORSENING their working conditions. Neither of these options are or can ever be remotely possible in the developed world.
      - Quiet_Sceptic
        
        Yeah but what about the choices of individual consumers?
        
        When people buy cheap imported goods over domestically produced goods they also play their part in driving that shift in production.
      - Jack Daw
        
        People make myopic choices all the time, e.g., over-extending themselves as far as borrowing goes when money can be cheaply borrowed – which is one element of the disaster that now plagues us as far as debt is concerned – which, at the time, seemed to be a very good way to own more things and finance improving lifestyles. Similarly buying cheap goods made by men, women and often children in Asian sweatshops, seems like a good way to own things that might otherwise be too expensive will without doubt eventually destroy our own domestic economy.
        
        As Lenin said:
        
        “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
        
        These days we’re giving away the self-same rope to China and many other aggressive Asian countries free, gratis, and without charge.
      - woolfiesmiff
        
        Er you obviously don’t know because you choose to believe the tripe printed in the media, but 85% of ALL including Apple mobile phone technology is manufactured and licensed in UK by British companies. The Asian operation is purely the low end assembly of the components.
        
        All the high value is earned in the UK by UK businesses and UK workers.
        
        By the way what I mean by this is the internals, chips, boards, firmware etc used by the “makers” of phones
      - Jack Daw
        
        Surely the Daily Mail wouldn’t lie about things like this would it?
        
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2096551/Apple-shamed-Chinas-iPod-sweatshops-SIX-YEARS-expos.html
        
        Plonker!
  - SR819
    
    I think we need UK consumers to be prepared to pay higher prices for British produced goods, yes. Ed’s speech about economic patriotism was excellent, and mirrors the “buy American” populism of Obama. I think New Labour became far too technocratic and forgot the value of emotions in politics (something Cruddas has emphasised in the past). I think allowing products manufactured in Britain to be clearly labelled as such, and giving subsidies to such companies would be a good way of developing domestic industry.
    
    There’s been too much of an obsession in this country with trying to get the cheapest price for everything, which is linked to the short termism that Ed’s talked about. Sure, we can spend less money on cheap imports from India and China, but what does that do to British industry?
    
    We are the Labour Party afterall, and our focus should be on workers, not consumers. If consumers have to pay higher prices for domestic produced goods and services, so be it.
    - woolfiesmiff
      
      Ha ha ha ha ha, your last sentence sums up everything that is wrong with you tribal political wonks.
      
      “We are the Labour Party afterall, and our focus should be on workers, not consumers. If consumers have to pay higher prices for domestic produced goods and services, so be it.”
      
      Who the %^&*$ing hell do you think consumers are ? Oh yes they’re the workers and they work to earn a wage so they can consume.
      
      Jeez no wonder Labour shouldn’t be let anywhere near anything economic
      - SR819
        
        And we should be promoting the consumption of British manufactured products, rather than the reliance on cheap, Chinese or Indian products. People need to realise that the short term benefit in terms of paying less for imported goods is strongly outweighed by the long term damage we are doing to skills in this country, with the closure of factories that make the products that we’re importing.
        
        Yes, consumers are also workers, but consumers include a lot more people than just those working in the manufacturing sector. My point is that our allegiance should be to the industrial working class first and foremost, and if a middle class professional worker is slightly inconvenienced by having to pay more for British clothes, then I don’t think that’s such an intolerable thing is it? The alternative to these consumers paying slightly less for their products is for a large number of working class young people in industrial towns and cities being thrown on the scrapheap, with skills that are no longer valued in our service sector economy. I know which option I prefer.
      - Luther
        
        Aren’t workers and consumers the same thing? Or don’t consumers have work to earn a living any more?
      - Garibaldi
        
        Well, those consumers who work in politico-ideological propaganda jobs in the public sector certainly don’t ‘earn’ a living. They are parasites, producing nothing more beneficial than chains to limit the mind and expression.
      - Laurence
        
        Well Andy Coulson, Rebecca Brooks and her husband have been arrested and are currently helping the police with their inquiries. What do you call that? A good start! Boom! Boom!
    - http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
      
      Again, agreed – the problem is we are in this pattern of wanting to buy cheap and badly made consumer goods which are not designed to last. It is wasteful and not sustainable
      - Bill Lockhart
        
        Get off your iPhone then.
- Guest
  
  Because unlike goods or capital, labour is made up of living and breathing people who should have rights. Why should we close ourselves off from our fellow human beings, ring ourselves with ever more absurd futile fortresses to keep out THOSE OTHER PEOPLE. It is immoral and wrong, and if I may say so, bigoted.
  - Jeremy Poynton
    
    So it’s fine, you think, that even when we can’t afford to look after our own old folk properly, to import more of the same from abroad, so that we don’t look after them properly as well? Not to mention space – we are now the most crowded country in Europe. Still, it’s a great way of increasing friction, as we are now starting to see.
    - Brumanuensis
      
      “Not to mention space – we are now the most crowded country in Europe”.
      
      No, that’s Malta. Followed by the Netherlands.
      - Bill Lockhart
        
        Much of the land area used to calculate the UK population density average is in the Scottish highlands and thus not suitable for agricultural or residential purposes. The effective practical population density is thus much higher.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        Aside from the fact that land in the Scottish Highlands can be used for farming purposes – grazing mainly – you’ve implicitly acknowledged that the problem is inefficient utilisation of land, not overpopulation.
      - Bill Lockhart
        
        I have acknowledged no such thing. Intensive agriculture such as is achieved on every agricultural hectare in the Netherlands is meterologically and biologically impossible in the Highlands of Scotland. There is nothing “inefficient” about it. You might as well criticise Iceland for its “inefficiency” in stubbornly failing to produce mangos.
        And the fact remains that the arithmetical average UK population density is skewed heavily downwards by the inclusion of large areas of semi-wilderness or ( at best) rough pasture such as simply do not exist in either Malta or the Netherlands.
      - Brumanuensis
        
        Those caveats weren’t in your initial statement, which was a blanket one. My point was not about inefficient agriculture, it was about inefficient land use across the country as a whole. Urban Britain contains large sprawls of suburban areas containing semi-detached or terraced housing, instead of more compact urban development, such as appartments. The current arrangements are fuel-inefficient and make public infrastructure more expensive. Better urban planning would more than cope with any pressures arising from increased population.
      - Bill Lockhart
        
        Much of the land area used to calculate the UK population density average is in the Scottish highlands and thus not suitable for agricultural or residential purposes. The effective practical population density is thus much higher.
- woolfiesmiff
  
  Theres nothing wrong with protectionism…..that is until other trading nations recipricate and ban the products that you just started making in your new UK factories…… oh did you see what happened there?
  
  As the owner of a small manufacturing business the last thing I want is to be protected. I want to trade, I want to carry on producing my goods here and selling them to China etc. Protectionism leads straight to the setting up of overseas factories and the loss of British jobs and manufacturing industries, just like it did in the 1970′s when they tried protectionism and Buy British Only rules then. Ever wondered why there’s no British computer manufacturer of any size here?
  - SR819
    
    Through stronger trade unions and higher minimum wages, the workers will have higher purchasing power, and can buy the products that are manufactured in this country, so that producers don’t have to be so reliant on foreign markets. I don’t think a reduction in the volume of global trade is a necessarily a bad thing, especially given the negative environmental consequences of excessive trade. There’s been cases of foreign species being accidentally imported into this country that has affected the local ecosystem as well.
    - jaime taurosangastre candelas
      
      So, you want to increase the costs on British companies by increasing wages, and also increase the costs on British companies by enforcing a protectionist régime which will inevitably leading to counter-measures by other countries.
      
      I find it hard to see a good ending for the country from that sort of thinking.I am also bemused that you introduce eco-isolation as part of an economic argument.
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
  
  Totally agree SR819 – and of course protectionism is very much the Labour tradition . Its the Blairite neo-liberals who worship the market.
Guest

The point is that being against immigration is like being against the wind and the rain. It is an inevitable consequence of a more integrated world and cheaper transport. So you have a choice between legal migration or the horrors and exploitation that accompany illegal migration. Everything else is fantasy, and people should be told this. The mess that this government has got into, with deranged policies such as restricting student visas (that is a services export you morons!) is not something Labour should follow in some vain attempt to win votes of people who feel uncomfortable with change. We should explain this, and if impotence isn’t popular, we should also explain why immigration is a positive thing, for which the arguments are well rehearsed, not something that people “suffer”, which is bordering on totally unacceptable language, by the way.

For my part, I passionately believe that people should be able to live and work and love and play wherever they choose, and that as a people, as a nation, we can be grown up enough to welcome whosover wants to come here and accept that people are different and bring different views but can get along. The 90% white villages spoken about earlier are themselves almost entirely made up of immigrants from an earlier age. “I’m 45th-generation Roman” as The Streets once put it.

As for Gordon Brown’s “bigot problem”, it wasn’t a problem. It didn’t shift the polls one iota. The whole thing was a media confection, and the only people who were outraged were not going to vote Labour anyway. The idea that the core Labour vote is latently racist or xenophobic is an insult and a mirage.
- Guest
  
  To bring this home, my colleague at work, who is Canadian, on a Tier 2 sponsored visa, has just learned that when it runs out in 2014, he will have to leave the country and will thus lose his job. Why? Because of some accident of birth, someone who is a responsible citizen, works hard, pays his taxes etc etc will be hounded out of the country. It is utterly absurd and indefensible.
- Hugh
  
  ”For my part, I passionately believe that people should be able to live and work and love and play wherever they choose”
  
  That’s because you’re a beautiful spirit. Unfortunately, the fact that no country in the world operates an open border policy suggests it’s not an entirely practical proposition.
SR819

I have sympathy with that view, but I’m not sure we can convince people of that argument, especially based on the results of numerous polls:

http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/immigration-grown-up-debate.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/27/support-poll-support-far-right

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2011/02/why_are_we_so_concerned_about_im.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7352125.stm

Now, I’m NOT saying that we should simply respond to opinion polls (one of New Labour’s greatest flaws) and of course we should look to convince the public of the value of our arguments (engaging on a moral crusade so to speak). But I just think that we’d have much more success in changing the public’s views in terms of economic policy (favouring manufacturing industry through industrial policy, stronger unions, a higher minimum wage, protectionist trade policies, tax breaks to firms that don’t offshore, etc) rather than social/cultural issues, which seem pretty entrenched.
Dan Mccurry

I think you’ve missed the main point of this speech, which was about the effect on the job market and minimum wage of too much immigration.
Fruit picking is done 100% by foreign workers now. Our youngsters are squeezed out. This is one of the problems he highlights. I thought it was a good and useful speech.
- Jeremy Poynton
  
  Pah. Not to mention Hilary Benn, invited on to the R4 1pm news spouting on about protecting the rights of immigrant workers. WTF was he on?
- woolfiesmiff
  
  You do know why fruit picking and similar is only done by overseas workers don’t you ?
  
  Its because its seasonal, so it only happens when the fruit is there to be picked. Why can’t unemployed British people do this, because they will lose a years benefits by working 8 weeks. So if you want British people doing these kind of jobs ( as they once did in huge numbers, often whole families going on picking “holidays”) then you have to change the benefits system to allow more part time and temporary working without forfeiting benefits in total. We can’t do that because the EU are totally against temporary and part time work.
  - http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
    
    Its got precisely nothing to do with the EU. On the whole employers don’t want the hassle of temporary staff who are already within the system when they can have someone transitory who isn’t
hp

‘Shutting the door’ or ‘pulling up the ladder’?
Brumanuensis

A very timely blog post by Jonathan Portes, on this very topic:

http://notthetreasuryview.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/why-ed-miliband-shouldnt-apologise-for.html
Alister_Troup

please can all those to tried to raise immigration and were called racists or playing the race card have a full public apology? I think William Hague deserves a full apology as in 2000/1 when he was leader of the tories he was accused time and time again of “playing the race card”.
Jeremy Poynton

“Miliband will admit that Labour should have taken concerns over Eastern European immigration more seriously.”

Jeez. Do you really think this is about Eastern European immigration? Is that what Miliband was “apologising” for? It’s the whole shambles of Labour’s open the floodgates policy which the majority of the country saw and sees as an attack on the English. As it is now clear, it was.

How’s your Sharia Law Controlled Zone doing these days?

FFS.
- Brumanuensis
  
  It’s fine, thank you. We had a lovely stoning last week – a harlot, if you must ask – and the whole street got involved, even the young ‘uns! Took a bit of time to finish her off, but eventually a well-aimed paving stone did the trick and we celebrated by flogging an apostate – he tried slipping out of Friday prayers early, the cheeky sod!
  
  So yes, all good. Nice community spirit about the occasion. I think this is what Mr Cameron means when he talks about the Big Society, isn’t it?
  - jaime taurosangastre candelas
    
    Not the best of taste when “Honour killings” are still a factor in our society, either – but not so often – performed here in the UK, or more commonly when young British Asian women are taken on a holiday back to their ancestral homeland.
    - Brumanuensis
      
      It wasn’t the sort of post that deserved a response in good taste.
    - guest
      
      What is it about the left? Haven’t you got a sence of humour?
      - Luther
        
        What is it about the right? Can’t you spell “sense”?
      - jaime taurosangastre candelas
        
        What do you want me to do? Complain on their behalf to the Travel Agent Association that the holiday was not what they expected? Or to tell them to make sure their father has booked a return airline ticket, not a single?
        
        That was a sickening comment that you made. We are talking about the murder of young people. It happens, probably in numbers not understood widely and always under-reported. After all, things happening in Pakistan don’t get much British media exposure.
      - treborc
        
        If you think they are to the left then your humour monitor is way off.
  - Jack Daw
    
    What happened to the “Big Society”? Did any of it ever get off the drawing board?
Liberanos

There is no moral component to immigration. It’s neither good nor bad in itself.

If a country needs more people it’s a splendid idea. If it doesn’t, it’s merely stupid.

With millions unemployed, a desperate housing shortage, long waiting lists for the health service, and crowded transport systems, I would suggest that for this country it’s merely stupid.

The immigration norm should be set at nought, with only rare exceptions allowed.

What’s the problem?

Not the EU. We can make it this camel’s last straw….and leave.
- Peter Barnard
  
  “The immigration norm should be set at nought …. What’s the problem?”
  
  The problem, Liberanos, is that the economic dependents component of the increase in population between now and 2035 is forecast to rise by 20% and that the number entering the working-age component won’t increase by 20%.
  - Bill Lockhart
    
    Unfortunately, inviting more immigrants here in order to use their taxes to fund welfare is simple a socio-economic Ponzi scheme. If government spending requirements for a certain population size are unaffordable, the only sustainable solution is a reduction in those spending requirements. Population increase as a source of income is merely stalling for time, with a bigger problem down the line as ever-more people retire.
    - Liberanos
      
      Exactly.
      
      We’re simply pouring ever more water into a full bucket in order to cover the overspill.
    - Luther
      
      Another solution to cuts is to increase the productivity and GDP of the country to fund the needs of the population.
      - Garibaldi
        
        Ha ha! With what? More of that socialist funny money that grows on trees? Oh, no, wait I get it. Tax the rich more (yawn). You people are a joke. Carry on having these windbag conversations with each other whilst the country goes to Hell in a hand cart.
      - Peter Barnard
        
        The joke is you, Mr Garibaldi.
        
        Since the dawn of the industrial revolution, we have had increasing productivity – as Luther mentions – mainly because of the formation of physical capital, but also due to a more educated and skilled workforce over the period and increases in technical knowledge.
        
        You ask , “With what?” Well, according to the business sections, UK companies are currently sitting on £700+ billion in cash. You can get a lot of investment for that kind of money.
    - Peter Barnard
      
      Not necessarily so, Bill L, if the annual real increase in expenditure on economic dependents is, say, half the annual total real increase in national income.
SR819

If we need to pay for economic dependents, why don’t we just increase taxes to fund social security? Using immigration to plug this gap creates its own problems.

I used to think that ideas like zero immigration were balmy, but given the fear that so many people feel about the topics, perhaps it wouldn’t be a bad idea. We should have an economic planning agency that will flag up significant shortages of labour in nationally important industries or services (for example the NHS), and if that’s the case we should bring in skilled labour on temporary contracts.

Of course all this should be separate from our policy on refugees. If someone’s life is genuinely in danger, we should welcome them with open arms.

I don’t see the problem with this sort of policy. We stay true to our internationalist philosophy by being open to those in serious need, while protecting the native working class from the excesses of globalisation.
- Peter Barnard
  
  Possibly, SR819 (” …increase taxes to fund social security?”), but I wouldn’t bet on it.
  
  People who receive social security benefits are inevitably labelled by the right-wing press as “scroungers” ; but highish-income (say £40,000 – 60,000) who receive child benefit are not “scroungers” and the withdrawal of this benefit attracts great criticism from the same right-wing press.
  
  After the National Insurance and National Assistance Acts of the Attlee government, in the early 1950s social security payments were 5% of GDP, with 2% going on state retirement pensions.
  
  By 2009/10, social security payments were 13.3% of GDP, with 4.8% going on state retirement pensions.
  
  (Source : IFS)
  
  In other words, the non-pension element almost trebled over 60 years (3% to 8.5%). This occurred over time, and it was immaterial what the stripe of the government in power was. Indeed, as I have remarked before on these pages, the Conservatives between 1979 and 1997 did more to entrench “benefit culture” (especially in housing benefit) than any government before or since.
  
  To me, the driving factor in these increases in non-pensions social security payments has been rising unemployment {in the early 1950s, unemployment was about 1% ; it was more or less the same in 1966/67. There was a lurch upwards after 1966/67 (textiles took a hit?) and by 1978/79, unemployment was 5.5%. It dropped to about 5% between 2000 and 2006, but is now back to 8%+).
  
  The big increase in economic dependency will actually be in the services – care and health - that an increase of 28% in pension-age folk will generate.
  
  As a people, we face a hard – not to say moral – choice. Do we want to pay for the fripperies that a consumer society seems to regard as “essential,” or do we want to pay for the essential services that will be required so that an inescapably increasing number of older people may live their lives in dignity?
  
  In other words, it’s a choice between spending a £ on a bottle of water and spending a £ on care for the elderly. Both pounds will provide employment for people.
  
  If we are to regard ourselves as a civilised people, it’s a no-brainer.
Sandy winder

Unions have destroyed millions of manufacturing jobs in this c0untry by making them uncompetitive. No sane person can deny that. If you want Britain to be like Greece with mass poverty and high unemployment listen to Labour.

And now the anti-business party want to penalise firms for hiring foreigners and discriminate against and treat immigrants as second class citizens. THEY are the nasty party now.
- derek
  
  Sandy, In all my years I’ve never known a trade union to be other than pro work and pro employment. I think you’ll find that Thatcher and the tories destroyed Britain industrial base.
  - woolfiesmiff
    
    Strange Derek as according to the official figures produced by ONS British manufacturing GREW by 12% between 1980 and 1990 when I think you’ll find Thatcher was the PM.
    
    Meanwhile I lost my manufacturing job in the mid 1970′s and the factory closed down never to reopen because of the lack of coal to power our plant and the rationing of electricity and 3 day week caused by the miners under Scargill going on strike demanding a 43% thats FORTY THREE % wage increase.
    
    The day I lost my job I tore up my TGWU card
    
    Hey but why let facts and history stand in the way of some good old tribal politics
    - derek
      
      Hmm! so that’s just over an annual 1% growth rate while unemployment increased by 200% from the 1970 to the 1990′s.
      
      I find it hard to believe that you lost your job because the wage rise call was 43%, where the bosses saying we’ve have to pay this but we can’t so we’ll shut up shop?
      
      Go and get some glue, together we will mend your card and your Tn&G can be a united front.
      - emale
        
        This is a summary of the effect of Labour’s increase in public sector jobs on manufacturing…
        
        “This isn’t the end of the story, however. Using different data we look at changes over a longer time period (1999-2007). This data isn’t quite as good, so the results need to be interpreted more carefully, but the results are interesting. Over the longer time period, those negative effects on manufacturing are even stronger (they lose about 80 jobs for every additional 100 public sector workers). Again, this makes sense – the channels through which manufacturing gets hurt take time to work through. What about local services? Over the longer period, this loss of local manufacturing employment offsets the increase in public sector employment so there’s no longer a beneficial effect on local services. In short, over longer time periods public sector employment crowds out private sector employment.”
        
        http://spatial-economics.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/public-sector-employment-bad-for-local.html
        
        The last Labour government increased the public sector payroll count by about one million people at a cost to manufacturing of about 800,000. Unfortunately public sector jobs are almost entirely non-productive whereas manufacturing jobs are the most productive to the economy. Manufacturing also supports more working class households whereas public sector jobs tend to provide employment for the middle classes.
      - derek
        
        ONS reporting in 2010 say that for every 1 job lost in the public sector 2 will be lost in the private sector.
        
        How on earth do you equate that a private nurse is more productive than a NHS public service nurse?
        Jobs lost whether in the private sector or the public sector are……well…..jobs lost! so spending and demand are reduced and the welfare state is stretched a bit further.
      - Garibaldi
        
        Yes, well, count on a lefty to cherry pick nurses, police officers, lollipop ladies and other “national treasures” whenever this subject comes up, completely disregarding the far more enormous number of diversity co-ordinators, five-a-day co-ordinators, fake charity bigwigs, quangocrats, non-job propagandists and multitudinous jobsworths of the bloated socialist state. They add nothing to this country except yet more red tape and bullshit.
      - http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray
        
        ‘far more enormous number ‘ – what rubbish. Typical right wing alarmist Daily Mail idiocy
  - Garibaldi
    
    It woz Thatcher wot dun it! Thank goodness you lefties have her to blame for all the woes you and your lot have inflicted on this poor old country. If she wasn’t your anti-totem you might have to look a bit harder at your own appalling record of incompetence, nastiness, corruption, navel gazing and ill will.
  - HJ777
    
    I think you’ll find that the ONS statistics say that manufacturing output grew by around 20% under the Thatcher/Major governments but declined by over 10% under the last Labour one.
Pingback: Before It's News
george

and just how many of you are affected directly by having to compete with immigrants?
In my dept we have 4 (polish) of 12. They are supplied by a bureau. 1/3 of the staff in one dept are foreign.
Thanks ever so fraking much labour! You signed up to this, you sold out the working class!
- Winston_from_the_Ministry
  
  It’s not just immigrants, outsourcing is also taking a lot of jobs out of our economy.
Requiem46

Let’s not forget that Labour were to introduce a ridiculous, bureaucratic and highly patronising “earned citizenship” scheme, in which people from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US (and every other non-EU country) had to prove how “integrated” they were by volunteering to coach sports teams and other such nonsense in order to gain citizenship within a reasonable time. Meanwhile, a Bulgarian goat herder who didn’t speak English was subject to no such “integration” requirement. It was Labour that introduced a “Life in the UK test” that the majority of the native-born population would actually fail (do you know what percentage of the population is of Pakistani origin?). It was Labour that extended the qualification period for permanent residency from 4 years to 5 years and made it retrospective, so those on the brink of gaining it were forced to fork out for another 1 year visa. And how does the IPPR have any credibility after producing such a fundamentally inaccurate assessment of the potential A8 migration impact in 2004?
Concerned of London

its not Eastern European immigration we are worried about it is Middle Eastern, Somali, Afghan, Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigration that is the source of concern. 90% of Eastern Europeans have jobs, only 11% of Somali’s ( and their 5 children)
http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Smith/100003485567217 John Smith

I’m not sure Labour were ever competent enough to manage immigration, let alone having the will in the noughties.
It suited them very well to let immigration rip under ‘Project Client State’
Managed immigration would have been very good for the UK, allowing in the best of the world’s workers to boost our economy & society.
The problem with Labour’s approach is we have dredged up some very nasty & violent people, who at this very moment are sucking the life blood out of this country.
Many of them are in highly organised criminal gangs making many peoples life hell.
Well done Labour, apologies are too late
We need someone to be accountable & the electorate will punish them
- Liberanos
  
  Ah, but you forget that under the concept of mulitculturalism, such practices as those you indicate, along with misogyny, homophobia, anti semitism and so on, are merely aspects of a different culture, and equally valid to our own.
  
  Your idea of vicious domestic slavery, for instance, is their concept of correct and dutiful female behaviour.
  
  So we mustn’t upbraid these people. Even when they offend every decent principle we’ve fought for for centuries.
  
  Multiculturalism simply doesn’t allow it.
Jeff

Oh God, is Mark Ferguson still writing self-promotional, self-aggrandising pieces like this about how right he is?

When I was at Cambridge University, you couldn’t get away from his self-adoring columns, they filled half the student press. I see he hasn’t changed.
Forlornehope

“There aren’t enough jobs” Well, actually, there are, it’s just that, rightly or wrongly, British people don’t want to do them either because they think it’s beneath them, or they don’t want to move to where the jobs are or any number of other legitimate reasons. But, if somebody says they are looking for a job in, let’s say, Renfrewshire, they either don’t really want a job or they’re too dumb to be employable!
Andy Davids

I see it differently. You cannot solve the housing crisis without solving the immigration problem which caused it in the first place. If the price of housing comes down but the gates remain open it will simply encourage more immigrants. If they are still coming with housing costs as they are do you think they will stop if the costs reduce.

The only solution is to remove reduce welfare, doing so would remove a lot of social and economic problems.
LesThompson

wellwell fansea that a speech on imograshon ti would do Ed well to remeber out there just ho are the british people to speek such as if he is to ashamd to menshon the word british people si a insolt to not onley him self dut all the othere sons and dorters of the verey people he clams to reprsent “son ” it would do you well to reneber that we all from the oldest brit in the land all son’s of imigrents evon my owen lineag as ronen greek italeam an new adison ruson scitish welsh ans english ansesters my famley moto is no thiy self ” you will find it inscribd in the 3cild snacks of the stachow of delfy it as been a part of my eritig sins time began well at leest as long as romen solgers wher on aderens wall truw erotig is not your blood lin but the things you as a partey stand for how do you befin a brit i defin a brit as out sopken tolerent a striveragenst hardship and apreshon not fritend to tack to the streets to right a rong fear and hard working you will notis i did not menshon the coler of skin thats right this is acidemic as we all are brits now let me say that if we do not mack jobs fore are citzen a prioritey and not cheep labere we are gowing to ineret a worlwind of unrest it is not rasist to put one famley frest in the striv for a living so jobs for britis workerws should be the gol of all govoments by this i do not meen singeling out the forener for exsplit tashom i just think with the jobs so feu on the growend thay should go to the nativ born frst and the traning to inshr thay do should be a poriatey that dos not say that key personel should not come but should thay live and tack there skils with them having been educated hear that is yet a nother Question …..les
Ftalker

The usual White supremacist nonsense one has come to expect from the party of the lowest-class and the lowest intellect: The Labour Party.

Not all immigrants are poor, so implying they are all some kind of welfare-scroungers &/or burdens-to-society is pathetic.

Immigrants only threaten the lazy majority, not the hardworking minority.

Jobs do not have a nationality – especially in a globalized world – so there are no such things as British jobs. There are now only jobs Europeans can do; ie, European jobs. Whites here have a strange habit of forgetting their own EU membership, as if it were an inconvenient detail of everyday life, rather than a nightmarish fact.

The vast majority of the British people (ie, Whites) are racist and bigoted – as every statistical-indicator proves. This (White) author lives in a White supremacist dream-world in which the basis of his own culture has somehow mysteriously disappeared overnight to be replaced not by something better, but by unproven and unprovable denials.

All White discussion of immigration is inherently-racist; since it is never an issue when the immigrants are White & English-speaking; eg, North Americans, South Africans, Australasians, etc.

Latest

Featured
Miliband is off to speak to Google – but it’s not all about tax avoidance

By Mark Ferguson

Ed Miliband is speaking at the Google “Big Tent” event this morning, and as we noted earlier this week, he’s picking a bit of a fight with them over their tax affairs. Understandably, most of the press coverage in advance of Miliband’s speech (and presumably afterwards too) is about Google’s tax affairs. That’s in part due to David Cameron’s unwillingness to challenge his adviser, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, when the two met earlier this week. The Downing Street media team [...]
Read more →
News
Labour MPs and Equal Marriage – analysis, and some special mentions

By Kirstin Hay

It was good to see the vast majority of Labour MPs voting for marriage equality yesterday, although here are some special mentions – Iain McKenzie, Frank Roy & Mike Wood - voted FOR after voting against in the 2nd reading Anne Begg, Gordon Brown, Bill Esterson, Pat Glass, Michael Meacher, Ian Mearns, Yasmin Qureshi, Virenda Sharma, Shaun Woodward - these MPs didn’t vote in the 2nd reading, but all voted FOR this evening (not all abstentions, a number were unable to attend [...]
Read more →
News
More evidence of that slick Downing Street media operation…

By Mark Ferguson

Ed Miliband is addressing Google’s Big Tent, and is expected to attack them over tax avoidance. So the slick Downing Street operation presumably want to get out ahead of that, right? Not quite. Here’s a selection of the headlines from Tuesday’s papers: ‘Stop moralising about tax avoidance, PM told’ – Guardian p.23 ‘Tougher tax rules would cost jobs, minister warns’ – Financial Times p.3 ‘Cameron avoids showdown over Google tax row’ – Times p.15 ‘No taxing questions as PM lets [...]
Read more →
Comment
Where are the women over 50 on our TV screens?

By Harriet Harman

Most people like to think that we live in a society that is fair and equal but for some it is still not equal at all. When it comes to TV presenters, women disappear when they reach over the age of 50. As part of the work of the Older Women’s Commission, I wrote to the six main UK broadcasters asking them how many older women they employ on screen and behind the camera. The figures provided by broadcasters show [...]
Read more →
Comment Featured
The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

By Stefan Stern

That’s it. Enough is enough. I try to be reasonable. But you can only push somebody so far. It’s time to sort this out once and for all. I am fed up with this huge and growing army of sycophants and cheerleaders constantly bigging up Ed Miliband, and making helpful or supportive interventions on his behalf. The list is endless. Let’s shine a spotlight on the guilty men and women. There’s… well, there’s… er… you know… er… thingy… on a [...]
Read more →

← previous next →

DOWNLOAD IT NOW: One Nation Labour – Debating the future

Signup to our daily email

Proudly sponsored by

LabourList Videos

Latest Posts

Nice door closing Ed. But the immigration horse bolted years ago

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Latest

Miliband is off to speak to Google – but it’s not all about tax avoidance

Labour MPs and Equal Marriage – analysis, and some special mentions

More evidence of that slick Downing Street media operation…

Where are the women over 50 on our TV screens?

The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

Email*
Forename
Surname