Four Things UK Politicians Should Have Told Us But Didn’t

First Thing: The UK economy is addicted to immigration. ‘Addicted’, because we can’t do without it. The UK economy has been predicated on immigration as a remedy for economic ills for two hundred years. At first cheap labour was imported from Ireland to build railways, ships, and to work in new factories. The ‘economic ills’ being addressed were those of both the availability and price of labour. The trend accelerated after WW2 when public sector wages were too low for labour demand to be satisfied: the Windrush generation’s first arrivals in 1948 established an important fact. People were prepared to emigrate from the Empire and former Colonies in substantial numbers – often in response to advertisements offering public sector employment, and they were prepared to take the lowest paid jobs on offer. EU membership and the enthusiastic government espousal of ‘freedom of movement’ caused a bifurcation in the trend: those seeking low-paid employment came in greater numbers (sometimes enabling aggressive expansion of industrial activities such as food processing), but these were now joined by a proportional upsurge of others with professional skills seeking far better financial rewards. London’s ‘silicon roundabout’ expansion has been enabled by this latter group.

The history is consistent and clear: the entire UK economic structure depends on these people, whether they are low-paid, pursuing traditional middle income trades like plumbing, or highly qualified higher earners propping up, say, the NHS and financial services.

The message is simple enough. Break the immigration process (whether through a fantasy version of Brexit, or through achievement of apparently unachievable government ‘targets’), and you break the UK economy. The political discomfort occasioned by this simple economic fact has engendered political silence on the matter.

Footnote: Recent figures show that as Brexit drives down immigration from the EU, non EU immigration increases to plug the gap. These are the classic mechanics of addiction: supply from one source declines, so the user looks elsewhere.

Second thing: immigration is an incomes policy. For several decades it has been political poison for UK governments to admit to having any kind of incomes policy. However, the perceived problems that an incomes policy seeks to address persist. This dilemma has been addressed in a number of ways. Downward pressure on public sector pay has been one response, but this is partial and relatively short-term – pay levels eventually have to be restored. A more effective solution is to increase the supply of labour, especially in those areas where shortage exists. Immigration, pure and simple, is a rapid response solution to labour shortages. As such, it acts as an under the radar incomes policy. Politicians of all stripes have been reluctant to admit to this.

Third thing: immigration is a tax-break. This is especially true for immigrants in higher pay categories. These members of the workforce typically require higher levels of pay and training. This is expensive. Recruiting trained, qualified labour from abroad means that the taxpayer bears a lower associated cost. Politicians are relatively happy to talk about this type of immigration as ‘helping the UK economy’ (and it certainly does), but they are reluctant to discuss its impact on government expenditure on education and training. This would invite criticism of government policy and lead voters to conclude that there is a policy in place to impair their own life-chances.

Fourth thing: how to avoid becoming part of the UK’s in-house third-world underclass. Politicians tend to be rather quiet about some of the side-effects of globalisation. Cheap imports of clothing and other goods have greatly diminished UK employment opportunities, while the availability of service industry employment is reduced by outsourcing (foreign call-centres, IT code-cutting in Chennai etc.). In an increasingly ‘connected’ digital world these trends are, in practical terms, irreversible. However, the implication of this is that UK pay rates are likely, for some at least, to head closer and closer to those for the same work in very low pay economies. The fate of a large number of UK voters is clear. They are heading for third-world economic status within a first-world economy. What should be the response of politicians to this phenomenon? If they are honest, I would argue that they need to come right out and make the situation clear (a prospect that no doubt terrifies them). It’s not as if there is no solution to this for those on the receiving end: education and training that offers a higher economic status. Politicians, from the top down, need to make the situation clear, crystal clear, to the potential victims; and then they need to make the funding available for the education and training needed.

11 thoughts on “Four Things UK Politicians Should Have Told Us But Didn’t

Here’s a typical response on immigration from the BBC:
The BBC’s James Shaw is in Stirling talking to hotel manager Harold Balgowan.

“We employ 30% of our staff from the EU,” says Mr Balgowan.

“We have some who have already left and maybe more will go because of uncertainty over Brexit.

“One of our main concerns is who will replace them.”

Mr Balgowan says he initially voted to leave the EU but says “over the past few years, with the uncertainty, I’ve really changed my mind”.

“We should have got our facts straight first,” he says.

And here’s an interesting fifth thing from Robert Cooper, a former UK and EU diplomat writing in the FT on March 22nd:
“…we are paying the price of our failure for years to explain the EU. What is it for? Security. It delivers good political relations among neighbours — the best guarantee of security you can get. We have benefited very directly from this. Being in the EU together meant that for the first time we worked with Dublin as equals. That, and the open border, enabled peace in Ireland. In Britain, no one noticed. The EU is a political project: the customs union and the single market are means to an end. Why did no one tell us?”

Excellent, may I add, when you travel in Ireland, Portugal, part of Spain, you can see wide panels on which is written: “This Highway was built with EU money”; it will be the same in front of a University Campus, Hospital or Library, etc… Unfortunately, in the UK, like in France, there are no publicity for the received EU Fund in name of silly nationalism.

Brexit and the election of Donald Trump in the US were facilitated by three things: 1) demagoguery by politicians seeking to ride a wave of populist lies to power; 2) a failure by government to provide retraining schemes for workers who became victims of globalization; 3) a naive, sentimental yearning for “good old times” that weren’t actually very good (Britain in the 40’s and 50’s was adrift and virtually bankrupt). Immigration is the lifeblood that keeps economies with flat or declining populations in business. Watch Japan as it declines into debt and stagnation due to highly restrictive immigration policies. And yes, China faces the same fate. My recommendation to Brexiteers: let’s go it alone, shut down immigration, and kill off the economy.

David, your point about retraining is an important one. In the UK we have seen a decline in manufacturing and particularly heavy industry since the 1970s. It has been notable that in the affected areas there has been virtually no governmental effort to future-proof communities by providing education and training in those jobs that we know belong to emergent economic activity. If you are unemployed and you ask for retraining in IT, there is nothing available – this despite the enormous number of jobs available in IT and advertised through specialist sites online.

This is not a new thing. I paid my own way through a College Education over a lifetime of study, working several jobs simultaneously to cover fees & materials. I studied, Law, Economics, Accountancy, Business Management, Teacher Training and Business Training, Developmental, Child and Interpersonal Psychology, Counselling, Human Resource Management, ran several Departments for large organisations, eventually becoming a College Lecturer myself only to be made redundant in Governmental Cutbacks to Education Funding.

What was I offered. at age 50, for retraining or Career Development? A six-week course in Fork-lift Truck driving!!!!!

Is it any wonder I fled the Septic Isle to find a new life in the heart of Europe?

Yehbut … how am I supposed to find my way round your blog? Is there only one post? (Well, it’s a goodie, so maybe the rest don’t matter.)

Interesting quote from Ian McEwan’s piece in The Guardian 01/02/20: ‘In the early days of the referendum campaign we learned that “on the doorstep” it was all about migration; but we also learned that it was the UK’s decision, not the EU’s, to allow unlimited migration from the accession countries before the permitted seven years were up; it was the UK’s choice to allow EU migrants to stay more than six months without a job; it was the UK that successfully campaigned to enlarge the EU eastwards; it is the UK, not the EU, that lets non-EU migration continue (and why not?) as EU migration declines. We also learned that the UK, not the EU, opted for our maroon rather than patriotic blue passports. Though, as I look, my old passports seem almost black.’
– Our politicians really have been economical with the truth haven’t they?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.