Cameron's utter failure over immigration

Originally published November 2014.

“Net migration to this country will be in the order of tens of thousands each year, not the hundreds of thousands every year that we have seen over the last decade,” he said.  “With us, our borders will be under control and immigration will be at levels our country can manage.  No ifs. No buts.  That’s a promise we made to the British people.  And it’s a promise we are keeping.”

David Cameron, April 2011

"Net migration to the UK rose to 260,000 in the year to June [2014] - an increase of 78,000 [43%] on the previous year ......  The figures show rises from both inside and outside the EU ......  Net migration is now 16,000 higher than it was when the coalition government was formed in 2010."

BBC News, November 2014

The Tories' ridiculous 2010 election promise was never remotely achievable and they knew it.  They never had any intention of honouring it - it was merely another of their deceptions (alongside, for example, the notion that public spending caused the financial crisis) designed to get them into power.

Cameron and company are guilty of deception and utter hubris.  No ifs. No buts.

How UKIP misleads voters on immigration

Originally published November 2014.

Back in 2013 I wrote a blog post in which I predicted that UKIP's surge in popularity would fade before the 2015 election and that the Conservatives would win with a small majority.  It is looking increasingly likely that I got that badly wrong, though the Tories may still turn out to be the largest party in May.  I have to admit though that I am perplexed by the persistence of UKIP because as far as I can tell they are conning their potential voters on numerous fronts - in this case on immigration.  According to a recent YouGov poll, immigration is the top issue concerning most UKIP voters with the economy in second place.  This is interesting as the two issues are inextricably linked but UKIP's views on the two issues seem completely contradictory.

For instance one of the reasons UKIP supporters cite for their support is that foreign workers drive down wages.  This is true, but driving down wages is surely an objective of UKIP and Conservative economic policy - this, as they see it, is the route to increasing Britain's productivity and competitiveness.  This has been one consequence of the emasculation of the trades unions and the reduction in their ability to maintain wages through the lever of collective bargaining.  I would expect UKIP, as the self-proclaimed heirs to Thatcher, to support this.  Lower wages are the expected outcome when the Conservatives talk of creating a 'flexible workforce' - a workforce with no rights and no representation.  For 'flexible' we should read 'exploitable'.  Marx wrote of capital's need for a 'reserve army of the unemployed' for this purpose - what the Tories are creating, and which UKIP would presumably support, is a 'reserve army of the low paid' ie. people working part-time/zero-hours and competing with each other for the right to increase their hours - with no chance of instead increasing their rates of pay.  One way to prevent this undercutting of wages would be to implement a mandatory living wage - do UKIP support this?  Of course not - because it interferes with the free-market and makes us uncompetitive apparently!  UKIP can't have it both ways over this - they can't support right-wing supply side policies and then complain about the inevitable outcomes - to do so is to treat the voters as though they are idiots.

So instead of a living wage UKIP urge us to stop immigration, but I wonder whether their supporters are aware that almost the entire growth in GDP since 2010 has been due to an increase in the working population - ie. due to immigration.  We now have more people in work in this country than ever before but our productivity has remained constant despite higher (though now falling) levels of unemployment and static/falling wages.  What this means is that without immigration our GDP would have been lower, therefore the tax take would have been lower and so either taxes would have had to rise or even deeper cuts in services would have been required.  I wonder whether UKIP supporters understand this.  Going forward the same argument applies - if we want to keep taxes from rising and services from being decimated we need to maintain immigration - ie. we need people coming into this country who pay taxes and place few demands on public services.  To give Nigel Farage his due, he has acknowledged this and has publicly stated that he is willing to live in a poorer country with a lower standard of living if that is the price of controlling immigration - but I am not sure his supporters have taken this fully on board.

As alluded to above, migrants to this country, taken in aggregate, are net contributors to the country's finances - paying more in tax than they take in services.  This is logically obvious as it tends to be those that are young, fit and healthy that are the most willing to take the risk of moving to another country to live and work.  However to hear UKIP supporters talk (and also many Conservatives) you would think that most migrants that come here are a burden on the country - for instance you hear them talk of 'benefit tourists' ie. those that come here solely for the purpose of claiming benefits.  The reality is that unemployment amongst migrants is lower than amongst the indigenous population, which means that taken as a group the immigrant population more than pay their way.  In the case of any in-work benefits (tax-credits, etc) that immigrants may receive this is again a function of low wages - any tax credits or other benefits paid to people in work is a direct subsidy to the profits of exploitative employers.  If the employer isn't prepared to pay the level of wages their workforce need to live on then the taxpayer has to step in to make up the difference; the problem that needs addressing here is corporate welfare, not immigration.  I don't think all UKIP supporters understand this and instead believe that immigrants are a drain on the country; the question that needs to be asked of them is whether they are are willing to live with poorer services as a result of curtailing immigration in order to address a non-existent problem.

Another argument frequently used is that we are small island with finite space - immigration puts a strain on local infrastructure and drives up rents and house prices.  This is true.  However what is also true is that as immigration makes a net positive contribution to our economy we are perfectly able to build housing and infrastructure to cope with the additional demand if we want to - we just need to set the appropriate level of taxes to make it happen.  If instead we insist on slashing taxation on the indigenous population and therefore also on immigrants then the infrastructure will inevitably suffer.  Again this is the logical outcome of right-wing thinking - and it doesn't sit well with UKIP's plans to cut taxes - for example removing the top tax band and abolishing inheritance tax.  We should instead be embarking on a program of housebuilding and refurbishment for rent to rebuild the stock of social housing depleted over the last 30 years.

So in summary what UKIP supporters should think about is that a withdrawal from the EU and a halt to immigration will lead to Britain having a smaller economy and thus becoming a poorer country with a lower standard of living and worsening public services.  Do they understand this and is this what they really want?  I am not sure that the answer is 'yes' on either count.