I have worked with environmentalist and campaigner Colin Hines for the last fifteen years. He and John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network are the two people with whom I have created many of my campaigning ideas. In Colin's case the focus has been the Green New Deal.
Throughout that time Colin has also been working on ideas on what he calls progressive protectionism. I will be honest; we have not always agreed on this. But, with environmentalist Jonathan Porritt, Colin argues that those on the left have a duty to make life better for people where they are. Our dependency on inducing many of the most able from many other countries to permanently reside in the UK is just another form of rent extraction from these countries is their argument. Colin best summarises this by noting that 20% of Romanian doctors work for the NHS, and whilst we appreciate them Romania needs them more than we do.
Colin had another of his (many) letters to the Guardian on thus issue published this week. This is what he said:
The way immigration utterly dominated your 20 June edition is a harbinger of things to come, as people grasp that this issue, and how to tackle it, will dominate the future of politics. To solve the migration crisis, which is tearing European and now US politics apart, will require a three-pronged approach. This must consider the pros and cons of immigration from the perspective of the countries the migrants have left, the migrants themselves, and the views of the majority in the country migrants have entered or are attempting to enter. The rapid rate of population growth in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and the Caribbean will add to the urgency of this approach.
Democratic, progressive and internationalist policies would include ones that meet the concerns of the majority with stricter border controls, but which also grasp the urgency of seeing all foreign policy, aid and trade agreements in terms of improving the lives of the majority in poorer countries, and thus helping to minimise permanent migration globally. Progressive policies could range from increasing living standards for the poorer section of society through fair taxation to limiting arms sales, decarbonising economies and reducing resource use.
Finally, the other forces that have caused insecurity in the recipient countries — globalisation, austerity and the increasing additional threat of automation roaring up the skill ladder — must be reversed. The disruption at present caused by migration could be the prism through which such long-sought goals finally become reality.
If we are to build a new vision of an enlightened country post-Brexit this is, I suspect, one of the many difficult issues we are going to have to address.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The only possible answer has to be more regulation of the employment market and the employers in my view.
I have seen for myself what has been happening – long term employees seeing immigrants taken on to save money and then employers increasingly employing their original work force on the same terms as the incomers in the name of competitiveness (and existing workers having no other choice but to toe the line).
This is just not fair on the existing work force but also not fair on the immigrants – the latter just being exploited. Both immigrants and ‘indigenous’ workers should be treated the same because after all – it is money going into the economy – their wages are someone else wages. A courageous state with fairness for all at its core would deal with this.
But there is also something else that Porritt and Hines need to consider: it is the culture in our society where we seem to be obsessed with finding the cheapest means of doing anything at all – from finding builders to flying to a holiday destination, to what we purchase in supermarkets. It’s a race to the bottom out there.
And the deeper question is ‘Why this obsession’? The only reason I can see (other than greed) is that it has something to do with the drop in earnings we have been seeing for so long – exacerbated by austerity.
There are other drivers of this culture too – I’ve seen well to do middle class families employing Polish builders over English ones because they were cheaper – not better – because they are over-leveraged by stupid property prices and retired people doing the same because of fixed incomes. All of these drivers can be dealt with.
In the public sector, procurement also exacerbates the problem – we set up a bunch of desirable rules (employee safety and non-slavery rules) but the price often dictates who gets a what because our budgets are still being cut even now by austerity.
Attitudes to immigration are not just driven by what I read above. They are also in my view driven by the supply and allocation of money – or should I say the lack of production of money and its misallocation in the economy which just seems set up to help the rentier economy instead.
I want a fair economy. Instead what I see is the fucked economy.
Your last one neatly summarises my perception of our future for some time to come
Colin and John are absolutely right on this issue.
In addition to the points made by them I would also emphasise three other issues. Two are obvious, one is less often discussed.
1. At least 70% of the UK’s land is devoted to agriculture and much of it is monoculture, intensive use or battery farming. In addition to that at least 10% of the UK’s land is urban – which, for all those with a decent knowledge of sustainability issues, is frightening.
Findings on that subject differ marginally according to definition (“farm land” as opposed to “agricultural use”, urban divides into “built-on” and “green urban”). No matter how you look at them none of the facts bode well for increased population and that’s just land. Then there’s coastal and marine problems plus the fact Britain is a net importer of food (etc. etc.).
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28003435
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41901294
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/agricultural-land-percent-of-land-area-wb-data.html
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/agriculture-in-the-united-kingdom-2014
2. Wages and labour supply. The Confederation of British Industry are dead keen supporters of high immigration levels:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/01/cbi-warns-may-that-immigration-shakeup-could-harm-economy
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/10/cbi-need-immigrants-uk-young-britons-wont-move-get-jobs/
but that’s not because the CBI are enlightened, humanitarian, multicultural or altruistic. They aren’t. They support immigration because an oversupply of labour suppresses wages. Arguments to the contrary will tell you that new workers add to consumer demand which supports further employment. That may be true to some extent but not when the rate of immigration outstrips the rate at which new jobs are created. The CBI likes to keep the rate of immigration marginally ahead of job growth and every leftist that blindly opposes immigration restraints assists them in the pursuit of lower pay rates.
Then there’s the fact that capitalism is growth dependent and in the absence of high per capita growth the capitalists will settle for aggregate growth (increased population) regardless of the consequences. It expands the domestic market.
3. Gentrification and displacement. In any country there are preferred locations where people want to live and those locations are in fixed supply. As the population expands the numbers of the wealthy grows with it, not as a percentage, but in absolute terms. Likewise the numbers of the poor and middle classes expand as well.
As the ranks of the wealthy expand there is no longer sufficient room forall of them in the established wealthy areas so some will move in to middle class areas. As the middle income groups get priced out of their preferred neighbourhoods they move into areas that were previously preserve of the poor and the poor get pushed out to the margins.
As the standard of luxury falls at the top end the standard of living falls with it in a chain reaction that moves down the scale and sees long-established communities being disrupted or destroyed. That, generally, is one of the things that people dislike the most about rapid population growth.
We have past a point of no return where a very large section of the electorate want to have population levels stabilised (often with good reason) and they aren’t going to back down or forget about it.
So, an enlightened approach to immigration isn’t merely possible it is necessary for any progressive party that wants to get elected and stay elected. The too-hard basket is no longer a viable option for this issue and its not that hard anyway. All that Labour and the progressive parties need is a consistent, comprehensive “sustainable population policy” based on sustainability issues as well as the issues that Colin and John have identified.
An enlightened immigration policy is one that does all that and in doing so shifts the focus away from race and racists. It takes ownership of the issue. Avoiding the matter hands it over to the ‘nationalists’ and other bigots. Its about time that they were deprived of that monopoly.
Hear, hear
I am a little disheartened by the way that this post has failed to attract anywhere near the amount of attention as the Brexit-related post immediately below it. Its not a good sign and its not as if the two issues are unrelated.
Oh well.
I agree
Marco (in the spirit of your disappointment):
These are all very valid points.
But the average man in the street (and I’m surrounded by them at work) wouldn’t even consider these issues. Immigration is seen as a threat to people’s jobs and no one I work with wants to end up without a job (even though many continue to vote Tory!!).
The drivers of low wage growth, meagre state assistance, zero hours contracts and poor contractual conditions mean that immigration is seen as an added pressure by people who can feel the rug slipping beneath their feet.
Despite your sound technical appraisal above, any progressive movement needs to see the problem in the way those driven by these worries see it. Otherwise we risk being as to blind to it as Blair was. And that is not a good thing.
Thanks
Yeah? Fair enough, I thought I’d covered that angle. Just expressed it differently.
Marco Fante,
Overall I don’t disagree with what you are saying, but there are one or two things I would take issue with.
1)…..at least 10% of the UK’s land is urban — which, for all those with a decent knowledge of sustainability issues, is frightening.”
Maybe this just goes to demonstrate that I don’t have a ‘decent knowledge of sustainability issues’, but I don’t think it’s at all frightening. I simply do not accept this narrative of Britain being an overcrowded island. There’s a lot wrong with Britain, but overcrowding is an illusion created by socio-economic misallocation of resources.
“. Gentrification and displacement. In any country there are preferred locations where people want to live and those locations are in fixed supply. ”
I don’t accept that as a given. It’s a consequence of market activity. Preferred locations are created, and can be created wheresoever the desire to create them exists. Preferred locations have employment and good housing and all the other attributes that make life pleasant. Preferred locations are relative not absolute. Your explanation of gentrification describes what generally happens, it doesn’t describe what needs to be the case.
“We have past a point of no return where a very large section of the electorate want to have population levels stabilised …”
Don’t think so Marco. As we order our society at present ….you have a point, but you are implicitly accepting that this is the best we can do. We could do substantially better. But as long as we don’t try we are going to have the mess we’ve got. The only escape from which is to buy your way out into a ‘better area’. Gated communities are the ultimate symptom of political and social policy which has given up.
But, yes. We need a sensible immigration policy which matches numbers arriving on our shores with the needs of our economy, and with our ability to assimilate new members.
That involves having control of the nations resources not leaving it to the whim of the market.
We don’t do that. Politicians have, for the past four decades, decided that it’s much easier to let the market do it and try to pick up the pieces.
Daft I call it. Total abdication of responsibility.
FFS we knew it was madness when we started behaving like this. It just put the clock back and binned most of what the 20th century was about.
I’m with him. Andy, I mean. 🙂
Andy, re this:
“Maybe this just goes to demonstrate that I don’t have a ‘decent knowledge of sustainability issues’, but I don’t think it’s at all frightening.
Yes, sorry but it does go to show you that you don’t have that knowledge or a clear idea idea of how much agricultural land and water it takes to support the average Western consumer or the amount of wilderness and biodiversity that it takes to provide us all with resources and to absorb all the pollution we create.
The economy is hosted by the ecosystem. If the economy gets bigger than the ecosystem the latter collapses and we all die.
As for the way that gentrification diminishes the standard of living for all – perhaps you could solve that in the way that as others have tried by creating a whole new bunch of Milton Keynes’s. (as I think you seem to be suggesting) . Well good luck with that. For a variety of reasons experiments of that nature have had limited success in the past.
Yes, I was commenting in the present tense and I know that resources could be better organised. I dare say it quite possible that most people may eventually be willing to revolutionise our use of resources but they will do that ensure survival or have a better life. They won’t do it for the mere sake of hosting a larger population.
Marco Fante,
“Yes, sorry but it does go to show you that you don’t have that knowledge or a clear idea idea of how much agricultural land and water it takes to support the average Western consumer or the amount of wilderness and biodiversity that it takes to provide us all with resources and to absorb all the pollution we create.”
Agreed, Marco, but these things are not a given. Pragmatically you are right, we aren’t going to organise ourselves decently.
There is only one reliable and consistent way to reduce population growth and that’s to increase affluence. That works reasonably consistently. But it does have to be affluence well distributed.
Predictions of peak population are about as frequent and wildly underestimated as predictions of peak oil.
We could do so much better, but I share your pessimism about the likelihood of us doing so, and all the current trends seem to be taking us in the wrong direction.
I think there may be some updates worth reading re how much is urban (or built on – there is a difference): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096
There are also differences between England & Scotland and between some areas of England. Much of Scotland is “hill” and unsuited to urban sprawl or intensive cultivation. (But if we could prise much of it out of the hands of the rich the uplands could be regenerated in many ways – and we need more immigrants)
On agriculture, while I agree that our Western diet requires huge inputs of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides and, to some extent, (in the UK) scarce water resources, creates bio-dead monocultures (forestry too) and Daisy the cow belches zeppelins of potent greenhouse gas, this is entirely down to our demand for cheap food. We don’t have to rear animals intensively; they can be grown on rough grazing. We don’t have to pollute with chemicals and kill everything that moves over the cereal fields; we could farm organically. We don’t have to eat strawberries at Xmas, or import cut flowers. We could eat local and in season, or grow our own.
But the price would go up.
The price of food has something of Schrodinger about it. It is simultaneously too cheap and too dear. Too cheap because £billions are thrown away, and too dear because we have food banks (or wages/benefits are too low, which amounts the same thing) and many feel they have to buy junk food because it seems cheaper while others can only get by on caviar – which is leading to the extinction of the sturgeon.
Meanwhile, climate change, pollution of the oceans and land, the depletion of aquifers etc will likely lead to our own extinction before too long, solving the migrant problem – and in one bound the biosphere was free.
G Hewitt explains:
Why Scotland needs to be an independent country in control of its own resources with policies for Scotland rather than policies which deal with the sort of problems that worry Marco and apply in spades to the only area that WM government cares about or acknowledges the existence of.
Well that’s what it sounds like to me.
I agree with many of your correspondents above, and with most of your remarks, Richard. But no-one has mentioned capital flows, which is a little odd, for a money blog.
If we really wish to restrict migration, we are going to have to restrict and regulate the movement of capital. What is sauce for the refugee goose, must perforce be sauce for the investor gander.
While I am on the subject of refugees, we also need, in the West, to stop waging cruise missile “diplomacy” on faraway countries of which our only knowledge is their ownership of mineral riches.
I have long argued for capital controls
Tremendous. 🙂
“I have long argued for capital controls”
Borders which are transparent to the movement of capital need to be equally porous to population (labour) movement.
The ideal arrangement is probably that both need to be regulated to some degree.
Otherwise what is the border for ? What, indeed, is the border ? Does it have any function at all ?
Excellent posts above so not much to add. As Marco has stated, this morning’s blogs are inextricably linked. And there are no ‘simple’ solutions. Complexity is grist to the neo-liberal mill.
I can only speak in generalisations but, as stated many times, the prevailing Capitalist socio-economic paradigm is now dangerously past its sell-by date. Unfortunately no replacement is close to being an alternative acceptable to a mind-controlled general populace. Hence, in order to garner wider support, potentially progressive political parties (viz. the Greens) seem to have given up by promoting a better form of slavery rather than abolition.
If one merges the two blogs into a single narrative, the outlook for radical change in the western democracies couldn’t be bleaker.
That’s the problem with writing organically, as I do
Organic is good 😉
There is something going on called the Labour Party, I suppose, in your busy life, you have missed it.
The Greens had their chance, and comprehensively blew it, with non-existent leadership, and a consequent failure to grasp the nettle of a political principle. As a result, their policies, some excellent, fatally lack any moral or intellectual underpinning.
This is made worse, when you recall that the Liberal Democrats betrayed their own political principle by way of tuition fees, and will be gone for a generation or more.
If Labour was offering leadership it would help
From where I am standing, Both Jeremy Corbyn and large sections of the Shadow Cabinet are offering excellent leadership. I am concerned that you can’t see this.
Their huge political advances, and the huge range of fresh ideas on offer, not least your own, give the lie to the “poor leadership” myth.
Not everything has to go according to the sergeant-major’s book. Not in my opinion, anyway.
I wish I could see it
I can’t
Might be the eye of the beholder, rather than the spectacle to be seen … 😉
We have had a number of “leaders” over the past forty years, and they have “led” us to the shit we now find ourselves in.
“I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: `Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear —
“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away … “
It is with mounting dismay that I study the debates taking place on the ‘crisis’ of migration/immigration over the last few years. It seems an inevitable consequence of the world becoming a more difficult place to live, but the conversations seem so unbalanced. I would like to set out a few thoughts to broaden the discussion.
Human beings move. Ever since groups of early humans left the Great Rift Valley, we have moved around the planet searching for a better standard of existence. Nowadays there are three principal types of migration and each one requires a different approach.
The rich countries of the world have broadcast their wealth and advantage to peoples across the world. So it is hardly surprising unemployed and desperate young men and women from Africa, South America and the Middle East think attempting the journey to Europe and the U.S. might give them an opportunity to work and make a better life. The riches of the planet need sharing out more equitably, the effects of climate change need tackling more robustly and foreign aid for climate change mitigation, education, clean water and business opportunities needs to grow, not shrink, so people can thrive in their home countries.
Wars and natural disasters cause families, desperate to protect their children, to make treacherous journeys to a place of safety. Nobody wants to be torn from their homes and flee. Many of these people will want to return home once their situation can be made safe. People here are forgetting there are internationally agreed rules for hosting refugees — who’s to say when or where asylum needs to be sought? We need to strengthen the international organisations to work together, not let them splinter and weaken.
Young, often highly educated and skilled people have been moving within the E.U to the wealthier countries because they can get work, because there is work to be done and because their own countries in Eastern Europe were not yet offering good, well paid work. Many EU citiizens send money back to their home country, saving for a house there or supporting older family or children. This money redistribution has helped those economies to grow. Now the UK, no longer as welcoming or prosperous, is seeing considerable falls in the movement of EU citizens, as the value of the £ has dropped and they can get better jobs at home.
It is the Uk that is and will continue to experience labour shortages (I live in Lincolnshire and farmers are desperate to find more workers). Our government could have done a lot more to support areas of rapid population growth, so preventing the complaints of overcrowded schools and doctors’ surgeries. But the Migrant Impact Fund was one of the first things the Tories stopped. In my view the government created the conditions for Brexit by their two faced attitude to our fellow Europeans.
In the future our government will not be able to rely on that new young blood boosting our economy. They will have to find ways of pursuading and supporting British workers to move from areas of higher unemployment in the UK to the parts of the country that need them. It is much easier for a young person from Poland to settle wherever in the UK the work is available, as they have no roots here. But someone from the Welsh Valleys for instance, has to leave their community, leave their home and travel across the country for a job that will never pay them enough to save for a house or financial security later on in life. They often don’t see why they should have to move to find work, wheras young immigrants are often more ambitious, more energetic and willing to work harder, because they know clearly what it is for — their futures. After all, the United States was built on those immigrants brave and energetic enough to cross the Ocean to strive for a better life. The more passive ones stayed at home!
This issue of ‘too many’ other EU citizens will surely resolve itself as UK leaves the EU, stops free movement and becomes a poorer and even more unwelcoming country.
Richard, I have learnt a lot from reading your blog and trying to understand the complexities of economics. One conclusion I came to, was that there seems to be only two ways to ‘grow’ an economy — either the population grows from the outside, each new member producing added value, is taxed and spends, or, by increasing individual productivity, each existing member produces more value and is taxed more. It seems to me recent governments have relied on the first way to grow our economy and largely failed to improve individual British productivity. So, when immigration drops, our economy will shrink until we can increase our own birthrate and/or improve our own productivity. Personally I have my doubts immigration will drop significantly as business seems wedded to the cheaper solution of having a supply of ready educated labour, or it will turn to automation, so precluding the need for human workers at all. Who will benefit then?
So to conclude, the wealthy countries, of which we are still a member, need to all grapple together with immigration as the result of war, climate change, competition for resources and global inequalities. Until we tackle these issues in a concerted, humane and effective way, the movement of human beings across the globe will only increase. It appears that in the current political climate in Europe and the US, government wants us to live behind very high walls, while our fellow humans’ bodies pile up outside them.
Thanks
I appreciate your contribution
The comment by Judy is one of the best on this topic because it goes the heart of the matter – the causes of migration. As she says, we moved out of Africa, possibly several times and possibly back again, and out again, moving for various reasons – following the food or because of climate change or competition. And as we did so we caused the extinction of other “human” groups who were already there and the extinction of megafauna, among others. So, apart from some in Africa, we are all immigrants.
If we look at more recent history, since the “discovery” of other continents Europeans have migrated to various corners (causing the [near] extinction of…..). Why did millions leave Scotland, Ireland and other poor countries in the 18th, 19th and 20th Centuries? We all know the answers. So it is today, people are economically oppressed, they are fleeing wars, grotesque inequality, lack of employment and all the rest.
We need to persuade our (useless) politicians to deal with these kinds of causes and people will not need to “swarm” (Cameron) like “animals” (Trump) to countries where the opportunities seem better. Scotland was impoverished by economic migration for several centuries as many of the brightest followed Jamie the Saxt to a richer, altogether grander place where it was better to be a small fish in a big pond. And this is being repeated now, because countries with immigration policies only want the “best” people.
But it’s a double whammy, because those leaving poor countries deplete the skilled human resource and in so doing ensure that the poor country remains poor for longer.
I’m always suspicious of calls for stricter immigration controls, because it usually amounts to a kind of silent bigotry – ie we only want the skilled, or those with money.
(a little anecdote, for what it’s worth. Up here we have an outdoors/farming programme on Saturday morning radio. Quite often we hear from farmers wondering who is going to pick the fruit or veg or do the other hard manual seasonal jobs that are presently done by young migrant workers – and many of the farmers provide first class working conditions – so, ye’ll huv hud yer rasps, then)
I wish I’d written that, Judy Coops.
Thank you Andy. I have been following this blog for a while, without commenting. Generally the level of comment contributes positively to the very interesting debates. I am learning a lot.
My aim is to support debate
That is why I am intolerant of trolls
I believe in safe spaces for informed discussion
Lots of good input here from Judy.
Immigration and emigration are two sides of the same coin.
But those stirred up by fascists only see the immigration bit which is something we must not lose sight of when trying to form a consensus for change.
I work in social housing and when I started in this field I was dealing with Kosovans. Prior to that it was Iranians fleeing the revolution, And after the Kosovans we had Croats and Serbs as Yugoslavia tore itself apart. Then we had Iraqis fleeing Wars 1 and 2 as the US went for its oil. All these people ever wanted was peace and safety – to live. Whether Kosovan, Serb or Iraqi – they all had this in common. They wanted to live in peace. They emigrated out of fear.
The only other constant I can remember is people who had lost their businesses/jobs and then had lost their homes because of our wonderful business/credit cycle. They saw these immigrants as competition for what was a scare resource especially in London where I worked – affordable housing – and felt that as they had already paid into the system via taxes that they should be put first.
I fear that this need to emigrate from fear will continue. But as State safety nets continue to shrink under this most nasty of administrations, tensions over immigration will continue to be exacerbated.
One misconception that seems to recur often is that which concerns ‘labour shortages’, especially so with regard to seasonal farm work.
Overall (economy-wide) we don’t have endemic labour shortages we have endemic unemployment and underemployment.
Seasonal farm work is by nature temporary, distantly located and low-paid. It is therefore impractical for British workers paying British rents and mortgages especially when accommodation cost is added. For foreign workers the pay may be low by local standards but in many cases the pound often converts to a much higher level of pay in their home currency making it more practical for them when they return home or send remittances.
One country that I am very familiar with is Australia. I raise this example because it is isolated from the EU freedom-of-movement phenomenon which can make it hard to distinguish between visitors and permanent migrants. In Australia seasonal farm work is also done by foreign workers in many cases but they are not usually migrants. They are working tourists. Some of them have long visas (2 years or more) but they are tourists nonetheless.
My point here is threefold:
Seasonal work isn’t generally done by migrants who are here to stay it is more likely done by visitors so it is not really a migration issue per se.
If the number of visitors dropped the work would still end up being done but the pay may be a bit higher as might the prices of fresh food etc. Oh well, prices adjust. All changes have opportunity costs.
More generally, labour is a commodity. Its price (our pay) is affected by supply and demand. That’s why unemployment (an oversupply) suppresses wage levels. So labour shortages are not entirely a bad thing. If you don’t have labour shortages you don’t get real wage increases. Not substantial increases anyway. That may be oversimplifying a bit but that’s how it is.
[…] evidence was required that we need to rethink migration it is available in vast […]