Migration: another shooting in the foot

 For most of my lifetime  the UK has had a Balance of Payments problem.  This is not the much discussed  current problem of the government's expenditure exceeding its income, thus appearing to require  stern "fiscal rules" (though we've had that as well) but the balance of our our external payments.  As a country we have persistently spent more money on the products of other countries, imports,  than we have earned by selling  British products to other countries, exports.

 Imports have to be paid for in foreign currencies.  Exports earn foreign currencies. The two must, in the long run, balance.

One of the main methods of bringing the two into balance has been to make our exports cheaper and so more attractive, and our imports dearer and less attractive, by lowering the value of  our currency , devaluation

When I was a boy we casually referred to five shillings (a quarter of a £, or now 25p) as  "a dollar."  That was because  $4 could be bought for £1.  (To be exact, slightly more, $4.03). A half crown (2/6d) was "half a dollar" in schoolboy slang. 

In 1947 the government devalued the pound to £1=$2.8.   So British products abroad become roughly 1/3 cheaper, and imported products 1/3 dearer.

 However, it didn't do the trick in the long run so in 1963 we devalued again to £1=$2.4 

That didn't do the tick either, and from 1972 onwards the £ has been allowed to float: find its own level according to market forces.  Today it is valued a $1.35.

If you  plot those figures on a graph: 4.03. 2.8. 2.4, 1.35,  against time you will have an accurate picture of the efficiency of the British economy over the past 80 years under the stewardship of the two major parties.

 To continue this simple guide.

 We automatically think of exports as products sold abroad.  But they needn't be.  If foreigners come here and buy products  that is as much an export as sending the product to their country  to sell it there.  Tourists coming here and spending their money  on hotel bills, transport, restaurants, theatres,  souvenirs etc.  are therefore adding to the "exports" side of the Balance of payments.

Similarly when we go abroad and send our money, which we have changed into foreign currencies, that is the equivalent of importing.

So, to get to the subject of the post,  foreign students coming here  to buy our education, and while they are here renting rooms, eating meals, travelling, going to the gym, buying clothes, going to concerts etc, are making a contribution to our export earnings.

On Thursday a substantial decrease in the the level of immigration was announced.  Sir Keir Starmer took the credit: Labour's policies were working.  The Tories insisted that the reduction was actually the result of their policies. 

A large part of the reduction is due to increased restrictions of foreign students.

 Having spent all of the post war years making desperate  attempts to boost our exports, the two major parties are now competing  to claim the credit for cutting them

 You couldn’t make it up.

 

Language! No change there then.

The one thing Labour promised us in last July's election campaign was "change."  But most  people, whose major obsession is not politics,  can be forgiven for thinking that what we've been getting is the mixture very much as before.

 This is particularity true of  of the political debate itself, which continues to be conducted in intemperate, inappropriate and exaggerated language.

 Last week was immigration week.    Sir Keri Starmer, not in the heat of the moment but at his podium flanked by two Union Jacks, solemnly intoned that a "squalid" chapter of our politics (allegedly open immigration) had damaged our country "incalculably" and that Britain risks becoming "an island of strangers."  That last comment at least will make a fitting addition to the distasteful  Tory list of Enoch Powell’s "rivers of blood,"  Boris Johnson's "piccaninnies" and Theresa May's "hostile environment." 

This week started as Brexit-reset week.  Sir Keir hailed his achievement as "putting Britain back on the world stage," Rachel Reeves declared us now "the world's best placed country on trade."

 What excessive nonsense: it is nothing of the sort.  Nor is it the "betrayal" or "surrender" that the right-wing press dutifully insists.

 It is a measured but modest step in the direction  of improving the botched settlement by which the Johnson government "got Brexit done."

 For a restrained and rational discussion on the benefits of immigration please see the previous five posts.

 Here is a brief assessment of the of the changes the "reset" has made to our relations with the EU.

1. On everything, much of the detail still remains to be settled.

2.  On defence: we shall co-operate, may get a share of the EU procurement budget, but will have to pay a contribution.   A useful move in the right direction.

3. On mobility: only for youth, and nothing settled as yet.  

4.  On Erasmus +  (students and apprentices):  nothing at all

5.  On export of animals and plants: substantial reduction of SPS checks.  A major advantage for farmers and food exporters.

6.   On greater freedom for artists( musicians  etc.) to tour:  nothing at all 

7.  On mutual recognition of qualifications: nothing at all.

8.  On fishing : a curate's egg - great for Scottish salmon farmers, not so good for the fishing fleets

9.  On energy: should result in lower electricity bills.

 The discussions are to be repeated annually.  We have made a positive start, re-established ourselves as credible and supportive partners, though still very firmly a "third country," and cleared  the decks for future progress.

Let's hope the discussions and reporting of the completion of this round, and preparations for the next, can be conducted in a restrained and patient manner.  Personally I should like us to rejoin tomorrow, but that is not (yet) politically possible  Nor do I think the EU would at present be wiling to accept us back.  But slow and steady may eventually restore sanity. 

Part of our problem is the speed with which the debate moves.  One day it's  migration, then  BREXIT, then Garry Lineker, then starvation  in Gaza, and  today Trump's attempt to bully Cyril Ramaphosa, and two young Jews assassinated in the US. Perhaps hyperbole is the only way of catching our attention.  We never give ourselves time for thoughtful discussion

Welcome Immigrants (5)

 A final word from "Bridges not Borders" (See previous posts)

 " We may not be able  to open all borders tomorrow, but we need to make a start.   We need to begin working towards achieving the conditions that could make this a reality, for example greater global wage parity, universal standards for workers' rights and meaningful cross-border  environmental protections.    We must strive  for a more equal world where people are not forced to migrate, but instead have the right to move  as well as not to move.

 This might all sound  like a naive Utopian dream, but so too did many major struggles  for social change in the past.  We must start imagining  in the way those who went before us did, those people who fought for  a very different world at a time when it seemed impossible." 

These extracts from the "Global Justice Now" pamphlet were written by Aisha Dodwell.

 For further and  better particulars  see: globaljustice.org.uk/migration. 

If you agree with the sentiments, if not all the detail, why not join "Global Justice Now," 66, Offley Road, London SW9 0LS (020 7820 4900)?

Welcome Immigrants (4)

 Yet more from "Bridges not Borders."  (see previous posts)

 "Immigration control, in the modern sense of the term  is a relatively recent concept.  Before the 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act, people from places like Kenya and India  could come freely to the UK.

 We rarely hear  opponents of free movement arguing to curtail their own rights to move, live,  work , study or travel where they please.  Arguments for preventing free movement  are always presented  with the assumption that  it's the movement of "others" that's being stopped.

 The current system  of border controls is such that the accident of birth determines the extent  to which you can exercise the right to free movement.

Someday it will be considered unthinkable  that people were once  denied a basic right  based entirely on where they were born.  It is to the 21st Century  what slavery was to the 19th Century, or racial segregation was to the 20th Century."

 For further and better particulars see: :globaljustice.org.uk/migration

Welcome immigrants (3)

 More from "Bridges not Borders" (see previous post)

 "The first [take control of our the borders] law in Britain , the 1905 Aliens Act, gave Britain the power  to  'prevent the landing of undesirable immigrants ', widely acknowledged  to have been aimed at curbing Jewish immigration  from Eastern Europe, the 'unwanted migrants' of that era.

Likewise Britain’s border regime today is focused on keeping out undesired people.*  Punitive immigration policies mean that families are routinely  torn apart  and people are criminalised  simply for seeking safety or a better life.

Many of these people have been forced to move  becasue of conflict, poverty, persecution, injustice or climate change.  The UNHCR estimates  that 20 people every second are forced to flee their homes.  

But rather than provide  safety and access, today's borders  imprison people within historic lines  drawn by Europeans on a map.  With global inequality  at unprecedented levels , modern borders (which segregate  who can and can't access resources and opportunity) have become a form of global apartheid."  

* Yesterday's Guardian reported that lots of rich Americans are buying properties in and moving to the Cotswolds in order to escape  the US under President Trump. No one seems too worried about  them.  As a letter writer commented,  they are "relocating " not migrating.

For further and better particulars see globaljustice.org.uk/migration

Welcome immigrants (2)

 More from "Bridges, not Borders" (see previous post.)

Lift up your eyes unto the hills: 

"Open borders would make the world a richer place .

 A study* by economist Michael Clemens  shows how opening the world's borders  could as much as double  global GDP.  

That's because immigrants  aren't just workers, they also create jobs  and contribute to society . 

Of course, the economic value of a human being  should never be the basis  for allowing them to exercise the right to move.  

And despite  economic growth  being a problematic measure  of wellbeing , we can at least  be re-assured  that the world’s economy  wouldn't collapse under  a system of open borders.

 In fact  it could have an equalising effect on global wealth distribution."

 

Yes, i know this all sounds a bit utopian, but it indicates the direction in which a progressive government with a vision should be taking us.  Pandering to populist politics is taking us in the wrong direction.

 *Economics and Emigration: American Economic  Association 2011

For further and better particular see: globaljustice.org.uk/immigration 

Welcome, immigrants. Thanks for coming.

 

Personally I’m glad to live in a country  where people want to come to rather than escape from.  I like to list how immigrants and the children (and now possibly the grandchildren) of immigrants, enable and enhance my lifestyle.  They deliver my morning paper, drill, fill and maintain what’s left of my teeth, cut my hair, clean my car, dispense my prescriptions, and provide about two thirds of my treatment on the NHS, the organist and about half the choir (and until recently the vicar) of the church I attend,  two of my favourite restaurants, and much more besides.  Grateful thanks to them all.

 The last thing we need is a continuation of the "hostile environment" so beloved of Theresa May (astonishingly the daughter of a vicar who managed to get a picture in the papers of herself and her husband either attending or just leaving church about every other week during her period as Prime Minister) and her successors as Tory premiers.  

Yet that is what the Labour party  -THE LABOUR PARTY -  appears to be about to introduce today.  So much for "Workers of the World, Unite."

All  of our principal parties should be standing up and loudly proclaiming the benefits which immigrants bring but, so far, the only one I've heard doing so is the Leader of the Scottish Nationalists.   No wonder Reform, whose major policy seems to be to stir up resentment, is having such success.

 Some ten years ago the pressure group "Global Justice  Now"  (successor to the World Development Movement) published a pamphlet called "Bridges not Borders" which makes the case for global free movement.    In the next few days I intend to publish some extracts from it to counteract the xenophobic selfishness which is likely to dominate our media.  Here's a start:

 "Let's be honest, most people are already  in favour of free movement . . .at least for themselves.  We rarely hear  opponents of free movement  arguing to curtail their own rights  to move  live, work, study or travel  where they please.    Arguments for preventing free movement  are always presented  with the assumption  that it's the movement  of "others" bing stopped."

I'm a good example.  I have lived and worked in three other countries in addition to the UK. As far as I know my contributions to those economies (and perhaps cultures) have been appreciated.  I see no reason why people in the rest of the world shouldn't have the same experiences and opportunities if they so wish.

 

For further and better particulars see: globaljustice.org.uk/migration

 

VE Day: at what price?

 

There can’t be many veterans left who actually fought in the 2^nd World War, and not many more of us who can remember what we did on VE Day. 

I was seven years old on the 8^th May, 1945, and on holiday in Scarborough with my parents and little sister, so it must have been Whitsuntide Week.  I have two memories.

 Outside Scarborough station was (maybe still is) an obelisk or column, and it was lit up with blue strip lighting on each of its four faces. That was the first time I had seen “neon” lighting. 

The second is that there was a happy  atmosphere and we wandered around with another family group singing a song with the opening line: “Let him go, let him tarry let him sink or let him swim.”  Nothing to do with the war but presumably popular at the time.

 I am indebted to the Liberal Democrat peer, William Wallace for what, in  addition to honouring the sacrifices made to achieve the victory, we might also remember at this time.  He suggests President Theodore Roosevelt’s   “Four Freedoms” speech in which he  explained to Congress why the Allies  were fighting:

“ We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world. …

The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

William also reminds us that five months before, Roosevelt and Churchill had signed the ‘Atlantic Charter’ – drafted by the British, revised by the Americans – which set out their shared aims in the war.  

 ‘…their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other; they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned; … they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security;….’

I don’t know if President Trump will be present at today’s ceremonies, but if he is it would be useful to bring these to his attention, especially the first three lines of the Atlantic Charter quoted above.

It is also useful to remind out selves of the price in lives lost that the allied countries experienced in achieving the victory.

The approximate tally in the larger countries is  as follows:

Russia: 24 000 000

Poland: 5 600 000

India: 2 100 000

France: 567 000

UK: 450 000

USA: 418 000

  Given these figure we can perhaps better understand why Russia may feel “resentful” that the  New World Order established for which they had paid so much should become shaped essentially to support the interests of the USA and its closest allies. 

More tact and efforts to include them in the post war settlement might have produced a happier and more permanent settlement.  Have any Russian  representatives been invited to the commemorations?  If so that could reduce present tensions.

As this will undoubtedly be the last decadal celebration of VE Day when any of those who actually fought in the war are alive, I hope the UK will now stop trying to revive memories of  our past presumed greatness, and look forward to the modest centurions we can still make to building a world more in keeping with Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms.

 

Reform - but how?

 

Reform – but how?

Thursday 1st May 2025 may go down in our political history as a  seismic moment.  Nigel Farage’s “Reform” (the possessive is accurate: It is not a party in the normal sense of “belonging to the membership,”  but owned, or maybe just part-owed, by him) have certainly broken the mould in the way that the Liberal- SDP alliance of the early 1980s hoped but failed to do.  Whether they will really change our politics, or simply be a flash in the pan, remains to be seen, but it its victories are a massive achievement.

The consensus seems to be that Reform have exploited grievances, particularly about immigration, without offering, so far, realistic policies for repairing Britain’s depleted public realm.  In addition, the bulk of their councillors and one of their two mayors, have little experience of public service, but maybe that’s what we need (or maybe not, if Elon Musk’s adventures in the US are anything to go by.)

For once it’s fortunate that local government’s powers are so substantially reduced that these inexperienced councillors probably cant,  in the short do much harm.

However, if the major parties (and I would include the Nationalists, Greens and the Liberal Democrats in that category along with Labour and the Conservatives) are deflected from attempting to solve Britain’s real and acute problems, made even more acute by America’s abdication of participation in the pursuit of a fairer, lay-abiding, rules based liberal world, real harm will be done.

In my view our core problems (adapted from a recent post on a Liberal Democrat discussion site) are as follows:

1.    Physical Standard of Living. For a least a century and a half there has been an assumption that each generation should enjoy a better material standard of living  their parents.  In our developed economies we must move on from idea.  Yes, there will be advances in medicine and other scientific areas, in arts, music and leisure pursuits,  which improve our quality of life, but we already have the capability of affording everyone a decent material standard of living, provided we share more equitably. The idea that we can improve the lot of the disadvantaged only though further exploitation of the world’s scarce resources is now past its sell-by date, not least because of . . .

2.    Climate Change. We have to take this very seriously indeed, and challenge Sir Tony Blair’s and the climate- change deniers’ protestations. Preserving our planet as a habitable  environment for humans (and a goodly portion of nature’s flora and fauna)   is not just an optional add-on but must be central to our policies.  The current Labour government seems to be prepared to postpone or even ditch policies to limit damage to the environment if they impede short run physical growth and employment. We need to find other ways of “ raising all boats” to an acceptable standard.  Better sharing is the obvious one.

3.    Inequality.  It is now beyond question that the neoliberal bonanza of deregulation for private profit has not only failed to improve standards but also led to an unacceptable increase in inequality.  The wealth has soared upwards rather than trickled down.  Hence the “left behind” are legitimately indignant and understandably but unfortunately  looking towards phoney “saviours” such as “Reform “to wreck the system.  Once again the answer is better sharing rather than a yet bigger cake than the ample one we already have.

4.    Participation.  Elections at all levels have become competitive auctions of “what we can do for you” rather than what we can enable.   This is true at both national and local levels, not least with the regard to the conferring of powers on executive mayors.  We need policies to encourage participation and consultation in communities along with greater autonomy to councils and councillors as close to the people they represent as possible. Instead the present national government is abolishing the councils closest to the people and  handing powers to charismatic individuals in the hope that they will wave effective magic wands (or  begging bowls to Whitehall and Westminster.)

5.    Communications. Given the fantastic developments in this area in recent years we desperately need measure to control the flaunting  of misinformation and “alternative facts,”  and to ensure that provision of a balance of reasoned opinions based on generally accepted truths.  This is not going to be easy.  We also need to recognise that the communications revolution has hit what used to be called the “Third World” as well as the developed one.  Subsistence farmers the world over know what luxury is available in some economies and want a share.  We must recognise and accommodate this.  We need reasoned arguments for legitimising immigration and providing legal routs for those who wish to add to and share in our prosperity. Not yet another party sloganising about “luxury hotel accommodation” and “stopping the boats.”

6.    Internationalism.  Rather than cut ourselves off even further from other countries struggling to create a fairer and more liberal environment and turning inwards to more jingoistic self-aggrandisement we need to recognise that internationalism is  the true patriotism.  We need to “Look Wide”  and participate fully in the international organisations designed to create the “New World Order for which we allegedly fought the World Wars, the victories in which we shall celebrate on Thursday.  And not, please, as “leaders,” but just involved and effective partners.

I hope that our major established parties will have the courage to fight for the above and not allow  Farage and his party to be a distraction from the true reform which our country so desperately needs.