Immigration and Employment

 Nigel Farage  insists that Ukip is not recist, merely concerned for the efects that immigration has job opportunities for we Brits.

Well,  I suppose there are a number of high-flying bankers, including Adair Turner perhaps, who are a bit miffed that the Governorship of the Bank of England has gone to a migrant.  However, Mark Carney is White and for all I know may also be Anglo-Saxon and Proetestant,  and maybe Canadians don't count in Ukip's lexicon of migrants: more like kissing counsins. 

Similarly there may be some top-notch business executives who wince when a lucrative chief executive post goes to a foreigner, but this cohort use the international nature of their calling to justify the enormous “compensation” they demand, so they can’t expect to have it both ways. (Polly Toynbee has repeatedly pointed out, though, that the international demand for British executives is not all that high).
 
The international market of academic posts is surely seen as a plus rather than a minus, and UK academics are in a strong position in this market because so much of the World's higher education is in English.

At the more modest levels the situation is by no means as clear-cut as Ukip and the tabloids would like us to think. Immigrants are, by definition, much more geographically mobile that native workers. They have, often temporarily, cut their ties with their home countries and so are unlikely to be particularly bothered as to where they work in the UK. So they take jobs, sometimes for short periods only, where native workers, with perfectly understandable family ties and local connections, may be reluctant to move.

Immigrant workers are for the most part young and healthy so make few demands on the welfare and health services, and probably pay their taxes much more dutifully than some international companies. They add to demand so create jobs (plenty Polish grocery stores have sprung up in my area in the past few years, adding further to the cornucopia of Asian outlets and restaurants which have been established for much longer) and many repatriate part of their earnings to relatives back home; a plus for our balance of payments (which no longer receives anything like the attention it should.)

There can be no doubt that some migrants take jobs which could have gone to native workers, but the major cause of domestic unemployment is lack of demand, which the government should be, but is not, tackling. Rather the reverse.

Two positive economic actions which should be taken by the government in relation to migrant workers are:

a) Much stricter regulation of the ominously named “gangmasters.”
b) Much more energetic policing to ensure the payment of the minimum wage, if not the living wage.

Maybe these will  feature in today's Queen's Speech. 

Ukip councillors

So, the United Kingdom Independence Party  has won 147 seats on our county councils.  I wonder what they're going to do?  I've never served on a council, but I understand that the work, though important, is mostly tedious and time-consuming, and that  flashes of political excitement are rare

These 147 proud bearers of the Ukip standard will soon find that their county councils do not have the power to withdraw from the European Union, or even call a referendum on it.  I suppose they could, in a fit of pique, refuse to accept any of the  EU's regional development funds.  Nor have the county councils the power to to send immigrants "home."  Indeed if they tried that in this area they would find that to the overwhelming majority of the people they appear to be unhappy about this is home, and they have thick Yorkshire accents to prove it.  And the 147 can't even impose their regressive "flat rate" taxation ideas (shades of Mrs Thatcher and the Poll Tax?) as the only tax coucnils can vary, the council tax, is tiered.

A few years ago there was a similar wave of support for the British National Party (BNP) and a few, I think three, were elected to our council.   They soon found that the council's responisilites had litttle to do with their prejucices and, I believe, made few contriutions, soon stopped attending their committees, and either failed to stand again or lost their seats.

With European elections due next year on a crude form of proportional representation I expect the  surge of fascination with Ukip will last at least until then.  As Daniel Trilling in the New Statesman puts it, their leader Nigel Farage brilliantly articulates their saloon-bar version of politics:


  you can’t say what you think in your own country any more, grasping politicians bend over backwards for minorities but do little for the majority, taxpayers are being leeched off by benefit scroungers, and so on.

but on the ground his foot-soldiers will soon find that local politics are neither to their taste nor relevant to their cause, and will fade away as did their BNP predecessors. 

That does not mean to say that Ukip will not have performed a useful function.  There is a   "clowns in British politics" syndrome and it is  exmaplified by Prime Minister's Questions and similar parliamentary slapstick, which spills over into petty  point scoring in the media. The way poicitics is at present conducted in the UK deservedly leaves a large number of people indiferent and nourishes the belief that the parties are "all the same", that none of them is to be trusted,  nor is even capable of changing the way things are.

The remedy is not for the major parties to mimic Ukip but to engage in serious, honest and constructive debate.  Ukip have made progress because neither the Conserviatives nor  Labour have ever articulated the positve case for Europe.  Rather both have fallen into the lazy  but populist trap of using the EU as a conveninet whipping boy to blame for any unpopular measures or events.

The Ukip surge provides an excellent opportunity for Cameron and Miliband to join forces  with Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats and, rather than trying to match Ukip's xenophobia, make the positive case for constructive engagement in the greatest political adventure of the last 60 years.

Local (?) Election Campaign

There are no local elections in my area today.  It should be the year to elect our county council but it was abolished by Mrs Thatcher.  That demagogue for democracy didn't like what the county councils were doing (most had Labour majorities) so she finished them off  "at a stroke."  The most well-known  victim was the Greater London Council  (GLC) lead by Ken Livingstone, but all the other Metropolitan County Councils went as well, including ours in  West Yorkshire, heir to the great West Riding County Council and its internationally admired  Director of Education, Sir Alec Clegg.

So the local election campaigns have more or less passed my by.  I missed the BBC's "World at One" interview with Ed Miliband on Monday, in which, when asked, seven times I believe,  if cutting VAT now would mean  short term increase in borrowing, he failed to answer.  He's since admitted that was a mistake.

I caught all of Nick Clegg's interview on Tuesday, in which he batted reasonably well, apart from one reference to "clearing  up the mess left behind." At least he didn't say "left behind by Labour" so perhaps that's a useful step in the direction of "left behind by the havoc resulting from the neocon deregulation of the financial markets introduced by the Tories."

I caught the tail end of David Cameron's interview, in which he protested that not all lhis cabinet were "posh boys from Eton" - William Hague went to a comprehensive.

But what have these issues, weighty and otherwise, got to do with local government? In partiular how are local councils,  going to continue to provided decent services, some of  which they are legally bound to do, whilst bearing the brunt of the austerity cuts imposed on them  by Westminster?

These interviews, and most of the media reporting  (A Ukip candidate has been sacked for giving what looks like a Nazi salute - he says he was gesturing for his mobile phone) relate to national rather than local issues.  Why do our national politicians connive in this?  Why don't the party leaders say:  "No, the people you should be interviewing about local elections are our leaders on the Local Government Association."?

We shall not get decent local democracy as long as  the ego-trippers in the Westmister Bubble highjack the publicity as well as the powers that rightly beong to our local politicians.

More hints for Michael Gove from Central Africa.

Whilst rummaging amongst my Malaŵian memorabilia for the previous post I came across the following.  Hastings Banda was the dictator at the time.

Ministry Circular 8/22 of 27/7/72.

Following His Excellency the Life President's direction that the progressive and modern methods of teaching and practice should cease forthwith  in all sxchools and colleges it has become necessaty to give guidance  . . . .in order to ensure that all teaching and learning is done in the traditional manner. . . 

. .  . His Excellency the Life President expressed dissatisfaction with the modern approach to teaching.  Much concern was felt  that there had been a fall off in educational standards . . . because of progressive methods  of teaching and organising classroom work. . .

Definitions.

a) Modern approach.

Here a child is allowed to work alone, or with other children, on what he finds interesting.  What he does not find interesting he is allowed to drop.  He is not supposed to be told exactly what he should do.  The teacher is supposed to stimulate interest in worthwhile things.  For example, Mathematics, or Science, arise from various situations.  Except for occasional story-telling, singing and movement, class instruction is out.  

The curriculum  is "child  centred."  The needs of the children  are never expected to be subjected  to that of the adult.  The consequence is supposed to be that children will evolve an interest in their studies, a free initiative, spontaneity, curiosity, etc. 

 In practice the majority of teachers have, however, lost control of the situation.  The pupils have continued to gain an upper hand and order and discipline  have been steadily deteriorating.  Knowledge has been unsystemised  and linked in rather a desultory fashion.  As a result standards have fallen in schools where  this approach has been adopted..

b)  Traditional Approach.

Unlike the modern approach there is no room for  permissiveness in the traditional approach to teaching.  The children are not permitted to do whatever they want.  Learning is a mastery of the subject matter.  Knowledge is systematised  and syllabuses and text books are logically organised and expected to cover the subject-matter adequately.  Nothing is left to chance and teachers issue clear instructions in connection with all aspects  of learning.  Learning being a master of the subject matter, pupils  are highly disciplined  and the teaching is done thoroughly.

In accordance with His Excellency the Life President's directive the Ministry has taken steps. . .(A)ll modern mathematics in primary and secondary schools should be stopped and all modern mathematics text-books withdrawn forthwith.

 I'm happy to offer the above to our Department of Education and Skills free of charge.  Save them a lot of time.

Livingstone, Malaŵi, History and Gove.

Yesterday morning's Sunday Worship on Radio 4 reminded me that this year is the 200th anniversary of the birth of David Livingstone.

Michael Gove might learn a few techniques from the official Malaŵian primary school history course on Livingstone. viz:

1.  Dr Livigstone was a missionary: Stanley was not.
2.  Livingstone was kind to Africans: Stanley was not.
3.  Stanley used force on Aricans: Livignstone did not..
4.  Livingstone depended on the Bible: Stanley depended on the gun.
5.  Stanley fought for his way: Livingsotne negotiated for his way.
6.  Stanley was a news reporter: Livingstone was a medical man.
7.  Livignstone was loved by Africans:  Stanley was not.
8.  Stanley called Africa a dark continent: Livingstone called it a great continent.
(and , presumably to  give a sense of balance, and reach a nice round number of "facts" to parrot)
9.  Both Livingstone and Stanley were explorers.
10. Both of them were courageous in trying to achieve their aims.

Liberal Democrat peers miss their opportunity on the NHS

Although I served for two terms as a Liberal Democrat representative on our local Community Health Council (CHC) I do not pretend to understand the ins and outs of NHS organisation.  Even in that period (CHCs were abolished in 2003) my experience was that I'd no sooner begun to get the hang of things when the government of the day ordered a re-organisation and I had to start al over again.  The current, unmandated, reorganisation continues that unfortunate tradition.

But,  although I do not fully  to the implications, the point of view expressed in this letter to the Guardian, from a Dr David Wrigley (no relation of which I'm aware), rings true.

 • The BMA's call for the withdrawal of the NHS regulations may seem just technical, but nothing could be further from the truth. The regulations would in effect force commissioning doctors in the English NHS to put services out to tender – which hugely advantages large profit-hungry healthcare companies. The regulations would continue the parcelling up and selling off of many parts of our NHS. Lib Dem peers should ignore the whip and vote to defend our NHS from irreversible commercialisation.
Dr David Wrigley

So true, in fact that I forarded it to one of the tiny  handful of Liberal Democrat peers whom I know personnally in the hope of infulencing his vote.

In reposne my friendly peer sent me a copy of a letter of explanation from the Government's minister in the Lords, an Earl Howe, to his Labour opposite number, presumably meant to justify the changes but which in fact simply claimed that  ". . .the rules on competitive tendering have not changed.  They are exactly the same as yoiur (Labour) government's rules which themselves refelcted how proucurement law - also put in place by your government in 2006 - applied to the NHS."

I find it profoundly dissapointing that the main argument is on he level of the junior school palyground (You did it first) rather than on the merits of the case.

My friend also sent me a copy of the briefing sent to Liberal Democrat Peers by the Liberal Democrat Whips' Office, which, among other things, recommended that they  should read and be influenced by an article by a Labour peer, Lord Warner.

In this Lord Warner explains  that his  ". .  reading of (the regulations) is that they do little more than put on a statutory footing the competition and procurement rules produced under the previous government, with the addition of some sensible provisions on the integration of health and social care."


Lord Warner's support is, however,  not all that surprising. If you go on to read the comments on this article you will find:

 Lord Warner is former adviser to Apax Partners, one of the leading global investors in the healthcare sector. Current director of Sage Advice Ltd. Works as an adviser to Xansa, a technology firm, and Byotrol, an antimicrobial company, which both sell services or products to the NHS” and was “paid by DLA Piper, which advised ministers on the £12 billion IT project for the NHS” projects that he was responsible for when he was a government minister. He should not be allowed to vote on this issue as he stands to gain from increased privatisation of the NHS. Neither should any of the Lords with links to private healthcare, of which there are many.

Sadly the motion to follow the BMA's adivce and reject the new requlations was deafeated by 254 votes to 146.

I regret that Liberal Democrat peers have missed an opportunity to restore at least some of our political credibility.

More jobs, not more "stuff", needed.

The Reinhart and Rogoff theory, that a Debt/GDP ratio greater that 90% causes economies to shrink by 0.1% per year rather than grow, has now been blown out of the water.  Apparently they got something wrong in their spreadsheet and, had they used the tool correctly, they should have come up with a growth figure of +2.2%.  So bang goes the philosophy underpinning George Osborne's economic policy of putting deficit reduction above all else.

It is amazing that the Reinhart-Rogoff theory ever had any credence.  After all the Debt/GDP ratios of most of the countries involved in the Second World War were way over 100% in 1945, and all of them, using Keynesian policies,  have grown spectacularly since then.  All that is lacking today is the will.

However, today's problem is a very different one to that of 1945, or even 1975.  Most developed economies have now quite enough "stuff" for all their citizens to enjoy a comfortable and fulfilling life.  Indeed, there is now evidence that demonstrates to the satisfaction of many that, beyond a certain point (estimated to be a per capita income of about the equivlaent of $US17 000,)  more "stuff" doesn't acutaly increase happiness and fulfillment at all.  And there is also ample eveidence that continued over-exploitation of our planet's scarce resources and the reusltant poisoning and degredation will make continued comfortable living unsustainable.

Our "mature" economies have now therefore reached the stage where what we need is more jobs rather than more "stuff."  Rather than by more growth  what we now need is a more equitable sharing of the jobs.

 In Britain this week unemployment is reported to have risen by a further 70 000 in the last quarter, and youth unemployment is edging towards 1 000 000.  That latter figure represents about  one in five of our young people.  A job represents not just a means of obtaining "stuff" but also a sense of identiy, usefulness and self-worth.

I have no idea at what stage the sociology equivalents of Reinhart and Rogoff think the unemployment/employment ratio in society becomes  unsustainable, but I suspect we are approaching the crisis point. The sense of uninvolvement felt by unemployed people must surely also be exacerbated by the publication of the obscene rewards which those at the top of our society are granting themselves.

If society is to remain cohesive we must as a matter of urgency address ourselves to sharing the work as well as the rewards more equitably.  This surely implies some of us (Dinkies?) working less in order to enable others to achieve the self-respect engendered by contributing to, rather than being supported by, society.

This issue hardly appears at all on today's political agenda, and it should.