The immigration deception

 

Thursday 30 November 2023

The immigration deception

As recently as December 1999 (which doesn‘t seem all that long ago to those of us in our 80s) fewer than 5% of the British electorate chose Immigration as one of the top five  issues the government should deal with.  This compared with 30% who chose the NHS as one of their top worries.

 However, once the century turned and the Eurosceptics became more effective at influencing British political debate, immigration began to increase in importance as an issue. As early as 2002 Theresa May warned the Tories that in trying to accommodate the right-wing nationalists they were in danger of being seen as the “nasty party.”  This, unfortunately, didn’t stop her, while Home Secretary, making her own contribution to the nastiness by deliberately trying to create a “hostile environment” for immigrants. 

Rather than oppose this deplorable trend the Labour Party whilst led by Ed Miliband produced mugs urging those “concerned about immigration” to "Vote Labour," and set a trend by including control of it among its on five election pledges in 2015.  Some senior members deplored the mugs at the time.  I think they’re all ashamed of them now,

Consequently today, as a result of the Tories’ desperate attempts to stem leakage of their support to the crudely nationalist UKIP party and its variants, Labour’s pusillanimous failure  to combat the bile by proclaiming the benefits Britain has received and continues to receive, Prime Minister Sunak is able to flaunt his “stop the boats”[policy  as one of his five priorities and he and his henchpersons claim to be expression “THE WILL OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE.”  (Capitals deliberate.)

Rather than the truth I believe this to be the product of despicable perception management to gather votes at any cost, including  the abandonment of all sense of humanity and decency.

 As a society we are better than that.

 Some facts were carefully spelled out in an article by Gaby Hinsliff in Tuesday's Guardian.  The vast majority of the record number of migrants who came to our shores in 2022 were actually approved by ministers, having been granted leave to work (40% of them in the NHS or Social care), study, join their families of seek sanctuary via “approved” routes for the favoured Afghanistanis (sadly not all of those who helped the British forces) and escapees from Ukraine. 

Only a very small minority come illegally by boats.  The flagship policy of deporting these to Rwanda is not only obscene  and ineffective  but even if implemented would have only a minuscule impact on the total of immigration.

 I like to enumerate how my own life is both enabled and enhanced by immigrants or the children (and these days, probably grandchildren) of immigrants.  They deliver my morning paper, clean drill and fill what’s left of my teeth, run my favourite restaurant, provide about two thirds of my medical treatment on the NHS, dispense my medicines, provide the vicar, half the choir, much of the congregation and the brilliant organist of the church I attend, clean my car, drive about half the buses on which I travel, and much more besides, including paying some of the taxes which furnish my pension. 

Grateful thanks to them all.

 

 

 

The Autumn Statement

 

 

Readers longer in the tooth may remember the question with which the Liberals taunted the two major parties way back in the 1950s:  “Which twin is the Tory and which as the expensive perm?”*  This came to mind after hearing Jeremy Hunt's presentation of his proposals for the UK's economic future and Rachel Reeves's response.

 The Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, certainly has the nicer smile, and the better jokes.  In his introduction to his Autumn Statement he painted a bright and optimistic picture of a growing economy with falling public debt, inflation well under control and absolutely the place to be for ambitious, innovative and enterprising go-getters of all ages. 

After a deluge of tempting possibilities unleashed over the weekend to whet our appetites: income and inheritance tax cuts, just maybe lower than justified increases in pension and social security payments, his changes were quite modest and eminently sensible.

 Pensioners and those receiving Universal Credit are to get the full whack, 8.7% and 6.7% respectively, and the Minimum Wage is to rise by 9.8%. The Super Deduction (a 25% exemption for taxation for every £1m invested) is to become permanent, which will encourage investment,  and National Insurance Contributions (NICs) are to be abolished or reduced for the Self-employed, and reduced by not one but two percentage points for the bulk of the workforce. These are sensible proposals because NICs are a tax on employment which is a “good” and should be encouraged.

With similar skill  but a grimmer face the Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves painted a picture of a very different economy,  with a sky-high tax take, the slowest growth in the G7, out-performed by two-thirds of the OECD members and with the level of employment not yet back to pre-pandemic levels.  She had only one joke: that the world looked different at ground level  than it appeared to do from a helicopter.

 Presumably the comfortable among us will believe the Hunt version and the not- quite-managing the Reeves.

 Many of the most desperate will ignore both.

They have a point. 

Frankly this parliamentary pantomime is depressingly irrelevant to the real needs of the country.  With crumbling schools, a Health Service on its knees, a totally inadequate Care Service, local councils on the brink of bankruptcy, prisons overcrowded beyond the level of decency, outrageous rents for inadequate housing, an unprecedented backlog in our courts, pothole-pitted roads, and worst of all, according to the Institute of Government and Public Policy,   4.5m of our population, 22%, of which 4.3m are children,  enduring poverty or destitution.  

It beggars belief that our Government dares to talk in terms of tax cuts rather than rises to remedy the situation, and the only rise the Opposition dare mention is the taxation of non-Doms, presumably because it’s a convenient jibe  in the direction of the Sunak family.

The two largest parties are frightened that currently the proportion of the National Income or GDP the government takes in tax, the “tax take” (a phrase I prefer to  “tax burden” – I’d like to see a society in which paying taxes is regarded as a privilege, but maybe that’s over-optimistic) is the highest for 70 years. 

That is undoubtedly true. But it does not mean that the UK is over-taxed. Figures from the impartial OBR for 2021 (the most recent year available) show the UK’s percentage of GDP taken in tax is 33.5%.  This is 3.3% BELOW the G7 average, and 6.4% BELOW the average for the EU14 (similarly advanced developed countries).

There is therefore an urgent need for our politicians to have the courage to grasp the nettle and tell us that repairing our broken society and making it fit for the 21^st Century will cost money and we need to be prepared to pay the taxes to pay for it.

 Two days ago on Yorkshire Bylines John Cole spelt out “An autumn statement that would actually transform Britain.“ His proposals  included a  genuinely progressive Income Tax right up to the highest levels, Wealth Taxes and Land Value Taxation.

 It is too much to expect that, in the fervour of the next 12 to 18 months of electioneering, such radical proposals will gain any traction, but the progressives among the parties could suggest  the setting up of a Royal Commission to study taxation and ways to make the present system, which, like Topsy, has “just growed” and is full of anomalies, could be made fairer, less distorting , and more effective.

 In the meantime, opposition Treasury Spokespersons could be looking carefully at the 30 or so measures identified  by Prof Richard Murphy by which the tax take could be increased without "rocking the boat" (see previous post on 3rd October) but be careful not to mention them before the election so as not to give the Tory press chance to pour their  poison on them.

*  A "Toni" was a home perm which, according to the advert, produced the same results as the  expensive perms obtainable in ladies' hairdressing salons.

This is an edited version of an article which appeared in Yorkshire Bylines on 23rd November