My LDV colleague Joe Otten yesterday kicked off what we hope will be a little mini series reflecting on the success of Ukip (and other extreme right parties across Europe) in last week’s European elections.
I agree with Joe that is something we should discuss with some seriousness – and I look forward to reading your contributions in the comments and in posts on the site.
But I think before we start to “learn lessons” we have to put the vote in some context.
It is difficult to think of conditions that could be more favourable to Ukip’s success than those in which last week’s poll was conducted. The financial crash, Eurozone crisis and their aftermath have presented the EU with its biggest challenges since its formation. Economic busts always supercharge protectionist, nationalist and insular feelings, and the acute nature of the crisis in much of Southern Europe combined with the EU’s cack-handed response only served to emphasise those feelings this time round.
Concern about immigration has also been rising for some time, and the Tories’ unachievable net migration targets have not (as they never could have) had the effect of addressing such concerns but, if anything, of heightening them, by further eroding public trust in political statements on the topic.
So it was little surprise to see a populist, anti-EU party topping the poll. What is something of a surprise, though, is that the background to the vote could not enthuse more than about a third of the electorate to visit a polling station, and, what is more, only led to just over a quarter of those who did vote to support Ukip.
Over to David Aaronovitch, writing in today’s Times (£):
So, 27 per cent of 34 per cent. Nine per cent of the electorate. This is important, of course. Four million fellow citizens deserve to be listened to. And, indeed, for some time now they have been the only Britons (outside Scotland) anyone has been listening to. Their anger. Their resentment. Their feelings of alienation. Their genuine concerns.
But what about the 73 per cent who did not, despite everything, vote Ukip? You’d hardly believe, in the days since last Thursday, that they even existed. They are to be entirely taken for granted while the agendas of the panicking parties are trimmed and fashioned to appeal to the vocal minority that gets its rocks off by pretending that it is the silent majority.
So in thinking through the reasons for and consequences of Ukip’s victory, we shouldn’t overreact:
We do not have brave politicians at the moment (with the possible and surprising exception of Nick Clegg). They bend to the most raucous winds, vibrate to the loudest blasts. It is not in Ukip’s ability to win elections that its threat to the rest of us lies. No more than 17 per cent of people — and probably far less — will ever vote for the bizarre mish-mash of spend-high, tax-nothing policies that Mr Farage is likely to come up with for 2015. No, the peril lies in the main parties creating their policy programmes, their promises, around the key prejudices of the Ukip-minded minority. In which case they will promise the impossible or, if possible, promise something harmful.
And I agree with Aaronovitch’s conclusion — that none of the main parties can out-Ukip Ukip — which has been amply demonstrated by the failure of David Cameron’s about-turn on Europe to claw back support for his party:
Here, this column turns into an appeal to the main parties and to my own scribbling and broadcasting class. You have nothing to gain from indulging this spasm. The more you say that you feel their pain, the more pain they will say they have.
Note instead the signs that they are not capturers of the public mood but rather are the polarisers of it. Since Ukip — the anti-EU party above all — began its recent two-year rise, the British people have become more inclined to want to stay in the EU. Two years ago all polls showed majorities for withdrawal. Now they show majorities for staying in. Perhaps (and I believe this to be true) people look at the Faragian tonsils and, after a while, quietly think: “Nah.”
But quiet isn’t good enough. Ukip and its partisans are the furious folk who always lay militant claim to represent the rest of us. In that sense they are like the Donetsk separatists: guys out on the streets preening about with bazookas in front of the cameras, blathering about the people’s will and bamboozling the foreign journalists. They make all the noise and suck up all the air. Meanwhile the majority of people are sitting tight indoors silently hoping that they’ll go away.
If you’d like to contribute a post on this topic, you can read how to do so here.
* Nick Thornsby is a day editor at Lib Dem Voice.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Leadership plotting, in real life and in fiction
A journey along the Welsh Border in 1963
Recipe for a real change of direction
Day 9304: So Farewell Then, Kier Starmer
Peter Martin
John Armah
John Kelly
Nonconformistradical
John Reed
80 Comments
There is also evidence from The Local Elections that UKIP have already passed their peak. Certainly their vote next May will be a lot higher than the 3% they got in 2010, my estimate is between 7 & 11%. Their chances of electing even a single MP are still close to zero.
Very good – both Nick Thornsby and David Aaronovitch. Appeasement has never worked, and never will. We reap the harvest of decades of trimming to satisfy a hyper-vocal minority and an irresponsible and careless press. Time to state clearly what we believe in and how we will achieve our aims.
I agree with all of this but the same argument that proves the UKIP performance is less significant than it first appears also demonstrates that the Lib Dem performance in the European elections was worse.
30% of 7% is about 2% so out of the ~60% of people who want to stay in Europe, only 2% or one in thirty voted for the Liberal Democrats. What can we do to change that next year?
There is another factor to consider in the UKIP vote nationwide – the extent of an ‘anti-politics’ protest vote element which is more against the three main parties and their leaders than being particularly anti-Europe or anti-immigration. You can see how pronounced this factor is (possibly 30 per cent of the UKIP vote) by considering what happened to the UKIP vote in seats where someone else garnered most of the protest vote. In Formby’s (Sefton MBC) Ravenmeols ward, an anti-Green Belt building independent gained over 40 per cent of the vote with the UKIP vote withering compared to the UKIP vote in neighbouring seats. Pretty much the same thing happened in the Saddleworth North seat of Oldham MBC.
But, before any consolation is taken by Lib Dems from these figures, remind yourself that the Lib Dem vote in large parts of the UK is still dwarfed by the UKIP vote – even with the ‘protest vote’ element removed.
I agree – the lessons we need to learn from the recent elections aren’t so much about UKIP’s success but about our own failures.
As LibDems you got 14.97% of those eligible to vote in 2010, and yet you had no problem in considering that gave you the right to impose your ideology on the other 85%. It would seem the same failings and limitations that you want to apply to UKIP, somehow don’t apply to your party.
How novel, methinks you might be slightly mistaken there.
Keep up the good work though guys, please don’t change anything,
I have no doubt the LibDem flagship with its ripped off bow, will soon overwhelm the iceberg if you hope and pray enough. Just carry on, follow orders, and keep away from those lifeboats, they are only for sissies, real men and women always go down with the ship..
Be very careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that the people who didn’t vote support your position. All that can really be said is that they were sufficiently unconcerned by the outcome that they didn’t bother – so they can’t disagree with ukip ( or any if the party’s with a chance of winning) that much.
Also for the support in ukip peaking – bear in mind the massive attacks from the media on them. It is far from certain that will happen at the next set of elections.
My personal take is that the lib dems are screwed because they broke their pledge on tuition fees – that they didn’t even try to fight for it and that they are now trying to persuade people that what we have now is better anyway ( the lib dem website has a thing on ‘the truth about tuition fees’ – do they actually think that will win anyone round. Its like saying we lied to you but you were stupid for wanting that in the first place)
@Tony Dawson – I agree. For many the Liberal Democrats were the last great hope for an honest political party and politicians. Yes, being as PR tends to lead to hung Parliaments, coalition government and compromise and we would have been dishonest to one of our core values (democracy) had we not entered in to coalition – much as it hurt me to do so with the Tories – but as others have written elsewhere we forfieted a huge slice of that trust the moment we broke the university fees pledge. It doesn’t matter what Vince Cable managed to salvage, we broke a very very public pledge and with it the trust of many ordinary decent free thinking voters, libertarians and tactical Green and Labour voters.
@Daniel Henry – Indeed.
@Raddiy
“As LibDems you got 14.97% of those eligible to vote in 2010, and yet you had no problem in considering that gave you the right to impose your ideology on the other 85%.”
I’m not clear what basis you have for saying that. Lib Dems don’t impose their ideology on the other 85%, nor do we have any wish to do so. The clue is in the party name.
It is quite easy to forsee circumstances in which UKIP does better. Firstly, they have this thing called momentum.
Secondly, things change, UKIP now have a huge influx of publicity, staff, organisation and credibility just at the same time the Lib Dems have been drained of such things. They may well attract more wealthy donors, they have a narrative for the media – holding the balance of power in a hung parlaiment, like the Lib Dems once did – they are setting the agenda and framing the choices – which mean people will reconsider their vote.
Thirdly the causes that are driving support for UKIP are not being addressed by the other three main parties.
Very insightful Op Ed quoting an excellent piece of analysis by David Aaronovitch.
It is impossible to disagree that the so called success of UKIP is way overblown, that they speak for only a tiny minority, that it is all down to media approval and attention and that they are going to disappear as a political force before the next General Election.
That is why every other Op Ed on this forum mentions them, seemingly, your own Dear Leader is a dead man walking, your Business Secretary has tried and failed to topple him, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is unlikely to hold his seat at the next election according to a poll conducted by a former party member who has reigned in disgrace.
Also UKIP’s failure is the reason for a hastily convened strategy session at Chequers yesterday to scheme a victory in a “must win” by election where the Tories have a 16,000 majority with a weak opposition and a vastly improving economy.
All signs of UKIP’s weakness and failure as that wise old sage, Mr Aaronovitch correctly opines.
Above all, I totally agree that your best strategy is to pretend it never happened and will all go away.
The point is that people vote very differently in General Elections because they are about Government. In the last Parliament UKIP got 16% in The European Elections & 3% in the following General Election. The Libdems in contrast got 14% in The Euros & 24% in The General. Thats the difference between serious Parties & Protest movements.
UKIP have no mps and I still can’t see them getting enough to hold the balance of power. They take votes disproportional from the Tories. They came fourth in the local elections. To form a coalition they need to take labour seats and show no real sign of doing this. In all areas of the country Labour were up between 6% and 8%. All this they have momentum stuff comes from a scared Tory Press who know they have zero chance of forming a majority government and have known this since 2010.
The Lib dems vote collapsed and that needs addressing.. but UKIP is a side issue and not significant to the decline. The vote was lost to Labour and The Greens not to UKIP.
It’s going to be interesting to watch UKIP as they attempt to pull together an “electable” manifesto, which they’ll need to recruit a high enough vote in their target seats. In recent days I’ve heard Farage disowning Paul Nuttall’s noodlings about NHS charges, proclaim that UKIP is for an NHS free at the point of use, and push for lower, but not flat, taxes. Some of their supporters may not care, but they have more than their fair share of ideologues. This just might be fun.
Agreed with Ed Wilson – their next manifesto will be the acid test as to whether they can transform this protest wave of theirs into a coherent position.
Will be interesting to see how their coalition holds once the vagueness is replaced by set out policies.
Radical thought. Politics can, of course, be like supporting a football team. You want team Orange (other colours are available) to win no matter how spoilt and brattish the players, how boring the style of play, how inept the manager and how dodgy the owners are. It can be about just getting representatives elected… no matter what.
It can also be about putting your ideas out there and seeing who supports them. Maybe you won’t get elected but those ideas go on to shape the debate.
For all the nutters in it’s ranks, for all the gaffs its leaders make, for all the policies it doesn’t have, UKIP is tirelessly pushing a simple easy to understand core policy. It does what it says on the tin.
No one seriously expects it to ever have any MP’s. If UKIP policies are enacted by Tories or Labour UKIP still wins. That’s what matters and that’s why they’re dangerous.
@ Simon Shaw
I would have thought that the decision of the LIbDems to ensure the defeat of Wharton’s IN/OUT referendum bill(whether you considered it a con or not), is a perfect example of your party imposing its ideology on the majority.
@ Paul B
“In the last Parliament UKIP got 16% in The European Elections & 3% in the following General Election. The Libdems in contrast got 14% in The Euros & 24% in The General.”
How do you know the UKIP vote will collapse this time, is it some tea leaf thing? Because as a betting man, if YOU really can predict the future I would like to pick up some more inside info on how it is going to be. 🙂
“Thats the difference between serious Parties & Protest movements.”
Cough. When you were at your count, did those “protest votes” count any less, as they piled up in thousands, than the hundreds cast for your “serious party?” Why don’t the voters you seek to represent actually vote for you? Maybe they don’t take you quite as “seriously” as you take yourselves?
Just saying…
I would suggest that people voted UKIP for the following reasons:
Concern about the volume of immigrants arriving here and our inability to intervene.
The so-called disconnect with politicians which is mainly due to the fact that most of the regulations come from unelected officials in Brussels.
Labour voters seem to be dissatisfied with EM’s leadership and lack of policies.
Tory voters are frustrated with DC who seems not to be Conservative and whose pledge to reform the EU is not credible.
Generally, floating voters see LibDems as being extremely Europhile and see NC as immature and weak.
Clearly, traditional LibDem voters are shunning the party. The supposed reasons concern participation in the coalition, ranging from the fees issue to benefits reform.
The other theory is that a party in government loses status as a recipient of protest votes.
These reasons are a compilation of likely possibilities. I have my own views that I have expressed before on this site.
We still have to listen to that 4 million especially as we only received 1 million votes. However the concerns of the 4 million voters is shared by a lot more people; some of whom couldn’t be bothered to vote in elections they see as unimportant, they make up maybe over half of the 4 million who voted Conservative and must be part of the 4 million who voted Labour. To say that recently a majority have become persuaded that we should stay in the EU does not mean that there isn’t still a majority who are concerned about the negative effects of the scale of recent immigration.
Our position has been to deny that these concerns are legitimate and try to persuade them that large scale immigration is beneficial. We need to move our focus and first recognise that these concerns are legitimate and address these concerns. To those who are concerned that immigrants make it harder or impossible to find a job, we must provide them with jobs and the skills and experience needed to get them. To those who are concerned that immigrants make it harder or impossible to get a place to live of their own, we must ensure there are enough places to live in so they can get one for themselves.
@ Michael
“To those who are concerned that immigrants make it harder or impossible to find a job, we must provide them with jobs and the skills and experience needed to get them. To those who are concerned that immigrants make it harder or impossible to get a place to live of their own, we must ensure there are enough places to live in so they can get one for themselves.”
Or how about controlling immigration and coming out of the EU?
How are we going to get the unemployed into work if we continue to allow in hundreds of thousands of (net) legal immigrants (plus all the illegals queuing at Calais) into the country?
How can we build enough houses? Cities the size of Oxford arrive every year, in previous years it has been cities the size of Reading.
The Establishment policies are insane. If it weren’t for all the emigrants going to live in Spain and the like the country would sink into the sea…
@Michael @Simon
Jobs issues can be pretty easily dismissed by reference to the “lump of labour fallacy” and the simple observation that lots of immigrants end up creating jobs.
The housing concern is much harder to counter. Most Lib Dems (if articles on LDV are anything to go by) seem to accept that there is a pretty serious housing crisis in this country. It’s very different to reconcile this with the prevailing view that there is no good economic argument against current levels of immigration.
Meant to say “It’s very difficult to reconcile this…”
I find it astonishing and depressing when people miss the simple fact that we live on a small island with overcrowded cities, congested road and rail infrastructure, a chronic lack of housing stock, an NHS service at breaking point, an unaffordable social services and benefits budget, a crisis in education, a problem with wages trailing cost of living and serious youth unemployment and yet they say how wonderful it is to have a multi-cultural society, ethnic diversity open door immigration and to contemplate a cap on numbers is racism.
Our population peaked at 56 million, which in my view was optimum , before Labour deliberately opened the floodgates and the EU expanded into countries where incomes were an order of magnitude lower than ours. Now our total EU, non-EU and illegal and unknown influx must be running at about 3-400,000 per year with our population due to reach 70 million in a few years time.
This is a crazy, unsustainable crisis in the making. Liberal insanity and calls of racism are just irresponsible social and economic vandalism.
I think Michael is correct to say “To those who are concerned that immigrants make it harder or impossible to find a job, we must provide them with jobs and the skills and experience needed to get them. To those who are concerned that immigrants make it harder or impossible to get a place to live of their own, we must ensure there are enough places to live in so they can get one for themselves.”
While it is true, as Stuart Mitchell says, the job issue is easily dismissed (over the medium/longer term) by reference to the “lump of labour fallacy”, it is nevertheless the case that during an economic slump increased competition for unskilled work may result in temporary displacement of some native workers by immigrant labour. Although the cyclical effects work themselves out over the course of the economic cycle, we do need some form of job guarantee, skills training and work experience to ensure that native workers, who need such aid, can effectively compete for jobs during recessionary periods.
I would look to concentrate the skills training in the construction trades and in both child and elderly care services where there are continuing staff shortages frequently filled by both skilled and unskilled migrants.
Reducing employer demand for migrant labour will aid in slowing the rate of population growth and the pressure on the housing stock. Training single mothers as carers and placing them as live-in carers with elderly clients could further ease pressure on housing demand.
Preference for social housing has to be given to those that have been habitually resident in the area and in gainful employment, disabled or retired and not to new arrivals or the able-bodied unemployed. Ultimately, new housing development has to be increased to keep pace with the creation of new households.
Simon, refers to Spain. It is important to note that there are almost as many Brits living in the EU as there are EU citizens in the UK. If they all go back to their country of origin – what changes? Do all the returning Brits swap jobs and houses with the Europeans? How does that get us anywhere?
@paul barker “”The point is that people vote very differently in General Elections because they are about Government.”
Also, in a General Election tactical voting is significant. Perhaps Lib Dem performance in the European elections, ironically using the sort of proportional system we would like to see for general elections, presents a truer picture of the party’s support.
A worrying thing about the level of support achieved by UKIP is that they might have put themselves in a position where, on a seat-by-seat basis, electoral pacts with the Tories or individual candidates representing both parties becomes an attractive proposition to the Conservatives. What effect might that have on the outcome of the General Election?
“Do all the returning Brits swap jobs and houses with the Europeans?”
@ Joe Bourke. Why do any Brits need to return?
This is not about all EU ‘migraters’, returning to their country of origin which is not the idea and totally uncalled for. This is about the UK picking a future point in time and saying, from this point forward we (UK), will manage our borders on an Australian style of occupational needs?
Why is that wrong? The only problem we have is that we cannot legally do this obvious and urgently needed logical policy until we exit this madness called EU.
Over on zerohedge there’s an article by Peter Schiff criticizing Piketty. Although Schiff is a libertarian, I often agree with his analysis and usually find his opinions very interesting. Unfortunately in this case his argument was one of the very weakest I have yet seen against Piketty – it resembled a comic strip critique of dialectical materialism.
But Schiff’s article had one fascinating quote: he said “Any modern political pollster will tell you that the battle of ideas is won or lost in the first 15 seconds”. Now I have to admit some hesitation in listening to pollsters, but did we have a compelling 15 second articulation (is that a “pitch”?) of why we believe it necessary to be “the party of in”?
Surprise surprise. One of the principle cheerleaders for the Blair and Bush ‘liberation’ of Iraq doesn’t like the non-interventionist Ukip. Firstly, how much longer is the “the Ukip vote was only a minority (of those voting) of a total number eligible to vote” line going to trotted out? And why is such an argument never ventured the other way? The Lib Dems got 15% of the eligible vote in 2010 by the way. Secondly it ill behoves you Nick to rely solely on Aaronovitch’s commentary (I wouldn’t credit it with the term ‘analysis’), and to such extent. There’s more Aaronovitch here than Thornsby!
Though I see why you’re so reliant on it. He’s telling you all the things you want to hear and in the manner you like to hear it. But how about this? If everyone’s quietly wanting Ukip to “go away” why did Ukip top the poll with 23 seats to the Lib Dems 1? It doesn’t make any sense surely? Or could it actually be that a sizeable (and crucially, ever larger) proportion of those eligible to vote are fed up with being told by the likes of Clegg, Miliband, Cameron, Aaronovitch etc who they should or should not vote for, and that to question the actions of EU policy is akin to fascism and racism?
Anyone and everyone knows that Ukip would disappear overnight if a mainstream party had committed itself to an in-out referendum without the precondition of being given a GE majority first. The majority of Ukip voters are not bigots, however convenient that would be to Aaronovitch and the political class. They just don’t like being told who or what they are and what they should or should not do by an undemocratic EU and the UK’s increasingly feckless politicians.
What needs to be asked now more than ever is what matters more to the Lib Dems – the EU, or liberalism? And believe me, the two are not synonymous.
@ Joe Bourke
While it is true, as Stuart Mitchell says, the job issue is easily dismissed (over the medium/longer term) by reference to the “lump of labour fallacy”, it is nevertheless the case that during an economic slump increased competition for unskilled work may result in temporary displacement of some native workers by immigrant labour.
Now I am not an economist, and maybe that is why I am sceptical of economic theories. But perhaps some people on here ARE economists and can prove to me that the lump of labour fallacy is not in itself fallacious, and why the second point here quoted is not true and the first false..
Every time I go into a Starbucks I am served by a charming person whose accent demonstrates to me that they were born in another clime. I can’t remember anyone making me a coffee (and I am a caffeine addict) for years of whom this was not the case.
Now why does it make economic sense to pay someone native born, who has been educated in this country NOT to work, to do nothing, and to pay them housing benefit on the grounds that they are “unemployed” while at the same time there is economic demand for barristas whose labour I am paying for by the purchase of my latte?
I am paying for them twice. First the unemployed person through my taxes, and second the immigrant by the purchase of my coffee.
How is that a lump of labour? Why is that a fallacy? Don’t give me bollocks about labour not being finite, and demand inelastic yah de ya. Explain how that makes economic sense, because it seems like lunacy to me.
And anyone can be a barrista. Anyone. The unemployed don’t WANT to be one, they think it is beneath them and won’t get out of bed to do something as low paid.
Now that isn’t politically correct, I expect to hear howls of outrage. But that is what we Kippers do, you see, point out uncomfortable truths to the liberal and intellectual elite. Our betters who have been running things so swimmingly.
I am open minded, if someone can demonstrate my stupidity and economic illiteracy I’ll change my mind. Until then I say we need both reform of the welfare state to discourage sponging off everyone else, and control of unskilled immigration.
@ Simon
I think it is better for the UK to be in the EU trying to change it and having a seat at the table than being outside but still having to do certain things to trade with it. I also think there are companies that are based in the UK because we are in the EU. Therefore to come out of the EU will create more unemployment and not solve the unemployment problem.
Population increase in the UK has been going on since the Middle Ages and the answer has never been to reduce the population. The answer is always to provide the homes necessary for the population. The population density of the UK is not the highest in Europe.
@ Stuart Mitchell
There is still some doubt that the “lump of labour fallacy” is true. I also am not convinced that in every case that the employing of an immigrant is better economically than employing a native. Therefore the jobs issue can’t be dismissed because common sense clearly sees that the more people competing for jobs will mean that some people who may have been employed are not employed.
Stop focusing on UKIP.
It is far more important to focus on winning votes for the Lib Dems by appealing to voters who share or might be sympathetic to Lib Dem views. There are almost certainly more of the latter voting for Labour or the Conservatives than are voting for UKIP.
Simon,
the Lump of Labour Fallacy just states that it is a fallacy that there are a fixed number of jobs in any economy. Work activity and Jobs increase as the number of workers available to engage in productive activity and spending of wages increases. The total economy increases in size as the working population increases.
In the UK, when net migration began to move up from close to zero in the early nineties unemployment was at the 3m level. Unemployment fell continuously from 1993 to 1.6m before the recession in 2008 and is currently around 2.2m.
From 1995 to 2011 there were 3.3m new jobs created of which 2.3m were taken up by immigrants and 1m by existing residents. Throughout the period of increasing immigration, sufficient new jobs were created for not only the newly arrived migrant workforce but also for 1m of the existing population coming into the workforce.
You need no knowledge of economics to understand that unemployment began to increase as a consequence of the financial crisis and recession, not as a consequence of immigration.
5% unemployment or around 1.5m is probably as low as we can normally get in the UK when the economy is running at full capacity, with or without immigration. Around half of that number are what is called ‘frictional’ unemployment i.e, temporarily unemployed for a short period before taking up a new job. The other half are largely long-term youth unemployed (over 6 months). Youth unemployed include university students looking for part-time work and younger workers without any prior work experience.
It is this latter group which I think you are referring to when you say “…anyone can be a barrista. Anyone. The unemployed don’t WANT to be one, they think it is beneath them and won’t get out of bed to do something as low paid.” This section of the unemployed has been a persistent problem. Too many are functionally illiterate and innumerate and would have difficulty giving you the right change with your coffee. It is a problem that pre-dates the recession and is unaffected by levels of immigration. Many will require basic English and maths training as well as work skills training before any employer will take them on. They cannot, of course, remain on benefits indefinitely. Most 16-17 year olds will not be eligible for jobseekers allowance and the 18 and overs are required to attend job centres and job interviews and can face benefit sanctions if they do not.
The welfare state has undergone major reform under this coalition government and there is more to be come. We have very tight control of unskilled immigration from outside the EU now. We should not forget that in the last recession in the late eighties and early nineties, when there was no work here, plenty of British lads went to work on the building sites in Germany and there are 2.5m Brits living and working or retired in Europe today. It is a two way street.
This and other articles seem to express the idea that UKIP can be dismissed and all that needs to be done by the Libdems (and the other major parties) is keep the head in the sand and carry on regardless…
What you are missing is that UKIP has managed to motivate circa 9% of the electorate to go out and vote for them – at probably a much lower cost per candidate than any of the major parties… Yes there are things UKIP have that the LibDems lost when they decided to move from being a pure opposition party to being a party in government. But fundamentally they have engaged with the electorate in a way none of the major parties have.
One of the lessons from this is that we should resist all calls for further public funding of the established political parties, because it is obvious that it will only serve to further increase their distance and relevance to the electorate.
@Joe Bourke
I thought the Lump of Labour Fallacy was saying something else such as “Work activity and Jobs increase as the number of workers available” increases.
What is true is the more people employed the more jobs there are, because those new people in work increase the total demand in the economy. It doesn’t matter if those people newly employed are immigrants or natives the economy will grow.
The question is how many of those 2.3m jobs taken by immigrants could have been taken by natives and if that had happened would the economy be reduced. Lots of members of the public believe that some of these jobs could have been taken by natives and that the economy wouldn’t have been worse off because of it. It is these jobs that are seen as a cost of immigration and we need to accept that this cost does in fact exist.
I believe that an unemployment level of 3.5% is the correct target for unemployment because I recognise that the 2.5% figure achieved in the 1950’s and 1960’s is not possible because of structural changes in the workforce. I do not recognise the need for any people to be unemployment for non-frictional reasons. The government has to solve the problem of non-frictional unemployment and a job guarantee scheme would be a very good start.
SImon, I guess you live in London, right? There is your answer. Outside of London, many ‘natives’ (I hate this term) work in Starbucks. In London, however, these jobs are taken by ‘temporary young workers. A group of immigrants who move to the UK on a temporary, working holiday, basis and only need a part-time job to cover basic expenses. The wages in Starbucks are too low for many native works in London to realistically take these jobs.
Now, on a basic scale, one would argue that we should kick out these ‘temporary workers’ and get Starbucks paying a decent wage, but this ignores the fact that temporary workers are often very wealthy (thus their ability to waste two years working odd jobs and travelling around Europe) and here for a ‘holiday’, a long holiday, which means they spend a lot of money in our economy, leading to job creation elsewhere.
Michael,
I think your definition of the Lump of Labour fallacy is the same as mine – only more succinct. I agree that it is true that the more people employed the more jobs there are, because those new people in work increase the total demand in the economy. It doesn’t matter if those people newly employed are immigrants or natives the economy will grow.
However, I believe by 2007-08 (after two decades of increasing net migration) we had reached the natural level of full employment in the UK of around 5% i.e. everyone who was employable and was seeking work – immigrant or native – was pretty much finding work. The 2.3m extra jobs taken by immigrants were only created because they came to this country with whatever grubstake they had, found work and then started spending their wages here. That situation has changed temporarily as a consequence of the recession, less overall spending and more competition for unskilled work, but will revert as the economy returns to full capacity again. This might be viewed as one of the costs of immigration, but it is short-lived, self-correcting and an increased workforce ultimately aids in developing the economic recovery and reducing the public deficit.
The low figures quoted for the 1950’s and 1960’s are based on unemployment insurance claimants only and not total jobseekers as per the Labour Force Survey that came in from 1971. To get the level of unemployment down to 3.5%, I agree that a job guarantee scheme for the long-term unemployed would not only be a very good start but essential to reaching this kind of level of employment.
Liberal Al is right about the temporary young workers in catering and hospitality outlets in London. I would add that large numbers are here as foreign students who can only work ten hours per week and are paying enormous fees to our universities and colleges. Higher education generates major foreign earnings for UK Plc and the state FE sector.
Hi Nick, I agree their success is not as great as people are making out. There is no great enthusiasm for UKIP, it is just a sense of despair for the lack of alternatives. I look forward to your next article where I imagine we will begin to look at solutions.
Best wishes
@ Joe Bourke
I don’t know what evidence you base your view of the unemployed in 2007-08 on but having spent some time talking with such people at that time I can assure you that there were still large numbers of people who wanted to work and had worked in the pasted. There were also lots of people who wanted to work but had something holding them back and therefore were often not am employers top choice. In fact the lowest level of unemployment was in 2005 when it was nearly 4.5%.
Sorry – the past.
JoeBourke
I would look to concentrate the skills training in the construction trades and in both child and elderly care services where there are continuing staff shortages frequently filled by both skilled and unskilled migrants
We are told by Tories and Orange Bookers that we must have competition to drive down costs. Well, here’s how you can drive down costs: instead out putting time and money and effort into training your workers, bring in some workers who have already been trained elsewhere. You must be a mug if you spend money on trying to build up a trained workforce, only to lose the contract to those who can bid cheaper because they don’t do any of that. Leave it to Nanny State to do the training. Actually, why bother paying taxes to Nanny State to do the training, when taxes paid by other people in other countries will train people in those countries who can then be imported ready-trained at no cost?
We are told by British employers that British kids can’t or won’t do the jobs. Well how did such jobs ever get done in the past when there wasn’t mass immigration? There was no choice but for those who needed to the skills to train up people to have the skills, and there was no choice but to help build up a social system where people were ready and able to work.
Much of this free market stuff seems to be about passing the buck, trying to make someone else do the hard work while you take the profit. Then we end up going “Oh, why is that taxes are still rising, must be we aren’t making enough cuts, aren’t pushing enough this out to market forces”. It doesn’t seem to occur that this buck-passing does eventually end up on the state, having to deal with all those left behind because the free market wants them to be someone else’s responsibility.
Joe Bourke
“…..generates major foreign earnings for UK Plc ….”
Joe Bourke I would be interested to know what you mean by this . What precisely do you have in mind when you say “UK Plc” ?
It is a term I have often seen used. But in reality there is no such thing.
So I guess it is a shorthand for something? But what?
A Plc has owners or shareholders who if the enterise is successful will benefit.
But who benefits if your “UK Plc” generates major foreign earnings ?
Do I benefit as someone who lives in the UK? I guess this is your implication. but is that really true?
Apologies if this is just a short-hand phrase you just tend to throw into conversation, but I hope you can see the point in my question?
Matthew Huntbach 30th May ’14 – 5:56am
Actually, why bother paying taxes to Nanny State to do the training, when taxes paid by other people in other countries will train people in those countries who can then be imported ready-trained at no cost?
As ever Matthew, you are correct. Indeed every UK Government has used this approach to staff the NHS since the 1960s.
It is bizarre that we have UK people capable of being trained to do jobs that need to be done but it never happens.
Perhaps because the “Let it rip” Capitalism so loved by those who love the “one true path” of the Orange Book have not the imagination to see beyond the end of their own personal fortune.
@Matthew Huntbach. Excellent post. My only addition would be to add a comment re the complete short-termism of those who subscribe to such a political and economic philosophy. “I’m taking what I can today, tomorrow can look after itself”. Is it any wonder ordinary people become cynical and stop voting/vote in protest for the likes of UKIP with all this going on and no one in power properly representing them. It’s clearly not just going on in Britain and is all potentially very dangerous indeed. Although I don’t like the term ‘Orange Bookers’ we know what we mean. Where we are now is the logical end point of Thatcherism and a blind faith in an unrestricted free market that has been written into our society and politics since the 1980’s.
I think you are right to concentrate on the issue of why around 2/3 rds of people able to vote actually went out to vote in what was billed as the last big contest before the 2015 General Election.
Perhaps the reason for this rests in the fact that the current system has taken power away from people and concentrated it at all levels in the hands of the few.
Surly the trick is that when you have power to give it back. Back to the grass roots, so that where people put a X on the ballot paper actually does make a difference. We should not be micro managing from Brussels or Westminster from County/City/Town Halls. Deal only with what you actually need to deal with at each level. Pass the rest down to the level best suited. You have to trust people to be responsible – and to be accountable for their own actions……..
Like other European parties of the Populist Far Right, UKIP has risen quickly and may well fall quickly. The circumstances that can lead to this, going on foreign experience, are the loss of a charismatic leader on whom the party is highly dependent (followed quite possibly by splits or an acrimonious succession fight) or exposure to responsibility in government. Hopefully the last won’t happen at national level, so we really need to expose UKIP’s weakness in the record of its councillors and Euro-MPs.
@Adamsim
“Surprise surprise. One of the principle cheerleaders for the Blair and Bush ‘liberation’ of Iraq doesn’t like the non-interventionist Ukip.”
If UKIP are non-interventionist, how come they want to massively increase defence spending? Are they expecting us to be invaded?
Michael,
during the housing boom years in London it was hard to get a plumber for love or money. They were so busy there were reports of investment bankers retraining as plumbers http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3011439.stm. Not everyone who has worked in a clerical or managerial position will relish the prospect of manual work or lower paid retail or service type work – but certainly in London and other property boom hotspots, work of some kind was there for those who wanted it nonetheless. The point is, however, that jobs and job opportunities increased as immigration increased and only fell away when the recession hit. Many of the 1 million new jobs created from 1995-2011 that were taken up by native Brits were created as a result of the new migrant demand – the increased spending and economic activity they brought with them. The lowest level of unemployment that you note was reached in 2005 coincided with the peak of immigration from Eastern Europe that began in 2004.
Stephen Hesketh
Although I don’t like the term ‘Orange Bookers’ we know what we mean
Sure, I do appreciate the point that the Orange Book was just a collection of essays, although mostly coming from that sort of view not a unified manifesto, and I certainly wouldn’t want to discourage discussion in the party by disparaging those involved in it just for that.
I’d be grateful if someone could provide another term we could all agree on and which would be neutral. I don’t accept the claim of this sort that they are the true heirs of 19th century liberalism, so I don’t want to use any term which suggests agreement with them on that. But they seem to object to being called “Thatcherites”, and I’ll accept that’s not a neutral term either.
Stephen, Matthew, you’re not describing anybody I can think of in this party, and probably almost nobody in any other party either. However if you a referring to a recognition of the advantages of free markets and a strong dynamic private sector, then economic liberal is probably the term you are looking for. What’s missing is a term for the other lot, the not-economic-liberals. They like to call themselves social liberals, but that term applies to us all.
John Tilley,
UK Plc was a term coined by Tony Blair to refer to Britain’s ability to do business and earn its way in the world. We are a trading nation that relies extensively on imported food, energy, raw materials and much else (as the Kaiser and Hitler’s U-boat squadrons understood when they tied to starve us out). To pay for imports we need to sell goods and services overseas to get foreign earnings. Those goods and services are exports of manufactured goods – cars, aerospace, defence industries, life sciences and services – Financial and business services, creative industries., educational services and inbound tourism. Foreign earnings are also earned by attracting overseas investments in UK companies, London property and financial products as well as repatriation of foreign earnings by UK businesses and individuals operating overseas. That is the balance of payments. When foreign earnings fall too far below the cost of the imports we need, we get a balance of payments or Sterling crisis as we had in 1976 when we had to arrange an emergency loan with the IMF, and the laws of economics starts to do what the Kaiser and Hitler could not.
Joe
How about the Libertarian Left?
As the thread on NC’s ‘idea’ [ to consult a little bit] is closed, I am forced to make my point here instead. The party needs to put itself first and any individual way down the list. We believe in LibDem principles of listening to members and not another top-down structure to support the wrongs which have gone forward in our name. Talk to members, both those who cannot and those who can be physical activists on the doorstep. We will tell you, I am quite sure, that the party has for several years been conducting a Tory-style centralist campaign which does not suit LD principles. I asked for a meeting with NC and members and not a Regional Exec solution. Another talk-shop is not what we need.
Joe Otten
However if you a referring to a recognition of the advantages of free markets and a strong dynamic private sector, then economic liberal is probably the term you are looking for.
No, that’s a biased term, as to use it as at least partially to accept their argument.
Joe Otten
They like to call themselves social liberals, but that term applies to us all.
You might like to think it does, but what if I disagree? What if I think the sort of policies you propose don’t advance social freedom? What if I think they are destructive of social values that protect freedom, so I would prefer to use the term “anti-social liberal” of you lot?
One thing I am sure about is that the move towards a more market oriented economic structure to our country which has been a continuous process for all but the first few months of my adult lifetime has NOT increased freedom of people in general in this country. I believe my parents, and me in my youth, were far more free than people of that age now due to what the state provided then but does not provide now.
If different factions within the Lib Dems are looking for more appropriate labels… would ‘classic liberal’ be acceptable to the ‘right’ of the party?
@Matthew Huntbach: I’d be grateful if someone could provide another term we could all agree on and which would be neutral.
If David Cameron can call himself a “liberal conservative,” I suppose the so-called Orange Bookers might not object to being called “conservative liberals.”
@ Joe B
the Lump of Labour Fallacy just states that it is a fallacy that there are a fixed number of jobs in any economy. Work activity and Jobs increase as the number of workers available to engage in productive activity and spending of wages increases. The total economy increases in size as the working population increases.
Well I have to say I am underwhelmed by your response. It just seems to me that you are arguing for a larger economy, but one with less wealth per head. A larger pie with more people to share it, and no space for people to live. But let’s accept for a moment your theory, let’s say that there isn’t a fixed number of jobs in the economy. So what?
How does the fact that there isn’t a fixed number of jobs in the economy according to a theory which may be debunked in ten years time anyway, actually affect our NEET who wants to work? (Assuming many exist). Or the long suffering taxpayer who has to support them? When they go to Starbucks for that interview does the manager say “We don’t want you, because there is a pretty young graduate from Slovakia who would be better, but never mind, the lump of labour fallacy says that immigration is not limited, so you haven’t really lost your job. It will all rebalance in the long term?”
Can you not see that your argument has a credibility problem?
Is it or is it not true that we are borrowing money from China to pay someone to stay at home while we import the labour from elsewhere?
You say he/she can’t read and couldn’t count the change out correctly. That is true fort a tiny minority I suggest. I have worked for a charity for people with learning disabilities, all with an IQ of 80 or below and most of them (not all obviously) can count out change, even if they can’t read well.
You don’t need to be literate or numerate to pick fruit in Lincolnshire, or work as a bricky anyway. And we all know how those labour markets are filled with immigrants paid less and less in a desperate “race to the bottom” as Miliband has it.
If people’s lives depended on it they would work. These NEET’s would make it their business to hold down a job at Starbucks or in the Care industry, or in the construction business.
The fact that the welfare state gives them no financial incentive to develop a work ethic is the problem.
And trust me, my views are shared by the majority of the electorate. If Nigel has any sense it will be the next big UKIP policy push.
Migration is a business , not a spontaneous act. It involves agencies and salesman, adverts and deals much like Tourism. It’s not a giant conspiracy by a metropolitan elite to steal our precious bodily fluids. If you go to a coffee shop that has a deal with an employment agency that recruits from europe the staff will be European if you go to one that doesn’t they will be British. It has zero to do with skills shortages and everything to do with who’s recruiting from where.
@ Joe Bourke
I didn’t understand that when you talk about the level of unemployment of 5% you are mainly concerned with those unemployed in London. However I live in south-east England and we didn’t have full employment in 2005 and I expect the further north one lives the further away from full employment the economy was. It is wrong to run the economy for the benefit of London and the south-east only.
I am not sure what point you are making when you say that when unemployment was at its lowest immigration was at its highest. I would have thought that market forces would make this true especially if there were skill shortages in London.
@ Steve Griffiths – “Libertarian Left”
As libertarianism with regard to the size of government is on the right there can’t be libertarianism on the left.
Simon,
if you are interested in educating yourself on the subject you can check out this long paper Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM) at University College London
or this short onethe Lump of Labour fallacy. The Lump of Labour fallacy has been an accepted tenet of political economy since Victorian times.
Average wages and GDP per head increased throughout the period of rising immigration in the UK from the early nineties until the start of the recession in 2007-08. Wages started falling when the recession came and have just started rising again as the economy recovers. It is economic recession, not immigration that is the cause of these trends and it is policies focused on the real causes and based on credible evidence that will provide the solutions.
Nigel Farrage has given up arguing that immigration is not an economic benefit – he’s not that dumb. His argument has moved on now to accepting a lower standard of living as being a price worth paying for a better quality society. It is an argument that has more intellectual force and ties in with earlier comments here that housing is the real issue.
Anyone who thinks that the welfare state gives no financial incentive to develop a work ethic must have been locked in a cupboard for the last four years and missed everything that Ian Duncan Smith has brought-in.
Michael,
London has some of the highest inner-city unemployment blackspots with high levels of long-term youth unemployment in the country.
The point about unemployment being at its lowest when immigration was at its peak is a simple one – high levels of immigration does not mean less jobs for British workers – market forces and growing demand mean more British workers are employed during periods of high immigration. This is where we started – recession is the cause of unemployment for both Brits and immigrants equally. Immigration is not the cause of unemployment.
@ Joe Bourke
“if you are interested in educating yourself on the subject you can check out this long paper Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM) at University College London
or this short onethe Lump of Labour fallacy. The Lump of Labour fallacy has been an accepted tenet of political economy since Victorian times.”
Maybe it is! I think you will find that in my last post I conceded it in principle and then said so what? Why don’t you actually answer my substantive question?
My point, (and I’ll repeat it for the clarity of everyone reading this thread)
is really quite simple. Is it true that we are borrowing money from the bond markets to pay people not to work while sucking in immigrant labour that they could do?
Is this true or not?
If it is true, what is the economic benefit of this?
Thanks in advance for your reply.
Average wages and GDP per head increased throughout the period of rising immigration in the UK from the early nineties until the start of the recession in 2007-08. Wages started falling when the recession came and have just started rising again as the economy recovers. It is economic recession, not immigration that is the cause of these trends and it is policies focused on the real causes and based on credible evidence that will provide the solutions.
Nigel Farrage has given up arguing that immigration is not an economic benefit – he’s not that dumb. His argument has moved on now to accepting a lower standard of living as being a price worth paying for a better quality society. It is an argument that has more intellectual force and ties in with earlier comments here that housing is the real issue.
Anyone who thinks that the welfare state gives no financial incentive to develop a work ethic must have been locked in a cupboard for the last four years and missed everything that Ian Duncan Smith has brought-in.
Simon.
you have asked the question – Is it true that we are borrowing money from the bond markets to pay people not to work while sucking in immigrant labour that they could do? The answer to your question is no and the reasons can be found in the report I have linked for you above http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_22_13.pdf.
The report tells us “recent immigrants, both those from EEA and non-EEA countries have made a positive net contribution to the UK fiscal system despite the UK’s running a budget deficit over most of the 2000s. We also show that, if the marginal cost of providing fixed public goods to immigrants is (close to) zero, then immigration, by sharing their provision costs among a larger pool of people, allows substantial implicit savings to the native population. Overall, therefore, our analysis draws a positive picture of fiscal effects immigration has had on the UK. In particular those immigrants who arrived since 2000, and here especially those from the EEA countries, have – through their positive net fiscal contribution – helped to reduce the fiscal burden for native workers.”
Put quite simply, immigrants in the 21st century are paying more in taxes then the cost of public services they receive – enough more to cover the full cost of unemployment benefits to native Brits. If they were not here we would be borrowing more to cover the cost of the NHS, pensions, schools, defence, unemployment, welfare and other public goods and transfers
@ Joe Bourke
I hope I have never said that immigration causes unemployment. Maybe you have misunderstand my point. My point is that when an employer employs an immigrant sometimes this means that a native who is unemployed does not get that job. I am saying that sometimes the second choice person not employed is a native and sometimes this native will remain unemployed for much longer because there are immigrants who appeal more to employers. The answer is twofold. Firstly give the native person the skills and experience to better compete and to return to a 1960’s work environment where employers become willing to employ these people because there is not a large pool of others available.
If there were areas of London that had high levels of unemployed young people in 2005 then not even in London was there full employment where the only unemployed people were those who can be called frictional unemployed.
Joe,
I’m not a UKIP supporter’ I voted Lib Dem in the European election.
Here’s what I think you guys are missing. Let’s say you are 17 or 18 years old and you live in Lincolnshire and you want to be a forklift driver. So you go to depot and you find out that they only employ through an agency that recruits from say Poland and that they no longer train youngsters. Then immigration is clearly impacting on your local and personal experience whether it’s good for the wider economy or not.
This is a key reason why I think the East Midlands voted so differently to London. Like London the population is diverse. with a lot of migrant workers. Unlike London the overall population is less mobile and does not commute so they experiance migration as direct competition at a local level
Michael,
an employer is free to choose the best person for the job – legal immigrant or Brit. That same freedom applies for foreign employers engaging Brits working overseas as well. Long-term unemployment is largely a consequence of skills deficit or age – more prevalent among the young without work-experience or the over 50’s. I would agree with the proposition to improve the state offer of skills training and experience. It is not just skill deficits, however, that put a limit on new job creation. There are other limiting factors of production that come into play- availability of land and capital that limit the amount of new enterprises, jobs and economic expansion that can be effectively created to meet rising demand – whether those jobs are filled by native Brits or migrants.
Long-term youth unemployment has long been a feature on inner-city areas of London that persists during economic booms. Unemployment has reached levels of 50% at times among young black men in areas of the city during the recession. The underlying reasons have been primarily failures in the educational system and social barriers.
Glenn,
I recognise the issue you are raising. I think the answer, as Michael has noted, is government training schemes that provide work skills and job guarantees to get young people without work experience started – so there is far less incentive for employment agencies of the type you reference to solely recruit overseas.
The company that needs a forklift driver wants a capable employee who will turn up everyday on time and carry out his/her duties responsibly and effectively. It doesn’t matter to them if the staff is Polish or British – work attitude and ability/willingness to learn on the job is the key.
@ Joe Bourke
It is nice that we agree on something – “I think the answer, as Michael has noted, is government training schemes that provide work skills and job guarantees …” However I am surprised that you can’t recognise the truth of my other points. I agree with the statement “an employer is free to choose the best person for the job” when I was interviewing people this was my only consideration. Maybe you just haven’t been told what the employment market was like in the 1960’s. Employers still would employ the best person they could find for the job, and because there was full employment they employed people who needed more support or training than they do today. That is the effect of full employment on who gets a job. With higher skilled or better qualified immigrants applying for jobs the employer is more likely to employ such a person than a less skilled, experienced or qualified native, and so that native finds it harder to find work and may remain unemployed longer. There was no long term unemployed people in the 1960’s because there was full employment and that is what I want to get back to. I am not saying restrict immigration, what I am saying is create an employment market where employers freely choice to employ the people they don’t employ today. If there was no long term unemployed how could anyone say that immigrants stopped a native getting a job?
Michael,
I grew up in Southall in West London in the 60’s and started work in the 70’s. There was, and still is, a large migrant population, primarily from the Indian sub-continent and West Indies in my home-town, brought-in to fill apparent labour shortages in the post-war period.
There are many reasons that long-term unemployment was not a recognised feature of the 1960’s. Firstly, it was not measured – only unemployment benefit claimants were included in the statistics up until 1971. Secondly, there was both widespread nationalisation of major industries and the acceptance of unionised restrictive practices that led to overmanning. Thirdly, there were a series of attempts to artificially reflate the economy in the 60’s and 70’s including the devaluation of sterling in 1967 and the Barber budget in the early seventies to defer the economic effects of growing uncompetitiveness and industrial unrest.
The 1973 oil shock and the inflation that followed crashed that economic system. By 1976 the UK was seeking a bail-out from the IMF, just as many Eurozone countries have done recently. Industrial unrest and conflict with the Unions continued, culminating in the winter of discontent in 1978-79. The long-term unemployment of the pre-war period returned with the recession of the early eighties and has been with us ever since. We live in a changing world of globalisation, free movement of capital and free movement of labour within a European Union that Macmillan, Heath, Wilson, Grimond and other political leaders of the 60’s strove hard to get us into.
I fully endorse the idea of skills training and job guarantees to address the issue of long-term unemployment, but there is no going back to the milieu of the 1960’s.
@ Joe Bourke
If long term unemployment wasn’t measured what makes you think it existed? What level was it between 1971 and 1979?
I am not calling for a return to the 1960’s what I am saying is that having the full employment levels of the 1950’s and 1960’s would mean that it would be difficult for people to say that the reason large numbers of people were unemployed was because immigrants get the jobs they could be doing. Don’t you see that there were huge social benefits from having full employment and as liberals we should be looking to bring back those social benefits? Failure to do this will mean there will always be over a million people in the UK who are excluded and as a liberal I find this unacceptable.
As far as I remember much of the uncompetitiveness of the 60’s and 70’s was a result of the lack of investment and low productivity. I am not sure how much that was the result of Keynesian economic policies because it didn’t seem to be a problem in other countries that pursued Keynesian economic policies. According to the FT the problem in 1976 was not as dire at it seemed; the balance of payments had been worse in 1975 and the predictions for the public sector borrowing requirement were far too high. Denis Healey later said that if he had had accurate predictions he never would have gone to the IMF.
For us to have a meaningfully discussion of economic policy of the 60’s and 70’s I would need to know what the money supply was doing as well as the fiscal policies pursued. Also I would need to know how much of the balance of payments problem after October 1973 were the result of the huge increases to the price of oil.
The power of the unions did exist and it wasn’t until Thatcher that there was a large enough pool of unemployed people that she had the power to break them. As I liberal I recognise that for workers or employers to have too much power can be a problem and getting the balance right is what we should try to achieve. I am not sure that the balance is right today.
Michael,
I am out for the rest of the evening and all day tomorrow, so my apologies, but I am unable to continue the conversation.
I think, if nothing else, we have probed the UKIP policy arguments on immigration in some depth and with some much needed clarity.
If I may add my own thoughts, as someone from the East Midlands, I find it interesting that Glenn brings up that region mainly because it is the perfect example of the fallacy thinking that plagues our nation and allows UKIP to gain votes. The East Midlands actually has some of the highest living standards in the country and one of our countries most balanced economies – far more so than London’s. It also has the third lowest employment figures in the UK (far lower than London and the national average).
Outside of Leicester, it has very low levels of immigration. International and interregional net migration to the region increased the population at a rate of 26 people per 10,000 residents in 2010, compared with the England average of 41 per 10,000 residents.
Yet, despite all of this, the East Midlands has a systemic problem with racism, with much of it being very much coming from the UKIP ideology, ‘no good Johnny foreigners are stealing my jobs’.
Why is this when the figures do not add up?
I think it is simple really. Due to New-Right ideologies introduced by Thatcher and continued by Blair, many of the East Midlands’ strongest industries, such as engineering and tradesmen (plumbers, electricians) suffered from massive skills shortages as the education system did not provide students with the skills they needed for such jobs and because education/economic policies made apprenticeships and practical skills based courses such as GNVQs unattractive to both employers and the British youth.
This skills deficit mixed with the economic boom saw a massive raise in wages and living standards for people in the East Midlands throughout the 90s because suddenly tradesman, such as plumbers, saw there was so little competition they could charge double the price for half the work. However, such growth was unsustainable and uncompetitive because wages were out of line with the work provided and the economy overall. Sometime would eventually need to bring it back in line, or we would end up in a position like we had in the 70s where wages compared to the work output as mean completely devalue the work altogether.
As such, mass immigration, whilst not actually having a negative impact on employment prospectives (in fact, as we see, very few immigrants actually moved to the East Midlands and those that did brought a net-benefit to the region), it did the bring wages back in line with the overall economic growth of the country by plugging the skills gaps in the region.
Whilst there were only a relevantly small number of ‘Polish plumbers’ in the East Midlands, the ones there did the same work for a much cheaper price. This meant British plumbers had to cut their prices or risk pricing themselves out of the market. Now, (not to sound too condescending to my fellow East Midlanders), whilst this was necessary for the region’s economy overall, something tells me that very few of them understand or care about economics overall, they just care about the direct impacts on their life, personally. Thus, this lack of appreciation for what was happening and its necessary meant that their anger at what was happening could not be directed at the real causers of the problem – and it was not like politicians were going to tell anyone it was rubbish education policies that were to blame. I also think some of the blame can be put at the feet of the tradesman and factories workers, as well, because they took advantage of the situation for their own gain and then they were shocked they had to pay back the money at some point. However, this group was hardly likely to take such a viewpoint about itself.
As such, the anger which needed directing somewhere was directed at the immigrant population.
Now, I do agree that we need to solve the skills deficit problem, and our apprenticeship schemes are going somewhere towards tackling this issue, but more needs to be done (with Bill’s solutions being most apt).
However, this will take a generation (at least) to solve and in that time, we still need workers to do the work. If their is an insufficient number of British workers to do the jobs (even if that is not their fault), then people from other countries shall have to do it.
Now, this will happen in one of two ways, either employers bring the workers to our factories, or employers take our factories to the workers.
Most employers would rather do the former, but if we make this impossible for them with regressive immigrant policies (as we have in many industries), they will take the latter approach.
@ Liberal Al
Your discussion of the East Midland situation didn’t mention the rate of unemployment and if there are residents outside Leicester who feel that people don’t get jobs because employers employ an immigrant instead?
How can immigration be blamed if there are no recent immigrants in the area to blame? If people do blame immigrants, do you counter this argument with local figures?
Part of the problem in the 1970’s was the over valuation of the pound.
“It also has the third lowest UNemployment figures in the UK (far lower than London and the national average).”
Sorry, I have a learning disability (part of my dyslexia) which means I sometimes get negatives and positives mixed up.
The point is that East Midlands has really good employment prospectives.
In relation to the feelings of residents of the East Midlands, I was not solly referring to Leicester, but the East Midlands as a whole. Actually, from what I understand, Leicester has reality high social cohesion (probably due to its higher Immigrant population).
In relation to your final point, well, it depends what they are being blamed for.
In relation to employment prospects, that is the point, the whole issue of immigrant being a ’cause’ (when at worst it is a ‘symptom’ – and it is only that if you consider it a negative thing) of employment problems that certain British demographics face is a fallacy. However, it is a fallacy many believe to be true. I would guess that it all comes down to perspective. If you are constantly told in the media and by those who live around you that the country is sinking under tidal wave of ‘Johnny Foreigners’, eventually you believe it to be true because if we hear enough people say something, we do presume it to be correct. It does not matter much if our own everyday experiences and boring statistical charts do not suggest it to be correct.
On the point raised about immigration ‘deprecating’, well, as I said, what it did was bring wages back in line with growth (something, which really hurt once the recession hit, I suspect), but that does not require mass immigration, that only requires enough immigrant to cover the skills gaps. So, when you, as a normal individual, see the growth in your wages stopping and even lowering due to immigration and then see in the media and hear everyone around talking of ‘mass immigration’, you are going to draw a causal link, even if it is a false one. This is why many people in regions such as the East Midlands believe their locations to be ‘suffering’ from mass immigration, when the numbers show the immigration is not as high as they probably think it is and that immigration is not having the negative impact on their employment/live style. Even with the wage point, had the wages not dropped here, then many jobs would have gone elsewhere.
Well considered and insightful analysis, Liberal Al
@ Joe B
“you have asked the question – Is it true that we are borrowing money from the bond markets to pay people not to work while sucking in immigrant labour that they could do? The answer to your question is no”
The answer to that question is yes.
You know that although obviously you can’t admit it , I know that, but most importantly the electorate know that. And therein lies your problem.
Let me ask you another question. Do you care more about people emigrating to this country than those native born? Do you they believe they have a greater right to a job?
Simon,
with respect to your first question see Nigel Farrage’s comments on the issue I’d rather be poorer with fewer migrants in which he says ““I think the social side of this matters more than pure market economics.” That’s a fair enough position to hold for a slowdown in the rate of migration and ensuring that transition controls work effectively.
With respect to your second question – I think we have as tight a system of immigration control as any country for non-EU immigration and as far as the EU is concerned there are nearly as many Brits living and working in the EU as there are Europeans here. As I noted earlier, it is a two way street. When there was high unemployment here in the late eighties and early nineties, a lot of British lads found work on building sites in Germany and were glad of the opportunity.