FOCUS ON IMMIGRATION

The Truth behind the headlines: 

RUTH RICHARDSON examines the rival claims on the impact of immigration on jobs,

On January 10, headlines in the “i” newspaper read “Immigration has no impact on employment”. The following day the Daily Express’s front page declared “Migrants do take British jobs.” Even allowing for the different political perspectives of the respective newspapers, this seems a contradiction too far.

What confused the issue was that there have been two recent reports on immigration that appear to be in conflict on whether there is an association between inward migration and rising unemployment. The report by MAC (the Migration Advisory Committee) seems to suggest such an association. But to quote MAC’s chair, David Metcalf, “there is some displacement but it isn’t huge, and it doesn’t happen in buoyant economic times.” Moreover, evidence of competition for jobs is confined to the skilled sectors, which suggests that immigration is not a factor in the recent rise in youth unemployment.

The other report, by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) concludes that immigration has had little or no impact on employment.

DIFFERENCE IN DATA:

So, why the difference? Mainly, says MRN (Migrant Rights Network), the two reports used different data sets. The MAC report used labour force survey material which extends across all eleven regions of the UK. The NIESR on the other hand used data from National Insurance number registrations, which provides more detailed material on people moving to the UK to work. This methodology enabled researchers to look in detail at smaller areas, giving their study more focus and accuracy.

The MAC report points out that there are many more aspects to immigration than the impact on the jobs market. In devising an immigration policy the Government needs to be clear on whose needs and interests are being prioritised. The well-being of the resident population in terms of public finances, housing and transport should be the focus, says MAC chair, David Metcalfe.

RESEARCH – AND BIAS:

Both the MAC and the NIESR are respectable research bodies which seek to present their findings accurately and without bias. However, in searching the internet for background to this story, I came across the website of Migration Watch. Set up about ten years ago, this organisation sees itself as a watchdog to guard against the UK being “swamped by immigrants”. Visitors to the website are invited to sign an e-petition to keep the UK population below 70 million. I found particularly unpleasant a section called “reports” which contains short news stories concerning anything that shows an immigrant in a poor light. Daily Express readers will find all their prejudices confirmed here!

Immigration Minister, Damien Green, says “this Government is working to reduce net migration… controlled immigration can bring benefits to the UK, but uncontrolled immigration can put pressure on public services, on infrastructures and on community relations.”

SAD:

Personally I find it sad that it is taken for granted that any immigration policy we devise should only be for the benefit of the UK. Surely as one of the richer countries in the world (even in these straitened times) we could see it as our duty as citizens of the world to welcome those who need a haven. Economic migrants are not evil. They simply want a better chance in life for their families. Don’t we all?

I found the stories behind the headlines of the Express and the “i”  quite complicated and the reports needed careful reading. But it was a salutory lesson in how facts can be plucked from their contexts to give credence to a pre-determined view.

“HOME SWEET HOME”?

In a capitalist society, “markets” decide what kind of homes (if any) are available to us. Surely there must be a fairer way? RUTH RICHARDSON looks at the options.

We usually associate vast areas of tents with short-term solutions to natural disasters. But in the USA, where more than five million homes have been repossessed in the last five years, tent cities have sprung up around conurbations which house millions of homeless people.

An article in a recent issue of Red Pepper magazine by Stuart Hodkinson argues that in Britain “all the elements of a perfect storm are gathering in the wider housing system”. In the five years to 2009 repossessions in the UK had increased eight-fold, to 48,000. For many people, repossession of their home means a worsening credit rating, so that getting back on to the housing ladder is difficult. The Government’s homeowner support scheme (giving support for up to two years to those facing a loss of income) was closed down in April.

SLUMP IN NEW HOMES: Since 2006 house building completions have slumped to their lowest level in 90 years. Although house prices have fallen by 25 per cent in the last three years, for most first-time buyers on an average income, owning their own home remains an impossible

dream. The days of 100 per cent mortgages are well and truly over. The average house price (currently £226,648) would need a £60,000 deposit and a salary of £56,000 plus.

What about renting? The local authority waiting lists have doubled since 1997 to around five million. And increased demand for private rented accomodation has caused rents to rise considerably.

Stuart Hodkinson’s article gives a historical perspective to the current situation. Engels, 140 years ago, wrote that sub-standard housing for many with, periodically, a wider crisis is endemic to capitalism. Council house provision gained ground from the beginning of the last century. A mixed economy of public and private home-building (with priority given to council housing in the years immediately after the war) helped to mitigate the boom-bust cycles since the early 1970s . But the reluctant withdrawal of local authorities from house building has increased the instability of the housing market.

BURSTING THE BUBBLE: Thatcher’s policy of “popular capitalism” encouraged us all to aspire to home ownership. The combination of extravagant lending, speculation and most significantly the financial commodification of housing drove the market higher and higher. All this was sustainable only so long as house prises continued to rise. But finally the bubble has burst.

New Labour followed the privatisation agenda. At present, under Ed Miliband, the Labour Party is conducting a “housing policy review”, but this will most likely continue to promote home ownership and a market-dominated approach to the provision of affordable housing.

There is an urgent need for resistance to the coalition’s current housing policy. A number of pressure groups such as “Defend Council Housing” and “London Coalition Against Poverty” have been set up, but mobilising mass resistance is very difficult. An additional source of affordable housing might be co-operative housing schemes, particularly the establishment of community land trusts (CLTs). The CLT would own the freehold, and thus stop speculative and inflationary forces driving up property prices and rents. It’s doubtful though whether CLTs can make more than a marginal difference to the current situation.

RADICAL RE-THINK: Stuart Hodkinson calls for a radical re-think in our housing policy, including a moratorium on all repossessions, compulsory purchases and benefit cuts, stronger rent controls and the refurbishment of existing council house stock. Homeowners could be encouraged to sell their homes to a new housing co-op, swapping their mortgages for rents that build up an equity stake within the housing co-op.

Two core attributes might assure the success of such a movement, he suggests. Firstly, the movement would bring together public and private tenants, homeowners and the homeless, around a shared agenda – the provision of decent quality affordable housing for all. And people would gain a degree of security against eviction and repossession.

Significantly, Hodkinson sees these proposals as a step towards ending capitalism completely in our country. Some may think that a claim too far. It also seems to side-step the urgent (and perhaps immediate) need for a new generation of local authority homes providing security of tenure for tenants.

But events in the worlds of housing, finance and employment over recent years indicate the need for effective controls over the capitalist forces that dominate our lives.

WHERE NEXT FOR LABOUR?

asks TYLER CHINNICK

Over the past year, the Labour Party has been inviting people, members and non-members alike, to give their ideas for the future direction of the Party.

New Labour always held that any move to the left would make the party “less electable”. But there are many policies to the left of current orthodoxy that I think would make the Party more, not less, electable. Here are some of them.

MPs should receive the national average  wage.

Failing this, their earnings should be linked to the minimum wage. Politicians, when they are elected, lose touch with the hardships of life as most people live it. Earning a national average wage would make MPs much more aware of life as we live it, and thus more able to represent our interests.

Re-nationalise the railways.

A “yougov” poll conducted in 2009 showed 70 per cent support for re-nationalisation. It would not only be popular, it would also save us money. We’ve spent nearly four times the amount subsidising private industries than we ever gave to the industry when it was in public hands.

Bring NHS cleaning services back under public control.

There is a clear correlation between those hospitals where the cleaning staff are contracted out and high rates of MRSA. And end the ludicrous charade of PFI/PPP. As far as I’m aware, the only other political leader to try the “buy now pay much later” approach was Mussolini. I don’t think we should be following his example!

Introduce a “Robin Hood” tax.  

Charged at a measly quarter of a per cent on those financial transactions that do not involve the public, this would raise an estimated £100 to £200 billion. This is fair, practical and popular, and is supported by many mainstream figures.

Scrap Trident.

It’s a “deterrent” designed for the Cold War and has no relevance today. We’re told that the main threat we face to our national security is from global terrorism, against which Trident is useless.

Crack down on tax avoidance and evasion.

It’s not impossible, as the Tories claim – and it has overwhelming public support. Tax havens should face a cooling of political, diplomatic and trade relations. It they continue to act as they do, they should receive the same kind of treatment as other rogue states, such as sanctions or freezing of assets.

Keep the Royal Mail public.

Privatisation will inevitably lead to a massive deterioration in the service and won’t save us money.

A referendum on the EU.

The European Union is undemocratic and enforces the same neo-liberal market orthodoxy that has ruined so many western countries in recent years. In the early days of the EEC, it was Labour who were most vocal in opposition. Now the only criticism we hear comes from the Right and is usually accompanied by scarcely concealed xenophobia.

Build more Council Houses.

The building sector was hard hit by the recession and there is a massive need for affordable housing. Why not kill two birds with one stone? Before the last election there were even some Tories talking about the need for more social housing. And when the Tories say we need more council houses, then you know we need more council houses!

Scrap university tuition fees and reinstate the EMA.

Or, at the very least, reduce them. Education is a right, not a privilege. Labour should become a party for young people once again.

Electoral reform.

The fact that in the 21st century, half our government is unelected is outrageous. The House of Lords needs to be democratically elected (preferably by PR) – or abolished altogether.

A new Green deal.

Ed Balls in an interview with the CWU paper Voice said that the road to recovery was through Keynesian economics. What better way to resurrect the economy than by embarking on a massive building project to create the energy of tomorrow? This could be partly funded by ending subsidies to the arms industry. It’s the most heavily subsidised industry in Britain costing taxpayers £851.91 million a year. It’s obscene that so much is spent on creating devices of torture and death when it could be spent on green energy.

Make public services more democratic.

Why shouldn’t workers in the public sector who know their industries have a say in who runs the service and how? Nurses, teachers and many other public sector workers have a huge wealth of knowledge that currently goes untapped.

An ethical foreign policy.

Which would involve: withdrawing support from regimes such as Saudi Arabia (whilst possibly ending our dependency on oil). Ending complicity in torture, and not invading countries which do not threaten us.

Reforming the media.

The media have made it perfectly clear over recent years that they are unable to regulate themselves. The Press Complaints Commission therefore needs to be independent of the industry, and made much stronger – with real sanctions, particularly fines, which they are unafraid to use. A law such as “one man, one newspaper”, or a ban on foreign ownership of British media should be introduced. The kind of monopolies that exist in the media world today not only endanger free speech and democracy, but also inevitably lead to heinous abuse.

Just a few of these policies would be enough to secure a Labour victory at the next election, and they would all, without exception, have an enormously positive effect.

MOBILISING THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE CUTS

Report by CARL SPIBY (with additional notes by Alistair Graham)

A meeting of the Monmouth and Forest of Dean SOS (“Save Our Services”) anti-cuts campaign has won the endorsement of comedian, broadcaster and Independent columnist, Mark Steel.

The campaign seeks to confront the myths promoted by the coalition Government to justify raising VAT whilst cutting public services and jobs. Mark Steel will be sending tickets to his show in Hereford to help with the campaign’s fund-raising.

The meeting, at Monmouth’s Queen’s Hotel, saw the former Labour Party candidate, Hamish Sanderson, raising his own concerns over the deep public sector cuts. Also present were local activists, members of the Forest & Wye Clarion editorial committee, pensioners’ groups and the public.

Unison‘s Peter Short presented a compelling picture of how the scale of the UK’s debt was actually lower now than it was at the end of the war, when the NHS was created. The scale of our deficit had been deliberately distorted by the right-wing press and politicians.

WOMEN AND THE POOR TO SUFFER:

He was followed by Jeremy Gass (from Abergavenny SOS), who gave a description of what the cuts really meant for those at the poorest end of the income scale. As well as job losses in the public sector, there are forecasts of increasing child poverty, cuts in housing benefits, welfare benefits, local government services, and legal aid (in other words, access to justice). And the cuts will fall disproportionately on women.

AN ALTERNATIVE:

Finally, Dominic McAskill, a co-ordinator for UNISON in Wales, presented the case for an alternative policy to that of the Tory-led coalition Government. Two years ago, he reminded us, we had faced a crisis in capitalism, resulting in the debt crisis, and the bailing out of the banks.

The cry had gone out that we had to ensure that it did not happen again. Banks had to be regulated and dodgy practices curtailed. But today such calls have largely disappeared. Under the present Government, it’s not the bankers who are being threatened – it’s the very structure of the welfare state.

Amongst alternative policies put forward by Dominic McAskill was for a new tax on the rich and super-rich (a so-called “Robin Hood Tax“). After all, it had been their crisis that had led to the bail-out in the first place. Now we face a new round of super-bonuses for bankers (£7 billion this year alone). All this Government has done is “nationalise” the debt, placing the burden on ordinary people.

“If we do nothing, we’re not only selling out ourselves but selling out generations to come. Our whole welfare state is under threat,” he concluded.

BUILDING THE CAMPAIGN:

The campaign in Monmouth and the Forest of Dean is aiming to build support for those campaigning against the cuts, including those who who are working to save the library service in the Forest. Hopefully this will include coaches for those who want to attend the “Anti-Cuts” march and rally in London on March 26.

No Guardian Angels

‘Britain’s Everyday Heroes’ by Gordon Brown

Non-fiction/society/charity & government review by A. Graham

Those folk who unsparingly involve themselves in community work play an important part in our society. They often give of their time unstintingly, for little or no reward. And perhaps their role today is even more important than it was, as decades of Thatcherite and “New Labour” policies lead to the unravelling of the social fabric.

This book consists of thirty profiles of individuals who have committed themselves to trying to plug the holes that are appearing in our communities. There are those who work with alienated youngsters, some trying to deal with the social problems of inner city areas, others working with immigrants and carers. And there is one on the man who worked hard to make Garstang, in Lancashire, Britain’s first “fairtrade” town.

There is also an introduction, together with some linking pieces, in which Gordon Brown outlines his own “vision” – and how these “everyday heroes” fit in with it.

And it’s here that I begin to feel distinctly uncomfortable. “The values that matter for a good society – individuals doing their duty, communities coming together and a supportive government playing its part – are familiar to me,” he writes. I may be accused of quoting out of context here, but it does seem to me to beg a number of questions. First, what does he mean by “individuals doing their duty”? Duty to whom or what? And doesn’t his vision of society have any place for the rebel with a cause? And what’s this about a “supportive” government? Is it the role of government merely to be supportive? Who, after all, supplies the fabric that holds our society together?

It has been suggested that this book may well be an indication of how Brown will be approaching the social agenda. It’s a view of our society held together by a network of responsible citizens, all giving time and energy to the betterment of the less fortunate or the alienated in our midst.

To me it smacks of that Hollywood masterpiece, It’s a Wonderful Life, in which James Stewart, almost single handedly, makes his community a fit place to live in – despite the evil machinations of the local developer and entrepreneur, Mr Potter.

I always enjoy the film when it appears on our TV screen at Christmas time. It’s the classic US view of the “little man” winning the day. Sadly, though, there are no guardian angels, and in reality the Potters of this world would have won out – and indeed might well have been taken on board as advisors to Brown’s Cabinet, where they could lecture us all on “wealth creation”.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want to knock those whose life and work is described in this book. They are all dedicated, committed folk who give a lot. As things stand, we may well need them. But there’s no way that we should come to rely on them.

Indeed, wouldn’t it be preferable if we had the kind of society that didn’t need the kind of remedial work that they undertake? And in the meantime, isn’t there also a need for the rebels, the “awkward squad” who are prepared to campaign for the betterment of our society as a whole?

Price £10.99p, from Community Links. ISBN 97845963071.

Back to “old” Labour??

Like many disillusioned old fogeys, I had become hardened to the slick, superficial messages broadcast to us in those TV party political broadcasts. More often than not when they came on, I switched off.

But the other week my trembling finger paused before it could press the “off” button. The broadcast in question was for Labour – but instead of the glib inanities that we’ve come to expect from “New” Labour’s spin merchants, we were treated to a brief resume of Labour’s past campaigns and achievements. There were snatches of old films of trade union demonstrations, of suffragettes on the march, of Clem Attlee and Nye Bevan, for goodness sake. True, the broadcast did have some difficulty in marrying these images to present day policies – but the main point was that Labour’s past was no longer being air-brushed out of the party’s history.

In 1997, the decision was made quite deliberately to turn the party’s back on its past. New Labour was to have new slogans, for new times. To refer to the good old days was considered tantamount to heresy. “Middle England” (whatever that may be) was the party’s target. But now, it seems, the party’s past, and its record, has been resurrected.

It might have been for one night only. It might have been a desperate attempt to bring traditional Labour voters back to the fold. But I found it quite significant – and, hopefully, just a wee bit encouraging.

… and back to council housing?

Another straw in the wind – it seems that suddenly local authorities are clamouring to build council houses again. After some twenty years, during which the supply of council homes just about dried up, they’re now back on the agenda.

It was Thatcher, in her relentless drive towards “home ownership”, who attempted to kill off council housing in Britain. First, she introduced her “right to buy” (at knockdown prices) for council tenants. And then she made it virtually impossible for local authorities to build new homes to replace dwindling stocks. The Tories also encouraged tenants to vote, to opt out of local authority control in favour of housing associations – some of them distinctly dubious.

All this, of course, led to a sharp rise in homelessness, and the deterioration of remaining council-owned stock into “sink estates”. Not that Thatcher was too bothered – she believed that those who couldn’t afford to buy at least one house were “losers” anyway – just like those who travelled by bus.

But the present Government has belatedly recognised that we need more social housing – affordable rented accommodation for those families in desperate need of somewhere to live. The Treasury was authorised to release extra cash to build 1,200 new council homes.

But local authorities have put in bids to build nearly three times that number. Interestingly, a number of those wanting to build new council houses are Tory controlled. Whatever next, I hear you ask?!

Ofsted gets a pasting

Anyone who is, or has been, a teacher will know all about Ofsted. For many of them, the very mention of the word sends a chill down the spine.

Ofsted was introduced by the Tories, to send in teams of inspectors to schools in order to see how they were maintaining standards and meeting “targets”. On the basis of an Ofsted report, a school could be condemned as “failing”. No help was given in trying to sort out problems or give friendly advice. Reports were largely based on exam results, and an Ofsted team would descend rather like a hostile army. Later their clutch was extended to include social workers.

Now Ofsted has been condemned for being too bureaucratic, of simply being concerned in ticking the right boxes – and of attempting to catch school staff and social workers out.

Many of those who are really concerned about the education of our children  must wish we could return to the days of Her Majesty’s School Inspectors. HMIs were there to assess – and to advise schools and teachers. It had a supportive role. Now, we have Ofsted, which it seems is merely there to condemn.

Dinosaur