Meanwhile public opinion remains firmly in favour of immigration restrictions. What is the Left’s solution to this?

Griffin’s style of neoliberal bullshit is hardly left wing: it’s pure free-market puffery, complete with all the classic trappings of collective decisions through the mechanisms of the democratic state being, in principle, powerless to make any decision that would affect anyone’s life.

Immigration, like everything else, must be left to the ‘self-regulating market’. Don’t worry about population density, infrastructure spending or capital ratios – it will all work itself out, in a provably optimal fashion. Potential immigrants, like bankers, can be trusted to make perfectly rational decisions taking all those factors into account, so there is no role for regulation or intervention.

Idealisation of Hong Kong as the ideal society is kind of the give-away here…

Meanwhile public opinion remains firmly in favour of immigration restrictions. What is the Left’s solution to this?

Hang the public.

Or – change the system so that the clear and undeniable benefits of immigration to the economy at large (as accepted even by clowns like MigrationWatch) are spread more evenly through the population, by increasing tax on profits and high earners (since employers and rich individuals capture the most benefits from immigration) and cutting tax rates on the working poor (who’re the most worried about losing their jobs to immigrants and who lose out most from the wage-depressing impact of immigration).

Soru, can you justify from a left-wing perspective why we, as a nation where *everyone* is wealthy by global standards, should not be obliged to share that wealth with people from the rest of the work?

Hmm, I think it is unfair to criticise Lee too harshly, after all he admits he is confused by Woolas’ statement, as it is easy to be if you try to fit it into any partisan narrative and try to uncover any underlying attitudes. But I think Lee is only confused because he is giving Woolas too much credit.

Woolas may as well be a civil servant for all its’ technical correctness in this statement count immigrants in and count emigrants out, because well, yes, you do need to measure the level of the migrations flows in order to manage the civil response to them. A certain level of incoming children who have limited english-language capabilities will need an appropriate level of extra communicative support to function without problem etc. But is it right that the technological application of Woolas’ political correctness should lead to X-ray machines at airports breaching personal dignity by scanning beneath our clothes?

Lee is however correct to worry about the additional risk of new power that can be acquired in any concentrated databank. It is right to ask to what purposes this will be used. Will this power extend to tracing people’s movement within the country? What purposes might that power be used for?

So how can we place an adequate check on the growth of state power over our individual lives, how can we counterbalance the ability of MI6 to register my presence on this website and build pattern recognitions systems which can be used indescriminately to adjudge whether any dissent I raise with the policies of their masters doesn’t lead to my front door being broken down at 4am and 120 swat officers rushing in to disturb my innocent sleep?

It seems the police will come round to mine at 4am, before going round to Laurie’s at 5am!

Soru, can you justify from a left-wing perspective why we, as a nation where *everyone* is wealthy by global standards, should not be obliged to share that wealth with people from the rest of the work?

The left-wing response to the skewed wealth distribution inherent in capitalism is not supposed to be to propose creating a token amount of extra rich people, say by funding a handful of scholarships to Eton.

Even as weak a measure as the proposed 0.7% of GDP spent on aid is vastly preferable, from the point of view of global justice, to any remotely plausible immigration level.

If British citizens are unfairly advantaged compared to the rest of the world (and while that’s sometimes overstated, it would be very hard to argue that is not even slightly true), then making say, 1% of the world’s population British citizens would:

1 do less than the most token charity effort to address the unfairness
2. double the population of the UK.

That straw man doesn’t mean immigration is bad: it just mean neoliberal arguments remain neoliberal arguments even when they are repeated by people who don’t understand what they are saying.

Free, market-based trade has it’s place, but it is very rarely a solution to a social injustice.

Talk about letting selecting your stats to fit your argument.

Monaco,Hong Kong (China),Singapore,Holy See,Malta,Bangladesh,Maldives,Bahrain. Barbados FFS you are not comparing like with like.

Comparable nations would be Germany, Netherlands, France, not city states and islands.

Um, passer by,

Britain’s development has been determined by our geographic status and position as an island group. If we weren’t mostly on one island the concentration of development around London simply would not have happened and our indigenous politics would have taken on another identity.

On any area of humanitarian concern Britain is therefore simply unique and all comparisons are equally irrelevant.But we’re not so special that we can’t understand more by looking at all other places in their own context.

I do however think looking at the mean average in this instance is less relevant than the median average.

Point 1, geographic status Agreed

Point 2, London development. The Netherlands has had a very similar development and history and is not an island. but I will accept that living below sea level imposes a outward looking mindset like out own., so I cannot accept Point 3, that we are unique. By your standards every nation would be classed as unique and therefore incomparable.

I am not advocating our stupid governments position, but I do believe we are at a demographic crossroads. There are a lot of positives things about living in cities and highly populated areas that people are naturally drawn too (a drive through Cairo seems to confirm that) but its foolish to think there is no downsides, both in social and economic spheres.

Just want to say, it’s nice to see some different people commenting

Passer By:

“Talk about letting selecting your stats to fit your argument.”

Why is it that Germany is more comparable than Singapore? If Singapore can grow to be one of the richest nations in the world, succesful in at least one sense, with a severe “over-population” as we would describe it…then how can we at all be at a crisis unless it is through self imposed limitations?

Richard:

“Meanwhile public opinion remains firmly in favour of immigration restrictions. What is the Left’s solution to this?”

I wouldn’t call what I’m arguing a “left” argument. I’m arguing from a liberal perspective where it is impractical and unrealistic to believe that stemming the flow of only non-EU nationals can be a solution. The fact is that we cannot, due to EU rulings, control immigration…we have to accept that and work with it. The only way we can work with it is to ensure that equality is maintained (something I’m also not convinced this governnment has a clue about when it comes to different cultures immigrating to this country) and to solve the problems of increased population…whatever that population rise is caused by.

I’ve said before, it’s easy to blame immigration because we see our borders clearly. But if we all suddenly started having more babies we’d still suffer the same problems, the issues caused by “over-crowding” and by infrastructure strain. Arguably we’d be worse off than through immigration in one respect with people clinging on to areas they were born in rather than moving to areas that need the population more (like many immigrants are currently doing).

The solution is complex and requires deep and long service, infrastructure and cultural reform. Not just throwing money at things, not just increasing numbers, and not just being politically correct. Sitting down and having a severe rethink of the strategy to deal with population increase in this country and to reform the way our country operates.

Soru:

“Idealisation of Hong Kong as the ideal society is kind of the give-away here…”

I don’t idealise Hong Kong at all, and never suggested as such. I just stated that the idea that Britain is on the brink of meltdown just because of the amount of people in our land is utter nonsense, as shown by the countries that manage to not fall in to utter social collapse above us in the population density markers.

“Free, market-based trade has it’s place, but it is very rarely a solution to a social injustice.”

Who suggested it was? The social injustice in this country will continue regardless of if another 10 million join this country, or another 10 million leave. We have a problem at the heart of this country and imposing limits on just non-EU nationals won’t solve that. In face imposing limits on anyone willing to come to this country and do work, earn us taxes and spend money in our shops seems bizarre to me.

People can quote the limited examples of where cultures have clashed to me all they like, they are ultimately a minority situation blown out of proportion by those with the political will to do so. Where cultures do clash I absolutely refuse to believe that a liberal society couldn’t find a solution. The problem with clashes is not that cultures are put together, but that they are not managed. Throwing a lot of people from Asia in to an area, and then dictating to the white population what they can and cannot say, for example, is never going to work. Expectations and realities have failed to be managed by this government.

What do they do now? They impose more limits, but not on the people that you, Soru, seem to have the most problem with. The bankers, the wealthy, the privileged. They will not find a problem getting in to our country, limiting the free market aspect of immigration won’t stop the negative elements still pervading. No, instead only those that actually need the break will be forced to stay in poverty in the world…but ONLY if they’re not from the EU, otherwise they’re more than welcome.

Where is the equality? Where is the social justice? Limits do nothing to help the Left’s cause.

I can’t help but feel that the “blame the immigrants” policy is a distraction from the real causes of economic problems.

Lee,

Time out.

I’d have thought that the idea of emigration / immigration ought to be based on reciprocity. Which it largely is in the EU. If Paraguay, for instance, agrees that we can all move there, and they can all move here, then that is an agreement. It is simply an extension of a free labour market. Which, I’d have thought, most folk on the left of this debate would agree to. It is frankly ridiculous to agree to a freedom of money without borders, and not a corresponding freedom of people. They should be tied together, for they are tied together.

As usual, I cannot quite see where Soru is coming from. Membership of the EU, and it’s expansion into Eastern Europe, has inevitably led to labour movement. What, in the EU context, is wrong with that? It is no different from the internal UK movement by Scots, Irish, Welsh, Cornish and Northern English into the crowded, and frankly full of itself, South East. Labour movement is nothing new, and is always socially frictional and has always been about economic advantage.

Londoners catching trains to Kent to ‘get the hops in’ were economic migrants in their own small way.

I do think that mutually negotiated porous borders for people should have preceeded the freeing up of capital markets. But there you go.

As James D nearly says, it is not the immigrants that are to blame for the economic crisis, however our politicians are bereft of any other idea, other than to blame themselves, which is obviously, anathema.

My point in raising the qn with Soru is that I don’t see any left-wing (rather than nationalist) reason not to support a free confederation of everywhere, with free movement of labour and capital. Accepted, half-arsed steps towards that are, erm, half-arsed – but I support civil partnerships despite the fact that religious dickheads stopped the governments calling them marriages, and that’s certainly a half-arsed step worth supporting.

John Band,

I agree with your sentiments. It is how we get there, freeing up labour markets, or just people if you prefer, that ought to be the legitimate aim of people rather than governments. We have freedom of capital on a far broader scale than we have freedom of abode or employment. I am able, for instance, to stick about £50 a month into a couple of emerging market trusts. Which, so far, has been almost a matter of blind belief in equality, rather than a sensible investment. After the woo woo of financial intermediaries, the dosh is invested globally. Whether the regiemes that are happy to take my money would be happy to take me, is perhaps a bit more moot. I must check this out. Perhaps the Maldives or the Seychelles really needs old reprobates like me…..

passer by,
the comparison with the Netherlands is interesting because the most heavily built-up parts of the country (north and south Holland) were mostly islands where and when they were first settled, which is why the low-lying areas are more sparsely populated. Therefore Holland is technically comaprable with Britain even if the other parts (Gelderland, Noord Brabant, Limburg etc) take on a more continental complexion.

I stand by my assertion that every country is unique and therefore uniquely incomparable, but the point that this is so also makes every country equally incomparable with any other and we are thereby forced to abstract the lessons from each individual case in order to try to make any sense; every country has a slightly modified model of development and we must learn the lessons from all countries.

I see population density as a neutral measure of national success which can bring its’ own benefits and challenges. What we should understand instead is that the rate of population change must be measured in order that the actual demographic composition can be managed without it spilling over and causing social or structural problems.

Woolas’ comment on this is bad because it attempts to depoliticise the important question of whether the management of population flows can be controlled from the centre and whether the sort of implications this might have for the daily life of inhabitants under a this regime are desirable – the point about x-ray machines shows he is incapable of grappling with the task. He leaves open the possibility that he can be misinterpreted, which, from an administrative point of view, always leads to a loss of direction among practitioners in the field and inconsistent application of rules.

Leaving aside whether we agree with Woolas’ intent (because it is impossible to know exactly what we might be agreeing or disagreeing with), the potential for inconsistency means that there is no clear policy and this policy area will remain a bone of contention since there is no commonly recognised sense of justice and consequently no means of addressing the real needs.

It may be true that many other countries have greater population densities, but what is the proportion of proletarians in the population and I don’t believe Singapore, Macau or Monaco are noted for their socialized health care. Education and housing are also areas that suffer in densely populated countries. But, if it’s just about investing your money where it can make most return or employed labour at cheaper rates, then there’s no need to consider social policy.

Woolas does seem right wing, rather than left wing. :

“It may be true that many other countries have greater population densities, but what is the proportion of proletarians in the population and I don’t believe Singapore, Macau or Monaco are noted for their socialized health care.”

The point is that we don’t see them on the news suffering from social meltdown do we? Each country has to define it’s own success and it’s ignorant and arrogant of us to claim because socialised healthcare doesn’t exist/doesn’t work in any of the countries in the list above us, or indeed that anything we deem as a marker of success in the UK isn’t attained, that they are not functioning as a country. I will happily admit that some on the list are countries I wouldn’t consider to be in good shape, but this is largely through a lack of investment in infrastructure and an institutional poverty.

It is this last point that I will keep making, you can live in a country vastly overpopulated compared to the UK, or with many less people…if your infrastructure isn’t funded and built t deal with the numbers that are present and could be present, if your services aren’t resourced appropriately, that’s why society will fail. To blame populations is to blame the wind for blowing your straw house down, or perhaps more aptly to blame God and the weather for levies being breached.

We signed up to this EU free movement thing, and I totally support it…but if we support it then there is little argument to be had for not being much more liberal about how many non-EU immigrants we let in either. And ultimately while this sort of movement can happen we can no longer simply try and control population as an answer to our infrastructure problems…we actually have to address the real issues that are present rather than wallpapering over them as we have been able to in the past.

It seems to me that the Government is keen to introduce private insurance schemes into the provision of social services, because it gets round the problem of adequately funded public services. Those countries you mentioned all have insurance-provided public services. The other point about immigration is that it allows ‘undeveloped’ countries to remain undeveloped. It acts as a safety valve, enabling the strong, healthy and (maybe)skilled labour to go and seek work elsewhere and remit their money. The local government does not need to do anything horrid like challenging landowners or introducing labour laws or anything nasty like that.

“The other point about immigration is that it allows ‘undeveloped’ countries to remain undeveloped. It acts as a safety valve, enabling the strong, healthy and (maybe)skilled labour to go and seek work elsewhere and remit their money.”

Well, it certainly does while countries like the UK say that if you’re not strong, healthy or skilled that there is zero chance of you getting in to the country legally.

To be honest, it’s just a global bandustan policy. What about the weak, uneducated, unskilled, unhealthy that are left behind in the country of origin? Don’t they count?

“We signed up to this EU free movement thing, and I totally support it…but if we support it then there is little argument to be had for not being much more liberal about how many non-EU immigrants we let in either.”

Do you speak for anyone but yourself Lee Griffin? Its supremely ironic that some left-wingers have adopted the Thatcherite belief in there being no society.

Every country needs immigration limits. It is abnormal for a country NOT to have them so that is why we need them. Of course big business supports unlimited immigration – because limits might mean the end of cheap labour; limits would also irritate governments whose economic policies need endless growth. It might not go down well with the rich who like the wider range of restaurants. But it would suit ordinary people and it would suit everyone with a real long-term concern for this country as a functioning, unselfish community. Everybody wants limits on immigration apart from you it seems. I don’t know why you bother, do you actually think that anybody is assured by your stupid population density stats? Stick them up your rectal passage.

Raymond,
“Every country needs immigration limits.”

I guess then we should also have a strict limit on fertility and the number of babies born every year… but as you’re advocating anal sex it seems you’ve already found an answer which works for you.

Raymond’s ancestors, 1750: “Every country needs slaves. It is abnormal for a country NOT to have them so that is why we need them…”

To my mind the biggest single barrier to intergration was illustrated by an episode at work on Monday. Knocking on doors in a not unknown Yorkshire city barely anybody spoke English. It tended to be children who did if anybody and that is a huge problem. Making resources avalible for immgrants to learn English and encouraging (though not actively coercing) them to do so would be a great step forward and rather than focusing on just those who are entering the country now also those who have been here for a substantial amount of time.

I don’t think there is anything xenophobic about encouraging people to learn a language that enables them to communicate with the people around them; nor should it be limited in that sense, immigrants should be encouraged to share their language with other people.

“Every country needs immigration limits. It is abnormal for a country NOT to have them so that is why we need them.”

I’ll avoid the other comments, made so well by others here, and simply ask.. why is it abnormal?

“This is a scandalous affront to the most fundamental entitlement of nationhood; that is the inalienable right of the indigenous population to decide who resides in their country.”

Same question as I asked to Raymond… why is it an inalienable right? Who defines indigenous? That comment itself sounds a lot like a BNP kind of statement where you have to start talking about the mathematics of generations and ancestry. Land is land, it belongs to no-one and to everyone, the only rights afforded should be to those that own the rights of the land to allow people to live on it or sell it to whomever they like. This notion that we are somehow more knowledgeable or correct about how we make decisions for this country simply because we were born here is, to me, ludicrous.

And I’ll remind, all reports in to immigration have shown there to be, at worse, no more negative effects of immigration than positive…and most of the time those negative effects are caused by poor governance or by poorly resourced services and inadequate infrastructure.

I feel unfortunate to have to follow Paul’s comments (I’m presuming that you are fairly intelligent and therefore realise the hurt you cause other people by writing those comments?).

I don’t always agree with Lee, but on this point I think he makes some really good points. Local governance does provide very little means for cohesion to be formed. Gviing the thumbs up based on how useful the immigrant is to UK plc and then expelling them when they’re no longer useful.

We need to make migration work for the people that live here and come to live here rather than “UK plc”.

Have a look at Ken Loach’s film “It’s a free world”, check out the Strangers for Citizens campaign, check out Peterboroughs New Links project
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/IMMIGRATION-Leonie39s-proud-to-help.1749772.jp

It can be done…

i would also recommend reading a friend’s article on this subject
http://www.compassonline.org.uk/article.asp?n=3237

That’s the unfortunate thing about being a rabid antisemitic bigot – unkind people will, for some bizarre reason, end up calling you a Nazi or whatever.

As of 2007 October the UK Population numbered 81 million, yes, 81 million, That = over crowding!
Or are you brainwashed too much, and expecting to be given anything close to the correct stats?
Civil servants are very aware but prefer to remain in employment.