‘Migration hardly gets a mention’ I wrote in a post two days ago. I was wrong.
The Home Secretary as I wrote was beginning a round of interviews explaining her new immigration proposals. A minimum salary limit of £26500 would be imposed for anyone taking a job in the U.K. Business groups, and the farming, hospitality and care sectors, have expressed their alarm. Patel insisted that it would be necessary for businesses to look more to potential British workers, helping them to ‘up their skills and makes their skills more relevant to the job market.’ (The Guardian.) There are eight million economically inactive people who businesses can draw in.
I’m not qualified to provide a full critique of her proposals. But I’m perplexed as to how the care sector can by the end of the year replace the low-paid overseas staff who are critical to its functioning, and how as a sector it can in short order redesign its business models so as to pay more and draw in some of the economically inactive, who aren’t in fact inactive, but are students and home carers, and the sick and elderly.
It will be goodbye to ‘cheap low-skilled labour from Europe’, as Patel describes it. If that does indeed happen I will miss them. They have contributed a lot, helped our world go round a bit better, and broadened our minds. The only plus is for countries like Poland who will get their ‘unskilled labour’ back, and they will benefit from the energies we will lose.
There is an arrogance and a crassness about the proposals which ought to embarrass but not in a government where attitudes if not all policy details are dictated by Cummings. Patel and Cummings it seems are of a piece. There’s a front-page article in Thursday’s Times about Patel’s arrogance. She’s at odds with her permanent secretary at the Home Office. We don’t know the details. But indications are there’s fall-out related to the immigration proposals, to the removal of the phrase ‘institutionally racist’ from the report into the Windrush scandal, and to attempts to reverse a High Court ruling barring the deportation of twenty-five ‘foreign’ criminals to Jamaica. (Foreign-born but brought up in the UK. If they are brought up here, they are surely our responsibility.) Theresa May practised a ‘hostile environment’ policy, Patel is taking it a step further.
I cannot be ‘philosophical’ (I did try!) about a government which shows itself more and more to be of the hard right. The agenda of Scruton and Starkey I mentioned in my last post is indeed this government’s agenda. Obedience we know is expected of Tory MPs, as the new MPs were reminded, but the nation too must fall into line. The old liberal nation with its broad sympathies and attempts at least at human understanding must be consigned to history.
Cummings has in the last few days been forced to sack a newly recruited adviser, Andrew Sabicky, who has espoused some highly unpalatable eugenicist views. His own comments on designer babies also cause concern. Would-be parents would inevitably select babies with ‘the highest potential for IQ’. ‘An NHS system should fund everybody to do this,’ thereby avoiding an unfair advantage to the better off.
After drafting this post I read an article in The Times by Rachel Sylvester. We are on the same page on this government. Cummings is indeed ‘not a Conservative’. He espouses creative destruction. Taking over the institutions. Re-framing the debate. They’re issues I’ve referred to before in this blog. Redefining what is considered to be ‘normal’. You could say that with Scruton and Starkey they were ‘academic’ arguments. But this isn’t academic. It’s for real.
In Sylvester’s words, Cummings ‘is convinced that the institutions he wants to overthrow are run by an unelected metropolitan liberal elite. There may be some truth in this, but, in the name of the people, he appears to want to replace the current equilibrium with something more dangerous – autocratic centralised power’.