Another post that ignores the elephant in the room............
Of all the policies that the Western political class has imposed on its electorates in defiance of the electorates’ clearly expressed preferences, the policy of mass immigration is the one that most plainly betrays the deeper logic.
No U.K. electorate, when asked the question in plain terms, has ever voted for the demographic transformation that has occurred. The polls have been consistent for forty years. The governments have proceeded regardless. When pressed, the governments have offered explanations that contradict each other from one decade to the next: the migrants are needed for the economy, the migrants are a humanitarian obligation, the migrants will pay our pensions, the migrants are a tiny minority, the migrants are a great many but they are integrating, the migrants are not integrating but to say so is racist, and so on through the cycle. The contradictions are themselves diagnostic. A policy that requires its proponents to change their reasoning every five years is a policy whose real reasons are not the stated ones.
The real reasons are several, and they reinforce each other in a way that ought to give pause to anyone who has spent their adult life being told that the policy was the unintended outcome of a series of well-meaning errors.
Mass immigration suppresses wages at the bottom of the labour market, which is useful to the corporate sector that hires at that level.
It inflates rental yields, which is useful to the institutional landlords who have spent the last fifteen years hoovering up the British housing stock.
It expands the welfare client base, which is useful to the political party that organises around welfare. It generates a permanent low-level civil tension that the security apparatus then requires expanded powers to manage, which is useful to the security apparatus.
It crushes the host society, which is useful to anyone who would prefer that the host society not be capable of organised political resistance.
It pleases the international institutions that grade Western governments on their commitment to liberal universalism, which is useful to the political class that lives in the milieu of those institutions.
And it provides, on the margin, a reservoir of imported tension that can be activated, through the right news cycle and the right viral provocation, into the kind of disorder that justifies whatever digital identity scheme, biometric border, or social credit pilot was already on the drawing board.............
You make excellent points. In fact, you sound like you know all about it - as though you've been involved at quite a high level in some of the processes. I wouldn't dare to ask, though. And I don't mean that you're guilty - just maybe you saw what went on internally politically?
Good post. I agree. Any analysis of what is wrong with Britain has to start with why living standards have stagnated for many and deteriorated for some.
Any party needs a political framework to tackle this.
Immigration is part of this. Both labour and the tories have relied on mass immigration from uneducated 3rd worlders to generate growth (more people means more economic activity) as their only active economic policy.
But immigration isn't the only issue, planning, investment, infrastructure, energy are all oart of the mix as well.
I agree while immigration is a very serious problem, that must be tackled head on, people's living standards are also of major concern.
A lot of people don't vote because they have given up on our politicians ever actually addressing their real concerns with anything other than warm words and a sticking plaster.
If the people don't DEMAND change nothing ever will. I believe they will react but sadly they need to suffer more, as they will, as things get worse.
These are the reforms the people need to focus on that turn our politicians into our servants instead of being our masters.
Too true but people are still just about managing. As I keep writing, when the massive debt bubble bursts, as it must, then things will change very very rapidly.
Very well said, indeed, Pete. I was talking to the manageress of a shoe shop in the town centre today: she's 67 (& looks it), has a husband, who's older, still working and she wants to retire fully next year but needs to pay £3K (the final balance) off her mortgage. We talked and she acknowledged with me, the fact that neither of us has ever been unemployed (I've worked since I was 17). The fact that she is considering retirement with all her debts paid is a miracle to her but she is particularly thankful she wasn't born two generations later. We are the lucky ones - and it is nothing to do with university and house prices. I didn't get the former, and the latter only came to me much later in life by my own efforts. Younger generations stand so little chance. But immigration also does play a part in taking entry level jobs and suppressing wages in the low-skilled jobs. We can solve both problems but it will take a concerted effort to ensure young British people are encouraged into work. If immigrants are still taking the jobs, there will be trouble.
If people are still expecting to be paying their mortgages into their 70s, then the banks wont be getting paid because people wont be working in their 70s. This is a system problem.
Well written post Even those of us with savings are feeling the pinch because they just dwindle Its impossible Inflationary theft now is at an all time high two bags of shopping is £50 Easily More if you eat real meat. Then its just one bag, As the previous poster says why have living standards stagnated and deteriorated. The answer is inflation In 2012 the highway code would cost you £1.50 Now it costs £5 Therein lies your answer Things are by all accounts double what they used to cost Has income doubled? No it hasnt and therein lies the problem Those people who saved regularly are now dipping into their savings to make up the shortfall , the rest of us are deteriorating and wondering why the ten pounds in our pocket is only really worth £5 worth of goods ( at 2012 prices ) to put it simply, To achieve the same level of living standards as you did in 2000 you would now need at least double that tax free income. Most people have no way of achieving that unless its by theft or illegal means. This is what several years of Quantitative Easing or as we like to simply call it ( Money Printing) has done for this country Fix the money fix the problems No other way about it.
Immigration may be in the spotlight now, but historically the main electoral concern has always been the economy.
For the right to clearly differentiate themselves from the rest, I believe they should set a specific economic target, focused on output, ie what is actually to be achieved, rather than input, eg cutting taxes.
I therefore propose the following economic target and policy.......
The Primary Target: to achieve 2% annual real GDP per capita growth, measured on a rolling 12-month basis using chained volume measures adjusted for inflation, as defined and tracked by the independent Office for National Statistics (ONS). This would mirror the Bank of England's (generally successful) 2% inflation target framework set under the Bank of England Act 1998.
An Accountability Mechanism: If targets are missed, the Chancellor would present a report to Parliament explaining (a) the reasons for the deviation; (b) the economic and policy factors contributing thereto; and (c) the corrective actions proposed to return to target. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) could provide independent analysis and forecast compliance, including modeling how proposed policies (e.g., tax cuts, deregulation, immigration reforms) impact the target.
For the purposes of accountability over an electoral cycle, the target should be to deliver cumulative real GDP per capita growth of at least 10% over any full five-year period commencing from the date of the previous general election.
This shifts focus from "input" policies (e.g., deficit controls, leaving the ECHR, disbanding quangos etc) to verifiable "output" outcomes— measuring actual improvements in living standards per person, which is hard to manipulate and directly reflects policy success.
This would introduce business-like discipline to government, where failure to deliver growth (akin to a company failing to profit) has consequences, preventing stagnation and rewarding evidence-based policies. It would refocus economists, academics, OBR, and commentators on which inputs actually boost prosperity, fostering a more results-oriented national debate.
The benefits.....
The policy targets genuine economic prosperity and wealth creation (real per capita gains account for inflation and population changes), addressing post-Brexit/COVID stagnation where real GDP per head has flatlined. Steady 2% growth could strengthen the pound, reduce debt reliance, and fund public services sustainably without endless tax hikes.
Policy Flexibility with Discipline: Encourages adaptive reforms (e.g., curbing low-skill immigration to avoid diluting per capita metrics, lowering taxes/regulation to spur productivity) while allowing deviations for shocks via "explain" clauses, ensuring long-term focus over short-term gimmicks.
As a bold, measurable pledge, it would set the right apart from Labour or the Greens, including a "stick" to beat them with e.g., "Under Labour/Greens, ONS shows only 0.5% real per capita growth — why trust their inputs?".
Strategic Appeal: This would appeal to voters frustrated with declining living standards, a potential huge increase in voter numbers beyond just those frustrated with immigration.
Immigration may be in the spotlight now, but historically the main electoral concern has always been the economy.
For the right to clearly differentiate themselves from the rest, I believe they should set a specific economic target, focused on output, ie what is actually to be achieved, rather than input, eg cutting taxes.
I therefore propose the following economic target and policy.......
The Primary Target: to achieve 2% annual real GDP per capita growth, measured on a rolling 12-month basis using chained volume measures adjusted for inflation, as defined and tracked by the independent Office for National Statistics (ONS). This would mirror the Bank of England's (generally successful) 2% inflation target framework set under the Bank of England Act 1998.
An Accountability Mechanism: If targets are missed, the Chancellor would present a report to Parliament explaining (a) the reasons for the deviation; (b) the economic and policy factors contributing thereto; and (c) the corrective actions proposed to return to target. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) could provide independent analysis and forecast compliance, including modeling how proposed policies (e.g., tax cuts, deregulation, immigration reforms) impact the target.
For the purposes of accountability over an electoral cycle, the target should be to deliver cumulative real GDP per capita growth of at least 10% over any full five-year period commencing from the date of the previous general election.
This shifts focus from "input" policies (e.g., deficit controls, leaving the ECHR, disbanding quangos etc) to verifiable "output" outcomes— measuring actual improvements in living standards per person, which is hard to manipulate and directly reflects policy success.
This would introduce business-like discipline to government, where failure to deliver growth (akin to a company failing to profit) has consequences, preventing stagnation and rewarding evidence-based policies. It would refocus economists, academics, OBR, and commentators on which inputs actually boost prosperity, fostering a more results-oriented national debate.
The benefits.....
The policy targets genuine economic prosperity and wealth creation (real per capita gains account for inflation and population changes), addressing post-Brexit/COVID stagnation where real GDP per head has flatlined. Steady 2% growth could strengthen the pound, reduce debt reliance, and fund public services sustainably without endless tax hikes.
Policy Flexibility with Discipline: Encourages adaptive reforms (e.g., curbing low-skill immigration to avoid diluting per capita metrics, lowering taxes/regulation to spur productivity) while allowing deviations for shocks via "explain" clauses, ensuring long-term focus over short-term gimmicks.
As a bold, measurable pledge, it would set the right apart from Labour or the Greens, including a "stick" to beat them with e.g., "Under Labour/Greens, ONS shows only 0.5% real per capita growth — why trust their inputs?".
Strategic Appeal: This would appeal to voters frustrated with declining living standards, a potential huge increase in voter numbers beyond just those frustrated with immigration.
I feel this! Tax system penalises stay home mums in two parent families and enforces an effective cap on salary take home. No money for small players in buy to let anymore, off payroll contracts pretty much gone through IR35 fears. The only people I know that are doing well are 1) people who made money abroad 2) people with rich families that helped them with mortgages etc 3) people who work in finance. For anyone else it’s just poverty and grind.
And this is a legacy of the Tories as much as anyone else.
Lots to think about here. For me it comes down to this. The problems we face in the UK of low or no economic growth, rising crime, housing shortages and moving rapidly from a high trust to a low trust society are common to most western countries. What societal change have the UK and other western democracies faced in common? Yep. Mass uncontrolled immigration in particular from Muslim countries with incompatible cultures. Even with mass deportations which I doubt will happen on sufficient scale this problem is going nowhere for generations.
In South Africa, where mass deportations of immigrants from other African countries are happening right now, it is the dirt poor in the townships who are leading the charge, not the rich mostly whites in Joberg. I haven’t heard this being called “racist” anywhere, it is black on black “hate”, but the excuse is that the Ghanaians etc are taking jobs, using healthcare, taking housing from poor Sowetan blacks. Thus, “living standards”. What is your view on this?
Another post that ignores the elephant in the room............
Of all the policies that the Western political class has imposed on its electorates in defiance of the electorates’ clearly expressed preferences, the policy of mass immigration is the one that most plainly betrays the deeper logic.
No U.K. electorate, when asked the question in plain terms, has ever voted for the demographic transformation that has occurred. The polls have been consistent for forty years. The governments have proceeded regardless. When pressed, the governments have offered explanations that contradict each other from one decade to the next: the migrants are needed for the economy, the migrants are a humanitarian obligation, the migrants will pay our pensions, the migrants are a tiny minority, the migrants are a great many but they are integrating, the migrants are not integrating but to say so is racist, and so on through the cycle. The contradictions are themselves diagnostic. A policy that requires its proponents to change their reasoning every five years is a policy whose real reasons are not the stated ones.
The real reasons are several, and they reinforce each other in a way that ought to give pause to anyone who has spent their adult life being told that the policy was the unintended outcome of a series of well-meaning errors.
Mass immigration suppresses wages at the bottom of the labour market, which is useful to the corporate sector that hires at that level.
It inflates rental yields, which is useful to the institutional landlords who have spent the last fifteen years hoovering up the British housing stock.
It expands the welfare client base, which is useful to the political party that organises around welfare. It generates a permanent low-level civil tension that the security apparatus then requires expanded powers to manage, which is useful to the security apparatus.
It crushes the host society, which is useful to anyone who would prefer that the host society not be capable of organised political resistance.
It pleases the international institutions that grade Western governments on their commitment to liberal universalism, which is useful to the political class that lives in the milieu of those institutions.
And it provides, on the margin, a reservoir of imported tension that can be activated, through the right news cycle and the right viral provocation, into the kind of disorder that justifies whatever digital identity scheme, biometric border, or social credit pilot was already on the drawing board.............
That might be all very true, but it *still* doesn't guarantee a majority for Reform.
Farage has never progressed beyond 4.5m votes, no sign he will next time either.
My money remains on a small Burnham majority, or minority govt with Polanski Davey forcing PR, and a second snap GE bringing that in.
You make excellent points. In fact, you sound like you know all about it - as though you've been involved at quite a high level in some of the processes. I wouldn't dare to ask, though. And I don't mean that you're guilty - just maybe you saw what went on internally politically?
Just a dispassionate & seriously disappointed viewer of the political process - specifically in the UK - but also the Western world in general ...
Good post. I agree. Any analysis of what is wrong with Britain has to start with why living standards have stagnated for many and deteriorated for some.
Any party needs a political framework to tackle this.
Immigration is part of this. Both labour and the tories have relied on mass immigration from uneducated 3rd worlders to generate growth (more people means more economic activity) as their only active economic policy.
But immigration isn't the only issue, planning, investment, infrastructure, energy are all oart of the mix as well.
To develop a full suite of detailed policies is a good idea, but making them public too soon is probably not a good idea.
I agree while immigration is a very serious problem, that must be tackled head on, people's living standards are also of major concern.
A lot of people don't vote because they have given up on our politicians ever actually addressing their real concerns with anything other than warm words and a sticking plaster.
If the people don't DEMAND change nothing ever will. I believe they will react but sadly they need to suffer more, as they will, as things get worse.
These are the reforms the people need to focus on that turn our politicians into our servants instead of being our masters.
https://harrogateagenda.org.uk/
Too true but people are still just about managing. As I keep writing, when the massive debt bubble bursts, as it must, then things will change very very rapidly.
Very well said, indeed, Pete. I was talking to the manageress of a shoe shop in the town centre today: she's 67 (& looks it), has a husband, who's older, still working and she wants to retire fully next year but needs to pay £3K (the final balance) off her mortgage. We talked and she acknowledged with me, the fact that neither of us has ever been unemployed (I've worked since I was 17). The fact that she is considering retirement with all her debts paid is a miracle to her but she is particularly thankful she wasn't born two generations later. We are the lucky ones - and it is nothing to do with university and house prices. I didn't get the former, and the latter only came to me much later in life by my own efforts. Younger generations stand so little chance. But immigration also does play a part in taking entry level jobs and suppressing wages in the low-skilled jobs. We can solve both problems but it will take a concerted effort to ensure young British people are encouraged into work. If immigrants are still taking the jobs, there will be trouble.
If people are still expecting to be paying their mortgages into their 70s, then the banks wont be getting paid because people wont be working in their 70s. This is a system problem.
Well written post Even those of us with savings are feeling the pinch because they just dwindle Its impossible Inflationary theft now is at an all time high two bags of shopping is £50 Easily More if you eat real meat. Then its just one bag, As the previous poster says why have living standards stagnated and deteriorated. The answer is inflation In 2012 the highway code would cost you £1.50 Now it costs £5 Therein lies your answer Things are by all accounts double what they used to cost Has income doubled? No it hasnt and therein lies the problem Those people who saved regularly are now dipping into their savings to make up the shortfall , the rest of us are deteriorating and wondering why the ten pounds in our pocket is only really worth £5 worth of goods ( at 2012 prices ) to put it simply, To achieve the same level of living standards as you did in 2000 you would now need at least double that tax free income. Most people have no way of achieving that unless its by theft or illegal means. This is what several years of Quantitative Easing or as we like to simply call it ( Money Printing) has done for this country Fix the money fix the problems No other way about it.
100% Agree.
Immigration may be in the spotlight now, but historically the main electoral concern has always been the economy.
For the right to clearly differentiate themselves from the rest, I believe they should set a specific economic target, focused on output, ie what is actually to be achieved, rather than input, eg cutting taxes.
I therefore propose the following economic target and policy.......
The Primary Target: to achieve 2% annual real GDP per capita growth, measured on a rolling 12-month basis using chained volume measures adjusted for inflation, as defined and tracked by the independent Office for National Statistics (ONS). This would mirror the Bank of England's (generally successful) 2% inflation target framework set under the Bank of England Act 1998.
An Accountability Mechanism: If targets are missed, the Chancellor would present a report to Parliament explaining (a) the reasons for the deviation; (b) the economic and policy factors contributing thereto; and (c) the corrective actions proposed to return to target. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) could provide independent analysis and forecast compliance, including modeling how proposed policies (e.g., tax cuts, deregulation, immigration reforms) impact the target.
For the purposes of accountability over an electoral cycle, the target should be to deliver cumulative real GDP per capita growth of at least 10% over any full five-year period commencing from the date of the previous general election.
This shifts focus from "input" policies (e.g., deficit controls, leaving the ECHR, disbanding quangos etc) to verifiable "output" outcomes— measuring actual improvements in living standards per person, which is hard to manipulate and directly reflects policy success.
This would introduce business-like discipline to government, where failure to deliver growth (akin to a company failing to profit) has consequences, preventing stagnation and rewarding evidence-based policies. It would refocus economists, academics, OBR, and commentators on which inputs actually boost prosperity, fostering a more results-oriented national debate.
The benefits.....
The policy targets genuine economic prosperity and wealth creation (real per capita gains account for inflation and population changes), addressing post-Brexit/COVID stagnation where real GDP per head has flatlined. Steady 2% growth could strengthen the pound, reduce debt reliance, and fund public services sustainably without endless tax hikes.
Policy Flexibility with Discipline: Encourages adaptive reforms (e.g., curbing low-skill immigration to avoid diluting per capita metrics, lowering taxes/regulation to spur productivity) while allowing deviations for shocks via "explain" clauses, ensuring long-term focus over short-term gimmicks.
As a bold, measurable pledge, it would set the right apart from Labour or the Greens, including a "stick" to beat them with e.g., "Under Labour/Greens, ONS shows only 0.5% real per capita growth — why trust their inputs?".
Strategic Appeal: This would appeal to voters frustrated with declining living standards, a potential huge increase in voter numbers beyond just those frustrated with immigration.
100% Agree.
Immigration may be in the spotlight now, but historically the main electoral concern has always been the economy.
For the right to clearly differentiate themselves from the rest, I believe they should set a specific economic target, focused on output, ie what is actually to be achieved, rather than input, eg cutting taxes.
I therefore propose the following economic target and policy.......
The Primary Target: to achieve 2% annual real GDP per capita growth, measured on a rolling 12-month basis using chained volume measures adjusted for inflation, as defined and tracked by the independent Office for National Statistics (ONS). This would mirror the Bank of England's (generally successful) 2% inflation target framework set under the Bank of England Act 1998.
An Accountability Mechanism: If targets are missed, the Chancellor would present a report to Parliament explaining (a) the reasons for the deviation; (b) the economic and policy factors contributing thereto; and (c) the corrective actions proposed to return to target. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) could provide independent analysis and forecast compliance, including modeling how proposed policies (e.g., tax cuts, deregulation, immigration reforms) impact the target.
For the purposes of accountability over an electoral cycle, the target should be to deliver cumulative real GDP per capita growth of at least 10% over any full five-year period commencing from the date of the previous general election.
This shifts focus from "input" policies (e.g., deficit controls, leaving the ECHR, disbanding quangos etc) to verifiable "output" outcomes— measuring actual improvements in living standards per person, which is hard to manipulate and directly reflects policy success.
This would introduce business-like discipline to government, where failure to deliver growth (akin to a company failing to profit) has consequences, preventing stagnation and rewarding evidence-based policies. It would refocus economists, academics, OBR, and commentators on which inputs actually boost prosperity, fostering a more results-oriented national debate.
The benefits.....
The policy targets genuine economic prosperity and wealth creation (real per capita gains account for inflation and population changes), addressing post-Brexit/COVID stagnation where real GDP per head has flatlined. Steady 2% growth could strengthen the pound, reduce debt reliance, and fund public services sustainably without endless tax hikes.
Policy Flexibility with Discipline: Encourages adaptive reforms (e.g., curbing low-skill immigration to avoid diluting per capita metrics, lowering taxes/regulation to spur productivity) while allowing deviations for shocks via "explain" clauses, ensuring long-term focus over short-term gimmicks.
As a bold, measurable pledge, it would set the right apart from Labour or the Greens, including a "stick" to beat them with e.g., "Under Labour/Greens, ONS shows only 0.5% real per capita growth — why trust their inputs?".
Strategic Appeal: This would appeal to voters frustrated with declining living standards, a potential huge increase in voter numbers beyond just those frustrated with immigration.
I feel this! Tax system penalises stay home mums in two parent families and enforces an effective cap on salary take home. No money for small players in buy to let anymore, off payroll contracts pretty much gone through IR35 fears. The only people I know that are doing well are 1) people who made money abroad 2) people with rich families that helped them with mortgages etc 3) people who work in finance. For anyone else it’s just poverty and grind.
And this is a legacy of the Tories as much as anyone else.
Lots to think about here. For me it comes down to this. The problems we face in the UK of low or no economic growth, rising crime, housing shortages and moving rapidly from a high trust to a low trust society are common to most western countries. What societal change have the UK and other western democracies faced in common? Yep. Mass uncontrolled immigration in particular from Muslim countries with incompatible cultures. Even with mass deportations which I doubt will happen on sufficient scale this problem is going nowhere for generations.
In South Africa, where mass deportations of immigrants from other African countries are happening right now, it is the dirt poor in the townships who are leading the charge, not the rich mostly whites in Joberg. I haven’t heard this being called “racist” anywhere, it is black on black “hate”, but the excuse is that the Ghanaians etc are taking jobs, using healthcare, taking housing from poor Sowetan blacks. Thus, “living standards”. What is your view on this?