Rome's burning
Asset crises, allowances and fiddles while Rome’s burning.
Think; has the main opposition party’s in the UK lost the plot. Given the turmoil of the past year in the financial and credit market with the threat of destabilising deflationary pressure and the fragility of all consumer markets, only just being propped up by massive “quantitive easing”; what on earth are they thinking about? The last thing the country needs is a general election at this time. Just consider the moratorium that would be caused for months while the media and politicians fight it out for supremacy. The country and economy cannot afford such a hiatus in leadership direction, even though it is argued as a precious point of contention that there is no current leadership being displayed by the present government led by G. Brown.
The main energy of these contenting party’s should be to help sort this corrupt all party mess out and get the economy back to a productive state. These two opposition party’s have no sense of what a disaster awaits them should either the conservative or liberal gain the advantage to force an election which they currently hope they could win or gain much greater support and control of the commons, They will have to condone bringing in such draconian austerity plans that they would be unlikely to survive a full term and it is by no means certain that fringe party’s will not become more powerful at their expense. It seems that they want power for its own sake rather than offer any proactive support or cogent policies to address the dire straights of the present that have taken 25 years to build up. Any logical view and consideration of the economic and political trustworthy crises that the UK is in, is clearly not the fault of one man (GB) but how much better to have him sort it out, at least stabilise it and then call for a general election in a years time.
The race for the win at the European election which today shows that the labour party has been pushed into 3rd position and the BNP has gained its first two European members of parliament is interesting but it is not a disaster. It may be that the switch of vote to other parties and the fall off of a labour turnout to vote is little more than a “free Kick”. It has little impact on the immediate UK policies and it is just aimed at the labour party being unjustly wholly blamed for the allowances fiddle and the state of the economy. It is an impotent kick that should have no real impact on the possibility of whether an UK election should be called or not. The result is more likely to reinforce that view that to have an election now would be a political opportunistic mistake by dissidents.
If anything the most important aspect of the EU election is the move and alignment of public opinion to the far right and the win by the BNP. Although the win is derided by the main stream UK political parties bent on putting on a purging spin to the EU election at the labour party’s expense. They all play down the impact of the win by the BNP, vilifying it to not legitimise or give any sense of support in any structures of administration and detracting from the concern of why more people are leaning towards the issues that encourage people to vote for militant trends. In this growing trend with the BNP and UKIP, immigration may be the ultimate common driver. It is this (immigration) that is the most dangerous worry yet having said that, it is one factor that is still simply being ignored by politicians in the UK for reasons that are opaque but promoted with reference to the disputed benefits of it.
The argument for it is rationised as:-
a) They (immigrants) did the jobs that elements of the indigenous population do not want to do.
b) They provide the skills that element of the indigenous population do not have.
c) There is a shortage of labour in the labour market due to UK demographics and birth rate.
d) They add value to the economy of the UK by fulfilling necessary roles in health, farming and services.
e) The UK needs them to be the workers and economic contributors for a growing aged population i.e. tax payers and consumers.
Consider the flow of immigration: since 1997 some 2.3 million net immigrants have come to the UK with another potential 7m forecasted by 2013. Both these figures are likely to be considerably understated and has not allowed for an estimated 0.5m> /1m< illegal persons in place now. In 2008 24% of all births (total 708k) were from mothers not born in the UK, up from 13% in 1997; a trend expected to remain. Over the last 6 years the average number of immigration into the UK each year was 551K.Or 289K net, a lesser figure the government likes to offer as a softer figure to balance those that migrate, mostly of indigenous species. Source Office for National Statistics. Each year the EU deals with 1.3m immigrant / asylum seekers and has only latterly realised that it cannot offer a position to everyone in member state with the strain of numbers and absorption beginning to show in places like Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Netherlands and the UK.
It is easy to understand why immigrants want to relocate to more affluent and safer countries with any of the above providing the opportunity of a better life. In the UK’s case they do not come to the UK to help, they come to earn and be given an economy advantage that is not available in their own country. Even at a subsistence level of support or earning from the host country, it is preferable than destitution of native lands and the potential economic advantage of gaining the supply of easy plentiful labour by the host county, is difficult to resist.
However the economic benefits have been shown to be dubious and of little value when assessing all the associate costs attached to the imbedding of migrants. No question is asked of the long term affect on the indigenous population being displaced by the cheaper labour. Some would argue that it is are not cheaper for it has to be paid the ‘going rate’ (or minimum wage) yet if one looks at labour simply as a commodity under market conditions the fiend of supply and demand can dictate price. Why buy clothing made in the UK with all the associated cost it has to carry when it can be bought from India or China etc. at a third of the cost and no establishment or social outlay? The establishment cost of education, training, skill and social cost of the migrant is not provide for nor carried by the adopted state, the ‘skilled’ labour is bought in ready to go at the same time the displaced are not provided with the resources of training to fill the skilled jobs and is seen as being too expensive to employ for low skill or service sector jobs. For the indigenous unemployed there is no chance of pricing into a job, it is an inequitable imposition that conflicts with expectations and the practicalities of the location of employment opportunities.
With the low voting turn out across the EU, it is possible that with the administration of the EU being seen unrepresentative and apathy generating disenchantment in voting, allows the increase of extreme representations to move to the fore. It may be a perception of an illusory EU, unresponsive to the individual needs of countries at this time of economic challenge that is driving a shift to the right and not a problem with immigration, but can either context be safely mistreated?
So the ‘Asset Crises’ will take a while to resolve and the ‘allowances’ debacle will become less generous and transparent. The Rome’s burning lead is just for the moment a metaphor, there is no doubt that there has been some fiddling by a very few greedy self serving persons in Londinium so whilst not burning yet the longer that the political conversation on immigration is ignored the more it becomes a focal point for dissent that will encourage more democratic votes to demonstrate a “time for a change”, as the opposition parties are strident to call for but one that may be regretted at uncomfortable leisure.
© Renot 2009
906091335
Think; has the main opposition party’s in the UK lost the plot. Given the turmoil of the past year in the financial and credit market with the threat of destabilising deflationary pressure and the fragility of all consumer markets, only just being propped up by massive “quantitive easing”; what on earth are they thinking about? The last thing the country needs is a general election at this time. Just consider the moratorium that would be caused for months while the media and politicians fight it out for supremacy. The country and economy cannot afford such a hiatus in leadership direction, even though it is argued as a precious point of contention that there is no current leadership being displayed by the present government led by G. Brown.
The main energy of these contenting party’s should be to help sort this corrupt all party mess out and get the economy back to a productive state. These two opposition party’s have no sense of what a disaster awaits them should either the conservative or liberal gain the advantage to force an election which they currently hope they could win or gain much greater support and control of the commons, They will have to condone bringing in such draconian austerity plans that they would be unlikely to survive a full term and it is by no means certain that fringe party’s will not become more powerful at their expense. It seems that they want power for its own sake rather than offer any proactive support or cogent policies to address the dire straights of the present that have taken 25 years to build up. Any logical view and consideration of the economic and political trustworthy crises that the UK is in, is clearly not the fault of one man (GB) but how much better to have him sort it out, at least stabilise it and then call for a general election in a years time.
The race for the win at the European election which today shows that the labour party has been pushed into 3rd position and the BNP has gained its first two European members of parliament is interesting but it is not a disaster. It may be that the switch of vote to other parties and the fall off of a labour turnout to vote is little more than a “free Kick”. It has little impact on the immediate UK policies and it is just aimed at the labour party being unjustly wholly blamed for the allowances fiddle and the state of the economy. It is an impotent kick that should have no real impact on the possibility of whether an UK election should be called or not. The result is more likely to reinforce that view that to have an election now would be a political opportunistic mistake by dissidents.
If anything the most important aspect of the EU election is the move and alignment of public opinion to the far right and the win by the BNP. Although the win is derided by the main stream UK political parties bent on putting on a purging spin to the EU election at the labour party’s expense. They all play down the impact of the win by the BNP, vilifying it to not legitimise or give any sense of support in any structures of administration and detracting from the concern of why more people are leaning towards the issues that encourage people to vote for militant trends. In this growing trend with the BNP and UKIP, immigration may be the ultimate common driver. It is this (immigration) that is the most dangerous worry yet having said that, it is one factor that is still simply being ignored by politicians in the UK for reasons that are opaque but promoted with reference to the disputed benefits of it.
The argument for it is rationised as:-
a) They (immigrants) did the jobs that elements of the indigenous population do not want to do.
b) They provide the skills that element of the indigenous population do not have.
c) There is a shortage of labour in the labour market due to UK demographics and birth rate.
d) They add value to the economy of the UK by fulfilling necessary roles in health, farming and services.
e) The UK needs them to be the workers and economic contributors for a growing aged population i.e. tax payers and consumers.
Consider the flow of immigration: since 1997 some 2.3 million net immigrants have come to the UK with another potential 7m forecasted by 2013. Both these figures are likely to be considerably understated and has not allowed for an estimated 0.5m> /1m< illegal persons in place now. In 2008 24% of all births (total 708k) were from mothers not born in the UK, up from 13% in 1997; a trend expected to remain. Over the last 6 years the average number of immigration into the UK each year was 551K.Or 289K net, a lesser figure the government likes to offer as a softer figure to balance those that migrate, mostly of indigenous species. Source Office for National Statistics. Each year the EU deals with 1.3m immigrant / asylum seekers and has only latterly realised that it cannot offer a position to everyone in member state with the strain of numbers and absorption beginning to show in places like Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Netherlands and the UK.
It is easy to understand why immigrants want to relocate to more affluent and safer countries with any of the above providing the opportunity of a better life. In the UK’s case they do not come to the UK to help, they come to earn and be given an economy advantage that is not available in their own country. Even at a subsistence level of support or earning from the host country, it is preferable than destitution of native lands and the potential economic advantage of gaining the supply of easy plentiful labour by the host county, is difficult to resist.
However the economic benefits have been shown to be dubious and of little value when assessing all the associate costs attached to the imbedding of migrants. No question is asked of the long term affect on the indigenous population being displaced by the cheaper labour. Some would argue that it is are not cheaper for it has to be paid the ‘going rate’ (or minimum wage) yet if one looks at labour simply as a commodity under market conditions the fiend of supply and demand can dictate price. Why buy clothing made in the UK with all the associated cost it has to carry when it can be bought from India or China etc. at a third of the cost and no establishment or social outlay? The establishment cost of education, training, skill and social cost of the migrant is not provide for nor carried by the adopted state, the ‘skilled’ labour is bought in ready to go at the same time the displaced are not provided with the resources of training to fill the skilled jobs and is seen as being too expensive to employ for low skill or service sector jobs. For the indigenous unemployed there is no chance of pricing into a job, it is an inequitable imposition that conflicts with expectations and the practicalities of the location of employment opportunities.
With the low voting turn out across the EU, it is possible that with the administration of the EU being seen unrepresentative and apathy generating disenchantment in voting, allows the increase of extreme representations to move to the fore. It may be a perception of an illusory EU, unresponsive to the individual needs of countries at this time of economic challenge that is driving a shift to the right and not a problem with immigration, but can either context be safely mistreated?
So the ‘Asset Crises’ will take a while to resolve and the ‘allowances’ debacle will become less generous and transparent. The Rome’s burning lead is just for the moment a metaphor, there is no doubt that there has been some fiddling by a very few greedy self serving persons in Londinium so whilst not burning yet the longer that the political conversation on immigration is ignored the more it becomes a focal point for dissent that will encourage more democratic votes to demonstrate a “time for a change”, as the opposition parties are strident to call for but one that may be regretted at uncomfortable leisure.
© Renot 2009
906091335
posted by Renot at 5:38 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home