You are in the company of 
Roger Warren Evans
    
  Part of   www.LivePolitics.net                                 < Back to Home Page  
 
New
Living Diary
Index

New  participatory democracy

Taming the Corporations

My Welsh socialism

My New Socialist Settlement

Globalise the left!

Bevan  re-visited

RWE Biography

 

   

item0063B  932, 933

932  26 February 2004   

EU "Immigration"
Can Blunkett be right?

Well, YES...  It was Lord (Chris) Haskins who said “You have to watch David Blunkett: he does awful things, then suddenly out of the blue, he gets something right!”

That has happened this time.   In January, the UK faced progressive betrayal on EU enlargement by thirteen other EU states, many of whom caved in to popular xenophobia over the year-end.  They left UK and Ireland with the only states with “open doors”, and that dramatically changed immigration forecasts for EU enlargement on 1 May. 

 

The Tories shamelessly exploited the real dilemma faced by the Government, in ways which confirmed my worst fears about Michael Howard.  And the Government, I accept, simply had to take action. 

Blunkett’s compromise is a good one - but it is undoubtedly weak in parts.  And those weaknesses will come back to haunt us.

Let's begin at the beginning.  Nobody could have predicted the lemming-like failure of nerve, on the part of other EU states, in the closing weeks of 2003.  True, the two “frontline states” of Germany and Austria had long signalled their determination to postpone immigration-for-work from the new member-states.  But apart from that, most states held open-door, principled, “liberal” positions.   Then, in the closing weeks of 2003, all the remainder - all with one accord - closed their doors, leaving UK and Ireland isolated.

This demonstrates the clash of reasoning between the Territorial State and the Membership State.  This is the greatest single issue of the modern world. Should a “State” merely be defined in terms of its territorial jurisdiction, accepting responsibility for everyone legitimately upon its territory, within its jurisdiction; or is the State to be defined in terms of its cultural content – a state for Jews, or Kurds, or Irish, or Scots, or Corsicans, or Chechens? 

The world order works best with territorial states, because lines can be clearly drawn and understood, and any conflicts addressed within the framework of a settled state.  But popular opinion persistently demands the state to be defined  in “membership” terms – partly as a matter of culture (“Wales for the Welsh”) and partly as a matter of welfare (benefits should be payable only to those who have paid-in, who are members of the same “national Friendly Society”…).  The complexities of interlocking membership states are proliferating, threatening to submerge the simplicity of the older concept, namely the territorial state. 

Blunkett has squared the circle cleverly.  For those seeking to come onto “UK territory” for work, open rights of access will be retained – the UK remains an open "territory".  But for twelve months, the newcomer will not be entitled to the benefits of membership – after that, all basic public benefits will be provided.  If the newcomer finds himself without work in the first 12 months, he must support himself – from savings, or by support from family, friends or community – no benefits will be claimable.  The full range of state benefits will not be claimable until after two years.

And Blunkett is right to seek regulation of this labour system by requiring the individual worker to “check in”, to register – he does not need an advance permit, and it will be sufficient to register after work has commenced.  These measures are sophisticated, and fair.

What is wrong is the adoption of a mere “collectivist rationale” for this system.  Blunkett argues that EU citizens and other economic migrants should be allowed into the UK “to overcome skill shortages within our own labour-force” – and that is, in the short-term, a convincing argument, attracting popular backing. 

But it is flawed by its “consequence”, the next step of its reasoning.   For the consequence is that, when the economy turns down, popular demand can easily switch to “Send ‘em back!” – as a manifestation of the same principle.  Blunkett has sown the wind, and we must hope and pray that we do not have to reap the whirlwind. 

Managed migration must be constructed on more robust foundations. It should be based on a stronger sense of individual equity, individual dignity, and common humanity. 

(i)                 We have a duty to share the fruits of the earth with the less fortunate, while intervening to minimise any social or political disruption, perhaps to moderate the rate of population change; 

(ii)               Individual wage remittances constitute the most powerful global engine of wealth redistribution, open up huge personal opportunities for the families of migrants; 

(iii)              Where a migrant has worked legitimately in this country for more than a given period (I suggest, five years) he should have an automatic right to UK citizenship, to naturalisation; indeed, for migrant workers with young families, there should be naturalisation as of right after three years – we all need certainty of status, and children above all should be given that certainty. 

Migration management should be based, not merely on the economic convenience of the wealthier state, but upon the rights of the individual, and a real sense of global equity in the enjoyment of the world’s resources. 

  • Nothing less will do…

Are you fussed about these questions of "underlying philosophy"?  Drop me a line

 < Back to Home Page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

933  27 February  2004 

Blair loses his touch

 Blair is right to call for greater imagination, and greater flexibility, from the Home Civil Service.  He is entitled to castigate the old MAFF for its disastrous performance during the Foot-and-Mouth outbreak, and its being out-managed by the Army.  His major speech this week on Civil Service reform is well targeted. 

But in delivering his message, and in spelling out its practical implications, his fabled “touch” has let him down.   I have served as an old-style Under-Secretary myself, and I do understand his desire to induce a stronger sense of innovation, of drive, of energy – of an entire “can do” philosophy – into the senior Civil Service.  That ambition is entirely legitimate. 

But his chosen methods are wrong.  Four-year fixed-term contracts are an absurdity, and wholly inappropriate: no self-respecting private sector senior manager would accept such subordination, with its implied lack of trust.  The promise to sack the “bottom 20%” each year is naïve, and would merely induce an ultra-cautious management style.  And to threaten more recruitment “from the private sector” is misconceived, giving the impression that the private-sector holds Blue Riband status in these matters – which it does not.   Much of "private management" is of poor calibre, and would not survive at the top of the Civil Service.  Blair’s panting, uncritical adulation of private management is not shared by those with experience of both sectors. 

Blair’s objectives should be achieved within the framework of a clearly-articulated public service ethos.  Public service improvements must be delivered by public sector methods, from within.  The difference between the two sectors is, after all, not one of competence, or IQ, or ambition.  It is one of ethos, of culture, of motive, and of purpose. 

And the political task is to generate a more positive, more creative, more assertive public service ethos.  That can be done only from within, by strengthening the more creative senior managers and encouraging them to spread their wings.  And they must develop this new style without losing the healthy scepticism of the old Sir Humphrys, for the Service should forever remain le pouvoir neutre.  Blair will only find careerist lickspittles, in the private sector.

Blair will never be able to mobilise the goodwill of the public sector by merely “threatening” more private-sector recruitment, tougher contract terms, and the insensitive denigration of public service values.   

  • He has set his hand to the right task, and deserves credit for that.  But if this is all he has to offer, he will fail.

The silly thing is this.  I can explain to him, precisely, how these objectives are best achieved.  I just do not get the opportunity...

What do you think?  Drop me a line

 < Back to Home Page

 

  
 
 		  
   

Created by GMID Design & Communication

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
The originating content of this website is my own work, and subject to my copyright. But on one condition only, I hereby give my consent to its unrestricted reproduction for any purpose: the condition is that its source is subject to proper acknowledgment, giving my name, my assertion of copyright, and the name of this website as its source, namely: www.warrenevans.net - is that a deal?  Roger WE