One of Andy Burnham’s acolytes told
us this week that people who are migrating to London from elsewhere in the UK are causing problems in London, and that Burnham’s policy of directing investment
into all parts of the UK rather than concentrating it all in London would help
to discourage such migration. It’s impossible to disagree with the proposition:
if lack of opportunity in one area of the UK encourages migration to the wealthiest
area, then the best ‘solution’ to the perceived ‘problem’ is to invest in
creating opportunities elsewhere. I think we can reasonably assume that the
relevant ‘elsewhere’ includes Wales and Scotland as well as the north of
England, although that isn’t always clear when London-based politicians are
talking. No doubt some conspiracy theorists will see the suggestion as being an
example of the way governments are trying to restrict our movement, but the
basic proposition – widening the geographic range of opportunity – is surely
sound.
But, hold on a moment – there’s also a glaring
inconsistency in that policy. When people from poorer parts of the world see
the riches of the UK (and even the poorest parts of the UK will look rich to
many) and seek to migrate to benefit from those riches, Labour and Tory alike
tell us that the ‘solution’ is to cut the economic aid
which might help to develop opportunities in their home countries, and divert
the money to providing the migrants with temporary accommodation before
deporting them. It’s strange how they find that which is blindingly obvious in
one context so hard to discern in another.
Posts
