Tweet
Norman Tebbit is one of that select band who've managed to become famous for saying something that they never actually said. He probably meant it though. And if he didn't, there is little doubt that Iain Duncan Smith does.
The reactions have been pretty predictable, of course, but I'm not sure that they're entirely honest. The idea that we should tell people that they have to leave their communities and families and move to wherever work is available is one which makes me deeply uncomfortable. It is, though, the logical outcome of the sort of unrestrained free market economy to which the coalition in London is committed.
From their perspective, it is private companies which can create jobs, and they should be free to create them wherever they choose. Those inputs which they need (including a labour force) should then be prepared to go to them. It is not, I can almost hear them saying, the responsibility of government to ensure that jobs exist where people want them.
Those of us who are uncomfortable with the idea that people should be given more encouragement to move to find work need to consider our response to that quite carefully. The point about whether it is the responsibility of government to ensure that jobs are available where people want them is an important one.
Whilst governments of different colours have, over decades, made attempts with varying degrees of enthusiasm to attract jobs to particular areas, by grants or by providing facilities, no government has ever said that it is the government's responsibility. And, perhaps more importantly, no scheme of incentives has ever led, or is ever likely to lead, to the creation of all the 'right' jobs in all the 'right' places.
The closest anyone has come to the idea that Governments should accept the responsibility was probably Plaid's Economic Plan in the late 1960s, which attempted to set out how many jobs we needed, of what type, and where, and how we could set about creating them. The question we need to answer is whether and to what extent we are happy to leave this sort of decision to market forces and to what extent we should have a more interventionist and planned approach.
I favour more active intervention by government, whether in Cardiff or in London, and am willing to say so. Those who do not favour a more active approach, and yet are still happy to criticise the wicked evil Tories are not really offering any alternative other than a life on benefits.
Posts
Far-right on course to become joint third largest force in European
Parliament
-
Luke James, Brussels The far-right are on course to become the joint third
largest force in the European Parliament, new projections show as police
shut ...
3 hours ago
7 comments:
So, the Left think it's great that people from all over the work 'leave their families and communities' to work here. This is celebrated and seen as 'necessary' and over the last 10 years any one who's raised questions about this is 'racists'. But likewise, the Left but feels that it's 'bad' that the government should make it easier to those within the UK who wish to move to find work a hundred miles or so away, is somehow Dickensian or worse?
Sorry, you've lost me here.
Rather ironic that the forefathers of the vast majority of the people who live in the Valleys or Cardiff, 'got on their bike' a century ago?
Anon,
My post wasn't really about immigration at all, but since you have raised the subject I'll respond. Firstly, let me say that there are huge differences between actively encouraging the movement of people, forcing the movement of people, and giving a welcome to those who choose to move of their own accord.
I have never argued that immigration is 'necessary' as you seem to suggest, but I certainly have argued that those who choose to come should be welcomed.
And I most definitely have not argued that we should be actively encouraging inwards migration. One of my biggest concerns about the way that the richest countries of the world actively encourage people to migrate to them is precisely the impact that that is having on their home communities. We are often taking some of the brightest and best, the most qualified, and those who could do most for the countries which they leave, and I'm uneasy about that.
I wouldn't want to stop those who want to come, any more than I'd want to stop anyone moving within the UK in search of work. But I'm not convinced that we should be recruiting as actively as we are rather than investing in developing the necessary skills at home.
"Rather ironic that the forefathers of the vast majority of the people who live in the Valleys or Cardiff, 'got on their bike' a century ago?"
Not ironic at all. I know that it happened; it's an important part of our history. And if people want to get on their bikes, that's entirely fine by me. The question I'm raising is about whether we want to force people to do that by letting the 'markets' take the decision, or whether we want to build our economy around our communities.
Do we serve the economy, or does the economy serve us?
"Do we serve the economy, or does the economy serve us? "
... but, the problem is, in the Valleys and many other parts of Wales there isn't an 'economy' and Plaid give the impression of being on the side of those who don't want to work. People are living longer, which implies we're healthier, there are no dangerous heavy industry left and yet incapacity benefit claims have increased over the last years. It doesn't make sense.
We can't leave everything to the private sector but the left (including Plaid) have to give a more convincing argument than they're currently giving.
We can't allow a situation where people think the state owes them a living. It doesn't because the world doesn't owe a state a living.
How are we going to make the argument for an independent Wales?
I'd prefere Plaid to be more like their sister party in Flanders, the N-VA, than the dominant party in Wallonia, the Socialist party.
Anon,
There certainly is an economy in the Valleys, and everywhere else in Wales, it's just not as strong as it should be. I can understand why defending those on benefits from unfair attacks can look like being on the side of those who don't want to work, but it really isn't at all the same thing.
I don't believe that the 'state' owes anyone a living. To me, the state is a mechanism for taking collective action, and, in any compassionate society, that includes looking after those members of society who are unable to look after themselves for whatever reason. Unable is not, though, the same as unwilling.
But the wider issue - and this comes back to the question of ehether we serve the economy or the economy serves us - is whether that collective action extends far enough into economic management to plan for jobs in communities which need them, or whether it simply leaves those communities at the mercy of uncontrolled economic forces. I present it as a binary choice, although in reality it's more of a continuum. But it's clear that you and I are not sitting in the same part of that continuum.
Well, what can I say . Little IDS stated that people should move as the jobs will not come to them. Correct ,as the economic decisions on business is taken by the English Parliment, they are not going to give that power up and allow parts of Britain to set their own economic enviroment that would find jobs going out of the SE England.
Wales voted overwhelmingly to be ruled by the English Parties and rejected Plaids call for liberation. All I can say is --ENJOY THE PAID ,YOU VOTED FOR IT.
The state should create jobs in the areas where there is little work, or in areas in proximity to those locations that can be reached through public transport.
There is plenty to be done whether it's public service stuff or construction, housing insulation etc.
The 'on your bike' mindset, at a time of housing shortage, is simply bizarre. It is designed to end the security of tenure on social housing.
"I'd prefere Plaid to be more like their sister party in Flanders, the N-VA, than the dominant party in Wallonia, the Socialist party."
But you probably think that because of Flemish nationalism, not because of the ACTUAL social condition of Flanders which is a complete mess.
"But you probably think that because of Flemish nationalism, not because of the ACTUAL social condition of Flanders which is a complete mess."
er, no, Flanders is a prosperous and hard-working part of Europe 'despite' speaking what was a minority language, despite the political and linguistic debates of the last 50 years. In many ways, Wallonia became complacent thinking it spoke a world language and had industry, Flanders was much poorer fifty years ago but made a virtue of their situation and had some self-respect in their language.
I'd say the linguistic and economic turn-around in Flanders goes hand in hand. That's what I'd like to see in wales ... and they don't vote for left of centre parties there. Maybe there's another lesson for us in Wales.
The 'social conditions' in Flanders aren't in a mess because people are out working.
Post a Comment