President Trump has
been widely (and justifiably) mocked for his promise to reduce the price of medicines
in the US by up to 1,500%. It’s an illustration of his somewhat shaky grasp of elementary
mathematics, although I suppose it helps to explain how he managed to bankrupt
casinos. By and large, UK politicians have not shown themselves to be quite so
mathematically challenged as Trump, and the argument about the extent to which
immigration should be allowed has largely stayed on the positive side of zero.
Until last week.
Robert Jenrick has
now attempted to trump Labour, Reform and his own party by calling
for a ten year period in which net migration to the UK should be negative. It’s
a reduction of more than 100% in the level of immigration, even if it’s not yet
quite in the Trumpian league of 1,500%. Give him time. But given what we know
about the falling birth rate, he is effectively demanding that the population
of the UK should be cut as a deliberate act of government policy. To say that
it puts him somewhat outside the normal range of political consensus is an understatement:
other politicians (including both Farage
and Badenoch)
have recently been calling for measures to increase the birth rate to tackle
the potential problems associated with a declining population (even though that
rather ignores the fact that using an increased birthrate to fill gaps in the
UK economy has a rather lengthy lead time). But being outside the consensus is
probably what he’s after.
The consequences of
a falling population would be significant, not least because those being
driven, or encouraged, to leave are likely to be of
working age and therefore making a positive contribution to the productive
economy. Unless, of course, he wants to offer incentives – which an increasing number of us
might even be willing to consider, with madmen like Jenrick and Farage in danger
of leading a government – for UK pensioners to emigrate. I suspect not, however:
something tells me that predominantly white UK-born people aren’t the ones he
wants to get rid of. He hasn’t yet offered a solution to that economic conundrum,
and probably won’t. Not only because there isn’t a simple one, but also because
spelling out the consequences might somewhat undermine the blatant appeal to
prejudice.
It would also be
seriously at odds with the rest of his political philosophy. Actually, a
reduced population would not, in itself, be an entirely bad thing, ignoring for
a moment that merely moving people from one country to another doesn’t exactly
achieve an overall reduction. It would reduce the demand for finite resources
which is hardly a poor idea, but it would also require a significant rethink in
the way the economy works to ensure that economic benefits are shared more
equally rather than being increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
That, or force an increasing proportion of the population into poverty, which
is not an obvious election-winning strategy, particularly if the deliberately-impoverished
come from the voting demographic being wooed by his rhetoric. As they
inevitably would. We shall have to see who will attempt to out-compete him, by
assigning a hard number to the target for exporting residents in a
government-sponsored people trafficking scheme. The way things are going, I
wouldn’t put it past Labour to open the bidding.
No comments:
Post a Comment