Today's Early Release Murderer - Strike One For Ken Clarke

Ken Clarke is so right - prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse.

Take Raoul Moat for example - an ordinary bouncer from Gateshead who inadvertantly 'got caught up in crime' and assaulted someone.

Some idiot magistrate who probably read in the Mail that 'prison works' sent him down - and what happened ? He comes straight out and murders someone !

Armed officers are seeking Moat, 38, who is believed to have fired on the young victim, named locally as Samantha Stobbart, through the living room window. A man believed to be in his late 20s or early 30s was also shot dead outside the property in Birtley, Gateshead. He has not yet been named by police. Miss Stobbart, 22, who has a young daughter named Chanel, is thought to have been shot in the stomach and is now in a critical condition in hospital. Moat has previously worked as a nightclub doorman and was released from jail on Thursday after serving time for assault.

So our criminal justice system turns a man into a murderer with one short sentence ! Nobody gets a long sentence for a little thing like assault nowadays, do they ?

As Rob Allen of the Centre For Crime But No Justice Studies puts it :

His recognition in today's speech at King's College London that there are more people in prison than necessary is as welcome as it is overdue. His description of prison as often costly and ineffectual marks a return to late 1980s Conservative policy under Douglas Hurd, which saw that far from working, "imprisonment can often be an expensive way of making bad people worse."

UPDATE - that short sentence has done even more damage than we thought.

Police said the uniformed motor patrol officer was carrying out a "static patrol" on a roundabout joining the A1 and A69 when he was attacked. He suffered a gun shot wound and was taken to Newcastle General Hospital.

I suppose it's no surprise that Rob Allen is on board. I've just taken a look at Ian Duncan-Smith's Centre for Social Justice site. Who's on the Working Groups ?

Aslyum - Bob Holman, the holy fool of Easterhouse. Did they really ever send asylum seekers there ? That is what I call cruelty. And an asylum seeker, of course.

Courts and Sentencing - well, there's the chair of the Prisoners Education Trust, anti-prison activist Enver Solomon, deputy dawg at the anti-prison 'charity' based at King's College London. And who's this 'advisor' - no less than Rob Allen, director of same 'charity' !

Social Cohesion don't look too promising, either, given the presence of a Peace Studies lecturer whose book has 'a foreword by Jon Snow'.

Economic dependency looks a bit 50-50, Early Years seems full of pointy-heads .. only the Police Reform working group looks sound - Ray Mallon, Norman Dennis, David Green, Ken Pease (possibly the only non-Guardianista criminologist in existence). Even they have Steve Green, former head of Notts Police and the guy who in August 2005 issued his force with green ribbons "to show solidarity with the Muslim community after a series of racist attacks".

Prison reform - uber-liberal Rod "The Master" Morgan and James Monahan, the double murderer who writes for the Guardian - the CJS give him his pen-name. He also features (with Rob Allen again and some NACRO guy) in the Youth Justice area.

What we're seeing in Ken Clarke's "Back To The 80's" initiative is a toxic synergy between the desire of the Tories to cut government spending and the desire of the liberal establishment to bang no man up except racists and smokers. They pretend that a few more social workers and probation officer chats will cut crime and he pretends to believe them.

This is cost centre management at its very worst. Ken will save on the headline costs while passing on even more of the cost of crime, financial, social, moral, psychological, to individuals, families and communities.


















Looks like the Cameroon honeymoon is the shortest on record.

A Funny View of Wealth

Two on immigration and the benefit or otherwise to the UK economy

a) our (former) man in Warsaw, Charles Crawford, tells all about the 13,000 Poles that turned into a million-odd :

What happened was this.

Parts of the Blair government were very nervous about a tidal wave of Poles and other Eastern Europeans washing over the UK once we opened our Labour markets unconditionally.

Or rather they were nervous about the Conservatives making a big row about it after Jack Straw announced the policy in 2003. The more so since most other EU countries in a show of noisy EU anti-solidarity made clear that they would not open their labour markets unconditionally.

Which meant that whatever tendency there was for millions of Poles and Czechs and Slovaks and the rest to storm out from their respective homelands to look for jobs would be funnelled mainly in our direction, making the tidal wave even more fast, big and scary.

So intense consultations took place round Whitehall - should the UK row back on this commitment?

PM Blair took a breezy decision. Let it rip.

Previous experience with Portugal and Spain suggested that there would be a surge of interest (and people) but in due course it would all calm down without too many problems. But he threw a small bone to anti-immigration fears by setting up a 'registration scheme' for new arrivals with a view to at least having some sort of numbers to use in subsequent debates on the issue. Other administrative devices were used to try to stop people coming over to UK and promptly claiming benefits.

Thus it transpired that I as Ambassador had to go along to the then Polish Interior Minister Jozef Oleksy to break the official news of our keenly awaited decision. Oleksy previously had been Polish Prime Minister, but had an unerring knack of attracting controversy and scandals - a droll and unconventional figure by most former communist standards.

I pompously told Oleksy that I had the honour to inform the Polish Government that HMG had taken an important decision concerning the UK labour market after Poland's EU accession in May 2004, namely:

• The labour market would be opened unconditionally with immediate effect on 1 May 2004.
• Any Poles who wished to travel to the UK to live or work could do so with out a visa.
• Moreover, an effective amnesty would be given to all Poles who had been living in the UK and working illegally (my emboldening - LT. I don't remember anyone pointing that out.)
• All Poles seeking to work in the UK would be expected to register under a new scheme, but registration was not a condition for getting a job.

Oleksy looked at me in amazement and said in Polish: "Gdzie tkwi haczyk?" What's the catch?

"No haczyk," I replied. "It's as simple as that."

Oleksy simply did not believe me.

b) a long, nay, massive chunk pinched from a new discovery, Cynicus Economicus, who was recommended in the Alphaville comments. I do hope he doesn't mind and recommend that you read the whole thing.

From his mighty economic overview "A Funny View of Wealth", his take on the oft-expressed view that immigration is good for the economy :

Immigration and the UK economy

Immigration is a matter that is discussed with extreme care because of the potential for the issue to become entwined with racism. This sensitivity has developed to such an extent that it has become, in polite circles, almost impossible to discuss anything but the positive impacts of immigration. This has stunted debate, and prevented a rational analysis of the economics of immigration. This section will look at immigration with no such constraints, and will try to examine immigration from an economic point of view.

Sources of Immigration

Immigration into the UK is, in principle, controlled by the government but the government is heavily constrained in the actions that it can take to limit immigration. International treaties such as 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees, The European Convention on Human Rights, EU Regulation 1612/68 on the freedom of workers are just some of the constraints on government action.

The aim in this section is not, however, to review how people immigrate into the UK, but to try to understand the impact of immigration when it occurs.

Before looking at immigration it is worth noting that, as is pointed out elsewhere there is a major controversy over the statistics for immigration. For the purposes of this section we will note that the immigrants into the UK are from the New and Old Commonwealth, and the recent EU accession countries[8]. This means that many of the immigrants are coming to the UK from countries that are less economically developed than the UK, and that presumably they are coming to the UK (at least in part) to enjoy better economic opportunities. As such, this section includes an assumption that many of the inward migrants come with limited financial resources, and this particularly applies to migrant temporary workers from the EU accession countries.

Immigration and Wages

There are some people who argue that immigration does not have an impact on wages. This argument may have some validity if the scale of immigration does not lead to any significant increase in supply of labour in any particular labour market, such that the increase in overall numbers is negligible. However, in the case of mass immigration, as has occurred in the UK in the last few years, this argument does not have any foundation in logic whatsoever.

It seems faintly absurd that this needs to be explained at all. Any reasonable grasp of economics will indicate that, all things being equal, an increase in supply relative to demand will lead to downward pressure on prices. A decrease in supply relative to demand will lead to upward pressure in prices. Few would argue that, if the supply of steel increases relative to demand that there will be no downward price pressure, and few would argue that if steel supply decreases relative to demand that there will be upward pressure on prices (all things being equal). These are widely accepted principles in economics but, despite this, some people still argue that increasing the supply of labour has no negative effect on the price of labour. Apparently, when the word immigration is mentioned, the laws of economics are abandoned, and economists scrabble around trying to redefine the laws for this special case.

One of the reasons for such a fallacy is that some studies have shown what appears to be large scale immigration into a particular area whilst seeing no fall in wages. This suggests that immigration does not have a depressive effect on wages. The only trouble with such a suggestion is that it ignores the possibility of an upward pressure on wages due to supply constraints. The influx of labour may not make wages fall, but it may prevent them from rising. In this case, the increase in supply has a negative impact on the workers who would otherwise be wealthier as a result of wage increases.

In the UK labour market ‘all things are not equal’, as there is a minimum wage system. This means that, at the bottom end of the labour market, there is a level below which wages can not legally drop. It could be argued that this prevents downward pressure on wages but, once again, this does not allow for the idea of upward pressure on wages due to insufficient supply of labour. Furthermore, if an immigrant is illegal, then the constraint of the minimum wage may be ignored by employers in the knowledge that the worker is unlikely to complain about being underpaid. Even for a legal immigrant there is greater potential for them to be paid less than the minimum wage as they may be unaware of the minimum wage, or be ill equipped to complain about not being paid the minimum wage if they are denied it. In these circumstances the employer might take on a migrant labourer in preference to a native labourer, thereby having the effect on the native workers wages of ‘no wages’.

One of the arguments for immigrant labour is that it is addressing shortfalls in the UK labour market. At the very least this is a problematic idea when viewing the unskilled labour market, when there are large numbers of unemployed and economically inactive people in the UK. The numbers of such economically inactive are highly contentious so that a figure will not be given here, but there are certainly large numbers of individuals within the UK who could, at the very least, take the unskilled jobs such as building workers, fruit packers and so on. It would be very hard to argue that there is a skills shortage for this kind of work, as much of it requires minimal training.

Economists such as David Card point out that, in the US labour market for example, there are many more immigrants than unemployed, and therefore the immigrants can not be taking the jobs of the unemployed. They are taking jobs that would otherwise not get done, and are therefore beneficial to the economy[9]. The first question to be asked here is, how is that there are so many unemployed in the first place? The second question is, even if there are more immigrants than unemployed, then is it nor reasonable to say that some of the unemployed are in this situation as a direct result of labour competition from migrants? The final question to ask is what all of the additional immigrants are actually doing, and ask whether they make a net contribution to the economy overall? This last question is complex and statistics are used by varying points of view to justify their positions. However, as will be seen later, they are often forgetting some key considerations that need to be accounted for in measuring the immigrants contribution to an economy.

In the UK, as in the US, there is one other critical question that needs to be addressed and this is the question as to why UK employers are hiring people from other countries? As mentioned before, all things in the UK are not equal due to the minimum wage, but also because the UK employer needs to compete for labour with the UK benefits system (which is an indirect minimum wage that applies to anyone entitled to social welfare benefits). This system allows an individual to remain economically inactive, or to choose an option of accepting a low paid job for very little real remuneration despite a major increase in the expenditure of their labour. In such cases the value of the labour expended is far below the minimum wage as it needs to be calculated as the weekly pay minus the benefits, to give an actual wage for the work done. The rational person in this situation might reasonably ask whether the loss of their free time to work is worthwhile for what will often be little financial incentive as, in this situation, the UK worker is often working for extremely low wages[10]. By contrast, at least initially, the migrant worker may not be entitled to such benefits[11] and is therefore happy to accept the wages that the UK worker will not accept. In accepting such wages the immigrant removes the need for UK employers to raise wages to a sufficient level to give an incentive to the UK worker to choose labour instead of benefits. In short, the immigrant worker is depressing wages to a degree that the dependence on benefits by UK labour continues, despite apparent labour shortages. The result of this is that the inactive UK workers remain as a drain on the state, and a drain on the economy overall.

If we accept that hiring an immigrant worker can lead to a British worker remaining economically inactive, the calculation to the cost of the economy of the migrant labourer might be expressed as the weekly cost of benefits minus the tax input of the migrant labourer who has been substituted for the British worker. In nearly all imaginable and realistic cases the tax will be insufficient to cover the benefits given to the British worker leading to a net loss to the state, and therefore a very substantial net loss to the economy.

What of the skilled immigrant worker? How does this worker impact on wages? Here the argument is similar to the unskilled labourer in that, if there is an increase in supply, there will be a negative impact upon wages for native workers, with a likelihood of reduction in wage levels, or a reduction in the rate of increase in wages. However, in this case, it may be that there is a genuine shortage such that organisations are completely unable to satisfy their requirement for skilled labour, regardless of the wages that they are willing to provide, and there may be a time lag in training new workers that will prevent current demand being met. This could have a negative impact on certain sectors of the economy where the labour is needed, leading to an overall negative effect on the health of the economy overall. In this case the jobs that are undertaken by the skilled migrant labourer would simply not be done without the migrant. It might also be argued that the skills are provided very cheaply, as the immigrants already have the necessary skills with no need to invest in training.

To consider the impact of immigrant skilled workers it is worth considering one of the most discussed examples, the shortage of plumbers that has been resolved with the immigration of large numbers of Polish plumbers. Prior to the arrival of the Polish plumbers the problem had become so severe that the subject was becoming a matter of (at least middle class) humour. Whilst the shortage was leading to expense and inconvenience for consumers, it was also probably more than a matter of inconvenience for industry, where plumbing problems were no doubt going unresolved, systems not being built, or being built late, built to poor standards amongst many other problems. This might lead to the conclusion that the introduction of Polish plumbers brought a real benefit to the economy by filling a very real skills shortage, and a skills shortage that was having a negative impact on the well being of the economy overall.

It would be difficult to argue against the idea that, in the short term, the Polish plumbers offered real economic benefits. However, it is in the long term that the fabled Polish plumber looks a less attractive a proposition for the economy. In order to see why this is the case it is necessary to view the situation prior to the arrival of the Polish plumbers. The cost of plumbing was (inevitably) rising due to the shortage of skilled workers, and the competition for skilled workers was leading to increases in the wages of plumbers. The rising wage levels meant that plumbing was becoming an increasingly attractive area of work, and was attracting new entrants to the trade[12]. This suggests that, given sufficient time, supply and demand would have resolved the plumber shortage without any intervention, or any need for external labour. When considering the impact of migrant labour on plumbing, it is possible to suggest that the introduction of immigrant plumbers provided an alternative to this solution, by the substitution of labour from another market.

This substitution of migrant labour for training native labour has the self evident effect of removing the demand for native labour to be trained, and therefore has the potential for a situation in which a labour market can become dependent on immigrant labour. In a case where the migrant labour is temporary, this might be considered a serious problem on the grounds that it is quite possible that the problem will re-emerge some time in the future, once the immigrants return to their home countries. The alternative is to have a continuous flow of immigrant plumbers into the market place, thus the dependence.

Perhaps the most important point, when considering the case of the plumber shortage, is that plumbing is an area of work that, had the financial incentives continued growing, might have provided sufficient incentive to motivate the economically inactive to have chosen work over benefits. By introducing the immigrant labour wages ceased to rise, or dropped, and the result was that the incentives for entry into the trade were reduced, thereby helping to maintain people in economic inactivity.

This is not to ignore the problem that, had it not been for Polish plumbers, there would have been a shortage of plumbers for several years, whilst sufficient entrants to the plumbing labour force were trained in the necessary skills. However, if designing a better ‘plumber policy’, one free from constraints, this shortage might have been addressed by a transitional arrangement where the immigrant plumbers were permitted to remain in the UK for a fixed period of time, with a period of phasing out the immigration. Such an arrangement would need a clear end date to ensure that the market was prepared, by commencing training ‘native’ plumbers. Of course, the reality is that such a scheme would not be enforceable under today’s immigration constraints, and can only be a hypothetical solution to skills shortages.

Having dealt with skilled workers it is also necessary to look at the impact of highly skilled immigrants on the labour market. If we take the example of an immigrant working as a merchant banker in the city of London, surely here is an example of immigrant labour providing clear benefits by bringing in skills that are of great value in the economy as a whole, and creating real gains for the economy. One argument is that, in recruiting such highly skilled immigrants into the UK, there is a substantial benefit from acquiring the skills without the expense of having to train/educate the people in their skills[13]. As they arrive they are already in the position of being productive workers, with no need for investment by the state or employers.

In addition to the immediate financial benefit of ‘high skills at low cost’, these highly skilled workers may be able to add significant value in the sectors in which they work in other ways, such as their ability to introduce new ideas, new methods, and a host of other benefits, which are related to the combination of high levels of skill in conjunction with their experience of their own home country systems. Furthermore, just increasing the level of high skills, for example taking the case of scientists, will have potential to increase the potential for improvements in technology, process, and other economic enhancements through the sheer presence of numbers. More highly skilled people, increases the prospects of more innovation, more new companies and so on[14].

There is a simple initial attractiveness to this argument but the situation is very much like that of the plumbers, but with considerably longer time scales to develop the necessary skills. However, the case of skilled workers differs from plumbers in one respect; it is an area in which the immigrants are not a substitute for the economically inactive, as very few of the economically inactive would have the qualifications or potential to undertake this kind of labour. As such it would be difficult to argue that there should be restrictions on such highly skilled workers coming to the UK as the benefits are often quite clear.

There is a more worrying underlying question to ask, as follows; ‘Why it is necessary to import such talent in the first place?’ This will inevitably lead to the follow on question of what it is in the infrastructure of the UK that is lacking, such that it is failing to produce such talent internally? Is the requirement for highly skilled immigrants just a sticking plaster that hides a deep wound in the infrastructure of the UK?

The upward pressure on wages resulting from immigration

Whilst supply and demand tells us that immigrants will inevitably have a negative impact on wages in the job market in which the immigrants are working, there is the possibility that immigration may create an upward pressure on wages elsewhere. This will occur in situations where a company can lower the wages of workers, and therefore cut costs of their business as a result. In these cases the company or organisation will free up more cash, and some of that cash may be channelled into the remuneration of other people within the organisation, such as senior managers or business owners. A good example of a formal route for such a process would be in the provision for bonuses based upon profitability.

Whilst such an increase in remuneration may be a positive for those in receipt of them, it is unlikely that this has any positive benefit to the economy overall, as the increase in remuneration is a transfer of money from non-immigrant workers to the recipients, rather than the generation of ‘new’ money through, for example, more efficient production methods. In short it is a case of an increase in wealth differentials between managers/owners and workers, rather than the generation of new wealth.

Remittances and Repatriation of Funds - the Missing Argument

The issue of remittances and repatriation of funds is not heard in discussion of immigration, and yet may be one of the critical factors in considering the economic benefit of immigration. It is not clear whether this is not mentioned because of ongoing sensitivity about the subject of immigration, or whether it is because economists have just simply not considered the issue. As a consequence there is little solid evidence that can be provided and this section is therefore even more speculative than other areas of this discussion, relying on a combination of reason and guesswork.

Note 1: I define ‘remittances’ here as money which is sent by the immigrant to their country of origin to help their family or friends with financial support, and ‘repatriation of funds’ as the situation in which the immigrant returns to their country of origin taking with them their savings and investments that have been accumulated as an immigrant worker.

Note 2: I have written to the ONS to request information on the way that they collect information on migrant transfers (these show up in the balance of payments statistics). Their first answer they gave suggests that no account is taken of remittances whatsoever, and that inwards and outward flows of money of inward and outward migration are based upon the passenger surveys at landing/departure points. This method of calculation requires accurate numbers for migrants (non-existent) and the co-operation of migrants who need to volunteer their financial affairs at the time of embarkation/disembarkation. At first sight this appears to be a poor method of calculation, and my follow on questions to my initial enquiry to the ONS remain unanswered. My suspicion is that they are painfully aware that their methods are probably not much better than wild guesses.

Temporary Workers

These can be anything from a City of London financier, through to a waitress in a bar. In all cases they share the characteristic that they intend to remain in the UK for a finite length of time, whether that is the length of a contract, whether they will leave when they have achieved x value of savings, or until they go home to get married and so forth.

The important aspect of temporary workers is that, on leaving the UK, they will eventually take their accumulated savings with them, and this may have a very negative effect upon the UK economy, if we consider the immigrant’s net contribution.

If we return to the example of the Polish plumber discussed earlier, we can make some ‘back of a cigarette packet’ calculations for the temporary worker. We might surmise that the Polish plumber has decided to work in the UK for two years and has an aim of saving one third of their take home pay to take with them when they return to Poland. In this case we can make a guess that the worker will be saving at least £5000 per year, and this means that the Polish worker will take a cash lump sum of £10,000 when they leave the UK. In real terms this is the equivalent of importing a medium size family car into the UK.

If we take the case of a skilled financier earning £150,000 per year in the city, it is very likely that after a two year contract in London they will be taking at least £50,000 out of the country in a cash lump sum.

Permanent Immigrant Workers

For immigrant workers coming from developing economies, one of the attractions of working in a developed country is the ability of the migrant to earn enough money to help support their family in their home country. One example of this is the Philippines, where remittances provide vital foreign currency for the country’s economy.

There may be many kind of remittances, from fixed monthly payments to the family, or providing one off payments to educate a relative, or to help a family member start a new business. The key point to consider in all cases is that this is cash leaving the UK economy with no return for the UK economy. This is different from investment where the money is sent to another country with a view to gaining a return on the investment. It is a cash gift.

No speculative figures are supplied here as such figures would be even more speculative than the example given in the case of the temporary workers. However, it is possible to assume that the numbers, when viewed over the immigrants lifetime, might be very large indeed, in particular in the case of immigrants who are successful and therefore earn large amounts of money.

Close ties with country of origin

In addition to taking cash sums out of the economy, there is also the possibility that immigrants will be more likely to have a negative impact in other ways, when compared to a person of equal economic status who is a native worker.

One obvious example is that of return visits to the home country. This can be seen as being equivalent to a native worker taking a holiday in another country. Cross border tourism is an industry that sees large amounts of cash being transferred from one economy to another, and is therefore an equivalent to an import of a good. The question that is raised with the immigrant worker is whether the frequency, cost and duration of their trips is greater than that of a native worker who is of equivalent economic status. In this case it might be reasonable to suppose that the immigrant worker (including temporary workers) is more likely to travel out of the country, thereby removing greater cash sums from the economy.

Another area which might see a negative impact is in the purchase of goods and services. There may be a tendency for immigrants to prefer to purchase products and services that originate in their county of origin, for cultural reasons and for reasons of familiarity. An obvious example of this is the introduction of Polish products into supermarkets based in areas with large numbers of Polish immigrants, or the many Asian supermarkets that largely stock products from the Asian sub-continent.

Once again, the impact of this skew towards buying goods from the country of origin is not measured, and therefore the real value of the resultant rise in imports is unknown and uncalculated. It would, however, be reasonable to speculate that an immigrant, when compared to a native of the same economic status, is more likely to purchase greater numbers of imported goods, with the negative impact this has on the balance of payments.

So what do remittances and repatriation of funds mean for the UK economy?

It is here that the question becomes very blurry, as the figures are not known. However, if we were to take the example of Central European temporary immigrant workers and make some assumptions, the figures become rather disturbing.

If we imagine that there are 500,000 Central European temporary workers, and we assume that they will be staying in the UK for an average of two years, with an average savings rate of £4000 per year, we can then say that each immigrant will repatriate £8000. If we then multiply this by 500,000 we can say that, over a period of two years, there will be a cash loss to the UK economy of £20,000,000,000. This is a significant amount of cash lost to the UK economy.

However, when we look at this loss, it is even more severe than it first appears. When a person earns money and spends the money in the country in which it is earned, the money recycles through the economy. Even when a person uses some of their cash to buy an imported good, such as a television, a substantial proportion of the money remains in the economy. In the case of the television there is the UK internal distribution of the television, the promotional costs, the shop that sells the television and so on. At each of these stages UK based companies, and workers, are involved in the transaction, and part of the money paid when the purchase is made pays these companies and workers, who in turn spend their money and recycle the money to others. In the case of repatriation of funds, compared with buying an imported good or service, the loss is greater because it is an absolute loss of that money to the economy.

In the case of remittances, it is far more difficult to make a calculation of the impact upon the UK economy, as there are far too many unknowns to even start to make guesses. However, it would be safe to assume that remittances from immigrants would, in total, add up to significant sums of money.

The Pensions Argument

The UK, as for many Western economies, has a potential problem with the demography of the native population. In short, the population is ageing and this means that the number of retired people, when compared to the number of working people, is going to increase dramatically in the coming years. At the heart of the problem is declining birth rates, and increases in longevity. The problem arises when considering how pensioners will be supported in their old age by the state, as the number of economically active people needed to pay the taxes of retired people is set to decline in proportion to the number of pensioners. The result of this is that there will be less economically active people to support each pensioner.

One of the arguments for immigration is that immigrants add to the labour force, and often immigrate when they are young. This influx of younger workers is seen as a solution as it will maintain the young population at a higher level than would otherwise occur, thereby ameliorating or solving the problem. Furthermore, some studies show that immigrants have larger numbers of children, thereby raising the birth rate and counterbalancing the decline of the birth rate of native people.

The first problem with this argument is to return to the argument about economically inactive native workers. If the cost of immigration is the retention of these workers in inactivity, then the immigration is just substitution, and substitution at great cost.

In the case of skilled workers who are immigrating permanently this is a different argument, and a case may be made for such workers, provided that, after remittances and other factors, they present a net gain for the economy. However, even in this case there is a fundamental problem in the infrastructure (and society) that is being solved by the immigrants from other countries. The first problem needing to be answered is why individual UK workers are not making provision for their own retirement, and the second question is why is the birth rate falling. Whilst highly skilled immigrants might help in this situation, the reality is that immigration is covering more fundamental problems that might be addressed more effectively, and economically, in other ways.

Cheaper Goods and Services

It could be argued that the downward pressure on wages results in cheaper goods and services. For example, if you have low cost fruit pickers, this will make a kilo of strawberries cheaper, thereby offering a real benefit to all of the people who eat strawberries. This appears to be an economic benefit offered to the UK population.

However, if you consider that the immigrant labourer is helping to keep an economically inactive person inactive, then the situation looks rather different. This is because, what the person saves in the price of strawberries, they will pay in taxes to support the economically inactive person, and the higher tax will outstrip the cheaper strawberries creating a ‘dis-benefit’.

In addition, if wages are negatively impacted by an immigrant, the consumer of a good or service that utilises the immigrant labour may feel the benefits of the cheaper good or service, but the benefit is a transfer from the native worker whose earnings are lower than they would otherwise be, to the consumer. There is no net gain but a transfer.

Outward Migration (Emigration)

In viewing outward migration, once again, we encounter the problem of the lack of accurate statistics and we therefore will again need to speculate and reason in place of using research. Whilst passenger surveys may give an indication of numbers and financial information, they are also likely to be very inaccurate. Lacking any other statistics we will at least use the recent ONS statistics for the outflow, a number of just over 200,000 individuals in the last year, and 800,000 have people have left and not returned since 1997[15].

Who are these people that are leaving the UK? One group is that of people moving to Southern Europe, Thailand and other countries for retirement. These individuals will take with them their accumulated wealth and will spend that wealth in another country. This represents a significant outflow of wealth, and an outflow that will continue as these individuals draw on their pensions, and other assets (such as through the sale of their house) to finance their new life abroad. On the positive side, they will also not be using the NHS and other services in the UK economy on a regular basis, though some will still probably return to the UK for severe health problems. Whilst each individual case will be different, the probability is that this outflow is a negative for the economy.

Another group that are emigrating are highly skilled UK workers, who are going to countries such as New Zealand, Canada, the US and Australia. To give a snapshot, over 15,000 people from the UK emigrated to New Zealand in 2004/5[16] and just over 23,000 individuals to Australia in 2006/7[17].

The systems for these ‘immigration’ countries are heavily biased towards immigrants who are graduates and postgraduates, and also heavily biased towards people with experience in careers with specialist and ‘in demand’ skills. If we look at the example of New Zealand the majority of UK immigrants were in the skilled and business categories. These are just the kind of people that would normally be adding value to the UK economy by contributing their combination of education, training and skills. They are also people who will have probably accumulated savings and, in light of the property boom in the UK, will have considerable equity in their UK property. Once settled in their new country, these assets will inevitably be transferred to the new country, once again with a commensurate outflow of wealth from the UK. If we imagine a fairly typical immigrant profile, we will see a 25-35 year old graduate working in a good occupation, living in their own home, and having saved enough money provide some security when they arrive in their destination country. In this case we might make a reasonable guess that, at a minimum, most emigrants will leave the UK with at least £30,000 in cash and assets. If we use the figures for Australia and New Zealand for one year, we can see that this is very large outflow of wealth from the UK Economy representing £1,140,000,000 for just these two countries, and this is using a very conservative estimate of the assets that they are withdrawing. Perhaps more importantly, in addition to taking cash out of the UK economy, these immigrants will also be taking out the investment in their education and training, and their potential to add value to the UK economy.

The final category of emigrant to consider are the entrepreneurial business people, a category that would be impossible to quantify or identify. For this there are no statistics, and no way of determining the numbers or any sense of value of the loss. However, a visit to South East Asia will quickly show that there are large numbers of just such individuals, who can often be found in cities such as Bangkok, Shanghai, or Manila. Strike up a conversation and they will probably tell you how they have given up on the UK, and moved all of their business interests to their new country to avoid stifling regulation in the UK economy, the inflexibility of workers, and how they benefit from the low taxation and quality of life in their new home country. What is the loss to the UK economy of such individuals? It is impossible to say, but it is certainly a significant loss. In one recent case in Bangkok I met an individual who had withdrawn ‘several million’ from the UK economy, and who now just maintained a tiny presence in the UK economy.

Non-Domicile

There is one category of immigrant into the UK that certainly add wealth to the UK economy, the very wealthy ‘non-domiciles’ who have chosen to live in the UK for a limited period of each year. The UK tax system, in conjunction with the many attractions for wealthy people in London, have attracted large numbers of these individuals. They often bring sizeable amounts of capital, as well as significant spending power, into the UK. It is certainly one of the elements that contributes to the wealthy feel of London, visible through private banking, luxury shopping and entertainments. However, there has recently been a political backlash against the tax concessions granted to these individuals, and the long term future for this category of immigrant is starting to be questioned as a result. Whether these individuals choose to remain is not yet certain, but changes in their tax status may have a negative impact on numbers in the medium to long term. Only time will tell whether the attractions of London will be sufficient to retain these providers of wealth into the UK economy.

Conclusions

The first thing to conclude from this review is that there are some aspects of immigration that need to be studied as a matter of urgency. Without more information the economic consequences of immigration will remain unknown.

The second conclusion is that the immigration of all types of unskilled workers is almost certainly going to have a significant negative effect on the economy. We can also view the case of the skilled worker as a negative in general, but an occasional necessity for a short duration. With regards to the permanent immigration of skilled workers, this is likely to be a negative, in particular due to the negative impact of remittances and the particular skew of the spending. However, this would need to be looked at further in more detail to draw any firm conclusions.

As for highly skilled immigrants, short term immigration may be necessary for a period, though for longer periods than skilled workers. However, if this is necessary question need to be asked about why the UK infrastructure is failing to provide such skilled individuals. For permanent highly skilled immigrants, it is likely that they will have a greater positive overall impact on the economy over their lifetime, than negative. They may also make negative contributions through remittances, and more import orientated purchasing, but it is likely that these impacts will be counterbalanced by the positives that they bring.

For UK citizens emigrating out of the UK, it is likely that the loss to the economy will be substantial in the short term, and even more serious in the long term. The majority of emigrants will be the very people that the UK should be retaining, as they are the people who are most likely to make positive contributions to the economy.

The last point to make is that, even if the negative economic impacts of migration are understood, there is little that can be done to reverse the current patterns of migration without significant changes to the structure of UK immigration rules. As such the best that policy can achieve is to try to ameliorate the negative impacts, though no easy solutions or ideas come to mind.



[8] Emigration from the UK reaches 400,000 in 2006, National Statistics, 15 November 2007, retrieved from www.statistics.gov.uk on 7 December 2007

[9] Lowenstein, R: The Immigration Equation, 9 July 2006, The New York Times, retrieved from www.nytimes.com on 18 November 2007.

[10] If we imagine a person who is on a hypothetical benefit of £100 a week, and they accept a full time job paying £140 per week, their hourly rate of pay then becomes £40 divided by 39. There are many forms of benefits and therefore many different scenarios that could be explored. I have chosen a hypothetical example as this is the simplest way of explaining the principle. It is also worth noting that, even if not actively calculating their real wage, people facing the benefits or work choice will be very likely to have a sense of what the relative rewards are in each case.

[11] If they are entitled to benefits and they utilise this facility, very few people would (I hope) argue that they are anything but a negative for the UK economy.

[12] I seem to remember a newspaper publishing the story of a lecturer from a college of higher education giving up lecturing to go into plumbing as the wages were so much better.

[13] It should be added that there is a significant risk in investment in people, as they do not all succeed in their training, some will die or be incapacitated, some will not follow the career direction their training suggests, and others may immigrate into another country. In all of these cases the investment of the state, or other institutions, into their education is a waste.

[14] The same arguments might be made for unskilled and skilled migrants. However, there is an assumption that, rightly or wrongly, that more skilled people are more likely to have far higher potential for positive impacts. It is an assumption that seems perfectly reasonable, as highly skilled people are more likely to intelligent and hard working (as highly skilled people are likely to be where they are through either significant effort, greater intelligence, or a combination of both - notwithstanding that some highly intelligent people do not have opportunities to excel).In addition they already have skills that will allow them potential to utilise their strengths. In short they are more probable candidates to add significantly to economic well being, whereas the unskilled, and skilled are far less probable. This is clearly an area where that could produce significant debate, but I agree with the assumption that highly skilled workers are more likely to generate wider economic benefits for the reasons outlined, as this seem to me to be entirely rational .

[15] Emigration Soars, The Telegraph, 16 November 2007, Retrieved on 7 December 2007 from www.telegraph.co.uk

[16] Immigration Trends 2004/5, New Zealand Immigration, retrieved from www.immigration.gov.nz on 7 December 2007

[17] Settler Arrivals 1996/7 to 2006/7, Australian Government Department of Immigration and Citizenship, retrieved from www.immi.gov.au on 7 December 2007

Churnalism

If the Government just send their press releases straight to bloggers, or put them up on the web, maybe we won't miss the MSM as much as we thought.

Left-wing Guardian :

Pointing to recent convictions of white supremicists, and the broader rise in overt racism, Denham will say: "It is important that local Muslim communities do not feel that they are being singled out if other forms of extremism are a threat in the area."

Right-wing Telegraph :

Pointing to recent convictions of white supremacists, and a broader rise in overt racism, Mr Denham will say: “It is important that local Muslim communities do not feel that are being singled out if other forms of extremism are a threat in the area”.

Me No Understand

Indie, reporting on yet another asylum route - the "Saudi adulteress gambit".

Last year, the House of Lords ruled that the SFO's decision to drop the corruption investigation into the £43bn Saudi arms deal with BAE Systems was unlawful.

In a hard-hitting ruling, two High Court judges described the SFO's decision as "an outrage".

One of them, Lord Justice Moses, said the SFO and the Government had given into "blatant threats" that Saudi intelligence co-operation would end unless the probe into corruption was halted.

"No one, whether within this country or outside, is entitled to interfere with the course of our justice," he said. "It is the failure of government and the defendant to bear that essential principle in mind that justifies the intervention of this court."

How come all those Irish terrorists were let out after the Good Friday Agreement then ? Isn't that interference with justice ?

I see, they passed another law to let them out.

So all we need is the Serious Fraud Office (Saudi Arabia) Bill 2009 and we're laughing. Is that OK?

(my views on the BAe/Saudi bribery brouhaha are here.

I'd recommend anyone commenting on this issue to take a look at Anthony Sampson's book The Arms Bazaar. Bribery and large arms contracts have been together for a very long time. If we don't bribe others will. Even senior people in Western democracies can be bribed.

Now it's not unreasonable to say - no. We shouldn't bribe. Let others do it - we won't. Fine. If you don't want to bribe, get out of the arms trade. Which means closing a large chunk of what remains of Britain's technically advanced manufacturing industry. And in this case it also means a rupture with a powerful (we've sold them all that kit) oil-rich nation bordering Iraq. You can see why HMG might blink at this.

)

UPDATE - Jeremy Warner on doing business 'out there' :

Anyone with any experience of trading in the Middle East knows that the moment you tread further south than Marseilles, the law of contract becomes – how shall we put it? – somewhat pliable. For instance, it is relatively common place for clients in the Gulf to freeze payments to contractors. For us that may be breach of contract, but for them it is merely part of the hard ball of negotiation...

What's going on at Saad Group in Saudi Arabia is in some respects a great deal worse. Much of the money seems to have gone walk about, with local creditors being given preferential treatment over international lenders.

Rally For Mass Illegal Immigration !

via Socialist Unity, translation added in italics by LT. If you want to reward those enterprising souls who are here illegally, get down to Trafalgar Square on May 4th :

They propose that those who have been here for 4 or more years should be admitted to a 2-year pathway to full legal rights (“leave to remain”) during which they work legally and demonstrate their contribution to UK economy and society. After that 2-year period, subject to knowledge of English and employer and community references, they would be granted permanent leave to remain.

The benefits of regularisation

• recognises the dignity of human beings who have made new lives in Britain (accepts that they've got away with illegal entry);
• extends and reinforces the rule of law (totally undermines it);
• levels the playing-field for low-paid workers (increases competition for entry-level unskilled jobs);
• enables businesses to employ legally the labour it needs (because a) there are no unskilled unemployed in the UK, and b) as socialists we care deeply about business profits);
• recognises the role that migrants already play in society (doing the jobs the natives just don't want to do);
• ensures that tens of thousands of British workers receive the protection of the law(que ? I suppose anyone who's got here is British, aren't they ? Like Shaker Aamer.);
• shrinks the black economy (aka we need more taxes);
• frees up billions of pounds in taxes for the Exchequer(aka we need more taxes);
• enables local authorities to plan better (aka enables them to ask for more taxpayer cash to provide services to these guys - that's why we need more taxes);
• solves the expensive, inhuman delay in processing old asylum claims (aka the expense of making at least the pretence of controlling the borders);
• builds a more cohesive British society (aka "we're taking the mick here");
• and turns outlaws into neighbours - “strangers into citizens” –in the best British tradition of pragmatism and justice (aka "forget about the best British traditions of obeying the law and punishing those who break it").

Funnily enough they forgot to add 'Give the BNP another hundred thousand votes' to the list of 'benefits'.

Migrationwatch aren't quite so chuffed :

New research shows that an amnesty for illegal immigrants, or “undocumented workers” would cost £2 billion in its first full year of operation. As those concerned married and had families, the costs could rise to £4 billion a year.

Those granted an amnesty would be immediately entitled to apply for social housing, adding at least half a million to the waiting list (which is already over 1.5 million for England alone). They would also be entitled to bring over their families, thus moving up the queue which is largely based on “need”. Meanwhile they would be entitled to Housing Benefit which is included in this calculation.

Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migrationwatch UK, said:

Clearly the British public can see that to reward people with a meal ticket for life for breaking our laws is an absurd proposition. It will only encourage others to come and take their place in the hope of a further amnesty. That is exactly what has happened in Italy which has granted five amnesties in the past twenty years and Spain which has granted six.

Claims of “a huge increase in tax revenues” are ludicrous when benefit payments are taken into account. So proponents of an amnesty are left only with their claim to be advancing the cause of social justice. However, the real victims are British workers whose wages are held down or perhaps their job opportunities taken by people who came or remained here illegally of their own volition.

"As we enter a recession, competition for work by illegal immigrants should be reduced, not encouraged. The government and Opposition are absolutely right to oppose this ill-considered scheme. The only amnesty worth considering is an amnesty on departure – allowing people already here illegally to leave within a defined window without fear of arrest for immigration offences.”

A Few Chunks Of Rock Salt In The Curate's Lane

A hint of fear as Labour minister Stephen Timms gets religion :

Mr Timms referred to the problems in the world economy, the conflict in the Middle East and more immediate problems such as last weekend’s stabbing of Stephen Lewis when leaving a church hall party in his own constituency in East London.

Mr Timms said: “It would be easy to lapse in the face of challenges of that magnitude into cynicism or even despair – to conclude that nothing can be done by politicians effectively to resolve these enormous challenges.

“But it is the calling of politicians to figure out how to tackle them, to identify solutions and to work to implement them.”

He said the religious groups of Britain were crucial to this process and singled out the Muslim community for particular praise. “Muslims in Britain have helped faith gain a new voice and a new confidence,” he said.

Thyere's no doubt about the new voice and new confidence. What I'm not sure about is from whence cometh this voice's strength. Is it the cohesion which put so many hundreds of thousands on the streets, to denounce wars in Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza, that has earned the respect of New Labour ? Or is it a series of riots, four suicide bombings and a large number of wannabes ? What think you ? What are our rulers more likely to take notice of ?

"How many divisions has the Pope ?" Stalin famously asked. Our rulers take a view on the likely number of Christian suicide bombers and act accordingly :

A Christian nurse from Weston-super-Mare has been suspended for offering to pray for a patient's recovery. Community nurse Caroline Petrie, 45, says she asked an elderly woman patient during a home visit if she wanted her to say a prayer for her.

The patient complained to the health trust about Mrs Petrie who follows the Baptist faith. She was suspended, without pay, on 17 December and will find out the outcome of her disciplinary meeting next week.

I digress. This report positively reeks of fear :

Twenty five per cent of the 430 population of Long Lartin top security jail in Worcestershire are now Muslim, according to an inspection report by Dame Anne Owers, the chief inspector of prisons.

Prisoners told Dame Anne during her inspection that offenders at the jail are converting to Islam because they want the protection of belonging to a big Muslim group. One inmate quoted in the report said:”Yes, there is a gang culture here which is becoming an issue. A lot of people are becoming Muslim just because it a bigger group."

Another inmate warned that all violence in the jail was gang related and that Long Lartin was in danger of turning into an American-style prison. He said: "If you are not in a gang, you’re in trouble. People are converting to Islam for protection.”

Not something you'd say about Christianity these days, is it ? There have been stories of gang culture in places like Belmarsh, Whitemoor and Frankland - wasn't someone killed in one of those jails ?

The number of Muslim prisoners in jails doubled in the eleven years to 2007 to reach 8,864 - 11 per cent of the total prison population. Muslim prisoners make up one third of the population of Whitemoor, 15 per cent of Full Sutton top security prison in Yorkshire and 20 per cent of Belmarsh jail.

In today’s report, Dame Anne said the jail’s security department was monitoriting the difficulties of gang activity, potential extremism and radicalisation of inmates in a balanced way. She said staff had been left to balance as best they could the need to engage with and ensure proper treatment for Muslim prisoners and the need to monitor and prevent radicalisation.

“There needs to be a national strategy to equip staff better to engage and support Muslim prisoners,” she said. There is no multi-faith room at the jail and this has resulted in Friday prayers being held in three separate locations.

A survey found that the proportion of prisoners who believed their faith was respected had fallen significantly and only 48 per cent of Muslim respondents said they were respected by staff, compared with a 67 per cent response from non Muslims.

“Given the sensitivities surrounding Muslim prisoners, including the perceived risk of radicalisation, staff required training and advice on how to engage Muslim prisoners better,” the inspection report said.

Our rulers are afraid that unless they are nice to Muslim inmates, when they come out some will set off bombs. But be fair. They're afraid of the other prisoners, too.

A growing number of prisoners serving long sentences who have “nothing to lose” is a threat to the control and stability of the jail system, the prisons watchdog warns.

Dame Anne Owers, the chief inspector of prisons, also said that there was a growing use of force to control the most pressurised jails in England and Wales. She highlighted a rise in the number of prison disturbances and increasingly fractious jails as warning signs of the strain being faced in the overcrowded prison system.

One in seven of the 82,000 prisoners in England and Wales is now serving an indefinite sentence for public protection or a life term, the inspector’s annual report reveals.

Dame Anne said that the disturbances in jails have been contained so far but she identified “real risks” of a loss of control in the future. She said that too many of the most volatile prisons, including top security jails holding an increasingly challenging mix of very serious offenders and those establishments holding young men, had not been judged safe in inspections.

Well, think about it. 900-odd homicides p.a. in England and Wales - even with some three-years-for-torturing-someone-to-death sentences you'll be adding maybe five hundred killers each year for ten years or so each, although they're also being released at the other end. Murder is still a crime with a relatively high clear-up rate. One in seven is about 12,000 bad boys of which maybe half will be killers and the other half rapists, failed killers and perhaps combinations of the two. Of course in the days of the death penalty you'd have a lower murder count and fewer murderers in the cells.

Dame Anne said that the prison system was having to cope with more prisoners serving longer sentences, more gang activities on the wings and concerns about drugs. “There have always been groups engaged in criminal endeavours both inside and outside prisons. There is some evidence of more organisation,” she said. She added: “The presence of drugs is also a key factor because that can create an economy in prison and create bullying.”

It was once pretty hard to get drugs into jail - in the days when you spoke to your beloved through a wire grille. Now you can sit her on your lap, put your tongue in her mouth and hand where you like - in a crowded visiting room with maybe half a dozen guards on high chairs watching over a room with forty or fifty people in it. I get the impression there's more stuff coming in via the staff, too. After all, a stoned jail is a quiescent jail - they hope. The balance of power in prisons has been shifting from jailer to inmate for forty years.

The number of Muslim prisoners may be rising, but so is the number of Muslims :

The Muslim population in Britain has grown by more than 500,000 to 2.4 million in just four years, according to official research collated for The Times.

The population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics reveals. In the same period the number of Christians in the country fell by more than 2 million.

Experts said that the increase was attributable to immigration, a higher birthrate and conversions to Islam during the period of 2004-2008, when the data was gathered. They said that it also suggested a growing willingness among believers to describe themselves as Muslims because the western reaction to war and terrorism had strengthened their sense of identity.

Muslim leaders have welcomed the growing population of their communities ...

There are more than 42.6 million Christians in Britain, according to the Office for National Statistics, whose figures were obtained through the quarterly Labour Force Survey of around 53,000 homes. But while the biggest Christian population is among over-70s bracket, for Muslims it is the under-4s ...

Ceri Peach, Professor of Social Geography at Manchester University, said that the rapid growth of the Muslim population posed challenges for society. “The groups with the strongest belief in the family and cohesion are those such as the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. They have got extremely strong family values but it goes together with the sort of honour society and other kinds of attributes which people object to,” he said. “So you are dealing with a pretty complex situation.”

Hmm. That's what I'd call the weak version of the theory. But he's right that Muslims have many admirable values which hold together and strengthen their society. The operative word being 'their'.

They're not destroying our society, though. We did that when we implemented the brave new vision of the Sixties, which has made modern Britain so different from the Britain of fifty years back. Islam is merely expanding into the moral vacuum left by the decline of Christianity, the cultural vacuum left by the decline of Britishness, and the demographic vacuum left by the Pill and feminism.

Here are the figures. Have a nice day.

The total number of Muslims in Great Britain:

2004: 1,870,000

2005: 2,017,000

2006: 2,142,000

2007: 2,327,000

2008: 2,422,000

Source: Labour Force Survey

"Run you cowards ! Kuffar! Run you kuff! Allahu Akbar!"

"Police attack Gaza demonstration in London.

Riot police trap protestors in Hyde Park underpass."

So (according to Socialist Unity - the stopwar site has been hacked, by the Zionist Entity no doubt) sayeth the Stop The War Coalition, or whatever they're now called. George Galloway was apparently most upset.

Doesn't look like that from this video, of Her Majesty's Finest retreating from a band of doubtless peace-loving sons of the Prophet the Saturday before last.

How quickly history moves. Before 9/11 and despite the Rushdie affair, radical Islamists in the UK were a curio, presented as a comedy act by people like Louis Theroux and Jon Ronson.

So I drove Omar into town by a route that avoided Soho. We passed a poster advertising the Spice Girls' debut album.

"Such a very stupid thing," mumbled Omar. "Spicy Girls."

"What will become of the Spice Girls when Britain is transformed into an Islamic nation?" I asked.

"They will be arrested immediately," he replied. "They will not even be existing in an Islamic state. OK. We can go on. Turn right at the lights."

Even after 9/11 and 7/7 there was a police escort for people carrying banners saying 'Butcher those who insult Islam'.















Now we seem to have moved into a new phase.


(hat-tip - Beer n Sandwiches and the Pub Philosopher)


UPDATE - via JuliaM, this police blog (with more video) on the demo a week later.

As usual we had been told that our role was to facilitate the lawful demonstration and that we were effectively 'community Policing' unless the situation changed and things became violent. Crucially, we were told that despite the fact that nearly every march relating to the Gaza/Israel situation had experienced violence, this was not sufficient evidence to suggest that THIS march would become violent. As such, because the senior officers are so afraid of offending the wrong people, we were NOT in possession of riot helmets or shields which were left on the carriers, although we all were in our protective gear and coveralls under the yellow jackets. We were wearing our normal everyday beat helmets and to say some were not happy about that would be a slight understatement.

You won't be too amazed to learn that it doesn't end well.

Pity The Poor Banker

Robert Peston reports Bank of England deputy chairman John Gieve as follows :

"If we'd used interest rates to try and address this asset-price credit growth, we would have been holding down the level of activity elsewhere in the economy, in manufacturing, in other services, holding down the level of employment at a time when consumer price inflation and earnings were stable and reasonably low. And people would have said, you know, 'this is a wilful reduction in the prosperity of the country'."

In other words, they feared the political reaction to what they knew was the right thing to do, so they didn't do it.

So much for the political independence of the BoE, for which Chancellor Brown was given so much credit, and which seems to have left him with the power while passing the responsibility to the BoE.

And the kindest expression for the BoE personnel involved would be that they "fell below the level of events".

It's not "that the Bank of England does not possess the proper tools for dealing with incipient booms in assets and lending". It's that it doesn't possess the proper bankers. John Gieve sounds like one of those chaps who would have trundled through less interesting times without trace. Instead he seems to have a CV covered in red ink and blots.

BoE website :

Sir John Gieve was appointed Deputy Governor in January 2006. In addition to his membership of the Monetary Policy Committee, he has specific responsibility for the Bank's Financial Stability work ..

That's unfortunate. Financial stability seems in short supply ...

He oversaw one Home Office shambles :

Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General wrote

To inform Parliament that the Home Office has not met the statutory reporting timetable in respect of its 2004-05 resource accounts;

[...]

I cannot form an opinion on the truth and fairness of the Home Office financial statements for 2004-05

[...]

That is as strong a condemnation of incompetent financial management as any auditor is likely to utter.

It is as astonishing as it is unacceptable, that a major Central Government Department like the Home Office cannot be trusted to account for the money it spends on our behalf.

If a private sector organisation had mismanged its financial affairs as badly as this, then the people in charge would be out of a job forthwith.

Will the Home Secretary Charles Clarke, whom in theory bears resposibility for this David Blunkett legacy, have the honour to resign ?

What about the "Sir Humphrey" , the Permanent Secretary and therfore the Accounting Officer of the Home Department at the time. i.e. Sir John Gieve.

Sir John is now the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, with a vote on the level of the Bank of England's official Interest Rates, which affect the entire UK economy !

And another :

Last week the 56-year-old career civil servant returned to Westminster for a grilling by the Home Affairs Select Committee about why more than 1,000 prisoners were not even considered for deportation after serving their jail sentences. "There were failings in the handling of foreign prisoners which I regret," Gieve told the committee. "I am not trying to excuse the inexcusable."

Gieve has also been criticised over the running of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and his failure to give a full account of how the nanny of Kimberly Quinn, David Blunkett's former lover, was given a visa.

In recent weeks, the Home Office has come under fire from several corners. Charles Clarke, the former home secretary, called the department "dysfunctional", while Clarke's successor, John Reid, recently judged it "not fit for purpose".

You have to be impressed with a chap who can preside over so much disaster and is still prepared to share his wisdom with us on prime time TV (tonight's Panorama). What's Hebrew for 'chutzpah' again ?

To be fair to Gieve and his colleagues, house prices were roaring ahead long before 2006. It was around 2005 that I started to get unsolicited invites to buy-to-let seminars at snazzy hotels, one of the signs that the market is heading for a peak. And doing the right thing would probably have cost the members of the Monetary Policy Committee their jobs. Instead it'll cost ours.

Oops !

via Dogwash :

The Nigerian man told immigration staff he had a place at university in Northern Ireland to study engineering and would live in Dagenham - and produced false papers to back up his claim.

He later admitted he wanted to work illegally after being questioned over the 900-mile, 10-hour round trip by car and ferry he would need to make every day. A source said: "His explanation was laughable. He'd clearly never even looked at a map."

Officials also queried how he could tackle a Masters Degree taught in English when he needed a translator to talk to them.

Summer Floodwaters From The Curate's Brook

More a collection of links, really - stuff I just haven't found the time to blog about :

This story is one of a number in the last couple of years about Muslim prison gangs. Wasn't someone killed by Muslims in Frankland in the last year or so ?

Prison authorities have compiled an action plan for dealing with a kidnap plot involving radicalised Muslim convicts inside Britain's jails. The dossier has been compiled in the past few months following rising tension in the prison system. Intelligence gathered from Britain's eight top-security prisons indicate that specific threats to kidnap and decapitate an officer first emerged at Whitemoor prison in Cambridgeshire six months ago. However, a senior prison source said that the risk went beyond one jail.

Most primary school teachers have been women - and that's probably true even going back to Victorian days. It wouldn't be so bad that only one primary teacher in 50 is male - if so many boys didn't have a male role model / authority figure in their lives.

"The secret state that steals our children" - Camilla Cavendish on the family courts - a must-read. One family's story here. More here.

Rasputin's real views on homosexuality and Christianity revealed - it wasn't exactly a secret now, was it ? Like John Humphrys, Mary Ann Sieghart wishes he'd have the courage of his convictions.

Ross is posting some good stuff at the moment ... and Marko Attila Hoare - where did he get that name ? - is worth reading on the ex-Soviet Empire, even if you don't agree with everything.

Who's been stabbed or shot recently ? Public Perception has the stories.

They've got your phone calls. Now they want your email and browsing habits. Not just MI5/6, who one tends to assume already has that sort of thing. Your local council, health authority, etc. Surprise surprise, it's driven by an EU directive.

And for details of all such things, EU Referendum - in terms of adding to one's knowledge, it has to be the best Brit politics site on the Web. Also highly informative - the Yorkshire Ranter - he may be a lefty, but he knows an awful lot about technology, particularly the military stuff. A rattling good read.


So, he left her flat at 6 am, leaving - according to his testimony, the deceased still alive and well.

Her body was found two days later. I can see that, were she still alive, she might not have spotted him pinching her mobile and Oyster card, which he used on his way home. They're the kind of things you can slip into a pocket. But how in God's name, if they are alive, do you steal someone's DVD player and Freeview box without them noticing, leaving the flat with "a big bag" ?

You do have to wonder if the jury was made up of people who don't like pre-op transexuals like poor Kellie Telesford. Alleged illegal immigrant Shanniel Hyatt is very fortunate that the full weight of British law didn't descend on him. Had he been found guilty, he might have ended up doing two whole years for manslaughter !

We Have Been Here Before ...

2008 - "Ministers have confirmed plans for more targeting of 110,000 "problematic" families in a bid to cut youth crime."

2001 - "... the estimated 100,000 persistent criminals, said to be responsible for half of all crime, would face serving all their sentences instead of being released early."

Like this guy.

The Government has improved its checks for prisoners who are given early release after a violent Suffolk man stabbed his pregnant girlfriend just hours after being allowed to walk free from jail.

Derek Burns was let out after serving just over two weeks of a 16-week sentence for assaulting his mother-in-law and went straight back to Bury St Edmunds - where he plunged a 25cm knife into 23-year-old Leigh-Anne Hammond's back in front of their four hysterical children ...

... although Burns had previous convictions for violence he had never used a weapon before.

Things Fall Apart, the Centre Cannot Hold ...

It looks as if the plans are being put in place for when it all goes pearshaped :

7. At the same time we need to recognise that community tensions can escalate into violent disorder and that short-term and possibly unpredicted factors, in this country or abroad, have the potential to trigger conflict in normally cohesive communities. These factors may include a racially or religiously motivated assault, an act of terrorism, or military conflict.

8. Arrangements for monitoring and responding to rises in community tension already occupy an important place in ongoing local community cohesion activity. The Government believes that it is vital for every local authority and its partners to consider developing a local cohesion contingency plan which sets out the roles, responsibilities and processes to be activated should local community tensions be assessed as likely to result in serious violence or disturbance and in the event of actual disorder occurring.

The good news is that local authorities in general, and NuLab in particular, are legendarily incompetent.

This ghastly bureaucratic questionnaire reminds us of those mentioned in the satire The Good Soldier Švejk by Jaroslav Hašek.

The similarities between the incompetent police state bureaucracy just before the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire during the First World War, and that which has been instituted by the failing Labour regime and with its "Community Cohesion" snooping and "intervention", are remarkable...

In the satirical novel, the bureaucratic Sergeant Flanderka mistakes The Good Soldier Švejk for an enemy Russian rather than a Czech soldier, and, in order to make himself appear more important to his superiors, even exaggerates this mistake by convincing himself that Švejk must actually be an elite high ranking Russian officer spy.

We expect that exactly the same will happen with this "tension monitoring" nonsense. Either people will just "go through the motions" and tick all the "everything is ok here" boxes, or else some apparatchik, ambitious for promotion, or fearful of having their funding cut back, will exaggerate and invent "community tension" where none actually exists, to cast themselves in a good light.

Will such Local Authority "little Hitlers" be tempted to make disproportionate use of their Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act powers for Communications Traffic Data and Directed Surveillance, using "tension monitoring" as an excuse ?.

Yup. (via the Englishman)

UPDATE - it's interesting to see the successful application of media pressure. Local authorities are among the biggest advertisers in local papers, so it wouldn't take more than a phone call or two to get the message across.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council - Tameside holds regular meetings with local newspaper editors to gather information and stop sensationalist reporting which might otherwise start or add to rising tensions, e.g. in response to a Kick Racism out of Football campaign, an extremist political group wanted to picket a local football stadium. A local newspaper was going to print the story on its front page – an action that was likely to bring unwanted publicity to the picket and fuel rising community tensions. The intervention of the Community Cohesion Partnership prevented the story from being run and in the event no-one turned out for the picket.

Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council - The Berwick Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) is working with the local press/media to vet stories involving migrant workers from eastern Europe and Portugal employed in the food processing and agricultural sectors to prevent stigmatisation.

Can't say plainer than that, can you ? And how about this ?

Monitoring political extremism
60. Local tension monitoring may take specific account of activities by members of any political group which increase community tension.
61. It is important that the gathering and use of such information complies with any legislation which might be relevant (for example the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act 1998).

Now I seem to recall that RIPA was sold to the Great British Public as a means of preventing terrorism and organised crime, not for monitoring "activities by members of any political group". Silly me.

"The garotting panic of 1862"

After some particularly hideous crime or series of crimes you can usually rely on a pro-criminal or anti-prison campaigner to pop up repeating the famous liberal 'moral panic' mantra, the basic theme of which is Ecclesiastes 1:9. Worried about x ? Well, people were worried about x as far back as ccyymmdd, and the sky didn't fall in. (You won't be completely surprised to find that the actual evidence for x back in ccyymmdd is usually remarkably difficult to find - for example, try finding any hard figures for the number of people killed by "Glasgow's notorious razor gangs". I seem to remember reading somewhere that about two or three people were killed in a ten-year period - stats that the current gangs could knock off in a few weeks.) Given the current news, I'm surprised CiF hasn't found a tame criminologist from the University of Gloucester (formerly Tredworth Sports and Social Club) to tell us about Glesga razor gangs or quote Grahame Greene at us. Give them time.

A year or two back criminologist David Wilson of the University of Central England (formerly The Breedon Bar, Cotteridge) mentioned the hitherto unknown to me Garotting Panic of 1862.

The "garotting panic" was in reality a response to a new phenomenon that Londoners had to come to terms with: the return of released prisoners into the community, which until the 1860s had not been something that was often experienced, given that most offenders had in the past been transported to Australia. And, of course, if you were transported to the other side of the world in the 1840s, 50s and 60s there was little chance that you would actually return to your native city, and so offenders were out of sight and out of mind.

The end of transportation therefore pushed prisons and released prisoners into the public eye, and crime committed by released prisoners - called "ticket of leave men" - were a staple of the Victorian media.

Very helpfully, the pro-criminal campaigning group (aka 'crime reduction charity') NACRO (National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders) have produced a handy pdf of panics called The Dynamics of Panic, featuring contributions from anti-punishment activist Richard Garside and Professor Peter King of the University of Northampton (formerly Bellinge Community Centre) , who writes as follows - but first I must mention his opening line, which should give you an idea where he's coming from. Would you ever guess that "Pete" started life as a social worker ?

"Very few people have much direct experience of crime ..."

Well, would you believe it ? It's 2008 everywhere else, but in the King cranium it'll always be 1972. This guy is paid by the taxpayer to be an expert on crime. I read what he wrote - I read it again - and I still can't quite believe what's in front of my eyes. Bit like the good professor really - he obviously has the same difficulty.

I digress. Take it away, "Pete" !

The garotting panic of 1862

One of the best studies of this pattern (of moral panic - LT) is Davis’s work on the 1862 garotting panic (2) . On 17 July 1862, Hugh Pilkington MP was accosted after leaving the House of Commons. He was choked, struck on the head and relieved of his watch. In the parlance of the times, he was ‘garotted’. The press immediately began to fan the flames of panic. Two days later, the Spectator reported that ‘Highway robbery is becoming an institution in London and roads like the Bayswater Road are as unsafe as Naples.’

The press quickly built up a picture of garotters as ‘folk devils’. They were 'degenerate, coarse, brutal ruffians’, ‘a race of hardened villains’, ‘a species … of ... profound enemies of the human race’ and ‘an irredeemable criminal class’. Minor events were turned into garotting incidents. Indeed, some crimes were literally created by the panic. One unfortunate man walking home on a foggy night thought someone was following him and feared he was about to be mugged. He turned round and attacked his pursuer who was in fact innocently walking home the same way. This was reported as a dangerous mugging.

This panic was further fuelled by the police, who used it for their own purposes. They arrested many more men than usual as ‘suspicious characters and reputed thieves’ and expanded the definition of garotting itself. In one court case the police described a pub brawl as a garotting because they wanted the thieves involved taken off the streets. In another case, a policeman arrested John Boney Redwood for stealing £2, but also ‘imagined’ seeing him knocking his very drunken victim down. Redwood could see what was coming. ‘I know there have been a great many garotte robberies about’, he remarked, ‘and now you have me I suppose I must suffer for it.’ He got 10 years’ penal servitude rather than a few weeks in gaol.

Magistrates also tended to redefine minor crimes – such as pickpocketing – as garottings, and to send them on to the major courts. The result was a rise in reported violent street robberies, which in turn fuelled further panic. According to the metropolitan returns, the figure rose threefold from an average of 32.5 robberies with violence in 1860-61 to 97 in 1862. The increase came only after Pilkington was attacked on 17 July. Up to that date only 15 cases had been reported. The moral panic was not caused by an increase in garottings. On the contrary, the rapid increase in the number of garottings recorded was caused by the moral panic.

This ‘crime wave’ resulted in more policing, the redefining of minor crimes as more serious offences and tougher sentencing in the courts. It also helped to produce a number of legislative changes. An Act was passed which temporarily reversed the long-term movement away from corporal punishment by reintroducing flogging, along with imprisonment, for all robbery with violence. A year later, stricter sentencing policies were introduced in a further Act. The trend towards greater severity continued in the Prisons Act 1865 and the Habitual Criminals Act 1869.

The garotting panic served the purpose of the advocates of longer sentences, tougher prison regimes, and less freedom for those paroled under the ‘ticket of leave’ system (not to mention the return to flogging). These ‘moral entrepreneurs’ (Cohen) rode on the back of a media-created crime wave to get the changes they wanted.

The panic reached its peak in November. Following the trial of 23 alleged garotters at the Old Bailey, it gradually faded in intensity. It had lasted for less than six months. The consequences for penal policy were to prove far reaching.

(2) Davis J (1980) ‘The London garotting panic of 1862: a moral panic and the creation of a criminal class in mid-Victorian England’ in Gatrell V et al (eds) Crime and the Law. The Social History of Crime in Western Europe since 1500 and see Sindall R (1990) Street Violence in the Nineteenth Century.

Well. There you go. All that moral panicking - because one innocent man was killed. You wouldn't want to see something like that happen again, would you ?

Mr King, being a professional criminologist, is an expert at not seeing the wood for the trees. To stupid uninformed Laban, the key text is this :

Magistrates also tended to redefine minor crimes – such as pickpocketing – as garottings, and to send them on to the major courts. The result was a rise in reported violent street robberies, which in turn fuelled further panic. According to the metropolitan returns, the figure rose threefold from an average of 32.5 robberies with violence in 1860-61 to 97 in 1862. The increase came only after Pilkington was attacked on 17 July.

I don't know how you have half a robbery, but look at that. From 33 robberies to 97 - and apparently some of those are pickpocketing offences. In a year.

Let's take a look at the Met's most recent crime figures, shall we ?

May, 2008. Robbery, Person.

2,496. In a month (and I see that homicide is up 80% on last year - 18 as against 10 - in a month, remember - and rape has nearly doubled in a year). That's about (ignoring any seasonal variation) 29,000 a year, as against 100 a year in 1862 .

Why go over all this ? Because in 2007 strangling strangers in robberies is hardly noticed. I don't remember any national TV or radio news about these killings at all. A few beers with mates, a stroll home from the pub - and death at the hands of predatory strangers.

Two South Africans who robbed and murdered two strangers and mugged a string of others while living in the UK on expired visas were jailed yesterday for a minimum of 30 years each. Gabriel Bhengu, 27, and Jabu Mbowane, 26, used their brute strength to grab seven victims in suffocating headlocks before robbing them.

Both men were so strong that two of their targets died in the attacks, while two others told police they felt they were going to die as they were held in headlocks. Bhengu, at 6ft 4in the taller and stronger of the pair, usually grabbed their victims while Mbowane rifled through their pockets, the court heard.

Both are known to have entered the UK legally, but their visas had expired by the time of the murders last April and the five other muggings. Mr Justice Goldring recommended they be deported on their release from their sentences for the murders of Neil Williams, 41, from Telford, Shropshire, and builder Andrew Owen, 42, from Sedgley, West Midlands.

They were killed 20 miles and ten days apart in April last year. Both had been walking home from nights out when they were grabbed round the neck.

Police linked the murders after Mr Williams's watch was found close to Mr Owen's body. Detectives believe one of the killers had been wearing the watch, which had fallen off as Mr Owen fought for his life. Mr Owen - a father-of-five - died from neck injuries as a result of the struggle, prosecutor Roger Smith QC told Wolverhampton Crown Court. Mr Williams died of heart failure. His beige jacket, gold neck chain, bracelet, ring, watch and mobile phone had all been taken from him - but the muggers missed £950 in cash in his trouser pocket.

They were arrested in May last year after visiting a pawnbrokers to try to sell Mr Owen's jewellery. The trial heard the pair, living in Witmore Reans, Wolverhampton, initially targeted women laden with shopping before switching their increasingly ferocious attentions to men. They had admitted mugging Mr Williams and Mr Owen but denied intending to harm them or carrying out the other robberies. But they were convicted of the two murders on Thursday following a five-week trial and returned to Wolverhampton Crown Court yesterday for sentencing.

Kashia Allen, 22, Bhengu's girlfriend-drove them to the robberies. She was cleared of Mr Owen's murder but convicted of manslaughter. Bhengu and Allen, also of Wolverhampton, were found guilty on five robbery. Mbowane was convicted of four robberies. Allen will be sentenced later.

Outside court, Mr Williams's brother, Paul, 46, claimed Bhengu had been arrested and held in custody for two weeks in 2004 for a minor offence but had not been deported. "At that time he was an overstayer...they could have got rid of him then," he said. "Unless they put the system right it's going to happen again." He called Bhengu and Mbowane "cowards and parasites".