Dear Priti Patel: There's no such thing as 'low-skilled' labour

The government's plan to overhaul Britain's immigration system has more holes than a Swiss cheese. According to a briefing document released by the Home Office yesterday, "non-skilled" workers will be unable to live and work in the UK and anyone wanting to move here must have a job offer on a salary of at least £25,600.

There are obvious issues here. Business leaders have already warned of labour shortages in vital sectors such as food and agriculture. Stores on the high street could close down as a result of the plans. The repercussions for social care would be unthinkable. With unemployment at a record low, how is the government expected to fill the gaps?

Priti Patel says there are 8m people aged 16 to 64 in the UK who are currently "economically inactive". Given the fact there are only around 1.5m people classed as unemployed at the moment, where are the others going to come from? Students? The elderly? The disabled? David Cameron used draconian welfare measures to force vulnerable people into low-paid work during his time as prime minister. It is alarming to think what measures Boris Johnson might take when faced with actual labour shortages.

But consequences aside, the government's immigration reforms are built on outdated notions about the workforce anyway. By setting a minimum salary for migrants to be permitted to work in the UK, Downing Street and the Home Office are attempting to block what they see as an influx of "low-skilled" labour.

But "low-skilled" labour doesn't exist. Jobs people tend to see as low-skilled or unskilled – high street retail, hospitality and care work – are in fact highly demanding and require skillsets many people simply don't have. Workers in customer-facing roles require empathy; the ability to multitask; in many instances a level of patience most couldn't muster if their lives depended on it. Waiting staff in busy environments need to be physically fit and quick on their feet all while retaining a customer-friendly demeanour. All this applies to care workers at an even higher level. A degree in financial maths and an internship at Goldman Sachs couldn't prepare you in the slightest for the kinds of things carers have to do on a daily basis. Why then, do we keep referring to these everyday superheroes as low-skilled?

One need only look at the data to see how gruelling "unskilled" work is. A 2015 study by Southern Medical University in China found that jobs with little situational control and high demand, such as waitressing, may be more stressful than those with high situational control and high demand, such as teaching. Worse still, a 2017 study by the University of Manchester found that low-paid jobs could be worse for workers' health than unemployment. Low-paid workers must tolerate a level of stress in and outside of the workplace higher earners seldom experience.

And these jobs aren't just incredibly demanding – they're also the backbone of Britain's economy. Baristas, bartenders, retail staff and carers: these are all the face of the businesses and services British people use and enjoy every day. They are a fundamental part of our lives; many of them are filled by workers who come from abroad. Under these reforms, the government is essentially turning around to those workers and saying: "Not interested. Move along. You don't matter anymore."

Once freedom of movement ends, the consequences of Boris Johnson's immigration overhaul will quickly become apparent. Until then, however, progressives must categorically reject discussions on migration framed around "low-skilled" workers. All labour is skilled labour – it's time we started saying as much.

Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders and the new 'Blue Wall'

Here's a very interesting piece published in the Guardian on Monday about former 'red wall' voters' opinions on taxing the rich.

According to research by Tax Justice UK and Survation, former Labour voters in Blyth, Wrexham and Bury North aren't interested in the slightest by soak-the-rich rhetoric – preferring instead to focus on specific policy prescriptions, such as the closure of tax loopholes and bringing capital gains tax in line with income taxes.

This goes some way to validating my suspicions that the language of radicalism has very little appeal towards the voters Labour lost in last year's general election. For better or worse, British voters by and large tend to have positive attitudes towards the very wealthy, and Labour's attempts to force a political realignment on the basis of class last year had nowhere near the same level of success Bernie Sanders has had in the US doing much the same thing.

I wonder how much of that has to do with the people spearheading both movements, mind. Corbyn is roundly despised by the British electorate, regardless of why that may be. On the other hand, Sanders is comparatively very popular. There's no doubt in my mind that Sanders has a charisma and quality Corbyn has never managed to muster. In addition, he simply hasn't got the baggage Corbyn came with, having associated with questionable individuals on a number of occasions throughout his career.

But there are certainly material and cultural elements explaining the divide between Sanders' and Corbyn's political fortunes, as well. Despite chronic underfunding and neglect, Britain does have universal healthcare free at the point of use. The US, on the other hand, does not. Just as well, despite a decade of grinding austerity measures, the UK has a welfare system leaps and bounds more generous than that of our transatlantic cousins. Could Sanders' appeal be down to the fact the US is in a more advanced stage of crisis than we are? Perhaps. But when you consider the fact children in Morecambe are so hungry right now they're eating from bins, things look very bad here all the same.

In the end, then, maybe it really is that Corbyn was just so unlikable. His supporters still insist Brexit was the main issue – and to be sure it was a major issue. But I can't help thinking Labour's Brexit policy could've gone down a lot better if it were someone else making the sale. The left cannot go on thinking the strength of its ideas alone will carry it to victory. Optics matter, and denying that will only bring further disappointment and despair.

With Brexit ostensibly out of the way, we'll soon see how strong the Tories' new 'blue wall' is. Voters in these seats have high expectations for investment, some looking for improvements in a matter of weeks. Rishi Sunak will be under a lot of pressure to woo blue workers in next month's budget – and if he fails, Labour's pick for the leadership will become significantly more important.

Bloomberg's spot in tomorrow's Democratic debate is (mostly) good news for Bernie Sanders

CNN reports that Michael Bloomberg has qualified for for the Democratic debate in Nevada on Wednesday.

The Sanders campaign should welcome the news. Bloomberg is entering the debate on the back of a number of damning revelations in the press. His defence of stop-and-frisk policies he enforced as mayor of New York and the re-emergence of a litany of sexist remarks he has made over the years should both give Sanders plenty of ammunition to use against the billionaire business tycoon tomorrow night.

Even better for Sanders is the fact his rivals in the Democratic race have even more reason to go knives-out against Bloomberg. Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar will both be looking to retain their momentum after strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire. But Nevada is a significantly more diverse state than the preceding two – and right now, Buttigieg and Klobuchar’s minority support is diabolical.

Bloomberg, on the other hand, has managed to amass the support of 22% of African American voters since announcing his candidacy in November, according to a Quinnipac poll from earlier this month. Ideologically speaking, it goes without saying that Bloomberg has far more in common with Buttigieg and Klobuchar than with Sanders. For that reason, Mayor Pete and the Minnesota senator – both of whom will be looking to improve minority support off the back of their centrist rivals – have everything to gain from attacking Bloomberg’s record on race in tomorrow’s debate.

Going out guns-blazing against Bloomberg should come with a warning, however. The last thing Sanders – or any of the serious contenders in the race, for that matter – wants is to give Bloomberg a reason to paint himself as a victim. As a late entrant to the race and former Republican, Bloomberg has the means to run the campaign of a political outsider in the Democratic primary. Getting attacked from all sides tomorrow could simply make the ads a lot easier to write going forward.

Detractors might point to Bloomberg’s staggering fortune and say there’s no way someone with that much money could pose as an enemy of the establishment. But Donald Trump did exactly that in 2016 with remarkable success. The only difference billions of dollars makes is that getting the message out becomes far easier. Having already spent more than $330m in the race, Bloomberg has proven this beyond doubt.

Up to this point, the Sanders campaign has proven itself remarkably astute strategically. Between its handling of the Warren campaign’s accusations of sexism last month to its perfectly-timed shift to attacking Joe Biden on social security, Sanders’ team clearly has its eye on the prize. Sanders’ rally in Washington on Monday night, in which he accurately accused Bloomberg of trying to buy the Democratic race, shows he is starting to test the waters to see how shallow the billionaire’s recent poll bounce is. Time will tell, but the Sanders campaign is taking Bloomberg seriously as a threat – and that can only be a good thing.

'Intergenerational fairness' according to the British government

Here's a funny story in the FT from yesterday:

A group of cross-party MPs have called for a radical overhaul of the inheritance tax system — recommending a substantial cut in the standard 40 per cent rate to 10 per cent and the scrapping of most reliefs including the “seven-year rule”. 

In a report published on Wednesday, members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Inheritance and Intergenerational Fairness said inheritance tax was “unpopular and ripe for reform” and that their recommendations would “increase fairness, cut complexity and reduce avoidance”.

Cutting inheritance tax by 75% is a strange way to increase fairness between generations. Of course, plans to scrap relief are welcome, but the problem with inheritance tax currently is that rich people can usually find ways to avoid it, whereas middle-earners and savers can't. The APPG's recommendations take on faith that a cut would reduce avoidance, but the evidence that capital-friendly policies reduce tax avoidance in general is very thin. In addition, wealth transfers on estates worth more than £2m would be taxed at 20% under the recommendations, giving the very rich more reason to keep avoiding the levy.

Intergenerational fairness is somewhat of a unicorn in a society with the levels of inequality the UK has. Those on the political right sometimes draw a distinction between 'equality of opportunity' and 'equality of outcome', the former being desirable over the latter. But if equality of opportunity is truly what you're after, getting there would require almost unthinkably radical policies. Inheritance tax would have to be set at 100%; private schools would have to be abolished; nepotism would have to be outlawed.

Is that really what we're after? Most people would obviously answer no. So why don't we try something a little more moderate: keep the levy the same, scrap relief, reduce avoidance, and actually invest in poor communities to give young people from low-income families the best start in life.

Tragedy, Farce and the BBC

News that the BBC is to cut 450 jobs as part of an effort to make £80m worth of savings inspires little confidence about the future of the corporation. Over the last election cycle, the BBC slipped up on a number of occasions in its coverage, including repeating false claims a Conservative adviser was assaulted by Labour activists outside Leeds General Infirmary, and running an out-of-date clip of Boris Johnson laying a wreath in its Remembrance Day footage. The cracks are already beginning to show – how is the broadcaster expected to cope as resources are stretched even further?

Mistakes in coverage are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the BBC's problems, mind. Funding aside, the corporation's abject failure to engage younger audiences leaves its longevity seriously in doubt. Research conducted by Ofcom last year found one in eight young Britons don't use the BBC at all in a given week. And it isn't just streaming services to blame for the existential crisis at Broadcasting House: commercial stations and ITV are doing a comparatively better job at attracting young audiences. The eventual death of the license fee looks certain at this point. The question is,  what will be left when it's finally gone?

It is worth reiterating at this point how out-of-touch the BBC is when it comes to young people in the UK. Laura Kuenssberg's attempt to define 'shitposting' – a term with its own Wikipedia page, for anyone doubting the extent to which it has been established – left viewers dumbfounded in an episode of Brexitcast in November. The corporation's news podcast aimed at younger listeners, 'The Next Episode', generates almost no buzz online. As Sarah Manavis notes, the BBC has made little effort to create a distinct social media identity, and what little is there is, in her words, tepid. When it comes to the future, you can roll with the punches, or get dragged there kicking and screaming. But the BBC is doing neither, preferring instead to ambivalently shrug as the rot sets further in.

I suspect much of the BBC's woes stem in large part from the fact it is still, by and large, dominated by elites and the upper classes. A 2017 analysis by the very talented Lewis Goodall found almost half of the BBC's highest-paid presenters were privately educated, compared with 7% of the British population. Further, the vast majority of the state-educated ones attended grammar schools. Indeed, Goodall said that the number of high-paid presenters who attended state comprehensives could be counted "on one hand". This problem is largely the same when it comes to BBC management. All this speaks volumes about the entrenched privilege at Broadcasting House. It also illustrates the fact this is not an organisation young people, free to choose from a huge variety of entertainment and media services, will relate to enough to pay for should the license fee disappear.

So: what to do? Sociologist Tom Mills, who authored a book entitled 'The BBC: Myth of a Public Service', argues that merely "defending" the corporation against funding cuts is not enough. Instead, the answer to the BBC's woes must come as part of a broader shift towards genuinely representative institutions, "accountable to citizens, not politicians", that is "democratic and truly representative of the society it serves in all its diversity".

Sounds great. There's just one problem: the clock's ticking. And right now, at least, neither the senior executives at the BBC nor the general public seem especially fussed about a democratic revolution at our prized public service broadcaster. You know what they say: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. At some point, the BBC might start to change – but at this rate it'll be long after people have stopped caring.

Boris Johnson's 'global talent visa'

Simon Jenkins published a very good piece in the Guardian the other day on the government's plans to introduce a 'global talent visa' next month.

The visa, in Boris Johnson's words, is aimed at attracting "the world's scientists and mathematicians" to work in the UK after Britain leaves the European Union in two days' time. The imperialistic connotations are not lost on Jenkins, who is worth quoting at some length:

By what right does Britain slam the door on “untalented” economic migrants from the world’s poorer countries, while boasting it will raid their reserves of scientific talent? The NHS already devastates the medical graduate pools of India and Africa. Now Britain is to poach whatever scientists they have left. This is aid-in-reverse: “soft power” at its crudest and most imperial.

There is no rhyme or reason to the new populism. It is driven by chauvinism and outdated cliches. Britain does not “need” more scientists. It needs what its employers will pay to recruit. A Tory government should accept that the labour market knows best. Britain’s economic performance – and its wider culture – has long benefited from immigrants, be they rich or poor at the point of entry. Turning them away makes no sense.

This isn't the only problem with Johnson's talent visa. If you accept the premise there is a skills shortage in the British sciences, then surely the best solution would be to give the UK's STEM graduates a reason to stick at it. Indeed, a 2018 joint-study into STEM graduates by the universities of Leicester and Warwick found that the problem wasn't a lack of numbers, but that only half of them ended up working in a job related to their course.

If Brexit does cause a brain drain in the sciences – and many fear it will – then it will become increasingly important to nurture the UK's young talent and make it worth their while to pursue STEM careers. This is especially true of the medical field and the NHS.

Music Monday: Ekko & Sidetrack – Let the Light In 2020 (ft. Reija Lee)

Haven't had time to write over the past week unfortunately. Been getting back into the swing of things at uni and had personal stuff keeping me occupied, but I will be looking to return to frequent posts over the coming weeks as things settle again. That said, here's another Music Monday just to keep the dust from collecting on the blog. 

This week, we're ditching the underground for an indulgent helping of unabashed big-room DnB. Their 2017 original was plenty energetic, but Ekko and Sidetrack's 2020 mix of 'Let the Light In' ramps up the drama for a dancefloor smasher that goes above and beyond the euphoria of its predecessor. 

All the elements that made the 2017 version so good are there: the dramatic lead synths and Reija Lee's understatedly powerful vocals both remain almost untouched. This time, however, we're treated to an extended build-up, a weightier drop and a bass section that drives the track with a grit the original tune just didn't have. It's hair-rasing stuff, and a massive improvement on the original overall.

So click play and have a listen. It's awesome.