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But consequences aside, the government's immigration reforms are built on outdated notions about the workforce anyway.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.

Flybe: In a reasonable world, wouldn't the entire aviation industry be in crisis?

Flybe’s financial woes, the Guardian reports, are a tragedy for professionals who rely on air travel to commute across Europe to and from work. My deepest sympathies to those affected. But then, I can only think: in a reasonable world – one where states were fully committed to tackling the climate crisis and stemming the tide of ecological destruction – wouldn’t most of the aviation industry be at risk?

This sounds needlessly provocative, but I am serious. Aviation industry claims that flight only accounts for 1.5-2% of global emissions are misleading and grossly underestimate the environmental impact of air travel. The Department for Transport estimates 6.3% of the UK’s carbon emissions are caused by flight, and even then the real figure is likely to be a lot higher. The capacity to make air travel greener is very limited and looks set to stay that way. Comparatively, green technology for automobiles and rail travel is leaps and bounds ahead.

We know therefore that the solution to aviation emissions is similar to those of the car industry: improve and expand ground-based public transport. This is precisely what the IEA (International Energy Agency – not to be confused with the Institute of Economic Affairs) argued last year in a report that found global transport emissions could peak in the 2030s if rail was “aggressively” expanded. The benefits are numerous: rail is the most energy-efficient means of motorised passenger transport; electric trains are effective at reducing emissions; high-speed rail is a low-carbon alternative to short-distance flights; the list goes on.

All things considered, the evidence is clear as day. The only thing missing is the political will of governments to make it a reality. And if they did, the impact on industries like air travel would simply prove we were taking steps necessary to combat environmental decline.

Of course, I’m not saying we should leave airliners to simply go bust. Jobs would be lost and the livelihoods of working people would be put at risk. For that reason, insolvencies should be planned well in advance and states should assist with the transition.

The means are there to make a success of this. We just have to be bold enough.

Rebecca Long-Bailey and the Labour Leadership Contest

I was a bit concerned today to learn Labour leadership contender Rebecca Long-Bailey said she would have rated Jeremy Corbyn "10 out of 10" for his four-year tenure as leader of the party.

As someone who supported Corbyn as leader, I certainly wouldn't have given the man 10 out of 10 and I'm not sure anyone would if they were honest with themselves. From equivocating on Brexit, to poor handling of reports over antisemitism, to – let's be honest – skeletons in the closet that he never managed to get ahead of in the press, there's a lot to criticise about Corbyn's leadership.

I know these 'gotcha' questions are awkward and difficult to deal with, but would it really have been so difficult for RLB to circumvent it? She quite easily could have told ITV News that a four-year leadership, during which two general elections and a referendum were held, might demand a bit more nuance than a rating out of 10. But instead, she gave a perfect score to a man who, like everyone, isn't perfect, didn't do a perfect job, and is largely viewed by the British public to be a very, very long way from perfect.

This is what worries me, a person to the left of the Labour Party, about RLB. She's already being labelled the continuity candidate for a leader the public mostly dislikes. In her official pitch, published in Tribune, she uses the language of radicalism when it's clear that, despite support for specific policies, the public still doesn't trust Labour on the economy. She speaks of an insurgent force and war with the political establishment when it's unclear whether that sort of language will resonate with the public from the left. I know that this is a pitch to labour members and not the electorate, but I worry the tone will alienate huge numbers of people in an election setting.

Despite its shortfalls (and there were many), Labour did manage to point out something really important during the election campaign: that a huge portion of the manifesto actually wasn't radical at all, and would simply have brought the UK into line with the rest of the world on a number of issues. This had the potential to comfort voters who didn't trust Labour to carry out its pledges, but it was drowned out by policy overload and the rhetoric of radicalism.

What about the genuinely radical policies in Labour's manifesto? How to account for them? One way would be to swap "radical" for "necessary". Was Labour's environmental policy radical? Arguably – and to say as such risks scaring off voters. Was it necessary? Well, if you believe ecological destruction is an urgent problem that demands solutions beyond tinkering around the edges of the system causing it, then obviously it is. Things start to look a lot less radical when put in context – and that's exactly what Labour should have done, and should endeavour to do so in future. 

In my view, RLB and the other left candidates in the leadership contest would do well to keep this in mind. That said, the next election isn't for another four years, and the world could look very different by then.