The Obscurer

A couple of weeks ago, whilst writing about immigration policy, I mentioned that “when the BNP and their like criticise immigrants for just coming over here to claim benefit, they don’t seem to subject our own home-grown benefit claimants to the same scrutiny, as if social security abuse is solely the preserve of weird foreigners”. To my surprise, the following week, while looking through a couple of editions of the Daily Express that were lying around work, I found two stories that did just that. Oh, the front pages were still full of fears of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, but on two consecutive days, if you delved deep enough, you could read stories about hard working foreigners being employed in jobs that locals were not prepared to do (perhaps it is unfair to include the Express in the grouping “the BNP and their like”; but you know what I mean).

Well, I am never happy when I appear to be in agreement with the Express, so I would like to clarify my position. The whole tone of the Express articles suggested that the local Britons simply could not be bothered to work in their local factories, and so the companies were forced into employing immigrants who would be prepared to work for low wages. Now I dare say some people could accurately be described as not being bothered to work; but what most of the people interviewed actually said was that they would be worse off working in their local factory than if they stayed on benefit. They are victims of the poverty trap, and this can be a genuine problem.

I spent 6 months on the dole (strictly speaking, on income support) in 1992. It was, without doubt, the grimmest period of my life, and an extremely unhealthy situation to be in. Looking back now, I suspect that I was actually going through some sort of breakdown by the time I finally got a permanent job; certainly, my mental health was not the best, but over a period of months of full time employment I managed to get myself out of the hole. I know not every person will react to unemployment in the same way, but I really cannot imagine what must go through the minds of people growing up in areas where there are very few prospects at all.

Two points about the benefits system stick in my mind from around this time. The first came when I managed to get a job working in telesales, on a commission-only basis. I was a very poor salesman, and some weeks I made less money than the dole; other weeks, although I earned more than the dole, once travelling cost were taken off I was still out of pocket. One week I actually earned no money at all. In my final week, because I had made no sales, and because a sale from the previous week had been cancelled, I actually owed my employer money. No; selling is not my forte. When I inquired about whether I could get any financial assistance from social security to bolster my potential weekly earnings of zilch I was told I couldn’t, because I had a full time job. How much I actually earned was irrelevant; working over 18 hours meant no help whatsoever.

The second point I remember came after the telesales firm let me go (Why? What had I done wrong?). During one of my job centre interviews I was told that I was allowed to work part time and still claim benefit; I could earn £5 initially, but after that, for every pound I earned, I would lose a pound of benefit.

Now, I was still living with my parents at the time, and I thought that working commission-only was preferable to relying on income support; if things went badly, and I earned less than the dole, I still had a roof over my head, I still got fed, I had no dependants to worry about. For me it was worth the gamble in the hope that I could earn a decent wage and perhaps move on from there. I did finally get off the dole, and it was to another commission-only job, working for a timeshare company. It was grim, though better than nothing; but I can well imagine people in a different situation simply not being able to take the risk I could.

In September of that year I remember watching the Tory Party conference when a delegate rose to the platform and said it was ridiculous that people were forced by the system to stay on benefits. He raised the very points I have mentioned; the loss of entitlement if you get a full time job, regardless of your income; losing £1 of benefit for every £1 you earn. This needed to be reformed he said. He then walked off the platform to a mixture of silence and disinterest from the audience.

What is amusing, though, is that earlier that year, during the General Election, the Labour Party had been attacked for their taxation policy. They had suggested raising income tax for the richest in society, and abolishing the ceiling for National Insurance payments. This was roundly criticised as a huge disincentive for people; why should the richest bother to work more when the government was going to take 60p out of every £1 they earned? No one seemed concerned about the disincentive that already existed for the poorest people, the unemployed, who would love to be able keep just 40p out of every £1 earned when returning to the workforce.

It surely cannot be that difficult to devise a system where people do not lose more in benefit than they earn in wages when they return to work. There must be some sliding scale that can be devised where as people earn more money (and pay taxes) their benefit is gradually reduced, and then reduced further over time until they no longer rely on benefits. I am sure I could work it out myself, given a free afternoon. Or perhaps not.

I don’t think I am being naïve. I am sure there are people who actually do not want to work, who are happy to live on state handouts, who rely on their giro to supplement a life of crime. But there are also people who want to work, but who simply cannot afford to because of the inflexibilities of the system. We should reform the system; to help the latter, and to remove an excuse for the former.

Returning to immigration briefly, it was interesting to hear Charles Clarke the other day unveiling his new “crackdown”, without actually saying there were any problems with the current policy to crackdown on. Indeed, when Jeremy Paxman interviewed him on Newsnight and he was directly asked if we have too many immigrants at the moment, he said that numbers are about right and everything is fine and dandy. The reason for the announcement was to restore public confidence.

I would have thought that if there aren’t any concerns over immigration, then the best way to restore public confidence is to say “there aren’t any concerns over immigration”. Am I wrong?Yes, I know, I suppose I am wrong. This announcement is as much about being seen to be doing something, and about spiking the Tories’ guns on the issue. But I am tired. I am already bored with the election campaign, and it hasn’t even begun yet.

Because I am essentially kind of heart, I wouldn’t go as far as accusing Michael Howard of playing the race card in announcing the Conservatives’ new policy on asylum and immigration the other day; however, unless he can expand on his comments that millions of foreigners want to get into the UK, I think it is fair to accuse him of playing the “ignorant, irrational fear of immigration” card, which is a very similar thing.

Nowadays, it does seem as if people can give vent to their xenophobia by dressing it up as a legitimate concern over immigration policy. This week, “The Politics Show” went out and did a (notoriously unscientific) vox pop regarding peoples’ views on immigration. The majority (including all the first generation Britons polled) came up with the usual “enough is enough”, “we’re full up”, “I’m not racist but…” arguments. I love the idea that the country is literally full up. Where do these people actually live? Do they spend their entire life queuing shoulder to shoulder for a drink in Wetherspoons? Seeing as the population of the world is supposed to be able to fit on the Isle of Wight, I think we can squeeze a few more people into these islands for a while yet. Perhaps this idea had some currency when we had high levels of unemployment; but today?

Now, let me be clear; I am not arguing against any immigration policy at all. I have no truck with economic migrants posing as asylum seekers, not least because it is unfair on genuine economic migrants who are going through the legitimate channels. As for other legal immigrants, I think is sensible to restrict entrance to people who we believe will benefit our society; it seems crazy to do otherwise. But with these points in mind, what on earth is wrong with people being economic migrants? Why shouldn’t we welcome people who want to live and work in this country? My Mother was an economic migrant from Scotland to England some years ago; if she were from Slovenia, say, would there really be any difference in essence? Some people seem to work from the starting point that economic migration is bad in itself, but may occasionally be a necessary evil to fill certain jobs; but why? Unless you are racist, what argument is there against immigration per se? Why not err on the side that there is nothing wrong with one person moving from one country to another in the understandable desire to improve their life, and that the onus should be on proving that the would be immigrant will not contribute to, or would have a negative effect on, their new nation?

Two arguments which people often use against immigration are that a) immigrants only come here to claim benefit and don’t want to work, and b) immigrants come over here and take our jobs. No wonder such people are scared of these inscrutable foreigners; if they can take our jobs and not work, then you can understand the concern (a similar comment was made last week in Laurence Rees’s latest, timely programme Auschwitz; The Nazis and ‘The Final Solution’. A Slovak recalled how, during the War, everyone knew that the Jews in Slovakia didn’t want to work; he then laughed as he remembered helping to ship out the Jews and take over their businesses. So they owned businesses but didn’t work? A clever trick indeed. No wonder so many anti-Semites believe in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy).

Why would people want to come to this country to claim benefits, when our social security system is one of the least generous in the EU? Any poor bogus asylum seeker who wants to emigrate here for this reason has spent too long in Sangatte reading yesterdays’ Daily Mail (if there is an immigration problem, then, perhaps they should shoulder part of the blame). As for taking our jobs, new immigrants often find work that many Britons are unqualified for, or are unwilling to do. Immigrants are often highly economically productive and successful, working hard at their second chance, their fresh start.

But still the bullshit lies persists, going unquestioned by people who are happy to believe and spout nonsensical rubbish because it sounds more plausible and reasonable than out and out racism. I remember once going on a course with an unpleasant character from another office. As we sat eating lunch, he went through the whole list of stereotypical nonsense; that we have an open door immigration policy, we just let anyone in; they don’t want to integrate, none of them; they take our jobs, et cetera. I was looking anxiously about the room, trying to spy an escape route, when he said “and they all drive better cars than I do”. I nearly choked to death on my sandwich, there and then. He may have been a nasty racist, but fortunately he was also a dab hand at the Heimlich Manoeuvre; if he hadn’t been I probably wouldn’t be here now, maligning him.

But the line about the car, or similar, is surprisingly prevalent in the argument against immigration. I remember watching Newsnight a year or so back, when they featured a North Wales council estate that accommodated a number of refugees; refugees mind you, not illegal immigrants, or asylum seekers, but people whose request for asylum had been accepted. I can’t remember exactly where the report was set, but I recall the town looked even worse then Queensferry (my apologies to anyone from Queensferry; for criticising your home town, and for having to live there). The reporter spoke to a number of the local youths, and asked them what they thought of the refugees. Their comments were not altogether kind, but the main complaints were that a) they all had mobile phones, and b) they were prepared to work for minimum wage, or less, while the locals themselves wouldn’t work for so little. To be honest, these indigenous youths didn’t look like they really wanted to work at all, ever, but perhaps I am being unkind.

What I find strange – well I don’t really, but what I would like to find strange – is that when the BNP and their like criticise immigrants for just coming over here to claim benefit, they don’t seem to subject our own home-grown benefit claimants to the same scrutiny, as if social security abuse is solely the preserve of weird foreigners. I wonder why? Is it because in doing so they know they would be having a go at a potentially rich source of new recruits; that they think it is better for such people to have their fears and prejudices stoked up, rather than for them to face the same criticisms they aim at asylum seekers?

Imagine the refugees walking past the locals on that estate, on their way to another long day at work, hearing the verbal abuse and name calling; I have no problem with mobile phone wielding, hard working people, wherever they may originate from, and I would argue with anyone who would call for their repatriation. As for their indigenous accusers, idly watching the immigrants en route to work, shouting their intolerant venom, I wonder; could a case be made for their depatriation?

I don’t normally buy a newspaper, but yesterday, while waiting in a cafe for the latest repair on my car, I bought a copy of the Guardian. I am glad I did, as otherwise I doubt I would have heard of the the death from cancer at 52 of Pete McCarthy.

Pete McCarthy I think used to present reports on local news in North-West England, but this is a faint memory I am not happy to rely on. He certainly presented the excellent Channel 4 show “Travelog”, and was brilliant in “As It Happens”, the live, er, as-it-happens show he presented with Andy Kershaw where they spent 2 hours at any old spot in the world and chatted to the locals, and occasionally the the odd ex-pat Brit. I particularly remember the show they did from America when Clinton won his first victory in the 1992 Presidential Elections.

In more recent years he has probably found his greatest fame with his travel books about Ireland in McCarthy’s Bar and The Road to McCarthy. I have read neither, but millions of people have, and I always thought he was a top notch journalist.

His death became all the more poignant for me as it came on the same day as the Government’s report on Pensions, and the juxtaposition of the two events illustrates some of my feelings on its news reporting. The main point that was made, apart from the fact that pension schemes are not accruing enough income at the moment, is that as people are living longer, we need to plan accordingly. We have to get used to people having to work for 50 years and then drawing pensions for 20 years, and this change has to be financed.

Fine, but not great for the family of Pete McCarthy to hear; or for me. I have attended 3 funerals in the past 6 months; for one person in their 50’s, one in their 40’s and one in their 30’s. I suppose I have as much reason as anyone to take the “you never know what will happen to you, you may be hit by a bus tomorrow” attitude.

The pension situation has changed so much from around 8 years ago; then, my father was persuaded and cajoled into taking early retirement, taking a healthy redundancy package as an inducement, and then, 6 months later he was re-employed by the same firm on an increased salary as a private consultant. He was not the only one. Now, just a few short years later, we are being told we will have to work until we are Seventy; and that is just what they are saying now. Lord knows what they will say when I actually near retirement.

Well they can forget it. I am not going to be daft; I am following the pension advisers advice and I am confident my retirement plans are sufficient; at least until my pension fund starts to move the goalposts as they are threatening. But working until I am Seventy? No way. As soon as my pension reaches subsistence level then that is it, I’m off. As long as I have my family and my house I can happily survive on beans on toast and tap water. The sun will still shine in summer, and with my eyes closed, sat in my back garden, I could just as easily be in St. Tropez.