Migration is part of English life

Communities large and small require a constant supply of labour if they are to be sustainable. Even ever-growing London needs not only the much-vaunted higher skilled workers who may grudgingly be allowed in from overseas to refresh the talent pool but also its hidden army of low-paid, less-qualified workers who oil the wheels of service, healthcare, cleaning and transport. As people migrate into the capital in search of economic betterment, the demand they create for accommodation drives up property prices, out of the reach of these workers who lived there before and need to live there still, creating a sort of ethnic cleansing of the unqualified. What is not so evident is the parallel to this picture being experienced in thousands of rural and coastal communities.

At the start of the 20^th century, there were some 1m agricultural workers populating the towns and villages of rural England. As these were deprived of their living by automation and changes in farming and fishing practices, many left the country for industrial employment, denuding their former communities. Smaller, less influential populations were further deprived of transport links, and public services.  In recent decades, city-wards migration has been replaced to some extent by a reverse flow, as members of the new, affluent, urban middle class themselves experience the effects of property inflation. These have been two-fold: they too have been squeezed to pay for their homes; but they have been able to take profits by relocating and sometimes starting businesses in more attractive, often rural or seaside, environments, with lower costs and better quality of life. For such incomers, lack of public services may be of less importance than to long-term residents, being typically more mobile and able to pay for services privately. But life-style businesses in rural towns have limited growth, employment and wages. As more of the static number of available houses are acquired by the wealthy incomers, fewer are available or affordable to the less skilled, lower paid inhabitants of these communities. The younger generation is forced away from the countryside to find employment, leaving villages as micro versions of London: communities of the affluent with no local supply of unskilled labour, to lift the seasonal crops, to care for the ageing, to drive the non-existent buses. Is it any wonder that there is demand for workers from overseas who are prepared to tolerate multi-occupation housing and unsocial hours?

Ministers make the assumption that the public will accept skilled foreign workers into the country, because they are presumably nice middle-class people and relatively few in number. The reality is that in London and in leafy and seaside towns, there is still a need for lower-paid, less qualified workers to keep services going; but they are unable to live there , thanks to the inflationary effect of ignoring house-building for so long. In a market economy, only higher supply will mollify price inflation. If villages are to remain multi-generational or evolve into retirement communities, they will need not only a supply of labour but a supply of housing which can be afforded by first-time buyers, young families and lower-paid workers; and effective transport services to connect them to the services they need for health, education and employment. Until then, we need to think carefully about our  attitudes towards migrants and which ones we really need in our communities. Too may affluent house-buyers is no solution.

Refugee numbers are big but it is the individuals who matter

It was the books of Lyn MacDonald bringing to life the experiences of soldiers in the Great War which changed everything for me. Studying history, ancient and modern, seemed until then to be all about dates, scale, win or lose. The big story about WW1 was the telephone numbers of casualties. Almost 60,000 on Day 1 of the Battle of the Somme, 19,000 dead. Millions of dead and wounded on both sides. Lions led by donkeys. All these headlines typify how history seemed until it became personal - not for me but for every one of those who experienced the events which make up the narrative. Every unit of statistics is a story - a biography of a person, usually involving other people, who knew, loved, hated or otherwise encountered them. Lives lived, enjoyed, happy, sad, ruined, concluded.

Now, once again, we are in the midst of a numbers storm. Millions of people displaced, hundreds of thousands in camps, tens of thousands perilously crossing seas, thousands of political pawns. Then a picture is published showing a dead boy and we realise that migrants are refugees; refugees are people, individuals who also had lives in their places of origin as bank managers, scientists, engineers, cooks, school-children, with families, friends . How desperate these must have been to leave these lives, to face walking, limping, swimming, starving, with no known destination. Every one a story, a life, a human.

This is why refugees must be found homes among those who have the wherewithal to provide. This is why shutting them out is not appropriate and shows a deficit in leadership and humanity. This is why those who have played a part in creating the chaos the Middle East has become have a duty to those displaced by the deployment of Western arms. What are these individuals supposed to do, who find themselves with nothing, in the middle of alien countrysides, facing hostility, starvation, or a future worse than the ones they fled. This is why we as individuals too should think how to change things.

This migration is no blip.

In the Stern Report Sir Richard predicted mass migration occasioned by climate change, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. That other apparent causes have triggered this already does not mean that the millions he writes of will no longer arrive; merely that some have started earlier and that we have more to come.

Western Europe is rich, despite the efforts of bankers to cream off the wealth to the Caribbean and elsewhere. It is large and populous but by no means full, as some on the Right would have it. Of course, Western Europe is not the only part of the world to which refugees and others may direct their weary feet. Indeed the failure of some of our so-called allies to open their doors is a disgrace about which our lily-livered governing class fails to act repeatedly.

But others' failure does not exonerate UK from doing the right things: to be generous, reactive and humane, instead of grudging and politically strategic; to collaborate and even take a lead in collaboration in Europe, to make sensible policies for migration instead of looking the other way in a nationalistic and cost-counting funk. Doing things for others is a central tenet of any moral society - which Cameron claims UK to be under his watch. Let him prove it. Migration is here to stay so a permanent, strategic solution had better be developed for the good not only of refugees but of this country. Failure to do so will only mean more unnecessary death, the rise of xenophobic nationalism - and a popular backlash against it which may lead to social breakdown in this country too.

Lets show some humanity to migrants

We ask readers to use your influence to persuade the UK Government and EU Council of Ministers to act at once to alleviate the living conditions of migrants in Europe. To date, many pronouncements have been made and some action taken to reduce the flow of desperate people both into Europe via Italy and Greece and internally between France and UK but little has been said or done of a humanitarian nature.

 

Whether they are asylum seekers or not, all are human beings, mostly with no money nor possessions. Many have suffered long and severe privations even before arriving at our shores. Whether welcome or not, they all deserve treatment as fellow humans: sustenance; health care; shelter; hygiene and respect. It is shameful that this country and our equally affluent neighbours cannot find it in our hearts and collective pockets to provide what we would certainly contribute were these refugees in a far off land. Humanitarian action is a sign of strength, not a weakening of resolve in border policy.

 Surely we can collaborate with our partners in Europe to establish and resource proper camps in key migration bottle-necks, be these Lampedusa or Lesbos, Kos or, parochially, Calais? Such a step would not only show our humanity but actually impose some order on the chaos and even permit processing of asylum applications without the risks to life and limb currently taken by so many desperate people who are surely our collective responsibility.

Language is politics

Words are the vehicles of ideas. Great art can, it is true, convey feelings and even concepts to some degree but almost always by implication. Explicit ideas require words if they are either to be articulated,  communicated and understood. Bloggers use written words; parliamentarians use speech. In whichever form, users of words have a responsibility commensurate with their position and audience. One would hope that great responsibility of this kind would be vested in those in whose hands trust is placed to manage great matters, such as running governments. How disappointing it is when, too frequently, those to whom we should look for responsibility choose words inappropriately, especially on matters of great sensitivity. In recent weeks commentators, political leaders and their messengers have seen fit to describe fellow humans as "cock-roaches", "swarms" and "marauding", as if those they refer to are lesser beings. Words like these do not belong in public discourse about innocent and often vulnerable migrants - for it was in this context that they were applied. Whatever political burden migration may place on a country, those concerned have human rights. Many are where they are because it is intolerable to be where they came from. They are all people like those who belittle and demonise them, who are more fortunate.

We should all respect them and demand similar respect of those who are fortunate enough to have a public platform. On such platforms, words should be chosen which lead to the speaker as well as the objects of their speech being respected. This applies equally to those jockeying for esteem and positions of power over others. Disrespect for opponents is becoming all too prevalent in party politics. Misusers of language who know better deserve no respect. Politicians should note, if they wish to be re-elected.
Tom Serpell

Migration works both ways

Migration is only just beginning. Of course, it has always gone on, often with our country as a destination of choice, thanks to our socially liberal culture. As climates change, water becomes scarcer in some regions, power and employment shift and sectarian divisions turn into conflicts, more and more populations will be displaced and seek new homes.

Whilst ethical considerations and an inclusive society demand a welcome to those in extreme need, control of immigration is a legitimate political priority. Just how many oligarchs do we want buying up our best properties? How reasonable is it for public services to have to publish regulations or information in multiple languages? Why should incoming workers not be as subject to minimum wages as indigenous ones? How many jobs can actually be filled without recourse to recruiting non-nationals?

All parties need to address these issues but only one has a real solution and that is UKIP's desire to close borders. Such xenophobic initiatives have no place in our country, negating the positives of new earners, new cultures, duty and hospitality. Consider too its obverse, the emigration of British nationals to other countries. Would UKIP advocate stopping this too? We seed usually warmer lands with non-earning, often non-linguistic public service users in very large numbers. These are a burden on local resources, often not integrating nor enriching host communities. We should ask UKIP candidates their policy on this, perhaps, not least as Scotland may soon become either a source or a destination to be so controlled if it got its way.

Labour still has a very ill-defined solution to what will only grow as a policy issue. We in the affluent West, especially as a past imperial power, must not deny our responsibility to the peoples of the world; nor to our domestic voters.