Has Wales given up on Corbyn? Credit: GEOFF CADDICK/AFP/Getty Images
You wouldn’t know it from the boos that greeted new prime minister Boris Johnson as he arrived in Cardiff Bay earlier this week, but the Conservatives are now the most popular electoral force in Wales.
While Brecon and Radnorshire voters are today expected to hand a victory to the Liberal Democrats, the governing party will most likely only lose because of the strong showing of the Brexit Party, with Labour way behind in fourth. Across the country the Tories sit on 24%, two points ahead of Labour, with Nigel Farage’s outfit following close behind in third. This means that in one of the EU’s most deprived regions – and historically Britain’s socialist heartland – more than four in ten voters opt for Right-wing parties.
We are accustomed to hearing that politicians are out of touch with public opinion, but then activists often are too, which accounts for the stark contrast between those who turned out to jeer the new PM and public opinion in Wales more generally.
It’s true that many still harbour a great deal of resentment towards the Conservative Party. Some areas of South Wales have never recovered from the crash-deindustrialisation programme enacted by the Thatcher government, and the unemployment rate remains one of the highest in Britain. According to NHS data collected in 2013, one in six residents of Blaenau Gwent was collecting a prescription for antidepressants. Life expectancy in the region is among the lowest in England and Wales.
I spent time in South Wales in 2016 conducting research for my book Hired: Six Months Undercover in Low-Wage Britain. I spoke with hundreds of people in the region and the anger was palpable. Jeremy Corbyn wasn’t particularly popular in the pubs and social clubs I visited, but nor were the New Labour politicians who had moved the party into the centre ground. As a former Blaenavon collier called Ron phrased it, establishment politicians in Westminster were the “shiny men” who “turned up once every five years and then you don’t see them again”.
The residual anger felt by many in Britain’s former mining areas is often dismissed by outsiders as nostalgia, yet few of the people I spent time with wanted to go back underground and dig coal in the pits. They just missed the sense of community, fraternity and solidarity engendered by the shuttered industries.
Wayne Hodgins, an independent councillor for Brynmawr, told me the pits, steelworks and factories were like “an extension of your family”. In towns such as Cwm, Ebbw Vale and Merthyr Tydfil, streets named after local heroes of the labour movement were lined with rent-to-own stores, bookies and arcades.
In this context, Labour’s failure to carve out a sustainable poll lead in Wales seems remarkable, especially as it has been the biggest party in every national election there since 1922. In this May’s European Elections the party finished third.
Brexit is a big part of the story. As I drove around the roads that hug the Brecon Beacons I would occasionally see signs proclaiming “this project was funded by the European Union”, and Wales has indeed received £5.3 billion in EU structural funds since 2000. And yet, venturing down to the towns and villages below I encountered strong anti-EU sentiment, the issue having become a crude lightening rod for industrial decline.
Yet it would be wrong to assume that Wales is a hotbed of anti-EU sentiment. It voted narrowly – 52% – to leave the European Union, but support for a so-called “People’s Vote” has grown in recent months. A YouGov poll conducted at the end of 2018 found that majorities in every Welsh constituency support a final say on the outcome of Brexit negotiations.
Unfortunately, however, Jeremy Corbyn has pursued an all-things-to-all-people Brexit strategy and in Wales this appears to have backfired spectacularly. Those who back leaving have gravitated toward either Boris Johnson or the Brexit Party, while Remainers have peeled off to Jo Swinson’s reinvigorated Liberal Democrats. As Peter Kellner recently wrote for the Guardian, Labour’s strategy right across Britain has been “haemorrhaging remain votes without enhancing its appeal to leave voters”.
Corbyn supporters will undoubtedly point to the party’s impressive 49% showing in Wales at the 2017 General Election as evidence that this latest poll is a mere blip in the party’s fortunes. Yet “creative ambiguity” over Brexit was credible in 2017 in a way that it no longer is. As pro and anti-Brexit positions have hardened, Labour’s neither-here-nor-there strategy has effectively run out of road.
Labour’s Welsh decline cannot entirely be pinned on Corbyn. Support here has been ebbing for some time and during the New Labour years the party’s share of the vote fell faster in Wales than in either England or Scotland. In fact Labour’s historical dominance of Welsh politics is arguably a factor in its declining fortunes. As Dan Evans wrote in a perceptive piece for Jacobin, one-partyism has encouraged complacency and nepotism in many traditional strongholds. Here “people advance and achieve positions of power not through their political competence or vision, but through party loyalty”.
Unlike in Scotland, in Wales the party has faced no challenge on its Left, largely because there is no comparable thirst for independence. Yet Plaid Cymru have seen their support climbing since Adam Price replaced Leanne Wood as leader last year, and have now overtaken Labour in the most recent polling for the Welsh Assembly. This is arguably more significant for Labour than a single poll showing the Tories leading, a lead likely to dissipate once the impact of Brexit is felt and Boris Johnson’s honeymoon period comes to an end.
Labour has also been losing the battle of values, which in part explains the shift to the Conservatives. The coastal regions have long flirted with the Tories, but the Valleys – the traditional bastions of socialist politics – are also home to a small-c conservatism that sits uneasily with some of the liberal shibboleths that dominate contemporary Left-wing thought. Moreover, this anti-Conservative sentiment found in South Wales is partly a legacy of Margaret Thatcher, herself a liberal free marketeer rather than a traditional conservative.
The importance of values when it comes to voting – as opposed to purely economic motivations – is evident in the rise in Welsh support for first UKIP and now the Brexit Party. At the 2015 election the Eurosceptic party performed strongest here in Valley seats such as Merthyr Tydfil and Caerphilly, finishing third in Wales in the popular vote and second place to Labour in six constituencies. As in the United States, voters in many struggling small towns feel more comfortable with the values of Right-wing parties, even if this seems to go against their economic interests.
So while the decline of Welsh Labour is by no means entirely the fault of Corbyn, after ten years in opposition it is untenable to still be trailing in the polls to the governing party. Were current polling figures replicated at a general election, Labour would register its worst result in Wales in a century. Corbyn, like his predecessor Ed Miliband, is an inept leader whose personal unpopularity is undoubtedly dragging Labour down. Yet hopes that he would win back Wales and Scotland by moving the party leftward have proven forlorn when political debate is less about Left versus Right than Remain versus Leave.
And the Brexit muddle is a feature of Corbynism rather than a bug. Corbyn is a lifelong Eurosceptic who has surrounded himself with “Lexiteers” such as Seumas Milne and Andrew Murray. Yet his power base is an overwhelmingly pro-Remain Labour membership, leaving the leader effectively a prisoner of two competing tendencies within his own party. On one side stand his decades-long ideological bedfellows, and on the other the party membership whose support his leadership requires if it is to retain any legitimacy.
This circle was always going to be hard for Corbyn to square and the resulting jumble has politely been called ambiguity – although incoherence would be a more fitting description. It was invariably going to catch up with Labour eventually, on both sides of Offa’s Dyke. On the doorstep in Wales – just as in England – it is Brexit that people are talking about, not the renationalisation of Royal Mail or other vote-winning Labour issues. After a century of dominance in Wales, the party has been left behind by events.
James Bloodworth is a journalist and author of Hired: Six Months Undercover in Low-Wage Britain, which was longlisted for the Orwell Prize 2019.
J_Bloodworth 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI am still staggered by the incompetence of the Tory party leadership. To throw away an 80 seat majority and to allow Labour to park its tanks on its own lawn takes some doing.
Truly staggering!
I am still staggered by the incompetence of the Tory party leadership. To throw away an 80 seat majority and to allow Labour to park its tanks on its own lawn takes some doing.
Truly staggering!
Unless and until Starmer commits to leaving the EHRC and repealing the Human Rights Act, this is just posturing.
“this is just posturing.”
The Tory Party can’t even manage that much.
“this is just posturing.”
The Tory Party can’t even manage that much.
Unless and until Starmer commits to leaving the EHRC and repealing the Human Rights Act, this is just posturing.
There was a time when a party that represented “labour” (as in working stiffs) would be an immigration hawk because foreign immigrants naturally compete with native born workers and depress their wages.
The abandonment of this principle by the entire global Left signals their transition to an elite party. While foreign immigration hurts the poor most, elites like it because it makes the servant class that caters to their needs cheaper to employ.
There was a time when a party that represented “labour” (as in working stiffs) would be an immigration hawk because foreign immigrants naturally compete with native born workers and depress their wages.
The abandonment of this principle by the entire global Left signals their transition to an elite party. While foreign immigration hurts the poor most, elites like it because it makes the servant class that caters to their needs cheaper to employ.
Now all he has to do to win is look up the dictionary definition of “woman”
And suppress all republication or mention of him and The Hon Member for Shameless kneeling.
And suppress all republication or mention of him and The Hon Member for Shameless kneeling.
Now all he has to do to win is look up the dictionary definition of “woman”
Can someone explain to me why wanting British working class people – white and black – to get off long term benefits and into work is right wing?
Labour traditionally championed the working class, Starmer is therefore simply taking his party back to its routes.
Kind of related: I (absolutely not a leftie) have found myself in the odd position of explaining to leftie friends that limiting low-skilled immigration would be in the interests of the domestic working class. I mean you have to take a step back and marvel at the topsy-turviness of it: a person who is right of centre (and solidly middle class) having to explain and advocate basic positions of the left (“repeat after me: you are supposed to be defending the rights and interests of the workers: that is your purpose, that is your job”) to left-wingers.
Further proof that we need to either jettison these right/left wing labels or completely redefine them for the 21st century.
I think they abandoned that role about 20 to 25 years ago.
Possibly around the same time the The Conservatives abandoned conservatism.
It is astonishing how many adults do not understand supply and demand. Amazing too is how many who do understand it, deny it for political or ideological reasons.
I think they abandoned that role about 20 to 25 years ago.
Possibly around the same time the The Conservatives abandoned conservatism.
It is astonishing how many adults do not understand supply and demand. Amazing too is how many who do understand it, deny it for political or ideological reasons.
This is because white working class were the workhorses of the country before they were offered 0 hours contracts and unreliable and unethical work. You work for pay. This is not available to working classes necessarily on 0 hours contracts. The situation is extremely complex and unethical. This nasty view of the working class, where they have now been labelled as shameful untermensch is a right wing view. “Shameful benefit scroungers”. How about offer WORK on a fair wage- left wing view- traditionally socialist and in actual fact- scrap left wing and right wing- this is a human right. Stop conning people out of their pay for their labour and people will show up.
Kind of related: I (absolutely not a leftie) have found myself in the odd position of explaining to leftie friends that limiting low-skilled immigration would be in the interests of the domestic working class. I mean you have to take a step back and marvel at the topsy-turviness of it: a person who is right of centre (and solidly middle class) having to explain and advocate basic positions of the left (“repeat after me: you are supposed to be defending the rights and interests of the workers: that is your purpose, that is your job”) to left-wingers.
Further proof that we need to either jettison these right/left wing labels or completely redefine them for the 21st century.
This is because white working class were the workhorses of the country before they were offered 0 hours contracts and unreliable and unethical work. You work for pay. This is not available to working classes necessarily on 0 hours contracts. The situation is extremely complex and unethical. This nasty view of the working class, where they have now been labelled as shameful untermensch is a right wing view. “Shameful benefit scroungers”. How about offer WORK on a fair wage- left wing view- traditionally socialist and in actual fact- scrap left wing and right wing- this is a human right. Stop conning people out of their pay for their labour and people will show up.
Can someone explain to me why wanting British working class people – white and black – to get off long term benefits and into work is right wing?
Labour traditionally championed the working class, Starmer is therefore simply taking his party back to its routes.
Both Starmer and Sunak seem to me to be missing the point and, frankly, not giving the voters enough credit.
In my mind the problem with EU legal freedom of movement was not as such the numbers involved rather it was the sense, likely justified, that free movement was not reciprocal movement. Had 2 million young unemployed or underemployed all headed under free movement to the A8 countries for wages, welfare and the like then we would have had a 90% REMAIN vote. It may well be the case that free movement was something that allowed the economy to flourish. The problem came when to a large number of people free movement meant the freedom to have your labour market casualised and your job zeroed – why should anyone vote for more of that? Sunak is not wrong that illegal migration is plainly an issue in need of resolution. Every migrant boat is a slap across the face of those of us who went through the system with all the strain it (rightly) brings. But illegal migration is not the full picture.
Similarly, Starmer and co seem to have taken to the idea that if you don’t like immigration then you are a racist that can be ignored. Starmer is right that UK business and the NHS need to wean themselves off wage arbitrage and casualisation. Seeing writers in the media conflate asylum seeking and labour marked shortages has been dispiriting to say the least. What Starmer’s not talking about is the justice system that he himself is a product of has muscled in on decisions about who should be here which rightly belong to nationally elected politicians.
The voters aren’t stupid. They know that the EU was offering a deal that lacked reciprocity, that the courts are a real stumbling block, that illegal migration matters a lot both morally and practically and that the quality of legal migration should be the focus. The reason the voters are punishing everyone is because no politician seems able to hold more than one thought in their head at once.
Both Starmer and Sunak seem to me to be missing the point and, frankly, not giving the voters enough credit.
In my mind the problem with EU legal freedom of movement was not as such the numbers involved rather it was the sense, likely justified, that free movement was not reciprocal movement. Had 2 million young unemployed or underemployed all headed under free movement to the A8 countries for wages, welfare and the like then we would have had a 90% REMAIN vote. It may well be the case that free movement was something that allowed the economy to flourish. The problem came when to a large number of people free movement meant the freedom to have your labour market casualised and your job zeroed – why should anyone vote for more of that? Sunak is not wrong that illegal migration is plainly an issue in need of resolution. Every migrant boat is a slap across the face of those of us who went through the system with all the strain it (rightly) brings. But illegal migration is not the full picture.
Similarly, Starmer and co seem to have taken to the idea that if you don’t like immigration then you are a racist that can be ignored. Starmer is right that UK business and the NHS need to wean themselves off wage arbitrage and casualisation. Seeing writers in the media conflate asylum seeking and labour marked shortages has been dispiriting to say the least. What Starmer’s not talking about is the justice system that he himself is a product of has muscled in on decisions about who should be here which rightly belong to nationally elected politicians.
The voters aren’t stupid. They know that the EU was offering a deal that lacked reciprocity, that the courts are a real stumbling block, that illegal migration matters a lot both morally and practically and that the quality of legal migration should be the focus. The reason the voters are punishing everyone is because no politician seems able to hold more than one thought in their head at once.
I like how this debate continues to hinge on the present posture, casually broken promises and future prospects of those who have brought us to this situation. Like a Newsnight panel discussing what is next for the captain of a sinking ship whose passengers are drowning. “Can we get Shipman back to help see the NHS through this terrible Winter” etc?
I like how this debate continues to hinge on the present posture, casually broken promises and future prospects of those who have brought us to this situation. Like a Newsnight panel discussing what is next for the captain of a sinking ship whose passengers are drowning. “Can we get Shipman back to help see the NHS through this terrible Winter” etc?
Back when Jacqui Smith was Home Secretary in the Blair years, she said (words to the effect) “we have to break the link between people coming here to work, and getting to stay”. Well, she never did, and nor has anyone since.
It remains the case that the great majority of work visas are T2, leading eventually to permanent settlement. Why not issue temporary work permits instead, we could then have all the immigration anyone could reasonably want, but a very low level of net immigration. Everyone happy!
Back when Jacqui Smith was Home Secretary in the Blair years, she said (words to the effect) “we have to break the link between people coming here to work, and getting to stay”. Well, she never did, and nor has anyone since.
It remains the case that the great majority of work visas are T2, leading eventually to permanent settlement. Why not issue temporary work permits instead, we could then have all the immigration anyone could reasonably want, but a very low level of net immigration. Everyone happy!
My fear with Starmer is that he will be a Trojan horse for the radical cultural left that dominates his party’s administrators and the civil servants he will hire in a future government. A Labour government will almost certainly increase immigration into the country and erect further legal barriers preventing the deportation of illegal ones.
With UK unemployment at 3.5% surely there aren’t that many British Staff to train up. Don’t we need some “controlled” immigration?
Also I should say, we have low unemployment and yet companies are still struggling to recruit. That seems to suggest that the 3.5% who are unemployed are unemployed for a reason will probably remain unemployed. I get the distinct impression that there aren’t enough people in the UK to drive the growth that the government wants.
There are two sides to the story, as I’m sure you know.
If you increase immigration you increase production and consumption – these things are elastic and expand as you increase the inputs. In other words, you get economic growth.
But the less elastic things – house building, hospital beds, GP appointments, school places, roads and rail etc – cannot keep up (especially if the immigrants are on low-to-moderately salaries and so pay negligible amounts of tax). Because demand outstrips supply, you get mile-long waiting lists and sky-high house prices.
Surely the job of government is to balance the two.
While we were in the EU we couldn’t control demand. Now we can and the government – either the current one or the next – must.
Thanks Matt, I completely agree. I was just responding to the article which suggests we can avoid the need for immigration by training up people from within. I’m just not sure if there are enough people available to fill the gap. For example, I see that there are vacancies for 46000 nurses. 90% of hospitals don’t have enough nurses. There are 165000 vacancies for care workers. The construction industry is desperate for more skilled workers. Tell me if I’m wrong but I don’t think there are enough people available for training to fill those gaps. What do you think?
In the US, the official unemployment calculation is rigged to grossly undercount. If you have not sought work in the past 4 weeks, you are no longer considered in the labor force, so are not part of the calculation. It also does not differentiate part time vs fulltime work. It’s all based on a survey of 60,000 households.
This explains how the computed value can be so low, yet so many companies are looking for workers.
Perhaps in the UK it is similar.
You are probably right Michael but if companies, the NHS, the Care Industry, the construction industry and others are still complaining of a shortage then there must not be enough available people around to fill those vacancies. Mr Roussinos is saying we should train from within so we don’t need immigration, great idea but my question is: where are those trainees to come from?
I’m in the Uk, West Midlands and everywhere I go there are Vacancy posters on walls and on roundabouts – training given they say.
You are probably right Michael but if companies, the NHS, the Care Industry, the construction industry and others are still complaining of a shortage then there must not be enough available people around to fill those vacancies. Mr Roussinos is saying we should train from within so we don’t need immigration, great idea but my question is: where are those trainees to come from?
I’m in the Uk, West Midlands and everywhere I go there are Vacancy posters on walls and on roundabouts – training given they say.
I agree with you. Not only do we not have enough people but those we have want to work from home via a computer screen. Bloggers and influencers can be found everywhere but it is difficult for a care worker to work from home.
Therefore we have to bring people in to do the unpopular jobs.
Or stop incentivizing them to stay home.
Or stop incentivizing them to stay home.
Cheers Steve.
Yes i think the approach needs to be multi-pronged and will take time to get right.
I think we should (as we are) prioritise shortage occupations in our work visa allocations.
I think we should guide our young poeple away from non-STEM degrees (surely Britain’s demand for sociologists is limited) and towards vocational qualifications and apprenticeships where there are gaps in our skills base.
We have had a huge (500k I think) rise in the number of people on long-term sick since COVID. These cases need urgent review and people need help to get back to work.
We need the government to incentivise capital investment in automation and process improvement through the tax system so firms can move away from the need for lots of low-cost workers.
We may have to rethink whether committing old people to nursing homes is actually such a great idea. When I was a boy – in the 1980s – it was considered a bit cruel to put your grandparents in a care home. They moved in with their children when they became too frail to live alone. What changed?
I’m sure there are many more things to do. But nothing will happen while unlimited cheap foreign labour is on tap.
In my opinion the UK doesn’t have a labour shortage, it has too many businesses chasing too few customers. Now without the government opening the immigration floodgates what should happen is this increased competition for workers would lead to higher wages which in turn would cause some of the more poorly run companies to fail, with their market share being taken by a more productive rival. Eventually you hit an equilibrium where enough zombie businesses have fallen over that you no longer have a labour shortage, wages have improved and only the best businesses have survived which has increased productivity. Large increases in cheap imported labour simple keeps us in the current status quo of low wages and poor productivity, and that’s before we mention the pressure it puts on housing, infrastructure and public services
This can’t be said enough Billy Bob.
This can’t be said enough Billy Bob.
In the US, the official unemployment calculation is rigged to grossly undercount. If you have not sought work in the past 4 weeks, you are no longer considered in the labor force, so are not part of the calculation. It also does not differentiate part time vs fulltime work. It’s all based on a survey of 60,000 households.
This explains how the computed value can be so low, yet so many companies are looking for workers.
Perhaps in the UK it is similar.
I agree with you. Not only do we not have enough people but those we have want to work from home via a computer screen. Bloggers and influencers can be found everywhere but it is difficult for a care worker to work from home.
Therefore we have to bring people in to do the unpopular jobs.
Cheers Steve.
Yes i think the approach needs to be multi-pronged and will take time to get right.
I think we should (as we are) prioritise shortage occupations in our work visa allocations.
I think we should guide our young poeple away from non-STEM degrees (surely Britain’s demand for sociologists is limited) and towards vocational qualifications and apprenticeships where there are gaps in our skills base.
We have had a huge (500k I think) rise in the number of people on long-term sick since COVID. These cases need urgent review and people need help to get back to work.
We need the government to incentivise capital investment in automation and process improvement through the tax system so firms can move away from the need for lots of low-cost workers.
We may have to rethink whether committing old people to nursing homes is actually such a great idea. When I was a boy – in the 1980s – it was considered a bit cruel to put your grandparents in a care home. They moved in with their children when they became too frail to live alone. What changed?
I’m sure there are many more things to do. But nothing will happen while unlimited cheap foreign labour is on tap.
In my opinion the UK doesn’t have a labour shortage, it has too many businesses chasing too few customers. Now without the government opening the immigration floodgates what should happen is this increased competition for workers would lead to higher wages which in turn would cause some of the more poorly run companies to fail, with their market share being taken by a more productive rival. Eventually you hit an equilibrium where enough zombie businesses have fallen over that you no longer have a labour shortage, wages have improved and only the best businesses have survived which has increased productivity. Large increases in cheap imported labour simple keeps us in the current status quo of low wages and poor productivity, and that’s before we mention the pressure it puts on housing, infrastructure and public services
Thanks Matt, I completely agree. I was just responding to the article which suggests we can avoid the need for immigration by training up people from within. I’m just not sure if there are enough people available to fill the gap. For example, I see that there are vacancies for 46000 nurses. 90% of hospitals don’t have enough nurses. There are 165000 vacancies for care workers. The construction industry is desperate for more skilled workers. Tell me if I’m wrong but I don’t think there are enough people available for training to fill those gaps. What do you think?
There are two sides to the story, as I’m sure you know.
If you increase immigration you increase production and consumption – these things are elastic and expand as you increase the inputs. In other words, you get economic growth.
But the less elastic things – house building, hospital beds, GP appointments, school places, roads and rail etc – cannot keep up (especially if the immigrants are on low-to-moderately salaries and so pay negligible amounts of tax). Because demand outstrips supply, you get mile-long waiting lists and sky-high house prices.
Surely the job of government is to balance the two.
While we were in the EU we couldn’t control demand. Now we can and the government – either the current one or the next – must.
Nothing wrong with controlled immigration – irregular, mass and illicit migration is a massive problem. However, regardless of where people are coming from and why, where will they live? We have about a million people in some form of housing need in the UK. A member of my family recently tried to rent a house and there were around 50 people who expressed an interest in it (and this was before the letting agent drew a line on queries about it. And this is in a poor and not especially nice area of London). I don’t think the powers that be realise how terrible the housing market is (esp for renters).
Something like 2.5M people are out of work on long-term sickness benefits, surely this is something that we can improve upon; to say nothing about the over 50s who have just taken themselves out of the job market by retiring early (I don’t know how they can afford it though). What I’m saying is that there should be some effort put in to getting economically inactive people back into the workplace.
I agree Linda. The other issue is about productivity. We are always being told that our productivity is poor. German has higher productivity and what is more they work fewer hours per week and per year and get more holiday. I have no idea why our productivity is low although I believe it is getting better.
Unfortunately I think it’s going to take time to fix and in the meantime I think we have to accept some immigration.
I agree Linda. The other issue is about productivity. We are always being told that our productivity is poor. German has higher productivity and what is more they work fewer hours per week and per year and get more holiday. I have no idea why our productivity is low although I believe it is getting better.
Unfortunately I think it’s going to take time to fix and in the meantime I think we have to accept some immigration.
Unemployment figures are not the same as measuring the levels of economic inactivity and, as far as I am aware, students are not included. Perhaps not warehousing hundreds of thousands of teenagers who, by now, must include those of average IQ, in third rate universities while racking up debts that will never be repaid might free up some candidates for vocational training. I would also look at offering bursaries or other incentives for taking STEM courses.
Also I should say, we have low unemployment and yet companies are still struggling to recruit. That seems to suggest that the 3.5% who are unemployed are unemployed for a reason will probably remain unemployed. I get the distinct impression that there aren’t enough people in the UK to drive the growth that the government wants.
Nothing wrong with controlled immigration – irregular, mass and illicit migration is a massive problem. However, regardless of where people are coming from and why, where will they live? We have about a million people in some form of housing need in the UK. A member of my family recently tried to rent a house and there were around 50 people who expressed an interest in it (and this was before the letting agent drew a line on queries about it. And this is in a poor and not especially nice area of London). I don’t think the powers that be realise how terrible the housing market is (esp for renters).
Something like 2.5M people are out of work on long-term sickness benefits, surely this is something that we can improve upon; to say nothing about the over 50s who have just taken themselves out of the job market by retiring early (I don’t know how they can afford it though). What I’m saying is that there should be some effort put in to getting economically inactive people back into the workplace.
Unemployment figures are not the same as measuring the levels of economic inactivity and, as far as I am aware, students are not included. Perhaps not warehousing hundreds of thousands of teenagers who, by now, must include those of average IQ, in third rate universities while racking up debts that will never be repaid might free up some candidates for vocational training. I would also look at offering bursaries or other incentives for taking STEM courses.
With UK unemployment at 3.5% surely there aren’t that many British Staff to train up. Don’t we need some “controlled” immigration?