The 2013 Budget was an example of business as usual. It is not our intention to provide detailed comment on the numerous measures therein. We shall, however, furnish focused criticism.
Two measures pleased us and both featured in a list of demands in the economic section of the nationalist manifesto, drawn up in 2010 by those who now support this party:
1 In 2014-15, the personal allowance will be increased to £10,000, from £9,440 for 2013-14. Thereafter, it will rise by the Consumer Prices Index, starting from 2015-16. We had argued, in 2010, for a rise in the personal allowance to £12000. Low tax thresholds penalise the low paid, undermine the incentive to work and have created needless bureaucracy in the form of the complicated tax credits’ system. To raise it to our current target of £12000, short of fiscal drag, will require some re-balancing of the higher rates at which tax is paid, all other things remaining equal.
2 National Insurance: from April 2014, an annual allowance of £2,000 will be available, following consultation, to businesses and charities to offset against employer Class 1 secondary NI liability. National insurance is a tax on jobs and we would seek to reduce it further.
A remarkable measure was introduced to provide tax free child care. To be eligible, however, both parents must be at work and not already in receipt of support through tax credits.
We applaud assistance with the upbringing of children and have opposed the restriction of child benefits. What is so astonishing in the Government’s latest measure is that this allowance is only available if both parents are at work. In other words, a mother who remains at home to bring up her children is to be penalised; there will be an added incentive for her to abandon her children to the care of outsiders and, no doubt, expose them to politically correct social engineering. There will be no assistance for the mother who remains at home.
Given this Government’s attack on the family, its EU inspired support for (anti-Christian) same sex marriage and its failure to restore generous provisions in terms of the married couple’s allowance – which we have long supported – we are generally unsurprised.
Another interesting feature which emerged from Gideon Osborne’s hat was a £5bn package of measures embracing home loans and mortgage guarantees to assist home buyers. Whether this unleashes new speculation in the housing market remains to be seen but it certainly exposes the exchequer to a downturn in the property market.
Typically, the Government has missed the point. The cause behind high property prices and the shortage of housing is the influx of some 250,000 immigrants per annum, net.
Statistics
The budget is neutral over the years to 2017-18, excluding unexpected developments in the government’s forecasts.
Economic forecasts have been revised downwards. Weaker tax receipts are due to create a public sector net borrowing requirement of £120bn for this year and next. In 2010, the borrowing requirement for 2013-14 was estimated at 3.5% of GDP; it is now estimated at 7.5%. In 2010, debt to GDP was expected to peak at 70%; it is now expected to peak at 87% in 2016-17, or £1,637bn. In 2009-10, debt stood at £760bn.
Given the Chancellor’s stated objective to reduce borrowing, the new revisions are an admission of failure.
In the current year, the interest on the country’s debt will cost taxpayers £46.5 billion. By 2017-18, interest payments may absorb as much as £71.3 billion. This colossal interest burden – owed primarily to investors in gilt-edged stock – will exceed the expenditure of several governmental departments.
Prime Minister, David Cameron, has criticised those who believe the Government can continue to borrow, as though there is some “magic money tree”.
Where does the Prime Minister imagine, in a condition of austerity, the engine for growth will emerge? Similar fiscal restraint amongst the G20 nations has created an additional diminution in demand.
David Cameron’s presumption, however, is erroneously based. Governments are not akin to individuals, households or companies. Governments can create money and, in recent years, the British Government has done so through the novel process known as ‘Quantitative Easing’ (QE) where, quite literally, it has created £375bn to purchase gilt-edged stock, which is bought on behalf of the Government by the Bank of England. This represents some 34% of the National Debt, as it stands today.
The creation of the money to do this is not inflationary because it has offset the massive implosion in banks’ balance sheets, which has occurred since the financial crisis began in 2007-8.
How would we deal with the current crisis?
We would cancel the debt that sits on the Bank of England’s balance sheet. By this action, at least, we will reduce the burden of the National Debt.
Further QE should continue, so long as it is not inflationary and so long as it offsets the continuing downsizing in the banking sector’s balance sheets. However, it should not be employed solely to purchase gilt-edged stock. There is a strong case to use a portion, at least, of QE to finance essential infrastructure. At the head of our requirements, in this respect, is the creation of a sound and reliable energy system, which must embrace new nuclear power stations to ensure energy independence.
The taxes which are currently applied to fossil fuels, along with the subsidies granted to inefficient renewable power, such as wind turbines, have created an unprecedented increase in the cost of energy, which has yet to run its course, threatens to introduce power cuts and inflicts a burden on our manufacturing industry but, worse, upon our elderly.
The elderly have suffered another harsh winter of global cooling which inflicted a toll of some 35,000 fatalities in the past year alone. Whereas the Government should have focused on assisting the most deserving and vulnerable in the UK, it has instead seen fit to increase its donations to developing countries such as India, which is sufficiently wealthy to finance its own satellite programme.
Meanwhile, the EU is absorbing £18bn per annum in British taxpayers’ subsidies.
We have identified a number of key areas where taxpayers’ monies are unnecessarily employed and where significant savings could be made. Our desire is to re-deploy these funds in more worthy areas and to reduce taxes and public borrowing, which crowd out private endeavour and investment. Amongst them, we specify the following:
1 Climate Change: £18bn per annum, mainly via disguised levies in energy bills.
2 The multicultural society: £13bn per annum.
3 The EU: £18bn per annum.
4 Overseas Aid: £11bn per annum.
5 The unnecessary Afghan War: £3-4bn per annum.
6 £10bn of spending cuts on wasteful bureaucracy.
The unnecessary expenditure within the above categories amounts to some £74bn per annum or £370bn over the next five years.
This takes no account of the £40bn, for the most part committed to the IMF to support an undemocratic political project aimed at the extirpation of the nation state, the extirpation of the European peoples and the support of the Euro currency – ie the EU.
British taxpayers funds are placed in exceptional jeopardy in their loans to the IMF, at a time when funds are urgently required for investment in British manufacturing capacity and, not least, in essential infrastructure which, in due course, will generate a return.
This Government will not touch any of the items of expenditure, denoted above, with the possible exception of unnecessary bureaucracy. That is because the politically-correct Con-LibDem administration is as committed to globalisation, international governance and the extirpation of the nation state as Labour was, before it. Such undeclared ambitions do not come cheaply.
The Government has failed to increase the budget for science and technology. Despite our historical prowess in both, our country has long fallen markedly behind our competitors. Science and technology fuel the inventions and industry of tomorrow and, therefore, the wealth and economic base of future generations.
The Government’s fiscal policies are due not merely to Lab/Lib/Con gross mismanagement of the economy and the priority to fund the politically-correct projects budgets above. They are, in part, due to the distasteful excesses in parts of the banking industry. Such financial debauchery was caused by speculators and ‘wide boys’ who risked the monies of others’ to attract colossal bonuses. This type of practice was described by the Chairman of the FSA as ‘economically useless’.
The cost of such reckless financial speculation, encouraged by the bonus culture, has resulted in limited growth and economic stagnation.
The gung-ho attitude of bankers has been a cause for economic instability and it has not yet been adequately addressed.
Meanwhile, the cold wind of austerity has been lapping around the private sector since the banking crisis developed more than two years ago. One area, more or less unaffected in recent years has been the absence of pay restraint amongst the directors of many public companies. When shareholders experience reduced dividends; when earnings per share fall; when companies announce wage reductions or limited rises; then clearly it is unreasonable that a significant number of company directors and chief executive officers should continue to reap bonuses at the expense of their employees and shareholders.
Good leaders set an example. Too many directors are now recipients of massive bonuses for doing what they are hired to do by their shareholders. A previous CEO of Shell has cast serious misgivings on the bonus culture.
We do not question the worth of good managers. But, all too often, the directors’ pay round has become a mirror image of the trades unions’ pay round in the late ‘70s. There are several solutions to this, including better corporate governance and, if necessary, the ability of ordinary shareholders to vote, specifically, on the remuneration of the directors hired to manage the company’s fortunes.
Presently, matters have moved out of hand at a number of companies, where directors are paid an eye-watering multiple of over a hundred times the rate of the average remuneration of the ordinary employee. In Japan, multiples of ten times are the norm.
Repairing the Economy
Quite apart from the solutions we submit, above, to reduce spending, there are three means by which to address the global debt crisis, the leading cause of the current economic malaise:
1 Inflate the money supply and reduce the real value of debt.
2 Repay the debt.
3 Grow the economy and reduce the burden of debt.
Usually, these means are combined in some measure or other. We do not approve of inflation, however, because it penalises savings and thrift.
Notwithstanding the above, our pledge to secede from the European Union will remove a constraint upon our economy which has raised the general tax burden and applied an unprecedented burden of regulation upon industry and commerce.
Our undertaking to introduce selective tariffs on the imports from developing countries will create an economic boom for years into the future as the economy adapts to produce what it presently imports.
Allied measures intended to reinvigorate British manufacturing, science and technology will ensure that Britain is returned to its historical lead in these fields.
By contrast, the ideals of globalisation – advocated by the present administration and its predecessors, as well at the Ukip safety valve – will result in the continued pillaging of British manufacturing and, ultimately, an environment where we produce nothing. As the late Sir James Goldsmith observed, globalisation will result in the reduction of wages to reflect the cheapest competition.
3
This makes a lot of sense to me. This country has to manufacture more, export more and import less if it is to survive. We simply have to protect our manufacturing through selective tariffs. An excellent analysis by Mr M.
I believe I am correct in saying that this is the first time ever that a British nationalist party has ever posted up a proper response to a budget. This shows maturity and demonstrates that the British Democrats are taking a serious approach to politics. We need more expert opinion like this on current affairs – keep it up.
We have only two weeks of gas supply left due to the harsh winter.
Obviously because we are supposed to be in the grip of global warming this has caught the authorities by surprise where cold winters are meant to be a thing of the past.
Underneath our feet we have at least 300 years of coal supply which would make us self sufficient for supplying our own heating supplies and electricity, and cheaper at that.
Also coal can be turned into oil.
The old South African apartheid government used to do this, and this being when oil was very cheap.
Importing oil and gas when we have no need to do so leaves us at the mercy of other countries and unscrupulous foreign traders.
John a valid point indeed a point I made at the last general election when I stood for the BNP in the Castleford & Pontifract ward against Yvette Cooper, we all attended a hustings held at a Church in Normanton , myself, Labour, Liberal, Tory & Independent candidates we were each given five minutes to state our key points and mine was that it was a complete nonsense whilst under my feet there was vast deposits of coal left untouched over thirty percent of the local population were unemployed, utter madness.
Coal under our feet, men to mine it – yet the Govt insist on buying in gas from Russia. Don’t make much sense to me. Up here we know all about global warming at the moment – basking in twelve inches of snow!!!!!!
Good article, the need for two parents to work has led to a breakdown in society, as a nationalist government should do all it can to encourage families to bring up their own children.
With regards to the figures of £13bn for a multicultural society and £10bn, may I ask where these are from? I realise that there is masses of money wasted on both, but I would like to know where those figures are serviced from, as we will get challenged on such details as the party grows.
Andrew makes an excellent analysis of the Budget, although I feel that in these times of long-term low interest rates and growing inflation Quantitative Easing, i.e turning on the Bank of England’s money printing machine, is not necessarily helpful to our economy.
QE has often been part of nationalist views on economics, where it shows advantages when the economy is in growth. But is it applicable today when, like most of the world, we are in recession? The goods and services we produce are still lower in annual volume than they were before the world economic crisis started in the USA in 2008. Our inflation is currently running at 3.1% which is a major factor in the rising cost of living, which hits the lower paid families the most. It is no good turning to any savings you may have (particularly pensioners who made savings for their future) , as the bank rate remains in the long-term at only 0.5 per cent, which makes any interest rates derisory. QE has contributed to this – not just in my view but also that of Fraser Nelson, Editor of The Spectator. In the Daily Telegraph of 22.3.13 in an article dealing with QE and the “great money-printing machine” he wrote: “Monetary activism (QE) kept the cheap debt flowing. A nation addicted to credit in the boom was prescribed monetary methadone in the bust. The printing presses kept rolling, the debt rate stayed low……This deluge of cheap money, reinforced recently by the Funding for Lending scheme has decimated savers.”
Andrew, I must confess that I am less concerned about the pros and cons of QE (and I will grant that you are more informed on economics than I ) than I am on its affects on our potential vote.
At this stage, as we are only a minor party, we should not be wasting effort trying to appeal to disillusioned Tory voters, for UKIP, with its temporary backing of much of the media, is doing that very well. Our core vote at this stage is the white working class and lower middle class, plus the 14 per cent of the population that is over 60 (who remember what an overwhelming white Britain was like). This view is confirmed in the recent Chatham House report covering the growth of so-called right-wing ‘extremists’ parties in Europe that I reviewed here earlier this month.
Leaving aside the fact that the first two categories and a considerable part of the over-60s are those who suffer most from the consequencies of mass immigration, they all suffer more from inflation (which QE aggravates) than those earning more than £40k p.a.
Finally, new visitors to this site please note that in the British Democratic Party we really are ‘democratic’ and are prepared to discuss our policies. And we know that a party of 100 per cent unanimous opinion is a party of one.
The problem was, that the QE money was injected into the financial sector of the economy in the hope that it would filter through to the real economy but this has not happened. It has stayed in the financial markets inflating prices of financial assets such as stocks and bonds. It did not add to GDP growth or inflation in the real economy simply because it did not enter that sector of the economy. Any inflation has had little or nothing to do with QE.
If this QE money had instead, been injected into the real economy then we would have seen immediate economic growth of 5% per year above the level it has been at. No inflation would have occurred because there is lots of spare capacity in the post economic crash British economy. The money could have been spent on infrastructure projects that pay good wages, or used to reduce taxation. Or it could be paid as a National Dividend that would enable people to pay down debt or spend into the economy. QE for the people instead of the bankers.
Solutrean writes: “It has stayed in the financial markets inflating prices of financial assets such as stocks and bonds.” Yes, exactly so. The stock market is now yet another bubble waiting to burst, principally because the price of stocks generally bear no resemblance to their much lower actual values. No doubt the big boys in the banks and hedge funds will cash in just before the bubble bursts.
As you say John, interest rates are indeed low but this has not induced banks to lend, or borrowers to take on more debt. Reason for this is that debt level are already far too high and borrowers are now trying their utmost to pay off their debts (de-lever) and banks are reluctant to lend to SME’s without collateral. This is causing a shrinkage of the money supply and a contraction of the economy as old debts are paid down but are not balanced by new debts. Quantitative Easing was intended to balance this contraction by injecting money into the economy. Q.E if properly applied can be a very useful tool in a recession as well as in a growing economy.
The problem was, that the QE money was injected into the financial sector of the economy in the hope that it would filter through to the real economy but this has not happened. It has stayed in the financial markets inflating prices of financial assets such as stocks and bonds. It did not add to GDP growth or inflation in the real economy simply because it did not enter that sector of the economy. Any inflation has had little or nothing to do with QE.
If this QE money had instead, been injected into the real economy then we would have seen immediate economic growth of 5% per year above the level it has been at. No inflation would have occurred because there is lots of spare capacity in the post economic crash British economy. The money could have been spent on infrastructure projects that pay good wages, or used to reduce taxation. Or it could be paid as a National Dividend that would enable people to pay down debt or spend into the economy. QE for the people instead of the bankers.
Some interesting points there, Solutrean, which are worth considering. The Social Credit idea of a national dividend has some real attractions. It would certainly help poorer people and boost spending for the benefit of the economy as a whole. The big minus to my mind is that it breaks the link between work and earnings, and reinforces a culture of entitlement and benefit dependency.
Infrastructure projects can be a good idea. The Hoover dam created more than 30,000 jobs in the darkest days of the depression in the U. S. A., and made a profit in the end. But they can be white elephants. The Humber suspension bridge is an engineering marvel, but has failed to generate more than the merest fraction of the hoped for traffic and will never offer a pay back to the tax payer.
I’ve just read Andrew Moffet’s budget analysis again and I am impressed. Andrew now comes straight out, both guns blazing in favour of what I call Quantitative Easing for the people or what Lord Adair Turner calls Overt Money Finance OMF). Previously I thought that Andrew was very coy on this topic rather like the leader of the BNP.
If interest rates are allowed to rise as Fraser Nelson’s article in the Daily Telegraph appears to be recommending according to John Bean, it would (apparently) benefit me personally because I am one of the “lucky” ones. I have some savings and no debt. But let’s look at this a little closer. Many of the borrowers would be forced to default under a higher interest rate regime. When more than just a small number of mortgages and loans go bad, the bank’s assets become less than their liabilities and the bank affected become insolvent. If interest rates were increased, this would happen on a grand scale resulting in another financial collapse.
Another possible reason why interest rates are being kept low is the governments “deposit insurance scheme”. If rates do rise with the resultant scenario of bank insolvencies, the government (taxpayers) would be on the hook for massive payouts to deposit holders.
The Economy has always been one of the top three issues in British politics. Undoubtedly, it is the MAIN issue at the moment and has been since the worldwide economic crisis hit in 2008. Simply put, if you don’t have credible answers to this topic you won’t get anywhere politically-speaking. UKIP have the same failed neo-liberal globalist economic policies as the Lib/Lab/CON party does and this is their primary flaw. It is the policy area that nationalists like the BDP should attack them on.
The bnp has been watching our website carefully. It has now produced its own budget statement under NG’s signature, in an email to members. The statement is illiterate in parts. It is also no more that an ill-argued attack on budget measures – probably written by one of NG’s underlings. It has only appreared because bnp members have doubtless asked why the bnp has not produced a budget statement.
The bnp email to members (1500 left?) attacks the cuts to the public sector. But the public sector must be funded by the taxpayer. If the taxpayer cannot earn the funds to generate the tax revenues in the first place, then the same taxpayer must pay more in tax to finance the public sector. Does not NG understand this?
The bnp attack on the budget provides no solutions. What would the bnp do if in office? How would it raise pay in the public sector? Would it raise taxes?
What were the bnp’s views on individual reforms, such as the rise in the personal allowance? Has it no view? What is its view on QE?
God help us if NG was chancellor – an ex bankrupt controlling the nation’s finances.
Seems the bnp has one eye over its shoulder to watch what we are doing. We must consider this as a compliment!
Frankly, it is embarrassing the associate with the down-and-outs in the bnp today. It is also personally damaging.
I shall join the Brit Dems.
Tim
No NG doesn’t want to be chancellor – he’s got the BNP’s highly qualified financial and legacy expert Clive Jefferson lined up for that role.
I agree Tim. The website of the BNP is now a very amateurish to put it mildly. This is very sad because up till 2010 it was one of the best from the minor parties and no doubt this was why it was very much visited by members of the public. Are you a member of the BNP Tim and have seen the light as I have?
An excellent article Andrew. This demonstartes that Nationalist philosphy political and financial can be intelligent and accurate in its analysis.
Lower taxation for those working and real wealth will be created. The public sector creates no wealth for the country and is a deficit on the country’s balance sheet which is why public sector finances must be kept under very firm control. Public sector spending is not under control and has been out of control for decades, making us all the poorer.
Nationalist policies on a wide spectrum of policies, properly and intelligently presented, might win the day and show nationalism in a new and intelligent light. As nationalists we are constantly missrepresented. Articles at this standard will demonstrate nationalist policies are sound and intelligent and will win support.
Well done Andrew.
Yes Steve, I was a member of the bnp but will now join the Brit Dems. I like the quality of the people leading it. I think they are honest, trustworthy, upright – as opposed to the low life with which NG surrounds himself. Who would employ any of that shower?!
The bnp website up until around 2010 was more popular than Lab/Lib/Con/Ukip combined. It was also one of the most popular websites in the UK and, perhaps, the most popular political website in the West – or one of them. Now, it is virtually unread.
Griffin has wasted 13 years and has allowed ukip to gain credibility as the alternative party to Lab/Lib/Con whereas we beat them in most seats in 2010. I don’t suppose his membership is much beyond 1500, compared with 14000 in 2010. If he has any security to protect him, it is probably against his own people!
Tim
I was also a member of the BNP until 2011 when Andrew sadly failed to win the leadership contest. If the BNP under Griffin had concentrated on a few key issues and not let itself be diverted onto minor issues then I believe it would be doing much better than it is and would still be beating the Thatcherite, Atlantacist, NON-NATIONALISTS of UKIP. As a good example of this and a brilliant demonstration of Mr Griffin’s political ineptness why did he go on Twitter last October to encourage anti-gay idiots to demonstrate outside the home of a gay couple? What sort of responsible or CREDIBLE politician would do that? NONE is the answer. It is stupidity like that which has enabled UKIP to pose as a ‘respectable’ nationalist party when ideologically it is nothing of the sort but simply an anti-EU Thatcherite Tory Party.
I will be joining this new party too.
Thank you Mill, for your valid enquiry about the costs of immigration. I concur with you that we must present figures that are reliable. The answer to your question comes from Migration Watch. I suspect, however, the costs are much higher but it does depend upon what is included and what is not. Some costs can only be estimated.
We could, of course, include the full costs of unemployment. Clearly, if 1/4 million migrants enter each year, over and above the ability of the economy to absorb them, then this too is a considerable cost because not only are our own people competing for jobs but both they and migrant elements are drawing social security. Given there is already unemployment, there is no economic need for migration – and this does not touch the issue of the social and other consequences that are factors within the imposition of the multicult society.
To calculate the full costs, one must take account of a variety of factors, including crime, unemployment, health tourism, education, NHS, asylum, social security, translation costs, legal aid, and so on.
Here are the figures, quoting from Migration Watch from 2010, in an article:
1 “Criminal immigrants held in British jails cost the taxpayer £283 million per year, new figures have revealed. This means that the annual total cost of immigration to the British taxpayer is now set at just over £13 billion per year.
According to official figures revealed in Parliament, the bill for keeping foreign prisoners in British jails has been £3.4 billion since 1997. This equates to £283 million per year.
According to figures compiled earlier by Oxford Professor of Demography, David Coleman, and released by independent think tank Migrationwatch, immigration already costs the British taxpayer some £12.8 billion per year.
This figure does not include the cost of housing and feeding foreign prisoners generated by the imprisonment of 11,350 foreign convicts in Britain’s overcrowded jails.
Foreign prisoners have taken up 48 percent of all new jail cells built since 1999, the parliamentary figures also revealed. Some 12,549 new jail cells have been built in the last ten years, while the foreign inmate population grew by 5,962 over the same period.
When the foreign inmate cost is added to Professor Coleman’s figures, the total cost per year ramps up to the £13 billion figure.
This is ten times the National Health Service Deficit and 40 percent more than the foreign aid budget.
The number of foreign criminals has increased by over 110 percent since 1999, compared to an increase of 20 percent in UK offenders. Of the latter number, statistics show further that large numbers are from first or second generation immigrants.
According to figures from the Office of National Statistics, immigrants also send home about £4 billion a year in remittances back to their home countries.
The £4 billion figure is thought to be an underestimate, as it does not include money sent from Britain by unofficial banking channels. In contrast, just £2.3 billion a year flows into the country from British ex-pats working overseas.
A House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs last year found “no evidence” to show that net immigration generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population.
The latest set of figures show even this to be somewhat of an understatement.”
______________
2 “Despite the serious cut-backs expected in this week’s government spending review, at least 500,000 more school places will be needed to cope with the rising demand for places from the immigrant community. According to Migration Watch, UK’s taxpayers now spend £12 million a day on educating migrant children. Within ten years the numbers of immigrant children at school will have doubled to over a million and some £95 billion will have to be spent to provide the resources needed.
Meanwhile, the indigenous population of the UK is falling, and the demand for school places from British families is also falling. To maintain our native population even at present levels a birth-rate of at least 2.1 children per woman is essential. At present it is 1.6. The UK’s Muslim population is growing at a rate of over five children per woman.
5. The Home Office, under a supposedly Tory Home Secretary, Theresa May, has agreed to an amnesty for some 135,000 failed asylum seekers, who are now being allowed to remain in the UK. The announcement, made quietly last week, admitted that this decision had been taken solely to clear an ever-growing backlog of cases. No mention was made of the consequences – that every potential asylum seeker in the world now knows that Britain has joined the long list of developed countries which can be expected to cave in on asylum applications.
Britain will need 550,000 more school places by 2016 to educate the children of immigrants, a study claimed last night.
And over the next decade this will rise to one million extra places – at a total cost of about £100billion.
The Migrationwatch report blames the aftermath of Labour’s ‘open door’ immigration policy.
Baby boom: The Coalition has acknowledged that the shortage of primary school places is ‘critical’
Last year, providing schooling to the children of people born overseas cost £4.5billion – the equivalent of almost £13million every day – according to the pressure group.
Its analysis is based on figures from the Office for National Statistics, and includes children who have arrived in the UK from overseas, and those born in Britain to migrant parents.
It comes at a time when primary school places are in huge demand, and the Government is attempting to slash between £7 billion and £14 billion from the education budget.
Fault: The Migrationwatch report blames the aftermath of Labour¿s ¿open door¿ immigration policy
Migrationwatch said that between 1998 and 2009 – the years in which critics say Labour’s open door immigration policy operated – the number of school places required by the children of immigrants was almost 630,000.
By analysing ONS population projections, Migrationwatch also concluded that over the next ten years one million more school places will be needed because of immigration.
This is primarily due to children being born to immigrants.
‘Open door’: Tony Blair and the Labour Party have been blamed for the increase in immigrants – and now it’s costing the tax payer
Between now and 2016, 550,000 more places will be required. Based on the cost of providing each school place, the total cost will be £40billion.
Educating children of immigrants in state schools would cost around £195billion over a 25-year period, the report adds.
Migrationwatch said the quadrupling in net migration – the difference between the number of people arriving in the UK, and those leaving – was responsible.
Many of those coming here were young people, who decided to have children, contributing to a ‘baby boom’. Between 1998 and 2009, total births increased by 11 per cent, Migrationwatch says.
Sir Andrew Green, Migrationwatch chairman, said: ‘Almost every family in England is being affected by the growing crisis over school places but no one will talk about its causes.
‘These are some of the consequences of one of the most reckless and unpopular policies of any government in generations and they are now coming home to roost.’
Last month, the Mail revealed how hundreds of children had been left with no primary school place at the start of term.
Thousands of other children are having to be taught in makeshift classrooms.
The problems were blamed on the surge in the number of young children and recession-fuelled departures from private schools.
The Coalition has acknowledged that the shortage of primary places is ‘critical’.
Last night a Government spokesman said: ‘Ministers are clear that dealing with the demand for school places is an immediate priority – that is why we are transforming the school building programme to meet demand where it is most needed.
‘We are fully committed to reducing net migration back down to the tens of thousands [a year] rather than the hundreds of thousands.’”
Finally, John Bean refers to Quantitative Easing. I would disagree with him that this was a policy attractive to Con/Ukip voters. It was introduced by Labour. Without it, there would arguably be deflation.
I am dead against inflation – which is an invisible tax on those with savings.
Inflation at its current rate is a result of the diminution in the value of Sterling, given we import so many of our requirements and much else, including oil, is priced in USD.
Whilst I sympathise with the views of the editor of the Spectator, he seems to have overlooked the implosion that has occurred to banks’ balance sheets. Banks have been downsizing their loans, which are being repaid and cancelled. QE offsets that process.
Kind regards to both.
Andrew Moffat.
No one of sane mind could argue against the highly detrimental effects and huge costs of mass immigration into this country Andrew. The figures you quote from migrationwatch are shocking and of course as you say don’t include many other social costs. I would say though that there is in fact deflation in the real economy as QE has not addressed this as it has gone to build up bank reserves and fuel speculative bubbles in the ‘financial economy’ for example in derivatives and junk bonds, QE or money printing needs to go into the real economy, building infrastructure and manufacturing capacity and providing the people with purchasing power which would stimulate production and wealth creation.
To get support you need to offer answers. What happens if there are no easy answers to the economy? Parties make them up. It’s what the three are doing. Borrow more and more until growth overtakes the growth in debt. Not in the near or even medium future. This is not your normal recession. Debt levels.
The greatest suffering from the downturn is from unemployment. This is a total disaster since it creates a vast pool of those who never establish themselves in the labour market. What could be done is to stop the flow inwards of foreign labour and cut out the vast numbers here who are working either as ‘students’ on work permits or simply unregulated. Near every damn shop is staffed by foreigners in London.
If you can’t easily solve the economic problem and no one has any majestic answer to it then we should ensure what work there is goes to our own people. There is huge scope there to improve our lot.
Too true mate as a London builder I work quite a few building sites where English is the second language. Whats are our kids supposed to do immigrate?
I just wondered if you actually took the time to read Andrews article before you responded and pressed the send button?
Good article, making some good points. I like the idea to use quantitive easing (printing money) to fund infrastructure projects sorely neede in this country, instead of being used as at present to prop up insolvent banks and fund speculative bubbles in the financial economy. I would say though that although mass immigration has had a big impact on house availability, the main reason for rocketing house prices was the banks being allowed to in effect create money by way of irresponsible house mortgage loans which lead to people fighting to outbid each other for credit leading to escalating house prices!
Cameron is duplicitous in criticising those ‘who believe the government can continue to borrow, as though there is some “magic money tree,” because he knows the government could and should be printing money and issuing the nation’s money-supply and credit rather than borrowing from private banks (who incidentally don’t have the money but are allowed to create it) at interest, there again Cameron is a puppet of the banks!
The reform of the banking system, cancellation of the fraudelent National Debt and commitment of a future nationalist government to issue the nation’s money-supply interest-free should be a central plank of this party’s manifesto in my opinion. If this was done our children and grandchildren could look forward to a life of comfort and prosperity the like of which we have never known!
If Britain saved the £74 Billion plus £40 billion detailed above we could do many wonderful things for the economy and country. Also as a gesture of goodwill to get people believing in us, we could actually REDUCE the state pension age requirement by a year ! I kid you not ! Especially as dual passport holders would no longer be eligible ! What is politically possible is usually economically possible and vice -versa. It just needs some rule changes and a government that does not want to give our pensioners money away to people overseas !