Clegg warns Tories not to demonise public sector

Deputy PM criticises ministers for polarising public and private sector workers.

With all eyes on Brussels, Nick Clegg's speech this morning on cities received little attention. But it contained one particularly notable passage on the public sector. The Deputy PM appeared to criticise Tory ministers for allowing the economic debate to become "polarised" between public sector workers and private sector workers.

He said:

I know that some of our public sector workers bristle when they hear Ministers talk about paring back the public sector and letting business lead the recovery ... what will hurt both groups is if we now allow this debate to become polarised - as if our dilemma is helping the public sector versus the private sector.

The North versus the South. Picking industry or picking banking. Because if we play into these bygone caricatures of the left and the right, if we allow our society to fracture into these camps, that is the surest way to drag the UK back to the 1980s.

Clegg's words were a subtle rebuke to those Tories who suggest that they will gain politically from a smaller public sector and a larger private sector (one senior Tory told the Spectator's James Forsyth: 'You create a bigger private sector, you create more Tories"). The tension surrounding this issue has increased after the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast (see box 3.6 on p. 95) in the autumn statement that 710,000 public sector jobs would be lost by 2017, 310,000 more than previously thought, and that 1.7 million private sector jobs would be created.

One could add that the government has cynically set private and public sector workers against each other for the sake of its pension reforms. Supporters of the reforms frequently note that two-thirds of private-sector employees do not even have a company pension, compared to just 12 per cent of public-sector workers. But this is an argument for improving provision in the private sector, not for driving it down in the public sector. Indeed, many pensionless private-sector workers depend on their partner's public-sector pension to ensure a basic standard of living in old age.

But that's not an argument Clegg will be making anytime soon.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

How Theresa May laid a trap for herself on the immigration target

When Home Secretary, she insisted on keeping foreign students in the figures – causing a headache for herself today.

When Home Secretary, Theresa May insisted that foreign students should continue to be counted in the overall immigration figures. Some cabinet colleagues, including then Business Secretary Vince Cable and Chancellor George Osborne wanted to reverse this. It was economically illiterate. Current ministers, like the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Home Secretary Amber Rudd, also want foreign students exempted from the total.

David Cameron’s government aimed to cut immigration figures – including overseas students in that aim meant trying to limit one of the UK’s crucial financial resources. They are worth £25bn to the UK economy, and their fees make up 14 per cent of total university income. And the impact is not just financial – welcoming foreign students is diplomatically and culturally key to Britain’s reputation and its relationship with the rest of the world too. Even more important now Brexit is on its way.

But they stayed in the figures – a situation that, along with counterproductive visa restrictions also introduced by May’s old department, put a lot of foreign students off studying here. For example, there has been a 44 per cent decrease in the number of Indian students coming to Britain to study in the last five years.

Now May’s stubbornness on the migration figures appears to have caught up with her. The Times has revealed that the Prime Minister is ready to “soften her longstanding opposition to taking foreign students out of immigration totals”. It reports that she will offer to change the way the numbers are calculated.

Why the u-turn? No 10 says the concession is to ensure the Higher and Research Bill, key university legislation, can pass due to a Lords amendment urging the government not to count students as “long-term migrants” for “public policy purposes”.

But it will also be a factor in May’s manifesto pledge (and continuation of Cameron’s promise) to cut immigration to the “tens of thousands”. Until today, ministers had been unclear about whether this would be in the manifesto.

Now her u-turn on student figures is being seized upon by opposition parties as “massaging” the migration figures to meet her target. An accusation for which May only has herself, and her steadfast politicising of immigration, to blame.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496