Pakistan warns Grieve's "divisive" remarks may damage bilateral relations

The country's High Commission attacks the Attorney General's comments on ethnic "corruption".

A clue to Dominic Grieve sudden U-turn yesterday has emerged as The High Commission for Pakistan warns UK that his comments regarding Britain’s Pakistani community are "offensive and divisive", "may have repercussions on Pakistan-UK bilateral relations, and damage Pakistani Community’s support to the Conservative Party." Slamming the remarks as "immature" and "bizarre" – language not normally used by diplomats – Pakistan is making clear the high degree of anger felt by the regime.

Grieve had said in an interview with the Daily Telegraph that some immigrants - particularly British Pakistanis - "come from backgrounds where corruption is endemic", "have been brought up to believe you can only get certain things through a favour culture", and are "mainly responsible for electoral corruption."

In a statement, the Pakistan High Commission said: "The High Commission for Pakistan brands the views of Attorney General Dominic Grieve MP as offensive and divisive which may have repercussions on Pakistan-UK bilateral relations and Pakistan Community’s support to the Conservative Party.

"This is with reference to an interview by Attorney General Dominic Grieve MP to the Telegraph published on 22 November 2013 in which he labelled the Pakistani community living in the UK as 'corrupt' and that they support a 'favour culture.'

"The High Commission for Pakistan to the UK finds these remarks by Mr. Grieve MP as offensive and unfounded towards the strong Pakistani Diaspora in the UK. These remarks are contrary to British Prime Minister David Cameron’s repeated appreciation of the constructive role played by Pakistani Diaspora in the economy, culture, politics and society of the UK.

"The Pakistani Diaspora in UK is deeply disturbed by these unfounded and offensive comments made against them. Ever since the publication of this interview, the High Commission has been approached by thousands of Diaspora members who have expressed their disgust towards Dominic Grieve’s remarks.

"Bizarrely, Mr. Grieve’s immature remarks are based on one incident of electoral fraud which was dealt by British Court’s soon after it happened. It is extremely convenient to pass judgements on singular incidents, but it is important to emphasize that the Diaspora may also make their judgement about the Conservative Party and British government on this singular but divisive comment by the British Attorney General.

"It is important to emphasize that Pakistan-UK relations, which had taken on a constructive and meaningful path with the signing of the Enhanced Strategic Dialogue may be affected by such remarks from senior MPs of the British government.

"Pakistan does not accept such unfounded allegations against its own People and maintains that it is against the spirit of friendship. It condemns these views in the strongest possible terms.

"Pakistan does not accept such unfounded allegations against its own People and maintains that it is against the spirit of friendship. It condemns these views in the strongest possible terms."

It is not the first time Tories have sparked a furious diplomatic row between London and Islamabad. Soon after becoming prime minister in July 2010, David Cameron accused divisions of the Pakistani state of exporting terror and "looking both ways" by tolerating terrorism yet demanding respect as a democracy. At the time, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Pakistan's high commissioner, commented: "One would have wished that the prime minister would have considered Pakistan's enormous role in the war on terror and the sacrifices it has rendered since 9/11.”

As recently as June this year, Cameron pledged to "stand together" with Pakistan in the fight against terrorism following consultations with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. He said the relationship would increase opportunities for trade and investment. Islamabad has repeatedly made efforts to demonstrate bi-lateral cooperation not just against terrorism, but also in trade and finance. Earlier this year, the Pakistani high commissioner opened trading on the London markets at London Stock Exchange to mark the second Pakistan Capital Markets Day.

The latest announcement from Pakistan’s diplomats, however, suggests Dominic Grieve’s "apology" may not, on its own, be enough to get the relationship back on track.  

Imran Khan was a Conservative councillor (2008-12). He campaigns on citizenship issues.

Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif speaks with Indian external affairs minister Salman Kurshid before a working session at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. Photograph: Getty Images.
Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

How can Britain become a nation of homeowners?

David Cameron must unlock the spirit of his postwar predecessors to get the housing market back on track. 

In the 1955 election, Anthony Eden described turning Britain into a “property-owning democracy” as his – and by extension, the Conservative Party’s – overarching mission.

60 years later, what’s changed? Then, as now, an Old Etonian sits in Downing Street. Then, as now, Labour are badly riven between left and right, with their last stay in government widely believed – by their activists at least – to have been a disappointment. Then as now, few commentators seriously believe the Tories will be out of power any time soon.

But as for a property-owning democracy? That’s going less well.

When Eden won in 1955, around a third of people owned their own homes. By the time the Conservative government gave way to Harold Wilson in 1964, 42 per cent of households were owner-occupiers.

That kicked off a long period – from the mid-50s right until the fall of the Berlin Wall – in which home ownership increased, before staying roughly flat at 70 per cent of the population from 1991 to 2001.

But over the course of the next decade, for the first time in over a hundred years, the proportion of owner-occupiers went to into reverse. Just 64 percent of households were owner-occupier in 2011. No-one seriously believes that number will have gone anywhere other than down by the time of the next census in 2021. Most troublingly, in London – which, for the most part, gives us a fairly accurate idea of what the demographics of Britain as a whole will be in 30 years’ time – more than half of households are now renters.

What’s gone wrong?

In short, property prices have shot out of reach of increasing numbers of people. The British housing market increasingly gets a failing grade at “Social Contract 101”: could someone, without a backstop of parental or family capital, entering the workforce today, working full-time, seriously hope to retire in 50 years in their own home with their mortgage paid off?

It’s useful to compare and contrast the policy levers of those two Old Etonians, Eden and Cameron. Cameron, so far, has favoured demand-side solutions: Help to Buy and the new Help to Buy ISA.

To take the second, newer of those two policy innovations first: the Help to Buy ISA. Does it work?

Well, if you are a pre-existing saver – you can’t use the Help to Buy ISA for another tax year. And you have to stop putting money into any existing ISAs. So anyone putting a little aside at the moment – not going to feel the benefit of a Help to Buy ISA.

And anyone solely reliant on a Help to Buy ISA – the most you can benefit from, if you are single, it is an extra three grand from the government. This is not going to shift any houses any time soon.

What it is is a bung for the only working-age demographic to have done well out of the Coalition: dual-earner couples with no children earning above average income.

What about Help to Buy itself? At the margins, Help to Buy is helping some people achieve completions – while driving up the big disincentive to home ownership in the shape of prices – and creating sub-prime style risks for the taxpayer in future.

Eden, in contrast, preferred supply-side policies: his government, like every peacetime government from Baldwin until Thatcher’s it was a housebuilding government.

Why are house prices so high? Because there aren’t enough of them. The sector is over-regulated, underprovided, there isn’t enough housing either for social lets or for buyers. And until today’s Conservatives rediscover the spirit of Eden, that is unlikely to change.

I was at a Conservative party fringe (I was on the far left, both in terms of seating and politics).This is what I said, minus the ums, the ahs, and the moment my screensaver kicked in.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.