Immigration and border control signs at Edinburgh airport. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Osborne's living wage will increase immigration - but he won't mind

The new £9 rate will give the UK one of the highest minimum wages in the OECD. 

The Tories, in theory, have a policy of reducing immigration to the UK. Despite net migration last year reaching 318,000, the Conservative manifesto reaffirmed the party's aim of limiting it to "tens of thousands". David Cameron's bid to impose a four-year ban on migrant benefits (as part of his EU renegotiation) is designed, in his words, to reduce "the incentives for lower paid, low skilled EU workers to come here in the first place." The disparity between the amount migrants can earn at home and the amount they can earn in the UK (including through in-work welfare) must be narrowed. 

But the defining measure of George Osborne's Budget - a "National Living Wage" - will only increase the incentives for foreigners to migrate. As the OBR noted, the planned rate of £9 by 2020 will move the UK from the middle of the global wage league table to the top. Just seven OECD countries will have a higher minimum wage relative to full-time median earnings. 

This isn't the only draw for migrants. As the Labour MP John Mann, who has called for curbs on the free movement of labour, tweeted: "Biggest winners in today's budget are low skilled Europeans thinking of coming here. Free childcare, pay no tax, higher pay. The UK dilemma." But given the the economic benefits of high immigration, Osborne, a liberal on this issue, may not mind. After achieving a majority despite Ukip winning 12.6 per cent of the vote, the Tories can no longer have to permanently appease Nigel Farage. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

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