Unfairness of being expected to compete on a level playing field

The leader in Saturday's Times was devoted to a discussion on the different speeds of broadband access available in the UK and elsewhere.

In South Korea and Japan, entire cities have already been hooked up to broadband service providers that pour data, sound and top-quality television pictures into myriad devices at up to 50 times the speed of the average British broadband connection. While Britons wrestle with outdated services and infrastructure, the technological revolution promised in the dot-com boom has finally arrived in the Far East, and its social and economic implications are clear. These will be more active, more creative and better-informed societies. Their businesses will have an unfair advantage and their people will gain a better understanding of the world around them.

I'm puzzled by the phrase Their businesses will have an unfair advantage.

Why is this unfair? Have the Japanese or Koreans forced BT or NTL not to provide better broadband speeds. I don't think so. This is equivalent to complaining that a student who got a better qualification than you, did so unfairly because they put in the necessary hours of study and revision.

Poly Toynbee's case for cracking down on poor immigrants.

In today's Poly Toynbee article, Poly explains why the wealthy want an immigration free-for-all. She isn't referring to herself - I have no idea whether she employs a Filipino maid or not. No, she refers to the Tory party.

It's tough to be a Tory. If you support any measure of immigration control, even those proposed by Labour, it must be because you are wicked. If you oppose immigration controls, it must be because you are wicked.

What does Poly herself think: pulling up the drawbridge on migration is no answer. We are where we are and the workforce is needed now. Nor is the labour market a zero-sum game. But the new skills advisory body should at least forbid importation of semi-skilled workers unless employers have done everything imaginable to recruit and train locally.

Let's see. Immigration controls are wrong but we should forbid importation of semi-skilled workers.

It is certainly true that doctors, nurses and some other high skill occupations are actively sought from overseas. Sometimes this is done covertly so that the government can claim the moral high ground of not denuding third world countries of skilled health workers but it still goes on. For lower skilled workers, the active encouragement is less obvious. Clearly people-traffickers are bringing in some, but that is already illegal. Bogus education establishments are already illegal. Many come from eastern Europe but that is legal. I believe that asylum seekers are still not permitted to seek work until they get leave to stay.

That doesn't leave much room for maneuver. The logical conclusion therefore is that Poly is arguing for tighter immigration controls.

----

For the record I sympathise with Poly's idea, despite her inconsistency.

I support high skilled immigration from whatever ethnic origin. There is no doubt that such a person makes a net contribution to the UK economy. However, I sincerely doubt that low skilled workers are a net gain. The argument in favour is that low skilled workers perform the jobs that our own people are are unwilling or unavailable to perform. In practice many low skilled immigrants displace indigeneous workers, who then become a welfare burden. Otherwise they compete to drive down pay to a level where the benefit of leaving welfare becomes marginal or non existent. The indigenous people refusing to take low skilled work are frequently the children of immigrants themselves. Whereas their parents generation were willing to take any job at any pay, they do not feel the same obligation. I have heard advocates of left and right argue that children of immigrants will become the doctors and nurses. No doubt some will, but rosy optimism doesn't explain why unemployment is so high amongst third generation West Indians. Long term unemployment clustered in minority groups does not aid social cohesion and only a fool would exacerabate the current situation. True, the problem could be ameliorated by abolishing long term welfare such as achieved by Clinton's reforms, but I doubt that the UK is ready for that.