Swamping Scenarios

Ellie Keen — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:48:38 +0000

ANYONE expecting a sober assessment of the impact of immigration on British society by the House of Lords economic affairs committee would have been struck first by the worrying number of references to the right-wing Migrationwatch organisation.

This body is incapable of referring to migration without conjuring up nightmare visions of a country under critical threat of being swamped.

Such scenarios underestimate the ability of people, especially working people, to work together and to smoothe the absorption of incomers from overseas.

The idea that the influx of people into Britain can be staunched by the use of work permits or quotas is preposterous.

Britain became rich as a result of overseas trade, conquest and exploitation and the peoples of the countries that suffered as a result can see the difference in living standards in Britain and in their own underdeveloped homelands.

To imagine that they would accept poverty and indolence at home rather than follow the wealth gouged from their countries and exported to Britain is naive.

And, whatever the conclusions drawn by their lordships, the beneficial effects of immigration are there for all to see.

But for immigrants, our health service, social services, roadbuilding, railways and buses would have all but collapsed. Even today, it is east Europeans who keep areas of agriculture going, especially at harvest time.

Any problems arising from immigration are not the fault of the immigrants themselves.

They are the fault of people who exploit migrants, paying them below the minimum or industrial council wage, shoving them into overcrowded homes and keeping them away from trade union representatives.

The government ought to be quicker to respond in areas where a rapid increase in population results in pressure on housing, the NHS and welfare provision.

But it should also tighten up safeguards to prevent crooked gangmasters from taking advantage of the government's own aversion to regulation by robbing migrant workers and undercutting the rate for the job.

This scandal makes it clear: for Labour, money trumps principle every time

JamieSW — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:05:05 +0000

It is not difficult for Britain’s major political parties to move on from their funding scandals: there’s a new one every week. Every revelation blots out the memory of its predecessors. Peter Hain’s misdemeanours dropped out of the news before we had heard the half of it. I want to drag you back there for a moment, because there’s an aspect to this story which was either missed altogether or mentioned only briefly in most reports. It says far more about the rotten state of British politics than Hain’s failure to declare his donations.

The new scandal concerns the identity of one of his donors. There is no suggestion of illegality here: it is a moral issue. But it illustrates, perhaps more clearly than ever before, the abandonment of everything the Labour party once claimed to stand for. It shows us that in any contest between money and principle, the money wins.

Hain was not the first beneficiary of Isaac Kaye’s munificence. Mr Kaye, who has made many tens of millions of pounds from his drugs companies, gave the Labour party a few thousand in both 1997 and 1998, and £100,000 in 1999(1). But Hain had two powerful reasons not to put his hand in this man’s pocket.

The first is that the company Kaye used to run, Norton Healthcare, is now subject to the biggest prosecution for alleged fraud ever launched in the United Kingdom. Norton is one of five firms accused of dishonestly fixing the price of drugs sold to the National Health Service. The charges relate to the period 1996-2001, when Kaye was chairman of the company. In 2006, Norton paid the Department of Health £13.5m to settle a civil case concerning the same allegations(2,3).

Norton Healthcare has been involved in other controversies. In 1998 the Department of Health named it as one of the companies offering “inducements” to doctors and chemists: Norton gave them mountain bikes and Marks and Spencer vouchers if they stocked its products. Labour’s health minister complained that “it is completely unacceptable for pharmaceutical companies to encourage health professionals to use their products through free gifts and other sweeteners.”(4)

In the same year, the government announced that it was giving a Norton plant in London’s Docklands £990,000 in the form of “regional selective assistance”, whose purpose is to boost employment. This grant, the government claimed, would promote “inward investment in the manufacturing sector”. As Private Eye points out, the fund - as its name suggests - is normally used to bring jobs to the regions (which means places other than London)(5). But there was something even odder: the week before the government announced this funding, Norton’s parent company revealed that it would stop manufacturing in the UK, and would shift the jobs in that sector to Ireland(6).

But the particular discomfort for Mr Hain concerns Kaye’s activities in his previous place of residence. Until 1985 he lived in South Africa, where he was involved in another “gifts for influence” scandal. His drugs company, Alumina, gave cars, televisions, chandeliers, swimming pool equipment, tennis courts, shares and trips abroad to people working in the health sector, including academics who sat on the government’s advisory panels, the head of the Medical Research Council and the minister of health(7,8,9). When these gifts were exposed, Kaye explained that they were “not an inducement, but in appreciation of their having prescribed drugs marketed by the Alumina group.”(10) The official inquiry into the scandal found that he had “no scruples about applying dishonest or unethical methods.”(11)

More importantly as far as Hain is concerned, Isaac Kaye has been accused of providing campaign finance for National Party candidates during the apartheid years. Kaye admits to funding the National MP John Erasmus. An article in the Daily Express, drawing on an award-winning investigation by the South African journalist Martin Welz, alleges that Kaye seconded one of his company’s executives to campaign for another candidate, Gerrit Bornman(12). It also claims he provided cars to help Lapa Munnik, the minister of health and a fierce defender of apartheid, win a by-election. Gerrit Bornman told the Express that Kaye had been a “substantial” backer of the National Party. I tried to contact Mr Kaye, but I was told he was unavailable(13). In the past he has denied funding the National Party and has maintained that his company’s gifts were not intended to win favours(14).

Taking money from Isaac Kaye defaces Peter Hain’s only remaining conviction. When Hain became a Labour cabinet member and was obliged to ditch everything he once believed, he was allowed to keep just one political memento: his admirable record of opposition to the apartheid government. When he moved from South Africa to Britain he became this country’s leading opponent of apartheid. The regime first tried to kill him then tried to fit him up for a bank robbery. He was a brave and remarkable campaigner. But in 2007 he trampled his medals into the mud to get the money he needed.

This is the story of our political system, of most of the world’s political systems. You enter politics with the highest ideals and end up grovelling to multi-millionaires. Campaign finance is not the only reason for the corruption of leftwing political parties. But any system without a cap on individual donations encourages the mass abandonment of political programmes. You need to spend much less time and effort and money to secure thousands of pounds from a rich man than to shake it out of the piggybanks of hundreds of new members. Who can blame you if you adjust your programme to please the millionaires?

The newspapers say that our system is one of the least corrupt in the world. It’s probably true - but so much the worse for the world. The British Labour Party knows that no enormity would persuade the trade unions to disaffiliate. So it can ignore their demands and concentrate on the needs of the multi-millionaires. In 2006 and 2007, 27% of its money came from individual donations of more than £100,000(15). Aside from the largesse of Lord Sainsbury and Lakshmi Mittal, almost all of this is City money, much of it from men who run private equity companies(16). To what extent this influences Labour’s failure to tax the super-rich, we will never know - which is, of course, the problem.

Because the Labour Party (thanks to the endless funding scandals) is always on the brink of bankruptcy, Gordon Brown has promised to do something(17). But, in line with the recommendations by the Phillips Review of party funding, he proposes to cap donations at £50,000. Witness the democratisation of British politics: even the ordinary millionaire can now participate.

Why should one person be allowed to give the equivalent of 1388 Labour Party membership fees? Brown’s formula would preserve Labour’s funding link with the trades unions - and the super-rich. I don’t mind how it is done; whether, as both the Phillips review and the Power Inquiry recommend(18,19), the state gives more, or whether the cap is set at £100 and parties must rely on a host of tiny individual gifts. (Who cares if they have less cash with which to bamboozle us?) Just get the big money out of politics.

References:

1. Kevin Maguire, 13th April 2002. The drug tycoons at the centre of the controversy. The Guardian.

2. Simon Bowers, 5th April 2006. Norton pays NHS pounds 13.5m over price fixing. The Guardian.

3. Jane Merrick, Ian Drury, 11th January 2008. Hain on the rack over secret donors. The Daily Mail.

4. Michael Gillard, 28th September 2000. Apartheid Supporter Who Is a £100,000 Backer of Labour. The Daily Express.

5. In the Back, 1st October 1999. The Kaye catalogue. Private Eye, no 986.

6. In the Back, 24th December 1999. Take the money and run … Private Eye, no 992.

7. No author, March 2000. Another South African Makes Good in the UK. Noseweek, South Africa,
no 29.

8. Michael Gillard, ibid.

9. Martin Shipton, 12th January 2008. ‘It’s inevitable Peter Hain will have to resign’. Western Mail.

10. Michael Gillard, ibid.

11. Quoted in Eye Told You So, April 2002. Private Eye, Issue 1052.

12. Michael Gillard, ibid.

13. I phoned the company with which he is now associated, Trevi Health Ventures, on February 1st and was told that Mr Kaye is “not available”. When I asked what this meant, they put down the phone. I tried again and the same thing happened.

14. See Michael Gillard, ibid.

15. I calculated this from the Electoral Commission’s Register of donations to political parties, viewed 1st February 2008. The accounts for 2007 are not quite complete.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regdpoliticalpar...

16. Four City donors - Nigel Doughty, Sir Ronald Cohen, Jon Aisbitt and William Bollinger - have given a total of £2.25m over 2006 and 2007.

17. Patrick Wintour and Richard Norton-Taylor, 6th November 2007.
Homes and funds at heart of Queen’s speech, but plans for troops may take centre stage. The Guardian.

18. Sir Hayden Phillips, March 2007. Strengthening Democracy: Fair and Sustainable Funding of Political Parties. http://www.partyfundingreview.gov.uk/files/strengthening_democracy.pdf

19. Isobel White, 14th March 2006. Power to the People: the report of Power, an Independent Inquiry into Britain’s Democracy. http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-03948.pdf

politics | ukwatch.net

Swamping Scenarios

This scandal makes it clear: for Labour, money trumps principle every time