Gigantomania and Overcentralisation: HS2

Today’s announcement of the proposed details of the second phase of the HS2 route has been touted by George Osborne and Nick Clegg alike as a good thing, and a project that will assist growth, particularly in the regional cities with which it will link up. The twin spurs leading out from Birmingham will radiate up to Toton (near Nottingham), Sheffield and Leeds on one branch, and to Manchester and Manchester Airport on the other. This apparent enthusiasm should not come as a surprise, given that many politicians seem to possess a weakness for prestige projects, and projects don’t come much larger or more prestigious than HS2. Generally speaking however, such undertakings smack of gigantomania, but whereas its construction may not prove to be as wasteful, pointless or brutal as the White Sea Canal, it could yet prove to be more costly and of less utility than the Channel Tunnel, which in itself returned a loss for a number of years and came in well over budget, costing (according to one source) almost £12 billion rather than the originally projected £4.9 billion. 

The current price tag attached to HS2 is £32 billion, but what will be the real cost? How often do projects of this magnitude come in on budget? In practice, it is likely that the budget required for the construction and initial operation of HS2 will grow considerably as the years progress. Beyond this of course, there are the additional costs incurred in terms of environmental destruction and degradation, and the possibility that London will suck yet more lifeblood out of our regional cities rather than pump forth a surge of vitality. The thinking underpinning HS2 is distinctly metropolitan and damagingly London-centric, and many voices of opposition have been raised beyond those whom one would normally expect to object, such as 70 MPs.

Much of the thinking underpinning HS2 is fundamentally flawed, for the assumption is that time spent travelling on trains is dead time lost to productive employment, whereas we are now all aware that this is no longer the case thanks to the revolution in communications technology that allows us to work using our mobiles, laptops and tablets whilst on the move. Thus, does cutting the journey time from Manchester to London from two hours and eight minutes to one hour and eight minutes, and from Leeds to London from two hours and 20 minutes to one hour and 22 minutes really merit a minimum investment of £32 billion? These figures, particularly during our severely straitened times, appear to be frighteningly wasteful. If perhaps, we could guarantee that all of the steel, cement, signalling and rolling stock used in the creation and operation of this proposed new network were to be British produced and British owned, and the intellectual and manual labour employed likewise to be domestically sourced, then perhaps a case of sorts could be made for its construction, given the positive economic effects that it would generate. However, the likelihood is that it will not be: the network’s construction could well instead lead to an increase in the balance of payments deficit. 

Furthermore, the routing of the new network means that the ‘Nottingham’ and ‘Sheffield’ stations will not be in the city centres, with Nottingham’s being situated at Toton (no, I’d never heard of it either) and Sheffield’s at Meadowhall (do they intend to try and lure away shoppers from London’s Oxford Street?). This will mean that travellers will then need to board connecting services to reach the city centres, so the time saved is even less than that being claimed by advocates of the development. When will it be completed if all goes to schedule? Not until 2032 to 2033, apparently.

'Sheffield' HS2 Station: Meadowhall

Rather than ploughing such vast sums of money into an economically wasteful, London-centric prestige project, this investment ought to be used instead to upgrade regional rail networks and rolling stock, re-opening a number of lines closed by Beeching where this is still practicable to ease the pressure on our roads. Far more could be achieved in this way, and would be far more likely to yield a meaningful improvement in transport for the residents of our northern cities as well as laying the basis for prosperity in the regions. This is something championed by the Campaign for Better Transport which advocates the reopening of the Skipton to Colne rail link and the reinstatement of the line from Portishead to Bristol amongst others.

The opponents of HS2 have produced a website – StopHS2 – which sets out a number of persuasive arguments and figures in support of the campaigners’ assertion that the project is both wasteful and damaging. As yet, a decision upon whether to allow the construction of HS2 will not be made until next year, so although the go-ahead is not a foregone conclusion, the campaigners are going to have a tough struggle ahead of them in fighting the interests of the powerful lobby groups pushing for this ‘development’. Let’s hope that they succeed! 

The economy shrinks whilst the population grows

Although provisional, today’s statistics released by the ONS suggest that overall the UK economy remained flat in 2012: there was no growth. However, the statistics that point to a 0.3% contraction in the economy during the final quarter of 2012 are, when taking into account demographic factors, even more worrying, for the figures relate to aggregate GDP and not per capita GDP. Given the rapid population expansion that has taken place over the past decade and a half and continues to this day, per capita economic output is shrinking at an even faster rate. This conclusion would appear to be supported by statistics released earlier this week stating that unemployment is now at its lowest in 18 months and a new record has been reached for the number of people in work. Average earnings are said to have increased by 1.5% in the year to November 2012, but given that RPI throughout this period was running at more than double this rate, they purchasing power of average wages has been falling; our standard of living in these raw terms is declining.

Worryingly, the underlying state of the economy looks weak, with the genuine foundations of wealth creation – “the production industries” – contracting at a faster rate than the economy as a whole, dropping by 1.8% in the final quarter of 2012. This represents part of an ongoing trend illustrated in the graph below, which shows that production as a whole had declined by circa 5% since the beginning of 2011, with the largest drop being witnessed in mining and quarrying which fell by over 25% during the same period. 

 The latest figures for the UK’s trade deficit released in November also reveal a grim picture, with the deficit on goods and services estimated to have been £3.5 billion. Looking beneath this surface figure, the weakness of our manufacturing and productive sector is starkly revealed by a £9.2 billion monthly deficit on goods which was “partly offset by an estimated surplus of £5.7 billion on services.”

Clearly, the economic policy of the current Government is not working, and yet, the ‘solution’ offered by the Labour Party is no better, for it focuses upon maintaining consumption through increased borrowing without addressing the trade deficit and the over-reliance upon the service sector. A radical new industrial policy is required that provides greater backing for the development of cutting-edge technologies and the industries of the future, providing jobs both for those with high-level intellectual skills in science and engineering, as well as for those working in support roles in the supply chains required to nurture and sustain this domestic revival. However, such an approach is at best paid only lip service by the globalist parties of today: Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and UKIP. A new non-globalist alternative is required to provide the support and impetus necessary to launch and sustain a long-term economic revival with a vision and programme that looks decades into the future, rather than simply to the next General Election.

Graphene: why has the UK lost its lead?

The potential of graphene could be huge, but the reality at present is that we simply do not know the full range of uses to which this revolutionary new material could be turned. This super-thin ultra-conductive material stronger than diamond was first synthesised at The University of Manchester in 2004 through pioneering work carried out by Russian research scientists Andrei Geim and Konstantin Novosolev. As with many innovations in the past, it may have originated in Britain (albeit in this case largely as a consequence of the talents and research interests of two Russian expatriates), but it would seem that we are failing to capitalise upon the technological and economic possibilities of a revolutionary innovation, whilst other nations lead the way.

According to figures compiled by CambridgeIP, China leads the field in terms of patents taken out on graphene, with almost 41 times the number than taken out in the UK: 2,204 compared to a lowly 54. The US is second on the list, with a considerable 1,754, whereas South Korea comes in at third place with a far from negligible 1,160. China’s willingness to explore and use cutting-edge technologies is clearly displayed in these figures, as is its economic and, increasingly, intellectual challenge to the US. The figure associated with patents originating in the UK is feeble considering that the pioneering work was undertaken in Manchester, and begs us to ask why there has been such a failure to utilise this head start to the national advantage. George Osborne may have pledged £60 million in government funding for graphene research and BP may have announced its intent to create what is quoted by the BBC as “a world centre for graphene research”, but can this really enable us to make up the lost ground and catch up with more canny competitors who, in the case of the East Asian nations (amongst which we can include Singapore) have their eyes set on the long-term, rather than the short-term investment priorities that we apparently have absorbed from the ailing hegemon across the Atlantic?

Although the US has suffered a great deal of deindustrialisation, it still has some powerful domestically-based transnational corporations (TNCs) which are global leaders in technology capable of stumping up the funds required for researching the commercial possibilities of new technologies and materials, but even so, their priorities are short-term compared to those of what many have termed the “Confucian developmental state”, into which can be bracketed, despite their individual characteristics, China, South Korea and Singapore. The East Asian approach to economics and investment in science is driven by the long view, and not demands for immediate returns. We would do well to move a little closer towards their perspective, and further from the American one. 

South Korea’s largest chaebol – Samsung – holds a mighty 407 graphene patents, and it is sure to put them to good commercial use. A new generation of ultralight and flexible smartphones has been touted as one of its first widespread prospective uses. What a pity it is that no company in this country took up this idea with a view to transforming it into a globally popular product! It is in the development and utilisation of such new materials and technologies – not to mention new sources of energy – that will ultimately drive economic renewal in our country if we are to ever experience it, not in an overreliance upon the inflated financial services sector. We need to provide incentives for investment in a new industrial revolution which will fund the pensions and social services of tomorrow, for we have little to fund them with at present. One of the major reasons that we have lagged behind competitors in the exploitation of graphene is perhaps the fact that we now possess such a denuded base of domestic capital and so few large domestic corporations capable of funding and utilising the research that is required.

The globalists of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democratic parties may trumpet the glories of open markets, but with nothing to sell, who ultimately benefits? Globalism is bankrupt, as is the current economic strategy that focuses upon the short term and the undermining of the accumulation of domestic capital. In this respect, we must not look to America for inspiration for our economic model, for continuing to ape the US will bring us further ruin. We need an economic vision and industrial strategy that looks to the next 50-100 years and beyond, not just to the next General Election. Our current political parties are not fit to deliver such an approach, so we must create a party that is capable of doing so. 

Graphene Circuits

George Osborne’s Autumn Statement: why more investment in London?

George Osborne’s announcement in yesterday’s Autumn Statement brought little cheer to anyone, but for all of Labour’s jeering about the Condem’s inability to set the economy back on track, it is salutary to recall that it was the reckless excessive indebtedness incurred by the last Labour administration together with its full exposure of the UK’s capital markets to the full shock of globalisation that landed us in the economic predicament in which we find ourselves. Labour may call for additional public spending – its ‘Plan B’ option – but their proposals would simply incur yet more borrowing. Already, it has been announced that the UK could well lose its triple A credit rating next year, but if Labour had been in power, it is probable that this would already have gone.

Buried amidst the general gloom of his speech were a few faint glimmers, which no doubt were intended to garner positive headlines. Thus, besides the widely anticipated announcement that duty on petrol and diesel would not increase by the planned three pence per litre early in 2013, it was declared that the Chancellor intended to boost government investment in infrastructure projects. However, a significant chunk of this money – some £1 billion – has been set aside for the extension of the Northern Line to Battersea. Why? Is such an extension worth the money? How could it possibly merit such a massive investment? Could this money not be better used to improve rail services in the regions away from the capital, where rolling stock is often overcrowded and lines closed by Beeching could be usefully reinstated, easing congestion on the roads and assisting local economies?

The Campaign for Better Transport (CBT) has identified many decommissioned railway lines which it would like to see brought back into operation. One such example would be the reinstatement of the Skipton to Colne Railway, which would serve as a link between the Airedale Line and Lancashire. With respect to the Skipton to Colne link it states:

The 11.5 mile link between Skipton (North Yorkshire) and Colne (Lancashire) would link the Aire Valley and Yorkshire to East Lancashire, Manchester, Preston and beyond. Although under increasing threat, the trackbed is essentially intact and the railway could be restored at a relatively low cost: any further incursion would destroy a resource of national value and would be contrary to government policies.

Similarly, it is estimated that it would only cost £37 million to reopen the 10-mile line from Portishead to Bristol, which would be sure to ease commuter traffic. A Portishead Railway Group has been set up to campaign for its reinstatement.  

Too much of our investment is focused upon London. We need to direct more of our infrastructure investment away from the capital with a view to assisting an economic kickstart in our regions. We, after all, were left with the multi-billion pound bill of paying for the construction of the Olympic complex in Stratford that most of us will never see and never benefit from. In general, London sucks in too much from the rest of the country, and a considerable part of its population isn’t even English. The £1 billion earmarked for the extension of the Northern Line should be taken away, and redirected to fresh regional rail initiatives instead. 

Skipton to Colne Rail Link

George Osborne’s latest Idea: Power to the Workers! Or is it?

The Chancellor’s suggestion that workers should trade their employment rights for a stake in their companies strikes me as something of a curate’s egg. Whilst aware that for small firms in particular their desire to expand and take on new staff may be inhibited by obligations relating to redundancy payments, unfair dismissal and other employment rights, in general these hard won rights need protecting. We are all aware of notorious cases brought for unfair dismissal where such rights have been abused of course, but in most instances, this is legislation that has been designed to prevent people from losing their homes and their family lives in the event of them losing their jobs. Who, after all, benefits from such a scenario? Who, ultimately, is left to pick up the bill when such breakdown occurs?

The evisceration of many of Britain’s old industrial centres based on coal, steel, shipbuilding and manufacturing in the 1980s led in many instances to the collapse of local economies, multigenerational unemployment and a sense of apathy and listlessness that fed into drug addiction and other anti-social forms of behaviour. Anyone familiar with such areas will be aware that since then little has happened to generate the sense of hope and well-being that these areas require, for the high-paid jobs of the old industries have not been replaced. Call centre positions paying a paltry £13,000 to £14,000 per annum provide a decent living for nobody; they are not a fitting replacement for the well-paid blue-collar jobs that preceded them. They may be less dirty and less dangerous, but in many other respects, they are far inferior to the jobs of the past.

Osborne’s suggestion that workers should be given shares in the company that they work for is a good one. To provide employees with shares in their employers’ businesses gives them an active incentive to work to ensure that it prospers in the expectation of gaining something tangible in return. Where such schemes are implemented in a meaningful rather than a cosmetic manner they can assist in breaking down the antagonism that all too often, and frequently understandably, exists between management and employees. Indeed, in small start-up companies the offer of a generous share package could, providing that new members of staff are happy with the conditions, act as a great spur to the business succeeding. However, in any instance where these rights were to be waived, this should be a temporary measure, with full employment rights being put in place after a clearly defined transitional period necessary to establish the business. It would also be very negative if such good practice were to be used as cover to strip away employment rights across the board, which is what many must fear Osborne intends to do by floating this idea. Given his intent to cut the public sector whether or not there are private sector jobs for people to go to, the removal of employment rights could have severe implications for the lives of many.

The economy does need to be rebalanced so that we create more wealth through manufacturing and other cutting edge productive industrial research and development, but slashing employment rights and drastically downsizing the public sector in a precipitate fashion before we have started creating such opportunities is not the way to do it. Osborne is right to encourage a reduction in the antagonism between management and employees through incorporating the latter as meaningful shareholders in their own businesses, but wrong to posit this as an alternative rather than as a supplement to the employment rights that people already enjoy.  After all, statutory redundancy pay is hardly generous, being capped as it is at £430 for every year worked up until the age of 40, and then £645 for every year worked above that age. For the likes of George Osborne of course, such concerns will only ever be theoretical, but for the majority of working men and women, they are an ever present and worrying reality.

George Osborne: Money worries? Not likely!

Economic decline and the need for changed investment priorities

Today's announcement by the Bank of England Governor Mervyn King that there will be no growth in the UK economy this year appears to be optimistic. In all likelihood, we will see the year ending with a smaller economy than at the outset. Moreover, the economic deterioration will be compounded by another likely steep increase in population, placing increased strain upon our housing stock, infrastructure and social services. The Government and the Opposition are failing the country badly, for both offer us the prospect only of continuing economic decline conjoined with falling living conditions, increasing social fragmentation and polarisation. 

For successive years, the Bank of England has predicted that we run not the risk of inflation, but of deflation, and once again today we see King predicting that inflation will fall below the 2% target by the end of 2012. We have heard this said many times previously, only to see inflation roar away well in excess of this level. Although the general crisis within the global economy appears to militate against a surge in inflation in the near term, other geopolitical events, particularly the crisis in the Middle East, could threaten to increase global oil prices which would have a significant impact on our rate of inflation. The thorny issue of Iran’s nuclear programme and hawkish rhetoric concerning a potential pre-emptive strike by Israel could lead to the disruption of shipping through the Gulf of Hormuz causing a surge in the oil price. Moreover, it also remains to be seen how Iran’s desire to entangle itself in Syria’s intensifying civil war will manifest itself, and whether this might precipitate a wider clash within the Middle East involving Israel and possibly a number of NATO states. Either scenario would be likely to lead to a surge in oil prices, irrespective of the state of the global market.

Contrary to its assertions, Labour has no solution to this crisis. Its prescription for “growth”, involving as it does boosting spending on imported products, would serve only to exacerbate our balance of payments deficit, and to reinforce the lopsided structure of our economy. It is hardly as if Ed Balls had nothing to do with the economic policy of the last Labour administration and the woes that ensued therefrom, that with its twin addiction to debt and globalisation has undermined the foundations of our economy. There is no pain free way out of this economic crisis, and it is going to take many years to reinvigorate manufacturing, and to develop the productive potential of new technologies to generate the wealth required for the long-term funding of our social services.

The process of globalisation and its attendant ideology of globalism have assisted in the generation and entrenchment of this economic crisis, and if it is to be overcome effectively at the national level, then both must be ditched as a matter of policy. Investment, instead of chasing quick wins abroad, must be directed towards our own key industrial, research and development and infrastructure projects. These vital sectors will provide us with the basis of a sound and sustainable economy, allowing pensioners to feel secure in the knowledge that their funds will be invested in undertakings directed towards the long-term, yielding wealth, jobs and a future for all of our people. This manner of investment, rather than the solicitation of Arab petrodollars or the savings of Chinese workers, is what is required to restore genuine national self-determination.

Our economic policy should not be geared towards the short-termism of the electoral cycle, but should instead be devised with the next 50 to 100 years in mind. We need to think and act on behalf not only of existing generations, but also of those to come, and to develop policies in accordance with this principle. Sustainable employment, prosperity and well-being can only be secured in a country that is not groaning beneath the weight of excess numbers, and it will be incumbent upon any rational government, to ensure that a demographic policy is devised and implemented to bring about a better balance between land and people. Do not of course expect such considerations to weigh in the decision-making processes of the existing large parties, for they find such reasoning anathema. It will be our task, to make this reasoning mainstream, and to ensure that it finds expression in concrete policy. 

Interest rates may remain low for many years, as the example of Japan testifies, but whatever level they are set at, we will have no worthy economic future if our country does not adopt a radical new course in economic policy. 

The Bank of England: Interest Rates held at 0.5%

Incomes fall whilst Population rises

In a rare moment of candour, an article on the BBC website today finally acknowledged through quoting the Office for National Statistics (ONS) that population growth (fuelled predominantly by historically unprecedented mass immigration) had contributed to a significant decline in disposable income in the UK. The average figure fell by 1% during the first three months of 2012 compared to the preceding months, with the amount of disposable income reaching its lowest since 2003.

The protracted structural economic crisis doubtless underpins this decline, but this negative economic situation is heavily exacerbated by rapid and unhelpful population growth. On a per capita basis, the report reveals that pre-tax income declined during the period in question by 0.6%. The ONS stated: 

sustained population growth led to incomes being spread across a greater number of people, and therefore further reduced the growth of actual income per head.

To describe a decline in both pre-tax and disposable incomes as “growth” is one of those peculiar particularities of conventional economics, but the wider notion of “growth” as being an essentially good thing, irrespective of what that “growth” actually consists of, is a dogma that needs to be laid to rest if we are to effect true improvements in our standard of living and quality of life in this country. The focus upon an increase in aggregate rather than per capita GDP is, in general, something that can actually lead to a concrete deterioration in both our daily lived experience and indeed in our individual incomes.

Retailers for example, are enthusiastic about a growing population, for this implies more prospective consumers to shop in their outlets; builders too, for this necessitates the construction of ever more homes (the rooms of which seem to grow smaller as average girths grow wider); an increase in the number of passengers on already overcrowded rail services may be seen as positive by various rail companies, but do we as commuters appreciate the consequences of such “growth”: nowhere to sit and often scarcely space to breathe? As the population grows the infrastructure – particularly in densely populated England possessing an average of 407 people per square kilometre according to the 2011 Census – creaks: traffic jams grow longer and more frequent; drought orders are issued sooner and take longer to lift, and we are urged to adopt water meters to conserve a precious “scarce” resource; pressure upon our housing stock grows, as do voices calling for the lifting of planning restrictions designed to protect our countryside.

For the conventional economist, population growth is therefore seen to be a “good thing”, whereas for the mortals who have to live with its consequences, the negative impact of such a demographic surge far outweighs any superficial nominal benefits that may be said to have been accrued. Yet, despite such pressures brought about by the negligent policies of the current government and the wilful design of its predecessor, few are willing to take a critical stance on this issue and call for a solution that would readily improve our lives: a rational demographic policy aimed in the long run (i.e. over the coming century or two) at reducing our national population to sustainable limits of circa 25 to 30 million. However, those who support Population Matters - such as David Attenborough and James Lovelock - are notable exceptions.

The example of the widespread failure of India’s electricity grids over the past two days should serve as a warning as to what could happen to us if we do not constrain our population at a level commensurate with the power and resources that we can practically make available. As our government is also signed up to treaties that insist upon a considerable cut in our aggregate energy consumption, the addition of millions of new citizens implies that we must all make do with far less, in other words, experience a sustained cut in our standard of living for the sake of immigrants from countries which fail to cater to the needs of their citizens. Such a reckless demographic policy must be curtailed, for otherwise, we consign ourselves to an increasingly immiserated and insecure future, in a grossly overpopulated world where demands for food, territory, energy and water become ever more intense. We need to produce more food and energy domestically, so as to enhance our national security, and to improve the lot of our people. Other nations need to turn to the needs of their citizens too, and to institute sensible demographic policies, instead of exporting their population problems to Britain and the other countries of the West.

Africa, and significant swathes of Asia, need to learn how to use the condom and the pill. It is still, just, within their gift, to choose to solve their population crises humanely and rationally, yet if they do not - which currently appears to be the greater likelihood - then the bitter Malthusian lessons of unrestrained reproduction will doubtless have to be learned through great hardship and unnecessary death on a mass scale. We have no reason to be dragged down by such folly, yet our current crop of politicians appear intent upon letting just such an eventuality unfold. Our incomes may be falling now, but if a radical change in the existing political landscape and general approach to policy is not brought about within the next decade, then the risk will be that our current economic woes will seem utterly insignificant. 

Time for a sensible demographic policy: long-term population reduction

Increase in non-EU university applications

Although the figures released by UCAS today show a significant decline in the number of individuals applying to university in the UK this year (in England in particular), one figure that has bucked this trend has been largely ignored: an increase in applicants to UK universities from non-EU residents. It is of course quite right that the natural focus should be upon the choices made by our young people, but the fact that there has been a notable drop in applications from other EU countries – a decline of 12.9% from 47,675 to 41,543 – whereas there has been an increase of 8.5% from outside of the EU from 56,279 to 61,041 is worthy of comment.

In recent years UK universities have been investing an increasing amount of resources in attracting non-EU students because of the higher fees that they can be charged, and over the past 12-18 months in particular, there appears to have been a surge of recruitment to positions directed towards appealing to the international market and attracting overseas students to the UK. Whilst many of the students recruited in this fashion are certainly genuine and bring benefits to their receiving institutions and to their countries when they return home, a certain proportion are not, and use a university place to secure residency in the UK. This is the disreputable downside of the business, and one that has to a certain extent been encouraged by successive governments keen to attract ‘international talent’. It is this putative desire, linked to the embrace of globalisation and the orientation of many contemporary university vice-chancellors towards business plans focusing more upon maximising revenue rather than academic excellence, that has given birth to a powerful lobby group arguing in favour of increasing the ingress of international students and their exemption from immigration statistics.

Last month, Migration Watch drew attention to a letter signed by 70 university chancellors arguing for international students not to be included in immigration statistics. The think-tank quite rightly objected by drawing attention to the fact that circa 20% of all such students ‘stay on legally’ when they complete their studies, and that an unknown number remain illegally afterwards, particularly those from poorer countries. With some two million non-EU students having come to Britain for a year or longer over the past decade, it would therefore be folly not to include them in such statistics. Worryingly, the government does not even possess a mechanism for ascertaining how many students have returned home, as such checks are not made. Quite clearly, the system of higher education admissions for non-EU students needs to be overhauled, with universities being made legally accountable for any non-EU students who do not return to their countries of origin upon the completion of their courses. If universities wish to receive the financial benefits of recruiting such students, then they should also assume the costs to the wider society if those students then subsequently disappear into the ether so to speak. Introducing and enforcing such sanctions would be the only effective means of ensuring that acquiring a university education in the UK is not used as a backdoor to settlement in the country and the acquisition of citizenship.

Although most of the abuse of ‘student’ status by backdoor immigrants has occurred outside of the higher education system in private schools and colleges, the University of Wales has proven to be the most high-profile casualty of a visa scam, leading to its abolition and merger with a number of other institutions. Indeed, Migration Watch has also published a paper detailing the legal ‘Post Study Route for non-EU students’ which has allowed an increasing number to remain in the UK, outlining a dramatic growth in numbers from only 870 in 2004, to 15,000 in 2007 and 40,000 in 2011. It is therefore legal for such individuals to arrive here as students, and to subsequently easily acquire rights to residence and employment, competing directly with our large pool of unemployed young people and underemployed graduates. With the latter having made such a significant investment of time and money in their studies, why should they then be denied the opportunity to a decent career? The ‘Post Study Route for non-EU students’ will be singled out for abolition as part of the new party’s education policy, in line with our commitment to a sustainable approach to population which embodies our desire to improve living conditions for all in our country. This will be but one measure that contributes towards the realisation of this goal.