“I grew up
in the 30s with an unemployed father…” said Norman Tebbit in response to the
riots that took place in Brixton and Handsworth in 1981, “…he got on his bike
and looked for work, and he kept looking till he found it”. Then as now, the
British Right have made clear their view that people should be responsible for
their own welfare and this involves doing whatever it takes to find work rather
than rely on the state to support you. It is seen as noble to up sticks and relocate
in order to find work to help pay for your family, and it plays in to the ideal
that people should be aspirational, ever searching to better their own
situation.
That is
provided this takes place within the confines of one’s own country. Should an
individual show initiative and travel many miles and across many borders in
order to better their lot in life, they are demonised, labelled as part of a
swarm. They become a migrant, a word spat with vitriol from acidic mouths. And
yet, they are showing exactly the kind of initiative that Tebbit seemed so keen
to extoll.
In addition
to this, the freedom of an individual to cross borders to earn more money and
find better job opportunities follows the ideology of liberal economics to its
logical end. Workers have a product to sell, their worth as an employee, and
they can get more money selling themselves in this country than they can in
their own. Furthermore, in a global economy where capital and produce can cross
borders with relative ease, why is it that labour is restricted and cannot
enjoy the benefits of a true free market system?
Many on the Left are likely to disagree with the theory underlying this view, and it is certainly unrealistic to expect right wing parties
to start calling for open borders. But, it is possible to view this from a more
practical and realistic angle. The European Union’s freedom of movement allowed
all within the EU to ply their trade wherever they wished but simultaneously
created the fear for the British that this would cause an uncontrollable influx
of economic migrants initially from Poland and then later from Romania and
Bulgaria. It is true that Britain, as one of the wealthiest economies in the EU,
did receive a large number of these migrants. They moved as they were free to
sell themselves as employees for more money than they were able to in their
home countries and work towards greater wealth. In some cases, probably most
famously realised in the building industry, residents of the poorer EU member
states were able to come to Britain and undercut the existing workforce, or
even fill the employment void left by an increasingly educated British
workforce.
This is an almost
textbook example of the liberal economic system at play but does not fit with
the reality of right wing rhetoric. The Conservative party and UKIP are fearful
of this economic migration and yet both are unwittingly betraying the economics
they purport to support.
The United
States provides another example of strong anti-immigrant rhetoric, and even
stronger support for the free market but the US is perhaps the world’s foremost
example of an economy built on the back of migration. It is a true immigrant
culture. It was aspiration and the promise of a better future that led people
there, particularly at the turn of the century, and this once again represents
an operational market. It also represents that idea loved by the American Right,
the idea of bettering oneself, of the cream rising to the top. And yet, the
rhetoric from the groups who so fervently support aspiration is currently
divisive, demonising and, in some cases, plain racist.
The Right
are meant to serve the interests of the free market in part by promoting
individuality, aspiration and self motivation. If some one in their own country
showed such initiative and were successful, they would be lauded as proof that it
can be done, someone can work from the bottom to the top. Yet, if someone has
to make a perilous journey through jurisdictions, risking their life in the
process, only to gain a better life for themselves and their family, their
achievement is diminished and any would be followers are deterred.
