Yesterday, the government announced that the new Governer of the Bank of England is to be Mark Carney, a Canadian citizen.
I must confess I don't know much about Mark Carney. Everyone seems to say he's a very capable chap, and I have no reason to doubt that. I wish him well in what is certain to be an extremely difficult job.
But what strikes me about this appointment is that it's yet another example of the "one rule for us, one rule for them" culture that's so prevalent in British politics. The government love to make up enormous quantities of rules and regulations that the rest of us (the "plebs", as they would describe us) must follow, but aren't so keen to follow the rules themselves.
Carney's nationality has caused some comment in the media. The government have responded by pointing out that the important thing is that he's the best person for the job, so it makes perfect sense to offer it to him.
This is, of course, a perfectly reasonable argument. It just happens to be one that's not open to the plebs.
There are no doubt many thousands of small businesses up and down the country who have vacancies to fill, and some of those will find that the best person for the job is a foreign national. So, applying the government's logic, they would want all those small businesses to appoint the best person for the job, irrespective of nationality, right?
Wrong.
It seems that the concept of appointing the best person for the job is an option only available to the political elite. If a small business wants to employ a non-EU national, they must first wade through ridiculous quantities of red tape. Even if they have paid all the relevant fees and filled in all the forms (and in practice, this requirement alone is enough to make employing non-EU nationals simply too complex to be practicable for the majority of small businesses), it is still illegal to appoint a non-EU employee if it is possible to find a resident worker who could do the job (but not necessarily do it as well).
No doubt big businesses suffer from these regulations as well to some extent, although they would at least have the resources to comply with all the onerous requirements of employing non-EU nationals, which would be impossible for most small businesses.
(BTW, does anyone remember our Prime Minister talking about cutting the burden of red tape for businesses? Wonder whatever happened to that plan?)
It is pretty clear that, even if Carney was the best person for the job, there were British candidates who could have done it. So the government are failing to comply with the spirit of the law that they impose on the plebs (although I dare say there will be some loophole that will mean they are still acting within the letter of the law).
I am not suggesting that the appointment of Carney was motivated by anything other than a desire to find the best person for the job. But nonetheless, this does come across as yet another example of the government showing that they themselves are not willing to follow the rules that they impose on the plebs.
One rule for us, one rule for them.
Comments
New comment
Adam, I think the main point here is that being the governor of a bank is a pretty niche position and, I suspect, the candidates are limited to very few who are capable. The pool of potential employees for small British businesses however, is much larger ( one would hope ) and therefore it is important to secure employment for our own citizens before looking elsewhere. As I am sure you are aware, our immigration situation is pretty dire and seemingly 'out of control', our level of unemployment isn't a great deal better. So combine the two and I think you come up with valid reasons for encouraging the employment of our own folks.New comment
I think, Peter, you may have fallen for the rhetoric from the anti-immigration crowd that immigration necessarily results in increased unemployment for the native population.
There is no evidence for that assertion.
I would argue that if we want to tackle unemployment, then we shouldn't be hobbling businesses with red tape. Successful businesses will generate jobs.
New comment
Adam, for every immigrant that is in a job in Britain, that is one British citizen that COULD HAVE BEEN in that job. Therefore, by logic, it must affect unemployment. Unless you are suggesting that there are enough jobs to employ the entire able-bodied workforce , immigrants and non-immigrants alike ?New comment
Peter, you're making the mistake of assuming that employment is a zero sum game, ie that the number of jobs in the economy is fixed, so if I have a job, then that job is not available to you.
That assumption is incorrect. The number of jobs is not fixed. If I employ a foreign worker in my business, then yes, there's a British worker who didn't get the job. But on the other hand, that foreign worker is now spending money in the British economy on other goods and services, which creates more jobs. Also (and I think this is the crucial point) if that worker is better at the job than a British worker would have been, then my business will grow, thus creating yet more jobs.
There's an interesting paper that explores these issues in more detail here (pdf link).