Article by Gus O'Donnell and Jonathan Portes in today's Times

What are we to make of the article about immigration by Gus O'Donnell and Jonathan Portes in today's Times?

Let us leave on one side the fact that it only mentions positive (as they see them) aspects of immigration, and thus can be dismissed as propaganda.

Let us also disregard the lack of sensitivity in putting out such an article only a few days after the Woolwich atrocity.

What interests me is the absence of any acknowledgement that post-war immigration lacks democratic consent, and has always lacked democratic consent.


Of course, many policies are slipped through by governments and civil servants (or by civil servants acting alone) that do not have democratic consent.

But post-war immigration has been so overwhelmingly opposed by the majority (in all decades since 1945), and has resulted in such fundamental social change (unwanted social change), that it is impossible to ignore the issue without conceding that democracy in the United Kingdom is a sham - and such a concession must have very serious consequences for everybody.

How is it possible for public opinion (in every single test) to be opposed to a policy and yet it keeps on happening?

A clue is provided at the end of the article.

Gus O'Donnell was Cabinet Secretary 2005-2011.  Jonathan Portes was Chief Economist at the Cabinet Office from 2008 and like Gus O'Donnell had been a career civil servant.  I suggest that if you want to know why the doors to the United Kingdom were opened wide under the 1997-2010 government you should address your questions to these two people.

The Cabinet Office is a highly secretive department that does not seem to answer to anyone except themselves.  They appear to have their own policies which they implement whatever government happens to be in power.  This is laughed off as a Yes Minister type jape, but it has deadly serious implications for everyone in the United Kingdom.

We need to know who appoints the Cabinet Office personnel and what they are up to on a day to day basis.  The Cabinet Secretary is what is known as a "high flyer".  All the Cabinet Office civil servants are high flyers. 

It is inconceivable that these high flyers would choose to immure themselves in what we are told is just a secretariat.

Are we expected to believe that these people just lay out the notepads and pencils on the Cabinet table and take the coats of ministers as they arrive?  Is it not the case that they act as a pseudo-government, pursuing their own policy objectives whatever party wins at a general election?  Is this not why immigration keeps happening despite all the people saying no?

I am a Conservative.  I have always supported the Conservative party and regard the rise of UKIP with dismay.  But one consolation of a UKIP government (if it ever comes about) is that Gus O'Donnell and Jonathan Portes are likely to be put on trial for exceeding their authority.


http://niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Jonathan_Portes_CV_January_2011.pdf