By Richard Murphy

A commentator here drew my attention last night to a new policy paper from the Restore Britain group that has been launched by former Reform MP Rupert Lowe, who now sits as an independent MP for Great Yarmouth in the House of Commons, and who, this weekend, launched his own political party.

That party is called Restore Britain, and sits further to the right than any other likely to attract media attention in the UK at present.

Entitled Mass Deportations: Legitimacy, Legality, and Logistics, this paper claims that the UK could remove every undocumented migrant now living in the country within a few years through sweeping legal change, administrative expansion, and a deliberately hostile environment designed to force voluntary departures. 

[…]

In short, it would be one of the largest state economic programmes in modern British history, put together with the deliberate intention of pursuing hate whilst imposing threats, fear, intimidation, incarceration and violent relocation on many hundreds of thousands, and potentially millions of people.

The supposed numbers involved are staggering. The suggestion is that up to 2 million people might be forced from the UK within three years. About 75% half of those would supposedly leave voluntarily due to the hostile environment the policy would create. That environment would undoubtedly target all migrants, regardless of their legal status. It would be totally foolish to think otherwise. The remainder, the report suggests, would be forcibly removed. Official estimates do not suggest that anything like that number of people are illegally resident in the UK.

[…]

We are often told that the state is powerless. That includes the claim that it is powerless to house people, powerless to fund social security, and powerless to invest in care.

This paper implies something quite differently. The implication is that the state is immensely powerful. The suggestion is that it is capable of tracking, detaining, transporting, and expelling millions. The contradiction is obvious, but it exposes something deeper.

The choice revealed is whether the state wants to do things that are good, to which the answer from the current political establishment is that, apparently, and for reasons that are not clear, it does not, or something straightforwardly evil, which is what this paper proposes, of which it is apparently thought to be capable.

The question is not, then, about whether the state has power. The question is about how that power is used, and to what ends.

Successive governments that failed to build social housing whilst selling off social housing stock are partly to blame for this.

So, too, are the actions of some unscrupulous landlords.

But the real problem can be laid fairly and squarely at the door of the Bank of England. They forced interest rates up without any evidence that doing so would reduce inflation. So far, the contrary is likely to be the case. And now they are using quantitative tightening to keep those rates artificially high - and well above those that markets might otherwise settle on given the state of the economy.

The result is not just a cost of living crisis.

Nor is it just a massive decline in the financial well-being of millions in this country.

It is also an alarming hike in rents, which are, however, insufficient to cover the costs of some highly-geared (over-borrowed) landlords who are selling their properties as quickly as they can, so increasing the scale of homelessness and disruption, whilst also removing property from the rental housing stock, at least temporarily. It's a perfect storm for the councils involved, and it can only get worse since it is the policy of the Bank of England to maintain high interest rates as inflation declines, which can only make rents increasingly unaffordable whilst forcing more landlords out of business.