We must prepare

fortress Britain, able to

feed and defend itself

Morality in the 21st century: part 4

Michael Boulton-Jones

Britain should survive both famine and, with tough actions, the threat of invasion by armies of immigrants. What should we do to control our own population? We are already crowded and there is no possibility of acquiring new land.
     For long periods, the British controlled their population by late marriage and frowned on pregnancy before marriage. Now, in some British cities, up to 40% of children live in one-parent families and a significant proportion are children of young unmarried mothers. The jury may wonder whether society is being damaged by the number of teenage mothers bringing up children by themselves in deprived parts of our towns and cities.
     Clearly, it would be repugnant for women to be licensed to have children but would it be appropriate to put the children born of single mothers under the age of 21 up for adoption at the same time as closing down fertility clinics? I know this is distasteful and it is clearly anti-libertarian but it may help the cohesion of the community.
     Imagine a woman in her 20s who has had five children by four fathers and expects the state to support her and her infants. The libertarian view would be that the state has no say in how many children she produces and the children cannot be left without support, so she is free to continue. The chances are that the children will grow up with minimal educational achievements, have a tendency to addictive habits and experiment with crime – all to the detriment of society. Therefore, the support given by society is counterproductive. If the children were adopted at birth, they would have a much better chance of contributing positively. There would be a quick feedback; if young women knew that they would be unable to keep their offspring and obtain social housng, they would make more use of contraception.
     The fertility rate of the British has increased recently to 1.8, which is below replacement level, but our population is increasing by 0.28% per annum because of immigration. This caused considerable controversy in the last election. The argument for immigration is economic (if we cannot recruit skilled labour from overseas, our major firms will be disadvantaged), political (all members of the European Union have a right to move to Britain), and moral (we have a duty to provide shelter to people in danger of persecution in their own country).
     The economic argument is weak: firms should undertake the training of natives. The political argument is strong: we have entered into an arrangement and have a moral duty to uphold it at least until we renegotiate it. The duty to give sanctuary to persecuted people has a long and honourable history. The Huguenots, the Jews, the Ugandan Asians have all strengthened our culture and economy but it will be impossible to continue with this obligation once the problems of population growth and climate change bite more fiercely in Africa and Asia.
     Without immigration and with our low fertility rate, our population would fall, causing temporary problems as the population ages but we would have to cope and society may well function more easily with a lower population of about 50 million. This would be a comparatively gentle change compared to what is likely to happen elsewhere.

 

     I hope I have given some idea how morality may change as the world is transformed by the three threats. The principle of local survival is going to become dominant. Neighbourliness will be defined geographically and the peoples in other more unfortunate countries will no longer be our neighbours because there is little we can do to ease their plight. Some of the individual freedoms that we have enjoyed may have to be given up to protect cohesion in society while it undergoes huge structural changes. We will have to emphasise duties rather than rights to build a more cohesive society.
     A reduced social security budget will inevitably mean that people are going to have to rely on local support networks which will enhance the importance of the family. Similarly, the economy will become more self-reliant probably with trade limited to our neighbours in Europe. This will provide new opportunities – for example, more expensive energy will mean that demand for muscle power may give employment to many young men without qualifications. This will help social cohesion.
     Is our government preparing us for this future? First, it has not yet educated us on the scale of the problems ahead. It has concentrated on reducing the budget deficit, which is fine but allows us to assume that, once dealt with, business will be back to normal and we can look forward to growth as before. This may be untrue: globalisation may be dying.
     The government has sent out some oblique signals that could be interpreted as preparing us for a starker future. For example, it has announced that it is going to measure an index of well-being and use that as a guide to policy instead of relying solely on changes in GDP. The term may be vague and debate on how to measure it continues but it could be a proxy for cohesion, for rebuilding our society so that we derive more pleasure from local activities than from consumerism. Is that what David Cameron means by the Big Society?
     The top rate of income tax has been raised and a high pay commission appointed with the government suggesting that no-one in the public sector should receive more than 20 times the income of the poorest paid in the same service. These initiatives may result in a fall in inequality but there is a long way to go. Last year the rewards of the CEOs of the FTSE100 companies rose by 32% while the average Briton became poorer.
     The UK has the lowest social mobility of all OECD countries which means that an individual's success in life owes more to his or her parents' status than elsewhere. The OECD ascribed the lack of social mobility to an intergenerational educational advantage. Education remains a key area for improving cohesion within society. If we live in mixed communities and children go to their local schools, we learn about each other and perhaps have more sympathy for and more tolerance of our neighbours.
     Universities should be open to all so the government was unwise to ask students to pay up to £9,000 pa for the privilege. This can only discourage those whose parents cannot afford the tuition fees and who are not eligible for grants. A graduate taking himself through university could end up with debts that may take a lifetime to pay off, especially if higher pay is to be taxed more. Our leading universities are one of the genuine crown jewels of the country and if we cannot afford to pay so many university students, perhaps the numbers going to university should be cut to a level that we can afford.
     Industrial apprenticeships and training on site may give a better quality of worker than one who has qualified in some of the softer courses. The government was also unwise to ring fence the NHS. It may be highly cherished but, for reasons given already, it cannot be protected if our wealth declines. Lastly, the government has not prepared us for a prolonged period of reducing prosperity. This is vitally important if society at large and communities in particular are to make the necessary adjustments.
     The answer to the question in my first article on how you reacted to the floods in Pakistan is that maybe your generous response was counter-productive. The world is at the beginning of a new era marked by inevitable widespread disruption and destruction. Adjustments will be painful if, as seems likely, there is a significant reduction in global population. The hikes in fuel prices and the cost of food are symptoms of this process. We must look to preparing fortress Britain, able to power, feed and defend itself.

 

Click here for Part 1

Click here for Part 2

Click here for Part 3

 

Michael Boulton-Jones was educated at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, and Guy's Hospital. He was a physician and nephrologist in Glasgow Royal Infirmary, 1975-2003. He is the author of a book, 'Glasgow Works' (2009)