Thursday, April 14, 2011

Immigration: Cameron puts clear purple water between the Coalition partners


David Cameron has decided to launch a debate on immigration to the United Kingdom, and I for one have no fundamental objection to that. What I do have an objection to is the arguments deployed, and the promises made.

Firstly, to imply that net migration can be reduced to 'tens of thousands' easily, and merely requires the will to do so, is simplistic and misleading. If this is code for 'we're going to reduce the number of black and Asian migrants', David Cameron is probably right, and if that is what he means, then the accusation that he risks inflaming extremism has some truth to it.

The chart above demonstrates how the figures for net migration have sharply risen over the past decade or so, conveniently corresponding to the period when the Labour Party were in government. That doesn't necessarily imply that you can link the Labour Party to the rise in net migration, although there were decisions taken which might have had an impact.

So why do I say 'purple', rather than 'blue' water? Mainly because there is a Dutch auction between Labour and the Conservatives to see who can be tougher on immigration. As Yvette Cooper puts it, "He has made very big promises about the level of net migration he will achieve - but he hasn't set out workable, transparent policies to deliver it”. Not exactly objecting to the policy, more complaining that he isn't clear enough on how he'll achieve it.

On the face of it, the numbers look daunting, but breaking them down, there are some genuine questions to be answered. Firstly, EU migration numbers. These can't be stopped, although with a weakened economy, the United Kingdom is less attractive to Poles, Lithuanians and others. In addition, some of the emigration is to the European Union, to Spain, Cyprus and Portugal as elderly Britons retire to somewhere warm. Others are working in the professions, finance, law, accountancy and the like, taking advantage of that freedom of movement that makes Europe a better place to do business.

Non-EU immigration is even more complex. Where are these people coming from? Australia, Canada, the United States, amongst others. There are more than 250,000 Americans living in the United Kingdom, many of them intending to stay permanently. They speak English, have jobs, fit in. Nobody ever complains about "those bloody Americans, coming over here and taking our jobs", do they? They're like us, you see, and therefore acceptable.

Asylum seekers? We like to think ourselves as a tolerant nation, providing a safe harbour for those in fear for their lives. In any event, we don't receive anywhere near that many.

The problem is, in a global economy, companies want to move their staff around, sometimes to different countries. If we make it difficult for them, they may wonder whether or not they want to be based in this country, moving their offices elsewhere and costing jobs to the British staff who work there. Likewise, British staff travel the world, doing business, performing jobs that, theoretically, local people might do, if they had the skills.

Labour have seen through some of the contradictions in Conservative thinking, noting that the cap will only cover 20% of non-EU migrants and the government is cutting 5,000 staff at the UK Border Agency. At the same time, however, our friend Yvette is saying, "And whilst he is cutting one set of student visas, he is simply expanding another - student visitor visas - which he won't count in the net migration figures.". Perhaps that might be because they've come to study, and will then go home?

My sense, having spoken to plenty of non-politicians, is that they want to see clear rules, applied rigorously and fairly. At the moment, they don't see that, and they don't trust politicians to create, maintain and resource such a system. As a result, when times are hard, and politicians speak with forked tongue, voters are tempted by people who offer glib, simplistic answers.

The British people aren't stupid, or intolerant. They have, for the most part, a sense of fair play and decency. Politicians would be wise to stick to the facts, rather than play to the gallery...

No comments: