Damian Green, shadow immigration minister, recently launched a six month roadshow on immigration policy. He said he wanted to listen to all sides of the debate and a powerful contribution has landed on his desk this morning from the Cornerstone Group of socially conservative MPs. Julian Brazier MP, writing in a personal capacity, has surveyed a wide variety of official surveys and draws this conclusion:
“Overcrowding is a key cause of many of the factors which are destroying quality of life: mortgage slavery, overdevelopment, congested roads, water shortages, flooding and overstretched public services. We should do everything we can sensibly - and fairly - do to reduce the level of immigration to well below the level of emigration. The first and easiest step in this direction would be to return to a much smaller number of work permits (issued to non-EU citizens), as occurred under all previous governments. We should also restrict them, as was always the case before, to highly skilled people.”
The analysis comes on day after the Mail on Sunday got hold of a leaked Government report on the effects of immigration from Eastern Europe. The report, the MoS suggested, revealed "that every Government department has been ordered to draw up multi-million-pound emergency plans after being told public services face catastrophe as a result of the hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans pouring into Britain."
A full pdf of Mr Brazier's paper can be read here. For those with limited time the graphs in the paper plus the summary and conclusions on pages 14 to 16 are most useful.
Related link: Arts degrees leave students worse off, warns Julian Brazier
What about all the plumbers and people serving people in restaraunts and takeaways, a lot of jobs that either require a certain skill that might be rather more common among many immigrant groups or perhaps is something that many indigenous people are not prepared to do, many immigrants are prepared to work very hard for long hours and have strong family values favouring strict discipline of criminals by the state - if anything the Immigrant population is more trully Conservative than the indigenous population is.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | July 31, 2006 at 13:56
In the original draft East of England Plan 82% of the forecast population growth is from in-migration to the region; this cannot be sustainable.
The East of England Assembly suspended its endorsement of the Plan back in December 2004 because of the strain on infrastructure. I quote:
“The East of England Regional Assembly deplores the Government’s grossly inadequate funding of the transport infrastructure costs associated with the additional 478,000 houses planned for this region between (the years) 2001-2021. Bearing in mind that the Assembly’s acceptance of this massive growth was conditional upon adequate government provision of the necessary infrastructure; and mindful of Lord Rooker’s repeated written assurances that growth will not be imposed without the associated infrastructure, this Assembly wishes to make clear that it now regards its endorsement of the draft East of England Plan as suspended, pending a re-examination of the Government’s willingness to support its own aspirations adequately in financial terms.”
Posted by: Nigel C | July 31, 2006 at 14:48
or perhaps is something that many indigenous people are not prepared to do
You surely mean “not prepared to do for the money”?
Indeed, but it’s a kind of lofty and abstract argument that works well only with other people’s jobs, especially those from the lower orders. I’m sure that many suitably qualified immigrants would be happy enough to do your job for a fraction of your salary, but somehow I doubt that you would be quite so sanguine at the prospect.
Still, it’s one way of solving the servant problem, I guess (but whatever happened to compassionate conservatism?).
Posted by: Phil Jackson | July 31, 2006 at 14:53
One of the readers' comments at the end of the Sunday Mail article is especially interesting because it's a specific example - I'm assuming that it's genuine rather than fabricated:
"My brother and 22 other building workers have just been laid off from their £12/hour jobs with a nationally known housebuilder to be replaced by £6.50/hour Poles. According to a report from Wraclaw, Poland, on BBC World last week, the Polish government reckon there are 800,000 Poles here in the UK. Who's kidding whom?"
Posted by: Denis Cooper | July 31, 2006 at 14:59
The problem is neither 'not prepared to do' or 'not prepared to do for the money'. The problem is that the indigenous population is vastly under-qualified and UNABLE to do the jobs. Too many people leave University with a degree in "Media Studies" or some such equally wothless piece of paper, whilst we have to import skilled labour for jobs such a plumbing, carpentry, etc.
My attitude is fair play to immigrant populations who provide these much needed services. I know that when the day comes that my employer decides that I am for the scrapheap, I will retrain in a profession in demand, such as these.
As Tories, we should be supporting the entrepenurial spirit that these migrant workers embrace. They are natural allies for us - hard working, skilled people.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 15:02
Sadly its hard to comment on this issue without being falsely labelled a racist.
Even where i live in rural wales there are plenty of east europeans here. They all seem to have jobs and live in reasonalbe areas .
Meanwhile lots of us native Brits are unemployed and priced out of accommodation.
Welcome to globalisatin and the joy of internal freedom of movement. My life prospects are going down the pan because people from poland ,say ,want to earn pots of money compared to what they can in their own country. So thanks Poland!
Posted by: David Banks | July 31, 2006 at 15:05
Dennis Cooper - that is called a free market. An employer is there to make a profit, and as such has the right to source the best labour that he can at the best price.
Perhaps the question to ask is why the employer should pay the Brit Builder almost twice as much per hour as the Pole. Is he twice as good? I doubt it. Consequently, rather than moaning about the injustice of it all, perhaps he should ask himself why he is pricing himself out of the market.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 15:07
People are unwilling to do jobs that pay so little. One of the other problems is that all these poles coming here are taking money out of britian. They are earning alot less than what a 'brit' would accept for a job, but to the poles it is a hell of a lot more than what they can earn back home. However nearly all of what they earn is going back home, afterall the brits cant afford to live of a wage they get, they cant either.
Posted by: rallie | July 31, 2006 at 15:09
No David Banks, you are not a racist. You are simply a moaner. Why are there unemployed people in your area, whilst there are East European workers? Perhaps, to quote the great Norman Tebbitt, if the locals got on their bikes and looked for work, they wouldn't be out of work. The jobs are clearly there.
What you are complaining about is a free market ecomony. Get used to it - thankfully due to the likes of Lord Tebbitt and lady Thatcher it is now the mainstream viewpoint.
And stop picking on Poles. They are in the main kind, loyal, hard working, and friendly.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 15:11
Cos he doesnt live six to a bedroom in a concerted bid to get as much money as possible before skipping home a rich man. And its not just poles, it's hungarians , latvians and lithuanians. How about putting Britains business first instead of that of the inhabitants of Godknowswherestan.
Posted by: David Banks | July 31, 2006 at 15:12
Mr Brazier seems to assume all the imigrants are going to the congested South East whereas from my experience many go to areas needing seasonal jobs or where there are labour shortages. It's surprising how many market towns, seaside resorts, agricultural or market gardening areas have large Central & East European working populations.
What we are seeing is a move from third world to European imigration. If working population is 30 million then about 5% are now Central/Eastern European and we seem to have adapted without many tensions. Most will be transient, working for a year or so then going back but many will either marry here or bring their families. UK has absorbed plenty of Poles, Hungarians & Ukrainians in the past so social impact will be minor.
The Government report is I think hiding the real fear of Bulgarian & Romanian Mafia and Gypsy immigration and the lack of preparation they made last year. The difference between 600,000 today and 750,000 in a years time is small.
Posted by: Ted | July 31, 2006 at 15:14
Rallie posted: "People are unwilling to do jobs that pay so little. One of the other problems is that all these poles coming here are taking money out of britian".
Good God, it's like listening to the BNP. Note your first line " People are unwilling to do jobs". PRECISELY. If they were willing (or didn't have such a welfare state to fall back on and HAD to work), then there wouldn't be migrant workers coming here. There wouldn't be jobs for them.
Also, it is common courtesy to spell Pole with a capital, as you would a Brit. And also, please spell Britain correctly and with a capital. Perhaps if our native population were able to spell better they would have less trouble finding work.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 15:16
In other words David Banks - because the British worker won't compete.
I had hoped that this 'jobs for the boys' attitude was as dead as Old Labour Socialism. Clearly I was wrong. What next do you want - huge import tariffs, restriction of money going abroad? This is the 21st Century, not the 1970's.
Get used to it - if a Brit worker won't (not 'can't', because he definately chooses not to) compete, then he or she cannot complain at losing their job to someone who will.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 15:22
When people make the argument that we need immigrants to do jobs native Britishers won't do, I wonder if they've considered whether or not the employers hiring them would still take these people on if they not only had to pay their (low) wages, but also had to pay for their housing (and many other aspects of welfare). I think it's doubtful that they would.
In which case, why should the government fill that gap? And how can anyone claim this is in the country's interests?
Posted by: John Hustings | July 31, 2006 at 15:28
I don't know about you John, but if I was in a poorly-paid job, I wouldn't feel terribly happy at seeing my wages forced down through immigration, and wouldn't be hugely reassured that it was all part of the free market.
Employers who benefit from forcing down wages through immigration are effectively being given a big subsidy from taxpayers. It's taxpayers who have to fund the social services required by the new arrivals, as well as bearing the cost of creating an ill-paid underclass among native workers.
Posted by: Sean Fear | July 31, 2006 at 15:28
Good point Sean. So the answer is not protectionism, but a radical reform of the nanny state so that this doesn't hapen.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 15:29
"Get used to it - if a Brit worker won't (not 'can't', because he definately chooses not to) compete, then he or she cannot complain at losing their job to someone who will"
These lazy Brits. One can't even get them to pick cockles in Morecambe Bay for a princely £20 a day.
Posted by: Sean Fear | July 31, 2006 at 15:30
If the Polish plumbers are earning less than a Brit, and are sending all of their money back to Poland, what do they live on? I don't think they're all commuting daily to pick up home country sausages, dumpling soup or whatever it is Polish plumbers eat.
Posted by: Wiliam Norton | July 31, 2006 at 15:32
RIGHT!!! So lets stop all immigration, hellfire we don't want Johnny Foreigner coming here and taking "British" jobs do we. I mean, it stands to reason, don't it. Bloody immigrants. They'll be in our schools soon you know. And they breed.
Lets live on an isolated island, and keep Britain for the British.
Have you any idea what you sound like?
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 15:34
jon
typical isnt it, question the benefit of immigration and your a bnp supporter?
As for the welfare state, what would you rarther have people starving afterall if you are a true capitalist you understand the market rules.
However There is but one rule for the industrialist, and that is: Make the highest quality goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.
paying the highest possible wage......
why should business be alowed to profit of people who are willing to work for a pittance, tha do not have all the cost of living in this country.
Posted by: rallie | July 31, 2006 at 15:35
Taking such a very large amount of migrant workers might make economic sense when the economy is growing as now but what if that stops?
Those who advocate a totally free market for economic reasons also tend to forget the social costs.There is a huge demand for homes in southern England which cannot be satisfied without HUGE damage to the enviroment and as the leaked government there will be severe stresses on our transport,education and wefare systems if even more people are allowed to come.
Poles,Hungarians and other East Europeans may be hardworking, friendly people who are an economic asset to this country but they should not be able to settle here.
Posted by: malcolm | July 31, 2006 at 15:36
Why not? They don't restrict Brits wanting to live in their countries.
Are you advocating that we ship them in, do our jobs, then ship them out again when we feel like it. I expected better of you Malcolm - Enoch would be proud of you my friend.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 15:39
John, I doubt if Julian Brazier is arguing for a complete ban on immigration. But allowing in huge numbers of people within a very short period of time is having a clear adverse impact on many of our fellow citizens. It is entirely reasonable to expect a British government to place the interests of its citizens above the interests of foreign citizens and above abstract principles.
Posted by: Sean Fear | July 31, 2006 at 15:40
A British Government should be looking out for the needs of the whole country, not just the 'few'.
If there is a need for labour, which the native population refuses to fill, then that government has to ensure that the need is filled - to the benefit of most of the country's citizens.
The previous comments about the cost to the Welfare State of immigration are valid, but this is not an argument for stopping immigration. It is an argument for radical and far reaching reform of the Welfare State.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 15:44
"typical isnt it, question the benefit of immigration and your a bnp supporter? "
No Rallie, I didn't say that 'your' (sic) an bnp (surely BNP, in capitals - that is the norm) supporter. I said that you sounded like one.
Like others here, I don't accuse you of racism - I have no evidence to support such a claim. I do accuse you of being a whinger however.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 15:48
It is hardly a free market when Germany and France won't let the East Europeans in and the taxpayer has to provide for the indigenous poulation/earlier immigrants displaced by the new wave.Only the employers with a lower wage bill benefit effectively subsidised by us.
The inevitable riots will make the poll tax ones look like a carnival.If you are a poorly educated unskilled Brit you are a victim of workplace ethnic cleansing.Social Justice--forget it!
Posted by: michael mcgough | July 31, 2006 at 15:48
Michael - your comments about Germany and France are very valid. Again, this is not an argument against immigration, it is an argument for wholesale reform of the sorry mess that is the EU.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 15:53
Well, as others have pointed out, all sorts of labour shortages can be filled if people are prepared to pay at the sorts of rates that attract applicants from a first world country, as opposed to applicants from a third world country.
Given that we live in a democracy, the sort of radical changes which you seek in the welfare state are simply not going to happen - because people won't vote for them. Push down their wages far enough, and they're likely to vote for radically redistributive measures instead.
Low wage jobs tend to be precarious, and what do you do with the people who've been brought in to do them when the jobs go? Textile manufacturers thought that bringing in agricultural labourers from Pakistan would save their industry. The textile industry still collapsed, and we're left with a large number of understandably embittered Asians in Northern cities who are at the bottom of the economic pile.
Posted by: Sean Fear | July 31, 2006 at 15:56
- that is called a free market. An employer is there to make a profit, and as such has the right to source the best labour that he can at the best price.
Patronising moonshine. The reason that free market capitalism is better than socialism is not because capitalists are inherently virtuous (and must therefore be rewarded with whatever they want), but because the market is virtuous. Its virtue lies in its shift of power into the hands of the citizen – but only when certain conditions apply.
Those ‘certain conditions’ put most simply are this: when capitalists are (genuinely) in competition with each other both for customers and labour they are, in effect, the servants of the people; when not, they become tyrants and are no longer conducive to the public good.
An employer who can import workers at dirt cheap prices is not competing for labour within the British market. He has no incentive to:
(a) Pay decent wages
(b) Train his existing staff properly;
(c) Respect his labour force (he see it as no more than a bought-in commodity, and has no sense of moral-contract with his people)
(d) Implement labour-saving technology and other means of raising productivity.
He is, in short, a crap manager.
The real and long-standing problems of our economy stem from the abysmal lack of professionalism and gumption in British managers. A genuinely competitive market is the only way to reform these people. Cheap
imported labour is merely a palliative, and one that has horrendous long-term consequences.
Posted by: Phil Jackson | July 31, 2006 at 15:59
I have an emotional soft spot for Poland and the arrival of thousands of Polish people in London has made me nothing but happy. I believe they are able to work for less because they are prepared to live in conditions that most of us would find unbearable. I can't comment on the macro economics of this but I do feel energised just by having them around.
My partner is an electrician though and I have heard anecdotes similar to those posted above about UK electricians being priced out the market. But I can't think of a solution to that other than ... the free market is the best mechanism we have. Not terribly helpful if you are losing your job.
Personally I hope that many of the new Polish arrivals decide to make their permanent home here. I think if that happens then there would be a calibration of the wage costs (because UK plumbers, electricians etc don't charge what they do to be greedy; they charge what they do based on the requirements of funding a mortgage for their families). So the more Poles stay in the UK the more will buy houses here ... and so on.
At Harlow train station last Friday at 11am ... a young man and woman with back-packs standing on the forecourt ... suddenly a cry of "Heel--oh and Welcome to Britain!" (in Polish accent). Another young man runs up and the three of them wrap themselves around one another in a very genuine and heart-wrenching emotional reunion (the first two have just come down from Stansted I guess). They go off in a cab I'm sure the young man could ill afford and I was left (OK a bit tear-y but there you go) thinking "that bloke didn't come over here to be a drain on the UK and who on earth would rather those three young friends weren't here?". Not me, anyway.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | July 31, 2006 at 15:59
Well said Graeme.
The rich cultural diversity that these hard working, talented, people bring to our nation is priceless, - forgetting all the ecomonic benefits that they bring with them for us also.
These people suffered for years under the jack-boot of communism. They want to WORK. They want to contribute. They do not want to scrounge. They have strong family values - they certainly have fewer single mothers sponging off welfare than we do, such behaviour simply isn't in their nature.
They are natural Tory supporters - believing in the values of hard work and family. To piss them off with this claptrap that they are harming the economy or standard of living of the native Brits is madness. We should welcome them with open arms, into the country and into our party.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 16:06
Phil Jackson - I agree with your statement that it is the market that is virtuous, not the capitalist. I also completely agree with you that British Management is poor and needs to improve.
But this is not 'cheap imported labour'. It is skilled labour that will work at a lower price than the skilled labour here. That, Sir, is called competition, and I for one am fully in favour of it.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 16:10
But this is not 'cheap imported labour'. It is skilled labour that will work at a lower price than the skilled labour here.
The above 2 sentences contradict each other.
Posted by: Phil Jackson | July 31, 2006 at 16:14
No they don't. 'Cheap' has connotations of 'lower quality'. It is imported labour that is cheapER than the labour available currently. It is not cheap, it is skilled and high quality.
I employed a Btit builder about 2 years ago. His assistant was Polish. He turned up ON TIME, he worked until the job was finished, and did a very professional job. I valued that. I chose people according to how well they do the job, not according to what country they were born in.
I repeat, that is called competition. As a poster on a Conservative site, I am shocked that you don't support this principle.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 16:20
I have nothing against the Poles or indeed anyone else who wants to come to Britain to work and make their home here.The fact remains that taking such a large number of people will have enormous social consequences whatever happens.If Britain has to endure an economic recession this could be catastrophic.The status quo is completely unsustainable and it would be extremely irresponsible of the Conservative party not to plan for it.
Posted by: malcolm | July 31, 2006 at 16:20
Come off it, Jon. I too have a soft spot for the Poles but we can't make a special case for the Poles. It would be illegal anyway. You are ducking the question, like all other advocates of the current Government's immigration policy. How many immigrants are you proposing to admit? And if you are saying there is no limit, then please explain why the labour market, just like any other market, does not respond to the laws of supply and demand......which it is clearly doing by driving down wages because of the rapidly increasing pool of cheap labour. Great news for investment bankers and politicians living in Notting Hill who want cheap nannies/ cleaners and housekeepers. Rather less good news for the inhabitants of Dagenham who are getting the bum's rush as they lose their jobs or have pay cuts forced on them, because of a policy for which they never voted.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | July 31, 2006 at 16:21
Malcolm - no disagreement. So perhaps the Conservative Party should be planning to 'think the unthinkable' and reform the Welfare State to ensure that when the ecomonic madness of Gordon Brown comes home to roost, we are prepared.
The immigrants from Poland and the other Eastern European countries are contributing to the overall wealth of the country, not draining it. We should all be grateful to them.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 16:23
Michael - I make no special case for the Poles. The values that I described are ones which I feel are present in all Eastern European Countries.
My point is that if we don't like the influx of immigrants 'taking our jobs', then we should train our native workforce properly (and manage them more effectively) so that need doesn't exist for imported labour.
And it's not just Investment Bankers (surely rhyming slang) and Politicians wanting cheap nannies and cleaners. I am neither a banker or a politician, just a middle class middle manager. But you try and get a plumber, sparky or a chippie to do the work on your house that is needed. Good luck finding an available, reliable, and sensibly priced British one. (Yes, there are some I know, but they are rather rare beasts).
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 16:29
Few people I know are not at least a little worried about the scale of immigation into this country. For myself I can see there may be advantages to controlled immigration. Indeed there are occasions when I feel that were it possible, I might also like to leave this country for a better life overseas. Unfortunately those countries I would like to go to, unlike this country, have very strict immigration controls. Putting that aside, I do think many who support an open doors policy completely overstate the case. And I do agree that you cannot have an open doors policy together with the welfare state. The two are mutually exclusive.
On a separate point, good manners (and the fact that I make loads of typos) would normally stop me drawing John White's attention to it, but since he raised the subject of spelling, I believe "definately" is normaly spelt "definitely".
Posted by: Esbonio | July 31, 2006 at 16:30
Touche. Accepted, and apologised for.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 16:31
But at least spell my first name correctly!
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 16:32
Personally I was in favour of our policy at the last election.I hope this will be renewed.
Another idea would be to offer short-term work permits as Switzerland does.Should we endure a downturn they would not be renewed and migrant workers would have to leave.
All the options will involve making tough decisions but that is what government is for.I hope Damien Green has the courage to make them.He must remember the British people come first.
Posted by: malcolm | July 31, 2006 at 16:34
Interesting viewpoint. I would personally say that the most professional, hard-working, and valuable members of British society come first, irrespective of their birthplace.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 16:36
The Brazier paper is very good and well worth the short time it takes to read. It touches on almost all aspects of the issue. However there's one important aspect which I think is under-played, and in fact only really represented by the quotation from Frank Field at the beginning:
"Democracy is a favoured way of life because issues are taken off the streets into Parliament. But that is what the political parties resolutely refuse to do on
immigration."
The citizens of this country have never been asked whether they wish to share it with large numbers of people from abroad. In a democracy that's a decision which must be taken by the existing body of citizens, and that hasn't happened. That applies to immigration from the rest of the EU, as well as from outside the EU.
I wonder how Jon would react if he held shares in a company, and discovered that the directors had been issuing blocks of free shares to other people without prior approval from the existing shareholders.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | July 31, 2006 at 16:38
I always worry on a thread like this that I end up starting a "you're wrong/I'm right/" type discussion which doesn't really add to the sum of anything. Michael McG - I dare say you're right that the richer one is the more one benefits from falling labour costs. But speaking from the opposite end of the Central Line from Notting Hill, I think the Polish incomers are just the latest community to make the east end the vibrant place it is. Do I think that any old multicultural hoohah is great? No I'm not that daft (I do live here) but I still think I'd rather live in the Hackney mix anyday than in a monocultural hegemony.
NB I'm using "multicultural" in the literal sense, not in its left wing sense (which is probably at the root of the issue we're discussing, which is why do some indigenous communities feel annoyed - I have a feeling (just a feeling) that the annoyance is NOT to do with any new community but everything to do with failing councils deprioritising whoever's here now for whoever's just arrived, and to be honest I think even that's too crass a summary, but fwiw it's my "BNP hypothesis" (as in hypothesis to explain the recent east-end (it's Essex actually) success of the BNP)).
I remember posting here a few weeks ago about how annoyed I was at the fact that the posters on the front of the Bethnal Green Museum of Childhood just now show no representations of anglo-saxon faces, only Bengali ones, but how at least my irritation made me reflect what it must have been like in, say, the 1980s, when there was almost no representation of anything other than anglo-saxon faces on television.
It's not easy but it's surely not impossible to get this right. I just think that the numbers aren't really the issue (we'd notice if there were too many people living here, I think; it would be impossible to move around or get on a bus or enter a shop etc), it's more a cultural issue, and that's a matter of investigating different balances until we find one that most people are happy with. As I say I do think that for once Hackney's got something most areas could learn from - all other problems aside, there are a huge number of different backgrounded people here, all rubbing along happily enough (including the new Poles! and Scotsmen too :-0)).
Posted by: Graeme Archer | July 31, 2006 at 16:39
I find this debate somewhat surreal. In theory, it would be possible to create a society in which there was no welfare state, and in which government was largely restricted to defence and internal security. In such a society, immigration would be self-regulating, because beyond a certain point, immigration would depress wages to the point where immigration became unattractive.
But in practice, it is most unlikely that any Western country would travel very far in that direction, because most people would vote not to travel in that direction.
So, we have to accept that we will have both immigration *and* an extensive welfare state, for the foreseeable future. That means regulating immigration so that the burden imposed on taxpayers is not excessive.
Posted by: Sean Fear | July 31, 2006 at 16:39
"The previous comments about the cost to the Welfare State of immigration are valid, but this is not an argument for stopping immigration. It is an argument for radical and far reaching reform of the Welfare State."
And in lieu of that radical and far-reaching reform, you advocate open borders?? That makes no sense at all.
You should take the opinion, as I do, that so long as we have the welfare set up that we do now (and I don't see it changing), then large inward immigration is not going to be of any benefit either socially or economically.
Posted by: John Hustings | July 31, 2006 at 16:40
Dennis Cooper - if I was such a shareholder, I would be rather upset. But if shares were being issued to people who had EARNED them by hard work in that company (and I assume that you are using the company as a metaphor for GB PLC) I would have no problems. I think that hard work should be rewarded. Thats why I'm a Tory.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 16:42
Reading the posts its amazing. The great split in the Tory Party between the free marketeers and the Joe Chamberlain Tories, 'Imperial Preference', may now be 'Britian First', but its essentially the same argument. That argument is still there, will it cause the damage that it once did. Will the 'Britain First' supporters go off to UKIP, or the BNP, splitting the right for a generation: we have yet to see!
Posted by: John | July 31, 2006 at 16:45
John Hustings - if you truly believe that immigration has no economic or social benefits then I find it hard to argue with you. I simply think you are wrong.
EVERY wave of immigrants (Jewish, Pakistani, Indian, Eastern European) have added BOTH to the UK and will continue so to do.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 16:45
I daresay that those who are desperately keen to have foreign workers imported here in mind-boggling numbers because they'll work very hard for a pittence, i.e. not a living wage, would also be happy for the repealing of the Mines Act 1842 (if there was sufficient coal left). Get those women and children down mines. Stop wasting time giving them an education, or any expectation of a reasonable quality of life.
The only reason to bring in foreign workers is to undermine the British wage structure of the working classes. That one of the two reasons for successive governments encouraging mass immigration. The other being the Labour Party's desperation to increase the population which is more likely to vote for them.
If you pay a decent wage for a job, you won't be short of British applicants. Those are the rules of supply and demand. To by-pass this rule by bringing in cheap foreign labour is ruinous of Britain and it's social fabric. Hence, the massive and ever increasing underclass in Britain.
Posted by: Stephen Tolkinghorne | July 31, 2006 at 16:49
"John Hustings - if you truly believe that immigration has no economic or social benefits then I find it hard to argue with you. I simply think you are wrong."
Firstly, I specifically said large-scale immigration, which is what Julian Brazier's comments refer to.
And secondly, large-scale immigration may well be of economic benefit to the businesses hiring workers for low wages. Good for the businesses; but these businesses are not paying for the workers' housing (and other aspects of welfare such as education and health). If they had to, do you think they would be hiring these workers? So how is that in the country's wider interests?
Similarly, I fail to see how it is socially in this country's interests to have large-scale immigration so long as we have a welfare state. We have problems of resentment between communities as to who is being specially favoured with regard to housing and so on; the scale of immigration is too large to properly integrate so we are left with effective ghettoisation; further, the sense of British identity and British community is lost as large parts of the country become unrecognisably British.
If we had no welfare state, all these problems would fix themselves as we would naturally only have so many immigrants as could pay for themselves and who would (naturally) integrate. The scale of such immigration would be much lower as a result, and there would be almost no resentment towards the new immigrants.
But I don't see us abandoning our welfare state (as much as I might wish it!), which means that immigration controls are absolutely necessary, and moreover (and most importantly!) the strong demand of the vast majority of the people of this country!!
Posted by: John Hustings | July 31, 2006 at 16:53
Stephen, you miss the point completely. Your accusation that those who support the introduction of skilled and hard working people into the country would support a repeal of the Mines Act is patronising at best, insulting at worst.
This is NOT cheap foreign labour. It is skilled, efficient, and hard-working labour that is prepared to do the job for less than the the rate that the native poulation will. It happens that this labour was born in a different part of the world. Ergo, the market re-adjusts. The native labour has to either compete by lowering his costs or increasing his quality to a level to justify those higher rates, or move to other employment.
Sadly, many take the other option - living off Welfare because our system allows that option. THAT is where the cost to our social fabric is, not in the availablity of skilled foreign workers.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 16:55
I repeat, that is called competition. As a poster on a Conservative site, I am shocked that you don't support this principle.
I have no interest in your emotional condition (and why do you Leftists always have to tell us about your feelings?)
Competition? Indeed – and I want any potential employers of my labour to compete for my qualities and experience, and I’m sure that you expect the same of yours. Well, the same applies to those chappies who live on council estates – they, too, are our fellow countrymen; those with whom we share the ‘mystic chords of memory’.
This is a nation, not a factory with a number of vacancies. You and I have responsibilities to those that were born and raised here – regardless of their class or ethnicity - that extend beyond our duty to the human race in general. The ability to indulge in xenophile twitterings about ‘racism’ and ‘bnp’ does not break us from our patriotic bond to fellow citizens.
Posted by: Phil Jackson | July 31, 2006 at 16:57
John Hustings - we are in agreement about the Welfare State issue.
No, the businesses that hire these workers are not paying for their housing. Generally, though obviously not always, it is the workers themselves who pay for their (often poor) housing. Education and Health - if these people are working and paying into the system, then why should they not have that benefit? At least they pay in - more than can be said for many Brits who live off welfare, and get exactly the same benefits without contributing anything.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 16:59
"This is NOT cheap foreign labour. It is skilled, efficient, and hard-working labour that is prepared to do the job for less than the the rate that the native poulation will. It happens that this labour was born in a different part of the world. "
That's an argument for a restricted immigration system that allows people in based on their skills. I don't think many Conservatives would have too much of a problem with such a system. Yet throughout this thread you seem to have been arguing for an open-borders policy, which would contradict your statement that this is about skilled labour.
Posted by: John Hustings | July 31, 2006 at 17:00
Just a thought (@Sean, if I was responsible for the surreal Woolfian consciousness streams, sorry :-0) ) - but this is one of the narrative threads that I've found lacking so far in any of the declared candidates for Mayor. If a Tory Londoner could advocate a vision of how we can better be One London but many cultures, then I would be a passionate supporter.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | July 31, 2006 at 17:01
I believe most people are concerned about the rate of immigration not the principle of allowing newcomers. The current high rate of immigration is solving some short term labour shortages but at what long term cost to society, economically and culturally.
When a company grows too quickly and unsustainably it "overtrades" and ultimately finds itself in financial difficulty.
In the long run we will need to provide pensions and long term healthcare for all the new arrvals as well as homes.
We can only do that if there is a sustainable rate of growth.
I am sure somebody can build the relevant macro economic models to discover the sustainable rate we can support
Posted by: Nigel C | July 31, 2006 at 17:01
Jon,
Most of us don't immediately earn our shares in the country, by hard work or in any other way - they are our birthright, because this is our shared homeland.
There are those among us who have been good citizens, paid their taxes, obeyed the laws, and contributed to the improvement of the country for decades; there are even those who fought for the country. There are also those who were born here but have not yet had time to make a positive contribution, others who have had ample opportunity but have made little or no contribution, and again others who were born here with disabilities, or who became disabled, who have been unable to make a contribution. There are a smaller number who weren't born here, but have eventually become naturalised citizens, accepting in return that they have a duty of loyalty to their adopted country. None of that affects their status as citizens and members of our society, bound together by mutual loyalty.
If being a Tory means that you make no distinction between your countrymen and those who aren't your countrymen, and reckon anybody else in the world should have the same entitlement in this country as those who are the citizens, then go out and say so frankly. At the next election, explain to the voters that they may be British, but as far as this party is concerned that counts for nothing.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | July 31, 2006 at 17:04
Phil Jackson - I have been called many things, but a LEFTIE???!!! If being Mrs. Thatcher's biggest fan, anti-EU, against the ever increasing welfare state, etc etc, makes me a Leftie, then I know few right wing people!
The natural conclusion to your argument that we have a 'responsibility' to 'those born and raised here' is simple - do nothing, sponge off the state, but thats okay, I'm British. I'm owed a living!
Ridiculous sentiment. I know this is a country, not a factory, but I want to live in a MERITOCRACY - our responsibility is to those who put most into Britain, irrespective of the geographical location in which they left their mother's womb.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 17:05
John Hustings - I may have given the impression that I was arguing for an open doors policy: I can see that from previous posts. I am not.
I was reacting to what I see as the unjust reaction to Eastern Europeans (specifically Poles) recently.
Obviously, I would argue that we should admit only those who can contribute something to Great Britain. These people DO contribute.
I apologise for any confusion.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 17:09
Will the 'Britain First' supporters go off to UKIP, or the BNP, splitting the right for a generation: we have yet to see!
1. the BNP is a socialist party and should be positioned on the Left;
2. there is no inconsistency between a belief in the virtue of markets and putting ‘Britain first’. Indeed, any Briton who does not, in some way, put Britain first cannot be a conservative at all;
3. those internationalists who also happen to believe in free markets are free to join the NuLabour project.
Posted by: Phil Jackson | July 31, 2006 at 17:09
Perhaps you'd also like to deprive the "spongers" of their citizenship and deport them? That seems the natural extension of your argument.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | July 31, 2006 at 17:10
Oh, as an addendum to my reply to John Hustings, if it were possible (I know it isn't) I would kick out all those who make a living out of contributing nothing - even if they were born here.
That is putting Britain first.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 17:11
Sorry I think the numbers aren't an issue. Yes new people will change the culture to the extent that they're different. Um.. so does every new child born here, as does every book that's written, as did all the other cultures that came here over the centuries. When was the universal law passed that made one point in time (the 50s? I'm kidding) the pivotal point when we had the "final" culture that ought to be forever hence immutable?
There has to be another Tory view about this that isn't either just about reducing the numbers of people who can move to the UK (it should be managed better that's all, but I can't imagine anyone (other than the FCS? :_0)) running on an open immigration ticket) or saying that it's all just market forces. Tories believe in communities, yeah? So, like, what's wrong with a nation of communities united under the sovereign and the common law?
Posted by: Graeme Archer | July 31, 2006 at 17:12
The natural conclusion to your argument that we have a 'responsibility' to 'those born and raised here' is simple - do nothing, sponge off the state, but thats okay, I'm British. I'm owed a living!
A silly and hysterical argument. Responsibility does not imply indulgence.
Posted by: Phil Jackson | July 31, 2006 at 17:12
Jon,
As for the likes of you, I find your views sickening and a betrayal of those honest, decent and hard-working Britons who are betrayed by your desperation to lower their already meagre wages. The fact that you are insulted is probably because you know what I've said is absolutely accurate.
It is precisely your approach which leads people to live off of the welfare state, as there would be few jobs paying that living wage. Why work when you don't benefit from it ? A fair day's work for a fair day's pay.
Your brutal system of economics are rapidly destroying Britain. Not everyone can be bankers, lawyers, doctors, etc. It is always the lower classes who lose out with your sort of compassionless free-marketeering. Shame on you.
As an example of your confused argument in favour of unlimited EU immigration, it is just that EU red-tape and over prescriptive health and safety legislation which has made it so difficult and expensive for small companies to take on apprentices. This has had a devastating impact upon the ability of British workers to train in new skills in most trades, where once apprenticeships were plentiful.
It seems pretty perverse that you're now advocating free-movement of people into this country from the EU to plug the skills gap that has arisen precisely because of EU interference with our country's business. Unbelievable.
You aren't a Conservative, you're rather a free-marketeering Liberal.
In any event, there are also large numbers of unemployed immigrants in our major cities, who simply come and draw benefits. No doubt you'll be arguing that they're of real benefit to us as well.
Posted by: Stephen Tolkinghorne | July 31, 2006 at 17:12
Dennis Cooper - absolutely spot on. That is EXACTLY what I would like to do. Sadly, it's impossible.
See my earlier post.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 17:12
Actually, John, our government's principal responsibility ought to be to its own nationals. Ultimately, that is the only basis on which a government is entitled to govern.
Some immigrants are beneficial to this country; others aren't. Some groups, on average, are beneficial to this country, and others aren't, (though individuals within the latter may be). A sensible immigration policy should attempt to distinguish between the two. An open-door policy does not.
Posted by: Sean Fear | July 31, 2006 at 17:13
Why stop at those who are contributing nothing? Why not kick out all those who are contributing less than they should? Why not kick out those who are now past making a contribution, and have exhausted their credit?
Posted by: Denis Cooper | July 31, 2006 at 17:16
I"f a Tory Londoner could advocate a vision of how we can better be One London but many cultures, then I would be a passionate supporter. "
I think the point is that people have a natural tendency to identify with their own ethnic group, and the whole thrust of government policy over the past 40 years has been to encourage people to identify themselves first and foremost as members of an ethnic group, and to compete for power and resources with other ethnic groups.
Posted by: Sean Fear | July 31, 2006 at 17:18
It seems to me that the "One Nation Conservative" has been succeeded by the "No Nation Conservative". Good luck at the polls when you tell the people of this country what you really feel about them.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | July 31, 2006 at 17:25
Yes I agree with you Sean. That's why I'm quite hungry for a specifically Tory alternative narrative. Sadly my thinking rarely rises about the level of Bagpuss or getting overly emotional at reunions of friends but I would love to read the thoughts of a serious Tory thinker.
I think Professor Sen has written a book - I read a review at the weekend but I'm sure someone online here will know more! - about these issues? I can't even remember the prof's first name but I think he was quite fiercely critical of the left's approach to multiculturalism.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | July 31, 2006 at 17:29
Stephen Tolkinghorne - I would admit to being a Liberal in terms of economic policy. I believe in a free market. I believe that is what creates wealth and will ultimately result in the 'greatest happiness for the greatest number'. However, I use Liberal in the true sense of the word, not as it is generally used today.
I am not arguing for an open door policy - I am arguing that we should make welcome those who can usefully contribute to British Society and the British Economy. I cannot see how that can be opposed except on protectionist grounds. 'O' level economics will tell you that protectionism doesn't work.
I completely agree with your maxim of a fair days work for a fair days wage. I also believe in employer responsibility to workers such as health and safety.
I am a Tory in that I love my country, am a true patriot, and also believe that the better off have a social responsibility to ensure that everyone in society (yes, there is such a thing) has a chance. I am not a blinkered 'my country, right or wrong' bigot however.
But a fair days wage is not set by a government alone. The market conditions dictate that also. That is a fact. You may not like it, but it's reality.
The facts are that if there were not a shortage of workers to fill the jobs mainly in the building trade, then there would be no incentive to come here. Those that do these jobs having come here from abroad still live here and thus have all the costs associated therewith. Ergo, how can the Brit worker justify his or her 12 quid an hours compared to the Pole's 6 pound fifty?
Of course people who come here and draw benefits are not contributing anything to Britain. I would not let them in, and would have much stricter controls. But why pick on the immigrants? Why not rally against the numbers of native born Brits who do just the same thing? Are they any less bad just because they are British?
I am not a banker, lawyer or a doctor. I'm a Sales Manager. Some of the best businessmen that I have ever sold to/dealt with came here as immigrants.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 17:29
PS "fiercely critical of the left's approach to multiculturalism" without suggesting that the only alternative is a monoculture.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | July 31, 2006 at 17:30
Jon White says:
"I would personally say that the most professional, hard-working, and valuable members of British society come first, irrespective of their birthplace."
Hmmm. I wonder how we define "valuable members"? ...and what do you suggest we do with the rest, irrespective of their birthplace?
You should read Ruth Lea's interesting article on the immigration debate (Telegraph today).
She draws our attention to two "profoundly dishonest, but effective" techniques used by propagandists:
The ad nauseam argument - where if you repeat an untruth often enough, people start to believe it - ie the famous "we need mass immigration to fuel the economy : it is good for everyone" nonsense
The ad hominem argument - where instead of addressing the issues, people with inconvenient opinions are personally villified - ie anyone who questions mass- immigration is inherently racist.
There seems to be rather a lot of that going on today.
We have a shortage of affordable housing and creaking infrastructure now.
Some people's living standards will be enhanced but for the majority the costs of large scale, uncontrolled immigration far exceed the benefits.
Posted by: deborah | July 31, 2006 at 17:32
What is the more important, the survival of the nation state or the effectivness of the free market? If the nation state is impeding the free market, do you abolish the nation state. The movement of Labour is a fundemental part of the free market, surely an employer should be able to purchase that Labour for as cheaply as possible from where ever possible.
Example Jeffrey Stirling, on taking over P.O. sacked nearly all of his British employees and replaced them with much cheaper Phillipino labour. When Stirling was criticised he said, 'My reponsiblity is to my shareholders', Isn't that the right attitude? I think (I maybe wrong) he was a Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party at the time.
Posted by: David | July 31, 2006 at 17:34
Julian Brazier's article was titled "Immigration, population density and problems of overcrowding".
This thread has hardly touched on the last two issues.
Surely the ability of our infrastructure, and the Government's willingness to invest, to support growth is key to the debate.
I apologise if others want to discuss ideology but I think there are practical issues to be addressed if we wish to develop policy in this area
Posted by: Nigel C | July 31, 2006 at 17:34
"Yes I agree with you Sean. That's why I'm quite hungry for a specifically Tory alternative narrative."
I too want to get Sen's book. I think a start would be to stop the public promotion of ethnically exclusive events. Why not replace "Black History Month" with "British History Month", for example?
Posted by: Sean Fear | July 31, 2006 at 17:35
"What is the more important, the survival of the nation state or the effectivness of the free market? "
The former, obviously; although I see no necessary conflict between the two.
Posted by: Sean Fear | July 31, 2006 at 17:37
Dennis Cooper - a 'No Nation Conservative' is the like of Heseltine or Clarke, who advocate giving all power to the EU.
I am a true 'One Nation Conservative' - a nation of British Citizens (who may or may not have been born here) who are hard working, compassionate, and embrace the true values of Conservatism.
I am not advocating an open door policy. I am advocating that we make welcome those who work ethic and cultural diversity add benefit to this great nation.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 17:37
The survival of the nation state and the free market are complimentary, not conflicting.
Posted by: Jon White | July 31, 2006 at 17:39
I think Professor Sen has written a book ... I can't even remember the prof's first name but I think he was quite fiercely critical of the left's approach to multiculturalism.
here
Posted by: Phil Jackson | July 31, 2006 at 17:44
Sorry. Didn't work for some reason. try
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/27/nfaith27.xml
Posted by: Phil Jackson | July 31, 2006 at 17:46
Jon
"Those that do these jobs having come here from abroad still live here and thus have all the costs associated therewith. Ergo, how can the Brit worker justify his or her 12 quid an hours compared to the Pole's 6 pound fifty?"
They don't necessarily have all the costs, initially. If they squeeze into rented accommodation their housing costs are lower. If they're taken to and from their workplaces in vans they're spared the costs of running a car, and so on. The trick is to live as cheaply as possible, save up and then either go home and set up a business, or stay here, move up to a higher standard of living, and maybe start a family. That's when they would find out why the resident British workers couldn't afford to live on the wages that they were getting as migrant labour, especially if they have family responsibilities.
There was an interesting and revealing article entitled: "Down and out in Poland and London" by Sebastian Creswell-Turner in the Telegraph on April 25th, but it seems to have been removed from the website and it's a bit long to post here.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | July 31, 2006 at 17:46
Jon, I am very uneasy at the free-market-fundamentalist undertones of your approach. I am no protectionist but I do not see where you would stop short of an open-door policy with its inevitable downward pressure on wage rates......and people are not chattels. As Sean rightly says, the kind of welfare reform you are advocating is not feasible politically, to put it mildly.
Current immigration policy is largely driven by the Labour Party's desire to import large numbers of people whom they think they can turn into new client voters. It has nothing to do with improving economic performance. Labour don't care if immigrants are economically inactive. Indeed, if they aren't, so much the better. That helps to justify higher state spending and also makes such people easier to buy off with Labour largesse.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | July 31, 2006 at 17:49
Jon,
"Ergo, how can the Brit worker justify his or her 12 quid an hours compared to the Pole's 6 pound fifty?"
Because they're not working cash in hand (i.e pay taxes), have children to support, a mortgage to pay, gas and electricity bills, need to put food on the table, pay council tax......I don't think I need to go on. To ask such a stupid question shows how far removed from the reality of home economics for the average household you really are.
I think you'll find that a certain degree of protectionism does work. What do you think the U.S. have been doing throughout the post-war years ? Now, unless I am mistaken, the US is the most economically powerful country in the world, and their citizens enjoy virtually the highest standards of living. Similarly, countries such as Norway, Switzerland, Finland, who are outside the EU, but have stricter immigration and give preference to their own nationals (partly to protect wages)also have higher standards of living. Oh yes, and they don't have the social fabric problems resulting from the flawed system you seem to be in love with.
As for your 'O' level economics, perhaps you read too much about the theory rather than the practice. A good book you might care to look at is by Sir James Goldsmith, called 'The Trap'. Being a man not unfamiliar with the workings of capitalism and the free-market, the book might be able to give you some pointers as to where you're going wrong and what the free-marketeering liberalism actually leads to.
Being that a country is composed of it's people, rather than the land mass, your desperation to 'sell them out' for your thirty pieces of silver demonstrates clearly that you're not someone who 'loves his country'. Well, perhaps only those who fit in with your utopian ideal, who will work for you for next to nothing, don't need to eat, sleep, have a roof over their heads, will work seven days a week, etc. I'm sure that you'd 'love' those people.
Posted by: Stephen Tolkinghorne | July 31, 2006 at 17:51
"They don't necessarily have all the costs, initially. If they squeeze into rented accommodation their housing costs are lower. If they're taken to and from their workplaces in vans they're spared the costs of running a car, and so on. The trick is to live as cheaply as possible, save up and then either go home and set up a business"
Thanks Dennis, you've articulated that point beautifully. Far better and more succinctly than my rambling.
Posted by: Stephen Tolkinghorne | July 31, 2006 at 17:54
I've taken the liberty of forwarding the article "Down and out in Poland and London" to Jon, and I'm happy to send it to anybody else who'd like to see it.
I don't know why the link now leads to blank page on the Telegraph website.
"When Sebastian Cresswell-Turner fell on hard times, he ended up in a Polish workers' doss-house. What he discovered about Britain's fastest-growing ethnic minority shocked him..."
Posted by: Denis Cooper | July 31, 2006 at 17:56
The survival of the nation state and the freemarket are complimentary.
The pressure for a single currency, single interest rate, metrification etc. is coming from supernational corporations who see the nation state as impeding they're profit drive. These corporations see themselves as the vanguard of a new borderless world.
Even though I despised the Soviet Union and all it stood for, we wouldn't be having this discussion if the Iron Curtain had remained intact. The removal of the Iron Curtain has opened up new opportunities for Supernationals to exploit new resources and that includes labour. Where do the loyalties of the board lie, with their shareholders, who could be citizens of numerous countries, or with the country where they were founded, or where they are now based, which obviously is going to be where they get the best tax deal.
I don't think you can say, the nation state and freemarkets are compatible at all. I think its far more complicated than that.
See the Jeffrey Stirling example and comment.
Posted by: David | July 31, 2006 at 18:00
Jon White,
"I am not advocating an open door policy. I am advocating that we make welcome those who work ethic and cultural diversity add benefit to this great nation."
- I don't think anyone is arguing against that in principle. It is the scale of immigration that is the issue.
"Education and Health - if these people are working and paying into the system, then why should they not have that benefit?"
- That would be fine if we had plenty of space to accommodate them. The problem is we have an infrastructure deficit now. Our schools and hospitals are already overcrowded and it takes time to build new ones.
Immigration is not the problem...MASS immigration is the problem
Posted by: deborah | July 31, 2006 at 18:04
Jon
You may also like to consider this point made on page 11 of Brazier's paper:
"There is also the wider point that employers are much less likely to train indigenous people, especially from "hard to reach" and vulnerable groups, if they can recruit trained staff from abroad."
We now have a poor education system which turns out a certain proportion of young people who are unsuitable for formal employment; we have a welfare system which will supplement whatever they can get through the black economy and crime; we have a criminal justice system which usually fails to pull them back into the mainstream; and we have many employers who have backed away from providing apprenticeships and other training. Basically many of these youngsters are consigned to the scrap heap before they've even started.
But none of this is solved by importing alternative workers, and in fact doing so only helps to perpetuate a highly undesirable and costly problem.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | July 31, 2006 at 18:37
I remember the Telegraph article Phil. I thought it was patronising and awful. What I remember is that the posh thing who had to Orwell-it-up for a month (before he got a job writing articles for the Telegraph) was shocked that the Poles liked to drink together and sent a lot of money home. Presumably surviving off a trust fund is what he would have preferred! Ooh bit of Ben Elton politics there Graeme! Seriously the article reminded me of another journalist who's forever going on about the time he had to rent a flat in Brick Lane, as though he'd travelled to another world.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | July 31, 2006 at 18:42
Immigration on the scale we are facing is the top issue - and yet until now only the two extremes of the BNP and Frank Field have been prepared to speak out. The Tories are in the main scared witless of raising it.
It is also at the heart of the efforts to re-brand the Tory party.
Michael Portillo in the Sunday Times yesterday painted a totally fals picture in saying:
" Much of the parliamentary party is reactionary and unattractive to voters. Their attitude to their fellow human beings is ungenerous. Their real interests in life are the narrow issues of taxation, immigration and Europe that obsess the party. That tunnel vision sets many Tory MP's apart from voters whose main concerns are not political at all,but to the extent that they are, focus on their children's schooling and their families health"
What Portillo cannot grasp is that taxation, immigration and Europe are the fundemental drivers behind all the bread and butter issues that people say they care about. What we have failed to do at every recent election is to argue that link on a consistent long term basis - and we seem to be doing it again.
The similarities between the problems facing the Tory Party and what happened to M&S and Sainsbury's have been pointed out many times. Both after a golden age saw profits falling and started to panic - both scrambled around trying 'change' and 'modernise' and attract fresh customers - both forgot to look after their existing customers - both ended up with the wrong product range - both then re-established their core values and got the basics right - both are recovering strongly and building market share. The Tory party is still at the panic and change stage.
Immigration is the big issue !!
Posted by: RodS | July 31, 2006 at 18:49
The other point that Portillo fails to grasp is that for people like me, key preoccupations are indeed my children's education and health, but Portillo and his disciples are no more capable of solving those problems than Blair.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | July 31, 2006 at 19:18
If newcomers were denied free access to the welfare state for several months until they had paid a certain amount in taxes this might placate peoples' anger.
Personally I have always looked on immigration as letting people into your home. If 80% of the residents want immigration limited, it ought to be limited. I wouldn't like people coming into my house without my permission.
Newcomers will be able to vote on how the country is run and if people with vastly different cultural values arrive in huge numbers this may create a serious culture clash and undermine a common conception of British identity. We need time to assimilate those who we let in. Sadly we have failed to assimilate many who are already here.
Posted by: Richard | July 31, 2006 at 19:28
Looking on the bright side at least the Poles don't burn books and flags and will not seek to impose Sharia law upon us.I understand the Catholic churches are booming.
Posted by: michael mcgough | July 31, 2006 at 19:41
"I understand the Catholic churches are booming."
If only it was the C of E! ;)
Posted by: Richard | July 31, 2006 at 19:55
Thank you Julian Brazier,
at long long last, someone speaking some bloody sense.
cameron/maude take note.....
Posted by: K&S | July 31, 2006 at 20:24
Yes, and these are the same Poles who vote for parties with rather old-fashioned views, which allegedly make them unsuitable partners in the EU Parliament!
Posted by: Denis Cooper | July 31, 2006 at 20:30