We asked an unusual set of questions at the end of the May survey of ConservativeHome readers. We sought to find out a little more about your social attitudes. For 1,294 Tory members their views are posted in the green box above.
The poll points to a Tory membership that is more respectful of same-sex unions than many critics might think. Two-thirds would attend a civil partnership ceremony.
The finding that surprised and disappointed me was that only 34.4% of members believed that immigration had largely been good for Britain. Sam Coates and I both voted that it had. We agree with David Cameron that "we wouldn't be half the country we are without immigration." My guess - and hope - is that the low number may reflect concern at the recent uncontrolled levels of immigration. Grateful, as always, for your views... Well, most of them anyway.
The steak-eaters at ConservativeHome are delighted to learn that only 3.2% of our readers are herbivores. Very good news!
10.15am update:
- It appears that the vegetarians in the sample are less likely to regular ride a bike! 13.2% of the veggies regularly ride a bicycle compared to 16% overall. Your fellow vegetarians are not very green Peter, Graeme and Drussila!
- The churchgoers are more likely to give to an international development charity. 43.9% have given money to an overseas aid cause compared to 30.0% overall. They're less likely (48.9%) to attend a civil partnership ceremony.
- If you believe that immigration has largely been good for Britain you are much less likely to be dissatisfied with David Cameron - 24% compared to 39% overall.
- I could spend all day producing these kinds of stats but must now write up the Clarke-Cameron press conference...
"we wouldn't be half the country we are without immigration."
Of course we would - probably more space though - maybe we should seize Northern FRance for Lebensraum ? It is getting a bit too congested and I don't see why i should pay-as-I-drive with tolling
Posted by: ToMTom | June 06, 2007 at 08:14
I agree the immigration response is disappointing. Interesting that more people think sex outside marridge is wrong than ride a bicycle. (Boris has proved they're not mutually exclusive)
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | June 06, 2007 at 08:25
The finding that surprised and disappointed me was that only 34.4% of members believed that immigration had largely been good for Britain.
Why should that disappoint you? There may be some temporary economic benefits from immigration (rapidly turning to disadvantage as immigrants move into their dotage) but all this is substantially outweighed by the threat of ethnic strife and the ruination of our country by overpopulation.
As for 'civil partnerships' I think you will find that many who do not really approve would attend out of courtesy (or curiosity) if invited. I would myself, indeed it is likely that two gay friends of ours may do this shortly so we will bite our tongues and go.
However, I suspect that the level of 'homophobia' is much, much higher among non internet-enabled members of the grassroots.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | June 06, 2007 at 08:28
"I attend church, or another place of worship..."
Does this include Anfield? ;)
Posted by: greg | June 06, 2007 at 08:39
non internet-enabled members of the grassroots.
what a phrase....combining Internet and grass roots.....mind boggling....enabling, as opposed to cabling, grass roots.....
It has great potential as a phrase in some speech......"Fellow Internet-enabled grassroots members....I "
Posted by: TomTom | June 06, 2007 at 08:40
Who is the other vegetarian? Greetings, fellow oddity.
Perhaps people do go to their first civil partnership out of curiosity or politeness ... perhaps, though, their act of witness will change them.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | June 06, 2007 at 09:04
34% compares favourably with the 0% of BNP and UKIP members who think that immigration is good for the country, but you've got to be pretty bloody minded not to see the net social and economic benefits of migration to British culture.
The abortion question is heavily loaded and "unborn child" begs the question. If you'd asked "Abortion is morally equivalent to murder" or "A foetus should have the same rights as a baby" you would have had a substantially different answer. The medically correct term for an "unborn child" is embryo or foetus. To be honest, the way you phrased the question I'm surprised you didn't get a higher percentage.
Posted by: passing leftie | June 06, 2007 at 09:04
Very disappointed with the lack of fellow cyclists! It seems that John Major's vision of spinsters riding to church is well and truly dead.
Posted by: aristeides | June 06, 2007 at 09:16
passing leftie @ 09:04 - "you've got to be pretty bloody minded not to see the
net social and economic benefits of migration to British culture."
Not really, just more thoughtful and realistic. But at least you include the word "net", suggesting that you recognise there are both benefits and disbenefits.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | June 06, 2007 at 09:17
Yes, I hate to say it, but I agree with passing leftie on the abortion question.
Posted by: Edward | June 06, 2007 at 09:18
passing leftie, no you do not need to be 'bloody minded' to be in at least two minds about immigration. You can be tofu-munching bike-riding civilly partnered softy liberal, and still regret some of the rapid changes that immigration has wreaked on Britain, even if it is a Britain which probably only existed in one's dreams. That nostalgic melancholy is the one thing that probably defines us as Conservatives.
I have an almost ridiculously romantic view of Poland and think London has been immeasurably improved by the arrival of so many Poles. I genuinely hope that they stay for ever and make their home here, but should my partner join in my joy? He's an electrician. His job market has been clearly suppressed by the increase in the supply of qualified technical people. Please note I'm not arguing for closing markets or ending immigration, I'm just trying to point out that one does not have to be 'bloody minded' to see that for some people it is not an unalloyed joyous event. The more politicians tell us 'be nothing but happy about immigration' the more they stoke the engines of the real racist parties. Such a tired cliche, apologies, but completely true I think.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | June 06, 2007 at 09:19
I'd take passing leftie's comments about the question - but I'd give the same answer to either of his re-phrasings!
Posted by: Matthew Dear | June 06, 2007 at 09:19
Much as it pains me to agree with a passing leftie, given that a majority of readers do not believe that an "unborn child is a human being that needs protection" let's stop the sensational language used on the abortion thread earlier this week.
Quite frankly it's offensive. Many of us believe that a human being does not become a human being until it leaves its mother. We just don't try and push our views down other people's throats.
Posted by: Mary Hinge | June 06, 2007 at 09:21
Please construct some contingency tables on this data by the way ... what we really want to know is things like - how many vegetarians regularly ride their bicycle to church? etc etc.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | June 06, 2007 at 09:21
Graeme, I'm pleased to out myself as the other vegetarian here.
Why, though, I wonder, should our esteemed editor think that the generally carnivorous nature of his readership constitutes 'very good news'? Why does it matter what some of us do or don't eat, within the bounds of legality and public decency? Well, in any event, he is welcome to whatever meagre happiness he may be able to glean from this statistic.
Posted by: Drusilla | June 06, 2007 at 09:30
I think that the 34% should be read against a heavily plugged offical line of immigration being ONLY a good thing (and anyone who disagrees with this is racist, don't you know). Personally, I think that certain levels of immigration are good. But where (and how) do you draw the line. Humans have a strong hard-coded sense of 'us' and 'them' and once significant numbers of people are surrounded by people they think of as 'them' then problems start. Of course, over time, large numbers of 'them' become 'us' and we can be happy again - not many people I meet seem to care that my great-great-great-great grandparents were Greek (and, incidentally, would have failed the Blunkett/Reid test as they never learned English despite living here half their lives). But in the meantime the quality of life of a lot of people suffer as they feel surrounded by cultures they don't understand, and we should pay more attention to these concerns.
Posted by: dogides | June 06, 2007 at 09:36
What is David Cameron going to do to attract more vegetarian cyclists?
Posted by: Duncan Doughnut | June 06, 2007 at 09:37
Ed, immigration has been going on here since dot, so nobody can really say that there is nothing good about it or we may be questioning our own lineage!
Realistically though, in the sense of post war and recent immigration, there are of course great advantages which must be recognised. However, the way in which post-war integration of imigrants has been carried out is just as much a reason for the low poll as the problems with our seemingly porous borders at this moment in time.
Posted by: Adam Tugwell | June 06, 2007 at 09:38
I'm amazed that CH readers are such a religous lot. More than a third of readers going to a place of worship in a month ,what's the national average 5% or less?
Posted by: malcolm | June 06, 2007 at 09:42
Graeme and Drusilla,
There are at least three of us!
Posted by: Peter Franklin | June 06, 2007 at 09:42
Voted
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
What box can you put me into?
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | June 06, 2007 at 09:48
Graeme: perhaps the 33.7% who wouldn't go to a civil partnership ceremony are afraid that they'll be served tofuburgers at the reception?
Re the abortion question, since the idea was to find out who agreed with the proposition it could, strictly, be worded any way you like.
For example, suppose you wanted to test support for a phased slowdown in public expenditure. You could ask the question "Do you agree that the rate of public expenditure increase should be less than the rate of growth in the gross domestic product of the UK?" Or you could ask the question "Do you believe that the government should share the proceeds of growth between public spending and tax cuts?" You'd probably get different levels of 'Yes' answers to the same question - but then, findign out what that difference is would be the point of asking two different questions about the same policy, wouldn't it?
It might have made it a more interesting survey if a re-worded question along the lines of Passing Leftie's suggestion - but perhaps a suite of survey questions about abortion would have given rise to other criticisms?
I think the Editor should monitor and report back on the dangerous mushrooming of vegetarianism on this thread...
Posted by: William Norton | June 06, 2007 at 09:49
You can be tofu-munching bike-riding civilly partnered softy liberal, and still regret some of the rapid changes that immigration has wreaked on Britain
Did you see "largely"?
Posted by: passing leftie | June 06, 2007 at 09:52
Re the abortion question, since the idea was to find out who agreed with the proposition it could, strictly, be worded any way you like.
What a silly response. You are arguing like a dodgy brief. It's clear the original statement was worded by a "pro-life" advocate, designed to get as large a response as possible. A proposition that does not beg the question would get a more representative view of abortion.
Following your line of argument, why not word it "Abortion is the brutal, premeditated murder of an innocent child", or "the medical removal of unwanted parasites is a human right"
Frankly, I'm concerned that this debate is trying to smuggle abortion in as a party political issue.
Posted by: passing leftie | June 06, 2007 at 10:03
"only 34.4% of members believed that immigration had largely been good for Britain".
Ed - I suspect the figures would have differed considerably if you had put "controlled" or even "uncontrolled" in front of immigration.
The reason the subject created more heat than light when Michael Howard made immigration one of his key points was because the word has differing associations, ranging from "Asylum seeker" (very laudable), through "guest worker" (laudable up to a point) and "illegal benefits scrounger" (definitely to be kept out).
If we welcomed asylum seekers, controlled the inflow of guest workers and restored border guards to keep out the illegals, we might even get a crossparty consensus.
Posted by: David Belchamber | June 06, 2007 at 10:05
Wasn't the late, great, Alan Clark a vegeterian? (I'm not btw!)
Posted by: Voice from the South West | June 06, 2007 at 10:06
Oops, sorry Mr Norton. I didn't read your fourth paragraph possible. It was still a silly argument, though.
Posted by: passing leftie | June 06, 2007 at 10:06
Even with perfect integration of ideal immigrants, there is the question of overall population. This is not a sparsely populated country, largely virgin territory with empty spaces waiting to be filled. Some of us recall that previous governments actively encouraged birth control, "family planning", precisely because the rate
of increase of the population was seen to be unsustainable in the long term.
The reward for those who paid heed to what the government was saying and decided to limit themselves to one, two or three children rather than the five,
six or seven which was common in their parents' generation has been to see other people's children allowed and encouraged to come here from abroad, allegedly to ease the growing shortage of "young workers" and help defuse
the so-called "demographic timebomb" - which of course can't work unless
those "young workers" from abroad bring the elixir of youth with them.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | June 06, 2007 at 10:09
I voted yes about immigration, because we have mass immigration. To use an analogy, watering plants is good, too much water is bad.
Posted by: Christina | June 06, 2007 at 10:20
Graeme Archer: "Please construct some contingency tables on this data by the way ... what we really want to know is things like - how many vegetarians regularly ride their bicycle to church? etc etc."
I've added some stats in the main post that show - amongst other things - that the vegetarians aren't great cyclists!
Drusilla: "Why, though, I wonder, should our esteemed editor think that the generally carnivorous nature of his readership constitutes 'very good news'? Why does it matter what some of us do or don't eat, within the bounds of legality and public decency? Well, in any event, he is welcome to whatever meagre happiness he may be able to glean from this statistic."
I was only joking my vegetarian friend!
Posted by: Editor | June 06, 2007 at 10:22
I have an almost ridiculously romantic view of Poland
You obviously know very little of Poland, if you did your rose-tinted view would be very black. Poland is a country not a postcard.
Maybe you should go and live there and experience it - not in Krakow or Warsaw or Wroclaw.....try out in the country on the Belarus border or down in some of the old heavy industry towns.......they tend to appreciate naive people from England
Posted by: TomTom | June 06, 2007 at 10:24
I just noticed the 'sex outside marriage' question. I think sex outside marriage is wrong, so long as CPs count as marriage in this sense. I give stern homilies, at the drop of a hat, to unmarried friends, on the dangers of living in sin. Hate the sin I tell these surprised friends, but LOVE the sinner as they push back their chairs and back away. I make an exception only for our Lithuanian builder, because he is very large and quite fierce looking. Do continue to live in sin I urge him. More meat with your meat sandwich?
William: not a tofuburger in sight!
Peter and Drusilla: we must form an inner, militant tendency and subvert the party from within. More olive-based canapes at all London receptions, NOW.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | June 06, 2007 at 10:24
If you have no food you die of starvation. Eat too much and you will vomit. It's the same with most things - including immigration. Moderation is required.
Immigration is neither good nor bad - but like our diet, it needs to be controlled.
If your question had been, "Are you in favour of controlled immigration?" (As opposed to the unconrolled,open borders we have now) you would have had at least a 99% 'yes' response I imagine.
Posted by: Frank McGarry | June 06, 2007 at 10:26
Have you been to Poland Tomtom? Or is your completely uncalled for attack on Graeme Archer just another example of your sneering superiority complex?
Posted by: malcolm | June 06, 2007 at 10:31
"but you've got to be pretty bloody minded not to see the net social and economic benefits of migration to British culture."
Or just a realistic observer of the current situation.
Posted by: Sean Fear | June 06, 2007 at 10:41
I missed last week's survey for the first time for many months - you did it in half term week when many of those of us with families were away from our computers. I was wondering whether this had distorted the grammar school-related responses as those of us with school-age children might have a more realistic view of what actually goes on in schools, i.e. the 95% plus of them which are not grammar schools.
But it is even more likely that this social survey was distorted - for instance the civil partnership question (few gays or 20 somethings go away for half term week). The two answers I found most surprising, and which are most out of line with the general population I would think, are the high church attendance and the very high percentage (20%) disapproving of sex outside marriage (I presume people meant sex outside marriage by people who are not married!). (Incidentally these people must disapprove of sex between civil partners as that is not marriage).
From this I conclude that there is an unusually churchy bias in your readership. Question is: does this mean that the C of E is still the Tory Party at prayer, despite all the social changes of the last 50 years, or does it mean that this site's "Theoconservatism", a minority taste amongst conservatives, is reflected in your audience?
My puzzle is how there is a higher perentage going to church than giving to a development charity in the last three months. Surely almost any religious person, and many more besides, would give regularly to development charities? Although it is not the first charity of my choice, if I am not mistaken Christian Aid week took place during this period; but I would have thought that most Christians would have looked into development charities and would give regularly to the one or more of their choice (I know there are lots of other types of charities, including the Church itself, but surely helping the poor is a charitable priority?) Come on people, haven't you heard of Gift Aid etc?
Posted by: Londoner | June 06, 2007 at 10:41
Malcolm: I'd guess that very few responders to the survey have a sneering superiority complex, so presumably Tom Tom is the other vegetarian?
Posted by: William Norton | June 06, 2007 at 10:41
There are 41 vegetarians!
It's OK Malcolm. I did say I have a ridiculously romantic view of Poland. It's all Iris Murdoch's fault. Nuns and Soldiers I think, to be specific.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | June 06, 2007 at 10:42
The immigration question maybe should have been qualified given the distortion over the past decade.
How does the Tory vegetarian rate compare with the national average?
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | June 06, 2007 at 10:59
Londoner: some thoughts.
Responders to the survey who were also Tory members (which I think is the group whose percentages are given above)do seem to have above-average attendance at a place of worship at least once a month. I wouldn't assume that says anything about the C of E - they could all be satanists gathering every full moon or whatever (but I think that's unlikely).
Also: why would that automatically convert into support for an overseas aid charity, or monthly support for such a body? Someone who gave Oxfam £1m at Christmas would have answered 'No' to the question; so would someone giving £1k via payroll giving each month to, say, a child protection charity.
Posted by: William Norton | June 06, 2007 at 11:08
Graeme,
Poland truly is beautiful, despite what TomTom says. Somehow the soviet tower blocks complement the older buildings which wouldn't seem out of place in any western european city.
Posted by: Chris | June 06, 2007 at 11:10
An interesting mini-survey! The civil partenership responses does not surprise. The party has always been much less anti-homosexual than has been portrayed. The immigration answer does not surprise too. I suspect this question is the one most people told whoppers about ( people mostly tell fibs in surveys- and give a 'polite' answer to certain questions - not what they really think). The abortion answer portrays the Party in a positive light. I'm heartened that nigh on half think it's essential to protect 'unborn' lives. Though, this could be better qualified next time with 'proposed' abortion time limits. A worthwhile exercise worth doing again.
Posted by: simon | June 06, 2007 at 11:13
3% vegetarian seems about right for the Conservative social functions I organise.
35% attending Church once a month does seem about right (the figure for the general population would be about 15% once a month, 8% once a week).
Overall, I don't think the figure of 20% disapproving of sex outside marriage (assuming it refers to people who aren't married) would be that different from the population at large.
WRT development charities, I can answer "Yes", but I'd never give to Christian Aid.
Posted by: Sean Fear | June 06, 2007 at 11:15
We are returning to our constituencies and preparing for power, Andrew! There's even a Thatcherite precedent for abolishing milk.
The vegetarian society estimates that 5% of the UK population is meat-free. So that probably makes a true rate of about 0.001%. And that will get lower if you remove those annoying people who claim to be vegetarian then gorge themselves on poor wee fishes. (The poor wee things. I know how much this website relishes misplaced sentimentality). Or don't check their wine carefully. Or eat cheese! It's olive-based canapes or it's nothing baby!
Posted by: Graeme Archer | June 06, 2007 at 11:17
On development charities:
Sean - yes I hinted that Christian Aid might not be many Tories' first choice of development charities, but I would still think that many churchgoers would give to it, even if only out of politeness to the vicar.
William - of course what you say is true, but 3 months catches most regular giving and not many people give £1m lump sums, even if spurred on by the Christmas spirit! From your comments on the C of E, of course I appreciate that there are many other denominations, and indeed religions, that those answering "yes" to the place of worship question attend. Also, sadly Party membership has declined so far that even if msot members attended every week, in most parts of the country they would still only be a small part of the congregation.
I still think it's interesting, if it were true, that Party members are more likely to be churchgoers. Across the board, this would be a reflection on the age profile, but presumably not on this site of the non internet challenged.
Posted by: Londoner | June 06, 2007 at 11:29
I dunno Graeme, they're everywhere these days. Had to convert my Mrs from being a vegetarian. Bacon was the weapon.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | June 06, 2007 at 11:34
Have you been to Poland Tomtom?
Thank you for asking Malcolm, I have indeed. I even have family there; and quite a few Polish friends here. You would be surprised what they think of the Polish language used by many of those who have come here. They are less than impressed by the effing and blinding and general behaviour.
Do you have Polish relatives Malcolm ? Which parts did you visit ?
How is your Polish history ? We could swap notes.
Posted by: TomTom | June 06, 2007 at 11:36
"we wouldn't be half the country we are without immigration."
Rubbish.
Let me say that again, in case you didn't get it, RUBBISH.
The whole question is loaded - what people are really answering is; "do you agree that without the large net inflow of post-war immigration into Britain; we wouldn't be half the country we are today?"
The answer is clearly "no". Britain is not based (not even half) on post-war immigration - its values and culture were determined before WW2 and more influential.
What the question "askers" pretend they are asking is; "Do you agree that without any form of integration of any type, quantity from anywhere throughout the whole of history; Britain wouldn't be half the country it is today?"
This is clearly a ridiculous question as it means no-one could ever enter the UK. From "caveman" onwards through, Saxons, Vikings, Hugenot etc.
*BUT* they do this in order to paint those who answer "no" as extremist nutters and/or hardcore racists. Therefore, debate closed. Black and White situation - if you believe immigration good, sensible nice person; if no, extremist bigoted idiot.
And I fail to understand *why* the Editor and Deputy Editor feel the need to crow about "oh what nice decent people we are" by posting that they voted "yes" on the thread. You reinforce this by writing how "disappointed" you are at everyone elses views. Shame. I'm "disappointed" at your tone and subtle message - hence my sharp response.
Presumably you think those who disagree are reactionary racists and you want to show how modern and multicultural you are?
I don't think anyone would disagree that a small amount of post-war immigration would have been *unquestionably* beneficial to Britain, had it been limited numbers which could seemlessly integrate. Say, 1-2% of the population - rather than 10%. I reckon 95+% of the population would have NO PROBLEM with this.
But people emotionalise and twist the debate and it really p*sses me off.
The question is all about; (a) numbers and (b) integration. Not race or bigotry - despite the "holier than thou" attempts of some to paint it otherwise.
We warp it because whites are VERY worried about being painted racist by non-whites and lose rationality in the process.
Editors - you should know better.
Posted by: Graham Checker | June 06, 2007 at 11:41
Somehow the soviet tower blocks complement the older buildings which wouldn't seem out of place in any western european city.
Posted by: Chris |
You are speaking of Warsaw - but I suggested Graeme visit places on the Belarus border. You are such city dwellers and forget that warsaw provides enough jobs - it is the people in the regions away from Warsaw who have no work....have the 30%-40% unemployment.
I know how people live and have watched peasants sitting trying to sell bunches of carrots, women in dishevelled clothes reeking of poverty. Unless you see the real country you have some very strange impressions -
Posted by: ToMtom | June 06, 2007 at 11:43
Sorry, I might also add that politicans/BBC/journalist and other opinion formers are worried that if too many people answer "no" to said immigration question - it will interpreted as "we hate immigrants" greatly fan the fire of racial tension and division.
Hence, why they ask an inhonest question and expect inhonest answers.
Posted by: Graham Checker | June 06, 2007 at 11:56
No Tomtom, I do not have Polish relatives. I have been there as I'm quite interested in birdwatching and Poland has some of the finest birdwatching in Europe. I also have family friends of Polish extraction,the descendents of Polish fliers who flew with my grandfather in WW2 and stayed here after the war. I have some knowledge of Polish history. The point you are trying to make eludes me as usual.
Posted by: malcolm | June 06, 2007 at 11:57
"..more respectful of same-sex unions than many critics might think..."
I would rather that folk weren't thus but am very amicable towards those who live otherwise "ordinary" lives, without frightening the horses. It's rabid gays proselytising their lifestyle choice that I'm uncomfortable with, in the same way that I don't like macho hetero medallion man flaunting his persona.
Moderation in all things, chaps & chapesses!
"Two-thirds would attend a civil partnership ceremony..."
Provided that it wasn't a defiant, in yer face froth of tulle & sequins or otherwise generally o.t.t., then I would attend willingly out of respect for people I knew well enough for them to have invited me at all, just as I have enjoyably attended various brands of religious ceremony despite not being an adherent of any.
Posted by: Occasional Visitor | June 06, 2007 at 11:58
Yes, that's me. :)
"we wouldn't be half the country we are without immigration."
Immigration has certainly improved British cuisine. Overall of course it's been a very mixed bag for Britain; the value of immigration depends very much on the qualities of both the immigrants and their descendants, which can vary a lot. Since most immigrants to Britain aren't chosen on merit (eg via the kind of points systems Australia and Canada use), it's unsurprising that we get plenty of undesirable immigrants along with the good ones. This has especially been so with the Asylum system, which prioritises immigration from what are, by definition, among the worst places in the world. It's probably lucky that most asylum claims are fraudulent and most asylum seekers are economic migrants who don't actually originate from the failed states they claim to be from.
Posted by: Simon Newman | June 06, 2007 at 12:04
'I know how people live and have watched peasants sitting trying to sell bunches of carrots, women in dishevelled clothes reeking of poverty. Unless you see the real country you have some very strange impressions' TOMTOM@ 11.43
I'm guessing that was tongue in cheek as I've never heard Poland described in that way before... I've also never seen the polish community selling bunches of carrots in Ealing Broadway!
Interesting description TOMTOM, you should visit vote freedom's website, you'd enjoy the blogs there.
Posted by: Michael Hewlett | June 06, 2007 at 12:17
Well i agree with one of them.
Posted by: Conservative Homer | June 06, 2007 at 12:20
I agree with those that are disappointed that Tim & Sam are disappointed with those that say that immigration hasn't largely been good for Britain. Immigration could have been and could be largely good for Britain, but it hasn't been. I'm afraid that I have one word to describe those that argue otherwise - cosseted.
Posted by: Praguetory | June 06, 2007 at 12:40
Well said Prague Tory. As has been said before many people are afraid to criticise the shambolic management and unprecedented levels of recent immigration into this country for fear of being termed racist.
Posted by: Bill | June 06, 2007 at 12:48
I'm afraid that I have one word to describe those that argue otherwise - cosseted.
I'm obviously cosseted but, because I'm cosseted, I don’t know what from. I’d be grateful if you’d elaborate...
Posted by: Mark Fulford | June 06, 2007 at 12:57
Graham Checker @ 11:41 - "I don't think anyone would disagree that a small amount of post-war immigration would have been *unquestionably* beneficial to Britain, had it been limited numbers which could seemlessly integrate. Say, 1-2% of the population - rather than 10%."
In fact the Sunday Times published an opinion poll last year, and one question related to the preferred maximum number of immigrants each year.
Allowed responses ranged in steps from "zero" to "1 million plus" each year.
The median response was strikingly low - about 10,000. In other words, half the respondents thought that 10,000 immigrants a year would be too many, and half thought that 10,000 a year would be too few.
To put that in perspective, 10,000 a year over 60 years would be 600,000, which would be 1% of the present population. But as immigrants are disproportionately young, including their children that would have added 2-3% to the population.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | June 06, 2007 at 13:06
The finding that surprised and disappointed me was that only 34.4% of members believed that immigration had largely been good for Britain.
Isn't it possible that some of those answering have personally experienced the negative effects? I once personally lost a promotion to an immigrant (a promotion which I think it's fair to say most of my colleagues expected me to get). It didn't put me off immigration in principle - especially since he resigned a fortnight later and I got it anyway - but there seems to be a widespread view amongst the chattering classes that such things are exremist mythology. They're not.
Posted by: Alex Swanson | June 06, 2007 at 13:38
Mary how do you not consider an unborn child a human what speicies is it a dog? Surely you point is you disagree that live human beings are necesssaryily peoples -do you think people transmute speices or types when born???
I think in a public poll that would boost numbers somewhat-but conservativehome readers and indeed members in general would be sophisticated enough to know that this point merely repeats tim's views- (ie i think wording matters less) and it is after all a stamtn of beif you can agree or disagee and no pro-chouier would agree with it!
I thik the point attending an event is not the same as approval is also well made
Posted by: outsider | June 06, 2007 at 13:40
Quite frankly it's offensive. Many of us believe that a human being does not become a human being until it leaves its mother.
On what basis do you believe this? It can't be on the basis of dependency; it's just as helpless a minute afterward as a minute before. Nor can it be on the basis of breathing; an adult can be not breathing and yet still alive.
Posted by: Alex Swanson | June 06, 2007 at 13:43
The unborn child questions would have been better in my view if accompanied with a question about whether abortion ought to be legal. This way it would have allowed people to express a personal view on abortion, whilst also expressing a view on whether it ought to be legal in general. As it was, the question was too vague, and could have been interpretted in many ways... that isn't what you want on a survey designed to judge opinion on a particular matter.
Posted by: Chris | June 06, 2007 at 13:47
Mark - cosseted is how I would describe my friends from Wetherby who grew up without any immigrants in their area who don't understand why anybody would be opposed to open borders.
I'd contrast that with contemporaries of mine whose liberal parents sent them to a school which had no-go zones for whites and where white girls were regularly molested. Or the poor buggers I met living in Newtown North Birmingham afraid to leave their homes for fear of being mugged by gangs stationed in tower blocks waiting for their prey. I could go on...
Posted by: Praguetory | June 06, 2007 at 13:48
From reality Mark Fulford, from reality
Posted by: tired and emotional | June 06, 2007 at 13:48
"you've got to be pretty bloody minded not to see the net social and economic benefits of migration to British culture."
What are they then?
1. Chicken tikka masala
2. Er...that's it.
Posted by: Bloody Minded | June 06, 2007 at 14:01
I am rather more surprised than many seem to be that a third of people who responded would NOT go to a Civil Partnership ceremony, seemingly on principle. I find that quite shocking actually.
I am afraid I also missed this survey due to half term (I work in a school) so I fear the result may be a little unreliable in many ways.
Posted by: David Gold | June 06, 2007 at 14:16
Denis 13:06
Ok, maybe *some* would still disagree - but I'm not miles off, am I? Most people happy with 1-2% if the immigration rate remained stable?
I'd certainly be happy with that.
Posted by: Graham Checker | June 06, 2007 at 14:16
Well, thanks to Denis 13.06 for reminding us (not for the first time!) that left to choose, people in the UK would restrict (net?) immigration to 10,000 a year.
I mean, whether you agree or not, if that is what people want, that is what they want, why not give it to them? What's wrong with having a quota/points system like Australia?
That said, stick me down in David Belchamber's camp on this one.
Do people here share passingleftie's erroneous view that 0% of UKIP members think that immigration can be good for a country?
I think UKIP's official line is NET zero immigration, i.e. a couple of hundred thousand out and a couple of hundred thousand in every year (how they'd enforce it is anybody's guess).
Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | June 06, 2007 at 14:19
I also have family friends of Polish extraction,the descendAnts of Polish fliers
Oh which squadron ?
Posted by: TomTom | June 06, 2007 at 14:48
Michael Hewlett it is smug comments like yours that attempt to degrade poverty in Poland. If you have no inkling of life outside Ealing Broadway I suggest you stop smirking about people who live lives in far greater discomfort that yourself.
Maybe you should start understanding countries in the European Union and just how poor people are - you are typical of a smug condescending class of individual with little regard for those who have to live in grinding poverty.
Posted by: TomTom | June 06, 2007 at 14:52
I am rather more surprised than many seem to be that a third of people who responded would NOT go to a Civil Partnership ceremony, seemingly on principle. I find that quite shocking actually
Why should you find that so surprising? It's not so very long ago that homosexuality was a criminal offence. Do you imagine that everybody switches their opinions 100% overnight?
Those of us who mix in relatively sophisticated social circles have had to become more accepting of these things, although privately we may not particularly welcome them.
Elderly people, who are less likely to have any ostensibly homosexual acquaintances have no obvious reason to change, which is why I suggested that so-called 'homophobia' is likely to be much higher among older Tories who probably also do not use the internet.
Gays are not very 'visible' on Labour-voting council estates either so this goes right across the board.
Just because 'gay weddings' may be right-on in sectors of the bourgeois circles in which many of us move does not mean that they are accepted in the wider world.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | June 06, 2007 at 14:53
Could I just point out that not riding a bike does not necessarily make a person uncaring about the 'green' agenda - it could be that they are disabled (as I am - I am also a veggie!) and that disability is what makes us unable to ride a bike and what makes it very hard/impossible to use the more environmentally (and allegedly 'accessible') modes of transport.
Posted by: Vicki | June 06, 2007 at 15:08
Mark - cosseted is how I would describe my friends from Wetherby who grew up without any immigrants in their area who don't understand why anybody would be opposed to open borders.
First, let’s kill the red herring. Nobody is suggesting open borders.
Before marriage I lived in South-London, spending 10 years of my life variously between New Cross, Lewisham, Elephant and Castle, Kennington and Clapham Junction. I now live in Southampton, home to one of the largest Polish communities in England. You'll have to do better than cosseted = "who grew up without any immigrants in their area".
I'm sorry that you were overlooked for a promotion – no doubt the immigrant's fault.
I, too, had a hard time at school. In school my posh accent marked me out; outside school it was the grammar school blazer. I think you’ll find that all children will behave as badly as their school allows.
But your subtext is that immigrants are more likely to commit crime (in the school or wider community), and particularly racist crime. That is, of course, entirely false.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | June 06, 2007 at 15:25
Traditional Tory is spot on in his analysis.He points to some extremely interesting and pertinent political points.There is an assumption that society is uniformally at ease with social developements.This is not the case I am not at all surprised that 33% oif the respondents said that they would not attend a civil partnership.It would be an intersting question to ellicit the views of the wider electorate on would it not?
Posted by: Martin Bristow | June 06, 2007 at 15:40
There are of course those, like Mark, who enjoy the 'diversity' of areas dominated by immigrants, and that's their right.
Many, however, myself included, prefer to live surrounded by a more familiar community.
It's been my experience that most Tories see things my way.
Marxists, on the other hand, would have you believe that the 'diversity' option is preferable.
Don't let's ape Marxists.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | June 06, 2007 at 15:41
BTW Mark, there are remarkably few immigrants of any sort in the pleasant surroundings of Victoria Road, Netley.
As indeed there are remarkably few 'Anglo-Saxons' to be found in Oxford Avenue or Derby Road, Southampton, so please don't let's fool ourselves about such matters.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | June 06, 2007 at 15:45
Get in possession of some facts, Mark, if you're going to start rebutting. For example, it's recognised that the majority of suspects in muggings in inner London boroughs are young black youths and men. One in every seven prison inmates is now a foreign national. As Blair said, (although of course words are cheap) "violence would not be stopped by pretending it is not young black kids doing it". I don't know why we as a country allowed Jamaican imported drug gangs to flourish, but we have, and it has had a negative effect. For different reasons the mass immigration of rural Muslims and their customs into the UK has not been beneficial from my point of view.
NB - I wasn't overlooked for a promotion - not that I'm aware of ;-).
Posted by: Praguetory | June 06, 2007 at 15:48
And also whilst I agree that nobody is suggesting open borders that is effectively where we are at present.
Posted by: Praguetory | June 06, 2007 at 15:50
TOMTOM, you have not understand my post. I was not smirking at the poor and to make assumptions about my feelings towards them is quite ignorant. You do not know me, nor my background.
You are typical of the blogoshere (aptly highlighted by Melissa Kite recently) who feel free to throw around personal insults under the cloak of anon. If you have strength of conviction and believe in your ideas you would post under your real name. Although when reading your posts, I understand why you choose not to.
Posted by: Michael Hewlett | June 06, 2007 at 16:14
"violence would not be stopped by pretending it is not young black kids doing it".
Do you remember when Condon (the original PC PC - but moderately so in comparison with the present Commissioner) said something of this sort and was immediately trashed by the PC powers-that-be?
Posted by: Traditional Tory | June 06, 2007 at 16:26
Michael, I am not necessarily disagreeing with your comment but to enlist Melissa Kite in support is a sign of weakness. Surely the thin-skinned Melissa's main complaint was that when mainstream journalists use their columns to abuse and distort the views of others, those others now answer back?
Posted by: Michael McGowan | June 06, 2007 at 16:33
Michael, You could be right re: melissa and being thin skinned (her response was certainly not in proportion to the allegations). I read her second article though which highlighted the use of anon among bloggers.
My main concern regarding the blogoshere is the ease in which some resort to personal attacks whereby they don't know who they are attacking and do this under anon. More accountability is required, especially if bloggers want to be taken more seriously. It's been encouraging to see many bloggers going onto 18 Doughty Street and it is always enlightening to see the man/woman behind the name.
Posted by: Michael Hewlett | June 06, 2007 at 16:49
Graeme,
If God didn't want us to eat animals he wouldn't have made them out of meat!
Posted by: James Cleverly | June 06, 2007 at 16:56
;-)
Posted by: James Cleverly | June 06, 2007 at 16:56
Others have already dealt with the presumption that we've been naughty children in failing to bow at the altar of mass immigration.
I'll just add a quick point. Policy making should be based on evidence. I'm not sure how David Cameron justifies his view that "we wouldn't be half the country we are without immigration." There's not a shred of evidence for this. The bulk of the indigenous population are not immigrants; they built up this country over centuries. Britain's finest hour was in 1940 and that was achieved without any contribution from immigration (yes I know there were some polish and Czech pilots).Yes the Empire supported us but that is a different matter from saying that immigration helped us.
So what is the 50% contribution that immigrants have made to modern Britain? Well, our cuisine is better and more varied. We received a huge intellectual and cultural boost from German Jewish refugees pre-war and other countries have livened up our culture post war. There may be other contribution but they don't amount to a 50% contribution.
There's a form of reverse-racism at play in this un-evidenced propaganda. It implies that the previous, white Britain was incapable of building its post-war future without mass immigration. That of course nonsense. It would have been a different society but not necessarily poorer or worse that the one we have now.
Posted by: Martin Wright | June 06, 2007 at 17:19
LOL @ James. And yes I am wearing leather shoes. And feed my cats 'meat' (not to mention my other three-quarters who prefers animal-produced slices of protein over my beany slabs. Bizarre). I'm nothing but an ethically incoherent hypocrite... I am surely bound to end up living in Brighton or Stoke Newington.
Vicki welcome to the ever-growing number of out and proud-ish Tory vegetarians. We are now 4. Ignore the teasing of that Cleverly bloke! Do not be tempted by Andrew Woodman's weapon (bacon) -- we shall not submit as did his poor missus. Let's get those lentils boiling, put some Belle & Sebastian on the gramaphone machine, and DANCE (baby).
Posted by: Graeme Archer | June 06, 2007 at 17:26
I think you've just about summed it up, Martin.
And let's get real. Most middle-class Tories do not regularly interact with the diverse culture or whatever you want to call it. We live and work among people like ourselves among which I include a minority of totally acclimatised members of ethnic minorites who, apart from the colour of their skin, are indistinguishable from 'Anglo-Saxons'
When I go out to the theatre or the concert hall, in London as much as at home, I see a sea of white faces. Is it surprising? almost 90% of us a European ethnic and the other 10% tend to be concentrated in certain areas and to do their own thing.
No doubt Cameron thinks he's being very right-on putting a few ethnic millionaires on the candidates' list. He's deluding himself.
Lets be honest and be what we are instead of pretending to be hand-wringing liberal do-gooders.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | June 06, 2007 at 17:29
PS Brighton/Stoke Newington, I'm joking, I love both.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | June 06, 2007 at 17:29
"This is not the case I am not at all surprised that 33% of the respondents said that they would not attend a civil partnership."
The question said "if invited by a friend".
Assuming the friend was one of the partners involved then I think that is a rather surprising/disappointing response.
Leaving aside Traditional Tory's rather mealy-mouthed "biting our tongues" acceptance of his friends' kind invitation invitation, I wonder whether this instead reflects the fact that 33% of respondents don't have any gay friends?
Posted by: ChrisC | June 06, 2007 at 17:39
Graham Checker @ 14:16 and Mark Wadsworth @ 14:19 -
The poll question related to a preferred limit on the number of immigrants allowed into Britain each year - ie gross, not net, immigration - and the median response was ca 10,000 a year. It's quite depressing that there were a few idiots who said "1 million +" - do they really think it would be either desirable, or possible, for this country to take 1 million + immigrants not just in one year, but year after year indefinitely in the future?
Personally I would regard 10,000 a year as unduly restrictive, if it were not for the fact that in the last decade we've had more immigration than we should have over a century - so ideally we should stop it for a century, and allow the population to consolidate over several generations.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | June 06, 2007 at 17:43
Oh, the irony of having your home address outted by “Traditional Tory. If you know my street so well, you'll know that 40% of its businesses are immigrant-run. That aside, we are entitled to an opinion wherever we live (where do you live TT, BTW?). I only talked about where I live in answer to Praguetory, who suggested that those who don’t mind immigration haven’t experienced it. Cosseted he called it.
Praguetory, sorry -- I read Alex Swanson's post as yours. As for the facts and expert opinion, I am armed and, when not at work, could trade them all day long. For example:
Rather than re-running an old debate, I refer you to the last one. But I think this is a pertinent question:
You are in immigrant yourself. Do you feel more likely to commit crime in Prague?
Posted by: Mark Fulford | June 06, 2007 at 17:51
Traditional Tory:Those of us who mix in relatively sophisticated social circles...
This image has been rattling around inside my head all day. I have this view of Trad T and pals standing around sipping 'relatively sophisticated' cocktails (presumably that's a vodka martini but with a Magaluf-style umbrella in it?) bad-mouthing the neighbours.
Sounds fun. If I can find a friend who's a vegetarian cyclist can I be invited?
Posted by: William Norton | June 06, 2007 at 17:57
Quoting Beverley Hughes stating something does not make it a fact... tends to point to the reverse being true actually
Posted by: tired and emotional | June 06, 2007 at 18:01
Which is why I included ACPO saying basically the same thing...
Posted by: Mark Fulford | June 06, 2007 at 18:15
Quoting ACPO statements doesn't make facts either...
Posted by: tired and emotional | June 06, 2007 at 18:17
Mark Fulford:
"But your subtext is that immigrants are more likely to commit crime (in the school or wider community), and particularly racist crime. That is, of course, entirely false."
Some immigrant groups are less likely to commit crime, including racist crime, than ethnic British, and some more likely. For example, violant crime rates vary from about 1/3 to 1/2 the ethnic British rate for east-Asians (Chinese etc), to about 8 times the ethnic British rate for Afro-Caribbeans. To put this in perspective, the male violent crime rate is about 10 times the female rate.
Incidentally the available Home Office figures are pretty basic but they tally closely with US DoJ figures for crime rates by ethnic group.
Posted by: Simon Newman | June 06, 2007 at 18:50
"I'm sorry that you were overlooked for a promotion – no doubt the immigrant's fault."
Sadly a typical reaction from the self-styled "tolerant" side of the argument. I don't agree, therefore I'm a bigot, right?
For the record, it wasn't his fault, and in fact I signed as a referee on his naturalisation papers the following year.
The point is that when pro-imigration people argue that they are needed economically and that indigenous people need not fear competition for jobs, this is demonstrably not true.
Posted by: Alex Swanson | June 06, 2007 at 19:04
"I'm sorry that you were overlooked for a promotion – no doubt the immigrant's fault."
Sadly a typical reaction from the self-styled "tolerant" side of the argument. I don't agree, therefore I'm a bigot, right?
For the record, it wasn't his fault, and in fact I signed as a referee on his naturalisation papers the following year.
The point is that when pro-imigration people argue that they are needed economically and that indigenous people need not fear competition for jobs, this is demonstrably not true.
Posted by: Alex Swanson | June 06, 2007 at 19:05
If you know my street so well, you'll know that 40% of its businesses are immigrant-run.
Sounds like an exaggeration; anyway 90% of the addresses in your street are residential these days.
I suppose that Italian restaurant might qualify. The estate agents certainly don't. There's the pub (Prince Albert or whatever?) and one or two old-fashioned looking shops.
Immigrants to Netley perhaps?
Posted by: Traditional Tory | June 06, 2007 at 19:13