When former Archbishops start calling for stricter controls on immigration you know something is up. As the table above demonstrates, Britain has a big immigration problem and none of the main political parties are really addressing the issue. Max Hastings writes about the issue in today's Mail:
"I am an admirer of Tory leader David Cameron. But it seems extraordinary that he scarcely opens his mouth about a subject which alarms most British people vastly more than Iraq, the environment or Europe... Cameron is scarred by the memory of the Tories' fate at the 2005 election, after Michael Howard talked tough about immigration. I do not believe that had anything to do with Howard's defeat, but the Cameron camp think they did."
There wasn't too much wrong with the substance of Michael Howard's 2005 message. What was wrong was that Michael Howard wasn't liked enough to be trusted with the message and he gave it too much volume. His message was also unbalanced. There was very little from Michael Howard's Tories on international justice issues. A tough-on-immigration only stance was therefore portrayed by opponents as harsh and a product of a Little England mentality.
David Cameron is widely seen as a decent man and he is in a position to talk about border protection with more authority and success than his predecessor. Addressing international justice issues in a more prominent way would also demonstrate that the party is concerned about the world beyond Dover. Although David Cameron has been to Darfur and raised the issue intermittently he has not communicated a sufficient degree of urgency or passion. He should look across the Channel and follow the example of President Sarkozy. Since becoming President, Sarkozy has appointed the founder of Médecins sans Frontières as his foreign minister. That signal of humanitarian intent was followed up yesterday by the Paris conference on Darfur. At that conference Sarkozy was characteristically direct. "Silence is killing," he said. For the first time for a long time there is now hope that something might be done in Darfur.
Ten days ago I wrote about my vision of a more progressive Conservative Party. Such a party - if David Cameron really invested in creating it - would find it much easier to address issues like immigration. Up until now we are making the right noises on environmental and justice issues but voters are yet to be convinced that we are serious. This summer's policy review groups must help to show that we are.
EU and unrestricted economic migration are the biggest vote winners at the next election. if only cameron would embrace this and offer the public policies they want and need the polls would look very different.
he needs to appeal to the people, over the heads of westminster village, and offer them an end to the NuLab policies that are so unpopular in the country.
end economic migration until we no longer have 5m not working in this country. stop our laws being made by the EU.
its really very simple.
Posted by: Steve | June 26, 2007 at 12:46
During a recent Council By Election round here the one issue that cropped up more than any other on the doorstep was immigration and unfortunately most of the voter's comments were to our detriment for not speaking out on it anymore. Tim is right to say that if balanced with a genuine committment to international social and economic justice then it is possible to talk about immigration and not be portrayed as just a racist little englander.
Posted by: Matt Davis | June 26, 2007 at 12:47
Out of interest, which part of the country was that, Matt?
Posted by: Sean Fear | June 26, 2007 at 12:49
Editor,
What is your source for "immigration and race relations are the number one issue of concern for voters"?
Posted by: passing leftie | June 26, 2007 at 12:53
A good example of the AND theory at work, Tim!
Posted by: Christina | June 26, 2007 at 12:55
I don't see the point in the party talking about immigration. It's a hugely important issue, but I see no benefit in it for us. It'll galvanise the parties to the left of us, give publicity to the parties to the right of us, there'll be a lot of rhetoric which the country has seen before so all it'll just fuel ennui and bile. It's one of these issues that is very important but barring some specific, startling development, is probably better quietly worked on in government than banged on about in opposition.
Posted by: EdR | June 26, 2007 at 13:10
NET immigration figures are meaningless. The overall figure for immigration is all that matters.
What is your source for "immigration and race relations are the number one issue of concern for voters"?
Posted by: passing leftie
Ipsos-MORI Poll.....get out more and talk to people instead of being so repetitiously boring in your mantras
Posted by: TomTom | June 26, 2007 at 13:12
"What is your source for "immigration and race relations are the number one issue of concern for voters"? "
MORI polls.
Posted by: Sean Fear | June 26, 2007 at 13:13
200k in Darfur? A Coalition for International Justice report two years ago put it at 400k - that's halfway to the Rwandan genocide.
Posted by: Ay up | June 26, 2007 at 13:13
I don't see the point in the party talking about immigration
Then don't. It won't go away and it will resolve itself in other ways over coming years - politics can concentrate of Showbiz and somewhere other solutions will develop
Posted by: TomTom | June 26, 2007 at 13:14
Editor
I had already checked IPSOS Mori, and at the risk of being a "boring" old stickler for factual accuracy, I can see no evidence for this whatsoever. The most recent article mentions that it is the third most important issue. Please point at your evidence, or retract your statement.
Posted by: passing leftie | June 26, 2007 at 13:25
If William Hague made his "foreign land" speech today, the vast majority of people would agree with him. The only problem for William would be that he would suffer the same fate as Patrick Mercer as his leader just does not understand the sea change in public opinion that has occurred over the last couple of years.
Posted by: mark | June 26, 2007 at 13:28
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2007/mpm070620.shtml
Posted by: Sean Fear | June 26, 2007 at 13:29
Mark is spot on. The tragedy for the tories is that the wrong leaders have emerged at the wrong time. Howard, the caretaker, would have been perfect for the first opposition term after 97. IDS should have taken over from him in 01, offering his barrage of reassuring bromides to take us through the sentimental post-Diana period whilst now that opinion is swinging to the right again, we could bring on Billy Hague.
The modernisers are making this mis-match mistake yet again, essentially preparing for a Diana-world election in tough Alan Sugar times.
Posted by: Simon Denis | June 26, 2007 at 13:38
On behalf of the Labour Party I fervently urge you to campaign on Europe and immigration because it worked so well (for us) before and because in just a few days it would undo all that 'green-and-friendly' shtick that David C has been doing for the last 18 months.
Seems to me we've reached the point in this parliamentary cycle where your traditional bottling moment has arrived - so please get on with it.
And, no I'm not a troll, I'm making an honest point. If you want to help Labour run hard on immigration - you'll firm up your core for sure and squeeze UKIP out, but you'll also remind every Lib Dem/Labour waiverer why they cannot risk a protest vote.
If you want to civilize politics and do yourselves a favour, then steer clear of either immigration or Europe.
Your call - for both sides it's a head/heart thing.
Posted by: Labour Member | June 26, 2007 at 13:39
Sean and all,
I stand corrected - sorry. I'm not going to bother arguing with you lot about immigration. I can't imagine I can say anything you'd be interested in.
The most telling figure is the 4% who give a monkeys about Europe and the constitution. Maybe that gives you an idea of the importance you ought to put on it.
Posted by: passing leftie | June 26, 2007 at 13:39
Well, let me be more precise. I think there is greater gain to the party, to the country and to politics in general to using opposition to highlight and develop our credentials on other issues. A majority of people want proper immigration controls, but we know that the issue alone won't produce votes. By now, the only arguments on immigration I'll believe, let alone floating voters, are "Look at our tangible achievements, backed up by your day-to-day experiences".
It's not that immigration isn't important, it's not that it shouldn't be a priority in government, but being in opposition is different. You have to pick your fights and win them with, pretty much, only words to show for yourself. Getting stuck in the mud on immigration today won't help the party be in a position to tackle the issue tomorrow.
Posted by: EdR | June 26, 2007 at 13:45
I found this 10min clip of a presentation about immigration by American Roy Beck very useful.
Posted by: Deputy Editor | June 26, 2007 at 13:47
It's not just us old reactionaries who are getting hot under the collar about immigration and the EU either. I have been talking this week to some young university students who rely on summer vacation jobs to tide them over financially for the rest of the year. Many of them are finding it impossible to find work this year due to Eastern Europeans filling so many of the casual jobs. Guess what, after years of indoctrination by the liberal education establishment that immigration is only positive, these young people are now changing their minds once it hits their prospects. Come on Tory Party don't let us down in our hour of need, many times in the past leaders have emerged to challenge the cosy concensus.
Posted by: mark | June 26, 2007 at 13:49
I agree with your analysis Tim - this is where a genuine commitment to & understanding of the "And" theory would bear real dividends.
Interesting what you say about the 2005 campaign. I remember an episode of Any Questions during that campaign or immediately before it, in which DC was given a very rough ride on imigration by those masters of sanctimony Alex Salmond and Simon Hughes, who misrepresented Conservative policy with lethal aplomb. He audibly lost his cool. I would not be surprised if the experience has stayed with him, and that he has decided privately that he will not allow himself to be in such a position again.
As the policy groups start to report, we need to be mindful of a particular pitfall. Francis Maude has often used his "killer slide" to make the case for change: the slide with the evidence that in 2005 people liked the sound of our polices until they realised they were OUR policies. Their dislike of the party outweighed their support for our policies.
The danger is that we will get into the reverse position: people quite like us - or at least don't dislike us - but our polices don't attract support. "Nice face, shame about the legs."
Posted by: Simon Chapman | June 26, 2007 at 13:50
Why on earth accept advice from a labour member? Let me remind our benighted visitor from pinkoland that the conservatives polled more votes in England than his wretched party obtained in 2005. The only reason the left gained power again was because of a corrupted devolution settlement and unfairly tilted constituency boundaries. Tory MPs speak, on average for forty-five thousand voters, whilst the reds represent a mere twenty-two thousand. This didn't stop our pink chum's warmongering leader from crowing, of course, but then nothing would. Let me also remind the same unreconstructed socialist that the conservatives recently wiped his colleagues out in the council elections. Before he proceeds to ascribe this to the Cameron factor, he should consider the fact that many very popular tory councils - I cite Wandsworth - are well to the right of our wet fish of a leader. Finally, I urge all conservatives to remember what snakes and twisters the labour party has offered to British politics in the course of more than the last twenty years. Anything presented to us from such as they should be treated with practiced contempt.
Posted by: Simon Denis | June 26, 2007 at 13:51
Is Max Hastings a Tory?
Posted by: | June 26, 2007 at 13:54
I'm not sure how many people who voted Labour or Lib Dem in 2005 are confident that immigration is currently being handled well.
Posted by: Sean Fear | June 26, 2007 at 13:57
"I'm not sure how many people who voted Labour or Lib Dem in 2005 are confident that immigration is currently being handled well".
As I mentioned earlier, many of those discontents are now younger voters. This is significant and needs addressing by the shadow cabinet. Don't forget that Cameron fitted in well with the junior doctor's campaign, the same could apply in this policy area.
Posted by: mark | June 26, 2007 at 14:03
We could easily do a Sierra Leone with Chad and send in British troops.
They wouldn't last 5 minutes against the Paras.
Frankly, if we did this throughout Africa, it would help them 100 times more than pouring billions of pounds of aid into dictators pockets.
We need to be the guarantors of African state stability to make any progress in reducing poverty there.
Posted by: Graham Checker | June 26, 2007 at 14:12
The 'Any Questions' Simon cites is a useful reminder to us of just how easily Cameron crumbles under any sort of real and sustained pressure. I dread to think about the sort of peevishness and petulance he's going to show during a general election campaign. That *dreadful* Sky interview when Cameron became flustered, asked for them to stop, then start again, before finally trying to vainly embargo their footage is a horrible precedent. He's *still* huffing with Channel Four news of course. And when people in the Party presumed to disagree with his absurd policy on grammar schools, well, we all remember the graceless way he responded to his own members. Cameron is odds on to implode during a long campaign, with any one of half a dozen things likely to set him off - my money would be on that sodding silly Bullingdon photo, as opposed to anything else.
Posted by: ACT | June 26, 2007 at 14:12
On the doorstep, immigration is quite often the only issue people want to talk about. You can call it racist or xenophobic, but if it's a concern of the people then it needs to be dealt with.
mass immigration is about more than east europeans too. Commonwealth immigration is just as prevalent in London - go to South West London, and you'll see nothing but white south africans. Most have come over in the last few years, but because they blend in more easily are barely noticed.
Posted by: powellite | June 26, 2007 at 14:12
Please let's not start banging on about immigration again. It's as bad as the constant carping about Europe.
Look at the news today - people suffering from the flooding in Yorkshire and elswhere. They're not bothered about foreign nationals or the fine details of treaties, they've just had their homes wrecked.
These floods are a serious wake up call to us all about global warming. Why isn't Cameron out there reminding everyone how he's led the way on environmental issues? Talk about the greatest threat to the planet, let alone the country...
Posted by: Liberal Tory | June 26, 2007 at 14:24
"They're not bothered about foreign nationals or the fine details of treaties, they've just had their homes wrecked."
Well, let's see if it comes up in the next MORI poll then.
Posted by: Richard | June 26, 2007 at 14:28
"These floods are a serious wake up call to us all about global warming".
When it's dry and warm it's global warming, and when it's cold and wet it's the same.
How stupid do you think we are.
Posted by: mark | June 26, 2007 at 14:30
But theyre good for the economy! So what about crime, overstretched public services, general public sentiment, housing problems, increased congestion, integration issues, language barriers. So long as they line the likes of Lord Sainsburys pockets by working for a few pence less, everythings hunky-dory, right?
Isnt the fact of the matter even if elected officials chose to actually do what the electorate ask of them and curb immigration their hands would be tied by the EU? Not once have i seen the EU mentioned in this text. You cant talk about immigration without talking about our relationship with Europe.
Posted by: Conservative Homer | June 26, 2007 at 14:30
"Not once have i seen the EU mentioned in this text"
Look at my 13.49 posting.
Posted by: mark | June 26, 2007 at 14:36
When it's dry and warm it's global warming, and when it's cold and wet it's the same
A fatuous comment, typical of the climate ostriches. Global warming/climate change results in extremes of climate - I'd call those floods pretty extreme, wouldn't you?
Posted by: Liberal Tory | June 26, 2007 at 14:38
If you want to civilize politics and do yourselves a favour, then steer clear of either immigration or Europe.
Labour Manifesto 1997
People are cynical about politics and distrustful of political promises. That is hardly surprising...........
We will stand up for Britain's interests in Europe after the shambles of the last six years, but, more than that, we will lead a campaign for reform in Europe.
Our mission in politics is to rebuild this bond of trust between government and the people. That is the only way democracy can flourish. I pledge to Britain a government which shares their hopes, which understands their fears, and which will work as partners with and for all our people, not just the privileged few. This is our contract with the people.
We will uphold family life as the most secure means of bringing up our children. Families are the core of our society. They should teach right from wrong. They should be the first defence against anti-social behaviour. The breakdown of family life damages the fabric of our society.
Labour does not see families and the state as rival providers for the needs of our citizens.
We will reject the boom and bust policies which caused the collapse of the housing market.
With a new Labour government, Britain will be strong in defence; resolute in standing up for its own interests; an advocate of human rights and democracy the world over; a reliable and powerful ally in the international institutions of which we are a member; and will be a leader in Europe.
Our vision of Europe is of an alliance of independent nations choosing to co-operate to achieve the goals they cannot achieve alone. We oppose a European federal superstate.
Retention of the national veto over key matters of national interest, such as taxation, defence and security, immigration, decisions over the budget and treaty changes, while considering the extension of Qualified Majority Voting in limited areas where that is in Britain's interests.
This is the Manifesto written in the first person as a Promise from Anthony Charles Lynton Blair 10 years ago.......the only thing the general public believe about the Labour Party is that it is seemingly determined to destroy this country by hook or by crook......
Posted by: TomTom | June 26, 2007 at 14:44
These floods are a serious wake up call to us all about global warming.
Sheffield got rid of its steel industry to China; it has lost most of its manufacturing, and relies on retail and government jobs.......must be why the gods of the fire mountain caused the River Don to overflow..........has The Thames overflowed and flooded London ?
Or is this global warming only affecting Sheffield today ?
Maybe it is focusing on the area around Meadowhall showing the evils of rampant consumerism on the site of old steelworks ? It never happened when they made steel
Posted by: CCTV | June 26, 2007 at 14:49
"Look at my 13.49 posting."
I was refering to the article in question, not any specific comment.
Posted by: Conservative Homer | June 26, 2007 at 14:52
Liberal Tory:(1) These floods are a serious wake up call to us all about global warming.
(2) Global warming/climate change results in extremes of climate - I'd call those floods pretty extreme, wouldn't you?
Out of interest, and possibly off-thread, why do you regard the recent low pressure cyclone as proof of, or caused by, global warming?
Posted by: William Norton | June 26, 2007 at 14:55
"A fatuous comment, typical of the climate ostriches"
I'm terribly sorry global warming sheep, I should no better than to have my own opinions in this PC age.
Posted by: mark | June 26, 2007 at 14:55
At some stage soon, DC will have to say something about the big issues he has so successfully kept under wraps thus far: Europe, immigration and taxes.
I have suggested elswhere that the tories should promise a referendum on Europe which should be sufficient for the time being.
The other two contentious subjects just need wrapping up in very careful wording and putting into context.
Immigration needs defining, so we can ask opponents: "which category of immigration are you talking about? Asylum seekers, economic migrants or illegal immigrants?"
That generally cools the argument and leads to a high level of agreement.
With taxes, Nulab managed to convince the City that it could be trusted with the economy by pledging not to exceed tory spending budgets for a few years.
By the same token, the tories should now pledge to maintain Nulab spending on the NHS, education, crime and security for three years and also to identify examples of Nulab wasted expenditure (not very difficult) to axe.
With taxation, we should immediately simplify the system and when - and only when - some savings accrue from cutting waste, we should promise tax cuts.
Posted by: David Belchamber | June 26, 2007 at 14:58
Liberal Tory:
You have the annoying idea that you can choose when people can vote (last nights debate) and what people can talk about.
You got pretty short shrift on the former last night and yet you persist.
The editor has chosen the topic and people have chosen to contribute. It is a serious topic that is being undermined by people like yourself.
If you don't like the topic you do not have to join in. Please have the civility not to lecture those who do and go and find a debate which you are more comfortable with please.
Posted by: John | June 26, 2007 at 14:59
ACT,
I don't think Cameron is the problem - he was receiving poor advice because he had low level media people in senior positions.
He has rectified that now with the appointment of Coulson and demotion of his Press Secretary to effectively Press officer.
I think the Editor is right with a proper balance and nuance of policy and much better presentation now he can become more bold.
Posted by: sunny | June 26, 2007 at 15:06
Sunny, I understand what you're syaing, but it's a bit too close for my liking to the traditional Tory habit of always blaming the king's evil advisors, and never blaming the king. When cameron, one on one, balls up during a live interview, there's no point in blaming off-stage strawberry farmers, for example.
Posted by: ACT | June 26, 2007 at 15:16
well presumably said adviser should prepare him for interviews / agree subject areas and soundbytes etc.
I really think media ops will improve under Coulson - it was the one area which went drastically backward under cameron.
Posted by: sunny | June 26, 2007 at 15:22
At the time of Blairs Iraq adventure i owned a militaria collectors shop, one would have thought customers would have been talking about going to war in Iraq, wrong they allmost all were talking about immigration and you didn't get much nearer grassroots than my shop.
Posted by: R.Rowan | June 26, 2007 at 15:32
I’m with Passing Leftie that I’m not bothered by immigration. However, lest she runs away with the idea that it’s nasty Conservatives who find it a problem, I’d like to point out that readers of The Mirror were most likely to call it important (57%).
Posted by: Mark Fulford | June 26, 2007 at 15:48
Such has been the success of the race relations industry and its race laws that many people are scared to raise race and immigration in open discussion.
However, if you live in areas such as Bradford, which have changed out of all recognition in a generation, you don't have the luxury of ignoring the problem and many people are openly saying that they will not support a party led by someone who rarely raises this issue, let alone put forward sensible solutions.
Even Cameron must see that this problem will not go away and that we must close the door to further immigration in general until we can sort out the serious problems which excessive immigration has already caused.
Posted by: Bradford Lad | June 26, 2007 at 15:52
Sir Max Hastings' report on immigration is both factual and worrying.
If D.C.continues to address this and other important issues with a middle ground approach rather than that advocated by true Tory supporters, many are likely to question the point of a change of Government whilst others of us will turn to the BNP for solace.
Posted by: Old Tory | June 26, 2007 at 22:30
"I’m with Passing Leftie that I’m not bothered by immigration. However, lest she runs away with the idea that it’s nasty Conservatives who find it a problem, I’d like to point out that readers of The Mirror were most likely to call it important (57%)."
But it's only the Tories who net think immigration is on the whole a bad thing.
Posted by: passing leftie | June 28, 2007 at 12:55