A senior Tory moderniser told me last week that he hoped that David Cameron wouldn't focus on immigration policy again. The mention on Newsnight should be the last mention until polling day this MP told me.
He may get his wish although I don't expect so.
What is clearly happening, however, is that other Conservative frontbenchers are highlighting the issue...
- In today's Sun the energetic Chris Grayling highlighted figures that "show the number of foreigners in jobs is now greater than the number of people on unemployment benefits in a third of constituencies." Mr Grayling, Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, told The Sun: “This proves how absurd it is for Gordon Brown to talk about British jobs for British workers. The Government has let millions of people in to work but forgotten hundreds of thousands left languishing on benefits.”
- In yesterday's Guardian, Philip Hammond noted that 14,000 EU migrants to Britain were claiming benefits for children who weren't actually living here. The Shadow Chief Secretary said that the cost to Britain was £250,000 every week. Mr Hammond asked: "Two hundred thousand more British children are living in poverty than a year ago. Child benefit is a vital weapon in the fight against child poverty. So why is Gordon Brown sending thousands of pounds of benefits every week to children who don't live here and who may never even have visited the UK?"
- In the same Guardian piece Damian Green, immigration spokesman, said that the Government claim ed "not to know how many convicted murderers, rapists or child molesters have been granted British citizenship in the past 10 years". Mr Green said: "If they have to look at the files this suggests that some of the worst criminals are being given British citizenship. Even under this government surely we are not making UK citizens out of convicted murderers or child molesters?"
ConservativeHome welcomes these frontbench efforts to highlight legitimate concerns about the employment, financial and security implications of immigration. It is right that they continue alongside other efforts to highlight issues like women's pay.
12.30pm update: Damian Green has commented on the Lib Dems latest immigration proposals which include an amnesty for people living illegally in the UK:
"The Lib Dems are living in a fantasy world. These proposals will encourage people to break the law and enter the UK illegally. Other countries have tried amnesties and have had to have five or more. This will send out a message that Britain's borders are well and truly open to everyone in the world. Nick Clegg is being simply ignorant in claiming annual limits don't work - we have seen them work perfectly well in a number of countries including Australia."
LibDemVoice's defence of Nick Clegg's position is here.
A senior Tory moderniser told me last week that he hoped that David Cameron wouldn't focus on immigration policy again
So this person is not concerned that the character of our country - which means so much to most of us - has been steadily and permanently changed by those who benefit from the import of cheap labour, which is what the recent history of immigration has been all about.
The notion that the voting public is repelled by anti-immigration campaigns is, of course, one of those pervasive 'big lies' that has been pushed relentlessly by the thought controllers of the left for around a quarter-century.
The wholesale sellout to Political Correctness, better described as Social Marxism, is the one thing for which the so-called modernisers in the Conservative Party can never be forgiven.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | September 18, 2007 at 08:29
Its difficult for Cameron to not deal with immigration, unless of course his whole green agenda is nothing more than a sham. For it all comes down to the sustainability of a population, and right now we have one of the most unsustainable populations ever in our history. Yet our politicians are telling us that the greatest threat to us, global warming, is just around the corner.
So 'Dave' is global warming the greatest threat to us? If it is, then you have to deal with population sustainability, and as population growth is being driven by mass immigration, it means you have to deal with immigration. Unless 'Dave' your whole green agenda is a sham, so is it a sham?
Posted by: Iain | September 18, 2007 at 09:26
I'm sure that the majority of voters would not forgive the Conservative Party for burying it's head in the sand over issues which the average man in the pub discusses day in and day out.
Posted by: Curly | September 18, 2007 at 09:28
Immigration must be qualified by social issues such as the ability to speak English, housing, the burden on public services, and economic issues like unemployment.
Many times when I am walking through town centres I see immigrants who clearly cannot speak English, so they clearly cannot get a job, which means they will have to be supported by the taxpayer. So why are these people here? We need to set criteria for entry, speaking English is a must, excluding unskilled non-eu/commonwealth entrants is a must, excluding anyone with a criminal record is a must.
The big waves of immigration in this country have always come about under Labour governments, Labour probably assume all these immigrants will become natural Labour voters. Its time to shut the door, we simply can't take anymore.
Posted by: Tony Makara | September 18, 2007 at 09:48
"the import of cheap labour"
- Just to remind you, they are actually human beings.
Posted by: Chris Harrison | September 18, 2007 at 09:49
Yep, keep on banging that immigration drum! After all, the issue did so well for you in 2001 and 2005.
There simply is no evidence immigration has a detrimental effect on the country. There is plenty to support immigration as a crucial plank in maintaining economic growth.
The nasty, knee-jerk Tory attitude to immigration and immigrants in general is one of the reasons you remain so distrusted and widely loathed in the country.
Posted by: BenM | September 18, 2007 at 09:52
Exactly how are they going to change the rules for EU citizens without challenging the EU?
Posted by: Helen | September 18, 2007 at 09:54
"There simply is no evidence immigration has a detrimental effect on the country. "
The Kate Barker report identified that an immigration rate of 40k per annum would create a demand for 450,000 homes in a 25 year period, some 18k homes needed per year to house them. But unfortunately we don't have an immigration rate of 40k, more like 250k per year, needing in excess of over 100k homes a year to be built. A demand for 100k a year in an already over populated country, where there already is a housing crisis, makes an interesting notion of what you qualify as detrimental effect.
Posted by: Iain | September 18, 2007 at 10:25
BenM, you are completely mistaken on immigration policy being a problem for the tories. It is a complete fallousy, propagated mostly by bleeding heart liberals and socialists such as yourself. May I remind you that the Tory policies on crime and immigration are the areas in which they have consistently shown thumping leads over Labour.Fact. We did not lose in 2001 or 2005 because of Immigration policy or a perception of us being the "nasty" party, rather in spite of it. It was the economy stupid.
However, I do think that clearly the British people know very well where we stand and where our instincts lie on immigration. We believe in moderate immigration graduated over time, controlled and managed so we protect our security, economy and social cohesion. I do not therefore believe that we should ignore the subject, but that, as Mr Cameron has done go on the offensive in areas where we had tailed, for example economic stability, value for money public services and the environment.
It is politically shrewd to adjust our focus to other areas. Immigration policy is always going to be a winner for the Tories. It's a matter of focusing our energies on where we can hit labour hardest, while a gentle reminder of our core values here and there can never go amiss.
Posted by: Richard Cooke | September 18, 2007 at 10:43
"There simply is no evidence immigration has a detrimental effect on the country"
Oh yeah? I have clear evidence that the massive number of fraudulent work permits in the IT industry have cause extensive damage to the careers of many of the professionals in that business. Some, like me, have suffered so much damage to their health and wealth that they will never work again.
Immigration is not only taking the jobs that nobody wants or that there is a lack of skilled people. Whenever an IT related job is advertise, the company or recruitment agents are flooded with applicants, the majority of whom are very well qualified.
However, the Conservative, like Labour, will not address this issue no matter how much evidence is provided.
Posted by: David Bodden | September 18, 2007 at 11:10
Richard Cooke,
I'll keep propagating the fallacy, you keep losing elections.
Iain,
That's it? That's the sum total of all the evidence that this insufferable decade long anti-immigration hysteria is based on?
Let me point you to a report commissioned by accountants PwC at the start of this year which, reviewing the economy as a whole, found that above trend levels of immigration has driven growth, reined in inflation, had no effect on native employment levels, nor (and note this, seeing as it seems to be the new line of attack for Cameron and the anti-immigration lobby) had it any noticeable effect on public Services.
Indeed any effect in public services was short term while managers understandably responded to need and diverted funds where it was necessary to do so.
I mean, even those arch exaggerators of statistics, MigrationWatch, were forced into a grudging admission that there is a net benefit from immigration!
Posted by: BenM | September 18, 2007 at 11:14
"The nasty, knee-jerk Tory attitude to immigration and immigrants in general is one of the reasons you remain so distrusted and widely loathed in the country." (BenM; September 18, 2007 at 09:52)
On the contrary, BenM, and I inform you I am a Tory. I am an immigrant, and fellow immigrant friends of all colours and I are not afraid of immigration controls and welcome a realistic policy that is structured and sustainable.
You must understand that there is much heterogeneity of "immigrants" and many that I know enjoy the stability of this society and do not wish to see this undermined or subverted in any way. I have also not had news of any imminent mass repatriation of law-abiding and established loyal citizens who love and contribute to the country of our adoption.
We are not paranoid or mal-adjusted, but integrated into mainstream society, work hard and play our part as British subjects, with some even serving the Crown in the Armed Forces. In short, we are all proud to be British.
Those immigrants who find values of the Western society here incompatible with theirs should really not be hypocritical and remain here, only to develop antagonisms and fuel tensions, while those whose avowed intentions are the exploitation, domination and subjugation of the decent and charitable people here should be deported.
Posted by: Teck | September 18, 2007 at 11:47
I very much hope that we do campaign on immigration,just that we don't campaign on this to the exclusion of so much else as we did in 2005.
One of the problem we have is that the majority of immigrants come from EU countries and at the moment there is nothing we can do about that under present EU rules.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | September 18, 2007 at 11:49
Good point from Helen (9:54) - it's all very well talking about immigration and non-EU workers, but what EU workers being allowed to work here whenever they choose?
Even the minimum wage in this country compares incredibly favourably to many poorer European nations (e.g. average salary in Poland is £4,000 a year) so why wouldn't they want to work in the UK?
Posted by: Letters From A Tory | September 18, 2007 at 11:55
Which stastics did Migrationwatch exaggerate BenM? Chapter and verse will do.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | September 18, 2007 at 12:05
If I may be so bold as to offer some advice:
1) It's a good idea for leiutenants to be making these more traditional arguments than DC himself. DC needs at all costs to preserve his credentials as a different type of Tory leader.
2) The issues that Hammond and Grayling highlight are (for me) more compelling than the tack taken by Damien Green. The latter risks being perceived as xenophobic, while the former two actually reinforce the modernising message by means of traditional themes.
This is precisely the kind of nuanced strategy that we need at the moment - to unite all wings of the party. Long may it continue.
Posted by: B | September 18, 2007 at 12:12
"That's it?"
No, there is much you can say against the current immigration policy, but as 'its' go its a pretty significant it, for a basic human right is to have a home, a basic human right which the British state is failing to supply it's people.
But to pick up your point on fuelling economic growth and reigning in inflation, let me deconstruct these ‘goodies’ from Labour's immigration policy.
When you add millions of people to your economy, you will get growth, its only African countries which manage a declining GDP with population growth, the issue is how much economic growth are you getting, and is it benefiting the people of this country in GDP per capita terms? As has been shown the additional economic growth is marginal, whilst for people the downsides are not, for Governments don't pre-emptively add to the infrastructure, they only add to the infrastructure behind demand, which means Labour's immigration policy for the general public, or rather non policy, equates to unaffordable housing, congested roads and rail, and rationed public services, all for the benefit of a Mars Bar in economic growth. For most people I think they would for go their Mars bar of economic growth, for affordable housing for their children , to get to work with out standing in sardine can trains, of along blocked roads, and not have to scrap for the few public services on offer. .
As for this wonder of low inflation, tell that to people on minimum pay rates. For its not the politicians, metro sexual media, or city who are having their pay rates pressurised, no its the people on middle and low pay rates who are carrying this cost, and when in supposedly good economic times when labour is short that the people in these categories get to negotiate better terms and conditions, and close the wealth gap, they find the Labour Government has stacked the odds against them, by making them now compete for their jobs against the worlds poor, and as such there is nothing more contemptible than to hear a Labour politician shedding copious amounts of crocodile tears regarding their
Posted by: Iain | September 18, 2007 at 12:27
The nasty, knee-jerk Tory attitude to immigration and immigrants in general is one of the reasons you remain so distrusted and widely loathed in the country.
There were 101 reasons why the Tories lost the election, and that's not one of them. In my experience this 'nasty knee-jerk' attitude is the reaction of most people, Tories or otherwise.
I'm not convinced that immigration confers any any net long-term benefit on this country (especialy given increased longevity and geniatric state dependency)but I'm prepared to listen to the arguments. OTOH, do you seriously suppose that the general public ever get to that stage?
All they hear about (especially if they read the Sun) is that people are pouring into the country, indirectly driving up house prices, and bringing with them crime, terrorism and other undesirable imports. Sure the evils of immigration are exaggerated, but they sell papers.
Can BenM give us one good reason why Joe Public on the council estate, or for that matter Joe Singh the established Asian businessman would take the highly non-intuitive line he shares with the well-heeled liberals of Notting Hill?
Posted by: Traditional Tory | September 18, 2007 at 12:29
No, there is much you can say against the current immigration policy, but as 'its' go its a pretty significant it, for a basic human right is to have a home, a basic human right which the British state is failing to supply it's people.
But to pick up your point on fuelling economic growth and reigning in inflation, let me deconstruct these ‘goodies’ from Labour's immigration policy.
When you add millions of people to your economy, you will get growth, its only African countries which manage a declining GDP with population growth, the issue is how much economic growth are you getting, and is it benefiting the people of this country in GDP per capita terms? As has been shown the additional economic growth is marginal, whilst for people the downsides are not, for Governments don't pre-emptively add to the infrastructure, they only add to the infrastructure behind demand, which means Labour's immigration policy for the general public, or rather non policy, equates to unaffordable housing, congested roads and rail, and rationed public services, all for the benefit of a Mars Bar in economic growth. For most people I think they would for go their Mars bar of economic growth, for affordable housing for their children , to get to work with out standing in sardine can trains, of along blocked roads, and not have to scrap for the few public services on offer. .
As for this wonder of low inflation, tell that to people on minimum pay rates. For its not the politicians, metro sexual media, or city who are having their pay rates pressurised. No its the people on middle and low pay rates who are carrying this cost, and when in supposedly good economic times when labour is short that the people in these categories get to negotiate better terms and conditions, and close the wealth gap, they find the Labour Government has stacked the odds against them, by making them now compete for their jobs against the worlds poor, and as such there is nothing more contemptible than to hear a Labour politician shedding copious amounts of crocodile tears regarding their concern for the wealth gap and low paid, when they have been the ones to have shafted these British people with their mass immigration policy!
Posted by: Iain | September 18, 2007 at 12:29
I think Cameron has be careful to maintain his "decontamination" of the Tory brand, so maybe it is best if he leaves immigration to others in his cabinet, or maybe he can talk about as long as he balances it with something "nice" like improving women's pay, NHS, or "green" issues.
BenB,
Apart from the obvious increased crime, terrorism and decreased wages, one of the more interesting effects of immigration is loss of trust:
"In a column headlined "Harvard study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity," Lloyd summarized the results of the largest study ever of "civic engagement," a survey of 26,200 people in 40 American communities:
When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust. 'They don't trust the local mayor, they don't trust the local paper, they don't trust other people and they don't trust institutions,' said Prof Putnam. 'The only thing there's more of is protest marches and TV watching.'
http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_01_15/cover.html
(the whole article is interesting)
Posted by: Jon Gale | September 18, 2007 at 13:19
In my experience...
Does sunny Portchester have a migrant problem then, Traditional Tory?
Posted by: Mark Fulford | September 18, 2007 at 13:23
The issue of immigration is real for day to day people.
It is vital that our frontbenchers keep up this kind of issue coverage and forget any talk of doing so by stealth. Equally important is the need to address all of the issues that people are thinking about and not target them in isolation. This is where the problems begin.
Posted by: Cllr Adam Tugwell | September 18, 2007 at 14:34
the facts reported in the papers the other day concerning ethnic brits being minorities in some of our major cities says it all. When were we asked if this is what we wanted,i cant remember and have been voting since 1963.
Posted by: R.Rowan | September 18, 2007 at 15:08
It is surprising how everyone comes up in arms due to immigration into the UK while many Brits are moving to Spain and other European countries to settle permanently. This double standard is embarassing!
May remind the natives that were it not for the Asian doctors and Fillipino nurses the NHS would have crumbled! not forgetting school teachers among many proffesionals that are lacking in the UK.
Posted by: Rachael | September 18, 2007 at 15:28
Broadly, there are two ways of opposing mass immigration. The liberal points out that it holds down wages, crowds people out of "social" housing, concretes over the green belt, burdens schools with language problems and weighs upon an already groaning system of transport. The beauty of this line is that it exposes the pro-immigration crowd as the fanatics they are, willing to inflict all these agonies on the rest of us in the name of "multiculturalism".
The second argument - with which I have much sympathy - is Tory. It says that endless mass immigration dissipates and banishes any sense of England; any sense of what it is to be English. In the place of vivid, local and particular characteristics, we are offered bland, moralising totems such as "fair play" - an idea borrowed from some scratchy war film. Meanwhile, new residents are eagerly encouraged to celebrate those things which we are denied - rootedness, identity, togetherness, exclusivity.
The left once got away with this double standard because the immigrants were in the minority, so had to be reassured and indulged. Try selling that idea in today's Birmingham or Southall or Bradford.
No wonder that one English schoolgirl was under the impression that she "came from nowhere". She has been explicitly and deliberately denied any access to a founding sense of origin and her country risks being turned into a real Nowhere.
That this is psychologically catastrophic should be obvious. It is this homelessness, this dissipation of identity which lies behind the upsurge of violent crime. The whole situation was prefigured in miniature in the reforms of Holloway prison. Once a gothic revival structure which resembled a cathedral, its wardresses imposed a disciplined regime. Its very architecture celebrated England. Then, the old gaol was replaced by modern structures which spat on the past - the past of the inmates, don't forget - and therefore on the foundations of discipline: the loyalty and togetherness engendered by an ancient common culture. As a result, it became a byword for lawlessness and despair.
The same is happening to the country as a whole.
Posted by: Simon Denis | September 18, 2007 at 15:55
"It is surprising how everyone comes up in arms due to immigration into the UK while many Brits are moving to Spain and other European countries to settle permanently. This double standard is embarassing!"
No its not, I would want the Spanish people to have just as much right to deny entry to foreign nationals, British included, to their country, as the I wish for mine!
Posted by: Iain | September 18, 2007 at 16:48
A recent door to door survey in some of the roughest areas of our local constituency in the north of england reveals the four things that concern voters most, in the order of importance: taxes, immigration, law and order, the local hospital.
Climate change? They couldn't give a monkey's.
Posted by: dog biter | September 18, 2007 at 17:37
The moment an immigrant of any type arrives in any country he needs a share of wealth or capital-about £150000 per head in the UK.If he has not got any capital it must be taken from natives so wealth per head is reduced.Its that simple.
Wealth per head reduction implies income per head is reduced.
Posted by: anthony.scholefield | September 18, 2007 at 17:49
Anthony Scholefield's findings [September 18, 2007 at 17:49] mirror exactly mine in the Midlands and reported on another ToryDiary discussion "What doorstep pledges would you most like to see unveiled in Blackpool?" [September 16, 2007 at 18:38]
If we really want to win over those masses disgruntled by Labour's poor record in these areas, we should be gunning for these real life issues, rather than remote ones. That must be the surest way to bag a victory.
Posted by: Teck | September 18, 2007 at 18:13
Now that the LibDums have announced an amnesty for illegal immigrants, we can wave bye bye to them in those marginal seats.
There is a more serious side to immigration. I have just had a call from a lady seeking help from an MP because her cousin - English since the Saxons - cannot get an emergency passport to visit her dying relative in France from the Passport and Immigration Agency because the hospital in France faxed through their details but as it was in French our Passport to England, let anyone in, Agency, could not read French. After travelling from the south coast to organise the passport, they were told to go away and get a translation.
If your roots go back to Saxon times, tough we won't let you leave, but if you want to get in from anywhere in the world - come on in, the doors are open. Facetious I know but true, you couldn't make it up.
Posted by: Janice Small | September 18, 2007 at 18:35
I agree with the Editor that we should be speaking about immigration and the second two mentions are good examples of how we can do this. Chris Grayling's comments however (and I accept they are edited) run the risk of making us look like the nasty party again. Just because there are as many overseas workers as unemployed nationals does not mean that those unemployed would be willing to do the work that many of those overseas worker are doing. The overseas workers are often doing work (Doctors, nurses etc) which requires qualifications not evident within our unemployed work force.
Any immigration message must adhere to Tim's AND theory, it should acknowledge the positive impact of immigration as well as the dangers which are all too evident to the electorate.
Posted by: RobD | September 18, 2007 at 18:59
"Now that the LibDums have announced an amnesty for illegal immigrants, we can wave bye bye to them in those marginal seats."
Especially as they have just defined the filthy rich they want to clobber, as couples with a joint income of £67k, a salary level which will just about get you a mortgage to buy a family home in South England. So I suppose there are benfits to having out of touch Scots seeking to set policy for England, it just means we will get rid of them and their party a whole lot quicker.
Posted by: Iain | September 18, 2007 at 19:02
Its quite staggering that Gordon Brown can get away with saying "British Jobs for British Workers" but if any Tory mentions the I word, then they are immediately racist? Some commentators in the main stream press have some warped ideals.
Posted by: Howard | September 18, 2007 at 19:17
Gordon Brown may talk about "British jobs for British workers" but he will not be able to get away with any sort of legislation on the subject. Simply not allwoed under EU rules. You can challenge those rules but I do not hear that possibility from either of the two main parties or from the Lib-Dems.
Posted by: Helen | September 18, 2007 at 20:01
All the time we remain in the EU and have to accept as many millions as want to come to the UK from / via the EU, any talk of "controlling immigration" is just hot air. However robustly, or otherwise, Dave spouts about it, he cannot do a darned thing about the source of most of the immigration which is crippling our home employment and bringing infrastructure close to breaking point.
Posted by: Tam Large | September 19, 2007 at 00:36
I wonder if Tam Large can point to any borough or city where "immigration ... is crippling our home employment and bringing infrastructure close to breaking point"?
My guess is they cannot. For there are many recent immigrants in my area and we have not exprienced and incremental impact on Public Services.
As I said above, focus as much as you like on immigration. The ICM poll out today should shatter (yet again) any remaining illusions Tories have that it is a vote winner. It just makes the Conservative Party appear nasty and vindictive.
Look at this from Jon Gale: "Apart from the obvious increased crime, terrorism and decreased wages, one of the more interesting effects of immigration is loss of trust."
There is no "obvious" increase in crime. I seriously doubt 2nd or 3rd generation Poles or Lithuanians will turn into suicide bombers, and there is little evidence of a fall in wages. Wage inflation was over 3% last year.
These are exposed as knee-jerk assumptions, the kind we see all the time from those who oppose immigration. It debases your entire argument, let alone the far more damaging consequence of bringing the whole Party into disrepute. Hence the dire Poll numbers.
Posted by: BenM | September 19, 2007 at 08:46
Aah BenM you're back.Yesterday you accused Migrationwatch of exaggerating statistics and I asked you to produce some examples of where they had done this.You didn't reply, care to do so now?
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | September 19, 2007 at 11:06
I seriously doubt 2nd or 3rd generation Poles or Lithuanians will turn into suicide bombers
I doubt they will either.
However, when I worked in Streatham, an extremely negative view of Somalians - evidently based on experience - was emphatically expressed to me by a local shopkeeper. He was an Asian.
Perhaps it's time that the British people, regardless of race or colour, were given the opportunity to decide whether the population should be further expanded?
Posted by: Traditional Tory | September 19, 2007 at 11:35
BenM,
"It just makes the Conservative Party appear nasty and vindictive.
Look at this from Jon Gale: "Apart from the obvious increased crime, terrorism and decreased wages, one of the more interesting effects of immigration is loss of trust."
There is no "obvious" increase in crime.
According to Home Office statistics:
Black people are 2.5% of the general population but 14% of the prison population.
Muslims are 2.7% of the general population but 8% of the prison population.
The number of minority groups in general is 22% (male) and 29% (female) of the prison population, has increased by 126% since 1993 (most increase since 2000).
11% of prison population is foreign nationals (120% increase since 1993, most increase since 2000, compared with a 55% increase of British nationals).
You might not like it, but it is a fact immigration increases crime.
Posted by: Jon Gale | September 19, 2007 at 20:14