ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

David Davis: Lords report demolishes Labour's economic case for mass immigration

A cross-party House of Lords committee, chaired by Lord Wakeham and including Lords Lawson and Lamont, has rejected the Government's economic case for migration this morning.  The Government's argument that immigration produces £6bn of economic benefits a year  is dismissed as "preposterous". The report wins coverage across this morning's newspapers and is leading broadcast bulletins.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis welcomed the report - particularly its backing for a limit on immigration from outside the EU (a long standing policy of his):

“This cross-party committee of distinguished peers, including a Professor of Labour Economics and former Chancellors, have demolished the Government’s case on several fronts.  They show unequivocally that the benefits of the current immigration policy to ordinary UK citizens are largely non-existent. There are a series of long-term risks to the economy, not least the disincentive to train, and it presents absolutely no answer to the pension crisis.  We are delighted they say there should be an explicit target range for immigration through controls on non-EU applicants. This is a policy that we have been arguing for, for years and which the Government has consistently rejected.”

Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatch also welcomed the report, seeing it as vindication for his organisation's work:

"This report is a watershed.  A heavyweight committee of Parliament has torn to shreds the government's economic case for the massive levels of immigration which they have actively encouraged.  Having lost their smoke screen of dodgy economic arguments, they now have no alternative but to implement a sharp reduction in numbers.  The public will accept nothing less."

Cameron to call for preachers of hate to be banned from the UK

ConservativeHome has been given an advance copy of what David Cameron will say at the first meeting of the CDU-Conservative Party working group later today.

Responding to the news that Yusuf al-Qaradawi may be granted a visa, Cameron will call on Gordon Brown to act quickly and ban preachers of hate from entering the country.

Peter Cuthbertson made this point on CentreRight on Sunday.

We will be there to check against delivery and listen to the Q&A. As always if you have any good questions we will try to ask one on your behalf.

We've put the speech into bitesize chunks below.  Download a PDF of David Cameron's remarks in full.

The Government has "betrayed" victims of human trafficking

David Davis, Damian Green and Theresa May were at St Stephen's Club today to again put pressure on the Government over human trafficking, particularly on why it still hasn't ratified the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings 2005 (ECAATHB).

They released a report (download pdf here) on the problems and solutions to human trafficking. It's just nine pages so worth a quick read, some of the statistics are shocking.

Labour finally took advantage of the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade by signing the treaty last March. Over nine months later after the headlines and it hasn't done anything about it, surprise surprise. The treaty comes into force in ten countries on February 1st. Cllr Andrew Gilbert proposed the idea of ratifying the convention fourteen months ago in our 100policies experiment, and it was approved in a vote of readers. Also, at Spring Forum this year the Party's Human Rights Commission launched a campaign in support of Stop the Traffik, which included a Freedom Wall that many activists and senior party figures signed their support.

They also spoke about making Operation Pentameter permanent, the advantages of introducing a proper UK Border Police Force (Lord Stevens' report on which is due soon), and strengthening airport security protocol in looking out for trafficking. Press reporting  so far has partly focused on proposals - such as having a 30 day asylum reprieve for victims, setting up a dedicated helpline, and increasing the number of safe houses - that were actually announced by Davis a year ago today! We reported on them at the time. Good to get more coverage for the issue though. The Government's feet-dragging on this is hard to fathom, surely it can find a few spare civil servants and the relatively small amount of money required to get it squared away.

If anyone, like one or two commenters last time, is in any doubt about what we mean about human trafficking, it's not about immigration but more about the selling of human beings such as this poor woman.

Immigration poll boost for Conservatives

An ICM poll for the Sunday Express puts the Conservatives eight points ahead of Labour on voting intentions. Labour remain on 35% from the last ICM poll with the Conservatives gaining three points, presumably at the expense of the LibDems, to 43%. This is our best showing for fifteen years with ICM.

On the issue polling - in the wake of Brown's British Jobs for British Workers slogan and the Nigel Hastilow resignation, we are now fifteen points ahead on immigration:

• Trusted to get immigration right: Cameron 45% / Brown 30%
• Most likeable: Cameron 46% / Brown 33%
• Stronger leader: Brown 50% / Cameron 29%
• More of a conviction politician: Brown 44% / Cameron 30%
• More courageous: Brown 39% / Cameron 33%
• Better at handling economy: Brown 53% / Cameron 28%

3pm: Graphic added >

Public divided on benefits of immigration

ORB has conducted a poll for tonight's Newsnight.  Here are the main findings from a telephone survey of just over 1,000 people:

• 24% think the Labour Government is doing a good job in its handling of the immigration issue but 72% think it's doing a poor job.
• 44% thought that, overall, immigrants to the UK had helped the country more than they hard harmed it.  41% thought more harm than help.
• By 52% to 45% respondents agreed with the contention that "immigrants pose a threat to employment in the UK."
• By 60% to 36% respondents disagreed with the contention that "immigrants pose a threat to public order and people’s safety."
• By 49% to 46% respondents disagreed with the suggestion that "without immigrants coming to the UK our economy would suffer."
• By 62% to 35% there was agreement that "Britain will soon lose its unique identity if immigration continues as it is."

29% of respondents thought that "David Cameron and the Conservative Party" would do the best job of handling the issue of immigration.  That's slightly more than the 26% who thought that of "Gordon Brown and the Labour Party".  ORB found that there is a big overlap between those inclined to support the Conservatives on immigration and those who think immigration is largely harmful for Britain.

PS Have you bookmarked Newsnight's Big Fat Politics blog?

We now have breadth but do we have boldness?

Praise for David Cameron's immigration policy from an unexpected source this morning; former Labour GLA member and the new chief of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips:

"For the first time in my adult life I heard a party leader clearly attempting to deracialise the issue of immigration and to treat it like any other question of political and economic management... And given that Mr Cameron is speaking against a background in which his party's policy inheritance is defined by Howard, Hague, Thatcher and Powell, this seems to me like a turning point in our national debate about immigration – one that will make it possible for us to speak openly and sensibly about the subject, which most of the country sees as the single-most important in politics."

Mr Cameron was on Radio 4's Today programme this morning to talk further about his immigration policy.  He attacked the Prime Minister's "British jobs for British workers" slogan - noting that it was illegal.  He described Labour as "completely incompetent".  They try and control everything but end up controlling nothing, he concluded.

The Today programme had previewed the interview by caricaturing the immigration debate over the last forty years as the Tories roughly against more immigration and Labour as broadly in favour.  David Cameron said that this was a false description of the reality.  Over forty years, he said, both parties had been in favour of  "controlled immigration" but Labour had either abandoned or failed to enforce historic controls.

The Conservative leader said that "we would benefit if actually we had slightly lower levels of net immigration" but appeared to rule out attaching a number to the promise of a cap on non-EU immigration until the party is in government.  Mr Cameron said that he would not want to set a number until he possessed all of the facts - facts that would be gained after talking to local government, business leaders and those running our public services.

Editor's comment: "Every day David Cameron is growing in standing.  He handled this morning's interview well.  He is able to talk about issues like immigration in ways that were impossible for Michael Howard.  The praise from Trevor Phillips is very valuable.  After nearly two years of silence on bread and butter issues the party is talking again about the issues that matter to the British people and is doing so with previously elusive sensitivity.  Will this new breadth from the perfectly-pitched David Cameron be enough?  It might be.  This week's immigration stats blunder is just the latest example of Labour's extraordinary incompetence.  Labour's decline and possible LibDem infighting (of which more later) may be enough to win us the next election but we shouldn't presume so.  I'm genuinely wondering whether more policy boldness will help get us a parliamentary majority or will frighten folk.  I hope Lord Ashcroft's money is investigating that question.  What I do think - and there's plenty of time to put this right if necessary - is most of our current policies are inadequate to the challenges Britain faces.  This concern was expressed by Melanie Phillips on Tuesday although, also from within the Spectator family, Fraser Nelson appears to believe that the Tories are on the road to genuine radicalism.  I'm open to being convinced but am not yet converted.  The Tories are promising to match Labour on spending which may make significant (and economically urgent) reductions in tax and borrowing very hard to deliver.  Our health reform policies are very timid although education policies are looking better and better.  It is not clear that, outside of things being more competently managed, how much of a bankable difference on immigration would be possible.  Will Conservatives really repatriate powers from Europe?  Will we renew our armed forces?  I repeat: Over time the Cameron leadership may offer convincing responses to Britain's challenges but I don't think they have done enough yet."

Highlights from David Cameron's immigration and population speech

Further to our earlier post, key sections of David Cameron's population speech are pasted below (full text here).

During the Q&A after the speech, Mr Cameron declined to say how much he wanted net immigration reduced but promised that Conservatives would seek a "substantial" change.  He ruled out any attempts to influence the number of children that families choose to have.  He dismissed suggestions that this speech - his first on immigration and related issues - amounted to a shift from the centre ground.  These issues, he said, concerned everyone - from the right, left and centre.

Immigration must be reduced: "We need policy to reduce the level of net immigration.  And we need policy to strengthen society and combat atomisation.  The right approach, as I will argue today, has three components.  First, a sober and forensic understanding – and a total acceptance of - the facts: the scale and nature of this challenge.  Second, action to ensure that our population grows at a more sustainable rate.  Third, action to prepare properly for that sustainable rate of growth."

Population growth is accelerating: "Latest figures from the Office for National Statistics suggest that our population of 60.6 million today will grow to nearly 63 million by 2011, 65 million by 2016, and more than 71 million by 2031.  These projected increases are on a different scale to what we have seen in the recent past.  In the last twenty years, our population grew by around four million.  Over the next twenty years, it’s projected to grow by around nine million – more than twice as fast."

Natural demography is a secondary factor in population growth: "Only around thirty per cent of the projected increase in our population by 2031 is due to higher birth rates and longer life-spans... more than two thirds - of the increase in our population each year is attributable to net migration."

Sources of immigration: "In 2005, the latest year for which detailed figures are available, 145,000 migrants to Britain were from the European Union, mostly from the new accession countries in the east, and accounting for around thirty per cent of the total.  91,000 were British citizens returning to live here.  Another 189,000 came from the Commonwealth.  And 140,000 from elsewhere in the world.  But these bald figures do not give a very clear picture of what is happening.  We must not confuse stock and flow.  What matters in terms of our overall population is not who comes, but who stays."

Immigration has largely been positive for the economy: "When it comes to the economic effects of immigration, I would summarise the position as follows.  Broadly, immigration has a positive impact on our economy.  But there are negative effects too, and any responsible population strategy must distinguish between them, avoiding a broad-brush approach in favour of policy responses that are appropriately tailored to the varying economic effects of immigration, and which seek to share the costs and benefits fairly."

Cameron promises coherent strategy to manage net immigration and its consequences

Later this morning David Cameron will deliver a speech on population and immigration.  He'll be addressing the Policy Exchange think tank.  I'll be there and will report with more afterwards.

It is expected that Mr Cameron will say that Britain needs a much more coherent strategy to cope with Britain's rising population.  Britain's population is projected to rise by more than ten million over the next 25 years (although population projections are notoriously unreliable).

He is expected to highlight the need to...

• Curb net immigration.  The Conservative Party has proposed an annual cap on immigration from outside the EU but has limited powers to control immigration from within the Union.
• Improve border controls.
• Invest in family life so that we reduce the pressure on the housing stock caused by splits in households.
• Improve the skills base of British workers so there is less demand for qualified workers from overseas.

The Conservative leader will say that the Blair-Brown failure to get to grips with Britain's demographic challenges is a large part of the reason for frustratingly slow progress in the NHS, schools and in housing:

"This country faces a choice. Some people argue that the demographic changes I've talked about are just an inevitable part of the modern world and that policymakers had better get used to it. This assumes that we can't do much about family failure, we can't get significant numbers of people off benefits and into work, and that we use immigration to deal with our capacity shortages. That is Gordon Brown's choice. But I don't think it's sustainable - for a simple reason."

Mr Cameron's focus on immigration - the CCHQ's advance press notice promises a speech on The Challenges of a Growing Population - is a triumph for the traditionalists advising him.  Certain leading modernisers will have opposed this speech and they have been over-ruled.

The speech comes after renewed public anxiety about the level of immigration into Britain.  The issue regularly tops the list of voter concerns.  Simon Heffer and Peter Oborne both wrote about the subject (in characteristically strong terms) on Saturday.

Also well worth reading is the leader in last week's Business.  These were the concluding paragraphs:

"The biggest danger associated with immigration is that it becomes an excuse not to tackle the deep seated problems that have been created by the welfare culture, with migrants used as substitute labour while a British-born underclass is paid not to work. It is a national scandal that, while youth unemployment is increasing, 43% of the Eastern European workers arriving are aged 18 to 24.

Immigration has been at the heart of Britain’s success; newcomers continue to make huge and essential contributions to culture, the arts, the professions, sports, academia and, of course, business. Over the past few years, immigrants have fuelled Britain’s economic renaissance; long may it remain so.

But it is also undeniable that the country is buckling under the strain; to avoid the public turning against migrants, the government must make Britain more like America: a country that accepts that it is a nation of immigrants, seeks to integrate them and builds new homes and schools to accommodate them. Pretending that levels of immigration are much more modest than they really are, or that they are not causing any problems, is no longer a tenable strategy."

Reducing the level of low-skilled immigration into Britain and investing in our own young workforce must be at the heart of the Conservatives' promise of an integrated 'population strategy'.

Tories say immigration is a 'core vote issue' for all Britons

The Government's report into the economic impact of immigration has been causing lots of media waves.  The report suggests that immigrant workers - which now account for a staggering 12.5% of the workforce - contributed £6bn to Britain's economic growth in 2006.   MigrationWatch has responded by saying that, according to research by Professor David Coleman, immigration places £8.8bn of costs onto the taxpayer.

Professor Coleman's research is summarised by the Daily Mail in the graphic on the right (click it to enlarge it).

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis has attacked the Government's report and, despite the Prime Minister's talk of 'British jobs for British workers', questioned what Labour is actually doing for young, unemployed Britons: "What will they do for the million economically inactive under 25’s in the country?”  Youth joblessness has actually risen from 14.1% when Labour came to power to 14.5% today.

55% of Tory members recently told ConservativeHome.com that they would like David Cameron to talk about immigration more.  Only 5% think there should be less focus.  A press release from conservatives.com argues, however, that the party has been far from silent on immigration policy since David Cameron became leader:

• In August 2006 Damian Green urged the Government to impose strict limits on the numbers of workers able to enter Britain from new EU states.
• In November 2006 the party announced a commitment to a strict, annual limit on immigration from outside of the EU.
• In January 2007 David Cameron pledged the party to sign up to the European Convention against trafficking in human beings.
• A month later former Met Chief John Stevens agreed to run a Tory taskforce on a uniformed, border police force.
• In August Damian Green announced measures to tackle forced marriage.
• At the Blackpool Party Conference David Davis promised that net immigration will be ‘substantially lower’ than the current 190,000 a year.

Conservative immigration spokesman Damian Green has written about the grand sweep of Conservative immigration policy for Platform10.  He insists that it is not a right-wing issue but one that matters to all British people and that the Conservative position is consistent with the party's one nation tradition:

"This vision of controlled immigration, and enhanced integration, is supported by British people of all ethnic groups and economic backgrounds, and indeed all political views. It is a core issue for the whole British people, not just members of the Conservative Party. A firm immigration policy is an important way of contributing to better community cohesion in this country."

Thoughts on next steps for 'core vote' issues...

A little earlier I posted a few thoughts on 'next steps for modernisation'.  I urged the party to keep emphasising its commitment to the public services; adopt a more achievable environmentalism; embrace the social and international justice reports of IDS and Peter Lilley; defend the rights of adult gay people; recruit genuinely diverse candidates; and adopt a moderate tone.  This site has always stood for 'the politics of and' - a fusion of traditional and modern concerns - and whilst we welcome the recent rebalancing it is vital that it does not become a retreat into core vote territory.

It's also necessary that as we think about core vote issues again - tax, crime, immigration, Europe - we do so in an intelligent way.

I have just learnt that The Sun dropped more than 100,000 sales on Monday when it launched its EU referendum campaign.  That's a big drop for a newspaper in the middle of a circulation campaign.  Although 65,000 people have signed The Sun's referendum petition I'm far from convinced it's the most important core vote issue.  Last month's ConservativeHome survey of Conservative members suggested that you agree.

Only 3% thought Europe was likely to be the most decisive issue at General Election.  Nearly four times as many thought immigration would be issue number one (hence the importance of today's Mail splash) and 26% put crime as issue one.  I hope that the rebalancing will see a focus on crime and immigration - not Europe.  I'm only talking electoral strategy here - not about what necessarily matters most in reality.

The other important ingredient for a successful rebalancing is that we approach the issues in a different way and I have 100% confidence in David Cameron's ability to achieve this.  His approach to crime, for example, isn't just longer, tougher sentences.  There are also lots of ideas to help young people off the conveyor belt to crime.  And, on immigration, there's a more sensitive language and we've got rid of the ugly cap on asylum numbers that we had at the last election.

New Tory assertiveness and local by-election results may sow new seeds of doubt in Brown's mind

Last night's by-election results may produce further ammunition to those Labour 'greybeards' who are urging Gordon Brown to be cautious about an autumn General Election.  We listed other risk factors on Monday.

On the basis of yesterday's results the Conservatives would have a 6.2% lead over Labour -  a very different picture to the national opinion polls which actually suggest a  5.8% Labour lead (according to ConservativeHome's Poll of Polls).

The Conservatives won a seat from Labour on Sunderland council with a 3.7% swing.  In a Kent County Council by-election there was a 5.5% swing to the Conservatives although Labour held a seat on Dover District Council.

Perhaps the most encouraging result came in Cheshire.  A 6.5% swing from Labour to the Conservatives ensured that Eleanor Johnson was elected and that the County remains in Tory control.  The Gowy seat includes three important polling districts in the target Tory seat of Chester; Christleton, Littleton and Guilden Sutton.

More encouraging for me is the main story on the front page of The Telegraph: David Cameron orders shift to core Tory values.

An interview with George Osborne indicates that the party will ditch large parts of the Gummer-Goldsmith report.  There'll be no charges for supermarket parking.  No taxes on a second short annual flight.  There may even be a promise to reform inheritance tax.

I'm also expecting stronger statements on immigration.  Shadow Immigration Damian Green was on the Today programme this morning and the front page of The Mail shouts: Two million more migrants in just a decade.  Mr Green is quoted in that story saying: "This rips apart the Government's previous complacent assumptions about net immigration."  I hope we'll also see Tory reluctance to talk about immigration ripped up in Blackpool, too.

A ConservativeHome poll of Tory members - due to be published tomorrow - will spell out what the grassroots would like the leadership to do next.

11am: Caroline Spelman comments: "“This set of results is very encouraging and shows that throughout the country more and more people are turning away from Labour and towards the Conservatives. Labour should be very worried that in a week when Gordon Brown has dominated the news, the Conservatives have made a crucial gain from Labour in the North and achieved a swing in three marginal seats which would mean three strong Conservative gains in a general election. After a week in which Labour hasn’t been out of the news there have been swings to the Conservatives from North to South. People want change and they want to fix our broken society. After ten years of Labour it is clear that Gordon Brown cannot be the change the country needs.”

George Osborne: I'm no über-moderniser

Interviewed by Fraser Nelson for this week's Spectator (not yet online), the Shadow Chancellor distances himself from what he calls the über-modernisers and embraces 'the politics of and':

"I don’t take the kind of über-modernising view that some have had, that you can’t talk about crime or immigration or lower taxes.  It is just that you can’t do so to the exclusion of the NHS, the environment and economic stability. I have always argued for a more balanced message, and that is what I hope you would see at this party conference."

The Daily Mail's Ben Brogan reads this statement as an attempt by George Osborne to distance himself from the modernisers in the Cameron camp and questions the helpfulness of his remarks.

Mr Osborne also uses the interview to talk about immigration - agreeing with David Cameron's recent statement that it is too high:

"I don’t think we were ready for the impact on public services of a very large number of people coming to this country. Immigration from eastern Europe was 100 times, well maybe 50 times greater than the government predicted it was going to be. So there was a complete failure to anticipate the impact on our public services or indeed the impact on our economy.’  Immigration has been a ‘broad benefit’, he says. ‘But it has put an enormous pressure on some of our low-skilled British citizens who have found themselves in some parts of Britain priced out of the job market. I don’t think we have done enough as a country to give these people the right education or skills. It is no good Gordon Brown saying, “British jobs for British workers”, when he has singly failed to prepare British workers for the ten year he’s been chancellor."

2.45pm: A source close to Mr Osborne tells me that George is not in any way distancing himself from Team Cameron and points to David Cameron's 7th September speech in which the Conservative leader said: "Forget about those on the left who say I shouldn’t talk about Europe, crime or lower taxes... or those on the right who say I shouldn’t talk about the NHS, the environment or well-being.  That is a false choice and I will not make it... And to those who think, even in 21st century Britain that commitment and responsibility cannot be embraced by all, I say: you will not find a stronger supporter of marriage but why not also recognise the commitment that gay couples make to each other in civil partnerships? That’s modern Conservatism."

3.15pm: "The first sign of a possible rift between David Cameron and George Osborne emerged today.  In an interview, the shadow chancellor appeared to distance himself from his party leader and friend.  Mr Osborne sought to contrast his own political views with what he called "uber-modernisers" - seen as a reference to Mr Cameron and his image guru Steve Hilton... The modernisers around Mr Cameron include Mr Hilton and Nicholas Boles, the former head of the Policy Exchange think tank.  The Spectator identified what it called a rival group of "balancers".  Tory MPs say this group would include Michael Gove, the shadow education secretary, and Andy Coulson, director of communications." - Evening Standard

Even the BBC is now talking about immigration

I've just listened to a Radio Five Live investigation into the benefits that are paid to migrant workers and their children.  Adrian Goldberg's Five Live Report programme highlighted the huge problem of fraud - with many immigrant workers seemingly claiming UK benefits for children that do not exist.

On BBC1's Politics Show this lunchtime there was a feature on the impact that children from immigrant families are having on schools in Lincolnshire.  The number of children who speak English as a second language has mushroomed in many parts of Britain.  The schools and other local services are struggling to cope as a consequence.

Earlier this week the Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire highlighted the rise in crime associated with increased immigration.

Earlier today I read The Sunday Times' comment section (now a Portillo-free zone following the non-renewal of his contract) and Minette Marrin's column on immigration.  She highlights the fact that one-third of the three million homes that Gordon Brown plans to build across the British countryside are needed because of immigration.

Asked on Sunday AM this morning if immigration was too high - David Cameron's view - Gordon Brown repeatedly avoided answering the question.  Someone really should get his repeated non-answers on YouTube!

If Gordon Brown does opt for a snap poll it is important that immigration becomes an election issue.  It shouldn't dominate the Tory campaign as it dominated Michael Howard's 2005 campaign but Mr Brown needs to be held accountable for his policy of uncontrolled immigration.

PS Michael Portillo may have lost his Sunday Times slot but that hasn't stopped him stirring up trouble for the Tories.

Tories' stealthy campaigning on immigration

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.

Cameron on Newsnight touches on immigration, green taxation and the outside interests of the frontbench

The Tory leader is on Newsnight at 10.30pm but News 24 have already broadcast the whole encounter between Mr Cameron and Gavin Esler, Michael Crick, Stephanie Flanders and Mark Urban. I missed the preview but here are three toplines from the interview:

• Under repeated questioning David Cameron says that immigration is too high in Britain;
• He says that Tories will raise taxes on air travel;
• He concedes that frontbenchers may be spending too much time on outside interests but that the team is overall hard-working.

6.15pm: The BBC website is headlining the interview as 'Immigration too high - Cameron'.

6.30pm: This is what Cameron says on immigration: "I think that there are benefits from immigration  and want Britain to capture the benefits from that immigration... But I think the levels of migration we see in the early part of the decade of this Government, when the asylum numbers were very high, and the later part of the decade, when immigration settlement numbers were very high; I think we have put too great a burden on public services and I think it needs to be better controlled... What's required in the whole debate about immigration is a careful use of language but actually some fairly tough and rigorous action... What we have had from the Government sometimes, particularly from (former Home Secretary) David Blunkett, was loose and inflammatory language but weak and ineffective action. I think we need the complete opposite."

11.15pm: I've deleted the third point above.  Contrary to what I was briefed I do not think David Cameron conceded anything on outside interests.   My overall view: A very strong, confident performance.  No sign of panic.  More commentary tomorrow on the detail of what DC said.

Hague speaks up for Iraqi asylum seekers who have served British troops in Basra

One of the most dangerous times for the British troops in Iraq will be during the withdrawal stage.  But the dangers will be much greater for the Iraqis who have worked with our armed forces as, for example, interpreters.

Today's Times carries a report that Gordon Brown's Government is ignoring calls from senior British army officers calling for special treatment of 91 individuals who have risked their lives by working with our troops and are now being targeted as "collaborators".  Both Denmark and the USA are making special arrangements for those Iraqis who have worked closely with their armed forces.  A leader in The Times says that Britain should not abandon "its bravest allies in Iraq".

Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague is quoted in the article - encouraging a more generous response from the Government:

“Britain has benefited from the services of these Iraqis in carrying out our responsibilities in Iraq. As Britain reduces its military presence in Iraq, we ought to look to the safety of those who have risked their lives to help us.”

The Conservatives should have a tough policy on immigration but we should favour an asylum system that is generous to those people who genuinely face persecution.  William Hague is adopting the right position on this difficult issue.

This controversy comes a time when the US troops surge may be beginning to produce some advances in security.  An article in last week's New York Times by previous critics of the Iraq war confirms the positive, if not conclusive, trend identified by the BBC's John Simpson a month ago.

10.45am update from today's Washington Post: "The British have basically been defeated in the south," a senior U.S. intelligence official said recently in Baghdad. They are abandoning their former headquarters at Basra Palace, where a recent official visitor from London described them as "surrounded like cowboys and Indians" by militia fighters. An airport base outside the city, where a regional U.S. Embassy office and Britain's remaining 5,500 troops are barricaded behind building-high sandbags, has been attacked with mortars or rockets nearly 600 times over the past four months."  More here.

1.30pm: This from Damian Green, Shadow Immigration Minister: "“Anyone whose life is at risk because of work they have done for Britain must have a strong case to be granted asylum.  “Each case would have to be looked at on its merits but, just because the Government has reduced the asylum and immigration system to chaos, does not mean that we should lose sight of our proper humanitarian instincts.”

Immigration and security concern voters most

Yesterday we published the headline 6% Labour lead suggested by Ipsos-MORI.  Ipsos-MORI have just published some more detail of their survey of 954 adults.  Answers to Questions 7 and 8 show that 'race relations and immigration' remains the most important issue for 23% of respondents.  The same percentage agree that defence, foreign affairs and international terrorism are the most important issues facing Britain today.  That would also be ConservativeHome's top issue.  Crime comes next (12%) for voters, then the NHS (7%), then housing (6%) then education (5%).

Economic issues figure low on voters' concerns in this poll.  2% say the economy is the most important issue facing Britain today (7% say it is an important issue); 2% identify unemployment (7%) and 1% tax (7%).

Europe hardly registers either.  Only 1% think it the most important issue.  3% think it an important issue.

The core vote issues of crime, Europe, immigration and tax are often lumped together but crime and immigration appear to be significantly more salient as issues.

Pollution and the environment (3%/ 9%) are not near the top of voters' concerns but some political strategists regard it as a 'permission issue'.  Only when a political party crosses a minimum ethical threshold - on issues like concern for vulnerable people and for the environment - does it, the theory goes, become a voting option for certain values-orientated voters.

Two issues for David Cameron

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.

Tories shift focus to immigration

The Times, Mail, FT and Independent all cover today's Tory announcement of tougher rules on 'foreign brides'.

The Conservatives will say that potential foreign spouses should be at least 21 (the current requirement is 18) and be required to complete English language tests before being allowed into Britain.  The third plank of the plan involves "developing a 'code of conduct' for Entry Clearance Officers and Home Office officials in the UK, which includes separate interviews of the spouse and the sponsor".  Damian Green, the party's immigration spokesman, defends the new policy proposals as essential to ensuring new citizens and their dependents are able to integrate into British society:

"Too many young women are brought to England to marry when they cannot possibly integrate with our society. They need better protection. It is not fair on them and it is not good for their integration into this country. Families where English is not spoken are much more likely to have children who struggle at school, and adults who cannot engage in work."

In 2005, 41,560 spouses came to Britain, an increase of 25% over five years.

Danny Sriskandarajah of the Institute for Public Policy Research think-tank told The Independent that the Conservative proposals could be vetoed by the courts because they could be seen to be racially discriminatory and interfere in family life.

The FT's Jean Eaglesham interprets the immigration policy announcement as an attempt to "quell the rightwing revolt triggered by his abandonment of support for new grammar schools."

Meanwhile Education Secretary Alan Johnson told BBC1's Question Time programme that Margaret Hodge was using the kind of language used by the BNP.  Ms Hodge said that families that had been in Britain for a long time had a "legitimate sense of entitlement" to priority in social housing allocation.  "My problem," Mr Johnson said, "with that is that's the kind of language of the BNP and it's grist to the mill of the BNP."  Another candidate for the Deputy Labour leadership - Jon Cruddas MP, whose Dagenham seat borders Ms Hodge's own Barking constituency - said that the correct way of addressing the issue was to increase the supply of affordable housing and not to complain about allocation mechanisms.

Labour minister wants 'Britons first' in housing queue

Margaret Hodge is all over the newspapers this morning for saying that new migrants should go to the back of the housing queue.  As reported in today's Sun she calls for a new points system to decide access to social housing.  A person's access to a council home would then depend upon their place of birth, length of residence and their national insurance contributions.  Labour MP Keith Vaz attacked Ms Hodge on this morning's Today programme for feeding the fantasies of the far Right that immigrants receive unfair access to social amenities.  For Tory immigration spokesman Damian Green, her remarks are an admission of Labour's failure on borders control:

"Margaret Hodge is admitting the long term failure of this Government to control immigration. This is why Conservatives are calling for an explicit annual limit on the numbers coming here from outside the EU so that we can avoid exactly the sort of problems she is talking about."

The Sun Says gives a "welcome" to Margaret Hodge's intervention:

"Letting immigration run riot only plays into the hands of extremists — as well as placing an intolerable burden on the forces of law and order already hamstrung by political correctness and red tape."

Immigration could cost Labour election (says Immigration Minister)

The Immigration Minister Liam Byrne concedes today that Labour's failure to control immigration has created greater inequality and child poverty.  He warns that  failure to control immigration could cost his party the next General Election.  You could add higher taxes, higher crime, lost pension savings and the rising cost of living to the list of factors likely to do that.  The Times has the story about Liam Byrne's remarks.

Sayeeda Warsi calls for rejected asylum seekers to be given limited right to work

Tory A-lister Sayeeda Warsi has just completed a report for the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust with Kate Adie OBE, Julian Baggini, Courtenay Griffiths QC and Bill Kilgallon OBE.  The report - Moving on from Destitution to Contribution - argues that refused asylum seekers should be given "a revocable licence to work" so that they can benefit themselves, the taxpayer and local communities.  In an article for today's Guardian, Ms Warsi describes the current plight of rejected asylum seekers:

"[They are] unable to work or contribute to society, unable to leave and sleeping rough. They are forced into destitution, relying on charity or working in the shadow economy, with all the dangers that can bring. It is wishful thinking to expect that, with little or no source of income, these people will return home voluntarily."

Many will see Ms Warsi's work as in tune with a Conservatism that is, as she writes, "interested in humanity and fairness."  Others will worry that the system she recommends will only encourage more illegal immigration into Britain.  This is one comment on the thread below her Guardian piece:

"If they do allow failed asylum seekers the right to work and maybe even benefits on top of that (because it's cruel to make them sleep rough if they're paying taxes) then I'll hop on a plane over to England on a tourist visa and claim asylum myself.  It'll probably be much easier than getting a work visa."

Related link: Tories "very sceptical" of immigration amnesty

Is this ad "inflammatory"?

The advert below appears in today's Telegraph but its publishers - SpeakOut.co.uk - allege that others newspapers including The Sun, Express and Mail have refused to publish it.  The advert is apparently too "inflammatory" and "potentially racist."  What do you think?

Tories promise 10,000 strong border police as alternative to ID cards

The Telegraph, Mail and BBC are among the media outlets trailing a major announcement by David Cameron on the establishment of a uniformed  and specially-trained border police force.  Visiting a police station in Wapping later today the Conservative leader will announce that former Met Chief John Stevens has agreed to head a working group on the establishment of this border police force.

Mr Cameron believes that there is a lack of coordination between the agencies currently involved in immigration:

"Right now, our society is not properly defended against the drug dealers, people smugglers, gun importers and terrorists who find it all too easy to bypass the current system.  No single organisation is responsible for performing this vital task.  Instead we have at least six separate agencies, including Revenue and Customs, the Immigration Service, the security services, harbour police, Soca (Serious and Organised Crime Agency), and the Metropolitan Police."

The Tories insist that the border police force will be paid for by scrapping Labour's ID cards scheme and from other economies at the Home Office.  Labour question the Tory sums.  Immigration minister Liam Byrne told The Telegraph that charges for ID cards scheme will make it self-financing.  "How is he going to pay for his plans?," Mr Byne asked, "There is no magic pot of cash for ID cards sitting in the Home Office for him to switch, so he will have to introduce new taxes to pay for it."

Davis urges Government to ratify human trafficking convention

Andrew Gilbert recently proposed a successful policy on 100policies.com, to "ratify and implement the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings". David Davis has just called for the very same thing.

The Convention - which until now has been resisted by the Government and the Conservatives - would give victims of human trafficking at least a month to recover in Britain and consider helping the police in their prosecutions, before having to leave. Davis said ratifying it was vital for moral reasons, and that he was confident it would have no effect on attracting more immigrants.

The BBC has a useful guide to human trafficking routes (from which the above picture is taken).

Davis also advocated setting up a helpline and building more safe-houses for victims, whilst working to reduce the number of illegal immigrants with a new border police force (classic "And Theory"). Recognising that human trafficking is a widespread form of slavery, he said:

"It is now 200 years since William Wilberforce saw the end of the slave trade in the UK. It is past time that we brought this evil trade to an end. It is a high priority for a moral reason."

The Conservative Christian Fellowship, to whom William Wilberforce is very much a role model, is having a large event to commemorate the bicentenary of the abolition of the trade on March 20th, with speeches from David Cameron and the excellent Bishop James Jones. Three days later the film "Amazing Grace" comes out in the UK, telling the story of how Wilberforce (played by Ioan Gruffudd) managed to achieve his noble objective.

Deputy Editor