A multitude of politicians are now re-iterating the same worn phrase, just as John Reid's clumsy proclamation that the Home Office is "not fit for purpose" has become a part of the political lexicon. "It's not racist to impose limits on immigration", argued Michael Howard last year, and he unveiled large billboards as if to prove it.
Michael Howard's campaign was a disaster. But why? Surely he was stating a truism, in the same vein as Israel's "right to exist"? Yes - but as with much of politics, image counts more than substance. Howard seemed reactionary, despite the truism; Conservatism was thus rejected.
So is there a parallel between Howard's mistake in 2005 - to focus (unduly) on immigration - and Labour's bashing of (their own) "open door" policy? There are certainly some similarities. Shaken by the
nine-point gap between themselves and the Tories, it is indeed Labour who are fuelling anti-immigrant hysteria, egged on by tabloid populism. First of all, the influential backbenchers (and former ministers), John Denham and Frank Field, came out in favour of regulation (particularly with regard to Romania and Hungary, from next year), citing pressure on public services as their main concern. Then a series of cabinet ministers expressed their agreement.
Alistair Darling,
John Reid,
Ruth Kelly and
John Hutton have all called for limits to be put on Romanian and Hungarian migration from next year. As
this Guardian article points out, there is some disagreement within government, with the Foreign Office supporting the "open door" policy in principle, but a weakened Beckett, and an absence of voices other than Denis MacShane's, has led to victory for the anti-immigration lobby.
There are differences, of course. Although Labour ministers' reactions smack of knee-jerkism, they are premised on facts which have recently come to light. We are now told that 600,000 eastern Europeans have immigrated here since these countries' accession to the EU in 2004. The UK's population has consequently
topped 60 million. According to a Mori poll for the
Sunday Times, 75% of us apparently want immigration policy to be "toughened", though there is little elaboration on what this might actually mean in practice. There is a contradiction, though, between such polling and how the electorate actually votes: the economy is invariably more salient an issue, and immigration invariably increases general wealth.
Minette Marrin in The Times writes:
Of course immigrants are good for a society, up to a point. New Labour has offered no serious consideration of that point. Nor has it demonstrated that an open door is good for the economy; the real argument is the other way. What we need is rational and controlled immigration; until we have rational and controlled politicians and civil servants, we are hardly likely to get it.
This artificial distinction between "controlled" and "uncontrolled" immigration is commonly made, but is deceiving. To talk of "floods" and "waves" of immigrants is hyperbolic, and the word "uncontrolled" falls into the same trap. An "open door" system is controlled - but it is controlled by market forces and individual choice, not protectionism and a "Whitehall knows best mentality", as typified by John Reid's proposal:
Mr Reid is considering setting-up a Migration Advisory Committee, though the idea is still in its infancy. The panel of experts, headed by business leaders, would assess the skills shortages in the UK to work out how many migrant workers are needed. It would then set an 'optimum' level of migration which is 'beneficial in terms of enhancing the economy of this country commensurate with our social stability'.
This article is not meant as a defence of immigration per se - my thoughts on this subject are outlined in brief here - but rather as an attack on the misleading language which pervades debate on immigration, saturated as it is with all those liquid metaphors. Talk of "racism" is beside the point. But talk of protectionism, provincialism and conservatism is certainly not.
Discussion and Debate on Westminster, British Politics, Economics and
Current Affairs
7 Comments:
That is the first time I have seen Mr Howard's campaign poster, and it is a shockingly bad one at that. Whilst the policies may have some sound basis (i stress may), the poster comes across as definitely BNP-ish.
It’s not so much what the poster says as what it hints at. It is, of course, a truism that: “It’s not racist to impose limits on immigration”. But what Michael Howard chose to do was to make immigration a high profile “dog-whistle” election issue, adding the slightly sinister tag: “Are you thinking what we’re thinking?” I think this was a pretty clear nudge-and-wink to the racially prejudiced (As was, for example, Thatcher’s “swamped” comment in the 1979 election). Of course, it’s impossible to prove this exegetically; detecting a “sub-text” is not subject to that kind of proof. My feeling is that immigration is an issue where the responsible thing would be for the main parties to forge a broad consensus in order to try to take the issue out of the electoral arena. There are precedents for this: for example, Northern Ireland policy was for many years “bi-partisan” (the merits/demerits of the said policy are another question). A bi-partisan approach would prevent the parties entering into a “bidding war” (each seeking to be "tougher" on immigration than the other). Of course, it won’t happen. The Tory press will always bash Labour on immigration, and Labour will always try to deflect this by talking “tough”. It will, sadly, always be a debate fuelled by tabloid-driven hysteria.
Being a free market extremist, I believe in the free movement of labour and the right to live where you want as long as you do not violate someone else's private property rights, therefore I support the ideal of unlimited immigration with minimimal restraints.
However it cannot be a cohesive policy for Britain if other free market principles are not met. The welfare system means that the demand to immigrate here will become unbearable (and thus the demand on the welfare system).
That is why the welfare system is actually at the heart of the immigration debate. Britain's free market need for immigrants and welfarism is beginning to clash.
I agree with much of what Politaholic says, but I would conclude with a little more optimism. Manic Minarchist refers to the "ideal of unlimited immigration", and I am of the opinion that this ideal is fully realisable via the generic mechanism of globalisation.
I also agree that, at heart, an "open door" policy is incompatible with our current level of welfarism. We have, I think, already passed the historical peak of governmental power; globalisation is already beginning to erode national sovereignty and protectionism - and rightly so.
However, if Manic is suggesting that eastern European migration is imposing and will continue to impose an "unbearable" burden on our benefit system, I would beg to differ. As has been said elsewhere, most eastern Europeans who have immigrated here are young, in work and utilise relatively few public services. I saw a statistic someplace - I forget the source - which stated that eastern European immigrants contribute 10% more tax in net terms than UK citizens. I realise this may fall into the trap of believing those statistics which best fit one's argument, but on balance, I find such fact-based studies far more convincing than anecdotal "evidence" propagated by opponents of immigration.
I wonder what will put a greater strain on the NHS in months to come, the extra immigrants from Eastern Europe or a certain IT company who might well go under without having fulfilled it's £6bn contract.
However, if Manic is suggesting that eastern European migration is imposing and will continue to impose an "unbearable" burden on our benefit system, I would beg to differ.
No, immigration stemming from the open door policy to all citizens from EU members is still manageble.
But if, at the current level of welfarism, we were to have an open door policy to whole world without visa, work permit, asylum conditions and other restraints, immigration to Britain would most likely surpass the demand there is for jobs to be filled. Without welfarism, the incentive to migrate to the UK will be reduced and be more reflective of the demand for and supply of labour.
The post hints that the Tory performance in the 2005 was poor because Howard was perceived as extremist over immigration. You must have been watching a different election.
1. The performance wasn't poor. Given the Tory position in 2001, it was a huge swing, with the Party being the most popular in England. Allowing for blatant gerrymandering and the unfair constitutional settlement vis-a-vis Scotland, Howard would be PM.
2. They didn't lose because of immigration. If anything the policies promoted by Howard struck a chord with the public, and boosted the Tory vote.
The nonsense talked about the sublimal message of the billboard is exactly the reason why people are so frustrated with immigration policy. The message is very moderate, yet those oppose the policy don't debate it on its own terms, they indulge in "what lies behind it"(cobblers). Thus they have lost the debate with among the British public hands down. The moral of the story is that people will read into political messages what they want.
The suggestion to make this policy bi-partisan must be music to the BNP's ears. People are already being ignored on this issue by the Government, and their vote has risen accordingly. If the entire political establishment ignores them, then the BNP vote will go through the roof. Even Dave's Tories know this so it won't happen.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home