All of the candidates in the Labour leadership election have, in their own ways, come to the conclusion that immigration, especially from the EU after its enlargement in 2004, was one factor in the party’s defeat at the general election.
Immigration has always been a balance of positives and negatives. When the UK was growing and creating jobs rapidly, enabling more workers to come to the UK, it was a positive thing. It underpinned the decision to allow the A8 countries in 2004 to have greater access than that offered by most of our European partners. However, we did underestimate the numbers and when recession hit the presence of central and eastern Europeans in work, as working Brits lost jobs, increased the sense of insecurity.
We need to recognise that those who came did not just settle in London, or in our cosmopolitan cities, but in parts of the country that have previously seen little migration like Doncaster and Lincolnshire. And, as ever, the costs and benefits aren’t evenly distributed: the people that benefit from cheaper conservatories or food prices aren’t often the ones who cannot find work in construction or in supermarket distribution centres. I was given examples at my local surgeries where local workers felt they were losing out to ‘other’ Europeans.
Making the case for further enlargement of the EU is undoubtedly more difficult in a recession when unemployment is rising and pressure on public services intensifies. It’s important to separate myth from fact, to recognise what has gone right and to make the case for maintaining the momentum of EU accession, particularly in the western Balkans, but also in Turkey.
Along with the rest of the EU, we have placed tighter labour restrictions on the newest members, Bulgaria and Romania. The same is likely for Croatia and any other new member for seven years after accession. Fundamental reform of the Treaty of Rome would be needed to stop the free movement of people within the EU, and this is both unlikely and undesirable if we believe that an enlarged EU better serves our national interest.
Restricting free movement does not help the many Britons who work and live in other parts of the EU. Let us not forget, too, that, come 2011, the A8 countries will have open access to the labour markets of the rest of the EU which could see an exodus of workers from the UK, which may or may not prove beneficial to our economy.
The new European workers that came to the UK from 2004 onwards helped to fashion Europe’s most dynamic economy, driving our growth. Leaving their homeland, their families and their friends behind, they came here to work, often in industries where we have shortages. They often did the jobs that British workers didn’t want to do and paid taxes. When the work dried up, and the exchange rate became less favourable, they didn’t claim benefits, they went home.
As we emerge from recession, with an ageing society – fewer workers supporting every pensioner – and ever growing expectations, a young, dynamic, hardworking labour force is essential for our recovery.
What we have to do is better manage migration from the EU in a way that recognises how we benefit from it, but also deals with the pressures it creates. We should have been more proactive in supporting the agency workers directive and the anomalies in the posted workers directive. We should ensure that other European companies play by the same rules as British companies when they contract for work in the UK, or elsewhere in the EU.
We need to tackle the underlying issues that make communities feel vulnerable in the first place: shortages of affordable housing and pressures on other public services, inadequate training and a lack of employment opportunities. Pressures reinforced in some communities by a poverty of aspiration born of the mass unemployment in the 1980s, where some children never see their parents get up and go to work.
Only then we will be able to harness the potential of migration from the EU
As a local recruiter I agree that there are major benefits in open movement of labour force, however, I do also think that volume should be limited and perhaps governed by the average number of unemployed in a particular country and the GDP of said country. Having had first hand experience of the issues highlighted here such as a lack of Jobs in Doncaster (where we are located) and many of the jobs are taken up by EU citizens, it’s difficult to address the issue. I’m sure that whichever option is progressed , there needs to be close monitoring and the ability to take action quickly should it be required.
Tens of thousands of claimants facing losing their benefit on review, or on being transferred from incapacity benefit, as plans to make the employment and support allowance (ESA) medical much harder to pass are approved by the secretary of state for work and pensions, Yvette Cooper. The shock plans for ‘simplifying’ the work capability assessment, drawn up by a DWP working group, include docking points from amputees who can lift and carry with their stumps. Claimants with speech problems who can write a sign saying, for example, ‘The office is on fire!’ will score no points for speech and deaf claimants who can read the sign will lose all their points for hearing. Meanwhile, for ‘health and safety reasons’ all points scored for problems with bending and kneeling are to be abolished and claimants who have difficulty walking can be assessed using imaginary wheelchairs. Claimants who have difficulty standing for any length of time will, under the plans, also have to show they have equal difficulty sitting, and vice versa, in order to score any points. And no matter how bad their problems with standing and sitting, they will not score enough points to be awarded ESA. In addition, almost half of the 41 mental health descriptors for which points can be scored are being removed from the new ‘simpler’ test, greatly reducing the chances of being found incapable of work due to such things as poor memory, confusion, depression and anxiety. There are some improvements to the test under the plans, including exemptions for people likely to be starting chemotherapy and more mental health grounds for being admitted to the support group. But the changes are overwhelmingly about pushing tens of thousands more people onto JSA. ——————————————————————————————–It’s easy to pick on immigration as a reason, because you can then say to people never mind we will get it right, but of course since Labour has now moved to the right it believes Immigration is the cause of labour losing. You moved the party to the center then went to the right, if you think immigration is the reason i did not vote labour fine by me.
pity you didn’t think this when your party were pursuing the Pakistani diaspora vote to bolster your majority! (primary purpose, unlimited immigration, celebrate foreign culture rather than your own) horse stable bolted!