Immigration is like a queue in a restaurant: the punters might not like it, but a canny manager knows that it is both a sign and a cause of success. The sad truth of the last few days is that a new group of customers have decided to dine elsewhere; that they’ve looked at the menu and decided it simply isn’t that appetising.
Yes, apparently, the restaurant got a bit swamped last time; one of the many parts of our last spell in government that we’ve decided we ought to apologise for. I’m still at a loss, exactly, to work out what ‘swamped’ means. It cannot mean falling standards in local schools, because standards actually improved more in schools with high immigrant populations. It cannot mean more crises for the NHS, because eastern European migrants use the NHS rather less, on the whole, than their British counterparts. It cannot mean housing, because a vanishingly small number of ‘new’ Europeans are either using or seeking social housing. Fewer still claim jobseeker’s allowance. It cannot mean wages, either, because the evidence that migrants suppress native wages or incomes is even more exiguous than the number of Poles on the dole.
So really, what exactly is ‘swamped’ and what exactly is Labour meant to be apologising for? If it’s for having a more open and successful labour market than the Schengen countries in the middle of the last decade, I’m not convinced we ought to. Immigration became a convenient scapegoat for Labour’s defeat last time around; but it was migration from the Treasury to No 10, not Poland to Britain, that caused Labour’s loss.
The plain truth is that Britain needs more immigration, not less; that the coalition’s success in reducing immigration has been an utter disaster for Britain. The only immigration they’ve succeeded in stopping is from students: so that fall in immigration, so loudly touted, is nothing more than a fall-off in British exports. It’s not an invasion of Bulgars that should keep Britons awake at night, it’s the fact that the nations of old Europe make up about five per cent of the world’s population, produce roughly a quarter of the planet’s wealth, and rack up almost half of the world’s welfare spending.
Now, you might think – and you’d be right – that all that spending still doesn’t produce a good enough standard of living for most people. And you might think – and you’d be right – that the nations of the Asian, African and American continents ought to be spending more on their citizens than they do at the moment. But it’s an open question as to whether or not that will happen; we don’t yet know if the people of Brazil, India or Nevada will become ‘more European’. So the question then becomes: how do we maintain the European way of life? Because, as tempting as it is to point the figure at an unscrupulous boss class, the reality is that it’s consumers on the internet, not employers, who do the most to drive down wages. It’s bright young things in the knowledge economy we’re all meant to want to build who are wiping out middle-income jobs and hollowing out the economy. So we can spend the next year and a half banging on and on about immigration. Or we can talk about the real problems that face the country. Either way, it’s our move.
———————————————————
Stephen Bush is a contributing editor to Progress, writes a weekly column for Progress, the Tuesday review, and tweets @stephenkb
———————————————————
“The plain truth is that Britain needs more immigration, not less”
That’s for the British people to decide, not you. And the British people don’t agree.
No, he is perfectly in her rights to state that – the British people could decide otherwise, but that still doesnt make his statement wrong.
It’s for the British people to decide whether they agree or not, not you.
Quite right.
But three quarters of Britons want less immigration.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/07/uk-britain-immigration-survey-idUKBREA0600F20140107
But listening to the people is, erm, “pandering to populism”, otherwise known as democracy. We can’t have that, now, can we. Not in Britain. We don’t want people thinking we live in a democracy! Whatever next!
Got to get the obligatory Gordon Brown bashing in there, I see…
Britain is a country which has to import 40% of its food, 90% of its fruit and vegetables – using oil, and thus contributing unneessarily to global warming, incidentally. much of whose flora and fauna , once ubiquitous, is now on the verge of extinction due to human population pressure. In 2008 England overtook the Netherlands for the first time in history in becoming the most crowded major country in the most crowded continent on the planet. Space is part of the good life, and England, which contains 84% of the population of the island, is fast losing it.
England has more than 400 people per sq kilometre. Denmark, the most crowded Scandinavian country, has 130 people per sq km. Of the 50 states of the USA, only tiny New Jersey is as crowded as England – that is, less than a quarter of a percent of the whole country. The most crowded province of Canada – has 25 per square km. The population density of European Russia (the most crowded part of Russia) is 37 per square km. To be in favour of mass immigration to this little island off the coast of northern Europe and to claim that one cares about the environment is a gross incompatibility, and grossly irresponsible. There is no justification and no need for immigration.
Perhaps Stephen is trying to be provocative as i am sure he realises that Labour needs to listen to people. The ongoing issue is that the matter has been allowed to fester with little real counter argument . It takes Vince Cable to get the headlines rather than a fully coordinated and strategic response from labour that tackles peoples fears in areas that have not had major immigration. A full response would answer how population growth – the real fear as well as the issue of identity, will be addressed ( Housing / schools / employment/ Health ) It will explain how younger immigrants pay for the pensions of older people. it will explain how some key sectors are dependent on immigration ( agriculture and hospitality.) It will explain how the indigenous population will not be worse off but better off. It will explain that in London there has always been immigration that has created the London we have and the wealth we have. It will remind people that the population of London is returning to the post war numbers ( baby boom and immigration ) Labour needs to have a story that resonates with ordinary people about managing the changes that are taking place . It would show how putting a freeze without anything else would be futile and fail to deal with the key issues that are there in any case. Widen the discussion and put UKIP and The Tories on the back foot.
Yes but. I agree that we shouldn’t focus on immigration. It is a UKIP and Tory issue and we should focus on economic growth, cost of living, living wage, fair employment conditions, the NHS and social care. But we can’t ignore it altogether and there are three issues that have some validity, The first is population density. To accommodate an increasing population we have to build more houses and we cannot easily find all the sites in existing cities and towns without wiping out some of their essential green spaces. Urban expansion into the countryside is a problem not just for those who live there but for urban dwellers who visit. The second is cultural assimilation. Most British people are willing to accept people from different cultures and religions but large scale movement into particular small areas does unsettle many people, particularly those who spend most of their lives in one local area. It remains the case that middle class liberals such as myself who tend not to live in areas with high densities of immigrants have to be careful about lecturing people who do. Finally there is wage levels and job security. The evidence on this is mixed but it is unsurprising that people on low incomes in insecure jobs are concerned that they may be undercut by unscrupulous employers targeting immigrant labour.
We shouldn’t focus on immigration, and I’m going to write 13 lines focussing on immigration.
If a country needs more people, then immigration is a sound idea. If it doesn’t, if its population density is very high already, its housing lists huge, its youth unemployment shocking and its health services under enormous strain, then it’s stupid to the point of wickedness.
So Labour could realistically argue that at …’this point’ …in time given the hard Tory cuts to public services , more reduced benefits in the pipeline from Osborn , the underlying jobless figures including the young , the rising inequality, reduced wages, the burden on the NHS and Social Care due to the aging population, the enduring UK debt levels and ongoing debt service payments, etc., then we believe immigration on a large scale should be delayed …So there we have it a political solution for our party.
Unfortunately its becoming a dam big elephant in the room and soon it will be used as proxy for leaving the EU ( god forbid). The BBC clearly believe that its OK to have it as big news item ( as they are more driven by the Tabloid News agenda then ever before). The Opposition parties, unions, intelligentsia and UK business are not challenging UKIP on their distortions. Moreover the public have decided in very large numbers they do not want further worker immigrants from Southern Europe as they concentrate too much in certain areas such as over crowded inner city London or agricultural Lincolnshire etc., and they are using up scarce resources at the time we are reducing public services because of the deficit reduction. We also have a million youngsters without jobs. This leaves us in very tough place. Its easy for middle class intellectuals remote from such places to appreciate how working people and benefit recipients facing reduced incomes feel. Its fear. As a party we can not retreat from this ; its getting too big.
An excellent piece by Stephen Bush. Labour should stop apologising. The Blair Government was right and brave to extend the laboutr market in 2004 abd without it, many elderly people would not have got care, hospitals would have gone uncleaned, major infrasturcture not built and some buses not driven. It then acted as a stabiliser when the recesion hit and many Poles and Lithuanians returned home for work meaning UK unemployemnt did not rise anything liem as sharply as predicted. A single European labour market works well, it generates more jobs for UK residents (not less) and contributes to GDP and the public purse. The points to watch are exploitation (like agnency workers being recrutied all from one country), equal access to employment, promoting greater skills and work readiness for local people and the right conditions for integration. There was also som particular hotpsots putting pressure on public services where there had been poor planning. we k,aso need to ensure the Housing Act is properly enforced to guard against iovercrowding and bed-shifts. But, absolutely, migration in and out is tremendous for the UK as a global hub and we should embrace and welcome workers (as we would hope to be welcomed when we work in other parts of Europe) and ensure they are well treated.
People only come here for money.
Embracing and welcoming them seems a touch odd.
“migration in and out is tremendous for the UK as a global hub”
Hear that, people of Britain – you’re a global hub. What? You don’t remember the referendum where you ticked either box 1 “Yes, I want to be part of a global hub” or 2 “No, I don’t want to be part of a global hub”.
I’d swear the above post was written by a person in London.
“Brave” is what a senior civil servant calls a government minister idea which is guaranteed to result in the cr@p hitting the fan. In plain English, bloody stupid.
So yes, Blair and co letting in millions of unskilled uneducated people was brave, but not in the way you mean it.
“So the question then becomes: how do we maintain the European way of life?”
Certainly not by importing millions of uneducated, unskilled people whose only knowledge of life comes from the Koran. Such an action is that of those who wish to kill off the people of Europe.
Bravo Nigel Farage. First time I’ve ever heard a politician say that some things are more valuable than “prosperity”, and that being a bit “poorer” is a slight price to pay for them.
” Should we really be dwelling so much on the topic of immigration…?”
Yes: As it is important, [mainly to UKIP/BNP/*right-wing parties] as its Ukip’s main Manifesto Pledge to rid the UK [ and Renfrewshire] of Johnnie-Foreigner, tout-de-suite, if not sooner. But allow us [the working plebiscite, proletariat majority] LABOUR supporters proper, verifiable and honest [ha] statistics from ONS/DwP [?] on actual impact costs, quantifiable stat’s not some suck-thumb guesstimations[!] on which sectors of the UK workforce is most ‘harmed’ by admitting [professional and friendly] overseas work applications so as we, the plebs, can compare and make up our own [under-educated] minds as to who to vote for. Apart from potato-pickers and waiting staff at restaurants, the majority [87%] of ‘foreigners’ working in the UK are polytechnik/Uni trained and highly skilled indiviiduals who, unlike many of our British men and women, don’t have a ‘dole’ system, and have to get out of bed in gthe morning, before noon, so that they can pay their rents and buy some food. , . Don’t ‘over-egg’ the immigration issue/s as it only helps one man’s ambitions of Glory, …viz: N.Farage@Ukip, but by the sam etoken, don’t pull the wool over our eyes vis a vis actual statistics — we aint that stoopid, UGov [!]. [*:Define Right Wing?] these days I don’t know my right from my left, Ed’.
No: As all it does is help Nigela Farrage’s Rt wing Loonies’ movement gain more hardcore loony voters; and don’t delude yourselves, there is a smouldering heap of anti-Eu, anti-African, anti-Anyone-not-from-UK within the Labour ranks — not just from North of the Watford Gap. They smile at you at LABOUR Party conferences but [surreptitiously, deviously] put their “X” on voting form to elect N.Farage – more time in Belgium[wtmb] and also to ramp up his chances of becoming an MP. His views are not worth considering, yet we do.
This is not that scary, we have seen it all before in NI, England, Wales and Scotland in various guises – but right wing is right wing**. The only party to benefit from making this immigration issue bigger than it really is, is NFs & his unashamedly right wing Ukips’ cchums. God ‘elp us if they ever get in to power in England -. Hi, wee Eck in Scotland, room for a small one?
LABOUR should stick to getting the normal voters to the polling station instead of fighting right-wing skirmishes — leave that to the Tories [Nigel F’s old party] to squabble over.
Some might have agreed a year or so ago but to quote Keynes “when the facts change I change my mind” or something similar. The electorate are telling us its a big issue to them- all the polling indicates as such with UKIP exceeding Lib Dems. Labour has an absolute duty to confront the issue of inward Southern European working immigrants because it’s well and truly on the agenda ( dumbed down BBC and right wing press and many voters) otherwise wake up in June with bloody bad hangover.
A bit of a critique here of the attitudes expressed in this article, that we shouldn’t be discussing immigration at all. It seems to me rather elitist…and un-democratic.
http://afreeleftblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/on-political-immigration-and-chantal.html
Presumably this immigration which keep us from perishing will be perpetual. The notion of “sufficiency” is, it seems, to dreadful to be uttered aloud, except by the most primitive species of bigoted reactionary.