That senior Conservatives want David Cameron to drop the party’s commitment to the ‘tens of thousands’ net migration target, as revealed in yesterday’s Times splash, should hardly come as a surprise.
His ‘no ifs, no buts’ pledge to get the figure down to ‘tens of thousands’ made a winning soundbite when the Tories were in opposition. In government, it is turned the publication of quarterly Office of National Statistics immigration figures into a stick with which Cameron and Theresa May are publicly beaten every three months.
The man-bites-dog line of the Times story is that Cameron appears keen to stick with his failed promise: ‘Why on earth are the only people who are really committed to our policy me and Theresa May?’ he is supposed to have asked. In today’s Times splash May says ‘I think we will keep the target … it is important because it is about not just dealing with those coming into the system but also making sure that those people who should not live her actually leave.’
This desire to keep receiving the beatings may be rather on trend since the release of Fifty Shades of Grey. Others in the party, however, particularly those feeling under threat from the United Kingdom Independence party, may be less keen on providing a quarterly reminder to the public of why they do not trust the government, or indeed any politicians, on immigration.
If there is one lesson that the net migration target’s failure teaches us, it is that careless promises cost trust.
Labour too faces challenges in making its manifesto offer on immigration.
The party has several sensible things to say about the politics of immigration targets, chief among them is that it will not make promises that can not be kept. But it can also go into more detail about treating different types of immigration differently, so that Britain seeks to attract fee-paying international students, while seeking to reduce the demand for unskilled migration from the European Union, tackling exploitation in the workplace, and promoting integration in communities.
Labour can talk about the detail of a nuanced approach to immigration policies. Yet it still struggles to answer some simple questions that are bound to come up, both on the doorstep and in radio and television studios:
- If the net migration target doesn’t work, what would replace it?
Labour has suggested it would set some ‘smarter targets’, but has yet to set out what form those targets might take nor whether it will be able to articulate what its policies add up to.
- Would immigration rise or fall under Labour next time?
The party has endlessly debated whether the 2004 decision to let the Poles in early was right or wrong. But a future government will not face that decision again. The future policy is less clear.
Yvette Cooper told Andrew Marr on Sunday that Labour would like immigration to fall. But she cannot credibly promise that it would definitely be lower in 2020 than 2015, because of EU free movement, where Labour is also on the unpopular side of the argument over a referendum to let voters decide, and because non-EU migration is now hard to cut further without damaging growth.
Time limits before EU migrants can claim benefits may address concerns about contribution, but they are unlikely to dramatically cut numbers, since most migrants come to work, not claim. Reducing the demand for immigration, largely through education and skills policy, sounds like a long-term goal.
If the party wants to be judged on more than a ‘numbers game’, and to move the debate beyond what happens at the border, it may need to be rather clearer about the tests of success of its own policy.
‘Making promises you can keep’ is an important reality check on immigration. But pointing out David Cameron’s broken net migration promise will only get you so far: voters will also want to know what alternative they are being promised. If you cannot offer one, immigration might yet cause more pain for Labour too.
——————————
Matthew Rhodes is director of strategy at British Future. He tweets @MatthewRhodes
———————————