However, Mr Cameron returned to the slogan last week in a speech aimed at those who have criticised him for ignoring his Tory roots. No one should take seriously the claim that David Cameron was suddenly trying to begin a mature debate. No, this was about sending a not-very-subtle signal to his voters.
Ed Miliband, while I am sure having no illusions about the motivations behind Mr Cameron’s speech, also spoke about the issue, acknowledging that Labour had misjudged the numbers and impact of the large scale immigration from eastern Europe which took place after the expansion of the European Union.
The left is traditionally uncomfortable talking about immigration. We are internationalist by nature. We have a long anti-racist tradition and also are by instinct optimistic and positive about the motivations of others. So we emphasise the hard work and effort shown by immigrants and the positive contribution so many have made to our country. These are good traditions and instincts. We should hold on to them. But they shouldn’t stop us taking part in a debate about the rules and terms upon which people come here.
Let me declare an interest. My own parents were immigrants from rural Ireland in the 1950s, part of a wave of thousands of Irish people leaving a country which at that time had few economic opportunities and heading for a new life, usually in Britain or the United States.
Britain was good to my parents and my family. They did what many other immigrants did – worked hard and made sure that their children got educational opportunities which had not been available to them. That story has been repeated thousands of times not only by families from Ireland but many other parts of the world. My own constituency is home to thousands of people with roots in Punjab, who came to Britain in the 1960s and 1970s and, just like my parents, instilled in their own children a desire to work hard and study hard in the UK. Last weekend I walked through the streets of my constituency with thousands of Sikhs in the Nagar Kirtan, the traditional Vaisakhi parade which over the years has become part of the religious and cultural fabric in Wolverhampton.
So immigration is nothing new in the UK. But what would a sensible discussion of it involve?
First of all, we would acknowledge what we can control and what we can’t control. If we are to remain part of the EU, we cannot change the free movement of people which lies at the heart of membership. Ed Miliband was right to acknowledge that we underestimated the number of people who would come from eastern Europe. But even if we had had a higher estimate, apart from perhaps transitional arrangements, the freedom of movement would still be there as a result of EU expansion.
Second, what of immigration from beyond the EU? Labour attempted to set rules on this through our points-based system which essentially tried to reduce non-skilled immigration from outside the EU but still give companies and universities access to the highly skilled immigrants that they seek. There is a legitimate debate to be had around this issue, but given the freedom of movement that exists within the EU, we should not pretend it will have more of an effect on overall levels of immigration than it will.
Third, there is the issue of Britain’s image as an open economy and a good place to study. The government is keen to say that Britain is open for business. But you can’t be open for business and closed to people. The signals here are important. Britain has huge attractions as a place to live and study. Smart young people from abroad who study here are likely to maintain a high opinion of Britain when they return home to run either businesses or the political affairs of their own country. Closing that off would not be in our interests. And we are unlikely to continue to attract high levels of inward investment if we put up a ‘closed’ sign around the country.
Fourth, although I believe that most immigrants come to Britain to work rather than claim benefits, immigration does set a challenge for social democratic forms of provision of public goods. We believe these are important to maintain social solidarity, to ensure people are protected from homelessness, unemployment or the effects of ill health. But immigration raises the question of how these goods should be allocated and what conditions there should be to access them. This is a difficult debate for the left to have but it underlies some of the frustration around immigration – the notion that some have paid in and others have gained access without doing so. This balance between exchange and need was behind the concept of earned citizenship developed by Gordon Brown in government but this concept may have further application elsewhere.
Finally, we should have a discussion of what modern Britain really stands for. John Major gave us a vision of warm beer and cricket. What is the left’s answer? We should be the optimists, the believers that Britain’s best days can be in front of us, not behind us. The reason people from around the world want to come to live here is not the traditional one flagged on the right – that we are somehow a ‘soft touch’. Instead it is because this is a great country. The freedom of religion, the ability to study and use education as a means of social mobility, the chance to start and grow a new business, the enormous power and constant innovation of our culture and creative industries – these are all hugely admired features of Britain around the world and more rare than we might think. It may be the fashion for some to talk Britain down, to trade on nostalgia rather than belief in the future, but Labour should seize the opportunity to speak up for and defend what is great about our country in the 21st century.
Wouldn’t the great tragedy of an immigration debate be that immigrants could see what was great about Britain but that we had lost the ability to see it ourselves?
This is balanced and reasonable statement on the progressive approach to immigration. But it is frustrating that centre left politicians so easily, as Ed Miliband did the other day, starting bandying around presumptions about migrants putting pressure on wages and public services. These statements are unsubstantiated and they end up being recirculated as accepted facts. Pat says here that immigration gives rise the “the notion that some have paid in and others have gained access without doing so.” It would be hellpful of progressive politicians insisted on reference to the evidence base when the discussion starts moving in these directions. The best research to date – for example from the DWP – suggests that across the past decade immigration has a had a postive net effect on wage levels – albeit small – with negative effects being limited to relatively small occupational sectors using outmoded production methods. Claims for negative impacts on public services seldom rise above the annectotal and on beng subject to proper scrutiny are invariably found to be quite wrong with the EHRC report on migration and housing being a good example of this. Progressive politicians wold help public debate in this area no end of they insisted on a rigorous examination of the evidence when they deal with this issue and they avoided giving the hostages to fortune which Mr Miliband’s unhelpful contribution offered up. With proper facts to refer to, and politicians who insisted on them, we could yet see a change in the tone of the public conversation.
Pat, a bit of revisionism from you here. firstly, the free movement of people within Europe does, indeed, mean that people can travel to work and live where they wish…within reason. However, it was the Labour governemnt that decided, along with just two other countries, to allow immediate immigration from eastern Europe without restrictions. The free movement of people was not designed to allow or encourage mass migration. The trouble with “smart young people” coming here to study is precisely that rather too many decide not to return home at all. Enforcing, strictly, visa restrictions and expiry dates is entirely fair and reasonable. The debate about who has access to what services should not be difficult for the Left. Only utopian fantasists or post colonial guilt fetishists do not understand the concept of paying into the collective pot before you benefit from it. Abusers are insulting their (temporary) hosts, and removal is a fair response. Ditto immigrants who commit crimes. Unfortunately, I have a horrible feeling that Frank Field’s vision of Britain is too close to the truth. We are becoming a “global traffic station”. My Britain is secular, democratic and recognises the huge achievements in securing greater equality for women and gays (amongst others). Those who do not share these values should also no longer be tolerated.
Don Flynn, I really don’t want to be rude, but comments like yours explain why Laabour lost every seat in Kent, Sussex and most of the south east. Patronising tosh about “outmoded production methods” in “relatively small occupational sectors”. If you wish to defend companies not wanting to train the pool of at least one and a half million Brits who are not working, and pay them a living wage, but to bring in cheap and motivated immigrants, fine, but why not do it in a Telegraph blog, because this view is anything but progressive. You mention DWP research on the effects immigration has had on wages. You could also look at the House of Lords report that suggested that there are marginal, at best, economic benefits of 3 million or so people entering the country. And the social costs are enormous, as are the political costs as we saw last May. Do you not understand basic economics? Increased supply lowers cost. There has been a huge increase in the supply of labour from overseas. If you don’t think this has had an effect on wages, and the availability of jobs to people WHO COME FROM THIS COUNTRY, then you are seriously deluded. Anecdotally, I will tell you that London is horribly over crowded, children are not getting into schools and there is a housing problem that can only resolved by concreting over the Green Belt and buidling over back gardens. Except in London, this is not anecdotal. It is what is actually happening. There is nothing progressive about mass immigration on the scale we have witnessed over the last 10 or 15 years. The great shame is that some who say they are on the left have not yet understood this.
but we can be sure 2/3 of the indigenous (to keep you happy)population do not share those ‘values’ what are you going to do ,shoot them?!
“Labour had misjudged the numbers and impact of the large scale immigration from eastern Europe” ??? That gives the impression labour had no inkling of what would happen when the floodgates were opened in 2004. Perhaps they should have asked why most other existing EU countries applied restrictions; or perhaps they should simply have listened to opposing political parties; or the media; or maybe even just the average bloke in the pub. By all means, labour party, – apologise for royally cocking-up, but don’t try to re-write history by pretending you weren’t well aware of the consequences.
“Labour had misjudged the numbers and impact of the large scale immigration from eastern Europe” ??? That gives the impression labour had no inkling of what would happen when the floodgates were opened in 2004. Perhaps they should have asked why most other existing EU countries applied restrictions; or perhaps they should simply have listened to opposing political parties; or the media; or maybe even just the average bloke in the pub. By all means, labour party, – apologise for royally cocking-up, but don’t try to re-write history by pretending you weren’t well aware of the consequences.
What does any of this mean in terms of actual policy and figures? What is the optimum level of immigration?And from where? How should this level be attained? And who shal enforce it? And how? None of these essential answers are even eluded to in this article.