There’s a fresh way on immigration – and it has the public’s support

There’s a fresh way on immigration – and it has the public’s support | Andrew Rawnsley | Comment is free | The Observer, 10 March 2013

Andrew Rawnsley has a fairly good track record on matters political…which is one reason politicians tend to simply ignore rather than refute him…

Just under the surface of tough language about immigration, the Conservatives are divided. In the blue corner, we have the Ukip-inclined wing of the Tory party that has convinced itself that hordes of foreigners are swarming to Britain to gorge on our fantastically generous welfare state. For it is well known that this absurdly altruistic government is planning to increase massively the amount it hands out in benefits. The other scare is that vast numbers of people are drawn to Britain to access our world-famous NHS. In the case of the Mid Staffs hospital, that would be world famous for killing a lot of its patients. Strident at the best of times, this wing of the Tory party has become more clamorous because of the electoral menace posed to them by the Farageists.

Over in the other blue corner, we find the liberal and free-market Tories who are much more with the Lib Dems on the issue. These Tories fret about the damage done to Britain’s reputation and economy by presenting an unwelcoming face to the rest of the world and setting crude caps on immigration that target not just unskilled workers but people with useful talents. They fear the effect is to hang a “keep out” sign on Britain that is already driving away enterprising spirits from elsewhere who might otherwise have given a boost to the economy. They also see the paradox of their capitalist, deregulatory party dictating to private companies whom they can employ.

This divide, which has been there since the inception of this government, was illustrated during a private meeting of cabinet members last week. Other Tory ministers rounded on the home secretary for proposing to make it harder for Brazilians to get visas. Her cabinet critics complained that this would risk Britain’s relationship with the fast-growing Latin American power. That row epitomises the conflict between trying to squeeze down immigration and competing for international talent in what the prime minister calls “the global race”. David Cameron embodies the Tory split. Some of his interventions use the language of curbs and crackdowns. On other occasions, he can be highly eloquent about the enriching contribution of migrants. Indeed he has been known to attack immigration and celebrate immigrants in the same speech.

A consequence of these contortions is that the government has nailed itself to a target for immigration that the CBI complains is impeding growth. The target – to reduce net immigration to below 100,000 a year by 2015 – owes nothing to logic. If 10 million of the current population left Britain and were replaced by 10 million arrivals from the planet Zog, then Mr Cameron would be able to go into the next election claiming to have exceeded his target. Yet something tells me the public would not be terribly impressed.

Over on the Labour side, Ed Miliband has been moving his party to a sensible place on integration, arguing that an expectation that incomers should speak English, or learn it if they can’t, is beneficial for both them and Britain. But Labour also has its own divisions to contend with. Polling tells us that traditional, older Labour supporters on lower incomes have a tendency to be hostile to immigration. This contributed to what one member of the shadow cabinet calls Labour’s “C2 meltdown” at the last election. It is to them that Mr Miliband is trying to speak when he says that immigration was too uncontrolled under Labour and its benefits unevenly distributed. As he has said, it was great for people who wanted a conservatory built, but not so good for people who build conservatories.

He has to tread carefully through this minefield. His father was a refugee from the Nazis who then fought with the Royal Navy. The Labour leader spent many years at the Treasury. So he understands that there are economic and moral cases for having generous instincts about immigration. He also knows that to win an election he is going to need the support of younger, more affluent and more liberal leftish voters who recoil when they think Labour is trying to compete with the Tories in bashing immigrants. To try to square that circle, Labour now says it would keep the Tory immigration cap on the grounds that the cap is meaningless anyway. That is, when you think about it, a rather meaningless reason for Labour to support it.

All the parties are struggling to locate and place themselves at the centre of gravity of public opinion. Stereotypes about other nationalities shape perceptions, especially when people are fed with stories suggesting entire nations are composed of beggars and gangs ravenous to rip off Britain. The public also has an exaggerated view about how instantly immigrants can access welfare and the health service, which is not surprising when anxiety is inflamed by politicians on the hunt for a cheap headline. There is a rational argument for an overhaul of the EU’s outdated rules. But contrary to Mr Duncan Smith’s implication that Britain is a magnet for foreign scroungers, his own department’s figures show that only 7% of working-age migrants claim benefits compared with 17% of Brits. The best estimates suggest that migrants as a whole put in 30% more in taxes than they take out in use of public services and welfare.

The public is generally not as xenophobic as liberals tend to fear and extremists like to hope. The best way to describe the national attitude towards immigration is utilitarian. For the most recent edition of the authoritative British Social Attitudes survey, respondents were asked to choose what sort of immigrants they would welcome. The overwhelming majority selected by skill rather than ethnic origin, greatly preferring east Asians with a good education over west Europeans with a poor one. So it was not colour of skin, religion, cultural affinity or geographic proximity that determined the choice, it was a conclusion about what sort of immigrant was likelier to make a valuable contribution to British society.