Immigration

Boris is at it again this morning. Revealing, that is, why he cannot be trusted with office. To be charitable, I wouldn't trust many newspaper columnists with the keys to power.  But, of course, most Grub Street residents have no interest in being crowned Emperor. Boris does. Which is why his columns for the Daily Telegraph are so troublesome. You will remember the recent occasion when he suggested the burden of proof in criminal trials be reversed. That was revealing, but in a bad way. So is today's column in which he proposes setting quotas for immigrants from other EU countries. As is so often the case you are left to wonder which is worse: Boris meaning this or Boris not meaning this but writing it anyway. Neither answer is reassuring.

If David Cameron needed reminding of how his conference agenda had been stamped on, it came on the Marr show. The Tories’ conference curtain-raiser of reducing the benefit cap, limiting access to benefits for the under 21s and creating more apprentices was eclipsed by Syria, the Reckless defection, the EU renegotiation and Cameron’s Royal gaffe.

Yvette Cooper today reiterated her pledge to scrap the Tories' net migration target as she addressed the Labour conference. Her speech contained the obligatory admission about their party's past mistakes that Cooper and her colleagues must repeat whenever they talk about immigration, but the Shadow Home Secretary also suggested that the current government is still getting things wrong. She said: 'Yes, Labour got things wrong on immigration – on transitional controls for Eastern Europe, on the impact of jobs, but look at what this government is doing now. David Cameron promised "no ifs no buts" he would meet his net migration target. Theresa May boasted last year that her progress on her target was "an achievement to be proud of".

No notes speech have been Ed Miliband’s political party trick. His One Nation speech two years ago ended speculation about his leadership and last year’s energy price freeze effort knocked the Tories off their stride for months. But today, the no notes speech hurt Miliband rather than helped him. Without an autocue, Miliband skipped bits of the speech. This has happened to him before, one year he missed out the section on the environment. But this year, Miliband missed out the bits he could least afford to: forgetting the sections on the deficit and immigration.

So Nigel, where's your flood? You know, the one involving Bulgarians and Romanians that you predicted last year. That deluge? You got it wrong, didn't you? Ner-ner-di-ner-ner. It must be very tempting for people who don't like Nigel Farage to spend today chuckling, scrolling through the ONS website and waving their mouse with a satisfied flourish at the finding that the number of people from these countries who are employed in the UK has risen by 13,000 from the same period last year, when transitional controls were still in place. The Ukip leader had predicted 5,000 a week, but his forecasts look as good as David Silvester's attempts at dabbling in meteorology. It has given Farage's critics another opportunity to accuse him of 'scaremongering'.

So Boris Johnson is standing for parliament next year, triggering speculation about what would happen if David Cameron lost the election. Could we have Ed Miliband as prime minister, followed by Boris Johnson? Jon Stewart would have a field decade. Boris is easily the most popular Conservative politician around, both inside and outside the party, and is the only one to have genuine appeal with the public. People go up to him to shake his hand in the street, rather than just vomit everywhere, as is the case with most other Tories. Both he and Nigel Farage are jovial figures whose cheery, bumbling persona enables us to forgive any private failings.

I have described David Cameron's posturing on immigration today as vacuous and cynical, for that is exactly what it is. Cynical because once again he seems determined to fool the British people into believing that we can seriously have our own immigration policy whilst remaining inside the EU. We can't. Vacuous because his policy solution seems to consist of tinkering around the edges of the problem instead of dealing with it head on. Under his government, net migration levels per annum remain in the hundreds of thousands, with citizens from twenty-seven other nations allowed to come and go as they please. What Britain really needs is a tough, solid, Australian-style immigration system. One which is firm but fair and that can control numbers.

‘1914: Day by Day’, the Radio 4 series by the historian Margaret MacMillan, is a gripping reminder that significant global events often arrive not in a single eruption but in a series of lesser happenings that only afterwards form an obvious pattern. Let’s hope that’s not what we’re watching in the banking sector as anticipation builds towards the results, due in October, of the European Banking Authority’s current round of ‘stress testing’. Last month’s trouble spot — with a certain resonance for the current centenary — was Austria, whose government forced losses on bondholders in the troubled Hypo Alpe-Adria-Bank by overriding a guarantee from the province of Carinthia.

Politicians tend to get all the blame for immigration policies not working. But politicians are often doomed to fail on migration questions because there are deep-rooted problems with the way we all debate immigration and with what we expect of immigration policy. Following UKIP’s success in the European elections, and given the likely failure of the government to meet its net migration target by 2015, immigration is guaranteed to be a key focal point of public debate in the run-up to the general election next year. There is widespread agreement that Britain needs a ‘better’ immigration debate - but how can that be achieved? Over the past year I have been developing an online course on international labour migration for Oxford University which deals with this question.