Immigration

Should the Tories talk about immigration? This will bring back a lot of bad memories for the modernisers, who believe that this hurt them in 2005. But, as Tim Montgomerie says over at CiF today, the picture has transformed since then. The total number of immigrant workers has risen 25 per cent, to 3.5 million. And nationally, immigrants now make up a remarkable 15 percent of the workforce (see graph below) – which puts us up there with America. Except our immigration is handled in a haphazard way that creates plenty of bad feeling. Talk to a Tory candidate and they will say there’s only one issue that gets cut-through on the doorsteps. And, so, all parties seem to be adopting a “shout it locally, say nothing nationally” approach to immigration.

By way of a response to the comments on my post yesterday, here are some reasons to be cheerful about Cameron and the Tories. The poll lead dropping to six points is indeed a wake-up call, and Cameron probably worked out a while ago that things were going a bit Pete Tong. Indeed (Short the UK), there are signs that he has already started to act. Look at last Monday: three strong election videos, without a politician in sight. The perfect remedy to the Tragedy of Cameron's Head poster. The policy of allowing management buy-outs of government departments is bold, radical and entirely in keeping with Cameron's general policy of empowering the many, not the few.

Here, CoffeeHousers, is my take on this morning's Cameron interview: 1. General demeanor: excellent, articulate, confident. The complete opposite from Brown. It does make you think that he should wipe the floor with Brown in the TV debates. 2. “Last week we saw William Hague and George Osborne going to Afghanistan together. First shadow Chancellor, the man who is going to be in charge of the money, on the frontline seeing what is going on in Afghanistan”. Indeed, but the NHS pledge and deficit cut pledge imply deep cuts to the military. To govern is to choose, and Cameron has made his choice: NHS spending before the military.

There are plenty of noteworthy snippets in Mehdi Hasan and James Macintyre's interview with Alan Johnson today, but it's this passage which jumped out at me: "Johnson even chooses to defend the Tories on immigration, saying they represent a 'mainstream, centre-right' party engaging in a 'decent, centre-ground debate on immigration'. This, despite the Tories having stuck to the 2005 pledge, under Michael Howard, for an immigration 'cap', which - along with campaign posters asking 'Are you thinking what we're thinking?' - led to accusations of 'dog-whistle' politics." It's a truism that in order to have a sensible debate, you've got to be willing to actually have a debate – so it's encouraging that Johnson is taking this more conciliatory approach to the question of immigration.

My recent post about the BNP has offended liberals as well as the hard right. Liberal Conspiracy’s Sunny Hundal writes: ‘David is highly confused. This is because he says: "The Spectator has maintained that the party’s domestic policies are inspired by racial supremacist ideology and that its economic policies are like Dagenham – that is, three stops beyond Barking." Yes, I’ll agree with that. The party’s domestic policies are indeed inspired by a racial supremacist ideology. Which is why people should avoid following those policies right? Except, he does on to say centrist parties “must engage with (and I mean engage with, not shout down)” BNP policies. What a muddle.

Further to Alan Johnson’s immigration statement on Monday, Gordon Brown will give a speech on the topic. The intention is to re-engage with core voters who have defected to the BNP. In an interview with the Mail, Brown acknowledged that the public were right to be concerned, especially in times of economic uncertainty and hardship. Brown is expected to tighten migrant employment controls so that migrants are only used where there are labour shortages. He will strengthen the ‘Labour Market Test’ by extending vacancy exclusivity for UK citizens from 2 weeks to a month, and pledges to retrain British workers. The proposals are welcome and the rhetoric is tough, giving some weight to the maligned call of ‘British jobs for British workers’.

Labour has at last acknowledged the damage the BNP’s rise has caused them. Interviewed by Andrew Neil, Peter Hain admitted that government failure on housing and migration had heightened the BNP’s appeal, and, in an interview in this morning’s Independent, Alan Johnson elaborates on his claim that successive governments have been “maladroit” in handling immigration. “Part of its (the BNP’s) attraction is that it is raising things that other political parties don't raise. It would take the absence of a national debate as the green light to distort the debate. It has absolutely no inhibition about lying about these issues.

This week’s interviewee on the BBC’s Straight Talk with Andrew Neil is Peter Hain. One of the topics for discussion is Labour’s disengagement with its core vote and the rise of the BNP. Hain admits that this can be ascribed to Labour’s failings and Westminster’s disengagement with voters. Certainly, Labour’s failure on housing and migration has been a major factor in Griffin’s rise. But there is nothing to suggest that Labour has the political strength to re-engage. Even after the recent furore, there have been no new initiatives on housing or migration, just pitiful contrition in the place of action. Hain’s outright refusal to share a platform with the BNP and engage with its arguments is a case in point.