We Need to Talk About Immigration

Just where do Conservatives stand on immigration?  If I was asked, on the doorstep, "what would your lot do about it," what should I say? Would there be a handy "lift card" to help me out?   Try Googling  "Conservative Policy on Immigration" and you will find a questionnaire with 5 questions, all seeking your views on clamping down on the symptoms rather than dealing with the causes.

I understand that the pledge to cut net migration to the "tens of thousands" has been abandoned.  It has been knocked on the head principally because we have no control of the numbers coming in from the EU but also because the number of our own citizens leaving is declining.

Before we go any further, let us try to remember Sir Andrew Green's ground rules for any debate on immigration:

• Stick to the facts
• Don't demonise your opponents
• Don't condescend to the public.

Perhaps, if you comment on this, you will abide by these rules?

If the current policy is a failure, what now is the target? We can probably agree that it is a positive number, something short of open house.  The trouble is, in defining that number, most protagonists immediately ignore the first rule and employ propaganda (a selective presentation or omission of facts to encourage an emotional rather than a rational response to a particular situation).  We can all think of examples that "prove the rule" - in my case, a recent walk down the High Street of a historic town in Norfolk.  However, although the experience was disturbing, my feelings are not evidence in this debate.

Indeed, there is a lot of powerful and emotional stuff out there which provides the fuel oil for the likes of UKIP.  They have mastered the art of highlighting local issues as evidence of a national policy failure.  Such selectivity is entirely unhelpful to level-headed debate.  That said, Conservatives should recognise the magnetism of the emotion created and not try to demonise UKIP for expressing it.

We saw Tony Blair weigh in to the debate last week, adopting his practiced voice of reason.  "Look" he said, border controls were important to ensure that people did not feel they had "lost control over their communities and their  lives."  Being "swamped" perhaps?

So far so good but then Tony breaks the rules book by proclaiming that stopping immigration would be a "disaster" for Britain - a condescending hyperbole designed to encourage the opposite emotion ie immigration is good.

Let us ignore Tony Blair and the rest of the hand-wringers and instead stick to the facts.  We cannot afford an open door, either socially or economically and if we seal our borders we will be taking the first step in protectionism, the inevitable escalation of  which could only have negative consequences for world trade. Try as we might, we cannot stop fellow Europeans taking advantage of our superior economic prospects - we are victims of our own success.  We can restrict the legal flow from the rest of the world by denying visas but that is a very blunt instrument because there are skills out there that we want, either for economic or cultural reasons.  Finally, we cannot stop our own people from staying - the anti-brain drain, if you like.

The most important fact that our policy should confront is that immigration issues are not uniform across the country.  The Westminster Village view of the great contribution of immigration to our economy and culture is probably not shared in some of our rural communities.  There seems to be a dislocation between the lofty principles of our ruling elite and their elitist language and the practical issues now being faced by local communities.  Our policy must recognise this divide and address it or risk the continued defection of voters. Whilst consistency is required at national level, constituency policies should tackle local issues, flexibly, within that framework.  The vast, and probably unquantifiable, costs of multiculturalism, distortions in the labour market and social division and tension, will all vary from region to region.  But addressing these specifics is a great opportunity for Westminster to re-connect to voters, reversing the tide of contempt in which national politics is perceived.  Indeed, if we are honest, understanding, practical and offer hope, we may even attract some voters back!

I do not think that we breaking any of the Andrew Green rules by concluding that doing nothing is not an option.  So, let us do something that:

• Recognises the economic limits of policy - how many people can we support
• Accepts that the wholesale dilution of traditional values, either locally or nationally,  is not acceptable
• Highlights that, if Europe is the problem, we need to do something about Europe
• Provides for immigrants with unique skills and attributes
• Gives hope that practical local issues will not be swept under the carpet of political idealism.

Whilst we must avoid any more knee-jerk policies, the urgency for doing something soon is palpable.  For reasons outlined above, UKIP are marching ahead and the further they go the more difficult it will become to claw back lost ground.  Perhaps there is something waiting at the press and ready to go and I am worrying unnecessarily?  Perhaps not, and in which case, the foot soldiers of the CPF should be delighted to contribute.   We spent a lot of time contributing to the CPF policy debate on immigration but we haven't seen much by way of a reaction yet!

Acknowledgements: I am most grateful for the editorial assistance provided by my RAF pal in Northumberland and my old school friend in York.