Immigration, free movement and the better off

 

Both main parties are experiencing an electoral torture over the vexed topics of free movement of people and immigration.

Labour has traditionally captured a large share of the recent migrant vote. It is reluctant to say or do anything that could upset that important constituency. It also under Mr Blair made a successful pitch for many more votes from the better off and higher earning sections of society. Many in this group welcome more migration, as they wish to employ the new migrants and  want to see the market for their goods and services expand.

Labour’s traditional voters often  take a different view. They do not wish to see migrants in the queue for social housing, nor like  cheaper competition in the labour market for unskilled jobs that already pay very little. The Unions are none too keen on a plentiful increase in the supply of labour when they are trying to get a better return for their members. Labour are now seeing some of their traditional vote disappear to parties of the  anti immigrant right and are not sure what to do about it. Some in Labour, never enamoured of the EU, want a new policy to get more control over the UK’s borders and welfare back. Others think the Blairite approach of appealing to the better off and  migrants will still be a winning combination so they can ignore the traditional Labour voters.

The Conservatives have been far less successful at attracting recent migrant votes, but wish to improve their performance with these groups. They also wish to improve their appeal to the young, to the metropolitan and to the more socially liberal, who all tend to accept or welcome more migration.

This produces the same problem as Labour’s. Traditional Conservative voters, especially pensioners, dislike the pace of change in their country and wish to see strict controls on migration. They worry about supply and access to benefits and public services and the impact on housing. It fuels the ability of UKIP to attract Conservative voters away, sometimes in sufficient numbers to deliver the Council seat or Parliamentary seat to Labour or the Lib Dems as recently at Eastleigh. In office past Conservative governments did impose much stricter controls on migration than the last Labour government. To do so again requires that renegotiation of our relationship with the EU, as free movement is an important part of the issue.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

180 Comments

  1. Old Albion
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 5:24 am | Permalink

    The party that offers; Withdrawal from the EU. An end to uncontrolled immigration. Fair taxation across the board and a Parliament for England will get my vote.

    • James Matthews
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 9:04 am | Permalink

      Not Labour, LibDems or Conservatives then. None of them offering a realistic prospect of even one out of three.

    • Gary C
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

      That would be a good start & ensure my vote too.

    • BobE
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

      Agreed

  2. Lifelogic
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 5:27 am | Permalink

    Cameron the Libdems and Labour all want to retain the free (selective) movement of people within the EU despite the fact that this (in general) depresses wages and and GDP per capital.

    Meanwhile we are deterring bright student from coming to study which is daft. I see Russian-born physicist Professor Sir Andre Geim has said new restrictions on non-European Union immigrants, including minimum salary requirements of at least £31,000 and tighter student visa rules, are blocking the brightest academics from working at British institutions. He suggested he restrictions would have prevented him and his team from identifying the revolutionary “super-material” graphene, which earned him the Nobel Prize in physics in 2010.

    Let us take the brightest, the scientists, the wealthy, the skills needed and the hard working – selectivity or sensible “discrimination” is what we want. Discrimination that is not Cameron’s bonkers basis of EU in non EU out.

    • A different Simon
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 8:54 am | Permalink

      Selective migration of workers is a flight of human capital from the location they come from .

      Almost everybody accepts this as truth within their country ; i.e. the departure of motivated young people to the big city having a detrimental effect on the villages and smaller towns they leave .

      This should be made clear to countries which want to join the EU – that it will lead to a flight of human capital out of their country .

      I think selective migration is a ruse of the richer countries in a trade block to keep the poorer ones in their place .

      • Lifelogic
        Posted July 8, 2014 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

        Indeed it can clearly be negative by draining the best workers from other countries, but would you imprison these people in their country of origin against their wills? Or would you only take the migrants who are likely to be a net liability and leave the better ones at home?

        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted July 8, 2014 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

          Simon and Lifelogic–You chaps must not forget that EUphiles already treat the EU as a single country, at least in their dreams, so are unable to see the obvious problems caused by excessive immigration: huge language difficulties,wildly different religions and cultures, no knowledge of the relative history and Law, swamping of local schools in the case of the children, driving down wages of the unskilled in the case of grown ups et cetera.

          • Leslie Singleton
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

            Postscript–Should have mentioned house prices–an enormous problem in itself plus pressure on especially green field sites.

        • Bazman
          Posted July 8, 2014 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

          I would take any that would work in my business for the least amount of money who are able to do the job and are honest and reliable. Ask any businessman or economist if this makes sense. Why should the state dictate who I should employ? Its economics in its purest sense. The next thing is that business will be forced to employ those with no ability to do the work with their tax and spend employment destroying pointless jobs. The British should follow their fine example of passing on their living cost savings on and getting a job in the process.

          • Edward2
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

            As you are 100% in favour of all the EU has to offer your scenario of lower wages for the less well off as a result of uncontrolled movement of labour shouldn’t come as a surprise to you Baz
            Perhaps this is why the biggest businesses are like you, so very enthusiastic about the great project.

          • Bazman
            Posted July 10, 2014 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

            Everyone has to compete. The money saved and made by the rich will trickle down in a cascade of wealth to the poorest creating more jobs and higher living standards for them.
            Why cannot a British person compete with Eastern Europeans and why should they not? Questions you have failed to answer.

  3. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 5:55 am | Permalink

    Free Movement is one of the most important issues. I would like to emigrate to Australia , yet I am too old . The EU does not take this stance .It is not free movement persae ; it is inward movement and restrictions on the UK.

    The problem with past perceptions and excuses is that every time we talked about control of immigration the ‘lords of finance and their unwitting proselytes shouted racism ‘ They appealed to our sense of morality whereupon we had to keep quiet or else.

    We are not naturally a racist society , yet this excuse still abounds. We already have a multi cultural society which we embrace but we are not stupid enough to have more children in our house than we can afford.We need a government who can budget sensibly as we females were taught in domestic science. Note well: this is a science boys!

    • Jerry
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 10:20 am | Permalink

      @margaret brandreth-j: “Free Movement is one of the most important issues. I would like to emigrate to Australia , yet I am too old . The EU does not take this stance .It is not free movement persae ; it is inward movement and restrictions on the UK.”

      That cuts to the essence of the issue, and it is one that has no solution other than the UK either leaving the EU or becoming one of the 28 states of the USoE. To the eurocrats, people from say Spain are not migrating to another country should they come to the UK, to these eurocrats it is like an Australian moving from Western Australia to Queensland, or someone in the USA moving from Texas to New York.

      100% in or 100% out, there is no other solution to the many EU based questions, time for that referendum, only then we can move on politically, economically and socially.

    • yulwaymartyn
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 10:56 am | Permalink

      Margaret. I have thought a lot about this issue and I largely agree with your post. I think however that the scapegoats have also moved with the times. The object of racism in the 60’s and 70’s has now moved on along with everything else. Racism is not now confined to race but rather nationality. Is it racist to cast a nationality in a negative way? The answer is yes.

    • Anonymous
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 10:58 am | Permalink

      “The Conservatives have been far less successful at attracting recent migrant votes, but wish to improve their performance with these groups. They also wish to improve their appeal to the young, to the metropolitan and to the more socially liberal, who all tend to accept or welcome more migration.”

      And here is the problem. I am of an age a few decades younger than Dr Redwood and have lived with multiracialism – made successful by us as much as anyone else – all of my life. Already I am considered old fashioned, unenlightened and there is a hint of a suggestion that I might even be a bigot.

      My position is simple. There is no justification for unlimited and unselective immigration. Common sense, surely ?

      We cannot discuss anything with any honesty if we have no idea of how many or who is going to be here.

      New immigrants shouldn’t have votes – especially with the ease and lack of discernment with which passports are issued. What easier way for socialists to gerrymander than to invite people who are likely to vote left ? Then the Tories fish for these votes and the whole leftist pull becomes self perpetuating.

      If the Tories are going out to appeal to these groups then they are no longer Tory. The decent thing to do would be to change the name of the party so no-one is confused.

      (Thank you for writing this Post, Dr Redwood.)

  4. Mark B
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 6:17 am | Permalink

    With respect, I think you are confusing immigration, with MASS-immigration. They are NOT quite the same thing.

    Immigration is a natural process that overtime has had to be controlled due to cheap mass transportation from afar. We never had border controls one hundred years ago because, just to move just around this country, was both expensive and time consuming. So just imagine what it must have been like for those moving from one country in Europe to another.

    As cost of transport gone down, and the numbers of people that can be moved gone up, so to has the need to control the flow. Much like that with a dam across a river. If you cannot moderate the flow, just like we saw with the Somerset levels, you get flooded out.

    Being part of the Single Market means accepting the ‘Four Freedoms’. One of which, is the free movement of people. It has been stated on numerous occasions that, this freedom, like the rest, is non-negotiable. So, this notion of renegotiation and one of the fundamental freedoms is just plain ridiculous and I do wish our kind host stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

    What we can do, is restrict those that come from non-EU states. A points based system is both fair and workable and should be standard policy of any political party. It is about the individual, not the colour of their skin, or indeed the country they are leaving that should determine their residency.

    Those that are joining UKIP over immigration tend to be from either the BNP or Labour. Your party has lost members mainly down to the behavior of your leader ! Turnip Taliban, tends to spring to mind.

    Another issue is, those that are coming here illegally. We need to change the rules regarding benefits to those that seek asylum. I do not believe people who are in a safe country like France, wanting to come here because they are somehow safer and freer. They come because we offer more. It is this need to be kind with other peoples money for those who do not share our values which irks me the most. It is high time that we took a far stronger and dimmer view of such people, and name them for what they truly are – Benefit seeking Parasites !

    We do not want them, nor do we need them, and we should, at the first opportunity, send them back to were they came from. It is here, that we must make the efforts to change the system that they are clearly gaming. And this can only been done at international level away from the EU. And to do this, we must invoke Article 50, and begin negotiations with the EU on terms of exit.

    Post exit, we would take our rightful place amongst the family of ‘independent’ nations and, would be able to influence world and EU immigration policy. No more taking orders from Little Europe / EU.

    As for Labour : As you sow, so shall you reap !

  5. Mike Stallard
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 6:17 am | Permalink

    Feminism, abortion, compulsory PSHE, and the general assumption that a woman is judged by her profession rather than by her domesticity, have dramatically reduced the size of families and the number of babies that survive in the native population. There is a huge gap. So people are drawn into the vacuum from all over the world.

    We could be like Japan, which simply refused to allow anyone to settle there. The result? Stagnation and shrinking economy. Or we could be like (named poorer country ed) where there are vast numbers of people clamouring for survival in a mass of unwanted humanity. The result? Some people living in a sewer scratching for a living on the disgusting rubbish heap, while others meanly exploit them.

    Plugging the inflow is hard. The EU is not going to relent on Schengen. If anyone can get into Italy or Portugal, or Lithuania and then to UK, they stay. Our country is being transformed. And we are not allowed to talk about it.

    One thing we can all agree on, whatever religion, whatever colour, whatever our place of birth, if things go on like this, we can kiss our Welfare State goodbye. We can also expect vast slums of people in caravans. We will also run out of water in the South. And, as a certain famous Labour Politician, now a millionaire, once said, “Don’t get old”.

    • Jerry
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 10:38 am | Permalink

      @Mike Stallard: “Our country is being transformed. And we are not allowed to talk about it.”

      Of course we can talk about it, what we can’t do is throw (thinly disguised) insults and worse.

      “if things go on like this, we can kiss our Welfare State goodbye. We can also expect vast slums of people in caravans. We will also run out of water in the South”

      Why, why and why?! The sustainability of the Welfare State is connected to the health of the economy, not how many migrants settle, housing supply simply needs proper planning, whilst the UK should never ever be short of water, why, because we are an island (never mind the fact that water could be moved from the more plentiful north to (supposed) problematic south, after all if coastal states in the Middle East have plentiful water supplies…

      • Kenneth R Moore
        Posted July 8, 2014 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

        People in caravans, tin shacks, windowless basements, etc..it’s already happening we hear about garden sheds and other unsuitable building being used to accommodate new arrivals in London and further North now.

        Why why why cannot some see that the Uk population is growing at a steady 0.7% per annum or around 450,000 new people. This is totally unsustainable. Whether you speak from the left or right the laws of mathematics are universal. Unchecked exponential growth in population can only have one conclusion – shortages and ultimately social breakdown.

        In just over an average lifetime, the population will have doubled – despite nobody except a few extremists wanting this to happen.

        How long can we go on providing for a city the size of Birmingham every 2 years?. How many new reservoirs, sewers, hospitals etc. will need to be built just to maintain the existing level of service. Whole swathes of existing infra-structure will need to be ripped out and re-built. And then what when they can no longer cope ?.
        And how do we pay for this multi cultural overcrowded nightmare when we rely on borrowed money just to keep our heads above water already?. Building land, energy, and raw materials are going to rocket in price in the decades ahead.

        • Jerry
          Posted July 8, 2014 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

          Kenneth R Moore: “Why why why cannot some see that the Uk population is growing at a steady 0.7% per annum or around 450,000 new people.”

          Mind that elephant called planning….

      • APL
        Posted July 9, 2014 at 10:53 am | Permalink

        Jerry: “Of course we can talk about it, what we can’t do is throw (thinly disguised) insults and worse. ”

        From the man who has been exposed for trying to associate anyone who wishes to discuss immigration with the BNP, that’s rich!

        http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2014/07/03/construction-boom/#comment-510476

        Jerry: ” I saw it all in the 1970s when the National Front used to say much the same – just saying…”

        Hypocrite.

        • Jerry
          Posted July 9, 2014 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

          APL: You really don’t get it do you, my point is that people throwing insults towards immigrants risk being mistaken by others and the leftwing media, either accidentally or deliberately, for the BNP (or indeed the National Front). I’m asking people NOT to give them the chance, otherwise it won’t be me who’ll do as you suggest but the media and the leftwing, and they will have no hesitation to use the R word and worse, throwing you to the metaphorical hungry lions whilst they are at it. Give them a chance and they will close the debate down, don;t give them that chance, as I’ve said there enough other reasons to be out of the EU besides migration.

          • APL
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

            Jerry: ” my point is that people throwing insults towards immigrants risk being mistaken by others ”

            Not one comment I have read that you have responded to has involved insulting immigrants.

            We all know who is at fault for the situation we are in, the British political class.

            Jerry: “either accidentally or deliberately, for the BNP”

            That is what the BBC doesTM.

            And latterly the Tory party – which failing to address the UKIP on its policies, tried to dig up ‘racist’ UKIP members. Those they found, frequently and laughably turned out to be former members of the Tory or Labour party.

            During their tenure in those parties there was not a squeak about their undesirable views.

            etc ed

            You really couldn’t make it up.

          • Jerry
            Posted July 10, 2014 at 8:11 am | Permalink

            APL: “Not one comment I have read that you have responded to has involved insulting immigrants. “

            If you blame immigrants for our government policy errors then you are insulting immigrants. Of course I don’t blame you APL, after all when people within the leadership of UKIP start going on about languages spoken on a bus or who might live next door it is no surprise that their supports do likewise, it doesn’t make it right to frame arguments that way though and it does loose support.

    • Anonymous
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 11:15 am | Permalink

      Mike Stallard – There is no excuse for uncontrolled and unselective immigration. My guess is that a lot of our indigenous emigrants would have remained were it not for our immigration policy (or lack of.)

      Had I known what was going to happen since 1997 I probably wouldn’t have had my children. What they are doing to our country worries me sick.

      • Anonymous
        Posted July 8, 2014 at 11:20 am | Permalink

        One last blast (a UKIP vote) in 2015 and that’s it from many of us. We’ll never vote again.

        • Jerry
          Posted July 8, 2014 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

          @Anonymous: “One last blast (a UKIP vote) in 2015 and that’s it from many of us. We’ll never vote again.”

          Well if you waste your vote then I doubt anyone is going to worry either way! Talk about shooting from the both hips and finding both your own feet…

          • Anonymous
            Posted July 8, 2014 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

            Jerry.

            I an fed up with playing the abused wife of the Tories. I have voted for them three times to keep others out rather than who I want in.

            ‘Waste your vote.’

            Well for once I’m going to vote for someone with similar views to my own regardless of the consequences. It is clear to me that voting for Mr Cameron will be the real waste.

            Have you noticed how those who voted for him on the basis that he’s promised a referendum weren’t included in the ‘out’ vote in the recent EU elections ?

            That’s what you risk. Giving mandate for policies you dislike and being grouped with the opinions of the ‘young, metropolitan, socially liberal, new immigrants…’

            Do you believe a party which tells you it can be all things to all people ?

          • Jerry
            Posted July 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

            Anonymous: That’s what you risk. Giving mandate for policies you dislike and being grouped with the opinions of the ‘young, metropolitan, socially liberal, new immigrants…’

            Good grief!! What do you not understand, if UKIP take votes from the Tories and thus let either LibDems or Labour win the seat what you wrote above is exactly what people like you will be doing, what is more Mr Farage even boasted about doing just that in 2010 and causing a coalition that prevented any chance of a in/out referendum.

            “Do you believe a party which tells you it can be all things to all people ?”

            No, that is why I don’t believe UKIP, a party that has less political voice than the Green Party does within the UK.

            You complaint that the Tories are not eurosceptic enough, yet if most of the eurosceptic walk off in a huff at the slightest provocation then it is obvious that the party will not be europhobic enough for the likes of you -it’s a self fulling prophecy!

            I don’t mean to be rude but what you are doing is bordering on being a political cowered, you refuse to stay and support/fight but then want to blame the front line troops for loosing the battle!

          • APL
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 6:35 am | Permalink

            Jerry: “Good grief!! What do you not understand, if UKIP take votes from the Tories and thus let either LibDems or Labour win the seat ”

            You and JR on the same wavelength. You could also ask the Labour party not to field any candidates, that way the Tory party would be sure to get all the votes.

            Neither of you much care for this democracy thing.

          • Jerry
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

            @APL: “Neither of you much care for this democracy thing.”

            What ever, but at least we understand how it works…

          • APL
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

            Jerry: “but at least we understand how it works…”

            No, you understand how to manipulate the voting system.

          • Anonymous
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

            Jerry @ 8.26

            What don’t I understand ?

            Well I’ll tell you what I DO understand. That it makes no difference who gets in.

          • Jerry
            Posted July 10, 2014 at 8:17 am | Permalink

            @APL: “No, you understand how to manipulate the voting system.”

            So you want an elected rabble, a parliament of 600 odd people who wouldn’t even be able to agree on what building to meet in. Or is your objection not about our democracy but the fact that the democratic will of the majority is not what you think it should be…

            Either way, democracy, you don’t even understand the meaning of the word!

        • BobE
          Posted July 8, 2014 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

          No, Ukip can increase and we can try again in 2020. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

          • Jerry
            Posted July 8, 2014 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

            @BobE: Yes, and we all know what happened to both Rome and the Roman empire – when Rome burns and all that…

  6. alan jutson,
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 6:39 am | Permalink

    So no thought from the main Party’s of what may be sensible for the nation then.

    Just what will be best for them to get more votes.

    We are but a small island in which we have a housing crisis, clogged up roads, an overloaded NHS, which is one of the most densely populated ares of the World, and where the labour market is now getting distorted.
    Prisons and courts we are told are filled with foreign nationals, On a larger percentage basis than our own nationals.
    But still we allow our borders to be open to all comers from the EU.

    All of the above could be resolved so simply if we could come up with some sensible thinking and policies which were fit for purpose, and for which a leader would stand firm.

    Instead for the past few decades we have had poor government, to suit government.

    No wonder the new kids on the block are doing rather well of late, although I have my doubts about for how long, given the almost tribal way the majority seem to vote.

  7. Bazman
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 7:00 am | Permalink

    I see the channel tunnel has more problems again. Why has this white elephant not been filled in yet? It should never have been built and continues to drain massive amounts of money from the economy in taxation and costs bringing in immigrants that are undercutting the indigenous worker as well as lowering costs for industry by lower wages with the added benefit of preventing wage inflation and less bother about health and safety. The British worker cannot, but should learn to compete with the European worker by taking on their example of lower living costs too by such means as five to a room and five to a car. Making more efficient use of limited resources and accommodation to help us compete with low wage economies instead of just sitting back where they were born saying there is no work in their area.Plenty for Immigrants it seems, well not in Barrow-in-Furness it seems, in in Cambridge and London plenty it seems.
    The sooner this tunnel is closed and benefits are stopped for the British the sooner we will all be better off. God created the English channel to keep the Europeans in particular the French out of England and then some fools decided to build a tunnel!?

    • A different Simon
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 9:05 am | Permalink

      Maybe he also intended the English channel to keep the British out of Europe ?

      I think we should accept that we are an Island separate from the mainland much as other Island nations do .

      Future generations of workers in Britain will be obliged to pay old age pensions to migrant workers decades after they have returned home .

      That money won’t circulate in our economy .

      Big business wants the rest of us to absorb the costs of subsidising them cheap labour .

    • Richard1
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 10:59 am | Permalink

      This is a load of nonsense. Because it happened under Margaret Thatcher the channel tunnel was built using private money. Some investors lost money for sure. But the market thought there was a business case, unlike HS2. Why do you think it now costs taxpayers a lot?

      • zorro
        Posted July 8, 2014 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

        As usual, he’s taking the proverbial…..

        zorro

    • Mark B
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

      That’s a tad xenophobic for my taste. Are you the real Bazman, of, “Ram it !” fame, or just some copy ?

      The people to blame for the current situation, irrespective of what part of the political spectrum they reside, are those in Westminster. They negotiate and sign legally binding agreements for and on our behalf. We of course, elect them to those positions, so we cannot be said to be completely blameless.

      As for the Chunnel, well, not all immigrants, whether legal or not, come via the Lille route. Many come via ferry below coaches and some via child’s inflatable dinghy.

      The problem of MASS Immigration is, that the debate has been poisoned by people with a vested political interests. People that you, Bazman support and vote for.

      And leaving the EU and closing the Chunnel will not solve the problem. Addressing the ‘push-me, pull-you’ factors will.

      • Jerry
        Posted July 8, 2014 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

        @Mark B: “That’s a tad xenophobic for my taste. Are you the real Bazman, of, “Ram it !” fame, or just some copy ?”

        I found it quite ironic actually, I have to admit that Bazman might have finally found Irony, whilst a load of others have lost it by the looks of it – hook, line and sinker! :o

        • Bazman
          Posted July 8, 2014 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

          Irony? LOL! I looked at the labour market in the late 90’s and married a Russian who came here on a tourist visa. The installation of the wife was a resounding success.

          • Anonymous
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

            A very pragmatic coupling I’m sure.

          • Edward2
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 11:09 pm | Permalink

            You old romantic you.

  8. Andyvan
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 7:01 am | Permalink

    No mention of any party having a policy because they believe it to be the right thing to do. Conviction politics has given way to mere vote grabbing and policy made by opinion poll. Given the theft based nature of politics beliefs and convictions were never very important but it shows ever more clearly as the internet exposes the reality of our leaders tactics.

    • Mark B
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

      Conviction based politics relies on you actually believing in something and having command of your brief. The willingness to argue and defend your position and stand firm. The belief that, you may be hated by some, and not particularly liked by many, but respected by most.

      Today’s politician has to be told what to say, what to think and what to do. Puppets by any other name.

  9. Richard1
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 7:14 am | Permalink

    High quality immigrants – that is people who bring either investment, skills, or just a positive entrepreneurial attitude are entirely a benefit. Look how many industries have been improved immeasurably by immigration – building, lodging and catering are obvious examples. What we don’t want are criminals, terrorists or their sympathizers or welfare scroungers. Its clear we will need some kind of a points based system, we need to find a way to adopt it without being accused of racism.

    • Iain Moore
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 8:10 am | Permalink

      Forget it, if having a points based immigration system is right it should be done, don’t worry about being called racist , for that is going to happen what ever is considered.

    • A different Simon
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 9:17 am | Permalink

      Perhaps you could explain to my impoverished young nephews and niece how wonderful it is that catering has been improved immeasurably by replacing British nationals like their Dad with cheap labour from abroad ?

      He saw his wages go from above minimum wage to minimum wage and then saw himself excluded from employment in the catering industry .

      Hard to blame employers for choosing an educated , young , energetic Eastern European over a poorly educated Briton .

      Much easier to blame the half knackered middle aged Briton .

      You might not know this but once EE employment in a company or industry reaches a certain level they attain a stranglehold and operate a closed shop – so the jobs are not even open to Britons anymore .

      What message do you have for low waged Briton’s who have borne the brunt of mass immigration and gain no advantage from cheaper hotel rooms , cheaper restaurant meals – or cheaper nannies ?

      • Richard1
        Posted July 8, 2014 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

        These are reasonable points and I can understand it is tough on those who feel their pay is undercut by competition. But this happens all over the economy including in many highly skilled / paid jobs. But we are not better off by putting up protectionist barriers, and holding up costs and limiting supply. I think the best solution would have been for the government to do what they could have done, but didn’t do, and have a longer transition period.

        I do still find it incredible that at least in London in hotels and restaurants you never encounter a native English speaker. How can this be – there’s no reason young people should feel squeezed out by low pay?

        • A different Simon
          Posted July 9, 2014 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

          Richard1 , thanks for your reply to my emotional reply .

          One of my main gripes against the big chain coffee houses is that they employ hardly any domestic workers .

          Perhaps that is because they are trying to project the message that drinking coffee in a cafe is an exotic continental experience and amounts to sophisticated behaviour .

          Maybe it is the same with restaurants ; young Briton’s being discriminated against .

          Some Briton’s are only capable of doing lower paid jobs and the young have to start somewhere so I don’t see how longer transition periods would help .

          Maybe a rule that employers with over 20 employed staff in the UK have to employ at least 80% British National’s amongst those which earn less than say 2X national average wage would give vulnerable British Citizens the protection they need and still give room to exceptional individuals from overseas ?

          The low waged are always the ones who suffer most due to mass immigration . If they can’t earn enough money to live on , society will have to given them it .

    • Bob
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 9:24 am | Permalink

      @Richard1

      “Its clear we will need some kind of a points based system, we need to find a way to adopt it without being accused of racism.”

      You’re sounding like a ukipper Richard.
      A points based system is what ukip are campaigning for, but the Tories call them “racist”.

      • Iain Gill
        Posted July 8, 2014 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

        we do have a points based system for some visa categories, there are just too many loopholes and too much window dressing trying to hide open doors in practise which is really going on. and too many visa categories where they do not apply.

      • Richard1
        Posted July 8, 2014 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

        Yes you are right there. Whether its points based or not there need to be some criteria for immigration now the EU has so many members and with such widely divergent wealth levels. I’m fairly liberal on immigration but a total open door doesn’t seem to have public support.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 10:04 am | Permalink

      “High quality immigrants” not when there is already an oversupply of those skills in the local population, all it does is depress pay, and displace locals from the workforce.
      I have worked abroad a lot, including Europe:
      1 When I worked abroad I always paid at least as much tax as the locals, and never got any “top up” benefits or child benefit etc. from the local tax payer.
      2 I never expected access to the local subsidised social housing
      3 I never expected to pick up local citizenship simply for working there a while
      4 I was always there with genuine skills that the local population did not have
      5 I never undercut local wages
      6 I never expected free places in the local schools
      7 I paid full price medical insurance
      8 I would never have expected access to the foreign benefits system, especially coming from a family that had never contributed there
      9 I did not rock up late in life having never contributed to that society but expect and receive full state old age pension and retirement perks, bus passes and so on.
      And so very much more

      • A different Simon
        Posted July 8, 2014 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

        ““High quality immigrants” not when there is already an oversupply of those skills in the local population, all it does is depress pay, and displace locals from the workforce.”

        Even when there is a shortage , immigration is not necessarily the answer .

        Shortages of suitable applicants for particular roles should cause pay rates to rise which will stimulate people to invest in themselves to qualify for that role .

        What message does it send out to young people who are being asked to take on £40k+ of debt for degree course that the Govt prefers to undermine them by fast-tracking I.C.T. Visa applications ?

        The Govt does not seem to believe in market forces in employment .

        • Iain Gill
          Posted July 8, 2014 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

          I agree, a skills shortage in the first instance should produce an incentive for employers to train Brits in those skills. The current situation where it is cheaper for them to import large workforces from abroad leads to the inevitable.

          • A different Simon
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

            Yep , pain for customers like RBS I.T. problems .

            Fred Goodwin might not have known anything about banking but he did appreciate the importance of the highest possible quality I.T.

      • Jerry
        Posted July 8, 2014 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

        @Iain Gill:

        “1 When I worked abroad I always paid at least as much tax as the locals, and never got any “top up” benefits or child benefit etc. from the local tax payer.
        2 I never expected access to the local subsidised social housing
        3 I never expected to pick up local citizenship simply for working there a while
        4 I was always there with genuine skills that the local population did not have
        5 I never undercut local wages
        6 I never expected free places in the local schools
        7 I paid full price medical insurance
        8 I would never have expected access to the foreign benefits system, especially coming from a family that had never contributed there”

        Replies to the some of the points above;

        3 But you probably had done so, hence why you were paying local taxes
        4 Indeed, but did the locals want to use those skills, that is the problem we face in the UK, far to many of our own population don;t want to use their basic skills
        5 If employers are paying less than the NMW then it is not the migrants who are at fault.
        6 Even if you pay into the tax local system?
        7 Even if you were paying into the same national health service tax?
        8 But you were, you said that you paid your local taxes

        • Iain Gill
          Posted July 8, 2014 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

          Re “3 But you probably had done so, hence why you were paying local taxes”
          No, not at all.

          Re “4 Indeed, but did the locals want to use those skills, that is the problem we face in the UK, far to many of our own population don;t want to use their basic skills”
          This is over egged, we have many hardworking decent citizens who are highly skilled who are displaced from the workforce by foreigners here simply because they are cheap

          Re “5 If employers are paying less than the NMW then it is not the migrants who are at fault.”
          Many immigrants are self employed, and in this situation it is their fault. And in any case I am not just talking about the bottom of the wages spectrum, we are also having wages undercut at much higher parts of the pay spectrum.
          Re “6 Even if you pay into the tax local system?”
          Go work in India and see how good the free healthcare they state there would provide for you, or the schooling for your children. Compare and contrast to Indian nationals and their family working here. Or the USA etc.

          Re “7 Even if you were paying into the same national health service tax?”
          Correct

          8 But you were, you said that you paid your local taxes
          If you are an immigrant at 60 plus here, even if you pay taxes initially you are unlikely to pay enough tax to cover your state pension, old age care, and healthcare etc

          • Jerry
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

            @Iain Gill: “we have many hardworking decent citizens who are highly skilled who are displaced from the workforce by foreigners here simply because they are cheap”

            But surely these highly skilled British people are pricing themselves out of the job market, or do you only believe in the free market etc. when it doesn’t affect you and your own. No doubt you want your cheap fresh farm produce but you don’t want others to have cheap IT or what ever this “high skill” is.

            Anyway, the real problem is at the low skilled end, in my area this is skills such as cutting cabbages in the fields, in another area of the country that I have knowledge of it is factory production line operators [1], it is quite true that by rights the UK should have no need for immigrant labour as we have more than enough fit and able people on JSA in the UK, even if they would have to move to a different area [2], but no the employer is having to go after the immigrant labour – why, it’s not lower wages, not unless they are breaking the law by not paying the NMW (in the case of farm work), but because so few British people are prepared to do such work any more, and if they do bother trying they don’t last.

            [1] both needed a reliable pool of labour that will turn up for the shift, will do full days work -or in the case of the factory staff- will abide by the strict dress and health codes

            [2] another reason why we need a proper supply of socail housing stock

          • Iain Gill
            Posted July 10, 2014 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

            Gerry,

            I don’t believe a British family bread winner supporting a family in this high cost economy should have to compete with a foreign national here supporting a family back home with much lower costs in a low cost base economy, as a simple example.

            No I don’t believe in a pure free market because that leads to factories with cheap, ie little or no, safety gear, high pollution, intellectual property theft, child labour, and lots of other abuses that are all visible in many emerging nations. Those of us here need to charge more and be better quality and better innovators to justify that extra charge, and protect ourselves from the worst excesses of the emerging nations mentioned.

            The real problem is NOT just at the low skilled end and the information technology business should demonstrate where the arrival of folk from (overseas ed) has had a dramatic impact.

          • Jerry
            Posted July 10, 2014 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

            @Iain Gill: What if a suitably skilled unemployed British person, perhaps also someone with a wife and family to feed and house, was prepared to work for a cheaper (legal) wage/salary than you, would that also be wrong – if not why then the migrant?

      • Richard1
        Posted July 8, 2014 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

        Well then you would have met the criteria for a high quality immigrant.

    • eddie hill
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 10:52 am | Permalink

      No we don’t; we need to reduce immigration dramatically and completely ignore the Political Correctness Nazis and the “Lazy Elitists” who see a necessary and sufficient connection between racism and opposition to immigration.

    • Jerry
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 10:53 am | Permalink

      Richard1 “Its clear we will need some kind of a points based system, we need to find a way to adopt it without being accused of racism.”

      It is not racist for a political party or country to have an immigration policy, it is racist though to blame immigration for all the ills of the countries economy and society (and this is were some political parties, groups and individuals are falling foul), especially when many of the problems are simply down to decades of poor or non existent planning.

      • matthu
        Posted July 8, 2014 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

        You cannot plan for the impact of a sudden influx of immigrants which you can neither reliably estimate in advance nor control.

        Impact on health and education, on housing, on transport, on social services, on translation services, on policing.

        • Jerry
          Posted July 8, 2014 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

          @matthu: “You cannot plan for the impact of a sudden influx of immigrants which you can neither reliably estimate in advance nor control.”

          The rush was not sudden, nor were the numbers unexpected, indeed in the most recent EU migrant phase the numbers arriving were actually well over estimated, thus we could now be in an even better position to provide for our own.

          What I’m trying to suggest is that we deal with the real issues, not straw-man arguments and problems that could have been sorted out with a little planning and forethought, there are more than enough reason to get out of the EU without even considering migration -the right will only end up tearing its self apart in the same way as the left did on defence during the 1980s otherwise.

          Remember that in the 2014 EU elections and 2010 UK general election more people voted for broadly europhile policies [1] than voted for for a distinct europhobe one – considering how migration issues came to dominate both elections can you not see that trying to win the debate about our EU membership using an argument about migration/race is an obviously a non starter -except for those obsessed, or out and out racist, not that I’m accusing anyone here of being the latter. Even with an active immigration policy, like we had in the post war era, with the UK out of the EU we would be still better off!

          [1] when looking at the figures I divided the Tory vote, giving slightly more to the eurphobic vote, given how the Tory party and vote is split

          • APL
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 7:04 am | Permalink

            Jerry: “The rush was not sudden, nor were the numbers unexpected,”

            Yes it was, and yes they were.

            I have already provided a source

            http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2014/07/03/construction-boom/#comment-515435

            showing the increase in the population between 1950 and 2000 was roughly 8 million. Then between 2000 and 2014 another 8 million.

            By comparison with 50 years, 14 years is sudden, if you have been accustomed to immigration of 8 million over fifty years, 8 million over fourteen years is unexpected too.

            That’s why infrastructure projects cannot cope, for example: Hinkley C, projected to come on stream in 2023 was proposed in 2010 – thirteen years to construct.

            We’re already paying over the odds for Hinkley C because the government has panicked about the energy supply, doesn’t stop them decommissioning perfectly functional coal fired plant though. Muppets.

            By the way, Jack Straw admits ‘Labour made a spectacular mistake on immigration’.

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10445585/Labour-made-a-spectacular-mistake-on-immigration-admits-Jack-Straw.html

            Ed Miliband admits Labours mistake on immigration;

            http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-miliband-admits-labours-mistakes-on-entry-rules-7873595.html

            You seem to be the only one to think there is nothing wrong.

          • APL
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 7:08 am | Permalink

            APL: “By the way, Jack Straw admits ‘Labour made a spectacular mistake on immigration’.”

            Clearly the Labour party feels exposed on the issue of immigration, the only party that seems oblivious to the issue is the Tory party.

          • Jerry
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

            APL: “By comparison with 50 years, 14 years is sudden, if you have been accustomed to immigration of 8 million over fifty years, 8 million over fourteen years is unexpected too.

            But with at least 14 years warning it was not, the problem was that the UK government had opt-outs and thus thought that the migration bubble would either not happen for us or would substantially burst by the time our opt-outs ended. Oh and I make it 6m increase in population between the years 2000 and 2014.

            “We’re already paying over the odds for Hinkley C because the government has panicked about the energy supply, doesn’t stop them decommissioning perfectly functional coal fired plant though.”

            “By the way, Jack Straw admits ‘Labour made a spectacular mistake on immigration’.”

            All your examples do is proved my point, Labour and to a lesser extent the previous Tory government took their eyes off the ball, careful of that elephant called “Planning” standing behind you….

            “You seem to be the only one to think there is nothing wrong.”

            Far from it, I just don’t think it is all the fault of the immigrants, unlike you.

          • APL
            Posted July 10, 2014 at 8:05 am | Permalink

            Jerry: “But with at least 14 years warning it was not, ”

            There was not 14 years warning. Labour during who’s tenure the explosion occurred, did not go to the electorate in 1997 and say, ‘we’re going to triple immigration over the next two parliamentary terms’.

            The whole Labour adventure with immigration was conducted in a clandestine manner.

            The general population had no warning. No provision was made by the Political elite for the increase in the population vis a vie infrastructure planning.

            If you actually believe what you write, I regret to say the only conclusion I can draw is, you are suffering severe delusions.

          • APL
            Posted July 10, 2014 at 8:29 am | Permalink

            Jerry: “All your examples do is proved my point, Labour ”

            OK, Jerry. How do ex post facto admissions of by politicians, translate into 14 year prior warnings of intent?

            That’s right, they don’t!

            I really pity the English Language when she falls into the hands of amateur propagandists like you.

          • Jerry
            Posted July 10, 2014 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

            APL: “There was not 14 years warning”
            APL: “OK, Jerry. How do ex post facto admissions of by politicians, translate into 14 year prior warnings of intent?

            Indeed, sorry, I was indeed wrong, having checked my facts there wasn’t 14 years warning;

            Article 21 (1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that

            Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect.

            Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that

            1. Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Union.
            2. Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.

            Those are quotes regarding what is otherwise content within the Maastricht Treaty [1] of 1992, so actually we’ve had 22 years notice! Hence why I criticised both past Labour and Tory governments.

            APL, do feel free to find a clue rather than another rant, should you wish to continue…

            [1] note to Dennis, indeed a simplified explanation, so not to get bogged down in technical treaties that date right back to 1955

      • JA
        Posted July 8, 2014 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

        Jerry – When will you understand ?

        WE DON’T BLAME IMMIGRANTS

        WE BLAME OUR POLITICIANS

        5 MILLION PEOPLE IN TEN YEARS IS UNACCEPTABLE

        • Jerry
          Posted July 8, 2014 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

          @JA: “5 MILLION PEOPLE IN TEN YEARS IS UNACCEPTABLE”

          By writing that (quoted) line you are blaming the immigrants. On the other hand I do blame the politicains, we should never have joined the EEC, we should never have signed the Single European Act, Maastricht, Lisbon and many other treaties – notice the difference, I want to argue the real issues, not something most people with little or no current opinion, little or no current understanding, will see as a ‘certain type’ finding scapegoats, whilst the europhile media will also have a field day comparing us with parties like the BNP.

          People keep complaining that the europhiles keep banging on about (the lie that) 3m jobs are at risk, that vast amounts of our trade will vanish, that we will loose our manufacturing base etc, if we leave the EU yet with so many eurosceptics obsessed by “immigration” much of the europhile propaganda goes unchallenged – even by UKIP.

          Immigration is but one issue.

          • APL
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 6:42 am | Permalink

            Jerry: “By writing that (quoted) line you are blaming the immigrants.”

            Don’t be so, ….. obtuse.

            You’re the guy who claims a thing doesn’t mean what is written when its written down and signed by the author.

            So no surprise ‘coz then like Humpty Dumpty, when you quote a phrase out of context, the phrase means just exactly what you want it to mean.

          • Jerry
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

            APL: Then why did he use these exact words (I would hate to fudge the context, even though it can be easily checked);

            “WE DON’T BLAME IMMIGRANTS
            WE BLAME OUR POLITICIANS”

            and then complain that;
            “5 MILLION PEOPLE IN TEN YEARS IS UNACCEPTABLE”.

            That is blaming the migrant for daring to arrive, that last line was not necessary if he really was blaming just the politicains – unless he was talking about a sudden spike in the UK birth rate or something!

          • Anonymous
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

            Jerry said “By writing that (quoted) line you are blaming the immigrants”

            I’m not (I’d be doing the same as they are.) But so what if I was ?

          • APL
            Posted July 10, 2014 at 7:53 am | Permalink

            Jerry: “Then why did he use these exact words (I would hate to fudge the context, even though it can be easily checked);”

            You are really going to extraordinary lengths to deliberately mis-intrepret what was written.

            And yes, it is easily checked, and clear for all to see that you are mischief making.

          • Jerry
            Posted July 10, 2014 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

            APl: “You are really going to extraordinary lengths to deliberately mis-intrepret what was written.”

            What was written was written, the third line in question is not needed if one is really intent on just blaming politicains for signing those EU treaties that allows free movement of employment and labour across the EU, unless one is also wishing to point fingers to others besides just the politicians one is claiming are to blame.

        • APL
          Posted July 9, 2014 at 8:10 am | Permalink

          In light of this article, you can probably increase that figure. The border agency doesn’t even know it lets people previously deported from the country back in.

          http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/458341/Borders-are-leaking-sieve-says-judge-sentencing-drug-dealer-already-deported-three-times

          By definition, the government figures are the figures of the known. If like the black economy a fifth is unknown, then the official immigration figures are an underestimate.

    • Anonymous
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 11:24 am | Permalink

      Richard – Nor those who cover for welfare scroungers.

      There should be no such thing as a ‘welfare scrounger’ – ESPECIALLY and Anglo Saxon one.

    • Mark B
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

      Yes, we do need a points based system. But what about our fellow EU-Citizens, you know, the ones that, thanks to Maastricht* (signed by a Conservative Party leader), we can do little or nothing about ?

      * The one our kind host voted against – one the fatherless children the Conservative Party leader referred to, no doubt ?

    • Mark
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

      We already have a points system It doesn’t work very well though – it only applies to students and workers from outside the EU.

  10. A different Simon
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 7:14 am | Permalink

    “The Unions are none too keen on a plentiful increase in the supply of labour when they are trying to get a better return for their members.”

    That used to be the case but the unions were (and still are) cheer leading for mass immigration . Ideology comes before getting a good return for their members .

    No trade unionist (or politician even with parliamentary privilege) will say “British Jobs for British Workers” and if they did they would probably fall foul of equality legislation .

    You could start by explaining to people than unless someone is earning 2X national average earnings for their entire working life they are making a net negative contribution to the economy so we can only afford to let in the cream .

    Your political class has treated Britons so badly that they now feel disenfranchised .

    The major parties have GOT to start treating people better .

    That includes reducing the cost of accommodation and providing a livable state pension .

    If your don’t you will just be recruiting for the EU (which could explain why the main parties are treating Britons so badly) .

  11. Iain Gill
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 7:20 am | Permalink

    I think you are making a few mistakes.
    For one there is lots that could be done with our current EU relationship intact, for example immigration of non EU citizens if the political will was there. You and I both know the current intra company transfer route is out of all control and is a national disgrace, we both know the marriage route is being abused on an industrial scale, we both know indefinite leave is still being handed out far too easily. So blaming the EU is a little thin, the reality is our own political class are fully behind the current situation.
    For two the handling of EU benefits seekers is open to much tougher interpretation. Denmark regularly deports EU nationals who are not able to support themselves, we could do the same.
    For three the way NHS and free schooling is handed out is indeed madness.
    For four we are very bad at international negotiations on these matters.
    For five your analysis of the demographics is plainly wrong, like the rest of the political and journalistic bubble you just don’t “get it”. It is in fact the political and journalistic bubble which is completely and utterly out of step with the entire rest of the country. Recent migrants are as likely to be upset by the current situation as anyone, indeed they are, and so on.
    You see I never see Cameron, or any of his public school mates, go walk around Bradford, or similar, they just don’t “get it”.
    You are also mixing things up, and coming to false assumptions. On the one hand I “welcome migrants” where there is a clear case for them being here, but at the same time I despair at the way far too many people are let in, these are not incompatible views.
    Etc

    • A different Simon
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 9:25 am | Permalink

      “You see I never see Cameron, or any of his public school mates, go walk around Bradford, or similar, they just don’t “get it”.”

      Much easier for them all to walk round to No. 10 for another round of soggy biscuit .

  12. A different Simon
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 7:23 am | Permalink

    “The Conservatives …. They also wish to improve their appeal to the young, to the metropolitan and to the more socially liberal, who all tend to accept or welcome more migration.”

    Why do The Conservatives want to appeal to metropolitan sorts ?

    Numerically they are a minority and as voters they decide very few seats .

    Surely The Conservatives would be wasting their efforts and running the risk of alienating normal people who have nothing in common with the metropolitan elite and good reason to despise them ?

  13. Timaction
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 7:41 am | Permalink

    I’m afraid the legacy parties are all hot air when it comes to immigration control. They are EU federalists who want free movement. If we had/have proper controls of our borders you wouldn’t need to discuss who new arrivals will vote for.
    Why is it that politicians can’t see that we have a fixed capacity for space and most of us experience the misery of congestion and overcrowding every day? How many more before you politicos realise we are full? That you can’t keep building on the green belt, not increase the road capacity, number of schools, NHS and other public services with the same budgets! The cake shrinks and the English have to wait longer for the same services or compete with foreigners having been taxed to the hilt to pay for it.
    You cannot have a welfare state and open borders where foreigners have the same rights under EU treaties that you all signed us up to.
    This madness has to come to an end and the legacy partiers and its Sir Humphries will be removed!

    • Jerry
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 11:16 am | Permalink

      @Timaction: “If we had/have proper controls of our borders you wouldn’t need to discuss who new arrivals will vote for.”

      Perhaps not, but I suspect that we would be discussing why there is a shortage of fresh fruit and veg etc. in the shops, very few legitimate migrants are coming to the UK because they won’t be looking for work and knowing full well that they will get it (illegal immigration is another issue altogether), until we deal with the reasons why low wage, low skill employers are having to look to eastern europe and even further afield for their employment needs we will never stop the legitimate migrant coming and if we do we will face all sorts of labour/produce shortages.

      • Timaction
        Posted July 8, 2014 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

        Jerry,

        The fruit and veg argument wouldn’t occur as wages would have to rise to accommodate the workers. Mass migration has impacted wages quite severely at the lower end.
        Mass migration has NO benefit to the indigenous population as above. Fullstop. We need out of the EU asap.

        • Jerry
          Posted July 9, 2014 at 7:24 am | Permalink

          @Timaction: “The fruit and veg argument wouldn’t occur as wages would have to rise to accommodate the workers.”

          Then we would be discussing why inflation has let rip like it did in the 1970s, and if not we will be discussing why so many farms have go out of business or produce has vanished from the shelves! Higher wages mean higher production costs and that will almost certainly mean higher farm gate prices or lost business when the supermarkets decide to either de-list or buy elsewhere, the latter probably by taking advantage of the trading/customs agreements with our near neighbour, the USoE… .

          “Mass migration has NO benefit to the indigenous population as above.”

          Other than migrants being prepared to do jobs that our own indigenous population are either not prepared to do or not for the same (legal lower) wage that is. Until we start giving our kids and youth the right messages about their true life prospects, rather than telling them that they can be what ever they dream of, we will be reliant on migrants who are prepared to work for a lower wage and/or do physically demanding work.

          Those old style school career advice officers who used to tell five out of every six kids that “you’ll be working down pit lad” might have been overly blunt but it was likely truthful careers information, we need to get back to those days, many kids (even if they do go to Uni’ or College at vast debt to them or tax payer) will likely end up stacking shelves in a supermarket or indeed working in a field cutting cabbages or what ever.

      • APL
        Posted July 9, 2014 at 7:16 am | Permalink

        Jerry: “but I suspect that we would be discussing why there is a shortage of fresh fruit and veg etc. in the shops, ”

        You are funny. Fresh fruit and veg, if it’s imported is imported as cargo. Immigrants aren’t brining their produce in in their suitcases.

        Why are you incessantly trying to muddy the water?

        Immigration and trade are two completely different things.

        We can buy coffee from Costa Rica, we don’t need to import the plantation workers.

        • Jerry
          Posted July 9, 2014 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

          @APL: “We can buy coffee from Costa Rica, we don’t need to import the plantation workers.”

          But we don’t grow coffee in the UK, your point being what, that we should buy our fruit and veg from abroad, rather than face the fact that to produce it here in the UK means either our own population have to get off their backsides to do these low or unskilled, and yes menial, jobs or we have to either import the produce or workers to do it instead and if we choose to import the food rather than the labour we really could be in dire straights.

          • APL
            Posted July 10, 2014 at 7:57 am | Permalink

            Jerry: “But we don’t grow coffee in the UK, your point being what, ”

            My point being to demonstrate that you have severe problems comprehending written English, to that end, my aim is achieved and there is nothing further to be gained in discussion with you.

          • Jerry
            Posted July 10, 2014 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

            APL: My point being to demonstrate that you have severe problems comprehending written English,

            In that case then basics economic laws are wrong, and of course you would argue the facts if you actually understood any of this, rather than keep attacking me personally….

  14. Roy Grainger
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    I have benefitted from EU free movement as I worked several years in Germany. Totally free movement is essential for those countries who have adopted the Euro currency. For the UK a points system for skilled migrants as other countries practice would seem the best option or as a minimum the witholding of any UK benefits from EU migrants for several years after arrival.

  15. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    You and your party stood on a pledge to reduce net migration to tens of thousands at the last election. There was no talk of “renegotiation of our relationship with the EU” then but you must have known that under EU rules what was being pledged was undeliverable. As has been seen.You want to play the same card again this time and for good measure link it to the talk of renegotiation even though there have been no details of what would be renegotiated and the signals from Brussels are against restrictions on the free movement of people. You really do think we are wet behind the ears.

    • Jerry
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 11:25 am | Permalink

      Brian Tomkinson: “You really do think we are wet behind the ears.”

      Yes! Because you seem to not understand the implications of not having a strong overall majority or the restraints of being in a coalition (even more so one with a very pro EU party…), had the Tories had that strong majority -or even just a working majority- who knows where we would be today, had theer been a strong eurosceptic back bench we may even have had that In/Out referendum by now, well done UKIP!

      • Brian Tomkinson
        Posted July 8, 2014 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

        Jerry,
        You have certainly been busy replying to so many here today! I know full well the “implications of not having a strong overall majority or the restraints of being in a coalition” but that has no relevance to my comment. I was referring to the Conservative party promising something it must have known it could not deliver even if it had a strong overall majority, as it had no intention of renegotiating our membership of the EU let alone taking us out. Just what UKIP has to do with this I don’t know but your blind loyalty to the Conservative party will be welcomed by our host. However, I certainly do expect and hope that UKIP will have a dramatic effect on the outcome of next year’s general election.

        • Jerry
          Posted July 8, 2014 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

          Brian Tomkinson: “I was referring to the Conservative party promising something it must have known it could not deliver even if it had a strong overall majority”

          But they could have delivered had they had a strong majority, it is ignorant to suggest otherwise, and if there were more eurosceptic’s like our host and his fellow believers that possibility grows.

          Oh and why is it that so many people slate the Tory party for “promising something it must have known it could not deliver” but don’t say the same about UKIP, a party that has yet to get a presence in the HoC. UKIP could have won every single UK MEP seat in May just gone but we would be no closer to a Brexit because of that lack of a HoC presence….

          • Brian Tomkinson
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 7:48 am | Permalink

            Jerry,
            Please take the blinkers from your eyes. Whilst we are members of the EU, no UK government, whatever its majority, has the ability to control the level of immigration. I hope and expect that UKIP will have a presence in the House of Commons very soon.

          • Jerry
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

            @Brian Tomkinson: Hope all you like, those with any sense are doing the electoral maths…

  16. backofanenvelope
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    We would be better to split the problem into two. For EU nationals we should just apply the rules of the EU. Syrians arriving at Dover are just sent back to France. What the French do is up to them. Non-EU nationals could be controlled if we had the will power to do so. Under what treaties are we required to grant them indefinite or permanent rights of residence?

    • yulwaymartyn
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 11:09 am | Permalink

      Agreed. Separate EU and non-EU. For starters.

    • Jerry
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 11:29 am | Permalink

      @backofanenvelope: “Syrians arriving at Dover are just sent back to France. What the French do is up to them.”

      The UK government, never mind the “West”, might also like to revisit their policies on that area, sometimes The Devil you know is better than the Devil you don’t as the saying goes…

    • Anonymous
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 11:31 am | Permalink

      Disproportionate democratic weighting is given to the opinions of those of a BBC/Guardian disposition.

  17. Stephen O
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    What strikes me and frustrates me most about what passes for debate on immigration is the lack of sophistication of the main parties. Most of the talk is about more or less immigration.

    Some argue immigrants are beneficial to the UK so high rates of immigration are good, others that they damage the UK and should be reduced.

    It is rather more likely that some immigrants benefit the UK and some do not. As after all they are individuals, though perhaps with different cultural characteristics! Perhaps the ‘80:20 rule’ applies with 20% of the immigrants providing 80% of the gains from immigration. While the rest generate economic activity which only covers the extra costs of providing them with public services or not even that. Yet the debate never seems to move on to how reap the maximum benefits and minimise the negative consequences. I guess telling good from bad (or at least not good enough) is a form of ‘discrimination’ that causes too many in the main parties to throw up their hands in PC horror.

    Another point I would make is that I have spent some time split between different parts of London and while both seemed to have experienced significant immigration, the feel of it was very different. I suspect the public may have different opinions on immigration because they have very different experiences of it. Better understanding of the reality in different areas might make the debate less divisive.

    Also I feel there is a trade-off between numbers and the speed they integrate at. The slower they integrate the lower the numbers should be. The speed of integration is likely to be higher if the ‘cultural gap’ is smaller or if there is not a large existing community from the same country or region to join which would discourage integration (i.e. more diverse sources of integration would be better than attracting immigrants mostly form a small number of countries).

  18. Bert Young
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    The trouble in the run up to an election is that promises and appeals are made for purely short term gain ; all parties want the most votes . Much of our infrastructure is creaking at the seams and cannot simply absorb the influx of population we have experienced in the last decade . The message that UKIP has put out is ” enough is enough ” and it has done so at a time to cause problems to the tactics and strategies of the other political groups . At the bottom of this quagmire is the British culture , it has been knocked out of recognition ; I , for one , want our country back and although it cannot be restored to what it was , I will support whoever is most likely to deliver . If this attitude betrays my age group , I couldn’t care less ; I have a very young daughter and I think as much of her future as I do of my past .

    • Jerry
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

      @Bert Young: “At the bottom of this quagmire is the British culture , it has been knocked out of recognition ; I , for one , want our country back and although it cannot be restored to what it was , I will support whoever is most likely to deliver .”

      But which era do you want “back”, the one before WW1, the one between the two world wars, the one after WW2 until the early 1960s, the 1970s, ’80s, 90s etc. etc. and that only covers the last 110 odd years of British culture…

      That is the problem when talking about “culture”, it’s a totally fluid notion, last month can be different to this month.

      • JA
        Posted July 8, 2014 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

        Jerry – That’s why we have (used to have) a *Conservative* party.

        Slow and careful cultural change – to stop things getting out of had too quickly and morphing into something which the majority dislike and don’t understand.

        You’re right. Things can change very rapidly if we let them and so they are. This is why people are ditching the legacy parties in droves – especially the ‘Conservatives.’

        “That is the problem when talking about “culture”, it’s a totally fluid notion, last month can be different to this month.”

        Beggars belief.

      • APL
        Posted July 9, 2014 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

        Jerry: “That is the problem when talking about “culture”, it’s a totally fluid notion, last month can be different to this month.”

        A valid point if you are referring to ‘pop culture’ it is nothing more than fashion, fads that come and go.

        So if that is your idea of British culture, then it’s not much of a surprise that you don’t care two hoots about it.

        • Jerry
          Posted July 10, 2014 at 8:44 am | Permalink

          APL; “A valid point if you are referring to ‘pop culture’ it is nothing more than fashion, fads that come and go.”

          But I wasn’t. ( I won’t bother saying any more as my first reply appears to have been removed, not even edited)

          PS, perhaps Mr JR would kindly inform us as to why mentioning historical, non contentious, facts regarding UK past history are apparently unwelcome?

  19. sm
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    I agree with many of the views expressed here already, but suggest the UK should also be taking a long hard look at who is eligible to vote in what elections. Do citizens of the Irish Republic, India and Pakistan still have the right to vote in UK general elections, and if so, why? EU citizens can vote in European Parliamentary elections but not in UK General Elections – is that still so?

    • Iain Gill
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

      Any Commonwealth citizen can vote in general elections here, whether they have indefinite leave to remain here or not. Hence lots of citizens of the countries you mention here on short term visas, such as students, tourists, work visa holders, etc vote here and distort the outcome in some areas massively.

      Personally I would restrict voting here to anyone entitled to a British passport or indefinite leave to remain here, anyone here with temporary status only should not be allowed to vote. And remove the link to the Commonwealth its got nothing to do with it.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted July 8, 2014 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/one-million-commonwealth-citizens-should-lose-the-right-to-vote-in-uk-8787481.html

        “One million Commonwealth citizens ‘should lose the right to vote in UK'”

        Said Migration Watch last August, to which a Cabinet Office spokesman responded:

        “The right to vote in UK elections for Commonwealth citizens who live here reflects our close historical ties with Commonwealth countries.

        “Excluding Commonwealth citizens would be a significant step and would require careful consideration.

        “Parliament has previously taken the view that these rights should not be changed.”

        Astonishing; I doubt there are many other countries in the world where the right to vote is extended to large numbers of foreigners as if it doesn’t really count for anything and so shouldn’t be restricted to citizens.

      • Jerry
        Posted July 8, 2014 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

        @Iain Gill: If we do leave the EU do you think it wise to upset the “Commonwealth set”?

        I see that Parliament Sq is going to gain a statute of Gandhi, the announcement being made by William Hague during a high level government visit to India.

        • Kenneth R Moore
          Posted July 8, 2014 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

          Will Mr Hague be wearing flip flops and a nappy at the unveiling ceremony?. It would be a better look than the pineapple and baseball cap.

          • Jerry
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 7:29 am | Permalink

            @Mr Moore: That comment says far more about you than it does anyone else…

          • APL
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

            Jerry: “That comment says….”. bla bla.

            Jerry, straight out of the traps with his ad hom. Slurs.

          • Jerry
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

            APL: I really have got you riled, and must be really hitting a nerve with you some place, I wonder why…

            Stop showing that you are a bad looser, it is so very un British!

          • APL
            Posted July 10, 2014 at 8:09 am | Permalink

            Jerry: “I really have got you riled, ”

            You think so?

            Actually, I pity you.

            Jerry: “I wonder why…”

            Carry on with your pathetic goading, the only emotion you raise in my mind is gratitude that there is someone out there much much more stupid than I am, …. and pity.

          • Jerry
            Posted July 10, 2014 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

            APL: “Carry on with your pathetic goading”

            Oh right, so only one point of view is allowed, anything else is “pathetic goading”, and you have the nerve to call the EU undemocratic…

            Democracy, APL, you don’t even start to understand the meaning of the word.

          • Jerry
            Posted July 10, 2014 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

            Oh and APL, out of respect for Mr Redwood work load I will not be replying to any more to your personal abuse towards me. If you feel able to debate the issues and the facts then fine.

  20. The PrangWizard
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    There’s that ‘relationship’ word again. Is it doubletalk – does it mean OUT, or nowt?

  21. Robert K
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    A separate point, but can you use any influence at the FT to counter this argument put forward frequently but today very specifically by Janan Ganesh: “A generation on [from the Thatcher era], and it is all too easy for the right. Britain is four years into the most sustained fiscal contraction since the second world war. The public sector has tasted job losses and pay restraint. The cuts, already bigger than those attempted by Thatcher, will go on for longer than promised.”
    What cuts do think he is talking about, exactly?

  22. Robert K
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    Mr Micawber might have looked at it this way:
    “Annual contribution to UK twenty pounds; annual cost to UK economy in terms of welfare payments, housing subsidies, healthcare and education etc. etc., nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual contribution twenty pounds; annual cost twenty pounds nought and six, result misery.
    There’s nothing wrong with immigration and there’s everything right about employers wanting to find the best value labour. What’s wrong is the state subsidising immigration of low paid workers through the social benefit system.

    • A different Simon
      Posted July 9, 2014 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

      Robert K

      “there’s everything right about employers wanting to find the best value labour. ”

      There is everything wrong about letting them do so at the expense of the most vulnerable of British Citizen workers .

      What about those British Nationals at the bottom of the food-chain and school leavers looking for their first job ?

      How can it be right to give employers access to a pool of immigrant labour to fill the only jobs the most vulnerable of Britons can do ?

  23. yulwaymartyn
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    The problem with a points system is that it may be used by other member states in respect of those UK nationals currently living elsewhere within the European Union. For example how many of the 440,000 UK nationals currently living on the Spanish costs would pass the points system?

    In all these discussions about free movement of people we need to remember that the UK has already the highest number of nationals living in other member states within the EU.

    Apparently this number is to increase dramatically owing to rising house prices in the UK and low interest rates within the Eurozone which are apparently expected to last for at least five years. According to experts for expats 5.4 million UK people are expecting to buy property abroad in the next five years or so and apparently 70% of those are intending to buy within the European Union.

    There is also the increasing number of ‘refufees’ i.e. those who are intending to study at universities within the EU taught by English speaking lecturers for around £3000.00 per annum compared to the fees currently charged by UK universities.

    • JA
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

      Paying their way, Yulwaymartin. Taking pensions, assets and our own benefits (winter fuel allowance – UK dole etc)

  24. They Work for Us
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    I am afraid that all of this shows the continuing mismatch between what your employers, the electors want and what the parties are doing because “the know better” (they don’t). Any other employee who refused repeatedly to carry out his employees wishes would after formal warning be sacked. The rise of UKIP is the formal warning to conservative politicians that they need to do as they are told or they will lose the next election. Many will lose their seats.
    A manifesto that promised referenda on say three major issues in the first two years – an immigration freeze, the supremacy of parliament on all laws and regulations and the supremacy of the Supreme Court over all other courts would be vote winners.

    • Jerry
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

      @They Work for Us: “The rise of UKIP is the formal warning to conservative politicians that they need to do as they are told or they will lose the next election.”

      Some choice then, do as UKIP say and loose even more votes, or don’t do as UKIP say and loose even more votes, either way allowing Labour to enter power, perhaps ever worse, allow a Labour/LibDem coalition – isn’t that what they call a “Hobson’s choice”…?

    • bigneil
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

      I was with you till “promised referenda” -then I fell over laughing. DC thinks we still believe him when he promises things.

      • Jerry
        Posted July 9, 2014 at 7:38 am | Permalink

        @bigniel: Those who actually understood the situation still do, it’s those who were more interested in having a good anti Cameron/Tory rant than understanding the implications of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by the last Labour government who have given up but then they probably had done so even before the promise of a referendum on the ratification (not the repealing or a Brexit) of the LT was even made…

  25. APL
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    JR: “Both main parties are experiencing an electoral torture over the vexed topics of free movement of people and immigration.”

    Good, you all deserve it.

    Labour because they doubled down on massive immigration.
    Tories, because none of you had the backbone to expose what was going on during the Labour period in office.

    Spineless the lot of you. As a result, worthless.

    • Jerry
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

      APL: [a rant against the current elected batch of politicains]

      APL, I take it that, come April next year, you will be standing as a candidate, complete with your fully costed manifesto?…

      • APL
        Posted July 9, 2014 at 6:46 am | Permalink

        Jerry: “I take it that, ”

        rest of the irrelevant twattering ignored.

        • Jerry
          Posted July 9, 2014 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

          APL: “rest of the irrelevant twattering ignored.”

          But APL, if you think the current crop of politicians are spineless, worthless and what ever other insults you have thrown at then you must think you can do better, so either put up or shut up, other wise you are just a worthless rant yourself.

      • Mark B
        Posted July 9, 2014 at 8:23 am | Permalink

        One can easily tell, by the number, the times and the manner of your post, that you do not have many, if indeed any, friends.

        And here is me thinking that our kind host, in his ‘new rules on posting’, did not wish to see such personal attacks.

        Troll.

        PS I take it you will not be putting one of my posts up. Fair enough. I guess it was too uncomfortable Mr. Redwood MP sir, to be told one or two home truths.

        • Jerry
          Posted July 9, 2014 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

          @Mark B: Once again that sort of comment says far more about the person making it than it does about it’s intended recipient, and I suspect that our host knows that to, hence why he allowed you to make it.

  26. a-tracy
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    A bit of a light shining truth on the matter wouldn’t hurt, just how many social homes are now inhabited by none British born individuals and families? In each Country, County by County? How many are in fully subsidised housing i.e. they have no contributory income other than social benefits to pay for it.

    When English children move to the Capital city they have to rent privately for extortionate rates, why aren’t immigrants told the same.

  27. Bernard from Bucks
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    On driving into many British towns one comes across electronic signs indicating spaces in various car-parks. Car Park A – Full, Car Park B – 28 spaces etc.
    We need a similar thing in the EU. It all boils down to capacity. Everyone is entitled to a reasonable quality of life, a reasonable quality of air and drinking water and so on.
    If a maximum population density could be set across the whole EU , say for example 200 heads per hectare, then you could see that England with 419, Netherlands with 393, Belgium with 337, UK with 256 and Germany with 233, were well and truly, Full.
    Lower down the scale we find Italy with 192, France with 111 and Spain with 92, are nowhere near struggling with huge populations. Just as a ship, an aircraft and even a car-park has a safe and maximum capacity, so should a Country.

    • Aunty Estab
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

      What good sense

  28. ian
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

    Your not getting the message, you are not wanted. How much more do they have to do to get the message a cross to you.

  29. Atlas
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    I simply wish us in the UK to decide who comes in and who does not.

  30. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    I have long seen it differently. The Conservative Party is a Eurosceptic Party in a Eurosceptic nation, and the desire for complete control over our own immigration policy is one of the main driving forces behind this.

    As for the young being more in favour of continued immigration, please explain why the phenomenon of ‘white flight’ from London has occured and is continuing. The official ONS figures indicate that between the 2001 Census and the 2011 Census, the White British (an official ONS category) share of London’s population fell from 61% to 45%. Even Trevor Phillips is concerned about the polarisation. Whatever young SINGLES may feel about continued immigration into London, young FAMILIES are voting with their feet – in droves.

    If the Conservatives want to attract more of the immigrant vote, it is going to have to take sides between the various immigrant groups from the Indian sub-continent. It would be relatively simple to increase support from Hindus and Tamils. Why not just write off the Islamic vote? They nearly all vote Labour. etc ed

    • Jerry
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

      @Lindsay McDougall: “Whatever young SINGLES may feel about continued immigration into London, young FAMILIES are voting with their feet – in droves.”

      Didn’t something similar happen between 1945 and the 1970s, families moved out of cities (not just London), out to the New Towns or to the edges of the urban sprawl, whilst the young single male or female moved in? I find it quite strange that some think a family that could move would chose not to.

      Also, don’t assume that those ONS stats, regarding skin colour are reliable, those will be the findings based on those who chose to indicate their ethnic origins.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

      It was a Conservative government which signed us up to Article 3(c) of the 1957 Treaty of Rome establishing the EEC, which called for:

      “the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital”;

      so clearly it did not want complete control over our immigration policy.

      • Lindsay McDougall
        Posted July 8, 2014 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

        Denis, that was then, this is now.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted July 9, 2014 at 7:45 am | Permalink

          That was then, Lindsay, and it still applies now, and for that we must thank the supposedly “eurosceptic” Conservative party.

          • Jerry
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

            @Denis Cooper: ” it still applies now, and for that we must thank the supposedly “eurosceptic” Conservative party.”

            No, we have the coalition to thank, and we all know why we have a coalition, don’t we, UKIP even boasted about it…

  31. behindthefrogs
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    The problem is that our politicians and many members of the general public want a big bang solution to the immigration problem. What is actually needed is number of small steps such as:

    Stricter monitoring and implementation of the minimum wage.
    A number of years of employed residence to qualify for any benefits.
    The NHS only available in emergencies until residential qualification met.
    Charging for use of the NHS meanwhile.
    A points system for immigrants from outside the EU.
    Repatriation of immigrants who can’t support themselves both EU ands non-EU.
    Similar repatriation of law breakers.
    Strict control of the immigration of spouses and other relatives.
    Deportation of illegal immigrants as quickly as possible with reduced reliance on their home countries providing papers.
    Foriegn ownership of residential property restricted to individuals (rather than companies). Sales of such property subject to all appropriate taxes.

  32. Denis Cooper
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    There are numerous countries around the world which trade with each other without any of them having to cede control of their immigration policies. It is an entirely artificial and unusual construct of the EU treaty system that there are “four freedoms” lumped together, one of which is freedom of movement of persons.

    Now the Tory party, which first signed us up to this absurd system in 1972, is trying to spread a rumour that given the chance it will get us out of it:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10949062/Tory-plan-to-cap-EU-migration.html

    “Tory plan to cap EU migration”

    “A partial ban on EU migration could be included in David Cameron’s sweeping renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with Brussels, senior sources tell The Telegraph”

    Well, of course those anonymous “senior sources” know perfectly well that this will not be possible while we remain in the EU, and they also know perfectly well that those who control the Tory party have absolutely no intention of allowing us to leave the EU.

    • JA
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

      Quite possibly a Con/Lab coalition and the Blairites in both parties would be quite comfortable with that.

      The assault on ordinary British people is deliberate and the main parties thoroughly deserve electoral torture.

      • Jerry
        Posted July 8, 2014 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

        @JA: “the main parties thoroughly deserve electoral torture.”

        Except the electorate seems to be saying something quite different, remind me how many seats parties such as UKIP won in that election of 2010…

        Enjoy your daydreams!

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted July 9, 2014 at 7:50 am | Permalink

          Support for UKIP continues to trend upwards, at the expense of all three pro-EU parties:

          http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls.html

          • Jerry
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

            Denis, UKIP can get all the votes they like but if they fail to convert any of those votes into Westminster seats they are still nothing electorally, on a par with the Monster Raving Loony Party.

            I see that the latest (as of 2014.07.06) Ashcroft-poll has UKIP only 4 points above the LibDems, and only 5 above the Greens, at 15% [1], if UKIP think that equates to gaining significant or any seats seats then indeed they are day dreaming – unless of course they are going to claim that poll is ‘unreliable’…

            [1] and has been floating between 14% and 19% since early May

        • Anonymous
          Posted July 9, 2014 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

          Jerry – ‘Electoral torture’ is Dr Redwood’s choice of words.

          I’m not dreaming. (UKIP aside Tory party membership has slumped by nearly 60%)

          No-one expects UKIP to form government btw.

          I have no hope – just like millions of others.

          • Anonymous
            Posted July 9, 2014 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

            PS, Jerry

            The Tories failed to win an election in 2010 despite a deeply unpopular PM being in office and an economic crisis.

            I don’t ‘daydream’ these days. I just have nightmares.

          • Jerry
            Posted July 10, 2014 at 9:03 am | Permalink

            Anonymous: “I’m not dreaming. (UKIP aside Tory party membership has slumped by nearly 60%)

            Irrelevant, see my reply to Denis Cooper above for why, the same comment apply.

            “The Tories failed to win an election in 2010 despite a deeply unpopular PM being in office and an economic crisis.

            Yes and we all know why, UKIP, splitting the vote on the right – less people need to support europhile parties when we have UKIP all but getting them elected via proxy, or forcing parties into a coalition with probably the most europhile party in the UK (even the Greens are more eurosceptic, on certain issues, than the LibDems)!

            I don’t ‘daydream’ these days. I just have nightmares.”

            No doubt you do, but they are of your own making.

  33. Bernard Otway
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    I have not written ONE comment in over two years John,and I wrote mine from here in South Africa before the times of comments at the end,WHAT have I written that is so bad that it has not one letter of the alphabet on this site.All I have said is exactly what is happening here and related an incident that happened last week in JohannesburgI wont name names but I have spoken to some very senior politicians [not white] who totally agree with what I wrote and are worried about it,they know that if they show any sympathy to immigrants both legal and illegal, their constituency will turn on them and the EFF will go from 7% to over 20% and this 13% gain will come entirely from the ANC.
    They also have very long memories ie while they were in exile Mr kaunda lost his hold on Zambia to Frederick Chiluba after being in power since UHURU from us in 1962,they know that they are not omniscient and there are others waiting and working and that the MADIBA factor will have ceased to help the ruling party in 2019.After 35 years here I can catagorically say South Africans want jobs to come to them and not migrants,especially
    non skilled work.

    Reply You made various unsubstantiated claims that were highly contentious. My new policy is simply to bin any long comment that may be too challenging to other readers as changing them takes too long.

    • Roger Farmer
      Posted July 9, 2014 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

      Are you talking about contributors command off English and their ability to put together a clear sentence, or is it their condemnation of perceived Conservative policy or lack of it, that brings out your censors red pen.

      Reply I delete entries that make unsubstantiated personal attacks on people and institutions, and or have links to websites I have not read.

      • Roger Farmer
        Posted July 9, 2014 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

        Correction of typo of for off.

  34. Vanessa
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    I think it is true that most countries outside the EU have a visa system for immigrants – we used to and should again. This controls who comes in and for what reason. It is obviously impractical to have a “cap” as once that is reached, well-educated and valuable immigrants are barred access. With a visa systems we look at each application on merit and if that person will bring in expertise and experience then their visa should be issued.

    The NHS is a nightmare for most trying to get appointments with GPs or just waiting in waiting-rooms. This must be losing money for businesses as their workers waste time waiting.

    Our infrastructure is dreadful, our roads are appalling all because there are now 64+ million people living on a very small island. The air we breathe and the water we drink is all compromised because our resources are under enormous strain. I have never had so many power cuts or water cut off as I have had in the last 10 years and yet we are still building and building and building.

    There are parts of the world with hardly anybody living there, and these are not uninhabitable areas; it seems to make sense to spread humans around more evenly to take the strain off Britain.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

      We have a visa system for non EC folk, its just full of loopholes, and is routinely abused. A visa system on its own will not fix things. It needs proper criteria and will to enforce them. Re “if that person will bring in expertise and experience then their visa should be issued” you will have a couple of million more arriving from India within the week if that is your criteria, we need much tougher requirements not less.

  35. ian
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    All they care about is GDP GDP and if that mean letting the whole world in that”s what they will do. The best part is that GDP has nothing to do with anything but borrowing money that”s why they just put it up with drugs & hookers earnings which they do not receive money for from these people. They do not earn a profit, so they put GDP up so they can borrow more money or make figures look better so they pay less interest on your debt. NOT THEY DEBT, they can move and avoid the debt.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

      Well they also listen far too much to the wrong big businessmen, who are addicted to cheap imported labour.

  36. Paul
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    Good points, but where do you stand on immigration JR? You very rarely touch on the subject. To have net immigration at over 200k+ a year is ridiculous. Most of us, including me, have welcomed sensible immigration numbers in the past, but there is simply too much pressure now on all sorts of areas, and it needs to be cut substantially.

    Reply I have often made it clear I want it cut and want us to have control of our borders back to do so.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted July 8, 2014 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

      Want it cut John? How? Details please?

  37. ianj wragg
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    There will be no control over immigration whilst we are ruled by Brussels with the tacit approval of the LibLabCON. Just because an election is around the corner don’t think you can con us again.
    Have you sold any tickets to watch Didcot power station cooling towers being demolished at night and the machinery being shipped to Germany.

  38. Kenneth R Moore
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    An honest and fair assessment by Prof. Redwood. I welcome his courage and honesty in admitting that the Conservatives have jettisoned much of his party’s values to embark on a foolish journey that would inevitably end in failure.
    The failure to win the 2010 election underlines the futility of the Cameron/Osbrown policy of appealing to the ethnic and metropolitan vote. It is only when Cameron’s has held his nose and done a few genuinely conservative things that any popularity has returned.
    Regarding re-negotiation my understanding is that free movement is of the very essence of the EU project. The only option surely is to get out of the EU so I’m not really sure how Mr Redwood re-negotiation policy could work.

  39. Roger Farmer
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

    You can censor, delay, and omit as many critical submissions as you wish, but you cannot run away from the fact that the Conservative Party is in a real mess. This as a conservative voter over a lifetime gives me no satisfaction.

  40. ian
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

    Can wait to see you and friends faces when realization set in, as germany economy greatness start to recede and go”s down the pan. All the asset you have all worked for turn to dust. I would say the joke on you not the poor. All done by your own hands.

  41. bigneil
    Posted July 8, 2014 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

    An early comment john was “join the queue for social housing”. A program last night said that Sheffield had an 18 yr waiting list – so how come 700 roma families are in one area -and a lot of trouble it is causing too. They are now housing them in another area of Sheffield – -that will quickly go the same way. So how come they turn up after paying nothing – into a house benefits NHS care and ultimately a pension ?- – – -why are we working john? – -because as I said before – I worked 45 yr – -and I don’t get a damn penny – -I would be better off walking into this country having contributed NOTHING.

    • Jerry
      Posted July 9, 2014 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

      @bigneil: “I worked 45 yr – -and I don’t get a damn penny”

      Says it all….

  42. Michael
    Posted July 9, 2014 at 7:46 am | Permalink

    John, I was wondering to what extent would you agree with Norman Tebitt’s assessment of immigration on Andrew Marr show? It seems to diverge from what some Conservatives parrot after UKIP?

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College, and has a DPhil from All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.
  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page