IMMIGRATION/VOTE RIGGING
Below is a copy of an article which recently appeared in the Sunday Telegraph:
'Labour's immigration policy? Lots more of it
By Alasdair Palmer
(Filed: 24/04/2005)
When the Prime Minister gave his speech on immigration from Dover on Friday, he
went out of his way to reassure voters that the Government was getting the
problem under control. He recognised that people were concerned about it, but he
insisted that "we are listening". His Government, he said, had been "working
hard at it" - and asylum applications had fallen as a consequence. He gave the
impression that the furore over immigration was only a result of the abuse of
the asylum system, and of people - encouraged by Michael Howard's "divisive"
rhetoric - not realising how much the Government had done to curb it. The Labour
Government, Tony Blair stressed, already had "strict controls" to reduce both
legal and illegal immigration. It would institute yet more controls should it
win the election.
All those claims are false - and the Prime Minister knows it. The biggest
misrepresentation of all is the suggestion that asylum is the main source of
immigration into Britain. It isn't. The main source of immigration into Britain
is the Government's policy of increasing the numbers of people allowed to settle
here from non-EU countries. According to official statistics, asylum
applications account for only 14 per cent of the annual total. By far the
largest portion - nearly 50 per cent - are people given work permits by the
Government, and the dependants they bring with them. Labour has increased thenumber of work permits it issues by a factor of four since 1997. The Work
Permits Agency, a branch of the Home Office, has even written to companies
asking them if they have thought of recruiting from non-EU countries: it offers
them assistance should they wish to do so.
There was no mention of this remarkable policy in the Prime Minister's speech.
Instead, he promised that the Government would "introduce the type of points
system used in Australia" to "ensure our economy gets the skills we need". But
the truth is that the Government already has a points system - and has used it
not to decrease but to increase the number of migrants allowed into Britain.
Labour introduced the system in 2002 under the title of the "Highly Skilled
Migrants Programme". From the Government's point of view, its one drawback was
that it turned out to let too few people in: the standards required were too
high. So what did the Government do? It reduced the number of points needed. The
result was a deluge of applications. The Government was able to let in even more
people than it hoped.
There can be no doubt that the Government's policy is to maximise the flow of
migrants to Britain. In a statement last November - attached to a suitably
anonymous document on the impact of identity cards - the Government admitted
that it "wants to encourage lawful migration to this country, sustaining and
perhaps increasing the present levels". Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, has
said: "We want more immigration, more people coming to study, to work." That
policy is reflected in the numbers of people Labour has let into Britain since
it came to power. In the last 10 years of Conservative government, the average
annual figure for net migration into Britain (the number who arrive to stay
minus the number who leave) was 59,300. In the seven years since Labour has been
in power, the annual average has been 157,000.
No one, however, would realise that fact from listening to Mr Blair's speech.
Indeed, the odd thing about Labour's policy on immigration is that it has never
been fully spelt out. It was not part of Labour's election manifesto of 1997, or
2001, just as it is not mentioned in its current manifesto. Labour has never
given an explanation of why encouraging immigration is a good policy, probably
because the Government has never admitted that it is already implementing
precisely that policy. The most we get from ministers, the Prime Minister
included, are general assertions that "migration is good for the economy", that
we need to import workers because of our ageing population, or that "the NHS
depends on it".
Those claims are transparently fallacious, and have been comprehensively
debunked by academic economists. Immigration does not solve the pensions crisis
because it cannot sufficiently improve the ratio of workers to the retired: it
can at most delay the moment of reckoning, for the simple reason that immigrants
get old themselves. The scholarly consensus on the beneficial effects of
immigration on the economy is that it is either very small or slightly negative.
There is no "bonzana" from an injection of largely unskilled labour into the
economy.
It is certainly true that immigration is good for employers. Competition from
immigrant workers drives down wages, particularly at the unskilled end of themarket, which is where most immigrants end up - a fact that Mervyn King, the
Governor of the Bank of England, has emphasised, and which richer people, those
who employ nannies and cleaners, will have noticed. Immigration creates what
Marx called "a reserve army of labour". It enables employers to avoid paying the
level of wages native workers demand. That may be why the Government insists
that "the NHS depends" on immigrant workers. Keeping NHS costs down certainly
does depend on being able to pay NHS workers less than a market rate for their
services - but it is not something one would expect a Labour Government to boast
about.
Why is Labour, which is supposed to be the party of Britain's least privileged
workers, following a policy that disadvantages them further? Has it really
mutated into the party protecting the interests of the nanny-employing classes?
Possibly: most Labour ministers certainly fit that description. There may,
however, be another explanation. Surveys demonstrate that most immigrants from
non EU countries vote Labour - a fact that we can be sure is not lost on the
Prime Minister.
Immigration at Labour's present rate of more than 150,000 people a year will
inevitably bring about dramatic transformations in many areas. The immediate
issue is really not whether such changes are a good or a bad thing, or whether
it is racist to oppose them. The issue is that the transformation is taking
place as the result of a Government policy about which the electorate has not
been consulted, or indeed informed. Labour's immigration policy involves a giant
social experiment - and it is the people of this country who are the lab rats.
The Government has deliberately deceived the public about that policy, as Tony
Blair's speech on Friday shows. It is a cynical and shocking subversion of our
democracy.'
'Labour's immigration policy? Lots more of it
By Alasdair Palmer
(Filed: 24/04/2005)
When the Prime Minister gave his speech on immigration from Dover on Friday, he
went out of his way to reassure voters that the Government was getting the
problem under control. He recognised that people were concerned about it, but he
insisted that "we are listening". His Government, he said, had been "working
hard at it" - and asylum applications had fallen as a consequence. He gave the
impression that the furore over immigration was only a result of the abuse of
the asylum system, and of people - encouraged by Michael Howard's "divisive"
rhetoric - not realising how much the Government had done to curb it. The Labour
Government, Tony Blair stressed, already had "strict controls" to reduce both
legal and illegal immigration. It would institute yet more controls should it
win the election.
All those claims are false - and the Prime Minister knows it. The biggest
misrepresentation of all is the suggestion that asylum is the main source of
immigration into Britain. It isn't. The main source of immigration into Britain
is the Government's policy of increasing the numbers of people allowed to settle
here from non-EU countries. According to official statistics, asylum
applications account for only 14 per cent of the annual total. By far the
largest portion - nearly 50 per cent - are people given work permits by the
Government, and the dependants they bring with them. Labour has increased thenumber of work permits it issues by a factor of four since 1997. The Work
Permits Agency, a branch of the Home Office, has even written to companies
asking them if they have thought of recruiting from non-EU countries: it offers
them assistance should they wish to do so.
There was no mention of this remarkable policy in the Prime Minister's speech.
Instead, he promised that the Government would "introduce the type of points
system used in Australia" to "ensure our economy gets the skills we need". But
the truth is that the Government already has a points system - and has used it
not to decrease but to increase the number of migrants allowed into Britain.
Labour introduced the system in 2002 under the title of the "Highly Skilled
Migrants Programme". From the Government's point of view, its one drawback was
that it turned out to let too few people in: the standards required were too
high. So what did the Government do? It reduced the number of points needed. The
result was a deluge of applications. The Government was able to let in even more
people than it hoped.
There can be no doubt that the Government's policy is to maximise the flow of
migrants to Britain. In a statement last November - attached to a suitably
anonymous document on the impact of identity cards - the Government admitted
that it "wants to encourage lawful migration to this country, sustaining and
perhaps increasing the present levels". Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, has
said: "We want more immigration, more people coming to study, to work." That
policy is reflected in the numbers of people Labour has let into Britain since
it came to power. In the last 10 years of Conservative government, the average
annual figure for net migration into Britain (the number who arrive to stay
minus the number who leave) was 59,300. In the seven years since Labour has been
in power, the annual average has been 157,000.
No one, however, would realise that fact from listening to Mr Blair's speech.
Indeed, the odd thing about Labour's policy on immigration is that it has never
been fully spelt out. It was not part of Labour's election manifesto of 1997, or
2001, just as it is not mentioned in its current manifesto. Labour has never
given an explanation of why encouraging immigration is a good policy, probably
because the Government has never admitted that it is already implementing
precisely that policy. The most we get from ministers, the Prime Minister
included, are general assertions that "migration is good for the economy", that
we need to import workers because of our ageing population, or that "the NHS
depends on it".
Those claims are transparently fallacious, and have been comprehensively
debunked by academic economists. Immigration does not solve the pensions crisis
because it cannot sufficiently improve the ratio of workers to the retired: it
can at most delay the moment of reckoning, for the simple reason that immigrants
get old themselves. The scholarly consensus on the beneficial effects of
immigration on the economy is that it is either very small or slightly negative.
There is no "bonzana" from an injection of largely unskilled labour into the
economy.
It is certainly true that immigration is good for employers. Competition from
immigrant workers drives down wages, particularly at the unskilled end of themarket, which is where most immigrants end up - a fact that Mervyn King, the
Governor of the Bank of England, has emphasised, and which richer people, those
who employ nannies and cleaners, will have noticed. Immigration creates what
Marx called "a reserve army of labour". It enables employers to avoid paying the
level of wages native workers demand. That may be why the Government insists
that "the NHS depends" on immigrant workers. Keeping NHS costs down certainly
does depend on being able to pay NHS workers less than a market rate for their
services - but it is not something one would expect a Labour Government to boast
about.
Why is Labour, which is supposed to be the party of Britain's least privileged
workers, following a policy that disadvantages them further? Has it really
mutated into the party protecting the interests of the nanny-employing classes?
Possibly: most Labour ministers certainly fit that description. There may,
however, be another explanation. Surveys demonstrate that most immigrants from
non EU countries vote Labour - a fact that we can be sure is not lost on the
Prime Minister.
Immigration at Labour's present rate of more than 150,000 people a year will
inevitably bring about dramatic transformations in many areas. The immediate
issue is really not whether such changes are a good or a bad thing, or whether
it is racist to oppose them. The issue is that the transformation is taking
place as the result of a Government policy about which the electorate has not
been consulted, or indeed informed. Labour's immigration policy involves a giant
social experiment - and it is the people of this country who are the lab rats.
The Government has deliberately deceived the public about that policy, as Tony
Blair's speech on Friday shows. It is a cynical and shocking subversion of our
democracy.'
posted by erc @ 9:47 pm
<< Home