Could this alienate Dave’s Lib Dem switchers?
October 29th, 2007
-
How can Cameron appeal to two audiences at the same time?
Whenever pollsters ask about the main issue that concerns voters then immigration invariably comes top of the list. In the latest Ipsos-Mori poll 41% of those interviewed said, unprompted, that “race relations/immigration/immigrants” was amongst their top concerns.
Politicians of all parties know this and are ultra-careful when they move into this policy area - but peddling what appears to be a highly populist anti-immigrant line can have its own dangers. - and the person facing the biggest challenge is David Cameron.
For the section of the electorate most likely to be sensitive by a tough anti-immigrant stance are Lib Dem supporters including many, now doubt, who have switched their allegiance to Cameron’s liberal conservatism since the general election.
Could straying into this territory, as the Tory leader did to today, be a turn-off to many of those whose support he has managed to win in the past two years?
All this allowed the Lib Dem home leadership contender and home affairs spokesman, Nick Clegg, to accuse Cameron of “pandering to the right wing in his own party and claims that immigration numbers should be cut without having the faintest clue as to how that would happen”.
Labour have to be very careful in this area too. The Michael Howard-style approach adopted by John Reid was doing the party no good amongst this key group of centre voters.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
It was doing the party no good because nobody believed that Patient X could also provide the cure.
This is great stuff from Cameron, and will resonate on the doorsteps. People are disillusioned because politicians are apparently too cowardly to talk about the one thing they dislike most in modern life, uncontrolled immigration as opposed to managed migration.
Certainly a danger but the media coverage seems ok and this is much more of an issue that it was in 2005. Brown’s “British jobs for British workers” sound bite has given Dave enough cover to escape this danger in my view.
I agree with Mike that this is a very sensitive issue and needs to be handled carefully from a political point of view and properly from a moral point of view. Because Cameron has demonstrated that he is not an unreconstructed Conservative he is more able to address this and other issues than his predecessors. There is nothing in the above quoted BBC article that I disagree with or that I think is either insensitive or offensive.
Most of the middle class voters Cameron is after are not nearly as liberal (in private at least) on this issue as might be thought. A cheap Polish plumber is appreciated, but not the destruction of green spaces to build massive housing/road developments - that could devalue their large properties after all. Local schools suddenly becoming full of immigrant children tends to have a remarkable illiberalising effect on these voters’ attitudes as well.
As long as policies in this area are carefully expressed, avoiding ugly language, there’s no problem.
4 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/29/nsky129.xml
Apologies from Sky News for the “extermination” comment.
When is ICM due out? I am sure Mike said it would be early this week?
As Scotland is hardly flavour of the month with the Tories, its obvious. Repair all the damage that the Highland clearances caused, by getting all the immigrants to live in Scotland, lots of space there!!
The simple solutions are always the best ones.
Not another thread about Cameron and the Tories!
It’s all Dave at the moment, only one person making the running and it’s not GB. You might have to remove Gordon from the banner, Mike, people will be forgetting who he is soon! (Perhaps he’s back in his Fife bunker, with its blacked out windows…)
Clegg sounds a bit desperate here, as Huhne is making the running by easily finding holes in Gordon Brown’s lack of appeal to his left wing. Clegg has to hurt Cameron if he is to progress. In Brown Huhne’s got a far softer target, and a lot more easy pickings.
Cameron is cruising nicely, and will brush off Clegg like a crumb from his napkin. Huhne will revive the LDs by collecting votes from Brown. Easy winnings for punters here, as the early favourite Clegg’s labouring in an uphill struggle.
8 Gordon’s taking every spare moment to practice for his PMQ’s after the Queens speech. How many times will we hear “you haven’t done your research” or “you’re not listening to me” in next bout I wonder?
Can see him now in the Thatcher Room, dartboard, with Cameron’s face pinned on, fixed on wall while Gordon flourishes his rhetoric daggers, imagining how he rends the man into bits to the wild applause of Ian Gibson, Ed Balls-Milliband and wee Dougie…
Ted, I heard her say it. I see she is ex BBC which would fit in with the anti-Conservative bias in the comment. Sky has gained from her departure.
4: Whatever language is used someone will call this a ‘lurch to the right’ or ‘verging on racist’. It’s what passes for debate nowadays.
We will have to see what happens in the polls but I suspect that most of the Lib Dem voters that the Conservatives have attracted are not Liberals just people who want a change from Labour. Lib Dems used to offer that it is now the Conservatives.
11: yeah these lefties happy to take Rupert’s money thro
As with the Conservative’s proposals on English votes for English laws - managed migration is entirely reasonable, eminently sensible and appeals to me greatly. I’m really starting to think Cameron is beginning to dominate the domestic policy agenda now and is looking more and more like the next PM in waiting.
I heard today that the government is finally going to consult on giving temporary and agency workers equal treatment rights at work, to save them from discrimination and ill-treatment by rogue employment agencies. A significant number of temporary and agency workers are immigrants and the ability of these workers to undercut the mainstream workforce has contributed to a feeling of insecurity and hostility among the indigenous population in some areas. Fair wages for all, as well as being socially just, is the best way of ensuring good community relations.
The CBI has already come out against the government’s move and predicted drastic economic consequences. The same CBI, remember, predicted that the minimum wage would cause economic collapse.
Wait for Dave to flounder about on this one.
‘All this allowed the Lib Dem home leadership contender and home affairs spokesman, Nick Clegg, to accuse Cameron of “pandering to the right wing in his own party and claims that immigration numbers should be cut without having the faintest clue as to how that would happen”.’
I guess you could equally say that Clegg with his proposed amnesty for illegal immigrants was pandering to the left without the faintest clue as to the long term consequences of such an amnesty.
Wow. Cameron is a socialist. A “long term population plan” is needed. for **ks sake. What a joke.
you sound worried, Jonathan!
15 I thought the government’s rationale for high levels of immigration was precisely that it did keep wages down.
I could foresee difficulties though, in automatically giving temporary staff the same rights as permanent staff.
15 Just makes it more likely that back office work - where a large number of contracted agency staff are used - will be sourced directly in Eastern Europe, India and China and the export of these type of jobs will quicken.
18 Worried, now you’ve got to be kidding! Cameron is impressive on many fronts, but his recent tendency towards “something has got to be done” is a real weak spot IMO.
I had more respect for him when he was policy light. A clever place to be for an old fashioned pragmatic, free market Tory. He now has more positions than the Kama Sutra.
The CBI doesn’t have a great record with its economic predictions. They predicted all sorts of dire things if we didn’t join the Euro.
The very fact Mike is focussing so much on Cameron tells us a lot as Mike sometimes reminds us Cameron tends to benefit more than others from publicity. Timing is of course all important and such a speech say 3 months ago could have been ruthlessly attacked by Labour. Given Brown’s recent comments and the recent population growth statistics I think it will generally go down well. Yes Cameron may well lose a few voters but I expect he will overall gain support especially as his language on this key issue is moderate.
18: Quite right Jonathan next thing we know he’ll be promising British jobs for British workers - has he no shame.
Well the Government commitments on reductions in carbon output are in direct contradiction of an increase in population and an increase in houses.
Something will have to change. 20% cut in carbon output with 15% population increase? Joined up government?
What is it about an anti-immigration stance that Lib Dems don’t like?
The “Evening Telegraph” in Northamptonshire has the following headline today:
“1,500 MIGRANTS HELD BY POLICE”
It continues: “New figures show true extent of illegal immigrants found in Northamptonshire”
It looks as though Cameron may have timed his speech just right….
19. Immigration has helped to ensure non-inflationary growth and an unparalleled increase in the standard of living over the last 10 years – I agree.
But you have to attempt a level playing field as regards workers’ rights and people like John Cruddas and other east London MPs have done a very effective job in highlighting this problem, in relation to fighting the BNP in particular.
The TUC has been campaigning on this issue for some years now and last week they even launched a website to support the Polish workforce in the UK, see http://www.tuc.org.uk/international/tuc-13869-f0.cfm
28 GDP growth per head hasn’t been *that* spectacular over the past 10 years. It hasn’t been bad either. But there’s certainly been no step change over that time.
21 - “[Cameron’s] recent tendency towards “something has got to be done” is a real weak spot IMO”
All Cameron has to do is to point out the problems with Britain today. He has the perfect response in saying “and we will adress these in our manifesto”. People will fully understand that if he announces them now, Brown will steal them - and in his own inimitable cack-handed way, eviscerate them and implement random bits in a grotesque parody of the original idea. Best for all concerned with the long-term well-being of our country if the Tories just run the clock down on Gordon….
I think cameron is wrong to express with certainty that non-EU immigration should be lower. What if EU immigration falls drastically - might he not then want more people from the rest of the world? Cameron has ‘earned’ the right to talk about immigration, but he has to make sure he doesn’t sound like a typical Tory. Also it is not just a question of losing votes to the Lib Dems. If he moves to the right it will be harder for the Tories to form any coalition after the next election.
O/T but this Liam Fox stuff sounds OTT (thank goodness he isn’t Home Affairs spokesman). Cable has made a decision and you can argue either way whther it is right. but Fox should be showing him more respect. I felt similarly when I saw Harriet Harman smearing Malcolm Rifkind on AM yesterday. I don’t think the public like that sort of politics, especailly when the targets seem like decent people.
21: Jonathan considering how many Tory policies the Clunking One has stolen from the Tories when you criticise Cameron you are also criticising Labour.
But on immigration only one of the two used a slogan from a BNP leaflet, Gordon Brown.
Interesting that Conservative Home are describing this as a ‘triumph for the traditionalists’ and people in the comments there are whingeing about how the BBC are covering the consultation on the Climate Change Bill rather than Cameron, whereas Tories here think that Cameron is dominating the agenda and being moderate.
I think that the speech will be well received - one way to get good press coverage is to give speeches saying exactly what the editorial line and columnists in most of the papers have been saying (though this approach is kind of limiting in the long run). The liberalism of many Lib Dem voters on this issue is pretty limited, so I don’t think they need worry overmuch about that.
One big problem politically that the Tories have with the issue of immigration is that most people who care about the issue think that what politicians say about it is all talk and that they won’t actually do anything to sort the problem out if elected. The more they sound like fluffy Tories who have changed and aren’t like the old nasty Tories, the more this impression is reinforced. The fact that in practice Cameron’s approach is nonsense and won’t work does contribute in a small way to this. The paradox is that the more that they look like politicians who might actually cut levels of immigration, the less they look like modernised new caring Tories.
32 The BNP don’t own the English language just as they don’t own the union jack. British Jobs for Britsh workers/full employment/call it what you will is a good thing with a tradition that extends way before the BNP. Every British Citizen should have the opportunity to work for their living in Britain. End of.
29 Relative to other countries the UK is performing very well either keeping pace or even outperforming our rivals. This is a significant departure from the post war situation up to the mid/late 90s where we were consistantly falling behind.
As I understand it, there has been a real change and the credit is shared between the govts 1975-2007 and beneficial changes in world economy.
Well the weekend’s and this morning’s political agenda was led by the Conservatives on EVEL and tomorrow’s will be Cameron on immigration policy.
Impressive stuff for an opposition party.
Is any of this going to be in the Queen’s speech?
Jonathan even the BBC says that this year there will be 0 improvement in the standard of living of the average UK person.
Zero, Nil, diddly squat, Nutting.
Our economic GDP per head is stagnant.
There is little politicians can do, short of genocidal wars, to affect the big demographic shifts!
Where Cameron is right is in recognizing thess changes as the key drivers behind all the ’superficial’ concerns. However policies of ‘coping’ rather than Cameron’s ‘proactive management’ approach are probably the best we can do.
I dont think it is a vote winner as in reality, many people feel a touch guilty and ashamed of their zenophobic small island attitudes.
Clearly “race relations, immigration, immigrants” is a huge issue alongside crime and the NHS:
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/trends/issues.shtml
But is it really a vote winner? It sures up hardline Tories, but does Cameron really need it? It certainly wont help with the L.Dems who have the new Hughes/Clegg joint policy on an amnesty to gush over.
I’ll be brave and suggest that the Conservatives no longer need to appeal overtly to ‘Lib Dem’ voters… the core of which are less than the sum of the ‘other’ parties.
They will never gain the hardcore Liberals in anycase, which is what we are now down to support-wise.
Talk by Clegg about Lib/Cons pact is pure fantasy. Cameron is very likely to tell him or anyone else to go forth.
I think we may be in danger of over stating the importance of the Lib Dems. I have every confidence that the voting public will push either Labour or the Conservatives well over the vote share required to form a majority government when required to make a clear choice and avoid a hung parliament.
By considering voting Lib Dem at the next election, many non-hard core supporters will know they need to make a choice between Brown / Cameron (assuming both are still leaders).
I also think that we will see a huge difference between local election support for the Lib Dems compared to the GE. Labour and the Conservatives are just too strong to allow for three party poltics at the moment.
May 2008 may be a false dawn for the Lib Dems, followed by wipe out in 2009 or 10.
This is another big vote winner for Cameron. Taxes and immigration are major concerns for the majority of the British people even if some of them won’t come out and admit it in public.
Once again Brown is out-manoeuvered and left way behind on the issues that really matter.
34 Oh indeed, from the early eighties, in fact, the UK economy began to grow faster than the OECD average, and that’s continued over the past ten years. But bear in mind, some of the continental economies have performed very badly since then.
38 My guess is that soft Tories in the Home Counties, who often vote Lib Dem at local elections, or who had simply got fed up with the Tories in 1997 and so voted Lib Dem, won’t have any difficulties with what Cameron is saying - the Green Belt is a huge issue all round the M25. The more ideological Lib Dems will certainly be put off by this.
The polls in a week’s time will be interesting. The Conservatives could pull a lot of Labour’s voters with this move plus some of the folk in the “Other” category. May depend how big this story is on the BBC/ITV news tonight and in the Mail/Sun/Times/Telegraph tomorrow.
34: Jonathan
Dont make me laugh if Dave had used that British jobs line he would have been criticised big time and quite rightly.
To pretend it was an innocent call for full employment is just ” taking the British people for fools” to coin a phrase.
I dont think it will. It is an issue which needs to be discussed in the open. I think even Lib Dem voters, especially those in the south understand that population growth at its predicted rate needs to be addressed. while I agree the tories need to tread carefully on the issue, im pretty sure cameron can pull it off without sounding alarmist, especially since the media will support him, and the labour government do not want to be seen as weak on immigration.
If the lib dems go down the path of opposing controlled migration, they could find themselves very isolated.
42. Indeed. Labour really are in total denial about the grotesque attempt Brown made to steal the BNP’s clothes a while back.
…and reading the actual speech nice to see Cameron recognises the dentrality of the three policy areas I mentioned in my marginals article a couple of weeks ago!
1 - Transport
2 - Housing and planning
3 - Public service infrastructure (schools, hospitals etc)
43 - “If the lib dems go down the path of opposing controlled migration, they could find themselves very isolated.”
Even further, if the LibDems elect Clegg with his amnesty proposal, they will find themselves 180 degrees away from the prevailing mood. That one pronouncement will prove a complete banker for the Tories. At least the membership has a chance to see how this whole area is panning out, before hitching themselves to the wrong wagon.
39. Without wanting to appear unduely argumentative, your point “by considering…” ignores local perspectives of FPP. It is the same national view which allows people to look at polling evidence and say: “My god, the Lib Dems would only have 11 seats next time round.”
Many non-hard core supporters, as you put it, will next time round look at their local MP and the literature they get through their door, and make a judgement based on that. Of course your national dichotomy would have some effect but its all going to be a little pantomine isn’t it? Local campaigning wins seats. If it didnt I have no doubt that David Heath would not still be a Parliamentarian, or similarly Zac Goldsmith would not keep sending me named target mailing.
Boris wrote a very thoughtful article on this sensitive subject in last week’s DT. It was well received, and I think may have been an exercise in testing the water for Cameron. The fact that Cameron even dares to broach the subject shows that he is a brave man - and that alone shows the difference between him and Gordon
34 …Relative to other countries the UK is performing very well either keeping pace or even outperforming our rivals…..
by Jonathan
Instead of swallowing Brown’s spin try reading someone who is prepared to tell the truth about the debt-fuelled shambles the UK economy has become over the past few years.
Like this article in the Financial Times for instance:
“…..Perhaps the biggest structural problem of the UK is an over-reliance on personal debt and a built-in tendency towards speculative housing bubbles. Britain has owed much of its 15-year spell of good economic growth to an unprecedented credit and housing binge that has lasted abnormally long…
For the UK in particular, the next few years look pretty grim.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21517844/
Mike, you ask; “How can Cameron appeal to two audiences at the same time?”
The short answer is that he cannot. Many of us have been saying this on PBC for a very long time (and some have given up and gone away).
Cameron is a total sham. The only people who still have any faith in him are the Tories - and that is because they lust after office, not because of what they might do if ever they got there.
49 Well, Bob Hawke said “If you can’t ride two horses at the same time, you shouldn’t be in the circus”.
Time for Cameron to quit then, Sean (50).
49. Hilarious - even without Roger the entertainment level remains sky high.
I suppose what we have here is an economic issue in reality - people do want to come to this country because there are jobs to be had (nothing IMO to do with “being a soft touch” etc - I see no evidence of that when compared to other West European countries) Most immigrants at the moment are from EU countries, so unless (in practice) we withdraw from the EU, we will not reduce immigration by much.
Speaking as “an ideological Lib Dem”, population expansion IS an issue, and fairly quickly in the next few years we need to work out how to deal with that, probably as a part of our world’s necessary approach to environmental degradation. And, let’s not be blind on this, the policies associated with this will within the next 5 years or so overwhelm all other policies. How do we do this in a liberal context? What we don’t need is a racist approach - and answering Post 26 - the reasons that Lib Dems are very suspicious of immigration debates are 1)Many are associated with underlying or overt racism, and 2)A liberal approach usually believes in free movement of people.
The impact of this on the polls would probably be in the poll reports next week, unless its Yougov. When are the next ones?
Imagine the impact if Conservatives move to 45% and Labour below 35% with LDs around 10%?
It would reinforce the core vote strategy and shift the betting markets.
It would be good for the country if Labour maintained a mature response to immigration and engaged in the debate without throwing around childish rants of racism which dont help. I do think that the BBC have demonised any attempt to challange immigration which makes it harder for polititions to get the message out. I think that despite Guardian attempts to dismay the Tories campaign “It’s not racist to talk about immigration” at the last election it attracted voters discontent with the main stream political parties i.e people who may vote BNP therefore enabling a mainstream party to act on behalf of these voters rather than an extreme party like the BNP.
32: “But on immigration only one of the two used a slogan from a BNP leaflet, Gordon Brown.”
Now that would get Gordon so riled at PMQs if Dave managed to slip that one in at some point.
Carlos, your english is great compared to watching you on MOTD. Nice brace. Mind, you have spelt your name wrong.
It may put off some Lib Dem defectors, and maybe a few ‘new’ Tory/’ex’ Floating voters.
But it will shore up support from the traditional Tories who might be wavering, and will also gain (thankfully) from the BNP, and very possibly a lot of Labour voters too!
Thus - Net gain for tories, net loss for Labour.
1. It would be good for the country if Labour maintained a mature response to immigration and engaged in the debate without throwing around childish rants of racism which don’t help. I do think that the BBC have demonised any attempt to challenge immigration which makes it harder for politicians to get the message out. I think that despite Guardian attempts to dismay the Tories campaign “It’s not racist to talk about immigration” at the last election it attracted voters discontent with the main stream political parties i.e people who may vote BNP therefore enabling a mainstream party to act on behalf of these voters rather than an extreme party like the BNP.
57 this is my real name. It is Tavaz not Tevez
Back to the previous thread on playing the English Card see Adam Boulton
http://adamboulton.typepad.com/
If Scotland Women’s Football team had qualified for the Olympics, in absence of the other home nations teams, and England had refused to let them play as Great Britain, think we would have heard a lot of noise from Edinburgh and Gordon Brown, Alistair, Dougie et al would have called the FA to complain.
One of the factors that Cameron has not scored well on in polls are questions as to what does he stand for. The news coverage on his immigration statements should help improve that factor!
On Lib Dem meltdown. The other factor you don’t mention is the regular swing of around 4% to the Lib Dems during an election campaign itself, because of the amount of coverage they get. Taken with the incumbency factor, I think spread betting of around 50 Lib Dem seats is not obviously wrong in either direction.
As to the polls, the main thing this is demonstrating is that people haven’t yet made up their minds - or at least hadn’t as of a month ago. Let’s hope (from a Labour perspective) that the last month is still more large random fluctuations in opinion and not people finally settling against Brown.
Incidentally, Prospect has a very detailed article on Iraq that doesn’t appear to be by a government or White House stoodge, and yet believes that we’re winning the Iraq war and are nearly in a position to leave! It’s so carefully argued and well-informed that I couldn’t dismiss it out of hand. Amazing!
63. At what % in the polls do the Beeb etc not have to give the LDs 3rd party status ?
Trident - Mike I think it’s the activists, not the members, who are a lot more left-wing than Lib Dem voters. Also I don’t think this will go down well with voters overall. Many protest voters will form some kind of opinion of the Lib Dems after all - itself a good thing of course - but in this particular case most of them won’t like it.
That’s irrespective of whether it’s a good idea. The commentariat is generally a lot less pro-defence than voters, along with several other systematic ‘biases’ like being more liberal.
Glad to see you’re getting some money out of people to sponsor the site Mike. Hope you’re getting closer to making it add up at least.
The UK has for many years been a “plural” country, in the sense that we have people from different cultures living here. The problem with debates on “immigration” is that these people can feel threatened and apparently unwanted by those demanding the debate. In actual fact, of course, this country (and many others) have been sustained over the years by successive waves of immigration. In terms of the modern focus on public services, their provision and cost as they are affected by immigration, then, yes, there is some research to be done. But blairf is right in his earlier post, in that we live in a globalised and rapidly changing world, and though some of us might not like it, some change of populations is inevitable. Most damaging in this context, of course, are the nasty headlines and the half-truths in the media which merely reinforce popularly held prejudices!
64 -
68 - i don’t know what happened there! But I can’t be bothered typing it out again. It wasn’t one of my better efforts…
I actually don’t buy this claim. Immigration is one of those areas where the commentariat disagrees significantly with the electorate, who are strongly anti-immigration on average. I think the reason is, that those actually saying they are anti-immigration run the risk of being accused of being racist. Those saying they support a party that’s talking about immigration don’t run that risk, because they don’t have to justify themsevles. I think that creates a bit bias, in addition to the general one that the more educated you are, (e.g. journalists) the more likely you are to be more pro-immigration.
So you may get hostile publicity for being anti-immigration, but it won’t necessarily alienate voters - and the big-selling newspapers can be relied on to be more positive. Being anti-immigration is one of those areas that is seen as being ‘far right’ by the commentariat but is actually the solid centre ground, if the centre is judged by what voters think.
All of which has no bearing at all on whether we SHOULD be anti-immigration, of course.
64 that’s a very good question! I’ve no idea. I’d have thought the Lib dems would only get demoted if they got thrashed in an actual election, not just polls; whereas if, say, the Greens were suddenly polling 10% they’d get extra coverage straight away. I doubt if there’s an explicit rule. I seem to remember there having been some haggling a couple of elections ago, in which the Lib Dems persuaded the Beeb that they should get 5 mins of coverage for every 5 mins for Lab and 5 mins for the Tories, up from the previous 4 mins.
67 - I completely agree Tim about the half-truths. I was told repeatedly on the doorstep in Peterborough that, for example, 95% of all the crime was committed by asylum seekers! If the BNP had stood in the council election I was campaigning in, they’d have won, perish the thought. I was getting significant canvass returns for them even though no-one was standing and they hadn’t done any campaigning at all. No-one in teh media’s explicitly claimed that all the crime is committed by asylum seekers, but they certainly do their best to give that impresssion.
67 It would be hard though, to point to a period in our history (since 1066 at any rate) in which there has been an inflow of people, relative to the size of the existing population, as large as that since 1997.
70 - “that the more educated you are, (e.g. journalists) the more likely you are to be more pro-immigration.” - why should that be?
Yes, there’s far more migration world-wide now, because transport is so much cheaper next to people’s incomes. Obviously some Labour policies have contributed, in some cases substantially, too.
39. Would Cameron rather be in opposition than have a coalition with the Lib Dems?
Following on the discussion about Brown and his observer article, I’m starting to see worrying similarities with the modern White House. Brown imposes relentless discipline on himself, starting the day at 05:30 hours and is phoning his cabinet colleagues by 06:00. He is fond of American neo-conservative writing, notably a woman who trashes the anti-religious French enlightenment and says the world is facing a ‘grievous moral disorder’. He believes that people can be divided into friend or foe (you’re either with us or against us), the enemies being legitimate targets for his anger.
http://stress.about.com/od/understandingstress/a/type_a_person.htm
72. Not 1066 for certain - probably only a few tens of thousands then (remarkably). Probably the period roughly 500-700 when the ‘Englisc’ started to come to these shores in large numbers.
73. Well I don’t know if I’m right of course. But if I am:
Perhaps it’s right to be pro-immigration, and educated people are more likely to understand that. Or perhaps they’re simply more likely to be persuaded by possible accusations of racism.
Certainly immigrants tend to be lower skilled, at least in UK terms, if only because many of them don’t speak English very well. So immigration pushes down unskilled wages and makes things worse for poor people and cheaper for rich people. And of course there’s a link between education and income.
I believe it’s also true that urban people, who know lots of migrants, are more likely to be pro-immigration than rural people, who don’t, and who perhaps therefore find it much more threatening.
34: No but it is mildly ironic that the party that attacked anyone for ‘pandering’ to BNP voters is led by a man who uses exactly the same wording they do. I think it is rather sad that Brown is so scared of being seen as a Scot he has to use the word ‘British’ at least five times in every sentence.
34: No but it is mildly ironic that the party that attacked anyone for ‘pandering’ to BNP voters is led by a man who uses exactly the same wording they do. I think it is rather sad that Brown is so scared of being seen as a Scot he has to use the word ‘British’ at least five times in every sentence.
“We must recognise that in an advanced, open economy there will be high levels of emigration and immigration. But what matters is the net figure, which I believe is currently too high.”
Do Lib Dems believe that any talk of immigration is horribly racist? This country is one of the most densely packed in the world, and Cameron has talked about this point in moderate language - complete with appeals for people to be reasonable in their discussion. He even accepted that a modern economy was going to have a “high” level of immigration for God’s sake! If Liberal Democrats really have a problem with any discussion on an important issue - as a rapidly increasing population affects a whole host of issues - then they deserve to be in meltdown.
73 A number of factors. More affluent people tend to benefit more (and lose less) from immigration than people further down the scale. And if one works in the sort of environment where being critical of immigration is not a career-enhancing move, then that is a powerful inducement to go with the flow.
81. Also, more affluent people tend to travel more and thus are more empathetic with foreigners and their problems.
The worst thing for this countries carbon foot print is 20% more people! I dont think our carbon footprint target automatically ratchets up with more folk allowing us a bigger footprint.
It has long been a goal of the green movement to reduce the country’s population to a level that can be sustained through green policies. Estimates are that means less than 30 million.
nick robinson on bbc news was a disgrace. why the hell did he feel the need to say that the policy would impact on black and brown faced people? Its reporting like that which has prevented immigration being discused in the open, and a fear among politians to raise the issue.
84 - exactly…disgraceful
84,85. What was Robinson’s basic message?
Reducing immigration from outside the EU would impact on African and Asian immigrants simply because those continents are the continents of origin of so many non-EU immigrants. But that doesn’t make the policy, of itself, unfair, if that’s what Robinson is implying.
One Lib Dem blogger has finally woken up to Chris “7 homes” Huhne.
http://liberalrevolution.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/why-doesnt-chris-answer/
“What I want to know is how I’m supposed to go on the doorstep for the Lib Dems about the opportunity agenda and affordable housing to people who aspire to live in a terraced property let alone a semi-detached house when the leader has five other properties.”
NuLab tosspot caught lying over faked photos…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/28/npurnell128.xml
” 39. Would Cameron rather be in opposition than have a coalition with the Lib Dems? ”
Probably, but I know for sure that a majority of Conservatives would reject such an option even if it mean’t being out of power.
We’d just need to wait a couple of years to gain a decent majority.
84.
Because it will.
Robinson was correct it will effect those the most outside the EU.
If you want honesty regarding immigration, give it straight.
Thought thats what you wanted.
Comm Res poll for tomorrow’s Indy - I am told -
Con 41 Lab 33 LD 16
Needs confirmation?
70/73/77: It’s generally true that well-educated and urban people tend to be more relaxed about immigration, in the former case because they don’t feel threatened and understand the economic case, in the latter case because it’s so familiar. If you are intensely bothered by having lots of different ethnic groups around you, you simply won’t live in, say, Ealing Southall. It is not, by the way, correct that immigrants are on average lower-paid or lower-skilled - see the recent quite nuanced report
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/economic-impact-of-immigration
It’s clearly popular with many voters to promise to curb immigration and it can give a short-term popularity boost. There are two risks. First, the general image question: people can quite like what you say, but they’re worried that you’re highlighting it because they feel it’s a bit extreme *even if they agree*. This phenomenon has bitten the Tories before on Europe and immigration in 2001 and 2005. Cameron clearly thinks he’s built up enough centrist credibility to avoid it.
Second, you arouse expectations that you may not be able to fulfill. Stuff about Indian teenage brides only scratches the surface - what people who fret about immigration (leaving aside the genuine racists) are mostly concerned with is losing jobs and housing, and the obvious issue for them is the half-million Poles. Cameron won’t do anything about them because it would mean EU withdrawal. To the extent that he’s addressing employment immigration from outside the EU, it won’t work, because if there’s a demand it will draw in workers from the EU instead. It’s like trying to stop someone filling a bathtub by cutting off the hot-water supply: he simply uses the cold tap.
It’s a bit like the campaign against the EU Treaty. To say it’s a vile imposition really pleases some people, but if you add “but we won’t reverse it” they think “Pah, he’s not serious - if it’s that vile, why not?”.
92.
Looking good for the Conservatives, shame there isnt an election.
91. yes,
but the way he presented it was as if the policy is targeting a specific race. It just happens to impact on black immigrants because the majority of non-eu immigrants come from africa/ other poor black majority countries. He couldve mentioned that it was likely to have a bigger impact upon African people wishing to come to the UK, but he didnt, he reduced it down to the colour of their skin which really is not on.
Cameron wont reverse the EU treaty so most people will think he is just playing the usual sophistry.
The same with immigration without naming numbers for a limit.
People are getting sick of triangulation which at the moment typifies Camerons slick grin and Browns not sure one.
92. if that poll is correct, it would appear that a rise in lib dem support will come at the expense of labour, and not the conservatives. If gordon was hoping a revived lib dem party would save him it appears he thought wrong
If he’s not careful, he’s going to go from been seen as a calculating PM to more of a miscalculating PM.
What’s going on:
State visit from the king of Saudi, and the Foreign Secretary has disappeared
92-”Needs confirmation?”
yes, please =)
98- and:
“MI5 says Saudi king’s 7/7 claim is ‘a myth’”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=U3VWM4TIQUBRZQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/10/29/wsaudi729.xml
Say you are Mr Dacre and the PM’s friend and you are given a scoop that Good Old Gordon is going to scrap the rubbish bin collection tax proposal, so you splash it across your paper in big headlines….
How would you feel a week later when…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2766605.ece
..it’s appears you were misled
I think the disdain of the chattering classes will have less impact after the last, well publicized projection:
“The UK population is set to increase by more than 10 million over the next quarter of a century, government statisticians said today.”
93 Nick, I agree that it is the unskilled that suffer most from immigration.
There are a number of ways in which disincentives can be created to reduce the attractiveness to migrant workers whatever country they come from.
These include enforcement of multi-let regulations, increased laws on temporary workers, large fines/prison sentences for managers not paying the minimum wage, their age etc etc.
All of these would improve the lot of British workers, which is what the Labour party was set up to do! Something your Govt has forgotten.
The puzzle is why they are unable/unwilling to enforce things?
98.He is on paternity leave.
Watching C4 news. Published immigration figs increase over past 10 years from 800k to 1.1M.
Labour Minister squirming ..
90. Another couple of years to get a decent majority? That could be a whole parliament, if not longer. After 3 parliaments of New Labour you could have another decade of Lib-Lab pacts. Would the Tories be happy with that?
101 Ted yes Dacre has clearly been misled. Must be all those visions of greatness that have touched him.
He will lose what little credibility he has left with his Mail editorial staff, but is his K or P in the bag?
104, yes it is all the stress of signing the adoption papers in America!
“Sorry Mr Saud, cannot make the meeting scheduled months ago as I have just decided to buy a new baby”.
Mr Saud “We stopped doing that years ago”.
108.How about just respecting their privacy and leaving them to enjoy this special time without unnecessary comments like that?
To answer Mike’s question, yes, the policy could alienate some of the Lib Dem switchers. So why has Cameron done it?
Firstly, re the comments about appealing to two audiences at the same time, while there is not necessarily much overlap between the kind of people who find issues like the environment and social breakdown important and those who find issues like immigration and Europe important, Cameron does need both groups to win. There isn’t any logical contradiction though it will need a good level of political skill to avoid it looking as though there is.
Secondly, and perhaps more interestingly, this looks to be a straight play to two groups of voters: a suring up of the Tory right and a bid for some of the Sun-reading working class Labour vote. If that bid comes off, Cameron can afford to drop a couple of points to the Lib Dems (although of course he’d prefer it if he didn’t).
As for the policy itself, non-EU migration could be cut by imposing fairly strict rules on skills required for immigration and tightening up on rules around marriage between people from different countries (and between relatives such as cousins as well). It may be true overall that the skill level of immigrants is similar to the country at large, but in certain places and communities, that is simply not the case and is having a negative effect on the locality.
By the way, from the Beeb’s own graphic, it would appear that contrary to Nick Robinson’s claim, most immigration comes from ‘white’ countries (four of the top five countries) and even on non-EU migration the figures seem fairly close.
I’d just like to say that “immigration”/asylum-seekers/etc is one of my main concerns, because I’ve long been sickened at the way that the Government have treated people fleeing persecution in other countries. To escape from torture, etc, and then find yourself in Britain’s Orwellian immigration system must be one of the cruellest blows imaginable.
103 - “There are a number of ways in which disincentives can be created to reduce the attractiveness to migrant workers… These include… large fines/prison sentences for managers not paying the minimum wage”
Enforcing the minimum wage more vigorously would not reduce the attractiveness of coming to this country for migrant workers. It would make it more attractive by increasing wages. This sort of basic lack of economic understanding undermines the Conservatives.
James, I think you miss the point being made, if the managers had to pay the minimum wage, they would not hire the immigrants in the first place.
James, the problem in many areas like fast food is that migrant workers are working for less than the minimum wage whereas British workers would not and opt for benefits.
The way that employers do this is they charge for motor bikes, meals, uniforms and accommodation. If the employers were fined or better still jailed it would stop.
95-Ben Brogan is reporting the same thing:
“ComRes for the Independent tomorrow has the Tories eight points ahead of Labour - 41 to 33 per cent - with the Lib Dems on 16pc”
re 92. If Stewart is right then this is quite a sensation although it should be said that ComRes’s weightings are the least favourable to Labour of any of the pollsters.
ICM might also be due overnight and my guess is that this will produce a closer margin than ComRes.
Both pollsters use the phone, weight by past vote and turnout, and both usually use ICM call centres.
Stewart Jackson MP. Thank you for that ray of sunshine!
Glad to see Cameron is tackling this issue head on. Things have moved on since 2005 particularly with new immigrants arriving from Rumania and Bulgaria and just because it wasn’t a vote winner back then doesn’t mean it won’t be a major election issue next time. Even my West Indian and Pakistani friends are uneasy and trying to brush the issue under the carpet plays into the hands of the odious BNP. A likely economic downturn can only increase pressures.
Also it might get the odious Simon Heffer and his ilk off Cameron’s back.
The immigration issue could well hurt the Lib dems but in a manner they may not have expected. I am married to a non eu foriegn national. We played by the rules paid out over £1000 in various visa “charges” etc. My gut reaction to hearing Clegg say that there should be an amnesty for people who have broken the law was one of utter disgust.
I know a lot of muslim and hindu voters in my home town of Leicester who will feel even more annoyed than myself (if they ever get to here about the policy). Many have had to face various humiliations to get family members to the uk but have done so by following the rules. How will they feel about the people who broke the rules being rewarded? I think we can guess.
This could harm the Lib Dems in seats they made progress against labour in 2005. I think of clegg is elected leader labour will run on the “dont reward the law breakers ticket” and win back support they lost in 2005.
It may be that I have to return to england for work reasons before the next general election. Although I would never rejoin the lib dems I would probably vote for them…now I would not even consider doing that because of this policy. I am sure many other “pro immigration” voters will feel the same.
119-I guess he is right, because Brogan has the same information…
92 - It’s funny, 41/33/16 is precisely the limit of a conservative majority for Baxter
(it gives CON 326, 269 LAB, 25 LD)
It’s just me, or the post seems to be oddly ordered? Stewart Jackson MP was 92, now he is 95…
Excellent poll for the Tories and bad for Labour. Perhaps the weekend YouGov poll was a false dawn, and the true picture for Labour will be far bleaker?
Quite a bounceback for the Lib Dems. Up 5 points since that 11% poll (I know that it’s a different polling company, but I’m sure that appearing closer to 20 than 10 will be cheering for Lib Dems).
New thread - Tories take 8% lead with ComRes
A 5.5% swing in CR from Lab to Con in 1 month ?
re 125. I’ve just unblocked a pile of comments that were being held in the moderation box.
130-thanks…
This new poll seems to show a big swing from labour to Liberal. Perhaps a few Liberal voters were convinced Ming had to go and so temporarily gave their support Labour. Now Ming has got the message and gone, they immediately support the party again.
I’m not sure I agree with your characterisation of Lib Dem voters as pro-immigration, Mike. It’s a bit like suggesting that, because the Lib Dem party is pro-EU their voters are too.
Lib Dem voters frequently have distinct views from the metropolitan views of the party; I can’t imagine many Lib Dem voters in the Westcountry stronghold thinking immigration is a particularly good idea - the Cornish struggle to accept anyone from the other side of the Tamar, never mind the other side of the world…!
Although I agree on limiting immigration, it needs to include the EU countries too, not only because most immigrants are from EU countries, but also because otherwise the policy looks (and is) racist.
133. I’m a Lib Dem voter and I’m relatively liberal in my views on immigration. But I do believe there needs to be policy/strategy in this area, and I despair at the way Labour have just put their collective head under the carpet and allowed the situation to get totally out of control.