On immigration, we demand that our politicians serve us a dish of fried snowballs and then feign disappointment when they fail to deliver it.
On immigration, we demand that our politicians serve us a dish of fried snowballs and then feign disappointment when they fail to deliver it
There is one hot political topic where the two most honest politicians also happen to be the politicians we despise the most. Indeed, we regularly say we value frankness from our elected representatives yet if this issue is anything to go by we actually respond to something quite different: an emotional pandering to our most illogical prejudices.
The topic in question is immigration, an issue we are supposedly “not allowed to talk about” but which almost every week results in some cheap and counterproductive initiative flowing from the mouth of a politician. Yesterday it was Labour’s shadow work and pensions secretary Rachel Reeves talking about restricting benefits for migrants until they’ve worked. Last week it was David Cameron talking about the supposed “magnetic pull” of the British benefits system. Next month we’ll probably hear of a fresh “get tough” announcement depriving immigrants of some other “entitlement” they rarely use.
It should be obvious as to why politicians like to blow the infamous dog-whistle on immigration and drip-feed the press an endless stream of announcements on “restrictions” and “crack downs”. In almost every opinion poll immigration is near to the top in terms of issues the public say they are concerned about. And when they say “concerned” they invariably mean pulling up the drawbridge on fortress Britain. According to a poll from January of this year, three quarters of Britons wanted a reduction in the level of immigration, with 56 per cent calling for a big fall in the number of people allowed into the country.
Considering that a majority of recent immigrants are from other countries in the European Union, there are two things that any honest politician can take from this: either Britain must pull out of Europe right away or we must accept the free movement of people and get on with it. All talk by David Cameron of reforming the EU to allow Britain to opt out of free movement is hogwash – however much the Daily Mail thunders the rest of Europe won’t stand for it. We can therefore either cling to the sepia-tinged illusion that Britain can live (and live well) without immigration or we can accept immigration as a fact of life and grapple with the really important issues like integration.
There are only two politicians willing to follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion. Nick Clegg, the consummate pro-European, has (in the past at least) been unafraid to point out that immigration is good for Britain. Meanwhile Nigel Farage, who wants to take Britain out of Europe entirely, says (again truthfully) that you cannot significantly reduce immigration unless Britain leaves the European Union. Both, in their different ways, are correct. And yet their reward for the honesty we say we so badly want is to be the most despised politicians in the country – albeit for quite different reasons.
Indeed, for all we claim to hate the political class for their dishonesty, immigration is the one issue where we are quite comfortable with being lied to. We know very well that migrants pay in to the exchequer more than they take out; and yet still we demand that politicians “crack down” on the mythical concept of “benefit tourism” (there was no evidence of widespread benefit tourism by EU nationals, according to a report last year by the European Commission). We know that Britons are more likely (two-and-a-half times more likely) to be claiming working age benefits than non-UK nationals, but still we buy into racist tabloid stereotypes about opportunistic foreigners ready to steal the shirt off our collective back. We cite free movement as our favourite thing about the EU, yet we grumble into our newspaper when a citizen of another country actually decides to exercise that right.
This probably explains why, while we say we want a large reduction in immigration, we oppose the only sure method of actually bringing it about – leaving the EU.
It’s a cliché to say that we get the politicians we deserve, but immigration is the one issue where we really do. We want the European Union and the fiscal benefits of immigration but without any of the perceived drawbacks. We want the minimum wage cleaners, the nannies and the glass collectors but without the sound of the foreign voices on the daily commute. We say we don’t want migrants coming here to “steal our jobs” but we do nothing about it because, deep down, we know they are coming to Britain and paying for our pensions.
The next time you hear David Cameron or Ed Miliband making unkeepable promises about immigration, or pledging to “listen to genuine concerns” (whatever that entails) bear in mind that they are only doing what most people seemingly want them to do: using macho rhetoric that signifies nothing. On immigration, we demand that our politicians serve us a dish of fried snowballs and then feign disappointment when they fail to deliver it. We want immigration but without the immigrants. Try and triangulate your way out of that one.
This piece was first published at the New Statesman
11 Responses to “Politicians will never please the public on immigration, so they should stop trying”
Guest
Ah, so ending all paying students visa’s, expelling workers, etc.
You also utterly ignore, of course, free trade’s benefits, and you blame immigrants for 34 years of insufficient house building, and are revising immigration figures.
We’re not in the 1970’s. Isolating the UK and ending trade would smash the economy. The political will to hate Britain so much is, thankfully, lacking from our politicians. You don’t ignore the economy, you hate it with a bitter passion, so stop pretending.
PoundInYourPocket
Excellent article. This should be the end of the pointless and increasingly hysterical so called “debate”. Time to stop whining and whinging about immigrants and to start building houses so they have somewhere decent to live as we sit back and enjoy the benefits they bring to the economy and the culture. Immigration debate over. Trolls – you lost , if you don’t like it go live in the local museum.
itdoesntaddup
Free trade is entirely separate from immigration. Students who pay fees may come, but should return at the end of their courses. Zero net migration is not zero migration. I examine migration statistics (such as they are, particularly since we abandoned proper border controls): you choose to ignore them. House building has acutally run ahead of population increase over the past 34 years, and even just about managed to keep pace with the immigration dominated increases of the past 15 years. Evidently you want to isolate the UK’s economy.
Are you a comedian?
Guest
No, I am not after your job.
You are trying to separate the inseparable, as ever. You are trying to tell students “come”, whole at the same time scaring them off.
I’m sure you’d eject as many British people as your rich who wanted to come here, right.
And you lie viciously about house building (which has been massively under need for 34 years, period), fighting for higher rents for your slums, what a surprise, as you accuse me of your anti-British policies.
Leon Wolfeson
Just building houses ain’t enough, in the short term. We’re facing a crisis, and that means we need to consider things like temporary rent caps to stop mass evictions and homelessness, as well as massively overcrowded accommodation. To ease the pressure on the poor’s finances, etc.