Thursday 30 November 2023
As recently as December 1999 (which doesn‘t seem all that long ago to those of us in our 80s) fewer than 5% of the British electorate chose Immigration as one of the top five issues the government should deal with. This compared with 30% who chose the NHS as one of their top worries.
However, once the century turned and the Eurosceptics became more effective at influencing British political debate, immigration began to increase in importance as an issue. As early as 2002 Theresa May warned the Tories that in trying to accommodate the right-wing nationalists they were in danger of being seen as the “nasty party.” This, unfortunately, didn’t stop her, while Home Secretary, making her own contribution to the nastiness by deliberately trying to create a “hostile environment” for immigrants.
Rather than oppose this deplorable trend the Labour Party whilst led by Ed Miliband produced mugs urging those “concerned about immigration” to "Vote Labour," and set a trend by including control of it among its on five election pledges in 2015. Some senior members deplored the mugs at the time. I think they’re all ashamed of them now,
Consequently today, as a result of the Tories’ desperate attempts to stem leakage of their support to the crudely nationalist UKIP party and its variants, Labour’s pusillanimous failure to combat the bile by proclaiming the benefits Britain has received and continues to receive, Prime Minister Sunak is able to flaunt his “stop the boats”[policy as one of his five priorities and he and his henchpersons claim to be expression “THE WILL OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE.” (Capitals deliberate.)
Rather than the truth I believe this to be the product of despicable perception management to gather votes at any cost, including the abandonment of all sense of humanity and decency.
As a society we are better than that.
Some facts were carefully spelled out in an article by Gaby Hinsliff in Tuesday's Guardian. The vast majority of the record number which came to our shores in 2022 were actually approved by ministers, having been granted leave to work (40% of them in the NHS or Social care), study, join their families of seek sanctuary via “approved” routes for the favoured Afghanistanis (sadly not all of those who helped the British forces) and escapees from Ukraine.
Only a very small minority come illegally by boats. The flagship policy of deporting these to Rwanda is not only obscene and ineffective but even if implemented would have only a minuscule impact on the total of immigration.
I like to enumerate how my own life is both enabled and enhanced by immigrants or the children (and these days, probably grandchildren) of immigrants. They deliver my morning paper, clean drill and fill what’s left of my teeth, rung my favourite restaurant, provide about two thirds of my medical treatment on the NHS, dispense my medicines, provide the vicar, half the choir, much of the congregation and the brilliant organist of the church I attend, clean my car, drive about half the buses on which I travel, and much more besides, including paying some of the taxes which furnish my pension.
Grateful thanks to them all.
However, once the century turned and the Eurosceptics became more effective at influencing British political debate, immigration began to increase in importance as an issue.
ReplyDeleteUm, that wasn't why immigration began to increase in importance as an issue. the reason why immigration began to increase in importance as an issue is:
YEAR NET MIGRATION (1,000s)
1991 44
1992 -13
1993 -1
1994 77
1995 76
1996 55
1997 48
1998 140
1999 163
2000 158
2001 179
2002 172
2003 185
2004 268
2005 267
2006 265
2007 273
2008 229
2009 229
2010 256
Or in other words, in the ten years to 2000, 747,000 more people moved into the country than left.
In the ten years to 2010, the figure was 2,323,000. Over two million.
That’s why immigration became an issue, where it hadn’t been one before: because of the sheer unprecedented increase in the scale of it.
You don’t identify the source of your figures, but I confirm that the graphs I’ve seen show that net immigration to the UK was around 200,000 per year up to 2000 and has since more than doubled. That has enabled anti-immigrant politicians to stir the pot, but doesn’t alter that fact that a) the UK needs immigrants, b) the overwhelming majority want to come here for very good reasons, and c) most people would be very happy with this if it were not for the poison dripped by politicians desperate for power at any price.
ReplyDeleteYou don’t identify the source of your figures,
ReplyDeleteHouse of Commons Library: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06077/
That has enabled anti-immigrant politicians to stir the pot, but doesn’t alter that fact that a) the UK needs immigrants,
It does. But does it need over 2 million immigrants (net) in ten years? It does not need that many.
b) the overwhelming majority want to come here for very good reasons,
Define a 'good reason'. Wanting to come here because they can make more money here than they can in their home country might very well seem like a 'good reason' to someone who wants to come, but it simply is not the case that such a reason entitled someone to live in the UK, any more than simply wanting to get a better salary would entitle me to go and live in the USA.
c) most people would be very happy with this if it were not for the poison dripped by politicians desperate for power at any price.
You have no evidence for that claim. the basic fact is that people are fine with immigration when it is at a rate that means immigrants assimilate into the host society and are absorbed without changing the nature of that society overmuch. That's what happened up to about 2000, but then the rate increased such that complete assimilation was no longer happening and people began to see their societies changing, and they don't like that.
Curiously I have never seen any advocate of open borders actually make the case that it is possible to have immigration at rates of over two million in ten years without changing the host country. Mostly they either respond 'there never was any such thing as British society anyway so who cares if it changes' or 'yes your country will change and that's a good thing because your society was awful and racist and deserves to die, you gammon'.
Are you going to be the exception and claim (against all evidence) that it is possible to assimilate people at the rate of over two million in ten years without changing the host society, or are you going to fall back to one of the other two insults?
I can see this is turning into a dialogue of the deaf. Of course life is changing in Britain as a result of immigration: just read the last paragraph of the post. And you could see an article in today’s guardian (04/12/23 by Nesrine Malik as to the major cause of the current levels of immigration.
ReplyDeleteOf course life is changing in Britain as a result of immigration: just read the last paragraph of the post.
DeleteOkay, so you’re one of the ‘ yes your country will change and that's a good thing because your society was awful and racist and deserves to die, you gammon’ ones. Got it.
And you could see an article in today’s guardian (04/12/23 by Nesrine Malik as to the major cause of the current levels of immigration.
DeleteI presume, this being the Guardian, the answer is ‘Brexit’? Which is impressive. I know that the Guardian hates the vote to leave the EU, but even I didn’t realise they ascribed to it the mystical power to shatter the time-space continuum and cause a massive rise in net immigration that happened sixteen years before the vote and twenty years before we actually succeeded in leaving.
Only twice (at a quick glance). Main point seems to be the failure to finance the training of our own people. eg cutting the bursaries for nurses, which has led to a drop in people applying to train and the need for poaching those of other, often Red List countries.
ReplyDeleteMain point seems to be the failure to finance the training of our own people. eg cutting the bursaries for nurses, which has led to a drop in people applying to train and the need for poaching those of other, often Red List countries.
DeleteAh, well, that is a point. For example it’s ridiculous that we cap the number of places at medical schools so that they can be highly subsidised, meaning fewer people can become doctors, but those who do can then go off to other countries like Australia.
What we should be doing is allowing uncapped places which are paid for not by bursaries or subsidies but by loans which the doctors then pay back out of their wages — loans which are at an artificially low rate of interest provided the doctor works for the NHS for some specified number of years (ten?) after graduating, but that gets whacked up to a punitively high rate if they go and work in another country instead.
They deliver my morning paper, clean drill and fill what’s left of my teeth, rung my favourite restaurant, provide about two thirds of my medical treatment on the NHS, dispense my medicines, provide the vicar, half the choir, much of the congregation and the brilliant organist of the church I attend, clean my car, drive about half the buses on which I travel, and much more besides, including paying some of the taxes which furnish my pension.
ReplyDeleteInteresting to read this in the context of this thread: https://x.com/capellofft/status/1732002417095414044
Financing higher education: a plausible option which should be put in the pool for discussion.
ReplyDeleteThe link: like most people I meet a whole range of others some immigrants, some not. So what?
like most people I meet a whole range of others some immigrants, some not. So what?
DeleteSo the range you meet is different from the range a less-well-educated person meets, and perhaps more importantly, the contexts in which you meet them are different (you meet the migrant builder when you’re employing him, not when you’re competing with him for a contract).
Another good point: https://x.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1732505341131428097