"Like leaving Wayne Rooney on the bench" is how Tim Montgomerie describes the Tory high command's dogged refusal to put immigration at the centre of the election campaign. Like other activists, the editor of the influential ConservativeHome blog wants his party to be much more aggressive in attacking one of Labour's biggest perceived failings.
Among voters, immigration is seen as the most important issue the country faces after the economy. An influx of more than 1m east Europeans since 2004 and soaring unemployment after the financial crisis have been a potent brew. A recent government poll found that 77 per cent of respondents wanted a reduction in immigration.
Yet, having seen how voters were repelled by Michael Howard's "Are you thinking what we're thinking?" campaign in 2005, and his focus on unwanted migrants and asylum seekers, the Cameroons have steered clear of exploiting the public mood with "dog whistle" politics.
In truth, their lead here is so healthy they can afford to stay on the side of the angels. A recent YouGov poll shows the Tories hold a 23-point advantage on immigration, bigger than on any other issue.
For Labour, the subject is painful. Early forecasts suggested that up to 13,000 Poles and other eastern Europeans would arrive each year after their countries joined the European Union in 2004. This was a huge underestimate - the accession of the so-called A8 nations created the biggest wave of inward migration in British history.
Belatedly, the party leadership has woken up to the fact that this worries large parts of the country, not least white working-class voters who believe migrants are taking jobs and depressing wages.
There is scant evidence to back up this belief. Oxford University's Centre on Migration, Policy and Society says the impact of foreign workers on unemployment is "minimal" and on wages "extremely small". All major parties stress the economic benefits that migration brings to the UK.
Nevertheless, recognising the potential for political damage, Gordon Brown, the prime minister, has taken up the banner of "British jobs for British workers".
Alan Johnson, home secretary and Labour's voice of the common man, also admits the party has been "maladroit" in failing to recognise the depth of feeling over the issue.
Despite the government's discomfort, there is in fact little difference between the parties' policies on how to tackle mass migration and population growth.
The Tories say they want net migration back at the levels of the 1990s, when it ran at about 40,000-50,000 people a year. They plan to do this through capping the number of skilled workers coming from outside the EU, though some experts say this is more likely to annoy business than deliver the reductions they want.
Labour has already started cutting the number of non-EU workers through an Australian-style points-based system, and a recession-led drop in eastern European arrivals means net migration is falling.
What is clear for both parties is that large-scale migration will remain a fact of life whoever is in charge, with
Source:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1f8aaa32-436e-11df-833f-00144feab49a.html
Among voters, immigration is seen as the most important issue the country faces after the economy. An influx of more than 1m east Europeans since 2004 and soaring unemployment after the financial crisis have been a potent brew. A recent government poll found that 77 per cent of respondents wanted a reduction in immigration.
Yet, having seen how voters were repelled by Michael Howard's "Are you thinking what we're thinking?" campaign in 2005, and his focus on unwanted migrants and asylum seekers, the Cameroons have steered clear of exploiting the public mood with "dog whistle" politics.
In truth, their lead here is so healthy they can afford to stay on the side of the angels. A recent YouGov poll shows the Tories hold a 23-point advantage on immigration, bigger than on any other issue.
For Labour, the subject is painful. Early forecasts suggested that up to 13,000 Poles and other eastern Europeans would arrive each year after their countries joined the European Union in 2004. This was a huge underestimate - the accession of the so-called A8 nations created the biggest wave of inward migration in British history.
Belatedly, the party leadership has woken up to the fact that this worries large parts of the country, not least white working-class voters who believe migrants are taking jobs and depressing wages.
There is scant evidence to back up this belief. Oxford University's Centre on Migration, Policy and Society says the impact of foreign workers on unemployment is "minimal" and on wages "extremely small". All major parties stress the economic benefits that migration brings to the UK.
Nevertheless, recognising the potential for political damage, Gordon Brown, the prime minister, has taken up the banner of "British jobs for British workers".
Alan Johnson, home secretary and Labour's voice of the common man, also admits the party has been "maladroit" in failing to recognise the depth of feeling over the issue.
Despite the government's discomfort, there is in fact little difference between the parties' policies on how to tackle mass migration and population growth.
The Tories say they want net migration back at the levels of the 1990s, when it ran at about 40,000-50,000 people a year. They plan to do this through capping the number of skilled workers coming from outside the EU, though some experts say this is more likely to annoy business than deliver the reductions they want.
Labour has already started cutting the number of non-EU workers through an Australian-style points-based system, and a recession-led drop in eastern European arrivals means net migration is falling.
What is clear for both parties is that large-scale migration will remain a fact of life whoever is in charge, with
Source:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1f8aaa32-436e-11df-833f-00144feab49a.html
No comments:
Post a Comment