Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne are standing at their podia waiting for Jeremy Paxman’s grilling on Tuesday’s BBC2 Newsnight. After last Sunday’s fireworks, I imagine we can expect a love-in tonight…
Update: a good performance from both candidates. Interesting to see the fall-out from Sunday’s Politics Show… Nick Clegg was able to lead on the front foot, and looked at perhaps his most comfortable and authoritative of the campaign to date; a somewhat chastened Chris Huhne started on the back foot – apologising for the ‘Calamity Clegg’ briefing – but remained as articulate and in control of his brief as ever, though (perhaps unsurprisingly) with less of the fire in his belly showcased last week.
From a Lib Dem voter’s perspective, probably the clearest divide came on the immigration question. (Though there were nuanced differences expressed thoughout, there was nothing to frighten the horses.) Asked the blunt question David Cameron was forced to confront by Paxo – “Has immigration been too high?” – Nick’s answer was immediate: “No.” (He subsequently commented on the impact on local communities and ineffective government planning, but stressed the need to confront the conservative anti-immigration argument.) Chris’s answer was more nuanced: in certain communities, yes, the impact has been seen to be too high, and has affected the lives of everyday folk – we should recognise this, and face up to it.
An interesting one for Lib Dems to dissect. A couple of weeks back, I – perhaps unfairly – labelled the candidates as purist (Huhne) v. pragmatist (Clegg). Yet on this occasion it was Nick who more brazenly risked the votes of those Daily Mail-fetishists who believe immigration is the root of all evil; while Chris more self-consciously aimed to broaden the party’s message to accept the everyday concerns of those who see the daily effects of immigration.
All in all, a much, much more positive display than Sunday’s Politics Show – and perhaps a little more dull, as a result. (For which many of us, frankly, will give thanks.) Personal impressions: I think Nick edged this one; though perhaps he started under less pressure than Chris, who knew he would have, at some point, to publicly disassociate himself from the infamous anti-Clegg briefing. But both candidates stood up well to the Paxo interrogation – albeit that he seemed slightly muzzled on this occasion – and showed (on the basis of this display at least) that each would be equally capable of withstanding the pressures of the 365x24x7 media.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Opinion: Land Value Tax - an old idea with lots of modern supporters
Which of the five Lib Dem reshuffle options will Nick Clegg pick?
In praise of Councillor Neil Hughes - 56 Up
Lynne Featherstone's honeycomb surprise
Opinion: A letter to a constituent regarding equal marriage
Opinion: The future of the CAP – specific proposals by Liberal Democrats
Willie Rennie’s first year as Scottish Liberal Democrat Leader
John Leech MP writes… It is not just the Leader’s job to sell the Pupil Premium
Opinion: A letter to a constituent regarding equal marriage
Cornish Lib Dem MPs unite against regional pay
Weekly list of planning applications for the week ending 4 May 12
The LDV Friday Five: 18 May 2012
Up The Spiral Staircase...
Transport for London are still in denial over Oyster overcharging
It's a 'No News Day'...
Hollande. Not a good dancer.
Conway Hall, against discrimination (Unless it's Transphobia)
Helen Tedcastle
Adam Smith Fan
Richard Dean
Joe Bourke
Alex Sabine
89 Comments
Huhne goes with the head
“Policy Wonk”
Is anyone else playing?
Hi Dom. Huhne also goes with the ‘I’m a great communicator’ … while looking at the wrong camera!
Stephen, did you get the stuff I sent you via Facebook?
Calamity Clegg – Huhne apologises again
“Hi Dom. Huhne also goes with the ‘I’m a great communicator’ … while looking at the wrong camera!”
Doh!
Laurence – yes, will reply, promise! Sorry, have been up to my ears with the day job as well as LDV
No worries. I don’t know how you manage to be honest. I’m up to my ears all the time, and I don’t even have a job!
Is it me or is Paxman picking on chris a bit?
Bloody hell. Clegg “no” Huhne “Yes” On the big I question!
Missed the beginning. Just been very impressed with Nick’s answer on tax – he summarised green tax switch neatly. And he’s being clear and sound on (im)migration now.
Immigration – tough question – is Chris more concerned with Eastleigh or the right thing?
Nick’s answer on health still isn’t convincing.
Nick has talked sensibly about immigration for a while – and Chris looked like he’d barely thought about it!
Nick is just too excitable and breathless. We need the steady hand of Chris on the tiller.
Chris Huhne’s tie appears to be arguing strongly for drug legalisation.
I swear Nick just said ‘B-b-b-b-dw-’
Neither candidate looked at the camera at the start – they were either briefed not to, or it wasn’t clear which camera was on.
The friendly conclusion is positive. I do think that they’ll make a good team, whoever is leader.
Bit of a damp squib, but good to see a more consensual atmosphere. Personally I would have preferred it if, when asked “on what has he been flip-flopping?” Chris had refused to answer the question and so not hand Paxo that ammo, but hey, like it or not it is clearly one of his key messages.
That was good. I am back to the point where I think that whoever wins will be great. On sunday evening I was thinking that whoever won we would be in trouble.
They’re the best of mates really.
Hope to see some of you at Cambridge tomorrow.
Chris was fixated on something eight feet to the right of the camera – presumably another camera, but maybe it was a striking looking member of the Newsnight crew. Nick seemed to address Paxman, which was pretty sensible.
Were we watching the same programme!? Both candidates gave equally good answers on immigration.
From the look of it it wasn’t clear which camera was on. That said they both dealt with Paxo pretty well. Both not perfect – but both a hell of a lot better than the “We’ve Lost Your Data” Party or the non-Tory opposition.
Thank goodness. They were both a hell of a lot better.
And also thank goodness they were given the easy unifying bowl at the end, and both answered it absolutely rightly (hopefully some of their supporters will simmer down now). Who’d have thought Paxo would have been the one offering them the chance to show how nice they are? Ah…
23: Nick would have had the advantage of seeing what Chris looked like on a monitor
Much better for the Party tonight – both did reasonably well with Paxo.
Roll on the vote.
Just finished watching – feisty performance from Clegg with a superb answer on immigration – couldn’t have asked for anything more!
Huhne was steady, plenty of back-pedalling on the Calamity dossier though.
Seriously though, I’m glad we’ve got past that and on to more important issues.
But finally – to those who said that Clegg would be eaten alive by Paxman – think again! He treated that podium like it was his own and refused to be pushed around. Top drawer stuff.
Speaking of hustings, when is the London hustings?
Yep, good performance from both. It’s not getting any easier for an undecided like me to make a choice! I had expected to have made my mind up by now, but it looks like it will come down to the hustings performance (Manchester on Saturday!).
Good night all.
I do love being a part of the Liberal Democrats.
Ta-ra
Nick doesn`t seem quite right for the leadership – though I can`t put my finger on why. If he does win, “Calamity Clegg” will surely (unfairly) come back to haunt him.
Nick did well fighting back at Paxo at one point (I can’t remember which question) – this might go a long way to tackling the claim he couldn’t handle the rough stuff.
27. As for the cameras, I guess Nick will have seen Chris gazing off into mid-air for the first minute – Chris must regret calling heads!
Jeremy was very gentle with them actually.
Chris on reforming IHT, and on Northern Rock, data protection and coalition – good.
Nick on immigration and coalition – good, proper spirit on coalition. This is a new one on me from Chris. “Chasing the anti-immigration vote”, that’s a well-deserved hit unless we hear some back-up to Chris’ views very soon.
Both on tax – good, Nick marginally better for reasons Bridget says and for lower rate point.
Again, neither quite articulated the “real alternative” thing in one sentence, though they did it throughout in a scattered way.
End cuddling, good. They have seen my fluffy bunny picture! Perhaps everyone who has frothed on this and other forums about leaving the party if the wrong man gets in could stop wetting themselves now…
An excellent performance by Nick. Don’t remember what Chris said.
I thought Paxo went easier than he might have done, but, still, this shows there is nothing wishy-washy about Nick.
All this stuff on cameras – it is the BBC2 crew’s job to get the right feeds broadcasting not the guests’!
I thought they both did a lot better. Chris has obviously realised that debating with the jackboot did him no favours..
Not impressed with his answer on Immigration- ‘causing problems in Eastleigh’ (think he must be thinking about his very small majority!)
Nick’s reply on immigration was spot on. Thank God Chris now accepts that Nick is not in favour of school vouchers. Perhaps he can pass it on to the MPs in Team Huhne who keep repeating this…
That was certainly better than Sunday!
Good answers from both.
Well done to Chris for his answer on immigration – it is sensible to address the concerns that some voters have, but in a positive manner.
As someone who isn’t firmly for or against either candidate, I have to say that reading the comments of people who have firmly plumped for one or the other is quite fun… it’s like listening to religious fanatics exclaim how they’ve just seen a profound vision of their god in the foam on a cappucino. It’s just a cappucino, guys…
I suppose my canvass category is Soft-Huhne
Well just watched Newsnight and discussed it with my Mum (non-member).
She said CH was more able to deal with awkward questions then NC who got adjitated too quickly. If she had a vote it would be for Huhne.
I agree. But still reserve judgement until after the St Albans Hustings on Thursday.
Nick Huhne will give the Conservative Party the most headaches.
It’s a privilege of the landed middle classes that they don’t have to worry about the massive drop in wages for labouring professions (like builders, plumbers, etc) that the unexpectedly high number of migrant workers from Eastern Europe has caused.
But hey, it makes building extensions to your nice 3-bed-semi cheaper so it much be a good thing, right?
For those Lib Dems who campaign in working class estates though this is a very real issue that is having a massive effect on families as their cash-flow dries up. Do we care about these families or must they just bite the bullet of open migration policy? Higher benefits for when they end up on the dole perhaps?
You can have too much of a good thing, and we need to examine where that line is for migrant workers. To examine it we need to discuss it.
Rob @ 40 – we’ve been drinking G&Ts here for a while which might help explain our enthusiasm
much better, thank goodness. nick the more obviously instinctively liberal (too much immigration chris??) and dealt well with Paxo. chris tried to blame a ‘junior researcher’ for calamity clegg horror – hmmn.
also thought the wrong camera angle was funny!
Rob, agreed, I thought both came across bloody well tonight, and Clegg won, but I think partially because he managed more screen time. He handled Paxo well (as did Huhne), which has to be the bellweather, right?
So, both can handle Newsnight well.
Also? Clegg quite clearly quoted Alix there. Was Huhne suffering from having to try to be ‘nice’ and therefore more reserved than usual?
I think my vote is still Chris’s, but I’m now a lot less anti-Clegg than I was. Good show all.
But why were the BBC still using the pre-CK bird logo? Surely they could get this right? I wonder if both would-be leaders raised it with Paxman afterwards?
Rob Fenwick @ 30: London Hustings 27th November, Friends Meeting House, Euston Road,7pm.
As a declared Huhne supporter I have to admit I thought Nick was far better putting himself across as a candidate tonight. Though I am still sure Chris would prove the better leader, I will be very relieved when (if ever) he learns the value of the short, sharp answer. Surrounding every issue with unintelligible persiflage is what turns many folk off politics. They stop listening, because they don’t know what you are bloody well talking about. Nick was better on this tonight, though also not immune to rigmarole and waffle.
Robin @ 48: Danke
The foam on my cappucino said Nick dealt better with Paxman. Chris somewhat flustered and rather waffly, although he did get a rougher deal.
Nick was punchier, and not afraid to take the one-word challenge (hurray for his ‘no’ to the immigration question – he displayed better liberal instinct there.)
“persiflage”
Awesome word. I have put it in my notebook of Quite Interesting things.
I’ve phoned the BBC about the use of the out of date logo.
I thought Huhne was reserved tonight, quite understandably after Sunday’s little episode. He’s probably realised that it didn’t do him a lot of good. He didn’t land any blow of any description in my opinion despite trying the health and education lines again.
Nick handled Paxo in the best possible way – go after him and swat away his questions. Good answers, lots of passion. Nick at close to his best tonight.
This was the best I’ve seen Huhne on TV – lucid and more relaxed, realistic about immigration and more prepared I think to address the issue of inequality and tax. Nick was also good and he partly erased my doubts as to whether he could fight his corner with Paxman.
I thought Chris edged it tonight, but Nick was better than I’ve seen him on the TV or at hustings before, and less like ‘Tory Boy’.
Both seemed more relaxed – did Vince tell them both to ‘cool it’ I wonder?
54. I thought Huhne was more lucid on QT than tonight.
I’ve given my verdict on Liberal Review.
http://www.liberalreview.com/node/918
It was useful to see Chris ‘step back’ on the issue of tax thresholds – and reserve his judgement, whilst retaining fairness as the guiding principle.
As a Southern based MP, he will of course be aware of the difficulties caused by our badly presented local income tax policy at the last general election. Tax thresholds of £70k may seem high, but they are not when you live in areas where houses cost £300k and mortgages are at least £1800 pcm.
Valerie, I agree. There were flashes of it tonight, but he was a bit too nervous of sounding harsh to come across as strongly as he did on QT.
I am starting to think maybe there was a tiny, tiny germ of one, small, little itsy valid point in all this flip-flop talk, which has previously made me tight-lipped and been the biggest thing turning me off Huhne.
[ducks below parapet, waits for gunfire, cautiously re-emerges]
A changing message in the little press the party gets is potentially a bit of a problem for our image – and by changing I mean open to other interpretations. Not to the point where it should be your main line of fire, because people do and should change their minds as their thinking evolves. Nor really a terribly useful criticism of a potential leader when you’re talking about their record in other offices – as leader consistency of message to-the-letter will clearly be much more of a priority. But certainly a point worth making about someone’s style if you know their style well, as Chris does Nick’s.
I suddenly grasped this when Paxman put Nick’s quote to him and Chris followed up. We all got fixated on whether Chris was accusing Nick of being pro-school vouchers, but actually it wasn’t a policy discussion at all, it was a discussion about style. Why didn’t Chris just say it like this in the first place?? A lot of the bad feeling could have been avoided and I wouldn’t have had to spend bloody hours googling to find out what school vouchers actually were.
Disclaimer, disclaimer. Hope Cleggheads won’t hate me for this :-S
As an original undecided, early turned to Huhne.
I reckon a virtual score draw.
Interestingly, all the comments about cameras, you look for the one with the red light on. I actually think Nick was the worst presentation! But he dealt with he immigration question better.
Dead heat on the rest.
I still think on the edge of authority I am right to go Huhne..
Mark Wright: “the massive drop in wages for labouring professions (like builders, plumbers, etc) that the unexpectedly high number of migrant workers from Eastern Europe has caused. … Do we care about these families or must they just bite the bullet of open migration policy?”
So what are you suggesting? Withdrawing from the EU? Suppressing freedom of movement within the EU? Are you chasing the UKIP or the BNP vote?
Alix @ 59 – it’s become clear now, and for the most part Chris seems not to accept this too,at last, that the allegations of nick’s flip-flopping were just that, allegations. He has never wanted school vouchers, and it seems that the infamous quote in the scotsman that ‘proved’ he did was something the journalist said, not nick.
both were good, chris less so, but on the basis of the immigration question only, nick’s the real liberal there.
Anonymous 62. You are a troll.
There is a specific aspect to immigration in a few areas of the country such as Slough and (I think) Southampton. In these areas where a large number of recent immigrants have settled the government’s financial settlement to the local authorities concerned has failed to take into account the growth in their population.
This is putting those councils in an intolerable financial position as they simply don’t have the resources to service the new arrivals. Chris, as MP for the seat next to Southampton will be aware of this specific problem.
Sorry, sorry, my bad. Not school vouchers. I mean the “breaking up the NHS” quote that Paxman put to Nick. And don’t start, I know it didn’t mean what Chris said it meant. My point is maybe what Chris was saying all along (badly) was that it was open to interpretation, and that this was a potential communication style problem in a party where there isn’t much media coverage.
Oh dear, missed all the fun! Will hope to watch tomorrow. I have been out galavanting at FPC and a dinner with a load of bankers, talk about crossing events horizons! The most amusing moment was discovering that two of them read my blog……..
SOrry about the shameless plug, but I’ve transcribed the debate in full for people who want to pour over it in detail.
I think that was a clear win for Clegg, just as QT was a clear win for Chris. While Sunday was a messy implosion.
As a whole the debates have shown that they are both effective commuicators who can hold their own, but with distinct styles, policy emphasis and priorities.
Apart from Sunday’s incident I doubt that many votes will have been swayed by these performances though.
I think the most pleasing thing for me (as a Clegg supporter) in a debate where both candidates were impressive, was that Clegg is finally starting to get going. I thought he was excellent last night.
Mark @ 43 – spot on.
My father, a white working class man living in a council estate who died suddenly last year, never made a racist comment in his life that I heard, not even when I brought home and married my wife (who is of Indian ethnic origin). Yet one of the last things he ever said to me, quietly, was “I think they should stop all immigration to this country”.
One has to remember that the biggest impact of immigration is on those least equipped to deal with it. To dismiss their concerns as just racist ignorance is crass and patronising, and shows a complete inability to empathise.
For 12 years I was a councillor for a council estate ward which when I started was notoriously “all white” and when I finished was looking as mixed as much of the rest of the borough. I had to sensitively deal with constituents asking me, for example, “why does all the council housing that becomes vacant go to coloured people?” (yes, “coloured” is the ward they use, unselfconsciously and with no intent on being racist – they think it the polite term to use for people of non-white ethnic minority). The close-knit nature of what was a mono-cultural community certainly was changed by this, and people needed reassurance that they weren’t being forgotten, and that there was no “politically correct” racism in allocation of council resources.
All this had to be handled very carefully, and yes, sometimes I did have to stand up in the council and speak up for the “white working class” and remind others that they weren’t a supremely privileged bunch either. For part of the time I was a councillor this had to be done in the face of a concerted BNP campaign, which I think could have won the BNP the ward had they been more electorally competent and we taken our eye off the ball.
I am proud that we saw off the BNP and never did or said anything that could be remotely interpreted as “pandering to racism”. But please, don’t give our racist opponents the ammunition they need by suggesting there are absolutely no difficult issues associated with communities having to adapt to becoming multi-cultural.
Completely agree Matthew. I am at the extreme liberal end of this debate in that I can’t see the point of national boundaries (thats for another thread) but we, as a party with aspiratons to be in governmnet, have to have the answer for those working class people who don’t get the postitive stuff from open borders but just see their living standards eroded. All the plumbers decorators and bus drivers in this area are Polish and doing a bloody good job for less money. I am sure that this is the issue Chris was referring to, not that he was anti immigration.
BTW I am a Chris supporter who nearly changed my mind on Sunday. I am glad he apologised and although he wasn’t at his best last night I think he will deal with pressure and attacks from the 2 tory parties better, as well as being able to give us a more distinctive image.
Just to flag up Chris has been on the Torygraph website answering questions this morning. I’ve been reading some of the “questions” he didn’t answer and they’ve been making me cry. Can only get a rubbish link but you can get there easily from the front page.
…and just to be even-handed, Nick is on Comment is Free putting the boot in about the lost data!
I thought it was even stevens last night.
Huhne should have answered the immigration question better, but there was nothing wrong in what he actually said, and his comments would certainly resonate well in this area.
Clegg looked rattled at one point when he ended up shouting at Paxo but was generally more solid than I have seen him previously.
Huhne seems to have now dropped the vouchers thing, which is good, and I thought the way he put his criticism on health was reasonable.
As others have said, I’m back to being happier at the prospect of either of them.
I was leaning strongly to Clegg, but was rattled by his simplistic “No” on the immigration question – but his later development of the theme reassured me.
I also take issue with the idea that a simplistic relaxed attitude to immigration is “instinctively liberal” as though anyone who feels that migration controls are acceptable/ desirable/ necessary/ appropriate are somehow illiberal.
And no I’m not chasing the BNP/UKIP vote!
Well of course a relaxed view on immigration is instinctively liberal. Our instinct should be to let people do what they want and go where they like.
That’s not necessarily the same as the nuanced, considered, practical view, of course.
Freedom of movement is a liberal idea, surely?
The question was whether we have too many immigrants. Those who think we do presumably want to get rid of some of them. I’d suggest that’s definitely illiberal.
Noting that there are also problems caused is just sensible, and Nick played this one perfectly. I’m still shocked that Huhne was so weak on this one, dithering in a way which some Huhnites have ironically been suggesting Nick has been on immigration.
No 77. Codswallop.
Chris merely pointed out that immigration has caused problems in some areas (including the one with which he is most familiar). Nick didn’t disagree with this, and pointed out that government had done insufficient to address these local difficulties.
What is the sub-text here? Huhne pandering to racist sentiment? Don’t stoop that low, please!
Is the truthful discussion of immigration issues taboo? Is anything other than enthusiastic support for uncontrolled immigration racist?
If you think it is, then you are peddling the same kind of dishonest argument that Labour politicians wheel out in order to stifle serious debate about recreational drugs.
Controlling immigration might not be liberal, but swamping communities with cheap non-unionised labour isn’t exactly liberal either.
Good on you Angus @78
And @77 it may well be nice to say that “freedom of movement is liberal”, but just think that one through.
There are countries in this world where 60%, 70%, 80% of people would have a better quality of life by moving to another country (even Britain !!!).
Would it be liberal to allow that? Well, yes – but would it be sensible?
And would it be to the general benefit of either community?
Explore.
By the way… What on earth was Chris going on about dirty kitchens for in the answer to his penultimate question? Bizzare…
@ 79. If free movement of goods, services and peoples were a general norm, and all were able to settle wherever they are able to travel to (using their own money) and get employment, I’d have no problem with that.
The biggest complaints about immigrants is frequently benefits—make only citizens of the UK and countries we have parallel agreements with eligible and we’ve dealt with that one (except perhaps the ‘aid’ of sending people home if they lose the job they came for).
Our economy generally benefits from immigration—even Migration Watch was forced to concede that after it ran a study looking at all the costs. The economies of the countries where immigrants come from generally also benefit, short term because money is sent home, and medium term because there’s a noted tendency to return home and establish businesses and similar using the skills and money saved—so we then get more trading partners and similar.
The economics of the matter is clear and pretty much beyond doubt.
Ergo it’s the social impact that really matters, crowded housing, LAs not able to react as the funding grant from central doesn’t take stuff into account, etc. So the liberal answer, localism, including local tax raising, assists in that as well, as they’re paying for locally provided services through the taxes on the wages they make.
Lest we forget, there are a lot of Brits retiring abroad, or seeking work elsewhere, especially in the EU these days, so emigration is also something of an issue—the biggest issue isn’t that people are coming in and out, but that the Govt has no systems in place to count either in an effective way.
78 – There’s no subtext in my noting that I thought Huhne was surprisingly disappointing and weak on immigration when it comes to someone looking for a liberal answer.
You can’t both tell me that isn’t true and say that it’s right that he was dithering – make your mind up.
I don’t think there are too many immigrants in this country – the problems come from issues of integration and govt accounting, as correctly identified by Nick.
Freedom of movement clearly is liberal – obviously unlimited freedom of movement straight away would cause issues, but then personal freedom is liberal too and allowing anyone to do anything to anyone at anytime wouldn’t work either. I’m not sure what’s unusual about freedom of movement which you think means that there’s nothing to be considered when govts decide where people can live, rather than people deciding where they live themselves.
I can’t do anything if you think that there are too many immigrants and I wouldn’t think you racist for thinking so, I just think that you’d be wrong, as I think that Chris was wrong.
Peter, I’ve only read the transcript of the debate, which will of course lose a lot of the nuance, but my reading of it is that Chris said that immigration could be a problem for exactly the reason that Nick went on to detail.
The issue around immigration is twofold. One is about the allocation of resources and the other is about cultural identity.
As the son of Jamaican immigrants, who was a councillor in a poor, racially mixed central London ward with 50% council housing I’ve always taken a keen interest in immigration.
Immigaration is a real issue that deserves to be talked about. We need to find a liberal way of addressing the problems that local communities havce with immigration, without pandering to prejudice & ignorance.
However, I was very uncomfortable with Chris answer for exactly the opposite reason as crewegwyn was uncomfortable with Nick’s. Although Chris’s, explanation was perfectly sound, his failure to say unequivalently that there has not been too much immigration into this country was worrying.
Unless you start from saying that immigration is basically a good thing, then you concede the basic premise of the xenophobes’ argument and the debate then centres around how to ‘control’ this bad thing.
The reality is that both economically & culturally our country benefits from mass immigration (and emmigration). That having been said Govt needs to plan ahead for the impact of that immigartion. Immigrant communities need to be helped to assimilate and native communities need to receive the support to accommodate them. We have to defend immigration into this country but we also have to recognise that we need to deal with the problems that it creates.
The fact that immigration is basically a good thing is not mutually exclusive with the fact that there might have been too much of it in a space of time. Remember that Paxman asked: “Has there been too much immigration into this country in the last ten years?” I find it useful in situations like this to do some thought experiments with a little logic…
Let’s start with the assumption that immigration is a basically good thing, as almost all liberals would. So, would it be good for 800 million people to come here next year? Obviously not. Immediately we see that there is a limit to a good thing (hence the phrase “You can have too much of a good thing”). The number of migrants attempting to settle, the number of natives they settle among, and the time period it happens in, are all important factors. The bigger the number of natives and the time period, then the bigger the number of migrants can be without problems.
Most of the problems that have arisen in recent years have done so because the number of natives and the time period were both smaller than they should have been. Because migrants understandably want access to existing social networks, they tend to go to places where there are already other migrants; i.e. they are not spread around the country evenly. And because of the sudden accession of eastern European countries and lack of Government planning, unexpectedly large numbers came in just a few years.
Both of those need managing, and it is right that we should discuss how to do better on both, and acknowledge the issues caused. To say that too many migrants have come in too short a time is not to say that some should be throw out. It’s not unreasonable to say that there are too many people living on the earth right now for the resources available – that doesn’t imply that we should exterminate some.
To answer some specific points… MatGB suggests that localism and local taxation would solve much of it. I actually worry about that, because if local taxes were forced to rise because of things beyond the control of the authority (i.e. to pay for extra services because of large numbers of migrants coming to town) I think it would be ideal ammunition for xenophobes and difficult to justify to locals. Immigration and its effects should always be paid for nationally, IMO. Remember that the tax take from migrants can be low, because they are often working in labouring roles and for cheaper than natives (hence the fall in wage rates among trades, etc). Charles Anglin mentions cultural identity. This is a crucial point because it is an issue Governments can’t buy their way out of – cultural assimilation isn’t solved by more money; it is solved by more time.
Finally, the class thing. I think it is pretty clear that those who benefit the quickest and the most from immigration are the migrants (obviously, or they wouldn’t come), and business owners and managers, who benefit from cheap abundant labour and skills; i.e. the middle classes and migrants. The benefits to the working classes are generally secondary; i.e. they benefit from the fact that the economy grows, and from “trickle-down”. But as most liberals should understand from their “Why Thatcherism failed” course, those effects are slow to come – if they come at all – to the poor.
Mark, worth observing that I didn’t say it would solve, I said it would assist. And it would. Locally raised income taxes, business taxes, property taxes and even sales taxes should all, eventually, happen if we’re genuinely to decentralise.
At that point, local govt would be much more responsive and less reliant on central grants as they are now—as central grants are regularly made based on data significantly out of date, this exacerbates the issue currently in some areas.
I don’t believe it to be “the solution” but it would defintely help. That and simply accepting that people travel where jobs are, and that if there are a large number of immigrants, that means there’s demand for labour locally, etc.
does the instinctive liberalism of free movement of people extend to the urban poor of Brazil moving onto the lands of indigenous peoples?
I’ll declare an interest on migration’s cultural impact.
When my grandmother was born the parish she lived in was 90+% fluent in the native language (the one she spoke until her death). Today in that parish only 30% of people have any knowledge of that language.
The benefits of migration?
Good point crewegwyn. I would say that absolute free migration is a libertarian position, not a liberal one. It is effectively putting culture into the hands of the free market and saying “let the strongest survive”.
Maybe that is a good thing? Certainly, Anglo-Saxon culture is a ferocious cultural beast, so we in the UK have nothing to fear from cultural Darwinism. But I think many other world cultures would have a different view – after all, the only difference between migration and colonisation is whether the migrant has a gun or not.
sanbikinoraion @ 83 That’s interesting, as I’ve only seen it on TV and it felt slightly different, but the written version is probably more authoritative. When pushed the 2nd time by Paxman as to whether there were too many immigrants I thought that Huhne said something along the lines of “sometimes”, but I can accept that I might be wrong on that one! All the same, he didn’t make any of the points about why “too many” is really a conservative tabloid creation and that we should be talking about other things.
crewegwyn @ 87 Can I ask if you don’t think the free movement of people is a liberal goal, how about free movement of goods (free trade)? Actually, what about free movement of services (Bolkenstein directive) or the free movement of capital (currency markets, etc).
I hardly think that it’s libertarian to state that we want people to be more free to choose where they live rather than be told where to live by the state (should we go back to needing local council permission to move from village to village?), though I suspect that you’re just attacking the straw man of wanting instant complete free immigration everywhere which I’ve already said isn’t what I’m talking about.
The question is whether there’s an inherent freedom in being able to choose one’s country of residence, and I’d suggest there is. The fact that the EU has given that freedom within all EU member states to its citizens is, I would suggest, a liberal victory.