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.

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.

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?

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and less reliant on central grants as they are now—as central grants are regularly made based on data significantly out of date, this exacerbates the issue currently in some areas.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That’s not necessarily the same as the nuanced, considered, practical view, of course.

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!

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.

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.

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.