11 Comments

• Jedibeeftrix 3rd May '11 - 8:55am

  “Well, that’s fairly definitive: 7-in-10 Lib Dems believe Vince Cable was right to launch his broadside against the Prime Minister’s immigration speech.”

  7-in-10 Lib-Dem’s can think whatever they like, but that view when publicly expressed by a senior member of the party is a rebuke to a huge number of people all around the country who have genuine concerns about immigration after ten years of unrestricted immigration under labour.

  There is no clearer way to tell the electorate at large that you are not interested in representing their concerns, and if that is the attitude then they have a very clear mechanism for registering complaint that holds them in open contempt.

• Duncan 3rd May '11 - 9:59am

  ‘As I understand it Vince’s viewpoint is to do with the impact of reduced immigration on the UK economy. That is an indictment of our education system i.e. we don’t seem to be able to provide the right people from within the existing population.’

  Nonsense. There are plenty of educated people. The problem is that the definition of ‘highly skilled’ has been inflated in recent years. It now seems to mean, ‘skilled, slightly experienced, and willing to work for less than a new UK graduate.’ In the past, ‘skilled,’ meant a serious niche that needed decades of experience – now first degrees seem to qualify as, ‘skilled.’ Our education system is much-maligned. I’m not saying it is flawless, but glib comments like this one don’t really help. To be clear, this applies to the public and private sectors.

  What I would say is that there seems to be a very black-and-white conception of immigration. My wife is an immigrant (and Jedibeeftrix, that you can call the system we went through, ‘unrestricted immigration,’ suggests that the Daily Express is the closest you have ever got to the IND process) and it is not as if she woke up one day and said, ‘you know what – I’m going to bleed the UK dry.’ She came here, me me and things just happened.

  There seems in commentary to be a very easy attribution of motive. People are not, ‘workers,’ or, ‘students,’ or, ‘brides,’ any of the other easy labels. People are people first and foremost. This is why I didn’t like VInce’s comment which skated very close to gaugeing people by their present economic position. By all means restrict numbers – but there needs I think to be a reconition that legislation for motive is a mug’s game.

• jedibeeftrix 3rd May '11 - 10:20am

  “My wife is an immigrant (and Jedibeeftrix, that you can call the system we went through, ‘unrestricted immigration,’ suggests that the Daily Express is the closest you have ever got to the process”

  As is mine, believe it or not.

  I don’t hold any strong brief against immigration, it is not an issue that personally enthuses me and nor too have i ever written about it, when i do mention it the reason is usually because i have come across an echo-chamber of the muesli munching brigade whose complete lack of empathy prevents them from even contemplating the sincere and principled worries of others.

  Nor too have i ever read the express/mail/generic-red-tops.

  It doesn’t matter what the reality of the situation is, when the government of the day baldly states that there is no upper limit to immigration, and is found to have relaxed immigration for the purpose of altering society, the fact that 77 per cent disagree that the Government has immigration under control; 75 per cent are concerned about extra pressure on public services is a real problem that must be dealt with.

  http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pressArticle/50

  A political party’s job is to represent both the public interest and the public’s concerns, and any party that disregards the latter does not deserve to be in government.

  What truly causes my blood to boil is when these same people start to flap about the rise of extreme politics in this country, blaming it on populist newspapers for stoking up public anger, without realising that THEY are to blame for the rise of the EDL precisely because they belittled and derided the honest and principled concerns of ordinary people.

  Mainstream politics treated these people with contempt, and yet is surprised that they look elsewhere for representation!

  If the Lib-Dems want to make a habit of being in government then they had better learn that representing the goals and expectations of the wider electorate, and not just their own narrow clique, is very very important.

• Duncan 3rd May '11 - 10:49am

  Jedibeeftrix – Ok, a comment that brings together a number of points.

  1) Out of interest where is your wife from. If you went through the IND/UKBA, would you say that was unrestricted? My point is that as much as I genuinely take your point about the people you describe as, ‘muesli munching,’ there is some nonsense in the media. That some people lack empathy for concerns about immigration does not automatically mean that the media portrayal is helpful or right.

  2) Like you, I’m not frothing about immigration particularly. I see it as a symptom of problems, not really a cause.

  3) On the politics of it – I think all I can say is that I am dead against an amnesty, that there are complex issues here, issues that don’t neatly reconcile and I leave the politicians and voters to come to policy. The point I was getting at earlier (perhaps not well) was that it is easy to assume that all immigration has a neat, tidy motive. It is not that simple, but if your wife is from overseas, I suspect you don’t disagree.

  4) Did you know that migration watch research came out against the primary purpose rule?

  5) On your, ‘they are to blame,’ analysis. Sorry, this is just lazy. ‘They’ might be partly to blame. ‘They’ might be being blamed to a greater or lesser extent. But there are far wider factors here. Extremist politics is not new, my granddad was a unionist in the 1970s and fought the battles then. Mainstream politics has not treated anyone with contempt. Government does indeed exist to represent interests, but it does not exist to legislate for the prejudices of sections of society.

  Immigration might be one factor, alongside the changing face of industry, house price inflation, privatisation of services and so on. I agree with an awful lot of what you say. But there is nuance here and to say as much does not mean I am munching on a bowl of finest Alpen.

• jedibeeftrix 3rd May '11 - 11:41am

  hi duncan.

  1. pre EU-accession eastern europe. there is a great deal of red-top nonsense from the headlines i have seen, ageed.

  2. the problem is that the urban poor, people without financial independence, rely to a far greater extent on the social structure around them for support in day to day life. this makes them far more sensitive to change or dilution in the community upon which they depend, the same community that the better off are far more isolated from by dint of that financial independence.

  3. it is complex, but it sometimes feels like its being brushed under the carpet because its ‘uncomfortable’, and while that doesn’t actually matter to me it really is a matter of concern for those living on the margins of society who see the support structures in their neighbourhood begin to evaporate.

  4. on face value i see nothing inherently wrong in the stated position:
  http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/141
  “The rule had required that someone bringing a spouse into Britain had to satisfy the Entry Clearance Officer that the primary purpose of the marriage was not to avoid the immigration regulations. The practical effect of its abolition as been to open the door to unchecked secondary immigration. It should be reinstated (3b). ”
  I was dimly aware of the rule, and having googled a quote on migration watches position it doesn’t seem unreasonable if we accept the purpose of the law as stated by the bbc:
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/news/06/0605/straw.shtml
  “Previously, the Primary Purpose rule required foreign nationals married to British citizens to prove that the primary purpose of their marriage was not to obtain British residency.”

  5. “Extremist politics is not new, my granddad was a unionist in the 1970s and fought the battles then.”

  Quite right, but the expansion in modern support for the BNP is in significant part attributed to inner-city working-class labour supporters who while having no real affinity for BNP politics still feel compelled to register their dissatisfaction with the policies of their natural party.

  6. “I agree with an awful lot of what you say. But there is nuance here and to say as much does not mean I am munching on a bowl of finest Alpen.”

  There is indeed nuance, but the lib-dems need to be percieved by the public as recognising that a problem exists, and in many instances, not least the leadership debates, the party has failed to do this.

• Duncan 3rd May '11 - 12:20pm

  Jedibeeftrix – Variously.
  Yes – the quality of discussion, both in the red-top media and the muesli munching classes is hackneyed, but what to my mind is worse it that it does not reflect the reality that you and I faced. That is what annoys most. It might well be that there are some people here for ‘bad’ reasons, but I will marry who I want to regardless of what the red-tops say on the subject because it’s not their business.

  On your 2 and 3. Brutally, this is the society that ‘we’ – not ‘they’ – have voted for. I don’t like it, and I suspect you don’t either. But the privatisation of the social fabric, the housing give away, the ending of nationalised industry the aggressive individualism – all this has been an undeniable political trend. It might FEEL like it is brushed under the carpet, but these trends have thrown up winners and losers, simple as that. Immigration (or more specifically cheap labour) are just a symptom. People (I hate the term working class because the WC barely exists in any sense my grandparents would have recognised) may well want (need?) the support structures, I do not question a word of what you say. If anything I would go further and say that the squeezed middle/alarm clock Britain (eek) have been hit by the loss of such structures. Immigrants by the way may well be a part of that structure – carers for example. But the stark reality is that the individualism that brought about these trends is not going anywhere, and that is hardly because you and I made a life choice that involved marriage to overseas people.

  Here is the migrationwatch document I mentioned (see para 39) http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/124. The PPR is an affront as it asks you and me to demonstrate a negative – not a good policy I hope you would agree.

  As to the extremists, I suspect that they have more media profile than actual support. But I do still think that what you are talking about is nothing new or different to decades ago, but I am glad you agree that there is real nuance in this that is often just obliterated on the internet. I think that immigration generates so much comment simply because the issues around it don’t neatly reconcile. The ugly truth is that there probably is a ‘worthy’ and ‘unworthy’ split here – but legislating for it…..mug’s game.

• jedibeeftrix 3rd May '11 - 12:53pm

  @ Duncan – “Brutally, this is the society that ‘we’ – not ‘they’ – have voted for. But the stark reality is that the individualism that brought about these trends is not going anywhere,”

  I am almost totally divorced from local society, and this is the way i like it, but to borrow from the negative/positive liberty analogy; my choice is not an imposition on my neighbours whereas the demographic upheaval in an urban council estate is an imposition in the lives of those who exist there.

  I live where I do because it is big enough and transient enough for me to remain ‘unknown’ in the community, and small enough to not have the problems associated with for that transient population to keep the place interesting.

  The involved community of villages and estates is my idea of hell, but my choices don’t mess up their way of life, labour’s choices have.

• jedibeeftrix 3rd May '11 - 12:58pm

  @ Duncan – “Brutally, this is the society that ‘we’ – not ‘they’ – have voted for. But the stark reality is that the individualism that brought about these trends is not going anywhere,”

  I am almost totally divorced from local society, and this is the way i like it, but to borrow from the negative/positive liberty analogy; my choice is not an imposition on my neighbours whereas the demographic upheaval in an urban council estate is an imposition in the lives of those who exist there.

  I live where I do because it is big enough and transient enough for me to remain ‘unknown’ in the community, and small enough to not have the problems associated with [towns/cities, and] for that transient population to keep the place interesting.

  The involved community of villages and estates is my idea of hell, but my choices don’t mess up their way of life, labour’s choices have.

• Duncan 3rd May '11 - 1:29pm

  ‘I am almost totally divorced from local society, and this is the way i like it, but to borrow from the negative/positive liberty analogy; my choice is not an imposition on my neighbours whereas the demographic upheaval in an urban council estate is an imposition in the lives of those who exist there.’

  Well….good for you. But you seem to want this both ways. Either there is this great, ‘support network,’ and that is a good thing vital to society, or there is not. If you believe in the support network, surely that tacitly demands that you take part in it? I’m not getting at you here – as I said earlier, the issues here don’t neatly reconcile. Surely your choice is an imposition in a context where these social networks and way of life are, ‘evaporating,’ as you put it. Your exclusion weakens the network.

  And in any case – surely this is not NECESSARILY an immigraiton issue? I don’t see why immigration necessarily equals upheaval. My wife is very well established, yours too probably. There may be upheaval, but how is this any different to, say, transient student populations or BTL wannabes taking over an area’s housing?

  ‘I live where I do because it is big enough and transient enough for me to remain ‘unknown’ in the community, and small enough to not have the problems associated with [towns/cities, and] for that transient population to keep the place interesting.’

  Presumably what you actually mean is that you are financially independent enough to exculde yourself. Good for you, I can’t say I am greatly different. But that is your choice, you are not compelled to do so by any political party.

  ‘The involved community of villages and estates is my idea of hell, but my choices don’t mess up their way of life, labour’s choices have.’

  Well, I can’t say I disagree with the involved community point you make – personal tastes etc. But to reduce this to, ‘Labour’s choices,’ is reductivist nonsense. Are you really telling me that the individualism that has lead us to where we are somehow started on 2nd May 1997? Are you telling me that the traits of individualism, privatisation and the like are just the will of one political party. Of course not. Even if I thought that you were not confusing, ‘the left,’ and, ‘the Labour Party,’ you are still assuming that all of the social trends start in political parties. Society leads its politics.

  Maybe there is something admirable about the (romanticised?) working class. But my point is that immigration is a nuanced factor in a very nuanced picture.

• jedibeeftrix 3rd May '11 - 2:37pm

  “Surely your choice is an imposition in a context where these social networks and way of life are, ‘evaporating,’ as you put it. Your exclusion weakens the network.”

  It might be nice to have a supporting social network, but it is not my obligation to support it particularly if i have gone to the trouble of living in an area that is not dominated by it.
  by losing too much control of immigration those who most depend on the social element of their community are the same people as those who will suffer the accumulation of excess immigration, because they live in areas of cheap accommodation adjacent to a large number of jobs.

  “And in any case – surely this is not NECESSARILY an immigraiton issue? I don’t see why immigration necessarily equals upheaval.”

  Fine, in that case we’ll talk about something different. Immigration frequently justifies the term ‘upheaval’ because of the aforementioned tendency of it to pool in areas of cheap accommodation and plentiful jobs, i.e. where the urban poor live. By definition it isn’t upheaval outside these areas, this is accepted.

  “Are you really telling me that the individualism that has lead us to where we are somehow started on 2nd May 1997?”

  Absolutely not, arguably Thatcher’s 80’s were the start of this trend, however the option or even the encouragement towards individualism is a choice that can be accepted or rejected, what the Labour years represented was an imposition on those urban poor who were most affected.

  “Society leads its politics. you are still assuming that all of the social trends start in political parties.”

  Agreed. I am merely noting that contentious political subjects often lag behind public desire to see change due to the difficulty of addressing the inequities of the status-quo. The fact that the ‘nasty’ party felt it couldn’t object to Labour’s policy because it would damage the party’s rebranding exercise being a good example.

  “Maybe there is something admirable about the (romanticised?) working class.”

  Whether admirable or not they require political representation, and if some feel they aren’t getting it from mainstream politics they will look elsewhere.

• Andrew Suffield 3rd May '11 - 8:32pm

  The problem is that the definition of ‘highly skilled’ has been inflated in recent years. It now seems to mean, ‘skilled, slightly experienced, and willing to work for less than a new UK graduate.’ In the past, ‘skilled,’ meant a serious niche that needed decades of experience – now first degrees seem to qualify as, ‘skilled.’ Our education system is much-maligned. I’m not saying it is flawless, but glib comments like this one don’t really help.

  I don’t know about companies across the economy, but I do know about the one where I work. We’re hiring (software engineers). We find it difficult to fill positions at all, let alone from within the EU. We are not looking for people to work on the cheap (we probably pay a little better than many places) but we are looking for people who are good at their jobs, rather than mediocre.

  We don’t get that many applicants. Of the ones we do get, most are blatantly incompetent, regardless of experience level. The purported pool of skilled graduates who are being edged out of work by people willing to work on the cheap? It doesn’t exist. There are no large numbers of spare skilled graduates at any salary. The pool of long-term unemployed people consists largely of the unskilled and inept.

  We need immigration. It’s the only way we can fill the jobs that we have to fill. There really aren’t any spare people able to do their jobs in this country, at any price.

  (We are not a typical company. About 1/3 of the staff has PhDs)