Our Scary Shambolic Migration "Debate"

On the campaign trail yesterday, Tyler had the chance to chat with leaders of our sizeable local muslim community. Very interesting.

For one thing, these are people who most definitely contribute to our society. Not only do they run a wide range of local businesses, they also really do believe in giving something back - both in time and money.

What also became clear was that they are as concerned about the immigration issue as the rest of us. They are as appalled as Tyler at Brown's dismissal of the Rochdale granny as a bigot. And they want to see somebody get a grip on the numbers now coming to Britain. Housing's a big local problem, jobs have become a problem, and this is all getting very scary.

One of the underlying problems of course, is that we haven't got a clear agreed view on what's actually going on.

For example, last night on BBC TV News, Prog Con spokesman Mark Easton did a "reality check" on Clegg's now notorious claim that 80% of immigrants come from within the EU (see yesterday's blog). And Easton concluded that Clegg is indeed wrong (see his blog here).

However - and it is A Big However - where Clegg is right is in saying that only a small proportion of total non-EU immigrants say they are coming here to work. In fact, in the most recent year (2008), the International Passenger Survey records only one-in-eight long-term migrants coming to the UK from outside the EU and saying they're coming to work.

Which is why, suggests Easton, Clegg is right in saying the evil Tories' plan to cap the number of non-EU workers coming in won't work.

Hmmm.

What Easton didn't explain is what are all the others coming here for?

Because in terms of overall net migration flows, that very same Survey tells us that migrants from outside the EU constituted 130% of total immigration. Overall net immigration was 129,000, of which no fewer than 168,000 came from outside the EU (the overall figure is only brought down to 129,000 because a net 84,000 Brits upped sticks and left).

The truth is that by far the biggest inward migration flow from outside the EU comes from people who say they are coming here to study.

If we look at the same Survey, we find that just in the last 5 years, over 0.5m people net came here from outside the EU saying they were going to study. Which is 60% of all net inward migration over the period.

And in principle, we should be delighted that people want to study here. Not only does it earn us money, but it also gives us valuable worldwide connections for the future.

The problem comes when these students don't actually leave again afterwards. Or even worse, when they are coming here as part of a thinly disguised people trafficking scam to study for one of those infamous bogus degrees.

So what should we do?

Despite what Easton implies, you have to believe that any capping system worth its salt will have to include students who want to stay on to work after they qualify. They can't just be left to join our labour force willy-nilly.

So a properly designed and enforced capping system must include such students from outside the EU.

The Tories are planning to do that... right?

Beneath Contempt

We need to keep this as a reminder of what they really think

It's amazing listening to those metro-media prog con pundits seeking to excuse Brown's abominable behaviour in Rochdale. Apparently, we all get angry about things, he's under a lot of stress, and he was just having a bad day.

But that's not at all what the rest of us heard. What we heard was a two-faced bully who holds even his own supporters in contempt. Contempt for the perfectly reasonable concerns of a perfectly reasonable woman facing up to the real problems millions like her encounter in their day-to-day lives.

And whether Brown likes it or not, they are concerned about immigration. He may not want to discuss it, but out here, it's A Very Big Issue.

We've blogged this many times, so we won't do so again here. But there is one point worth reiterating.

Quite a bit of the commentary we've heard over the last 24 hours has focused on the point that we can't do much about immigration, because of our EU membership. But that is nonsense.

The truth is that from 1997 to 2008 (the most recent year for which we have comprehensive ONS stats), net migration into the UK totalled 2 million. Of that, just 0.5m came from the EU - including the new members like Poland.

Moreover, during that same period, a net 0.8m UK citizens left. Which means that net migration from countries outside the EU totalled an extraordinary 2.2 million:

And that is all migration we could stop.

Yes, of course we would want to make exceptions for genuine asylum seekers. And we might want also to make exceptions for some high skill workers (although we could just give them fixed-term work permits).

But that is nothing to do with our EU obligations.

In truth, the EU point is a cop out. It's yet another convenient argument for closing down discussion on immigration. Metropolitan prog cons don't want to discuss it, and they hold those that do in contempt.

An Easy Choice

How Labour's practical choices work

You have to admit they've got some nerve. According to the Great Helmsman today, Labour is the party of controlled immigration:

''By controlling immigration for a fairer Britain - by investing in the skills of our own workforce, and by ensuring our businesses secure highly-skilled migrants when they need them while continuing to maintain control of net inward migration...

This is the practical choice people must make for a better more secure more economically prosperous and socially cohesive Britain - the Britain of fairness and responsibility we all should want to see.''

Which all sounds fine, until you recall Labour's atrocious record in losing control of our borders.

We've blogged this many times, but let's refresh the key facts. First, Labour has permitted a massive surge in immigration. From 1997 to 2008 (the latest published comprehensive ONS stats*) net migration into the UK totalled 2 million - the biggest inflow we have ever had in our entire history (see this blog).

Moreover, during that period a net 0.9m British citizens left, meaning that the net inflow of non-British citizens was 2.9m - around 5% of our population:

So the numbers are staggering, and given that many of the migrants have tended to concentrate in certain specific areas (like teenage Tyler's home town of Slough), there has been huge pressure on public services and housing. Not to mention some very evident and alarming social tensions.

But even worse than the reckless surge itself, has been Labour's deceitful explanations of why it was being encouraged.

For years, they told us it was to make us richer - and you can see that's still the Helmsman's basic pitch. Yet the truth turned out to be very different. As soon as this claim was subjected to serious analysis it fell apart. For example, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee held a lengthy enquiry and concluded that claims of mass immigration making us richer were "irrelevant and misleading" (see this blog).

The truth is that while individual high skill immigrants can bring considerable value, on average, Labour's millions of immigrants have done nothing to increase UK GDP per head.

Labour then moved onto another tale, which was that we couldn't stop the immigration even if we wanted to, because the vast bulk of it was coming from the EU. And unless we were prepared to leave the EU, we had to accept it.

But again, the truth turned out to very different. In fact, of the 2.9m non-British immigrants, only 0.6m came from the EU - including the new EU members like Poland. The other 80% came from countries outside the EU, where we are under no obligation whatsoever to allow entry.

So no economic benefit from mass immigration, and no treaty obligations forcing us to permit it. Why then, was it encouraged? Given its well-known unpopularity with British voters, why would Labour pursue such a bonkers policy?

For years, Tyler puzzled over that very question, even suggesting it might be a covert extension of the international aid programme.

But then finally last October we discovered the truth - it turned out Labour's promotion of mass immigration was a deliberate and sinister plan to transform the British electorate and "to rub the Right's nose in diversity"  (see this blog).

And now they've got the brass neck to tell us they've got things under control. And yes, they have finally been shamed into introducing a points system for the 80% of immigration that comes from outside the EU, but there is no overall cap. And points without an overall cap on numbers is just so much window dressing.

So yes, when it comes to the issue of whose got the best ideas on controlling immigration, there is a choice to make.

But it's not a choice that will take very long.

*Footnote As you will have seen, our old friend Sir Michael Scholar - incorruptible head of the UK Statistics Authority - has now rapped Brown over the knuckles for misusing official immigration stats in his pitch. The ONS's full migration stats have only been published up to 2008, and Brown has been quoting apples and pears numbers for 2009. Why? Well, why do you think? The master of statistical mendacity has always been prepared to quote any old numbers that seem to support his case. Which is why if you've got any sense, you'll disbelieve any numbers he ever comes up with.

Thursday Morning Blood Boil

Mind how you go

Is this government the worst we have ever had? Surely it must be. Yes, OK, they introduced gay marriages, and they stopped us going into the Euro. But apart from that, we can't think of anything they've done that hasn't turned into a disaster. And this morning we're treated to a rash of reminders.

1. Immigration

Labour has lost control of our borders. We all know that. In just 12 years, they have permitted more than 3 million foreign born migrants to enter, 5% of our entire population (eg see this blog). Some of these migrants have undoubtedly made us richer, but most have not (eg see this blog). It has produced dangerous social tensions, boosted now by mass unemployment, and there is absolutely no way of stuffing the genie back into the bottle.

Things are now so desperate, that even the arrogant clowns who rule over us realise there's a crisis. Unfortunately the crisis they see is not the one we're all so worried about. The one they're concerned about is that the immigration issue might lose them the next election.

So they've decided they'll admit to a few mistakes.

Today, Brown himself stood up to "admit �mistakes� on immigration after BNP TV furore". Well, that's what the newspaper headlines said he was going to do before his speech. But when you actually read the speech itself, you don't find any such admission. All you find is a statement about how he now "gets it", and how it isn't his fault anyway because previous governments left him a shambolic immigration system that he is now valiantly fighting to sort out.

And the migrants he actually picks on for his draconian fuzzy new controls are not the low-skill alien culture type migrants everyone worries so much about. Instead, he says "we no longer need to recruit civil engineers, hospital consultants, aircraft engineers and ships officers from abroad - and so these and other jobs are being taken off the list." It's a classic shimmy - these highly skilled workers are not the people we're worried about. Most of us want people like that to be able to come in.

He tells us we can't have a fixed annual limit like Australia's because it would be too inflexible. Too inflexible for whom? We all know that employers want unlimited immigration because it depresses wages. But the rest of us want a clear limit because of all the social and public spending pressures mass immigration brings with it (see previous blogs).

And as for his argument that imposing a limit would "overturn our obligations to our EU neighbours", why not just have a limit applying to non-EU citizens? It's non-EU citizens who have made up more than 80% of the inward migration over the last decade (eg see this blog).

Brown still seems to think we're all stupid.

Gah!


2. Cost of Nanny

On one level, Labour's nanny state is a source of harmless national amusement. But as soon as you realise it's costing us a ton of money, the joke falls kinda flat.

Here's the latest episode from the Sun:

"POLICE chiefs faced ridicule last night over plans to give cops guides on how to ride a bicycle.

The potty pamphlets, running to 93 pages in TWO volumes, tell cops how to balance so they do not fall off.

The official Police Cycle Training Doctrine - the cost of which is estimated at thousands of pounds - gives full instructions on how to stop and get off a bike safely.

Officers will be taught how to brake and avoid obstacles such as kerbs and rocks. They are warned not to tackle suspects while they are still "engaged with the cycle"...

Officers are advised to wear padded shorts for "in-saddle comfort" and reminded to eat enough food and drink "adequate liquids" - because cyclists get hungry and thirsty.

Undercover cops are told they may need to go without a helmet to avoid being rumbled. But the guide warns: "This lack of protection must be noted and a full risk assessment of the required role to be undertaken."

No, no, stop it. I'm starting to get asthmatic.


3. Bonuses for catastrophic failure

We've blogged the issue of bonuses for public sector staff many times (eg see here). And today we hear about the latest bonuses being paid to the buffoons who run the catastrophically awful MoD. Despite all the equipment shortages and all the procurement cock-ups we read so much about, �47m has been paid out so far this year:

It makes you want to spit.

"The bonus figure covers just the first seven months of the financial year. The MoD said yesterday that the bonuses would average less than �1,000, but a senior civil servant could pick up �8,000. Last year, the department had 95 employees who were on a salary of more than �100,000. A private in the Army can be paid as little as �16,681 a year"

As we've said before, bonuses in the public sector are a farce. Unlike the private sector, the public sector is not targeting profit, or any such clearcut objective. There is no bonus pool driven directly by the money available. Indeed, there is no transparent and robust linkage back to any real world objective. Just another pile of box ticking commissariat wibble. The practice should be stopped.

And as for the BBC paying for its execs to stay in glitzy �647 per night Las Vegas hotels, I can't even bear to read the story.


4. Too posh to wash

The government is about to insist that all nurses now have a degree.

Why?

The health minister says:

�By bringing in degree-level registration we can ensure new nurses have the best possible start to meet the challenges of tomorrow. This is the right direction of travel if we are to fulfil our ambition to provide higher quality care for all.�

The minister obviously lives on an entirely different planet to those of us who've visited real NHS hospitals.

The Doc long ago tore out his few remaining wisps of hair over the fact that many essential nursing jobs like washing patients no longer get done by nurses. They are too posh to wash or to ensure patients are eating and drinking properly: upgraded beyond such menial tasks they instead now spend their time studying patient protocols and pathways. A fact not unconnected with the huge upsurge in hospital acquired plagues.

As we've said before, just make sure you keep up your BUPA payments.

And try to forget that state healthcare now costs each and every household nearly �5 grand pa.

I think I need to lie down.

Migration Update

Following the shocking revelation about Labour's secret plan to transform our culture through mass immigration (and "to rub the Right's nose in diversity"), we've taken a look at the latest migration statistics.

According to the ONS, a net 2.7m foreign migrants came here during Labour's first decade (1998-2007 inclusive). Which is getting on for 5% of the population.

Of those, just 270,000 comprised the famous influx of Polish plumbers and Czech waitresses following EU enlargement in 2004. A further 170,000 came from other members of the EU, so that the total EU influx totalled 440,000. In other words, well under 20% of the total immigration came from the EU - the people we've always been told we can't refuse.

The remaining 2.3m were split roughly 50/50 between those from the Commonwealth (1.2m) and elsewhere. Or at least, they split that way in the official statistics. But of course, the official stats take absolutely no account of the unknown number of migrants who've arrived illegally.

Meanwhile, British born citizens have left in droves: over the same ten years, a net 0.8m went. Which, in terms of cultural transformation, is a double whammy.

Now obviously Labour are going to deny that this was the reason they systematically encouraged mass immigration. But if not this, then what?

Sure, they used to tell us it would make us all richer. Until that is, we found out that it hasn't (eg see this blog).

And then they told us we couldn't stop it even if we wanted to, because we were in the EU. Until that is, it turned out the vast majority of migrants were coming from outside the EU, so EU membership was irrelevant.

And now we're told... well, I can't quite work out what we we're being told now, but I think we can safely assume it's self-serving nonsense.

Another issue Mr Cam needs to grip pdq.

PS See here for our full analysis of the immigration stats, although the cumulative inflow has increased by a further 400,000 since then.