Comment: The folly and cynicsm of Cameron’s immigration speech
If the prime minister really cared about segregation he’d stamp on tabloid lies.
By Ian Dunt
Read the speech, they say. Whenever there’s a row, you’re commonly advised to check that the comments haven’t been taken out of context. But sometimes that mystifies the political reality. Most political speeches are not delivered to the audience but to the media. They are designed to be quoted out of context.
David Cameron’s speech on immigration was much more balanced than its detractors or supporters will admit. But that was not the point. The point was for the media to lead with ‘Cameron promises end to mass immigration’.
It was a cynical move to prevent Tory voters flocking to Ukip during the local elections. As Vince Cable concluded, it serves to enflame tempers rather than settle them. Cameron would have us think otherwise. He believes that these speeches are needed to quell support for the BNP.
Tackling the BNP
Labour used to say the same thing, but reiterating the BNP’s arguments won’t defeat it. If we accept their premise then their conclusions follow. If Cameron were genuinely interested in cutting off the oxygen from the BNP he might consider tackling the tidal wave of exaggeration and outright lies the tabloids print every day.
Take the incessant headlines about new arrivals to the UK automatically going to the front of the social housing queue. This is false. A 2009 Equality and Human Rights Commission report found no evidence for it at all. Once migrants settle and are entitled to help the same proportion live in social housing as UK-born residents. How did the Daily Mail report it? ‘One in ten social houses go to immigrants’.
The examples are endless, but the best source for the reality of tabloid journalism is Richard Peppiatt, who recently quit the Daily Star after it led with the constructed news that the English Defence League (EDL) was set to become a political party.
“Our caustic ‘us and them’ narrative needs nailing home every day or two, and when asked to wield the hammer I was too scared for my career, and my bank account, to refuse,” he wrote in his letter of resignation. It’s not just true of the Daily Star. That attitude exists across the tabloids and even into the broadsheets.
Segregation
But the reticence of parts of the indigenous population to integrate is not a topic open for discussion. If immigrants fail to integrate, it’s another matter. Cameron highlighted the failure of some immigrants to speak English or get properly involved in their community. “This has been the experience for many people in our country – and I believe it is untruthful and unfair not to speak about it and address it,” he said.
Yep, that would be unfair. Almost as unfair as cutting funding for English language services and then complaining that immigrants don’t speak English. English for Speakers of Other Languages (Esol) has seen a cut of 32% in funding in the last two years. Changes in eligibility will see 100,000 people – three-quarters of them women – being hit with fees of up to £1,200 for classes. Most of them won’t be able to afford it.
Cameron’s tactic is nothing new. In 2007, Labour threatened to withhold benefits from unemployed people who couldn’t demonstrate that they were at least trying to learn English. In fact, the government had just introduced fees for the Esol course and even then there were thousands of names on the waiting list.
The prime minister neglected to mention the fact that he had cut the £70 million migration impacts fund, which tried to alleviate pressure on public services due to immigration. He also scrapped the annual citizenship survey, which tracked community cohesion.
We all feel uncomfortable with the parts of major cities populated entirely by one racial or religious group. No sensible person will countenance the government telling people where to live. The genuine solutions require patience and money. We can introduce programmes which support the individual members of the community, whose voices are often drowned out by the parochial voices of their leaders.
Labour treated these reactionary, conservative figures as partners. Instead, we can sidestep them. We can offer people a route into mainstream society with support networks, including English classes, which we introduce when they use public services like libraries or attend health check-ups. But that takes money, of course, and there’ll be no more of that. And it takes a commitment to public services rather than the private sector, which has no obligation to society.
Mass immigration
Cameron’s claim to be dispelling myths appears even more cynical when he is intent on propagating them. The prime minister’s insistence that the 2.2 million who came here between 1997 and 2009 marked the “largest influx of people Britain has ever seen” is a particularly glaring example. Had Cameron looked a little earlier, he would have seen that 2.5 million people came here between 1991 and 1997, when the John Major was in power.
But go further back, to the 1970s and 80s, and Britain had more people leaving than entering. Why? The same reasons that many of the eastern Europeans who came following EU expansion are now returning home. Immigration reflects economic realities. You should dread the day immigration levels fall back down again, because a healthy economy will always attract – and need – migrants.
Those who believe that this process results in the displacement of domestic workers should look at research by Gianmarco Ottaviano and Giovanni Peri of SDA Bocconi’s Department of Economics. It found that migrants and domestic workers are not perfect substitutes for each other in the labour market. According to the report, immigrants compete only with a small share (around 10%) of native workers in the labour market, not directly affecting the rest.
It even suggests that companies become more competitive as a result of the influx and open up new plants, employing more immigrants and domestic workers. Using data from the US between 1990 – 2004 the researchers found that, in the long run, the average wage of US-born workers increased by 1.8% as a consequence of immigration.
Rich and poor
But despite Cameron’s apparent concerns with “mass” immigration, there’s one group he has no problems with: the rich.
“Immigration and welfare reform are two sides of the same coin,” Cameron mused. “The real issue is this: migrants are filling gaps in the labour market left wide open by a welfare system that for years has paid British people not to work.”
And yet, anyone earning over £150,000 gets to come and go as they wish. A special loophole in the immigration cap was specifically introduced for them.
We know the arguments why. We’re told that these individuals might start up firms and provide jobs for the UK, or at least spend enough to benefit the Treasury. Actually, the effect of high net worth individuals settling in Britain has some pretty damaging effects as well. For a start, it causes a disproportionate rise in property prices, which change to reflect a level of purchasing power which is entirely disconnected the financial reality of most people in the country.
The global super-rich close themselves off behind gated communities, but their segregation doesn’t merit prime ministerial intervention. Their grossly excessive wealth does more harm to community cohesion than any immigrant, but it did not factor in Thursday’s speech.
This is the society Cameron is creating for us. The poor will be forced off benefits. The disabled forced to take tests which pay no regard to the psychological effects of their misfortune. Poorer immigrants trying to start a better life will be tracked down and sent home by privately contracted task forces. Meanwhile, the global super-rich buy their way into the country, free to use Britain as their own private playground.
The key to protecting British workers from the effects of immigration is robust trade unions, stringent employment regulations and well-funded training programmes. You won’t see any of those things from this government.
It doesn’t care about the white working class anymore than it cares about the non-white working class. But it’s not above using an emotive issue for a few more votes in the local elections.
The opinions in politics.co.uk’s Speakers Corner are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.
