UK Election - Immigration Reduction Major Issue

[apsco17]

The Daily Mail has a poll on election issues in the current national election in Britain. They asked some immigration questions whose results shouldn't be a surprise to board members.

An overwhelming majority of voters want tough controls on immigration and almost half say they would be more likely to vote for any party which offered a crackdown.

Some 63 per cent of voters think the influx of 2million immigrants to Britain since Labour came to power has been a 'bad thing', more than five times the number who think it is a good thing. And 69 per cent say they are 'very worried' about the scale of immigration.

In what is the most comprehensive study of the attitude of voters towards migration since the general election campaign began, the poll found that 74 per cent believe the current level of net immigration - around 160,000 a year - is 'too many'.

Three out of four voters want to see a numerical annual cap on arrivals and there is overwhelming endorsement of Tory plans to keep net annual immigration below 100,000 a year.

More than two thirds of voters think that immigration will have a 'negative' impact on their quality of life if the population hits 70million, as official estimates suggest.

The figures will be embarrassing for Gordon Brown, who gave a speech and issued a No 10 podcast just a week ago boasting about Labour's success in controlling immigration.

Some 74 per cent of voters quizzed by Harris said that the Government has been 'ineffective' at managing immigration since 1997, with just 20 per cent saying it has been effective.

Mr Brown promised that Labour would pursue a policy of 'British jobs for British workers' but 64 per cent of voters believe he has not met that promise 'at all', more than double the 31 per cent who say he has been partially successful and 13 times the number who think he has been 'completely' successful.

Labour ministers argue that immigration has been necessary to plug gaps in the job market. But voters do not appear to accept that explanation.

Fewer than half think that immigration brings valuable skills to Britain and 63 per cent believe it leads to 'higher unemployment among people born in Britain'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/electio ... z0kk6bSaMx

I wonder what the results of a Canadian Poll asking these questions would look like.

[apsco17]

The London Times has a piece up about immigration as an issue in Lincoln, an area with a heavy immigrant population. Is immigration an important topic in this election?

For the past two elections, immigration has been the issue that dare not speak its name. Anyone questioning the number of people coming to live in Britain was crudely accused by Labour of racism; the Tories, fearing rivers of electoral blood, ran scared.

Yet it is an issue the public wants debated. Today’s Sunday Times/YouGov poll shows that 53% of people believe there has not been enough discussion of immigration in the campaign so far. And 76% believe the number of immigrants coming to Britain is “far too high”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7100863.ece

Looks like the people think it is, yet the leading parties seem to be ducking it. Somehow, I don't think avoiding the issue will go over well this election for Labour or the Conservatives.

[apsco17]

The BBC has an extensive article on the impact and costs of excessive immigration rates.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8625000/8625801.stm

Since 1997, record levels of immigration have boosted our population by more than 2 million, accounting for half the total estimated rise in population of about 4 million.

So is Britain getting full?

With immigration projected to drive two thirds of our population growth, the polls suggest voters think the answer is "Yes".

Next to the economy, immigration is the second most important issue, beyond even crime and the NHS.

In last week's televised election debate, all three main party leaders said they would be tough on immigration.

The ground under the high-immigration forced consensus is starting to shift in the Uk. It's gone from nowhere in previous elections to #2 this year.

But to avoid getting to 70m, the reduction will have to be substantial - down from 163,000 to, at most, an average of 50,000.

Whichever party wins the election, the ONS population projection will present them with an acute dilemma - without substantial falls in immigration, house prices and rents will go yet higher, increasing the divisions of an already deeply divided society.

The article concludes with a simple choice - massive cuts to immigration or overcrowding, social tension and spiraling cost of living for residents in the most crowded country in Europe. I wonder if the politicians are realizing which solution the voters prefer.

[apsco17]

The UKip is a pro-British, anti-EU party which is fielding over 500 candidates in the election. They have proposed a strong policy stance on immigration:

In its manifesto, Ukip promises an "end to uncontrolled mass immigration" through the introduction of an immediate five-year immigration freeze followed by a new stricter points-based system.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/13/ukip-sod-the-lot-united-kingdom-independence-party

They won 13 seats in the last EU election, where they are taking a position similar to the BQ in Canada re the EU, so they do have some recognition among the public and they are presenting a stark and easy to understand policy alternative to the modest cut/points systems/net immigration proposals of the other parties. It will be interesting to see how many votes they can draw in their first National election.

[apsco17]

CNN has a new poll out on immigration in the UK.

More than three out of four British people think fewer foreigners should be allowed to move to the country, a new poll by YouGov for CNN found Wednesday.

Some 77 percent of the British people questioned say net immigration should decrease or that no immigration should be allowed at all, according to the poll of more than 4,000 people.

Net immigration is the number of people who move to a country minus the number who leave.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/05/05/uk.election.immigration.poll/

Regrettably, the major parties did not commit to doing the right thing and following public opinion. If they had, the election results may have looked quite a bit different for the party that proposed significant immigration cuts. As it is, the staunchly pro-immigration reform UKIP and BNP received a combined 5% of the total vote, even though they did not gains any seats. With a minority Parliament, Britain will be going back to the polls soon and without major reforms, that 5% could grow significantly.

[apsco17]

Someone has done the math for me on how many seats were potentially lost to the Conservative Party by the 5% of the vote that went to the UKIP and BNP parties.

This is the full list of seats where the Conservative failure to gain a victory could be considered attributable to the "UKIP effect". This we take to be seats where either the UKIP vote, or the UKIP/BNP vote combined, exceeds the majority of the Labour or Lib-Dim winner. The list starts here - 41 seats:

http://www.eureferendum.blogspot.com/

With the Conservatives about 20 seats short of a majority, these seats made a huge difference in the election. Both UKIP and the BNP are pro-immigration reform/reduction and anti-EU. If the Conservatives had taken a firm, unequivocal stance in favour of real immigration reduction and reform along with a credible committment to maintaining Britain's national sovereignty Cameron would be PM today as these 40 seats would have offset the small losses he would have sustained elsewhere.

Real immigration reform cost the Conservatives a majority and possibly the Government if Labour and the Liberal Democrats form a coalition. I wonder if the Conservatives will learn their lesson and propose effective reform in the next election.

[apsco17]

The formal Coalition Government in Britain has settled on the Conservative Immigration Policy of drastically cutting immigration quotas, not the Liberal's proposal for amnesty.

As per the understanding between the Conservative and Liberal Democrats parties, it is the Conservative policy that has been adopted by the new coalition government.

The Liberal Democrats' immigration policy of region- based migration and amnesty to illegal migrants in the UK for 10 years has been given up during the protracted negotiations that preceded the formation of the new government last night.

The overall goal of the Conservative party's policy is to reduce net immigration to the levels of the 1990s - "tens of thousands a year, instead of the hundreds of thousands every year under the Labour government".

The Conservative party's policy adopted by the new government says: "We will introduce an annual limit on the numbers of non-EU economic migrants allowed to work here, taking into consideration the effects a rising population has on our public services and local communities.

The limit would change each year to take into account the wider effects of immigration on society".

The policy also commits the new government to "introduce important new rules to tighten up the student visa system, which at the moment is the biggest hole in our border controls".

To promote integration into British society, there will be an English language test for anyone coming here from outside the EU to get married, the party's immigration policy says.

The policy says: "Britain can benefit from immigration, but not uncontrolled immigration.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/UK/New-UK-govt-to-have-annual-cap-on-immigrants/articleshow/5920783.cms

While this looks good on paper, there are two potential problems here. Number one, is the exemption for EU nationals. Number two, will this policy actually be implemented or only given lip service?

[apsco17]

It's starting to look like the new Conservative immigration policy is slipping away.

The Conservatives are rethinking their immigration cap policy, after the coalition government was warned that a more rigid policy on the awarding of tier 1 UK visas could damage the British economy.

The apparent culprit? The same enablers who have supported and advocated for the previous wide open immigration policy - big business.

Home Secretary, Theresa May, is to launch a consultation on the plan next week to see how it can be made more business friendly, heeding concerns raised by business and industry leaders.

Senior party members, including schools secretary, Michael Gove, and universities secretary, David Willetts, are said to be among those who have warned that a clamp-down would cast doubt on the government's assertion that 'Britain is open for business'.

http://www.globalvisas.com/news/economy_fears_spark_consultation_on_uk_immigration_cap_plans2434.html

Last time I checked, business doesn't vote. Cameron would do well to remember Brown's fate after he belittled people who favoured true immigration reform. It will be interesting to see exactly if the public will be invited to participate in the consultation hearings.

[apsco17]

Despite some waffling, Cameron still claims major immigration cuts are coming.

LONDON—U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron said his coalition government would push ahead with its plan to cap non-European Union immigration but said the government would consult as widely as possible to prevent the policy hurting Britain's economy.

Mr. Cameron said he wants to see immigration reduced to tens of thousands a year—the average levels seen in the 1990s. "First of all, I think we need to control immigration more effectively in Britain. Yes, I do want a cap," he told the British Broadcasting Corp. during a visit to India.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575394623130397674.html

Unfortunately, the rest of the article is behind a firewall but Cameron is still talking about only "tens of thousands" of immigrants per year as an end state for Britain. If only our Government was looking at the same cuts.