By HARRY PHIBBS Shifty: Jack Straw on BBC Question Time where he addressed Labour's immigration policy One approach politicians have to getting a majority of us to vote for them is to split us up into interest groups. Their idea is that with enough grievance mongering among enough minority groups eventually a coalition will be formed that can provide a majority. Ken Livingstone is one of the great British champions of this approach. He has the fast-footed shamelessness to make him an exemplar of the art. True, he got his comeuppance last year when he was defeated as Mayor of London by Boris Johnson. But the remarkable thing was that Livingstone got away with so much for so long - especially given the bundle of contradictions he had to juggle with accommodating gay rights activists and Islamic fundamentalists in his big tent. Philosophically the Conservatives ought to be less prone to this type of thing. Two great ideological motors of the Party are patriotism and individual freedom - so they should appeal to voters as individuals and as British citizens rather than members of factions competing with each other for subsidies. Yet over the years there have been various bodies the Tories have felt it best to placate - the police, the armed forces, the Oxbridge colleges, the Church of England, the National Farmers Union, the Royal Opera House...the list goes on. Of course politicians will often think that championing the cause of a particular group is genuinely the right thing to do. But they wouldn't be politicians if they had no regard for how many of those they were helping had votes or money. For New Labour one important minority has been the Scots. For decades voters north of the border have returned a large majority of Labour MPs even when the English abandoned the Party. So naturally the Government attempt to keep them sweet with an advantageous public spending settlement. Another big minority are those who work in the public sector. They could be forgiven for their rather greater sympathy in voting for the party most enthusiastic about increasing state spending. In some of our northern cities most of the middle class is on the state payroll. Labour has also traditionally been dominant in gaining the immigrant vote. Not so much these days, as the efforts to portray the Tories as racist have lost some traction, but this is section of the electorate where Labour is strong. So there is a certain crude logic about the astonishing revelation that they have deliberately been pushing for more immigration for political reasons. Ex-Government advisor Andrew Neather says there was a 'driving political purpose' behind it. This was kept secret at the time. The Home Office report on the matter entitled Research, Development And Statistics Occasional Paper No 67 - Migration: An Economic And Social Analysis, which was published in January 2001, was as boring as its name implies. But some earlier drafts, worked on by Tony Blair's Performance and Innovation Unit, were rather more explicit. Neather says: 'I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.' One of the concerns about immigration is that it could lead to more crime. An early draft of the report covered this subject - but New Labour decided that as it was a bit sensitive it would be best to cut it from the published version. Instead of looking how a problem could be addressed a decision was made to ignore it. One of the censored passages read: 'There is emerging evidence that the circumstances in which asylum seekers are living is leading to criminal offences, including fights and begging.' Another declared: 'Migration has opened up new opportunities for organised crime.' There were likely consequences of more 'marriage rackets' - and also drug dealing, people trafficking and fraud. By facing up to these challenges solutions might have been found while still allowing some controlled immigration and maintaining our historic role as a safe haven for those fleeing tyranny. There could have been proper focus on how those who are allowed to settle are helped to integrate - not least through learning English and understanding and accepting the laws we live under. Those with exaggerated fears of the extent of the crime immigration causes might have had some reassurance if there could have been confidence that the truth was being openly and fully presented. A balanced view would certainly acknowledge the positive contribution that immigration can make - especially as mobility of labour is becoming an international issue and skills shortage in particular areas can hold business back even when there is general unemployment. What is certainly unjustified was the policy we had of immigration being allowed to get out of control. It was not due to incompetence but multicultural whims and a cynical determination to gerrymander election results.The real 'political purpose' behind immigration - gerrymandering Labour's election results
Last updated at 1:09 AM on 29th October 2009
Explore more:
Thursday 29 October 2009
Posts
