Immigration

The economists who advise the Home Office on immigration policy have come out against a plan to turn economic migrants into ‘guest workers’. Last week, the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) published their response to the government’s proposals on restricting settlement rights for skilled workers from outside the EU. With all the debate around David Cameron’s pledge to cut net immigration to the ‘tens of thousands’, many of the detailed policies for achieving that overall aim have been somewhat neglected. It should be clear, however, that these particular proposals would represent a very significant change, with serious implications for employers. While a few exceptional migrant workers would be invited to stay,

Today’s immigration headlines have a familiar feel. Twenty four hours after embarrassing revelations about a hundred thousand asylum case files being quietly written off, we now learn that at certain times over the summer, UK Border Agency staff were told not to bother checking people’s passports, or checking them against watch lists for crime and terrorism. The media are understandably dusting off old headlines about our borders being “out of control”, and the Home Office being “not fit for purpose”. The strategy of Conservative ministers in the Home Office is already clear: on the first story, blame the previous government, and on the second, blame the officials, with a number

A major new survey of public opinion on immigration, published today by the recently-established Migration Observatory, should prove troubling reading for realists inside the Conservative party. As yet, the opposition are not threatening them on the issue – Labour still find it easiest to get noticed when they are apologising for their own record – and the general thrust of the Conservative approach, that immigration has been too high and must be reduced, is clearly very popular. But they have two problems. First, hardly anyone believes the government will actually deliver on their promises. A recent YouGov poll found 78 per cent believe it unlikely they would succeed in reducing

David Cameron is taking his woman trouble seriously. He will unveil plans to curb internet pornography at a meeting with the Mothers’ Union later today. The government will force internet users to opt in to view pornographic websites when they initially chose their internet providers. The government will also clamp down on sexualized advertising and a new website, Parentport, will be established to allow parents to report inappropriate images, articles of clothing, TV programmes etc. This is a fairly blatant pitch for the wandering female vote, which is exercising Cameroon minds at present. It’s a clear attempt to say: We’re going to help you to protect your children. The policy

The furore surrounding the defence secretary is distracting attention from some stories that are threatening the coalition’s tranquillity. Benedict Brogan reports that the Health Bill is being amended out of existence by a cabal of Lib Dem peers, a campaigned that was mooted during the party conference season. The rebellion is apparently aggravating Number 10, which understood that Nick Clegg had secured his party’s support for the diluted programme which emerged after the recent “listening exercise”. Labour’s numerical superiority in the House of Lords means that ministers will have to be at their most mellifluous to bring the errant Lib Dems back to the fold, because Tory backbenchers are clear

‘Cat-flap’ is the story that just won’t go away. A report in today’s Guardian claims that the whole story may have been lifted from a speech made by Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence Party. One colleague of May’s tells the paper that “Not only has Ms May been caught out making up stories about the Human Rights Act for cheap laughs, she has been plagiarising her clap lines from the UK Independence party.” In the grand scheme of things, this is hardly the most serious charge. There’s just enough truth to the cat anecdote for May to have some ground to stand on and most Tories, understandably,

Ed Balls’ choreographed apologies earlier today included the acknowledgment that “we should have adopted tougher controls on migration from Eastern Europe”. He first adopted this stance during last year’s leadership election, when he offered an undeliverable but popular objective to court the ‘Gillian Duffy tendency’, who had turned away from New Labour. What began as classic opposition politics is now the party line, with Ed Miliband telling delegates yesterday, “We got it wrong in a number of respects including understating the level of immigration from Poland, which had a big effect on people in Britain.” And there are stories in today’s Mail and the Express about the deleterious effects of

Yesterday, we introduced our new “Right to reply” series, where outside writers take on some of the ideas and arguments raised on Coffee House. In that case, it was the IPPR’s Matt Cavanagh replying to Fraser’s recent post on immigration and the labour market. Here’s another reply to the same post, this time by Jonathan Portes of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research: Myths abound when it comes to the effect of immigration on the labour market — and the most damaging of these is that most or all “new jobs” go to migrants. Although I agree with Fraser Nelson’s general views on immigration, he is misleading on this one point.