Discover more from REACTION
Speaking at the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham, the Home Secretary Sajid Javid lamented the division in society created – or, more accurately, revealed – by the 2016 referendum. He took a (well-deserved) swipe at the so-called ‘People’s Vote’ campaign and the Liberal Democrats (are these actually two separate entities nowadays?), pointing out that it’s folly to think a second vote would somehow reduce this rift rather than enhance it, and he warned of the catastrophe of democracy that would arise should the result not be respected.
In the rest of his speech, Javid focused heavily on an area of fundamental importance for 21st Century politics and culture – indeed, a focal point for which the Brexit referendum has rather become a substitute, and that is – deep breath – immigration.
There. I’ve said it.
It’s a common myth that people only voted Brexit for this reason. The Ashcroft Report of 2016 suggests otherwise, placing sovereignty in first place as a motivating factor for Leave voters. But it would be naïve to suggest that concerns about migration did not play a huge part in the eventual result; indeed, since taking back control of our “money, borders and laws” served as the mantra of Vote Leave it could be argued that the issues are in fact inseparable.
Socially, the subject has become a little bit like sex or religion of old – not fit discussion for dinner parties – and it’s easy to see why. In fact, the Vote Leave chief Dominic Cummings refused to allow discussion of the issue until the final week of the referendum campaign for fear of alienating the polite middle classes.
But it’s a subject on which cosmopolitan opinion in the South could not be more alienated from the views of the country at large. Javid is absolutely right that voters’ concerns must be addressed, lest Britain witness the kind of ethnic nationalist black-lash that plagues Europe. Furthermore, in spite of our natural desire to welcome fellow human beings in search of opportunity, it’s a subject on which a rational analysis of the facts must conclude that the system is in dire need of reform.
Javid correctly observes that the people “lost faith that politicians would manage immigration sustainably”, granting their concerns legitimacy on the public stage. This validation of the matter as fit for discussion is absolutely essential if the Tories are to reconnect with their base and with regional England, and to be seen to be delivering on the promises of 2016.
The Home Secretary’s new plan is to implement a “skills-based, single system” that “doesn’t discriminate between any one region or any one country”. That is to say the anomaly in which EU migration is a free-for-all while migrants from outside Europe face much higher barriers to entry will be ended. This is clearly fair and just. The irrational discrimination against non-EU migrants makes no sense as it judges individuals based not on ability but on country of origin. If a right-wing government tried to introduce such a policy from scratch, the political left would (understandably) describe this as racism. It’s high time that the double standard was ended.
Going further, Javid also called for net migration to fall. Migration ‘doves’ will see this as Tory kowtowing to bigotry, but UK voters are within their rights to object to immigration policy in the form it has taken since 1997, on scale alone. When Tony Blair was elected, net migration stood at 47,000. In 2015, at its peak, it hit 320,000. Another way of thinking of this latter figure is a city the size of Birmingham over roughly a three year period. Even David Cameron – certainly no populist – accepted that immigration would need to be reduced to the “tens of thousands” in a notorious claim that, due to its undeliverability while Britain remained in the EU, perhaps cost him the premiership. Open borders ideologues are fond of claiming that the numbers don’t matter, but one simply cannot deny the effects on infrastructure, housing and social integration caused by such historically unprecedented movements of people – not to mention the impact on wages.
The Confederation of British Industry has hit back at the Home Secretary, saying that immigration curbs will harm the economy and generate a labour shortage. This perspective is wrong-headed. It’s often claimed that immigration has a wholly positive impact on the economy. However, the studies that aim to show this often focus disproportionately on skilled and middle-class migration, the most famous being the now debunked 2014 UCL study. The Migration Observatory indicates that immigration does not have a depressing effect on wages, but this commits an aggregative fallacy; if you isolate low-skilled, low-income employment groups then it can be seen that importing cheap labour from abroad does indeed harm wages. The CBI may warn of a “labour shortage”, but in reality the companies they represent may just have to start paying workers more. This is a good thing.
In fact, it’s no surprise that wages in real terms have started to rise for the first time since the 2008 crash as net migration has fallen post-Brexit. Simple market dynamics apply here: if you have fewer workers to choose from, their bargaining power and hence value goes up. For all Labour’s rhetoric about empowering the poor, they refuse to speak about one the biggest factors affecting their voters – competition for low-paid jobs.
The Conservatives have spent much of their conference addressing the housing crisis; the Chancellor only recently declared that 300,000 new homes a year must be built to address rising rents and falling ownership. But Britain’s birth rate per couple is only 1.8 – less than the replacement rate. It doesn’t sound very cuddly to say it, but it’s obvious that demographic changes other than the indigenous birth rate are a big part of the housing crunch.
Costs to the Exchequer must also be considered. Of course migrants, like all of us, pay income tax and VAT, they spend money that stimulates the economy, and they contribute their skills and creativity to our national life. But against this must be set the roads we all use, the squeeze on school places, the burden on the NHS and GPs’ surgeries, unemployment relief and state pensions. How many years does it take to contribute more to the Exchequer than you have put in? Of course humans shouldn’t be judged purely on their bottom line, but the maths does matter. The left will always say “spend more” to relieve these pressures, but that can’t be the answer if the demand created by sheer numbers is always going up.
Javid placed the migration debate within the context of security and social cohesion. In particular he identified the difficulty of 700,000 in the UK speaking no word of English by introducing more stringent language testing, as well as a ‘British values’ test. The latter sounds slightly creepy – it might be better to focus on British institutions and the rule of law – but the aim is laudable. The issues of terrorism and radicalisation are nested within a broader question of the need for greater integration and a more cohesive – or, to use Javid’s words, less “segregated” – society, on here he went on to announce tough responses to forced marriages, female genital mutilation and bogus visa claims.
These interventions are long overdue, and Javid went much further than previous Home Secretaries have in being honest about the social and demographic questions facing Britain in the 21st Century. By combining a meritocratic approach to immigration that recognises the need for net numbers to fall and for integration to be prioritised, the Tories may have a real chance of grasping this issue by the horns. Polling shows that tackling the effects of open borders is immensely popular. The government should be reassured that it’s not only a vote-winner – more importantly it’s both necessary and right.
Subscribe to REACTION
Iain Martin and the team make sense of the news, providing commentary and analysis on the stories that matter in politics, geopolitics, economics and culture.