Ipsos MORI on immigration
A new Ipsos MORI poll in the Sun has topline voting intentions of CON 40%, LAB 35%, LDEM 13%. This is in contrast to a MORI poll a week ago which showed Labour back up above 40%, ahead of the Conservatives. The five point Tory lead is the largest MORI have given them since back in April.
This poll was conducted over the telephone, rather than face-to-face like MORI’s standard monthly polls - MORI take the view that there is no systemic difference between voting intention figures from their phone polls and their face-to-face polls and, taking them at their word, I normally draw comparisons from the most recent MORI poll whatever the sampling method used. Compared to the last MORI face to face poll the changes are the Conservatives and Lib Dems steady, but Labour down 6 and the ‘other parties’ up 6. Compared to the MORI poll a fortnight before that, conducted over the phone, the changes are the Conservatives down 1, Labour down 3 and the Lib Dems up 2. I needs a better look, but on the surface I rather suspect the sampling method is making a difference somewhere along the line.
The rest of the poll asked a series of questions on immigration. MORI found deep dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of immigration, 72% of people were disatisfied with only 15% satisfied. 64% of people though laws on immigration should be tougher, not counting the 12% who wanted it stopped altogether. 68% thought there were too many immigrants in Britain.
Overall though a lot of the answers seemed a but confused… 48% of people thought that immigration in general was good for Britain, compared to 36% who disagreed. Asked if immigrants were having a good or bad influence on the way things are going in Great Britain though, only 34% said good and 52% said bad. The only answer I can think of to the apprantly contradiction is that the second question specifically prompted people to consider both legal and illegal immigration.
In their own area most people said immigrants had not had much positive or negative effect - only 15% believed immigration was creating problems in their own area. Most people did not think immigrants were more likely to commit crime either, only 24% did - and this question was again prompted to make people consider both illegal and illegal immigration. A large proportion of people also thought that immigrants worked harder than people born here - 45% agreed. Only 8% said they thought they worked less hard, suggesting the vast majority of people don’t actually believe the stereotype of a scrounging immigrant coming here for state benefits.
So, most people don’t think immigrants cause problems, don’t think they cause crime and don’t think they are layabouts (or at least, are not willing to admit thinking any of these things to an interviewer, which is not necessarily the same thing as not thinking them). Where the public did express fears was over pressure on public services: 82% of people thought that education and healthcare services would not be able to cope with rising population from immigration.
Filed under: MORI, Voting Intention
Am I right in thinking that this run of 8 polls so far 40+ for the Tories is the longest such run since 1992? And that if it hits 11 polls that would be the longest run since 1988/89?
I recall back when we were trapped continuously at 33% so many people seemed to say that we ought to be on 40%, when Cameron started getting leads they said we should be regularly on 40%. It seems to be the case now (barely admittedly), but now its happened, nobody seems to be considering that figure to be significant suddenly.
So the other parties have gone up by 6% since the last MORI poll! I have a feeling the last MORI poll was a rogue one - it just looks so out of place with all the other ones in the past month.
It would be interesting to know how muchn of the “Others” was BNP, especially in a poll which also featured immigration - and whether the voting intention came before or after the immigration questions
It’s also likely that, as with on-line surveys, people are more likely to admit to being BNP supporters over the phone than they would be face-to-face
Why are the press giving Cameron such an easy ride over his “grants to one-legged Lithuanian lesbians” remark ? Isn’t is really something straight out of the Norman Tebbitt joke book, giving the lie to all the touchy feely dishonesty they’ve been feeding the media ?
Scratch a new look Blairite Tory, find a mass of xenophobic, homophobic, 1970s Tory prejudices ?
Paul D - none, they didn’t find any BNP support at all (which I expect is interviewer effect to some extent, because we know they are out there somewhere). The voting intention questions came first, which is standard practice to stop other questions skewing the results.
I’m not sure there is any evidence of a stronger interviewer effect face-to-face than over the phone, I think the contrast is solely between surveys done with interviewers and self-completed surveys.
DavidW, its an off-the-cuff joke already blown way out of context and bigger than it should be. Its not big news at all.
DavidW,
Cameron doesn’t get a free pass from me. I’ve seen beyond the veneer too. I’m not exactly enamored right now with Brown and he gets grief when he warrants it too.
The MORI poll is not something I was not expecting given the immigration ‘bungles’. But if Brown and Labour have a collective will to do so, the rot can, and MUST, be stopped.
Looking at the detailed data table the Conservative share is actually 40.55% versus Labour at 34.7% so actual lead is 5.85% or 6% rounded. Mori show lead as 6% but have rounded down the Conservative figure - should be 41% to 35%.
They seem to have done this to keep total at 100% where it would be 101% adding the rounded figures up but choosing to round down the Conservative figure causes most to assume a 5% lead as they will look at only the first three party figures. Others at 3.50% rounded down to 3% rather than up to 4% would seem less misleading.
What is the normal convention amongst pollsters?
The problem many people have with immigration is the problem we are not allowed to talk about-it certainly cannot be included in any poll. So it is impossible to have a useful debate.
The rot has set in.
There’s the smell of death about an intellectually exhausted Labour and people are - just - beginning to see it.
The scales are rebalancing after 10 wildnerness years for the Tories. They have a leader who is articulate, considerate, and a fully paid-up member of the human race.
Suddenly it is Labour who look sclorotic.When momentum builds, sometimes it’s hard to stop it.
The MORI from last week is a rogue.
I believe the “confusion” is explicable. The public, do not, by and large, blame immigrants for coming to Britain. They accept they are trying to improve their lot and they are, on the whole law-abiding people, many of whom have an excellent work ethic.
They do, however, blame the Govt for not managing the influx in the best interests of the pre-existing population or indeed, of being capable of any sort of “management” at all. Most believe benefits are a happy coincidence and nothing to do with Govt policy and that any accompaning problems are being deliberately ignored. The Gov may take the extra tax revenue, but it does not wish to account for the extra expenditure to Local Authorities, schools, hospitals etc.
Polling methods are not sophisticated enough to register the fact that the public has recognised this is a muli-faceted debate [economic/political/enviromental] where there are pros and cons within each area of debate.
What is clear is that the public have no confidence in the Government’s handling of the issue.
Whilst the Conservative 40% ish looks to be holding steady, Labour are just starting to slip down into the lower thities…..back to the Blair end-game.
Is it possible that Gordon has blown it?
The “Change” which was code for “not Blair”- The withdrawal from Basra-The “Clunking Fist”-the “Moral Compass”.-”No more spin”.
If they have all failed to woo the punters-what else is there now?
When will “The Vision” be revealed to us?….is there a Vision at all?
When Labour admitted the cock-up on figures for immigrant workers in UK, Tories were queuing up to ask how they can plan effectively for the effects of immigration on infrastructure & social cohesion if they don’t know how many are here.
And it suddenly occurred to me -it’s the wrong question-they can admit the figures are just a statistical error simply because that’s all they are.
The error has no effect on their plans for the coping with increased immigration-because they haven’t got any.
Has the country come to a similar conclusion-that Labour are in office but not in control?
Hidden away in the mass of statistics and guesses lies a fact hardly ever mentioned. It is often claimed that immigrants make a nett contribution to the Exchequer. It must be an unarguable point that lowly paid workers pay far less in tax but consume at least as much as others in services and more than most in benefits. High and middle-high earners are more likely to have private medical insurance and to have children at fee-paying schools.
Since immigrants will fill a much greater percentage of lowly paid jobs than British-born then it is not likely that their tax contributions exceed public costs.
Even those in the reatil trade as shop-owners will, like all small shop-owners, declare very little taxable income.
DavidW - nasty old press, eh? If only they weren’t so biased towards Cameron then Labour would be 20 points ahead, wouldn’t they?
I remember plenty of Tories in the mid-90’s saying similar things about the press. It didn’t help them then, and it won’t help Labour now.
Victor, NW Kent,
Immigrants aren’t high earners, but by and large they earn more than pensioners, the disabled or the unemployed. They also don’t tend to have that many dependants in terms of children, non working partners or elderly parents.
In short your wrong, they are net contributors.
Oh and in the NHS alone, I don’t think the thousands of immigrant doctors are low earners.
Peter.
collin - what a strange thing to say, in what sense can immigration certainly not be included in any poll, when this is a thread about a MORI poll on immigration? It was included in this poll!
Ted - the convention amongst pollsters is normal maths, .50000 gets rounded up, .4999999 gets rounded down. If you get figures that add up to 101% you live with it, there’s often a caveat on polls saying figures may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Strange that MORI’s Conservative figures seems to have been 40.55% but rounded to 40%.
I suspect the reason lies within the other figures in the table - where it says they have 208 Conservative voters, it doesn’t mean there were actually 208 physical people, that’s the post rounding people and some of them will have been counted as 1.03 of a person or 0.95 of a person. In fact there were 217 actual people, rounded down to a number that’s be rounded to 208. So if it was actually 207.6 Conservatives amongst 513.45 respondents then you’d have 40.4% and correctly round down to 40%. That’s probably what happened - I’m sure MORI are capable of rounding numbers up and down correctly!
I don’t think Cameron’s remark can be explained away as an “off the cuff joke” without revealing quite a lot about how Cameron really thinks when his spin doctors haven’t written his script for him; and I’m not complaining about the “nasty old press”, I’m making the point that the underlying nature of Tory politicking hasn’t changed all that much since the 1970s, no matter what they’d want the public to believe.
WMA is 40:36:14 but I/Mori tends to be biased to Labour by about 1% (0.9% on WMA 1.5% historically) I suspect real position is 41:35:14 moving towards 43:33:15 which I still think is where it is going towards.
Yes Lab is “in office but not in control” - look at the issues today: Immigration, Tax, Crime. And the Conservatives are publishing an NHS Bill.
Peter :-
“Immigrants aren’t high earners, but by and large they earn more than pensioners, the disabled or the unemployed. They also don’t tend to have that many dependants in terms of children, non working partners or elderly parents.”
Could you supply the source of the data behind those assertions please. I am particularly interested in the second sentence which appears to contradict the analysis in the recent ONS population forecasts.
Colin
Sally C: What a clear and coherent post. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here, well done.
This is a complicated issue and the “confused” responses are a mature response to that.
Victor: Cllr Cairns is correct, many immigrants may be lower earners, but they have fewer dependants (no pensioner parents, fewer children on average) and are less likely to be claiming benefits, so therefore the fact is they are net contributors to the Exchequer. There are countless serious economic studies into this subject and it isn’t even close, we are talking serious sums of money net.
Colin: I have no sources to hand, but to break a cardinal internet rule and make an “appeal to authority”, I have studied Economics both as my degree and at a post-graduate level and studied questions like this, also I read The Economist magazine most weeks which has regularly ran articles on this subject. The sources are out there if someone wants to find them.
DavidW: No, it says nothing serious about his inner thoughts. As for the question “why Lithuania”, the answer I’m surprised nobody has guessed is simple: Alliteration.
Tim,
Yes, but voters liked Cameron, disliked Cameron and now appear to like him again. The question is can it last? He’s not there yet.
Brown and the government needs to get its backside into gear and be ruddy quick about it. Because when folk like me become disenchanted Labour are in deep trouble.
There’s only so much legwork I’ll be prepared to give come the time. I love campaigning when it’s a joy to do so, but should it become a chore. Still it’s the Lib Dems who are Labour’s major challengers where I live. Perhaps, a resurgent Conservative Party nationally, may help Labour locally. Just have to wait and see.
The public might not be as volatile as they appear. Instead of being 2 major swings in the last few months, it could be just one bounce.
The public liked Cameron and gave the Tories a lead; Brown came in and got the benefit of the doubt giving a Labour lead (the “Brown bounce”); the bounce ended with the Tory conference/Basra/non-election etc and the public went back to their default position of liking Cameron and the Tory lead returned.
Its impossible to know if its two major changes, or one change. The risk for Brown is if it is just one change (his bounce which ended) then the Tory lead is more stable than it appears and how can he change it?
If it is all volatility, then its more likely to be anyone’s game.
Anthony
Thanks for explanation - understand the rounding also applies to the people figures.
In the detailed Mori table it says the lead is 6% (Table 3 Conservative Lead over Labour line) - which could be the case with Labour at 34.6 and Conservatives at 40.4 (lead 5.8% rounded up to 6%). 1% isn’t that significant within margin of error but it does grate a bit that as a result of roundings the actual lead is understated.
And almost as if I was a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, we have the Tory candidate for Halesowen & Rowley Regis saying ‘Enoch Powell was right’. Almost 40 years after that disgraceful and fundamentally wrong speach, the gut response of many Tories is stuck exactly where it was. And his constituency chair said said she did not think he had done anything wrong.
David,
When Brown says things like ‘British jobs for British workers’ (which is the same wording the BNP use on their posters) perhaps in certain glass houses stones shouldn’t be thrown.
The problem with the “Enoch Powell was right” fury is that it takes us away from a move towards a sensible debate and back to mud slinging.
I don’t suppose it was a smart thing to say, and I certainly never agreed with all that river of blood stuff, but as I recall (from a long time ago) Powells warning was more about how it would change the character of the country, but the emotive bit was the part that got the headlines.
There has been no “RofB”, but the character of the country is many areas has fundamentally changed.
Personally I think that change is fine and indeed welcome, but before I start calling for anyone (even a tory) to be strung up for something they’ve said I’d like to know exactly what was said and the context.
If anything what this debate reminds me of is the one from my childhood when we had very rapid immigration from India and Pakistan ( and before my time from the Carribean).
Most of the problems then as now were caused not be the scale of immigration but the pace, a rapid expansion in a short time, and the very poor planning and preperation for it.
Therefore this could well be looked at as the third time since WW2 where UK governments have allowed mass immigration to meet labour demand with little or no real thought to the impact on other aspects of the economy. In short for 50 years we’ve had immigraton without a population policy.
We’ve had plenty of information about future trends but no one taking action on it. That like our energy policy and indeed housing and transport seems to point to a fundamental weakness in the way we are governed. Britain doesn’t plan well for the future.
I think asking people if they think we plan well for these things, and why they think we do or don’t, would make an interesting poll…..
Peter.
DavidW, there are fools in every party. This one is a PPC, not even an MP, who has immediately been disciplined by the party leadership in response.
“British Jobs For British Workers” was said by the BNP, National Front and Gordon Brown, who wasn’t disciplined as he is Prime Minister and Party Leader himself.
So what point are you trying to make? Don’t see where you’re going with the fact that one party has a member who said the wrong thing and got disciplined for it, while the other major party is led by someone who says those things?
If you’re going to try and score petty partisan points by dredging up what PPCs etc say here, then partisan responses will be made. That is why the Comments policy says to be non-partisan.
Anthony. The questions I am referring to concern the ethnic origin of immigrants-which are acceptable abd which are not. I think the apparent anomaly between the belief that many immigrants contribute to society and the belief that immigration is too high is not surprising.This is what I mean by suggesting that a debate about immigration cannot be totally honest without these concerns being addressed.Some questions cannot be asked in a widespread public poll.
DavidW.You may not know that the greatest level of support for Enoch Powell at the time was from Labour supporters.This went much deeper than Con v Lab,although you clearly would prefer to think of it that way.
As far as I could tell, that Wolverhampton Tory absolutely wasn’t saying that Enoch Powell was right that foreigners should be deported or stopped coming in completely. He quoted that Powell said that immigration had changed the country, and said ‘he was right. Britain has changed dramatically”
I think that’s an entirely uncontentious statement the vast majority of people, including those on the left, would agree with. He just said Brtain had changed, not that the change was inherently good or inherently bad.
The attack on this seems to me to be using logic along the lines of: ‘You agreed with Hitler when he said ‘we must make Germany Great’ so you must also agree with Hitler’s other ideas’.
In other words, its just an attempt to associate the Conservatives with a taboo figure from the past by any means possible. In my opinion, some of the other things this guy said in his article were a bit dodgy, but the press have picked on the (in my opinion) entirely uncontentious references to Powell.
Already Peter Hain has claim that these comments prove the Tory party has ‘a racist underbelly’. I think the quantitative jump between one man writing an article and hundreds of thousands of activisits is something of a leap of logic, however.
But what should Cameron do? Despite the logic of th case, I’d still sack this guy- he is now a liability in political terms even though his crime is minimal or non-existent.
Philip Thompson [1:13]
Quite right.
Was it not the Labour Party who so heavily critisised a Tory MP [Patrick Mercer?] for making “racist” comments about the army and demanded his resignation, only to invite him into Mr Brown’s big tent shortly thereafter. There were high hopes in the Labour Party, that he would jump ship during the Consevative Party Conference [in order to cause maximum embarrassment to the party the so-called "racist" had left, not to the party who having so openly attacked him, now sought his allegiance - OBVIOUSLY!].
This clearly demonstrates the “racism” tag being used for shallow political motives. It should be used clearly and accurately and not “implied” in order to besmerch whole organisations or for partisan purposes.
Seems to be a lot of partisan talk from DavidW without a mention from anyone - it’s not because he is left leaning perhaps ? Not that i object - i actually like a healthy debate on the subject matter - but I seem to be criticised for it .
Collin - I’ve seem some like that in the past, I’ll try and dig them out in tne week.
Philip Thompson 1.26am
Thanks-I found Prof DG Blanchflower’s study of Jan 2007.He is a member of BoE MPC.
His conclusion was that the overall effect on the economy -at the GDP per capita level-is statistically insignificant-perhaps 1/10th of a percent positive.The key effect is dampening inflationary pressures.
He does however point up the dramatic increase in UK immigration since the turn of the Millenium after a long period of net emigration/low population growth. Since 1998 net immigration has exceeded net births minus deaths, which itself is also increasing due to the age profile of immigrants.
What is not clear to me is how the effects of overcrowding are factored into his calculations-housing & infrastructure use etc.
In the Times today it is reported that ONS have produced new statistics.For “working age jobs” since 1997, UK born workers have taken 0.3 million and foreign-born workers have taken 1.4 million.By this count 81% of new jobs have gone to immigrants, and in the last five years UK born employee jobs have fallen whilst those of foreign workers has continued to rise.
The ONS makes significant caveats about the accuracy & completeness of source data, notably the LFS and IPS.
The recent ONS Population projections for + 4.4 million people by 2016, and + 10.4 million people by 2031 indicate that direct net immigration will account for 48% of these additional people.
Given that Prof. Blanchflower’s study indicates no statistically significant effect on UK’s GDP per capita, one wonders how the UK’s citizens are expected to come to terms with the changes which will result in the equivalent of 10 new cities the size of Birmingham in the next 25 years?
These changes are huge & significant and politicians will do well to heed the concerns being expressed already in areas of large demographic change. The LGA’s warnings about Local Authority pressures in areas like Boston Lincs. and Corby Northants are an indicator of a continuing change-not one-off problems to be discounted.
In the IPSOS MORI Poll the statistically most significant responses were for -dissatisfaction with government handling ( 72%) / Need for tougher laws ( 64%) / Too many immigrants ( 68%) / Government dishonesty about scale of immigration ( 80%) / Lack of cofidence that Local public services will cope ( 77%)
In the face of these opinions now, and in the knowledge of the ONS population forecasts, it really is an inadequate response by politicians to simply repeat the mantra ” immigration is good for the economy” .
David Cameron tried to bring all the factors associated with large demographic change together in his recent speech. I hope he has the courage to develope his themes and ignore the charge of racism when it is flung.
This is a serious subject with potentially very serious outcomes for the country.
A policy of “politically correct” blind acceptance of these changes will only serve the purposes of a very nasty political party indeed.
forgrget about one legged roofers(remember the one filling his pockets with our cash,hence the muted response to the comments from dc)
what about the labour party starting to think about an alternative leader to brown,it wont be long.
David W - I have learned from only a few months posting on here and months of lurking where the vast majority lie in the political spectrum on here.I think it’s best to let them all have the central office love-in together on here and not get them wound up.They get a bit personal then.
I wiil be back to add a couple more to the small minority on here nearer the election.
Bye for now.
T Jones - I rather agree with your sentiments; I happen to be Chair of a local Fabian Branch so it’s obvious where my loyalties lie but I hope my occasional contributions to this site have been objective and relevant. As bit of a political nerd I have a look at the comments fairly frequently and have to say I’m generally not impressed with the covert partisanship which permeates a fair number of comments.
The apparent confusion in attitudes to immigration are shown in the local campaigns often mounted when an immigrant family or individual faces deportation. Once a human face is put on the “immigrant threat to our infrastructure/society/culture” (insert your populist tabloid headline here) then people put aside their fears.
A point made well on Question Time last week was, what if the 1.5m largely economically-active migrants in the UK were re-patriated, only for the largely retired and ageing British ex-pats in Spain, Canada, Portugal etc to be sent home? How would our economy and infrastructure cope with that?
I sincerely hope that the fire at the vegetable packing plant which killed four firefighters was not the result of an arson attack targetting migrant workers. If it was then it would be a tragic illustration of why the debate on this subject is so dangerous.
What’s the position about how important it is?
Warren
It isn’t the debate which is dangerous.
It is the supression of debate , and couching it in terms of your last paragraph that is dangerous.
The scale of demographic change forecast by ONS obliges rational & objective assessments from anyone claiming to be a serious politician.
The point made by Peter Cairns ( 12.38pm) in his penultimate paragraph is very well made.
Colin: To address your concern about “needing 10 new cities the size of Birmingham”, if that is the need (which is a claim I’d have serious questions over), then my response if I was in power would be . . . over the next quarter of a city, build 10 new cities the size of Birmingham. Problem solved. Its not as if we’re running out of land, 75% of the country is still greenfield.
Before popping off to Central Office for port with Michael Howard I would ask people to ponder on this, if normal people feel that they can’t discuss a topic openly and without fear, then only the abnormal can.
PS Who is bringing the stilton?
Australia
For interest–those following the forthcoming Australia election–
‘The latest opinion poll shows Labor keeping its election-winning lead as the election campaign enters its fourth week.
The Galaxy poll published in News Limited papers has Labor gaining one point on the two-party preferred vote to 54 per cent.
The Coalition has dropped one point to 46 per cent, giving Labor an eight-point lead.’
If labour wins it would have control of all state governments and the federal parliament; a feat last achieved by the conservatives in the late 1960s.
Mike Richardson, I referenced the Comments Policy to DavidW so don’t get you’re saying nobody has.
DavidW, the silly PPC is now a silly ex-PPC. Happy? Clearly this nonsense isn’t tolerated in the modern Conservative Party, unlike the party led by Mr “British Jobs for British Workers” who tempted Patrick Mercer to cross the floor after being sacked by Cameron. Any chance of an apology off you DavidW?
Sorry Anthony if responding to this has been too partisan.
Philip Thompson
In England 13% of land is designated Green Belt.
It is estimated by Social Market Foundation that 2m new homes will have to be built on Green Belt.
National Trust have just announced that they will turn their attention to protection of Green Belt erosion by purchase of land where appropriate.
We will I hope be entering a debate on what sort of balance between urban areas & rural areas we want in our country. How many more roads and airports ?
How important is conservation of the Natural Heritage and protection of bio-diversity? How important are green spaces and places? In short what quality of life do we want?
I hope such a debate takes place , and that at least one of the questions asked is :-
If continued large scale immigration requires further urbanisation & infrastructure, but does not increase per capita GDP to any statistically significant degree, what is the point of it ?
There are many problems with this type of poll on this subject in particular.
One that seems very obvious is that 15% seems a low figure for just about any question. But 15% of people claiming that it is causing problems in their particular area is in fact a very large number.
Baring in mind that very large areas have no immigrants at all and very large areas have virtually none at all. Plus the fact that many people now days would not notice anyway because it had not affected them personally YET. And the fact that many of those asked would have been immigrants themselves. 15% could be described as a very high figure indeed.
We do have a long standing problem with our over democratic thinking.
It is not, ‘not a problem’ just because a low amount or less then 50% think something or claim to have a personal problem, that should be addressed.
We dont for instance ban homo sexual sex because it is a minority passtime good or bad luck or a life style choice because most people dont do it, or think homo sexually is either against the will of their personal god or dangerous to their health. We do smoking in enclosed public spaces, which in a free country is absolutely disgusting beyond belief, but thats another issue.
Those 15% may have had their lives permanently blighted by too much immigration. There wages might have be seriously affected. There housing educational and job prospects taken away or reduced. They may have had even a member of their family die prematurely because of lack of NHS treatment.
A poll on this subject could hind more then it reveals very easily.
Personally I am in favor of open borders along with a drastic reduction in welfare rights, but thats beside the point.
Colin: If immigration does not decrease per capita GDP what is the point in stopping it? Besides which, even if you keep GDP/capita the same, a higher population or one with different demographics can be beneficial.
As a matter of principle I believe in small governments, that is why I am a Conservative. I believe in freedoms for individuals to lead their own lives. That includes for me ideally a freedom to decide where they want to live their lives. In an ideal world for me, and I know its not possible, we’d have completely open borders anyone who wanted to able to enter or leave at will. If I decided I wanted to go live and work in Australia or America or wherever I could board a plane next week and go, and vice-versa.
ANTHONY - “MORI found deep dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of immigration, 72% of people were disatisfied with only 15% satisfied. 64% of people thought laws on immigration should be tougher, not counting the 12% who wanted it stopped altogether. 68% thought there were too many immigrants in Britain”
_____________________________________________________
It was inevitable that the first manifesto of this current government which said that they wanted an open door policy for everyone wanting to come to the UK would backfire on them and unfortunately for the whole of the UK ! The POLL results in Anthony’s comments above are no surprise - it’s very hard to find anyone who is happy with the way life has changed in the last 10 years on everybody’s high street - it is true immigrants from Eastern Europe , the Far East & the Indian sub continent will work hard and do contribute to the economy - but unfortunately when you have an open door policy like the current one we have - everybody is pouring in because the word is out about the open door and handouts .
Takes me back to the old Tremeloes song “even the bad times are good” - certainly for a lot of people in the world just looking for an easy life and a generous handout .
I’ve gotta say - i am part of the 68% and the 72% - but what can we do now - it’s too late , the damage is done !! The only option now is to close the door altogether - sad but true .
Philip Thompson
The point of stopping it is , as I have indicated, to keep a reasonable balance ( whatever that may defined as) between urban sprawl & related infrastructure-and countryside -ie quality of life.
How many people is too many people? If your answer is there is no limit then I disagree.If you agree that their may be a limit then it has to be defined.
There are two sperate issues that seem to be getting muddled here and a few people quite frankly going off the rails.
Firstly lets look at the demographic challenges.
Behind all the talk of immigration, what we are seeing is a change from the recnet past where our population has been relatively balanced, between immigration and migration.
Up until the new entrants to the EU, principally Poland, the numbers entering was balanced by the numbers leaving. However, we still needed more homes.
The two things driving this were household size and life expectancy.
Take glasgow as an example it now has a population of about 650,000 when a generation or so ago it was close to 1 million. So have 300,000 houses been pulled down?
Of course not but if in the fifties you averaged 4 people to a house you needed 250,000 houses in glasgow. If you now have 2.5 people to a house then 250,000 houses gives you a population of 625,000.
Longevity is another factor. A very simplified way to see it is this. If people live to be 60 then and get there house when they are 20, it comes on the market every 40 years. If they now live to be 80, it’s every 60 years so to maintain the same turn over you need 25% more housing.
This has all been compounded by things like RtB, where the debt issue has effectively stopped Councils building houses. This has meant supply has dropped while demand has risen, and the private sector has built to meet demand rather than need.
The overall effect of this is that middle income people have had a bonanza while people on low incomes have been increasingly marginalisied. It is in these areas of low income where the tension is highest where you tend to get immigrants looking for cheap property.
Thus the tension at the lower end of the housing market where demand outstrips supply but where people can’t afford the rising prices. We also get BtoR where at the same time as the number with no homes rises so to does the number who own two or more.
This has to be tackled long term, and what the current influx from the EU highlights is how we have been sleepwalking as our society fundamentally changes. But it’s not the fault of immigrants, as they haven’t so much created the issue as brought it to our attention.
Stopping immigration might help in some way but it won’t address the problem that we don’t have enough affordable housing. At present the people coming in are boosting the economy and are net contributers, which means we should be in a position to expand housing.
But if we didn’t have them we would still have a move to fewer people per house and an aging population with those most in need earning less than immigrants in work.
In the long term we need to look at how we house people and look after them. By 2050 the number of older people will be a real issue and who is going to look after them.
We need a better pension system with people putting money away like Australia and ideally a lot more young people.
However the problem is that the Poles and others coming in now in their 20’s, will be nearly 60 in 2050, so rather than the solution they may be part of the problem.
Now what if we ask the young in the next half of the century to pay for that through tax?, They may well decide to say
” Cold, wet high tax Britain, to hell with that I am going to live in warm sunny low tax Croatia”.
Here in the Highlands the population in and around inverness has been growing for over adecade, but in Sutherland it has been falling and as it’s mostly young people who are leaving the average age has gone up and up. As a council we are struggling to find, let alone pay people to do homa care in a remote area.
That could well be the fture for huge parts of rural Britain.
In health and Social work, as with many low paid occupations, migrants are providing care and services at a cost we can afford. Get rid of them and the cost of care and the taxes to pay for it go through the roof and the number in work expected to pay for it rises.
Again back in the fifties when people left school at 14, they worked all there lives and usually retire at 65 and died at 70. That’s 50 years working and 5 retired. So (extremely simplified) if you put away 5% of your wages every year, you could have 50% of your wages in retirement.
Now a lot of us are effectively entering the labour market at 20, want to retire at 60 and expect to live to at least 80. Thats 40 years at work to pay for 20 retired. So if you want 50% earnings you bettter start to put away 25% every year.
Long term challenges that need serious political debate and a national concensus. So what are we getting…..we’ll thats the losing your heads bit.
We’re are getting petty mud slinging, and name calling and a knee jerk reaction to the recent period of rapid migration, as politicians react to peoples immedite concerns.
But then if you have effectively a two party FPTP system with both parties obsessed with spin and PR what do you expect.
For me this highlights a fundamental flaw in the way we plan for the future, where as it seems for most posters here it is just an opportunity to apportion blame and take cheap shots, mostly ending with,
“It’s all your parties fault and mine would put it right”.
If what we’ve seen here in what is generally a thoughtful and retrained forum is an indication of how Britain is going to address this then all we’ll get is more of the same.
It will be a period of rapid migration followed by hysteria and putting the breaks on before the cycle starts again with no one ever planning any further ahead than the next election ( or indeed poll).
Peter.
Colin -
I agree that immigration numbers should be monitored, along with other demographic statistics such as the number of “non-income generators”, but the question of actual numerical limits ceases to be necessary if one focusses entirely on the supportibility factors rather than the actual numbers.
Clearly, it is “unfair” (I expect to hear that word from Cameron about lots of issues”) for non-English speaking immigrant children to take up the majority of resources in the education system to learn English, and I’m sure there are more and better examples of instability caused by lack of controls/”fairness”. NHS services probably feature too.
I live in a high-immigrant area, and I don’t spend time in the queue at the supermarket wishing there were fewer immigrants in the queue ahead of me.
From a philosophical viewpoint, I’m glad that some people on the left and right of centre are in favour of open borders. The problem lies in the notion of “handouts”, the perception that our hospitality is abused.
If all sides can address immigration through the issues of equitable supply of and payment for services then the debate is cleaned of rascism. The argument over the is more acceptable has surely gone?
There must be at leaast a few simple steps towards a “fairer” system (I’d include compulsory language teaching, and limitting of benefits according to length of stay/previous NI contributions), plus some sort of social contract that allowed the deportation of those convicted of imprisonable offences within the first few years.
I hope we all agree the if you’re in favour of freedom, then you can’t restrict it unduly to those who were born here.
“the argument over the acceptability of one ethnicity over another is surely gone” I meant.
As to the minor furore over the PPC who has resigned, I would quickly point out that he was not sacked. He was asked by Spelman to apologise and he said that he would not because he was not sorry for what he said. The problem for the Tory leadership is inherent in the PPC’s response. He thinks Enoch Powell was right and, indeed, so does much of the party nationally. There is of course a perfectly intellectual argument to be made for what Powell said and I am quite sure that there are some here who would defend it. Cameron’s problem is that he is too frightened to do so for fear of being labelled racist. His calculation is that those who believe in what Powell said, will vote Tory anyway because Cameron perceives their desperation for government to be greater than their beliefs on this issue. In that regard, I suspect he is right.
My view is that what Powell did wrong was not his warning as to the potential effects of immigration but the choice of language he adopted. As a highly intelligent man he knew full well what the consequences would be of using terms such as “rivers of blood”. It was designed to shock and it did. If he had wanted a sensible, calm and rational debate on the subject, he could have called for one without intentionally raising fears. That was his crime.
As to the current debate on immigration, I will stay judgment until we have some idea of what Cameron’s policy on immigration will be. Thus far, all we know is that he will reduce the level of immigration which is as meaningful as saying that he will cut taxes or make everyone happier. Until we know by how much he intends to reduce immigration, how he intends to implement that policy and how he will pay for it, it is an academic debate.
John T
I concur with your thoughts on improving the integration of immigrants on a basis which might be seen as fair.
It seems to me that all immigrants tend to live together-at least initially. This is as true for Brits in Spain as for Poles & Bangladeshis etc in UK. It may be unavoidable but it does make integration more difficult.
As we begin to see the mistakes of multiculturalism’s insistance on “celebrating” difference, and move to the ideas of shared values in a British context, perhaps the tendency for the symptoms of social pressures to be expressed in ethnic terms will fade?
I don’t agree that unfettered, uncontrolled, illimited immigration is sensible or desirable-for the reasons I have given.
I believe that conservation of the Natural Heritage is as important for the well being of humans as it is for the retention of biodiversity of wild species & habitats. These, once lost under the next swathe of concrete are gone forever.
Controlling where possible the density & location of the human population on these small islands is important in that context-and it feeds into the democratic rights of people to a say in the way their locality & community changes over time.
The issue as you rightly say involves “fairness”-but also “consent” in my view.
Please could both sides stop with this ridiculous arguing about who is most racist. It should be perfectly obvious that Nigel Hastilow has been disciplined for his comments so they are not official Tory policy and were rather less provocative than is being implied anyway.
On the other side I think I’m going to just about explode the next time I hear someone compare Gordon to the BNP or say “British Jobs for British workers” is illegal under EU law. I’m British - I have a British job. It’s not illegal! It’s only “No British jobs for Non-British workers” Which would be illegal.
Rant over. :o)
Warren
The point made on Question Time not well-made - it was foolish and glib. The ageing British living abroad are not much of a charge on Britain except for pensions that they contributed to and worked for. They are a nett contributor of capital to, and employers of labour in, their host countries.
I remain to be convinced that my point made earlier about the overall tax profile of immigrant workers is incorrect. I was not so naive as to overlook that someone would seize it and point out that there are many Asian doctors here. I have heard the assertion many times and it varies from a nett contribution of £5-billion a year to a ridiculous claim of £40-billion annually - those all from Labour politicians or immigrant interest groups.
I realise that statistics that come from the Government are essentially worthless guesses but if the information is availabe from an unimpeachable source then let us have it published. I would be satified if Inland Revenue told us but, of course, I know that they keep no such statistics. DWP has shown that its grasp on figures is a bit shaky but I suppose that somewhere they have the figures of benefits paid out to foreign-born people. Have they ever published them?
Jack,
The latest NewsPoll [http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/newspoll-6nov.pdf] has, for the two party preferred vote, the ALP on 53% (-1) and the Coalition on 47% (+1). The Coalition can on around 48% of the vote because the ALP’s vote is more concentrated than the Coalition’s.
Colin - I’m with you on the preservation of “National Heritage”, but probably disagree on what are its most important components.
I loathe the word “unfettered” - it suggests that “fettered” should be regarded as better, and I find that verb inhumane.
Celebrating difference is a hman instinct, and really ought not to be a Government policy! Far too dogmatic and impersonal.
Hi John-
re your typo(?)-I said-and was refering to Natural Heritage ie-Natural habitat & the species which rely on them.. You may have misunderstood me ?
Victor-
A point well made re British Expats. It might also have been said that if 1.5 million did return home & 1.5 immigrants also ,as in the Question Time illustration-then 1.5 million of our “workless but able to work” might have come off benefit and into work.
There are 5 million said to be in this category. This really is a nonsense piece of economics when their unqualifiedness or reluctance to take jobs is compensated for by immigration.The net result would appear to be loss to the Exchequer in benefit payments plus pressure on housing & public services from immigration.
This topic reaches out into the effectiveness of education , vocational training, policy on benefit payments etc.
Colin - It wasn’t a typo, I did mis-read you! I don’t want to get into an exchange about bio-diversity further than to say I don’t believe our existence as a species is threatened by over-population in these islands as much as by over-exploitation of natural resources on a global scale-An extra 10million dis / re-placed here or there pales when compared with an extra 2 billion overall.
John T
Agreement at last-absolutely agree!. Global population growth & forecast growth, particularly in Africa/Asia/China is the elephant in the room.
It is destroying natural habitat at a frightening rate ( and as you say consuming resources of every kind).I am far more concerned about that than the fate of homo-sapiens.
In the Sunday Times Sir Andrew Green gave the opinion that immigration from the EU accession countries would tail off and level out for two reasons -1) Economic opportunites will improve back home. 2) Germany , France & other EU members have closed their borders to accession countries till ( I think) 2011-they will then take their share.
Green points to the huge population growth forecast for developing countries, and claims that this is where the great tide of global migration will emanate from.We will not be immune .
The vast majority of the people in this country including the membership of all three main parties are not racist but they have long been denied a mature debate on the subject of immigration by the howlings of the politically correct mob on one hand and by the xenophobic utterances of unreconsructed facists on the other hand.Disregarding remote hilly areas like the Highlands-sorry Peter Cairns-we are clearly a very overcrowded little island and it simply does’nt make sense to have an ‘open doors’ policy. A balance has to be struck between allowing enough people in to do the jobs we seem to be unwilling to do ourselves-but perhaps nevertheless persuading a few of the indigenous workshy to get on their bikes-and keeping the incoming numbers under control. That is not the position today and if-for fear of being tagged racist- the main opposition party cannot come up with policies to address this issue as with any other then the void will be filled by those with far less scruples. That is the lesson we should by now have learned from history.
British electors are not at all confused about immigration. They’re better informed than the politicians. As I understand it, the popular consensus is that in theory immigration could bring the United Kingdom benefits, but that there are insuperable problems, notably the provision of social facilities like housing and transport, that make anything more than minimal immigration (e.g. genuine, repeat genuine, asylum seekers, genuine brides/bridegrooms and genuinely time-limited interchange of staff within international companies) impracticable in the UK now or for the forseeable future. This view is far more sensible than politicians who kowtow to managers wanting short-term financial gain, regardless of the broader social costs, instead of providing proper opportunities for United Kingdom people, of whatever background. The grotesque situation of UK medical graduates being unable to find posts, and very highly qualified school leavers not getting into medical school in the first place, whilst more senior doctors from abroad get work permits is just an extreme example of what is going on, and has been going on for decades.
If the country, or more specifically the parts of the country in which immgrants congregate, is full then it is full. You can’t with integrity start favouring people from one nation as opposed to another (let alone discriminate depending on their appearance)or by having points based systems for people managers would like in the short-term because the nation has not been competent enough to plan its labour resources strategically. That is not to say that labour movement should not be as free as possible between nations where the movements will not be impossibly one-way (and don’t forget skilled pople entering the UK to work are not using their skills wherever they come from).
I recollect that Michael Portillo, who is by no means a racist, has observed on “This Week” that the electorate has not been offered a choice of policies on immigration (because people and party members who differ from the establishment get tarred as racist, although he did not say so). Politicians wishing to disregard the views of electors as a result get away with far too much. For instance, I recollect on “Question Time” some weeks ago panellists claiming that extra houses for the predicted population would only take up 2% of our land. Maybe so, but our total land area includes the huge proportion of the land which is in places like the Highlands of Scotland, and it overlooks that the land surrounding towns which is built on is often the best agricultural land. But I don’t recollect the point being challenged.
The 72% dissatisfaction with immigration policy reflects a Pandora’s Box that Labour has been sitting on, and it is likely to become a running sore for them that will not go away. I suspect that this is the more so because the 36% who disagree that immigration is good in general are more likely to change their votes (if only between right-wing parties) than the 48% who agree.
It is also the case that key marginals with which I am acquainted, such as Sheppey, The Wrekin and South Ribble, are seats which are particularly likely to be affected by consequences of immigration such as excessive house building. If Cameron continues to highlight the problems of immigration whilst, rightly, emphasising that these issues are different from race questions, Labour will be in trouble if the Government is seen in this area as being incompetent, cynical, and putting interests other than those of the electors first. These are the perceptions the Polls currently suggest, however regretable they may be for non-political as well as political reasons.
P.S. I did not see the “Question Time” about ex-pats, but there is a whole complex of issues relating to the export of British capital, rather than its reinvestment in particular to meet the needs of global warming, that needs separate consideration. In particular, from the point of view of this site postal votes by ex-pats, to which I am opposed for reasons including the impossibility of ensuring that such votes are cast secretly and fairly in accordance with proper procedures, raise important questions.
I have to say reading through this is turning out to be the most depressing tread I’ve come across since this polling report started, and they say Scots are whingers……..
Peter.
“Overall though a lot of the answers seemed a but confused…”
…as were the questions.
Warren
I can tell you that in so far as the “human face” is of failed asylum seekers children long settled at Glasgow Schools it is a hot issue here. The former coalition leader (a decent man and a former teacher) thought he had got a deal, but was let down by his Westminster party colleagues.
In that respect there is much in common with the other issues which led to the SNP victory, as there was with the running of the campaign itself.
Fred S.Your comments are right on the button. The only point you dont mention relates to safety and security, a prime rsponsibility of government. It is this which leads to nervousness about immigration. Policy(such as it is) over the last 15 years has lead to the ambivalent attitude of the electorate.Unfortunately,as I said before,a differential policy on immigration cannot be debated without accusations of racism,or,in the case of Peter Cairns,of whingeing.Perhaps he can suggest how informed discussion-and poll voting- can take place without detailed information on the problem of security.
I really get tired of the ‘immigration’ issue; mainly as it is confused between refugees and legal migration.
I get very annoyed as no-one considers it the other way; I wonder how the people in Spain / France / Australia see the impact of old Brits clogging up their health systems, taking away their jobs, lifting local real estate prices to record levels etc… I wonder what the impact would be if the idiots who say ban all migration realised the other impact which ought to be that Brits overseas had to come home; that’d clog up the housing market / NHS / skew the job market etc.. yes, folks migrants do come to the UK and many Brits migrate to other countries.
And let’s not forget that amigration adds much more to the economy than it takes out and that children of migrants do better, on average, than local children. Why? Migrants do the dirty jobs that locals do not do as they make a positive move to change countries so their children will have chances they didn’t so they care about their children and oversee their education. This is true on research from all over the world. But too many English just can’t handle the change.
Go see a real multi-cultural country such as Australia. Stand in the middle of Sydney and see the complete ethnic diversity. England really is a white Anglo-Saxon country with a couple of pockets of ethnic diversity although it likes to believe that it is multi-cultural.
Sorry, I know this is a bit of a whinge and this should be for poll discussion but I just got very depressed reading too many of the comments.
So Peter Cairns thinks the English are whinging? You can always rely on the Scot Nats to get in a dig at us somwhere along the line. Must be something to do with the more ‘caring society’ they claim exists north of the border but which in 22 years of living there I have unaccountably failed to discover.And whilst along with Peter Cairns the vast majority of Scots are no more racist than or indeed about the English some of a certain political persuasion just cannot resist making points tinged with racist innuendo. It started out with sly references to the number of black players in the English football team graduated to sniggers about not having seen a single white man on the tube back to Heathrow and has now reached the point where they openly boast about the relative lack of black or colored people in their midst as compared to England. I happen to think that the English have managed to build a remarkably tolerant and well intergrated multi racial society-it is a pity some Scots see fit to sneer at us for our efforts.
Nick,
I wasn’t commenting on the English but rather this blog which seemed to be getting more and more hysterical.
The amount of immigration in to England isn’t at the crisis level people suggest and as I made clear it has highlighted a lack of UK long term planning, not caused it. Nor did I point out that Scotland is different.
If you look at the Scottish results concern about immigration has grown here too, but it still lags behind the UK and other things are higher. The fact that Scotland has different prriorities doesn’t make us smug or better, just different.
I don’t think we are any more caring but what we have had is a falling population and no real large scale immigration since the the sixties.
The effect of that is that Scotland has had far longer to get used to it’s immigrant population and with a need to expand the population has been fairly laid back about recent EU immigrants, although that has become more of an issue in the last year or two.
Actually one thing that has held any resentment in check has been that there is a strong historic link between Poland and Scotland. During WW2 the Poles were based in Scotland ( I think their HQ was in fife) and in effect defended the country.
At the end of the war a lot of Poles decided to stay rather than return to live under Stalin ( who wouldn’t) so for the last fifty years or so Scotland has had a large Polish community.
In addition Scotlands asian population is distinct in that it is more middle class than in England and we really didn’t have any major immigration from the Carribean. Going back to the start of the century Scotland had an influx of italians predominantly from NW italy, who integrated very well.
All this explains how by default rather than planning Scotland has had a lower pace and scale of immigration. In some respects we have been lucky because we haven’t suffered from that lack of planning.
here’s something to help the debate… facts…. From the ONS
UK population grows to
60,587,000 in mid-2006
Coverage United Kingdom
Theme Population and Migration
The population of the United Kingdom was 60,587,000 in mid-
2006, an increase of 349,000 (0.6 per cent) on mid-2005,
according to new statistics published today by the Office for
National Statistics. In the five years since 2001, population has
increased by an average 0.5 per cent per year.
The latest increase was smaller than the 393,000 rise (0.7 per
cent) in the previous year.
Increases in births, decreases deaths and changes in the pattern
of international migration into and out of the United Kingdom have
all contributed to population growth since 2001.
Overall, migration and other related changes accounted for 55 per
cent of population growth in the year to mid-2006, compared with
68 per cent in the previous year and 71 per cent in the year to mid
2002.
Contribution of births and deaths
Natural change (the difference between births and deaths) has
increased and contributed 159,000 to population growth in the
year to mid-2006, 127,000 in the previous year and 62,000 in the
year to mid-2002.
Births in each yearincreased from 663,000 in the year to mid-2002 to 734,000 in the year to mid-2006 while deaths decreased in the same period, from 601,000 to 575,000.
In the year to mid-2006, the flow of long term migrants into
the UK was 574,000. This was 25,000 lower than in the
previous year, but 38,000 higher than in the year to mid-
2004.
Long term migration from the UK reached 385,000 in the
year to mid-2006, the highest figure since the introduction
of the current indicator in 1991. This was 49,000 more than
in the previous year, but only 34,000 more than in the year
to mid-2004.
Net international migration (the difference between long
term migration into and out of the UK) was 189,000 in
2006. While this was 73,000 less than in the previous year
(262,000), it was similar to the mid-2004 figure (185,000)
and 41,000 higher than the figure for the year to mid 2002
(148,000).
Estimates of Total International Migration by citizenship
show that the change in long term migrant numbers between
2005 and 2006 varied by citizenship and direction of migration:
Migration levels to the UK by British and other EU citizens
were similar in the years to mid 2005 and mid 2006. The
main decreases between 2005 and 2006 were for
Commonwealth citizens (down 23,000 to 179,000) and
Other Foreign Nationals (down 17,000 to 140,000).
The main increases in migration from the UK between
2005 and 2006 occurred among non-British EU citizens
(up 20,000 to 62,000) and Other Foreign Nationals (up
18,000 to 65,000).
Mid-year population estimates relate to the usually resident
population, which includes long term international migrants.
ONS international migration figures are based on the UN
recommended definition of a long term migrant – someone
changing their country of usual residence for at least a year.
They do not include people who come to the UK for less than a year.
These are referred to as short term migrants and are not included
in the usually resident population estimates. ONS has published
plans for developing estimates of short term migrants, including
the release of national estimates in October 2007. The short term
migration estimates will supplement existing population statistics.
Other key points
The UK population is ageing. In the year to mid-2006, the largest
percentage growth in population was at ages 85 and over (6 per
cent) and the number in this age group reached a record
1,243,000. The number of people of retirement age increased by
1 per cent, to 11,344,000, and the number at working ages
increased by 0.8 per cent, to 37,710,000. The number aged under
16 decreased by 0.4 per cent to 11,537,000 people.
Population growth rates varied within the United Kingdom.
In the year to mid-2006, growth was fastest in Northern Ireland, at 1 per
cent (to 1,742,000 people). Growth was slowest in Wales, with an
increase of 0.4 per cent to 2,966,000, similar to Scotland with
growth of 0.4 per cent to 5,117,000. The population of England
grew by 0.6 per cent to 50,763,000. This pattern is consistent with
the previous year where the greatest growth was also seen in
Northern Ireland.
Within England, all regions showed an increase in population.
The biggest percentage increases, of 0.8 per cent, were in the
East Midlands, East and London.
The population estimates published today also include estimates
for all local authorities in the UK together with Strategic Health
Authority areas in England.
In England and Wales there were five local authority areas where
the population increased by 11 per cent or more over the five
years since 2001 (Westminster, Camden, South
Northamptonshire, Forest Heath and Rutland).
In the same period the largest reductions in local authority population in England and Wales were around 2 per cent and occurred in Rushmoor,
Middlesbrough, Sefton and Burnley.
The estimates released today incorporate the improved methods
for estimating international migration, announced on 24 April
2007 as well as the refinements announced on 24 July. ”
The ONS experimental breakdown of ethnicity in 2001 (the best figure we have) has Englands population at 49,449,700 of which 42,925,800 described themselves as White English, which on my calculation is 87%.
All the above doesn’t read like a country with a real problem with immigration. It does have very high immigration to a few areas and given a lack of affordable housing that causes problems in those areas.
I find it hard to come to terms with a situation where 17 out of 20 are traditional white British but where posters on here think the country is being swamped and their culture or heritage in danger.
As I said I was depressed by the comments on here which to be honest hardy reflect a “remarkably tolerant and well integrated multi racial society”.
Actually think that by and large England and in particularly London have handled large scale migration (in and out) very well, but that isn’t reflected in the comments here.
As to us being whingers, we’re always being called whingers, but just as we are no less racist or any more caring, we don’t complain any more than anyone else. What we do have is a distinct culture and a sense of ourselves and here we view ourselves as a minority in Britain.
Who knows, maybe Scots feeling like foreigners in the UK makes us less threatened by immigration.
Peter.
Peter:-
“posters on here think the country is being swamped and their culture or heritage in danger”
I don’t recall anyone saying that-which posts are you refering to?
If you are refering to mine-I repeat-loudly- I referred to NATURAL HERITAGE ( as opposed to Built & Cultural)-ie Natural habitats & wildlife, wild places, open places-countryside.Population increase worldwide is destroying it .
Here’s another set of statistics:-
Population density -people per sq km 2006:-
England 390
Scotland 66
Source ONS who forecast that in the next 25 years ten million new people will occupy UK-an increase of 16%. Around half of this increase will be as a direct result of immigration.
Colin,
I wasn’t taking issue with you, just he general tone which seems to be based on current headline figures of “X” thousand, as opposed to 0.5% population increase when the turnover (as a share of in and out) is about 2% and may well have peaked already.
Also the ONS figures like the ones that sparked this aren’t predictions at all they are projections, they say where we will be if this continues indefinitely in to the future, and that’s extremely unlikely.
This is a good piece by Evan Davis.
link
The population density in England is 390 compared to 66 in Scotland, but that hides as much as it shows.
The population density of Glasgow is over 4,000 per Km2, in Cumbria it’s only 73 per Km2. To use national statistic as a comparison without looking at the distribution within each country them is daft.
Apart from anything else between 40% to 60% of Scotlands land area is irrelevant as it’s pretty much physically let alone economically uninhabitable ( the same can be said for Cumbria and much of Northern England).
Anyone for a house with no road access,water or electricity on a 45deg slope 3 thousand feet up the side of a mountain…..
I remember having an argument with someone in the SNP who wanted to massively expand forestry and who pointed to a map of the huge open spaces in Scotland.
I showed him the land catagory map which showed that for timber amost two thirds of Scotland was classed as type 5 or 6, trees either wouldn’t grow their or would be of such poor quality they would cost more to harvest than they were worth.
The best land in catagory 2 was in fife, but that was also scotlands best arable land, and ploughing up fields to plant tree was as daft as planting them on mountain tops.
If we are going to take this seriously we need more than “England is Full”
The popultion rising be 8% due to immigration over 25 years is only about 0.3% a year and it’s mostly young people of child baring age.
Given that without them you’ll have 0.3% anyway and that it will largely be due to longevity and an aging less active population I’d say that not bringing in migrants has it’s own problems.
My main criticisms in this whole argument have been that the UK doesn’t plan well for the future and that people are blowing this out of proportion. Every time we allow migration on an scale we get boom and bust without any long term strategy.
With the government allowed the boom we now have everyone clamouring for the breaks to be slammed on, which is exactly the kind of narrow short termism that I think has caused the problem.
For all the Tories seem to be complaining the most over the last ten years it’s exactly the sort of hands off Neo-liberalism and free market approach they favour that has got us here.
Let people get on their bikes and the market will sort it out , without the dead hand of the state is straight Norman Tebbit.
What I think we should have is a well thought out consensual population policy, but we’re unlikely to get that with everyone running around like Chicken Little saying “the sky is falling”.
Peter.
I don’t think the UK’s culture or heritage are in danger either. They are susceptible to changes which in my view are all part of what culture and heritage are about.
Jack refers to Sydney - he might as well have been talking about the London I’ve kown for many years.
The only depressing things I find is that higher immigration is generally regarded as wrong per se, that we should put “keep out” notices around our borders, and that the discussion tends toward the decadent.
We’re lucky here, and should focus a little more on the problems in the parts of the world that face real struggle.
A follow on article from today’s Scotsman (07/11/07, Yes in know interesting and the scotsman seems a contradiction in terms but there you go. I should add that the comments section is as violent and istrurbing as usuall and not for the delicate.
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1768422007
Peter.
Peter
My population density figures were to point up the general differences between the two countries.
You cannot possibly have an objective viewpoint on the urbanisation occurring in places like NE Kent, and Cambridgeshire from the vantage point of The Black Isle.
Of course there is what you so interestingly describe as “economically uninhabitable” land in both countries.I say thank god for it too. We don’t “inhabit” every bit of land available-nor should we try to.
Landscape-particularly wild landscape is very important for the well being of people and is neccessary to support the natural bio-diversity .
You are fortunate in Scotland to have so much.
It’s geographical characteristics as you say precludes building. Ours -outside the uplands of National Parks, and the increasingly vital land owned by conservation organisations, doesn’t. The creep of urban sprawl and its associated roads , airports etc is inexorable in many parts of lowland England.
The Green Belt, which is already being lost at the rate of 2500 acres pa around our conurbations is under threat from a massive house building programme, supplemented by Government plans to reduce the ability of local people to influence planning decisions.
These houses are as you rightly observe the result of lack of planning for past population increase.This is the backlog.
The situation will only get worse if the “open door” policy we currently have is allowed to continue.
A “consensual” population policy-informed by the need to balance human population with landscape area and quality-is exactly what I called for.
Unrestricted immigration , however is inimical to such a concept.
Incidentally wild landscape can be “economically” uninhabitable” and still be destroyed, as you will know from the Industrial scale wind farms built and proposed in Scotlands pristine uplands.
These installations and their infrastructure together with the with the proposal for 220km of transmission line on 200ft high pylons across the Scottish uplands are a prime example of what I am driving at. Why are they being built?-to export electricity from the most remote & beautiful parts of Scotland, in the mistaken belief that they will combat “climate change”.
If the industrialisation by wind turbines of Isle of Lewis proceeds it will be an environmental disaster. And for what? So that Landowners & Developers can cash in on ROC premiums , and the ever increasing population of UK can go on increasing its energy demands via transmission lines stretching to what were the pristine peat bogs of Lewis?
You can soon wave goodbye to that symbol of Scotlands wild places, The Golden Eagle if this carries on.
You were right indeed to say that there has been a lack of planning for population and energy.None so noticable as the disaster occurring in the Scottish Landscape since Brian Wilson re-designated it “an energy resource”
Our equivalent down here is to cover the uplands of the North East in turbines in order to save the planet-whilst at the same time building thousands of new homes & expand Stansted Aiport in the Cambridgeshire countryside.
Colin,
“You cannot possibly have an objective viewpoint on the urbanisation occurring in places like NE Kent, and Cambridgeshire from the vantage point of The Black Isle.”
Yes I can, I don’t need to visit Antartica to know I don’t want to live their.
I can pick up all the relevant information I need from an oppinion from open sources. If we all restricted our selves to direct experience then this site would be pretty empty.
The “creep of urban sprawl” isn’t a new thing it’s been happening in the South East for decades, I know I lived in Baldock in Beds for a while in the late 80’s. It wasn’t caused by immigration, and few of the recent influx of immigrants are buying new homes on the green belt.
I haven’t seen many complaints about the march of new housing from the millions of people who have made money out of selling them in the last decade or so.
Like I have said migration has highlighted our lack of planning, not caused it.
As it is we don’t have an open door policy we have the free movement of people in the EU ( excluding Romania and Bulgaria) and that includes tens of thousands of Britains going the other way putting up prices in other peoples countries.
You don’t here many complaints about that when you watch “A Place in the Sun” on prime time UK TV. But then that’s us going to there countries and not the other way round.
Equally you haven’t heard that many people complaining about getting a cheap cash in hand Polish plumber, or us stripping the third world of doctors and nurses from a quarter century.
What we have had is less than 5 years of very rapid inward migration from Eastern Europe that we weren’t well prepared for coinciding with the consequences of not building enough houses for over twenty years creating a demand that has made house prices go through the roof.
As to wind farms they won’t stop climate change, India and China will see to that, but they will provide energy security.
80% of Scotlands electricity comes from just 4 plants, two nuclear and two coal. With oil near as damn it at $100 a barrel ( even if it’s ours we still pretty much need to pay the market price) and nuclear unpopular, we need to clean up the coal ones and not replace the nuclear.
Helpfully Scotland produces more electricity than we need so along with efficency we only need to reach about 30% renewables to fill that gap. On shore wind will probably produce about 10%.
Most of the big wind farms are actually near the central belt, places like the Fenwick Moor or Ayrshire. Things like Brian Wilsons monstrosity on the Western Isles at the opposite end of the country from the demand don’t make a lot of sense.
But then Wilson has long personal connections with the area, and as well as pushing it as a gaint wind farm he also supported nuclear including Hunterston, which surprise surprise just happened to be in his own constituency.
He still regularly pops up on telly to talk about energy policy even though his energy review was effectively binned within a year of being published.
What we do need is more domestic turbines and on-shore scaled to meet local need, so that we place less emphasis on pushing power out of big power stations.
At about 10-15% on shore wind Scotland has more than enough space to allow it without enviromental damage.
You will always get people close buy complaining and not all sites are appropriate, but dispersing them sensitively on moorland in close proximity to towns and cities is better than a handfull of megastations producing hundreds of thosands of tonnes of Co2 or thosands of tonnes of nuclear waste.
I’ve seen the Novar wind farm every time I’ve gone over the ridge to Dingwall for over ten years and in the last year I’ve been able to see the new one at Farr out my window even though it’s, twenty miles away.
I love living up here and it’s a beautiful place, but to be honest the wind farms don’t bother me or the vast majority of people.
It has been badly handled just like the market led “dash for gas”, but that’s back to neo liberalism and the use of the market instead of the type of planning we saw when we developed Hydro in the fifties.
So whether it be wind farms or migrants, I just don’t buy that the problems we have created for ourselves over population or energy are other peoples fault.
In the seventies first under Thatcher and then Major and Blair we gave up long term startegic planning for the market.
People enjoyed it when it meant cheaper phone bills, electricity and water, along with rising house prices and less interference from the state and lower taxes. It is after all what people voted for.
Now with an acute housing shortage and pressure on services, people are complaining that the politicains have got it all wrong and haven’t been listening to the public.
Wrong, they did listen and gave people what they wanted, which was short termism with Jam today.
Now that we see the negitive side of some of it the public who were all to happy to vote them in seem to be trying to avoid taking responsibility for the consequences of how they voted.
Peter.
Peter
“So whether it be wind farms or migrants, I just don’t buy that the problems we have created for ourselves over population or energy are other peoples fault.”
I didn’t say they were. On the contrary they are most definitely our fault.
More people=more consumption of resources of every kind from energy to land to water to doctors.
Immigration is now, and is projected to be at least 50% of our population increase.
Since we have a huge pool of economically inactive people on welfare, much of this immigration is currently economically unneccessary.
The idea of an unpredictably variable and intermittent energy source providing “energy security” is plain daft.
There are other alternatives which would.
Peter:-
“As it is we don’t have an open door policy we have the free movement of people in the EU ..What we have had is less than 5 years of very rapid inward migration from Eastern Europe ”
From National Statistics:-
Net migration to / - from UK
thousands
Year Total British EU Commonwealth others
1996 54 -62 28 47 41
1997 47 -60 18 51 38
1998 139 -23 33 72 57
1999 163 -23 8 80 98
2000 163 -57 6 101 113
2001 172 -53 11 101 113
2002 153 -91 11 100 133
2003 151 -85 14 107 115
2004 223 -120 75 164 104
2005 185 -107 88 126 78
That table didn’t work very well-
for years 1997 to 2005 inclusive the National Stats for net migration are :-
thousands :-
British. -619
EU. +264
Commonwealth. +900
Others. +851
Net. +1396
Colin,
But compared to the rest of the EU we’re about average,
link
Try looking at the bigger picture.
Peter.
Peter
Oh we’re on to the “big picture” now are we!
I understand the big picture only too well thanks.
I just wanted to correct the quotes from you that I cited. As a summary of the key elements in UK migration patterns over the last decade they were entirely misleading-wittingly or unwittingly.
Colin,
But the bulk of it has been in the last few years and that isn’t sustainable, as it is principally due to the expansion of the EU. It has to be seen in the context of a larger population and greater movement of larger numbers of people.
Since the start of the year oil has risen from $80 a barrel to $100, a 25% increase, but that doesn’t mean that by 2010 it will be $196 a barrel ( increasing 25% year on year).
This whole debate is driven by an over reaction to a short term rapid rise in population over a short period of time.
If Poland hadn’t joined the EU we’d probably be panicking over the flow of 25-45 year olds heading for Australia and New Zealand, leaving the old to fend for themselves.
Polls deal with perception not fact. What is driving this is our old friend, “There coming over here and taking our jobs and swamping our services”.
The government is culpable of poor planning and little or no forsight, but we don’t have an open door immigration policy and there isn’t a crisis.
Britain is less densely populated than Belguim and it’s hardly going to sink in to the Channel. Rapid change can be unsettleing for people, but that doesn’t mean we should panic or that it will continue indefinitely.
The context that has sparked this has been an over rection to a large number of migrants from a new source in short period of time and an belief that weare ill prepared for a growing population.
What we are seeing is the migration equivelent of the Norther Rock, there isn’t anything fundamentally wrong, but a crisis of confidence in the system has made it in to a self fulfilling prophecy.
Peter.
Just to redress the balance
I think the LibDems are doing jolly nicely for now, and I’m looking forward to polls which show their recovery stabilising once they have a new leader.
Sorry.
Anthony,
See….. Migration works both ways.
Peter.
Peter
“This whole debate is driven by an over reaction to a short term rapid rise in population over a short period of time.”
That may be your view -it isn’t mine.
THe data for the last decade makes it clear what the nature & scale of the problem is & I am perfectly cabable of reading it & assessing it without silly comments about oil prices thanks.
I-unlike you am content to let people make their own minds up without resorting to phrases like-”There coming over here and taking our jobs and swamping our services”. There are plenty of very unpleasant people around willing to use that sort of phrase in earnest.
So I can do without people like you using it as a patronising joke.