Anti-immigrant protectionism is not the answer

Until now, it probably didn't matter a whole lot what Maurice Glasman had to say about anything. I quite happily allowed the chatter about Blue Labour to pass me by. Indeed, I probably thought there was something in the attempts to revive things like credit unions at a time of banking crises. His community projects offered a useful counterpoint to David Cameron's Big Society. But Ed Miliband was not in any position to challenge Cameron, and few cared what his 'gurus' had to say about policy. Not any more. Miliband's deft handling of the ever-widening hacking scandal has given him a new prominence, and the utterances of this guru start to matter.

As someone who has played my part in taming, if not slaying, a few sacred cows, I suppose I shouldn't really object if this 'guru' wants to start a bovine bloodbath. But when what he proposes is a troubling combination of protectionism and a view of immigration that would be seen as daringly brave in the Monday Club, it is surely time to question Miliband's wisdom in listening too closely to his views.

To be fair, there is always a bit of Maurice Glasman that is worth listening to: his wish to revive crafts and community has much merit. But it is his corollary of those ideas that can be worrying.

In an interview published in today's Daily Telegraph, apparently conducted for the Fabian Review, Glasman has plenty to say about previous Labour leaders, regarding Tony Blair, who won three general elections, as having a 'slightly demented' view of modernisation. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion. So I trust he will forgive me if I raise an eyebrow at his view of the role of migration in a modern economy, though I will leave any psychiatric analysis to professionals. Here's how Mary Riddell reported him:

[He would] renegotiate the rules on European workers and freeze inward migration for EU and non-EU citizens, except where employers or universities make a case for a specific, skilled individual. "We've got to reinterrogate our relationship with the EU on the movement of labour. The EU has gone from being a sort of pig farm subsidised bloc... to the free movement of labour and capital. It's legalistic, it's administrative, and it's no good. So I think we've got to renegotiate with the EU. His call is to restrict immigration to necessary entrants such as highly skilled leaders, especially in vocational skills. "We might, for example, bring in German masters, as we did in the 15th and 16th centuries to renew guilds."
But exemptions should be made on a case-by-case basis? "Yes. We should absolutely do that... Britain is not an outpost of the UN. We have to put the people in this country first." Even if that means stopping immigration completely for a period? "Yes. I would add that we should be more generous and friendly in receiving those [few] who are needed. To be more generous, we have to draw the line."

Let's just get this straight. We need to stop migration, regardless of the contribution migrants make to the economy. That means losing billions from university students who pay to study in the UK. It means forcing industry to employ only British workers, unless they are German meisters, though quite why they might wish to come here now with their own economy doing so well is not clear. It means that the economy should be allowed to take a nose-dive while we test the theory that those who are currently out of work are ready to take on the jobs that are currently filled by EU migrant labour, in turn surely increasing unemployment in the short term and making it impossible for British workers to work overseas. It means reducing our opportunities to export into international markets. Businesses facing real difficulties can go whistle if they need to recruit abroad to survive.

And, of course, it means leaving the European Union and defying our international asylum obligations to retreat into bucolic splendid isolation. Of course, the whole thing is not just isolationist, it is economically suspect, simply ignoring the realities of globalisation in favour of workerist nostalgia that would even have stretched crudulity in the 1950s Soviet Union. There was a reason that New Labour was an electoral success: it was in tune with the realities both of people's lives and of the world they lived in. David Cameron had to make similar adjustments with his party. The last thing Ed Miliband - and Labour - needs is an attempt to turn the party into an isolationist, anti-immigrant, protectionist force: that is hopefully not where the centre ground of British politics really lies. 

Cable is right: Cameron's kneejerk immigration policy is bad for business

Vince Cable is in many ways the biggest disappointment of the Coalition. He is a shadow of his former self, showing little sign of the sparkling wit that brought forth the cruellest jibes against Gordon Brown when he was the Lib Dems' stand-in leader. But today, in criticising David Cameron's knee-jerk approach to immigration as 'very unwise', he has redeemed himself a little. The coalition's ludicrous immigration quotas are a threat to British business.

Labour had, rather more sensibly, developed a points system which meant that skilled people could be recruited where they were needed. But by substituting a quota system, the Government has tied itself in complete knots.

Universities are a good example. Higher education is big business for the UK, worth almost £5bn a year in fees and spending by overseas students. While there are bogus private colleges that operate above chip shops, there are also hundreds of thousands of legitimate degree-level students who can choose to study in Australia, Canada, New Zealand or Malaysia rather than Britain. Labour rightly expanded their numbers and actively recruited in countries like China and India. Instead of focusing its clampdown on the bogus colleges, the coalition is using a blunt axe as part of its migration policy to make recruitment, including in private degree providers that might provide real competition (alongside FE colleges) to keep fees down. And it is reducing incentives for overseas students, denying them the chance to use their skills in the UK after graduation (something Sir James Dyson has criticised).

The truth is that immigration made and makes a real contribution to economic growth, so long as migrants pay taxes and contribute their skills. Both are surely useful attributes to a government with no obvious growth strategy. Of course we need to improve the skills of British youngsters, but to pretend that having more skilled or paying migrants is bad for Britain is simply bad economics. Any business secretary who didn't recognise these facts wouldn't be worthy of the title.

The real truth about immigration

After today's Lords' report on immigration, it was good to see the ubiquitous Sir Andrew Green aka Migration Watch having the logic of his arguments properly examined on Channel 4 News tonight. When a First Bus boss explained that her company had to recruit Polish drivers because despite its many training schemes, it couldn't recruit British ones (certainly the case in Bath), Sir Andrew cheerfully suggested raising the fares to pay much higher wages. When the man from the Care Homes Association explained that its wages reflected what councils pay, hence its 30 per cent overseas workforce, pompous Sir Andrew prescribed a hike in council taxes. To what extent their Lordships factored these matters in their deliberations is unclear. But I do hope Sir Andrew's true views are exposed rather more fully in the Daily Mail and on Today in future.

How migration restrictions threaten our curries

News that Indian restaurants are running short of staff is a reminder that restrictive migration policies can impact on all our lives. Tom Watson recently linked to this excellent Australian game site which puts some perspective into the migration debate.