Should city-specific immigration come to London?

Imagine handing control of immigration to Boris. OK, not the best way to sell it, but still...

Brandon Fuller, a researcher for the NYU Stern Urbanization Project, suggests that American cities could benefit from the ability to issue their own visas (post one, post two):

Not all cities welcome additional immigration, but perhaps those that do could sponsor visa holders. The visa could be temporary and renewable, with a path to permanent residency and eventually citizenship. Visa holders would be free to bring their immediate family members with them...

A policy that allows a greater number of law-abiding immigrants into the American cities that want them most could do more for global welfare than other policies related to trade and aid. An effective policy of this sort would be a win-win—a way for struggling American cities to stabilize their populations and a way for immigrant families to live, work, and study in the United States.

The point is easily transferable to the UK, as well; though the reasoning is more political than economic.

London is far, far more pro-immigration than the rest of the UK. In a 2011 Ipsos MORI poll (pdf), 61 per cent of Londoners thought immigration is "a very big or fairly big problem", compared to a UK average of 75 per cent and a peak of 88 per cent in the West Midlands. Similarly, although 15 per cent of Britons opposed a cap on the number of non-EU workers, 23 per cent of Londoners did.

Obviously those figures still don't reveal a populace willing to welcome all-comers with open arms. But they do hint that a national anti-immigrant agenda could be tempered if London were given the power to control its own borders.

Of course, such a move wouldn't do wonders for relations between the capital and the rest of the country. Given the fact that the success which has already accrued to the capital from having an elected mayor has lead to calls to scrap the position to aid a "levelling down", it's hard to imagine the bad blood that could result from an immigration-driven economic boost.

A British citizen offers their passport for inspection. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.