Five of the Best

The top five comment pieces from today's papers

The Guardian's Martin Kettle argues that David Cameron's strident anti-statism raises questions about his suitability for office:

Does anyone else in the economically developed world believe that the financial crisis has all been the fault of government? Or that the recovery, when it happens, will have nothing to do with ministers' actions? It is hard to believe that the word "market" did not appear anywhere in Cameron's hour-long speech, but it didn't. Nor was there anything about the banks. This is ignorant or dogmatic -- or both. Either way, it raises a massive question about Cameron's claims to lead the country.

In the Wall Street Journal, Tony Blair says that China is changing for the better in every sphere:

There is a new cadre of people coming to the fore within government. Conversations with Chinese leaders today -- at the provincial, as well as the central government level -- are a world away from the stilted, pro forma exchanges I remember on my first visit 20 years ago.

The Financial Times's Philip Stephens argues that the Conservatives are wilfully encouraging the politics of pessimism:

Senior Conservatives say that the gloom is all about honesty: tell it how it is and the voters will trust you. A slightly more cynical interpretation says that the darker the picture the party paints before the election, the more credit it will gain when prosperity returns.

My fear is that the urge to slash-and-burn has elbowed aside everything else; that, for many in Mr Cameron's party, the casting of government as the villain is a sufficient prospectus to govern.

The New York Times's Paul Krugman warns that the economic crisis has further weakened America's education system:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the United States economy lost 273,000 jobs last month. Of those lost jobs, 29,000 were in state and local education, bringing the total losses in that category over the past five months to 143,000. That may not sound like much, but education is one of those areas that should, and normally does, keep growing even during a recession. Markets may be troubled, but that's no reason to stop teaching our children. Yet that's exactly what we're doing.

In the Daily Mail, Max Hastings says that General Dannatt's charge into the political arena sets a worrying precedent:

[P]oliticisation of the army represents a big change for Britain. A precedent is being established which must lead to many difficulties. These will recur whenever and wherever the army is committed to operations and its commanders dislike the terms of engagement set by the government of the day. This they often do, and will again in the future.

 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Today's immigration figures show why the net migration target should be scrapped

We should measure different types of migration separately and set targets that reflect their true impact.

Today’s net migration figures show, once again, that the government has raised expectations of tackling migration and failed to deliver. This is a recipe for disaster. Today’s numbers run far in excess of 300,000 – three times over what was pledged. These figures don’t yet reflect the fallout from Brexit. But they do show the government needs to change from business as usual.

It has been the current strategy, after all, that led the British public to reject the European Union regardless of the economic risks. And in the process, it is leading the government to do things which err on the side of madness. Like kicking out international students with degrees in IT, engineering or as soon as they finish their degrees. Or doubling the threshold for investor visas, and in the process bringing down the number of people willing to come to Britain to set up business and create jobs by 82 per cent. Moreover, it has hampered the UK’s ability to step up during last year’s refugee crisis - last year Britain received 60 asylum applications per 1,000 people in contrast to Sweden’s 1,667, Germany’s 587 and an EU average of 260.

The EU referendum should mark the end for business as usual. The aim should be to transition to a system whose success is gauged not on the crude basis of whether overall migration comes down, irrespective of the repercussions, but on the basis of whether those who are coming are helping Britain achieve its strategic objectives. So if there is evidence that certain forms of migration are impacting on the wages of the low paid then it is perfectly legitimate for government to put in place controls. Conversely, where flows help build prosperity, then seeing greater numbers should surely be an option.

Approaching immigration policy in this way would go with the grain of public opinion. The evidence clearly tells us that the public holds diverse views on different types of migration. Very few people are concerned about investors coming from abroad to set up companies, create jobs and growth. Few are worried about students paying to study at British universities. On the other hand, low-skilled migration causes concerns of under-cutting among the low paid and pressure on public services in parts of the country that are already struggling.

The first step in a new approach to managing migration has to be to abolish the net migration target. Rather than looking at migration in the aggregate, the aim should be to measure different types of migration separately and set targets that reflect their true impact. In the first instance, this could be as simple as separating low and high skilled migration but in the long term it could involve looking at all different forms of migration. A more ambitious strategy would be to separate the different types of migration - not just those coming to work but also those arriving as refugees, to study or be reunited with their families.

Dividing different flows would not only create space for an immigration policy which was strategic. It would also enable a better national conversation, one which could take full account of the complex trade-offs involved in immigration policy: How do we attract talent to the UK without also letting conditions for British workers suffer? Should the right to a family life override concerns about poor integration? How do we avoiding choking off employers who struggle to recruit nationally? Ultimately, are we prepared to pay those costs?

Immigration is a tough issue for politicians. It involves huge trade-offs. But the net migration target obscures this fact. Separating out different types of immigration allows the government to sell the benefits of welcoming students, the highly skilled and those who wish to invest without having to tell those concerned about low skilled immigration that they are wrong.

Getting rid of the net migration target is politically possible but only if it is done alongside new and better targets for different areas of inward migration – particularly the low-skilled. If it is, then not only does it allow for better targeted policy that will help appease those most vocally against immigration, it also allows for a better national conversation. Now is the time for a new, honest and better approach to how we reduce immigration.

Phoebe Griffith is Associate Director for Migration, Integration and Communities at IPPR