Debunking five Tory myths about the election result

Challenging the “narrative” that is emerging . . .

Can we take a step back, please? And consider some of the claims that are being made right now by politicians and pundits alike?

1) The Tories are claiming that they "won". This is nonsense. In a hung parliament, by definition, no party can claim "victory". In the British system, you win only when you have a majority in the Commons. Cameron failed to get one.

2) A Lab-Lib coalition government would not be unrepresentative of public opinion. On the contrary, the two parties combined would have the support of 53 per cent of voters. This is the "anti-Conservative" majority that Labour ministers and officials keep refering to. Remember: no government since the Second World War has ever been elected with more than 50 per cent of the vote.

3) Gordon Brown is "defying" the public and "clinging on" to office. Not true. Brown is following consitutional precedent, which ensures continuity of government and gives the prime minister the right to stay on and try to form a coalition that has the confidence of parliament. Brown is behaving as (the Tory) Edward Heath behaved in February 1974.

4) The country wants strong government, which is single-party government. Really? Why then did the voters not give any one of the three major parties a majority in parliament? The reality is that coalitions can be stronger and more effective than single-party administrations -- even in the eyes of the markets. Ten of the 16 governments that enjoy triple-A credit ratings are coalitions. Seven of the largest fiscal consolidations carried out in OECD countries since 1970 occurred under coalition governments.

5) Labour is interested in party advantage; the Tories are concerned about the national interest. Rubbish! As the Telegraph reported this week, the Tories are willing to bribe the Unionist parties in Ulster with up to £200m of taxpayers' cash in the form of postponed public spending cuts in the province. Is this putting the nation first, or is it partisan and self-interested deal-making of the grubbiest kind?

 

 

 

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

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