Why Clegg is abandoning the Lib Dems' "amnesty" for illegal immigrants

The policy is cited by party activists as one of the main reasons voters turned against the party in 2010 after "Cleggmania".

Nick Clegg's decision to abandon the Lib Dems' policy of "earned citizenship" for illegal immigrants is an admission of political defeat. In his speech on immigration at The Centre Forum, Clegg said nothing to suggest that he believed the policy was wrong in principle, rather that it "risked undermining public confidence" by appearing to "reward those who have broken the law". He added that he was "no longer convinced" that it should be included in the next Lib Dem manifesto, a clear signal that it will be discarded before 2015. 

Among Lib Dem MPs, there is a pragmatic acceptance that the policy, which is supported by just 25 per cent of voters (see Lord Ashcroft's recent poll), was not sustainable. As the final leaders' debate in 2010 showed (see video), it made it too easy for the Conservatives and Labour to portray the party as "soft" on immigration. After Clegg's support for an "amnesty" was highlighted by David Cameron and Gordon Brown, party activists reported a significant backlash. Now, with both Cameron and Ed Miliband toughening their stances on immigration, Clegg could not afford to be left behind again.

The hope among the Lib Dems is that their new "zero tolerance" approach to illegal immigration will make it easier win the argument for a more liberal approach to legal migration. As Clegg rightly pointed out in his speech, Vince Cable's attack on the Tories' net migration target does not put the pair at odds since it has never been official government policy.

Nick Clegg takes questions from journalists after making a speech on immigration at The Centre Forum in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Autumn Statement 2015: a test of competence as well as compassion

George Osborne's chickens may be coming home to roost.

The debate will be political and polarized, as you’d expect, when the Chancellor sets out the results of the Spending Review tomorrow and how his £20bn of savings will be realised. However my suspicion is that while many followers of the Westminster's circus are debating what it all means for compassionate or compassionless conservatism, the public will be more interested in a more straightforward question: one of competence. 

Strip away the hyperbole and the election in May was won on an assessment of which party was the more competent to govern. A huge part of the public’s judgment in this regard was to trust the track record of the Conservatives in balancing the books and that the £20bn in departmental savings earmarked was a reasonable and responsible ambition. 

This is the question in point because what the public did not endorse explicitly was significant change in the size and role of the state. The argument was made and won for a budget surplus, not necessarily for its consequences. As Paul Johnson of the IFS has been at pains to say after every recent budget.

We should acknowledge that one of the reasons the Chancellor does have the public’s confidence is that the cuts to public services so far have not been as damaging as many opponents predicted. The NHS is under-strain, but has not broken. Hard pushed local government leaders have managed to shield social care from the worst of the changes, and the majority of police officers lost were in the back-office not on the beat. So when pollsters ask the public whether they have noticed the effects of austerity, most say they haven't. 

Understanding what the implications are of further large reductions in areas in the firing line such as police forces or local government is hard to do. So the government has told the public "trust us". Now we are going to find out how well that trust was placed. The point is this though - if the public haven't yet felt the full affects of a smaller state they may not be so tolerant it if they do. That brings us to the Chancellor’s real test. The easy cuts have surely been made, after the long years of spending increases prior to 2010 you would expect the system to be able to tighten its belt. But with five years of austerity under that belt there is a risk that the additional cuts could push services too far. 

The public were told that £20bn of saving could be achieved without the kind of pain that will be felt if social care for the elderly really starts to fall over, if police officers become significantly more scarce, or if the NHS does need much more than the promised £8bn (as many believe it will). On this point they have trusted the Chancellor to understand the implications of what he is promising. So if the policy choices in the Spending Review turn out to show that he did not, it will be the Government's competence as much as its compassion that will concern the public.


Steve O'Neill was deputy head of policy for the Liberal Democrats until the election.