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.

Show Hide image

The snowflake Daily Mail cries over free market capitalism taking our blue passports

UK, hun?

The poor old whining snowflakes at the Daily Mail have discovered that maybe it’s better to put the state above private companies after all.

They’ve run a ranty yet doleful lament on their front page about Britain’s “ruling class” (which they are definitely, definitely not part of, of course) showing its “hate” for “our country” by letting a Franco-Dutch firm make our post-Brexit blue passports:

“Today the Mail has a question for Britain’s ruling class: Why DO you hate our country, its history, culture and the people’s sense of identity?”

In a beautiful bit of irony, the £490m contract to make our grim new tickets to bigotry was awarded to Gemalto, a Franco-Dutch firm that beat the British-based De La Rue (lol) that also tried bidding for the contract.

The Mail’s complaint seems to be that the bloody Frogs shouldn’t be making our passports – the UK should be doing it instead. So, according to this logic, either the state should make them, or, to guarantee a private British firm winning the contract, the state should ignore free market forces?

Neither seem particularly in tune with the Mail’s usual preferences. Nor those of the Tory Brexiteers, for that matter.

Yes, this is part of European competition law – big public contracts like this have to be open to bids from across the EU. But right-wingers in this country don’t seem to mind when foreign companies run our railways (Greater Anglia, West Midlands and ScotRail franchises are majority-owned by the Dutch state company Abellio).

Looks like these over-sensitive social justice warriors want to have their cake and eat it. Political correctness gone mad.

I'm a mole, innit.