Hung out to dry on the immigration debate

Immigration was a big topic at the election - and we're not talking about the bookshop closing during the recession

AS A member of a party which, I think it is fair to say, was majorly tripped up by our immigration policy in the election, I’ve spent some time wondering how things are likely to go forward now that the election is over.

After the tabloid press, Labour and the Tories unleashed both barrels on the Lib Dems over immigration, and it really began to come up on the doorsteps. At the height of Cleggmania, a familiar pattern began to unfold while out on canvassing. It normally sounded something like: “I would vote for you but I’m really worried that you want to give all the illegals an amnesty and let thousands more of them in.”

Ironically, I do not remember a single person who started a conversation with me like this, who – after I had taken the time to explain the policy – were not almost completely reassured.

When you had the time to explain that no-one knew how many people were in this country, that there was no physical way to “throw ‘em all out”, that it would mean a fresh start for Britain’s borders, that the 10-year plan was only four years less than the Government’s current system and five years more than what Boris Johnson was advocating, that it would mean an end to exploitation and a healthy windfall for the tax man. When you explained all that, people felt it was actually a sensible and effective policy.

The fact is that this was one of the most sensible policies on immigration that any major party has raised in decades. It would have brought control back to our borders, ended the exploitation of thousands of vulnerable people, raised millions for the public purse and given Britain’s immigration system the chance for a fresh start with confidence restored. But was it viewed like that? What do you think?

Sadly, in the air war, the party had no chance to explain the policy in that level of detail. The problem that the Lib Dems faced on this was the complexity of our message. This was fatally apparent during the second leaders’ debate. I was talking to a non-aligned person recently who had read our manifesto at the start of the campaign. He told me that during this debate, it was very obvious to him that Clegg was about 15 seconds away from nailing his explanation of the policy, but was just cut off short. As it was, the policy ended up costing us votes and seats. In the ensuing coalition agreement, it inevitably disappeared, allowing David Cameron to play to his right wing base with his strong talk of “not negotiating on Britain’s safety and security”.

Time will tell as to what the new Government’s approach to immigration will be. We know that the Lib Dems have had to swallow a Tory-based headline agreement section in the coalition agreement. There will now be a cap placed on the number of non-EU migrants coming in to Britain, a policy that few would ever expect to work. And while an end to Labour’s criminal detention of the children of immigrants is welcome, few would expect the approach to immigration of the new Government to be built on the liberal side of the alliance.

Welsh politicians have always shown a bit more willingness to engage in a more grounded debate on immigration without the constant need to revert to screaming, knee jerk, tabloid instincts. That is to be encouraged. But in a political system where immigration is simply not an issue, that is unlikely to achieve much at all beyond making Welsh politicians feel warm and fuzzy.

Whether or not you are instinctively opposed or accepting of the way immigration and diversity has become ingrained in the tapestry of modern British life, you have to accept that the current system is in a mess. No-one knows how many people are in this country. No one knows how many people are being exploited or how many people are exploiting the country. What is clear is that unless there is a radical change in the approach by Government in dealing with this issue, things are unlikely to change. Thousands of people will stay in the shadows, and many people will continue to be exploited or worse.

In the General Election of 2010, the Lib Dems tried to engage in a UK wide debate on immigration, suggesting different ways in which things could be done. It was an attempt that won the party nothing and in fact probably caused us extensive damage.

The tragedy of the Lib Dem experience is that, for all parties, it will now seal the deal. It is highly unlikely that any political party in Britain will seek again to start an open and honest debate about immigration, what it means for this country, and the benefits and problems attached. As a result, we will probably continue to see governments and political parties pursuing immigration policy designed for the red tops, not for the well being of this country nor with much compassion for human beings inside and outside its borders.

After all, what this election shows is if you dare raise progressive ideas on immigration, or even try to initiate a debate, you will be hung out to dry by both conservative forces and self-proclaimed progressives alike.