Engaging with BNP voters

Sayeeda Warsi has got into trouble for saying we should engage with the concerns of BNP supporters. I think she's right. The problem is, though, that the mainstream parties just can't address properly the concerns of potential BNP voters, with the result that "engaging with" becomes a synonym for "pandering to".
Here's how I'd engage with such voters.
1. Recognise that some of problems caused by immigration are in fact the result of statism. It's not migration from overseas that creates pressure on public services such as housing and schools, but rather the fact that the supply of such services fails to respond to increased demand. 
2. Don't pretend the state can control migration. This just creates a sense of crisis when people realize this can't be done - it's technically infeasible, even aside from the EU angle. Warsi says:

What this country has a problem with is not people of different kinds coming into this country and making a contribution, but the problem that nobody knows who is coming in, who is going out – the fact that we don't have a border police; we don't have proper checks; we don't have any idea how many people are here, who are unaccounted for," she says. "It's that lack of control and not knowing that makes people feel uneasy."

But this uneasiness would not have arisen had the government not promised something it can't deliver.  Instead, we should point out that the market can control migration much better than the state.
3. Stress the benefits of migrant workers. As David Blanchflower said here (pdf), immigration has helped hold down inflation. That means interest rates are lower than they would otherwise be; migrants reduce your mortgage payments. And if interest rates and inflation are lower, it's likely that long-run real growth will be higher - a point which MigrationWatch's static analysis of the impact of migration ignores. 
Remember too the non-economic benefits of migration; the area I grew up in has been transformed by migrants from a shabby rundown near-slum to a minor tourist attraction. And without immigration, we'd have no Nigella, no Konnie, no Freema...
4.  Celebrate freedom and entrepreneurship. Migrants are obeying Tebbit's advice - they're getting on their bike and looking for work. They deserve praise for such initiative, and we should celebrate the fact that we recognize that people should be free to live and work where they want.
5. The link between immigration and crime is weak. Insofar as it exists, it's the result of efforts to control migration. The cliche says that if you criminalize gun-ownership, only criminals will own guns. A similar thing might be true of immigration; controls on it only deter law-abiding folk from entering.
6. Remember that the costs of immigration - a loss of social cohesion - are the price we must pay for both freedom and high employment.
The problem is that the main parties either can't or won't say all this.
See also: Clive and Sunny.

Comments

[jameshigham]

2. Don't pretend the state can control migration.

The USSR did.

[ian]

I don't think that many people wanted to get in though...

[Mike]

[1] ‘Recognise that some of problems caused by immigration are in fact the result of statism.’

I disagree. Problems caused by immigration are problems caused by population increase (and its ethnographic effects).

[2] ‘Don't pretend the state can control migration.’

Err… Japan?

[3] ‘Stress the benefits of migrant workers.’

There is no evidence that simply having a large population makes people richer. Lots of countries with puny populations – such as Norway, Luxembourg, Finland, New Zealand, Iceland – are notable for their affluence and high quality of life.

John O’Sullivan put it deftly: ‘Japan enjoyed one of the highest economic growth rates in the world for 35 years with no immigration whatsoever. Since the existence of a thing is absolute proof of its possibility (as Bertrand Russell once pointed out), this demonstrates that a growing economy is possible without immigration.’
See here: http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_07_30/cover.html

[4] ‘And without immigration, we’d have no Nigella, no Konnie, no Freema...’

And without immigration, we’d have no 7/7, no Hizb-ut-Tahrir, no black muggers, no Somali gangbangers, no Albanian pimps, etc.

[5] ‘The link between immigration and crime is weak.’

You gotta be kiddin’ me? All the evidence points in the opposite direction.

[6] ‘Remember that the costs of immigration - a loss of social cohesion - are the price we must pay for both freedom and high employment.’

A loss of cohesion lessens the quality of life [consult the five-year survey of Los Angeles by Professor Bob Putnam]. A loss of cohesion can also disrupt levels of social capital – which, as you well know, is a negative externality [consult ‘Trust’ by Francis Fukuyama.]

[Mark Wadsworth]

Sorry, have to disagree. More or less totally.

Of course the State can do a lot about how many people come in.

Or else how do you explain the vast increase in East Europeans coming here since 2004? What was different before and after then?

How do you explain the increase between immigration under Nulab and under the Tories pre-1997?

There is also the welfare angle. I've nothing against Polish plumbers who have got on their bikes, but our welfare system has (rightly or wrongly) a worldwide reputation for being a soft touch, ditto foreigners being priotised for social housing. The government is in COMPLETE CONTROL of this.

There is also the fact that Nulab scrapped 'main purpose' rule for vetting foreign spouses and introduced the bloody Human Rights Act and miserably fails to return asylum seekers to safe third countries, i.e. France.

So basically, I second everything that Mike says above.

[lee]

More immigrants equals more strain on public services, lower wages, more conflict caused by different cultural norms, exotic diseases brought in from abroad, criminality, terrorism, and discrimination about indigenous people

I'm long-term unemployed and for the life of me I can't fathom how massive numbers of people coming to this country are benefitting me - could someone please explain.

[ian]

"foreigners being priotised for social housing"

evidence?

[Andrew Kelly]

One more thing you have forgotten to mention is the censorship that is in force over this issue. The Tories won't even address it for fear of being branded racist. How do you think that makes people feel who are not so eloquent as your average Oxford graduate and fear being ostracised for expressing their opinions? This sort of thought control is bound to result in extreme responses such as voting BNP.

[ian]

"discrimination about indigenous people"

what's indigenous? As far as I can tell I have German, Dutch and Irish ancestry as well as others unknown, probably from both catholic and jewish faiths. Given the area from which the Irish came, there's probably some Spanish in there too from after the Armada. That means there will also be some Arabic/North African. I can't imagine I'm very different from most Brits...

[Jim]

"ditto foreigners being priotised for social housing"

Don't let the fact that this is the *exact opposite* of what actually happens bother you, Mark.

[chris strange]

The 7/7 bombers where not immigrants (colonists maybe, but not immigrants). All where born and raised in this country. Likewise Hizb-ut-Tahrir tends to recruit British born Muslims at university, those with backgrounds like the most recent would be Islamic terrorist Mohammed Atif Siddique from Alva in Clackmannanshire.

[Neil Harding]

If this concern for BNP voters had come from someone on the Left with an impeccable record towards minorities I might have been sympathetic, but the fact it comes from Sayeeda Warsi, an ignorant homophobe with a reputation for insensitivity and inaccuracy makes me deeply suspicious of her motives. Ditto Boris Johnson and 'Dave' Cameron.

The Tories talk of politeness and respect but show none to minorities with their opposition to political correctness, which after all is just about being polite to people.

[Neil Harding]

Besides, does anyone really think the motivation of most BNP voters is really nothing to do with race - as Warsi suggests?

[Mark Wadsworth]

Ian, Jim, read what write properly before you start questioning it.

I wrote "our welfare system has (rightly or wrongly) a worldwide reputation for being a soft touch, ditto foreigners being priotised for social housing"

I can't be arsed arguing about whether this is true or not. Both these facts are true, as it happens, but that is not the point. The point is that there is a widespread perception that these facts are true, that in itself is enough to cause the damage.

[Kimmitt]

Mark,
Why is social housing, outside London at least, overwhelmingly dominated by white Brits?

You're a total fuckwit.

[Mike]

Here’s another interesting article: ‘Immigration drains Britain, says Left-wing think tank’

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/30/nimm130.xml

[Mark Wadsworth]

Kimmitt, do you have any research or evidence of any kind to support what you seem to be implying with that first question? Can you cross reference it to overall racial mix in the area? If council housing in small towns in Scotland or Northern Ireland is overwhelmigly white 'British', then that proves nothing.

If you're right, then you're right. The point is that PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT FOREIGNERS GET PRIORITISED and what people believe is in many cases more important than what the real facts are.

[Jim]

"Both these facts are true, as it happens"

This is getting boring but no, they're not. Immigrants have to be here four years before they're even eligible and then get no extra priority.

[Jim]

Oh and maybe people BELIEVE THAT FOREIGNERS GET PRIORITISED because people such as yourself keep repeating it as fact when it isn't.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Jim, evidence please!

Migrationwatch tried to get the government to produce an official figure, first they said they didn't have one, then they produced one out of a hat, then they revised it upwards by a factor of five.

Like I say, maybe it's not true, but I am not just taking anybody's word for it.

Sure, Migrationwatch have an axe to grind, but their statistics are usually spot on.

[ian]

Mark said "If council housing in small towns in Scotland or Northern Ireland is overwhelmigly white 'British', then that proves nothing."

...er, the original comment said 'outside London' - have we got a metropolitan bias here? After all there are one or two people living in other places in England than London.

[donpaskini]

Whether or not it is worth bothering to argue with someone who isn't interested in whether or not something is true but is happy to assert it anyway, foreigners don't get prioritised for social housing.

An allocation scheme must give "reasonable preference" to certain categories of persons. These are:

*people who are homeless
*people living in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing
*people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds
*people who need to move to a particular locality in the district of the authority, where failure to meet that need would cause hardship to themselves or to others

There are specific restrictions, for example, asylum-seekers who have not been granted refugee status cannot apply for social housing (see, for example, http://www.lewes.gov.uk/housing/673.asp)

[Mark Wadsworth]

I'm sorry DonP, that proves nothing either way. I want statistics, facts and stuff. I am entirely happy to be proved wrong, I don't 'want' a particular answer, I want 'the' answer.

[Matt Munro]

1) That's the whole point, the state can't plan services without knowing IN ADVANCE how many people are going to be here, the liberal "porous borders" concept makes this impossible. Increasing services to meet demand costs money, and if most migrants are "economically disadvantaged" they aren't going to contribute enough tax revenue to fund the expansion.

2. Many states control migration adequately. Even the illusion of enforcement will put of some migrants, have you tried getting into the US recently (on business, legitimately and with a visa) ?. By offering incentives in the form of housing, education, healthcare, benefits, the state IS a market from a migrants perspective.

3. Purlease. Interst rates are going UP to combat inflation, house price/earnings ratio at their highest ever ? Even a non economist like me can see that bigger populations create inflation by increasing demand.

4. Agreed, but what about the entreneurship of people who have lost jobs or had wages cut by migrant influxes ?

5. No it isn't. Migrants are far more likely to be arrested than any other group and crime is highest in the most ethnically diverse areas.

6. You could equally easily argue that NOT having migration is a price worth paying for social cohesion. Migration doesn't deliver freedom or employment to anyone except immigrants.

[Matt Munro]

"what's indigenous? As far as I can tell I have German, Dutch and Irish ancestry as well as others unknown, probably from both catholic and jewish faiths. Given the area from which the Irish came, there's probably some Spanish in there too from after the Armada. That means there will also be some Arabic/North African. I can't imagine I'm very different from most Brits..."

FFS I'm sick of hearing this argument. It's not about purity of bloodline, it's about cultural identity. I have Irish/Italin/Spanish and possibly Portugese blood, but I speak English, I drink beer, I moan about the weather, I understand the offside rule, the class system, the concept of queuing, and I know who James Blunt is. The fact that my ancestors weren't born here is irrelevant, I'm a product of British culture, some people aren't and never will be, and they therefore aren't indiginous.

[Matt Munro]

Mark,
Why is social housing, outside London at least, overwhelmingly dominated by white Brits?

You're a total fuckwit.

Posted by: Kimmitt | October 02, 2007 at 08:36 AM"

Er maybe because the population, outside london at least, is overwhelmingly white Brits ?

[Robert]

"But our welfare system has (rightly or wrongly) a worldwide reputation for being a soft touch"

I think this is just parroting of Daily Mail propaganda. Who says its a soft touch. Certainly not all those asylum seekers getting deported back to Darfur, Zimbabwe and Burma. Certainly not those Iraqi translaters being denied sanctuary by the British Government.

It should be a source of PRIDE that we treat asylum seekers with a bit of humanity when they come to our shores, that they want to be in Britain rather than anywhere else. Except that it isn't, because we treat them like shite.

[Ken Moore]

I live in Spain, and can categorically state that crime over the last few years has risen enormously due to the large influx of eastern europeans. The UK will no doubt suffer the same or worse - they´re a softer touch than the Spanish.
John