Why the recent election showed that London is comfortable with immigration
by Juan Camilo
The elections are now over and with a new Liberal Democrat/Conservative coalition government in place we have no clear sense yet of what the major implications of the changeover will be in terms of national immigration policy. But at least we can be reassured that we made it through this general election with London’s voters and politicians having firmly rejected the anti-immigration agenda.
The signs are that the national agenda will not radically differ from what we saw under Labour. Among the policy pledges already announced by the new government, the detention of children will be reviewed and the earned citizenship proposal of the Liberal Democrats will be put aside. An immigration cap on the entry of non-EU migrants will go ahead but there is no news on how it will operate. However, it seems probable that immigration policy will broadly continue to be managed through the Points Based System, allowing entry for highly qualified migrants in areas of shortage of skills while restricting access to low-skilled migrants.
Reflecting on the election itself, there is disagreement over the role that immigration played in the outcome. In the Labour Party especially, many seem to think that dissatisfaction with the management of immigration cost the party a large number of votes amongst what they consider to be some of their core voters. This view, however, is contested by others who argue that immigration simply didn’t materialise as a defining issue during the election.
So what happened in London? In this global city of immigration, there was evidently a particular reluctance towards turning immigration into a key election issue. When a BBC poll, in the month before polling day, asked voters how important they considered several issues, it found that immigration was the issue which the lowest proportion of respondents ranked as very important, with people much more concerned about the NHS and crime. Respondents seemed to be divided into equal camps in terms of their views on the positive/negative impact of immigration and on the pressure it brings on public services.
Similarly, when immigration was addressed on the BBC’s London TV election debate, members of the audience were critical of the Conservative proposal for a cap on immigration, questioning its possible effects on recruitment of overseas workers for sectors of the economy where there are skills shortages. London First (a lobby group which speaks for London’s business sector) and the Lord Mayor of the City of London also spoke out publicly against the proposed cap on non-EU migrant workers.
More importantly, in terms of the election results, support for the far right in London failed to materialise and the BNP not only did not make significant gains but lost all of its councillors in the London local elections. Some have been quick to link this success to the strong line that Margaret Hodge, defending her seat against BNP leader Nick Griffin, took towards immigration and her support for policies that privilege length of residence in access to housing. However, the grassroots mobilisation against the BNP, led by anti-fascist groups Searchlight and HOPE not hate, played a key role in fending off the right wing parties in the East End where Hodge was running. In general, during the election, the capital seemed to be much more comfortable with immigration than the rest of the country.
There are several possible explanations for this reluctance to turn opposition to immigration into a key electoral theme in the capital. London has received large numbers of migrants for many years, unlike other areas of the country where immigration is a relatively new phenomenon. Londoners are rightly proud of the diversity and cosmopolitan culture that different migration streams have brought to the city. People enjoy the different music, cuisines and other art forms that migrants bring with them and businesses in London have benefited from recruiting talented workers from across the globe. Migrants and their skills are a key asset for a city that depends on global connections for its economic strength.
After the election it is therefore difficult to escape the conclusion that Londoners are generally comfortable with immigration, that they acknowledge the immense contribution of migrants to the city’s economy and that they enjoy the cultural variety in a city that has become more cosmopolitan through the contribution of migrants. At the same time, the city has deep structural problems, especially in the labour and housing markets, which affect all those in low paid jobs or without employment. These problems will not be solved by attempts to curtail the numbers of migrants coming in or by restricting their rights and entitlements, as has been threatened by the new government.
Rather, in this context the city’s administration and its migrant population will need to make the case for migrants’ rights more loudly than ever.
Myth Busting
Myth: 98% of jobs given to migrants in the UK - Fact: 50% of new jobs go to British citizens (TUC Research, published on ‘Left Foot Forward ‘ blog, 8 April 2010)
Myth: Migrants are reducing the earning of British workers by offering competition and cheaper rates for work - Fact: Migration has not increased unemployment or driven down wages, with problems with migration having more to do with culture and integration (The Economic Impact on Migration, House of Lords Select Committee Report, April 2009)
Myth: Countries like the UK support a disproportionate number of migrants - Fact: Only 10% of the UK population was not born here - compared with 24% in Switzerland, 14 % in Australia and 11% in the Netherlands (OECD Annual Report International Migration Outlook 2009)
Myth: Housing shortages are a consequence of migration - Fact: Immigrants tend to demand less housing than UK-born individuals, with the majority of recent immigrants living in the private rented sector (‘The economic impact of immigration’
House of Lords Select Committee Report, April 2008)
