Immigration policies
Today David Cameron has broken his year-long silence on the subject of immigration. As the issue has rocketed up the news agenda and the list of voters priorities, his silence was in danger of becoming deafening - and this week has illustrated all too clearly why it was tempting for the Tory leader to stay mum.
First a Conservative councillor . Her response - which was to blame her husband for using her e-mail account and the Lib Dems for daring to publicise the fact - was all too revealing. Then Bernard Jenkin, the Tory vice chairman responsible for persuading the party to select a broader range of candidates, throwing their toys out of the pram when not selected. Mr Jenkin was - happily for Mr Cameron - relieved of his duties before he made that remark.
You don't, of course, have to look back to this week to see how immigration has been a double-edged issue for the Conservatives. Ask William Hague and Michael Howard.
Looking at the policy though there is now remarkably little to choose between the Tories and Labour. Both say there should be limits on immigration, both say they would ask for independent advice, both say they'd take into account economic and social factors and both refuse to even make a stab at what an appropriate figure for immigration might be (you can watch my interview with the Tory leader by clicking here).
If you don't believe they're converging, just try this immigration test. Who said...?
1. "We have to get away from this daft so-called politically correct notion that anybody who wants to talk about immigration is somehow a racist. That isn't the case."
2. "Mainstream politicians must give it (immigration) serious attention... they need to do so in a calm and rational way... ill-judged language can cause genuine hurt and damage community relations."
3. "The first principle will be to control immigration with regard to the economic effects. The second principle will be to control it with regard to the wider effects on society."
4. "People recognise others from outside this country can bring great skills here... but they also want to be assured that our services will be preserved and immigration will be managed. I want to change that culture so we can have that mature discussion."
(Answers - number one and four were John Reid, number two was David Davis, number 3 was Damian Green)
I'm 
Comments
Is it any wonder there is next to no difference between the two parties on this area. They have been frustratingly moving together for the past few years and I have said on here before how dangerous I believe it is because of the apathy and dissolusionment it causes. I can vote at the next election and the only place I can find difference to choose who to cross on the ballot form is personality- Brown or Cameron- well what a choice!!!
so sad that they have all given in to tabloid/daily mail soundbytes. cameron had my vote until today.
Dear Nick,
There is one significant difference between tories and labour on the issue of immigration and that is that the Conservatives WILL limit the ridiculous numbers coming in,
labour merely talks while presiding over the greatest invasion of immigrants in the history of these little isles.
Sean Lynch.
Not a lot!
Well New Labour have put a big mat down ouside the country with "welcome" on it.
Come and enjoy the good life in Britain.
New rules are not quite so GOOD and FAIR. The worse part of NEW RULES -they have BACKWARD FORCE for whom that came before as HSMP(high skills migrants program).
For TRUE DECMORACY COUNTRY it is ABNORMAL when the law has backward force.
All HSMP who came here by old rules MUST prove AGAIN their scores with new system. In normal practice (even in the most of UNDEMOCRACY countries) new rules should affect from the date of their issue.
I think GOVERNMENT should be ALLWAYS honest in this case at least.
This is the very bad trend that can be propagated from migrants to UK nationality.
If you read this NEW RULES so they are cut off only high skilled migrants – talented specialists. There are about than less 45000 at all since 2000 year came here. It is in many time less than asylums population UK. They don’t have ever child benefits at all but pay all taxes. They CANNOT use any public funds. I saw but All other are welcome. What is the restrictions?
Sadly I don't think the prejudices of Sean Lynch(-the-foreigners) and Dave Small(-minded) will be satisfied by Cameron's thoughts. He is seeking only to restrict immigration from outside the EU. All the discussion and mock tabloid outrage in the last couple of years has been about immigration from WITHIN the EU: Poland, Romania, etc.
Here's an interesting test. If someone says they object to more immigration in principle, ask them if that applies to people from - say - Canada, Finland, New Zealand or Belgium. If not, and it turns out their objections only apply to people with a different skin colour to their own, then their true agenda is pretty easily seen.
The Tories WONT control immigration. They cannot. We are a member of the European Union. At best they can restrict work permits but they cannot stop EU citizens coming to the UK. The media seem to play down the significane of the EU dimension. I think it is central to the whole issue.
If cameron is serious about limiting immigration from countries outside the EU, but have unlimited movement within the EU then he has to square this policy with the objectives. Does he want an immigration policy that applies equally and fairly to all non-UK residents so we can accept those with the skills we need or is the policy about numbers only?
The ONLY party with a consistent stance on this issue is UKIP. Cameron may call them racists but his own immigration policy is now far more extreme!
It is simply prejudiced and unfair to treat a Polish plumber any different from a Pakistani one.
Needs-based controls are sensible but they must treat people from all nations equally.
An open-door for EU countries but partially-closed door for non-EU is the height of prejudice.
Seems to me we forget our heritage. We have been over run so many times in history by so many invaders, and the result is a mix which for more years than we can recall, the UK has benefited from diversity.
We feel threatened only if we are ignorant. Overall the new influx of all nationalities does everything to make us stronger, not weaker. And our economy is in part a success because we have increasing numbers from abroad.
We benefit, we don't lose out. What is the problem?
Is anyone stupid enough to think there is a veiled threat upon us? Not me for sure.
The biggest issue is a lack of a clear set of rules even the most illiterate immigrant can understand.
How about - no visa (or EU passport) no entry.
Put that in big letters in a zillion languages at all points of entry - and enforce it rigorously, instantly and summarily.
Nobody should be able to seek asylum here unless they came directly from the country involved by air or sea. Passing through another 'friendly' country should automatically mark you as an economic migrant and result in instant deportation.
Nobody should be in limbo. Either you are entering the country or you are leaving on the first plane out.
Rules are useless without enforcement. I notice nobody of any political persuasion is discussing that.
Immigration exactly shows the problem that politicial parties now have. The public supports tough limits on immigration, they just don't believe politicians when they say they will do it. That was Howard's problem in 2005 and that is why both Labour and the Tories are struggling.
Nick:
'Looking at the policy though there is now remarkably little to choose between the Tories and Labour.'
Isn't that true of almost all their policies, not just immigration? And the same goes for 'Bungs for gongs' too!
Neil
One little thing you might want to consider - my girlfriend is a New Zealander who works over here as a doctor. She has a good salary and pays full income tax (of course) but has no recourse to public funds while she is here. So if she lost her job tomorrow, despite paying UK tax for five years she would get...er...nothing from the state. So compare that to the rights of asylum seekers and immigrants from the new EU accession states. Fair? I think not.
Its all rubbish. The country is being totally exploited by immigration not embraced. Asylum seekers come here for a free ride thats why they travel half way across the world skipping other stable democratic nations where they could easily seek refuge. Something needs to be done! And fast! We simply dont have the resources to cater for this influx of free loaders
I have to agree with most of the previous postings. It seems obvious to most people appart from politicians that is, that the economy simply can not cope with the influx of imigrants legal or not. The education system is failing and so is the NHS. There are alternatives of course and I will be following thousands of british nationals who are leaving the country for good. At least I can sell up and take my hard earned cash rather than leave it to Gordon. Sadly there are now more appealing plces to live and you only have to look at the statistics to see I am not alone, approx 1,000 peole a day have been leaving for good recently. Well at least it will make a bit of space, however I fear that many of those leaving are people we should be rewarding and encouraging to stay.
Brown requires significant numbers of migrants in the UK to keep wage inflation down, with the disasterous effects that has on infrastructure like Hospitals and Housing. Obviously this keeps both the lowest paid on low pay and those on benefits have even less liklihood of coming off, but the genius Goprdon see mass migration as a much quicker and easier solution.
Inevitably this causes unrest in the indigenous population and horror of horrors for Labour bad tabloid headlines, so all of a sudden John Reid is saying talking about immigration isn't racist, When they were saying exactly the opposite at Last Year's election, however Labour has no intention of reducing immigration as it conflicts with Brown's policy. So the real difference between the Conservative Policy and the Labour one is that the Conservatives mean it and are prepared to help those on benefits back to work.
As for the Lib Dems, if you compare how quickly Cameron Suspended the councillor with the fact that the Lib Dems were prepared to put forward a man with an known drink problem for Prime minister I feel the integrity is with the Tories.
i believe the difference is with a tuff man like david davis in charge and his team the tories have more chance of delivering on this then labour who have spent 9 years going around and around on this issue
It's not just immigration. I can't think of one area of policy where I could identify a material difference between Labour and the Tories these days.
All those who claim there are no differences are being completely ridiculous. Thats almost like saying that because the Ulster Unionists and Democratic Unionists have the word "Unionist" in their name, their policies are exactly the same. Its a simple choice, a high-taxing, grumpy old Scottish Godron Brown Brown versus a low-taxing, young, moderate, English David Cameron. I know who i'd choose. And I can name a load of differences between Labour and the Tories just off the top of my head.
1. Extremist Islamic preachers, Labour have done nothing, Tories would lock them all up
2. Iraq - Tories have had the sense to realise what a disaster Iraq has been, Labour have not yet and still support it and keep maintaining they did not lie
3. ID cards - Tories don't want them, Labour do
4. Taxes - Labour has presided over huge rises in taxes, Tories would lower them if they possibly could, as long as they
5. Prisons - Labour have caused a crisis in the prison service due to overcrowding, the Tories would build more prisons and were the ones warning the government for years that this could happen (and hey presto, it did)
6. West Lothian question - Labour are determined to keep the issue rumbling on, Tories want it solved, and solved soon
7. Attitude to America - Labour are slaves to America, especially in foreign policy, Cameron has said our foreign policy should be less slavish towards America and more independent.
And so on.
Nick,
I would like to say that I find it extraordinary that you -- like both Labour and Tories -- should talk about immigration of any kind without mentioning the EU, but unfortunately I don't. The continued presence of this elephant in the room and the 91Èȱ¬'s capacity to ignore it might incense a twitchier man.
There is little difference between Labour and Tories these days because we have complete control over nothing apart from foreign policy and defence, and our autonomy, even in those areas, is being whittled away.
When will people realise that we do not rule ourselves anymore (except in the most desultory way)? And when will the 91Èȱ¬ start doing its job and report this fact?
DK
I believe you're wrong. There is a major difference between Labour and Conservatives on this issue. It's one of credibility.
In 2004, Labour refused to opt out of an open door migration policy for people from the last assession countries joining the EU, though some other EU countries did opt out.
They have consistently ignored the views of those in UK who viewed migration to UK without limits as unsustainable.
How can we accept that our goverment who have targets for almost everything seriously intend to do any more than juggle the migration figures around when they have consistently failed to apply targets for migration here and opted out of managing the level of migration here in 2004?
The British are very hypocrticial on immigration. I live and work in France but am continually staggered and amazed at how many fellow Brits move over here (ie. are immigrants) and neither work (legally), nor integrate, nor speak a word of French and yet freely use and abuse the French healthcare system, social security whilst complaining about people doing the same in the UK!
The British are very hypocrticial on immigration. I live and work in France but am continually staggered and amazed at how many fellow Brits move over here (ie. are immigrants) and neither work (legally), nor integrate, nor speak a word of French and yet freely use and abuse the French healthcare and social security system whilst all the time complaining about people doing the same in the UK!
Neil Wilson wrote:
'How about - no visa (or EU passport) no entry'
Thats the current policy and in fact the heart of all international movement.
'Nobody should be able to seek asylum here unless they came directly from the country involved by air or sea. Passing through another 'friendly' country should automatically mark you as an economic migrant and result in instant deportation'
Deportation to where? You cannot deport to another country who someone has merely passed through (they wont accept them and are within their rights not to). And you cannot deport to a country where they are claiming they would be subject to torture without due process - this would be illegal under international law and rightly so.
'Nobody should be in limbo. Either you are entering the country or you are leaving on the first plane out'
I would ask how you would handle the case of an individual who had no documentation?
'Rules are useless without enforcement. I notice nobody of any political persuasion is discussing that'
I thought that there was a LOT of debate about the capacity of the Immigration and Nationality directorate. John Reid claimed it wasn't fit for purpose for starters.
I sometimes wonder though if these organisations would do better if they were subject to less 'crisis' scrutiny due to overreactions from people who feel there are easy answers without really understanding the subject.
Dear Nick,
Many of the blogs have been about the differences, or lack of, between the various political parties on immigration (and other issues). This is the main contention, I think, of your article/blog.
It seems to me that the bottom line on immigration is not who we allow in or how many but whether this country can afford to take them. All political parties have been dishonest or stupid on this point since the Second World War. To say we need the immigrants to aid our economic performance is, if true, purely a short-term benefit. After all if we carry on ad nauseum as we are, there will be no land left! The human effect on the UK is already profound.
Why do we need yet more energy, housing and taxes? Every immigrant who increases the overall population needs space, a place to live, heat and electricity etc. all of which increases the burdens on our economy. Most may pay taxes (but many probably don't) but I doubt that they pay enough as plumbers, joiners etc. to give an overall benefit to the tax system.
I have a genuine, heartfelt fear for the continuation of my way of life.
Apart from the fact that the EU allows freedom of movement, there is another issue here. Most of the unskilled migrant workers come here, housing is provided and the employer can then pay them in some cases well under minimum wage - These people keep our old fashioned manufacturing base going. To stop them would cause problems in the economy. All the parties know this, so they talk tough and do little. It's no suprise to me they seem so similar on this policy.
The proclaiming of the email as "racist", especially without printing the full text, is a value judgment and a barrier to understanding. The 91Èȱ¬ needs to be neutral and not partial to one side, as it is in this case, namely the side that is guilty of the very thing it accuses others of, racism. It is the left that sees race as the sole reason for people's words and actions, it is the left that brings attention to people's race when it comes to "affirmative action" and "first xxxx to do/be xxxx", and it is the left that is very quick to smear people as racists when they are unable to counter facts.
I watched the exit from court of those two proud representatives of the British National Party - who the opened a bottle of bubbly in celebration of something or other. For more than 50 years I have watched this country's inability to deal with the race issue because of the skewed views of people like these. Be they black, brown, white or yellow - their views are to paint whole ethnic groups of our society as a danger to the BRITAIN THEY BELIEVE IN.
As someone who was born black from a English mother I have always wondered what is this country I am meant "to go back to" in the white racists view? The same applies to blacks or Asian Britons considering everyone white as their enemy.
I have always thought the racists' worse nightmare would be to be actually given their Nirvana - a society that consists of only those people they consider worthy to breath the same air as them. Why worse nightmare? Because their attacks are simply based on hatred. Bad people, lazy people and good people come from every race and creed and religion. Racists would have you believe those they hate are the only ones to fear.
So as soon as things in this idealised society start to go wrong -the leaders of these so called perfect society will have to find a group within their society to blame for all their ills. Not having people who are noticeably alien to them to blame for lack of jobs, houses or assaults on their women folk - who will they choose? People with the wrong hair or eye colouring, those who write with their left hand, the disabled?
Politicians have been mealey mouthed about all this and look where we are now. Nowhere! That you can have someone suggesting the murder of someone was justifiable because of an unsustained accusation that the murder victim stole young pupils milk money - I have also heard other presumably ridiculous theories for this one atrocity - also all unproven but these tales provides enough justification to suggest whoever they were - if they have the wrong skin colour or religion, to you the killing was justified.
The Government should get hold of Immigration Policies now - and stick to them.
My policy would be a very simple one.
1. No immigration from outside of the E.U.
2. No asylum anymore, they can go elsewhere considering they have to travel through several safe european countries to get to our shores and in so doing prove themslves to not genuinely need asylum. Given that we should never have anyone pleading asylum seriously here.
3. Those that do come from Poland etc need to be regulated in order to create a balance.
People talk about 'cultural diversity' and 'british culture gaining from foriegn culture'. How is that exactly? I can see us benefiting from hard working Poles of Bulgarians perhaps. But how exactly could we benefit from cultures that originate in backwards third world countries? How? If there culture was so great and beneficial there home countries would be wealthy enough for them not to eveer want to leave. So those who keep talking aobut the 'benefits' from forign cultures outside the E.U must be seriously stupid.
Why is immigration allowed from EU? Are you worried about immigration in general or immigration only from Non-EU?
I agree that immigration should be controlled. But it has to be controlled from all sides. Why to distinguish EU and non-EU?
We are talking about our fellow human beings here?.
If my surname is anything to go by my ancestors were illegal immigrants (on my fathers side) they landed on a south coast beach in 1066. As for my mothers side they too were illegal immigrants they came ashore from a longboat on the Orkney Isles.How strange that we denie others the right to live here.
"People talk about 'cultural diversity' and 'british culture gaining from foriegn culture'. How is that exactly? I can see us benefiting from hard working Poles of Bulgarians perhaps. But how exactly could we benefit from cultures that originate in backwards third world countries?"
And where did we get coffee from? Chocolate? Any number of musical influences on modern pop? Oh yes, 'backwards third world countries', or, as we liked to call them back then, 'colonies'.
I find it interesting that you find our culture so dignified, in contrast to those of 'backwards third world countries', considering first its origins, (Rome, Vikings, various 'barbarian' tribes, oh, and let's not forget, a whole heap of immigrants) and second, its current state (I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here, The X-Factor...).
Also, I'm not sure whether you've visited Bulgaria recently, but in my travels there, I've seen little to differentiate it from 'backwards third-world countries' I'm familiar with. I'm just not applying value-judgements which appear to be solely based on the fact that the one country is soon to join the EU while the other is not.
We hear from Professor Rowthorne of Cambridge University that the economy does not benefit from mass immigration. Some gain; some lose; the overall effect is neutral.
We know there are serious problems of overcrowding, crime, tensions and so on.
So why do politicians like Ming Campbell and Cameron and Blair keep saying that it is wonderful and must have more of it?
And why is there no population policy?
And why do commentators like you fail to test them on this subject with really testing question?
I dont think politicians benefit from immigration. Immigrants can not vote for 5-10 years anyway. There must be some serious stuff politicians are considering I think(whatever party it may be).
UK needs more working people as it already have lot of non-working people. More young generation needed to work for supporting elderly.
The Government is very fond of quoting that East Europeans are filling gaps in the labour market. Really? It is five years since the Government first said that we need immigration to fill 600,000 vacancies in the labour market.
Since then, three quarters of a million immigrants have arrived in U.K. Yet vacancies are still at 600,000.
More than half a million east Europeans have come to Britain since May 2004. This figure, a rate of almost 590 a day, does not include the self-employed, children or partners, or non E.U immigration.
So the actual number is closer to 700,000, or one in every 85 people living in the U.K.
As well as placing unprecedented pressure on schools, hospitals and roads, the migrants are costing the taxpayer up to £60million in benefits.
According to the 91Èȱ¬ Office, 55,000 are now in receipt of benefits such as tax credits, child benefit and council housing.
The number claiming state support has risen by almost 30 per cent in the past three months.
Most of those that ARE working, are in those low paid jobs that the British are not supossed to want to do. Therefore they are below the tax thresh-hold. Because they are willing to work for peanuts, the wages of U.K workers are being driven down, therefore the Government gets less tax again. Most of the unwanted immigrants send a great proportion of their money back home. So they are not consumers. Therfore not contributing to the economy.
Now would one of you bleeding heart liberals care to tell me just what benfits the U.K is gaining from the flood of unwanted immigrants?
We are only a small country. This country has massively inflated houseprices meaning that it is virtually impossible for young people to get on the housing ladder. The overload of immigrants are surely partly to blame?
I never seen any immigrant owning two or three houses and renting it for getting rent. I think house prices are increased because everybody wants to get profit out rents(buy to let). If everybody has only one house instead of three houses, there will be no housing problem.
There is a distinct contrast between the genuine cases of asylum and that of illegal immigration. unfortunately they both fall under the same category of 'immigration', and rightly so, as it is increasingly more difficult to identify the difference between the two. nevertheless, the UK is being swarmed with countless amounts immigrants; whether their geographic movement is legititmate or not we are creating a large strain on our economy. agreeably, increasing the workforce may indeed stimulate the economy by increasing the labour force. however the prediciment is that many of these immigrants that the Blair government gives ribboned invitations to are not working, are not stimulating the economy and thus increasing the burden on the system and the percentage of the population that pay their taxes, immigrant or citizen.
the next step, whether it be by the welcoming Labour governemnt or the Conservative government, is to create a system that cannot be manipulated by the numerous illegitimate immigrants. although the new policies seem tactful, i believe that the United Kingdom should aim to implement a system that is already in effect in another state. Particularly Canada's Point system. Undoubtedly alterations would have to be made to tailor the variations in the political, economical and social enviornments. i believe this would ultimately prove to be benificial for the UK. with this, any political party aiming to rid the UK of the problems of immigration should be encoaraged, and not put down.
Student @ the University Of Toronto.
To add to that only when point based system is applied to everybody (EU/Non-EU), problem will be solved.
Dear Nick, I don't know when or if you have been to places like Bradford and Burnley lately, but it is patently obvious to anyone visiting those two areas (and several others in our country) that substantial parts of these places have been quite literally taken over - mainly by Asians spanning three generations. The result is that it feels like being in a foreign country and this completely runs counter to any semblance of integration. It is a real problem which Mr Blair's latest speech will do nothing to solve and until Asian ghettos disperse into the wider community we will remain an unbalanced society. This then exacerbates racial tension and plays right into the arms of the BNP!
Dear Nick,
Given your immigration test for readers, it really does highlight how painfully similar Tories and Labour are becoming. The trouble is, if either party can side-step the issue, they will...(as perfectly seen in David Cameron's year-long delay on the matter). Which ever party does eventually manage to curb the vast numbers coming into this country, will be seen as the ones who are considered indifferent to cultural diversity, or in short the racist ones. With all this procrastinating, the far right parties such as the BNP are capitalising on the matter with their strong opinions on the issue, that they know they will get support for. Tories and Labour take note.
I work 72 hours a week. My polish friend works the same number of hours, so we work together 144 hours a week. That means that we work in two what normally 3 people do (3*40 hours=120). I think it's a benefit for government because I pay tax for each hour of my work,but there are only two people who are eligible for health care etc. what means that government doesn't need to pay for one person extra and in this way saves some extra money
Dear Nick,
I agree absolutely with posting # 21 DEVILS KITCHEN.
The EU is the elephant in the room. We are no longer in control of our own destiny. We will never control immigration illegal or otherwise whilst still a member of this monsterous,self serving and corrupt 'Club of Nations'.
No government will give us a chance at the ballot box to withdraw from it.
So on we go with thousands and thousands of good British citizens leaving these shores forever - only to be replaced with Somali murderers killing our policewomen and gypsies and gangsters from Romania and Bulgaria.
May God deliver us from this mess because Blair Brown and Cameron are not up to it - and in any case they don't give a damn.
With best regards
Simon
Why is it considered so wrong to adopt a similar policy to the U.S or Austrailia? You want to come here? Then give us a reason why we should let you? What benefits are you going to bring?
Can you speak english? No? Then you can't come in.
Your a asylum seeker? Then why are you here? Whats wrong with the countless other E.U countries you had to come through to get to these shores?
ALL asylum seekers in the UK should be refused. Period. No exceptions.
Anyone not speaking english should be refused.
Anyone who hasn't already got a job here waiting for them to do upon arrival should be refused.
Those who do come here should not be allowed any form of state welfare for the first 6 years of arriving. Lose you job? Then leave you didn't cut it.
Why is all this so hard? Why doesn't anyone care?
It has taken hundreds of years for this great nation to become what it is today. Why should all these people who offer us nothing be able to reap the benefits of it for free?
I think the immigration problem falls into two category's, the first being the "liberal problem". Liberals are surly the most stupidest people that ever walked the planet, they seem to live in some fairy tale world where every one is lovely and reasonable. But they don't understand the practicalities of space and resource.
They also find it hard to believe that people could possible be economic migrants. Deport all the liberals and the country would be a far better place.
Secondly a major problem with this issue is that humans are tribal creatures who prefer to be with their own kind, that's just a fact what ever race you are, so when you have two or more tribes you will have friction, that is just human nature. I don't think that skin colour is much of an issue these days ,it's more a cultural difference that seems to annoy people.If an immigrant comes to this country and dresses differently , behaves differently , speaks differently and does nothing to integrate and then tells us that we should convert to their way of doing things, you have to ask "why did you come here in the first place and if you don't like it, go away !".
There are lots of other factors as well, like the fact that the newspapers are all hypocrites who pamper to peoples fears, like the politicians to scared to say any thing constructive because the press will label them racist, like big business who like the cheap labour that immigrants provide, why can't we train our own young people in these skills ,plumbing, building, nursing etc.
The laws that allow people who say they are fleeing persecution were created after ww2 and are long out of date and being a part of the eu does not help at all.
what this country needs is a good dose of common sense and someone who will stand up and face down the press, the bbc and the liberal appologists (which is pretty much all the same thing). Is there any one on the horizon.... no!, so I won't be wasting my time by voting this time round, oh for proportional representation.
If John Reid proposed we should have a mature discussion about immigration then he should make a start with the House of Commons.
I can recall when immigration was the subject matter under discussion every Wednesday, without fail.
It was the MPs who had it dropped because they were afraid and/or embarassed to express their true feelings on the matter, and have it reported in Hansard.