Immigration

Tory MPs are in Oxfordshire today for an ‘away day’. It’s supposed to focus on the autumn statement, but Tory MPs also want to make a few points about the Prime Minister’s immigration policies (read Fraser’s Telegraph column on the problems with aping Ukip) and others want to complain about the Coalition continuing when the Lib Dems have blocked the EU referendum bill and are complaining about the Tory stance on drugs (this will be in vain, but a good number of backbenchers have told me they want to bring it up anyway). But the funny thing about this away day is that many Tory backbenchers were rather surprised to

In the 2005 general election this magazine supported the Conservatives, with one exception — we urged voters in Medway not to vote for a deeply unimpressive Tory candidate by the name of Mark Reckless. Our then political editor, Peter Oborne, went so far as to write a pamphlet in support of the Labour rival, Bob Marshall Andrews, who had a commendable record of sticking it to Tony Blair. Reckless, by contrast, had nothing to commend him. He lost by just 213 votes — suggesting that The Spectator’s intervention had been decisive. But nothing, it seems, will prevent Reckless from being elected as Ukip’s second MP in two weeks’ time. The Ukip momentum

Ed Miliband chose one of his medleys of things that have gone wrong for today’s Prime Minister’s Questions. There were plenty of those to choose from, and the Labour leader started with the almighty row in the Tory party over the European Arrest Warrant. He accused David Cameron of delaying the vote because of the Rochester and Strood by-election, and offered the Prime Minister next week’s Opposition Day debate to hold it, where he said Labour would support him to get the measure through. Cameron was having none of that, though, and pledged that the vote would be held before Rochester. He claimed Miliband’s questions had collapsed. listen to ‘PMQs:

[audioplayer src=”http://traffic.libsyn.com/spectator/TheViewFrom22_23_Oct_2014_v4.mp3″ title=”James Forsyth, Mats Persson and Matthew Elliott discuss Europe” startat=60] Listen [/audioplayer]It is easy to mock David Cameron on immigration. Under pressure from the public and from Ukip, he’s having to hot-foot it to a tougher position on the free movement of labour within the European Union. Ideas dismissed as unworkable only a few months ago are now on the table. But it’s not all political positioning. There really is a serious case for Britain to be treated differently from eurozone countries when it comes to freedom of movement. Whoever ends up in government after the next election, Britain’s relationship with the EU is going to have to

It is a bold approach but, who knows, perhaps it is just crazy enough to work. I mean, what could possibly go wrong with a strategy on immigration best summarised like this: UKIP ARE RIGHT. DON’T VOTE FOR THEM. Thank heavens for Ed Miliband, eh? He’s the Tories’ last, best, weapon. What a cheery thought that is.

Everyone’s favourite unelected European was doing the broadcasting rounds this morning, popping up on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show to tell David Cameron that he can forget any plans to cap the number of EU immigrants in Britain. Here’s what José Manuel Barroso had to say:- “Any kind of arbitrary cap seems to be not in conformity with Europeans laws. For us it is very important – the principle of non-discrimination. The freedom of movement is a very important principle in the internal market: movement of goods, of capital, of services and of people. By the way, I remember when prime minister Cameron called me to ask the commission to be tough ensuring the

In a 1978 interview to mark her third year as leader of the Conservative Party, Margaret Thatcher addressed public concerns with immigration, stating that ‘people are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped’. Goodness knows what word she would use to describe the situation we face today. Anyone who has knocked on doors or surveyed their constituents in recent years will tell you the public have had enough. Immigration into the UK is the number one concern to the British public and, in my judgment, a party that does not address it will not win. In 2003 427,000 people arrived in Britain. In the years that followed

Is David Cameron about to announce emergency controls on European jobseekers or a points-based system on EU migration? The Times and the Sun both splashed on these ideas today (after Coffee House first revealed Cameron had promised a ‘big bang’ policy to Tory MPs, then led some of them to believe that he could introduce an Australian-style points-based system), and the PM was confronted on both as he did his walkout in Rochester, where he is campaigning today for the by-election. Funnily enough, the Prime Minister didn’t deny any of the reports – partly because it’s convenient to do so when trying to beat Ukip but also because this is

Whatever David Cameron’s promised ‘big bang’ announcement on immigration in the EU is, it has certainly excited Conservative backbenchers. A group of them confronted him this afternoon to ask whether Britain would be moving to a points-based system for EU migration along the lines of Australia (something Ukip advocates), and they say that he did not reject it. This has made them even more excited. The Prime Minister was speaking to the ‘No Turning Back’ group of Tory MPs, which some of those present at the meeting described as ‘a little uncomfortable’, mainly because these are the MPs who tend to cause him the most trouble. Others felt the meeting

The Tories will announce a big new policy on freedom of movement in the European Union, David Cameron told his MPs tonight. At a meeting of the Parliamentary party, the Tory leader promised what one Eurosceptic attendee described as a ‘big bang’ announcement on freedom of movement. Apparently this pleased those there no end, even those usually critical of the Prime Minister. MPs were also told they are expected to visit Rochester to campaign at least three times, and the cabinet five times, which is clearly an intervention from Lynton Crosby as the whips had decided at the end of last week that they wouldn’t bother. This was what one

Boris is at it again this morning. Revealing, that is, why he cannot be trusted with office. To be charitable, I wouldn’t trust many newspaper columnists with the keys to power.  But, of course, most Grub Street residents have no interest in being crowned Emperor. Boris does. Which is why his columns for the Daily Telegraph are so troublesome. You will remember the recent occasion when he suggested the burden of proof in criminal trials be reversed. That was revealing, but in a bad way. So is today’s column in which he proposes setting quotas for immigrants from other EU countries. As is so often the case you are left to wonder