Long grass helps hide government's immigration problems

There’s a crucial line in the government’s immigration white paper which admits its preferred options – a minimum salary threshold and high skill demands – would hit the economy. 

On page 111, in a rare passage that exposes the benefits of freedom of movement, the document says that by imposing a ‘salary threshold and skills threshold…. that GDP is likely to be lower than it would have been under free movement’. The government is pursuing a policy which it knows is likely to make all UK inhabitants financially worse off.

Apparently, despite this cost and the criticism coming from all sides, freedom of movement is still worth dumping.

The government sees immigration as one of its trump cards. It believes that taking a tough stance on the matter wins it votes. They have made the judgement that it is worth all the negative headlines, the repeated and very vocal concerns from business especially over the salary threshold just to appear robust.

Throughout her time in government Theresa May has stubbornly resisted any attempt to soften the policy. That it has failed year after year is of no consequence to her.

But, what actually has been promised?

The current cap on the number of skilled workers such as doctors or engineers will be scrapped. 

Low skilled workers will continue to be allowed in for a year until 2025, in an attempt to soften the blow for industries that rely on cheap labour.

The government says it wants its new system phased in from 2021. Surely this is highly improbable; I cannot remember the last time a major and complicated logistical project, which will undoubtedly require new IT and data provisions was delivered either on time or on budget.

Bizarrely, the government also cannot decide whether or not Mrs May’s never achieved target of reducing net migration annually to the tens of thousands is still in place. The Prime Minister insists it is but the Home Secretary has repeatedly refused to endorse it preferring instead to say net migration will come down to sustainable levels. It may well prove that sustainable levels are not too dissimilar from current levels.

The key aspect here is the government is clearly severely divided over a minimum salary threshold of £30,000. Several ministers, reportedly led by chancellor Philip Hammond, are opposed to the cap, thinking it far too high and they have the backing of business. The home secretary likes to frame the policy around being skill based, but an awful lot of people with skills earn under £30,000.

Rather than resolve the matter, it has been punted into the long grass, by promising a consultation. Doesn’t the long grass hide a lot of things these days?

It is this division that has delayed the White Paper so drastically; it was supposed to be published in the summer of 2017. Clearly, ministers were keen to get it published as soon as possible, partly to come before the meaningful vote takes place on Theresa May’s Brexit deal, but with the Brexit clock ticking, demands for it were deafening.

Even as late as yesterday, it was unclear if it would emerge today. It was only confirmed by an email from the Home Office at 7.33pm last night and the trail, with embargoed comments from Sajid Javid didn’t arrive until in my inbox until 7.51pm.

When I interviewed the home secretary a few months ago, Mr Javid described leaving the European Union as a ‘unique, once in a generation opportunity, to completely redesign our immigration system’. He added: ‘I’m in a privileged position to be able to do that.’

What has been produced so far, however, is little more than a wish list. With the fate of Brexit, and all its variables and implications, still unknown, this has the benefit of inbuilt pragmatism and flexibility – ‘sustainable levels’ can mean almost anything after all. The promise of stricter – and lower – immigration remains a political ploy to please Conservative voters; in reality, it may prove to be a mirage.

Details of the government's white paper on immigration can be found here

Untouchable Javid set for the top

How many members of Theresa May’s cabinet are unsackable?

In normal times Boris Johnson, for all of his breaches of cabinet collective responsibility, freewheeling policy-making and gaffes,  would have done enough to warrant dismissal several times over.

By refusing to take another cabinet position, indeed enhancing his current role, in the midst of a reshuffle, Jeremy Hunt also showed the power of his position and, conversely, the weakness of the Prime Minister.

Now Sajid Javid is showing he is untouchable as he brings a fresh approach to the Home Office; he may not make it ‘fit for purpose’ but he is examining things from a new perspective and appears set to try and sweep away much of the stagnant thinking that has dominated it for so long, dating long before Cameron and the coalition cane to power.

It is possible Theresa May thought she was appointing someone of a similar mould when she was forced to replace Amber Rudd following the exposure of the Windrush scandal but, cautious though she is, even the Prime Minister must have realised the home office needed a drastic intervention, giving it distance and distinctiveness from her time in the job. After all, the blame for the Windrush mess could largely be placed at the door of Number 10; there were loud calls for the Prime Minister herself to resign. Demonstrating that she had listened was crucial. Javid, therefore, cannot be moved. Regardless of how much he might rile his boss in the months, and perhaps years, to come, May knows that she cannot afford to get rid of him. 

Regardless of the May's intentions, in the short space of time Javid has held the position he has signalled a policy break from May,  simultaneously creating for himself an identifiable powerful platform in common with liberal Toryism from which he could be perfectly placed to launch a leadership bid.

Apart from his repudiation of the phrase ‘hostile environment’, Javid has, in recent days signalled students from abroad will be removed from net migration figures - an act that has long had broad cabinet support - and seems set to reform the Tier 2 visa cap which has prevented much needed medical, and other, professionals getting jobs here. Even the longstanding, unachieved and likely to be unachievable, pledge to cut net migration to the tens of thousands could be on the way out.

These have all been shibboleths of Theresa May’s time in government, as Home Secretary and as Prime Minister but no longer.  Even though all Javid has so far offered is words, it seems that these already are able to strip some of the totemic power from May's catchphrases.

Jacob Rees-Mogg remains favourite to succeed May as Tory leader, but for all the Victorian pizzazz he might bring to the position, wiser heads in the party will know he lacks the broad appeal that could win a general election, especially against the Jeremy Corbyn who has shown himself to be a consummate campaigner.

Possessing the ability to attract a wider voting base, while draining much of the bile from within the Home Office, in coming months, Sajid Javid is likely to assume the slot as May's natural successor. The son of a Pakistani bus driver - like Sadiq Khan - and rising, through hard work, from a penurious background to great success and wealth, Javid possesses a rich hinterland that fits perfectly with the Conservative Party's self-image. He would be wise, though, not to blithely dismiss allegations of Islamophobia within the Tory Party by relying on his own success as proof and dismissing the organisations like the Muslim Council of Britain, not least because he, as Home Secretary, is very likely to need their support and assistance in the future. And he certainly doesn't want to challenge the Labour Party in the 'who can handle allegations of racism worse' competition.

Nevertheless, for all those who claim few Home Secretaries rise to the highest office of state, Sajid Javid is putting himself in the possible position of proving them wrong, for the second time in a row.