Does Britain need a population policy? by Alasdair Murray, CentreForum

Jon Bright reviews: Does Britain need a population policy? by Alasdair Murray of CentreForum.

Alasdair Murray dissects and demystifies the immigration debate, and shows why we need a policy of decentralisation to fix the problems of immigration.

As the UN reports that 190 million people now live outside of their country of origin, and net immigration into Britain rises to record levels as the Maastricht treaty finally starts to bite, it seems odd to reflect that as little as 20 years ago serious discussions were held in Britain about how to increase our population. But, in a public sphere that seems happy to condemn immigrants both for taking jobs and for taking benefits, serious reflection on the controversial issues of population and immigration is often at a minimum.

<!--more-->This is where the merits of a third party become obvious. For the Liberal Democrats, and their leading think tank CentreForum, are the only ones talking sensibly, quietly and reflectively about when a population policy might be needed and what it might take to introduce one. This compelling, timely pamphlet is a must read for anyone who thinks "British jobs for British workers" or government controlled cuts in numbers coming in are worthwhile, let alone implementable, policies.

Murray does not romanticise immigration. Indeed he has little time for its more ephemeral traits: cultural pluralism, diversity, and the general principle of homogeneity breeding in weakness do not really get a look in. Instead, his focus is on the details of market forces, the balance sheet of immigration, as it were. He acknowledges that immigration is placing a strain on public services: Britain's population density ranks 51st in the world - and in the South East and North West, it is much higher. But his dissection of the failure of public services to cope is telling:

these problems are fundamentally the result of an overly centralised state and would (and did) exist without large scale immigration. Immigrants pay taxes and are also widely employed in the public sector, in areas such as the health service or the care of elderly people. They do not, therefore, contribute to an overall resource shortage. The core problem is the slow and inflexible system of resource allocation.

He goes on to argue for increased powers of revenue raising for local councils, particularly local income taxes, which would see them immediately benefit from newly employed immigrants.

Just as he does not romanticise it, Murray is not blinded by its size either. Britain is experiencing unprecendented immigration in particular because the Maastricht treaty has created a large volume of people who are able to immigrate here, and whose standard of living will improve significantly if they do. But, by 2011, all EU countries will be required to adopt the same immigration procedures as ours. Britain will then not be the only option available to economic migrants from Eastern Europe (along with Ireland and Sweden) - indeed, due to its geographical location, it will be one of the least convenient.

Most penetrating is Murray's analysis of the politics of the situation this creates. Both Brown and Cameron's promises to moderate immigration are vague in specifics. To implement in practice would require reversing out of EU agreements, and imposing various sorts of draconian controls, to the dismay of business confederations. They are, in short, unlikely to come to anything much.

Instead Murray foresees a future where, post 2011, immigration tails off naturally, as France and Germany open their borders and existing controls begin to function more reliably with practice. The victor of the 2010 election will probably be able to claim success in reducing immigration, whilst quietly allowing any extravagant promises of controls to drop. It is an injustice typical of our electoral system that the third party is the one most able to say this, and least able to benefit.