Immigration - some more thoughts.

It's a topic thats produced some of the sharpest exchanges in the TV debates, but as I've said before all three of the major parties policies leave me feeling uncomfortable. There's also been some debate over the statistics they've been coming up with.

It was therefore with interest that I read here that in terms of workers from outside the EU, more left the UK in 2008. Which makes a nonsense of all the policies - how can you place a cap, or impose regional limits when more are leaving than arriving? There are of course different types of immigration:

Asylum Seekers - those who come to this country in order to flee genuine persecution at home. Only the Greens seem to be talking about this and welcoming (or even recognising) our Moral duty to accept and welcome all who come.

Economc Migrants from outside the EU - this is where the debate has been focussed because this is where you can place limits. But if more people are leaving than arriving, the tone of the debate (which I've long said is being forced too much by the BNP) is completely nonsensical.

Migrants from within the EU - reallistically we can do nothing about this whilst being part of the EU, so you either have three choices: you take freedom of movement with the EU as a good thing (as I would see it); you grit your teeth and bare it or you vote UKIP and get us out of the EU.

Illegal Immigrants/Trafficked people - for me this is the biggest concern. The tories and Labour don't seem to be talking about it at all. The Lib dems are at least trying to address it, although their plans probably don't appeal to everyone. For me the amnesty in order to be able to get at the gangs involved in trafficking people makes some kind of sense. We need to be doing more to be stopping this modern-day form of slavery, but the debate so far seems unwilling to get to grips with this.

So all in all, what they're all telling you doesn't make all that much sense.

Policy Comparison 9 - Welfare

Finally, I'm getting around to our final policy area. Welfare is quite a tricky area to do a comparison. There is broad agreement that we need the welfare system, broad agreement that it could be improved in some ways. I suspect that most of what would be suggested here would be tinkering that would benefit some at the expense of others. Either that or more rhetoric about cutting red tape, etc... On other hand what I would hope to see are proposals that actually make sense in terms of reducing poverty, especially child poverty, that offer people enough to live on, but actually do something about the benefits trap and offer people an incentive to work with stigmatising benefits. Having enough to live off should be a right and not a privilege.

Again in a fairly random order:

BNP

• People who genuinely want to work must be provided with the opportunity to do so in return for training which will put them back into proper full-time employment.
• In return for financial support and training for a new career, the benefit recipient must complete a certain number of hours of work per week.
• Make all benefits and social housing only available to British citizens.
• Make length of residency in an area the key criterion for council house allocation.
• Preserve the 'right to buy' of individual tenants, but with the money from sales being used to build more council houses.
• Take all privatised social housing stock back under local democratically controlled council ownership.
• Ensure that the billions being spent on the utterly bogus asylum seeker and immigration swindles is redeployed to alleviate the appalling conditions under which many of Britain's old people are forced to live.
• Restore the earnings link with pensions and ensure that elderly people who have paid a lifetime of taxes and reared families should not have to sell their homes to pay for care in their old age.

I can't get past the rascist and discriminatory nature of some of these proposals in order to properly evaluate the populist measures contained elsewhere.

LABOUR

• Guaranteed job or training place for 18-24 year olds unemployed for over six months.
• Increase child benefit and child tax credit.
• Increase the Pension Credit to a minimum of £130 a week.
• A Winter Fuel Payment of £400 for over 80s households and £250 to the over 60s.
• Help savers by increasing the threshold of Individual Savings Accounts to over £10,000.
• Increase statutory redundancy pay to £380 a week.
• Extend the Stamp Duty holiday for properties under £175,000

Ok - what's here is good as far it goes. As I've said elsewhere I have reservation about the idea of guaranteed jobs/training. Winter fuel payments are unarguably a good idea as is encouraging savings. How they pay for this is another matter.

LIB-DEMS

• Restore the link between the basic state pension and earnings immediately.
• Reform Winter Fuel Payments to extend them to all severely disabled people.
• Meet the government's obligations towards Equitable Life policyholders who have suffered loss.
• Give people greater flexibility in accessing part of their personal pension fund early.
• End the rollercoaster of tax credit overpayments by fixing payments for six months at a time.
• Give people control over their pension by scrapping the rule that compels you to buy an annuity when you reach 75.
• Allow individuals to save through the UK Infrastructure Bank, offering stable long-term returns.
• Increase the income tax threshold to £10,000 - taking 3.6m of the lowest paid out of the tax.

Again, there's some good ideas here. I actually like their proposed changes to the tax system and the idea of the UK Infrastructure Bank has some appeal as well and includuing the severely diasbled in winter fuel payments seems eminently sensible.

UKIP

• Child Benefit, the Child Trust Fund, Child Tax Credits and the Education Maintenance Allowance should be merged into an enhanced Child Benefit payable for each of the first three children in each family.
• The Childcare element of Working Tax Credits, Early Years Funding, Sure Start expenditure and the tax relief on Employer Nursery Vouchers should be replaced with flat-rate, non-means tested nursery vouchers to cover around half the cost of a full-time nursery place for all children aged two to four.
• Instead of social housing being let at below-market rents with tenants liable for full Council Tax, with social tenants entitled to claim income-related Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, local councils should charge social tenants an all-inclusive rent (rent plus Council Tax), set at a flat percentage of the tenant household's gross income.
• Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit for private tenants should be phased out and replaced with 'Workfare' jobs, which will be administered by local councils, to ensure that those who would otherwise not be able to find work can still cover their rent and Council Tax, as well as contributing something of value to the local community.
• All other 'key benefits' (Jobseeker's Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Income Support, Carer's Allowance, Statutory Maternity Pay) as well as student maintenance grants should be rolled into a single, flat-rate Basic Cash Benefit ('BCB'), set at the same weekly rate as Jobseeker's Allowance/Income Support.
• Entitlement to the BCB should be extended to all low- and non-earners, in particular, to married or co-habiting mothers, students and carers, irrespective of household composition, income or assets.
• This Party proposes to replace a myriad of complicated means-tested benefits with straightforward universal benefits, the running cost of the entire welfare and pensions systems will be no more than £1.7bn, giving a saving to the taxpayer of £8bn.
• Only allow entitlement to welfare benefits after a minimum waiting period of ten years and on obtaining British citizenship for those who originally entered the country with a valid work permit or for reasons of marriage to a British citizen.

A programme of more wholescale reform of the system, but I suspect its all a little bit pie-in-the-sky, cutting red tape rhetoric dressed up in misleading details which are probably unmanageable. The figures of savings seem conjured up from nowhere and I suspect the changes they suggest would cost more to implement than they would actually save. Similarly, the proportion of household income for rent for social housing seems unworkable - how would youn account for seasonal or unpredictable incomes (and that's just one problem) whilst the idea of workfare jobs seems to be a step back towards the Victorian poorhouses.

CONSERVATIVES

• Create 'The Work Programme' - one single back-to-work programme for everyone who is unemployed, including the 2.6 million people claiming Incapacity Benefits. Support will be provided based on an individual's needs rather than the benefit that they are claiming.
• Support the young unemployed by referring them on to the Work Programme after 6 months of unemployment.
• The Work Programme will be delivered by private and voluntary providers, who will only be paid when someone gets and keeps a job.
• This party supports ending the couple penalty in the tax credit system as we make savings from our welfare reform plans.
• During the recession we will introduce four new programmes to supplement the Work Programme: Youth Action for Work, Work for Yourself, Work Together, and Work Clubs.
• This party will create an extra 10,000 university places next year. We will fund the cost for this by giving graduates an incentive to repay their student loan debts to the taxpayer ahead of schedule.
• Any new business started in the first two years of after the election will pay no Employer National Insurance on the first ten employees it hires during its first year (predicted to generate around 60,000 additional jobs over two years).

Most of this strikes me as completely unworkable - if the providers of the work programme only get paid when people get jobs, given the current lack of available jobs then I can't see voluntary or private sector agencies queuing up to provide the programme. They're talkingf about creating 60,000 jobs for 2.6 million people The thing sounds pretty horrible anyway - could they not think of a better name, sounds like a sentance a jidge would give out.

GREEN

• Everyone to receive a basic Citizen's Income to allow everybody to make meaningful choices between paid employment, part-time work, self employment, volunteering and encourage a better balance between work and everyday life.
• Extend workers rights to part time, casual workers and the self employed. Democracy in cooperatives and workplaces would be encouraged and this Party would value and protect carers and volunteers.
• The value of those who care voluntarily for the elderly is appreciated when we see the high price the market demands for such services.
• This Party would introduce a Citizen's Pension that would pay pensioners a liveable amount, without means testing and would be linked to the rise in average earnings. Independent studies by the National Association of Pension Funds have shown that a citizen's Pension could be afforded today within current net expenditure on state pensions.
• By abolishing tax relief on private pension contributions we can save enough money to provide much of the extra funds needed.
• With a decent state pension it is unnecessary to make additional contributions compulsory.
• Voluntary private and occupational schemes organised for and by the workers and pensioners concerned should be implemented.

I like the idea of a citizens income and citizens pension and would wholeheartedly supprt the extension of workers rights. I'll confess to getting a bit lost in the whole pension thing.

Summary
I kind of feel that I should be more passionate about the proposals here than I am. After all these are important concerms. Maybe I'm just getting a bit too cynical about the whole lot of them, or maybe its just that none of the parties are really getting to grips with things here - the Green, Labour and Lib-Dems all have individual good ideas. The Tories and UKIP seem to have dreamt up their policies late at night down the pub and the BNP are still beyond the pale - but I remain deeply uninspired by all 6. Feel free to disagree. As a rough order, I'd probably go:

1. Labour
2. Greens
3. Lib Dems 4. Conservatives
5. UKIP
6. BNP

Overall Summary

For those of you who've stayed with me throughout I hope you've found it interesting or helpful. any feedback is welcome.

Putting it all together my overall ranking would be:

6. BNP (nine 6th places out of 9) they are still an extremist racist party who twist every policy area to fit their own loathsonme agenda.
5. UKIP (two 4th places and seven 5th places - move up in a couple of areas due to particularly poor policies for Labour on immigration and the tories on Education). Like the BNp try and twist everything to their own agenda, but the agenda is less objectionable. Some policies seem to be trying to hold very incompatible viewpoinys simultaneously.
4. Conservatives (Two 3rd places, six 4th places, one 5th place) I've tried to be open minded to the possible strengths of their policies, but for me they remain still too committed to private sector sorting out the public sector, letting the market govern and offering the public false choices rather than genuinely having ideas to improve things. I see no substance to back up the Big Society slogan. I think they would be bad for social cohesion.
3. Labour (the most inconsistent - three 1st places, one 2nd, three 3rd, one 4th and one 5th) They have sensible ideas in some areas, but are weak on the environment and very bad on immigration. My main issue remains one of trust and a feeling that they're running out of steam.
2. Lib-Dems ( Three 1st places, three 2nd places, three 3rd places) I really like them on education and democracy (my main reason fotr supporting them would be on voting reform) and their strong on the environment too. Most of their policies have something to recommend them, even if not all the suggestions make total sense. In general, though, they're not as different to the other two as they would like to pretend and have little more overall vision.
1. Greens (four 1st places, four 2nd places and one 3rd). They have the policies that excite me the most and have the most vision. The offer the most positive genuine alternative to the three main parties. Slightly lacking in detail in some places, but overall their policies have the most respect for people and the planet.

The Joneses

Every so often a film comes along which has an idea that is actually really good. The Joneses is such a film. The idea in a nutshell - a family move into a well-to-do suburban neighbourhood and seem like the ideal family with all the latest must-have items. Sooner rather than later all their neighbours want what they have too. The only thing is that that the Joneses aren't a real family at all but a stealth marketing team bosting sales of these items by the ripple effect.

A great idea is one thing, a great film is another and The Joneses is not a great film. It has good moments: it has some genuine laughs, the kind if performance from David Duchovny that makes you wonder why he hasn't made more better films, some moments of genuine chemistry between him and Demi Moorem, a welcome straight turn from

But overall you kind of leave with the feeling that they didn't know what to do with their idea and move in too many different directions at once. There are some moments that touch on satire, some broader comedy but then the film lurches uncomfortably in the final act first into melodrama and then into rom-com mode. The sub-plots involving the two children have some really good moments, but, especially in the case of the secretly-gay fake-son, are not given enough time to fully develop. This scattergun technique diffuses the focus and results in an ultimately not quite satisfying experience as though the film was just that little bit afraid to really try and skewer marketting practices fully.

Overall - 6.5/10 - The idea is wonderful, and there are good moments and good performances but overall the film can't really decide what it wants to be. The ride is definitely entertaining and watchable, just not sure it really takes you where it hints it might.

Where the tories might have got it wrong....

Or, in other words, why the Lib-Dem boost disturbs them so much. Because it clearly does disturb them - hence Lord Tebbitt' rather arrogant and patronising comments about the need to burst the bubble sooner rather than later. The tory strategy seems to have been to poor lots of money into the marginals that they were in with the best chance of winning. To get an overall majority the tories would need to gain an extra 111 seats. Looking at their target list (lists vary slightly due to boundary changes, but still give a rough idea of the level we're talking about) 111 would be Morecambe and Lunsdale requiring a 6% swing. Currently the national swing from Labour to the tories is about 5% with possibly a 1-1.5% boost in the marginals, so this actually looks winnable. However, there are alot of seats in those 111 the tories won't win.

Fir a start there are 23 seats held by the Lib-Dems which all polls indicate the tories won't win one of. Then there are an additional 2 held by the SNP and one by an independant. I think we could also rule out any seats in Scotland where the tory vote appears to be falling almost as much as Labour's (which could present us with at least a possiblity that the tories will win the most seats but lose their only one in Scotland) and any seats where they would have to come from third to overtake the Lib Dems in second to win.

Jumping over all of these would take us down to Sherwood at 159 on the list requiring an 8.2% swing, which is looking a lot less likely. It gets worse for the tories - their strategy seems to have been based on the theory that they wouldn't be losing any seats to either Labour or the Lib-Dems, both of whom seemed in decline at the start of the campaign. However the Lib-Dem boost means that the polls are currently showing a 2.5%-3% swing from the tories to the Lib-Dems. Currently the tories are defending 13 seats from the Lib-Dems which would require a swing of less than 3% to lose. A few of these might be saved by the decision of UKIP not to stand against Euro-sceptic tories, but they could still lose about 10 of them. This means that in order to get a majority of just won they could be needing to win seats like Ealing North requiring 9.05% swing and to be honest at the moment, they look a long way off that at the moment.

To look at things another way, on May 6th for the tories the election could be won or lost in the South West of England. If they manage to turn yellow seats blue on the day, then they are in with a chance. If the status quo remains, it will be hard to get a majority, but they might be on course to be the largest party. If however, as seems likely at the moment, blue seats start turning yellow then the task for the conseervatives is going to be almost impossible.

Why our system is not fit for purpose?

These are thoughts that come out of various discussions I have been having with people over the last few weeks with regard to the political system in the UK and why it needs changed. Any glance at recent polls and what they would mean converted into seats shows that there is something wrong with the current system, but it’s not the numbers that I want to focus on today, but rather a much more philosophical issue – why is there such a disconnect between the mood of the public and what is being offered by the three main political parties? Why do we look at Cameron, Brown and Clegg and feel deeply uninspired by the lot of them? How did we get here? The roots of the problem, I believe, lie much deeper than the expenses scandal.

So how did we get here? We have a very old political system which has changed and adapted over time, but over the course of the last century it became increasingly tied into the dualistic opposition between left and right, between Conservative and Labour, between the two great modernist meta-narratives of capitalism and socialism. And therein lies the key to the problem, whilst society as a whole has moved on, our system hasn’t – we still have the old political behemoths of Labour and Tory battling it out in a system where it is very difficult for a third party to break through. Witness the ’83 election where the Alliance polled about 26% of the vote and finished with 20 out of 650 seats. There are still so many parts of the country that would vote for a monkey in red rosette or a blue rosette.

So the system hasn’t changed, but the parties have – both left and right have gone through something of an existential crisis over the last 30 years. The left’s came first through the dominance of the Thatcherite right in the 80s. In many respects Thatcher was the last modernist PM of this country. However much you and I may disagree with her and her policies she had a vision and a philosophy (stemming from Friedman-esque free market economics). Of course, the paradox with Thatcher is that in order to try and bring about her vision, she actually introduced many measures that went the other way – to try and produce small government with Labour controlled local authorities, she ended up centralising a lot of power. But that is to go off on a tangent. The important point is that for over a decade the left were effectively unelectable in the UK. Add to this the collapse of communism in Europe and it appeared as a victory for the Right. Looking more closely, I would call it the start of a victory for the Centre. After all many things that the Left had been fighting for since the start of the century were now being accepted as part of the consensus – nobody is talking about dismantling the welfare state anymore, workers have more and more rights enshrined in the law, etc...

But inevitably the pendulum started to swing the other way, or at least partially the other way. To give him his due, Blair made Labour electable again. He also started a grab for the centre ground by all parties. I’ve never been convinced by how coherent a philosophy the Third Way was (it certainly wasn’t a modernist meta-narrative) but it positioned Labour in a place where they could take advantage of the tories new unpopularity. The success of New Labour for at least two elections, probably three, was as much a vote against the tories than a vote for them. Note that the 97 election was the first one where tactical voting had had a large impact. You see, we were starting to doubt the capitalist meta-narrative too. It had only brought us greater inequality and unfairness.

During these 30 years we also had governments that had such large majorities and were thus able to do pretty much as they pleased, despite only having at most 40% support in the population. The result could only be an alienation for many from the political process. Add to this the disappointment of many on the left over New Labour’s track record and this disenchantment increases. The expenses scandal is merely the icing on the cake.

The Blair years also represented a new level in the use of spin and image. Politicians were now telling us how we should see what we were seeing and so on. This leads to the perception true or otherwise of Blair as a triumph of style over substance, of winning power through appearances. That’s a legacy that we are still dealing with today.

So we come to today with a system that still only really gives us a choice between two alternatives, but at its broadest that is a choice between centre-Right and centre-left and often a choice between centre and centre. So the question we have is what does Labour stand for? What does Conservative stand for? (And I’m not going to buy Big Society – as articulated by them so far it is a vague and nebulous slogan not a vision or an idea)? Ultimately both stand for getting elected. Yes there are differences, but they are largely differences on how to achieve the same ends rather than about the kind of society we want to be living in. The Lib-Dems appear to be standing for being different from the others, but are unclear on how exactly they want to be different. So, with parties that ultimately stand more for getting power than how they would use it, it is inevitable that they choose their leaders accordingly. Both Cameron and Clegg are arguably the result of the perceived Blair-ite trend of style over substance, giving the electorate a polished product who can’t be objected too, but which crucially also fails to inspire. Brown I would see as one of the last remaining products of the time when the left-right distinction meant more, but he is struggling to adapt to the current political reality.

The rot goes deeper. With the parties ultimately standing more for getting elected than for a vision, they won’t attract people of vision or people who care about the issues. Not that I’m saying that their politicians are all self-serving. I think many of them go into politics with an idea to make things better, but I’m not convinced they have the real passion and vision and how to do that. Instead those with passion and vision are attracted either to political activism outside party politics or to the fringe parties – the Greens (whose politics are harder to place on an old left-right scale), etc... I mean even UKIP are much clearer on what they stand for on their particular issue than the big three. (Incidentally, I think the Scottish and Welsh nationalists benefit here as well from having a clear point they stand for). Of course, the iniquity of the system is that these views are sidelined by a system which won’t allow them a voice. If we want a politics that really engages with the people again, that has the ability to inspire and excite, then we need to get the likes of the Greens into parliament and force the other parties to work in a new way than the old dualistic opposition, to form a new creative politics of ideas, not merely party loyalties. This is why I believe the current system is not fit for purpose and why I will be voting Lib-Dem – not because they are any better than the others necessarily (although I do like at least some of their ideas), but because they represent the best chance there’s been during my lifetime for a genuine change to the system. (And that change must be to a proportional system – I fear AV might just re-enforce the old two-part duopoly).

Policy Comparison 8 - Immigration/Asylum

Ok, onto the penultimate area now. At the risk of being out of step with the majority of the public, the things that has dismayed me most about the immigration debate so far is how much the main parties are letting the likes of the BNP force the issue. Labour and the Lib-Dems seemed to have lurched towards the right on this issue since the last election.

My own views on the issue - yes, the system does seem a bit of a mess and we probably need to do something to keep better track of who is coming. At the same time, we need to recognise that immigrants often bring economic and cultural advantages to the country. There is possibly also a case to argue that with an ageing population we are going to need more people to come and pay taxes in order to be able to balance the books. Of course, this needs to be balanced with concerns about over-crowding. Something also needs to be done about people-trafficking which nobody wants to admit is happening.

As far as asylum goes, which has been under-mentioned in the election so far, there should be no limits, we need to stop the disgrace of locking up children and we need to provide asylum seekers with an amount they can live off and the opportunity to work whilst their applications are being processed. No questions about that, in my book, its what is morally and socially right.

Again, in no particular order:

BNP

• Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally.
• Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British.
• Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate.
• Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently.
• Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases.
• Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain.

Or, in other words, get rid of as many as possible of different race and culture. I'm tempted to leave it there and let such a self-evidently abhorrent policy condemn itself, but practically how would you deport so many illegals if you didn't know where they were, except if the BNP had their way they would be easy to spot as they'd be the only ones here with a different skin colour.


Lib - Dems

• Improve border controls with the introduction of a National Border Force and reintroduce exit checks at all ports.
• Introduce a regional strand to the points-based immigration system, awarding more points for possessing the skills the UK economy needs and for moving to areas that have the will and resources to receive more migrants.
• Work closely with the European Union on immigration, especially in tackling people-trafficking and immigration crime, and a shared asylum policy.
• Prioritise the improvement of visa services at UK consulates, introduce a full complaints procedure and review the restrictions on rights of appeal.
• Transfer responsibility for producing migration statistics to the Office of National Statistics to restore public confidence.
• Increase the price of work permits paid by businesses to employ immigrant workers and use the money to re-train British workers in sectors affected by immigration.
• Develop an earned route to citizenship, beginning with a two-year work permit, for irregular migrants who have been in the UK for 10 years, subject to English language and civics tests or proof of participation in suitable courses in these subjects.
• Promote Integration as well as Immigration by tackling housing shortages, extending language lessons, reforming the Life In The UK test to empower new arrivals to engage fully in society, and encourage twinning arrangements between schools with different ethnic or social mixes of pupils.

There's a mixture here, and some ideas which have become controversial. Overall I still find the tone a bit too anti-immigrant for me (especially increasing the price of work permits), but there are other things to recommend it. The amnesty issue is a tricky one, but it is at least an attempt to do something about a hidden problem and they have a willingness to tackle people-trafficking that I applaud. It might encurage more people to try and come, but something needs to be done. Similarly I'm quite attracted to the regional variation idea and think it could work if you get the first bits right of having a better idea of who's here in the first place. People who come legally are maybe easier to track and less likely to disappear into the hidden economy.


Greens

• We will replace existing British Immigration law with an Immigration law based on the principle of fair and prompt treatment of applicants rather than on excluding dishonest applicants whatever the cost to the honest ones. It will not aim to allow increased net migration to Britain other than for humanitarian reasons or as a result of other party policies. We will consult widely with affected groups to ensure that features of the current law which are of concern to them are addressed.
• We will allow the partners, prospective partners, immediate families and prospective families of British residents to join them without excessive delays or unreasonable requirements for proof of relationship. This will be independent of the financial status of the resident and will not be dependent on her/him providing accommodation (We recognise that this must be implemented in association with a housing policy).
• A person's right to stay will not be linked to that of partners or families but will be independent. Families will not be divided by deportation unless the deportee poses a serious danger to public safety.
• We will abolish the 'primary purpose' rule under which partners are refused entry if it is thought that the primary purpose of relationship is for them to gain entry to the UK.
• We will allow the victims of past errors in immigration decisions to come to the UK where these decisions have resulted in continuing serious deprivation.
• Migrants illegally in the UK for over five years will be allowed to remain unless they pose a serious danger to public safety.
• We will aim to ensure that UK immigration control takes place primarily at ports of entry so that no resident is required to carry proof of residence.
• We will implement a visibly independent appeal process for Immigration decisions.

I like the tone of this a lot better. There's much more of recognition of the rights and dignity of immigrants and treating them as human beings rather than as a problem to be dealt with. I like the principles of not splitting families up, of trying to rectify past mistakes, etc... This would get my vote. I also really like the idea of removing the ultimate decision from politicians to an independent decision.

Labour

• Introduce a points-based system for permanent residence and citizenship clearly spelling out the rights and obligations of legal migrants to Britain, as well as the requirements for earning British citizenship. These requirements will include learning English, paying tax and obeying the law "because we believe its fair that those who look to build a new life here should earn the right to do so".
• Enforcing strict penalties against immigrants or their employers if they break the rules, including the establishment of new partnerships between local authorities and enforcement agencies to gather intelligence, disrupt illegal activity and track down illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers.
• Increase the rate of removal of illegal migrants and failed asylum seekers and further expand our detention estate.
• Help communities manage migration at a local level including the Migration Impacts Fund, paid for by an extra levy on new migrants as they enter our country, which will help lessen the short-term impacts on local communities new migration can have.
• Changes to how housing is allocated so that councils can choose to give greater priority to those who have been on the waiting lists the longest, those with local of family connections, or those needing support to take up or remain in low paid employment among other things.
• To ensure fairness we will insist that employers must advertise skilled jobs to resident workers through JobCentre Plus for four weeks before they can bring in a worker from outside Europe.

This makes me feel deeply uncomfortable. There seems to be a clear attempt to ward off the BNP. Nowhere are immigrants seen as anything but a problem, there seems a questionable link with crime, the increase in detention as a response must be opposed, no recognition of the positives immigration can bring to an area and an attitude towards housing that opens the door for widescale discrimination.

UKIP

• A five-year moratorium on settled immigration (except for people with parents or grandparents born in the UK) until proper immigration controls are put in place, and the situation regarding illegal immigrants has been resolved by means of expulsion.
• The party says work permits should continue to be issued to companies requiring employees to work in the UK throughout this moratorium period.
• After the moratorium, future immigration would then be on a strictly controlled basis using a points system. To ensure the UK population does not reach 70 million we will also implement a cap of 50,000 (gross) immigration.
• No one should be admitted unless they are fluent in English, have the required educational qualifications, demonstrate loyalty to the UK, its laws and values, and can support themselves financially, with no recourse to public funds - and this to apply equally to their dependents.
• Britain can only control immigration by reclaiming control of her borders. This can only be done by leaving the European Union, as the EU now controls asylum seeker policy and requires open borders under its immigration policies.
• UK immigration policy should not discriminate in favour of EU citizens at the expense of Commonwealth citizens. There should be fair and equal treatment for all.
• Citizenship should be granted on a provisional basis for a ten-year probationary period. New citizens should be required to sign a 'Declaration of Citizenship'.
• Applications will only be considered at a British port or airport where the applicant has arrived directly from the country from which asylum is sought; or at the British embassy or consulate in that country.

In its own way, I find this far less offensive than Labour’s policy. It’s pretty much what you would expect from UKIP and whilst I would oppose most of the measures here, they don’t have the racial edge of the BNP or the focus on detention of Labour. Yes, its anti-European, of course, and the last point shows a lack of understanding of the realities of lived experience of asylum seekers.

Conservatives

• Immigration can be of real benefit to the UK, but only if it is properly controlled with its impact on the economy, public services and social cohesion taken into account.
• For economic migrants from outside the EU, we propose a two-stage process: the first stage is making eligible for admission those who will benefit the economy.
• The second stage is an annual limit to control the numbers admitted with regard to the wider effects on society and the provision of public services.
• This party would also apply transitional controls as a matter of course in the future for all new EU entrants.
• This party will introduce a dedicated Border Police Force to protect the UK's borders, with the power to stop, search, detain and prosecute the terrorists, traffickers and illegal immigrants who currently slip through the net.

I like the first point. The rest has its own sense. There’s no mention of asylum and I don’t believe the Border Force is the answer by itself to people-trafficking, just as current customs and police measures haven’t been the answer to drug-trafficking say. The cap is at least an arguable policy, but it does fail to take into account the differences between different areas of the UK. I’m also unsure about how practicable the transitional controls within the EU would be. I think the freedom of travel and labour within the EU has largely been a good thing. What they are proposing seems a half-way house that I’m not sure works – in many respects UKIP’s policy is more internally coherent.

Summary

So the order this time would be

1. Greens – at lot to like in their approach to treating immigrants as humans first.

2. Lib-Dems – some of the ideas are controversial, but I like what they’re trying to address, although not all areas of the policy.

3. Conservatives – the highest I’ve placed them yet, but their approach seems more reasonable than Labour on this issue.

4. UKIP – I disagree with this policy in its entirety, but it doesn’t make me uncomfortable in its tone

5. Labour – we need to be using less detention, not more. I really dislike this policy and from a Labour government it is very disappointing

6. BNP – no more comment needed.