Immigration

‘1914: Day by Day’, the Radio 4 series by the historian Margaret MacMillan, is a gripping reminder that significant global events often arrive not in a single eruption but in a series of lesser happenings that only afterwards form an obvious pattern. Let’s hope that’s not what we’re watching in the banking sector as anticipation builds towards the results, due in October, of the European Banking Authority’s current round of ‘stress testing’. Last month’s trouble spot — with a certain resonance for the current centenary — was Austria, whose government forced losses on bondholders in the troubled Hypo Alpe-Adria-Bank by overriding a guarantee from the province of Carinthia. A clutch

Politicians tend to get all the blame for immigration policies not working. But politicians are often doomed to fail on migration questions because there are deep-rooted problems with the way we all debate immigration and with what we expect of immigration policy. Following UKIP’s success in the European elections, and given the likely failure of the government to meet its net migration target by 2015, immigration is guaranteed to be a key focal point of public debate in the run-up to the general election next year. There is widespread agreement that Britain needs a ‘better’ immigration debate – but how can that be achieved? Over the past year I have

Dominic Cummings is at it again. Michael Gove’s former advisor has become a reliably entertaining guide to the Whitehall labyrinth. It is plain, too, that Cummings likes to think of himself as a Teller Of Hard Truths Many Of Which Our Masters Prefer Not To Contemplate Too Deeply If At All. This is fun. His latest post purports to be about swing voters, immigration and the EU but it is really about the biggest problem afflicting the Conservative party: who is it for? And who is it seen to be for? As Cummings puts it: The fundamental problem the Conservative Party has had since 1997 at least is that it

A small Yorkshire town has been hugely enriched this year by the arrival of 500 Roma people. The village of Hexthorpe was once boringly, stultifyingly, monocultural – and you would think that locals might have welcomed this influx of vibrant diversity. Not a bit of it – they called a public meeting and complained long and loud in a manner which, frankly, can only be called racist. They warned, too, that there would be violence in the streets. Is it too much to hope that one day these uneducated and bigoted Yorkshire folk will understand that claiming benefits, fly-tipping, littering the streets, threatening people and playing loud music all night

Labour’s John Woodcock is being teased mercilessly by his colleagues. A recent fundraising event which he organised was secretly recorded – and embarrassing quotes from fellow Labour MPs and candidates, who thought they were speaking behind closed doors, leaked out. Woodcock should know about the sort of dirty-tricks that the parties play on each other. He was the young, wet-behind-the ears bag-carrier who Labour sent out to pretend to be a Tory in order to record events. He got lucky in March 2005 when he caught the Tories’ then Deputy Chairman Howard Flight claiming that the Conservatives would slash spending in power, contrary to their manifesto commitment in that election

[audioplayer src=”http://traffic.libsyn.com/spectator/TheViewFrom22_5_June_2014_v4.mp3″ title=”James Delingpole and Michael Heaver debate whether Ukip stands for anything” startat=1222] Listen [/audioplayer]There are many words that you might associate with Nigel Farage, but moderniser probably isn’t one. Yet the Ukip leader is embarking on the process of modernising his party. He has concluded that it cannot achieve its aims with its current level of support. So he is repositioning it in the hope of winning new converts even at the risk of alienating traditional supporters. If this sounds similar to what David Cameron did after winning the Tory leadership in 2005, that’s because it is. Interviewing Farage during his triumphant European election campaign, I was struck

The last Queen’s Speech of this Parliament is almost upon us. Will the final session prove right the claims that this is a ‘zombie parliament’? Or can we expect a packed and exciting legislative agenda? Here’s a guide to what to expect tomorrow. Freedom for pensioners Following on from George Osborne’s announcement in this year’s budget, two pension bills are expected in the Queen’s Speech. One will pave the way for Dutch-style ‘collective pension funds’, as opposed to purely individual funds at present. The notion behind these funds is to spread the risk and offer better value for pensioners. The second bill will allow people to withdraw their savings in

George Osborne’s interview today with the Sun on Sunday does show the Conservatives are starting to see a little bit of sense about their net migration target. They’re starting to realise that they aren’t going to meet it when they can only control non-EU migration. It’s surprising, really, that it’s taken them so long to realise that the target was going to be a bit tricky to meet. In this week’s magazine, Douglas Murray argues that Cameron will need to listen – really listen – to voters’ concerns about immigration if he is to have a hope of winning next year: ‘Because the deep, underlying story of last week is