Fitting the battle of life

Well it was a great debate this week, with Mark Clarke of Conservative Future and one of our ex-Presidents, Tarit Mukherjee, proposing the motion against Jo Shaw (the Lib Dem candidate for Holborn and St Pancras in the next election) and Lembit Opik MP (yes, the cheeky girl one; it actually took about an hour for anyone to mention it, surprisingly).

The following notes are my own, from what I managed to scribble down. I did not make notes on floor speeches or closing summary speeches; the port was taking its toll.

Prop Arguments

• Prop’s case was based on statistical evidence that the UK is overcrowded, with a population density twice that of Germany and 4x that of France, and a population that’s growing.
• Immigration is the only factor that we can control – fertility and higher life expectancy aren’t something we can deal with!
• Returning ex-pats, refugees and EU citizens can’t be controlled for various reasons, so we must look at those from the rest of the world, economic migrants.
• Immigration takes a toll on public services as it is happens faster at the moment that we have time to plan for (e.g. a new hospital to cope with increased population takes 5 years, a new tube line 10 years)
• It was pointed out that the Tories aren’t racist.
• Having quotas means that migrants know that there is a job waiting for them, public services they can use, and education for their children.
• The worst case scenario, as we have now, is that people turn up not knowing if they have a sustainable job or not, and so put a great burden on us.
• Quotas permit planning ahead effectively.
• Quotas are also a tool of integration, as they demonstrate that we do want those immigrating under a quota scheme in the country, increasing their self-worth and sending a message to the wider community that they should be made welcome because there is a demonstrable need for them.
• The Lib Dems’ own policy on immigration was rubbished.

Opp

•  Prop offered no details: what jobs, in what numbers, what about those who need to come to the UK for other reasons (family reasons were mentioned), and how would it be enforced?
• There must be a cut-off point and that is unfair; harms will result to someone as a result of turning them away.
• The Home Office is already rubbish at keeping track of numbers.
• Targets and numbers are the wrong way to deal with the problems associated with immigration.
• The history of Britain has set up a proudly liberal tradition in this area.
• The net benefit of immigration is £2.5billion per annum, and there are far more diverse benefits to be had as well.
• The country isn’t really overpopulated at all; statistics mean nothing.
• Population shouldn’t be controlled artificially; money is the best control as rich people have fewer children.
• This Tory policy is an unnecessary intervention in the free market: are they really Socialists posing as Tories or what?!
• It is impossible to work out how many people it will be necessary to let in; you cannot predict the future.
• Immigrants don’t come if they don’t think they’ll have a job at the moment anyway.
• If you support quotas as proposed you must support the forced removal of economic migrants when they’re no longer needed as well.

The vote was won by the Opposition by a large margin.

The floor prize was jointly awarded to Cormac and to Ruth.