Clegg’s illiberal turn on immigration

Interesting from James Forsyth in the forthcoming edition of The Spectator:

Nick Clegg is currently preparing a big speech on immigration; it would have been given last week but for the Eastleigh by-election. He wants to address the fact that even those voters with an open mind towards his party view it as soft on immigration. In 2015, there’ll be no repeat of the last manifesto’s promise of earned amnesty for illegal immigrants. But some in the Clegg circle want to go further than that. One influential member of it has come to the view that transition controls on new EU members, which limit the right of free movement, should last for 20 years not seven. This wonk suggests that if Turkey ever did join, then transition controls would have to be based on per capita GDP to prevent an unsustainable level of immigration.

The whole article, on the implications of the horsemeat scandal, is excellent. I’ll post a link to it when it is available.

Recent Posts on Eagle Eye

• The Dawn of Time
• The Fiction of Gatsby
• Why "build more houses" is not The Answer
• Cameron on Gay Marriage Should Make Us Proud
• What Focus Groups Say About Ed Miliband

• Junius

  I do not know whether John Rentoul has read Orlango Figes’ excellent book on the Russian Revolution, but it begins: ‘These days we call so many things a revolution – a change in the government’s policies on sport, a technological revolution, or even a new trend in marketing…’

  These days we also call so many things a scandal. What exactly is scandalous about eating horsemeat? Is is because we regard the horse as a sacred animal? Is it because we may have eaten something other than what was said to be in the lasagne? If we have, and it has done us no harm and we rather enjoyed it, if we couldn’t tell horse from beef, what does it matter, and why should the consumption of horsemeat have implications for the government of the day?

  But perhaps I am pre-empting what excellent article by James Forsyth in the Spectator.

• a_no_n

  Why…Why jump to the right on immigration? Is the right wing view on immigration not already covered? Does it not have enough representation? The fact that you can’t even suggest the possibility that immigrants might not be the sole cause of the worlds woes without being subjected to a pitchfork and torches mob is apparently not enough.
  What’s the point in having elections if every party is lurching to the right to the point where there isn’t any difference in opinion?