Bristol City’s Plan B will soon put paid to Ashton Vale

Writers who make grand predictions risk looking like idiots. So here goes: before the year is out, Bristol City will throw in the towel on its tortuous journey to Ashton Vale. As unveiled by the club last week, Plan B – redeveloping Ashton Gate – will soon become its only option.

How do I know this? I don’t. It’s only a hunch, based on four factors.  Firstly, the club has some breathing space. Plans for Ashton Vale are in limbo until October at the very least, with a second inquiry into the site’s supposed ‘town green’ status up for discussion. This doesn’t mean that once a decision is made, all will be plain sailing. The club needs to brace itself for years of legal wrangling.

Which leads me on to my second point. The people who run and finance Bristol City aren’t stupid. More than five years of fighting has surely started to take its toll. Steve Lansdown et al. are rightly making contingency plans. It seems more than likely that they are bracing themselves for another setback. The one later this year, should it happen, could prove fatal.

Thirdly, (and as far as I’m concerned the factor governing all others), is the club’s current league predicament. Still in the bottom three, and still in a relegation battle. Things have certainly improved with the new manager, but everyone else around City has started to improve too. Now seems the perfect time to go public with plans that we’re told have been worked on for the past six months.

It is surely the strong possibility that Bristol city will be relegated that has forced the club to take drastic action. Now of course nobody associated with it would come out and admit this, and I wouldn’t expect them to. This is just my interpretation of events.

I’ve stated my view on these pages before that whilst I wholeheartedly support the move to Ashton Vale, now is the wrong time for such a move to take place. Plan B gives City a get-out clause. And, to quote The Post’s editor, a “very seductive” one at that. In fact, Plan B is so good, and makes so much more sense than Ashton Vale, that I’m surprised is hasn’t been mooted before. Yes, there’d be disruption on match days, but the phased nature of the redevelopment would ensure it would be kept to a minimum.

Finally, it’s revealed that sprucing up Ashton Gate would cost less than half what it would cost to move grounds: £40m versus £92m. That’s some saving; current economic climate and all that.

As The Post’s editor goes on to say, this proposal “puts the club back on the front foot,” and, all being well, in control of its own destiny. Reading what Jon Lansdown, managing director and son of Steve, has said further convinces me that this is more than just a back-up plan:

“Ashton Gate has been the club's spiritual home for more than 100 years and these plans would improve and enhance the facilities in readiness for the next 100 years.

"Modern stadium facilities are a key pillar for the club, closely aligned with our community engagement, youth development, recruitment and financial prudence.

"This redevelopment plan is testament to all of that."

"We need to make sure we have an alternative as, regardless of where it is sited, the club needs a new stadium. We have had many frustrations and difficulties in our attempt to build a new stadium on Ashton Vale.

"These plans for Ashton Gate give us a viable alternative should we be unable to, or choose not to, proceed on Ashton Vale.”

In continuing the good relationship it has with its fans, City have vowed to consult supporters over the possible new design every step of the way, just as they did over Ashton Vale.

A further point, which hasn’t received as much attention, is the club’s announcement that Ashton Gate Mark II (and even Ashton Vale) would offer itself up to trial safe standing. That is, assuming a long list of hurdles are jumped before. It’s great to see the club putting itself at the forefront of the excellent Football Supporters’ Federation’s long campaign to reintroduce safe standing into the top two divisions of English football.

I don’t expect to hear much more until the close season, when the club will submit a formal planning application to the council. Considering Mayor Ferguson has already come out and enthusiastically backed Plan B, I can’t see there being much opposition from councillors. The delays over Ashton Vale look bad on the council and the city. Only a fool would turn this down.

And by the summer, we’ll know which division Bristol City will be playing in come August. If it’s League One, there’d no longer be any need for October’s inquiry. Relegation would be the final nail in the coffin for a ground at Ashton Vale.

This comment piece was first published by thisisbristol on Wednesday 13th February 2013

We don’t need “snow wardens.” We need community spirit and personal responsibility.

There’s only one thing more predictable than the sight of Britain coming to a standstill at the first heavy snowfall, and that’s someone moaning about the fact that Britain always comes to a standstill at the first heavy snowfall. Far be it from me to worry about such grumbling.

On Friday, it snowed in Bristol. A lot. For days, we were told to expect Snowmaggedon. Be prepared. Stay warm. Only make essential journeys. (Problem is, society hasn’t quite worked out what an essential journey is). The trains excelled themselves, with South West cancelling some its services before a flake had even fallen. That’s the Blitz spirit we all know and love. With some admirable exceptions, schools closed, forcing parents to take a day off work.

The thing about snow is that it starts off looking beautiful and magical, but soon the white fluffy stuff turns to the treacherous icy stuff. This is where you hope the council does its job and grits as many streets and roads as it possibly can. Where I live, the picture is mixed, with main roads clear, but pavements ungritted – and hazardous.  Traipsing down the Well Roads has become something of a trial. And getting down my own (non-main) road is hard enough at the moment.

But, it needn’t be.

I have just learned about “snow wardens.” The council appoints them for the hilliest parts of the city. Apparently, there are 58 of them. Their job? To help clear the snow and ice away. The council provides them with a shovel, some grit and high-visibility jackets (which might make them hard to distinguish from offenders on community service, assuming such schemes still exist).

Now, I don’t have a problem with the “snow wardens” idea per se. But, let’s be honest. The only reason such a scheme exists in the first place is because few of us can be bothered to scrape away the snow and ice from outside our homes. It’s great that there are volunteers out there happy to help, but is it too much to ask that each and every one of us who can, does their bit? Why should the council need to appoint “snow wardens?”

If we can’t be relied on to do something which should take no more than a few minutes, it’s no wonder older (and even younger) generations lament the passing of community spirit in this country. In times gone by, people wouldn’t need to be asked to bring out a shovel. They’d already be there, bright and early, and doing their neighbours’ path too.

This is only a small gripe. It’s not the end of the world. It just feels like nowadays we rely on authority, or the goodwill of others, to do everything for us. The council should get on with gritting and salting main roads. The rest of us can take care of our own streets and paths.

And for those worried about the health and safety police advising against removing snow without the appropriate training, or those concerned about being sued should a stranger slip over outside their home as a result of a homeowner’s inept clearing job, help is at hand. Government advice, issued in October 2010, sought to demolish the usual myths that get banded about. We now have a “Snow Code.” Yes, really. Commonsense is the order of the day and people have been reassured that they are “extremely unlikely” to be sued if someone slips. I mean “snow code!” What on earth have we become??

This comment piece was first published on thisisbristol on Sunday 20th January 2013

The Mayor deserves £65k a year. Now time to pay councillors a full-time salary.

Politicians and their salaries. I’m sure if some members of the public had their way, they’d be lucky to be paid minimum wage. For obvious reasons, councillors and MPs become rather queasy when talking about their salaries. There never seems to be a good time to raise the prospect of a pay rise. Sympathetic ears are in short supply. The British don’t take too kindly to people moaning about money, let alone an elected official. Instead, coming off the back of past furores when MPs have demanded a pay increase, they’ve taken the only (sensible) step they know how. If you’re a politician, and someone mentions the dreaded words “pay rise,” you remain silent, seem uncomfortable, and pull an awkward looking face.

Is it false modesty? Possibly. More likely avoiding the prospect of getting lynched in the street. But they can rest easy. I’m happy to do the talking for them. When it comes to councillors, it’s about time we paid them a full-time salary.

At present, every councillor in Bristol receives a basic remuneration of £11,416 a year. Those with additional responsibilities are granted an SRA (Special Responsibility Allowance). Before the election of Mayor George Ferguson, the council leader took home a tidy £52,000 a year. Executive members, committee chairs and political group leaders were also paid up to £20,000 on top of their basic salary.

All this has now changed. This week councillors from all parties agreed, rightly, that the mayor’s wages should match that of an MP: £65,738. Members of Ferguson’s cabinet get £21,000, as well as their basic pay. Most councillors will still get their basic sum, plus extras, as and when needed.

This needs to change. Last week, a panel of MPs concluded that councillors had a right to expect “an appropriate level of compensation,” although, unhelpfully, failed to say what this level should be. They argued that the setting of councillors' pay should be taken out of their hands and given to an independent body. What’s more, they stressed that low pay was deterring many young people from entering local politics. The average age of a councillor nationwide stands at a youthful 60.

Admittedly, this isn’t going to happen in the age of austerity, but it’s something that should be considered in the future. Most people are unaware of who their councillor is, and even less clear about what exactly they do. Some argue that the honour and pride of working for their community should be enough. Hence, it’s a role that is often taken up by those who are either retired or approaching retirement. But, we pay MPs, so why not councillors? Nobody is more in tune with the needs of the people around them than the local councillor. MPs are far too busy, and far too absent, to do anywhere near enough for their constituents.

It might seem a strange time to suggest this soon after Bristol has voted in its first mayor. After all, the power of the city’s councillors has been significantly diluted. But even more reason to give them a greater purpose in their own wards. Whilst the mayor has the ultimate say over almost everything, he cannot be expected to know the ins and outs of everything.

Bristol decided that it needed a mayor to grapple with the city’s problems. According to the Cities minister, he is now “one of the most powerful political figures in the country.” Properly paying councillors would also recognise the vital role they play. Yes, they don’t always deal with the glamorous stuff (grumbling about car-parking spaces and broken street lights just two examples of complaints they commonly come across), but this is the mundane stuff that we take for granted. We assume the roads will be gritted when it snows (all eyes on Friday), that our bins will be collected, that our electricity always works, that our parks are looked after. These things don’t happen by accident. Councillors, together with thousands of council staff, are working tirelessly behind the scenes.

Cutting the number of councillors in Bristol, from 70 to 35, would free up money to pay the remaining half, something in the region of £25,000 a year. It would also ensure that it attracts people from a wider cross-section of society. Rather than something that is done alongside the day job, resulting in late nights and busy weekends, becoming a councillor would become a profession in its own right. It’s the very least they deserve.


This comment piece was first published by thisisbristol on Wednesday 16th January 2013

A Lib-Lab Coalition would require some sturdy nose pegs

This week, David Clark, editor of the fine centre-left blog, Shifting Grounds, and other signatories from the world of leftism, called on Labour to begin Lib/Lab negotiations. Or at the very least start to draw up a timetable, paving the way for a “progressive coalition” in 2015. I use the word progressive hesitantly.

There have been a number of opinion pieces written on this subject in recent months. The political realists appreciate the current mood. Another coalition, whilst not desirable, could well be on its way, so forging a plan, even reluctantly, is a necessary step. Others recoil from the very thought of one, and will hear nothing of compromise and deals being made with the Liberals.

I find myself being pulled in both directions. The sensible, tribal-averse part of me knows that Labour should be prepared for every eventuality. They may not have a choice. After the last election, it felt like the political landscape had somehow permanently altered. Hung parliaments may well be a constant fixture in the future. Between 1945-1970, Labour and the Tories won approximately 90% of the vote. In 2010, this had plummeted to 65%. The support of UKIP and “Others” continues to eat away at the big three. Proponents of pragmatism say, in short, better to be faced with Lib-Lab than Con-Dem Part II.

Nonetheless, the vengeful part of me wants nothing to do with the 57 men and women who have sat back and allowed the Tories to rule with impunity. Who have forgotten what being in coalition actually means. Clue: this isn’t it. Yes, there are some good things that have been enacted, partly down to Liberal pressure, but not everything falls under the banner of deficit reduction. See: NHS and welfare reform.

A consensus seems to be emerging, amongst us sceptical types anyway, that Labour’s double-digit lead in the polls is a soft one. The public still isn’t convinced Labour can be trusted to handle our finances. After a year of fluctuating polls, when it comes to being trusted to run the economy, Labour’s support has barely budged. Ed Miliband still trails his party in terms of popularity, whereas David Cameron remains his party’s greatest asset. An upturn in the economy, and he can almost certainly expect to benefit.

The political mainstream must shoulder the bulk of the blame for hung parliaments or threats thereof. Under Ed Miliband, Labour has started, at last, to sound and feel different from the Tories. The trouble is, many of his party’s differences are too nuanced for the public to understand. And Labour’s stance on welfare isn’t backed by public opinion. Instead, fringe groups (the nuttier the better) fill the ideological vacuum.

It does seem strange to talk about future coalitions when current projections forecast a handsome Labour majority. But, politics has never felt more unpredictable. Second-guessing the electorate is fraught with problems. Labour continues to profit from disaffected and angry Lib Dems, and yet their support can’t be taken for granted. Will all those who claim to have been betrayed by Nick Clegg et al. really turn out and put a cross next to a Labour candidate at election day, or will they chose not to bother voting at all? Instinct tells me the latter is more likely, especially as many of these Lib Dem voters were disillusioned Labour ones in the first place.

Relying on UKIP to aid Labour by unseating Tory candidates is also a massive gamble. Again, this assumes ex-Tories will abandon their party when they need them most. It’s one thing someone saying they’ll vote UKIP, whilst still safely two and a half years from a general election. It’s quite another actually doing so. It would surely be an electoral miracle if UKIP polled anything close to their current showing, which sees them at an all-time high of 16%. Too many what ifs and maybes.

So I may not like it, and many like me may not like it, but not even entertaining the idea of a Lib-Lab partnership would be reckless in the extreme.

 

This comment piece was first published by Speaker's Chair on Sunday 13th January 2013

Seven Facts Everyone Should Know About Immigration

Immigration is in the news once again. Not that it ever leaves it. A complex issue made harder by distortions, stereotypes, and populism. One could argue that its social and cultural effects are the trickiest to articulate and hardest to pin down. Certainly not easy to capture in a dry opinion poll.

Its economic effects are somewhat easier to measure, as I intend to demonstrate. More often than not, we’re dealing with hard facts, not feelings. Assertions that can be backed up evidence, and not based on gut instinct or prejudice. Below are seven facts that everyone should know, but often don’t, about immigration. No doubt politicians of all stripes are aware of them. But, selective amnesia means conveniently dropping stats in favour of rhetoric.

 
1.      Effect on wages:  

The Migration Observatory, an independent organisation based at Oxford University, found the effect of immigration on overall wages at specific time periods to be extremely small. Between 1997-2005, a one per cent increase in migration to the UK born working-age population resulted in an increase of between 0.2-0.3% in average wages. For the period 2000-2007, a similar proportion of migrants led to a 0.3% fall in average wages.

There were however wage variations between different working-age groups resulting from immigration. It found that:

“The greatest wage effects are found for low-waged workers. Each 1 percent increase in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population leads to a 0.6 percent decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers.”

2.      Effect on employment:

A number of empirical studies have shown there to be no significant impact in levels of unemployment from immigration to the UK. The first major study in this area, carried out between 1983-2000, did find:
 
“adverse effects on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of UK-born with intermediate education (defined as O level and equivalent) and a positive impact on employment outcomes of UK-born workers with advanced education (A-levels or university degrees).”  

Two very recent authoritative studies, one analysing data from 1975-2010, the other 2002-2011 - thus taking into account periods of low economic growth, as well as past and present recessions - found no impact on unemployment from immigration.

3.     Youth Unemployment:

There is no direct correlation between rising youth unemployment and Eastern European immigration to the UK since 2004, contrary to what certain reports have said. Jonathan Portes, director of the highly respected National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), disputes the findings of a report by the think tank MigrationWatch UK. The latter noted that between 2004-2011, youth unemployment rose by around 450,000, at the same time as an extra 600,000 Eastern European workers entered the UK. But, as Portes notes:
 
"The vast majority of that rise in youth unemployment took place during 2008 and 2009 [during the recession caused by the financial crisis]. During that period, the number of Eastern European workers actually fell.”

According to Matt Cavanagh, an associate director at IPPR:

“The countries in the 'old' EU which have seen the steepest rises in youth unemployment since 2004, including Spain and Greece, have not had very high levels of migration from Eastern Europe; while Germany, which has had relatively high migration from Poland (despite maintaining transitional controls for the longest possible period), has relatively low youth unemployment.”

   4.      Work-related benefits :
 
371,000 migrants claimed benefits in 2011. That’s 7% of the total migrant workforce, classified as non-UK nationals when they first arrived in the UK. This compares to a figure of almost 17% for all British nationals. According to Jonathan Portes, the figures on migrants and benefits can be summed up thus:

• migrants represent about 13% of all workers, but only 7% percent of out-of-work claimants;
• migrants from outside the EEA represent about 9-10% of all workers, but about 5% of out-of-work claimants
• foreign nationals from outside the EEA represent about 4.5% of all workers, but a little over 2% of out-of-work benefit claimants.

A Department for Work and Pensions sample of 9,000 non-EU migrants found just 2% had made false benefit claims.

5.    Impact on public services: 

An NIESR report on non-European economic and student migrants in January of this year concluded that they:
 
“impose costs on UK public services that are small both relative to the total cost of these services and to the share of these groups in the population as a whole.”

 It goes on to state that:
 
“The literature review indicates non-European economic migrants are likely to be comparatively light users of health and social care services due to their relatively young age profile, good health, their status as employees and presence in professional occupations.”

“In addition, the professional status and educational attainment of non-European economic migrants make it more likely that they will be consumers of private health and education in comparison to the population as a whole and so make fewer demands on public services.”

"Total expenditure on state education, health and personal social services accounts for 44 per cent of public services expenditure. The average expenditure per adult migrant for these services is estimated to be significantly lower than for non-migrants: expenditure per non-European economic migrant is estimated at between 16 and 23 per cent less than for non-migrants and for student migrants, between 41 and 49 per cent less.”
 

6.      Fiscal impact:

According to the Migration Observatory, the fiscal impact of migrants largely depends on their characteristics (age, skills, length of stay).  A Home Office report in 2002 estimated that for the 1999/2000 financial year, migrants’ made a net fiscal contribution (what they paid in taxes versus what they used in benefits and state services) of about £2.5bn.

In 2005, and covering five years of data, the IPPR think tank found that during the period when the government began to run a budget deficit, migrants were less of a drain on the public purse than the UK born population: 

“In 2003-04, when the Government ran a budget deficit such that all taxpayers on average consumed more public benefits and services than they paid in taxes, the IPPR study found that the average immigrant cost the exchequer £74 in net terms compared to a net cost of £892 per UK-born person.”

In the four fiscal years following EU enlargement in May 2004 and the migration that followed, figures shows that:

  “Migrants from the A8 countries made a positive contribution to public finance, despite the UK running a budget deficit.”
 
7.      Public Opinion: 

The public overwhelmingly disapprove of levels of immigration over the last decade, with 67% believing it’s been a bad thing for Britain. They support the government’s attempts to reduce net migration from hundreds of thousands a year to tens of thousands. However, over three-quarters of them doubt this will happen.
 
But, according to Peter Kellner, President of YouGov:

  “There is a huge gulf between people’s perception of immigration as a national issue, and one that affects their own lives.”

Whilst immigration comes second (behind the economy) in terms of national importance, as viewed by voters, when people are asked to comment on issues which directly affect them, its level of importance shrinks from 45% to just 12%.  Kellner believes the best solution is for politicians to stop worrying about what voters tell them on this subject:

“Instead, they should work out what is right for Britain: for its economy and its society. They should do this honestly and openly, admitting that the task is complex, and that the problems are real and will take time to solve.”

Now that really would be a novel idea.

This article was first published by The Huffington Post on Saturday 22nd December 2012

Christmas period means more victims of domestic abuse

Maybe it’s a sign that I’m getting older, (speaking as a sprightly 33 year old), but, with each year that passes, my focus around Christmas time has started to shift from gluttony and gifts to things less jolly. Whether it be the number of people, young and old, who will be spending Christmas alone or on the streets, or families worrying how they’re going to afford presents for their kids.

This year my concern has been piqued by reports about incidents of domestic abuse. An increasing number of police forces are drawing attention to evidence which shows that, during the Christmas-New Year period, we can expect to see a rise in domestic abuse. More commonly referred to as domestic violence, the government defines it as: “any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality."

Official figures show that one in four women and one in six men will experience a form of domestic abuse at some point in their lives. Although Women’s Aid, a charity which helps 250,000 women and children a year, claims these stats are somewhat misleading since they only include single incidents, whilst excluding the severity and frequency of the type of abuse. It also leaves out sexual assault, a crime overwhelmingly perpetrated against women by their previous or present day male partners.  On average, two women a week are killed by a current or former male partner.

As in previous years, Avon and Somerset Police are running their “Have the Christmas you deserve” campaign. On their website, you will find their “Don’t be a victim this Christmas” page. According to their own findings, last year, incidents of domestic abuse more than trebled over the festive period:

"Figures show that on an average day over the last year police were notified of approximately 1400 incidents of which 14 were domestic abuse related. Over the Christmas period last year there were about 914 incidents per day, of which 28 related to domestic abuse and over the New Year period, there were about 1295 incidents per day, of which 50 were DV related.

“These figures show a rise from an average day of one per cent of domestic abuse related incidents; to three per cent over Christmas and four per cent over New Year.”

Detective Inspector Katie Boxer from the force’s Public Protection Unit explains that:

“At this time of year there is often more drinking and more stress on families and this can lead to the types of scenarios when violence and abuse are more likely to occur.”

Similar campaigns have been launched in Northern Ireland, and by West Mercia and Humberside Police. Vicki Paddison from Hull’s Domestic Abuse Partnership (DAP) service believes a combination of factors provides this potentially toxic mix:

"People are at home. The stress and anxiety of Christmas is often raised, for many, many families but particularly where there is domestic violence evident.

"They've got the break-up of schools. The increasing pressure in terms of having to buy presents and food for the Christmas period, and that raises anxiety and stress within families. Which, ultimately increases the domestic abuse."

Domestic violence is widely acknowledged to be under-reported by its victims. Many regard it as a purely private matter and won’t report it, some are too afraid of going to the police, some feel trapped but don’t want to see their partner arrested, others may blame themselves for what happens.

Figures by the police (see p.45) show that 7.4% of all recorded crime in Avon and Somerset for 2011/12 was for domestic violence.  8,548 incidents were reported; a 3.9% increase on the previous year, puncturing the general pattern of a county-wide fall in crime. National research in 2007 discovered that almost 40,000 women in Bristol, aged between 16 and 59, have experienced some form of domestic violence. And yet, under-reporting means that, whilst officially there were 7,505 cases in 2010/11, this is believed to be well down on the true figure, estimated to be 26,195 incidents for the year.

Bristol City Council’s Crime and Disorder Strategic Assessment - the most recent of which was published in January - found that domestic violence was more likely to occur in some of the city’s more deprived areas: Hartcliffe, Easton, Lawrence Weston, and Southmead. It also commented on data released by the British Crime Survey (BCS) which found:

“Victims of domestic violence were more likely to experience repeat victimisation than victims of other types of crime. Repeat victimisation accounted for 73% of all incidents of domestic violence as measured by the 2010/11 BCS. Around 59% of the people who commit domestic violence are repeat offenders. Tackling prolific domestic violence perpetrators can have a large impact on crime reduction targets.”

It’s not only at Christmas that authorities notice a spike in domestic violence. Earlier this summer, Avon and Somerset Police warned about the possibility of a 25% increase during the Euro 2012 football championship, in particular, after England matches. This came as a result of a steep climb in cases during the 2010 World Cup, culminating in a 32% rise following England’s elimination to Germany on penalties. How terrifying that, for some people, their well-being is at greater risk every time England takes part in a national tournament.

This Christmas, because of problems with funding, there will be fewer professionals on hand to help. Last month, Channel 4 News revealed that one in five domestic violence centres has had to cut some of its services in the past year. Because some are so oversubscribed, between 275 and 300 women are turned away every day by the first refuge they approach.

Unfortunately, Andy Williams, Christmas isn’t the most wonderful time of the year for some of us.

Here is a link from the council website about domestic abuse services available in Bristol: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/page/community-and-safety/domestic-abuse-report-it


This article was first published by thisisbristol on Friday 21st December 2012

At last, Labour understands voters’ concerns on immigration

Ed Miliband is not someone who shies away from a challenge. He has demonstrated this admirably since becoming Labour leader. Getting to grips with the thorny issue of immigration is one thing. Getting to grips with his party’s record on the subject is another. This year he has attempted to do both.

It’s surely no coincidence he chose the week of the release of the latest batch of 2011 Census stats to give his second keynote speech on the subject. Official figures showed the biggest ten-yearly increase in population since the Census’ inauguration in 1801. An additional 3.7 million people now reside in England and Wales, with net migration responsible for 55% of this rise. Inevitably, this last figure got pundits talking and heads shaking. Unsurprisingly, because Labour was in office for most of this period, it has faced a barrage of criticism and been blamed for letting immigration spiral out of control.
 
Miliband has already conceded that Labour got certain things wrong. He has tried to reassure those who worry about high levels of immigration; about Britain’s ability to cope with such a large influx in such a short space of time. Back in June, he told an audience, at an event organised by the think tank IPPR, that people had every right to be concerned:
 
"Worrying about immigration, talking about immigration, thinking about immigration, does not make them bigots. Not in any way. They are anxious about the future.” 

He admitted that his party had lost touch with the real life experiences and worries of ordinary voters, acknowledging that anxieties were wrongly dismissed:

“Quite simply, we became too disconnected from the concerns of working people. We too easily assumed those who worried about immigration were stuck in the past. Unrealistic about how things could be different. Even prejudiced.

“But Britain was experiencing the largest peacetime migration in recent history. And people's concerns were genuine. Why didn't we listen more?
 
“At least by the end of our time in office, we were too dazzled by globalisation and too sanguine about its price. By focusing too much on globalization and migration's impact on growth, we lost sight of who was benefiting from that growth – and the people who were being squeezed. 

“And, to those who lost out, Labour was too quick to say ‘like it or lump it.”

Last week, he picked up where he left off. Once again, he delivered a speech which was measured and sensible in both tone and substance. Again, he returned to the theme of voter unease:

 “We must not fall into the trap of believing that to talk about people’s anxieties is to fuel them.”
 
This time he touched upon social and cultural matters: the crux of the problem for many people, the trickiest to speak about, and the hardest to measure using cold empirical data. 

“The capacity of our economy to absorb new migrants was greater than the capacity of some of our communities to adapt.”
 
“Of course immigration has always been unsettling. With new ways of life, new religions, new people in neighbourhoods. It takes time for people to get to know each other. The extent of change can intensify the anxiety.”

“But too often we were a bit optimistic. Thinking people’s connections with each other would just take care of themselves. That as long as the economy was doing well, that services were well-run, people would learn to get on together, and our common life would flourish automatically.
 
“And while the problems were real. Our solutions seemed too abstract. We talked about “shared citizenship”. But we did too little to tackle the realities of segregation in communities that were struggling to cope.” 

Slowly but surely Labour are skilfully tackling this issue. Ed Miliband has been very careful not to demonise or caricature, but to see immigration as a complex, multi-layered topic. One which leads to a number of sub-topics. Sometimes these are incorrectly conflated but, for now, Labour has the balance about right.

Robert Ford, lecturer in Politics at Manchester University, identified the pitfalls for left wingers confronting this issue:

 “Any proposal will be dismissed by commentators on the right as tokenism which does nothing to address the real issues, and by many on the left as pandering to prejudices which should be challenged. On top of this, the media will reinterpret any message on immigration and identity in terms of its own negative dominant narrative of segregation and division, regardless of whether this accurately reflects the content.” 
 
Over the course of last Friday, discussion was more focused on how this speech had been pre-spun, with heavy attention given towards integration, and a call for immigrants to know how to speak English, than its actual content. 

Stressing that those hoping to work in publically-funded, public-facing jobs, should be proficient in English, seems about as uncontroversial a proposal as one could suggest. People doing important jobs that involve dealing with the public need to be able to properly communicate with them. And yet, there are still some on the left who won’t even accept this, seeing it as “hollow populism.”

The commentator Suzanne Moore correctly tweeted about the importance of women from immigrant groups learning English: “I want people i.e. women to speak English. Without it they are often trapped at home, dependent on children to translate.”

I have written about what one academic has called the “culturally threatened” before. What certain left wingers see as economic grievances, decades of research has found to be:
 
“...a perceived sense of threat to the cultural unity of the nation – rather than economic threat – that is the strongest driver of prejudice, and also the desire for more restrictive immigration and asylum policies.” 

It is far easier and a lot safer to approach immigration from an economic perspective. To talk about it in terms of its effect on wages, jobs, and housing. The real challenge is to talk about it in terms of its effect on demographics and culture. Not an easy thing to capture in an opinion poll, hard to articulate, but something which people see with their own eyes. At long last, Labour seems to understand voters’ concerns on immigration.    

This article was first published by Shifting Grounds on Wednesday 19th December 2012