On immigration and jobs, Theresa May employs the post-truth politics of Donald Trump 

The economic populism is a subject for others today, but I have a few thoughts on immigration, still apparently the most important issue in British politics.

Here, I should explain to new readers that I am, for want of a better term, rather liberal on immigration. I don’t share the concerns that many people do about the arrival in Britain of people who, by and large, work hard and contribute both socially and economically and thus make this great country even greater.

So I am one of those people who, as she anticipated, have a bit of a problem with something Mrs May said about immigration:

If you’re one of those people who lost their job, who stayed in work but on reduced hours, took a pay cut as household bills rocketed, or - and I know a lot of people don’t like to admit this - someone who finds themselves out of work or on lower wages because of low-skilled immigration, life simply doesn’t seem fair.

 

I understand that Mrs May wants to convince unhappy and angry voters that she gets it, she understands them and their feelings. She’s a politician, and like most politicians she’s more comfortable telling people that they’re right than she is challenging their convictions with awkward and uncomfortable evidence.  

I get it.  I understand her and her feelings.

I also accept that the liberal immigration camp needs to be better at explaining the benefits of immigration, proposing policies that ensure those benefits are felt by all, and much, much better at understanding and respecting the feelings and ideas of those who disagree.

Mrs May is quite right that sneering at legitimate concerns about immigration is unacceptable, not to mention counterproductive. We can't ignore the the fact that some -- but not all -- of the 17 million who voted Leave did so because they want to reduce net immigration.

But despite all that, I’m afraid I can’t be kind about this speech and those words about immigration. I object, politely but strongly.

My objection is based on a simple, old-fashioned belief that politicians, like anyone else in a position of power or responsibility, should tell the truth, saying things that are factually accurate rather than things that just sound right.

The truth is that there is little solid economic evidence that British people are indeed “out of work or on lower wages because of low-skilled immigration”.

Let’s start with the basic facts. The UK labour market is booming. We live in a jobs bonanza, thanks in part to the policies of the governments in which Mrs May served since 2010. 

There are more British-born people (the ONS definition of “British” in this context) in work today than ever before: 28.1 million, up almost 400,000 since 2015. 

Yes, the number of foreign-born workers is up too.  It’s around 3.5  million, up from just under 1 million in 1997.

Employment among non-Brits is rising faster than employment among Brits.  Does that mean Brits are out of work because of immigration?

Probably not.

Now, Mrs May might be referring to a 2012 study by the Government’s Migration Advisory Committee, which did find some evidence of “displacement” in the labour market, but only in economic downturns and only from non-European immigration.

The MAC also asked people not to take its work as conclusive proof that immigration causes British job losses:

Our study has numerous qualifications and caveats. In particular, any link between immigration and employment of British-born people cannot be proved to be causal. Rather, it should be thought of as an association.

And of course, the MAC paper is merely one study of this issue. There are lots of others, some of which find no evidence of displacement.

There are so many studies that in 2014, the UK Government asked its officials to assess and analyse them.  Some of those officials were from the Home Office, then run by Mrs May.

They concluded:

There is relatively little evidence that migration has caused statistically significant displacement of UK natives from the labour market in periods when the economy is strong.

Then there’s wages.  Are people really “on lower wages because of low-skilled immigration”?

Again, different studies say different things.

The PM may have been thinking here about a Bank of England paper by Stephen Nickell last year, which did indeed find a correlation between immigrants working in low-skill sectors such as hospitality and retail and lower overall wage rates.

But how much did the paper suggest British wages fell?

Using the figures from the BoE paper, Jonathan Portes of the NIESR estimates that low-skilled immigration leads to “a reduction in annual pay rises of about a penny an hour.”

Given that Mr Portes is a somewhat controversial figure in this debate, it may be worth looking at another paper by the the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics

It concludes thus:

There is still no evidence of an overall negative impact of immigration on jobs, wages, housing or the crowding out of public services. Any negative impacts on wages of less skilled groups are small. One of the largest impacts of immigration seems to be on public perceptions

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that there is absolutely no evidence that immigration displaces British workers. I’m pointing out that the evidence base is mixed and that those studies that do point to displacement are heavy with nuance and caveats.  On wages, the evidence is even thinner.

This is the complex truth of immigration, wages and employment, a picture in shades of grey that Mrs May could have set out for people who feel angry and uncertain about their finances, the economy and their future.

She could also have addressed the complicated and challenging question of why so many British employers chose to hire foreign-born workers and not British ones.

She might have talked, as David Cameron once did about the level of UK school-leavers skills and their work-ethic. Or the role that welfare plays in encouraging British people to work.

Or the reasons why British companies don’t invest more in developing the skills of British workers and candidates, set out in the Telegraph’s leader column this morning.

Mrs May didn’t do any of those things. Instead of shades of grey, she offered black and white. She told people who simply suspect and fear –based on sentiment, not fact -  that they or others are poorer or out of work  because of immigration that they are right.  Her essential message: your feelings matter more than the facts.

Not only that, she made a virtue of it. That aside  - “I know a lot of people don’t like to admit this” – was deftly done, in the context of a speech that made a sustained attack on a ruling elite Mrs May suggests is intent on denying the truth, or at least, the truth as some people perceive it.

And Mrs May was deliberately putting herself on the side of those people against an elite distinguished in part by a sneering, arrogant insistence on things like accuracy and evidence in public debate. 

Ignore such things, she was saying. Listen to your feelings.  If you’re worried and angry about immigration, you are right. Not only that, your feelings are the proof that you are right.

If this all sounds familiar from politics elsewhere today, it should.

Because in her  remarks on immigration and employment today, Mrs May was employing the post-truth politics of Donald Trump.  

I know these are challenging times for politicians, who all need to find ways to respond to the forces that have driven the rise of populist anger in politics across the West.  But is this really what we should expect from Britain’s Prime Minister these days?  

Is it really too much to expect the head of our government to address the most pressing issue of the day by leading, not pandering?