Lunchtime summary
-
Labour has been accused of misusing official statistics after issuing a stark warning that 1.8 million people were on zero-hours contracts - more than two and a half times the true number. As the Press Association reports, days after a poll found that fewer that one in three voters trust politicians to be honest with data, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the party had mixed up the number of contracts and individuals. The ONS took to Twitter to point out the party’s mistake in a Twitter post sent out yesterday with a request to followers to spread the word.
@UKLabour It's 1.8m contracts, rather than people. 697,000 people have a zero hours contract as main job http://t.co/KRAiUL2ZhY
— ONS (@ONS) February 26, 2015
That’s all from me for today. I’ve got some meetings this afternoon.
Thanks for the comments.
Rachel Reeves has been answering questions in a live webchat on Mumsnet. My colleague Frances Perraudin has sent me this summary.
There have been lots of questions about benefits and the minimum wage, which Reeves answered by repeating pledges to scrap the bedroom tax and raise the minimum wage to £8 per hour.
Reeves was also asked about her plans to take maternity leave after the election, which caused some controversy this week when Tory MP Andrew Rosindell said the role of a cabinet minister requires a person’s “full attention”:
I think the most remarkable thing this week is that some people seem to think it’s remarkable that women can do a job and also have children. But overall I’ve had tonnes of support which has been encouraging! So I already have one daughter who is almost two, so she was born when I had been an MP for three years. I took five and a half months’ maternity leave. I was in the Shadow Cabinet at the time and someone else covered my role as Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I came into Parliament a couple of times while I was off including to vote on a military intervention in Libya. The rest of the time I was ‘paired’, which means that whenever I wasn’t there to vote, a Tory wouldn’t be either. (That also happens when someone is off sick or on compassionate leave etc.)
You’re right that the hardest bit is the constituency role. Every week I have visits, surgeries, campaigning etc in Leeds West, where I’m the MP. So after 6 weeks on mat leave, I started doing surgeries again. But other work was picked up councillors and by my office in Leeds, where I have an experienced caseworker and office manager who did a brilliant job in making sure that people’s casework and other issues were picked up.
The job of an MP is difficult to deputise, I would definitely agree with that because people have voted for me to be their MP. But I honestly have never had a negative word from anyone in my constituency about having a baby. I actually think people were really pleased for me and my family and to see that you can do both. I hope this helps.
In an answer to another question she said: “David Cameron, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair all had children while in Downing Street and continued being Prime Minister during that period. I don’t see why it should be one rule for dads and another for mums.”
The University of Westminster has put out a statement about the revelation that Mohammed Emwazi, one of its graduates, has been identified as“Jihadi John”. This is from a university spokesperson.
A Mohammed Emwazi left the University six years ago. If these allegations are true, we are shocked and sickened by the news. Our thoughts are with the victims and their families.
We have students from 150 countries and their safety is of paramount concern. With other universities in London, we are working to implement the government’s Prevent strategy to tackle extremism.
We are setting up a dedicated pastoral team to provide advice and support. In the meantime, we urge any students who are concerned to contact the Student Support and Well-being team.
More on Mohammed Emwazi. My colleague Peter Walker writes:
In the gruesome and appalling videos he fronts for Islamic State, the British militant dubbed ‘Jihadi John’, keeps his identity covered with a mask. On the internet, too, it seems clear the man named on Friday as Mohammed Emwazi, has also sought to efforts have been made to obscure his tracks.
Before the internet was flooded with his new notoriety on Thursday morning, a web search for his name Mohammed Emwazi brought up only results from the electoral roll, listing various west London addresses where Emwazi lived with his family. He is a man in his mid-20s, but there is none of the usual trail of Facebook, Twitter or Linkedin accounts. There is almost no digital footprint.
Emwazi’s low profile suggests a concerted effort to disappear - whether that was made by the individuals, or the security services who have for sometime known his identity, is not clear.
Labour says Cameron's migration target is 'in tatters'
And here’s Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, on the immigration figures.
Despite all the promises and rhetoric from David Cameron and Theresa May, their net migration target is in tatters.
David Cameron promised “no ifs, no buts” he would meet this net migration target yet today’s figures are over three times the level he promised, and over 50,000 higher than when they took office.
He chose this target and said it was his promise to the British people. No wonder there is so little trust in the government’s immigration system or the Prime Minister’s promises on anything, when there is such a massive gap between his rhetoric and the reality.
The government’s net migration target is the worst of all worlds. It doesn’t include illegal immigration, where enforcement has got worse. Yet Theresa May’s obsession with the target has led her to target valuable university students, who bring billions into Britain whilst doing nothing to make the labour market fairer for local workers, preventing undercutting by exploitative employers or putting in place proper border controls so we can count people in and out to enforce the rules.
Ukip says government should be "ashamed" of its migration record
Here’s Steven Woolfe, Ukip’s immigration spokesman, on the migration figures.
The government should be ashamed of its abject failure to keep control of the constantly rising numbers of those arriving here.
This government’s policy is fatally holed beneath the water line and is sinking fast.
The figures show that 624,000 people arrived here in the past year alone. To put that into perspective that is equivalent to the populations of both Liverpool and Aberdeen combined.
More significantly perhaps is the fact that the net migration figure was just under 300,000 people.
This is a 42% increase on the year on year figures from last year. That’s a city the size of Hull settling here in the last 12 months.
No government can rationally plan to build the services required to cope with these numbers. The schools, the hospitals, the houses, the roads cannot be provided at such a speed, the capital costs required are huge and burden on the taxpayer will be even more strained.
Downing Street says migration figures are 'disappointing'
Downing Street denied that the Jimmy Savile reports were being published today to distract attention from the immigration figures. As Rowena Mason reports, when the prime minister’s spokeswoman was asked this if this was the case at the lobby briefing, she replied: “It’s clear that both issues are getting prominent coverage.”
On the immigration figures, the spokeswoman said that David Cameron found the figures “disappointing” but that he continued to stand by the government’s record on delivering action to reduce net migration. She said a large percentage of the rise could be attributed to EU citizens seeking work in the UK because of its attractive economic climate. She went on:
If you look at the breakdown, what [the figures] really show is the challenge of the UK having a successful and growing economy at a time when many of the eurozone countries are stagnating. It is not a factor people would have necessarily been predicting in 2010. If you look at the EU 15 - not even the countries that joined the EU more recently - that is where a large percentage of the increase has come from.
Updated
ComRes has released some interesting polling on immigration. It shows that people think immigration has been good for British sport, but bad for the NHS.
Some 51% say immigration has had no impact on them personally, either good or bad, but 35% say it has made it harder for them to find a job (against 52% who say it has made no difference, or made it easier.)
Here are the figures when people were asked if immigration had been good for the following:
The poll also shows that Ukip is the party most trusted to control immigration. Asked who they would most trust to control immigration, the replies were:
Labour: 14%
Conservatives: 19%
Lib Dems: 4%
Ukip: 36%
But these figures are essentially just a recognition of political reality. Ukip would control immigration more than the other parties, by taking the UK out of the EU, and the Lib Dems are the most relaxed about immigration. What these figures do not measure is how much people want the parties to control immigration.
Here’s more from my colleague Rowena Mason on what Number 10 was saying about Mohammed Emwazi at the lobby briefing.
Downing Street refused to say whether it believes the man nicknamed “Jihadi John” is Mohammed Emwazi, David Cameron’s deputy official spokeswoman said: “We cannot confirm or deny anything in relation to intelligence. The point the prime minister would make which we have said since we have seen the awful actions of these Isil terrorists is that we are absolutely determined to bring the perpetrators to justice. the police an security agencies have been working hard to do that.”
Asked whether Emwazi was known to the security services, she said: “I’m not going to get into the details of an ongoing police and security investigation.”
When asked if Downing Street had any concerns about Emwazi being name in the media, she cautioned against the inquiries of the intelligences agencies and safety of UK nationals being put at risk.
“I think the prime minister would be concerned about information being put into the public domain at any time that might jeopardise an ongoing police and security investigation or the safety of British citizens … The point I would make is that there is an ongoing investigation. It is absolutely right that we allow the police and security agencies to do all they can to bring those responsible to justice and help keep British people safe.”
My colleague Rowena Mason was at the Number 10 lobby briefing, where the prime minister’s spokesperson refused to confirm that Mohammed Emwazi is “Jihadi John”.
No 10 will not confirm or deny that Jihadi John is Mohammed Emwazi, but cautions against work of security services being jeopardised
— Rowena Mason (@rowenamason) February 26, 2015
And the Washington Post has filed this list of some of the major hostage killings carried out by Islamic State (Isis).
Adam Goldman, one of the two Washington Post journalists who broke the “Jihadi John” story, has been tweeting about his scoop.
I love @BBC but they don't have much of the story: @smekhennet and I own this: http://t.co/uEXEZXDbMj
— Adam Goldman (@adamgoldmanwp) February 26, 2015
British intelligence was aware of Jihadi John since at least May 2009 after he was detained in Tanzania. http://t.co/uEXEZXDbMj
— Adam Goldman (@adamgoldmanwp) February 26, 2015
According to the Press Association, Scotland Yard has refused to confirm the reports about Mohammed Emwazi.
Commander Richard Walton, head of the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command, said:
We have previously asked media outlets not to speculate about the details of our investigation on the basis that life is at risk. We are not going to confirm the identity of anyone at this stage or give an update on the progress of this live counter-terrorism investigation.
'Jihadi John', Briton behind Isis beheadings, named as Mohammed Emwazi
The Washington Post and the BBC have both named the man they say is “Jihadi John”, the Briton fighting with Islamic State (Isis) who has beheaded hostages on camera.
This is from the Washington Post.
The world knows him as “Jihadi John,” the masked man with a British accent who has beheaded several hostages held by the Islamic State and who taunts audiences in videos circulated widely online.
But his real name, according to friends and others familiar with his case, is Mohammed Emwazi, a Briton from a well-to-do family who grew up in West London and graduated from college with a degree in computer programming. He is believed to have traveled to Syria around 2012 and to have later joined the Islamic State, the group whose barbarity he has come to symbolize.
And this is from the BBC.
The masked Islamic State militant known as “Jihadi John”, who has been pictured in the videos of the beheadings of Western hostages, has been named.
The BBC understands he is Mohammed Emwazi, a British man believed to be from West London, who was known to British security services.
Updated
Immigration figures - Verdict from the Twitter commentariat
Here is some Twitter comment from journalists on the immigration figures.
They’re all making essentially the same point; if David Cameron wants economic growth, he should accept that it comes with high immigration.
Spot the connection: immigration is substantially up while growth strong, unemployment falling, inflation low & real wages starting to rise
— Ian Birrell (@ianbirrell) February 26, 2015
What the Tories won't be able to say: net migration of 298,000 is a political failure but an economic success.
— George Eaton (@georgeeaton) February 26, 2015
Net migration stats good sign of long-term economic plan working, but they’re bad because weren’t supposed to happen http://t.co/V7WP6VBDlJ
— Isabel Hardman (@IsabelHardman) February 26, 2015
Immigration numbers politically 'bad' for PM. Different debate whether they're 'bad' for UK. Most surveys suggest economically advantageous.
— Darren McCaffrey (@DMcCaffreySKY) February 26, 2015
I wonder if someone will be brave enough to say that the immigration figures are great news for the longterm economic plan?
— Tim Shipman (@ShippersUnbound) February 26, 2015
My colleague Alan Travis has filed on the migration figures.
Here’s the start of his story.
Net migration to Britain was 298,000 last year, shattering David Cameron’s “no ifs, no buts” promise to reduce it to the “tens of thousands” by the time of the general election, official figures show.
The last set of quarterly migration figures to be published before the election show that the Conservatives will go into the election with the politically sensitive net migration figure 54,000 higher than when they made their pledge in 2010 when it stood at 244,000.
Clegg says Tories have 'failed spectacularly' on immigration
Nick Clegg was asked about the immigration figures at the end of Call Clegg. He said they were “hugely embarrassing” for the Tories and that David Cameron had “failed spectacularly” to deliver his promise.
Well, I said to David Cameron he shouldn’t make that commitment because it was inevitable he was going to break it, because you can’t control the net figure because it is just much dependent on how many people leave as come in. If you have a million Britons leaving, and a million coming in, you’ve met your target. And they made that commitment, the Conservatives. We said we’re not going to do it as a coalition government because it is not entirely in your control ...
I think it is hugely embarrassing for the Conservatives. They made a huge amount of fanfare about it. And they were warned, by me and others privately, ‘Don’t do this, it does not make any sense’. ‘No, no, no, we must do it.’ And now, quite rightly, they will have to suffer the embarrassment of having made a commitment on something that people care about passionately, which is immigration, and they have made a commitment and they have failed spectacularly to deliver it.
Here’s the start of the Press Association story about the immigration figures.
The government has officially failed to deliver on its pledge to slash net migration to the tens of thousands before the general election as the last batch of official figures before May 7 revealed another surge in arrivals.
There was a net flow of 298,000 migrants to the UK in the year to September, equal to the population of a city roughly the size of Nottingham and up from 210,000 in the previous 12 months, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
The increase in net migration was driven by a “statistically significant” rise in immigrants arriving in the UK - up to 624,000 in the year to September from 530,000 in the previous 12 months. Around 327,000 people emigrated from the UK in the same period.
Today’s figures are the final nail in the coffin for the promise made by prime minister David Cameron and Home Secretary Theresa May to slash net migration to below 100,000 by the end of the current parliamentary term.
The migration figures are hugely embarrassing for the Conservatives.
But, in a remarkable stroke of good fortune, they came out at exactly the moment that the reports about Jimmy Savile’s abuse were published at a live press conference, which is now getting all the attention on Sky and BBC News.
As my colleague Patrick Wintour points out, this is clearly a very fortunate coincidence.
Net migration figures out today showing how totally government missed target and so is fresh Saville report. A coincidence on govt grid.
— Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) February 26, 2015
* Latest employment statistics show estimated employment of EU nationals (excluding British) living in the UK was 269,000 higher in October to December 2014 compared with a year earlier. Over the same period, British nationals in employment also increased (by 375,000) while non-EU nationals in employment fell by 29,000.
* 37,000 Romanian and Bulgarian (EU2) citizens immigrated to the UK in the year ending September 2014, a statistically significant increase from 24,000 in the previous 12 months. Of these, 27,000 were coming for work, a rise of 10,000 on year ending September 2013, but this increase itself was not statistically significant. * There were 24,914 asylum applications (main applicants) in 2014, an increase of 6% compared with 23,584 in 2013, but low relative to the peak of 84,132 in 2002. The largest number of asylum applications in 2014 came from Eritrea (3,239), Pakistan (2,711), Syria (2,081) and Iran (2,011).
Here is the ONS summary of the figures.
- Net long-term migration to the UK was estimated to be 298,000 in the year ending September 2014, a statistically significant increase from 210,000 in the previous 12 months, but below the peak of 320,000 in the year ending June 2005.
- 624,000 people immigrated to the UK in the year ending September 2014, a statistically significant increase from 530,000 in the previous 12 months. There were statistically significant increases for immigration of non-EU citizens (up 49,000 to 292,000) and EU (non-British) citizens (up 43,000 to 251,000). Immigration of British citizens increased by 4,000 to 82,000, but this change was not statistically significant.
- An estimated 327,000 people emigrated from the UK in the year ending September 2014. Overall emigration levels have been relatively stable since 2010.
Net migration rises to 298,000 - almost three times higher than Cameron's target
The Press Association has just snapped this about the migration figures.
That means net migration is almost three times above David Cameron’s target.
There was a net flow of 298,000 long-term migrants to the UK in the year ending September, a “statistically significant increase” from 210,000 in the previous year, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said in the final estimate of net migration before the general election on May 7.
I’m sorry for the radio silence over the last hour of so. I was stuck on a bus in a colossal traffic jam.
Here are some of the lines from Call Clegg so far.
On 2nd jobs row, Clegg says being an MP is a "full-time vocation", & "great honour", "a form of public service" @LBC pic.twitter.com/VXVBCBzplj
— Matt Foster (@mlpfoster) February 26, 2015
Recurrent MP lobbying scandals like "groundhog day" says Clegg - @LBC
— Matt Foster (@mlpfoster) February 26, 2015
Nick Clegg @lbc says he prefers to call Muslims in UK "Muslim Britons" and not "British Muslims. " Eh ? #confused.com
— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) February 26, 2015
Clegg: broadcasters have "swung from a logical position" over TV debates to "having Tom, Dick & Harry" included @LBC pic.twitter.com/iDZTDgn226
— PoliticsHome (@politicshome) February 26, 2015
Turning back to the migration figures, Jonathan Portes, director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, has published a comprehensive review of the government’s record on migration at the LSE blog.
Here’s his conclusion.
The promise to cut net migration to the “tens of thousands” was generally regarded by immigration policy experts as unachievable, or achievable only at an economic cost no sensible government was willing to pay. In practice, the latter course was never tested: resistance from within government from the Department of Business, supported to a greater or lesser extent by the Treasury, meant that even non-EU migration was only reduced very substantially for non-HE students; for most other routes it has stabilised. Non-EU net migration is currently about 150,000 a year, slightly higher than EU net migration.
This does not mean the policy changes had no impact: the increase in the regulatory burden on business and the education sector has been substantial, and has certainly resulted in some reduction in skilled and student migration. The most damaging single decision was probably the closing of the Post-Study Work Route. However, overall, any economic damage was considerably mitigated.
Meanwhile, migration from within the EEA, mostly for work, has increased, mostly as a result of factors outside the government’s control, although restrictions on non-EU migration may also have contributed slightly.
So the next government, regardless of its political complexion, will face the same central policy dilemma: the conflict between the perceived political need to “control” migration and the fact that, as a small open economy, excessive “control” will either inhibit growth, conflict with EU membership, or both.
There are 70 days, 10 weeks, until the election.
Here is today’s “election fact” from the Press Association.
Charles Dickens, in Pickwick Papers, gives an account of a fictional 1830s parliamentary election at Eatanswill where Samuel Slumkey of the Blue faction is pitted against the Buffs’ Horatio Fizkin. The rivalry is so heated that both sides will go to extraordinary lengths to secure a majority for their man, including keeping potential opposition voters in an alcoholic stupor to prevent them voting. The no-holds-barred campaign extends to the local press with the Eatanswill Gazette backing the Blues and the Eatanswill Independent the Buffs. The beating of drums and the blowing of horns and trumpets, the shouting of men and tramping of horses echo through the streets from dawn. Also included are more modern campaigning tools such as shaking hands with voters and kissing babies.
Mr Perker, Slumkey’s agent, says to Mr Pickwick: “You have come down here to see an election, eh? Spirited contest, my dear sir, very much so indeed. We have opened all the public houses in the place. It has left our opponent nothing but the beer-shops.” The result: Slumkey wins!
Sunder Katwala from the British Future thinktank has posted a good blog on today’s migration figures, which will show David Cameron failing to achieve his target of getting net migration below 100,000. He says he can’t recall “a more extravagant missing of a target since Chris Waddle ballooned his penalty practically out of the stadium when England went out of the World Cup to Germany in 1990”.
Here’s an extract.
Returning to politics, there is a simple moral to this sorry tale: careless promises cost trust. Maybe it is easy to understand how the mistake came about in opposition ahead of the 2010 election. The Conservatives found a popular soundbite, about migration being in the “tens of thousands”, and didn’t stop to think whether they had policies that could deliver it.
But making the same mistake all over again in the 2015 manifesto would suggest that nothing has been learnt from five years experience in government.
Remaining in denial about the broken target and sticking with it, as David Cameron appears to be doing, is a hostage to fortune. The Prime Minister is setting himself up for five more years of hurt and failure, where the ONS statistics will remain a quarterly reminder to the public of why they don’t trust politicians on immigration.
Here are today’s YouGov GB polling figures.
Update: Cons & Lab tied - Latest YouGov/The Sun results 25th Feb - Con 33%, Lab 33%, LD 8%, UKIP 15%, GRN 6%; APP -16 http://t.co/bKh6b0ALgk
— YouGov (@YouGov) February 26, 2015
Good morning. Here’s the agenda for the day.
9am: Nick Clegg hosts his Call Clegg phone-in.
9.30am: The Office for National Statistics publishes its quarterly migration statistics - its final set before the general elections. As Alan Travis reports, they are expected to show that David Cameron has widely missed his target of getting immigration below 100,000.
9.30am: Reports into Jimmy Savile’s activities at Stoke Mandeville hospital, and the lessons to be learnt from the scandal, are published. The Department of Health presents the findings at a press conference.
Around 11.15am: Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, gives a statement on the Savile findings in the Commons.
11.30am: Ed Miliband speaks at the EEF, the manufacturers organisation, conference.
As usual, I will be also covering all the breaking political news from Westminster, as well as bringing you the most interesting political comment and analysis from the web and from Twitter. I will post a summary at lunchtime but I will be wrapping up then because I’ve got meetings in the afternoon.
If you want to follow me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow
