MAIL COMMENT: Time to grasp the nettle on migration

That is changing. The societal upheaval brought about by adding 2.5million immigrants to Britain, in only a decade of Labour rule, has become too dramatic to ignore  -  forcing ministers and opposition MPs to at least debate the many pros and undeniable cons.

Today, a cross-party group of MPs and Peers, led by former Labour Minister Frank Field, and including former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, goes further.

Opportunity: A cross-party group of MPs and peers have proposed a 'balanced migration' policy - if David Cameron adopted it 33 per cent of the electorate would be more likely to vote Tory

Proposing a 'balanced migration' policy, they say that foreign workers should remain free to plug gaps in the labour market, but should normally return home after four years.

The total number of foreigners allowed to settle here permanently would be roughly equal to the number of Britons emigrating.

Inevitably, there will be howls of protest from the Left. The IPPR, New Labour's favourite think-tank, has already all too predictably accused the group of 'xenophobia'.

But what is xenophobic about balancing Britain's economic needs against the space available on a crowded island? And how is it racist to frame proposals under which genuine asylum seekers, and those settling through marriage, will continue to enjoy existing rights?

Those losing out share one characteristic only: they are non-EU economic migrants  -  the colour of their skin is irrelevant.

The benefits of pursuing balanced migration could be enormous. The predicted mid-21st century population of 78.6million  -  a frightening thought  -  would be cut to 65million, reducing pressure on schools, hospitals and housing.

And, if employers can no longer rely indefinitely on foreign staff, they will be forced to address one of this Government's most shameful failings: the 500,000 18-to 24-year-olds languishing on benefits, without skills, training or opportunities.

Last night, without even waiting for its official publication, Ministers rejected the proposal, attacking outright the principle of 'made-up' quotas.

But, as today's accompanying YouGov poll reveals, they are flying in the face of public opinion. Voters want stricter controls.

Some 33 per cent of the electorate would be more likely to vote Tory if David Cameron adopts the crossparty group's thinking, while only five per cent would be less likely.

For Mr Cameron, who has a commitment to limit economic migration, but without flesh on the bones, what an opportunity this is. If he grasps the nettle, the rewards for his party  -  and Britain  -  could be great.

Today's report is an excellent place for him to start.

The selfish unions

So now we have Gordon Brown's defiant response to Charles Clarke, and those demanding he should step aside. The Prime Minister says he is going nowhere, and will 'confront' his enemies head on.

With a febrile pre-conference atmosphere building, it is a timely call for discipline in a fast-disintegrating Government more concerned with internal feuds than helping Britain through grim economic times.

But his message is in danger of being immediately undermined by the public sector unions, and their threat of a mass walkout lasting from November to February, or even longer. Potentially, a 'Winter of Discontent' to rival 1978-79.

In the Blair years, these same union leaders were supposedly Brownite, willing his arrival in Number Ten.

Now they appear selfishly hell-bent on wrecking his Government once and for all. With friends like these, Mr Brown must be wondering: who needs enemies?