When points mean passports

IF you're a nurse or an accountant, it's worth 60 points; if you're fluent in English, it's another 20 points; if you're between 18 and 29 that's 30 points - but you're still likely to need more than 120 points before you're allowed to emigrate.

Australia's points system has been introduced as part of a system to control the level of immigration, with strict quotas on both the number of economic migrants and the number of refugees. Critics brand the policy inhumane, resulting in families being separated and asylum seekers held in camps until their claims are investigated, but it seems it is catching on.

Yesterday, Home Secretary Charles Clarke unveiled a new immigration strategy, including the introduction of a points system for people wanting to work or study in the UK. Last month, the Conservatives put forward their own proposals, also including quotas and a points system, based on the Australian version. It seems immigration is the order of the day.

"The reason everyone is talking about immigration is there is an election in four months. This week it is immigration, next week it will be something else," says Martin Farr, lecturer in political history at Newcastle University.

"Immigration is one of those push button issues, about which everyone has a view, even if they don't know much about it, so it is very easy to engage with them, and to scare them."

Ministers have denied they have been spurred into action by the Conservatives' proposals, but it is clear that yesterday's announcement aims to take the wind out of the Tory sails on what the Opposition believes could be a vote-winning issue.

'The Conservatives are doing very badly in the polls, and more than anything they need to shore up their own support, and try and attract people who voted Labour last time, by fear being swamped by immigrants," says Dr Farr.

"The Conservatives need to push it up the agenda, and, in order to neutralise that, Labour has to respond. It is almost a beggar-my-neighbour, which is very unseemly, but it is an inevitable argument of trying to compete in this area."

Labour's paradox is that its leaders are generally much more progressive than its core voters, so it often feels the need to be more reactionary than the Tories, most notably on this issue in the 1960s, when Harold Wilson's opposition to the immigration of Kenyan Asians drew criticism from his party's left-wing.

It was in the 1960s that immigration was last a significant issue, and its return to the political agenda can be seen as partly a response to an increase in the number of immigrants, estimated at around 250,000 a year, and partly because it is one of the few issues where the Tories feel they can make political capital.

Inevitably, raising the issue of immigration risks accusations, levelled at both parties in the last few weeks, of playing the race-card, but Dr Farr says this is unfair to both Labour and Conservative.

"People jump up and say racism whenever it is mentioned, but a party should be able to discuss this issue without these accusations. It is not racism, but it appeals to people who have instincts that can be seen as racist. You don't need to go into details, you just need to mention it and it has that effect," he says.

For Daoud Zaaroura, chief executive of the North of England Refugee Service, a central frustration of the debate is how immigration and asylum are often treated as the same issue.

"They're being lumped together as though they're one problem, and that is not true," he says.

"Immigration has different criteria if you have skill shortages in certain areas. Every government will put some sort of control on who should be allowed to come in, and I don't believe anybody would have any issues with that. We should accept people according to our need. Asylum is completely different: it looks at those in need of protection, those who are persecuted in their own country. They have a right to safety and protection and to be treated with dignity."

He recognises the difficulty of discussing either issue without the debate becoming heated, but a thriving economy where unemployment is low means there is a demand for migrant workers.

"There are areas where we don't have enough people to do the jobs. If they're coming here to rely on benefits, there will be a problem, but if they're not sitting waiting to receive benefits, I can't see there is a problem."

Dr Farr agrees that immigration is not a problem calling out for drastic solutions, and believes its importance will fade as the election campaign gets into full swing. Although it has figured in by-elections, and may swing a handful of seats where there have been particular problems, he says it will not even rank among the top five issues this year.

Tory leader Michael Howard may be taking his inspiration from his namesake John Howard, whose tough line on immigration is credited with helping him win a fourth election victory in Australia last year, but it is unlikely to have the same result here.

But even if it will not swing the election Michael Howard's way, that does not mean it is unimportant to Conservative prospects, Dr Farr says.

"Immigration has never been an important issue in a general election, and this election will not be fought on this issue, it will be fought on public services and investment, and whether big government or small government is the way forward," he says. "But for the Conservatives it is an issue they hope will galvanise their own supporters, that is its main role."