Immigration played a key part in Labour’s defeat in 2010, becoming the frame through which many people comprehended and linked together a vortex of economic and social anxieties. Before the election, Ipsos MORI found that just six per cent of those concerned by immigration thought Labour were the best party on the issue. But Labour under Ed Miliband is never going to win a head-to-head contest that focuses narrowly on immigration numbers. Trying to out-flank the Tories to the right would simply lack authenticity and plausibility, and further alienate people from politics.
The Labour leader must also side-step a trap the Tories would like to set, where he gets positioned as a soft, metropolitan liberal. Miliband may be more softly spoken than the tough, no-nonsense home secretaries of the mid New Labour years, but his views on immigration should not be mistaken for permissiveness. His generation have no appetite for a 1980s-style cult of victimhood.
Instead, Miliband is reaching towards a policy for immigration that may include a dose of social liberalism, but also views migration through two other lenses – both of which are key to his worldview more widely: his prioritisation of economic inequality, and an emphasis on strong communities as vehicles for morality, culture and connection. Miliband can talk about people’s immigration concerns but also quickly widen-out the conversation, to take it into terrain where he can push home an advantage, using his egalitarian and communitarian convictions.
The challenge for the left, is to create the conditions in which immigration concerns can subside so that they no longer taint other political debates. In thirteen years of government, Labour learnt that concerns about immigration will not dissipate if you simply ignore the problem. Miliband has already been upfront about immigration in two important ways. First, he has loudly and publicly accepted Labour’s failure to anticipate the huge influx of central and eastern European migrants. Second, he has strongly criticised the coalition for failing on in its own terms, both in relation to policing the UK border and achieving its cap on net migration.
He can now argue (in a way that New Labour globalisers never could) that if migration is not working for the bottom and middle then it is beside the point whether it is good for GDP. The best way of saying that Labour is sticking up for low income communities is by being truly ambitious on pay and working conditions. Miliband should return to the radicalism of his leadership campaign and embrace a national living wage and also push for sector-wide pay rates in migrant-heavy industries. In short, every job in Britain must be “good enough” for British people to want
Alongside decent pay and conditions Labour needs a tough message that there will be a zero-tolerance on under-cutting by unscrupulous employers and be ready to pick fights with employers and agencies who recruit migrants first, over and above British unemployed. The party could consider placing new requirements on big business to take more responsibility for their supply chains or raise the prospect of discrimination claims where firms have all-foreign workforces. This would all tie-in well with a ‘tough-love’ message for people who are long-term unemployed; that Labour will guarantee the availability of jobs, but that everyone has a responsibility to accept them.
But Miliband also needs to go beyond the economic and talk about culture and values. He can avoid any talk of imposed assimilation – but he must still emphasise responsibilities and shared values, with respect to personal behaviour and to how people establish themselves in broader communities. When previously in office, Labour pursued this agenda with English language requirements and the beefed up citizenship process but these national rules alone are too abstract and transactional.
Labour needs to think through how to bring to life its instincts about migrants’ rights and responsibilities locally, in the context of place and communities. Miliband should explore the scope for ‘contracts’ – real and implied – between newcomers and the communities they are settling in. This would start with a much more hands-on role for local authorities, who should feel empowered to develop detailed plans in areas of high migration. Ideas might range from encouraging with poor English to take part in family education programmes through to mandatory requirements for newcomers to make (achievable) community contributions before being eligible for social housing.
Of all political issues, migration triggers the greatest insecurities and the most political distrust. Vagueness and good intentions will not do. But if Miliband is able to turn his ethos of responsibility into specifics, he can succeed in taking the heat out of the debate.
This is an extract of an article from the forthcoming publication ‘The Shape of Things to Come: Labour’s New Thinking” edited by John Denham, which will be published on Wednesday 27th June
I would love to join this debate as I came into politics as a result of seeing the same working class hate of immigrants generated by Enoch Powell. The first pamphlet I ever wrote was to ask why there were no journalists from BME backgrounds working on TV or newspapers.
But I cannot join the debate as there is no definition of an immigrant.
An Irish citizen? A French citizen enticed to the Uk by Cameron’s appeal to flee Hollande’s France? Americans? Someone born in Pakistan, Bangladesh or India? Somalians” South Africans> Asylum seekers? Trafficked girls?
Precise language and definitions are needed please. When I see or read or hear someone use the word “immigrant” without any further definition I give up.
If the point is new EU citizens after 2004, focus on that point. But also point out that France and Germany did not open their labour markets but found that just as many Poles, Slovaks arrived using their right to travel freely as EU citizens. They then worked illegally in the black labour market in contrast to Britain where east European paid tax, NI, rents, spent money in the UK economy and filled empty churches and started new businesses. Within a year or two France and Germany had to drop their ban. The German film director, Volker Schlondorf, says that he wished after 2004, Berlin had adopted the British policy as it would have meant 1 million Poles coming to Germany, learning German, reading German papers and seeing German films and making friends in Germany that would have have helped cement Polish-German relations. Instead they came to Britain but now we are told this was a dreadful mistake.
Yes we need more social houses, more union rights, an end to employment agency abuses, above min wage pay. These are not the fault of incomers from East Europe but the failure of labour market, housing and other policies.
In the US, Obama stands with immigrants and their first-generation communities as Romney stands with “indigenous” white US citizens. We shall see how win. I know who I am backing.
Perhaps out of duty to their respective citizens, the countries that the immigrants have left in order to avail themselves of the fruits of the United Kingdom should be responsible for paying their social security bill and also housing benefits, at least until those new immigrants have paid full taxes and worked full time here for at least five years or so. this way those of us who are born here and have worked for many years but are unable to secure council/local authority housing will not feel offended.
In this historical period, in a great economic crisis, social and politics, is important to manage better the resources, the territory and the population. When there is a diminution of the material resources, the economy is in crisis and the population is very numerous, creating difficulty of management because the territory of the nation cannot sustain, is correct to limit the immigration and to decrease the immigrants inside the country.
As a labour party member, I was outraged by Ed Miliband’s recent statements on immigration. He can couch his words in as much sham practicality as he and his advisers like, but distilled the message conveyed remains one of xenophobia and scape-goating. I wish there were people with the courage, subtlety and compassion to offer us the political choices – and voice – that we really want.
In contrast to Ed Miliband’s speech, which was carefully phrased, there are some very worrying examples of pandering to prejudice in this article.
“concerns about immigration will not dissipate if you simply ignore the problem.”
This needs to be said more carefully: immigration is not a problem. Concerns about it may be an electoral problem.
“New Labour globalisers”: I never thought I would see a Fabian article using “globaliser’” pejoratively.
“culture and values”: what about internationalism as a value especially for Fabians? There is nothing in this article about that value. Or about the value of choice: people should not be treated just as economic units, to be admitted if they are useful, but rejected if they are not. They have their own interests and choices.
“explore the scope for ‘contracts’ – real and implied – between newcomers and the communities they are settling in. This would start with a much more hands-on role for local authorities”: What would you add to the norms of respect for the law? What more is needed? What do you mean by community? The community in which someone happens to live? Their profession? Their political community (this form uses Community also in the sense of those who use send comments, so even you recognise that there is more than one meaning)? This is a ridiculous word to use in the 21st century.
“mandatory requirements for newcomers to make (achievable) community contributions before being eligible for social housing.” So you are in favour of discrimination against immigrants? Even beyond what already exists?
Those of us who are immigrants and who joined the Fabians thinking it was a welcoming “community” can only be shocked and disappointed by this article.