Yesterday Ed Miliband made another step in reframing Labour's position on immigration. With Ukip surging in the polls and likely to come first in next year's European elections, and the media already beginning their racist attacks on Bulgarians and Romanians, Labour has a choice. They can follow the Conservatives in drifting to the right in the hope of choking off Ukip support or they can offer a positive, more progressive alternative that deals with concerns over immigration but in a wider context.
Nick Lowles is the founder of HOPE not hate
Yesterday Ed Miliband made another step in reframing Labour’s position on immigration.
Admitting Labour got it wrong in allowing too many unskilled migrants into the UK during its time in office, he also sought to focus on unscrupulous employers and lax and unenforced laws.
In this, he was trying to walk a very thin tightrope between being seen to be tough on immigration while protecting the vulnerable.
I understand what Ed was trying to do, just as I understand the difficult position he finds himself in. There are a lot of people in Britain who are nervous about immigration, the impact on their economic well-being and the changing face of the country.
Some of these people are clearly racist and will object to any non-white immigration at all. Others are not racist and their concerns have to be understood.
In 2011, HOPE not hate conducted a survey of attitudes to race, immigration and identity.
With more then 5,000 people asked over 90 questions, the Fear and HOPE report was one of the largest surveys on this issue. It found that 23 per cent of the population were bitterly opposed to immigration and multiculturalism.
It found an even bigger number, 28 per cent, were more relaxed about immigration and multiculturalism but concerned over future immigration for economic reasons. We called this group ‘Identity Ambivalents’ and it consisted of mainly Labour voters, public sector workers and the majority of Britain’s BME population.
My concern about Ed’s new video is not that he is talking about immigration or even trying to address people’s concerns, but rather that he is answering the wrong questions.
Labour now admits that too many unskilled migrants entered the country over the last ten years but could a Labour government really limit the numbers? Most of the unskilled migrants come from A8 countries so there is actually nothing Labour could have done about this.
They could have possibly blocked their arrival for another year or two, but given our membership of the EU this would only have been a temporary measure.
Ed quite rightly talks about enforcing the minimum wage and improving the rights of workers, and it is one of the huge failings of Labour in government that they created such a flexible and unregulated labour market that migrants and non-migrants alike could be exploited so easily.
But by linking improvements in working conditions so obviously to reducing immigration it both frames the debate as immigrants are a problem and undermines a wider, and much more positive, case for better conditions for all.
Our Fear and HOPE report found that economic pessimism was the key driver for fear. The less people saw a future for themselves and their children the more they resented newcomers.
This economic pessimism, reinforced with the sense that they are losers in this globalised world, quickly develops a cultural narrative and racist scapegoating emerges. It is no coincidence that the bulk of areas that saw strong BNP votes were those one-industry towns and communities which were on the decline.
Labour is never going to win an immigration debate by focusing solely on immigration and talk of numbers.
Firstly, after record numbers of immigrants during thirteen years in office they are not going to be believed.
Secondly, they end up making unachievable promises and so this will only reinforces distrust in them.
Thirdly, talking up the problem of immigration will alienate many of their own voters, including the more progressive Liberal Democrats who have switched party allegiance since 2010 and who Labour need if it is to win the next election.
Finally, and most importantly, they risk answering the wrong question.
If economic pessimism is the key driver, intertwined as it is with cultural anxieties of a changing world, then the answer is convincing the electorate that Labour can offer a better tomorrow for all the people of Britain, especially those who feel they are losing out from globalisation and deindustrialisation.
The immigration debate is going to become even more toxic over the next eighteen months.
With Ukip surging in the polls and likely to come first in next year’s European elections, and the media already beginning their racist attacks on Bulgarians and Romanians, Labour has a choice.
Do they follow the Conservatives in drifting to the right in the hope of choking off Ukip support or do they offer a positive, more progressive alternative that deals with concerns over immigration but in a much wider context than they are doing currently?
A wider context that involves a better economic future, restoring faith and trust in politicians and making democracy work for and involve people.
People in Guildford don’t vote BNP. The people in communities where hope is lost did.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
29 Responses to “People in Guildford don’t vote BNP”
Gareth Millward
What happens if people get 1) wrong? Can the average citizen be expected to know enough about investments (a specialised skill) to get this right? Isn’t a certain level of state control and/or bailout necessary to protect people?
Wouldn’t 2) give absolutely no incentive to save for your own pension, or leave the level of the pension so low it would force additional poverty upon those who were too poor to save?
If we get the economy growing, isn’t 3) irrelevant? Growth and steady, managed inflation gets rid of debts pretty easily.
I’m going to regret saying this, but do you have figures to back up your assertion on 4) that take into account the overall benefits as well as costs to the economy of investing in migrant workers?
And as for 5), well, that’s something that (if proved) should be done by any legal system and is completely irrelevant to whichever parties are in power.
I’m such a naive soul, I know.
Peter Garner
That should be “People in Guildford don’t vote BNP – yet” I think the current incumbents are so useless (and there’s little opposition from the other parties – including Labour – that the BNP or UKIP stand a good chance of making an impact.
Raging Leftie
Well, I guess this is a start – but the issue now is where are they going with it? Will they lurch one way or the other? I guess we will just have to wait and see and just hope for the best. Twiddling thumbs ……
Ash
“Labour now admits that too many unskilled migrants entered the country over the last ten years but could a Labour government really limit the numbers? Most of the unskilled migrants come from A8 countries so there is actually nothing Labour could have done about this.”
The case they’re making, surely, is that if low-skilled workers’ wages and working conditions were better protected, the market forces driving those high levels of immigration would cease to operate. (No option to take advantage of foreign workers’ willingness to tolerate poor wages and conditions relative to domestic workers = less incentive to import foreign labour rather than hiring locally. Conversely, no abundance of ‘opportunities’ to get work in the UK by accepting poor pay and conditions = less incentive to come here looking for work.)
“Ed quite rightly talks about enforcing the minimum wage and improving the rights of workers, and it is one of the huge failings of Labour in government that they created such a flexible and unregulated labour market that migrants and non-migrants alike could be exploited so easily.”
Quite. Miliband is joining the dots – recognising that it was precisely this labour market that was driving high rates of immigration.
“But by linking improvements in working conditions so obviously to reducing immigration it both frames the debate as immigrants are a problem”
I don’t think so. It puts the focus where it belongs, on unscrupulous employers, and makes it clear that migrant workers are the victims of exploitation.
LB
I’m afraid its you who are naive about risk.
Which is the risky asset?
a) The asset that generates 130K after 40 years from a provider that is bankrupt
b) 560K of assets
2). It’s NI that goes into the fund So you’ve got no choice. However, since you own the assets, is valuable.
So back to question one? Do you go with the provider that gives you 130K, or one that ends up with 560K?
Getting the economy going? You’re in cuckoo land.
1. Deficit = spending – taxation
Where’s the growth in that? Growth doesn’t affect the deficit. It’s only changed by spending less, or taking more money from people.
Reducing the debt. So lets assume by growth you mean growth in tax revenues. You’ve missed off the last bit. Does growth pay down the debts?
No. 2% growth, doesn’t pay off any debt. The deficit is 30%. Even with a spending freeze, not like the current increases, its going to be ages before it gets the deficit to zero.
On top of that, you’ve got the pension debts. Between 2005 and 2010 according to the ONS those off the book debts went up by 736 billion a year (Note, a year)
4) A dumb question. It’s akin to the old racist statement. We’ve got muslim terrorists so all muslims must be terrorists. We’ve some migrants who are a benefit so all migrants are a benefit. It’s you’re argument in a nut shell.
Why not get rid of the ones that are a burden, and leave the ones who aren’t?
On 5, the problem is that they make their attendance a state secret. Michael Pownall who was responsible for handing out the money, deemed made it a state secret. ie. Covered up his own handling of you and my money.