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.
29 Responses to “People in Guildford don’t vote BNP”
Gertrude Pelletier
Awesome article! This is so informative. Thanks for sharing! Two thumbs up for this!
–SurveyAndBallotSystems.com
Ash
“Labour people engineered a huge coolie labour explosion”
‘Engineering’ doesn’t come into it. The operation of a free market in labour means migrant workers, especially from countries where work opportunities are poor, will naturally flow into rich countries with growing economies. That free market in labour was largely engineered by right-wingers for right-wing reasons (i.e. in order to keep wages low and profits high) long before New Labour got anywhere near Number 10. They just happened to preside over a period of EU expansion. (Yes, they could and should have taken steps to re-shape the free market model of labour movement they inherited – as Miliband is now arguing – but they didn’t ‘engineer’ it.)
“Labour people have called folks racist just for discussing immigration”
In which case it’s a good thing that Miliband is now trying to reframe the debate, isn’t it?
“whilst saying only non-European immigration can now be controlled is rather racist anyway”
How so? That’s just an acknowledgement of EU rules on the free movement of labour.
Miliband is trying to clear up a confusion in left-wing thinking – how does opposing xenophobia and racism fit in with opposing an under-regulated, sometimes exploitative, labour market that drives high levels of low-skilled immigration? He risks alienating some of his own supporters, but he knows this discussion is overdue. Good luck to him.
Do you see David Cameron or anyone else on the Right trying to clear up the corresponding confusion in their own thinking – how does opposing high levels of immigration fit in with an ideological commitment to a free and flexible labour market, as demanded by business leaders? Er, no. That fundamental tension between the Tories’ social conservatism and their economic liberalism is something they just hope we don’t notice.
Gareth Millward
1 + 2) I genuinely don’t see where you’re getting these 560k vs 130k figures from. Treat my like the idiot you obviously think I am, and explain it to me. My point is that if an individual is expected to save on her own for her own retirement, what happens if the bank she saves with or the pension provider she uses goes bankrupt or misuses her money? Won’t the state have to bail her out? Or are we just going to use the “personal responsibility” card and swan off with her money? Money which will have been taken by other investors with no care about what happens to her pension pot.
The provider who MIGHT give you more money can fail. The state can’t (though it can obviously, if it mismanages the fund, put the risk on the taxpayer, and this is the political hurdle to overcome). When we’re talking about people’s livelihoods in old age, I worry about handing this over to businesses whose first incentive is profit, not the safety of pensioners. I’m not saying people shouldn’t have a choice as to where they invest. I’m saying the state should be an optional provider.
2) You’re mixing up structural deficits with deficit. If I borrow £20k, and through the economic growth I get through investing that money tax revenues rise by 30k, my debt is effectively paid off by the growth. The country can easily support constant debt (and has done historically) without too much of a problem. The STRUCTURAL DEFICIT is the debt that will never be paid off because we’re borrowing more than growth. If the economy doesn’t grow at all, it will take forever to pay off the debt. Therefore RESPONSIBLE borrowing aimed at encouraging growth is not a bad thing in itself. The key is RESPONSIBLE.
This is EXACTLY what every mortgage holder in the country does. They borrow against the house based on the assumption that their future earnings will cover the debt and leave them with more in the future. They can then borrow for a second house, invest it in a business, or whatever.
That’s basic economics that even a dunce like me can understand. It’s the STRUCTURAL DEFICIT which the government must tackle. Not the deficit per se. Equating the two is a trick that Osborne was warned about almost as soon as he took office.
4) As for 4, no investment is never even. You make some losses whenever you take risks, but you absorb them because without taking risks you can’t make money. That, again, is basic economics. Yes, many immigrants make a net loss for the economy. But by being open and taking more risks, we end up with a far more immigrants who make net gains, That to me seems pretty logical. The political question is how much risk you take relative to the gains. That’s where we can debate immigration policy. It’s why, for instance, we usually ask non-EU migrants to bring a skill and to have a job waiting for them. I don’t see, personally, why this needs to be tightened much further, but I’m willing to listen to rational debate.
5) And on 5, yes, clearly that needs to change. I have no problem with that. But that’s not a left versus right issue, that’s a common sense issue. I’m not going to argue there. I just was puzzled why you think somehow the left would be happy with people embezzling state funds. That’s not how most sane people operate. Every wing of every faction has bad apples.
LB
130K is the cost of the state pension from a profit making pension company. What it would cost to buy an equivalent annuity.
The 560K is what a 26K a year worker (median wage) would have had in a fund if their NI had gone in to the FTSE. So 40 years ago median wage was 700. Put in NI into the FTSE. Make or lose, plus some dividends. Next year adjust the wages by wage inflation (up or down). Now add the NI into the FTSE. Then make or lose on the capital, get the dividends. Repeat for 40 years.
So it shows that the state give shit value for NI. Even taking off JSA (available for 6 months) its awful value.
=========
My point is that if an individual is expected to save on her own for her own retirement, what happens if the bank she saves with or the pension provider she uses goes bankrupt or misuses her money?
=========
Like the state. Take all the money and give it away or spend it on other people. So how much does the state owe for its pensions promises? Just the promises where people have already paid in? It’s not on the books, but the ONS have published an estimate. 2 years ago it was 5,010 billion. Now that is over 5,300 bn.
So why shouldn’t your arguments apply to the state? They have done everything you’ve said is the danger with a private company and worse. At least with a fund in your name, regulated properly, you’ve got the assets.
=========
You’re mixing up structural deficits with deficit. If I borrow £20k, and through the economic growth I get through investing that money tax revenues rise by 30k, my debt is effectively paid off by the growth
===========
So lets put some more accurate figures to it.
Spending 700 bn.
Taxes 550 bn
Deficit 150 bn.
28% overspend.
So far for 4 years of 150 bn of borrow and spend, the growth has been? Er, not 150% for your numbers but 1-2%.
Borrowing 30% to get less than 1% growth. Does that make sense?
==========
This is EXACTLY what every mortgage holder in the country does.
==========
No it isn’t. If you buy a house, you put down a deposit. You have the debt, but also the asset. Given the mortgage is less than the asset value, you have net assets.
The state however, takes the money, creating the liability, but then blows the asset. It’s in negative equity to the extent it can’t pay.
Now for the future cashflows will cover it. According to your statement, there’s no issue with how much you borrow. So long as you have some income, you can borrow as much as you want. Doesn’t matter if you earn 55K a year, spend 70K on food, holidays etc, you can buy a 700K house on credit, and sell the house without telling the bank. After all, you’ve got an income so you can pay any debt. That’s clearly bonkers, but its what the state has done.
It’s not the deficit stupid. It’s the debts. Doh!
Gareth Millward
On the first point, you could get back £560k. You could get back far less. The state at least has an obligation to pay money if it fucks up. Yes, it’s fucked up. But there’s a safety net. Would there be for private investors?
You’ve accurately showed how the structural deficit has worked, congratulations. You’ve shown how Labour got it wrong, congratulations. Again, though, you haven’t proved that borrowing is always bad. You’ve shown that irresponsible borrowing is. And you’ve shown that if the economy stagnates things get worse. You’ve not shown that by pulling money out of the economy and getting it to stagnate that things will improve.
If you don’t like the mortgage analogy (and if the state is investing in building schools and hospitals it IS acquiring assets), you can surely see the business analogy? You borrow to make money. That’s pretty logical. It’s what the state does and can do well. There is a historical track record of doing so. Things go wrong when borrowing rises above economic growth. This is the situation which we need to fix now.
The difference between a state versus a homeowner or a business is that it won’t die. We can pass debts hundreds of years down the line if necessary on the capitalist model. It can live in perpetual debt providing it can cover its monthly payments. You can earn £55k and spend £70k in one year PROVIDING you make more than £55k the year after and start paying off the debt. It’s when you borrow £70k every year that we have a problem. This was what happened, and Labour is to blame, absolutely. But that doesn’t mean the solution is to borrow nothing at all, reduce taxes for the rich, fuck the poor and let the economy stagnate.
In short, the rules are different for an immortal entity that can borrow trillions versus an individual who can only borrow a few hundred thousand.
Providing the growth in debt remains below the growth in the economy, the state can stay permanently in debt without a problem. The issue is ensuring that past debts continue to be paid off so that tax rates don’t have to rise to pay for it. The state should borrow money to invest, so that the economy grows and the loan pays for itself.