Progressives shouldn't be running scared of UKIP. There are left-wing answers to the questions posed by the party, writes James Bloodworth.
Progressives shouldn’t be running scared of UKIP. There are left-wing answers to the questions posed by the party, writes James Bloodworth
Everyone seems to have a theory as to how the left can defeat UKIP. For some it means robustly calling out the party as ‘racist’; for others it means treading more gently and highlighting the economic benefits of European integration.
For UKIP’s growing base of support, the reasons for the party’s recent surge in the polls are obvious: voters are fed up with the identikit ‘political class’ and want politicians to drastically reduce immigration and pull Britain out of the EU. The solutions therefore are obvious: stick two fingers up to Brussels and pull up the drawbridge on fortress Britain.
But aren’t there perhaps some progressive answers to the questions posed by UKIP? I think so, and without pandering to the regressive instincts of die-hard Kippers there are some areas where UKIP is currently getting an easy rise through a fear many progressives have of confronting the party on its own turf.
Indeed, UKIP is being allowed to position itself as the only party that’s willing to talk openly about a whole range of issues that worry voters. This is dangerous. It’s also misguided, for on a number of the areas where UKIP is currently allowed to hold sway the left actually has some powerful arguments it could use to push back against Farage’s toxic fearmongering.
Make immigration work for unskilled workers
Most lefties will know the stats almost of by heart by now: migrants from the EU make a substantial contribution to public finances in Britain and are far less likely to claim out-of-work benefits than working age UK nationals. That said, the effect of immigration on a person’s wage packet depends largely on where they sit on the income scale: on average low-wage workers lose out while medium and high-paid workers gain according to the respected Migration Observatory.
Over the long-term the negative effects on employment and wages tend to be mitigated by growth; but in the meantime it’s important to address the plight of unskilled British workers who are worried about the effect immigration could have on their prospects of work. This means recognising that the immigration experience differs across the social classes. It also means we must…
Understand the importance of trade unionism
Following on from my first point, it’s absolutely vital that we recognise the important role trade unions can play in assuaging some of the fears people have about immigration. After all, anyone with any kind of socialist or social democratic background ought to understand why employers might happily opt for Eastern European workers over their British counterparts. British workers have higher wage expectations, a better understanding of their rights at work and are more likely to seek out trade union representation than migrant workers.
Rather than trying to force British workers to compete in a race to the bottom with migrant workers, the left should see its primary task as to unionise migrant workers and educate them as per their rights at work. In an economic sense, a British worker has far more in common with an Eastern European worker than he does with his employer after all.
Recognise that integration is not a dirty word
In embracing the best of multiculturalism too often progressives ignore the potential challenges that come with it. A community of people from different backgrounds sharing values and broadening each other’s cultural experiences is what multiculturalism should be; an assortment of isolated communities that barely interact with each other is actually monoculturalism, and isn’t a cause for celebration.
Too often when a politician calls for migrants to learn English they are accused of pandering to anti-immigration sentiment. And often they are. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a progressive case for migrants to do the things that will help them to become full members of British society. Socialism ultimately starts at the community level, and progressives shouldn’t allow demagogues like Nigel Farage play on public concerns about integration (or a lack of it). The left should have its own answers as to how we create a sense of community in the places where the level of immigration is high.
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.
25 Responses to “There are left-wing answers to the questions posed by UKIP”
Sparky
I’d like to see you write a piece describing exactly where the last Labour government’s immigration policy came from. Because when I walked down to the polling station in 1997, I didn’t think, “I’m voting Labour because I want much more immigration.” Because they didn’t actually mention it before being elected, did they?
And when they were elected, who exactly was clamouring for more immigration? Grass roots Labour supporters? Were miners and dockers and postmen and train drivers contacting their local MP to demand more immigration? Hardly.
The policy was invented by small group of middle-class socialist phonies who lived in Islington, Hampstead, Clapham and the like, and supported by their middle class socialist phoney friends in the BBC and the Guardian as part of unsolicited social-engineering. It was then supported by people such as yourself because by this time the policy had successfully been badged with the qualities of ‘modernity’ and ‘tolerance’ and ‘open-mindedness’. Of course, because something is ‘modern’ and ‘tolerated’ does not make it desirable. Pollution would fulfill both those criteria -one would hardly argue that it was desirable. But it was nonetheless the marketing trick that the Labour government pulled off. And this made it easy for them to smear anyone who voiced concerns as racists, and old-fashioned and narrow-minded.
And this smear policy worked for a long time until the levels of immigration and its effects became so manifestly obvious that its opponents could not be explained away as racists. That’s where you come in again. “Take away the hotheaded racist accusations,” someone at Labour Party HQ tells you, “tone down the whole debate and write a conciliatory, inclusive piece about how the Left recognizes people’s genuine concerns. We can then demonstrate that we’re not as out-of-touch on immigration as people think we are.” I expect you’ll have regular pieces like this lined up to drop in before the next election.
jaydeepee
The ‘voters in the middle’ won’t be deciding the next GE so Labour should stop pandering to them and implement the policies that members want:
A huge council housebuilding scheme,a rent act, bankers tax, mansion tax, jobs (particularly aimed at the young), more protection for public services and nationalisation or mutualisation of energy, rail and post and a repeal of both the Education Act and Health Act.
UKIP have no answers to the problems faced everyday by the people of this country and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise.
Ian
Don’t think the UKIP way. Don’t talk about ‘housing immigrants’, talk about providing housing for the citizens of this country. An immigrant who has arrived and settled here legally, and is being productive, is no different to anyone already here!
Sparky
Really? They’re absolutely no different? Let’s see. Many of them have to learn English. None of them have paid into the system and yet from the day they arrive they use the NHS, schools, public transport. Each immigrant who comes here is an extra person competing for limited housing who would otherwise not be here. Many of them send money to their relatives abroad, money which is a direct leakage out of the country and does nothing to create wealth as consumption or saving ng in the UK does. Apart from that, you’re right, they are absolutely the same.
Michael Simpson
The argument you’re having with a series of quotation marks is a little odd, I have to say.