Welsh first minister suggests free movement for those who have already secured a job
Carwyn Jones, Labour’s first minister in Wales, has attacked Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott’s approaches to immigration, arguing that they are too London centric and risk driving traditional Labour voters into the hands of UKIP.
His comments in the Guardian follow Corbyn and Abbott’s attempts to defend the free movement of people, despite the EU referendum result in June.
Asked for his views on their stance, Jones said:
“The danger is that’s a very London-centric position. That is not the way people see it outside London. London is very different: it is a cosmopolitan city and has high levels of immigration. It has that history. It is not the way many other parts of the UK are.”
Following the election of Paul Nuttall as UKIP Leader, who has pledged to targeted Labour held seats, especially across the north, Jones went on to warn of Labour voters being driven to the UKIP cause. He explained:
“People see it very differently in Labour-supporting areas of the north of England, for example. We have to be very careful that we don’t drive our supporters into the arms of UKIP. When I was on the doorstep in June, a lot of people said: ‘We’re voting out, Mr Jones, but, don’t worry, we’re still Labour.’ What I don’t want is for those people to jump to voting UKIP.”
Asked by the Guardian if he would like to see Labour’s approach to immigration change, the leader of Welsh Labour said:
“It does not reflect the UK. It reflects one unusual, large city in the UK. We have to make sure there are more authentic voices around the UK within the party who people feel are addressing them in their own language and using their own accents.”
While the Welsh government is seeking to ensure the UK has ‘full and fair access’ to the Single Market following any Brexit settlement, Jones went on to explain:
“There has to be compromise. If you accept access to the single market is the most important thing, you have to think about a different way of dealing with migration. There is no doubt in my mind that for many people the current system of freedom of movement is a problem. You can’t ignore it and say we won’t worry.
“Do we look at alternatives, for example, like freedom of movement if you’ve got a job? I think a lot of people would find that reasonable. People who voted Brexit on the issue of migration would say that sounds fair enough to us. People who don’t like immigrants are never going to be satisfied but there are ways of keeping elements of free movement that might be enough to enable us to have access to the single market.”
Ed Jacobs is a contributing editor at Left Foot Forward
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.
9 Responses to “Carwyn Jones slams Jeremy Corbyn’s immigration stance”
Craig Mackay
Yes, thats what the Daily Mail says.But is this the because of immigration or because thegovernment refuses to transferthe taxes paid my migrants to the services they need? Thegovermenthas blamed all the effects of austerityon migrants, and not accepted it is the real cause!
Will
Labour under Corbyn has been very half hearted in its support for remaining in the EU. Corbyns position on Free Movement is all very well but there is far more to Europe than that.
Mays position is ridiculous and wouldn’t stand up to any consistent criticism but until Labour attacks Brexit with a bit more enthusiasm they will continue to lose support to the Lib Dems who give the impression of being the only party that realy cares about avoiding a Hard Brexit.
Paul Lynch
Erm, excuse me but how does Labour predictably losing two by-elections in Tory heartlands, Richmond and Sleaford, where Labour has never ever had a snowball’s chance in hell of winning, with or without Jeremy Corbyn as leader, prove anything about his immigration stance?
Martin Grubb
Craig Mackay would not be worrying about any refusal of Government to transfer the migrant tax dividend of £2.5bn (per HMRC) if he had realised that it represented only 0.3% of UK public expenditure for the year in question, 2014, or that it only included tax credits/child benefit but excluded housing benefit and any participation in health (including maternity) or education or travel facilities or any service that had a public expenditure constituent. He might also consider why the EU migrant tax take of £3.11bn represented only 1.2% of the total UK NI/income tax take when EU migrants accounted for between 3%-6% of the workforce, depending on how the difference between IPS surveys and NI numbers is accounted for.
But it is wholly unfair to blame migrants for this, in terms of national income, insignificant fiscal contribution just as much as it is to imply that they can or should make a greater tax contribution than the rest of the population. How could they when they pay the same rate of tax as those they work alongside. However those more statistically aware will have realised that all workers with the same employment characteristics as migrants will also be only able to make a similar limited fiscal contribution BECAUSE LOW PAY IS THE COMMON FEATURE THEREFORE MAKING ANY SIGNIFICANT FISCAL CONTRIBUTION IMPOSSIBLE. Migration hasincreased the numbers at the bottom end of income distribution where there will be an increasingly dependency on benefits to support family responsibilities as we continue to subsidise employers exploiting the low wage racket facilitated by cheap and non unionised labour. If Craig Mackay wants to know who deluded him into thinking that 0.3% of total public expenditure represented a ‘substantial contribution’ he should ‘follow the money’ and identify those who most profit from immigration and then consider the hold in protecting their interests that they appear to exercise over the left, aided by an unfortunate inability of politicians and the commentariat to assemble and assess evidence or, it must be said, understand simple percentages.