by Adam Peggs
Anti-immigration politics has been an ever growing threat for the British left for more than a decade. Over the last few years its threat to the left, and to the Labour Party specifically, has rapidly grown with virtually no-one in Labour denying that it presents an electoral problem to the party. Firstly as an inclusive party with egalitarian ideals it is Labour’s duty to fight xenophobia. But secondly the party represents constituencies like Bristol West and Streatham which voted to remain by huge margins as well as seats like Burnley and Hartlepool which overwhelmingly voted the other way.
In order to win (or even to retain its 232 seats) Labour will have to appeal to both ends of the Brexit spectrum, acknowledging that skepticism and disapproval over freedom of movement and “mass” migration were pivotal reasons for Brexit.
Labour’s left is understandably concerned with defending free movement and the rights of migrants. The more difficult question will no doubt be how Labour can regain the confidence of voters who backed Brexit whilst avoiding (and actively fighting against) xenophobia.
Recently Stephen Kinnock and Emma Reynolds came up with a proposal which they described as a ‘fair and managed two-tier migration system’, in which higher-skilled migrants would be given priority and less skilled migrants would be classified in the lower tier. It was echoed today in the Brexit Together proposals supported by Caroline Flint. These will have close to zero appeal to Labour’s liberally-inclined voters, to the young or to the children and families of migrants.
What Labour desperately needs is an immigration policy which respects both the EU referendum result and the rights and interests of migrants in Britain.
Labour should be staunchly opposing quotas for immigration, two tier systems which favour richer migrants, attempts by the Tories to erode migrant rights or attempts by UKIP and the Tories to pull up the drawbridge.
However we will need to offer concrete policies on immigration which will make leave voters feel as though Labour is listening to them.
Jeremy Corbyn has already spoken about bringing back the migrant impact fund which would channel extra funds into areas with high levels of migration, in order to ensure that migration does not lead to strain on public services.
Labour should pledge to restore the migrant impact fund but must do two additional things. First the fund should be significantly enlarged, perhaps as big as 1-2 billion but certainly much larger than the similar fund established by Gordon Brown or the similar proposals set out by the Tories last October (140 million). Additionally the funding could be sourced by taxes designed to curb executive pay – e.g. an extra rise in income tax for those who earn over £200,000. Secondly Corbyn and the Shadow Cabinet need to talk about the fund regularly and publicise the proposal in order to actually win the confidence of leave voters.
Corbyn has also rightly talked about tackling the undercutting of wages. It’s worth noting that the argument that immigration reduces wages is largely rubbish and that Labour needs to publicise this. However it is also necessary to take the concerns seriously and to tackle the exploitation of migrant workers. In order to actually resonate Labour will be required not just to talk about tackling undercutting, but to come up with a bold comprehensive package of reforms to prevent the undercutting of wages and the exploitation of all workers. One element of this could be a proposal suggested by Clive Lewis which would be to discourage agencies from hiring non-unionised workers from abroad. While Labour could also beef up Miliband’s proposals to impose tougher penalties for workplaces which fail to pay the minimum wage.
For those on the other side of the argument it is becoming more and more necessary that Labour offers red lines on its defense of migrant’s rights. Members, liberally-inclined voters and most importantly migrants themselves deserve assurance that migrants will be respected and that an open approach to immigration will be preserved.
This means Labour and the left need to steer clear of Kinnock and Reynold’s ‘two tier’ system. It means Labour must fight against any attempts to reduce the rights of migrants, or migrant’s access to public services or the welfare state. Furthermore the left should fight to oppose any attempt to impose an arbitrary immigration target be it 50,000 per year, 100,000 year per year or whatever. A parliamentary motion has at least passed stating that EU migrants already in Britain will be granted a right to remain. Labour will need to hold the government to this commitment.
The debate about immigration isn’t just about the preferences of white voters or ‘indigenous’ Brits , it’s also about human rights, civil rights and real fairness. Some of this piece might sound like triangulation, but the ideas are borne out of an acknowledgement that the status quo on immigration is unpopular and that the rights and interests of migrants are genuinely under fire.
Adam Peggs is a blogger and Labour Party activist
Tags: Adam Peggs, Brexit, Caroline Flint, Emma Reynolds, immigration, Stephen Kinnock
acknowledging that skepticism and disapproval over freedom of movement and “mass” migration were pivotal reasons for Brexit.
Any clown can acknowledge anything. It’s what they say they will do about it is all that matters. And don’t bring the Migrant Impact Fund up – that was an unmitigated disaster. Anything that is ‘after the event’ will be rightly pissed on by the voters.
The debate about immigration isn’t just about the preferences of white voters
Only a moron could write that. In Northern England over half the British Asians that voted, voted Leave. In the main because of immigration. In addition, as any Labour activist would know (at least you hope they would) even McConnell’s consituency – Hayes and Harlington, one of the most ethnically diverse constituencies in the UK, voted Leave by 60%
Oh, and the rights of migrants already hear, be they EU or non-EU are protected by the Vienna Convention on Treaties (1961). The only exemptions to that EU-wise being France – who refused to sign it because they thought it gave too many rights to foreigners, and Romania – because no-one has ever asked them to.
Labour’s left is understandably concerned with defending free movement and the rights of migrants.
================
Problem is that you’ve completely ignore the rights of others.
In order to fund your low skilled migration policy, you’ve had to tax and make lots of other people poor, both migrants and natives.
Someone has to pay for the difference between taxes paid and costs of min wage migrants.
That your entire article doesn’t even consider this, shows why you lost.
Furthermore the left should fight to oppose any attempt to impose an arbitrary immigration target be it 50,000 per year, 100,000 year per year or whatever.
Agreed.
It should be do you pay more in taxes than you cost? Pure and simple.
Put that in place and you will see the arguments against migration disappear.
Not sure that you would put a minimum tax of 12K in place. It would show how much the state spends.
There is of course a way round this. Allow people who want migrants to sponsor them. They agree to make up the difference in tax paid and costs of the migrants and their dependents they sponsor.
Somehow I don’t see people putting their houses on the line to get a cheap nanny.
I am someone on the left of the party and I can confirm that I find the Tory-lite two tier solution repellent.
Bristol a area that could easily become atory, and small business men, who want cheap aeU workers,would vite remain
The definition of free movement, and migration are surely different, free movement, means EU workers coming here with a passport, rightly getting cash in hand taking it home, Migration, means Commonwealth, citizens wanting a British passport,knowing they’ve got a skill,and knowing they’ve a job waiting,with the intent of setting up a life here, and yes after Brexit we will still need cheap EU immigration,as they’ll still be blue collar jobs in the private sector that, are needed to be filled
As for the article. The fact that Stephen kinnocks, sensible comments in controlling freedom of movement,hwve twice had the word Xenophobic, out next to thrm, reminds me of the Twitter feed, by som many, people who were Brexiters and not linked to right wing parties, the word ‘racism’ has lost all meaning, and now the word ‘Xenophobic’ has too
You just don’t get it at all. The anti-immigration feeling in much of the country doesn’t come from anger at undercutting wages or inequality. A Migrant Impact Fund would make no difference. They key point is that millions of people feel that their local areas have changed drastically, now having very high proportions of people living around them with whom they share no cultural, linguistic or ethnic ties. In places like Stoke (an area I know reasonably well), people feel their communities have been undermined. You can’t dismiss as xenophobia the feeling amongst so many people that their communities have been watered down and that in fact several communities living alongside each other, which has negatively impacted on their sense of ownership of “home”. If people see change like that and dislike it, no amount of moralising or pleas to remember the importance of migration to the wider economy/NHS etc from pro-migration enthusiasts will change minds. The only things that will change minds would be 1) a reduction in the rate of immigration and 2) increased integration of those migrants who are here now.
Never a good idea to get into a pissing contest with a skunk!
“For those on the other side of the argument it is becoming more and more necessary that Labour offers red lines on its defense of migrant’s rights”
What about the rights and wishes of UK citizens?
It is not racist or xenophobic to expect UK political parties to put the interests of their citizens first. It should be automatic.
Labour has lost its way in its pursuit of supporting anyone but UK citizens.. who appear to be an afterthought. No wonder Labour are gradually bleeding votes over the past decade. They deserve to.