Labour must not ape the right’s anti-immigration narrative, warns Diane Abbott
The Tories and the United Kingdom Independence party have made no secret of the fact that an anti-immigrant narrative is going to be at the heart of their electoral offer in 2015. There is a certain logic to this. Historically, racism and antisemitism always peak in bad economic times. People need someone to blame, so shifting the responsibility for people’s economic distress on Jews, blacks and eastern Europeans can work. So, for example, the Tories have shamelessly pushed the idea that immigrants are to blame for the pressures on the NHS. In fact, without immigrants Britain would not have an NHS. But the Tories are not about to allow facts to stand in the way of anti-immigrant myth-peddling. Opinion polling reveals that it is Ukip’s anti-immigrant message that resonates with the public, even more strongly than its anti-European message. And the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, has gone out of his way to identify himself with the politics of Enoch Powell.
Faced with this barrage from the right, supported by much of the media, what is the correct position for the Labour party to take? Most of the people around Ed Miliband are in no doubt. They believe that what is required is a decisive move to the right on immigration. So, remarkably, in the past 12 months Ed has delivered two speeches on immigration. And the Labour party has screened a whole party political broadcast on the subject – something that has never happened before.
There is no doubt that Ed personally agonises about the nuance of our line on immigration. But most of the shadow cabinet, and his close advisers, do not share his agonies of conscience. They believe that we should both apologise endlessly for our allegedly ‘open door’ policies when we were in government and be an echo chamber for every thoughtless anti-immigrant opinion voiced on the doorstep. In effect they risk conceding the rightwing anti-immigrant case. We would offer a more ‘civilised’ package of measures but that could end up being the main difference. The shadow education secretary, Tristram Hunt, even felt able to blame eastern European migrants for the educational underachievement of white boys in East Anglia and coastal towns. The fact that there were endemic educational problems in those areas long before any eastern Europeans turned up seemed to escape him.
The trouble with this strategy is that it will tend to confirm in the eyes of some Labour voters that the Conservatives and Ukip are actually right on immigration. For instance, there never was an ‘open door’ policy on immigration under the last Labour government. And I have the filing cabinets, stuffed with correspondence about constituents waiting years to be reunited with their families, to prove it. But if we keep apologising for it people will believe that it is true. Furthermore, immigrants do not cause low wages; weakened trade unions, deregulated labour markets and predatory employers do that. Where anti-immigrant feeling among the electorate reflects real fears, like economic uncertainty and a shortage of affordable housing, we should deal with those actual concerns. Trying to beat the right on its chosen terrain of anti-immigrant rhetoric is a fruitless task and risks a race to the bottom on immigration policy.
———————————————————
Diane Abbott is member of parliament for Hackney North and Stoke Newington
———————————————————
Following the publication of this and James Morris’ article Progress organised an event to discuss the issues that arise from them.
Campaign for a Labour Majority: Is Labour right on immigration?
6-7.30pm, 12 February 2014
Committee room 9, House of Commons
David Hanson MP Shadow immigration minister
Diane Abbott MP Hackney North and Stoke Newington
Jonathan Portes Director, National Institute of Economic and Social Research
Nick Pecorelli Associate director, The Campaign Company
Zoe Tyndall Research lead, BritainThinks
Immigration is an issue of public concern both now, and in the run up to the general election in 2015. The aim of this event was to dig into Labour policy offer before 2015 and understand how it will be received by voters.
More broadly, the event looked at how, in the run-up to the 2015 election, Labour can build a broad coalition of support that speaks to the concerns of people across the country and that will give an incoming Labour government a strong working majority.
See more about the event here
———————————————————
It ought not to be overlooked that current attitudes about immigration have roots in the mis-management of the British economy over many decades.
Politicians have been bedazzled by the concept of free markets, especially financial markets, ignoring the fact, now becoming apparent, that much of the wealth has been based on dishonesty. Many of them have neglected their primary duty to serve their own constituents, preferring the pursuit of wider aims, such as global free trade, “growth”, British influence and so on. [The economists forget that their mantra of “growth” is a consequence of real jobs for actual people, not vice versa.]
In particular, over the years, sterling has been kept far too high in relation to Britain’s industrial capacity. The misplaced macho attitude that sterling must be “strong” (by way of high interest rates) has led to de-industrialisation (as well as cheap imports – a cause of the current “deficit”), with little compensating provision for employment in the locations where people actually live.
The shameful attitude of ministers in the late 90’s and early two-thousands that, if business couldn’t compete, it was tough and nothing could be done about it, was direly unimaginative, with consequences we now see. Globalisation may have some benefits, but it is a curse in a world of limited resources and too many people, if it is not very carefully managed.
There is another consequence of the above, which is that the welfare state/social security system we have had (but are fast losing) is based on a full employment scenario and a one-nation mutuality principle. It wasn’t costed on a proper inflation-linked and actuarially-based accounting system, but should have been. It should have had an asset base (with more than just stock exchange investments) and an income linked to GDP, but not totally dependent on it. We would then see the true costs and benefits and it might be insulated from short-term political whims.
What we now have is a mean-minded social security system, rife with means-testing and benefits traps, which leaves minimal incentives for people to take up low-paid employment. [The remedy for this is a citizens income (see http://www.citizensincome.org).]
This opens an opportunity for immigrants, but it is arguable whether they are “needed”.
Next, there is the matter of investment in business. Any Tom, Dick or Harry foreigner can put down a million quid or two for investment in a business in Britain and get permitted immigration status. Can any Tom, Dick or Harry Brit get a million quid from his bank? You’re joking. But, if you’re in the elite, you might. But, then, the elite is not worried about the “plebs” (!), the ones worried about immigration, unless it affects the votes they seek for their election.