My concerns about immigration

I have concerns about immigration. Specifically that the views of most people are moving in a direction that I am not comfortable with. It is the level of fury expressed that frightens me. Whenever I watch Question Time or read social media comments, I am surprised by how angry the public is over the level of immigration to Britain. I am in a minority of people concerned by this rhetoric, and that frightens me even more.

Many of us on the left do not understand how angry people are. This anger is different from the usual political anger: dissatisfaction with the government or grumbling over taxes. People want far reaching change to the whole country. 26% of the population want the government to encourage migrants to leave the UK, even if they have children born here. People are willing to go to extremes to control immigration, like leaving the EU and wrecking the economy through a Brexit deal that prioritises control of immigration above all else.

There is complacency on the left and amongst liberal people about the level of change needed to placate people’s anger over immigration. We think that there will be an easy fix. We have assumed that it is only low-skilled migration from other EU countries that people object to. Leaving the European Common Market and tightening border controls will bring down low skilled migration. However, some groups express concern about the number of foreign nurses working in the NHS.

The lack of integration by some immigrants is often cited as a cause of hostility to immigration. Integration is clearly an issue, but I am not sure how we force people to integrate. What do we do with the people who are unwilling or unable to integrate? Should they be deported? Even if they have children born here? Remember that 26% of the country want the children of immigrants born in the UK deported, even if they are integrated. There is also the problem that people do not want to pay for programs that will help immigrants integrate. Most people would rather just have less immigration than pay for integration.

This hatred of immigration is not new; Britain did not suddenly become more xenophobic this year. However, the referendum result has exposed a hatred dwelling beneath the surface of our society. Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Daniel Hannan and others picked at a scab to get the result they wanted, and now they have exposed a deep wound. The origins of this wound are complex; they go back to the days of British Empire and the birth of a sense of British exceptionalism that has bred contempt for Europe and people from other countries.

Attitudes worsened after immigration increased following the enlargement of the EU in 2004. Tony Blair has primarily been blamed for not imposing transitional controls on the number of people who move to Britain. He chose not to advance an argument of how this immigration would benefit the country - filling many skill shortages, especially in the NHS and generating more tax to support the welfare state - and this left a space that the far right filled with xenophobia.

Blair believed society was inevitably moving in a socially and economically liberal direction. He viewed those opposed to mass immigration similarly to socialists opposing to his market liberalisation: their views did not need arguing against; history would ultimately prove him right. He viewed the country as a business that had to adapt to market changes. Blair did not realise that although the country prospered after his reforms, the people opposed to mass immigration did not go away. When a business fails to adapt it disappears, but people remain fixed in their views. The discontent with immigration did not disappear over time. It festered into the wound that we have today.

A few people will be convinced by more integration and a reduction in the number of low skilled workers entering the country, but the fire that heats this anger (reflected in the anti-immigrant Daily Mail, Daily Express and others) is a deep intolerance, which will endure. Most people will not simply accept a fall in migration statistics; they want to see the reduction reflected in their local environment. It is not a logical dislike of the economic impacts of immigration, it is a deep emotional dislike of how the country is changing and a powerful desire to turn these changes back. It cuts across class, region, gender, income and age and cannot be solved by addressing one concern.

A recent OECD report recommends that western countries allow immigration on an unprecedented scale to redress the imbalance between the number of workers paying into their welfare states and pension schemes and the growing number of people dependant on the welfare state because of our aging population. We need a lot more workers if we are going to sustain the NHS, our education system, state pensions and the rest of the welfare state. I am worried that people would rather the welfare state collapse than allow more migrants into the country.

Politicians are falling over themselves to give the people shouting about controls on immigration what they want, even if it is bad for the economy and the welfare state. This is especially disappointing when it comes from the Labour Party, but all the major parties are guilty of it. There is no sense from politicians that if the public want something really drastic to be done about immigrants they should not be allowed to have it. By not pushing back against open hostility to immigrants we are setting a dangerous precedent.

What happens if the people's anger at immigration is not placated by leaving the single market and tighter border controls? What happens if people are still this angry after Brexit and the Tories’ anti-immigration policies have been enacted? How bad does the anger have to get before someone says that we have a national problem with how much we hate immigrants? If we continue to allow politicians and the press to blame everything on immigrants and not stand up for them violence is likely to follow.

We are dangerously close to rounding up and deporting huge amounts of people because of a sense that they do not belong in this country. The justification for this will be that they do not belong because they do not have the right skills, or have not integrated properly, or it is politically convenient to do so. It is a horrifying thought.

Why are most people I speak to so unconcerned about this anger? Many on the left or who are liberal think that immigration is too high and should come down. These liberals underestimate how angry most people are and how radical a change they want. It is important that we stand up to hatred wherever we see it and spread awareness of its depth. We must not understate the damage that could be done by placing controlling immigration above all other political objectives.

Are my worries just the panic of someone completely out of touch with the opinions of ordinary people? I am completely over-reacting to people’s legitimate concerns? I would be interested to know if this is the case, because right now I am concerned about out attitude to immigration.

Immigration image provided by the Minnesota Historical Society and used under Creative Commons.

Could Brexit kill the Labour Party?

The government and the opposition are both united in confusion over Brexit. Whilst there is no concrete plan for Britain to leave the EU it is difficult to see what the opposition should actually be opposing. The Labour Party’s position on Brexit remains unclear, although many members have taken it as read that Labour must support some form of Brexit for either tactical or moral reasons. Is this really the case?

From a tactical point of view it initially looks like opposing Brexit bad idea as 17 million people, or roughly 52% of the electorate, voted for Brexit - even if it is unclear exactly what they voted for. A recent study has shown that in a parliamentary election between a leave and remain party, leave would win 2/3s of seats. Add to this the fact that UKIP are second in 120 seats and support for overturning the referendum results looks suicidal for Labour.

All of this was received wisdom until the Richmond Park by-election, where the Lib Dems outperformed Labour in a strongly pro-Remain constituency. Richmond was never going to be won by Labour, however there are some worrying sign in Labour’s very poor performance. The Lib Dems were able to take advantage of Labour’s woolly position on Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn’s support for Brexit counted against the party in a strongly Remain area. Suddenly Labour is questioning whether support for Brexit is the right choice.

“Brexit appears to have made Liberal Democrat candidates palatable to Labour voters,” Stephen Bush wrote in the New Statesman following the result. Even worse for the party is the results of a YouGov poll indicating that a pro-Brexit Labour Party would finish third behind a pro-second referendum Liberal Democrat party in share of vote in a national election.

Diving deeper into the data, it shows that Labour should at minimum campaign for a soft Brexit to prevent the advance of the Lib Dems in metropolitan areas. The study shows that Labour would win the largest vote share when supporting a 2nd referendum, as they pick up votes at the Lib Dem’s expense. However, this situation leads to the largest Tory and UKIP vote share as the electorate becomes more polarised between the Leave and Remain camps.

All this shows that the Lib Dems (and possibly the Greens) could steal a lot of Labour’s voters if they support Brexit. This makes sense as 65% of Labour voters supported Remain in the referendum. Corbyn has always been luke-warm at best towards EU membership and his call to immediately trigger article 50 after the referendum angered many Remain Labour voters. The Lib Dems are poised to take advantage of this as the most vocally pro-Remain party. Supporting Brexit could be the death blow to Labour.

None of this changes any of facts laid out at the start of this article: the strong support for Brexit nationwide and the number of Labour seats that UKIP are eyeing up for the next election. Labour is caught in a bind. Support Brexit and lose its liberal metropolitan voters to the Lib Dems; or support Remain (or a soft Brexit) and UKIP moves in on Labour’s seats in the former industrial North. Neither are particularly enticing options for the party.

Labour also have the problem that they cannot outmanoeuvre UKIP on Brexit or immigration. Regardless of how anti-immigration and anti-EU Labour becomes, UKIP will claim they are pro-EU, pro-migration and most people will believe them. As Abi Wilkinson wrote in the Independent recently: “voters simply don’t believe such rhetoric when it comes from Labour”. Remember that many voters believed that Ed Miliband would overspend as Prime Minister, despite his budget being signed off by the OBR.

Trying to compromise with the people whose only objectives are to take Britain out of the EU and reduce migration is what allowed UKIP and the Tory right to push David Cameron into a having referendum in the first place. We must not allow Labour to be pushed further and further to the right by UKIP. As Michael Chessum wrote in the New Statesman recently: “Attempt to negotiate a compromise on migration in the face of that wave [the anti-immigration populist right], or try to claim it as an “opportunity”, and there is simply no limit to how far Labour will be pushed”.

If Labour opts to put controls on immigration or manage immigration, they will be making the same mistake that led to the downfall of Cameron. By meeting the anti-EU, anti-immigration right halfway we conceded ground and encourage them to advance. Attempting to assert control over the issue of immigration is what has allowed the Tory party to right to the drift to the point where the new government is putting immigration above the health of the economy. If Labour opts for controls on immigration they will lose; UKIP will argue their controls are not tough enough. In the next election Labour’s controls will be tougher, but the same result will occur. Where does all this end?

It looks like Labour’s tactical options are all bad, but is there a moral issue to consider? The Labour Party also has a responsibility not to do massive long term damage to the economy, which Brexit surely would do. Leaving the EU would also threaten workers’ rights and human rights, as outside the EU, any future Tory government could abolish any rights they disliked. Labour also has a responsibility to stand up to the advancement of right wing populism and the branding of anyone opposed to Brexit as a “traitor”. Standing up to Brexit could be the right thing to do even if it is unpopular.

There are also moral issues around supporting Brexit. Does Labour have a responsibility to uphold the democratic outcome of the referendum? Even if what that outcome should be is painfully unclear? Many Labour voters do not feel listened to by the party. Directly ignoring them when they voted for Brexit is not a good idea, it only empowers the far right.

Personally, I think that leaving the EU is a really bad idea. If a significant proportion of the 52% who voted for Brexit can be convinced that it was the wrong decision then there is a case for holding a second referendum. However, I have not seen any evidence of massive ”buyer’s remorse” from Brexit voters. In fact I have seen more Remain voters becoming pro-Brexit and anti-immigration after the result. For now, the result stands and the democratic outcome of an election must be respected. The sad truth is that the Labour Party are likely to suffer whatever stance they take on Brexit; hard, soft, in favour or against.

Politics changed during 2016. The old political divisions no longer apply and a new spectrum is emerging. The traditional Labour voter coalition is being ripped apart by these changes. If politics continues to shift into a globalist/nativist configuration then there will no place for the Labour Party as it currently exists. This means that Labour needs to adapt and that they need to resolve some of the fundamental disputes that are dividing the party, especially over what form of Brexit does Labour stand for?