How Miliband can take the heat out of the immigration debate

The Labour leader must be truly ambitious on pay and working conditions.

Immigration played a key part in Labour’s defeat in 2010, becoming the frame through which many people comprehended and linked together a vortex of economic and social anxieties. Before the election, Ipsos MORI found that just six per cent of those concerned by immigration thought Labour were the best party on the issue. But Labour under Ed Miliband is never going to win a head-to-head contest that focuses narrowly on immigration numbers. Trying to out-flank the Tories to the right would simply lack authenticity and plausibility, and further alienate people from politics.

The Labour leader must also side-step a trap the Tories would like to set, where he gets positioned as a soft, metropolitan liberal. Miliband may be more softly spoken than the tough, no-nonsense home secretaries of the mid New Labour years, but his views on immigration should not be mistaken for permissiveness. His generation have no appetite for a 1980s-style cult of victimhood.

Instead, Miliband is reaching towards a policy for immigration that may include a dose of social liberalism, but also views migration through two other lenses – both of which are key to his worldview more widely: his prioritisation of economic inequality, and an emphasis on strong communities as vehicles for morality, culture and connection. Miliband can talk about people’s immigration concerns but also quickly widen-out the conversation, to take it into terrain where he can push home an advantage, using his egalitarian and communitarian convictions.

The challenge for the left, is to create the conditions in which immigration concerns can subside so that they no longer taint other political debates. In thirteen years of government, Labour learnt that concerns about immigration will not dissipate if you simply ignore the problem. Miliband has already been upfront about immigration in two important ways. First, he has loudly and publicly accepted Labour’s failure to anticipate the huge influx of central and eastern European migrants. Second, he has strongly criticised the coalition for failing on in its own terms, both in relation to policing the UK border and achieving its cap on net migration.

He can now argue (in a way that New Labour globalisers never could) that if migration is not working for the bottom and middle then it is beside the point whether it is good for GDP. The best way of saying that Labour is sticking up for low-income communities is by being truly ambitious on pay and working conditions. Miliband should return to the radicalism of his leadership campaign and embrace a national living wage and also push for sector-wide pay rates in migrant-heavy industries. In short, every job in Britain must be “good enough” for British people to want.

Alongside decent pay and conditions Labour needs a tough message that there will be a zero-tolerance on under-cutting by unscrupulous employers and be ready to pick fights with employers and agencies who recruit migrants first, over and above British unemployed. The party could consider placing new requirements on big business to take more responsibility for their supply chains or raise the prospect of discrimination claims where firms have all-foreign workforces. This would all tie-in well with a ‘tough-love’ message for people who are long-term unemployed; that Labour will guarantee the availability of jobs, but that everyone has a responsibility to accept them.

But Miliband also needs to go beyond the economic and talk about culture and values. He can avoid any talk of imposed assimilation – but he must still emphasise responsibilities and shared values, with respect to personal behaviour and to how people establish themselves in broader communities. When previously in office, Labour pursued this agenda with English language requirements and the beefed up citizenship process but these national rules alone are too abstract and transactional.

Labour needs to think through how to bring to life its instincts about migrants’ rights and responsibilities locally, in the context of place and communities. Miliband should explore the scope for ‘contracts’ – real and implied – between newcomers and the communities they are settling in. This would start with a much more hands-on role for local authorities, who should feel empowered to develop detailed plans in areas of high migration. Ideas might range from encouraging with poor English to take part in family education programmes through to mandatory requirements for newcomers to make (achievable) community contributions before being eligible for social housing.

Of all political issues, migration triggers the greatest insecurities and the most political distrust. Vagueness and good intentions will not do. But if Miliband is able to turn his ethos of responsibility into specifics, he can succeed in taking the heat out of the debate.

The Shape of Things to Come: Labour’s New Thinking is published by the Fabian Society on Wednesday 27 June

Miliband must avoid being depicted as a soft, metropolitan liberal. Photograph: Getty Images.

Andrew Harrop is general secretary of the Fabian Society.

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496