Labour is developing the right instincts on immigration

Miliband’s mea culpa is first step to genuinely progressive position.

The simple fact of the Labour leader tackling the issue of immigration head on in a speech to IPPR yesterday is an important step. The widespread perception that the whole topic is somehow taboo is corrosive, and feeds into a narrative (enthusiastically promoted by the likes of Migration Watch) that immigration is some kind of elite conspiracy imposed on the British people. In that context, it is essential that Ed Miliband and his colleagues in the Shadow Cabinet are stating their case, listening to public concerns and trying to establish a constructive debate – one without either prejudice or ‘no go areas’. This speech, following his recent intervention on national identity and Englishness, is a welcome move in that direction.

Labour is now striking the right tone in discussing its record on immigration – recognising that mistakes were made, that change happened too fast in some communities, and that there was a serious failure of politics in not securing public consent for policy. This is essential if the party is going to get a hearing on the issue in future.  But more importantly, this speech made the right connections with Labour’s economic record.  By situating immigration squarely in  this wider debate, Ed Miliband was recognising a much bigger problem when he accepted that Labour had been ‘dazzled by globalisation’, and had paid too little attention to the impacts of the UK’s economic model (of which immigration has been part) on the most vulnerable workers and communities.

For a while, it seemed that the ‘Blue Labour’ project had foundered on the rocks of immigration policy, but this speech showed both that the influence of Blue Labour thinking remains strong (that Ed Miliband made his first major speech on immigration so soon after appointing Jon Cruddas to lead the Labour policy review is no coincidence), and that the Blue Labour position on immigration is much more nuanced than has often been suggested. In fact, the kind of agenda that Ed Miliband set out, which focused on the need to protect vulnerable workers and communities, is one in which UK-born people and migrants should have common cause.  Better enforcement of the minimum wage should reassure UK workers that their wages won’t be undercut, but it would also protect vulnerable migrant workers - the London Citizens campaign for the Living Wage is a good example of this kind of solidarity working in practice.

But most importantly, this speech represents a new attempt by Labour to define a genuinely progressive position on immigration. From a policy point of view, let alone a political point of view, this is a difficult trick to pull off – migration is an issue where the key question from a progressive perspective is not ‘are there benefits?’, but ‘who benefits?’ Necessarily, that means engaging with some real trade offs between different objectives (would we accept a lower rate of economic growth in order to make communities more cohesive?) and between groups (what costs are we prepared to impose on business in order to protect the most vulnerable workers?). It also means looking well beyond the narrow confines of ‘immigration policy’ to consider how migration fits with our economy, public services, communities and our sense of identity – there is no single ‘big idea’ that will cut the Gordian knot of immigration policy (as the Coalition are finding with respect to their much-vaunted net migration target), but rather a set of inter-related changes across a wide range of policy areas that will make migration work better for the UK.

This speech did not by any means set out a comprehensive progressive immigration policy. Nor was it the U-turn on immigration policy that much of the media is suggesting, although the ‘mea culpa' for parts of Labour’s record was important, and it was part of a significant change of direction on economic policy. Not all of the policies set out in the speech will be effective in practice, and those of us who recognise the benefits that migration has brought, and will bring, to the UK may regret that it is politically necessary to pre-judge questions like migration after further EU accession. In short, there is still plenty of work for think tanks like IPPR to do in developing a set of migration policies for the UK that would deliver on progressive values.

But the speech does suggest that the Labour Party is developing the right instincts on immigration, and has realised that it needs a better narrative as well as better policies. If Ed Miliband can resist the temptation to always simply be ‘tougher’ than the Conservatives (a temptation that is no doubt made easier to resist by the continued failure of the government to make progress towards its net migration target), and can situate immigration in the context of the wide economic and social concerns of the British people, he might just be able to change the debate. That is something that everyone with an interest in this issue, including migrant communities and their advocates, should support.

Sarah Mulley is Associate Director at IPPR


Labour leader Ed Miliband. Photograph: Getty Images

Sarah Mulley is associate director at IPPR.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

How the row over Jackie Walker triggered a full-blown war in Momentum

Jon Lansman, the organisation's founder, is coming under attack. 

The battle for control within Momentum, which has been brewing for some time, has begun in earnest.

In a sign of the growing unrest within the organisation – established as the continuation of Jeremy Corbyn’s first successful leadership bid, and instrumental in delivering in his re-election -  a critical pamphlet by the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (AWL), a Trotskyite grouping, has made its way into the pages of the Times, with the “unelected” chiefs of Momentum slated for turning the organisation into a “bland blur”.

The issue of contention: between those who see Momentum as an organisation to engage new members of the Labour party, who have been motivated by Jeremy Corbyn but are not yet Corbynites.

One trade unionist from that tendency described what they see the problem as like this: “you have people who have joined to vote for Jeremy, they’re going to meetings, but they’re voting for the Progress candidates in selections, they’re voting for Eddie Izzard [who stood as an independent but Corbynsceptic candidate] in the NEC”.  

On the other are those who see a fightback by Labour’s right and centre as inevitable, and who are trying to actively create a party within a party for what they see as an inevitable purge. One activist of that opinion wryly described Momentum as “Noah’s Ark”.

For both sides, Momentum, now financially stable thanks to its membership, which now stands at over 20,000, is a great prize. And in the firing line for those who want to turn Momentum into a parallel line is Jon Lansman, the organisation’s founder.

Lansman, who came into politics as an aide to Tony Benn, is a figure of suspicion on parts of the broad left due to his decades-long commitment to the Labour party. His major opposition within Momentum and on its ruling executive comes from the AWL.

The removal of Jackie Walker as a vice-chair of Momentum after she said that Holocaust Memorial Day belittled victims of other genocides has boosted the AWL, although the AWL's Jill Mountford, who sits on Momentum's ruling executive, voted to remove Walker as vice-chair. (Walker remains on the NEC, as she has been elected by members). But despite that, the AWL, who have been critical of the process whereby Walker lost her post, have felt the benefit across the country.

Why? Because that battle has triggered a series of serious splits, not only in Momentum’s executive but its grassroots. A raft of local groups have thrown out the local leadership, mostly veterans of Corbyn’s campaign for the leadership, for what the friend of one defeated representative described as “people who believe the Canary [a pro-Corbyn politics website that is regularly accused of indulging and promoting conspiracy theories]”.

In a further series of reverses for the Lansmanite caucus, the North West, a Momentum stronghold since the organisation was founded just under a year ago, is slipping away from old allies of Lansman and towards the “new” left. As one insider put it, the transition is from longstanding members towards people who had been kicked out in the late 1980s and early 1990s by Neil Kinnock. The constituency party of Wallasey in particular is giving senior figures in Momentum headaches just as it is their opponents on the right of the party, with one lamenting that they have “lost control” of the group.

It now means that planned changes to Momentum’s structure, which the leadership had hoped to be rubberstamped by members, now face a fraught path to passage.

Adding to the organisation’s difficulties is the expected capture of James Schneider by the leader’s office. Schneider, who appears widely on television and radio as the public face of Momentum and is well-liked by journalists, has an offer on the table to join Jeremy Corbyn’s team at Westminster as a junior to Seumas Milne.

The move, while a coup for Corbyn, is one that Momentum – and some of Corbyn’s allies in the trade union movement – are keen to resist. Taking a job in the leader’s office would reduce still further the numbers of TV-friendly loyalists who can go on the airwaves and defend the leadership. There is frustration among the leader’s office that as well as Diane Abbott and John McDonnell, who are both considered to be both polished media performers and loyalists, TV bookers turn to Ken Livingstone, who is retired and unreliable, and Paul Mason, about whom opinions are divided within Momentum. Some regard Mason as a box office performer who needs a bigger role, others as a liability.

But all are agreed that Schneider’s expected departure will weaken the media presence of Corbyn loyalists and also damage Momentum. Schneider has spent much of his time not wrangling journalists but mediating in local branches and is regarded as instrumental in the places “where Momentum is working well” in the words of one trade unionist. (Cornwall is regarded as a particular example of what the organisation should be aiming towards)

It comes at a time when Momentum’s leadership is keen to focus both on its external campaigns but the struggle for control in the Labour party. Although Corbyn has never been stronger within the party, no Corbynite candidate has yet prevailed in a by-election, with the lack of available candidates at a council level regarded as part of the problem. Councilors face mandatory reselection as a matter of course, and the hope is that a bumper crop of pro-Corbyn local politicians will go on to form the bulk of the talent pool for vacant seats in future by-elections and in marginal seats at the general election.

But at present, a draining internal battle is sapping Momentum of much of its vitality. But Lansman retains two trump cards. The first is that as well as being the founder of the organisation, he is its de facto owner: the data from Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership campaigns, without which much of the organisation could not properly run, is owned by a limited company of which he is sole director. But “rolling it up and starting again” is very much the nuclear option, that would further delay the left’s hopes of consolidating its power base in the party.

The second trump card, however, is the tribalism of many of the key players at a local level, who will resist infiltration by groups to Labour’s left just as fiercely as many on the right. As one veteran of both Corbyn’s campaigns reflected: “If those who have spent 20 years attacking our party think they have waiting allies in the left of Labour, they are woefully mistaken”. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.