The political dangers of Miliband's "new approach" on immigration

By declaring that low-skilled immigration is "too high", Miliband risks entering a war he cannot win.

Ed Miliband has long regarded immigration as one of the issues that Labour mishandled in office. The last government was wrong, he has said, not to impose transitional controls on migration from eastern European and wrong to then casually dismiss people's concerns.

After delivering two speeches on immigration since he became Labour leader, Miliband will tonight devote a party political broadcast to the subject (which you can watch below), with a speech by shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper to follow tomorrow. The interventions will inevitably be seen as a response to the party's poor performance in the Eastleigh by-election, where, in the words of one Labour MP, immigration was "the single biggest issue on the doorstep", and as a response to the Tories' political manoeuvring. But I'm told by a Labour source that it has been on the grid for some time. That seems plausible. As will be clear to anyone who has studied Miliband's leadership, he doesn't do knee-jerk policy, he doesn't "lurch". And political parties do not plan and deliver PPBs in just six days.

To a string-laden soundtrack, Miliband begins the broadcast by again stating that Labour got it "wrong" on immigration, a sign that he believes the party needs to rebuild trust on the issue before it can hope to win a fair hearing. He says: "One of the things we didn’t get right was immigration and that’s why I’ve got a new approach.  Millions of people in this country are concerned about immigration and if people are concerned about it, then the Labour Party I lead is going to be talking about it."

He goes on to argue that "low-skill migration has been too high and we need to bring it down", calling for "the maximum transitional controls for new countries coming in from eastern Europe". But rather than promising a crackdown on allegedly benefit-hungry migrants, as the Tories have, he again promises to crackdown on rogue employers who use migrant labour to undercut domestic workers. Miliband refers only to the need for tougher enforcement of the minimum wage but Cooper will supply more detail tomorrow when she announces plans to make it illegal for bosses to house migrants in unsuitable accommodation, such as mobile homes, and to extend action against gangmasters employing illegal migrants in social care, hospitality and construction. 

In the PPB, Miliband also cites the need to improve training for domestic workers, "so that they have a fighting chance of filling the vacancies that exist", and to ban recruitment agencies who only seek to employ people from abroad. 

Miliband's class-based analysis of immigration is a significant improvement on the populist "British jobs for British workers" rhetoric of Gordon Brown. But perhaps inevitably, the broadcast raises more questions than it answers. Having argued that low-skilled migration (as opposed, presumably, to high-skilled immigration) is "too high", how confident is he that the measures Labour is proposing will reduce it? Miliband has rightly rejected the government's focus on "targets" but this decision will prompt some to question his commitment to reducing new arrivals. 

We can also expect the Tories to challenge Miliband to say what action (if any) he would take to restrict migrants' access to the welfare state. Asked earlier this year whether he was willing to consider restricting benefits for EU immigrants, Miliband said: "Of course that's an issue that should be looked at, the length of entitlement to benefits and how quickly people can get them. All of these issues should be on the table." More recently, however, he has accused the government of "windy rhetoric", urging it to  focus instead on tackling rogue employers. As the coalition prepares to announce specific proposals, where does Labour actually stand?

Miliband's approach raises the possibility of a more progressive conversation about immigration. But with his declaration that immigration, or at least one form of it, is "too high", some in Labour fear he has entered into a war that he cannot possibly win. 

Ed Miliband's party political broadcast on immigration will be shown on BBC1 tonight. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.