Immigration and border control signs at Edinburgh Airport on February 10, 2014. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Labour can't promise to cut immigration, but it can promise a fairer deal

The party should be straight with voters about how different types of migration have different impacts on Britain.

Imagine aiming for the bull’s eye only to throw the dart into your own foot. That near enough tells the story of the government’s attempts to meet its ill-conceived net migration target. Today’s figures only go to confirm what we’ve known for some time now: David Cameron and Theresa May haven’t a hope of reaching their pledge to bring net migration down below the "tens of thousands" by the end of this parliament. Indeed, the latest annual net figure of 212,000 can be compared with average annual  totals of 171,000 during the 13 years of Labour rule. No wonder the prime minister seems to be trying to draw back from the target and that calls for him to drop it altogether  are growing among Conservative MPs.

On the face of it, the Tories’ big miss should present a palpable hit for Labour, and it’s not surprising that Yvette Cooper’s response today had that wickedly gleeful tone which politicians can’t resist when a policy goes badly wrong for their opposite number. Yet, as George Eaton has pointed out on these pages, it’s not clear that Labour can exploit Tory failure on immigration in the same way it could with some other issues. That’s partly because of its own record – which is still fresh in the memory of voters - but also because Labour’s alternative approach has yet to win over a sceptical public. Progress has been made, both in repudiating the past and in laying the groundwork for the future, but there’s clearly more to do.

George Eaton suggests Labour’s main dilemma is that it somehow has to convince the voters that it would be "better at reducing immigration" than the Tories. It’s certainly true the public want that end, but this is one instance when just promising people what they want isn’t even good politics, let alone policy. Short of apeing Ukip and pulling out of the EU altogether an overall reduction simply cannot be guaranteed, and in the process of trying vainly to get there, a lot of damage can be caused to the economy, vital sectors and the UK’s standing overseas – as we’ve seen in the last few years. 

Much better now is to be straight with the voters about how different types of migration have different impacts on Britain – and while the government should be bearing down harder on some negative migration flows, in other areas, policy might lead to beneficial migration rising. The criteria in both cases should be: what is the UK’s national interest?

For instance, IPPR has proposed maximising the number of foreign students we try to attract, as this type of migration contributes hugely to this country, economically, socially and diplomatically. On the other hand, in our Fair Deal report we argued that the entry route for low skilled migrants from outside the EU should not just remain closed, it should be removed altogether – for the reason that the UK doesn’t need such migrants. Different approaches should be taken in other areas too: such as stronger measures, including more investment, to bear down on illegal immigration, but an end to caps and quotas on investors, entrepreneurs, high skilled and exceptionally talented migrants who, with proper rules in place, can and do make a major economic contribution to Britain.

Of course, a differentiated approach does not allow a party to make a simple, single promise. But given what’s happened to the Tory pledge it should be clear that pledge card politics is not appropriate in this complex field.

That said, abandoning a single target does not mean reducing government accountability for migration flows. Indeed, such accountability should be considerably strengthened, with the responsible minister for each different migration route – economic, study, asylum and so on – reporting annually to parliament, setting out future strategy and broad trends, and accounting for the government’s performance in the previous year.  As a senior Liberal Democrat, Sir Andrew Stunnell MP, has pointed out we have two major annual parliamentary set pieces on the economy – the Budget and the Autumn Statement – but nothing even roughly equivalent for perhaps the next biggest issue of public concern – immigration.   

Beyond this new approach to managing and accounting for migration trends, the new focus in migration policy should be on ensuring that its benefits are more evenly distributed. A big reason why Labour lost support from among its core vote on immigration was that people were loftily told not to worry about high numbers because the economic indicators showed  they were  contributing to growth. That was true at the macro-economic level, but missed the obvious point that people don’t live their lives in this elevated dimension. They live in real communities and work in the real economy.

What Labour failed to appreciate fully enough was that there were groups of workers who were losing out, sometimes as a direct result of migrant competition, even as the overall economy grew. A main plank of a fair deal on migration must that it will be managed explicitly to deliver more benefits to settled people on lower or middle incomes. This doesn’t mean disadvantaging migrants, but it does mean being clearer that any government’s first responsibility is to its own citizenry, particularly the poorest.  

A final aspect is being more alert to and sympathetic about the social and cultural change that high levels of migration can bring to communities. Generally, the UK has not only come to cope with diversity, but to embrace it.  However, alongside celebrating diversity and accommodating minority cultures, we should not be shy, still less ashamed, of promoting our shared identity and asserting long held, and dearly cherished, values, norms and traditions. If that means, and it can do, putting a bit more of an onus on new arrivals to "fit in" to the country to which they’ve chosen to move, that really shouldn’t cause such angst among people of a progressive mind. 

As I mentioned above, none of this makes for pledge card politics. But IPPR research has shown that a "fairness" approach, as outlined above, does resonate with mainstream opinion. And only an honest, open ended conversation on migration has any chance of draining the poison from this issue and pointing towards a long-term accommodation with one of the great issues of our age.

Tim Finch is director of communications for IPPR

Getty
Show Hide image

What Labour MPs who want to elect the shadow cabinet are forgetting

The idea is to push Jeremy Corbyn to build an ideologically broad team, but it distracts from the real hurdle – management.

Labour MPs who have been critical of Jeremy Corbyn are pushing to vote for shadow cabinet members – rather than having all the posts appointed by the leader.

Most of the parliamentary Labour party who are not Corbyn loyalists believe this should be the “olive branch” he offers them, in order to put his recent words about “unity” and “wiping the slate clean” into action.

Corbyn and his allies have refused to consider such an idea outside of a “wider” democratisation of the party – saying that Labour members should also get a say in who’s on the frontbench. It’s also thought Corbyn is reluctant due to the shadow cabinet having three representatives on the National Executive Committee. He wouldn’t want his opponents voting for those, tipping the balance of the Committee back towards centrists.

Shadow cabinet elections were a longstanding convention for Labour in opposition until Ed Miliband urged the party to vote against them in 2011. Labour MPs on different wings of the party believe a return to the system would avoid Labour’s frontbench being populated solely by Corbyn’s ideological wing.

But there is a complication here (aside from the idea of a party leader having to run an effective opposition with their opponents in key shadow cabinet positions).

Proponents of shadow cabinet elections say they would help to make Labour a broad church. But really they could put those in the “make-it-work” camp who initially helped form Corbyn’s team in a difficult position. Initially conciliatory MPs like Thangam Debonnaire and Heidi Alexander have since left their posts, revealing frustration more at Corbyn’s management style than policy direction. Chi Onwurah MP, who remains a shadow minister, has also expressed such concerns.

One senior Labour MP points out that the problem with shadow cabinet elections lies in those who left Corbyn’s shadow cabinet but had wanted to cooperate – not in bringing ideological opponents into the fold.

“There were lots of people on his team who actually liked Jeremy, and wanted to make policy with him,” they tell me. “And many of them eventually felt they had to leave because of how difficult it was to work with him. They wanted to stay but couldn’t. If people like that couldn’t stay, will they go back? It will be much harder for him to show them he can work differently.”

One of the “make-it-work” faction voices their concern about returning to the shadow cabinet via elections for this reason. “A lot of us [who left] are still really interested in our policy areas and would be happy to help if they asked,” they say. “But it was too difficult to be taken seriously when you were actually in those shadow cabinet meetings.”

My source describes a non-collegiate approach in meetings around the shadow cabinet table, where Corbyn would read out pre-written opening statements and responses when they delivered their ideas. “It was like he wasn’t really listening.”

The plan to reintroduce shadow cabinet elections barely left the ground in a meeting of Labour’s National Executive Committee on Saturday night, on the eve of Labour conference.

This is in spite of Labour MPs urging the NEC to make a decision on the matter soon. Jon Ashworth, an NEC member and shadow minister, told me shortly after Corbyn’s victory speech that this would be “a good way of bringing people back” in to the team, and was determined to “get some resolution on the issue” soon.

It doesn’t look like we’ll get that yet. But for some who have already tried serving on the frontbench, it’s a distraction from what is for them a management – rather than an ideological – problem.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.