Chatham High Street, where Ukip fever is thin on the ground. Photo: Anoosh Chakelian
Show Hide image

Ukip tells us of Rochester's immigration concerns, so what do its immigrants think of Ukip?

Although there is concern about immigration among some ethnic minority residents, many fear a Ukip win would be bad news for the area.

As immigration dominates national political debate, driven mainly by Ukip's apparently snowballing success, it is worth asking some of the actual migrants what they think.

In Rochester and Strood today, it's easy for the festival of purple and yellow-tinted triumph on Rochester High Street to appear to characterise this constituency and drown out many others' views. However, although most passersby I have spoken to in the town centre have mentioned their concern about immigration – one even calling for the closure of the Channel Tunnel because "since they built that, everyone can get here" – doorknocking around the more residential areas shows that it is not every voter's number one concern. Rather, they mention difficulties with disability benefits, the beleagured local hospital being "like the Third World", and struggling to find employment.

The Labour candidate, Naushabah Khan, who is descended from Pakistani migrants, told me that although her heritage plays "an interesting backdrop" to this by-election, she has found that immigration is nowhere near “the first thing on top of everybody’s list”.

Similarly, the former Labour MP for this constituency, Bob Marshall-Andrews, was sceptical about Ukip's rhetoric regarding the concerns of Rochester and Strood residents. He gave me his view, having represented the area for 13 years:

I had expected to find more evidence that this was a Ukip-caused by-election . . . [but that Ukip could win] makes me very angry and very sad. Ukip is a completely different type of party. It is a rather unpleasant and dangerous one. Medway people have always been anti-racists and open-hearted. I hope they don’t vote Ukip in.

So I set out to the section of Chatham represented by this constituency, where there seems to be a higher concentration of different cultures on its high street than in the heart of Rochester – though it is important to note that this seat has a lower non-White British population than the national and regional average. Here, there are Thai supermarkets alongside Moroccan restaurants, a Halal meat shop a few doors down from an Afro-Carribean barber; Chinese takeaways opposite Eastern European convenience stores; Middle Eastern traders watching over their fruit stalls; and all along the street you can catch snippets of Arabic, Urdu and Polish, among other languages.

Most of the people I speak to here are first- or second-generation immigrants. I try and find out how they feel about their home being on the brink of becoming Ukip territory. They give me a far more mixed reaction to Reckless and his troops' success than the White British people I have spoken to in Rochester town centre.

"I experience a lot of racism in particular here," one softly-spoken 27-year-old graphic designer tells me. "That was prior to Ukip but I expect it will only get worse [if they win]." He is Nigerian-Egyptian and has lived in Rochester for 12 years. He refuses to vote. "I have a vote but I won't use it because of my view on politics in general. I feel like it's not relevant. The most notable fact is that nothing seems to change around Medway." He is referring specifically to funding and financial help for young people, as he was thwarted in an attempt to set up his own business a few years back.

I find this odd mix of hostility towards Ukip but apathy towards politics among others I meet. Earlier this month when I was here, a young Polish painter-decorator who had only lived in the constituency for two months told me he would "maybe" consider moving out of the area if Reckless wins the seat. However, he caveated this by saying he cares more about going to parties than talking about politics.

"I don't vote, I'm non-political" smiles a woman in her 40s. She lives in Chatham and tells me she is of African heritage but won't specify which country. "They promise things and never achieve them. I've seen Ukip on the news, I listen to Radio 4, and to be honest, it just washes over me. I don't want to hear it. Whoever is in, life is hard anyway."

A 31-year-old man of Vietnamese-Chinese parentage working in a Chinese takeaway expresses a similar exasperation, but is concerned about Ukip: "I do vote every year, usually for one of the main parties, Labour or Conservative, but I'm not really into politics. I have little girls, so I worry about schools and stuff. I know this is going to be Ukip's second seat. They are stirring up trouble. There are a lot of immigrants coming through, but my parents were in the same boat coming here, so I've got nothing against people coming and getting a better life here."

A man from northern Iraq who has lived and worked here for six years is also positive about immigration, though from a different angle: "It's mixed wherever you go, you find immigrants and English people," he grins. "It's sometimes confusing and hard [for immigrants], if you don't understand the law, and I have friends here with no money who can't get help from anywhere. But everyone is confused and suffering, if they were born here or not. I've lived in Greece, Italy... everywhere it's difficult to make a living – the problem isn't immigrants, it's economic problems everywhere."

This sympathy with those arriving in Britain for a better quality of life and work is notable in all those I speak to. But it doesn't always translate into outright anti-Ukip views. "I'm registered to vote, but I haven't today," an Egyptian man working at a fruitstall tells me. "I don't really attach myself to political stuff, I'm busy here and with my family. But I hear about Ukip on the news and I'm not sure about them." I ask about their immigration policy. "My views are 50-50 to be honest," he replies. "On one hand, it's positive. I myself am an immigrant in this country and it's helped with my business, my family, and fitting into society – positive things. But the negative is that the system needs changing as new people come. There is a weakness in the system and people are taking advantage."

This same reservation is voiced by others. A man of Mauritian heritage who has owned a cornershop on the high street for two years says his parents, a doctor and nurse, worked hard when they came here and "contributed to the system. Positive immigration is all good. But when people come and sponge of benefits and don't contribute, that would piss any hardworking person off. So I think if Ukip wins here, it will give the Conservatives and Labour a kick up their arse." But when pressed on whether he would like to see Ukip gain more power, he backtracks: "I am quite worried about the general election," he admits. "Nigel Farage is not prime minister material, I wouldn't want to see that."

But there are those among Rochester and Strood's migrant population who are far less anxious about Ukip. A Turkish kebab shop worker, who is 44 and bringing up his family here, says he has his "fingers crossed" that Ukip get in. "I like them. I like their ideas." Interestingly, he doesn't mention immigration, and seems more concerned about EU membership. "The European Union is making it worse. The quality of life goes down. I used to be a taxi driver and make £800 a week, now it's less than half that. And the rent is always going up." In fact, he only moved to the area recently because he decided business would be better here.

And some remain unruffled by Reckless' chances. Beside the polling station at St John's Church, just off Chatham High Street, a Nigerian man reflects on Ukip's rise: "Their success [beyond the by-election] depends on their manifesto; people really have to think about the effect and after-effect of voting for them. But this generation who are voting for them now will eventually go, and the future will be different," he smiles.

It is crass to draw any wider conclusions from such a range of opinions, but also clear that among many constituents here, the "immigration concerns" dominating the news can be matched with "concerns about Ukip", and their views should not be overshadowed.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

How Jim Murphy's mistake cost Labour - and helped make Ruth Davidson

Scottish Labour's former leader's great mistake was to run away from Labour's Scottish referendum, not on it.

The strange revival of Conservative Scotland? Another poll from north of the border, this time from the Times and YouGov, shows the Tories experiencing a revival in Scotland, up to 28 per cent of the vote, enough to net seven extra seats from the SNP.

Adding to the Nationalists’ misery, according to the same poll, they would lose East Dunbartonshire to the Liberal Democrats, reducing their strength in the Commons to a still-formidable 47 seats.

It could be worse than the polls suggest, however. In the elections to the Scottish Parliament last year, parties which backed a No vote in the referendum did better in the first-past-the-post seats than the polls would have suggested – thanks to tactical voting by No voters, who backed whichever party had the best chance of beating the SNP.

The strategic insight of Ruth Davidson, the Conservative leader in Scotland, was to to recast her party as the loudest defender of the Union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. She has absorbed large chunks of that vote from the Liberal Democrats and Labour, but, paradoxically, at the Holyrood elections at least, the “Unionist coalition” she assembled helped those parties even though it cost the vote share.

The big thing to watch is not just where the parties of the Union make gains, but where they successfully form strong second-places against whoever the strongest pro-Union party is.

Davidson’s popularity and eye for a good photo opportunity – which came first is an interesting question – mean that the natural benefactor in most places will likely be the Tories.

But it could have been very different. The first politician to hit successfully upon the “last defender of the Union” routine was Ian Murray, the last Labour MP in Scotland, who squeezed both the  Liberal Democrat and Conservative vote in his seat of Edinburgh South.

His then-leader in Scotland, Jim Murphy, had a different idea. He fought the election in 2015 to the SNP’s left, with the slogan of “Whether you’re Yes, or No, the Tories have got to go”.  There were a couple of problems with that approach, as one  former staffer put it: “Firstly, the SNP weren’t going to put the Tories in, and everyone knew it. Secondly, no-one but us wanted to move on [from the referendum]”.

Then again under different leadership, this time under Kezia Dugdale, Scottish Labour once again fought a campaign explicitly to the left of the SNP, promising to increase taxation to blunt cuts devolved from Westminster, and an agnostic position on the referendum. Dugdale said she’d be open to voting to leave the United Kingdom if Britain left the European Union. Senior Scottish Labour figures flirted with the idea that the party might be neutral in a forthcoming election. Once again, the party tried to move on – but no-one else wanted to move on.

How different things might be if instead of running away from their referendum campaign, Jim Murphy had run towards it in 2015. 

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

0800 7318496