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 deputy web editor at the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

Theresa May's fight against burning injustice can start with the UN's anti-austerity treaty

The UK urgently needs to make sure social rights are protected. 

Fifty years ago this month the United Nations presciently adopted a treaty creating legal safety nets for vulnerable communities facing the effects of austerity in wealthier democracies. 

Although this treaty applies to all countries, rich and poor, in prosperity or austerity, this anniversary provides a timely reminder that the treaty has much to offer both those who are just managing and those who are unable to manage.

Admittedly the treaty's title does not trip easily off the tongue - it is called the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. However, with protests against globalization expressed in the UK with Brexit, in America with Donald Trump and most recently in Italy and France, the Covenant, although international, places limits on globalisation, because it places vulnerability and community at its centre. 

The rights protected by the Covenant include the right to payment for work at a level which provides a "decent living for themselves and their families", the right of everyone to adequate food and housing and the right to the "continuous improvement of living conditions". There are also provisions, which oblige the government to make higher education progressively free, and a right to the highest attainment of health. 

The International Covenant is legally binding on the United Kingdom but the Covenant has been deprioritised by successive governments of all political persuasions. This is for a number of reasons, including a lack of knowledge about courts around the world which have dealt with these rights. 

Successive British governments have assumed that social justice rights are incapable of being protected by courts. In fact, this stems from a failure to look at how an increasing number of modern democracies, including most of Latin America, South Africa and some European states, effectively protect rights such as the highest standard of health and adequate housing. 

Many modern democracies regard social justice rights as reinforcing democracy and an essential component of the rule of law. It is no coincidence that this failure to keep up with social justice developments overseas has left those vulnerable and socially immobile without a legal remedy. 

Many of the rights in a sister Covenant, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are now reflected in UK law, such as the right to freedom of expression and belief. But there is, despite the NHS, no right to the highest attainable standard of health. This prompts the question: Why have the Prime Minister, the Labour and Liberal parties not called for the Covenant’s rights to be brought back home? This question is particularly pertinent now as the Prime Minister in her inaugural speech stated that her goal was to fight "against the burning injustice that if you are born poor, you will die on average nine years earlier than others".

The only attention paid by governments has been to report as required by the Covenant on how the UK has implemented the treaty, and then to consider the recommendations of the United Nations Committee overseeing the Covenant. This, however, does not provide a remedy for those receiving the half a million emergency food parcels that the Trussell Trust said that it distributed between April and September. 

Strategically, the UK needs to adopt a two-pronged policy. The first step is a simple and free international remedy, which 22 countries allow their citizens to use. The UK ought to ratify the International Protocol to the Covenant, which allows people to petition the UN Committee. As the system does not involve costs, there is no need for the government to provide legal aid. The advantage of this first step is that it would allow a decision to be reached as to whether for example, the UK government is fulfilling its duty to provide adequate nutrition to specific individuals by relying to such an extent on food banks.

Secondly, as Brexit means removing those in the UK from the protection of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, which enshrines some social justice rights, the UK urgently needs to ensure that social rights are protected. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights expressly protects human dignity, which it states is inviolable and which, as a specific right, is not found in the Human Rights Act or the European Convention on Human Rights.  The Charter also protects European dimensions of the rights of older people to live a life of dignity and independence, and a right of access to preventive health care, both of which are essential. It is not clear from the government’s Brexit plans so far that these rights will be continued.  A Bill of Rights, which is Human Rights Act Plus, however, would provide such an opportunity.

It may be tempting to argue that this is not the time to consider additional rights, and that rather than seek to expand human rights protection, all energies should be harnessed to defend the Human Rights Act. However, although the rights in the Human Rights Act are constitutionally essential, it was never designed to guard against social immobility or the wealth gap. The raison d’etre of human rights is that all rights are indivisible and equal and the truth is despite the despite the Act being called ‘human rights’, many essential human rights are missing. After fifty years it is time for the UK to reassess the potential of the International Covenant.

Professor Geraldine Van Bueren QC is Professor of International Human Rights Law, Queen Mary, London and Visiting Fellow of Kellogg College, Oxford.