Show Hide image

Rachel Reeves MP: Ending free movement should be a red line for Labour post-Brexit

The party has ignored the effects of immigration on wages for too long. 

Two days before the referendum, I visited the largest private sector employer in my constituency. I had spoken to many of the workers during the general election campaign a year earlier. 
Although the chief executive works with a community centre to recruit local young people, like many businesses they also hire many Eastern European workers. It was a tough audience, as many blamed the EU for the squeeze on living standards and most felt immigration was out of control. 
The people I met believed leaving the EU would mean less pressure on services and more money for them, because the downward pressure on wages would ease with fewer EU migrants.
The Remain campaign and the Labour party consistently refused to acknowledge that effect on wages, and more generally had little to say to working-class voters with whom we should have been able to communicate with.  
We didn’t offer solutions to those locked out from opportunities. And there was nothing to say about better skills provision to boost wages, or about how we would use industrial policy to deliver more secure, well-paid jobs.
I knew in my heart at lunchtime on the day of that visit that we’d lost the referendum. My head had told me - the economist - that we would win because the consequences of leaving were a risk voters wouldn't take. But, by Friday morning, we knew the Leave campaign’s emotional message was stronger than the rational arguments of the Remain campaign.
A failure to acknowledge voters’ legitimate concerns on immigration meant we didn’t earn the right to be heard on other issues. We didn't convince those who were uncertain or who didn't vote at all. But we asked the question and so we must respect the answer.
So, how do we interpret the vote and what should the progressive left demand from the renegotiation?
The challenge for Labour now is how we get the best deal for working-class voters and ensure the best economic settlement. 
Ending free movement has to be a red line post-Brexit. Subject to that, we need the greatest possible access to the single market. This will of course involve difficult negotiations because the EU will not be able to offer better terms to countries outside the EU club. We therefore have to focus on our key priorities. 
We need tough negotiations to keep exports and imports tariff-free. We must also ensure the fullest possible access to the single market for the service sector. We also need to be clear about what the Chancellor must do to steer the UK through these turbulent times and build a resilient economy outside the EU.
This means urgent action to rebalance the economy and to ensure good quality and well-paid jobs in all areas of the country. The Chancellor must be prepared to capitalise on the ultra-low borrowing rates to help fund investment outside London. 
To address this, the government must first ensure adequate investment in infrastructure across the country – not just schemes like Crossrail in London.  The investment gap between London and the rest of the country is stark.  The capital received £5,203 more per head in capital investment than in the north-east in 2014. 
We must ensure regions in the north and elsewhere get a fair deal when it comes to investment in transport and other key areas like providing proper flood defences – crucial to businesses in my constituency.  
As well as environmental, energy and transport infrastructure, we should be doing more to get behind our digital economy.  
Our digital infrastructure is crucial, not just to tech firms but also to rural and home-based entrepreneurs. We have some of the slowest and patchiest broadband in the developed world. The network needs more investment to unlock the creative potential of all our citizens. 
Second, to ensure we can boost employment rates across the whole country, we must do more to support parents of young children who want to work. We should move towards a system of universal free childcare for all working parents of pre-school children.  The chancellor could fund this by cancelling his predecessor’s regressive and expensive cut to inheritance tax. 
Third, we will need to keep a hawk eye on employment protections and rights. The Conservatives have always been determined to strip away workers’ rights with their promised a “bonfire of regulations”, which our membership of the EU made it harder to do. To make certain we avoid a race to the bottom, we should continue to shadow the EU’s employment legislation where they make advances.  At the very least, this will be a vital check on the resurgent right-wing voices of the Tory Party who are now at the Cabinet table. 
Everything that has happened since people voted to leave the EU shows that we need to take these actions urgently. Just a few months after the result, we are seeing the impact of Brexit with firms cancelling or delaying investment, and jobs at risk. The Bank of England has cut the base rate and the Chancellor has been forced to promise to replace EU funding after our exit. The government needs a strong and sensible industrial strategy to rebalance the economy and protect jobs and growth across the UK.
All this must happen while we still take heed of the referendum result and negotiate our exit from the EU. Brexit must be a wake-up call for anyone who wants government by the people, for the people, of the people. And we on the progressive left must use this to help build a fairer and more inclusive model of economic growth.

This blog is based on a chapter Rachel Reeves MP wrote for the Fabian Society edited collection Facing the Unknown: Building a progressive response to Brexit, published today. 

Show Hide image

Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan are both slippery self-mythologisers – so why do we rate one more than the other?

Their obsessions with their childhoods have both become punchlines; but one of these jokes, it feels to me, is told with a lot more affection than the other.

Andy Burnham is a man whose policies and opinions seem to owe more to political expediency than they do to belief. He bangs on to the point of tedium about his own class, background and interests. As a result he’s widely seen as an unprincipled flip-flopper.

Sadiq Khan is a man whose policies and opinions seem to owe more to political expediency than they do to belief. He bangs on to the point of tedium about his own class, background and interests. As a result he’s the hugely popular mayor of London, the voice of those who’d be proud to think of themselves as the metropolitan liberal elite, and is even talked of as a possible future leader of the Labour party.

Oh, and also they were both born in 1970. So that’s a thing they have in common, too.

Why it is this approach to politics should have worked so much better for the mayor of London than the would-be mayor of Manchester is something I’ve been trying to work out for a while. There are definite parallels between Burnham’s attempts to present himself as a normal northern bloke who likes normal things like football, and Sadiq’s endless reminders that he’s a sarf London geezer whose dad drove a bus. They’ve both become punchlines; but one of these jokes, it feels to me, is told with a lot more affection than the other.

And yes, Burnham apparent tendency to switch sides, on everything from NHS privatisation to the 2015 welfare vote to the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, has given him a reputation for slipperiness. But Sadiq’s core campaign pledge was to freeze London transport fares; everyone said it was nonsense, and true to form it was, and you’d be hard pressed to find an observer who thought this an atypical lapse on the mayor’s part. (Khan, too, has switched sides on the matter of Jeremy Corbyn.)

 And yet, he seems to get away with this, in a way that Burnham doesn’t. His low-level duplicity is factored in, and it’s hard to judge him for it because, well, it’s just what he’s like, isn’t it? For a long time, the Tory leadership’s line on London’s last mayor was “Boris is Boris”, meaning, look, we don’t trust him either, but what you gonna do? Well: Sadiq is Sadiq.

Even the names we refer to them by suggest that one of these two guys is viewed very differently from the other. I’ve instinctively slipped into referring to the mayor of London by his first name: he’s always Sadiq, not Khan, just as his predecessors were Boris and Ken. But, despite Eoin Clarke’s brief attempt to promote his 2015 leadership campaign with a twitter feed called “Labour Andy”, Burnham is still Burnham: formal, not familiar. 

I’ve a few theories to explain all this, though I’ve no idea which is correct. For a while I’ve assumed it’s about sincerity. When Sadiq Khan mentions his dad’s bus for the 257th time in a day, he does it with a wink to the audience, making a crack about the fact he won’t stop going on about it. That way, the message gets through to the punters at home who are only half listening, but the bored lobby hacks who’ve heard this routine two dozen times before feel they’re in the joke.

Burnham, it seems to me, lacks this lightness of touch: when he won’t stop banging on about the fact he grew up in the north, it feels uncomfortably like he means it. And to take yourself seriously in politics is sometimes to invite others to make jokes at your expense.

Then again, perhaps the problem is that Burnham isn’t quite sincere enough. Sadiq Khan genuinely is the son of a bus-driving immigrant: he may keep going on about it, but it is at least true. Burnham’s “just a northern lad” narrative is true, too, but excludes some crucial facts: that he went to Cambridge, and was working in Parliament aged 24. Perhaps that shouldn’t change how we interpret his story; but I fear, nonetheless, it does.

Maybe that’s not it, though: maybe I’m just another London media snob. Because Burnham did grow up at the disadvantaged end of the country, a region where, for too many people, chasing opportunities means leaving. The idea London is a city where the son of a bus driver can become mayor flatters our metropolitan self-image; the idea that a northerner who wants to build a career in politics has to head south at the earliest opportunity does the opposite. 

So if we roll our eyes when Burnham talks about the north, perhaps that reflects badly on us, not him: the opposite of northern chippiness is southern snobbery.

There’s one last possibility for why we may rate Sadiq Khan more highly than Andy Burnham: Sadiq Khan won. We can titter a little at the jokes and the fibs but he is, nonetheless, mayor of London. Andy Burnham is just the bloke who lost two Labour leadership campaigns.

At least – for now. In six weeks time, he’s highly likely to the first mayor of Greater Manchester. Slipperiness is not the worst quality in a mayor; and so much of the job will be about banging the drum for the city, and the region, that Burnham’s tendency to wear his northernness on his sleeve will be a positive boon.

Sadiq Khan’s stature has grown because the fact he became London’s mayor seems to say something, about the kind of city London is and the kind we want it to be. Perhaps, after May, Andy Burnham can do the same for the north – and the north can do the same for Andy Burnham.

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.