Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. The latest front in Operation Divide and Rule sees soldiers being used to fight a political battle (Independent)

The idea that soldiers are somehow independent of the welfare state – and thus immune to attacks on it – is bunk, and Philip Hammond knows it, says Owen Jones.

2. Cameron must find some TLC for the right (Times

The Prime Minister’s neglect of his traditional supporters opened the door for UKIP, writes Tim Montgomerie. Now he has to woo them back.

3. With a broken promise, the government has handed the NHS over to the market (Guardian)

Reassurances on clinicians and local people controlling how services are commissioned look likely to be overturned, writes Clive Peedell. 

4. This cap on bankers’ bonuses is like a dead cat – pure distraction (Daily Telegraph)

EU autocrats think that by blaming the City of London, they have an entire continent fooled, writes Boris Johnson. 

5. Alawite history reveals the complexities of Syria that the west does not understand (Independent)

The maps long favoured in the west partition off Arab countries into ethnic divisions, but all these make clear is our own ignorance, says Robert Fisk.

6. A taste for mutually assured destruction (Financial Times)

US sequestration looks likely only to entrench the partisanship it was supposed to circumvent, writes Edward Luce.

7. No mainstream party in England truly understands conservatism (Guardian)

In Eastleigh and beyond, millions of voters who loathe the establishment tendency to piety are without a voice, says John Harris.

8. Rise of fruitcakes shows voters hate cynical Cam & Co (Sun)

For too many of our politicians, getting elected and running the country is the ultimate career move, not a passionate calling, says Tom Newton Dunn. 

9. I know where the political common ground is, Dave. The question is: do you? (Daily Mail)

The Prime Minister's lurching from one wing to the other doesn’t inspire much confidence that there’s any substance behind his promises, writes Melanie Phillips. 

10. Secret courts: The Liberal Democrats' duty (Guardian)

Should they shrink from at the very least amending the bill, the Lib Dems will reveal that they are neither liberal nor democratic, says a Guardian editorial.

Getty
Show Hide image

After the leadership battle, immigration is Labour's new dividing line

Some MPs are making a progressive case for freedom of movement controls. 

After three brutal months of infighting, culminating in another sweeping victory for Jeremy Corbyn, the buzzword at the Labour party conference is unity. But while Corbyn’s opponents may have resigned themselves at least temporarily to their leader, a new fissure is opening up.

Considering it was sparked by Brexit, the Labour leadership contest included surprisingly little debate about freedom of movement. In the immediate aftermath of the EU referendum, Corbyn declared he was “not afraid to talk about immigration”.  Owen Smith, his rival, referred to the “progressive case against freedom of movement”. But ultimately, the contest embodied a clash between the will of the membership and the parliamentary Labour party. 

Now, though, the question can no longer be dodged. What position should Labour take on freedom of movement? And is it time for a fundamental shift on immigration?

Labour’s 2015 pledge to “control immigration” was widely derided by its own party activists – not least when it appeared on a gift shop mug. Apart from making a rather authoritarian present, one of the flaws in this promise was, at the time, that the only way of really controlling immigration would be to leave the EU. 

But an increasingly vocal group of MPs are arguing that everything has changed. Heavyweights from the Miliband era are now, from the back benches, trying to define limits to freedom of movement and immigration. Chief among them are Rachel Reeves and Chuka Umunna. 

Reeves makes her case from an economic perspective. She argues that freedom of movement from the EU has depressed wages (the cause and effect is disputed). At a Resolution Foundation event during Labour conference, she recalled visiting a factory in her constituency where workers complained the jobs went to foreigners. 

Umunna, on the other hand, argues unease with immigration has a cultural element as well. He has said that immigrants need to stop leading “parallel lives”. At the Resolution event, he declared of Brexit: “This isn’t all about economic equality – it is about identity politics.” Umunna's tough talk on integration may coincide with his bid to chair the Home Office select committee, but his observations about the underlying distrust of immigrants rings true. 

How Labour copes with freedom of movement depends on which view prevails. It is possible to imagine the party coming up with an answer to the freedom of movement question that involves Corbynite economic themes, such as protecting wages, labour rights and restrictions on agency recruitment. Lisa Nandy, another speaker at the Resolution event, rallied the audience with a story of workers on low wages standing “in solidarity side by side” with migrant workers. It would be a distinctly left-wing argument that critiques the Government’s tolerance of zero-hours contracts and other precarious employment practices. 

But if, as Umunna suggests, Brexit is also an articulation of a deeper anti-immigrant feeling, Labour is entering more dangerous territory. On a tactical level, it is hard to see how the party can beat the May Government when it comes to social conservatism. It undermines any attempt to broker a "soft Brexit", which many of Labour's members, who voted Remain, will want. 

And then there's the prospect of the party most closely associated with ethnic minorities condoning xenophobia. Labour activists point out that some of the Brexit backlash is plain old racism. Speaking at a Momentum rally during the leadership contest, Diane Abbott, the shadow health secretary and one of Corbyn’s closest allies, declared: "Anyone who tells you maybe you have to do something about these Eastern Europeans, it's not about skin colour, what we've seen since the Brexit vote gives lie to that. 

“If you give ground to anti-immigrant politics, it will sweep away all of us. And we cannot give ground to that stuff. You cannot as a Labour movement take a position that one part of the working class is a problem of another section of the working class."

More pragmatic MPs too, still remember the ill-fated immigration mug. They see the new “tough on immigration” line as an uneasy alliance between working-class MPs on the Labour right, and a group of middle-class metropolitans who have spotted a gap in the market and jumped on it. Should this second attempt, Labour MPs will have achieved nothing except alienating their activist base. 

Ultimately, the initiative lies with Corbyn. If he can set out a radical agenda for protecting workers’ rights, he may be able to bring the party with him. But if this fails to shift opinion polls, immigration could be the next issue to disunite the party.