Labour's Immigration Dilemma: Balancing Transparency and Control in a New System
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme is correct, but the government must be clear-eyed about the need to strike a balance between the enormous benefits of immigration and the popular desire for controls
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme is correct, but Labour needs to be candid about the trade-offs as it introduces a new system of immigration controls. The government must be clear-eyed about the need to strike a balance between the enormous benefits of immigration and the popular desire for restrictions in the country.
Immigration is the sort of issue the Labour Party loves to avoid discussing. After 14 years living in opposition the membership has had its much more liberal instincts on the question indulged by successive leaders (most notably Jeremy Corbyn). But as a party of government leadership is undoubtedly aware how far apart Labour members preferences are from the centre ground of public opinion on the issue. And there are swathes of ardently pro-immigration politicians sitting for Labour in parliament whom the leadership have been psychologically prepping for discomfort.
Ergo, Sir Keir has been gently easing his party toward a new immigration approach for years. All as preparation for the tougher decisions he’ll be forced to make in government.
Rhetorically he has went from “We have to make the case for freedom of movement” (31st Jan 2020) to vowing to end the “short-term fix” of using foreign workers to plug labour shortages (22nd November 2022). And eventually completely ruling out a return to freedom of movement (27th Nov 2022)
A part of me feels sorry for Sir Keir, genuinely. His task has never been easy on immigration. Being a Labour leader trying to convince the party for a need for greater immigration controls must be a bit like easing into a dance with a pet a porcupine. Approach carefully, you’ll need to get it right all at once.
Election misinformation
The elephant in the room is how much misinformation now pervades the entire immigration discussion. For years Nigel Farage has been trading in unhelpful language of “invasion” while academics who ought to know better have enabled him by distorting the facts.
Labour faces making tough policy choices against a backdrop of a public intellectually prepped by the now-defeated former Tory government to expect “100,000 migrants a year under Labour”.
Naturally that claim peddled on the run-up to the General Election was a pack of lies based upon numerous dodgy assumptions. Not least it assumed a returns agreement negotiated between the UK and EU by Labour would involve the UK participating in the relocation scheme between EU member states. But we’re not in the EU, and this is something Labour has repeatedly and unequivocally ruled out.
But the damage is done, so the only suitable course going ahead is full transparency with the public as trade-offs are made overhauling the immigration system.
Trade-offs
The first moment to be candid about the trade-offs as it introduces a new system of immigration controls has already arrived on day one of government.
Scrapping the Rwanda scheme - which again I reiterate I support ending - has an immediate trade-off. Labour needs to level with the public that Rwanda is a failed scheme destined to fail (which is partly why Sunak bailed out of government into an early election). But cleaning it up means some tough choices to make as we work toward a new immigration system of controls.
And immediate issue which requires full transparency: some 90,000 migrants earmarked for deportation to Rwanda will be among the 102,000 who will be processed through the asylum system.
Labour should be clear with the public about this, to prevent Faragian exaggerations or public fears. Those 90,000 illegal migrants are no longer being deported, instead granted an effective amnesty to apply for asylum. This is the price we must pay to end Rwanda on day one, and enable a proper - serious - policy to take its place.
If instead the new government goes radio silent, hoping nobody will notice all it does is permit others to define the optics surrounding what it’s doing.
As Sir Tony Blair said earlier today, Labour faces a real challenge over this summer into next year concerning migration. Reform is snapping at Labour heels across swathes of the rebuilt red-wall, so the party needs to listen to Blair.
‘If you don’t have rules, you get prejudices’ he said, calling for a balance between “enormous benefits” of immigration and the desire for restrictions. Blair is correct, but to make this happen, take the public with us, and take the heat out of the immigration debate going forward, full transparency is required.
My work is entirely reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber
Alternatively why not make a one-off donation? All support is appreciated