Having the debate: why politicians need to learn to listen on immigration

December 11, 2009 4:59 pm

ImmigrationBy Jessica Asato / @Jessica_Asato

When it comes to immigration the public don’t believe the government, they don’t believe the media, and they don’t believe academics either. No, this isn’t a surprise, but it does pose a problem if you want to have a level-headed debate about migration in the UK. This was one of the conclusions of a very thought-provoking seminar I went to at the Institute for Public Policy Research this morning, which presented some of the initial findings from research they had carried out through public debates on migration held in the Midlands. Many of their results were intuitive, but do pose challenges for the approach that the Government has been taking thus far.

Much of the current approach from progressives has relied on trying to bust the myths peddled by the tabloids, Migration Watch and the BNP, among others, but it just bounces off people, the ippr found. There is just too much distrust of statistics; no matter how bona fide and no matter how grand the organisation promoting them, the public just isn’t going to believe them. This isn’t about ceding the ground to anti-immigrant arguments, but accepting that if we are going to make a progressive case for migration, simply bashing people with the facts isn’t going to win it.

Another suggestion from the seminar was that politicians need to stop making policy announcements about migration. It doesn’t convince people that the mandarins have got immigration under control. If anything it suggests that there’s a bigger problem than they’re admitting and it reinforces the sense that the system isn’t working.

Instead, politicians need to do a very counter-intuitive thing for them, and simply create the space for a debate about migration. The members of the public who attended the ippr’s sessions were thankful for having been allowed to speak out on an issue which they had hitherto thought was a taboo subject. It may make uncomfortable listening for progressives, but when presented with a series of statements at the end of the meetings, nearly all of the groups were far more moderate about what they thought about migration than might have been expected.

The researchers found that once people had had the opportunity to get their worries off their chest and think through the issues, they were much more prepared to support the idea that migrants do contribute to the economy and that closing the borders wouldn’t necessarily be a good thing. This isn’t surprising either, but it does suggest that politicians need to face their public and instead of lecturing them about how migration is good (or bad) for them, they need to talk them through the process, take their concerns seriously and show that migrants can be a useful part of the community.

Finally, there was a feeling that politicians need to get beyond defensive messages on migration – i.e. we’re deporting failed asylum seekers, we’re forcing migrants to pay extra for public services, etc. – and focus on the benefits of migration which people understand: the huge contribution nurses, doctors, receptionists and cleaners make to the NHS, for example.

Discussing values such as fairness is important too – people in the ippr’s meetings were prepared to accept that if migrants work and pay tax they are contributing to society and deserve a fair deal. Similarly, as long as British people are given a fair chance to work and employment laws such as the minimum wage are upheld, the public are more willing to accept migrant labour than might be otherwise thought.

There is much misinformation, scaremongering and anxiety about migration in the UK, but progressives have achieved very little to solve any of these problems so far. Opening the debate to everyone and being more honest about the choices we face as a country is a no-brainer, even if it might be hard for politicians to swallow.




Related posts:

  1. Immigration: Labour’s great conundrum
  2. The never ending fraying of faith in politicians…
  3. We should learn from the swiss and subsidise our railways
  4. Politicians need to wake up to public anger on expenses
  5. Listen to the people, not the dinner party activists

Comments are closed

Latest

  • Comment Why I went from Blue to Red

    Why I went from Blue to Red

    Saturday May 15th 2010 is a day which will stay in my mind for some time. It is the day I joined the Labour Party. You might not think there is anything special in that, but for the previous 6 years I had been a member of the Conservatives. I should have joined Labour much sooner, growing up in a working class household and benefiting as I did from so many of their policies: EMA enabled me to go to [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Labour needs a prawn cocktail offensive for all businesses, not just small firms

    Labour needs a prawn cocktail offensive for all businesses, not just small firms

    Both Jacqui Smith and Dermot Finch have written in recent days about the need for Labour to embark on a new “prawn cocktail offensive” to charm the business community. I agree with Jacqui and Dermot and I’m optimistic about the reception Labour is likely to receive from the business community, provided we have the courage to engage with all businesses – small firms, mid-caps and large corporates. This doesn’t mean deviating from the responsible capitalism agenda. If business wants more [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Local Government Why we’re raising council tax

    Why we’re raising council tax

    Nobody wants to pay more tax and I am not a high tax and spend politician, so my administration’s proposed rejection of the government’s council tax funding has not been based on ideological dogma, but a reasoned decision based on financial prudence. I led my group to win control of City of York Council in May 2011. We inherited from the previous Liberal Democrat administration a budget with £21m of in year cuts to make, a number of previously unexposed [...]

    Read more →
  • Local Government News Boris and the 2 billion pound “clerical error”

    Boris and the 2 billion pound “clerical error”

    Earlier today on BBC’s London Politics Show, it was revealed that billions of pounds were inaccurately added to Boris Johnson’s official budget document – a mistake that a spokesperson for the Tory Mayor attempted to dismiss as a “clerical error”. At over £2 billion – that’s some clerical error… A spokesperson for Ken Livingstone said: “Boris Johnson claims anyone arguing for lower fares for Londoners doesn’t understand the transport finances, but now it turns out it’s Boris Johnson’s transport figures [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The sad truth behind Andrew Lansley’s eyes

    The sad truth behind Andrew Lansley’s eyes

    “Michael,” said the Prime Minister, without looking up from his desk, “I thought you said this would be easy?” “Easy? That what would be easy?” replied the Education Secretary, whose face had occupied a near-permanent state of mild bafflement, which was slowly becoming the kind of ever-present British institution that decades from now will be ruined by ill-thought out reforms, or having a roof built over it in case it rains. “This NHS business. You said it would be easy.” [...]

    Read more →