Can we have a sensible debate about immigration?

That’s a question to which the answer is no, right? The immigration debate is the ultimate facts vs perception debate in British politics. There are few issues that can ignite as much anger on the doorstep, but there are  also fewer debates where the facts are less central to the debate.

So Yvette Cooper should be applauded this morning for making a coherent and practical speech on immigration that avoided many of the modern political pitfalls. It was neither obviously pandering to the “send them home” tendency or the “immigration isn’t a problem” fraternity. It was focused on protecting those who are harmed by the current system and those who have the most to lose from unmanaged immigration.

Because what Cooper got to the heart of today was that unrestricted, uncontrolled and unmonitored immigration – a libertarian free-for-all – may be good for some in our society (and perhaps for “the economy” in the broadest possible sense), but for many of those at the bottom, unfettered immigration squeezes housing, jobs and wages.

That – rather than a widespread outbreak of xenophobia in an otherwise tolerant modern Britain – is why immigration is such a controversial issue in British politics.

Now the obvious answer to that is that Labour should build more homes, create more jobs and force employers to pay better wages – and I’d agree on all counts. But those things can’t happen overnight, and that still ignores the negative impact of unrestricted immigration on some of the poorest immigrants. Whilst it’s rarely acknowledged, many immigrants are suffering the effects of our current immigration system the most.

Whilst wealthy oligarchs may find little to dislike about living in Britain (and few restrictions on them living here, for that matter), those at the opposite end of the income scale can find themselves subject to exploitation, appalling living conditions and even slavery.

Saying that we don’t want people working in Britain who are exploited, mistreated and poorly paid (undercutting the rest of the workforce) shouldn’t be controversial. And so far Cooper’s speech has received little opprobrium and stirred up little rancour from either side of the debate. It’s neither easy to lampoon it from the right as soft or from the Left as draconian.

Now that might be because much of today’s speech was a restatement and refinement of Labour’s existing position. But any politician who can unbundle the debates about long-term immigration from that about refugees, who can make the complex arguments about different forms of immigration seem relatively manageable, should be applauded. 

Labour can no longer afford to leave the immigration debate to the Tories and UKIP. Such an Ostrich-esque position allows narrow pessimistic populism to capture the debate where a reasoned debate might occur. And it should be a field on which the Left is willing and able to play. Why should immigration without checks, balances and limits be the position of the left? Why is this the only free market some truly believe in? Why – after all – should immigration be the only thing that we on the Left don’t want the state to have a hand in managing?

Especially if such management – boringthough it may be compared to the hateful rhetoric of others – can defend those squeezed by immigration, including many immigrants.