The real message in Labour’s leaked immigration document shouldn’t be a source of embarrassment

The Telegraph (£) have published a leaked strategy document direct from Labour HQ – entitled ‘Campaigning Against Ukip’ – in which they outline how they think the MPs and activists should address the threat of Ukip and, in particular, how they should deal with the topic of immigration.

The main pull-out quote from the document, which most have focussed on, is that when the subject of immigration comes up on the doorstep, Labour advocates are told to focus on “moving the conversation on to issues where we have clear policy.”

Rather predictably this has caused a furore in the media. Commentators and some Labour MPs have pointed out it’s ill-advised to ignore the topic of immigration altogether. And, as few have mentioned (but Rachel Reeves has highlighted), this one statement directly contradicts reality. Labour do have clear policies on immigration, albeit some worrying ones – just today Miliband will announce a new law to stop employers from exploiting migrant workers.

However, instead of attempting to dodge the subject of immigration, Labour should be contextualising the immigration debate to show that it’s used as a proxy by parties like Ukip for other unaddressed policy areas, such as lack of social housing and underinvestment in the NHS.

In fact, Labour’s strategy team suggests just this. The much-obsessed-about line that calls for avoiding the subject of immigration is only one part of the 33-page document. The main thrust of authors’ argument is to put the issue of immigration in context. They advise against fighting the “Ukip threat simply on their terms” – which is by no means an embarrassing suggestion – and say that it’s better to show that concerns over immigration are linked to other issues. They note:

 “Concerns about immigration are often framed in terms of other issues, particularly concerns for housing, healthcare and other local services. As we consistently perform better on these issues, this offers our campaigners the chance to address immigration in terms of these areas where we offer policies that make a tangible difference to the lives of some of the most disadvantaged electors across the country.”

What this suggests is that rather than of steering the conversation away from immigration, those on the doorstep should strike at the heart of what the current debates around immigration are really about – namely housing, healthcare and local services. MPs and activists alike should not just adopt this tact because, as the document suggests, it could prove electorally advantageous come 2015 but because it allows us to begin unpicking the myths around immigration perpetuated by Farage and co.

Yet, there is cause for concern. Arguably, the most worrying issue for the Party that this paper shines a light upon is evidence of low contact rates: “as of Friday 14 November, on average, 8% of the electorate nationally had been contacted in 2014 by the Labour Party. This is compared to an average contact rate of 21% in 2014 in our key seats.”  Such low contact rates should be a source of embarrassment, and have to be rectified in the next 5 months.

So what we must do now is to talk directly to as many people as possible – in constituencies up and down the country – and when we do so take the subject of immigration head on by talking about the realities of this toxic debate, instead of the myths.