How does Labour find its voice on immigration? Here are a few ideas

Labour has struggled to find its voice on immigration. Since different parts of Labour’s electorate see immigration differently, it can be tempting to ‘change the subject’ – and pivot to jobs and housing as the ‘real issues’ underpinning public concerns. But changing the subject can be corrosive to public trust and that tactic failed in the EU referendum.

When Labour voices try to acknowledge voters’ immigration concerns, party members worry about the authenticity of the argument. The 2015 election slogan ‘controls on immigration’ did not strike party members as making a distinctively Labour argument.

In our contribution to the new ‘Spirit of Britain’ book published today, we set out how Labour could find a more confident voice of its own on immigration. One irony about this most polarising of issues is that all flanks of Labour struggle with it. One thing that unites Corbynistas and Blairites, and many in between, it is that both can talk  confidently about the case for openness on immigration to those who already agree – but find it harder to engage those more anxious about social and cultural change.

Labour Leavers are often simplistically caricatured. ICM research for British Future, conducted immediately after the 2017 general election, finds that Labour Leave voters are not at the toughest end of the debate, but cluster towards the middle of public attitudes. Labour’s Leave voters are a good deal more migration-sceptic than graduate Labour Remain voters or the median party member, yet considerably more moderate sceptics than the average Conservative or UKIP Leave voter. Almost six out of ten Labour Leavers say they would never vote UKIP, for example. A third of Labour Leavers are in the most migration sceptic quarter of public opinion, but most Labour Leavers are ‘balancers’ on migration, seeing both pressures and gains. A minority of Labour Leavers are trade unionists and ethnic minority voters with pro-migration views, but sceptical about the EU and whether free movement is fair to the rest of the world. Labour’s Leave voters could form part of a broad cross-referendum consensus which favours student and skilled migration while seeking more control over low- and semi-skilled migration from Europe. Guaranteeing the rights of Europeans already here, and debating migration openly with clear boundaries against racism are important foundations.

That Labour should stand up for its values on immigration is a clear message from the current Labour leadership. The most important way to do that would be for Labour to develop a values-based position that can be argued with confidence by candidates in cities and towns, across generations and social classes, bridging the social, cultural and political divides illuminated by Brexit – instead of seeing the party as needing an ‘open’ voice in the cities and a ‘control’ voice in post-industrial towns.

There will be several important pointers about how to bridge those divides from the National Conversation on Immigration, whose final report is published later this month. This joint project from British Future and Hope Not Hate has engaged citizens in 60 towns and cities on the choices ahead. Unlocking common ground will require sustained action on local integration issues. The migration system should promote citizenship, not deter it. Labour should prefer citizenship-migration over the a new Gastarbeiter model which promotes temporary migration, resulting in more churn, where integration is discouraged or ruled out.

If there is much scope for common ground, the politics of this Autumn will demonstrate how Brexit divides – and is becoming more polarising. Conservative opinion increasingly regards Theresa May’s Chequers plan as staying too close to the EU. Centre-left opinion wants the closest economic partnership possible. Labour’s difficulty is whether it can combine that with meaningful changes on immigration.

Pro-migration voices in politics and business debate possible reforms – almost always by talking to each other, rather than involving those parts of the public they need to persuade.  Those who focus on applying existing rules, but doing it better, overestimate public awareness of detailed micro-reforms.

A distinctive Labour policy would be to propose a reform that allows employers to recruit EU workers but only on the condition that they were being paid the National Living Wage, due to rise from £7.83 per hour to £9 an hour in 2020. This policy fits the evidence that negative impacts on wages affect the lowest earners. That improves its prospects of being accepted as a proportionate safeguard measure, for example under EEA rules. To be effective, this would need to be combined with properly resourced enforcement to protect the living wage rules.

The motive for the reform should resonate with social democratic parties and trade union allies across Europe. If negotiable, this policy would be the best way for Labour to combine flexibility and strong market access with migration controls, specifically designed to reflect the values of the left.

Sunder Katwala is director of British Future and Jill Rutter is director of strategy and relationships for British Future.

This blog is based on their chapter on immigration in ‘Spirit of Britain, Purpose of Labour‘ edited by Stephen Kinnock and Joe Jervis, published today.