Schisms on immigration policy threaten the future of the Labour party
|
Version 0 of 1. Jeremy Corbyn’s revival of the migrant impact fund to mitigate the effects of uncontrolled immigration is an insult to the very workers he claims to represent and whose support he seeks (Corbyn rules out cutting immigration, 28 September). Not everything can be solved by throwing money at it. It may come as a surprise to him that ordinary working people aspire to more than just a job, a home, the NHS and social services. They can think beyond the day-to-day struggle to survive. The Brexit vote proved that they are active participants in their own destiny, wishing to have control over their lives, their future and that of their communities, and the direction of their country. The “freedom” of movement of labour is a misnomer. A more accurate description would be the “enforced” movement of labour. Does anyone think that when the young Polish lad who cleans windows in north London was asked by his teacher of his future ambition, he said cleaning windows in a foreign land some thousands of miles away from his home? The free movement of labour is double-edged: not only does it put pressure on wages, working conditions and social services of the countries receiving the immigrant labour, it also hollows out the countries the immigrant labour left, draining them of their major asset – the working population.Fawzi IbrahimLondon • At last, a politician with principles who sticks by them. And those Labour MPs who accept the nasty immigration attitudes which the rightwing press has been fomenting for a decade or more should look to their consciences – and the facts on immigration – before jumping on the immigration-bashing platform. Of course immigration on a large scale causes problems, but it is not the main cause of poverty in the UK or the anger of working people; that is down to a decade of wage stagnation and austerity, with no end in sight as Theresa May has already forgotten about the “left-behind”. This is the biggest crisis facing Europe, with millions of refugees fleeing wars and devastation which we have helped create in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya, so is Britain going to play a part in solving the problem, or are we going to turn our back on the world? Jeremy Corbyn is just following in Angela Merkel’s footprints when, earlier this year, she told the German people: “We can manage it … Germany is a strong country.” So, we should be asking: is Britain strong enough to play our role in dealing with the problem? Are we going to stand up and deal with the difficulties? Or are we going to run away and hide?David ReedLondon • A month before the 23 June Brexit referendum you published a letter from me (Labour losing ground to Ukip over migrants, 24 May) warning that Jeremy Corbyn’s policy of “accommodate but don’t control” immigration went against the views of the majority, who realised that the present level of immigration made tackling the social concerns of the “left behind” much more difficult. Having learned nothing from Brexit, Corbyn is sticking to his more-immigration guns in what looks like an electoral death wish. Let’s be clear: continuing with our present immigration policies is undemocratic, as more than three-quarters of us want immigration reduced, while less than 5% want it increased. It is also the opposite of internationalism, since it implies that we will continue to steal doctors, nurses, IT experts etc from poorer countries, rather than train enough of our own. Yet there is a way out of this. Many of us are very supportive of the rest of Corbyn’s social, environmental and equality programme, but unless Labour debates how to makes controlling immigration a central plank of its manifesto, we are surely doomed to a Conservative/Ukip majority after the next election.Colin HinesEast Twickenham, Middlesex • The “schism at the heart of Corbynism” is visible not only in the debate on Trident (Rafael Behr, 28 September) but also on immigration and refugee policy. Corbynism rightly supports free movement of labour, better conditions for migrants, and a more open door for refugees. It is wrongly ambivalent about Brexit, with some parts of the camp actively supporting it. It ignores or denies the fact that Brexit was in nuce a vote to curb free movement, worsen conditions for migrants and close the door further for refugees. It tries to square the circle either by redefining what Brexit is (“taking back control”) or by speaking as little as possible about it. The schism within the opposition to Corbyn is equally pronounced. It rightly supports staying in the EU, which entails free movement, but declares that we must listen to the “legitimate concerns of the white working class”, which is code for embracing anti-immigration at best and covert racism at worst. These schisms bode ill for the future coherence of the Labour party. What is needed to resolve them is not complex: a vigorous campaign to stay in the EU even at this late stage; endorsement of free movement of labour; measures to stop employers using migrants as a reserve army of cheap labour; open wider doors to refugees. This means confronting both the left’s traditional flirtation with anti-European nationalism, which often hides under the mask of “internationalism” and “anti-imperialism”, and the right’s endorsement of a prejudice and xenophobia that hides under the mask of “listening to the voice of the common folk”. At present there is no significant constituency behind this cosmopolitan stance, but we can try to hold the fort until one is able to take shape.Robert FineEmeritus professor of sociology, University of Warwick • Lynsey Hanley is right that core working-class disadvantage is clearly systemic and will not be substantially improved by attempts to promote individual social mobility through educational success (Out of it, 27 September). Even in the much more favourable conditions of the 60s and 70s such achievement was limited. But where is the evidence that a pervasive working-class rejectionist culture led to Brexit votes? Extrapolation from Danny Dorling’s analysis of the polling evidence shows that no more than a quarter of the core D-E working classes voted leave. For whatever reason, most did not vote. Isn’t it also a bit condescending to assume that working-class Brexiteers voted emotively, rather than simply sharing the highly specific views of the more numerous conservative middle-class leave voters: that, in their eyes, the EU meant unwanted immigration and unwelcome continental interference in UK affairs?Bryn JonesBath • If “the longest suicide note in history” was Gerald Kaufman’s epithet for Labour’s 1983 manifesto, yesterday’s policy announcement may turn out to be the shortest. It was summarised by your front-page headlineSo, “Corbyn rules out cutting immigration” and amplified later to confirm that Labour is “not concerned about numbers”. Does Labour really only listen to itself these days? Net migration increases the UK population by roughly a million every three years. The consequent pressure on local health, housing, education and other services is hitting specific areas of the country very hard indeed – it is not racist or anti-immigrant to be “concerned about numbers”. Did the Brexit referendum not shout into Labour’s ear that millions of voters around the country are concerned? How many voters do they have to lose to Ukip before the message gets through?Geoff HolmanKnutsford, Cheshire |