Zoe Williams criticises Shabana Mahmood’s recent language as showing “contempt for the values of her own party”, but I disagree (Shabana Mahmood’s expletive was shocking. But not for the reason you think, 23 April). In today’s polarised climate, too many on the progressive side treat any divergence on issues like immigration as indistinguishable from Reform UK. That simply isn’t true.
Mahmood’s language may have been coarse, but her frustration is understandable. People should be able to disagree on migration and migrant rights without being dismissed with lazy labels like “out-Reforming Reform” or having bigotry implied. That’s playing the man, not the ball.
Immigration has been a defining political issue in the UK for years. Many people broadly support tighter controls, even if they differ on how far to go. Mahmood is responding to a longstanding public concern.
The UK cannot act as a lifeboat for the world’s destitute, and it’s not inherently progressive to ignore the pressures that high levels of immigration can place on housing, schools and healthcare. These pressures are felt most in working-class communities, including many ethnic-minority communities, not in the more affluent areas where pro-immigration sentiment is often most visible.
Wanting a well-managed, sustainable immigration system is reasonable. Progressives should recognise this and show empathy for communities that feel the strain. A credible system could reduce the political potency of the issue and help undercut the rise of the right – something that may well underpin Mahmood’s approach.
David Holmes
Seaham, County Durham
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
