The understandable desire of many Labour MPs and activists to evolve clearer, concisely presented party policies on key issues has led some to argue for a two-tier system of immigration controls (“Labour has sidestepped concern on immigration”, News). They suggest this represents a reasonable balance between yielding to widespread resentment of immigrants and the EU’s liberal tradition of the free movement of labour and hope this approach will win back Labour voters who supported Leave in last year’s referendum.
The difficulty is popular prejudices against migrants are partly irrational in nature and closed to balanced debate.
Hostility to immigrants, for example, is identifiably stronger in areas where very few of them live and an “anti-elitist” rejection of informed advice on their actual economic impact has long preceded Michael Gove’s scorning of experts in the referendum campaign.
Factors such as social class, education and geography have shaped deep prejudices, now regularly reinforced by rightwing politicians and newspapers and by social media. The deliberate and consistent promotion of a counterculture, based on egalitarian values that recognise the real worth and potential of all human beings, has to form part of Labour’s response if “common sense” resentments are ever to be overcome.
John Chowcat
Herne Bay, Kent
Stephen Kinnock and Emma Reynolds (“People are worried about the pressure on jobs”, News) argue that “the EU referendum was a vote for change on immigration”. Like many commentators, they present this statement as fact. It is anything but. Immigration was not the question on the ballot paper. And doesn’t British Euroscepticism predate – by decades – EU enlargement to the east and freedom of movement?
You could argue instead that the referendum was a vote on extra funding for the NHS. Or on technocratic EU federalism. Or on the people’s opinion of the ruling “elites”. Or on doing more free trade. Or on doing less free trade. It is anyone’s guess. A fundamental flaw of the referendum was to present voters with a choice between a well-defined option and a totally undefined alternative. We can only speculate on what the 52% voted for and chances are they voted for very different things.
There is no doubt that many voters feel strongly against (all) immigration. That was true 20 years ago and will remain true 20 years from now. To argue now that the referendum was one on EU immigration is conjecture, and one that accepts the frame of the debate set by Theresa May.
François Chabat
London SE11
MPs Emma Reynolds and Stephen Kinnock undermine their own argument. If “many of the areas that voted Leave on 23 June have little or no EU immigration” then no rightward swing by Labour on immigration controls will make any difference.
The horse has already bolted. Kinnock and Reynolds are about 10 years too late in recognising that there existed a vacuum in working-class communities for the right to fill. The right, from the BNP through Ukip to the Conservative party, have successfully racialised what are really questions of class. Labour cannot now win back the space lost by echoing its opponents. Politics is a battle of ideas. By choosing to fudge the battle, Kinnock and Reynolds just show the paucity of coherent thought within the Labour party.
The real issue is that Labour took its working-class base for granted and thereby lost it. Either it can now choose to do the hard work of reforging a coherent class-based politics or it can pass itself off as “Ukip-lite”. But who will vote for the copy when the real anti-migrant beast is standing?
Nick Moss
London NW10
