Losing an election and then fighting a leadership contest seems to have loosened the tongues of more than one Labour hopeful. Following Ed Balls’ concession that not imposing controls on immigration from the European Union in 2004 was a mistake, Andy Burnham was quick to proclaim that Labour has been “in denial” over immigration for far too long. I think he must mean in denial of the electoral consequences, not the numbers.
Immigration has long threatened to tip the Labour Party over the edge, both electorally and dogmatically, and there was much evidence on the doorsteps during the recent campaign that this issue, if not actually the cause of voter unhappiness, was definitely a scapegoat – just like immigrants themselves.
In west London, home to some 500,000 Poles, immigration is not so much an issue of race, but of class. The influx of cheap skilled labourers has improved the lives of the wealthy. For them, a new class of trades people, often happy to work for less than the legal minimum, represents a throwback to a bygone Britain where a job wasn’t worth doing if you could pay someone else to do it for you. The reality for immigrants is very different. Recent arrivals find themselves competing with one another in a race to the bottom – a race in which long-standing members of the same community are often disqualified even before the starting pistol has been fired.
Immigration has proved an intractable problem for the left, in Britain and across Europe. The battlefield is littered with casualties who have tried and failed to introduce a measure of realpolitik into the debate.
The latest politician to fall into the immigration pit is Agnes Kant, former leader of the Dutch Socialist Party. She had been hoping to build on earlier election successes, which for a few years saw support for her unequivocally left-wing party grow at a faster rate than for any other in the Netherlands. Much of her success came from her opposition to immigration and the free movement of labour. The Socialists presented immigration as part and parcel of a global neo-liberal package – something which benefits big business over working people – and claimed that a fluid European labour market simply increased the gap between rich and poor.
This was not an idea new to the left. In the 1980s, the Dutch Socialists published a booklet entitled Gastarbeid en Kapitaal (Migrant Labour and Capital), which denounced the migration of foreign workers to the country as a capitalist ploy designed to drive down wages and destroy working-class solidarity. It’s far cry from the traditional position of the left in Britain, which clings, as I do, to the idea that open borders are inherently good.
At the time, the arguments made by the left in Holland went down well. Radicalism is often well received in Holland – at least until this traditionally conservative country (yes, I know what I wrote) reads the small print. At last’s week’s general election, where turnout took a dive as World Cup fever took hold, the Socialist Party lost nine of its 25 seats in the Tweede Kamer, the lower house of parliament. By contrast, Geert Wilders’ far-right PVV (People’s Freedom Party), which opposes immigration for altogether different reasons (it hates foreigners), increased its share of the vote from almost 6 per cent in 2006 to 15.5 per cent. It is now the third largest party, overtaking the Christian Democrats, whose leader was until recently the Prime Minister.
The lesson from Holland seems clear. Unless you are prepared to meet the arguments of your opponents head-on, you will lose. It doesn’t matter how weak their arguments might be. You cannot hope to win a debate until you are at least prepared to take part. I said the same thing last year before Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time; six months later, the British National Party took a hammering in the local elections.
Until the comments by Balls and Burnham, Labour politicians had largely decided the best immigration policy was to keep quiet. That is no longer an option. For the first time in years, we can look forward to a proper debate on one of the most pressing issues of our times.
It saddens me that the very first article I wrote for Tribune nearly 10 years ago was about the far-right Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn. Remember him? A better-looking and far more charismatic predecessor of Geert Wilders, Fortuyn got shot for his troubles. That only led to a great deal more trouble for the generally peace-loving Dutch. Like us, they no nearer to finding a way to talk about immigration that doesn’t make one side or the other choke on their cornflakes.
Which brings us back to the Labour leadership contest. Any candidate who can convincingly navigate a way through the immigration minefield, without plumbing the lowest depths, leaving us high and dry on a sandbank, or wrecking us on the rocks after heading for the Daily Mail’s beacon, is likely to win my vote and the votes of an electorate which stopped believing Labour on this and many other issues a long time ago.
Meanwhile, there is another contest of far greater importance taking place in South Africa.
I hope it is won by a team of black, white and brown Dutch (or English)men – which would, more than anything else, demonstrate the benefits immigration has brought to both nations.
