What should Labour's message on immigration be?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/15/what-labours-message-immigration-agenda

Version 0 of 1.

Diane Abbott: 'We give the impression we're running scared of Ukip'

There are two aspects to the Labour party's latest messaging on immigration: one is what we actually say; the other is how far we choose to drive it up the electoral agenda.

Nobody could disagree with the top line of our immigration pledge for "fair immigration controls". But the fact that it is our second election pledge and Ed Miliband's fourth major speech on immigration is depressing. Despite all the protestations to the contrary, we give the impression that we are a party running scared of Ukip.

Last month the Daily Express ran a front page splash with the headline "Hidden Migrant Millions". It turned out that the hidden millions they were talking about were children born in the UK to immigrants. Government statisticians sensibly do not count these children as immigrants. By definition, if you were born here you haven't immigrated from anywhere. But the Express's apoplectic fury reflects the fact that the word immigrant in common popular parlance doesn't mean someone who is subject to immigration control – it can mean refugees, asylum seekers and people like my son, a third generation British passport holder.

This is the danger of the Labour party talking endlessly about immigration. It raises expectations we can't possibly fulfil. If Labour tells people that immigration is the second most important issue facing the country then they might reasonably expect that, with a Labour government, there will be fewer "immigrants" on their high street. Or, more pertinently, on the streets of their nearest metropolis, because we know that the fewer "immigrants" there are in your area the more likely you are to be frightened of them. Hence London has proved a fortress against Ukip.

But Labour cannot magic immigrants off the streets without pulling out of the international conventions that commit us to accepting refugees and asylum seekers, or somehow nullifying the citizenship of existing UK passport holders.

Furthermore, if we also imply that immigrants are the cause of job insecurity, low wages and exploitation then there will be massive voter disillusionment when these don't disappear in the event of some crackdown on immigrants. Because, of course, immigrants are not the cause of low wages. The real culprits are predatory employers, pathetic enforcement of the minimum wage (not a solitary prosecution nationwide last year), a deregulated labour market, the rise in agency work, the abuse of zero-hours contracts and the failure to strengthen trade union rights and freedoms.

It is tempting to try and echo the Ukip narrative on immigration and low wages. For the Labour party this leads nowhere. By all means we should listen to our voters and try to address their real concerns about housing, the public services and job insecurity. But we cannot win the next election fighting Ukip's agenda.

Diane Abbott is Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington

Simon Danczuk: 'Voters want a party they can trust on immigration'

There's an old adage in politics that if you don't think you can win an argument, be sure to change the subject. This approach was tested to destruction in the recent Heywood and Middleton byelection. Labour activists heard voters raise immigration concerns but tried to turn the conversation to the NHS. Consequently, a safe Labour seat was nearly lost to a party that received less than 3% of the vote in 2010. It was a wake-up call for the party.

Or at least it should have been. Today's leaked document on how Labour should try to win back Ukip voters shows lessons are still to be learned. While it contains plenty of good ideas, a line about "moving the conversation on" when voters mention immigration suggests we are still talking at voters rather than listening to them.

The simple fact is that if we can't win the immigration argument then other key policies won't get a fair hearing. When I talk to my constituents about the NHS, people complain that the service is under strain due to high levels of immigration. When I talk about housing, people say we have a housing crisis due to immigration. And when I talk about crime they often bring up illegal immigrant trafficking gangs and grooming. You can't move the conversation on, you have to listen and make it absolutely clear that Labour is on their side.

And to do that we need to make big changes to the way immigration is currently managed. Beyond London high levels of immigration are having a big impact in terms of driving down wages, putting pressure on public services and damaging community cohesion. How can it be fair, for example, that Rochdale currently takes more asylum seekers than the whole of the south-east combined?

So I am glad Labour is making the issue of "controlling immigration fairly" a key part of our 2015 manifesto, as outlined by Ed Miliband today. After all, the Conservatives have completely failed on this subject. And for all Ukip's talk, when its small business spokesperson has his restaurant raided for employing illegal immigrants it is clear their bravura lacks substance.

So rather than move the conversation on, let's have a sensible discussion. Not a ridiculous rant blaming immigrants for traffic problems, as Nigel Farage suggests. Or daft posturing like the Conservatives, which puts stunts such as "go home" vans ahead of maintaining border agency staff. Voters want a party they can trust on immigration. And until we earn this trust then I fear many of Labour's best policies will fall on deaf ears.

Simon Danczuk is Labour MP for Rochdale