THE IMMIGRATION GAMBLE

John Boydell - Friday, 8 December 2023

As always, I’m not on anybody’s “side” politically, just trying to champion common sense.

“Growth” [and its promotion] has been a mantra of all political parties. There are sometimes differences of opinion as to how to achieve it but no divergence on the view that it is vital for the country. It is, if the country is going to be able to afford the services its citizens expect and which its politicians promise. So, we’re all agreed on that? Yes, good, so let’s call that a fundamental agreement.

What about health and social care. Is it important and do we all agree that each of those services needs to be improved? I hear ‘Yes’ all-round to that one, too. Let’s call that another fundamental agreement. We’re doing well, so far.

Do we need immigration? I hear ‘Yes’ and I hear ‘No’. Let’s have a show of hands to try to get a feel for the balance of MPs in the room. All those that think we need immigration, raise your hands. Okay, thank you, that’s a considerable number of you. All those who think immigration is too high, please raise your hands. Hmm… that’s most of you. We don’t seem to have a fundamental agreement on this one, and I’m struggling a bit here. You, sir, your hand was up that we needed immigration – why was that? Oh, I see, your view is that there’s many unfilled vacancies and that it’s affecting our ability to grow the economy and to provide health and social care, our fundamental agreements. But your hand was also up that immigration was too high. Why was that? I see, some of your constituents tell you so. Do they tell you why? Right…so we have “We can’t cope”; “They’re on benefits” and “There’s just too many of them”. But then others of your constituents say, it’s not really a problem and that they contribute. Isn’t that a problem for you?? The Prime Minister is really keen to get the numbers down and has, it seems, two major initiatives: the revised Rwanda policy; and restrictions on family members accompanying incoming workers. Where do you stand on that? Oh, you’ve a very important phone call to attend to? Yes, of course, do make that call.

The fundamental agreements apply to both politicians and the people who vote for them. There are other fundamentals that the country needs e.g. food security and the agricultural workers, often immigrants, needed to provide it. There’s also a fundamental contradiction in that Brexit was supposed, by “taking back control”, to allow the economy to be “turbocharged” and for immigration to be reduced by ending free movement. In the case of the economy, it has demonstrably gone backwards and, in the case of immigration, it has risen hugely from pre-Brexit levels. Why has it risen? Because we needed the workers to try not to lose too much economic activity and a whole list of categories of workers that were needed were given various types of visas, a sort of stealth free-movement, if you like, and something of an irony. The replacement [and additional numbers of] workers were, by and large, no longer European but, instead, from much further afield, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Nigeria and other distant lands. Unsurprisingly, those coming from far away would be likely to want to bring their families with them, and they have.

Economic growth and health and social care are fundamentals, perceived as such by most people. Is immigration a similarly fundamental issue? Arguably, it is. If there is too much, too fast, it may change the character of a region or, potentially, the country and generate much ill-feeling. On the other hand, if it is at reasonable levels, with people who have empathy with British society and are prepared to integrate, then the equilibrium of society is not unduly disturbed and the productive workforce we need is maintained. A mature debate around these issues seems hard to have, for a significant number of politicians see political advantage in framing immigration as bad per se. They announce it as such and that message is amplified in certain sections of the media, reducing the argument to inappropriately simplistic levels, where balanced reasoning departs and emotion fills the space, instead. And emotion is a powerful driver of voter behaviour, as many politicians know. So, we have a government, with a poor record of delivery on its promises (immigration being a notable example), facing a shrinking election time window and anxious to create dividing lines with Labour. The solution? Stir some emotions with simplistic, populist immigration proposals: double down on the failed Rwanda plan with Plan B [to look tough]; and stop families accompanying immigrant workers (unless they are earning high salaries). At the same time, portray the opposition as immigration friendly (and therefore on the side of “foreigners”). The tactics and messaging will appeal to some sections of voters, while horrifying others.

The problem with division tactics in politics is that it can divide the party, too, and as the saying goes “people don’t vote for a divided party”. Brexit was the ultimate in division politics: it divided the country, Parliament and the then government. The emotions had been stirred, and just won the day in the referendum, but the chaotic and widespread division that followed with different factions unable to agree what Brexit actually should look like was heartbreaking to watch, doing much damage to the country. The Prime Minister clearly felt that the high-risk division tactic of playing the immigration card was worth trying. The problem is he has a section of his party clamouring for “tougher” action still (with Robert Jenrick resigning), while another worries about the legality [Rwanda] of what’s proposed and the good sense of it and fall-out effects [Rwanda and restricting family members of immigrant workers]. The Conservative party has moved to the right over recent years but there is now a backlash from the so-called “One Nation” moderate Tory MPs who think that some of the policies have departed from what they can support. The factions seem to be digging in just at the time Rishi Sunak needs them to back him in the immigration gamble; there’s talk of him turning it into a confidence motion. A seriously divided party is in danger of losing the confidence of citizens and so, their votes. A divided Tory party tends to lose its leaders. The PM might want to have another go at the “Integrity” card he promised and leave the division one in the pack, for it might turn out to be the joker.

?