Misleading history lessons

Although history does not repeat itself precisely, that general lesson can be gleaned from an understanding of it is surely undeniable, except by the most arrogant or wilful of leaders [naming no names]. It is in understanding it badly that lies one current malaise, which may cost us dear. How we talk about, treat and make policy about foreign peoples may be the very cause of some of the most intractable policy areas: diplomacy, Europe, immigration, social cohesion.

As rulers of colonies, the British Establishment acquired a sense of superiority, entitlement and arrogance which has yet to be diluted by the passage of time since empire's demise. Foreigners were looked upon with either suspicion [if powerful] or disdain [as lesser beings]. Still, today, our ruling oligarchs and their media camp-followers seem content with a default mode of suspicion and stereotyping. The Algerian author Karem Daoud sums up this attitude thus: "Arab-ness is like Negro-ness, which only exists in the white man's eyes"

 Such a hangover from history leads to behaviours, even policies, such as schmoozing the rich, no matter how ethically dubious; and trying to avoid direct contact with the rest. Handshakes are exclusively reserved for those with money to spend. This "rubber-glove" attitude may be manifested in trying to ensure that our shores are protected by other States not letting people out in our direction; or in bombing from a safe height. It cannot be seriously believed that history teaches us that the gunboat is preferable to the conference table, but metaphorically this seems to be the first resort of the Right. Trouble in Syria - lets bomb, or better still, use remote controlled drones. Refugees in Calais - lets keep them away with fences and someone else's armed guards. Mass migration in Europe - lets claim we are not a part of it.

Refusal to welcome valid refugees is all about their foreignness rather than their humanity. Hostility to the EU is about an arrogant distaste for collaboration with Others. The British Establishment still seems to show its old colours, failing to grasp that all humans are of equal worth, no matter how much or little wealth they command; and that foreign States are as entitled as our own to self-esteem and the respect of others.

The World is changing before our eyes. Mass migration has only just started. As climate change also shows, you cannot simply turn your back on such seismic shifts but have to adapt to them. Concrete walls will - should - not keep out either extreme weather nor the realities of human need. So let us have reality in politics not worn-out attitudes inherited by a narrow-minded and xenophobic few.

Migration works both ways

Migration is only just beginning. Of course, it has always gone on, often with our country as a destination of choice, thanks to our socially liberal culture. As climates change, water becomes scarcer in some regions, power and employment shift and sectarian divisions turn into conflicts, more and more populations will be displaced and seek new homes.

Whilst ethical considerations and an inclusive society demand a welcome to those in extreme need, control of immigration is a legitimate political priority. Just how many oligarchs do we want buying up our best properties? How reasonable is it for public services to have to publish regulations or information in multiple languages? Why should incoming workers not be as subject to minimum wages as indigenous ones? How many jobs can actually be filled without recourse to recruiting non-nationals?

All parties need to address these issues but only one has a real solution and that is UKIP's desire to close borders. Such xenophobic initiatives have no place in our country, negating the positives of new earners, new cultures, duty and hospitality. Consider too its obverse, the emigration of British nationals to other countries. Would UKIP advocate stopping this too? We seed usually warmer lands with non-earning, often non-linguistic public service users in very large numbers. These are a burden on local resources, often not integrating nor enriching host communities. We should ask UKIP candidates their policy on this, perhaps, not least as Scotland may soon become either a source or a destination to be so controlled if it got its way.

Labour still has a very ill-defined solution to what will only grow as a policy issue. We in the affluent West, especially as a past imperial power, must not deny our responsibility to the peoples of the world; nor to our domestic voters.

Migration as economics

Say “immigration” and the conversation will be about “how many?” Say “migration” and a natural ebb and flow of humanity is depicted, within as well as to and from a country. Say “economics” and immigration falls into its proper place as a cog in the machine, creating and responding to economic and social conditions.

Without injection of new capacity, skills and diversity to our economy, our home-grown demographics will lack the ability to grow the economy, to service pension commitments and to fulfil functions essential to the smooth running of the economy. How would today’s UK function without the contributions of care and health professional, independent retailers and agricultural workers, to say nothing of academics and entrepreneurs of first and second generation immigrant origin? UK needs to look an attractive destination where skills can be employed.

Labour should never be the party to demonise this transfusion; but it can and should ensure that the right parameters apply. Labour’s value of long-termism should be applied to a vision of what sort of country we want, in terms of population size, diversity and qualifications. The demise of trade and industry councils on whose advice sectoral skills requirements could be identified has left the recruitment of the skills needed for our future economy, be these from home-grown or imported talent rudderless. Whilst we must continue to welcome incomers on humanitarian grounds, we should set out our recruitment stall in the EU in particular, and help those who may consider migration to decide if they may expect find a welcome and a job here. UK should not seek the skills of those whose capabilities are more important to their country of origin. This may suggest that working in and with source countries to educate and develop a future workforce meeting UK as well as domestic needs could become an important role for DFID/FCO.

We do not need money launderers or the mega-rich who merely extract wealth from our nation. All incomers should expect to pay taxes just as any indigenous citizen would, including on assets which are not working for the economy. We have to form a view on the demand for lower wage workers in sectors such as agriculture; and how this draws migrants in. Raising and policing minimum wages may encourage more uptake of such work by indigenous workers but equally attract more incomers.

How can this formula be implemented, though? Free movement within Europe, including UK, surely offers the best market for recruiting the skills we need. Sounder borders and internal implementation of regulations for employment throughout Europe, including UK, will enable any unwarranted inward migration to be managed. UK’s libertarian attitude to identity documentation may be a barrier to such a policy and should be revisited, pragmatically.

Above all, Labour needs to address the agenda, language and prejudices which drive the public perception of this topic. Only by leading with a language which is more strategic, factual, positive and inclusive will we be able to pull away from the sterile, xenophobic arguments about how many “others” we find it acceptable to live with.

Tom for UckfieldLabour