The labour movement and the migration debate

Andy Burnham's recent call for increased immigration controls was a harbinger of what we can expect from politicians on the Labour Party's right wing in 2017. His article was as cogently and persuasively expressed a piece as you will ever get from someone arguing for restrictions on freedom of movement, using left wing and pro-working class rhetoric.

Burnham predictably treated the Leave vote in this summer's referendum on EU membership as the basis for a 'rethink' on freedom of movement. However, his targets and conclusions are wrong.

Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott and John McDonnell have all put forward much better views. They acknowledge there is exploitation of migrant labour (and yes, they say, this is part of pushing down pay and conditions for all workers). But we won't deal with that by restricting migration.

Migrants themselves are not responsible for pushing down wages or cutting public services. It is governments and employers using immigration as an excuse to pursue a race to the bottom or make cuts. We need to deal with the exploitation and also enhance workers' rights, increase the living wage, invest in jobs, and so on. In the process of putting forward such demands and policies we can challenge the prevalent scapegoating and redirect attention to the real causes of poverty, inequality and social injustice.

As these leading Labour figures recognise, a solid and persuasive response to the migration debate requires more than just the reiteration of anti-racist positions on migrants' rights, freedom of movement etc (vital as that is!). It's also necessary to articulate a positive economic alternative to failed Tory austerity, resonating with millions of people's concerns and needs.

Labour is in a mess on this issue because for every good utterance by the aforementioned leading figures there is an undermining intervention from someone like Burnham or Stephen Kinnock. Most people don't have a clue where Labour stands and the party looks divided and directionless (because it is). Lots of people enthused by Corbyn - many of whom have joined the Labour Party - are disoriented and anxious as a result.

There is a closely related debate in the trade union movement. This reflects the logic of Labour electoralism (among a layer of Labour-affiliated union officials), but also the limits of trade union consciousness (seeing things in narrow economic terms, trying to reflect the mixed consciousness of union members etc).

Unite general secretary Len McCluskey may have been mis-represented to some extent by the Guardian, but his real views are nonetheless ambiguous, offering too much ground to those characterising immigration as a threat. Such fudge offers no way forward.

The section of McCluskey's piece to do with immigration was a mess because he was fudging the issue and desperately trying to appeal to conflicting tendencies at the same time. He is a sincere anti-racist who wants to resist the scapegoating of migrants, but he's also highly vulnerable to the pressures of both Labour electoralism (which dictate 'you must abandon freedom of movement to appeal to voters') and being general secretary of a large trade union whose members have very diverse views.

Such a confused and contradictory stance satisfies nobody and achieves nothing. He needs political clarity and consistency, sticking to a position of defending freedom of movement on clear anti-racist, class-based and internationalist grounds.

The left can chart a way forward, but it requires a principled, coherent approach. It starts with acceptance of the referendum result (irrespective of how you voted), as anything else would be a great boost to the hard Right, and a sharp focus on what kind of Brexit we have. This is a deeply contested process, with the Tories weak and incoherent, presenting the left with opportunities as well as dangers.

It requires a principled anti-racist politics that defends migrants' rights and freedom of movement, challenges exploitation of migrant workers, and confronts the exclusion of people from beyond Fortress Europe.

This anti-racism can be combined with the championing of a positive alternative around jobs, public services, pay and housing. The labour movement - both the Labour Party and a more combative trade union movement - has to offer real material change, using the rupture of Brexit as an opportunity to promote a rupture with several years of Tory austerity and decades of neoliberal policies.


Share

Clare Sambrook wins Paul Foot Award for campaign to end child detention

I'm pleased to learn Clare Sambrook is the extremely deserving winner of this year's Paul Foot Award for campaigning journalism (see HERE). The freelance writer was announced as winner of the £5000 prize at an event in London tonight.

I've re-posted or linked to her work on child detention on a number of occasions. She's exposed scandals around the detention of asylum seekers' children in UK facilities for Open Democracy, Private Eye and The Guardian, and is prominent in End Child Detention Now.

Other names on the shortlist included excellent writers and campaigners like Eamonn McCann and Nick Davies. The award was set up by Private Eye and the Guardian in memory of Paul Foot, campaigning journalist and socialist activist (and personal hero for some of us), following his death in 2004.

Clare Sambrook says:

‘Reading Paul Foot’s books when I was fresh out of university gave me a strong sense of what journalism could and should be. This is a massive honour, hugely encouraging and a real boost to the End Child Detention Now campaign at a time when the government has reneged on its commitment to stop this inhumanity.’

Share

Migrants for London - London for Migrants

Don't tell the Daily Mail, but migrants living and working in this country might actually be considered A Good Thing.




Share

Bouncing back from 'Bigotgate'?

Several issues have arisen from yesterday's 'Bigotgate' episode. Is it so bad that Labour's chances in this election are wiped out? Should we sympathise with Brown because he had a point when he used the term 'bigoted'? Is it a Murdoch conspiracy to help the Tories?

I suspect this is very damaging for Brown. The impression created is twofold: he has contempt for ordinary voters, and he is two-faced. It doesn't matter so much whether the impression is justified - the point is that's how it appears to millions of people, including many potential Labour voters. There's some forgiveness for Brown - on a 'well, we all say things in private we wouldn't want someone to hear' basis - but the vivid contrast between public charm and private cynicism captured by Sky TV is poignant nonetheless.

It also chimes with a larger story, i.e. the widespread public view of politicans - following the expenses crisis - as having contemptuously treated us as fools. I suspect Brown knew that's how it would appear as soon as he learnt he had been rumbled, hence his instant reaction of complete mortification.

On the left there are those who think it's reasonable to label Gillian Duffy a bigot. That is rather missing the point. She expressed sentiments shared by millions of Labour voters, not just those on the Right; her hostility to Eastern European immigrants is, sadly, not unusual. She's utterly wrong, but we need a broader effort to turn the tide against anti-immigrant feeling - and Brown of all people has no role to play in that. To most people, Brown's labelling of her will appear either an overreaction or - considering his own awful politics on immigration - hypocritical.

Crucially, Brown failed to challenge Duffy when he had the chance. He could have treated her with respect by actually engaging with the arguments in a principled fashion. Of course he didn't do that because he's a cynical opportunist and populist who has already made huge concessions to anti-immigrant scaremongering. As Prime Minister he's done nothing to confront the absurd myths about immigration propagated by sections of the media.

A number of commentators have rightly criticised the Murdoch empire for its vilification of Brown over the episode. I'm not convinced, however, that if Cameron had done the same thing we would have simply not heard about it. This was a fantastic story from any journalist's point of view - it's gold dust whichever leader does it. What is undeniable, though, is that if Cameron had made such a faux pas the Murdoch papers would now be moving on and hoping everyone forgets.

So, how damaging is this? It's unarguably one of the two big stories of the campaign (in mainstream media terms) alongside the boost to the Lib Dems that followed the first Leaders' Debate. It has happened fairly close to polling day, which makes matters worse for Labour, but if something goes wrong for the Tories in the next week then everything might change. That's what Labour officials will be praying for.

I hope that voters reject the Tories next Thursday. Keeping the Tories out means, however reluctantly, adopting the view that you should vote Labour if it helps block a Tory breakthrough: this is summed up in the phrase "Vote left where you can, vote Labour where you must".

But Brown's cynical contempt does nothing to help all those seeking to halt the Tory threat by persuading people they should vote Labour as an anti-Tory bulwark. Just as importantly, Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown plays no constructive part in helping us challenge prejudices about migrants.

I've suggested Brown's "a bigoted woman" remark was 'the shortest suicide note in history'. It's uncertain whether this will turn out to be the case. I hope that it won't be - at least for Labour in this election. As for Brown personally? I can't see him surviving as party leader beyond next week.

End the detention of asylum seeking children

The Sauce has a good campaigning article on how asylum seeking children in this country are treated. I've signed the online petition and recommend you do likewise - it takes a couple of minutes. There's very little like this in the mainstream media, dominated as it is by anti-immigrant rhetoric and scare stories.

'During the first six months of this year a total of 470 children were being held in detention centres in the UK, with over 70 percent seeking asylum from countries like Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan and Sri Lanka.

In February this year one family was awarded £150,000 after the government admitted they were detained unlawfully and one of the children had suffered post traumatic stress disorder as a result.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson now has a statutory duty of care for children held in detention by UKBA immigration officials.

The announcement of the new responsibilities for the Home Office in November this year follows the publication of a damning independent report exposing the appalling impact of detention.'

Read more HERE.

The Sauce has a new follow up story to this article HERE.