Labour and immigration

Is the Labour party really able or willing to fight the BNP? Jo Salmon raises this question when she says:

We need to be positive about immigration, positive about multiculturalism and positive about asylum. We should be proud of the fact that so many people want to come here to work and live, and proud of the fact that the UK is viewed as somewhere safe, a great place to start again.
In short, we need positive messages to counter the fear and resentment and consequent xenophobia that is at the heart of any campaign run by BNP.

My fear - and I'd like to be proved wrong - is that the Labour party is in no position to heed this call. There are four reasons for this, two tactical and two philosophical.
1. Median voter theory. This says political parties win votes by moving towards the voters' median position. In this case, this means accommodating racist sentiments, not combating them. Put it this way. In the areas where the BNP is challenging Labour, would Labour really want to take a pro-immigrant stance and fight voters' racism directly? Or wouldn't a better vote-winning strategy be to pander a little to the racists, by "listening to their concerns"?
2. The politics of machismo. For reasons best understood by psychotherapists, politicians feel the need to play the hard man, to pretend they're in control. So they prefer macho talk about fighting illegal immigration. Take this from Liam Byrne. Where's the positive messages about immigration?
3. Libertarianism. The strongest argument for immigration is the libertarian one - that people have a right to live where they want and employ whom they want. Such talk of liberty, though, would come uneasily from a party as illiberal as New Labour.
4. Public services. One of the main reasons for antipathy towards immigrants is the "strain they put upon public services" such as housing; the argument that immigrants worsen the labour market prospects of indigenous workers is easily tackled. A pro-immigrant party would remove this source of complaint. But to do so requires us to face an unpleasant fact - that public services are unresponsive to needs; their supply is inelastic. Labour wouldn't want to draw attention to this.
I reckon Jo's words are liberal and humane. But is the Labour party really the vehicle for such noble ideals?

Comments

[Matthew]

I think it's very important to remember that the BNP took just 0.74% of the vote in 2005.

[CB]

"Or wouldn't a better vote-winning strategy be to pander a little to the racists, by "listening to their concerns"?"

It probably would, but I'd argue whether that was 'pandering to the racists'. I've always maintined that by ignoring any and all possible problems with immigration (and not pointing out the benefits either) the major political parties are *already* pandering to the BNP, by letting them have the only podium at the debate. Listening to the concerns of the population (note: *not* the BNP) is a key part of that. It would only be pandering if there were only two options available on immigration

1) lock up the country, send all current immigrants 'back where they came from'

2) allow each and every person in without restriction and with full UK citizenship rights. Hand them a passport and a benefit book at the airport.

You know there are a million shades of grey inbetween these two options, so why is exploring some of them with people who have concerns and feel marginalised a sin? I don't include hardened racists in this, but if we could get people back to a sensible place in the debate by engaging with them why not do so?

[Jim]

"One of the main reasons for antipathy towards immigrants is the "strain they put upon public services" such as housing ... A pro-immigrant party would remove this source of complaint."

Could you elaborate on this? IMHO the supply of housing is always going to be fairly inelastic because design, planning and construction are each quite time-consuming.