THE POLITICS OF IMMIGRATION

voters, put their cross by the Tory candidate’s name on polling day.
There wasn’t just one winner on polling day. The party that
gained most seats in the 2015 General Election was not the most antiimmigration
party but the party that voiced the most positive approach to
immigration. It was not the SNP’s inclusive, welcoming and (moderately)
liberal approach to managed migration that won them 56 of the 59
Scottish seats. That did, however, form part of the party’s narrative about
a new Scotland and it clearly proved no barrier to an historic landslide in a
country with a distinct discourse, though only mildly less sceptical public
attitudes to immigration, than the rest of the UK. The Survation findings
show that a broad majority of Scots thought that UKIP overstepped the
mark in campaigning on immigration – but that many also thought the
major parties too often ducked the issue.
Labour didn’t lose the election on immigration but on political
leadership, economic credibility and having too narrow a pitch to
persuade voters that they deserved to return to office. Labour could not
persuade voters in either Scotland or England that they would stand up
for their interests, or deal fairly with competing political demands in a
United Kingdom in flux.
The party worried over what it should and should not say about
immigration, agonising over how to appeal to both ‘left behind’ voters
and to cosmopolitan voters in big cities and university towns who might
be attracted by the Greens. Shadow Cabinet members disagreed in public
about who would or wouldn’t drink from a coffee mug with Labour’s
immigration message on it.
The party found it hard to talk confidently to the public about
its approach to the issue. Labour candidates felt more confident talking
about how fair rules in the workplace could prevent exploitation and
undercutting. But too often they sounded as if they hoped to change the
subject, back to jobs, housing or the cost of living, whenever issues of
immigration, integration, identity or Europe came up.
New leader Jeremy Corbyn has shown little evidence so far that
this approach will change. Asked about immigration, he has suggested
that the party should talk about the economic and cultural benefits of new
arrivals, rather than directly address public anxiety about numbers and
the scale of immigration. Like new Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron,
who told a British Future hustings that he would be ‘un-nuanced’ in his
positive position on immigration, the challenge for both leaders will be
to reach beyond their cosmopolitan supporters in London and university
towns, who will like their liberal approach, and engage voters right across
Britain.
UKIP did talk about immigration as much as possible – and sought
to make it the issue of the election. This won them votes: immigration
was more important than being anti-EU in securing almost four million
votes for Nigel Farage’s party. Yet they were disappointed to go into the
election with two seats and to come out of it with one.
The failure to achieve the more significant breakthrough reflected
public doubts about UKIP’s tone of voice on immigration. UKIP
provided a voice that many of its supporters thought had been missing for
too long from mainstream politics – but it also put most voters off, even
those who were sceptical about the pace and scale of immigration and the
impact of EU free movement.
5 British Future / The Politics of Immigration