David Goodhart presented the Analysis programme on Radio 4 this evening and revisited what is familiar ground for him on the approach to immigration over the course of the Labour government (see his accompanying article on the Prospect website.) His conclusion was brutal: ‘mass immigration’ became a national purpose as a result of an ‘absence of mind’, a democratic failure and a cultural clash between those in the liberal establishment (personified by New Labour ideology) who favoured it as a policy and those who suffered its conseqeunces- the economically disempowered white working class.
Goodhart has a point though ‘mass immigration’ feels like pretty combustible rhetoric. I’m speaking as someone whose natural inclination is liberal and sees diversity- within the parameters of common shared values, laws, culture and language- as a positive social and economic force. Just to be clear, here is the pattern (source ONS) of immigration since 1999:
So the evidence does show that we have had historically high levels of net immigration. It appears to now be declining- partly due to recession, e.g. 50,000 people went to Poland in 2009 and it’s not a great leap of imagination to say that they were Polish, and partly due to shifts in policy, not least the introduction of the points based immigration system. However, the levels of net immigration upturned significantly from 1997 which suggests that was as a result of policy- significantly so.
Now, there are both costs and benefits of immigration on the levels we seen in recent years. On the benefit side, there is little doubt that we would not as a country have been able to expand the NHS in the way that we did without hiring healthcare workers from abroad. The workers were young and less likely to use the service and beneficiaries were considerably older on average. However, on the cost side, wages and terms and conditions would have been impacted negatively for some. This was most keenly felt at the lower end of the wage scale. So the distribution of costs and benefits would not have been even with the costs falling on workers in some of the most precarious situations.
During the European election campaign, I blogged on a long conversation I had with a BNP voter in Birmingham Erdington constituency. It became quite clear to me that he wasn’t racist- in fact, he acknowledged that his black and Asian colleagues were experiencing exactly the same insecurities that he was facing. However, nonetheless, it was difficult not to have a degree of sensitivity to his position. This a point that David Blunkett acknowledged during the Goodhart programme. While he didn’t regret the policy changes, he did regret that there was not more of a response to compensate certain communities for major change.
And this for me is the key point. The rhetoric of globalisation and policy responses to the rhetoric meant that many communities- often the most vulnerable and not just white working class communities- felt that they were in midst of convulsive change. For that roofer in Bimingham that change was real- his economic circumstances had worsened. For others, it was more imagined. Nonetheless, and we constantly see this with lost Labour voters, there are people who were not comfortable with many changes they were either experiencing or felt they were experiencing.
So the distribution of costs and benefits were uneven and many felt a sense of powerlessness. It should be stated this doesn’t just apply to immigration; it also applies to change- mainly economic- in many dimensions, e.g. when an industry closes or downsizes.
Further down the line, we may as a community see enormous benefits from the immigration that occurred during the noughties- much as America has seen from its experience of immigration. There are also risks that we can not perhaps forsee. The clear lesson though for change of any kind is that it must happen with consent and be managed effectively. The state weakened in the face of global market forces and this came to be seen almost as virtue at times in New Labour thinking. Yet again, we are seeing global market forces assert themselves with no apparent benefit for local communities. The Kraft takeover of Cadbury is a prime example (see my analysis on LabourList last week.) We and the local community and workforce are powerless to stop it.
Ironically, the major lessons from this are for those who instinctively favour liberal responses to the global economy. Without an awareness of the social parameters of change, a degree of state counter-balance to market forces, and the encouragement of democratic discussion and legitimacy for change, liberal attitudes come under threat. The architects of the immediate post-war paradigm of embedded liberalism knew this. Market liberals forgot that. The consequences were predictable.
February 8th, 2010 at 22:53
You write well on this, as ever.
It always appears to me that the cultural edge of ‘working class’ resentment tends to be downplayed, or at least explained away as just the inarticulate outpourings of a community who don’t have enough access to certain resources (jobs, houses, NHS etc.). At times you tend to do the same – and at others you seem to recognise there is more to it than mere economics, even if you don’t then follow this through and address what this ‘more’ might be (this openness is what makes your pieces so much more interesting than the self-absorbed and smug ramblings of certain ‘progressives’ out there)
Your comment ‘Without an awareness of the parameters of social change… liberal attitudes come under threat’ is, to my mind, the seminal point, and whilst your beef with market forces is something I entirely agree with, it would be interesting for the left to draw out the debate a little on this – and question whether its ideological attack on so many social norms and values, laughably in the name of liberty, have been well placed (I know many on the left will simply deny any such attack – it which case it needs to show why the instincts of so many are wrong).
February 8th, 2010 at 23:25
It’s not just economic, you are absolutely right. And economic factors interplay with social factors anyway.
And you are right that liberals fail to adequately recognise what you describe as ‘social norms.’ I prefer to describe them as institutions for a very simple reason. Actually, there is a cultural clash between what we can describe as social liberalism and social conservatism. The problem is that social liberals often take a condescending and elitist view-point whereas social conservatives tend to describe their outlook as ‘norms’ when, in fact, it is not a ‘norm’ at all and is highly contested.
Now, my own view is that in any head-on cultural fight I’m going to come down on the side of individual liberty over any communitarian notion. However, that does not mean that I don’t see the importance of social institutions- e.g. marriage, community. I do see the importance in emotional, cultural and functional terms. I do not think for a moment that the state can replace those things.
There must be a negotiated settlement here and the only way to reach it is to ensure open dialogue in an equal and democratic forum. Then the differences may not be as great as first appears. Without that, there does seem to be a dangerous process of political polarisation taking place on certain social and cultural issues. This is one of the pressing concerns in politics currently…and something I intend to do more to think and write about but it will take time to work through all this. Hopefully many more voices join the discussion.
Interestingly, one of those will be Jon Cruddas……see New Statesman:
“I’m interested in reciprocity, in duty, in a sense of obligation to others,” Cruddas counters. “Labour, because it was captured by the focus group, has lost that ethic of community, responsibility, obligation. This is difficult language for the liberal.”
Well, my view, whether you’d describe me as liberal or not, is that he’s on to something.
February 9th, 2010 at 05:49
Thanks for the response. Just a couple of things.
I’m not sure that, other than a fetish for syllables, there is really too much difference between institutions and norms – though I do accept the latter has certain rhetorical value. Also, the point that norms can be highly contested becomes axiomatic the more you continue to undermine them – which perhaps explains disastrous governmental social policy particularly with regards immigration.
I’ve blogged (lots!) before on the social liberalism vs social conservatism point, and the the polarisation (which is starting to ape America?) is something to be lamented – on this I wholly agree. However, one soon gets into a web of difficult-to-define terms, and as you suggest, it is easy to end up depicting things as polar opposites when in reality they may be bed-fellows – social conservatives can be liberals too, and vice-versa, as history more than bears witness to. Indeed, I think the conflict that arises is with what liberalism has come to mean for a certain clique of people today – basically a radically individualistic libertarianism (paradoxically with a strong state needed to police it).
As for Cruddas, I am a fan. And as a RC and a (broadly speaking) communitarian, it’s exciting that he – and Purnell of course – are starting to recognise that liberalism, in its modern form particularly, does not necessarily sit comfortably within the Labour tradition. I tend to think the battle for the future of the party is slowly grinding into motion – I know who I would like to win!
February 9th, 2010 at 08:41
Sorry for the very brief response…but I can’t really disagree with your broad point here. The spectre of America from the 1960s is haunting this debate. Fortunately, we know this so whether we are liberals with Burkean sensibilities or Burkeans with liberal sensibilities, we can avoid that fate I hope.
Cruddas and Purnell (who is a colleague….) are central to this re-engineering of the left. They get it.