I had one of those really depressing conversations with Labour supporters yesterday that confirmed my worst suspicions. The question was why Labour can’t be more positive towards freedom of movement.
The answer was, it seems, that the Northern ‘leave’ constituencies wouldn’t accept it. The unspoken question was *why* the Northern ‘leave’ constituencies couldn’t accept it. What makes freedom of movement so evil?
There’s only one real answer: they think immigration is bad for them. They believe that foreigners ‘coming over here’ take their jobs, lower their wages, increase crime etc etc.
...and that these myths can’t be challenged, and the positive impact of both immigration and freedom of movement can’t be championed. It can barely be mentioned.
...and that those of us who see this need to just accept that. To suck it up. To bite our lips, hold our tongues, keep schtum, so that Labour can win the election.
It feels as though *nothing* has been learned from the #Windrush saga about what accepting this attitude to immigration brings. Because there *is* a direct connection between the two.
The ‘hostile environment’ approach is based primarily on the same idea: that immigration is a bad thing, that immigrants are here to be a drain, and a problem in themselves. Illegal immigrants need deporting. Legal immigration numbers need cutting as fast as possible.
It’s an attitude propagated by the media, of course - but accepting it, indeed *supporting* it by fuelling the myths that underpin the objections to freedom of movement - embeds it further, and makes things much, much worse.
It’s very sad. It may be true that votes may be lost by taking a stand - but sometimes you have to take a stand, even if it’s an electoral risk. Some things matter. To me, anyway. /end rant.
