Here's the truth about Britain's immigration hysteria: Starmer and co have whipped it up to get cheap votes
What conjoins all of these is one thing: misinformation. I have banged on for years in this column about the disconnect between immigration discourse and the reality of how hard and expensive it is to enter the UK and stay there. A poll from last week demonstrates that gulf with striking simplicity. The conclusion to be drawn from the survey is that support for hardline immigration policies is linked to ignorance about migration figures. Half of all respondents thought that there were more migrants living in the UK illegally than legally. According to YouGov, these perceptions are 'wide of the mark', with those in the country legally vastly outnumbering those who are not, even at the most generous estimates of irregular migration.
But there is a new development related to that ignorance. Over the past 20 years or so, immigration demands have shifted from variations of 'controlling our borders' and reducing numbers of new migrants, to demanding that zero migrants be allowed to enter, and 'requiring large numbers of migrants who came to the UK in recent years to leave'. This is an 'extraordinary' development, according to YouGov. Indeed, the last time a member of a political party even hinted at any sort of deportation policy was in the late 00s, when British National party leader Nick Griffin (another installation in the immigration exhibit) stated that he would 'encourage' voluntary repatriation of legal migrants and 'those of foreign descent to return to their lands of ethnic origin'. On Saturday, far-right protesters clashed with police while holding signs saying 'Remigration NOW'.
This latest mutation of migration discourse to include mass deportation is down to, as ever, media and politics. Rightwing media not only constantly cover immigration negatively, but go through different seasons of doing so, depending on the political climate. The 2010s was about Muslims, the run-up to Brexit about certain east European nationalities and how their presence had a deleterious effect on British society, and the latest phase is about 'numbers'. Specifically, numbers of irregular arrivals. The small boats fixation here is central, as they evoke a sense of losing control of the borders, sadly no longer as easy to pull off after Brexit.
That fixation has been mirrored in political discourse. The last government's contribution to this was the Rwanda scheme and Rishi Sunak's 'stop the boats' campaign – one of his five promises, which was given equal weight to such macro challenges as bringing down inflation and cutting NHS waiting lists. And this government has continued in the same vein.
Keir Starmer's 'island of strangers' speech, which referred to an era of rising migration as a 'squalid chapter' in the country's history, was the rhetorical opening salvo in an anti-immigration campaign that in its tone and relentlessness reinforces the issue as a crisis. Starmer's X account constantly posts highlights of crackdowns against those who try 'to cheat the system' and even Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)-like videos of deportations. In the past week alone, Starmer has posted 14 times on X; 10 of those posts were about immigration, particularly irregular arrivals and those arriving on small boats. This is a wildly disproportionate emphasis, considering this cohort makes up a minuscule percentage of overall immigration to the UK.
The result is a framing of all of immigration through the lens of irregular arrivals, and therefore cultivating a sense of crisis and overwhelm. A study by the University of Birmingham that surveyed thousands of media texts and political documents earlier this year found that that disproportionate focus on small boats shapes public attitudes towards migration, fuelling 'a sense of crisis and emergency'.
There's something compulsive about all of this, almost addictive. Posturing on immigration is a cheap hit, a low-cost (to politicians – the cost is very high for migrants) way to gesture at some sort of executive action, for a government otherwise in the mire. The irony is that this fixation produces ignorance about all immigration, which means there is less and less the government can do to address the very myths it has seeded. If you create the impression that small boats, 'illegality' and cheating are the defining feature of the UK's immigration, then how can you expect the public to make distinctions that their very government does not?
And so in a grim spiral, Labour continues to fuel the sense of crisis, then chase it, never catching up, and always setting the stage for those further right to make ever bigger promises of crackdown and deranged claims about housing and crime. The galling idiocy of it all is that posting hectically about immigration and rolling out hardline measures is self-defeating. It doesn't even work to instil confidence in Labour as the only credible party on immigration. The more Labour presses the issue, the more it reinforces the validity of anti-immigration rhetoric, empowering Reform as the specialised vehicle of crackdown. To voters mobilised by this, Labour can never be better than the real thing.
And so it can only be a spiral. In order to keep immigration as that easily activated issue central to a political system that has few answers to any of the structural problems that are most salient to people's everyday lives, from the cost of living to lack of housing, we must always be at some sort of breaking point. That toxic energy has to go somewhere. It's not the sort of thing that can be just a casual part of discourse and stay in a holding pattern. The stakes are constantly higher, more frightening, more defining of why things are bad. And on and down it goes.
We must wean the UK off its 'immigration dependency', Starmer said in 2022. But the problem is his – and the entire political establishment's – dependency on immigration as an issue to be exploited, rather than to be handled with honesty, duty of care to immigrants who are now terrorised in the streets, and to the whole country's social cohesion.
Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reeves accused of ‘punishing families' with inheritance tax raid – that still ‘won't fill Labour's blackhole'
Rachel Reeves has been accused of 'coming for your family's future' with a possible inheritance tax raid – but a former Treasury adviser has warned the changes still won't be enough to fill the £50bn black hole. Officials are thought to be looking at scrapping the 'seven-year rule' - which means that no tax is due on any gifts you give if you live for seven years after giving them - to help address the UK's multi-billion-pound shortfall left by Labour U-turns, higher borrowing and sluggish economic growth. It comes just days after the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (Niesr) piled pressure on the chancellor to come up with solutions ahead of her budget in the autumn. But Jonathan Portes, a former Treasury adviser and professor of economics and public policy at King's College London who supports the idea of inheritance tax reform, told The Independent such changes would 'certainly not raise tens of billions of pounds, or anything like it'. Tory shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride accused Labour of punishing working families to 'fund their failure', while leading analysts at Hargreaves Lansdown warned Labour may 'come to regret' making detailed changes to inheritance tax as it could hamper efforts to boost economic growth. Inheritance tax is paid when a person's estate is worth more than £325,000 when they die and is seen by many as a form of wealth tax in all but name. Under current UK rules, gifts made more than seven years before a person's death are exempt from inheritance tax. Money given less than three years before is taxed at the full inheritance tax rate of 40 per cent, while gifts given between seven and three years have a 'taper relief' tax, between eight and 32 per cent. While it is understood that no decisions have yet been taken, among the reported measures under consideration is a potential lifetime cap on gifts to limit the amount of money people can donate outside of inheritance tax, as well as reviewing rules around the taper rate, sources told The Guardian, Responding to the reports, Mr Portes said: "Inheritance tax certainly needs reform – it is too easy for very rich people with good tax advice to avoid, and it is welcome HMT [HM Treasury] is looking at this.' "More broadly, we need to tax relatively well-off older people more – whether during their lifetimes and on death. However, IHT reform will certainly not raise tens of billions or anything like it." Hitting out at the prospective measures, Sir Mel said Labour is 'coming for your family's future to fund their failure'. "Those who've worked hard, saved responsibly and hope to leave something behind shouldn't be punished to pay for Labour's economic black hole', he added. Tax experts have also raised alarm over the possible changes. With the government planning to levy inheritance tax on pensions from April 2027, Scott Gallacher, of wealth management firm Rowley Turton, warned that families with two children and an estate over £1m could be leaving more money to the chancellor than to either of their children. "The more children you have, the worse it looks. I recently told one client that, on his death, each of his four children would get just 15 per cent of his pension, while the chancellor would take 40 per cent', he said. Meanwhile, Rob Mansfield, an independent financial advisor at Rootes Wealth Management, said it could put people off from saving into their pensions. 'It's a double whammy if you're over the age of 75, as not only could you pay inheritance tax on the pension at 40 per cent, but the beneficiaries would then pay tax on any withdrawals at their marginal rates. "We need people to save more into their pensions, and taxing people for doing the right thing seems perverse." Former chancellor and businessman Nadhim Zahawi also took aim at the idea telling The Independent it could cause more wealthy individuals to leave the UK. He urged the Treasury to make further spending cuts rather than hiking taxes. 'If the chancellor wants a sure-fire way to endanger Britain's finances further, raising inheritance tax would be top of the list', he said. 'As a businessman, I know that top talent is leaving or staying away because they don't want their life's work stolen by a greedy government that won't wean itself off an addiction to wasting taxpayers' money through excessive spending.' Meanwhile, Sarah Coles, head of personal finance at Hargreaves Lansdown, said reforms 'would need to be balanced against the fact that, at the moment, these gifts allow for money to pass through the generations' - something which brings in taxes such as stamp duty and VAT when the money is spent. 'They also feed more money into the economy and boost economic activity', she said, warning that a change in the rules could 'stymie this flow of cash, which could have an impact on growth.'
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
How Russia's war on Ukraine led to crucial Trump-Putin summit - and why the stakes are so high
Donald Trump is meeting Vladimir Putin in Alaska in what the US president has said may be little more than a 'look see', but in truth may prove an encounter that defines Europe -and global security - for decades. From Trump's perspective, the summit may be part of his drive for a Nobel Peace Prize by ending Putin's war against Ukraine using the 'art of the deal'. Putin, however, is likely to prevail and his agenda is the art of the steal – specifically a massive grab of his neighbour's land. Missing from the meeting is the country most affected – Ukraine itself. Led by Volodymyr Zelensky, it has held out against the Kremlin for 11 years. Trump, Putin, and many others (including parts of the media) seem to think that Ukraine's future can be decided by the two nuclear powers and then presented to Kyiv as a done deal. Europe, the region most affected by what happens in Ukraine, has worked hard to underline that that is neither true nor sensible – while simultaneously keeping the mercurial US president 'on side' when every indication is that he's firmly in Russia 's camp. Here's how things currently stand. How Russia and Ukraine ended up at war in 2022 In 1994, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in return for written guarantees from Russia, the US and the UK to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. Twenty years later, Russia ignored those guarantees and invaded the Crimean Peninsula, claiming the land for itself and the right to protect Russian-speaking people in eastern Ukraine. Putin annexed Crimea illegally, sponsoring 'rebels' and sending troops into eastern Ukraine to capture large areas of Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts (provinces). The US, Europe and the UK did nothing to help or protect Ukraine, even banning lethal arms exports to the embattled nation. In 2022, the Russian president went one step further and launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. He was stunned that it stalled and then failed. Limited weapons supplies from the US and UK helped partisans and Ukrainian forces hold the Russians back and then turn them around. Ferocious fighting turned the front lines into a 'meat grinder' conflict of attrition, with the exception of summer 2022, where Ukraine managed to recapture large areas of territory. Three years on and Russia now holds almost all of Luhansk oblast, much of Donetsk, a significant area of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, and all of Crimea. Still fighting determinedly, Ukraine has a toehold inside Russian territory in Kursk and has been conducting punishing attacks deep into Russian territory. In response, Russia has stepped up drone and missile attacks across Ukraine, often launching 500 in a single night. In the Black Sea, Russia's navy has been driven out by Ukraine, which doesn't have a navy to speak of, using special forces and drone attacks. What Russia wants Putin has repeatedly said that there is no nation called 'Ukraine' and that its territory is naturally part of Russia. His imperial ambitions are underpinned by Russia's conquest of much of modern eastern Ukraine by Catherine the Great in the 18th century. But above all, the Russian president is driven by a colonel's Soviet mentality that led to Moscow's attempts to annihilate the Ukrainian language, history and culture. As a condition of a ceasefire of any kind, Russia has demanded that Ukraine withdraw its forces from territories Moscow claims as its own, including the entirety of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts. In a memorandum circulated at the Istanbul talks in March, Russia insisted a 30-day ceasefire would only take effect once Ukraine had fully pulled back from these four regions. Russia also insists that Ukraine formally recognise all of Crimea and the four annexed oblasts as Russian territory in any future peace treaty. This 'international legal recognition' would enshrine Russia's gains, obliging Kyiv to abandon any claim on those lands and to lift sanctions against Russia as part of a comprehensive settlement. Moscow also insists that Ukraine amend its constitution to enshrine permanent neutrality. This means giving up on its constitutionally mandated effort to join Nato. Ukraine must also be left vulnerable, with the banning of third-party foreign military bases from its territory, a ban on Western arms deliveries, and the prohibition of 'neo-Nazi ideology,' which Russia uses to justify a forced 'denazification' of Ukrainian society. Longer term, Putin has demanded that the Russian language should have equal status with Ukrainian as an official language. In return, Ukraine will get no guarantee that Russia's ambitions will stop at the five regions it has already taken as part of a ceasefire. What Trump is trying to achieve The US had been supporting Ukraine but was quick to turn on Zelensky, drop military aid, cut civilian support, weaken intelligence sharing, to swing firmly behind Putin in supporting Russian demands long before talks were even close to starting. Trump's latest pitch is that Ukraine should accept territorial losses. Some kind of a 'land swap' has been mooted, but this is Ukrainian territory for Ukrainian territory. This is ahead of a ceasefire, let alone a long-term peace. This could mean Ukraine would cede the remaining parts of Donetsk that it still controls in exchange for Russia freezing its lines in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. Trump has also said there would be no US element to any future force to guarantee a longer-term peace deal in Ukraine. The US president has weakened Ukraine by cutting military aid. The US had given about $114bn to Ukraine. That figure is now zero. Trump now insists that Ukraine and its allies purchase weapons from the US. He has also forced a minerals deal on Ukraine that swaps profits from resources for arms. What Ukraine is hoping will happen Constitutionally, Zelensky can make no territorial concessions as part of a ceasefire. He would need a nationwide referendum to do so. He also cannot abandon Ukraine's attempts to join Nato as this has been enshrined in Ukrainian law since 2019. He'd need a referendum to change this. Kyiv demands a full and unconditional ceasefire as the only basis for genuine negotiations and rejects any proposal that would require it to abandon its ambitions. It sees Russian demands that Ukraine become neutral as 'an attack on its sovereignty'. Ukraine also insists on binding security guarantees from its Western partners, covering political, financial, military and diplomatic support. And how does Europe fit into all this? Slow to respond to Russia's invasion, Europe is now by far the biggest donor in terms of weapons, money, and other aid to Ukraine. In total, some €250bn has been pledged by the EU and UK. The European mantra of 'no talks about Ukraine without Ukraine' has been ignored by Trump and Putin. The US is saying only that Zelensky and then European leaders will get a call from Trump after he's finished talking to the Russian president. Europe insists that only Ukraine make decisions on territorial changes, its long-term neutrality and all other sovereign issues. By threatening the viability of Nato itself, Trump has forced Europe into huge increases in military spending towards a target of 5 per cent of GDP. Poland, the Baltic states, Finland and others in Scandinavia are preparing their populations to withstand potential Russian incursions. The most obvious route to 'restoring' the Soviet empire by reclaiming lost influence in Eastern Europe is through the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad in the Baltics, and in Transnistria, a breakaway part of Moldova backed by Russia. Ursula von de Leyen, the EU president summed it up succinctly: 'Putin wants to force Ukraine into accepting the unacceptable, so the task we face is to help Ukraine stand strong, defy Putin's intimidations, and engage in peace talks based on its own conditions'.
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
Labour can't hit ‘working people', so now they're after people who used to work
Labour has got itself into a cleft stick. Having come to power on a pledge of not raising taxes on 'working people,' in response to the opposition charge that it cares more about those who don't work, that raising money from the employed goes to help those who choose to be unemployed, Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are stuck. They are faced with a deficit of £50bn, give or take, for which they can no longer blame the Tories – that legacy was half. It's down to their failure to drive the economy, to achieve as they insist, 'faster and further' growth. It's just not happening, and, meanwhile, they have that hole to fill. They can't borrow extra because another reason that the chasm is so large is due to higher-than-expected borrowing costs. They dare not cut services because that would alienate their bedrock, and 'austerity' is what Tories do, not them. So, they cast around for tax targets. However, they can't alight on those who are putting in the hours and earning by aiming for income tax, employee national insurance, or VAT, because that would betray the election promise. So, they pick those who once worked. Inheritance tax, or IHT, or as it's popularly known, 'death duty,' is in their crosshairs. At present, inheritance tax is 40 per cent on estates above £325,000. But there is no limit on how much can be gifted to relatives tax-free if the giving is made seven years before someone dies. If it's within seven years, then a sliding scale or 'taper relief' applies. The rate drops each year, from 32 per cent to 8 per cent. Those who think they, or rather their inheritors, may be clobbered duly give it away in good time. The result is that inheritance tax is paid by only around four per cent of estates. In the eyes of Reeves and her advisors, that is too little. They know that people are sitting in homes that have soared in value and possess gold-plated pension pots, and they want some of it. They are looking at imposing a lifetime cap on how much can be gifted and/or changing the rules on taper relief. To ensure, in other words, that IHT is not so easily avoided and that the four per cent figure increases enormously. What's not to like? Politically, those affected are the better off, who are not natural Labour voters. It is not earned money, in the sense that property prices and pensions have risen since they ceased to work. It's fair game to grab it. Indeed, that is precisely what a source with knowledge of the work told the Guardian: 'It's hard to make sure these taxes don't end up with loopholes that undermine their purpose. But we are trying to work out what revenue might be raised and how to ensure it's a fair approach.' Labour has form for this. It's exactly what this government did to the farmers, except there it was farmers with land worth more than £3m. Reeves said this week she believed they 'should make a contribution.' These are weasel words. Reeves is ignoring the fact that they have already contributed, as presumably, she and her colleagues are doing so again, by claiming they are looking to be 'fair'. Apparently, one of the motivators is that they are not keen on a wealth tax as many of their supporters would like because that will serve to encourage the wealthy who can do so to leave the country, and there is evidence to suggest that is already happening, and would damage attempts to encourage greater investment to galvanise the economy. But how is this any different? It still sends the same signal that Labour sees the rich and not even that rich, as ripe for plundering. However it is dressed up and spun, the message is clear: you don't want to work and make some money under Labour, because they will get you. Ignoring the working and selecting those who worked may cleverly satisfy their political and fiscal ambitions, but it fools no one. Under Labour, it really does pay not to work.
