The politics of immigration, the Home Office and the Russian invasion Ukraine

Immigration is one of the most important political issues to voters, and is never far from the news. Pressure groups like Migrant Watch feed the UK's press with stories and research to consistently push the message that the country is 'swamped' by immigrants, and that same press has played a huge role in continuing the importance of the issue in the minds of many of the public. It is certainly the case that immigration played a huge role in the Brexit referendum in 2016, and many will remember news stories from the subsequent days as voters asked 'why the immigrants hadn't gone home yet'. Indeed, lower immigration was one of the main priorities of Leave voters when polled.

The issue has put pressure on our major political parties, but is very much more comfortable territory for the Conservative Party, who have traditionally enjoyed a strong lead over Labour in terms of who voters trust to handle the issue. Whilst immigration has continued in large numbers over recent years, promises from various Conservative leaders have signalled their tough approach to voters; Cameron promised to cut immigration 'not to the hundreds of thousands but to the tens of thousands', Theresa May, as Home Secretary created the famous 'go home' vans, and we have recently seen Priti Patel donning Police uniform and participating in raids on over-staying rejected asylum seekers.

For Labour, the issue is more problematic. Many of the party's traditional voter base are more likely to oppose greater levels of immigration, whilst many Labour members and their metropolitan and urban support base are far more sympathetic. Strands of Labour thought, such as Blue Labour, advocate tougher immigration policies, and Ed Miliband famously included it as one of his policies on the 'Edstone', which was further encapsulated on the Controls on Immigration mug. This was particularly unpopular with core Labour members, who often tend to have a more liberal attitude towards issues of immigration and race. Therefore, for Labour supporting or opposing immigration can be a case of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'.

However, Andrew Marr wrote in the New Statesman this week about the potential impact of war on the political spectrum. The collective and humanitarian impulses of voters are often triggered at this time, and governments necessarily take on a bigger role. But, as we saw with the Conservatives and the furlough scheme, this could play into the hands of the government, as their healthy approval ratings through the pandemic showed. The political spectrum could be shaken, and therefore there is opportunity as well as threat for Labour. In short, the Conservatives are unlikely to make any significant changes to their current policies, and Labour will be fearful of coming across as too soft on the issue.

For the final word I would like to turn to Jonn Ellege, also writing in the New Statesman, who has long argued that the Home Office is a broken institution. Whilst most European countries have extended open arms to Ukrainian refugees, the UK has taken a more restrictive approach, which seems to be out of step with the views of many of the British public. Has the British preoccupation with immigration gone on for so long that the Home Office is no longer capable of anything but reflexive harshness, rejecting people in desperate need? Ellege would certainly argue so.