Putting Down the Vase (Part 4 - Migration Policy and Conclusion)
This is the third in a series of four articles, collectively titled ‘Putting Down the Vase’. It is about populism, trust, and how Labour can stop Reform. The central argument is that, in a climate of low trust, risk-aversion at the centre must be overcome. The series includes 30 suggestions, in total, for how you do this. The full paper can be downloaded by clicking here:
The first in the series introduced the concept of the vase and looked at what ‘putting down the vase’ means in relation to communications, making nine initial suggestions. The second installment looked at what it means in relation to electoral strategy, making a further five suggestions. The third installment looked at what it means in relation to policy in general, making ten further suggestions.
This fourth and final installment looks at putting down the vase in relation to migration policy. There are six suggestions in total, and they are followed by a recap and conclusion, based on the whole series.
MIGRATION POLICY
Migration is the final part of the picture here. It is Reform’s signature issue and Nigel Farage can only be stopped by Labour neutralising it.
The ming vase approach, in this domain, is based on a terror of public opinion and the media. It represents the belief that you must be seen to be doing something, for fear that immigration will sweep your legs from beneath you. It tends to categorise cutting immigration as a ‘valence’ issue like NHS funding – around which there is a public consensus and upon which you can ‘deliver’. Good money is often thrown after bad in this undertaking.
Before going into the suggestions, below are four things which in my view are critical to understand about this policy area.
Firstly, migration is a topic which, if it’s seen to be out of control, can eclipse all other issues. More people means less to go round, anti-immigration voters believe. Hence, it doesn’t matter how good a job you’ve done on the NHS or housing if the flow of people is perceived to be out of control.
The best analogy is a nightclub at capacity, which continues to let people in: the queue for the bar, the wait for the toilets and the chaos in the cloakroom can all ultimately be explained by the door policy. This analogy may be flawed. But it’s how many people see migration, and explains the current salience of the issue.
Secondly, strange as it may sound, the public are as liberal on migration and race as they’ve almost ever been. Immigration has begun to de-couple from ethnicity and culture, over the past 20 years, and has increasingly become an issue purely of numbers and capacity.
As polling expert Peter Kellner points out, the overall thrust of public opinion can be summed up as ‘immigration, no thanks, immigrants, yes please’. ‘Delivering’ on this kind of sentiment is not straightforward.
Thirdly, attitudes to immigration are almost completely unmoored from voters’ day-to-day reality – unlike with GP wait times, the cost-of-living or even crime.
There are exceptions, such as in a town with a large ‘asylum hotel’, or a place with little history of inward migration which experiences a sudden wave. But at a national level attitudes to the issue are only loosely connected to material experience. The government could cut net migration to zero tomorrow, and if there was still footage of small boat arrivals on the news then the salience would remain high.
Fourthly, migration quickly becomes an identity issue. It’s not like tax or public spending, where you can twist the dial and potentially find a level that satisfies everyone. It’s a non-negotiable question for many, about the type of country we are.
Ignoring this could lead to a nightmare scenario for Labour at the next election, whereby the whole of inner London defects to the Greens or Lib Dems and the whole of the Red Wall defects to Reform.
With all of this said, below are six suggestions in this area, each of which aim to square the above circle.
1. When it comes to all legal migration not related to asylum, be governed simply by fairness and the national interest. 9 in 10 migrants aren’t asylum seekers. Trying to cut numbers here is a wild goose chase, if the goal is to stave off the anti-immigrant right. By way of example, net migration fell from 860,000 in 2023 to 431,000 in 2024. This did not reduce the salience of migration one iota. Of course, there may be genuine reforms needed under-the-bonnet, to create a system that’s balanced and fair. But it’s a big mistake to think barring care workers or foreign students will have any impact on public opinion. Labour should instead celebrate the contribution of migrants, avoid the numbers trap, and not allow migration per se to be conflated with the discrete issue of asylum and irregular arrivals.
2. Make small boats the first key metric. Then be guided by what works, rather than assuming methods must come from the right. Small boat arrivals make up less than 5% of inward migration. But the increases, from a starting point of zero in 2018, have been broadcast constantly by the media, and tap into a sense of crisis and scarcity – almost single-handedly driving migration salience. What matters here is what works, to reduce the crossings and the accompanying news coverage. If this can be done via additional settlement schemes for certain nationalities then this should be considered. Likewise, if humanely processing claims on French soil or automatically offering visas for women and children means less boats, then these ideas should be on the table.
3. Make hotels the other key metric. Focus again on what works to eliminate usage, especially in places where tensions are likely. The housing of asylum-seekers in hotels currently tends to happen in towns where resources are stretched or anti-immigrant feeling is already high. It has become an open sore and, along with boat crossings, the coverage which resulting tensions generate drives salience nationally. Liberal solutions should again be considered. By paying more could we limit asylum accommodation to already-diverse inner-city areas, where conflicts are less likely? Would letting asylum-seekers earn while they wait reduce the need for hotels? Would block acceptance of those from certain war-torn countries cut the backlog? If these ideas could work, they should be considered.
4. Rule out withdrawal from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) or any other legal convention. International laws like ECHR have almost no bearing that I’m aware of on small boat numbers and hotel usage. (Ditto Indefinite Leave to Remain). These laws generally just prevent the UK doing things we should not consider anyway – and which the public would not tolerate – like send people back to the Taliban. Labour could end up haemorrhaging votes to its left – and becoming an international pariah in the process – for the sake of policies which would not address voters’ actual concerns. For both electoral and moral reasons, the government must hold the line on these points.
5. Make the choice about control versus numbers reduction. Control and numbers reduction are not the same. By demonstrating control, I believe you gradually build confidence in the system – winning the right to make the positive case for migration. Labour should emphasise control – as exemplified by ID Cards, a liberal policy that exists across Europe – as an alternative to the indiscriminate deportations of Reform. ID cards have got off to a bad start, but remain more popular than Reform’s flagship number-cutting policy. Farage is happy to kick out hundreds of thousands of established residents, the argument should run, yet won’t take basic steps to monitor who is in the country.
6. Reject harsh rhetoric, degrading policies or language which dehumanises. This means going no further down the route of high-profile hostile environment policies, televised deportations or ‘island of strangers’ rhetoric. Thankfully, a corner seems to have already been turned here. But any return to this terrain will only serve to burn Labour’s bridges with its base, without any discernible benefits among Reform considerers. Labour’s general tenor must be supportive of migration and the principles of diversity on which Britain is built, whilst isolating and addressing the two particular issues which are causing all the problems (small boats and hotels).
(One issue I have not included in the above list is community cohesion. This is not because it doesn’t matter – quite the reverse. But I think it’s a policy which plays out over a longer time-frame than the one we’re talking about in this paper).
Conclusion
I have covered a lot of ground here, so let’s recap. My central argument is that ming vase politics – once restricted to opposition leaders on the cusp of government – has become a permanent mode of existence for mainstream parties. The trip-wires, news cycles and polling collapses that were formerly associated with the short campaign are now ever-present.
‘Parties of government’ like Labour, for whom populism is not available, shrink from a landscape which appears fraught with risk. Yet this ‘ming vase’ response brings diminishing returns, amongst a public which craves authenticity and is disillusioned with politics as usual. Populists will eventually push the vase out of your hands.
There are four specific areas where I’ve argued that the dynamic plays out:
· On communications, the ming vase represents ultra-positive messaging that no one could disagree with, alongside a party line which blames the other side for everything. Putting down the vase means a warts-and-all approach, which levels with voters and is rooted in explanation and argument. (The full blog on this can be read here).
· On electoral strategy, the ming vase represents survival based upon being less bad than the alternatives. Putting down the vase means establishing a more positive sense of who and what you stand for, fit for the multi-party era. (The full blog on this can be read here).
· On policy in general, the ming vase represents the promise of delivery, funded by growth, across a narrow band of valence issues. Putting down the vase means going beyond this, to establish a platform based on clear choices and values. (The full blog on this can be read here).
· On migration policy, as I say above, the ming vase represents a desire to be seen to be doing something. Putting down the vase means making the case for policies which are fair, consistent with the national interest and address the discrete issues voters are actually concerned about.
Some of the suggestions I’ve made are unorthodox, or go against received wisdom about how you win elections. Others are less controversial or are already happening. Few readers will agree with me on all 30 of them.
However, the crucial point, which cuts across all the ideas in different ways, is a relatively simple one: to beat populists you need to make the running, offering absolute clarity about what you believe in and where you’re taking the country.
The ming vase prevents this from happening. It slows you down and means you’re always hedging your bets and responding to others. It served a purpose, in guaranteeing Labour victory in 2024 and giving Starmer his massive majority. But it now needs to be put down, so that the country can be fixed and the forces of populism can be taken on.