Turning voters on (and sending them off to Farage)
Labour risks raising the salience of immigration — without meaningfully reducing the numbers
Ross and Rachel1 are having a fight. That is because Ross is jealous of Rachel for spending so much time at her new job and in close proximity to Mark, her handsome colleague. After he apologises for his behaviour, the tables suddenly turn, as is the way of television sitcoms. Ross, it transpires, is off to accompany his son on a playdate with another child, whose mother happens to be a stripper. Now it is Rachel’s turn to feel possessive.
Having initially shown her displeasure at the course of events, she proceeds to give her boyfriend a long and sensual kiss (or, at least, as much as 1990s network executives would allow). As Ross departs, somewhat bewildered by the intensity of the embrace, Rachel turns to Chandler with a satisfied grin and declares:
“Well, there's a kiss he won't forget for a few hours, ya know.”
To which Chandler deadpans in response:
“Yeah. Either that or you just turned him on and sent him off to a stripper.”
Is now a good time to talk about salience?
Last week, the government made what in political science is known as a big song and dance about immigration. There was the white paper, endless media rounds by ministers and plenty of online discourse around the phrase “island of strangers” employed by the prime minister.
No doubt, immigration would have continued to be a major issue whether the government talked about it or not. YouGov’s polling tracker, which asks respondents to list the most important issues facing the country, places immigration and asylum on top, at 50%, above even the economy on 49%. For context, in October 2022, in the wake of Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget and with inflation running at an annual rate of 11.1%, immigration was on 21%, with the economy on 72%.
Given the import voters are now ascribing to immigration, as demonstrated at least in part by Reform UK’s success at the recent local elections, it makes sense that the government should want to act. To that end, Labour’s proposals would do a number of things to reduce net migration, which hit a record 900,000 in the year ending June 2023. These include:
Raising the eligibility for the skilled worker visa to degree level
Closing the dedicated visa for social care workers to new applicants
Reducing the time overseas graduates can remain in the UK after their studies from two years to 18 months
Establishing a new 6% tax on tuition fee incomes from foreign students, which the government expects to be passed on to those students via higher fees, thereby cutting applications by 7,000 per year
Stricter English language requirements for all work visas
Raising the period of time immigrants will typically have to live in the UK to apply for indefinite leave to remain, from five years to 10 years
The prime minister declined — for sensible political and economic reasons — to set a specific number for the overall level of net migration, merely stating that he wants to “significantly” reduce it. However, the Home Office forecasts that these new policies would see a fall of 100,000 per year by 2029.
That is not insignificant. But if you believe, as Starmer apparently does, that the era of high inward migration represented a “squalid chapter” in British history, what difference does a fall of 100,000 really make? Whether one supports, opposes or is largely indifferent to immigration, I’m not sure you could tell the difference between annual figures of say, 300,000 versus 400,000.
I do not deny these changes will have an impact on the economy, or that in particular, doubling the period of time to secure indefinite leave to remain will not make many people’s lives harder and leave them feeling far less secure for no tangible benefit. Indeed, a recent poll by British Future found that 59% of the public agreed that migrants living in the UK and paying taxes should be eligible to apply for citizenship after five years or less.
More that the prime minister has chosen to raise the salience of immigration, causing unhappiness in his own party and invigorating his rivals all with little chance (or even desire) to reduce immigration to the sort of numbers that might satisfy its loudest opponents. Indeed, when the Tories tried this strategy, raising the salience while overseeing record levels of migration, it only illustrated how powerless they were.
Perhaps this time will be different. Otherwise, it may simply serve to turn the British public on and send them off to Nigel Farage.
It is important to religiously refresh your pop culture references to ensure they remain of the moment