You don’t have to go too far back to find another non-hypothetical example of a party being punished for doing the opposite of what they promised to do. The Lib Dem’s went into 2010 with the promise to scrap tuition fees, then whilst inside the Coalition government voted to increase them by 200% and saw their 50+ seats reduced to a rump of just 8.
“And if you think a general election fought on immigration will be won by the pro-immigration side, I’ve got a bridge to sell you!”
Yes, the present electorate is sceptical about or hostile to immigration. But one option that Labour’s got that you don’t discuss in this piece is the option of changing the electorate. What was a joke for Bertold Brecht is in fact now possible, although the four years between now and the next election may not be enough time to do it in.
Here is how Labour could do it:
1. Create a Starmerwave. Reverse the measures that Rishi Sunak took to slow down the pace of immigration. Lower the minimum salary for work visas. Tell care workers they can bring their families with them after all. Increase the number of years students can work after their Masters in Business Management from two years to four. Importantly, make sure that the immigrants come from Commonwealth countries.
2. Proclaim loudly that Labour is the party of immigration and diversity. Make sure immigrants understand that only Labour will guarantee their right to settle in the country long-term.
3. Citizens of Commonwealth countries can vote in the UK, but the problem for Labour is that most of them don’t know it. Labour is, however, planning to bring in automatic voter registration. They will need to make sure that this applies to Commonwealth citizens, including international students, and they will need to make sure that those Commonwealth citizens know that they have the right to vote.
I suspect something like the above strategy is how the immigration enthusiasts will eventually defeat the immigration restrictionists. The electorate is already changing, of course, because people of recent immigrant descent are generally younger than indigenous Brits, who are dying off. It will be interesting to see some analysis of how many immigrants Labour would need to import in order to really make a difference in their battle against Reform.
I don't think it would work, as immigrants go where the jobs are, and Reform's vote is strongest in rural and deindustrialized areas where there are few good jobs.
Multi ethnic / multi cultural societies are unstable and prone to civil strive. Add to this (as if necessary) that most of the Starmerwave would come from unstable places. But everyone knows that already
I strongly disagree with your claim that ethnic diversity weakens societies in and of itself (as you are implying), although your second point is more reasonable as successful societies in the 21st century tend to have sub-replacement birth rates, and would not therefore be the source of large immigrant influxes.
On the flipside, Starmer's unpopularity may be suppressing the progressive vote in polls, as progressive voters don't know this far from the next General Election _which_ progressive option (Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green, or SNP or Plaid Cymru if appropriate) will be locally strongest by then.
You don’t have to go too far back to find another non-hypothetical example of a party being punished for doing the opposite of what they promised to do. The Lib Dem’s went into 2010 with the promise to scrap tuition fees, then whilst inside the Coalition government voted to increase them by 200% and saw their 50+ seats reduced to a rump of just 8.
Great example!
Greens may not want a "stronger economy", depending on what you mean by that.
Good point
“And if you think a general election fought on immigration will be won by the pro-immigration side, I’ve got a bridge to sell you!”
Yes, the present electorate is sceptical about or hostile to immigration. But one option that Labour’s got that you don’t discuss in this piece is the option of changing the electorate. What was a joke for Bertold Brecht is in fact now possible, although the four years between now and the next election may not be enough time to do it in.
Here is how Labour could do it:
1. Create a Starmerwave. Reverse the measures that Rishi Sunak took to slow down the pace of immigration. Lower the minimum salary for work visas. Tell care workers they can bring their families with them after all. Increase the number of years students can work after their Masters in Business Management from two years to four. Importantly, make sure that the immigrants come from Commonwealth countries.
2. Proclaim loudly that Labour is the party of immigration and diversity. Make sure immigrants understand that only Labour will guarantee their right to settle in the country long-term.
3. Citizens of Commonwealth countries can vote in the UK, but the problem for Labour is that most of them don’t know it. Labour is, however, planning to bring in automatic voter registration. They will need to make sure that this applies to Commonwealth citizens, including international students, and they will need to make sure that those Commonwealth citizens know that they have the right to vote.
I suspect something like the above strategy is how the immigration enthusiasts will eventually defeat the immigration restrictionists. The electorate is already changing, of course, because people of recent immigrant descent are generally younger than indigenous Brits, who are dying off. It will be interesting to see some analysis of how many immigrants Labour would need to import in order to really make a difference in their battle against Reform.
I don't think it would work, as immigrants go where the jobs are, and Reform's vote is strongest in rural and deindustrialized areas where there are few good jobs.
Multi ethnic / multi cultural societies are unstable and prone to civil strive. Add to this (as if necessary) that most of the Starmerwave would come from unstable places. But everyone knows that already
I strongly disagree with your claim that ethnic diversity weakens societies in and of itself (as you are implying), although your second point is more reasonable as successful societies in the 21st century tend to have sub-replacement birth rates, and would not therefore be the source of large immigrant influxes.
On that basis point to a successful multi cultural society with a high percentage of people from the third world
Very true. This is why Reform’s polling lead is so uncertain. If they can actually turn people out, it could be a real landslide. That’s a big “if”!
On the flipside, Starmer's unpopularity may be suppressing the progressive vote in polls, as progressive voters don't know this far from the next General Election _which_ progressive option (Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green, or SNP or Plaid Cymru if appropriate) will be locally strongest by then.