The last few weeks have been a worrying time. Friends of mine have told me that, because they aren’t white, they are worried about visiting parts of our country. Robert Jenrick and other politicians have implied you are only properly British if you are white. Last weekend we saw shocking violence on London’s streets from far right racist thugs. It’s like an horrific throwback to the 80s – a ‘This is England’ nightmare.
Most worryingly, our Prime Minister failed to condemn these threats.
In this climate we Liberal Democrats must call out racism, and say, at every opportunity, that we are on the side of law-abiding Britons. That we will protect our friends, families and neighbours.
If we are going to beat the far right – we can’t just ignore them, as many left of centre politicians are tempted to. Brutal criminals are on our streets, and Reform leads the opinion polls. If we don’t take them on, then people will assume this isn’t something we care about.
With the rise of Reform in the polls, difficult conversations are inevitable.
There is no middle ground here. We need to win the argument on immigration. We can do that – because there is a liberal mainstream majority in Britain, who are open to being persuaded. But that will only happen if we talk about why we need to welcome refugees and economic migrants.
Firstly we need to make the argument that welcoming people fleeing dictatorships is a proud British tradition. Just look around and you can see how refugees have enriched British culture. Whether it’s fish and chips introduced by Jewish refugees, or Ukrainians fleeing the Russian invasion in 2022.
It’s British to welcome people. Around the world we are seen as a friendly and tolerant country because of this record, and our day to day tolerance. We should be proud of that, just as much as we are proud of our sporting success.
Nigel Farage, on the other hand, wants to make us into a meaner country. He openly wants to do a deal with the Taliban, who are so extreme that they let women die in the rubble of an earthquake rather than be touched by a male rescuer.
Reform wants to cosy up to dictators in Iran, Eritrea and Vietnam, giving them millions of pounds to take refugees back. That would be shameful for our country.
We can take on Reform locally and nationally by asking them again and again which dictators they will do a deal with.
We can also win the argument that immigration is good for our economy. This is something we should talk about too. In the last twenty years real wages in Britain have barely increased. People feel that politics is failing. Voters are ready for a new approach to the economy.
To be economically successful, we will need highly skilled people – from scientists and doctors to nurses, builders and engineers. With low unemployment – less than 5% – we need to welcome these skilled people from other countries.
If we hope to reduce rents and build new national infrastructure, we will need more builders and engineers. If we’re going to fix the NHS, we will need more doctors, nurses and technicians. And if we want an economy built on highly skilled jobs, fit for the future, we need to attract leading businesses working in technology, medicine and advanced manufacturing.
The public, rightly, will not reward a government that slashes economic immigration. We need to explain to voters this would make us all poorer.
The independent Office for Budget Responsibility’s own figures show that cutting immigration could easily cost a typical British family £500 a year. Every time we hear politicians calling for lower immigration, we should ask them if they are happy to pay extra tax for that, and what economic damage they are willing to suffer.
Finally, we need a media that respects our rules. Millions in Britain are directly or indirectly influenced by Twitter. And last weekend its owner, Elon Musk, clearly called for violence on Britain’s streets, while boosting the reach of extremists on his social network. The British government would ban, fine or remove the licence of a TV channel or radio station that abused its power like this. The police would arrest somebody who stood on Britain’s streets calling for violence. But our government seems to think it is powerless against Musk. They appear unwilling to speak out against him.
Governments can bring social media companies under control. As recently as October, Musk caved in to Brazilian law. We must stop him promoting violence, to make our country safe. Rarely has the commitment to a fair, free and open society seemed more important. I for one do not plan to be ‘enslaved by conformity’. It’s time to speak up for our friends.
* Rob Blackie was Liberal Democrat Mayoral candidate in 2024, achieving the best result for 16 years. He has beaten the Greens in competitive elections as an organiser or candidate in 2010 (twice), 2012, 2024 and 2026. https://bsky.app/profile/robblackie.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Geoff Reid
Mary Reid
Meg Thomas
Institute of Urban T
Tristan Ward
21 Comments
Well said Rob.
@ Rob Blackie,
I would expect that the arguments you put forward in your OP will go down well with your existing voter base in the wealthier constituencies.
You’ll need more than these though. You have correctly pointed out that:
” In the last twenty years real wages in Britain have barely increased. People feel that politics is failing. Voters are ready for a new approach to the economy.”
So in the less well off areas you’ll have to explain what they will surely interpret as the same approach can also be ‘a new approach’. How will this approach, whether it be new or the same, lead to higher wages?
You’ve not mentioned the costs of accommodation, but this is an important issue too. So how will having more people looking for accommodation make it more affordable?
My answers are from a socialist perspective. Lib Dems have a more difficult task of coming up with non-socialist remedies to the problem.
We can also attack The Far Right on Green issues, they are in a minority on the dangers of Global Warming & are stuck with claiming its a Left Wing Fake. Reform don’t want to talk about The Environment so we should.
Interesting article, but I think Rob, you are mistaken when you say there is no middle ground: There is. The middle ground is to absolutely condemn the far right thuggery and calls to violence we’ve seen, along with any suggestion that ethnicity matters in whether you are British, while also recognising that current immigration levels are too high and need to come down. That is an ethical position that combines internationalism with honest realism, and is the best place from which to fight the far right. If we are not willing to offer a middle ground position then we are basically offering people a choice between two extremes – and that’s never going to end well.
As for your suggestion that we can reduce rents by bringing in more people who will immediately need somewhere to live… you might want to rethink the economics of how that will pan out 😉
It’s perfectly reasonable to ask where housing for immigration will come from – and there’s an easy answer.
It comes from building a lot more housing.
The difference is simple:
With immigration – we have the people who will build this housing.
Without – we can’t build enough housing for the people we already have. Benchmarked against Germany we are about 5 million houses short right now.
Very good Rob. Though I would like to hear if you have any policy proposals alongside the need for conviction (which is true!)
I’m afraid there is a middle ground and we need to consider whether we wish to stand on it or take one of the extreme positions instead. There are 3 positions regarding immigration: 1) being anti-immigration, 2) supporting legal immigration and genuine refugees, 3) believing in open borders.
I support the middle position – I believe in planned immigration of those with the skills we need, together with genuine refugees. I do not believe in open borders, which I regard as an extreme position as well as one that will damage us at the ballot box.
“With immigration – we have the people who will build this housing.”
This is true. But the counter argument will be that we’ve had high levels of immigration for several years now, and the housing problem is as bad as ever. So why is having even more immigration going to fix the problem?
I’d suggest that the bottleneck in the housing supply isn’t due to a shortage of labour.
There are various factors involved including: Land hoarding, and a general opposition at local level to allowing more building in their areas. Many Lib Dem supporters, no doubt, including perhaps readers of LDV will have signed petitions to try to block development in their relatively affluent towns and villages.
I’d add the govt’s need, despite what they may say, to avoid house pricing falling. They are the collateral for a sea of private debt on which the economy floats.
@Rob: Houses can’t get built instantly. A quick google says it takes 2-4 person-years to build a house. In order for ‘importing’ a builder to make a difference to the housing stock, that builder will need to build two houses – one for himself to live in, plus one to add to the general housing stock. That’s 4-8 years. Add another year or two to get through planning and design and you’re looking at 5-10 years to make a difference. During that time you’ve lost net housing stock (and therefore are likely to have higher rents) because the new migrant needs somewhere to live from the instant they arrive. And that’s before you even factor in that you don’t just need new houses: Increasing population means you need to build more schools, hospitals, and all the other infrastructure we depend on – and the people who build all that will also need somewhere to live from the instant they arrive.
You might consider that London – the place in the UK that has seen the highest levels of immigration over the last 20 years – is also the place that has the most acute housing crisis and therefore the highest rents. That’s unlikely to be a coincidence.
@ Rob,
I’d generally agree with Simon even though we don’t occupy the same part of the political spectrum. This does sometimes worry me! 🙂
Lib Dems don’t seem to have a coherent view of how the economy works or what we all should expect from it. The question of immigration is a good example. On the one hand there is a widespread view that the robots are coming to take all our jobs. It’s true that we’ve lost a lot of jobs to increased automation of one sort or another. I can’t remember the last time I spoke face to face with anyone from my bank or was handed a railway ticket by a person at a ticket office. We’ll all, therefore, need a UBI or some other large measure of social support to survive in a future world where we don’t have much to do.
On the other hand, people like yourself argue that we need more immigration because there is too much work needing to be done and the existing population can’t do it all ourselves.
Most of the OP’s arguments are valid. but terribly one-sided. As others have pointed out, they won’t convince anybody outside the left-liberal base. Here are some questions which sceptics (whether racist or nonracist) can validly ask:
Why should we welcome the people smuggling of an uncontrolled number of migrants, mostly young men financed by relatively well-off families in poor countries, and sent to the rich West to earn high wages and send money back home?
Why should we actively welcome an increasing population, increased housing needs, and more countryside built over? Why should we be any more actively keen to grow our population, simply because of the argument that migrants can themselves build the houses they need?
Granted that many refugees do have a well-founded fear of persecution, and therefore deserve asylum – Should they consequently have the right to travel half-way round the world, in search of a really nice rich country to settle in?
If the liberal/left dodge these questions, while Reform tackle them, it will be Reform who gain credibility, however odious their “solutions” may be.
Great article Rob. Not only are 100% right that we, of all parties in British politics, must continue to speak up for welcoming refugees and celebrating the cultural richness of modern Britain (and London especially) made all the richer by the diversity of people here; but we must ALSO make the economic case. With an ageing population and consequent ever-increasing public spending demands across health & care, pensions, and myriad other retirement-age benefits; increasing the pool of working age people contributing to the Exchequer is an urgent imperative. Sadly, no-one is talking about this and so Liberal Democrats must urgently make the economic case for immigration.
A more general point is that we need to be very careful about helping The Far Right by catatastrophising, their fundamental argument is that “Everything is Broken”.
In Fact Unemployment, Inflation & Real Interest Rates are all at Historically low levels and Crime has been falling for Years.
There has a rash of vandalism in the last few weeks, Red Crosses being painted on anything vaguely White but Reform can hardly complain about that.
@ Matt,
“…..Liberal Democrats must urgently make the economic case for immigration”
This was tried during the referendum campaign.
However, what came across from the Remain side was that we were all better off because the cost of labour was lower than it would have been otherwise.
It didn’t seem to occur to anyone that this was always going to be viewed as a minus rather than a plus by those who were on the bottom rungs of our society. This was one of the reasons why the C2, D, and E social groups voted more strongly for Leave than the higher groups.
So in the end it was somewhat of an own goal.
There is an economic case to be made for immigration but if the far right are going to defeated it has to be socially much more inclusive than it was then.
“To be economically successful, we will need highly skilled people – from scientists and doctors to nurses, builders and engineers. With low unemployment – less than 5% – we need to welcome these skilled people from other countries. ”
Or we need to train them ourselves…
@David Allen
“Why should we welcome the people smuggling of an uncontrolled number of migrants, mostly young men financed by relatively well-off families in poor countries, and sent to the rich West to earn high wages and send money back home?”
How do you know they are ‘financed by relatively well-off families’ And if some people were not ‘sending money back home’ mightn’t that encourage more migration?
“Granted that many refugees do have a well-founded fear of persecution, and therefore deserve asylum – Should they consequently have the right to travel half-way round the world, in search of a really nice rich country to settle in?”
Writing as a British-born offspring from (on father’s side) a Russian Jewish family – So if they have a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ are you saying they should just put up with that?
And if such people were allowed to apply for asylum from oustide the UK that might ease the people-smuggling problem.
Liberals and a big slice of the white Left really are like goldfish over upsurges in visible racism. The difference between Black/Asian/PoC’s lived experience of societal racism and the white gaze is stark. One sees and feels it constantly, the other is suddenly shocked all over again.
We need to adopt less performative hand-wringing, less amnesia, and more determination to bring about social and racial justice, while demonstrating the link between the two.
Hi Michael,
Thank you for your timely and very pertinent reminder which sums up my worries about so many things we as Lib Dems often do when faced with long standing issues which still require improvement and in many cases a lot of improvement.
Most Lib Dems have spent all their political lives personally opposing, campaigning against, working to improve, and generally fighting the many problems that beset our country – racism, along with sexism, poverty and poor education being probably the four most fundamental.
Consequently we have worked for, helped implement and celebrated the victories in slowly overcoming particular aspects of these problems – Apartheid and Race Relations acts, FGM and Equal Pay, the Real Living Wage and Benefits, and Comprehensivisation and better exam results.
The problem is that none of these victories have been absolute – indeed they never can be (There’s no such thing as perfect law) or inviolate (Our enemies always work to undo the progress made). However as people have worked their hardest to achieve what has been achieved, it is very difficult to come to terms with the fact that over time others have undermined it.
My view is that it isn’t performative hand-wringing or amnesia, just a massive disappointment at how hard earned progress can be undermined by our enemies.
Ultimately we know it’s hard to pass new law, but it is a never ending struggle to change human nature and that is what we really need.
All the best,
David
Rob, I’m sad to say that I cannot agree at all when you post something as divisive as “There is no middle ground here.” in the context of “We need to win the argument on immigration.”
There is loads of middle ground here except for those extremists who believe there is no justification for any immigration at all or those extremist libertarian anachists who believe absolutely anyone should be allowed to migrate anywhere, anytime if they wish to.
For extremists on the Right a good question could be something like “What if we wish to massively improve our fighter defences quickly and Korea Aerospace Industries will help us build a factory to produce their KF-21 Borame, but they need to send technicians over to set up the factory and train the workforce? P.S. They are Christian and pale skinned.
For extremists on the Left a good question could be something like “What if we wish have a stagnant economy, massively underfunded public services and an NHS with ever growing waiting lists, but lots of Americans are being encouraged to migrate here by Trump in order to get free health treatment and when it is complete, if they then choose to, they can move back to the USA? P.S. They are diehard Republican and like Nigel Farage a lot, and while here will vote.
Working on the assumption that you are at neither of these two positions, you have compromised already.
We can’t afford you to become part of the problem.
The best way to counter Reform is to focus on values and principles rather than policy. Most people resonate with fairness, consideration, competence, courtesy, freedom and democracy. So keep reverting to the principles from which our policies are derived rather than the policies themselves.
@Peter Hirst
I’m afraid ‘fairness’ may not lead to the answer you assume. For example, at a time thousands of people are on waiting lists for social housing – some waiting years – is it fair that people who come to the UK and get asylum should immediately jump ahead of them on the waiting list? You may hope that people will conclude that it is fair, but you may be surprised.
Nonconformist radical – Your question to me above: “If they have a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ are you saying they should just put up with that?”
Of course not – I did say “many refugees do have a well-founded fear of persecution, and therefore deserve asylum “, didn’t I? Be fair!
However – Obviously, you’re entitled to ask how!
Ideally, the UN should take charge of a global agreement to rescue genuine refugees. The principle should be that nations should either accept refugees, or else fund other nations to do so. This may sound Utopian, but if something like this isn’t organised before countries like the Maldives are submerged, chaos and disaster will ensue.
Countries like the UK would then face a choice. They could pay e.g. Turkey a fortune to hold refugees in camps (and to up the standards of those camps), and keep refugees out of Britain. Or they could set a quota for refugee acceptance, offer refugees within that quota safe passage to the UK, and pay Turkey less or nothing, depending on the chosen quota size.
Left/liberals could argue that we need some refugees – though crucially, in numbers we would control. Farage could argue that he would prefer massive tax rises so as to keep refugees out. Democracy would decide.
Please don’t dismiss this as impractical. Not trying would be worse.