Rayner slams Labour’s ‘hostile’ immigration policies

Angela Rayner gave an impassioned speech slamming Shabana Mahmood’s cruel immigration proposals as a “breach of trust”. Going even further, the former Labour deputy leader claimed that the public now view the Labour Party as pro-establishment and “un-British”.

Home Secretary Mahmood is proposing changes to migration which would double the time required for migrants to qualify for permanent residence from five to ten years. Even more heartlessly, the Labour government intend to subject refugees to an anxious wait of up to 20 years for the right to remain permanently.

Whilst Mahmood deems this to be “fair” in order to avoid draining public finances, Rayner appears to be attempting to remind the former party of the people of its supposed values and principles.

However, against the backdrop of our colonial history and ongoing support for imperialism, the proposed policy feels unmistakably “British” – and that is precisely the problem we must confront. It is entirely British to operate a hostile environment.

Rayner’s challenge is little more than limp lettuce

And when Andy Burnham addressed the immigration proposals, he showed little real unease with the cruelty at the heart of the immigration reforms.

Speaking to BBC R4′s Today programme, Burnham appears to suggest there may be legitimacy to the government’s proposal. Apparently, the Labour government simply have been ‘clear’ enough with their reasoning. The Labour Mayor said the “impatience to deliver change is shared right across government” and acknowledged Angela Rayner’s argument as worth heeding. Nonetheless, he ultimately chose to side with the government:

I do think the government has a story to tell here and it needs to tell it more effectively.

I think the government really needs to point to that to then allow some breathing space for a considered debate on the proposals around changes to the immigration system.

Therefore, if we dig a bit deeper into Rayner’s apparently “explosive” comments, we soon realise there’s little challenge actually present. On the other hand, it appears she is only concerned by existing refugees and migrants than how this harmful policy would impact future arrivals to the UK.

Labour double standards and lip service once again – no surprise there.

She claimed the system must become fairer and work for working people yet avoided confronting the super-rich interests prioritising profits. Instead, she appeared to accept the narrative that immigration harms workers rather than employers. In the end, her concern seemed confined to migrants already contributing to the economy not having their deal changed “halfway through” – everyone else, apparently, can be disregarded.

She added:

The people already in the system, who made a huge investment, now fear for their future – they do not have stability and do not know what will happen.

We cannot talk about earning a settlement if we keep moving the goalposts.

Advertisement

Because moving the goalposts undermines our sense of fair play. It’s un-British.

Let us be a country that has sustainable economic migration rules, but one that upholds the British values we want all who live here to respect.

Nevertheless, she has more to say ‘apparently’:

Make it count or it’s worthless

Once, Labour stood against the hateful immigration policies of right-wing Conservative governments. Now in power, it has chosen cruelty instead—targeting people trying to build a life with dignity and integrity. Mahmood’s reforms will strip away the opportunities they need to do so.

Seeking to protect those already here while taking hope and protections away from others in war-torn countries is manipulative and coercive. It is also, frankly, beyond pathetic. Nevertheless, championing the interests of the super-rich whilst punishing vulnerable people has been the hallmark of this government. Subsequently, it has seen them lose a significant part of their traditional base to left-wing competitors in the Green’s and Your Party.

If Rayner and Burnham actually care about human rights or British values and principles, they’d walk away from this captured, corrupted party.

Featured image via the Canary