It was a big issue. Reform was rising in the polls beforehand. Farage then sees a bounce. Idea that its press coverage is something progressives need to get over. You make the case you want without it.

No, there was press coverage of immigration. And that’s not true. The press coverage follows the salience not vice versa.

No, it provided a huge liberalisation of attitudes which started from 2016 pretty much up until 2022.

No. because the racists we’re concerned about immigration beforehand.

She’s right to say getting control of the system is necessary for bringing down the salience and a more cohesive society. But saying “the country is becoming more racist” is too reductive and simplistic.

The argument shouldn’t be “we’re becoming more racist“. It should be “it raises the salience of immigration and this leads to increased rightwing populism and allows a racist minority to feel more legitimised to do X, Y and Z.”

You can have popular policies and lose. You can have loads of popular policies and lose precisely because some people think “my taxes will go up to pay for it” (and I don’t want that). You can have an unpopular policy and win (because your trusted on the basics which is popular).

If I were Starmer, I’d have announced policies like this (with a Rwanda review and ID cards) in the manifesto. But linked to more safe and legal routes - a capped asylum visa which ppl can apply for and an earned, partial, one off amnesty for some illegal immigrants.

BUT merely chasing Reform on an intellectual lazy “legitimate concerns” stuff will help with Reform curious Labour voters. It won’t help with Green curious Labour voters. And it won’t actually help Labour with Reform voters (who hate Labour anyway).

Ultimately, the left bloc isn’t as liberal on these things as much as people on here. And Labour needs to be serious to keep Reform curious Labour voters (and maybe Reform curious Lib Dems) but also anti Reform Tories (who are still culturally conservative but prefer Labour and Lib Dems to Reform).

And Farah was a victim of trafficking. It’s almost like saying we shouldn’t enforce trafficking laws because had we done so, Farah wouldn’t be a British citizen (which is true).

There are people who wouldn’t be British citizens if the 1962 Act was applied earlier than 1962. Or if the 1981 Act was applied earlier. There are people who wouldn’t be British citizens if we didn’t enforce immigration restrictions earlier. That’s not the right argument to use, I’m afraid.

Irony is with Cameron’s “there is such thing as society but it’s not the same as the state”. Ironically, Cameron was restating Thatcher’s actual argument with “no such thing as society” (although it was seen as a distancing from Thatcherism).

Policy Exchange