David Holmes responds to Zoe Williams' criticism of Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood's recent language on immigration, arguing that her frustration is understandable in today's polarized climate. Holmes contends that many on the progressive side treat any divergence on immigration as indistinguishable from Reform UK, which is not accurate.
Defending Mahmood's Approach
Holmes acknowledges that Mahmood's language may have been coarse, but he emphasizes that people should be able to disagree on migration and migrant rights without being dismissed with lazy labels like "out-Reforming Reform" or having bigotry implied. He states that this approach plays the man, not the ball.
Immigration as a Defining Issue
Immigration has been a defining political issue in the UK for years. Many people broadly support tighter controls, even if they differ on how far to go. Mahmood is responding to a longstanding public concern. The UK cannot act as a lifeboat for the world's destitute, and it is not inherently progressive to ignore the pressures that high levels of immigration can place on housing, schools, and healthcare.
Impact on Working-Class Communities
These pressures are felt most in working-class communities, including many ethnic-minority communities, not in the more affluent areas where pro-immigration sentiment is often most visible. Wanting a well-managed, sustainable immigration system is reasonable. Progressives should recognize this and show empathy for communities that feel the strain.
Potential Benefits of a Credible System
A credible system could reduce the political potency of the issue and help undercut the rise of the right – something that may well underpin Mahmood's approach. Holmes concludes that her frustration is understandable and that her immigration controls respond to a genuine public concern.
