Nothing illustrates better the ideological and policy differences at all levels of the Labour Party than the contradictory opinions being offered on the issue of free movement. The Shadow Home Secretary (Diane Abbott) says free movement is essential. She has even said “Ending free movement has become a synonym for anti-immigrant racism”. The Shadow Brexit Secretary (Keir Starmer) and the Shadow Chancellor (John McDonnell) say that movement of people should be managed/controlled.

What does the Party leader (Jeremy Corbyn) think? He appears to take the same position as Diane Abbott. Before the EU referendum he defended free movement on the grounds that it is “intrinsic” to the EU, which sounds more like an observation than an argument. More recently he has argued “harmonisation of wages and working conditions” across Europe are the way to convince the public rather than imposing restrictions on freedom of movement. What he has not done is to require those arguing for different positions to lay out their cases clearly in a way that can either resolve the differences or, failing that, present those differences in the clearest possible way to party members.

The policy gap at the heart of Labour and the failure to organise systematic policy development throughout the party could not have a starker illustration than this issue. What we have in effect is people shouting their different opinions across a void where a debate should be taking place.

The conflicting views have tended to coalesce round two equally weak standpoints. Thus we have had recent statements by Andy Burnham, Ed Miliband and others which have argued that migration needs to be controlled because that is what the electors said in the referendum. This ‘follow the electorate’ approach is the policy without principle that made so many people want to see a shift to a more radical left Labour leadership. This view is all the more unconvincing when it is used to refer to a vote on which the voting public was split 52% to 48% and on which voters were motivated to vote they way that they did on a series of different issues and not just immigration. Not only that, but the politicians who advocate the ‘follow the electorate’ approach would not do so on other issues (for example on bringing back the death penalty).

Diane Abbott has explained her views on immigration and free movement many times. There can be little doubt that her position is supported by many, and perhaps most, on the left. The reasoning underlying this stance is that since racists focus on immigration as the main issue then it must be racist to recognise that it needs to be managed or controlled in any way. This argument is as devoid of substance as that of the ‘follow the electorate’ approach. In a interview on Sunday Politics on 4th December Andrew Neil questioned Diane Abbott about her views.

Neil gave the net migration figure for the last year as 335,000 and asked if this was too much, too little or about right. Abbott replied that it reflected the underlying economic situation. This was clearly not an answer so the question was repeated and the second non-answer was “targets don’t work”. It was clear that Abott would not express a view on the figures. The problem with this response is easily seen by transposing it to another context. Suppose that Neil has shown the unemployment figures and said is that too much too little or about right. Can one imagine Abbott, or any other left politician, responding simply that “it reflects the underlying economic reality”?

Neil tried another tack. He said “Do you want to reduce immigration numbers?”. Abbott replied “You can bear down on immigration. The two main reasons why immigrants come here, and the main one is to work and that is partly about the skills gap here in the UK but its partly about the fact that predatory employers use immigrants to undercut British workers black and white”. She was then asked what she thought was the scale of such predatory employment practice compared to immigration as a whole. Abbott was unable to offer any information on that of any kind, even a rough indication.

What emerged from the interview is that Abbott (i) is not prepared to say that current immigration levels are too high but that she thinks we should “bear down on it” and (ii) the results of the “underlying economic reality”, about which she is unable to pass judgement, includes the activities (of unknown extent) of predatory employers. The questioning was not aggressive and posed only the most obvious of questions. It has to be a matter of concern that a leading Shadow Cabinet member was so unable to deal with them.

The two positions outlined above (‘follow the electorate’ and ‘it is racist to suggest that immigration should be controlled’) are equally political void. What makes this even more a matter for concern is that it is not as if efforts have not been made to advance the debate by unravelling the ideas involved. On the left the arguments against ‘follow the electorate’ are well established, so it is the refusal to discuss appropriate levels of immigration and how that level could be controlled that needs to be addressed. Some on the left have tried do just that but the thing is that they have met with no response. The latest attempt is by Michael Calderbank in Labour Briefing. He sets out a clear case as to why the left should be discussing levels of immigration and deals with the faulty reasoning of those who say that it is racist to do so. He argues that the issue must be approached in terms of the different class interests operating now and not in terms of how we would like an ideal society to operate. A piece I wrote approaching the issue from the angle of human rights appeared here on Left Futures. It received a number of favourable comments but not a single supporter of free movement questioned my arguments. The arguments against free movement, from a socialist viewpoint have been made. I am not aware of an equally detailed case being made for free movement the case for which, to my knowledge, consists of one-liners and assertions but no attempt to deal with the contrary case.

The stating of different positions within Labour on free movement and immigration is, so far, a perfect example of a non-debate.