In an hour of complex and heated disagreement, there were two moments of unity in Sky News’ immigration debate.
The first came in the answer to Tavinder, who probed: “I just want to know, does legal immigration benefit the UK and their contribution? Are they taking more or contributing more?”
Politics Live: Minister brands Reform ‘plastic patriots’ for ‘feeding racism’
It was here, for a brief moment, that all four coalesced and agreed that immigration can be a benefit, and cite examples.
Even Zia Yusuf from Reform UK said he understood the benefit of migrants coming to Britain, pointing to his own parents who arrived in the 1980s.
Later, all four also agreed that the system devised by the Tories post-Brexit and inherited by Labour, currently unfixed, was still broken. The harmony was short-lived.
The job of all four parties represented in the Sky News immigration debate was to present their solutions and connect with an audience. But much of the hour-long special was a testy, bitty argument and a sense of too few solutions that really met the passionate, differing views of our audience members.
Politics latest: ‘Disgusting’: Minister brands Reform ‘plastic patriots’ for ‘feeding racism’
Who is Peter Mandelson and what do we know about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein?
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson reaches next round of Labour deputy leadership race
If there was one member of the panel who kept trying to draw clear light blue water with the rest, it was Reform UK’s head of policy Yusuf, with an intervention which he knew would divide – attacking those arriving on small boats across the channel personally.
“I’m using the word invasion because over the last eight-and-a-half years, more people have turned up on the beaches illegally, uninvited, the majority of them men, the majority of them fighting age men that hate this country, including countries like Afghanistan, Syria. And, by the way, that is more people than stormed the beaches of Normandy on D-Day,” he told the audience.
This drew fire from new immigration minister Mike Tapp. He called this “Disgraceful behaviour, you wrap yourself in our flag but you will do nothing for this country. You’re plastic patriots. Disgusting.”
Yet Labour is trying to chart a middle course – language which shows it understands the scale of public anger, while creating a dividing line over the rhetoric.
Across the hour, the four-strong panel were never happier than when they were attacking each other’s language.
Much of the policy prescriptions looked like it left the audience non-plussed or even annoyed. Tapp promised further and faster.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Kieran Mullan, the Tory shadow justice secretary, stressed the Tories now had a fully thought through plan.
Lisa Smart, home affairs spokeswoman for the Lib Dems, pushed changing the rules to allow asylum seekers to find work. Yusuf promised a net negative migration policy involving detention and immediate deportation.
The truth is, there are no tested solutions that will, for certain, deliver the result the public wants. Each radical idea is as bold as it is untested. Nobody can for sure know what would amount to a deterrent, and whether this would work. The audience did not have a clear winner – no proposal appeared to gain favour outright judging by their reactions. The debate will continue.
Tonight’s debate showed a hint of danger for Labour, however. There was no doubting the passion in the audience but not every audience member wanted a clampdown.
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Two were passionate that the needs and rights of those fleeing war should be better looked after. Most of the audience wanted less, but a minority reject this approach and often such people lean left.
As Labour’s rhetoric gets tougher, will they be an electoral home for people like this in future?
