Despite overwhelming pressure during my 43 years, I have thus far resisted the temptation to join the Diane Abbott fan club. Those familiar with my work will attest, I despise turning a blind eye to dodge the slurs of misogynoir which often protect such Labour MPs from legitimate criticism.
Having said that, and notwithstanding the fact that Diane and I rarely see mojito-to-mojito on anything, I have developed a sort of grudging respect for the lady. Anyone who throws their hat into the public sphere, and leaves their chin exposed to the harsh blows of the media, has something to be said for them. In Diane’s case, this is heightened by the fact that she is so ‘gaffe’ prone.
One of her better characteristics, I’ve always found, is her willingness to stick to her guns, no matter the absurdity of the opinion. When famously rebuked by Michael Portillo for her assertion that Chairman Mao ‘on balance did more good than harm’, Abbott doubled down with ‘I was just putting the case for Mao’. It is reassuring to know that, come what may, you invariably know Diane’s position on an issue before she is aware of it herself.
That was until last week, when Abbott appeared to make a volte-face on the issue seemingly closest to her heart – immigration. In light of government plans to open up global Britain to the world’s brightest graduates, she tweeted:
Government boast it is opening up visas to the world’s top graduates. But many originally come from third world countries. Why is Britain asset stripping poor countries like this?
I confess to genuinely pinching myself. Was this the Diane Abbott we know and love? For as long as I can recall, Diane has always held the same position on immigration: ‘International students enrich us all in Britain’, the ‘Caribbean British community is owed more than gratitude’, and ‘Immigration is good for all of us’.
Before the last election, Diane was keen to remind us that Labour would put no limits on immigration, and that ‘Anti-immigration was bad for the economy’. She argued consistently for the extension of freedom of movement post-Brexit, refused to confirm Labour would deport illegal immigrants, and accused the Tories of ‘weaponising immigration’.
Here is a précis of (then) Shadow Home Secretary Abbott’s speech at Labour’s 2018 Party Conference:
As we have said many times, we will put prosperity and jobs first. To accept the immigrants we need, and those who are entitled to be here… We have skills shortages in this country…We will need more engineers, more scientists, more highly qualified professionals and technicians.
If we want the brightest and the best to come here we will need to offer the full benefits of a family life. Otherwise they will simply be attracted to other countries who will offer them those rights and benefits.
The question that must be answered is, ‘Will this benefit us all? And, if yes, we want you here.
Diane unequivocally favoured high-skilled immigration before the last election. Is this simply opposition for opposition’s sake, or is there another explanation for the change in policy? The only conclusion I can deduce, is that Labour favours low-skilled migrants who are of no discernible benefit to their own nations. In what way precisely does that benefit Britain?
Help us out Diane, what changed?
This piece was first published in the Salisbury Review, and is reproduced here by kind permission.
