The return of former Prime Ministers to the public conversation now appears a matter of public normality. Previously rare interventions have become a regularity from John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in particular. Theresa May makes frequent interventions in the House of Commons as a backbencher, providing a voice of dissent. Whatever your opinions on them, it’s undoubtedly the case that their voices are a commanding presence that attract attention.
Tony Blair perhaps above all else is the one who receives the most press coverage when he speaks out. A three time election winner who governed for a decade, the successes and controversy of his period in office mean a story about him will receive traction. Indeed, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change is specifically designed around policy proposals for the future. Blair has said he has every intention of mirroring Henry Kissinger and continuing to contribute to debate into his 90s, as is his right. Their latest offering may sound like a familiar blast from the past. Posing a solution to the rise of migrants arriving in small boats that doesn’t involve being sent to Rwanda (something all of the remaining Tory leadership candidates still support), the Institute has instead proposed a digital ID card scheme, using biometrics to guarantee migrants can work legally and share their data. Sound familiar? Identity cards were of course a tenet of Tony Blair’s domestic response to the War on Terror, seeking to mirror the continent in surveillance and citizen documentation. The first piece of legislation to be abolished under the coalition government in 2010, the public support for ID cards remains strong. Indeed, a survey found 55% of the public would support Tony Blair’s new proposal, with 28%, including me, opposing it. This is unsurprising. The general public are usually in favour of authoritarian responses, especially when something is seen as a threat. Support, for example, for extended detention without trial was strong among voters, even when MPs like David Davis were opposed. This does not, however, make them or the Institute correct. Blair himself long been in favour of seeing collected data as a response to most policy issues, be it terrorism, Covid-19 or migration. It is true the UK - along with Ireland and Denmark - are rare in Europe for not having some form of central identity card. I like to think it is rather admirable. Instead of having to prove who we are as citizens to the state, the state must prove itself to us. Of course, when trying to legally work, some form of legal documentation is necessary for employers to avoid finding themselves in hot water. But the arguments about privacy and civil liberties are relevant, whatever Blair might say. In 2006, he argued introducing ID cards was a matter of modernity. This sort of rhetoric mirrors his attitude towards technology as an inevitability and unashamed good. What his response seeks to do, therefore, is provide a technocratic answer repeatedly by suggesting issues should not be up for ideological battle. Blair seeks to reduce any contestation of views and increase the depoliticisation of ideas. Blair has form on this with other policy areas. He argued trying to debate globalisation was like debating the weather, rather than recognising its embracement had trade-offs. Similarly, by refusing to make the case for the European Union and recognise the opposition to it, Blair played a pivotal role in fuelling figures like Farage and UKIP to success. It’s without question to me that Blair is personally supportive of immigration. Not choosing to impose limits when eight nations joined the EU was a clear sign he recognises the value from migration. Instead of seeking to mitigate concerns about immigration through an illiberal policy of a centralised database, Blair should be one of the keenest advocates behind making the moral case for immigration. What does this mean? Such terminology is fairly self-explanatory when it comes to refugees and asylum seekers. The admirable Home for Ukrainians scheme, alongside providing pathways for Afghan refugees, is necessary and right. Humans are bound together by a desire not to see one another suffer. The threat of war and death, having to leave the place of safety is utterly unimaginable, yet is a sad reality for so many. However, this support for immigration should extend beyond those seeking to flee war. What about those fleeing poverty? Often dismissed as economic migrants, I think individuals seeking to move themselves and their families potentially halfway around the world in search of a better life are immensely courageous. It is the definition of embracing human agency by seeking to transcend the accidents of birth and not be fatalistic. Indeed, by an individual seeking to better their own life, that normally involves bettering the country in which they do so. Far from decrying immigration figures, British society should celebrate that so many individuals see the UK as a beacon to improve themselves. If the UK was not an attractive, outward looking country, would so many want to move here? The case for immigration is therefore a positive one, both for the immigrants and individuals already present in the UK, from an economic and social perspective. In a separate blogpost, I will explore some of the common objections to immigration (this is mainly a reminder for me to do this), outlining why I think individuals have more in common and solidarity with immigrants. This is only the start of a substantive argument in favour of immigration. Tony Blair should evolve as a political figure by altering the opposition he held towards properly debating globalisation and the EU. With immigration, rather than a policy measure that damages privacy, he should stand on the public stage in favour of something that is a public good. Making the positive case for immigration is not always a politically easy move, but it is morally the correct one.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|