Progressives must see the common ground between refugees and the precariat and press for holistic compassionate action

The Calais 'Jungle' is to be broken up, with its ten thousand inhabitants to be dispersed to smaller centres scattered throughout France. Photograph: Calais Jungle on 17 January 2016 by Malachy Browne (License) (Cropped)

Immigration returns to the headlines today, across Europe, as the French Government sets about the final break up of the Calais 'Jungle' camp (Chrisafis et al, 2016). After what is now years of being the last stop for refugees headed for Britain, the camp's inhabitants are to be dispersed in small groups to smaller processing camps scattered right across France.

For Britain's Conservative Government, seeing the Jungle broken up means showing some sort of progress on crude pledges to tackle migration. For the French Socialist Government it means breaking up the most visible of symbols of immigration that Far-Right parties twist into provocation.

The desperation of the French Socialist ministers to avoid provoking the Far Right speaks to the deep trouble progressives are having with the issue of migration. In the UK, the Labour Party became so desperate during the last election campaign that they virtually wholly swallowed anti-immigration rhetoric and produced a commemorative mug to prove it.

The truly progressive position on migration is to take an internationalist view. To see people in a broad, humanitarian way that rejects the sectarian thinking of nationalism - that degrades people by categorising them into those for who we can and cannot care, shutting out the world that lies beyond narrowly defined and jealous borders.

From the internationalist perspective, there are two facts. First, there are a large number of people displaced and facing homelessness and absolute poverty. And second, there is another large number of people who live precariously and see danger in an influx of more poor people on their life chances and opportunities.

For an internationalist, that is the state of things across the whole of Europe, not the unique problem of any one country alone. Whichever administrative division they may be found in, both matter and both must be addressed with care.

One thing that is notable is the absence of any particular effects upon those more well to do and secure. Therein lies an implication that a commonality exists between the two groups, the precariat and the refugees. Both find themselves caught between the hammer and the anvil: extremism and war on the one hand, and an exclusionary economic system on the other.

Embracing the sectarian, nationalist and conservative approach of dividing people, particularly the poor, does nothing but force them into competition with each other for basic dignity. That is inhumane - and doesn't even solve the problems. Instead, it just moves the problems around, pushing them into the shadows or handing them off to someone else.

Progressives must fight the divisive pitting of the precariat against refugees, and dispel the idea that refugees are being cared for at the expense of the precariat. An holistic vision that alleviates the pressure on both groups is essential.

In all of this, respect for the dignity of refugees and the precariat is imperative. Exclusion has bred fear and that has to be fought with hope. The first step in that is compassion - reaching out, listening and offering positive steps that are inclusive and respectful.

Europe is facing a humanitarian crisis, far too serious to be reduced to being the subject of petty political point-scoring

Despite David Cameron's flippant dismissal, something must be done to aid those suffering in Europe's humanitarian crisis. Photograph: Calais Jungle on 17 January 2016 by Malachy Browne (License) (Cropped)

In a week where Chancellor George Osborne had given the government one miniature PR crisis by claiming the retrieval of 3% Tax from Google as a victory (Churcher & Woodcock, 2016), it was almost inconceivable that a member of the government could make things worse. Almost.

During Wednesday's Prime Ministers Questions, Prime Minister David Cameron, as nothing more than a cheap shot at his opponent Jeremy Corbyn, dismissed the refugees in the 'Calais Jungle' camp as 'a bunch of migrants' (Dearden, 2016). The Prime Minister has been roundly criticised for his lack of tact or concern.

The particularly troubling thing is that this is neither Cameron's, nor his government's, first time treating the, largely Syrian, refugees that have fled to Europe with such disdain. A senior minister and Cameron himself have previously dehumanised refugees with words like 'swarm' and suggestions that towns were being 'swamped by migrants' (Elgot & Taylor, 2015; Syal, 2014).

This Conservative attitude does their position no favours and does them no credit. Having already resoundingly rejected UK involvement in taking a share in a proposed Europe-wide support network for those refugees who have fled into Europe (Parker & Robinson, 2016; BBC, 2016), such language doesn't paint their stance in a positive light.

As it happens, Cameron's stated priorities with regards to the refugee crisis are not tremendously far from the broad consensus: the people, made refugees by war, want to go home (Capaldi, 2016).

Cameron's plan is for the UK, firstly, to support the refugees who have stayed in North Africa and the Middle East (Watt, 2015). Then, secondly, to push for international resolution on a plan to create safe spaces in war-torn Syria, to allow those fleeing to return home.

Leading progressives like Guy Verhofstadt, former Prime Minister of Belgium and leader of the Liberals in the European Parliament, have stressed the need for similar priorities (Verhofstadt, 2016). Yet Verhofstadt also points out the big weakness undermining those in Cameron's position: being too tied up in managing and attempting to satisfy domestic nationalism to tackle the bigger picture.

However much of a priority it is, truly, to provide aid to those who have remained in Syria and Lebanon, the fact remains that turning a blind eye to those who have, and continue, to arrive in Europe will not solve anything. In Europe, conditions are worsening, restrictions are getting more severe, and there is a risk of hearts turning colder (BBC, 2015; Crouch & Kingsley, 2016).

What is especially unhelpful in that charged atmosphere are comments that belittle or dehumanise refugees, especially when those comments come from a Head of Government - and one who is, no less, part of the continental council whose job it is to come up with a solution to this major humanitarian crisis.

How can a political figure think anyone could take them seriously if they can be so flippant about people in distress? How can they be relied upon, trusted, to develop a respectful and humane response to a very human crisis?

This isn't a time for cheap, political point-scoring. Like it or not, refugees are here in Europe. Pettiness won't change that, only a concerted humanitarian effort in both Europe and the Middle East can alleviate their plight. Being prepared to stand together in support of vulnerable people is the only way out of this crisis.

A sudden, stark and tragic turning point for our common humanity

Yesterday, the British media at large made a dramatic U-turn. After years of pushing aggressive and insensitive attitudes towards migrants of all kinds, the death of one small boy - an image thrust right into face of people across the UK - has produced a dramatic volte face (Wintour, 2015).

Suddenly, the reality of the humanitarian crisis caused by the war in Syria and by the other ongoing conflicts in North Africa - such as in Libya and Iraq - was out in the open. These people were no longer dehumanised 'immigrants' out to steal jobs. They were human beings again, terrified strangers fleeing for their lives.

With the apparent shift in public opinion represented by the change in the media's tone, David Cameron's Premiership is suddenly under substantial pressure (Wintour, 2015{2}). While Cameron has stood resolutely aloof, governments across Europe have at times creaked with the strain and ordinary people have taken the responsibility upon themselves to save lives and to shelter them (Duffy, 2015; Moore, 2015).

The shift in the media tone may well be the signal for the government to now alter its policy with regards to the crisis - in particular accepting more of the refugees from Syria. But, behind the present crisis, there is a dangerous matter just as large that the shift in tone may begin to address. And that is the dehumanisation that has crept into public attitudes over the last decade (Kingsley, 2015).

Those attitudes, of reducing human beings to crude caricatures based on simplistic, grim and derogatory terms, posed as much of a threat to the internal workings of British society as it did to outsiders unfortunate enough to cross paths with it. It turns people cold towards outsiders of all kinds - including the least fortunate in their own communities, who find themselves suffering from cruel stigmas and draconian crackdowns in addition to poverty and homelessness (Sparkes, 2015).

Hopefully - and it should be stressed that this is hope - this one tragedy, and the sudden stark turning point it has made possible, can at least have a decisive impact and force a step forward in the recognition of our common humanity.

Humanitarian government is under attack and progressive opposition can no longer afford to be weak, scattered and resigned

The humanitarian crisis signified by the proliferation of food banks is a controversial legacy of the coalition government. Photograph: Woodcock St food bins in 2013 by Birmingham News Room (License) (Cropped)

The financial crisis and the austerity that followed exposed a vein of deep conservatism in Europe. Prodded in this raw spot, Europe has become defensive, closed and mean (The Guardian, 2015). That has been most apparent in the attack that has been launched, across the continent, on humanitarian government.

Everywhere, there is an eagerness for the throwing up of fences to separate us (Colonnelli, 2015), as nationalism has reared its head. As it has risen, it has brought with it a creeping fear and a deep mistrust of otherness. Those tensions have become so obvious, and so threatening, that the question of whether the Jewish people of Europe are still safe on the continent has even been asked (Omer-Jackaman, 2015).

All the while, internally, the community safety nets are being torn down in the name of austerity. The harsh and narrow terms set for what little support remains has left it in the hands of individual insurance, food banks and personal philanthropy to 'handle' those who fall behind or fall outside of the system (Snow, 2015).

By advocating the protection of the poor from their poverty, openness towards - and acceptance of - outsiders, and the protection minorities from the tyranny of the majority, humanitarianism is flying in the face of these, the dominant political values of the time. As a result, the idea of a humanitarian government is being besieged upon all sides and is slowly being deconstructed.

One place where it would be tempting to lay all of the blame for this, would be upon the ascendency of conservatism.

Conservatives, taking the opportunity presented by government institutions weakened by taking on the debt of private firms to allay the financial crisis, have shown an aggressive determination to strip back the state in the name of 'fiscally responsible' austerity and balanced budgets.

Yet, a large part of the blame must go to a damp progressive opposition that has failed to stand up for humanitarianism. This has been particularly stark in the UK, where the Labour Party so spectacularly failed to oppose the Conservative's coercive restructure of welfare (BBC, 2015).

The largest factor in this weak response seems to be a loss of confidence in positive government action. The financial crisis damaged the reputation of government - even despite government having been the mechanism with which the original crisis, that the private sector catastrophically caused, was tackled.

Without confidence and trust in government, and its ability to tax and spend to act positively, the Left - liberal and socialist - has lost its traditional tool. That has left progressives stranded, caught between accepting the popular conservative austerity narrative and trying to resurrect the old statist one. The lack of fresh ideas has been astounding.

That lack of conviction, and ingenuity, is proving disastrous for the progressive vision of civil society, where something not far short of a class war is playing out.

Even as conservatives have taken away 'dependence' creating government organisations, withdrawing the state's helping hand, around the world NGOs - Non-governmental organisations - are facing regulations and crackdowns that hinder their work supporting human rights and humanitarian aims (Sherwood, 2015). Control over civil society is being consolidated by those in power and it is being reshaped around their own competitive agenda.

This is leading to a kind of class consolidation, reinforcing the social hierarchy with meritocratic competition. Individuals are being pitted against each other in order to generate innovation and end the 'dependence' of the individual upon society. However, the deconstruction of humanitarian government is burdening, predominantly the poor, individuals with the prospect of a life of servitude.

For the Left, communitarians and individualists alike, these factors aught to be acting as a rallying flag. This is a common humanitarian cause which strikes to the heart of what progressives cherish most: justice and liberty.

The old welfare state served as holding pattern, a bastion against conservatism. As the stronghold began to show cracks, in the UK the Liberal Democrats arguably held back the worst of the flood in government (The Guardian, 2015{2}). However, that party has been cast out to the fringes and the walls of the fortress have crumbled.

So new barricades are needed.

As the argument of Oscar Wilde goes: charity is an insufficient and insulting partial restitution to the people of what was taken from them; and the ethical aim is to reconstruct society so poverty is impossible. That is the kind of radical thinking that is demanded from progressives if they are going to defend humanitarian government.

From political reform, to economic reforms like the Citizen's Income, co-operatives and mutuals, to policies aimed at ensuring sustainability and addressing the cost of living like green energy and housebuilding plans, the necessary ideas exist. The task ahead of progressives is to construct a reformist program for government with these ideas, rooted in strong evidence, and to assemble around it a formidable alliance to stand, both in civil society and at elections, for the common good.