Comment Left has no idea what to believe on immigration

It provoked a blunt response from Mr McCluskey, who wrote complaining: “That is untrue, and is not supported by a single quote from me.”

It’s true that he did not say he wanted to end free movement.

But what exactly did he mean when he said that “unions understand that workers have always done best when the labour supply is controlled and communities are stable”?

What does controlling the supply of labour mean if it’s nothing to do with controlling the supply of workers coming in to the country?

And if he believes that “free movement of labour means downward pressure on wages”, how can he not oppose it?

Mr McCluskey is attempting to have his cake and eat it.

He faces a challenge for the role of Unite General Secretary from Gerard Coyne, the West Midlands Unite organiser who is standing against Mr McCluskey in an election next year.

One suspects that some Unite workers are worried about immigration, and Mr McCluskey wants to show them that he sympathises.

At the same time, he doesn’t want to be seen to be anti-immigration, a position which might leave him vulnerable to some critics on the left.

The Labour Party’s position is equally unclear. Keir Starmer, Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, said last week that “no comprehensive approach to Brexit or response to the referendum result can ignore the issue of freedom of movement.”

What does this mean in practice? He said: “The rules must change. And our new relationship with the EU will have to be one which is based on fair migration rules and the reasonable management of migration.”

When he says “the rules must change”, it seems clear that he means they must be changed to make them tougher – that “fair migration rules” should replace freedom of movement.

It’s certainly hard to see how rules could change to make it easier to come to the UK from an EU country than it is right now.

But other people in the Labour Party take a different view.

Diane Abbott, Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary, wrote: “It is frequently asserted that Labour should adopt a more hostile posture in relation to immigration in order to reflect the views of its supporters and potential supporters... the premise of these arguments is false. Labour voters have a net favourable attitude towards immigration.”

She said Labour would tackle exploitation of migrants and also help British workers improve their skills, which would “bear down on numbers of immigrants”.

But she appeared to say Labour did not in fact support tougher rules on immigration, and appeared to see the idea of controls as an attack on immigrants themselves. Asked about controls, she said: “We take those things extremely seriously, but it does no good to scapegoat immigrants.”

The Tories have their own problems, having re-committed themselves under Theresa May’s leadership to cutting migration to the tens of thousands, which would cause enormous hardship for employers if it was ever achieved. Most migrants come here because there are firms that want to employ them.

But at least the Conservatives have some sort of message. Labour and the wider Labour movement seem to have no idea what they believe.

Diane Abbott appeared to say Labour did not in fact support tougher rules on immigration