In recent years, there has been much discussion regarding why the Labour Party has struggled to win elections since the end of the New Labour years, even though the left dominates culture. Much attention has been paid to the role identity politics has played in this, along with Momentum and Jeremy Corbyn’s influence on the party. However, there is an underlying issue that is not so much examined, which is the left’s issue with physical boundaries. 

National borders are a prime example of this. According to recent research by YouGov, a majority of the British public have positive attitudes towards migrants coming to work (41%), reuniting with family (40%) or setting up a business (51%). However, 56% held a negative view towards migrants crossing the channel by boat, an obvious infringement of rules highlighting issues with border security. Comparisons have been made with Australia’s strict control of its borders.

Hope not Hate, a charitable trust, released a report on 1st November with a foreword by Labour MP Stephen Kinnock. Understanding Community Resilience in Our Towns examined, amongst other things, attitudes towards immigration and vulnerability to divisive narratives, particularly those of the far-right. 

The report raised concerns about towns being “significantly less liberal about migration and multiculturalism than big cities” in the UK. Yet, wanting clear national boundaries and lower levels of immigration does not mean that one is vulnerable to extremism. It is important not to stereotype those with more culturally conservative attitudes. 

However, the report also raised important issues, notably that some people are particularly hostile to immigration, seeing it as “having negative effects on all aspects of life”. Defining them as ‘Active Enmity’, Hope Not Hate discovered they believe that violence is acceptable when one is standing up for what is ‘right’. Research such as this reveals when attitudes cross a line and is valuable in enabling underlying problems to be resolved through support and discussion. 

Issues with boundaries are not only found on the left. Paul Lincoln, appointed Director-General of the UK Border Force in 2017 by the Conservative government, raised concerns this month when he said: “Bloody borders are just such a pain in the bloody arse … We’re all human beings, we’re all mammals,” in his departure speech. 

One can sympathise with the frustrations that must have come with his job. However, though Lincoln’s personal politics are unclear, it is a startling thing for someone in charge of immigration enforcement to say. After all, how can a country exist without a clearly enforced boundary? If his comment has been misconstrued, Lincoln needs to clarify his position and beliefs around this issue. 

Challenging and even deconstructing boundaries is at the heart of identity politics, which largely sees human beings as blank slates shaped by social forces. Biology is often side-lined with respect to gender, which is perceived as a social construct. This intellectual blurring of the boundaries between males and females creates issues in the physical world. 

This has been unhelpful in discussions concerning the tension between sex-based rights and trans rights, particularly regarding access to public spaces where people are vulnerable. According to the Transphobia Report by Galop in 2020, nearly two-thirds of transgender respondent felt unable to use public restrooms due to prejudice. One in five had been threatened with, or experienced, sexual assault at some point over the previous year.

However, in data uncovered by The Times in 2018 regarding women’s safety, almost 90% of reported sexual misconduct in swimming pool and sports centre changing rooms occurred in unisex facilities. Of 134 complaints, 120 were in mixed sex facilities and 14 in single sex facilities.

Discussions attempting to find a workable solution to this and other sensitive issues are often challenging due to the aggression of a minority who tend to have views rooted in identity politics. Universities therefore need to be spaces where differing opinions can be offered freely. Unfortunately, this is becoming more difficult. Professor Kathleen Stock recently left the University of Sussex following a campaign of intimidation centred around her gender critical views.

She is not the only person to have been ‘cancelled’. It is ironic that a movement so keen on dismantling boundaries enforces its own vehemently via tactics such as no-platforming and cancel culture.

Part of this is due to left-leaning institutions in academia, arts and culture not setting boundaries from the outset against such behaviour. Though Stock was positive about the university’s approach ‘more recently’, it seems this has not always been the case. This difficulty in standing up to intimidation exacerbates the problem and raises questions about what institutions truly stand for. It has revealed a crisis of confidence in many areas of our culture.

Though many on the left hold different views, notably Paul Embery and the Blue Labour movement, those who are highly pro-openness are culturally very strong and dominate social media. It undermines confidence, as setting boundaries is essential in ensuring people feel safe and protected. In order to secure the public’s trust, the left needs to examine its attitudes towards this important issue and not jump to conclusions about those with differing opinions.