I paraphrase, of course. But now that Blue Labour has had the last rites read to it, it's worth thinking a bit about what else we need to be pushing Labour to do if we're urging the party to adopt a liberal position on immigration.
One thing the party could do is offer Anthony Painter a job somewhere near the top of it's policy-making structure. This is a very good post over on Labour List complements this one on the Guardian site - both worth a read.
This bit stood out for me:
"...when communities change rapidly there is plenty of research to suggest that people can become alienated and mistrustful.This is the gap in Labour's thinking - a gap that I don't think it's yet capable of filling.
These challenges can be mitigated by a sensible immigration policy mixed with imaginative and determined community interventions..."
What are these imaginative and determined community interventions? Where is Labour discussing them or addressing them? Where is the evidence that Labour thinks that this (social engineering?) is part of the role of government?
Labour would have been incapable of coming up with a concept like The Big Society - an idea that works on many levels if you can get over the real appeal that it has for the Tories (hiding an assault on collective action behind a backing for a version of it that's doomed to failure without a strong public sector behind it). When you choose social enterprise as your engine for change, you might as well admit being a saboteur of your own idea.
One of the big hidden problems Labour has had for a long time now is that it's policy drivers were managerialists. Consultants can sell government big solutions or things that involve policies. But no-one in the last government was interested in something that involves improvisation and local spontaneity. You can't procure or commission that sort of thing.
In the minds of a large part of the previous Labour government, that's like saying that it's impossible to contemplate.