But there has been some discussion among the political twitterati are discussing of whether the Prime Minister has somehow 'set a trap' for the Labour leadership, with his claim that the last Labour government has sought to close down public debate on immigration.
However, this reading doesn't make much sense to me, as no doubt the Labour party's reaction to the speech this afternoon may demonstrate.
It is very clear that Ed Miliband thinks immigration is an important public issue to debate and respond to. He should therefore seek to open up a constructive, rational and less polarised debate about the issue, perhaps seeking to add more light and less heat than much of the debate this morning.
Take Ed Miliband's very first speech launching his leadership campaign, to the Fabian Society a week after last May's general election that immigration is an important issue, and that it is both possible and important to welcome the positive contribution that it makes to this country, while doing more to adddress the social and distributional pressures that it causes.
Britain’s diversity is an enormous strength: economically, culturally, socially and we should never cease saying it and we should say it more often.
But the truth is that immigration is a class issue.
If you want to employ a builder it’s good to have people you can take on at lower cost, but if you are a builder it feels like a threat to your livelihood.
And we never had an answer for the people who were worried about it.
When competition is driving down your wages and your pension rights, saying globalisation is good for you and for the economy as a whole is an example of what I mean about becoming a technocrat. Because it is a good answer for economists but it is no answer for the people of Britain.
So, for that voter in my constituency, and many others, we need to rediscover our sense of progressive mission.
Miliband made a similar argument in his first party conference speech as party leader. I noted in blogging on its themes that the emphasis placed on the importance of Labour root its engagement with the pressures of immigration and its response to public concerns in its own social democratic values.
Will Ed Miliband tell his party things they don't want to hear? The commentators claim not. He insisted that he would. The speech showed how one part of the strategy is to tell the party that it must face up to difficult challenges - not to trim on its values for electability, but because doing so is what is demanded by its own principles and values.
Take immigration: he told the party that being deaf to concerns about the social and economic pressures of immigration was to betray its own historic mission. Not to chase headlines in the Mail and the Sun, but to meet the concerns of Mirror readers about the wage pressures of immigration. "Immigration is a class issue" is an argument which combines Labour concerns with anxieties held by a broader public.
Most recently, the Labour leader was praised across the House, including by the Prime Minister, for his speech in the Libya debate which ended on why he and his family had important reasons to celebrate and be grateful for Britain's historic tradition of openness and generosity to refugees.
"Today's debate is conducted in the shadow of history of past conflicts. For me, it is conducted in the shadow of my family's history as well: two Jewish parents whose lives were changed forever by the darkness of the holocaust, yet who found security in Britain. This is a story of the hope offered by Britain to my family, but many of my parents' relatives were out of the reach of the international community and perished as a result. In my maiden speech in the House, I said that I would reflect
"the humanity and solidarity shown to my family more than 60 years ago".
These are the kind of things we say in maiden speeches, but if they are to be meaningful, we need to follow them through in deeds, not just words".
If we are going to have an open, rational and evidence-based debate, it is to be hoped that he and his colleagues can try to capture these nuances in how we talk about immigration.