Shabana Mahmood’s asylum announcement this week, in both rhetoric and policy, was an unexpected bolt from the blue (or Blue Labour).
Her approach has already generated a burgeoning list of Labour rebels, and outrage from Green and independent parliamentarians and commentators. But it reads the public mood, and better than any other measure by the government in recent months – if not the past year.
The vast majority of Britons think the rate of illegal immigration is too high. And nearly half (48 per cent) think legal immigration is also too high. Some 29 per cent think legal immigration numbers are “about right”, while only 8 per cent say it’s “too low”. The politics of “send them back” is no longer a fringe view. It’s become less of a fringe view since the ascendance of Reform.
Research briefed to Downing Street reveals cuts to boat crossings would have one of the biggest impacts on the government’s poll ratings with the public, second only to a recovery in the health of the NHS.
YouGov polling finds a policy of admitting no more and even “sending some back” would be supported by 45 per cent of the public, and opposed by 44 per cent. That’s the state of the nation in 2025.
Polling on the concept of tougher asylum and immigration rules gains widespread support, including among the Labour base and current supporters of the Greens. When push to comes to shove, most, including the supporters of leftist parties, want tougher rules.
But being too hardline can lead parties into hot water. Reform’s plan to abolish indefinite leave to remain, subject to new and uncertain conditions, was something I said went too far. It turned the debate from one about numbers into one about neighbours. Opponents could confidently argue against it without alienating those irate with the rate of immigration.
Labour is facing a similar backlash. Reports that a refugee’s jewellery would be confiscated to pay for migrant accommodation hit a raw nerve, though spokespeople were quick to reassure that “family heirlooms” wouldn’t be taken.
As we have seen before, humanised debates can change the debate. The photo of Alan Kurdi, a drowned Syrian toddler in 2015 that “Europe could not save”, did soften attitudes. Enough perhaps to change the debate in parliament and SW1. But not enough to change the debate at home. And however the mood shifts, I would not expect the public to fully reverse its view on immigration numbers. Because whatever their merits, these measures by Mahmood read the room better than most.
Yet she does not have an easy road ahead. Her statement to the Commons was a declaration of direction. A consultation is to follow and detail the specifics. Deportation may require primary legislation, which would delay implementation, and challenge in the courts could slow it by years. And involvement of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) could only kick it further down the road.
Delays only elevate Reform. Farage wants Britain out of the ECHR. Labour is proposing a direction of travel on immigration that may involve a showdown with Britain’s last European institution. It may advocate changes to the relationship with the ECHR, such as derogation from Article 8 (the right to family life, an apparent obstacle to an effective policy on borders). All this will raise the salience of the debate before the public sees results.
This is a huge risk. Is Labour ready for it? More importantly, is Labour united for it?
[Further reading: Will the government seize jewellery at the border?]
Content from our partners
Related
