Is Labour turning to the right in its approach to immigration?

Sean O’Grady examines the prime minister’s latest plans to tackle irregular migration, and asks what might come next in what is an increasingly toxic debate

The prime minister has taken the opportunity of another international summit on migration to try to build international cooperation on the issue, talk tough on “illegal” (ie irregular) migration, and announce a new law that penalises companies for evading legal checks on people’s right to work in the UK (which asylum seekers are not permitted to do).

Some 40 countries, along with tech giants such as Meta, X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok, are represented at the meeting. Also notable by their presence were representatives from Vietnam, Albania and Iraq – prime sources of migration. It signals a continuing emphasis on meeting the public’s concerns, and a shift to the right in rhetoric and policy...

What’s new?

Keir Starmer’s more aggressive rhetoric – and, more specifically, a new law that promises penalties for outfits that don’t check on the right to work of their often casual employees, particularly in construction. In Starmer’s words: “We have to be honest here. For too long, the UK has been a soft touch on this ... Too many dodgy firms have been exploiting a loophole to skip this process: hiring illegal workers, undercutting honest businesses, driving down the wages of ordinary working people.”

For those found guilty, there’s a fine of up to £60,000, a maximum prison term of five years, and the closure of their business.

Is Starmer sounding more like... Nigel Farage?

Unmistakeably. It’s more carefully done, so that, for example, it’s unscrupulous British bosses rather than the immigrants themselves who are blamed for driving down wages, and targeted by the harshest words – but there’s no mistaking the shift. Starmer’s latest activity on X is another example of the blunter language: “If you don’t have the right to be in this country, then you shouldn’t be here. It’s that simple.”

There’s also a slightly unnerving official pride in the numbers being deported, sometimes accompanied by grim videos on social media. By contrast, you now never hear Labour politicians talk about “safe and secure routes” for refugees, as they did so much in opposition.

What about action?

It’s changing. At the weekend, the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said: “We’ve had a 40 per cent increase in illegal working raids since the elections. So some of the changes that we have made, that are having an impact already, are a 20 per cent increase in returns – over 19,000 people returned who have no right to be in the UK.” She added that there would be many more police and Border Force raids on places of work where “illegal” migrants are thought to be employed – a strongly Trumpian move.

What’s next?

Almost incredibly, given Starmer’s background as a progressive lawyer, it’s virtually an open secret that he is thinking about ways to avoid the use of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in criminal deportations. This has been the subject of some lurid reportage, and as a result, the public has gained the impression that the courts block deportation of sometimes serious criminals because of trivial “family rights” complications.

Beyond that, there are also well-supported rumours that the government wants to send irregular or economic migrants to the western Balkans, where “overseas hubs” would be established. The idea is to house failed asylum seekers from countries that are clearly unsafe for them to be returned to, such as Iran and Somalia. Other rejected claimants would also be lodged there before being returned to their safer home countries.

Under similar populist political pressure in Europe, the EU Commission wants to endorse the use of “return hubs” by member states as an “innovative” solution for “migration management”. The main benefit to the UK would be faster and cheaper processing. It’s not clear whether refugees with a valid claim would still be able to settle in the UK or, if not, where they would go instead.

What does the opposition say?

The Conservatives argue that the government lacks a “deterrent” to migration, and that “smashing the gangs” isn’t working. They defend their Rwanda plan, saying it was just about to yield its benefits when Labour abolished it. Even so, they are not committed to bringing the Rwanda plan back.

Kemi Badenoch is open to leaving the Convention in certain circumstances: “When it comes to the ECHR [European Court of Human Rights], I have always been very clear that the ECHR should not stop us from doing what is right for the people of this country and what is right in our national interest. And if it continues to do so, at some point we will probably have to leave. What I have not agreed with is deciding that we should leave without having a plan for what that looks like, and how to do so in a way that makes sense.”

Reform UK is committed to leaving the Convention and removing all “illegal migrants”. The Liberal Democrats say immigration is “too high”, but want the UK to take its “fair share” of refugees.

Who’s winning on migration?

Reform UK, who have managed to move up in the polls to first or second place. The problem for Starmer and Badenoch is that they can never outflank Nigel Farage on migration. The good news for them is that the now former Reform MP Rupert Lowe has found a way to outdo his former leader with his simple slogan of “Detain. Deport” – and with his enthusiasm for the deportation of migrants who have settled in the UK, and of some from a recent migrant background who were born in the UK and hold British citizenship.

If Lowe divides the extreme right and picks up momentum, he could inflict damage on Farage.

Meanwhile, without enough migrants, the UK economy continues to struggle, and public services don’t improve – while the migrants, who could build houses and staff care homes, are victimised. Starmer may be trying to neutralise the populist challenge, but this is becoming an increasingly toxic, and viciously Islamophobic, debate.