Saying the Unsayable: Labour, Immigration, and the Shifting Political Climate

Starmer’s embrace of hard‑line border rhetoric reflects a rapidly shifting Overton window, where once-fringe views have surged into the mainstream.

We are living through rapidly shifting political times, as the existing left and right political spectrum struggles to align with the ever-changing policy motivations of the leading parties. The current landscape would have been scarcely believable a decade ago, with a Labour prime minister now vowing to take back control of Britain’s approach to immigration, and openly criticising the perceived failed experiment of open borders. Yet that is exactly what happened, as Keir Starmer unveiled a sweeping new immigration blueprint with the tone and substance traditionally associated with his right-wing adversaries. Shortly after its announcement, headlines were filled with quotes from the accompanying press conference that were nearly indistinguishable from statements made by those deemed far-right, just mere months ago. This has unsurprisingly ignited fierce infighting within the Labour party, as senior members rushed to disavow the more controversial comments and reiterate that the party hadn’t shifted further towards the political right.

For many years, Britain’s fraught immigration debate has been simultaneously weaponised by fringe groups to gain power, and minimised by political incumbents to maintain the status quo. As a consequence, the opposition-turned-government now saying what was once publicly unsayable has jolted Westminster and revealed just how much the centre of gravity in British politics has moved on this issue. Yet, it is not even the planned legislation that has been the point of contention, but instead the striking rhetorical pivot that is at odds with the party's pre-election image. Senior politicians, particularly in the Labour party, treated robust criticism of high immigration as something distasteful and even taboo, with sceptical voices deemed to be pandering to bigotry or xenophobia. However, Starmer’s new stance turns that approach on its head, effectively betting that by embracing ideas once admonished by his own party, he will align more closely with the growing public sentiment on immigration. This comes as a number of recent surveys found that immigration and the spectacle of small boats crossing the Channel had overtaken even the NHS as the public’s top priority.

In order to understand the magnitude of this U-turn, it's important to set this against the history of immigration related policies from both major parties. The last time Labour was in power, it championed globalisation and EU freedom of movement, convinced that more immigration would mean a stronger economy and society. Tony Blair’s government chose not to impose transitional quotas on workers from new EU member states, unlike most other EU nations, predicting that only about 13,000 people per year would come. The reality, of course, was that hundreds of thousands arrived in the years that followed, with communities across Britain feeling the impact on wages, public services, and local culture far more sharply than ministers had anticipated.

In response to this, David Cameron promised repeatedly to reduce net migration, only to break that vow again and again as EU free movement kept numbers elevated. The response to this lack of an effective solution drove in large part the 2016 Brexit referendum result, with a belief that leaving the EU would allow the country to regain sovereignty over immigration rules. Yet despite Brexit ending the automatic right of EU citizens to live and work in the UK, the governments that followed used this freedom not to tighten the tap so much as to redesign the immigration system to suit economic needs. Boris Johnson’s post-Brexit points-based system actually made it easier for non-Europeans to migrate for work, expanding eligibility to medium-skilled jobs and liberalising visa quotas. Consequently, net migration surged to record levels, combined with a spike in asylum seekers crossing the Channel, further reinforcing the public perception that Britain’s borders were out of control. Each new promise to curb the influx was seen as nothing more than window dressing, with decades of lofty assurances from successive governments totally eroding trust and creating an environment ripe for political disruption.

For Starmer, the political calculus is clear, Labour’s tougher talk arrives against a backdrop of surging support for hard-line alternatives, as Reform’s ascent both in polls and at the ballot box is unmistakable. Senior leadership will be acutely aware that many former Conservative voters lent Labour their support in the last general election not out of newfound affection, but out of frustration. So, after a succession of desperately unpopular policies in their first ten months in power, it's clear that these voters could just as easily drift to a third party if they sense continued weakness and misalignment with the public’s mandate. Yet, Labour are also aiming to reframe this sudden shift as not reactionary, but responsible governance, and to illustrate that this new leadership will not shy away from tough decisions like their predecessors.

However, the furore over Labour’s immigration pivot speaks to a larger truth about the current state of British politics. It is the fact that this topic was totally ignored by those in power and opposition unanimously for many years, that has allowed what was once a peripheral concern to metastasise into arguably the most important issue for the electorate. The previously unsayable became sayable because voters now appeared to demand it, and were given an opportunity to make this formally known. Had Reform not experienced such electoral support, it is doubtful that we would have seen such an abrupt change in tone. Labour’s new stance does not appear to be borne out of genuine conviction, but rather mere opportunism, with an aim to undercut the appeal of populist right-leaning parties who could previously claim that these issues were being swept under the rug.

In policy terms, the planned restoration of control over the immigration system is as sweeping an overhaul as its title suggests, yet the proposals have drawn fire from both flanks of the political spectrum. On the right, many consider Starmer’s conversion as being too little, too late, believing that only the most drastic clampdowns on immigration will be able to restore control. Labour’s planned legislative tweaks and revised targets, however tough-sounding, avoid addressing the influence of international law, with many on the right insisting that nothing short of withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights will enable a real clampdown on unwanted migration. They point to the continued impasse over small boat crossings, where plans to deport so-called asylum seekers have been bogged down by court proceedings. Yet this has been flatly rejected by Starmer, reinforcing scepticism from critics who believe that this tougher rhetoric has been forced upon him by the success of right-wing movements, and will crumble under internal party pressure.

Yet the outcry from the left has been equally critical, with the new stance seen as an abandonment of humanitarian values, accusing Starmer of cynically chasing votes at the expense of migrants. Many on the left have claimed to hear in Starmer’s rhetoric echoes of past populism and worry that genuine refugees will pay the price for Labour’s political positioning. Proposals to curtail appeals and make asylum harder to claim have prompted warnings that Britain could be reneging on its post-war commitments to protect those in need. Additionally, unions and industry voices warned that slamming the door on foreign workers could backfire, concerned that the new restrictions could stall growth and increase costs. Even within the Labour party, a quiet rumbling can be heard from those who fear that the party is betraying its legacy, and are uncomfortable with seeing a Conservative-like immigration policy being rolled out.

If Starmer had aimed to seize the middle ground on immigration, the immediate response suggests that he has instead landed in a crossfire. However, what is undeniable is that the conversation surrounding immigration has shifted far more rapidly than many would have expected. Ideas and language that had previously been banished to the political outskirts have now re-entered the mainstream. Yet, whether this marks a much-needed course-correction or the beginning of a darker political era will depend upon the effectiveness of Labour’s policy blueprint. It remains to be seen whether Labour can actually address the reality of immigration in a way that reduces the momentum of the disruptive right-wing parties without alienating its core left-aligned voter base. Saying the unsayable is all very well, but when in power, the electorate will also expect Labour to now do what others previously couldn’t, or wouldn’t.