Daniel RoperIf asked about the most frustrating aspect of the Starmer government, almost all political analysts’ response would probably contain the word “U-turns” at least once. In the eyes of the public, there seems to be no pledge on which Starmer will not renege, no promise he won’t bend or break, which has translated in his dismal polling position. One of the more baffling policy stances due to this tendency is the government’s position on immigration, which Starmer himself would have probably chastised as archaic and cruel before he became Labour leader.
In his 2020 Labour leadership campaign, Keir Starmer spoke highly of the ‘benefits of migration’, and the importance of making this clear to challenge the scapegoating of the right. ‘Low wages, poor housing, poor public services’ were ‘not the fault of migrants’, he said.1
Despite Starmer’s 2020 sentiment, Labour’s position on migration since coming to power has been near identical to the Conservatives. It is not that Labour felt that the idea of ‘stopping the boats’ was the problem, but instead that the Conservatives were ineffective at achieving that end. Labour’s plan has been to “smash the gangs”, closer co-operation with France and rumblings of return hubs2.
The announcement made on November 17th went even further, fundamentally redefining what it means to be a refugee in the United Kingdom. Each refugee will be reassessed every thirty months, with them being ‘returned’ (deported) if their home country is deemed safe. Furthermore, instead of it taking five years to attain citizenship, it will now take twenty.3 There were even rumblings (later denied) that jewellery would be taken to fund the asylum process.
The strategy of McSweeney and the Labour machine seems to be hoping that by broadly accepting Farage’s diagnosis of the immigration issue (think Starmer’s now infamous “island of strangers” quote), Labour can control the narrative through moderate centrist politics. This, however, has not materialised. Reform and Farage still sit tall at the top of the polls, with immigration as their top issue. All Labour’s strategy has done is embolden the populist right.
Such a policy must be a result of Farage’s popularity, with Starmer and co seemingly believing that a tough immigration policy is key on closing the gap. Farage’s solutions have grown more radical, with mass deportations planned as well as blocking those on small boats claiming asylum. Starmer at points seems opposed to this, calling Farage and his policies racist, yet also seems content to follow Farage’s lead when creating policy.
The big question is: has it worked? Are Labour’s policies providing a much-needed poll boost?
Evidently, the answer is no. According to YouGov, Labour have been hard stuck at 19 percent in voting intention since October, while Reform have remained at 26 percent.4 Government approval is at –60 percent, levels only seen during Liz Truss’s tumultuous and unprecedentedly short tenure.5 Now while this unpopularity is not solely due to migration, it has certainly played a role. According to Statista, 54 percent of voters rank immigration as one of the top three issues facing the country, putting it on par with the economy.6
Surely, if this is the case, why have these new policies not helped Labour’s popularity? The reason is not to do with Labour, but the problem of migration as a political issue in general. Most of the time, if a perceived problem decreases, then its prevalence in political discourse will similarly decrease. Migration is different. 2022 and 2023 saw unnaturally high levels of net migration, with the peak occurring in the year ending March 2023, with it standing at 944,000. By June 2025, this number was down to 204,000.7 Despite this, in March 2023, immigration was only seen as a top 3 issue 30 percent of the time, with it now as mentioned up to 54 percent.8 Although net migration has lowered, it is more of an issue with voters than ever. 67 Percent of voters even falsely believe that migration is rising.
This is because the issue is about narrative, not reality. Those on the right have managed to conflate migration with the failing NHS, the safety of women and dire public finances. Therefore, the perception of migrants entering, taking their jobs, using their healthcare benefits, raping their women, becomes ubiquitous, even though the stats don’t, in actuality, back this up. Consequently, ‘stopping the boats’ is no remedy to the migration issue.
Another key tenet of this narrative is the othering of those arriving. It is not as if those on the right wish they could help those arriving, but think the country is at capacity. Instead, stopping migration is about stopping an invasion by ‘fighting age men’, who are a threat to the British way of life. Whenever non-white violent crime occurs, it is seen as an issue of inferior cultures corrupting Britain. Therefore, anti-migration sentiment can be handily paired with nationalism as well as Islamophobia to energise voters.
The same figures on the right will be the first to defend Britain from ‘woke’ historical criticism, instead preaching national pride through campaigns like raise the colours, or big rallies through London. By appearing as the only people to defend Britain, any assessment of different cultures being un-British is likely to hold more weight.
This explains why Farage and co can enjoy such a monopoly over the narrative, yet one question remains. Why is Starmer neglecting the easiest attack line available? Why will he not mention Brexit? It was Farage who drove forward the Leave campaign, promising less immigration, more money for the NHS and control. Yet in June 2025, only 31 percent of Britons said that the UK was right to leave.9 Starmer could threaten his lead on immigration by making him defend Brexit’s record, including the accompanied increase in immigration. Starmer seems to still be chasing the 2019 voter, failing to appreciate that a pro-EU policy 5 years on, can be successful (just ask the Lib Dems).
Instead, Starmer is hoping that by shifting right, he will win over the voters who see things in this manner, yet it is futile. By buying into this prescription of the country’s issues, which much of the British public sees as a broader symptom of the neoliberal consensus between Labour and the Tories since 1997, all Starmer is saying is that his party does not have the solution. He is simply enabling the populist right and allowing the perpetual radicalisation of their narrative. Farage has gone from a fringe looney to arguably the most powerful force in British politics in his career, yet his stances have not changed. What has changed is the views of the British public, and discontent with the polarity of British politics after decades of stagnation.
As seen by the polls, this approach is not swaying potential Reform voters. What it will do however, is further weaken Starmer’s position. If Starmer lasts long enough for Mahmood’s policy to be voted on, then he must force Labour MPs to accept a proposal lauded by Tommy Robinson and Farage and condemned by Human Rights Watch. Before the Starmer tenure, this conundrum would have been unthinkable for Labour Party members and MPs alike, turning more and more left-leaning voters away from his party, as well as risking a rebellion from his MPs.
As the public watches Starmer drift helplessly to the right with this lame strategy, a powerful voice on the Left has emerged in Zack Polanski and the revived Green Party. Polanski is unafraid to call out what he sees as Starmer’s hypocrisy and continuous failure to challenge the insurgent right. Now, Starmer is stuck between a rock and hard place, with nowhere to manoeuvre or pivot, but continue down this long, murky stream of dog whistling and race-baiting. He has made his bed, now he must lie in it.
Discover more from Per Capita Media
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.