“IT’S IMMIGRATION, STUPID!”
Shabana Mahmood unveiled major reforms of the UK’s asylum policy (through media appearances rather than a statement in the House, no doubt to the Speaker’s exasperation.) The Home Office described the narrative of the weekend’s television clips as the “most sweeping reforms to tackle illegal migration in modern times.” Key changes, drawn from the Danish “paradigm shift” of 2019, include:
- Refugee status becoming only ever temporary, with a review every 2.5 years.
- Permanent settlement only becoming possible after 20 years for those arriving illegally (rather than current 5 year wait.)
- Scrapping automatic housing and financial support for asylum seekers and making this discretionary, dependent on work, assets and language capability (possibly.)
(Catarina Demony & Alistair Smout, Reuters: Britain to make refugee status temporary under asylum overhaul, 16th November, 2025)
The Home Secretary framed the changes as necessary because the asylum system is “out of control and putting huge pressure on communities.” (Jessica Elgot, The Guardian: Asylum system in UK ‘out of control’ and dividing country, 16th November, 2025.)
Of course, the overhaul is a signalling device: the government wants to show that it is serious about border control, in response to pressure, principally from Reform UK.
However, there are serious human rights and integration risks: charities and refugee advocates have warned that making support discretionary could “traumatise” people (although presumably not as much as the trauma from which they escaped) and hinder long-term integration. (Umut Uras, Al Jazeera: UK to end ‘golden ticket’ for asylum seekers, 16th November, 2025.)
Although the language demonstrates a priority shift, the failure to address EHCR membership will allow both Reform UK and the Tories to say that Labour is talking a better game, but sabotaging, perhaps deliberately, the policy deliverability. The suspicion must be that Lawyer-in-Chief Starmer has accepted the need to appear tougher while relying on his mates in the Human Rights Bar preventing or delaying new Government policies ever delivering a significant change to the UK’s actual administration of asylum claimants, or, more widely, the care of illegal immigrants.
From a governance-capacity perspective: successfully reviewing refugee status every two and a half years, administering discretionary support and enforcing long settlement periods will require substantial new Home Office capabilities and capacity. If the Home Office remains critically under-resourced, the proposed change of asylum policy could simply worsen institutional breakdown and make Labour’s position look like a fig leaf to cover the lack of commitment to deliverable change. Reform UK circles overhead.
Leadership & factional politics
Within the Labour government, this proposed change to asylum policy plays to a tough-on-immigration narrative. Mahmood’s role is central, and she is likely to be rewarded in the party for taking a “law-and-order” position, though she risks alienating more progressive voices.
For the Conservatives: Labour’s challenge is balancing criticism. If they oppose too strongly, they risk being painted as soft on migration; if they stay mute, Reform UK could capitalise.
Reform UK, will frame these proposed reforms as insufficient because even a hard-line overhaul undercuts their pitch that the system remains too “soft.” It is inevitable that Reform’s response will be “it’s all a load of bollocks unless Labour pull the UK out of the ECHR.”
Nige will be deliriously happy as Labour’s policy shift acknowledges the political significance of Reform’s major policy platform and moves the debate markedly towards Reform’s home turf. This is the “Overton Window” in action: Mnsr Farage has shifted the terms of engagement to territory which he is profoundly comfortable on and for which he is widely seen as the only politician with serious willingness to engage. The “window” has lurched in to Reform’s comfy space.
Labour will have to manage the internal party tensions between its traditional humanitarian commitment and the electoral need to be “tough” on migration ahead of May’s local elections – which will cause passionate internal debates and which may lead to more defections from the Left to the Greens and potentially to actual splits. Nadia Whittome, Labour MP for Nottingham East and a member of the Socialist Campaign Group, said that moving UK asylum rules closer to the Danish model would be a “dangerous path” to take and that some of the Danish policies are “undeniably racist.” Telling BBCR4’s Today programme on Saturday 8th November: “I think this is a dead end – morally, politically and electorally” which doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement. (Interview with Gareth Snell MP by Nick Robinson starting from about 8:13am is available on BBC Sounds for one month following broadcast so until 7th December – I will try to remember to come back and update the link when it disappears!)
Broken Britain
The government’s framing of the asylum system as “out of control” is itself an admission that current institutional capacity is failing or stretched. The shift from guaranteed to discretionary support means local authorities, social services and charities will face more uncertainty: how many people will need housing? For how long? Under what conditions?
The operational challenge is significant: status reviews every 30months for potentially tens of thousands of people demand staffing, legal capacity as appeals mount. There is also a risk that conditional support will lead to localised crises: if people are denied help, there may be spikes in homelessness, destitution and pressure on charities, which may not be able to cope without government back-up.
Politically, this is an example of the fragmentation of entitlement, moving away from guaranteed rights toward a system that requires continuous evaluation and conditionality, which could weaken faith in public systems if not managed well.
Not to be ignored
The asylum reform comes just as the government is defending its broader immigration narrative: that current rules incentivise illegal routes, and that reform is needed to restore fairness and control. Criticism is already mounting: human-rights organisations are sounding the alarm over the risk of “limbo” for refugees, mental-health impacts, and the treatment of families.
The proposed reforms may reshape how the UK negotiates its ECHR obligations, particularly around the “right to family life” as the government is reinterpreting how Article 8 is applied. However, Starmer’s apparent determination to keep the UK within the ECHR offers Reform UK and, less aggressively, the Tories, an easy narrative to diminish the Labour Government’s policy shift as ineffective. There’s a real chance that the policy movement will satisfy no-one and provide critics with easier-to-grasp attack lines. Just saying….
QUICK JUDGMENT: A STICKING PLASTER OFFERED, BUT TOURNIQUET STILL REQUIRED.
My own feeling about this is that the sticking plaster has been offered as a diversion rather than a solution. Shabana Mahmood will make the formal announcement in the Commons on Monday and it will become clearer if this change is a change of direction or a change of heart once it is clearer whether these ideas for policy change will go out to “consultation”, be “subject to review before implementation” or if changes in rules and regulations are expected imminently.
Edited to add link to the Home Office policy paper “Restoring Order and Control” released on Monday 17th November 2025.
The Labour Party hope must be that their remaining voters will notice the new “commitment” to action but give them enough wiggle room to avoid delivering any real change before the next General Election. I think this is a mistake and underestimates both the mainstream electorate’s tolerance and understanding of political prevarication and procrastination.
Leave a Reply