Keir Starmer’s immigration plans: Why mimicking the far right won’t defeat It
When British Prime Minister Keir Starmer stood before the nation on 12 may, vowing to “finally take back control of our borders,” it was a moment thick with political symbolism—and familiar rhetoric. The phrase, made famous during the Brexit referendum, echoed the words of Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, and the leave campaign, all of whom used it to stoke fears around immigration and national sovereignty.
This was no accident. Starmer’s deliberate use of the phrase signalled a clear attempt to seize the narrative long dominated by the far right. By unveiling Labour’s white paper on immigration with such language, Starmer sought to position his government as the party that would deliver on promises many feel were never kept. Yet, despite the bold rhetoric, his approach risks not defeating the far right, but emboldening it.
Throughout his address, Starmer painted a picture of a nation torn apart by what he described as an “experiment in open borders” under the previous Conservative governments. He decried the “squalid” state of politics and promised to “close the book” on what he sees as a divisive chapter for Britain. However, this framing closely mirrors far-right narratives which pin societal decline squarely on immigration, turning migrants into convenient scapegoats for deeper systemic issues.
Indeed, Starmer’s insistence that harsher immigration controls are merely reflecting “the people’s priorities” echoes the same populist logic frequently weaponised by the far right. The suggestion is that Labour is only acting on long-held public desires. But as political scientist Aurelien Mondon’s research highlights, this claim does not stand up to scrutiny. When asked about personal priorities, Britons overwhelmingly cite the cost of living, housing, and education as their top concerns. Immigration rarely enters the conversation at a personal level. It is only when asked about national priorities—shaped by relentless media and political narratives—that immigration rockets to the top.
This dissonance reveals an uncomfortable truth: the immigration debate in Britain is as much about perception as it is about lived experience. And by amplifying far-right talking points—intentionally or not—Labour risks hardening these perceptions further.
Starmer’s speech also invoked classic conspiratorial tropes commonly heard from the far right, suggesting the Tories were pursuing a secret “one-nation experiment” to deceive the public into accepting mass immigration. These kinds of assertions feed directly into the baseless claims that elites are deliberately flooding the country with migrants to undermine national identity—an idea that has been central to far-right propaganda for years.
Furthermore, history shows that these tactics do not neutralise the far right. Quite the opposite. By embracing their rhetoric, mainstream parties give these narratives legitimacy and drive them deeper into public discourse. This was painfully evident during the riots of summer 2024, when protesters carried placards emblazoned with “stop the boats”—a phrase popularised by the Conservative government and now seemingly endorsed by Labour.
More Read
Critically, this strategy overlooks the fact that people are already suffering under existing draconian immigration policies. Instead of fixating on outmanoeuvring Reform UK in a hypothetical future election, Starmer’s government should be addressing the immediate harm caused by punitive immigration measures and the toxic rhetoric surrounding them.
In reality, the far right is not an abstract electoral threat lurking in the distance—it is already shaping British politics today. And the danger is that in trying to defeat them on their own terms, Labour simply moves the political centre further to the right, leaving vulnerable communities exposed to even harsher policies.
Ultimately, you cannot defeat the far right by becoming them. The evidence shows it is both electorally counterproductive and ideologically bankrupt. Even if it worked at the ballot box, the human cost remains. The task now is to challenge exclusionary narratives, not to reinforce them under the guise of pragmatism.
