I have been a Liberal Democrat for many years, and I never imagined a time when a major party on the centre-left would be celebrating its immigration policy alongside the very architects of anti-immigrant sentiment. Yet here we are. As Shabana Mahmood unveils her new asylum and immigration plans, the loudest endorsements are not coming from progressive voices, the NHS, or the communities dependent on migration, but from figures like Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage—men who have built careers on demonising and scapegoating newcomers.
This applause is a siren call that should terrify the Labour movement, but for the Liberal Democrats, it is a clarifying moment.
When people like Robinson and Farage applaud Labour’s direction, it sends a crystal-clear signal: Shabana Mahmood is moving the Labour Party so far to the right that the far-right ecosystem now views her as an active ally. For those of us who believe in the core Liberal values of fairness, compassion, and evidence-based policy, this is profoundly alarming.
The very people keeping our social fabric intact—the hard-working individuals in the care sector—are the ones being betrayed. Under the previous, more humane system, many care workers were on a clear, five-year route to Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). This gave them stability, dignity, and a predictable future.
Mahmood’s proposal to stretch that pathway to twenty years is not a policy; it is a punishment. It translates to twenty years of insecurity, twenty years of anxiety, telling dedicated workers, “Even though you care for our elderly, our grandparents, and our disabled loved ones, you still haven’t earned the right to call this country home.”
And who cheered this punitive shift? Tommy Robinson, calling it a step in the right direction. Nigel Farage, claiming she was suitable to join Reform.
If they believe Labour has become their champion, then Labour has utterly lost its moral and political compass.
The tragedy is that Labour believes it is playing a clever political game. Mahmood thinks that by mirroring Conservative and Reform UK rhetoric, she can win over disillusioned voters who are looking for someone to blame.
But politics abhors a vacuum, and voters will always choose the authentic voice of the far-right over its pale imitation. Labour will never ‘out-Reform’ Reform.
Meanwhile, Labour is haemorrhaging support from the communities that rely on sensible immigration policy: the working-class ethnic minorities, the essential care workers, the NHS staff, and the young urban voters who believe in an open, diverse society. They are watching a party that once spoke for them now speak about them, and usually in the language of suspicion and distrust.
And this is precisely why the Liberal Democrats have never been more vital.
While the Conservatives and Labour engage in a dangerous race to the right, desperately chasing Nigel Farage’s shadow, we are the only national party holding the sensible, compassionate, and economically literate centre ground.
We believe in dignity and stability: If you contribute to our society, you deserve a fair, humane, and predictable immigration process.
We believe in economic reality: The care sector is in crisis. The latest figures show over 152,000 vacancies—a staggering figure that translates to human suffering and local authority breakdown. To propose making life harder for the very people sustaining this system is not strength; it is a reckless and irresponsible abandonment of duty.
Mahmood’s mistake is far greater than political miscalculation; it is a fundamental shift in what is considered acceptable political discussion. When a mainstream centre-left party begins to normalise, policies celebrated by the right, it doesn’t just reflect the national mood—it actively expands the range of accepted ideas, pulling the entire political discourse further to the extremes.
She is doing this willingly, for what she perceives as short-term electoral gain.
But a party that abandons its principles doesn’t gain respect; it loses its soul.
A Labour Party that mimics Conservative or Reform UK immigration policy is no longer the party that champions the vulnerable. It becomes an empty vessel, chasing headlines instead of delivering justice and stability.
Liberal Democrat strength is not about punishing the vulnerable; it is about standing up for them, even when it is politically inconvenient.
We stand for the practical necessity and moral rightness of a clear, humane immigration system. We are the party of compassion, competency, and common sense. And we are ready to welcome those who have been betrayed by Labour’s dramatic, principled lurch to the right.
* Kamran Hussain was a candidate for Vice President in 2025 and is a managing partner/solicitor.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A perpetual pirouette of prevarication?
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
David Raw
Jenny Barnes
Tom Bailey
Gill Travers
Alison Howarth
24 Comments
Hi Kamran, who do you have in mind when you refer to “the communities dependent on migration”?
Excellent article, Kamran. I congratulate you.
After spending 41 years as a human right lawyer specialising in defending Tamil asylum seekers, before retiring and becoming a Lib Dem Cllr on Richmond Council, l agree with what you say so eloquently about Labour having lost its moral compass over immigration.
Our role should be to attack Farage with maximum vigour, thereby carving out our own role in the public mind, but at the same time highlighting how Labour, in its desperation, is becoming dangerously de-railed.
Hiya Bokhari is doing a great job too.
There are vast communities out there waiting for us to connect with them.
I thank God that l’m not a Labour- supporting ( as very many are) immigration/ asylum/ human rights lawyer. So invidious for them now.
Joining the Lib Dems is the only honourable thing for them to do.
I particularly agree with your last paragraph, Kamran.
Great article Kamran. Labour always loses its moral compass in government – one can see countless examples from the Wilson/Callaghan and the Blair/Brown years. It’s the main reason why I have never considered Labour a serious alternative to the Liberal Party or the Lib Dems.
@ John,
Presumably you believe the Lib Dems didn’t lose their ‘moral compass’ during the coalition years. Are you giving them the benefit of the doubt because they were a junior partner?
Do you believe the Lib Dems are immune from this effect? ie Would they still retain their moral compass if they were to form a majority government in their own right?
Peter Martin makes a fair point about the so called ‘moral compass’. As Chair of a foodbank at the time, the bedroom tax was more than I could swallow.
Labour never has had a moral compass. Just a desire to tax, spend and borrow, build horrendous high rise buildings and do what their union paymasters tell them. Labour has always wrecked the economy as it dislikes aspiration and enterprise.
@Peter, I can’t comment on the coalition years much because I lived abroad then.
However, I can comment on now. I have concluded that there are profound differences between Labour and the Lib Dems. The party rule book means something in the Lib Dems and means nothing in Labour. The conference vote means something in the Lib Dems and not in Labour. Local parties choosing their Mp candidate is always respected in the Lib Dems. I’m happy to corrected. If I am right then the leader in power is not living in an echo chamber which is what happened in Labour. Over 1/3 of parliament candidates were parachuted for their ability to be “yes” men and women. Those who didn’t agree like sitting Mp Sam Terry were mysteriously deselected through online system.
In conclusion this is a brilliant article, only we can take on Reform and maybe the Greens. Labour is finished in my view.
I think that in some cases Refugees should give up their jewellery if they get payments from the government.
I am lucky enough to own a Rolex and Omega watch. Together they are worth about £20,000. If I lost my job, lost my home etc etc, and if all I had left were my watches. I would be ineligible for benefits and would have to sell my watches.
If a refugee comes over with the same watches, why should the British Taxpayer pay for their room and board and upkeep whilst they have £20,000 on their wrists?
@Slamdac – are you being serious?!
Yes I am. In rare cases as I described refugees who have the means should pay. Do you think a refugee who had tens of thousands of pounds of jewellery shouldn’t pay, when a British citizen would have to sell them if they were in similar circumstances?
This government is flatly xenophobic, at least if you are poor. Not all Labour MPs, not all ministers necessarily personally, but structurally it is a fair analysis. That needs saying in simple terms, because it is true.
How @Jack’s last comment is cut in the preview bar is somewhat unfortunate
@ Sam,
” The party rule book means something in the Lib Dems and means nothing in Labour. ”
The latter part is not true. The problem in the Starmer era is that the membership has been lied to repeatedly, including about the necessary changes to the rule book. This was Starmer in 2020:
“The selections for Labour candidates needs to be more democratic and we should end NEC impositions of candidates. Local Party members should select their candidates for every election.”
The scale of the deception was enormous but the media generally, including LDV, chose to ignore it. Lib Dem fire was trained almost entirely on the Tories prior to the 2024 election.
PS Labour is close to being finished, I agree. If the Your Party project wasn’t in such a mess they certainly would be.
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1224662165271056385?lang=en-GB
Labour’s problem is not loss of moral compass. It is that their compass was always pointing in the wrong direction. Their political and historical problem is most people have (in my view correctly) concluded this.
Our job is to persuade people that the liberal moral compass (imperfect as it undoubtedly is) is the best guide available.
For ourselves we have to remember that Die Politik ist die Lehre vom Möglichen as well as “power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely”. For me right now the most important thing is to ensure Farage gets nowhere near government.
And for what it’s worth I think Slamdac makes an excellent point that no one has attempted to engage with.
Interesting and relevant article from Marin Kettle here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/20/labour-government-credibility-budget
@Tristan Ward @Slamdac Since the Danish jewellery legislation was passed a decade ago, it has been invoked exactly 17 times, raising a whole £17k in revenue, so it always owed more to rhetorical flourish, than a meaningful deterrent.
“Since the Danish jewellery legislation was passed a decade ago, it has been invoked exactly 17 times”
Is there really no limit on the wealth a refugee can bring before he or she is asked to contribute some of it to his/her own maintenance?
The political problem identified by Slamdac is that UK citizens consider (wrongly) that the system is stacked against them; and in a cost of living crisis and an atmosphere poisoned by the likes of Farage rational argument and information presented by “political elites” has little purchase.
I know it will be rare. But we have laws for lots of things that are rare.
Not all refugees are poor. Some can have substantial assets.
It’s a bit like benefit cheats. They may be rare, but one family in an estate that takes the mick, will become the talk of the entire estate if not dealt with firmly. You can tell the estate til your blue in the face that benefit cheats are rare, but they will just direct you to the aforementioned family down the road and you won’t win the argument!
“Do you think a refugee who had tens of thousands of pounds of jewellery shouldn’t pay, when a British citizen would have to sell them if they were in similar circumstances?”
I don’t believe this is a correct statement – maybe you can clarify on this:
Ref – “The following do not count as savings when calculating benefits, they are ignored or disregarded so should not be entered in this calculator:….
your personal possessions such as jewellery, furniture or a car”
https://www.entitledto.co.uk/help/savings
I am genuinely surprised by that, the point still applies. Do you think that Refugees who can afford to pay or contribute should do so or should the British tax payer pay regardless of a Refugee’s means?
How can labour be xenophobic? Tony Blair let in 2 million migrants from eastern Europe and admitted that he did this so that he would get more labour votes from them.
@Slamdac
Your husband was murdered, Madam? Your house was bombed and your children killed? You were imprisoned and tortured?
Nice wedding ring. Real gold is it? Must be worth a few bob. We’ll have that.
Is that really who you want to be?
@David
It was nowhere near 2 million. Tony Blair never said any such thing. It wouldn’t have been much of an evil masterplan if he had – EU citizens couldn’t vote in general elections.
It would be good to hear of our Parliamentarians speaking out against the illiberal aspects of the Home Secretary’s plan for new asylum seekers, such as those to leave them in insecurity for many years. Where is the Press Release our author and commenters here would surely like to see published?
@ Katharine,
If they are anything like my own MP, (Lab), they’ll be happy to be photographed with, and speak up for, refugees – but only if the are Ukrainian.
I have to respectfully disagree with much of what you say Kamran. With Shabana Mahmood’s new immigration policy it is not “moving the Labour Party so far to the right” as you say. Labour is the party in power now, so must accept and respond to the fact that, rightfully or wrongly, concerns over illegal immigration are dominating the national discourse. I believe the Conservatives and even, dare I say, the Liberal Democrats, would be doing the same if in power.
Admittedly the same angst is willingly stoked and exploited by Reform, but unless all mainstream parties demonstrate to the public they are now serious about measures to better manage illegal immigration, then they risk antipathy from large sections of the electorate (both left and right) while making it more likely that Reform win.
We in the Liberal Democrats need to wake up to this reality and start adjusting our policies and outlook. Shabana Mahmood has modelled her policies on the current Danish immigration system; yet would you say that the Social Democrats that lead the Danish Government with its coalition comprising the Liberal Party and Moderates, made a “dramatic, principled lurch to the right”? I don’t think so.
Like you I the “believe in the core Liberal values of fairness, compassion, and evidence-based policy” but we must listen to and not alienate ourselves from the genuine concerns of an increasing number of the electorate, many of whom do not see themselves as hard-right.
To remain relevant, we must adjust.