Today the Labour government is unveiling what it grandly calls the “largest asylum overhaul in modern times”. In reality, it’s a Reform-lite crackdown designed to appease the tabloids and outflank the Right, rather than deliver a workable, humane, or genuinely thought-through immigration system.
Temporary refugee status, a 20-year wait for permanent settlement, harsher limits on family reunion, and tightened appeal rights-these aren’t the hallmarks of a compassionate, confident government – they’re the trademark of a party terrified of looking ‘soft,’ a government more interested in signalling toughness than addressing the real drivers of a broken system. Ministers coaching their MPs to fall into line or risk looking weak only reinforces that is pure politics, not sensible policy.
Liberals should say this clearly: You don’t fix the asylum system by making life harder for refugees. You fix it by creating safe, managed, humane routes to the UK; by processing claims efficiently; and by helping people (not forcing them) to integrate and contribute once they’re here, as the overwhelming majority of people do.
A genuinely fair system would do three things.
First, expand safe and legal routes so people fleeing war and persecution don’t have to gamble their lives on dangerous journeys.
We know this works – it’s the safest, most cost-effective, and most orderly way to protect people and maintain public confidence.
Second, replace indefinite insecurity with clear, timely, routes to settlement. Twenty years in limbo doesn’t deter desperate people; it simply prevents them from building stable lives, working, contributing, and integrating into our communities.
Third, enforce the rules in a way that distinguishes between criminality and legitimate asylum claims. A blanket crackdown treats human beings as a problem to be managed rather than as neighbours, workers, parents, friends, and future citizens.
Our Liberal vision isn’t naïve. Rules matter. But compassion matters too. The two can – and must – go together. A Britain that treats people with dignity is a Britain that strengthens its own social fabric and moral standing.
Labour had the chance to show that progressive government can be principled as well as pragmatic. Instead, this Prime Minister and his new Home Secretary opted for headlines over humanity.
As Liberal Democrats we must make the case for something better: an immigration system rooted in fairness, compassion, and confidence – a system that treats everyone as human beings, not political props.
In praise of…Josh Babarinde!
It’s genuinely fantastic news that Josh Babarinde has been elected President-elect of the Liberal Democrats, ready to take office in January 2026. With his youthful energy, entrepreneurial background and outspoken commitment to justice, he brings real visibility to our top team. The picture above is of me catching up with Josh at Autumn Conference in Bournemouth.
Even more inspiring: Josh has just announced his engagement to his partner, Connor – a proud, out, and enthusiastic celebration of love, identity and authenticity. In a party that values equality, diversity, and inclusion, having an out gay, BAME man as our President is a is a powerful symbol and a genuine step forward. It says loudly that our party is open, modern, and ready to reflect the whole of Britain in all of its beautiful, colourful diversity.
Josh’s presidency of our great party promises not just a change of face but a change of tone, too. Fresh, inclusive, and rooted in conviction.
I believe he’ll help lead the Liberal Democrats to new heights.
Congratulations, Josh, you make us proud.
On Cross Question with Iain Dale
I’m delighted to be joining the indomitable Iain Dale on LBC’s flagship political debate programme Cross Question tomorrow night from 8-9pm.
It’s one of the most lively and respected discussion programmes in all of British broadcasting, bringing together voices from across the political spectrum to debate the big political stories of the day and the issues shaping our country and the wider world.
I’ll be on the panel offering a Liberal perspective on the big stories of the day-holding the government to account, championing fairness, and standing up for the values our part and myself personally believe in.
Do, please, tune in live, all in, and join in the conversation. It should be a lively and engaging hour!
* Mathew Hulbert is a former Councillor, is a regular commentator on TV and Radio, and is Co-Host of the Political Frenemies podcast.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
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
Matt (Bristol)
Hywel
Chloe
Sam Bateman
Kira Collins
16 Comments
Let’s not make any decisions until we know what is being proposed. That said though migrants must be separated from refugees and most sent home.
‘rather than deliver a workable, humane, or genuinely thought-through immigration system’…..Humane routes would be inundated with applications – if you look at how many are oppressed across the globe …
Areas already struggling are seeing unprecedented demographic changes. There’s been no economic benefits from record inward immigration – opposite of what we were told. Communities haven’t been enriched by countless HMO’s – all it’s done is compounded issues. As the Green mp and Libdems councillors are finding out in Crowborough, when it comes to the leafy suburbs nimbys are out in force.
One aspect of the proposals that hasn’t had much publicity is the idea that Immigrants should be obliged to do lots of unpaid “Volunteering” – Yes Compulsory Volunteering – worthy of Orwell.
If you have to Work & you don’t get paid, doesn’t that make you a Slave ?
This idea is probably dead in the water because The Entire Voluntary Sector refuses to touch it, but it shows what Labour will try if not stopped.
This will be dead in the water and unworkable because it is merely showboating for the right wing press and voters.
The labour party, with some honourable abd admirable exceptions, has now decided that governing is synonymous with confirming prejudices and pandering to abject hatred. The home secretary appears content to ruin lives on the altar of a paper-thin concept of community cohesion. This is Blue Labour at its most vile, nationalist, populist and illiberal; along with Reform (who today snuck out a vicious and medically unsound jab at children with autism), we should consider this vein of Labour our direct and philosophical opponents, fight them and beat them.
@Tim Roger, my wife is a migrant. Should she be sent home? Or would she be one of the acceptable economic migrants because she came from America?
‘The predicted howls of anguish from Labour backbenchers are emerging. Mahmood must face them down. This is a seminal moment for this government. If it doesn’t get a grip on the immigration crisis, it is done for. Only the ideologically blind refuse to acknowledge the depth of public concern over this issue. There can be no rowing back. Mahmood has to win this battle’……
P Embery Blue Labour….
Mahmood – whatever you think of the policy -was outstanding in the commons today and on TV at the weekend ….
Shabana Mahmood’s proposed revision of the asylum system is a genuine attempt to deal with a difficult problem, and we would do better to support progress, and avoid knee-jerk reactions. Appeasing the tabloids is usually wrong, but we are a democracy, and the tabloids sometimes reflect justifiable concerns which governments are right to listen to, and however compassionate we would like to think we are, a completely open door to refugees is not viable in the modern world.
I’m afraid there is something a bit Utopian about the long-held belief that we simply need to create ‘legal routes’ in order to end the illegal trade in people. If we put an asylum department in, say, Sudan, a queue would quickly form; there would have to be an annual quota. After about the second week of January, people would revert to using illegal means.
@ Andy Daer, “Shabana Mahmood’s proposed revision of the asylum system is a genuine attempt to deal with a difficult problem”.
Sorry, Andy, can’t agree with that…………….. I don’t think it’s “a genuine attempt to deal with a difficult problem”. It’s a placebo to the Flag Waggers.
“public concern” When the tabloids and GB “news” have been blaming small boat riders for everything that’s wrong with Britain, and claiming that they are living the life of Riley in 4 star hotels, while the public can’t get a GP appointment, the rivers are full of sewage, have to go to food banks to get enough to eat even though they are working, the roads are full of potholes and what used to be the party of the working class (that’s Labour, btw) has completely abandoned them in favour of the rich and business owners, it’s not that surprising. It doesn’t make what Ms. Mahmood is proposing sensible though. How long before the racists come for her?
The worst thing about the home secretary’s pronouncements over the weekend and yesterday was her statement that ‘illegal immigration is tearing us apart’. She should know, and we should be telling her, that this is nonsense. The relatively small number of asylum seekers who make it to the UK (compared to other countries in Europe) are not the cause of division. The cause is the relentless hate stirred by the right, and the last Tory government’s failure to deal with applications, leading to the ridiculous backlog of claimants housed in hotels and unable to work or contribute to society. The government should be attacking this right wing narrative and not be cowed by it.
There are some arguments here I simply don’t accept. Firstly there is a huge difference between setting up safe, legal routes and being an open door (whatever that over-used trope actually means). Secondly, it is the not the job of a liberal party to simply bow to public opinion, or more accurately a perception of public opinion – we didn’t do that on Brexit or Hong Kong visas or ID cards or Iraq. Our job is to stand up for rights, against whoever, regardless of citizenship, because it is the right thing to do, and because without our rights we are all reduced to serfs.
We must not, at our core, become a utilitarian party; we are a human rights-based party, or will be for as long as I have anything to say about it. Thirdly, the Home Secretary is a Blunkettesque socially conservative authoritarian. I’m afraid I find her argument that we must deal with this to reduce racism in the UK analogous to the argument that we should have voted down same-sex marriage in order to reduce homophobia. Sincerely voiced concerns should be met with understanding and reasoned arguments, but racists will be racist because they are racist, and should be confronted, not appeased by performatively deporting children. The sooner we start saying so, the sooner we can wear our liberalism with some long-needed pride.
The criminal people smuggling racket must be stopped. Masses from poor countries would like to migrate to richer countries. There is now a broad consensus that something must be done. Meaningless rhetoric about “pandering to hatred”, or unrealistic claims about “safe legal routes”, will rightly be treated as irrelevant.
There are, however, real difficulties. Liberals would be best occupied in seeking to identify and avoid the worst difficulties. Here is a first shot.
The German Gastarbeiter programme showed that allowing migrants to stay for supposedly temporary periods works badly. They fall in love, start families, and build new lives. Eventually, many get permission to stay. Twenty years in limbo helps nobody. Ways must be found to avoid this, perhaps with tighter admission criteria, coupled with far quicker permission to stay for those with strong cases.
Stupidly tough demands, such as retaining permanent employment, should be ditched. To require migrants to stay in their jobs, however badly they are treated, is a sweatshop owner’s charter.
Requiring a huge expansion in asylum reviews, when we can’t even catch up with the current backlog, is never going to work. Saying an immediate “no” more often may have to be the answer.
“Political” asylum was originally intended to be for active opposition politicians being targeted by governments – Not simply for those fleeing civil wars. Would it be too inhumane to revert to that policy? Should an exception then be made for Ukrainians, who flee from a war that is also our own war?
Government indecision and failure to deal with immigration and asylum seeking are a major reason for the rise of Reform. Farage claims it’s evidence that the “traditional parties” have failed the British people. I agree, Jenny B, that people shouldn’t believe the rubbish he spouts, but the fact is they do, and that might be what Shabana Mahmoud means, Nigel Q, when she says it’s tearing the country apart. I stand by my assertion that there need to be a robust and workable policy to control immigration – otherwise Reform could be in power after the next election.
@Andy I’m not sure that is what she meant, which was my point. What she said was that it was illegal immigration that was the problem, and whilst that might be the case in the way you point out, by adopting the language of the right and not calling out the scare mongering and rabble rousing by Farage, Robinson, Badenoch et al, she is only pandering to their twisted narrative.
We all want a fair, compassionate and workable immigration system that juggles various economic, political and humanitarian factors. It must be reasonably consistent and yet responsive to population and other dynamics. A strong, well resourced and credible independent body would act as a counter to political and other issues that focus on short term changes. Much as the OBR it would have to be transparent, accountable and robust.