“The country is like a tinderbox now,” states Robert Jenrick, a prominent Conservative Party politician and potential future leader. Seven out of ten Britons concur, according to a recent poll from . Elon Musk’s AI, Grok, notably predicted August 5 as the date when tensions would reach a peak. Indeed, a few days later, demonstrations occurred across the country targeting asylum-seekers housed in hotels.
There was . The total attendance at those protests amounted to only a few thousand. Yet, concerning indications persist regarding Britain’s direction, and how the political and media establishments are fostering xenophobia.
Immigration has significantly ascended the political agenda. By some accounts, it is now the most crucial concern for much of the electorate. It serves as the defining issue for Nigel Farage’s Reform Party, which has achieved at the and seen its popularity surge in opinion polls. Farage could well become Prime Minister, and disturbingly, he advocates for mass deportations today.
More conventional politicians appear uncertain how to address these developments.
Jenrick has attempted to outmaneuver Farage with overtly ethno-nationalist rhetoric, appearing alongside far-right extremists at a recent demonstration, and claiming that the U.K. remains excessively “” while referencing the declining proportion of the white British population in certain communities. However, he is hardly alone. The Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Philp, has asserted that half of London’s social housing was occupied by “foreigners.” Kemi Badenoch, a senior Conservative leader who herself did not relocate to the U.K. from Nigeria until her teenage years, has either been unwilling or unable to clarify her stance but has spoken out against immigration.
Meanwhile, months earlier, Prime Minister Keir Starmer delivered a speech about the risk of Britain transforming into an “island of strangers,” using language that harked back to the white nationalist Enoch Powell. Starmer also attributed blame to the previous Conservative government’s “open border policies” in those remarks.
Part of the problem is that the discussion surrounding immigration is disconnected from reality. Politicians and the media have fixated incessantly on the “small boats” carrying asylum-seekers who undertake the perilous journey across the English Channel. This focus has cultivated a national perception that the U.K. has lost control of its borders, and at a local level, the crossings are a highly visible and prolonged indication of policy failure as asylum-seekers are accommodated in hotels for extended periods. A recent YouGov survey indicates that almost half of Britons believe irregular migrants constitute the majority, despite legal migration accounting for more than 90% of the over 3 million individuals who moved to the U.K. over the past four years.
So, what next? Net migration is —down by more than half from its 2023 peak as the extraordinary post-pandemic surge recedes and the center-left Labour government . It is projected to decrease further. But—given the discrepancy between the actual figures and public perceptions—this may not assist the Starmer government unless they are perceived as effectively addressing small boat arrivals.
Pessimism is straightforward. and from across Europe suggests that pursuing the far right is a disastrous and counterproductive strategy. So far, the U.K. experience has corroborated this. The message conveyed by both the government and the Conservatives appears to be: “Nigel Farage’s views on immigration are correct. Just don’t vote for him.” The danger is that British politics might follow the trajectory of other major European nations like France, Germany, and Italy, where progressively more severe policies and rhetoric have merely fueled xenophobia and bolstered the extreme right’s political appeal.
Fortunately, the U.K. is quite distinct. By most measures, it is considerably and genuinely racist and ethno-nationalist attitudes are deeply embedded—largely confined to a hard core of older reactionaries and a younger, and very vocal, but relatively small minority of online racists. When the host of a popular podcast suggested that former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak could not be English because “he’s a brown Hindu,” this was met with widespread disapproval among the general public.
So, what would a more constructive agenda involve? Starmer, who claims he “” the tone and language of his May speech, may be starting to comprehend that chasing Reform and Farage leads to a dead end. Adopting a style more akin to Tony Blair—who combined a firm approach on asylum seekers with liberal policies towards immigrants—he struck a on the latter, stating, “we’ve consistently benefited from the talent, resilience, and enterprise of individuals who came here.”
A significantly more consistent and extensive articulation of this perspective is necessary. The government ought to publicize the U.K.’s achievements in handling substantial immigration levels, both economically and socially. No Cabinet Minister has yet highlighted that migrants currently occupy one in five jobs in the U.K.; that they exhibit higher employment rates and are less prone to claiming benefits. Presenting this argument is entirely consistent with simultaneously emphasizing the imperative to secure our borders.
However, we have surpassed the stage where merely outlining economic facts suffices. The political and ethical rationale carries greater weight. The government must contend that immigration, along with the demographic shifts it entails, is something Britain has both integrated and profited from over the past fifty years. For most individuals, this reflects their personal experience: contemporary British society means that many members of the public have partners, relatives, friends, and colleagues from diverse ethnic backgrounds, and for the vast majority, their allegiance to this nation and fellow Britons transcends their ethnic identity.
Ultimately, our diversity ought to be our primary asset, and it is this very argument that anti-immigration extremists most dread.