1.2.2 – Established UK Parties
It was reported last week that Labour backbenchers were considering forcing a vote on the government’s proposals to double the time required for migrants to gain settled status (indefinite leave to remain (ILR)) – increasing from five to ten years for most.
The government’s plans, as proposed by the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, would not require primary legislation, and therefore Parliament would not be asked to formally vote them through.
However, backbenchers who are unhappy with the proposals are considering forcing a non-binding vote to highlight their dissatisfaction. This may be regarded as a ploy to force the government into a climbdown, in order to avoid exposing divisions within the party over the issue.
The arguments put forward by Labour backbench MPs who oppose the government’s proposed changes to ILR are wide-ranging. They they include the potential economic impact caused by a loss of migrant workers (who may choose to move to countries with a shorter qualifying period), and a concern that changes at this stage would constitute a broken promise to people who moved to the UK. Over 100 Labour MPs have already written to the home secretary expressing their concerns.
However, there are also a significant number of Labour MPs supporting the government’s plans from a pragmatic point-of-view, given the rise in support for Reform UK in their constituencies, and polling showing that concerns around immigration are growing amongst voters. The home secretary’s proposed changes would allow the party to show that it was tough on the issue.
This row has the potential to cause further problems for Keir Starmer. Even a non-binding vote would be used by opposition parties to show that Labour aren’t really in favour of immigratin reform, whilst a change to appease his backbenchers would constitute another u-turn and proof of weakness.