The Andy Burnham victory for Labour in the Makerfield by-election, and the Douglas Lumsden victory for the Tories in the Aberdeen South by-election may be making both of those traditional parties feel like there’s life in the old dog yet. But one swallow does not a Summer make and it will take a lot to deal with Reform in the next General Election. And what issue does Reform put front and centre? It is Migration they campaign on. Migration first and last. A Next Century Foundation Research Officer examines the issue:
A tension seems to be blanketing the UK at the moment. High profile violent incidents combined with subsequent riotous behaviour is increasingly commonplace against a backdrop of rising discontent and support for populism at both ends of the political spectrum. British politics has fractured from the usual two-party stranglehold over a winner-takes-all electoral system to a multi-party system where margins of success are narrow and polls unreliable. A key issue igniting controversy and driving the debate is immigration.
The killing of Henry Nowak and the knife attack in Belfast at the beginning of June 2026, as well as the public outcry and criminality that followed, are just two recent tragedies once again inciting fierce debate around the issue of immigration, triggering calls for calm from the political centre and outrage from the extremes. To break the cycle, we must take a step back and look at how we got to this situation and then consider how to get out of it.
UK political debate, alongside discussions elsewhere, tends to fall into the trap of framing attitudes towards immigration as binary: either in favour or against. This reduction is applied by the media, when reporting on tensions between the two sides, by politicians, who feel the need to pick a side and run with it, and by the public, who pit their own correct side against the immoral ‘other’. Emotions can run high and questions of morality and justice are thrown around, often creating an environment inhospitable to constructive debate. But in a healthy democracy, we should rise above the noise and chaos created by social media and try to understand both sides of the argument. We get nowhere by shutting out voices that we don’t agree with. By listening to both sides of the immigration debate, we can learn that the binary framing is both artificial and unhelpful. We should then focus on a middle ground which can help restore our fractured social fabric.
First, it is important to understand where the two polarised viewpoints originate and why they invoke anger from the other.
The anti-immigration side
While some find it difficult to understand the argument of those supporting far-right anti-immigration rhetoric, it is important, with support for the Reform party hovering around 30% for the last year, to explore the viewpoint that Nigel Farage and similar figures take and analyse the roots of the frustration felt by his supporters. Undeniably, there is racism at play and we should oppose the ugly spread of a violence-fuelled ethnonationalist political ideology. However, this should be considered a symptom of the debate, fuelled by social media, rather than the root cause. At the heart of anti-immigration sentiment is a decades-long struggle against rising inequality, lack of economic opportunity and wage stagnation – a legacy of the political failure to support regions decimated by Britain’s deindustrialisation – a situation many feel has been worsened by mass immigration. While the offshoring of British manufacturing and the move to a knowledge economy benefitted the UK economy as a whole, the losses were immense and irreparable for industry-heavy areas in parts of the Midlands, the North of England, South Wales and Scotland. The subsequent failure of politicians to prioritise investment or rejuvenation efforts in these areas has enabled stagnation and stark regional inequality. The deindustrialisation process and lack of action to offset its consequences set the groundwork for the breeding of discontent and opposition to the forces of globalisation and neoliberal economics that successive prime ministers advocated.
Mass immigration over the last two decades, beginning with the post-2004 wave following the accession of ten new countries to the EU, has exacerbated discontent further as small post-industrial towns and coastal communities experienced rapid demographic change, impacting local economies, wage growth and cultural homogeneity. Yet politicians from the two main parties, and often the media, demonstrated a wilful lack of awareness of working-class concerns, exemplified by Gordon Brown’s ‘Bigoted woman’ gaffe towards a Rochdale pensioner in 2010 for expressing opposition to EU migrants. Brexit should have been a wake-up call to frustrations, particularly given the prominence of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), led by Nigel Farage, in the preceding years. However, net migration figures only skyrocketed post-Brexit, with high rates of both refugees arriving on small boats and individuals arriving through legal routes for work, study or refuge purposes. The strain on public services, housing and employment opportunities feels more acute for lower-income communities that often perceive a losing competition against migrants for social housing, job opportunities in certain sectors, and access to essential public services.
Momentum appears to be growing behind the anti-immigration viewpoint and the Reform Party. The two main parties have demonstrated an inadequacy for public office – due to various scandals, lack of political vision and mismanagement – resulting in voters turning elsewhere in droves. The political vacuum left by the mainstream refusal to acknowledge and address concerns around immigration has left the space wide open for populist actors to harness frustrations into convert them into hatred. Promises from successive governments to reduce net migration including David Cameron and Boris Johnson have failed, amplifying the perception among predominantly lower-income communities that politics is not working nor is it representative of them. The irony that a privately educated city trader has become the political mouthpiece for the working-class should not be lost.
Social media, and tech-savvy populist actors who excel at communication with the common man, have further facilitated the morphing of legitimate concerns about immigration into a countrywide movement of hatred, outrage and, increasingly, white ethnonationalism. The language spouted by far-right activists such as Tommy Robinson (who even Nigel Farage has distanced himself from but remains popular among Reform voters) is incredibly dangerous and it often feels that the othering of Reform-supporting communities has fuelled right-wing extremism to an irreparable point. We should be wary of fighting fire with fire and instead try listening to the fundamental argument at the heart of the protest.
The pro-immigration side
We should never fall into the trap of accepting that immigration is an inherently negative or problematic process. While the previous section demonstrates there have been downsides to the high levels of immigration seen in the 21st century, it is important to remember the humanity in the immigration process and recognise that immigration statistics are not just numbers, each one is a human story.
From the Windrush generation that helped rebuild post-war Britain to the migrant healthcare workers that have cared for us all in the NHS, we should welcome immigrants for the value that they bring and the contribution they make to our economy and society. It is a tragedy for modern Britain that the national political climate has heated to the point that lists of immigrant households are circulated online as targets for violent thuggery and arson, as happened in Belfast last week. A baseline level of immigration to fill labour shortages in certain sectors, to provide students the opportunity to study and to contribute to the incredible diversity of the country will likely always be necessary.
However, it is common for the progressive left to focus on the beneficial individual contributions of immigrants to the country rather than trying to understand the problems that immigration as a system may cause. There is also a tendency to tar all members of the anti-immigration camp with the same brush. However there is a difference between those in Belfast last week peacefully protesting against immigration levels following the knife attack vs those violently rioting. One group is worth engaging in democratic discussion while the other is simply a participant in opportunistic violence and a threat to democratic values.
Zack Polanski, eco-populist leader of the Greens, has suggested that none of the UK’s economic and social problems, including wage stagnation and a lack of affordable housing, were caused or worsened by migration. He lies the blame at the feet of austerity and wealth inequality and argues for a wealth tax on the assets of billionaires to pay for better public services and create a more equal country. He has previously advocated a fairly open door immigration policy that would accept all economic migrants that wish to come to the UK, but has since rowed back on that argument.
These views should perhaps be considered too simplistic. It is unrealistic to assume that the incredibly high net migration figures experienced by the UK in the last two decades, including 944,000 people in the year up to March 2023, has had no negative impact on the home population in terms of housing, provision of public services and social cohesion. There are downsides to every policy outcome, particularly when dealing with immigration, and the progressive Left would do better to accept that some citizens have serious concerns about migration levels that don’t just stem from intolerance. Immigration was the second most important issue to voters in the 2026 local elections.
What can be done?
The question of immigration, and how to collectively react to tragic incidents like what happened in Belfast, is complicated and there will be no right answer that suits all. However, if thinking about the immigration process, here are some things to consider.
While we should not blame individual migrants, we should recognise that an overreliance on cheap, foreign labour has distorted the labour market and increased competition for lower-income workers in sectors where migrants are overrepresented like construction, social and health care, hospitality, transport and agriculture. Wage stagnation and poor working conditions as a result of the availability of economic migrants in these sectors has pushed out British workers and affected job prospects, particularly of those in deindustrialised parts of the country. Rather than using immigration as a quick fix to fill labour shortages, the government should be bold and take real structural reform to the way we approach employment and expand apprenticeships and training schemes to enable young people to fill gaps in the job market. Over a million young people in the UK are estimated to be not in education, employment and training (NEET), with many of those individuals now reliant on the state to support them financially. Investing in the workers we already have rather than bringing in new ones would prevent additional strain on the housing market, lower the welfare bill, assuage concerns about immigration among certain communities and provide opportunity to young people. The government has made positive steps towards the expansion of apprenticeships to fill these sectors but has much further to go.
Furthermore, concrete action must be taken on the housing crisis and the perception among many lower-income communities that migrants and asylum seekers are prioritised over British nationals for access to state-funded accommodation. This likely stems from the fact that the Home Office has a legal responsibility to provide housing for asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute however there is no legal obligation for the government to provide housing for British citizens. Only individuals deemed to have a priority need (such as dependent children or a disability) are eligible for accommodation from housing authorities. Therefore, to combat the unfairness that many see in this system, it would be commendable for the government to accept a legal responsibility to provide accommodation for all homeless British individuals as well. Therefore, hotels and hostels would be equally used to house the home population. This would be expensive, and potentially exacerbate class relations, yet it would help to extinguish a source of anti-migrant frustration and tackle the problem of homelessness in the UK.
Speaking more idealistically, effort needs to be made to reshape the debate to reintroduce a common humanity back into the discussion. Too many on the right feel overlooked and forgotten while many on the left, especially immigrants themselves and minority groups, feel under attack and as if their dignity and rights are up for debate. We too often get caught up in social media echo chambers and become divided according to us vs them, a narrative fuelling the rise of populism. We should instead strive for more understanding on both sides.
The question of refugees and asylum seekers
Additionally, it is essential that we recognise that the acceptance and protection of refugees and asylum seekers is our responsibility under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), a framework that protects British citizens as much as it does foreigners. In a world increasingly afflicted by climate change and conflict, migration will only increase as large swathes of the globe become uninhabitable and entire populations are forced to move to cooler and more stable countries. Thus, the issue of asylum is not one the UK can ignore, nor should it from a moral standpoint. However, we must recognise that the current asylum system is broken.
It is completely illogical that we wait for individuals to spend thousands to risk their lives making the journey from their home country across Europe and then over the English Channel on a small boat to claim asylum. The result is that we lack sufficient capacity to plan for their arrival, being forced to put them up in hotels or military barracks as emergency accommodation. Nor are we able to vet the individuals that enter; extracting refugees directly from their home countries, or wherever they have fled to, and prioritising families, particularly children, is preferable to waiting for them to reach us by boat.
The expansion of legal entry routes for at-risk populations is essential, similar to those for Ukrainians and Hong Kongers; it is no coincidence that these nationalities are virtually absent from small boat crossing figures – when legal routes exist, illegal routes cease to be an option. In such a complicated world, the far right needs to accept that Britain cannot, and should not, turn its back on the most vulnerable in need. If the Labour party wants to be a global leader on the issue of asylum, discussions could begin about a refugee scheme to provide safety for Palestinian families wishing to escape war-torn Gaza. With the grave caveat that any such program should not contribute to the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. As a side note, this would likely boost their electoral support among Muslim-majority constituencies for whom the war in Gaza is their primary issue of concern at the ballot box.
The role of social media
As mentioned, social media has without a doubt inflamed this issue and facilitated the spreading of misinformation and disinformation, particularly in the aftermath of sudden tragedies where the facts were unclear. The riots that followed the 2024 murders of three girls in Southport were initiated and fuelled by false social media posts suggesting the killer was an illegal migrant. We will not be able to overcome division and develop a productive conversation about immigration without recognising and challenging the malign influence that social media has on our political debate. Online algorithms prioritise the most polarising, controversial voices and viewpoints because that’s what attracts attention, clicks and profit. Thus, misinformation often spreads quicker than the truth and encourages individuals to be reactionary rather than thoughtful in processing information that they read.
NCF has previously looked at the question of online misinformation, but it is important to reiterate that greater regulation of social media is needed to moderate inflammatory rhetoric. The UK government, in tandem with other governments worldwide, must legislate to prevent the programming of algorithms as weapons of division. Due to free speech concerns, it is preferable to prevent the amplification of political messaging rather than policing speech and deplatforming users for comments that cross an often-subjective red line. Slowing the speed at which polemic posts will be redistributed should disincentivise bad actors from using social media to spread hateful or misinformed comments.
Applicability to the Makerfield by-election
With Andy Burnham’s success in the mid-June Makerfield by-election making his route to 10 Downing Street clearer, we should ask how the immigration debate will change with Burnham as PM? While campaigning, Mr Burnham has argued net migration “needs to fall further” but has not outlined any specific plans for doing so. The trap Burnham should strive to avoid is one of choosing the ‘correct’ level of net migration, and then adjusting immigration rules accordingly to reach it. Instead, a serious conversation needs to be had about what level of immigration is needed, to support economic growth, and what challenges, such as labour shortages, can be resolved through structural reform and investment in our existing workforce, despite these potentially being difficult, long-term problems. Then a roadmap should be designed to facilitate arrival at that desired level of immigration.
The most important thing Burnham should strive to do is to listen to and understood the two sides of the immigration debate and recognise the nuance in between. In his victory speech Mr Burnham acknowledged the political junction that his by-election win has placed our politics at: “everyone knows that politics isn’t working … this is a final chance to change”. The current moment is a critical opportunity for the traditional mainstream to prove its worth against the ever louder extremes, and immigration may just be the issue that decides the course of our future politics.
Featured image shows Operation Raise The Colours, Seacroft Gate1-61, Seacroft, Leeds, West Yorkshire. Taken on the afternoon of Saturday the 6th September 2025. Credit: Michael Taylor via Wikimedia Commons, licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0.
