For the past 15 years, UK leaders have made bold promises to control immigration, yet each one has ultimately failed to meet their goals. Sir Keir Starmer’s recent remarks at the Interpol conference emphasized a shift away from “gimmicks” and empty promises, as he aimed to tackle the issue of immigration by reducing both net migration and economic reliance on it.
This is not a new stance; similar promises have been made by Prime Ministers going back to David Cameron, who in 2010 vowed to reduce net migration to the “tens of thousands.” Despite these repeated pledges, migration numbers have consistently remained high, often exceeding 200,000, with significant spikes, including a rise to over 300,000 during the Brexit referendum period.
Boris Johnson, after winning the Brexit referendum, promised to take back control of immigration. His “Australian points-based system” replaced the target of reducing net migration, but despite these reforms, migration reached record highs during his tenure, peaking at over 700,000 by 2022. Even Rishi Sunak, while in office, promised to curb migration, suggesting that he might even introduce a cap on immigration if he won the 2024 election.
So why do these promises continue to fail?
David Cameron himself points to the unexpected economic and employment crises that began in 2012, which led to an influx of workers from across Europe. Others suggest that political dysfunction and competing departmental interests—such as the Home Office pushing for reduced numbers while the Treasury and Business departments seek more migrants to boost tax revenues and attract talent—have contributed to the failure.
Some critics argue that there is a deeper issue at play: a systemic bias in favour of large-scale immigration. Suella Braverman, former Home Secretary, cited opposition from other government ministers who believed that cutting immigration could harm the economy, particularly by reducing tax revenue. Likewise, former Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick described an unsettling conversation with Sunak, who suggested that mass migration helped lower inflation by undercutting wages.
But political forces alone don’t explain the challenge. The rise of Migration Watch in the early 2000s brought the focus of the immigration debate onto numbers, providing politicians with an “irresistible” way to frame the issue. Migration Watch, founded by Lord Green and Professor David Coleman, shifted the conversation away from race and ethnicity to one focused on the volume of migrants entering the UK.
This shift had lasting consequences, with political leaders from Michael Howard to David Cameron adopting numerical limits on immigration. Yet, as seen with Cameron’s pledge to reduce net migration to the “tens of thousands,” this focus on numbers has proven to be politically perilous and difficult to achieve in practice.
While some countries, like Switzerland, are experimenting with population caps, and the United States is considering deportation targets, questions persist about whether migration numbers are even the best measure of immigration success. Critics argue that the inclusion of temporary residents, like overseas students, skews the figures, and that focusing on numbers alone misses the broader question of how well migrants are integrated into society.
As for Sir Keir Starmer, while he has refrained from setting specific targets for migration reduction, his government will likely face the same pressures that have confronted past leaders—global crises, economic shifts, and unpredictable migration flows. The real question is whether, when faced with these challenges, Starmer will succeed where so many others have failed in managing migration numbers.