Has Labour Shot Reform’s Fox?

For years, Labour struggled to articulate a clear narrative on asylum, offering tough talk about “smashing the gangs” but without a substantive plan to address the issue. It was a space the party seemed reluctant to occupy, leaving Reform UK free to weaponise the issue and frame Labour as soft on borders. This week, that changed. Shabana Mahmood’s appointment as Home Secretary and her sweeping reforms appear to signal a decisive pivot. By betting big on an approach inspired by Denmark’s Social Democrats, pairing progressive rhetoric with hard-edged policy, Mahmood is seeking to neutralise the UK’s own populist right.

The proposals are far more hard-hitting than anything previously proposed by Labour, or indeed by recent Conservative governments. Refugee status will become temporary, reviewed every 30 months, with a 20-year wait for permanent settlement. Automatic housing and financial support will end, while Article 8 family rights are narrowed to immediate relatives. Countries refusing returns face visa bans. In a move echoing Denmark’s controversial “jewellery law”, the Home Office will also seek powers to confiscate high-value possessions from asylum seekers to offset costs, though sentimental items like wedding rings will be exempt. Mahmood cites Denmark’s Social Democrats as inspiration, a government that cut asylum claims to a 40-year low and neutralised far-right pressure.

Reactions have been mixed across the political spectrum. The Conservatives have chosen to play the "grown-up politics" card, offering to work with Labour to get the reforms enacted, much as they have proposed on welfare reform. Kemi Badenoch called the plans “steps in the right direction”, though many in her party argue Labour should go further and quit the ECHR altogether.

Reform UK, meanwhile, appears to be keeping its powder dry. Richard Tice says Mahmood is “talking our language” but insists Labour hasn’t “shot our fox”. Nigel Farage quipped she “sounds like a Reform supporter”, but the party’s initial reaction suggests it may have been caught off guard. Expect them to pivot quickly to a “good idea, but it’ll never pass your backbenchers” line of attack.

And what of the reaction from Labour’s own benches? On the left, fury. Stella Creasy MP for Walthamstow, writing in the Guardian, branded the plans “performatively cruel and economically misjudged”, warning they create “perpetual limbo”. Nadia Whittome MP for Nottingham East, called them “dystopian”. Jeremy Corbyn condemned them as “dehumanising, degrading and disgusting”, accusing Labour of “implementing Reform’s agenda”.

Mahmood’s assured delivery, both in the Commons and in media interviews, has drawn praise even from sceptics. Commentators note how she projects credibility and conviction qualities that could elevate her national profile. If Labour falters in next May’s local and devolved elections, Mahmood’s emergence as a serious alternative to Starmer will be hard to ignore.

The stakes could not be higher. If Labour turns these proposals into visible results, it could strip Reform of one of its most potent attack lines and prove that tough reforms can coexist with ECHR membership. But if the plan collapses under its own complexity or fractures Labour’s unity, it won’t just hand Reform a narrative victory, it will bolster demands from the right for Britain to walk away from the ECHR. 

For Labour, this is not just a test of policy, it is a test of whether the party can demonstrate the resolve, and the leadership to govern on one of the most divisive issues of our time.