No issue has crystallised Sir Keir Starmer’s credibility gap more than illegal migration. During the campaign, Labour presented itself as the grown-up alternative to Conservative gimmickry, pledging to “smash the gangs” that ferry migrants across the Channel and restore order to Britain’s borders.
The Rwanda deportation scheme was scrapped, dismissed by many as a “farce” that enriched lawyers and criminals alike. In its place came promises of a new Border Security Command, bilateral deals, and “serious solutions” to reduce crossings.
The public expected results. Instead, they got more boats.
Some 35,000 people have crossed the Channel in small boats in the first half of 2025 alone — a 50 per cent increase on the previous year. Some days have seen more than a thousand arrivals. Processing backlogs remain immense. The use of hotels to house asylum seekers continues at huge public expense, straining local authorities and services already under pressure.
Starmer’s rhetoric has grown sharper. “The public has every right to be angry,” he admitted this summer, in a moment of rare candour. But rhetoric is no substitute for control. His government’s approach — legalistic, procedural, heavy on plans and light on delivery — has left voters feeling that nothing fundamental has changed.
The key problem is not just numbers, but expectations. Labour claimed it could bring “seriousness” to border policy. Yet the practical constraints — international law, human rights treaties, judicial reviews, and the lack of viable return agreements with many countries — remain unchanged. Starmer removed the high-profile Rwanda deterrent but has struggled to erect anything in its place that shifts the calculus for those making the dangerous crossing. His cautious, lawyerly instincts have produced press releases, not deterrence.
Polling tells the story. According to recent YouGov figures, 72 per cent of Britons believe the government is handling illegal migration badly, including a majority of Labour’s own 2024 voters. Net trust in Starmer’s handling of immigration has fallen 18 points since the election. Voters were promised a turning of the tide. Instead, the tide has risen.
Broken Promises and Welfarist Retreat
Migration is not the only area where the government’s delivery has failed to match its ambition. Labour came to power promising to “build a fairer Britain” and to protect the vulnerable. Yet one of the most explosive rows of the first year has been over proposed cuts to disability benefits.
Ministers floated changes to Personal Independence Payments and stricter eligibility, sparking fury from campaigners and backbench MPs alike. The backlash was so intense that parts of the plan were watered down. But the damage to Labour’s self-image was done. MPs who fought elections on pledges to defend the vulnerable now find themselves explaining why their government is considering squeezing disability support while MPs accept lavish hospitality.
On housing, welfare, and net migration more broadly, progress has been anaemic. Net migration remains far above pre-Brexit levels. Housing shortages continue to worsen, fuelling resentment that migrants are being prioritised for scarce accommodation. Local councils are struggling to absorb the costs. These pressures are politically combustible — and they are starting to burn through Labour’s early goodwill.
A Government Tarnished by Scandal
Compounding policy drift has been a series of scandals that have punctured Starmer’s carefully cultivated image of probity.
The resignation of Angela Rayner in September after revelations that she underpaid £40,000 in stamp duty was a devastating moment. Rayner had positioned herself as the straight-talking deputy, the moral counterweight to Tory sleaze. Her departure, following an independent adviser’s damning verdict, forced a major reshuffle that unsettled the Cabinet and weakened the government’s internal cohesion.
She was far from alone. Tulip Siddiq was forced to quit as anti-corruption minister amid questions over her family ties to the former Bangladeshi regime. Anneliese Dodds resigned after aid budget cuts. Rosie Duffield walked out of the parliamentary party, accusing Starmer’s inner circle of “sneaze” and hypocrisy after revelations about MPs accepting more than £100,000 in gifts. And Paul Ovenden, Starmer’s director of strategy, resigned after vulgar private messages about Diane Abbott surfaced from his past.
Eight ministerial departures in a single year would be a major embarrassment for any government, let alone one elected to “clean up” politics. The whiff of hypocrisy — cutting welfare while enjoying luxury gifts — has been corrosive. It feeds a narrative that Labour is not only failing on policy but becoming indistinguishable from the complacent establishment it replaced.
Restive Back Benches
Beneath the surface of Labour’s commanding parliamentary majority, dissatisfaction is spreading.
On the party’s left, MPs are furious over welfare cuts, asylum policy, and foreign policy alignment with the United States. Dozens have signed letters condemning Starmer’s stance on Gaza and Trump’s peace plan. Others grumble privately that the government is “managing decline,” not transforming the country.
On the party’s right, there is growing unease that border failures could prove electorally lethal. MPs representing constituencies in Kent, Essex, and the Midlands — the areas most directly affected by illegal crossings — warn that the government’s inability to stem the flow is poisoning Labour’s reputation for competence.
For now, discipline holds. But the fissures are visible. Starmer has kept a tight grip on his Cabinet, but that grip may not hold indefinitely if policy failures pile up, taxes increase still further, and poll numbers slide further.
Trump, Gaza and Diplomatic Humiliation
Starmer’s one attempt to seize the international stage ended in embarrassment. When Donald Trump unveiled his Gaza peace deal earlier this week, Starmer rushed to associate himself with the breakthrough. He flew to Egypt for the signing ceremony, hoping to bask in the glow of historic diplomacy.
Instead, he was overshadowed and sidelined. Trump dominated the proceedings, relegating Starmer to the role of a bit-part player. At one press conference, Trump addressed “my friend Starmer,” prompting the Prime Minister to step forward — only for the former President to continue speaking, leaving Starmer awkwardly stranded.
The optics were brutal: the leader of a diminished Britain trying to piggyback on a deal brokered entirely by Washington. At home, Labour’s left erupted. Thirty-eight MPs signed a letter accusing Trump of “ethnic cleansing” and demanding the UK distance itself from his plan. Starmer tried to straddle both camps — praising the agreement as “a vital step” while avoiding specifics — but pleased neither.
His attempt to use foreign policy for domestic political gain ended instead as a reminder of Britain’s reduced influence and his own political misjudgment.
The Political Consequences
The cumulative effect of these missteps is becoming clear. Polling now shows Labour’s once commanding lead has eroded sharply. A recent Survation poll put the party just six points ahead of the Conservatives, down from 18 points a year ago. Starmer’s personal ratings have slumped into net negative territory for the first time since becoming Prime Minister.
Immigration tops the list of voter concerns. When asked which party is best placed to handle illegal migration, more respondents now say “neither” than choose Labour. Among working-class voters — the backbone of Labour’s 2024 coalition — confidence in the government’s handling of migration has collapsed.
This is politically dangerous territory. Immigration has long been the issue where governments are judged most harshly. The sight of boats landing daily on Britain’s shores, accompanied by ministerial claims that “the tide has turned,” is eroding Starmer’s claim to competence. Voters are not interested in legal caveats; they want results.
Meanwhile, the steady drumbeat of resignations, rows and backbench unease is chipping away at Labour’s reputation for unity and discipline. Starmer’s parliamentary majority insulates him from immediate political danger — but not from political gravity.
A Year of Drift
Every government faces teething problems in its first year. But the pattern emerging under Starmer is more serious: not isolated missteps, but a broader failure to convert promises into action. His government looks cautious, technocratic, and increasingly adrift on the issues that matter most to voters.
Starmer’s defenders argue he inherited a mess from the Conservatives. That is true. But he also inherited sky-high expectations, a huge majority, and a public desperate for change. The electorate will not indulge excuses for long.
His first 15 months have been a year of drift: border chaos, policy reversals, scandals, and diplomatic misjudgments. Unless he can swiftly demonstrate tangible results — above all on illegal migration — his premiership risks hardening into a story of broken promises.
Click here for more News & Current Affairs at EU Today
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
