...
By Newsweek Editors
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Keir Starmer has delivered what British voters say they want on immigration. In return, he's been sent packing.
The prime minister has resigned less than two years after the landslide that swept him to power. And he was brought down, in the end, substantially on an issue where his government has arguably succeeded most of all.
American Democrats should not see this as a distant Westminster melodrama, because it's a preview of their own near future.
Read More on Analysis
A governing party can deliver the border policy its public demanded and still be destroyed by the voters it spent years dismissing as bigots.
That's the warning Britain is broadcasting across the Atlantic.
As the Democratic Party's own freshly exhumed 2024 autopsy suggests, it's a warning the party seems determined to ignore.
The British Paradox
Despite President Donald Trump's read that Starmer had "failed badly" on immigration, there's a paradox that suggests otherwise.
Earlier this spring, Nigel Farage's Reform UK swept the English local elections, winning more than 1,450 council seats while Labour shed over 1,100, routing the governing party in heartlands it had held without interruption for generations.
Nearly a hundred Labour MPs called on the prime minister to go. His health secretary, Wes Streeting, quit the government's cabinet in protest. Polling placed Starmer's net favorability at minus 48, among the worst of any leader in the Western world.
And yet, on the issue that propelled Reform's rise more than any other, his government was quietly winning.
Britain's Office for National Statistics reported that net migration to the U.K. fell to 171,000 in the year to December 2025, the lowest figure since early 2021, and a staggering collapse from the 944,000 peak reached under the Conservatives in 2023.
The decline was deliberate, not accidental. Starmer himself had promised "a migration system that is controlled, selective, and fair," language that would not have sounded out of place in a Conservative manifesto a decade earlier.
Starmer’s home secretaries—first Yvette Cooper, now Shabana Mahmood—raised skilled-worker salary thresholds, ended overseas recruitment for care workers, and shrank the asylum backlog to its lowest level since 2019.
Mahmood put the argument about the asylum system—which sees claimants of refugee status fed and housed in local hotels—in the language of trust.
Britons "see a state that they pay taxes toward, yet it is proving unable to stop a flow of dinghies across the channel," Mahmood said in a recent speech.
"And they see a state that is paying billions toward hotels like the one near them. It doesn’t look fair. Because it is not fair. And it erodes their trust in government."
By almost any policy metric, this is what a broad majority of British voters had demanded for the better part of two decades, and drove the majority to vote for Brexit to "take back control" as the slogan put it of the country’s borders.
Reform's own framing is blunter: "Illegal immigration is out of control because politicians choose not to enforce the law."
Yet it did not save Starmer and the Democrats should study why.
A Trust Deficit Decades in the Making
Labour's problem was never what it was doing. It was what it did—and, just as importantly, what it said—over the long years before.
The post-1997 New Labour government chose not to impose transitional controls when eight Eastern European countries joined the European Union (EU) in 2004, while most other major EU members did.
Officials had quietly forecast net arrivals of around 13,000 a year; the real figure ran an order of magnitude higher.
Towns like Boston in Lincolnshire, which would later record the highest Leave vote in the 2016 referendum, were reshaped within the span of a few years.
Worse than the miscalculation, to put it charitably, was the response to the voters who objected.
Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown's open-microphone gaffe with the Rochdale pensioner Gillian Duffy—whom he privately dismissed as "a sort of bigoted woman" for raising concerns about Eastern European arrivals during the 2010 campaign—was a window into how Labour’s leadership had come to regard a large slice of its own historic voter base.
To worry aloud about the pace of change in your own neighborhood was treated, in those years, not as a position to be argued with, but as a moral failing to be educated out of you.
Voters noticed. They remembered. And when they were given a vehicle—first UKIP, then Brexit, now Reform—they used it.
Farage’s recent comments about immigration, marking the 10th anniversary of Brexit from the momentous referendum, distilled that grievance.
"We had the freedom to do something about it, but we chose to do the opposite, and that’s angered people," Farage told the Daily Express.
That is why the Mahmood numbers, impressive as they are, could not rescue this government. The trust deficit is generational.
Reform UK is not, in the end, a policy critique of the current Labour ministry. It’s the political expression of voters who concluded, somewhere between the Blair years and the small-boat crossings of the late 2010s, that Labour was either unable or unwilling to be straight with them about immigration.
Other failures under Starmer—the politically-disastrous winter fuel payment fiasco of 2025, the strain of holding together a 412-seat caucus stretched across the whole spectrum of the left—compounded the picture.
But the foundation of the collapse was older. It was poured decade by decade, in the long stretches when the party’s instinct was first to deny there was a problem, and then to denounce the people who said there was.
What the Autopsy Refused to See
The trans-Atlantic parallel is uncomfortably close, and the Democratic Party made the evidence public.
In May, the DNC published its long-suppressed autopsy of the 2024 election, over its own chair’s objections and bracketed by a disclaimer disowning the findings.
On immigration—the issue that, alongside inflation, sank the ticket—the report's diagnosis was revealing.
Drafted by the strategist Paul Rivera and later disavowed by chair Ken Martin, it faulted the Biden White House for failing to contradict or correct the Republican labeling of Kamala Harris as the administration’s "border czar."
The problem, in this telling, was one of messaging: Harris was mislabeled, and the rebuttal came too late.
Senator Elissa Slotkin has said the quiet part more directly than the autopsy did: "Democrats are scared to impose real rules."
What the autopsy did not say is more telling than what it did.
It did not reckon with the fact that the administration in which Harris served presided over the highest levels of illegal border crossings in modern American history, with Customs and Border Protection recording more than 2.4 million southwest border encounters in fiscal year 2023 alone.
It did not reckon with the substance of the grievance—only with the framing of it. And treating a substantive failure as a communications problem is precisely the move Labour made for 30 years. It’s the move that lost Britain’s industrial towns for the party.
The pattern is the same the rest of the way down. Americans who said the border was out of control were, in the cultural commanding heights of the Democratic coalition, too often dismissed as xenophobes, Fox News dupes, or both.
By the time Biden issued his belated executive crackdown in mid-2024, the electorate had stopped listening. The Democrats lost the White House.
Punished for Excess, Not Rewarded for Existing
The proof is already in the polling, and it should keep Democratic strategists awake at night.
Trump has spent his second term squandering his strongest issue.
His net approval on immigration has swung from double-digits positive a year ago to double-digits negative, after mass-deportation raids that swept up legal residents and citizens and the killing of two American citizens by federal agents in Minneapolis.
Voters' true preference turned out to be control, not cruelty. They back deporting serious criminals and recent crossers, but recoil at the mass removal of families settled for years, and most now say enforcement has gone too far.
Ruben Gallego, the Arizona Democrat trying to build a tougher party vocabulary on the issue, has argued that Democrats "don't have to choose between border security and immigration reform."
To be fair to the Democrats, President Biden did eventually move right on the border, issuing a June 2024 proclamation that restricted asylum for many migrants crossing unlawfully between ports of entry.
Democrats can also point to Trump’s second-term enforcement backlash as evidence that the electorate was never asking for maximalism.
The issue polling also offers them a case for patience rather than panic. In the Economist/YouGov series, the Republican advantage on which party handles immigration better fell from sixteen points in November 2025 to one point in late April 2026.
A party strategist could reasonably argue that this is how trust begins to return. First the other side overreaches, then voters reconsider, then competence has room to matter again—if competence is actually delivered.
That Democratic read is tempting, but it's also the warning. Democrats haven't taken the lead on immigration; they have only narrowed the gap.
One running tally had the Republican edge on the issue fall from sixteen points last autumn to a single point by spring. The incumbent is being punished for his excess; the opposition is not being rewarded for existing.
If it looks familiar, that's because it's the Reform dynamic in an American flag.
In Britain, Labour's failure flowed not to the Conservatives but to an insurgent voters trusted more on the border. In America, an electorate that still does not trust Democrats may simply churn—or look elsewhere—rather than hand the keys back to a party that has never reckoned with 2021.
A future Democratic administration will, in all likelihood, enter office having promised—and intending to deliver—the tightest border the country has seen in a generation. By any rational standard, that is the right thing to do.
The assumption, once the policy is delivered, is that the politics will follow; that competent enforcement will restore the trust which incompetent enforcement squandered.
Starmer is the live experiment for that assumption, and the early returns are damning.
The Reckoning Labour Ducked
If Democrats want to be trusted again on immigration—not for the length of a single election cycle, but durably—they will have to do something Labour never did, and something last month’s autopsy pointedly declined to do.
They will have to acknowledge, explicitly and on the record, that the border surge of 2021 through early 2024 was not just a logistical strain but a substantive policy failure that fell hardest on working-class Americans of every background, including in the very Latino communities the party assumed it owned.
They will have to apologize, not for being too welcoming to migrants in the abstract, but for being too dismissive of the citizens who said something was wrong, and were called bigots for saying so.
Put simply, they will have to do the unglamorous work of truth and reconciliation that Labour ducked.
If they manage it—if Democrats take a durable, cross-pollster lead on immigration without ever making that accounting—then this argument will have been wrong.
But Britain suggests that is not how trust, once forfeited, tends to return. Without that fuller reckoning, the pattern will repeat.
Republicans, like Reform, will not let voters forget. They will remind them, election after election, of the years when the border was effectively unmanaged and dissent was pathologized.
A future Democratic president may deliver tighter controls and a functioning asylum system, only to discover, as Starmer is discovering today, that delivery and credit are different currencies, and that voters denied the second do not feel obliged to pay the first.
Starmer’s fall is a peculiarly modern political tragedy.
A government punished less for what it is doing than for what its predecessors said. American Democrats, watching across the Atlantic as a landslide secured less than two years ago unravels in real time, should recognize the warning. They have, just barely, the time to choose differently.
They could start by writing the autopsy that last month’s autopsy refused to write—the one in which the party admits, plainly, that the people who raised the alarm were right, and that calling them bigots was a category error.
If they wait until 2028, it will already be too late.
In a polarized era, the center is dismissed as bland. At Newsweek, ours is different: The Courageous Center—it's not "both sides," it's sharp, challenging and alive with ideas. We follow facts, not factions. If that sounds like the kind of journalism you want to see thrive, we need you.
When you become a Newsweek Member, you support a mission to keep the center strong and vibrant. Members enjoy: Ad-free browsing, exclusive content and editor conversations. Help keep the center courageous. Join today.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines