THE LABOUR government announced on Thursday that it had removed 16,400 illegal migrants since taking office in July, the fastest rate of removals since 2018.
On taking office, prime minister Keir Starmer scrapped the previous Conservative government's scheme to send migrants who arrive illegally to Rwanda, instead setting up a Border Security Command to crack down on illegal migration – a huge political issue in Britain.
The new system prioritises dismantling the people-smuggling networks that enable migrants to cross into Britain using small boats. It also emphasises detaining and removing individuals living illegally in the country.
“Our message to those wanting to come here illegally is clear – you are wasting your money putting your trust in these vile gangs and will be returned swiftly,” Starmer said in a statement.
The government is also planning to introduce a sanctions regime aimed at leaders of smuggling networks responsible for bringing tens of thousands of people into the country annually.
According to government data, over 36,800 people crossed the Channel in 2024, a 25 per cent increase compared to the previous year. Dozens of migrants have died attempting the journey.
Since the Labour government came to power, enforced returns of illegal migrants have risen by 24 per cent year-on-year. The removals include 2,580 foreign nationals convicted of crimes.
Keir Starmer speaks during a reception for public sector workers at 10 Downing Street in London on July 1, 2025. (Photo by CARL COURT/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
PRIME MINISTER Keir Starmer faced the most serious test of his leadership on Tuesday (1) as his government’s flagship welfare reforms came under fierce attack from within his own party.
The day was marked by emotional speeches, last-minute concessions, and a deep sense of division among Labour MPs, many of whom said the proposed changes would push vulnerable people into poverty
The atmosphere in the House of Commons as tense, with about 50 Labour MPs expected to vote against the bill, reported The Times.
The government, aware of the scale of the rebellion, was reportedly considering further concessions, including delaying the most controversial measures until after a full review of the welfare system.
One of the most contentious points was the introduction of a four-point threshold for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) eligibility, which critics said would deny help to those unable to wash or dress below the waist from November 2026
Marie Tidball, one of the only MPs with a visible physical disability, delivered a moving speech, saying, “It is with a broken heart that I will be voting against this bill today. As a matter of conscience, I need my constituents to know I cannot support the proposed changes to PIP as currently drafted. Low-level support like PIP helps disabled people, keeping us out of the dark corners of hospitals, prisons and social care settings.”
She warned that the changes could put about 150,000 people into poverty.
Apsana Begum, MP for Poplar and Limehouse, has announced she will vote against the bill, citing deep concerns about its impact on disabled people.
Apsana Begum
Begum said, “When it comes to people’s lives and wellbeing, there can be no compromise. Politics should serve people – not the other way around.” She criticised the planned £3.5 billion cuts to disability benefits, calling them unacceptable.
The MP expressed strong opposition to what she described as a “two-tier system” that would force disabled people into greater hardship.
Begum also pointed out the anxiety felt by disabled constituents in her area, who have already endured years of austerity and hardship. “I say to them: I am with you,” she declared.
She also condemned other welfare measures such as the two-child limit and the “poisonous narrative” that blames people for their poverty. “My constituents voted for an end to austerity. They want a welfare system that supports people, not one that pushes into poverty,” Begum said.
“That’s why I’m voting against this cruel Disability Benefit Cuts bill”
Rebecca Long Bailey, a former Labour leadership contender, echoed these concerns. She said the planned cuts “will still push hundreds of thousands of vulnerable sick and disabled people into poverty,” adding that “existing claimants will live in fear that if the situation changes and they are reassessed, they could lose everything under the new system.”
Long Bailey criticised the government for rushing the bill through without proper consultation, warning that it would worsen human rights violations already highlighted by the United Nations
Dame Meg Hillier, who had initially led efforts to block the bill, withdrew her amendment after the government agreed to a “staggered approach.”
She told the Commons, “Divided parties do not hold power or government. If we want to power our government, if we want to see our values in this country, we have to vote for this today.” Yet she admitted that “there is still a lot to be done” to protect disabled people and those seeking work
Meanwhile, the government’s climbdown last week was prompted by a major revolt from Labour MPs who argued the original proposals went too far. More than 120 MPs had signalled their willingness to rebel, forcing ministers to water down the changes.
The new plan means the stricter criteria for sickness and disability benefits will only apply to new claimants, not those already receiving support
Secretary of state for work and pensions, Liz Kendall, presented the revised bill to parliament, but newly released government data estimated that even the watered-down reforms could push an extra 150,000 people into poverty.
This left some Labour MPs still reluctant to back the bill, with backbenchers exposing “so many holes in the government’s plans,” as one put it
Business secretary Jonathan Reynolds told Times Radio, “We’re all trying to find a way to protect the most vulnerable people and get people back into work if they need it,” defending the government’s approach.
However, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch rejected the bill outright, calling it “a fudge” and saying, “A fundamental and serious programme to reform our welfare system is required, and this bill is not it."
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.
Letby, from Hereford in western England, was charged in 2020 after a series of deaths in the hospital's neo-natal unit.
POLICE on Tuesday said they had arrested three senior staff members at the hospital where nurse Lucy Letby was found guilty of murdering seven babies. The arrests were made on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter.
The investigation was launched in 2023 at the Countess of Chester Hospital (CoCH) in northwest England, following Letby’s conviction and life sentence for killings that took place between 2015 and 2016.
Arrests part of wider criminal probe
Detective Superintendent Paul Hughes said the three individuals were "part of the senior leadership team at the CoCH in 2015-2016" and were arrested on Monday.
He confirmed they were held on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter and have been released on bail.
Hughes said the arrests were the first under the wider criminal investigation into the hospital’s handling of the baby deaths. He added that the arrests had no impact on Letby’s convictions.
Letby case and ongoing review
The case drew national attention during trials held in 2023 and 2024. Letby was convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others.
Letby, from Hereford in western England, was charged in 2020 after a series of deaths in the hospital's neo-natal unit. She has maintained her innocence throughout.
According to the prosecution, she attacked the premature babies—usually during night shifts—by injecting air, overfeeding with milk, or using insulin.
In February, a panel of international experts said the evidence used to convict her was flawed. They suggested the babies may have died due to natural causes or poor medical care.
Letby’s legal team has submitted an application to the independent Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to examine if there was a possible miscarriage of justice in her two trials.
(With inputs from AFP)
Keep ReadingShow less
Uber Eats and Deliveroo will tighten ID checks, including facial verification, to curb illegal migrant work after UK government pressure. (Photo: Getty Images)
FOOD delivery companies Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat have agreed to strengthen security measures, including facial verification checks, to prevent irregular migrants from working through their platforms, following criticism from the UK government.
The announcement came after the Labour government summoned the three firms for a meeting in response to a report by The Sun which exposed how some migrants were bypassing rules and working illegally in the gig economy sector.
Although the companies already have controls to verify workers’ legal right to work in the UK, the Home Office said "there continues to be abuse in the sector" through account sharing.
Facial verification checks to be expanded
According to the government, many asylum seekers who cross the Channel and await decisions on their asylum claims are using verified delivery driver accounts rented from others to work illegally. These individuals do not have the legal right to work while their claims are pending.
The Home Office said the delivery platforms have “agreed to increase the use of facial verification checks” to ensure “only registered account holders can work off their platforms.” The companies also committed to “combat illegal working”.
“We are taking a zero-tolerance approach to illegal working across the board,” said Border Security and Asylum minister Angela Eagle.
Immigration pressure and proposed legislation
Prime minister Keir Starmer has faced pressure from the anti-immigration Reform UK party led by Nigel Farage to reduce irregular migration. A new immigration bill currently before parliament seeks to expand police powers against smuggling networks and tighten work eligibility controls.
Since January, over 19,000 people have crossed the Channel in small boats to reach the UK from France, marking a record number for this point in the year despite efforts to deter such journeys.
French officials, including former interior minister Gerald Darmanin, have said that the availability of illegal work opportunities in the UK continues to act as a pull factor for migrants making the crossing.
Do not expect any parties in Downing Street to celebrate the government’s first birthday on Friday (4). After a rocky year, prime minister Sir Keir Starmer had more than a few regrets when giving interviews about his first year in office.
He explained that he chose the wrong chief of staff. That his opening economic narrative was too gloomy. That choosing the winter fuel allowance as a symbol of fiscal responsibility backfired. Starmer ‘deeply regretted’ the speech he gave to launch his immigration white paper, from which only the phrase ‘island of strangers’ cut through. Can any previous political leader have been quite so self-critical of their own record in real time?
This unconventional approach could be a reminder of Starmer’s best quality: that he is the antithesis of US president Donald Trump. Trump has a narcissistic need to be the main character, a hyperactive addiction to conflict, the attention span of a toddler and no interest in policy substance beyond the television and social media optics. So Trump is the disruptor in chief of global trade, security and the US constitutional order. Given a binary choice, it is infinitely better to have the serious sobriety of Starmer, trying to cooperate with allies to limit Trump’s chaotic contributions to increased insecurity.
Yet, it is a contrast that could be taken too far. Trump realises that politics is about what you say as well as what you do. What Starmer is palpably still missing is a clear public story of what his government is for. This was partly a matter of choice. A gritty public mood has little appetite for new visions, unless shown tangible progress first. It reflects the taciturn character of the leader too. Yet the issue is not simply one of communication. The challenge of finding a narrative reflects uncertainty about the strategic direction of the government.
Judged by its actions, this is a centre-left government. It has made many decisions that the previous Conservative government would not have taken. It changed the fiscal rules, borrowing much more for investment. Despite the constraints of its manifesto pledges on most taxes, it did raise taxes so as to have more to spend on the NHS, and on housebuilding. The government is committed to higher defence spending, and also to net zero, to closer UK-EU relations, within the ‘red lines’ which Labour set out, as it takes care to check if it can take the public with it. It will work with multilateral institutions, rather than quitting treaties and conventions. If this is a centre-left government in its deeds, it may prefer to self-identify as something else, without quite managing to articulate what that is.
So this has been a very tactical government, which has changed its mind about most of its tactical choices. The Comprehensive Spending Review was intended as a reset moment, in giving the government clearer priorities, though it has been challenging to make the numbers add up. But the parliamentary rebellion over its welfare bill could prove a more significant turning point. A government which won a landslide had lost its majority once 125 of its MPs - a majority of the backbench - declared they were unable to pass a government bill without a significant change. This was about the substantive impact of heavy income losses for disabled people - and the lack of a rationale beyond saving money. This rebellion is also about the political strategy of the government. Much of the parliamentary group seem diminishing returns in actively picking fights with progressives who Labour will need to keep the populism of Reform leader Nigel Farage out.
Can Starmer fix his government? The prime minister is 62 years old. He cannot change his personality or working style, not metamorphosis into a visionary speech-maker. There is little point in advisers inventing hypothetical strategies - such as choosing to present Starmer as a radical insurgent, rather than the sober incumbent, which cannot fit with the prime minister they have got, and his gradualist agenda for long-term change. Yet Starmer could use his evident capacity for self-reflection to identify feasible changes. He needs to repair how his Downing Street operation makes decisions - and now knows that backbench support is not unconditional.
Facing a fragmented opposition, Labour’s chances of re-election in four years time may be underestimated. Yet most of Labour’s tactical mistakes have come from trying to run a permanent election campaign in government, four years early. The government needs to govern to generate the substantive record and future agenda it would defend from the populist right in 2029. Australia's Anthony Albanese, who faced many similar criticisms to Starmer, bounced back to get re-elected, though the Canadian Liberals changed leaders to defeat the right. How many years Starmer has left in Downing Street is anybody’s guess. This time next year, he would need a stronger story to tell.
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.
Keep ReadingShow less
People take part in a protest against disability welfare cuts on June 30, 2025 in London. (Photo: Getty Images)
DOZENS of Labour MPs are expected to vote against the government’s welfare reforms despite recent concessions aimed at easing opposition.
The government had initially planned to tighten eligibility for Personal Independence Payment (Pip) but later said the stricter rules would only apply to new claimants from November 2025.
Ministers also promised a review of the Pip assessment process, in partnership with disability organisations, due to conclude by autumn 2026.
More than 120 Labour MPs had signed an amendment to block the legislation, though a revised amendment supported by 39 MPs and backed by disability charities remains active.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch told the BBC her party would oppose the bill, saying, “The benefits bill is too high. It was £40bn just before Covid. It is now projected to be a £100bn by 2030. And what Labour is doing is not making any savings at all.”
Labour MP Olivia Blake, who opposes the reforms, told BBC Newsnight, “I strongly believe that these kind of punitive measures of cutting welfare are not going to have the outcomes that we've been told they will.”
According to Department for Work and Pensions modelling, the revised proposals could push 150,000 people into poverty by 2030, down from an earlier estimate of 250,000.
Sir Stephen Timms, who will lead the review, told BBC Newsnight the government’s measures would help reduce poverty and make Pip more sustainable.