20+Labour MPs in revolt over new asylum proposals as Starmer faces growing internal mutiny
Sir Keir Starmer is facing one of the most serious challenges to his authority since taking office, as Labour MPs voice anger over hardline new asylum policies that would significantly expand the deportation of families and children who have been refused the right to remain in the UK.
The plans, which include the possibility of confiscating assets from asylum seekers to help cover costs, have triggered deep divisions across the party. Several MPs have accused colleagues of failing to recognise the public’s frustration over illegal migration, while others say the measures cross moral red lines.
The Conservatives have indicated they could help the government pass the legislation if Labour rebels attempt to block it.
The home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, unveiled the proposals on Monday. They include consulting on the enforcement of removals for families, including children, who have refused financial incentives to leave voluntarily. Ministers also want to restrict the way UK judges interpret the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly article 8, which protects the right to family life. The government argues that asylum seekers are using these protections to avoid deportation.
“We will launch a consultation on the process for enforcing the removal of families, including children,” the policy document stated.
Starmer insists system must be repaired
Speaking to the Daily Mirror, Starmer defended the contentious plans.
“We inherited a broken asylum system just as we inherited a broken economy, broken public services and a broken NHS. We have got to fix it,” he said.
“We need to make sure there is a consensus on this. People must have confidence in our asylum system. We need to stop people arriving who should not be here and return those who are not genuine refugees.”
Despite this, more than 20 Labour MPs have publicly voiced concern. They include former human rights barrister Tony Vaughan, select committee chair Sarah Owen, and several 2024 intake MPs such as Simon Opher, Abitsam Mohamed and Neil Duncan Jordan.
In the Commons, housing and communities committee chair Florence Eshalomi questioned whether Mahmood could guarantee the policies would not create damaging unintended consequences.
Mahmood pushed back strongly, saying some MPs had misinterpreted her words as divisive. She referenced racist abuse she receives, adding that asylum has become deeply polarising.
A government source insisted that there would be “a huge amount of engagement” with concerned MPs and stressed that unaccompanied children would not be deported.
Fears of child detention and accusations of “morally bankrupt” policy
Multiple Labour MPs said concerns were especially acute around plans that could lead to more children being detained prior to removal.
“I did not fight an election as a Labour MP to bundle distressed children on to deportation flights,” one MP said.
Another, representing a Green leaning seat, said the backlash on social media had been intense.
“It is all terrible. Straight from the far right playbook. Many colleagues feel the same,” they said.
Opher argued the government should stop dangerous crossings and also stop scapegoating migrants.
“Measures that create bureaucracy and insecurity do not strengthen control,” he said. “They cost money, waste time and weaken the system.”
Sarah Owen said: “A strong immigration system does not need to be a cruel one. Refugees and asylum seekers are real people, fleeing war and persecution.”
Neil Duncan Jordan added that long standing residents now feel unwelcome.
Check Now: NHS staff to be made redundant after Treasury approves £1bn funding
“British values are compassion, tolerance and generosity. Kicking out recognised asylum seekers does not reflect those values. It hardens us as a nation,” he said.
Internal doubts grow over asset seizures and settlement rights
Several Labour aides also expressed serious discomfort. Some questioned whether the government could pass the measures without retreating on parts of its plan, including asset seizures and the proposed requirement for refugee families to wait 20 years before gaining permanent settlement.
Officials had to clarify on Monday that they had no intention of proactively seizing jewellery from refugees.
One Labour aide said the parliamentary party would likely attempt to dilute the proposals first. Another described the measures as an “opening offer”.
One MP in a marginal seat said the rhetoric portraying the UK as the top destination for refugees was inaccurate, noting that Britain ranked 14th in the latest global data.
But others insisted that tougher action was necessary.
“The public are moving faster than colleagues,” one minister said. “People believe the stereotype of the deserving refugee has shifted dramatically because of the scale of global displacement.”
Plans to toughen ECHR interpretations and accelerate removals
The Home Office document states that refugee status will become temporary and subject to review every 30 months. The government also aims to limit article 8 rights to immediate family members only.
On article 3, which bars torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, the government wants to encourage international partners to “evolve” the wording, claiming it has expanded too far over time.
A new appeals body staffed by trained adjudicators would be created to speed up removals and increase the capacity of the existing system.
Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, warned that the human impact was being overlooked.
“These reforms sound tough, but they will not fix the real problems,” he said. “They risk creating more delays, more stress and more inhumane treatment for the men, women and children the system is supposed to protect.”
