It’s always awkward for a Labour politician when they gain fans on the Right. That’s one reason why Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is the least popular Cabinet minister with Labour Party members. But could the introduction of a scheme to bring tens of thousands of asylum seekers to the UK change the way that both sides think about her?

According to The Times, the new policy is “similar” to the Homes for Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme in which British citizens volunteer to provide rent-free accommodation for displaced Ukrainian nationals. The guests receive a visa and support services and the hosts get £350 per month by way of thanks.

Of course, that was a response to a one-off emergency. Expanding the approach to asylum seekers from every part of the world indefinitely would transform asylum policy. Indeed, Britain would move pretty close to the liberal immigration regime advocated by the Fabian Society in its 2023 report, Lawful and Fair. So, having built her image as a hardliner on immigration and the most socially conservative member of the Cabinet, what on earth is Mahmood playing at?

The short answer is politics — specifically, the internal machinations of the Labour Party. In 2025, Keir Starmer promoted her to the Home Office to get a grip on immigration. However, he’ll soon be gone and he and Mahmood have fallen out over an alleged breach of the Ministerial Code by immigration minister Mike Tapp. There’s also talk of Starmer’s likely successor Andy Burnham diluting her most controversial reforms — especially on restricting Indefinite Leave to Remain. And so, with a comprehensive reshuffle on the way, a sop to the party’s immigration liberals may be the best way of keeping her current job.

But how does Mahmood reconcile such a maneuver with her personal brand — and, more significantly, Burnham’s mission to win back voters from Reform UK? She will argue that the new policy isn’t about expanding the asylum system but improving it. In particular, the sponsorship aspect is about securing community buy-in to the settling of refugees. The second point in her case would be that Homes for Ukraine, which has helped 200,000 refugees, is a successful proof of concept. Thirdly, she would insist that providing “safe and legal” routes for asylum seekers is essential to solving the small boats problem.

However, the Government’s case risks falling apart on all these points. Communities won’t be won over if only the immigration enthusiasts are empowered. That’s especially true if overseas sources of funding are allowed to flow into the scheme, which would make a mockery of the language around localism.

As for the Homes for Ukraine precedent, anti-immigration voices will point to evidence showing major disparities in criminality between immigrants from different countries. At the very least, skeptics will demand full transparency on the success, or otherwise, of integration. The current Home Office approach, which obfuscates country-of-origin information, is incompatible with building trust.

One also has to doubt whether the new policy will solve the small boats crisis. The main point of a sponsorship scheme is to focus help on the most vulnerable individuals — in other words, not the young male economic migrants who overwhelmingly keep the people smugglers in business. Those who see safe and legal routes as the solution should be reminded that the unprecedented Boriswave of legal immigration did not stop illegal immigration into the UK. As is the case with drugs, prostitution and other social issues, we should not assume that state-regulated programs automatically displace criminal activity.

The shame here is that Mahmood has learned nothing from Starmer’s failure. Seeking to reach out to the Left from a moderate position never works. You just earn the contempt of the former while losing the trust of the latter.

---

Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.

peterfranklin_

---