Catherine Dunlop

Public debate over immigration and freedom of expression has become one of the most divisive issues in British politics. For many, the question is no longer just about border policy but about who gets to speak, what can be said, and who is silenced. Against this backdrop, the Unite the Kingdom Freedom of Speech Rally on 13 September sought to make its mark.

The rally was directed as much against the Left — which for the marchers includes Starmer — as against immigration. The participants expressed frustration at being demonised whenever they tried to share their views on immigration. After all, this was, in their words, a Freedom of Speech Rally.

What was striking, however, was what was left unsaid. There was no mention of standards of living, the cost of living crisis, or the broader context of immigration — the push-and-pull factors that drive it, such as unending wars and military interference on the one hand, and the UK’s low-wage, black economy on the other. Nor was there any distinction made between legal and illegal immigration. The European speakers invited to the platform offered little more in the way of nuance: the French far-right figure Eric Zemmour spoke only about cultural differences, while the representative from the German AfD framed the issue in terms of a two-thousand-year-long struggle against Islam.

Tommy Robinson summed up the sentiment from the stage, declaring that the majority of the country had been gagged on immigration and would no longer be silenced. He said:

“Today is the spark of a cultural revolution in Great Britain. This is our moment. The traitors in Westminster are watching right now. They are cowering, they are trembling. Keir Starmer, the Labour Party, the revolution has started.
They managed to silence us for 20 years with labels. Racist, Islamophobe, far-right—they don’t work anymore.” ….. “[politicians] targeted us, they slandered us, they demonised us, they attacked us and they imprisoned us. But they can see the people power, they can see the shift. Now, Keir Starmer was elected off of 9 million votes. He slithered into parliament with 9 million votes. 20 million British people didn’t bother to vote. Who are those people? It’s us. People like you, people like me, who have been told their voices do not matter.”

At its core, the rally’s main grievance was the suppression of anti-immigration speech as inherently racist.

But why be against immigration? The speakers pointed to examples of migrant criminality — grooming gangs and the Southport murders — as justification for their stance.

Yet these are not the only reasons.

Many feel that immigration has changed the face of Britain, and that this change is accelerating. Between 2022 and 2024, according to the ONS, two million new immigrants arrived — with no corresponding provision made for them. Instead of an increase in doctors’ appointments, school places, housing (especially council housing), and hospital capacity, many argue that these services have become more strained.

Adding to the frustration is the perception that immigrants are treated as the “darlings of the Left.” Critics claim that even when immigrant beliefs do not align with progressive values, the Left turns a blind eye, unwilling to confront contradictions in its own positions.

Resentment may also have a personal dimension. The men marching could well be the fathers of white working-class children who, according to league tables, are performing worse in school than any other group, including immigrant children. Immigrant communities often have ambition, stable extended families, religious faith, and tend to live in economically active areas such as London and other major cities. For some, this could fuel a sense of grievance — leading to attempts to undermine the good character of these groups as a form of retaliation.

Meanwhile, what has the Left been doing?
The Labour Party once included industrial workers alongside middle-class advocates speaking on their behalf. But Britain has shed much of its industrial base — coal, steel, textiles, car manufacturing — and with it the strong unions that once gave the working class a voice. Today, retail and wholesale trade, along with health and social care, make up 26% of jobs, followed by professional and technical work, business administration, education, and hospitality. Together, these sectors account for around 60% of all employment.

This shift has transformed the unions themselves. Gone are the powerful, confrontational organisations of the past. Thatcher’s government, aided by the press, demonised them, and the unions’ own failure to coordinate wage demands weakened their position further. In some cases — notably the miners — they misjudged the situation entirely, taking “revolutionary” action that hastened their decline.

The Thatcher and Blair eras encouraged a different ethic: home ownership, personal upward mobility, and private enterprise were presented as the keys to success.

Employers also changed. As one recent book describes:
“The neoliberal philosophy is to use consulting firms to target a company with a potential for wealth extraction, destroy workforce autonomy and union power, extract sources of value and turn the company into a soul-less, money-driven bureaucracy.”

Many employers today are investment funds that buy, strip, and sell companies. In some cases, large corporations are paradoxically popular — everyone uses Amazon despite its no-union stance — and consumers may accept low wages in exchange for cheaper goods.

Faced with these changes, the Left adapted — but in ways that left parts of its traditional base behind. Middle-class members became dominant, still seeking to champion the “less privileged.” But without strong working-class voices, the focus shifted toward causes unrelated to income or class: women, LGBT rights, ethnic minorities, and migrants. Immigration — legal or illegal — was increasingly portrayed as an unquestionable good.

For many working-class people, this was alienating. These causes became central to the moral identity of the middle-class Left, who could not easily abandon them even as women, gays, and ethnic minorities achieved significant success. The Left even rejected reports that celebrated such progress. The 2021 Sewell Report, for instance, concluded that the “claim the country is still institutionally racist is not borne out by the evidence.” Rather than welcoming this, the Left disputed it.

Thus, racism had to be found elsewhere — and it was found among those who wanted to limit immigration.

This accusation, deeply resented by many, caused a rupture. A large section of the population that once supported the Left now views it as the enemy. Worse, the state itself — which seems to represent these values — is increasingly distrusted. The arrests of individuals for social media posts against immigration only deepen this resentment. The case of Lucy Connolly, sentenced to more than two years in prison for a post that was online for just three hours and was based on false information spread by others, became a tipping point.

Public anger has grown so intense that all political movements — not just Reform — will eventually need to allow open discussion of immigration’s merits and limits. Even campaigns that focus on wealth inequality and taxation will have to address the immigration question.

A recent exchange with Gary Stevenson, the former trader and now prominent advocate of a Wealth Tax, illustrates this. Stevenson argues for such a tax not out of moral outrage but economic pragmatism, saying that the concentration of wealth in very few hands is economically destructive and risks societal collapse. During a phone-in on LBC, a caller warned Stevenson that he would get nowhere because his supporters refused to put limits on immigration and resorted to insults against those who wanted them. Stevenson admitted that the caller was probably right and affirmed the caller’s right to his opinion — though he stopped short of endorsing it.

If Stevenson or anyone else wishes to revive class politics and shift focus back to the social dimension, immigration must be part of the conversation. It is understandable that Stevenson seeks to keep his message simple and clear, but ignoring immigration leaves a crucial gap.

The Left should have investigated the wages and working conditions of new arrivals, as well as the role of the black economy and the dynamics of the UK’s low-wage model. These may seem like “grubby” questions compared to lofty ideals, but they are essential. Britain needs a new Ernest Bevin — someone who can organise across fragmented sectors, reject the low-wage economy that depends on a constant inflow of migrants, and build a high-wage economy that trains and supports its existing population.