David Lammy launched another attack on Nigel Farage (Image: Getty)

And he warned that Reform would “round up and deport our French, our Indian, our Caribbean neighbours who already have indefinite leave to remain.

“It is racist.”

It is the latest development in an increasingly bitter feud between Labour and Reform.

During that time Reform UK has seen its popularity surge.

An Ipsos poll last week put Reform on 34% support, Labour at 22% and the Tories on just 14%.

Mr Farage last week vowed to force non-EU migrants to re-apply for visas under a stricter criteria including a higher salary requirement and a better standard of English.

Sir Keir took a swipe at the idea during an interview with the BBC‘s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg as he kicked off the Labour Party annual conference in Liverpool.

He said: “What was said last week about deporting migrants who are lawfully here, who’ve been here for years, working in our hospitals, in our schools, running businesses, our neighbours…and Reform say they want to deport them. That would tear our country apart.”

But Mr Farage told the Daily Express the attacks are a sign of growing desperation.

He said: “Starmer thinks anybody here on a time-limited visa is entitled to stay in Britain for ever. Labour do not believe in border controls – and think anyone who does is racist.

Nigel Farage has vowed to scrap indefinite leave to remain (Image: Getty)

“This is a desperate attack from a man sinking in the opinion polls and leading a divided party.”

In a sign that Labour is attempting to take the fight to Reform, Mr Lammy doubled down on Sir Keir’s claim and urged Labour’s supporters to oppose the plan. The Justice Secretary said: “He wraps himself in our flag, but his policies don’t match British values.

“We must call his scheme to round up and deport our French, our Indian, our Caribbean neighbours, who already have indefinite leave to remain what it is – it is racist – and say not in our country, not in our name, not in our time.”

Mr Lammy also took a shot at the Tories, saying shadow lord chancellor Robert Jenrick’s attacks on judges would “make Winston Churchill shudder in his grave”.

He said: “Robert, patriotism isn’t smearing our independent judiciary from a pub on X. It’s standing up for the rule of law.”

Mr Lammy said that taking on the role of Justice Secretary “feels like coming home” for him.

“I was stopped and searched by the police. I saw too many people who look like me who ended up on the wrong side of the law.

Mr Lammy said that in his role, his “starting point is Magna Carta – no-one is above the law, no-one should have justice delayed, no-one should have justice denied”.

He said after the Conservatives, “prisons were bursting at 99% capacity, courts had record backlogs, rape victims waiting for years before their case came to trial, legal aid deserts right across the country”.

Mr Lammy set out three steps – to “rebuild trust”, to “modernise justice” with technology to help “less time on form-filling” and also to set up “punishment that works”.

David Lammy reignites Nigel Farage racist row as Labour doubles down on claim

David Lammy has reignited a bitter political row over Nigel Farage after again referring to the Reform UK leader while defending Labour’s decision to describe one of his party’s immigration policies as racist.

The dispute intensified during the Labour Party conference, where senior figures repeatedly attacked Reform over its proposals on immigration and indefinite leave to remain. Lammy went further by referring to allegations concerning Farage’s schooldays, prompting a fresh confrontation between Labour and Reform.

At the centre of the controversy is an important distinction. Labour has described a particular Reform policy as racist, while Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has separately insisted that neither Farage nor Reform voters should automatically be described as racist. Lammy’s comments about Farage personally, however, brought a different and more contentious issue into the argument.

Lammy’s intervention

Speaking during Labour’s conference, Lammy attacked Reform’s proposal to remove indefinite leave to remain from people who have already been granted permanent settlement rights.

The Justice Secretary argued that such a policy would affect people who had built lives in Britain, including people from countries such as France, India and Caribbean nations. In his conference speech, he explicitly described the proposal as racist and presented the issue as a question of British values and the rule of law.

That argument reflected the position already adopted by Starmer.

The Prime Minister had described Reform’s policy as “racist” and “immoral”, while making clear that his criticism was directed at the policy rather than at every individual who supports Reform. Starmer subsequently said he did not believe Reform voters were racist, arguing that many were concerned about immigration, borders and the pace of political change.

That distinction became increasingly important as Labour attempted to attack Reform without appearing to characterise all of its supporters in the same way.

The Farage schooldays controversy

Lammy then widened the argument by referring to Farage as someone who had once “flirted with Hitler Youth”.

The remark appeared to refer to allegations that emerged publicly in 2013 concerning Farage’s time as a schoolboy. The allegations centred on claims that Farage and other pupils had sung Nazi-related songs or made gestures associated with the Hitler Youth.

Farage has denied the allegations.

Reports at the time referred to a letter said to have been written by a former teacher in 1981. According to the allegations, pupils had marched through a village while shouting songs associated with the Hitler Youth. Farage rejected the claims and has maintained that the allegations were false.

Consequently, the historical allegation should not be presented as an established fact.

Lammy subsequently appeared to soften the certainty of his original intervention. Asked about the comments, he acknowledged that Farage had denied the allegations and said he had not been at school with him and therefore could not personally know what songs he had sung.

That clarification was significant because the political argument had moved from criticism of a contemporary policy to a disputed claim about an individual’s teenage years.

Labour’s broader argument against Reform

The dispute did not occur in isolation.

Throughout the conference, Labour ministers sought to present Reform as a political movement whose immigration policies conflicted with the government’s interpretation of British values and equal treatment.

Lammy’s own conference speech made that argument explicitly. He contrasted what he called Labour’s version of patriotism with Reform’s approach, accusing Farage of wrapping himself in the Union flag while pursuing policies Labour considered incompatible with British values.

For Labour, immigration has become one of the principal areas in which it seeks to challenge Reform.

The political difficulty is that Reform’s support extends beyond immigration. The party has also campaigned on taxation, public services, energy, government spending, national sovereignty and Britain’s relationship with Europe.

Consequently, concentrating heavily on Farage and immigration carries a wider strategic question for Labour: whether voters primarily want a confrontation between the two parties or greater detail about the government’s own programme.

That debate was already visible during the conference, where Starmer repeatedly attacked Farage while portraying the next political contest as increasingly centred on Labour and Reform.

Farage’s response

Farage strongly rejected Labour’s characterisation of his party’s immigration policy and objected to the personal attacks directed at him.

He has argued that Labour’s language risks treating legitimate concerns about immigration as evidence of prejudice. He also accused Starmer of making inflammatory statements about Reform.

The argument has therefore developed along two separate lines.

The first is substantive: whether withdrawing indefinite leave to remain from people already settled in Britain would constitute discriminatory treatment.

The second concerns political language: whether describing a policy as racist inevitably contributes to the broader labelling of the politicians and voters associated with that policy.

Starmer has rejected that interpretation. He has repeatedly distinguished between criticism of a policy and accusations against individual voters. When asked whether Reform voters were racist, he explicitly said he did not believe they were.

That distinction allows Labour to maintain its criticism of Reform’s proposals while avoiding the claim that everyone supporting the party shares the same motives.

Why the row matters

The argument illustrates how immigration has become intertwined with questions of identity and political legitimacy in Britain.

For Labour, the issue is not simply about immigration numbers. It is also about how the government defines fairness, citizenship and the rights of people who have already established permanent residence.

For Reform, the same debate is framed around immigration control, national sovereignty and the argument that existing settlement arrangements should not prevent a future government from changing immigration rules.

Those competing positions are legitimate subjects for political debate, but the historical allegations concerning Farage require a different standard of evidence.

Claims about a politician’s conduct decades ago can be politically significant, but they remain allegations when the available evidence is disputed and the individual concerned denies them. Lammy’s later acknowledgement of Farage’s denial underlined that uncertainty.

A dispute that keeps expanding

The latest confrontation also demonstrates how quickly political arguments can move between policy and personality.

Labour originally focused on Reform’s proposed immigration policy. Starmer then faced questions about whether calling that policy racist amounted to an attack on Reform itself. Lammy subsequently brought Farage’s personal history into the debate, creating another layer of controversy.

For Reform, that provides an opportunity to argue that Labour is focusing too heavily on Farage rather than addressing voters’ concerns.

For Labour, the counterargument is that Reform’s policies should be examined closely, particularly where the government believes they could affect people who already have legal rights in Britain.

Neither side is likely to abandon the issue easily.

Farage has built much of his political career around immigration and opposition to what he regards as excessive political correctness, while Labour has increasingly sought to confront Reform directly rather than leave its arguments unanswered.

The result is a political dispute in which the language surrounding racism has become almost as important as the underlying immigration policy.

The most important distinction remains between evidence and accusation. Labour is entitled to argue that a particular policy is discriminatory, while Reform is entitled to contest that interpretation. But allegations about Farage’s schooldays are a separate matter and remain disputed.

As the political competition between Labour and Reform develops, the question will be whether debates over immigration can remain focused on policies, evidence and their consequences—or whether increasingly personal exchanges will continue to dominate the political conversation.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.