“I’m angry, I’m mad, and I’m frustrated,” vented one protester named Julie, tightly gripping a Union Jack flag.

This sentiment was echoed in Bolton just a few days prior, when several councillors alleged that housing for veterans was being vacated to accommodate asylum seekers.

According to YouGov polls, it’s now the most pressing issue facing the UK, which is why politicians are under pressure to present their strategies for reducing net migration.

This comes after fresh Home Office data released last week showed asylum seekers housed in hotels have increased by eight per cent under Labour, bringing the total to 32,059 by the end of June – a 57 per cent drop from the Tory peak in September 2023. Nine asylum hotels remain across Greater Manchester after closures in Manchester, Rochdale and Wigan.

Reform’s ‘operation restoring justice’ would demand the UK withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights; amend the UK Human Rights Act; negotiate agreements with countries where most migrants currently originate, such as Afghanistan; and establish ‘removal centres’ in remote British locations to enable five deportation flights daily.

These represent substantial obstacles for the policy becoming reality, though the primary barrier remains Reform securing the next election and Nigel Farage becoming Prime Minister.

Following Reform’s announcement propelling the party to an eight-point polling advantage on Wednesday, the Manchester Evening News questioned 64 voters throughout the city about their views on the proposals.

“If you say that it’s ‘you’re either with us or against us'”.

The weather is blustery and the streets are bustling in Bury. The ‘world famous’ market has drawn coach-loads of shoppers by the dozen, undaunted by the predicted downpours.

Seated on a bench opposite the Millgate shopping centre, away from the commotion, is Sandra, a retired psychiatric nurse. “It’s headline-grabbing,” she grins when questioned about her thoughts on Reform’s announcement.

Then, she hesitates.

Following a moment’s consideration, she continues: “In principle, it will be hard to get it off the ground.

“I think immigration has become too convenient [for migrants].

“To a certain extent it has become a scapegoat [for other problems], but it’s not fitting the remit when it was created in 1945, when there were post war refugees – if they are coming from France, which is not a dangerous country, that’s quite the issue.”

In the end, Sandra, 67, revealed she wouldn’t back Mr Farage in an election, though she acknowledged Labour needed to take greater action.

Her perspective was echoed by Bradley Hornby, 24, a council worker.

During his lunch break near the Cenotaph, he described himself as ‘centre-right’ and declared ‘we need to do something about a bit of immigration’, whilst branding Mr Farage ‘not the right person’.

He elaborated: “One of my issues with Nigel is it’s all just about immigration. I do not like his climate change policy.

“But if you say that it’s ‘you’re either with us or against us’,” he continued, highlighting how charged the immigration discussion has become.

“This country is very divided. There’s so much frustration because things are not getting better.

“I think Nigel Farage is excellent because he’s put the cat among the pigeons” The division over immigration is not a new phenomenon, but the number of people expressing concern about it has reached levels last seen ten years ago. This led to the then-Prime Minister calling for a referendum on Britain’s EU membership, resulting in the monumental shock of Brexit.

Some are predicting a similar upheaval in British politics with the potential election of a Reform government.

Shirley Blakeman, 76, from Sale, is one such believer. She stated: “I think Nigel Farage is excellent because he’s put the cat among the pigeons. He’s got the other parties listening, whether he means it or not. But I think he’s definitely right.

“Lots of people are against illegal immigration. There’s no point in arresting them. They should be sent back as soon as possible. I’m very angry about this.”

Meanwhile, in Manchester city centre, Sue Hall, 72, was out shopping with her sister. Visiting from Shaw, she expressed her support for Mr Farage: “I love him,” she said as soon as his name came up.

“I should have voted for him last time. Next time I definitely will.

“I just think now we have everybody coming in. We have always been Labour. My husband used to be a member but even he has gone for Nigel.”

However, not everyone agrees entirely with Farage’s views. Sharon, 51, from Atherton, commented: “I found what he said to be really powerful, but I don’t agree with everything he says.

“We’ve taken in a lot of refugees, so I think he’s nailed it. I also think there’s a lot of unrest everywhere about the situation. I don’t think these protests are going to stay peaceful for very long. If there are criminals coming over here, I agree they shouldn’t be walking our streets.

“He makes very explosive headlines, but I don’t know if I’d vote for him”.

However, backing immigration reform doesn’t necessarily translate into support for Mr Farage.

Before Jacqui, a sprightly octogenarian from Farnworth, dashed off to catch the 513 bus, she claimed to be politically uninformed.

Almost immediately, she contradicted herself by remarking: “He makes for very explosive headlines, doesn’t he, Farage? Whether he would actually do what he says is hard to say.

“Immigration is terrible around here. It’s changed the town of Farnworth so much.

“What he’s saying – I think other politicians must have thought of it before him, but they didn’t say it out loud. I certainly think he’s going to be a candidate at the next election. I think there’s a lot of support for him around here.

“But I don’t know if I’d vote for him. As an old lady, I read all the national news and it’s hard to see what’s going on in the world. All the starving children, the conflict in Palestine, and I’m sure that’s not the only place.

“It sometimes makes me think it’s just because they want what we have – because we have it pretty good here, really.”

Tameside resident Norma Hadfield is calling for stricter migration controls, but she doesn’t ‘trust’ the Reform leader.

“I don’t think we should let them in,” the 79 year old voiced her opinion at the Arcades shopping centre in Ashton-under-Lyne.

“They’re getting in hotels when we’ve got all these homeless people who don’t have any help.

“There isn’t much work for young people currently either. They’re coming over and adding to that problem.

“When they’re coming over on these small boats, they’re risking their lives and children’s lives for very little benefit.

“With Farage, I think it’s possible what he says, but I wouldn’t trust him to do it. They all say what they’re going to do to these politicians, but never actually do anything.”

Eccles resident Gordon Johnston echoed Norma’s concerns, stating ‘there are a lot of people coming over and we don’t know their backgrounds or what they are getting away from’.

He believes deporting 600,000 isn’t feasible, but suggested ‘boats [sailing] up and down the Channel stopping them coming’.

Despite his political leanings suggesting he would back Reform, he ‘doesn’t support’ Mr Farage. He added: “I do have a lot of sympathy for them, they’ve come a long way, but they have gone through safe places, I don’t understand why they need to come here. I think Nigel Farage has a good chance of becoming prime minister, but I don’t support him.”

In Rochdale, Rodney Sellars expressed that he thought Mr Farage has some good policies, but questioned if he could deliver them.

“For those immigrants that come over and have family here, that’s okay, but the others should be sent back,” the 81 year old retired carpenter said. “I’m not a fan of them being cooped up in hotels either.

“I think the gangs who are organising the small boats crossing the Channel are the problem. That should be addressed properly.

“I don’t know if Farage would get in power. The Conservatives and Labour said they will deal with this immigration issue but they haven’t – why would Farage be any different.

“The jails are getting full, housing is an issue and healthcare is at capacity. This all needs to be looked at separately, it’s not all down to immigration.

“Whether Farage can sort this I don’t know.

“Everyone seems to be blaming the government for things when they’ve been in power a year”.

Yet there are those who despise the Reform chief. Vicky, 50, from Oldham, is amongst them.

“It’s my responsibility to assist people. I work alongside numerous asylum seekers, refugees, and displaced workers,” she revealed during her cigarette break.

“We support them with matters such as accommodation, clothing, food, training them up and getting them into employment. I engage with these individuals daily. They’re respectable people who simply want somewhere safe to call home. Everyone deserves that right.

“So what will [Reform] do, deport women and children back to nations controlled by the Taliban, where they possess no rights, and cannot hold jobs?” Vicky, who acknowledges the issue of illegal immigration, questions the popularity of Nigel Farage.

“I don’t think there’s as much support for Farage and his policies as people say,” she continues. “It’s mostly the older generation, who aren’t exactly racist but are more susceptible to misinformation.

“And I can understand it from both sides. We’re all taxpayers, it’s true our money is paying for these hotels. But I think we need to be getting angry at the government, not at people.

“Farage talks about these deportations – where’s the money to pay for that? We have been hearing the same rubbish for 15 years.”

Lucy Davies, a 44 year old office worker from Stockport, also fails to see the appeal of the Clacton MP: “I have no understanding how Nigel Farage has managed to bounce back after Brexit.

“I think he wants popularity and likes to stir up trouble, but he doesn’t actually care about people. I think he’s saying he wants to deport people to try to win votes.

Svitlana Cherniak, a Ukrainian refugee, was a yoga and music teacher in her home country before she moved to Manchester when Russia invaded the country in 2022. Now, the 58 year old is a perfume sales ambassador in town.

She declared: “His politics are not good. It’s a step back not a step forward”.

“The UK welcomed me and my son when the war began – this guy does not represent British values.

“We need to be stronger. I think his ideas are only temporary.”

Manchester Residents Give Their View on Nigel Farage’s Plan to Deport 600,000 Migrants

Nigel Farage’s proposal to deport more than 600,000 people has become one of the most controversial immigration policies associated with Reform UK, prompting strong reactions across Britain. In Greater Manchester, where immigration, housing, public services and the cost of living are all important political issues, residents have expressed a range of views about what such a policy could mean.

Reform UK has made immigration a central part of its political platform. Its proposals include creating a dedicated deportation organisation and significantly expanding the capacity to detain and remove people who do not have the right to remain in the United Kingdom. The party has said its wider programme could result in more than 600,000 deportations during a first parliamentary term.

The issue has particular resonance in Greater Manchester because the region contains communities with very different experiences and views on migration. Manchester itself is one of Britain’s most internationally connected cities, with residents from many countries and a long history of migration. At the same time, questions about housing availability, public services and pressure on local authorities have generated concerns among some residents.

A survey of residents across Greater Manchester has previously examined views on Farage’s immigration proposals, illustrating that there is no single response from people living in the region.

For some residents, the central issue is whether Britain has maintained effective control over its borders.

Supporters of Farage’s approach argue that governments have repeatedly promised to reduce illegal migration but have struggled to deliver the scale of reductions they expected. The small-boats crisis has become a particularly powerful symbol of that frustration.

Farage has argued that Britain needs a much more comprehensive system for identifying people without legal status, detaining those subject to removal and negotiating agreements with countries willing to accept deportees.

Reform’s current proposals include a planned UK Deportation Command. According to the party’s plans reported in February 2026, the organisation could eventually have the capacity to detain 24,000 people and deport up to 288,000 annually. The party has also proposed expanding detention infrastructure and operating multiple deportation flights every day.

The proposed programme is therefore considerably larger than simply increasing the number of deportations carried out under existing government arrangements.

For supporters, that scale is precisely the point.

They argue that a government cannot maintain credible immigration controls if removal decisions are made but are not implemented. From this perspective, the central question is whether someone has a legal right to remain in Britain.

Supporters also point to the distinction between legal and illegal migration.

Reform’s proposals primarily focus on people who have no legal right to remain, although the party’s plans could also affect some people currently holding indefinite leave to remain. Under the proposed system, indefinite leave could be replaced with time-limited arrangements, meaning that some people who currently have permanent status could face new requirements.

That aspect of the proposal has generated additional debate.

Critics argue that changing the rules for people who have already established lives in Britain could create uncertainty for families, workers and communities. Supporters respond that immigration status should remain subject to clearly defined national rules and that previous governments allowed the system to become too permissive.

For Manchester residents, however, immigration is not necessarily viewed solely through the lens of national policy.

Many people are more concerned about what they see around them every day: housing costs, rents, NHS waiting times, school places, employment opportunities and the condition of local communities.

This is important because immigration policy can become connected to almost every major domestic political issue.

If housing supply is limited, for example, some residents may ask whether population growth increases pressure on accommodation. Others may argue that the underlying problem is insufficient housebuilding and that migrants should not be blamed for failures in housing policy.

The same debate applies to the NHS.

Britain’s health service employs many people born outside the UK. Restricting migration could therefore have consequences for staffing in sectors that depend on overseas workers. On the other hand, supporters of tighter immigration controls argue that the country should train more domestic workers rather than relying heavily on international recruitment.

Neither argument can be reduced to a simple slogan.

The economic impact of migration depends on factors including age, employment, skills, tax contributions, use of public services and the type of migration involved.

That is why the distinction between asylum seekers, refugees, students, skilled workers, family migrants and people without legal status is important when discussing immigration policy.

Farage’s 600,000 figure has become politically prominent because it provides a clear headline number. But the composition of that figure and the legal status of the people concerned are equally important when assessing what the proposal would actually mean.

Reform has also proposed significant changes to Britain’s relationship with human-rights law.

Its immigration programme has included proposals to repeal the Human Rights Act and reconsider Britain’s obligations under several international conventions. The party argues that existing legal constraints can make deportations too difficult to carry out.

Critics argue that removing or weakening these protections could create serious legal and diplomatic consequences.

The European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Refugee Convention and other international agreements establish protections relating to issues such as torture, persecution, family life and removal to unsafe countries. Any government attempting to change Britain’s obligations would therefore face significant legal and political questions.

The debate becomes particularly complicated when the destination country is considered unsafe.

Reform has proposed negotiating returns agreements with countries including Afghanistan, Iran, Eritrea and Sudan, potentially using financial incentives or other measures to encourage governments to accept people being removed from Britain.

Supporters argue that Britain cannot operate an effective deportation policy without agreements with other countries.

Critics question whether Britain should return people to countries where there are serious concerns about persecution, torture or instability.

This is one of the reasons the immigration debate extends beyond Manchester and beyond British domestic politics.

Another issue is cost.

Reform has previously estimated that its deportation programme would cost around £10 billion over five years. The proposal would require additional detention centres, staff, transportation, legal processing and international agreements.

Supporters argue that existing immigration enforcement already costs taxpayers substantial sums and that a functioning removal system could eventually reduce spending on asylum accommodation.

Critics question whether the proposed financial estimates are realistic, particularly given the infrastructure required for such a large-scale programme.

The debate over cost is especially relevant to Manchester because local government finances have come under considerable pressure.

Greater Manchester authorities have responsibilities across housing, social care, transport and other public services. If national immigration policy changes significantly, local councils could experience consequences involving accommodation, community support and public-service demand.

For residents, this means the question is not simply whether deportations are desirable or undesirable.

It also concerns how such a policy would actually be implemented.

Would the government have enough detention capacity?

Would courts be able to process cases quickly enough?

Would countries of origin cooperate?

How would families be treated if different members had different immigration statuses?

What would happen when a person could not safely be returned?

How much would the system cost?

And what would happen to sectors of the economy that currently depend on migrant workers?

These are practical questions that any government would have to answer.

The political disagreement becomes particularly sharp because Reform presents the issue as one of restoring control, while opponents focus heavily on legal rights and humanitarian consequences.

Manchester’s political environment also makes the debate significant.

The city and wider Greater Manchester area have traditionally been strongly associated with Labour politics. At the same time, Reform UK has sought to expand its support among voters who believe traditional parties have failed to address concerns about immigration, taxation and public services.

The party’s growth has therefore created competition in areas where Labour has historically been dominant.

Recent political developments have also kept Greater Manchester at the centre of national politics. Andy Burnham, who became prime minister in 2026, remains a particularly important figure in the region. His government has continued to face pressure over immigration and economic policy, while Reform has criticised Labour’s approach.

This creates an interesting contrast.

Burnham has argued for a broader political programme focused on economic growth, regional development, public services and closer examination of Britain’s relationship with Europe. Farage, meanwhile, continues to place immigration and national sovereignty near the centre of his political message.

For Manchester voters, these competing priorities can overlap.

A resident may be concerned about immigration but also strongly support the NHS. Another may support tighter borders while worrying about the effect of deportations on local businesses. Someone else may regard immigration primarily as an economic issue rather than a security issue.

This explains why public reactions are unlikely to be uniform.

The debate surrounding the 600,000 figure also demonstrates how political language can influence public discussion.

A large number creates a powerful impression, but the underlying details matter. A person who has no legal right to remain is legally different from someone with permanent residency. An asylum seeker awaiting a decision is different from someone whose asylum claim has been rejected and whose legal appeals are exhausted.

These distinctions become crucial when discussing deportation.

The British immigration system already includes removal procedures, but carrying out removals can be complicated by appeals, documentation problems, lack of cooperation from destination countries, legal protections and questions about safety.

Reform’s argument is that these obstacles should be addressed through major structural change.

Opponents argue that some obstacles exist precisely to prevent unlawful or unsafe removals.

The disagreement therefore reflects two different priorities: enforcement and legal protection.

Manchester residents are ultimately being asked to consider what balance they want between these objectives.

For some, stronger enforcement may appear necessary to restore confidence in the immigration system. For others, the scale of the proposed deportation programme raises concerns about families, communities, legal safeguards and Britain’s international obligations.

There are also questions about the wider economic consequences.

Britain’s labour market relies on migrant workers in numerous sectors. At the same time, successive governments have attempted to reduce net migration and encourage employers to recruit and train more British workers.

A significant reduction in migration could therefore change labour supply in industries such as social care, hospitality, construction and healthcare.

Whether that would create opportunities for British workers or produce staffing shortages would depend on how quickly domestic training and recruitment could respond.

This is another area where political slogans cannot provide the complete answer.

The 600,000 figure has become a defining part of the discussion because it captures the scale of Reform’s ambition. But the actual consequences would depend on legislation, court decisions, international agreements, administrative capacity and economic conditions.

For Manchester residents, those details may ultimately matter more than the headline.

The debate also illustrates how immigration has moved from being one issue among many to becoming a major dividing line in British politics.

Reform has built a significant part of its identity around reducing migration and strengthening border enforcement. Labour is under pressure to demonstrate that it can control immigration while maintaining Britain’s legal commitments and economic needs. The Conservatives face competition from Reform for voters who favour tougher immigration policies.

Manchester provides a useful example of why the issue is so complicated.

It is a diverse city with international connections, but it is also a city where people face practical pressures over housing, wages and public services. Those realities can produce very different conclusions about the same national policy.

For some residents, Farage’s proposal may represent overdue action after years of frustration.

For others, the scale of the programme may raise concerns about fairness, legality, cost and the potential effect on established communities.

And for many others, the answer may depend on the details that remain uncertain: exactly who would be deported, what legal safeguards would apply, which countries would accept returns and how the programme would be financed.

The continuing discussion in Manchester therefore reflects a much larger national debate.

Nigel Farage has placed mass deportation at the centre of Reform UK’s immigration agenda, while critics have challenged the legality, cost and humanitarian implications of the proposals.

As Britain continues to debate immigration, the views of people in places such as Manchester will remain important. The issue is no longer confined to Westminster. It affects communities, workplaces, housing, public services and Britain’s relationship with other countries.

The question facing voters is consequently broader than whether they agree with one headline figure.

It concerns what kind of immigration system Britain should have, how strictly its rules should be enforced, what protections should remain in place and how the country should balance border control with economic and humanitarian considerations.

Those questions are likely to remain central to British political debate for years to come.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.