Nigel Farage has accused Sir Keir Starmer of desperation after the Prime Minister claimed Reform UK’s plans for cracking down on immigration were racist. The Reform UK leader lashed out as the row over tackling immigration descended into acrimony.
His furious outburst came after Sir Keir provoked public anger when he used the term to dismiss his rival’s plans to deport hundreds of thousands of legal migrants. In his most outspoken attack yet, the Labour leader also claimed Mr Farage’s policy of scrapping indefinite leave to remain was “immoral” and would “tear Britain apart”. But Mr Farage accused the Prime Minister of desperation because of his dismal poll ratings.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
An Ipsos poll showing that Reform UK is ahead (Image: Ipsos)
He told the Daily Express: “Starmer thinks anybody here on a time-limited visa is entitled to stay in Britain forever.
“Labour do not believe in border controls — and think anyone who does is racist.
“This is a desperate attack from a man sinking in the opinion polls and leading a divided party.”
It is the first time the gloves have properly come off between the two parties that are expected to fight out the next general election.
Labour has dramatically slumped in the polls since its landslide general election victory 14 months ago, with the migrant crisis largely to blame.
More than 50,000 people have crossed the English Channel in small boats since Sir Keir entered No 10.
During that time, Reform UK’s popularity has surged.
An Ipsos poll last week had Reform UK on 34%, Labour on 22% and the Conservatives on 14%.
Last week, Mr Farage announced plans to force non-EU migrants with permanent residency to reapply for visas under stricter criteria, including a higher salary requirement and a better standard of English.
Sir Keir took a swipe at the plans during an interview with the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg as he kicked off the Labour Party conference in Liverpool.
“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,” he said.
Asked if he thought the policy was racist, the Prime Minister replied: “Well, I do think that it’s a racist policy.
“I do think it’s immoral, it needs to be called out for what it is.”
Zia Yusuf, Reform’s policy chief, hit back, saying: “Labour’s message to the country is clear: pay hundreds of billions for foreign nationals to live off the state forever, or Labour will call you racist.”
Labour is proposing to make it harder for migrants to get permanent settlement by extending the time before they are granted it from five to up to 10 years.
There will be tougher requirements, including on earnings, tax, higher English language standards and contribution to British society.
Sir Keir also said he would put an end to taxpayer-funded taxis for asylum seekers travelling to doctor’s appointments “as soon as we can”. “It shouldn’t be happening. It’s not fair,” he added.
Pressed on whether this would be ended immediately, he said: “As soon as we can, but we will stop it.”
Sir Keir said he would like to bring forward the 2029 deadline that the Government has set to close all asylum hotels, saying: “I’m looking at alternative accommodation and doing everything we can to bring that forward.”
Zia Yusuf hit back against Sir Keir Starmer (Image: Getty)
The clash over immigration came as Sir Keir desperately tries to shore up his teetering leadership, with rivals on manoeuvres and unions demanding a lurch to the Left to curb the poll slide.
The mutinous mood is darkening with a nightmare Budget looming on November 26.
Sir Keir used the BBC interview to insist his controversial plan for digital ID cards would help tackle illegal migration.
His latest big idea, something long backed by his ally Tony Blair, was announced last week but has been met with a furious backlash.
It has been opposed by the Tories, Reform, the Lib Dems and some Labour MPs for being ineffective and infringing civil liberties.
A Parliamentary petition calling for the concept to be dropped has been signed by more than 2.1million people.
Sir Keir told the BBC: “I am absolutely convinced that amongst the reasons people travel through France … is because it is easier to work in our economy than it is in other countries.”
Challenged why employers who were currently not carrying out legally required checks would take more notice of a digital ID, Sir Keir said: “The difference is this is on point of starting, not a retrospective exercise as it now is.”
Nigel Farage blasts Keir Starmer for claiming Reform UK’s migration plans are racist
Nigel Farage has launched a strong response to Keir Starmer after the prime minister described Reform UK’s migration policy as “racist” and “immoral”, opening one of the sharpest political confrontations between Labour and Reform over immigration.
The clash took place against the backdrop of Labour’s annual conference in September 2025, when Starmer made clear that confronting Reform UK would become a central part of Labour’s political strategy. Farage, meanwhile, rejected the prime minister’s characterisation of his party’s proposals and accused Labour of using the word “racist” to attack people who want much tighter controls on immigration.
The dispute centred particularly on Reform’s proposal to abolish indefinite leave to remain (ILR), the immigration status that allows eligible migrants to settle permanently in Britain without repeatedly renewing their visas.
Starmer makes an unusually direct accusation
Starmer’s comments represented a significant escalation in Labour’s criticism of Reform.
Speaking to the BBC during the Labour conference on September 28, 2025, Starmer said he considered Reform’s ILR policy racist and immoral. He argued that there was a fundamental difference between removing people who had no legal right to remain in Britain and changing the position of migrants who were already lawfully settled.
Starmer also warned that Reform’s proposals could affect people who had lived and worked in Britain for years, including people contributing to the economy and local communities.
The prime minister nevertheless made an important distinction. He did not say that everyone who supported Reform was racist. Instead, he acknowledged that some Reform supporters were motivated by frustration with the established political parties and wanted political change to happen more quickly.
That distinction became an important part of the argument that followed.
Farage rejects the accusation
Farage and senior Reform figures rejected Starmer’s description of the policy.
The Reform leadership argued that changing immigration and welfare rules was a legitimate political objective and did not amount to racism. Zia Yusuf, then Reform’s head of policy, accused Labour of presenting the choice as one between accepting very large public expenditure associated with migrants or being labelled racist.
Farage’s broader political argument was that the immigration system should put the interests of British citizens first.
For Reform, the issue was therefore primarily one of sovereignty, border control and the conditions attached to living permanently in Britain. The party has argued that migrants should meet stronger requirements concerning employment, income, English-language ability and good character.
The disagreement with Labour was not simply about whether immigration rules should become stricter. Both parties have proposed tougher requirements in different forms. The dispute concerns how those rules should operate and, crucially, what should happen to people who are already legally resident in Britain.
What is indefinite leave to remain?
ILR is an important part of the British immigration system because it provides a route from temporary immigration status to permanent residence.
People with ILR generally have the right to live and work in the UK without being subject to the time limits attached to temporary visas. It can also form a route towards British citizenship for those who meet the relevant requirements.
Reform proposed a fundamentally different system.
Under its policy, the existing system of ILR would be abolished and replaced by renewable five-year visas. The party has proposed tougher salary requirements, English-language requirements and good-character conditions. It has also proposed restricting access to benefits for foreign nationals.
Reform has stated that people covered by EU settled status would be excluded from its ILR proposals, while some pension-age foreign nationals who had made sufficient National Insurance contributions would retain rights connected with residence and the state pension.
These details matter because the political argument is sometimes presented as though Reform were simply proposing the deportation of all migrants. That is not what the published policy says.
The proposal instead concerns the legal status and conditions under which certain migrants could continue living in Britain.
Labour has its own plans for settlement
The confrontation is also more complicated because Labour itself has proposed changing the rules governing settlement.
The Labour government has considered extending the standard period before migrants can qualify for ILR, alongside stronger requirements concerning contribution, integration and compliance with immigration rules.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood argued that migrants seeking permanent settlement should demonstrate a meaningful contribution to Britain. Labour’s approach, however, differs from Reform’s proposal because it does not simply abolish the existing ILR framework altogether.
This overlap has created an unusual political situation.
Both Labour and Reform have argued that the settlement system should be tougher. Yet Starmer has portrayed Reform’s approach as crossing a significant line because of its treatment of people who already have lawful status.
Reform, in turn, has argued that the distinction between the two parties is one of scale and implementation rather than a disagreement over whether immigration rules should be tightened.
The argument over legality
Another issue raised by the debate concerns whether existing immigration rights could be changed retrospectively.
Critics of Reform’s proposal have questioned whether Parliament could remove or alter the settled position of people who had already been granted ILR. Some legal experts have suggested that any attempt to apply major changes retrospectively could face legal challenges. Those are legal arguments rather than established court findings, and the precise outcome would depend on the legislation ultimately introduced.
For Reform, however, the political principle is straightforward: immigration status is created by law and can therefore be changed by a future government through legislation.
That creates a difficult constitutional and political question about the balance between parliamentary power, individual expectations and the stability of immigration status.
Why the dispute matters to Labour
Starmer’s decision to attack Reform so directly was part of a broader effort to make immigration a central dividing line between the two parties.
Reuters reported that Starmer urged Labour members to unite around confronting Reform, describing the coming political battle as one of the most important challenges facing his party.
For Labour, the challenge is complicated by the fact that Reform’s support includes voters who have previously backed different parties.
Starmer therefore attempted to distinguish between Reform’s leadership and the motivations of its supporters. His argument was that people could be angry about immigration, public services or the cost of living without necessarily agreeing with every Reform policy.
That distinction allowed Labour to attack the policy while avoiding the broader claim that Reform voters themselves should be regarded as racist.
Farage turns the accusation into a political issue
Farage’s response has followed a familiar pattern in Reform’s political campaigning: portraying criticism from established parties as evidence that Westminster is unwilling to confront Britain’s immigration problems.
From Reform’s perspective, the word “racist” risks moving the debate away from the practical questions that it wants voters to consider.
Those questions include how many people Britain should admit, what rights migrants should receive, how long temporary residence should last, whether migrants should have access to public funds and what conditions should apply before someone receives permanent residence.
Reform argues that these are legitimate policy questions in a democratic society.
Labour’s response is that immigration policy has consequences for people who are already living legally in Britain and that those consequences cannot be ignored simply because a policy is popular with some voters.
The wider political battle
The confrontation also illustrates how immigration has changed British politics.
For decades, immigration was largely debated through the traditional Labour-Conservative contest. Reform’s rise has introduced another major political force into that argument.
The party has made reducing migration and tightening the conditions for residence central to its programme, while Labour has responded with its own proposals for stronger immigration control.
The result is an increasingly competitive debate in which the parties sometimes agree on the direction of travel but disagree sharply about the extent and consequences of proposed changes.
The language surrounding that debate has become increasingly confrontational.
Starmer’s use of the word “racist” represented a major escalation, while Farage’s rejection of the accusation demonstrated how Reform intends to fight back: by arguing that stricter immigration controls should be judged on their practical effects rather than political labels.
A debate that goes beyond one word
At the heart of the dispute is therefore a disagreement about what constitutes a legitimate immigration policy.
Starmer argues that changing the rights of people who are already legally settled raises serious moral and social concerns. Farage argues that permanent immigration status should not be treated as untouchable and that governments must be able to impose tougher conditions in response to changes in public priorities.
Neither argument can be fully understood through the word “racist” alone.
The Reform proposal needs to be examined in terms of who would be covered, who would be exempt, what new visa conditions would apply and whether existing residents would be affected. Labour’s position likewise needs to be examined through the precise settlement requirements it proposes rather than simply through its criticism of Reform.
The confrontation between Farage and Starmer is consequently about more than an exchange of political insults. It reflects a deeper disagreement over immigration, permanent residence, welfare entitlement and the relationship between government policy and people who have already built their lives in Britain.
As both parties continue to compete over the issue, the central questions for the public will be the details: how the proposed rules would work, who would be affected, how they would be enforced and what legal safeguards would apply.
Those details, rather than the political labels attached to them, provide the clearest way to understand the growing battle between Labour and Reform UK over Britain’s immigration system.