Presenter Michelle Dewberry couldn’t hide her disdain as two guests clashed on her show.
Michelle Dewberry looked frustrated as a migrant row kicked off on her show (Image: GB News)
GB News presenter Michelle Dewberry sighed and looked frustrated as broadcaster-turned-politician Matt Goodwin accused Labour MP Barry Gardiner of gaslighting the public in a row over the migrant crisis. The pair appeared on her show to discuss the hundreds of migrants that arrived in Gosport over the weekend. Anti-migrant protesters clashed with police in Hampshire on Sunday, October 4, after a migrant boat containing up to 149 people arrived in Gosport. Police confirmed six people were arrested.
Gardiner was adamant reports had been overstated, telling them: “I always defend people’s right to peaceful protest, and I understand that the protests last night in Gosport were, by and large, they were peaceful.
There was only a handful of people who were arrested for either attacking the police or for criminal damage. The migrants were, of course, not being housed in Gosport.” He added: “In fact, they were being taken to Kent for security and biometric checks.” He claimed the state was trying to “facilitate them” while creating “minimum disruption to the local people of Gosport.”
Gardiner continued insisting channel crossings are actually down, stating: “The measures that the government is taking, that it has put in place already, have reduced the number from just over 34,000 to just under 19 and a half thousand.”
Goodwin couldn’t disguise his incredulousness at the remarks. “Those are the statistics of the small boat crossings. Can we get back to reality for a minute…The Labour Party is now expanding safe and legal routes from Afghanistan and Syria.
“You’re gaslighting people watching this show,” he fumed.
He was referring to the Home Secretary’s plan to introduce new “capped, safe and legal routes” for refugees. Under the scheme, communities and some “trusted” universities will be allowed to sponsor refugees to come to the UK.
GB News descended into chaos as Matt Goodwin and Barry Gardiner argued over migration (Image: GB News)
The plan has been inspired by a Canadian scheme that has settled 400,000 people in the country since 1979. A separate route allowing employers to sponsor refugees is also expected to open next year. Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Philp, posted on X that 75,000 illegal immigrants have entered the UK in the last two years.
Goodwin insisted deportation was the only solution and the UK should leave the ECHR, leading Gardiner to turn the tables and accuse him of gaslighting in return.
He said: “You say [I’m] gaslighting the British people, [that’s] exactly what you’re doing because you’re saying all we need to do is to stop signing up to this convention.
“STOP GASLIGHTING THE PUBLIC!” — Furious Migrant Row Erupts Live on GB News
A heated debate over Britain’s migrant crisis erupted on GB News after Labour MP Barry Gardiner clashed with political commentator Matt Goodwin over Channel crossings, government immigration policy and the future of asylum arrangements.
The confrontation, broadcast on Michelle Dewberry’s programme on 6 October 2026, came after protests in Gosport, Hampshire, following the arrival of a boat carrying up to 149 migrants over the weekend. The argument quickly moved beyond the immediate incident, exposing a wider disagreement over whether the government’s approach to migration is delivering meaningful results.
Goodwin accused Labour of “gaslighting the public”, arguing that ministers were focusing on falling small-boat arrival figures while preparing to expand additional legal routes for refugees. Gardiner rejected the accusation and challenged Goodwin’s claims about how the immigration system could be changed.
The exchange highlighted a central problem for the government: how to demonstrate that it has control over migration while explaining the different routes through which people can enter Britain and claim protection.
Gosport protests bring migration back into the spotlight
The argument followed unrest in Gosport after a boat carrying migrants arrived in the area on 4 October.
According to contemporary reporting, police confirmed that six people had been arrested during disturbances associated with protests. The arrival prompted renewed discussion about how authorities manage people rescued or intercepted while crossing the English Channel.
Gardiner said the migrants were not being housed in Gosport and were instead being taken to Kent for security and biometric checks. He argued that the authorities were seeking to process those involved while minimising disruption to local residents.
His explanation was intended to distinguish the arrival itself from the question of where the individuals would ultimately be accommodated.
However, the incident became a focal point for people who believe that the government’s approach to irregular migration remains inadequate. For some residents and campaigners, the repeated arrival of small boats represents a failure to prevent unauthorised entry, regardless of what happens after people reach British territory.
Others stress that people rescued at sea must be handled safely and that asylum claims need to be processed according to the law.
The resulting debate reflects the difficulty of separating immediate operational questions from wider arguments about border security, asylum policy and public confidence.
Goodwin accuses Labour of misleading the public
During the GB News discussion, Goodwin challenged Gardiner’s emphasis on declining small-boat arrivals.
Gardiner argued that government measures had reduced crossings from just over 34,000 to fewer than 19,500, presenting the figures as evidence that the government’s approach was producing results.
Goodwin responded that the figures related specifically to small-boat crossings and did not tell the whole story about migration policy. He also pointed to the government’s plans for new capped, safe and legal refugee routes.
“Can we get back to reality for a minute?” Goodwin demanded during the exchange, before accusing the Labour MP of misleading viewers.
His argument was that the public should assess migration policy by considering both irregular arrivals and the number of people who might enter through additional authorised routes.
That is a legitimate distinction to examine when evaluating the overall effects of policy. A decline in small-boat arrivals does not, by itself, establish that total immigration has fallen by the same amount. Equally, the existence of a legal resettlement route does not mean that everyone entering through it would otherwise have attempted an irregular crossing.
The different categories need to be measured separately before drawing conclusions about the overall direction of migration.
Labour defends the distinction between legal and irregular routes
Gardiner pushed back against Goodwin’s criticism, defending the government’s approach and arguing that leaving the European Convention on Human Rights would not automatically solve the practical difficulties involved in returning people who have no right to remain.
The argument touches on one of the most contentious questions in British immigration policy: whether the main obstacles to removals are domestic legislation, international legal obligations, diplomatic arrangements with other countries or the practical limitations of the asylum system.
Critics of the current approach argue that legal appeals and human-rights protections can make removals too slow and difficult. Some politicians have therefore called for Britain to leave the European Convention on Human Rights or change the way its obligations are applied.
Gardiner countered that leaving the convention would not give Britain unlimited powers. Other countries would still need to cooperate with the UK, and practical arrangements would still be necessary to identify individuals and secure their return.
He also argued that Britain’s departure from the European Union had removed arrangements that previously helped facilitate the return of certain asylum seekers to other European countries.
That point is part of a wider debate about the consequences of Brexit for immigration enforcement. The precise legal mechanisms and agreements involved matter, because leaving one legal framework does not automatically recreate the cooperation that existed under another.
The exchange illustrated how the immigration debate often combines legal principles with operational questions that cannot be resolved by a single policy announcement.
New refugee routes intensify the controversy
Goodwin’s criticism also focused on proposals associated with Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood to establish capped, safe and legal routes for refugees.
Under the proposed approach discussed in the programme, communities and selected universities would be able to sponsor eligible refugees to come to Britain. A separate employer-sponsored route was also expected to be developed.
Supporters of such arrangements argue that controlled routes can provide protection to vulnerable people without requiring them to make dangerous journeys or rely on people-smuggling networks.
A capped system could also allow the government to set limits, establish eligibility requirements and plan support in advance.
Critics, however, question whether additional routes could increase pressure on housing and public services, particularly in areas already experiencing shortages. They also argue that the government must explain how these programmes fit with its commitments to reduce irregular migration.
The central issue is whether safe and legal routes complement effective border enforcement or create additional pressures that the government has not adequately addressed.
The answer depends on the design of the scheme, the number of places available, the eligibility rules, the funding arrangements and the government’s ability to enforce existing immigration law.
A proposal to establish a legal route should therefore be assessed on its own terms rather than treated as proof that irregular migration is either increasing or decreasing.
Why the statistics matter
Numbers played a central role in the GB News confrontation, but the figures require careful interpretation.
Gardiner referred to a reduction in small-boat arrivals from more than 34,000 to fewer than 19,500. The significance of that comparison depends on the dates covered and whether the figures represent annual totals, year-to-date numbers or another reporting period.
Comparisons also need to account for changes in weather, enforcement activity, smuggling networks and patterns of migration across Europe.
Small-boat arrivals are only one part of the UK’s migration picture. Legal work and study visas, family migration, asylum claims and refugee resettlement all follow different routes and are measured using different statistics.
A decline in one category cannot automatically establish a decline in all categories. Similarly, an increase in the number of people arriving through one route does not necessarily mean that other routes have increased.
For the public to evaluate the government’s performance, ministers need to provide clear, comparable data and explain what the numbers do and do not demonstrate.
Political commentators also have a responsibility to distinguish established figures from estimates and arguments about what those figures mean.
The political consequences for Labour
The confrontation presents Labour with a difficult communications challenge.
The government wants to demonstrate that it is reducing irregular crossings and improving control over the asylum system. At the same time, it must explain why it believes certain legal routes should remain available or be expanded.
If ministers emphasise lower small-boat numbers without adequately explaining the wider migration picture, critics can argue that the government is presenting an incomplete account.
But if political opponents treat every refugee resettlement place as equivalent to an irregular Channel crossing, they risk obscuring important differences between legal categories.
Labour’s task is to show how its policies fit together: preventing dangerous journeys, disrupting smuggling networks, processing asylum claims efficiently, returning people who have no right to remain where legally possible, and protecting those who qualify for refugee status.
Those objectives can involve difficult trade-offs. They also require cooperation with foreign governments, reliable administration and sufficient resources.
The GB News argument demonstrated that public confidence depends not only on the policies themselves but also on whether people believe ministers are explaining the situation honestly.
Reform UK and the demand for tougher enforcement
The row also reflects the wider political pressure exerted by Reform UK and other advocates of stricter immigration controls.
Reform has argued that Britain needs a more forceful approach to border security, faster removals and changes to the legal framework governing deportations.
Supporters say these proposals respond to public frustration over irregular arrivals and the costs associated with asylum accommodation. Critics question whether the proposed measures are practical, affordable and compatible with Britain’s legal obligations.
The debate is particularly intense in communities where residents believe that decisions about accommodation and local services have been made without sufficient consultation.
However, policy claims should be judged by their details. Announcing a target for removals is not the same as demonstrating that the necessary agreements, facilities and procedures are available to achieve it.
Likewise, defending the existing legal framework does not remove the need to address delays, administrative failures or unsuccessful asylum claims.
The public debate would benefit from a clearer distinction between political promises and measures that have demonstrably changed the operation of the system.
A debate that is far from over
The clash between Goodwin and Gardiner was more than a television argument. It reflected a fundamental disagreement about how Britain should balance border enforcement, legal obligations, refugee protection and public confidence.
Goodwin argued that the government was presenting an incomplete picture by concentrating on falling small-boat numbers while considering additional legal routes. Gardiner defended the distinction between different forms of migration and challenged the suggestion that leaving the European Convention on Human Rights would automatically solve the problem of removals.
Both sides raised questions that deserve scrutiny, but the strength of their claims depends on evidence rather than the intensity of the exchange.
The government must show whether its measures are reducing irregular crossings, speeding up decisions and improving returns. Opponents must explain how their alternatives would work in practice and what legal and operational consequences they would carry.
For residents, the most important outcome is whether the immigration system becomes more predictable, properly enforced and transparent.
As the argument continues, the challenge for Britain is to move beyond accusations and establish what the figures actually show, which policies are working and where further changes are necessary. Only then can the public make a properly informed judgment about the government’s record on migration.