In normal times, you would not expect a deputy chair of your own party to help produce an independent policy programme for migration that is especially different from the government’s own. But for Rishi Sunak, these are not normal times. The presence of Lee Anderson among the New Conservatives, a pressure group of predominantly “red wall”-based 2019- and 2017-intake Tory MPs, is just one of the eyebrow-raising elements of their decision to intervene on migration. The group held a formal launch on Monday for its 12-point plan to cut immigration – policies which, if implemented, would have a fairly dramatic impact on not just immigration but the economy more widely. The stated ambition is to reduce annual net migration from 2022’s 606,000 to 240,000 in 2024, involving significant cuts to visas for care staff, further curbs on student visas, a big rise in the minimum salary threshold for skilled workers and a cap on refugee numbers. It was devised by a group including Anderson, the combative Ashfield MP who Sunak made Tory deputy chair in February.
The emergence of the plan raises a series of interlinked questions, including what it says about the renewed salience of immigration as a political issue, and the authority of Sunak – plus of course whether the proposals are even realistic. The return of migration as a concern for restive backbenchers marks a change from the immediate post-Brexit period, when the proportion of voters who named it as among their most pressing issues dropped as low as 15%. This is now back up to 35%, rising to nearly 60% among Tory voters, caused by both the increase in net migration, and people including Nigel Farage prompting a political panic about refugees making Channel crossings. Grumbles about immigration are not exactly a new thing for Tory prime ministers, but the emergence of such a concerted and notably detailed parallel policy will be seen as another sign that while Sunak is not at risk of an open challenge by his party, neither is he really in charge of it. Perhaps most worrying for Sunak is the fact that among the MPs at the policy’s launch was John Hayes, a veteran rightwing backbencher who is particularly close to Suella Braverman – indicating that the home secretary, not averse to a bit of policy freelancing herself, may well be sympathetic. More widely, with the Conservatives consistently 20 or more percentage points behind Labour in opinion polls, it is perhaps of little surprise that some of Sunak’s MPs – notably those in vulnerable red wall seats – want drastic action. In pure party management terms this is unlikely to trouble Sunak in the Commons. But functional political parties do not generally propose two simultaneous immigration policies. The New Conservatives argue that theirs is not a policy change, just a restatement of the Tories’ 2019 manifesto pledge to reduce net migration, which at the time was only a bit above 200,000. It is nonetheless fair to say that plenty of other Conservative MPs would worry about the wisdom of trying to implement such massive reductions so fast, especially in a care sector already struggling to fill vacancies. Asked about the practicalities of the plan, Miriam Cates, the MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge, another leading figure in the New Conservatives, told BBC Radio 4 that ministers should “make care work an attractive career for British people” and invest more in skills, infrastructure and productivity. That is not a new argument – in fact it is one already made in very similar terms by Labour. Nevertheless, it is usually phrased as a long-term aspiration, not something to be done in little more than a year. It was notable that when Cates was asked what sort of hourly rate might be needed to attract UK nationals to care work, she replied: “I don’t know.” With such basic questions unanswered, it is probably fair to say that the New Conservatives will not get their way on immigration policy. But for an increasingly beleaguered Sunak, it is yet another split he could really do without.