Nigel Farage hit back at Sir Keir Starmer after he kicked off Labour’s conference by attacking Reform UK. The Prime Minister claimed that the insurgent party’s plan to scrap indefinite leave to remain for migrants was “racist” and that Reform would “tear that country apart”.
But Reform leader Mr Farage said Sir Keir was taking aim at him because a new poll found that he is on course to win the keys to 10 Downing Street. He shared a graph on X with the results of a More in Common survey which suggested the Brexiteer could enter No 10 with a majority of 96.
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.
Mr Farage said: “Keir Starmer has spent his entire weekend attacking Reform. This is the reason why.”
In an interview on the BBC‘s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Sir Keir said Reform policy which would require those who have been granted indefinite leave to remain to re-apply under much stricter rules is “racist”.
The Prime Minister said: “Well, I do think that it is a racist policy. I do think it is immoral. It needs to be called out for what it is.”
He went on: “I was arguing against Reform because Reform do not believe in that country, they want to tear that country apart.
“What was said last week about deporting migrants who are lawfully here, who’ve been here for years, working in our hospitals and our schools, running businesses, our neighbours, and Reform says they want to deport them – that would tear our country apart.
“We are, at the moment, a leading member of the Coalition of the Willing, corralling and bringing together European countries to fight the aggression of Putin.
“Imagine if Reform came in and they were cosying up to Putin – the impact that would have on our security and defence.”
It comes after a poll of nearly 20,000 people and modelling by More In Common put Reform in the lead with 373 seats.
Labour would be second with just 90 and the Tories would be pushed into fourth place at Westminster behind the Liberal Democrats.
Nigel Farage erupts at Keir Starmer as he accuses Reform of ‘racist’ plan
Nigel Farage has hit back at Keir Starmer after the Prime Minister described Reform UK’s proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain as “racist” and “immoral”, opening another fierce confrontation over immigration policy.
The clash came as Labour and Reform stepped up their arguments over how Britain should control both legal and illegal migration. Starmer has sought to distinguish between removing people who have no legal right to remain in the UK and changing the status of people who have already been granted permission to settle.
Farage, meanwhile, has argued that the existing immigration and settlement system has allowed migration to remain too high and that Reform should be able to propose substantially tougher rules without its supporters being characterised in negative terms.
The dispute illustrates one of the most politically contentious questions facing Britain: how far should governments go in changing the rights of migrants who have already established their lives in the country?
Starmer’s “racist” accusation
Starmer made his comments during an interview at the Labour Party conference.
Asked whether he considered Reform UK’s proposal to scrap indefinite leave to remain immoral, the Prime Minister said yes. He then went further when asked whether he considered the policy racist.
“I do think that it is a racist policy,” Starmer said. “I do think it is immoral. It needs to be called out for what it is.”
The comments represented a significant escalation in Labour’s criticism of Reform.
Starmer argued that there was a fundamental difference between deporting people who had entered Britain illegally and removing the settled status of migrants who were lawfully living and working in the UK.
He described those people as neighbours who work in Britain’s economy, including in sectors such as healthcare and education.
Starmer warned that applying such a policy to people who had already established their lives in Britain could “tear” communities apart.
But the Prime Minister was careful to make another distinction.
He said he was not describing Reform voters as racist.
According to Starmer, many people considering voting for Reform were frustrated by the pace of political change and concerned about Britain’s borders. He said those concerns were legitimate even though he strongly disagreed with Reform’s proposed solution.
Farage hits back
Farage rejected Starmer’s characterisation of Reform’s policy.
The Reform leader argued that the party’s proposals were about immigration control rather than race.
His response reflected one of the central arguments made by Reform: that voters who want substantially lower migration should be able to support those policies without being accused of racism.
The dispute is particularly significant because Reform has made immigration one of the central issues of its political platform.
The party has proposed replacing the existing settlement system with a system in which migrants would generally have to meet tougher conditions before being allowed to remain permanently.
Reform has also argued for stronger restrictions on access to welfare and a more selective approach to migration.
Starmer’s criticism therefore strikes directly at one of the policies that Reform regards as central to its political programme.
What is indefinite leave to remain?
Indefinite leave to remain, commonly known as ILR, allows a person who qualifies for it to live and work in Britain without a time limit.
It is an important form of settled immigration status.
People with ILR are not British citizens, but they have a much more secure immigration position than someone living in Britain on a temporary visa.
The debate over Reform’s proposal therefore concerns people who have already obtained a form of permanent settlement.
Sky News noted that Starmer and Farage were effectively arguing over different approaches to legal migration and settlement, rather than simply disagreeing about the removal of people who had entered the country illegally.
That distinction is at the heart of the political argument.
Reform says the existing settlement arrangements have contributed to long-term migration pressures.
Labour argues that removing established rights from people who are legally resident would represent a fundamentally different step from controlling illegal migration.
Reform’s argument for changing the system
Reform has presented its proposed settlement changes as part of a much broader immigration overhaul.
The party has argued that migrants should meet stronger requirements before obtaining permanent residence and that settlement should be linked more closely to contribution to British society.
Its proposals have included changes involving earnings, English-language ability and character requirements.
Reform has also argued that existing indefinite leave to remain arrangements should not automatically provide a permanent route for people who have already received the status.
Supporters of the proposal see this as a way of giving future governments greater control over long-term immigration levels.
The party’s critics, however, argue that changing the rules retrospectively could affect people who made major decisions about their lives based on the immigration rules that existed when they came to Britain.
That disagreement is not merely about numbers.
It is about the legal and political expectations created by immigration status.
Labour’s own immigration changes
The argument is complicated by the fact that Labour has also proposed tightening the immigration system.
Starmer’s government has sought to reduce legal migration and increase the requirements attached to permanent settlement.
This has allowed Reform to argue that Labour recognises the scale of the problem but does not intend to go far enough.
Labour, however, has maintained that its approach is different because it seeks to establish clearer requirements for people applying for settlement rather than simply removing established rights from people who have already secured them.
That distinction has become one of the most important dividing lines between the two parties.
The question of retrospective changes
One of the biggest practical questions surrounding Reform’s proposal is whether rules governing settlement could be changed for people who already hold ILR.
Legal commentators have raised questions about the principle of retrospectively changing immigration arrangements.
The Independent reported that lawyers had argued Farage’s proposal could face legal challenges, particularly where people had already built their lives in Britain under existing rules.
That does not mean that any future Reform government would automatically be unable to legislate for changes.
Rather, it highlights the legal complexity of changing immigration rights that have already been granted.
Parliament can change immigration law, but legislation remains subject to legal principles, judicial review and the UK’s wider constitutional framework.
The argument over racism
The word “racist” has become one of the most contentious elements of the dispute.
Starmer’s position is that the policy itself can be described as racist without accusing every Reform supporter of being racist.
He subsequently clarified that he did not believe Farage or Reform voters were necessarily racist. The Independent reported that Starmer explicitly maintained the distinction between his criticism of the policy and his view of the people who support the party.
That distinction has not satisfied Reform.
Farage and his colleagues have argued that repeatedly using the term “racist” to describe a policy supported by Reform risks creating the impression that people who support tougher immigration controls are themselves motivated by racial prejudice.
This is ultimately a disagreement about political language as well as policy.
The two sides are interpreting the same proposal through fundamentally different political frameworks.
Why the row matters beyond Reform
The argument has implications for the wider British immigration debate.
For years, political parties have struggled to balance demands for lower migration with the needs of businesses, public services and communities that rely on workers who come from overseas.
The debate over ILR adds another dimension because it concerns not only future migration but also people who are already living in Britain.
That makes the question particularly sensitive.
Someone who arrives on a temporary visa may reasonably expect that the rules governing settlement could change before they qualify.
Someone who has already been granted indefinite leave to remain has a different legal position.
That distinction is central to Starmer’s criticism of Reform’s proposal.
A growing political dividing line
The row also reflects Reform’s changing position within British politics.
The party won five seats at the 2024 general election but received more than four million votes. It has subsequently become a significant competitor to both Labour and the Conservatives.
As Reform has expanded its political influence, established parties have increasingly devoted attention to its policies.
The immigration debate is consequently becoming a major dividing line between Reform and Labour.
Starmer has attempted to combine tougher action against illegal migration with criticism of what he sees as excessive or destabilising proposals on legal migration.
Farage, by contrast, has sought to make immigration one of the clearest distinctions between Reform and the established parties.
The disagreement over ILR fits directly into that broader contest.
What happens next?
The future of the proposal would depend on the legislation introduced by any government seeking to implement it, as well as parliamentary votes, legal challenges and the precise transitional arrangements adopted.
For now, the political positions are clear.
Starmer argues that there is a fundamental difference between removing illegal migrants and changing the status of people who are lawfully settled in Britain. He has called Reform’s proposed ILR policy “racist” and “immoral”, while saying that he does not regard Reform voters themselves as racist.
Farage rejects that description and presents Reform’s approach as an immigration-control policy intended to reduce long-term migration and put stricter conditions around settlement.
The argument therefore goes beyond one exchange between two party leaders.
It concerns the meaning of permanent settlement, the rights and expectations of people who have legally established themselves in Britain, and the extent to which governments should be able to change immigration rules.
It also illustrates the increasingly direct competition between Labour and Reform over voters concerned about migration.
For Starmer, the issue is whether Britain can control migration without undermining the position of people who have already become part of British communities.
For Farage, the issue is whether the country is prepared to make much more substantial changes to its immigration and settlement system.
Those competing arguments are likely to remain central to Britain’s political debate as both parties seek to define their approach to migration.