Downing Street has strongly criticized Nigel Farage’s immigration proposals as being unrealistic, unworkable, and lacking in funding. The Reform UK party has been accused of promoting division by Keir Starmer’s press secretary. Reform UK’s latest plans include scrapping the primary path to British citizenship for migrants, potentially endangering thousands of settled individuals in the country.
The Centre for Policies think tank has disavowed Reform UK’s claim that their immigration changes could save taxpayers £234 billion, raising doubts about the accuracy of Reform’s financial projections. While Nigel Farage claimed significant welfare cuts for non-UK citizens, it was clarified that these changes would not affect individuals on the post-Brexit EU settlement scheme.
The Prime Minister’s office described Reform UK’s proposals as unrealistic and divisive, emphasizing the need for national renewal rather than the path of decline that Reform appears to advocate. Under the current system, migrants can apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) after five years in the UK, but Reform UK aims to require visa renewals every five years with stricter eligibility criteria.
Reform UK’s assertions of saving over £230 billion for taxpayers have come under scrutiny, particularly as the figures were based on a report that the Centre of Policy Studies has disowned. Labour representatives have criticized Reform UK’s lack of credible planning, labeling their proposals as ill-conceived.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves highlighted the flaws in Reform UK’s financial claims, stressing the government’s efforts to reduce illegal migration and reform the welfare system. The government spokesperson clarified that illegal residents do not receive benefits, and plans are being considered to extend the waiting time for foreign nationals to access benefits.
Reform UK countered these criticisms by suggesting that the actual fiscal impact of their proposals could surpass existing estimates due to various factors affecting migrant populations. The party argued that the real costs could be significantly higher than the reported figures due to the demographics and circumstances of incoming migrants.