Angela Rayner gave an impassioned speech slamming Shabana Mahmood’s cruel immigration proposals as a “breach of trust”. Going even further, the former Labour deputy leader claimed that the public now view the Labour Party as pro-establishment and “un-British”.
Home Secretary Mahmood is proposing changes to migration which would double the time required for migrants to qualify for permanent residence from five to ten years. Even more heartlessly, the Labour government intend to subject refugees to an anxious wait of up to 20 years for the right to remain permanently.
Whilst Mahmood deems this to be “fair” in order to avoid draining public finances, Rayner appears to be attempting to remind the former party of the people of its supposed values and principles.
However, against the backdrop of our colonial history and ongoing support for imperialism, the proposed policy feels unmistakably “British” – and that is precisely the problem we must confront. It is entirely British to operate a hostile environment.
Rayner’s challenge is little more than limp lettuce
And when Andy Burnham addressed the immigration proposals, he showed little real unease with the cruelty at the heart of the immigration reforms.
Speaking to BBC R4′s Today programme, Burnham appears to suggest there may be legitimacy to the government’s proposal. Apparently, the Labour government simply have been ‘clear’ enough with their reasoning. The Labour Mayor said the “impatience to deliver change is shared right across government” and acknowledged Angela Rayner’s argument as worth heeding. Nonetheless, he ultimately chose to side with the government:
I do think the government has a story to tell here and it needs to tell it more effectively.
I think the government really needs to point to that to then allow some breathing space for a considered debate on the proposals around changes to the immigration system.
Therefore, if we dig a bit deeper into Rayner’s apparently “explosive” comments, we soon realise there’s little challenge actually present. On the other hand, it appears she is only concerned by existing refugees and migrants than how this harmful policy would impact future arrivals to the UK.
Labour double standards and lip service once again – no surprise there.
She claimed the system must become fairer and work for working people yet avoided confronting the super-rich interests prioritising profits. Instead, she appeared to accept the narrative that immigration harms workers rather than employers. In the end, her concern seemed confined to migrants already contributing to the economy not having their deal changed “halfway through” – everyone else, apparently, can be disregarded.
She added:
The people already in the system, who made a huge investment, now fear for their future – they do not have stability and do not know what will happen.
We cannot talk about earning a settlement if we keep moving the goalposts.
Because moving the goalposts undermines our sense of fair play. It’s un-British.
Let us be a country that has sustainable economic migration rules, but one that upholds the British values we want all who live here to respect.
Nevertheless, she has more to say ‘apparently’:
🚨 NEW: Angela Rayner has attacked Labour’s direction tonight
– Labour’s “running out of time” with its “very survival at stake” as populism rises
– Migration reforms are a “breach of trust” and “un-British”
– “A lot more to say” soon- “been waiting for this moment”
— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) March 17, 2026
Make it count or it’s worthless
Once, Labour stood against the hateful immigration policies of right-wing Conservative governments. Now in power, it has chosen cruelty instead—targeting people trying to build a life with dignity and integrity. Mahmood’s reforms will strip away the opportunities they need to do so.
Seeking to protect those already here while taking hope and protections away from others in war-torn countries is manipulative and coercive. It is also, frankly, beyond pathetic. Nevertheless, championing the interests of the super-rich whilst punishing vulnerable people has been the hallmark of this government. Subsequently, it has seen them lose a significant part of their traditional base to left-wing competitors in the Green’s and Your Party.
If Rayner and Burnham actually care about human rights or British values and principles, they’d walk away from this captured, corrupted party.
Featured image via the Canary













Its almost like she’s completely full of shit and always has been.
You can tell with AR that the hubris of being elected (as though it’s ever individuals being elected in a party system – “they elected ME” is a delusion) is strong. She’s another version of Starmer or Streeting – a duplicitous void. I do wonder, when people are elected, does it break any remaining concern that they have for anyone else, including their children, parents, wider family, friends? I ask myself because they enact policies (tuition fees, privatisation, regressive taxes) that affect their wider family. Liberal, neoliberal, and capitalist, social and psychological atomisation must be completed once people enter cabinet. The Westminster system needs dismantling, replaced with a massive expansion of deliberative assemblies and decision-making, including money creation (like banks can do when people want to buy a new kitchen FFS), at a granular level, with regional and national co-operative co-ordination. Centralised power always creates “elites”, inequality, poverty, and holds the seed of fascism, which is always a matter of degree as it’s a constructed political concept not a natural category. I’d argue that millions just in the UK have been subject to fascism for many decades, but “fascism” is only employed when it starts to nibble at professional toes, i.e. those who, falsely, believe that they’re middle class, when their lack of political power profoundly suggests otherwise – but hey, they have a shelf full of celebrity cook books and a dyson vaccum cleaner, so that proves it, surely.