Why Do Politicians Lie About Immigration?

Every election, the script is the same.
The faces change, the slogans change, but the promise does not: “We will reduce immigration.” Then the votes are counted, the ministers move into their offices, and the immigration figures go in one direction – up.

For more than two decades, leaders from both the Conservative and Labour parties have stood in front of cameras and pledged to “take back control”, “bring numbers down”, or “restore trust” on immigration. Over the same period, net migration has hit level after level that would once have been unthinkable, with recent records measured in the hundreds of thousands and even over 900,000 a year.

This is not an accident. It is a pattern. And it is why so many people now ask the blunt question: why do politicians lie about immigration?

New Labour: Opening the Gates While Saying “Managed Migration”

If you want to understand how England got here, you have to start with New Labour.

Tony Blair – “No obvious upper limit”

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Tony Blair and his ministers embraced large‑scale immigration as part of a broader economic and social project. They pushed the idea of “managed migration”, argued that the UK needed more workers and students from abroad, and made the fateful decision to allow full access to workers from new EU member states in 2004, without the temporary controls other countries used.

Net migration rose above 200,000 for the first time in 2004 under Blair, a dramatic shift compared with the UK of the 1980s and early 1990s.
Senior Labour figures later admitted that during this period they saw “no obvious upper limit” to legal immigration.

When challenged about pressure on housing, wages and public services, ministers promised tighter “controls”, tougher action on illegal immigration and a system that would “promote and protect British values”. In practice, they built the foundations of the high‑immigration model that still exists today.

Gordon Brown – “British jobs for British workers”

Gordon Brown tried to tap into public concern with his “British jobs for British workers” line while still maintaining Labour’s commitment to immigration for growth.

Labour’s rhetoric under Brown included:

Removing more failed asylum seekers than new unfounded claims.
Cracking down on “bogus colleges” and abuse of student visas.
Tightening criteria in line with “the needs of the British economy and the values of British citizenship”.

Yet by the time Labour left office in 2010, net migration remained well above historic norms, and trust in the immigration system had eroded badly. The Conservatives would ride that anger into power, promising the opposite – and then repeat the same basic trick in a different colour.

David Cameron: “Tens of Thousands” vs Hundreds of Thousands

If there is one line that sums up the modern immigration debate, it is David Cameron’s pledge to reduce net migration to the “tens of thousands”.

The pledge

As Conservative leader and then Prime Minister, Cameron repeatedly told voters that annual net migration – the difference between people coming in and people leaving – would be brought down to under 100,000. In 2013 he said:

“Immigration needs to be controlled and I am committed to getting the numbers down to the tens of thousands.”

That target was written into Conservative manifestos and kept alive well into Theresa May’s premiership.

The reality

The numbers tell a very different story:

In the year to mid‑2015, net migration was about 336,000 – more than three times the promised “tens of thousands” level.
At no point during Cameron’s time in Downing Street was the target met; independent analysts at Oxford’s Migration Observatory said early on that the target was essentially unattainable with EU free movement still in place and other policies unchanged.

Cameron knew the target was almost impossible while the UK remained in the EU and while non‑EU routes such as study and work visas were still relatively open. Yet the slogan stayed, because it worked electorally and masked the internal contradiction between a party leadership keen on global labour flows and a voter base that wanted numbers down.

From a normal voter’s point of view, promising something you know you probably will not deliver, because it polls well, looks a lot like lying.

Theresa May: The “Hostile Environment” Without the Hard Numbers

Theresa May built her political identity around immigration control. As Home Secretary she championed the “hostile environment” policy; as Prime Minister she kept the “tens of thousands” target.

What she said

As Home Secretary, May promised to:

Reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.
Crack down on illegal immigration and abuse of the system.
Create an immigration system “that works in the national interest”.

As Prime Minister, the 2017 Conservative manifesto still pledged to deliver annual net migration in the tens of thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands seen over previous years.

What happened

Despite tough rhetoric and some real restrictions on non‑EU skilled workers and family migration, the core target was never met.

Net migration remained well above 200,000 for much of the period and never came close to the “tens of thousands” line.
Internal and external experts had already said the target was structurally unreachable given free movement and the other political choices the government was making.

Once again, the promise stayed while evidence piled up that it would not – and perhaps could not – be kept. The target functioned as a signal to voters, not as a serious governing constraint.

Boris Johnson: “Reduce Overall Numbers” Then Smash Records

When Boris Johnson took over after Theresa May, he formally dropped the net migration target and sold Brexit with the phrase “take back control”. The 2019 Conservative manifesto promised to “reduce overall numbers” with an Australian‑style points‑based system.

The words

Johnson and his team made two core claims:

Ending free movement and introducing a points‑based system would give the UK control over who came, supposedly allowing lower, more “skilled‑focused” migration.
They would “reduce overall numbers” compared to recent years, without giving a precise figure but clearly implying a cut.

The direction was clear: less, more controlled immigration.

The numbers

During the Johnson and immediate post‑Johnson period, the figures exploded:

Net migration reached around 504,000 in 2022 according to early official estimates, then about 606,000 after revisions.
In the year to June 2023, net migration peaked near 906,000 – the highest number on record for the UK.

Some of that spike came from specific humanitarian routes, such as schemes for Ukraine and Hong Kong. But the underlying reality is that his government relaxed large parts of the immigration framework, especially for students and workers, while talking about control and lower numbers.

By the time this parliament is totalled up, estimates suggest net migration over the term will exceed 2 million – far beyond anything implied by “reduce overall numbers”.

Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer: “Too High” and “We’ll Get It Down”

Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer have tried to avoid the exact trap that caught Cameron and May by not nailing themselves to a precise numerical target. But the pattern of language vs outcome is still there.

Rishi Sunak – “Too high” without a target

Sunak has openly called current net migration “too high” and backed headline policies to curb illegal migration and small boat crossings.

He has avoided setting a new net migration target, mindful of how toxic the “tens of thousands” saga became.
Legal routes – work, study, family, and special schemes – have continued at historically high levels, even as some rules have tightened.

The Migration Advisory Committee notes that net migration hit 906,000 in the year to June 2023, then dropped but remained very high at an estimated 728,000 in the year to June 2024. Saying “too high” while leaving the basic model intact is not honest control; it is managing anger.

Keir Starmer – “We will get it down”

On the Labour side, Keir Starmer has promised to reduce net migration, saying in 2024 that it is “far too high” and that Labour would train more home‑grown workers and end the “low‑wage, high‑immigration model”.

Labour’s public line includes:

Linking migration more tightly to workforce plans in health and social care.
Reducing dependence on overseas workers over time.
Delivering a system that is “controlled and fair”.

But Starmer has refused to set a clear numerical cap and has signalled that high‑skilled migration and certain work routes will remain open to support his growth strategy. Given how deeply the economy and state now rely on imported labour, many observers expect Labour to keep using calming language about control while keeping overall levels well above what most voters mean by “reduced migration”.

In other words, the same pattern that began under Blair and hardened under Cameron risks repeating again: “We will get it down” in public, “we need the numbers” in private.

Why They Keep Doing It: The System Behind the Lies

When you line up the leaders – Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Sunak, Starmer – you see the same basic dance.

Before elections

Talk about control, limits and fairness.
Promise lower or “sustainable” numbers.
Signal to worried voters that you “get it”.

In government

Keep or expand immigration routes that big business, universities, the NHS and other institutions depend on.
Avoid deep reforms that would force serious investment in English workers and training.
Emphasise the economic benefits of immigration while downplaying local pressures, crime and social tension.

When the figures come out

Express “concern” and promise to be “tougher”.
Blame global events, previous governments, or statistical revisions.
Move the goalposts: drop targets, change definitions, or focus the whole debate on a narrow slice (like small boats) while ignoring the bigger picture.

Over time, this stops being a series of mistakes and becomes a governing method: say what people want to hear about immigration to win power, then quietly run a high‑immigration system once you are safely in office.

Some analysts politely call the old targets “unrealistic” or “unreachable”. But when leaders had years of warnings that their promises could not be met under their chosen policies and carried on using them anyway, it is understandable that many English voters now use a shorter word: lie.

Conclusion: Will Reform Be Any Different – or Is This the Last Chance Saloon?

That brings us to the obvious question: will a party like Reform, with its tougher talk on immigration and its influx of “jumping ship” former Conservatives, actually be any different?

Reform’s pitch is simple: “We will do what the Conservatives promised but never did – big cuts, strong borders, firm deportations.” Polling suggests many voters now see Reform and Nigel Farage as more trusted on immigration than either Labour or the Conservatives, precisely because of three decades of broken promises by the main parties.

But there are two hard realities to face:

First, Reform has not yet had to govern the immigration system from the inside. It has not yet faced the Treasury warning that cutting numbers will hit GDP, universities warning of financial collapse, or the NHS warning of staff shortages.
Second, any serious reset would clash head‑on with the courts, the civil service, international agreements and an establishment that has lived comfortably with the high‑immigration model for 25 years.

Wanting to believe Reform will be different is completely understandable, especially if you see them as “the last chance saloon” and doubt the English will tolerate another cycle of lies and record‑high migration. The danger is that hope alone will not change a system this entrenched.

If there is one lesson from Blair to Starmer, it is this: on immigration, trust only what is written clearly into law, backed by hard numbers and timelines – not just what any politician says into a microphone. If Reform – or any party – is serious, it will have to set explicit caps, end the economic addiction to imported labour, and accept a fight with the same powerful interests that bent every previous government back towards high immigration.

Without that, even the “last chance saloon” risks becoming just another stop on the same long, dishonest journey.

Why Do Politicians Lie About Immigration? Names, Numbers, and the Betrayal of England