Shabana Mahmood didn’t just unveil a new package of immigration policies on Monday. More importantly, she drew a line across the Left that could split the Labour Party in two.

It’s telling that the most effusive praise for the Home Secretary’s Commons performance on Monday afternoon came from the Right. Rebecca Paul, a Tory MP, could barely contain her admiration: “Shabana most definitely had her Weetabix this morning!!!” Christian Calgie of the Express was also enthused: “Bloody hell Shabana’s on fire.” In the Spectator, Stephen Pollard writes that “Mahmood speaks like a leader” and concludes that she “might well be” Britain’s next prime minister.

What especially impressed the Home Secretary’s new fans was the way that she slapped down her Left-wing critics. For instance, the Bristol Central MP and former Greens co-leader Carla Denyer was reduced to helpless fury when Mahmood referred to the party’s hypocrisy on the issue. And as for Zarah Sultana’s accusation that the Government’s new policies were “straight out of the fascist playbook”, Mahmood calmly corrected her on one point while deeming the others “beneath contempt”.

If Downing Street’s hope was to change the narrative on Labour’s immigration policy, then Mahmood has knocked it out of the park. But rather than amplify this rare communications win, Keir Starmer yesterday distracted from it by reopening the question of his continued leadership in an interview. It’s almost as if the PM is afraid of what Mahmood did yesterday. And as well he might be.

Ominously, it’s not just the minor Left-wing parties queuing up to attack Mahmood, but a growing number of Labour MPs too. The most telling comment came from Cat Eccles, MP for Stourbridge, who accused the Home Secretary of trying to “appease the electorate”. Sadly, Eccles didn’t go on to quote the Bertolt Brecht line about it being simpler for the Government to “dissolve the people and elect another”.

Of course, the British Left has never been a monolithic bloc. Indeed, as current polling proves, it is deeply divided. However, the arguments tend to revolve around differences of degree — for instance, over how much money to spend or how soon to achieve Net Zero. There are some differences of principle, of course, but these tend to be over issues that don’t decide entire general elections (Gaza, for example) or which don’t split the Left right down the middle (like Brexit). Even when a really damaging split opens up — take the Iraq war in the early 2000s — it is usually temporary.

But immigration is different. It is a major issue, it is a permanent issue and, above all, it is an issue of principle. For the modern Left, immigration is a fundamental good. There can be no cap on numbers, no lasting distinction between migrants and citizens, and no doubt that diversity is our strength. Regardless of differing views about the precise details of what Mahmood presented to Parliament, what she said — and the way she said it — was unmistakably conservative.

And that, of course, is heresy to the progressive Left. What happens next will depend on the Prime Minister. He may give in to backbench pressure and dilute Government policy, just as he did on welfare cuts. But if he stands firm, he should brace for defections.

The fact is that neither the Government nor the potential rebels have much to lose here. Labour strategists know they have to claw back support from Reform. But Labour MPs like Cat Eccles represent constituencies like Stourbridge where they’re doomed to defeat anyway. Expect them to go down fighting.

---

Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.

peterfranklin_

---