How have Labour’s immigration policy changes differed from its 2024 manifesto commitments, according to policy trackers and legal analysts?
Executive summary
Labour’s 2024 manifesto promised a technocratic, evidence-led overhaul of the points‑based system, stronger Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) powers, linking immigration to skills policy, and a stated aim to reduce net migration without formal caps [1] [2]. In practice, policy trackers and legal analysts record continuity with many Conservative-era restrictions (notably higher salary thresholds and tightened family rules), selective reversals and referrals to the MAC rather than immediate reversals, and substantial ambiguity on costs and caps that leaves the manifesto pledge more restrained in implementation than the rhetoric suggested [3] [4] [5].
1. What the manifesto actually promised: expert-led reform, skills linkage, and a reduction in net migration
Labour framed its manifesto as promising to “reform the points‑based immigration system” with “appropriate restrictions on visas,” to strengthen and commission work from the Migration Advisory Committee, to tie immigration decisions to industrial and skills strategy, and to reduce net migration while avoiding a formal cap [1] [6] [2]. Legal briefings and campaign analyses repeatedly describe the manifesto tone as technocratic — focusing on training plans, sector workforce strategies and MAC-led reviews rather than immediate, sweeping reversals of 2024 measures [6] [7] [5].
2. Early government moves: retaining many April 2024 measures and asking the MAC to review them
Rather than scrapping the prior administration’s measures, the Labour government opted mostly to retain the April 2024 increases to salary thresholds and other restrictive steps while commissioning the MAC to investigate their impact — a procedural and incremental approach that legal analysts emphasised [3] [2] [5]. Law firms and immigration specialists noted that Labour’s initial changes focused on governance (linking MAC to industrial strategy) and enforcement against “rogue employers” rather than immediate restorations of access or fee reversals [8] [5].
3. Policy trackers’ measurements: real‑world continuity and shifting outcomes on migration numbers
Independent trackers flagged that many of the Conservative measures remained in force and that net migration was already projected to fall regardless; by mid‑2025 net migration had declined sharply, a trend policy analysts say cannot be attributed solely to Labour manifesto changes and which reflects earlier policy shifts and forecasting [4]. The Migration Observatory noted Labour’s manifesto commitments to train‑linked visa restrictions and a new returns/enforcement unit, but also flagged that many concrete levers (salary thresholds, family route rules) were left for MAC review rather than immediate reversal [6] [4].
4. Legal analysts’ verdict: incrementalism, ambiguity on fees, and employer‑focused enforcement
Solicitors and immigration consultancies repeatedly highlighted gaps between manifesto language and operational detail: Labour signalled it would “ask” the MAC to review increased salary thresholds and care‑worker restrictions, but gave no commitment to reduce recent fee hikes or immigration health surcharge rises; legal commentators described the manifesto as “nebulous” on costs and timings [5] [8]. Several legal analyses emphasise the practical consequence: business immigration remains constrained until the MAC and secondary rule changes act, and the promised bans on hiring from abroad for employers flouting law are enforcement tools rather than immediate route reopenings [5] [7].
5. Political pressure and the calculus behind differences from manifesto rhetoric
Observers point to intense public and cross‑party pressure to bring down record net migration as the pragmatic driver behind Labour’s decision to keep many restrictive measures in place while shifting the narrative to evidence and skills policy; this explains why Labour retained headline‑level commitments to reduce migration without instituting a formal cap and chose MAC reviews over immediate liberalisation [3] [2] [9]. Critics argue this is cautious politics: strengthening independent bodies buys time and legitimacy but delays substantive relief for affected migrants and firms [7] [10].
6. Bottom line — continuity with managerial tweaks, not manifesto fulfilment in full
According to policy trackers and legal analysts, the net effect is that Labour’s post‑election actions have differed from the manifesto’s forward‑looking rhetoric by prioritising review, governance and targeted enforcement over sweeping reversals: many Conservative‑era salary and family‑route restrictions stayed in place pending MAC work, visa fee questions were largely unaddressed, and the practical pattern has been incremental change rather than manifesto‑style reform [2] [5] [4]. Where the manifesto promised an expert‑led “reform,” the early months delivered a managerial strategy that leaves key outcomes — access, costs and caps — unresolved until further MAC findings or secondary legislation [6] [3].