Immigration is topping the polls for voters concerns - The economics differ for political parties

19th October 2025

Polls show that immigration is topping the list for voters concerns.

Let's take a look at the economic consequences of immigration and asylum policies across the main UK political parties -Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, and the Green Party.

Immigration is no longer just a moral or political question — it's an economic one. The UK's economy, from its hospitals to its building sites, depends heavily on migrant labour. Yet, each of Britain's main political parties approaches immigration and asylum through a very different lens, with significant economic implications for growth, public finances, and labour markets.

Labour - Balancing Control and Contribution

Labour’s current stance reflects a careful balancing act. The party pledges to scrap the Rwanda deportation scheme and replace it with a new Border Security Command aimed at tackling people-smuggling gangs. At the same time, Labour intends to maintain legal migration routes for skilled workers and students, while improving asylum processing to reduce costly backlogs.

Economically, Labour’s policy is designed to restore efficiency rather than radically change migration levels. Faster processing means less public money spent on hotel accommodation and legal delays, while keeping skilled-worker routes open ensures vital sectors like health and social care can recruit. Although tighter controls on low-wage migration could raise costs in sectors such as hospitality, the overall effect would likely be modestly positive for long-term growth — with some short-term administrative costs.

Conservatives - Enforcement Over Expansion

The Conservative Party has built its immigration platform on deterrence. Promising strict caps on migration and renewed efforts to remove those arriving illegally, Conservatives continue to advocate for measures like the Rwanda plan or similar third-country deportation arrangements. The idea is to reduce net migration and demonstrate border control strength.

The economic reality, however, is more complex. Deportation and enforcement programmes are extraordinarily expensive — the National Audit Office has estimated costs in the hundreds of thousands per deportee for such schemes. At the same time, restricting migration reduces labour supply in key sectors already suffering from shortages, from social care to agriculture. That tightens the labour market, pushes up wages, and increases costs for both businesses and public services. While politically appealing to voters who favour stricter border control, the fiscal and growth implications of the Conservative approach are likely to be negative in the medium term.

Liberal Democrats - Integration as Investment

In contrast, the Liberal Democrats present immigration as an opportunity for growth and renewal. They would end the "hostile environment," scrap the Rwanda policy, and allow asylum seekers to work after three months. Their focus is on building legal and humane routes to migration, paired with efficient administration.

The economic logic behind this is straightforward. Allowing asylum seekers to work reduces dependency on public support and adds to the tax base, while clear and lawful routes make recruitment easier for businesses. In the short run, reforms to the Home Office and asylum system would require investment, but over time, the Lib Dem approach is fiscally neutral or even positive. By recognising that working-age migrants typically contribute more in taxes than they take in benefits, this strategy aligns moral and economic imperatives.

Reform UK - The Cost of Closing the Door

Reform UK’s platform is the most hardline. It calls for an almost complete freeze on immigration, large-scale deportations, and, if necessary, withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights to enable removals. The rhetoric is one of taking back total control — but the economic cost would be immense.

Deportations at scale are prohibitively expensive. More significantly, a near-zero migration policy would shrink the UK’s labour force at a time when it is already ageing and facing skill shortages. Migrants make up a substantial share of staff in the NHS, social care, agriculture, hospitality, and construction — removing that workforce would drive up wages, slow production, and likely lead to price inflation. The overall consequence would be lower GDP growth, higher public spending on enforcement, and declining competitiveness. In economic terms, this is the most damaging model of all.

The Green Party - Inclusion and Long-Term Gains

The Green Party takes a humanitarian and rights-based approach, arguing that immigration enriches the UK economically and socially. Their policies include abolishing "No Recourse to Public Funds" restrictions, allowing asylum seekers to work immediately, and reducing visa fees. They also advocate investment in local services to help communities adapt to population change.

This approach carries short-term fiscal costs, as removing NRPF and expanding access to services increases immediate public spending. However, by enabling migrants to work, pay taxes, and integrate faster, the Greens’ policies would likely produce net long-term economic benefits. Migrants who are allowed to participate fully in the economy tend to contribute more than they receive — a fact confirmed repeatedly by studies from the Migration Observatory and the Office for Budget Responsibility.

The Bigger Picture: Efficiency vs. Ideology

Across all parties, the dividing line is less about numbers and more about purpose. Restrictive approaches — such as those favoured by the Conservatives and Reform UK — prioritise deterrence and political visibility, but they come with significant fiscal and economic costs. More open or efficiency-focused models — like those of Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the Greens — cost money upfront but pay dividends in higher growth, tax revenues, and productivity.

Independent modelling of these dynamics shows the difference clearly. Policies focused on deportation and caps could cost the public purse billions each year, while those expanding legal work routes and granting asylum seekers employment rights could generate over a billion in net fiscal benefits. The trade-off is therefore not between control and chaos, but between short-term symbolism and long-term economic realism.

The Economics of Welcome

Immigration and asylum are emotionally charged issues, but behind the politics lies an economic truth: people are an asset. The UK’s ageing population, chronic labour shortages, and slowing growth all point to the same reality — a sustainable economy needs migrants. The parties differ mainly in whether they treat that as a problem to contain or a resource to manage wisely.

In pure economic terms, policies that combine firm but fair border control with openness to lawful migration — allowing people to work, pay taxes, and settle — are the ones that deliver prosperity. Whether the next government sees immigration as an opportunity or a threat will shape not just the character of Britain, but the strength of its economy for decades to come.

Your Party
The Guardian reports that Your Party (associated with Jeremy Corbyn) is a "new grassroots political movement" built on member-driven decision-making.
The Guardian

However, the article emphasises democratic reforms (how the party is governed) rather than concrete policy statements on immigration or asylum.
The Guardian

No manifesto or policy paper or detailed statement from the party that sets out its stance on how many migrants it would accept or how asylum seekers should be treated

Unless Your Party publishes a full platform or policy briefing, one cannot reliably attribute a specific immigration/asylum economic position to them.

Your Party will shortly be holding a series of meting around the UK where policies will be formulated.