>>Arguments for stricter controls on immigration are made from across the political spectrum.
This isn't an argument about immigration - it's an argument about citizenship, and the current proposed implementation contravenes various pacts that UK is the signatory of - namely that asylum seekers shouldn't have their path to citizenship hindered in any way because of the way they applied for asylum. This isn't going to stop anyone from coming over here either, or I think it's extremely naive to think so. Someone getting here from Afganistan to escape the taliban isn't going to think "oh I would go to the UK, but 6 years from now they won't grant me citizenship so I won't". The citizenship application is already extremely thorough and investigates you from every possible angle, the "good character" requirement being tied to being how you arrived here is.................a right wing idea, because it punishes people who would have been otherwise elligable for a citizenship(so you know, live here legally, pay their taxes, never had any problems with the law) but now they won't because of how they arrived here.
>>ls, walking back support for it is the obvious next step.
If it's so obvious, why was this explicitly part of Kier's campaign promises? Because I'll be honest with you - right now I feel like a right melon for voting for him. All the things that were important to me that he highlighted in his campaign he has walked back on(well, almost everything) - so if these changes are so obvious, am I an idiot for believing what was promised?
Again, from my point of view - he(and Labour) are making those changes to not anger certain parts of the electorate. We can disagree on this point, but that's my view on it.
>>None of this requires any adherence to far right beliefs.
To be clear - I don't think Kier Starmer has right wing beliefs himself. But I can definitely see what I'd call "pandering" to those ideas by his party.