The Conservative Gambit

The Political Context of the Conservative Party Conference

The backdrop to the 2025 Conservative Party conference in Manchester is one of considerable political challenge for the party. ¹¹ Having been in opposition for over a year, the party has been grappling with consistently low poll ratings, often trailing in third place behind the governing Labour Party and the significant electoral threat posed by Reform UK. ^{20, 36} The rise of Reform UK, under the leadership of Nigel Farage, has exerted considerable pressure on the Conservative's right flank, particularly on the salient issue of immigration. ^{10, 16} This competitive political environment has undoubtedly influenced the policy direction articulated at the conference, with a clear emphasis on adopting a more hardline stance to appeal to a voter base perceived to be concerned with border control and national sovereignty. ^{33, 36}

The conference itself, held from the 5th to the 8th of October, was framed around the dual themes of a "stronger economy" and "stronger borders," slogans prominently displayed throughout the venue. ³³ Immigration was explicitly identified as a key battleground, with the party leader, Kemi Badenoch, making it a central plank of her address. ^{11, 33} The timing and content of the announcements can be understood as a direct attempt to regain the political initiative and present a distinct and robust alternative to the policies of both the Labour government and Reform UK. ^{20, 36} The focus on immigration is further underscored by the stark reality of cross-Channel migration figures, with reports indicating that 2025 is on course to set a new record for the number of individuals arriving in small boats. ^{10, 11, 33}

The decision to announce a withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is a particularly significant policy development, representing a long-held ambition of a faction within the Conservative Party. ^{12, 16} This move is presented as a necessary step to overcome legal obstacles that have, in the party's view, hindered effective immigration control and the deportation of foreign nationals with no right to remain in the UK. ^{12, 20} The pledge has been carefully framed, with the party asserting that it has undertaken extensive legal analysis to ensure an orderly withdrawal, in contrast to what it characterises as the less considered proposals of its political rivals. ^{16, 20}

In essence, the policy announcements at the 2025 Conservative Party conference are not occurring in a political vacuum. They are a direct response to a challenging electoral landscape, the competitive pressure from Reform UK, and a perceived public concern over the issue of illegal immigration. The hardline proposals on both immigration and protest are designed to project an image of a party with a clear and decisive plan to address these pressing national issues, thereby seeking to rebuild its political fortunes and present a compelling case to the electorate. ^{20, 36}

A British 'ICE': The Proposed Removals Force

A cornerstone of the Conservative Party's new immigration strategy is the creation of a 'Removals Force', a specialised body tasked with the detention and deportation of individuals deemed to be in the United Kingdom illegally. ^{10, 11} This new entity is to be explicitly modelled on the United States' Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, a body that has attracted both praise for its perceived effectiveness in removals and significant controversy over its methods. ^{10, 11, 23} The proposed British equivalent is to be endowed with a substantial budget of £1.6 billion, a figure that the Conservatives state will be funded by savings from closing asylum hotels and other costs associated with the current asylum system. ⁹ The stated objective of this new force is ambitious: to deport 150,000 people annually. ^{10, 11, 15}

To achieve this target, the Removals Force would be granted "sweeping new powers". ^{10, 11, 13} Perhaps the most contentious of these is the proposed ability to utilise facial recognition technology without the need for warning signs. ^{9, 10, 11} This would be deployed to identify, detain, and subsequently remove individuals without legal immigration status. Furthermore, a closer integration with existing police forces is envisaged. ^{10, 11} The plans mandate police officers to conduct immigration checks on every individual they stop or arrest, with those found to be in the country illegally being handed over to the Removals Force for deportation. ^{9, 10} The priorities for removal have been outlined as newly arrived illegal immigrants, who are to be removed within a week, and foreign national offenders. ⁹

The inspiration for this new body, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, was established in 2003 in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, as part of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. ^{3, 18, 22} ICE's remit is broad, encompassing the enforcement of laws related to border control, customs, trade, and immigration. ³ It operates through several directorates, with its Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) division being the one most closely mirrored in the Conservative proposal. ^{3, 28} The ERO is responsible for the apprehension, detention, and deportation of undocumented immigrants within the interior of the United States. ^{22, 28} However, ICE's history has been fraught with controversy, facing accusations of aggressive enforcement tactics, racial profiling, civil rights abuses, and the arrest of legal migrants and even US citizens. ^{3, 10, 23}

The Conservative proposal for a British 'ICE' has, therefore, raised significant questions and concerns. The adoption of a model with such a contentious track record has prompted debate about the potential for similar issues to arise in the UK context. The proposed "sweeping new powers," particularly the use of facial recognition technology without warning and the mandating of immigration checks by police during routine stops, have brought to the fore concerns about civil liberties, data privacy, and the potential for discriminatory practices. The practicalities of deporting 150,000 people a year have also been questioned, with Kemi Badenoch facing scrutiny over the destinations for these removals. ¹⁵ Her response that they will be returned to their country of origin or a safe third country has been met with demands for greater specificity. ¹⁵

The European Convention on Human Rights: A Point of Departure

A pivotal element of the Conservative Party's strategy for overhauling the UK's immigration system is the pledge to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). ^{12, 16, 25} This announcement, made by Kemi Badenoch ahead of her main conference speech, marks a significant policy shift and a move to appease the right wing of her party, as well as to counter the political threat from Reform UK, which has long advocated for such a measure. ^{16, 20} The party's rationale for this move is that the ECHR, and the legal challenges brought under its auspices, have consistently frustrated the government's efforts to control the country's borders and to deport foreign nationals who have no right to be in the UK. ¹²

The ECHR is an international treaty, drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War and championed by British lawyers and politicians, including Winston Churchill. ^{12, 25} It was established in 1950 and sets out fundamental rights and freedoms for individuals in the 46 signatory states of the Council of Europe. ¹⁶ The UK was one of the first signatories, and the Convention is deeply embedded in British law, most notably through the Human Rights Act 1998, which allows individuals to rely on their Convention rights in UK courts. Certain articles of the ECHR, such as Article 3 (the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life), have been frequently cited in legal challenges to prevent deportations. ¹²

The Conservative Party argues that these legal challenges, which it has termed "lawfare," have created an insurmountable obstacle to effective immigration enforcement. ¹² The decision to propose withdrawal from the ECHR follows a review commissioned by Kemi Badenoch and conducted by the shadow attorney general, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar KC. ^{12, 17, 20} This nearly 200-page report concluded that the ECHR places significant constraints on the government's ability to act in a range of policy areas, including immigration. ^{12, 25} The review considered other options, such as renegotiating the treaty or derogating from certain articles, but deemed them to be either unrealistic or ineffective. ¹⁶ Consequently, it advised that withdrawal was both legally and practically possible. ¹²

The proposed departure from the ECHR has elicited a strong reaction from various quarters. Proponents argue that it will restore parliamentary sovereignty and allow the UK to implement its own laws without interference from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The Conservative Party has asserted that leaving the ECHR is a necessary step to secure the nation's borders, protect veterans from what it describes as spurious legal action, and prioritise British citizens for social housing and public services. ^{12, 17}

However, the proposal has also drawn considerable criticism. Opponents contend that withdrawing from the ECHR would damage the UK's international reputation and place it in the company of Russia and Belarus, the only two European nations that are not signatories. ¹⁶ Concerns have also been raised about the potential impact on the Good Friday Agreement, which underpins the peace process in Northern Ireland, although the Conservative Party's review concluded that leaving the ECHR would be compatible with this agreement. ^{16, 20} The Liberal Democrats have been particularly vocal in their condemnation, with their leader, Sir Ed Davey, accusing Kemi Badenoch of siding with Vladimir Putin and arguing that the move would do nothing to address the practical issues of border control. ¹² The Labour Party has framed the announcement as a sign of Kemi Badenoch's weakness in the face of pressure from her own party and from Reform UK, pointing out that she had previously argued against such a policy during her leadership campaign. ^{12, 20}

A Stricter Asylum and Settlement Regime

In conjunction with the proposals for a new 'Removals Force' and withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, the Conservative Party has outlined a series of measures designed to create a more stringent asylum and settlement system in the United Kingdom. ^{10, 14} These proposals represent a fundamental shift in the approach to those seeking refuge and those wishing to make the UK their permanent home. A key aspect of this new approach is a significant narrowing of the definition of who qualifies for refugee status. ^{10, 14} Under the proposed changes, asylum would primarily be granted to individuals who can demonstrate that they are being threatened by a foreign government. ^{10, 14} Those fleeing conflict zones or countries with laws that are less tolerant of their religion or sexuality would not be eligible for refugee status under this new, more restrictive, definition. ^{10, 14} The party has explicitly stated that "few people will qualify" under these revised criteria. ^{10, 14}

Furthermore, the automatic right to settlement and family reunion for those granted asylum is to be abolished. ^{7, 19} Currently, individuals with refugee status can apply for permanent residence after five years. ⁷ The new proposals would make settlement contingent upon meeting a more extensive set of conditions, with an emphasis on proving a contribution to British society. ⁷ The government has argued that this will create a fairer system, ending a situation where those who arrive illegally via small boats have a clearer path to settlement and family reunion than those who come through legal routes. ^{7, 19} This is part of a broader move to make the route to settlement longer and more "earned". ¹⁹

The proposed changes to the settlement process are not limited to asylum seekers. The Conservative Party has also indicated a desire to extend the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain from the current five years to ten years for many migrants. ^{30, 34} There would be an "earned settlement" pathway for some to qualify sooner, based on their contributions to the UK, though the specifics of this points-based system have not been fully detailed. ³⁴ Additionally, stricter criteria for settlement are being proposed, including a higher standard of English, a clean criminal record, and a requirement that applicants have not claimed benefits or housing aid while on a work visa. ³⁰

Another significant and controversial element of the proposed reforms is the intention to deny legal aid for immigration cases. ^{10, 14} The Conservative Party has accused some solicitors of "defrauding" the UK by "coaching" asylum applicants, and argues that legal representation is unnecessary as individuals "should simply tell the truth about their circumstances". ^{10, 14} This move, alongside the proposal to abolish the immigration tribunal and have all migration decisions handled by the Home Office with only limited rights of appeal, would represent a radical overhaul of the legal framework governing immigration and asylum in the UK. ¹⁴ These measures, taken together, signal a clear intention to significantly reduce the number of individuals granted asylum and to make the path to permanent settlement in the UK a more arduous and conditional process.

New Powers to Manage Public Protests

Alongside the far-reaching proposals on immigration, the Conservative Party conference also served as the platform for announcing new measures to enhance police powers to manage public protests. ^{2, 4, 6} This development comes in the wake of a series of large-scale and frequent demonstrations, particularly those related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which have seen a significant number of arrests. ^{2, 4} The government's stated aim is to address the disruption caused by repeated protests in the same location, and to allay the concerns of communities who feel intimidated or unsafe as a result of such demonstrations. ^{4, 6, 8}

The proposed changes will involve amending Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. ^{2, 4, 6, 8} These amendments will explicitly allow the police to take into account the "cumulative impact" of a series of protests when deciding whether to impose conditions on public processions and assemblies. ^{2, 4, 6, 8} This means that if a protest has caused what the Home Office terms "repeated disorder" at the same site over a number of weeks, the police would be empowered to order the organisers to move the demonstration to a different location. ^{2, 8} Failure to comply with such an order would risk arrest and prosecution. ^{2, 8}

The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has indicated that she believes there is "a gap in the law" that needs to be addressed swiftly. ² In addition to these specific amendments, the Home Secretary has also announced a broader review of all existing anti-protest legislation to ensure that the powers available to the police are sufficient and are being applied consistently across different forces. ^{2, 4, 6, 8} This review will include an examination of the powers to ban some protests outright. ^{2, 4, 6, 8} The government's justification for these new powers is that while the right to protest is a fundamental freedom, it must be balanced against the right of others to live their lives without fear and intimidation. ^{4, 6, 8} The Home Secretary has specifically cited the "considerable fear" expressed by members of the Jewish community as a result of repeated pro-Palestinian demonstrations. ^{4, 6, 8}

The timing of this announcement is significant, coming the day after a pro-Palestinian demonstration in London resulted in almost 500 arrests. ^{2, 4} Police leaders have also expressed concerns about the strain on their resources caused by the need to police these frequent and large-scale events, which also necessitates increased security around synagogues and other Jewish community buildings. ⁴ These new powers build upon other recent measures aimed at tackling certain protest tactics, such as the ban on face coverings and fireworks at demonstrations, and the criminalisation of climbing on war memorials, which are part of the Crime and Policing Bill currently making its way through Parliament. ^{2, 8}

The Conservative Party, now in opposition, has indicated that it would support the Labour government's proposals to expand police powers to deal with persistent protests. ¹⁵ However, Kemi Badenoch has questioned why it has taken the government so long to act on this issue. ¹⁵ The proposed new powers have, unsurprisingly, raised concerns among civil liberties groups, who fear a chilling effect on the right to peaceful protest and the potential for a disproportionate impact on certain groups and causes. The debate over these measures will undoubtedly centre on the delicate balance between upholding the fundamental right to protest and ensuring public order and community safety.

Conclusion

The policy announcements made at the 2025 Conservative Party conference represent a clear and decisive turn towards a more hardline approach on the interconnected issues of immigration and public order. The proposals for a new 'Removals Force', modelled on the controversial American 'ICE' agency, coupled with a pledge to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, signal a fundamental reshaping of the UK's approach to border control and the legal framework that underpins it. These measures are accompanied by a significant tightening of the asylum and settlement system, with a narrower definition of who qualifies for protection and a more arduous path to permanent residency. Concurrently, the proposed enhancement of police powers to manage protests indicates a lower tolerance for sustained public demonstrations that are deemed to be disruptive or intimidating.

These policies have been formulated in a specific and challenging political context, as the Conservative Party seeks to regain its footing in the face of poor poll ratings and the electoral threat from Reform UK. The hardline stance is a direct appeal to a segment of the electorate perceived to be highly concerned with immigration and national sovereignty. However, this strategic direction is not without its risks and has already generated significant debate. Critics have raised serious concerns about the potential impact on human rights, civil liberties, and the UK's international standing. The practicalities of implementing such ambitious deportation targets and the legal and constitutional implications of leaving the ECHR are also subject to intense scrutiny.

The proposals have drawn a clear dividing line between the Conservative Party and its political opponents, setting the stage for a highly charged debate on the future direction of the country's immigration and public order policies. The Labour government, while also seeking to demonstrate its own toughness on immigration, has criticised the Conservative plans as unworkable and a sign of political weakness. The Liberal Democrats and civil liberties organisations have been more forthright in their condemnation, warning of a dangerous erosion of fundamental rights and freedoms. As the details of these proposals are fleshed out and debated in the political arena, the fundamental questions of how the United Kingdom balances the imperatives of border security, national sovereignty, and its long-standing commitments to human rights and the rule of law will be brought into sharp focus. The answers to these questions will have profound and lasting implications for the nature of British society and its place in the world.