Well I think these steps seem positive on migration. It would make sense that it was lots of adjustments in the system and then considering how you address flows of migration.
I thought there was degree of very British corruption (ie not meeting the legal test) on how things developed before. Don’t staff the Border system with enough staff to process applications. The staff you do have should be unqualified to make these difficult decisions which guarantees judicial review. Pile up asylum seekers in hotels, all paid from the public purse. Criminalise entry but fail to understand that the incentive is to accept the risk, and either be in prison or be released where you cannot organise deportation. Public services get no more funding to deal with the additional demand of legal migration and then services to address asylum needs are pushed onto local councils who have to manage high needs. Allow criminals to hang around hotels housing asylum seekers where children disappear into sex or drugs related crime.
At the same time, cannot lose taste for cheaper labour, leave EU, incentivise migration from countries where the standard of living is far less than the UK, accept lesser qualifications, accept families with workers, advertise roles at lesser rates than for UK workers.
Then watch money pour out of the public sector to manage the issue via hotels, private care, private medicine, while UK citizens get lesser services, increased job competition and increased competition for housing.
The only people who have done well is the private sector who got to resource this horror. Starmer is already doing better.