There’s little doubt Sir Keir Starmer’s proposals to curb legal migration are substantial and are likely to result in a meaningful reduction. 

That the ban on new care workers from overseas is causing angst in the sector is proof that it will make a difference, regardless of the arguments for and against the plan.

Increasing the educational qualifications and English language requirements simply squeezes the eligibility of potential migrants. The decision to double from five to 10 years the wait to become a permanent resident means a much tougher qualifying period than the US. This is a significant package.

Politics latest: Watch Sophy Ridge live from Category B jail

But will it be enough, given we’ve had other substantial packages under previous administrations? Perhaps – but we will not know for years.

But as well as moving the policy debate, the prime minister is also changing the political terms of discussion.

Sir Keir insisted on Monday that he rejects the longstanding claim of Labour predecessors about the link between growth and migration.

Although he has previously made this argument, the latest announcement was the most emphatic rejection of a cornerstone of cross-party thinking that lasted up to and through the Brexit referendum.

The prime minister now says he knows better but what has he done about that?

Read more:
What are Starmer’s new immigration rules?
Labour’s immigration plan builds on Tory rollbacks

An unspoken feature of our government since Brexit has been that successive chancellors have ended up as advocates for higher migration, knowing that any drop in numbers would also hit their growth projections.

There are those in Downing Street who believe that the interaction of fiscal rules and OBR forecasts do not capture the true net economic cost-benefit of migration.

But when I asked Sir Keir about this, and whether he could change the way of measuring the economic impact of migration, he dodged the question.

But does anyone have the answer?

Farage’s approach

Most presume the toughest solutions come from Nigel Farage‘s Reform UK, and he attacks the prime minister for fiddling around the edges. But how would he do it?

Last year’s Reform manifesto promised a “freeze on non-essential immigration”, claiming it has “pushed Britain to breaking point”.

However, this still provides scope for migrants with “essential skills, mainly around healthcare, (which) must be the only exception”.

But is this not exactly the sort of wiggle room that Mr Farage would criticise if another party exercised it?

I pressed Mr Farage on how big this exemption would be, and after dodging the question several times – saying that I was missing the point because most migrants do not work – he replied: “I can’t tell you the numbers right now, I don’t have all the figures.

“What I can tell you is anyone that comes in will not be allowed to stay long-term. That’s the difference.”

He added: “You ask me in four years’ time, all right? Ask me in four years’ time.”

This is the first time Mr Farage has offered a numerical cap before the next election.

Even broad brush promises in opposition are complex. Let’s see if the debate is still as salient by the next election.