Shabana Mahmood has been making headlines with her new asylum reforms. Labour’s latest attempt to quell the rise of Reform is littered with promises of “the most sweeping reforms to tackle illegal migration in decades” and a settlement system that is “the most controlled and selective in Europe”. It comes after sending Home Office officials to Denmark to study their border control and asylum policies.
The Labour Party has otherwise had more in common with the older rendition of the Danish Social Democrats. Former Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt is married to Minister for Care Stephen Kinnock, “great pals” with Alastair Campbell, and has campaigned for the Labour Party. Moving further to the right on immigration played a huge role in the victory of Denmark’s Social Democrats in 2019 under Schmidt’s successor Mette Frederiksen, widening the gap with Labour and deflating support for the otherwise ascendant hard-right Danish People’s Party. In Britain, “Danish-style social democracy” has become a model for successful hard-line and palatable immigration policy on much of the right, and a potential way of defeating the populist right on the centre-left.
But recent news out of Denmark has given British left-wingers an opening. Owen Jones and Nadia Whittome were quick to point out that things are not going well for the actual Danish Social Democrats. Mahmood’s proposals come right on top of a local election that has proven painful for the Social Democrats. They lost support and mayoralties across the country, and have lost power in Copenhagen to the further left after over 100 years of domination. The centre coalition government is desperately unpopular, and though Mette Frederiksen still stands a chance of remaining prime minister after the next election, this is in spite of rather than because of her party’s popularity.
But Danish sentiments on immigration are far from compatible with Owen Jones’ dreams. The temporary victory over the Danish People’s Party left the Social Democrats vulnerable to voter migration in the other direction. Since 2019, immigration has been the issue that might no longer win you an election, but can definitely lose you one. The Social Democrats can handle losing voters to the left — the multi-party system means that parties to the left will still ultimately provide a Social Democratic government with parliamentary support. But when immigration is in focus, this leads more often to voter movement to the right, where the Danish People’s party has continued to loom. Even a small change can be enough to tip the balance to a right-wing majority that can topple the Social Democrats in the next election.
Especially since the explosion of populist right-wing parties in Europe, the Danish left has been remarkably quiet on the immigration front. This has in part been in recognition of political realities: most parties on the left largely, if quietly, support the Social Democrat line. This also left the Danish People’s Party without a “woke left” to rail against. For a while, they attempted a populist pushback against Green policies and the EU, without much success, and the tactic of ignoring their populist rumblings was temporarily effective. Popular wisdom — on which Mahmood’s hopes are based — held that once the immigration question was settled, any attempts to emulate European-style populism on the right fringes was doomed to fail.
But the ever-persistent Danish People’s Party are once again gaining ground, now at 10.1 per cent in recent polling, and they are back to their tried and tested focus on immigration policy. In an attempt by party leader Morten Messerschmidt to reinvent the party, they have replaced their PR team with tech-savvy Zoomers, and are taking a harder line. In recent weeks, attention has turned from their slogans to their policies, and one in particular from August 2024 stands out. In an attempt to side-line smaller right-wing parties, and pose a real challenge to the Social Democrats from the right, the Danish People’s Party presented a plan for returning immigrants to their home country — and ignited Danish public debate with the word “remigration”.
They want to make conditions worse for criminals whose residency permits have been revoked, and reserve the generous Danish state benefits for citizens. With reference to a study from 2015 which showed that 40 per cent of Danish Muslims want Sharia law to play some role in Danish politics, they take a much harsher line on Islam. They suggest closing Muslim free schools, banning or limiting halal slaughter, and revoking Islam’s status as a recognised religious community. The overarching thrust is to make it near impossible to live “Islamically” in Danish society.
This has finally given left and centre-left parties something to oppose. The Social Democratic MP Frederik Vad, otherwise known for his staunch defences of the hard line taken by his party, has distanced his party from any idea of remigration. Former Liberal party MP Bertel Haarder suggested that the People’s Party proposal didn’t pass the “Jew-test” — i.e. replacing the word Islamic with Jewish, thus apparently proving it beyond the realm of acceptable discourse. The leader of the Social Liberal Party Martin Lidegaard suggested that the proposal would lead to internment based on religion and skin colour, which led Messerschmidt to threaten a defamation lawsuit. But most of the response was entirely measured and sensible, if largely critical — Danish public debate has learned to weather a wide range of opinions on this issue in particular. Even so, the whole debacle has got the Danish People’s Party what they traditionally thrive on — attention. And, more broadly, recognition that despite the best efforts of the Social Democrats, immigration is far from a settled issue.
This increasing threat from the right has caused the government to harden its stance, and change immigration minister. But it’s not all strategic for the Social Democrats. In a famous speech in 2024, the aforementioned Frederik Vad put forward a proposal for further tightening. With reference to a report from Sweden and a cluster of Danish cases of social workers and NGO-workers abusing their positions, he contended that even those who speak the language and participate in the workforce might use their position to “undermine Denmark from within.” This received much criticism at the time, especially from the democratic socialist Red-Green alliance, and in the press. But this is the battle ground for the Danish immigration debate.
Despite hand-wringing in some quarters, immigration restriction remains overwhelmingly popular with the Danish public
In the upcoming Danish elections, immigration will probably once again play a major role. But bipartisan agreement on a rational and legal immigration system means people are asking the harder questions. Some of the suggestions from the Danish People’s Party make those of us who care about civil liberties flinch. But most are contending with the fact that integration has proven a harder challenge than, say, the job market and educational participation. And despite hand-wringing in some quarters, immigration restriction remains overwhelmingly popular with the Danish public.
Labour might have more to learn from the Danish Social Democrats than just policy and rhetoric. Two-party hegemony is looking shaky in Britain, and Labour might benefit from the logic of Denmark’s multi-party system — if they are to haemorrhage voters, better to do so to the Greens than Reform; Labour and the Greens might still ally to defeat Farage. That is, if it isn’t already too late. A harder line on immigration has shaped Danish policy since the early 2000s, and a central part of public debate since the emergence of the Danish People’s Party in the 1990s. Even then, there are issues to be contended with at the ballot box. But Labour will also have to prove to voters that they can follow through. Even more so than their Danish role model, Labour’s immigration strategy will have to contend with a continuous challenge from the right, and they will need the stomach for a harsher and sustained public debate.
