Migration as a moral issue for Burnham: can the new prime minister satisfy Labour and the public at once?

On a doorstep in Makerfield, before he was prime minister, Andy Burnham was asked about a label Nigel Farage's Reform party had tried to pin on him: "open borders Andy." The then Manchester mayor called it ridiculous and went on the defensive. He had worked at the Home Office under Tony Blair, he said, and it had been his specific job to return people. He described travelling to governments around the world to persuade them to take back planes of people who had come to Britain with no basis to stay.

The exchange was about more than the by-election. Burnham was also sketching where he might land on the immigration reforms drawn up by the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood. The left of Labour had decried those plans as unfair, while the right of the party called them electorally necessary. Burnham supported her attempts to limit both legal and illegal migration, which some senior Labour figures had criticised as un-British, but he wanted to reframe them. There was, he said, a different way of thinking about it that might lead to a better position and restore public confidence.

His political allies say he treats migration as a moral issue: a way of showing voters who have lost faith in politics that the government controls the borders and will act. He also wants to tell a positive story about what migrants contribute. Weeks after he arrived in No 10, the Guardian revealed that social care workers might be exempted from the plans as he looked for ways to relieve pressure on that sector. In an ITV interview this week he argued that when migration is planned, it is hard to say whether it is too high or too low, and that migrants fill gaps in the economy.

The final package reflects both instincts. The most rigorous elements first drafted by the Home Office a year ago remain: retrospective changes for many migrants, and a rule forcing people who arrive by small boat to wait up to 30 years before applying for settlement. Polling suggests the public backs doubling the usual wait for most migrants to 10 years. But the reforms include a significant carve-out for almost 300,000 care workers, who will be able to apply for indefinite leave to remain after five years. Others judged to be making a strong contribution, including high earners, people with strong British connections, and those working in health and teaching, can also settle after five.

That Burnham delivered the bulk of Mahmood's hard line should not surprise anyone. He is steeped in the politics of the red wall and understands how much the issue matters to voters there. What remains open is how the public reads the changes: as a policy built around contribution, or as a U-turn forced on ministers by their own side. The Conservatives and Reform are pushing the second story. Farage called the care worker carve-out the beginning of the capitulation on borders.

Burnham's answer is fairness. Those making the most valuable contribution to communities should be able to settle earlier, he said, while people in other roles should expect to wait longer, and those who abuse the system or arrive illegally will be refused or wait longer still.

The delivery was notable, though. His words came in a press release, not in the Commons, at a press conference beside Mahmood, or through his prolific social media output. The government pressed ahead with the sensitive announcement while he was abroad at the Commonwealth leaders summit in Antigua.

The plans will probably still draw criticism from both wings of Labour, for going too far or not far enough, though many former critics now appear to be on board. With no obvious vote for rebels to coalesce around, a major rebellion looks unlikely. The harder task is persuading the public, and Mahmood will need Burnham, who has praised her for gripping the problem, to help make that case. On an issue this divisive, he will have to accept that he cannot please everyone.