THE previously secret “public consultation” on Tory Home Secretary Priti Patel’s harsh 2021 immigration plans shows most responders were “strongly critical” of her scheme, even though the government claimed the consultation showed “support” for her “ambitions.”

Patel’s 2021 plans included dragging small boats away from Britain, forcing migrants to stop in the first “safe country” they reached and “offshore processing” — which became the abortive “Rwanda scheme.” Results of “public consultations” on new laws are usually available to the public.

However, Patel made her 2021 consultation secret by outsourcing it to “Britain Thinks,” the opinion polling company then run by Starmer adviser Deborah Mattinson. The government has resisted attempts by the Morning Star to get the document under Freedom of Information since 2022. The Home Office was finally persuaded to release it this April after pressure from the information commissioner, who took our side.

Britain Thinks ran a four-part consultation, with “stakeholder” roundtables, a traditional public questionnaire, public focus groups and interviews with recent asylum-seekers. In 2021, Patel told Parliament this consultation showed “support for these broad ambitions, more so from members of the public.”

In fact, the consultation report said most respondents were “strongly critical” of Patel’s plans. 76 per cent of “stakeholders,” mostly voluntary groups, with some local authority, business and academic organisations, opposed the plan as unfair. 73 per cent of members of the public responding to the questionnaire also opposed the plan, even after Britain Thinks stripped out those obviously inspired to write in by campaigns like Amnesty International.

Britain Thinks told the Home Office “views were more mixed in public focus groups, with broad support for some objectives.” Patel used this ambiguous phrase for her claim of public support. But the “mixed” views also included much opposition: in the focus groups, “the majority raised concerns” about new limited “temporary status” for some asylum-seekers as “very restrictive” rules that would “make it very difficult for refugees to integrate into Britain.”

Also, “the majority of participants raised concerns” about plans for “redirecting” boats away from Britain’s coast, which they saw as “Border Force turning away small boats that are unfit for open water” and “leaving people in extreme danger.” With “proposals to introduce tougher criminal offences for those attempting to illegally enter Britain,” Britain Thinks says “views are split” as “some participants in the sample felt strongly that asylum-seekers should not be punished for the route they take, as they would only attempt to enter Britain illegally out of desperate need.” Several “participants” also thought tougher “people-smuggling” laws would end up falling on vulnerable smuggled people.

While Labour won the election, cancelling the Rwanda plan, they still operate as if public feeling automatically favours harsher responses, like negotiating their own “offshore processing” deals. However, the details of this formerly secret consultation — especially the focus group results — show that public enthusiasm for anti-migrant laws is not inevitable or automatic. This is something Labour should know, as the focus groups were run by a Labour-linked firm.

Starmer’s Lovegrove Aukus love-in

In April, Keir Starmer announced Sir Stephen Lovegrove is now “the Prime Minister’s special representative on Aukus,” a defence pact between Britain, the US and Australia.

The government is extremely enthusiastic about Lovegrove’s Aukus role. This month, Starmer rang newly re-elected Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, making an Aukus-themed tour of Australia by Lovegrove a major part of their conversation. Defence Secretary John Healey already made Lovegrove a “special representative” on Aukus last August. His new role with Starmer is a sort of Aukus promotion.

Lovegrove also works for one of the firms making money from Aukus, underlining how the Australia-Britain-US pact, which is promoted as “deterrence” against China, is also driven by arms firms chasing big contracts.

The three allies signed the Aukus pact in 2021, which aims to “deter” China’s “military and economic coercion” in the Indo-Pacific. “Pillar 1” of Aukus involves Australia buying nuclear-powered (not nuclear-armed) submarines. Lovegrove was formerly Boris Johnson’s national security adviser, showing Starmer’s enthusiasm for continuity with Tory government policies.

Lovegrove left government in 2022, taking a new, senior job at Rolls Royce in December 2023. Rolls Royce has a share in the multibillion-pound contract to supply Australia’s Aukus submarines, because they build the nuclear reactors driving them. Lovegrove’s Rolls Royce job is as chair of their “Small Modular Reactor” (SMR) business: this is their plan to sell smaller, factory-built nuclear power plants as electricity generators.

SMR is a non-military business, but Lovegrove’s new employer is part of the same company cashing in on Aukus. The firm is clear that its SMR business is viable because it has been a “nuclear reactor plant designer” for British atomic submarines since they were first built.

Lovegrove also has a second post-government job working for Lazard investment bank. Lovegrove is “senior adviser” for their “geopolitical advisory” business: Lazard emphasises to clients that as national security adviser, Lovegrove had “oversight of Britain’s security, defence and intelligence capabilities,” so the bank appears interested in the politics of the defence business.

Lazard also hired a former US Deputy Assistant of Defence, Siddharth Mohandas, to work in the same “geopolitical advisory” business, telling clients he is an Aukus expert, suggesting the bank is interested in advising on Aukus business: “Pillar 2” of Aukus is expected to involve numerous high-tech defence deals for the three nations involved.

Lovegrove said he wanted to “maximise the potential” of Aukus: The Ministry of Defence said that meant “both defence and economic benefits,” showing he and they view the treaty as much about companies making money from big arms deals as providing “security.”

Follow Solomon Hughes on X @solhugheswriter.