Opinions

Max Wilkinson writes….Free speech, X and immigration – FAO Katie Lam

By Max Wilkinson | Wed 1st April 2026 - 3:07 pm


 

Max wilkinson

Free speech is an important principle in Britain. It’s one of the things that gets me out of bed in the morning. It’s why I so strongly believe we must remain in the ECHR, which protects in law our right to free expression. I am a supporter of free speech because whether I agree with you or not, as a liberal I’m always keen to hear what you think. 

That applies as much to the vexed question of immigration as it does to anything else. I take a nuanced view on the subject, just like the majority of British people. Do I believe in open borders? Of course not. Do I think we should aim for zero net migration or pursue the harmful approach of ‘remigration’ (AKA kicking people out who currently have the right to be here)? Absolutely not.

I believe strongly that immigration has a role to play in our nation, just as it always has. We can’t pretend our public services would work without a level of immigration – not least in the health and social care sectors. We can’t pretend that our economy will thrive unless we have a level of immigration to ensure private sector vacancies are filled in sectors where we have a skills shortage. And with a birth rate below the replacement rate and falling, we cannot pretend things are going to work without a level of net migration to ensure we have enough people paying tax to fund public services like the NHS and our growing pensions bill.

On asylum, of course we need to prevent dangerous small boat crossings and have a fair, safe and controlled system. The way to do that is to work with our European and international partners, not to follow the doctrine of the Tories and Reform by pretending we can withdraw from the world.

These nuanced, commonsense positions based on reality rather than dogma often get lost in the battle between the simple arguments made by those either side of us. Consequently, I’m grateful that something I’ve said on the subject of immigration has been noticed. Indeed, it hasn’t simply been noticed – it’s gone round the world. Many users of X, right wing commentators, the Conservative Party MP Katie Lam and the US Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy have leapt upon some comments I made on (checks notes) December 8 last year.

This appears to be an attempt to paint me as an illiberal would-be denier of free speech. I made the comments on a DEMOS panel discussing the question How do citizens make their voices heard in a healthy democracy? If Katie Lam or any of the people who have been writing to me over the past couple of days are reading this, please note that I have never suggested you can’t talk about immigration. You might want to believe that I am telling you not to talk about immigration, but I can assure you that as the Home Affairs spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats I spend an awful lot of time talking about immigration to all sorts of people and I welcome the chance to take part in the discussion. It’s a discussion for all of us – not just those with a hard right or nationalist viewpoint. In her Conservative Home column published today, Katie Lam attributes to me the following quote: “social media…is making sure that you can have your voice heard in a really easy way that you couldn’t in the past”. She’s doctored the quote. Here’s what I actually said:

We obviously have social media, which is a massive problem at the moment for engagement. I’m tempted to say: You know how you make your voice heard as a citizen in 2025 in the UK? Set up an X account and start writing some sort of nativist content, and it will go around the world really really quickly. Your voice will be heard as quickly as you want it to be, not in a way that I would be comfortable with and I would suggest probably not in a way that most people here this evening would be comfortable with either. But that is a really easy way to get your voice heard. Get some content about, you know, how you think immigration’s too high. Or immigration is the big thing that’s tearing the country apart, etc. And that goes around the world because social media, run by the world’s richest man, X, is now making sure that you can have your voice heard in a really easy way that you couldn’t in the past.

Despite the pile-on my largely dormant X account has been subjected to over the past couple of days, I do not believe this criticism of X is a controversial opinion. Indeed, it is now well established that X is a place where right wing viewpoints thrive and go further. If you’re able to write really controversial viewpoints on immigration and you can whip up anger on cultural issues too, you can even make money from it – just ask the MPs who have made it a successful grift. It’s also clear that those who pay for access to X can have their voices heard on a wildly outsized basis. That might be the sort of free speech those on the hard right of politics would like to see. Because that’s free speech for people like them and those who pay for the privilege. The free speech I want to see values a much broader contribution on fair and open terms.

And if you’re wondering what I thought of the rest of Katie’s Con Home article, I strongly disagreed with nearly all of it. Though I agree that we need a more open and robust debate in this country about Islamist extremism – not least the way hostile foreign state actors are fomenting hatred to undermine social cohesion in this country. We all have the right to make our own arguments. That’s the beauty of free speech. I just wish the political right valued free speech for all – not just themselves.

Watford Menu