Keir Starmer has defended his plans to curb net migration after an angry backlash from MPs, businesses and industry to a speech in which he said the UK risked becoming an “island of strangers” without tough new policies.
The rhetoric was likened by some critics to the language of Enoch Powell, and the prime minister was accused of pandering to the populist right by insisting he intended to “take back control of our borders” and end a “squalid chapter” of rising inward migration.
Some politicians claimed that his words had echoed Powell’s notorious “rivers of blood” speech, which imagined a future multicultural Britain where the white population “found themselves made strangers in their own country”.
When asked to respond to accusations he had adopted Powell’s rhetoric, Starmer told the Guardian: “Migrants make a massive contribution to the UK, and I would never denigrate that.”
But in words that could further enrage his critics, Starmer insisted that new migrants must “learn the language and integrate” once in the UK. He said: “Britain is an inclusive and tolerant country, but the public expect that people who come here should be expected to learn the language and integrate.”
[…]
Starmer was speaking before the publication of a 69-page immigration white paper that sets out details of how the government intends to introduce restrictions across all forms of visas to the UK.A new Home Office assessment showing the impact of changes to study and work visas and the introduction of English language tests said there would be about 100,000 fewer people entering the UK. It suggests net migration could fall to 300,000 by 2029, but the government declined to confirm a target.
Net migration, the difference between the number of people moving to the UK and the number leaving, was 728,000 in the 12 months to June 2024. Under the previous Conservative government, the figure rose to more than 900,000.
Starmer said that the current immigration system “encourages some businesses to bring in lower-paid workers rather than invest in our young people”.
Rain Newton-Smith, the Confederation of British Industry’s chief executive, said: “The reality for businesses is that it is more expensive and difficult to fill a vacancy with immigration than if they could hire locally or train workers … When considered alongside the large fees and accompanying charges, foreign workers are simply not the ‘easy’ or ‘cheap’ alternative.”
I thought the UK got rid of tories?
Where’s that British dude who was really angry at me for being American when you need him?
Tony Blair 1.9
Kid Starver is and always has been a Tory in a mask
Shows how bourgeois politicians always tack to fascism. It appears that fascism has become the ideology of the ruling class.
tack to fascism
Uhh… Sir Starmer, ex-Director of Public Prosecutions cannot tack to facism because he’s already there and has been since long before he came to power.
I thought you guys just learned a big lesson with Brexit but you seem to be going back to the same politicians…
Not addressing unchecked immigration will force people to vote far right. I want unions and worker’s rights, not to provide our billionaire overlords with the cheapest workers so they can have astronomical profits
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Different politicians who are still trying to panda to the same wrong faction.
That’s pretty rich considering the national dish is chicken tikka masala
Chicken tikka masala is actually British. It comes from British people complaining about not having gravy on chicken tikka, so they added a sweet, creamy gravy. Pre-WWII British people were all about curries (copious access to spices was a major upside to the empire). Worcestershire sauce actually comes from pre-made regional curry sauces all British pharmacies sold in the Victorian-Edwardian period (so for example there was once Shropshire, etc sauces that you could buy in pharmacies in each region).
And there’s no other dish that England could claim to have invented? Not even the meat pie?
They had to take an Indian dish and add Englishness to it.
Well, there’s coronation chicken, which was literally invented by an English lady for Elizabeth II’s coronation. It conjures up images of street parties, the post-war spirit, and Union flag bunting – it doesn’t get much more quintessentially British than that!
Just kidding, it’s curry. 😁
I guess at least it’s an English dish that they added Indianness to, if that makes you feel any better?
Honestly as a colonial power adding Englishness to a local dish is totally in character.
Chicken tikka masala isn’t a joke. It’s a warning.
Imagine if we spent the same amount of time and energy on feeding our poorest, housing our homeless, educating our people, investing in our services etc. than going on and on about migration.
Then the big business owners would not be able to so easily exploit people.
Always been a red tory bastard. Now he’s pandering to reform. Colossal wanker.
Alexi Sayle nailed his character from day one. Total wanker confirmed.
Which leads us to where the fuck was everyone during Corbyns media execution.
Corbyn wasn’t executed by the media. He locked himself in the bunker with a loaded pistol.
Utterly unwilling to work with anyone who didn’t completely agree with his views. Which directly sabotaged the best chance in Parliament to avoid hard Brexit.
Oh Corbin can fuck off. He was all for Brexit, mostly because the EU wouldn’t let him do whatever arbitrary things he wanted to do. Typically because they were terrible.
He wanted us all to live in a world that frankly doesn’t exist, all of his policies would have made perfect sense if we lived in that world, but since we didn’t they were insane. E.g. his stance on nuclear weapons while laudable, was totally unworkable in practise.
Why on Earth he could not accept that hanging around certain individuals is bad for your political image, regardless of what you personally feel about them, is beyond me. Some politicians are bad at being politicians, but he was just bad at general life. He mostly most of his time mildly pissing people off.
his stance on nuclear weapons while laudable, was totally unworkable in practise
What was his stance?
Total disarmament. The UK essentially getting rid of all our nuclear weapons, which I think we can all agree is something that would be nice to happen if everyone did it, but probably not a good idea for just us to do it, especially at the moment.
Not a practical man. An idealist makes a bad politician.
The UK essentially getting rid of all our nuclear weapons
How was that unworkable?
You don’t get rid of world hunger by buying everyone a meal, it’s an overly simplistic way of thinking about the problem.
Nuclear weapons are not a problem because they exist, nuclear weapons are a problem because there is a perceived need for them to exist, getting rid of the nuclear weapons doesn’t get rid of the perceived need, it just means you don’t have any anymore.
You do not advocate for total disarmament you advocate for gradual stepping down of reserves, because you might actually achieve that one. Trying for the impossible ideal will just guarantee failure. .
