Starmer ‘completely rejects' claims he echoed Enoch Powell in migration speech
The Prime Minister has faced backlash for the language he used in the speech setting out plans to crack down on legal migration into the UK on Monday.
Sir Keir warned the UK risked becoming an 'island of strangers' if migration controls were not tightened.
Critics, including backbench Labour MPs, have raised concerns about the language, with some comparing it to a similar passage from Mr Powell's infamous 1968 'rivers of blood' speech.
Sir Keir's official spokesman robustly defended the Prime Minister's words and brushed aside the similarity.
'We completely reject that comparison,' he told reporters.
Asked if the Prime Minister was not worried about his language, the spokesman said: 'Absolutely, the Prime Minister rejects those comparisons and absolutely stands behind the argument he was making that migrants make a massive contribution to our country, but migration needs to be controlled.'
Asked to confirm the Prime Minister stood by his comments that the UK did risk becoming an island of strangers without action on immigration, the spokesman replied: 'Yes.'
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper had earlier insisted Sir Keir's speech was 'completely different' from that of Mr Powell.
In his 1968 speech, the then-senior Tory said white British people could find themselves 'strangers in their own country' as a result of migration.
Mr Powell was sacked from the Conservative frontbench as a result of making the speech and it outraged his senior colleagues at the time.
Asked about the comparison, Ms Cooper told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'I don't think it's right to make those comparisons. It's completely different.
'And the Prime Minister said yesterday, I think almost in the same breath… talked about the diverse country that we are, and that being part of our strength.'
Asked if Sir Keir's speech-writers had been aware of the similarity in language, the Home Secretary replied: 'I don't know.'
Ms Cooper had earlier suggested to BBC Breakfast that the Prime Minister values the contribution of migrants to the UK.
She said: 'I think part of the point that he (Sir Keir) is making is that we have to recognise people have come to the UK through generations to do really important jobs in our NHS, founding our biggest businesses, doing some of the most difficult jobs, but it's because that's important the system has to be controlled and managed, and it just hasn't been.'
Elsewhere, shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick claimed the UK 'already' is an island of strangers in some places.
'Aggressive levels of mass migration have made us more divided,' he told Times Radio.
Sir Sadiq Khan, the Labour Mayor of London, said he would not have used the phrase 'island of strangers', but declined to criticise the Prime Minister's announcement on immigration.
He told LBC he thought the Prime Minister was referring to 'promises made by Brexiteers' and recent high levels of migration, and not 'that contribution we make to this multicultural capital city and country'.
Asked how he felt when he heard Sir Keir's language, he said: 'I read the White Paper and I understand the context of the White Paper, and those aren't words that I would use.'
Eluned Morgan, the Labour First Minister of Wales, also refused to echo Sir Keir's comments.
At First Minister's Questions, she told the Senedd: 'I'm not going to use divisive language when it comes to immigration, that's not the value we have in Welsh Labour. We are committed to ensuring that we do our best to provide a care service in Wales.
'That will be more difficult if it is not possible to hire people from abroad.'
In the Commons, the Prime Minister's announcement on Monday drew criticism from across the political spectrum.
Former shadow chancellor John McDonnell, who lost the Labour whip last year, was chief among those who accused Sir Keir of 'reflecting the language' of Mr Powell's infamous speech.
Labour backbencher Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) suggested the phrase could 'risk legitimising the same far-right violence we saw in last year's summer riots'.
Richard Burgon, Labour MP for Leeds East and secretary of the left-wing Socialist Campaign Group parliamentary caucus, told LBC the remarks were 'an act of political desperation' and called on the Prime Minister to apologise.
Nigel Farage, whose Reform UK party has focused heavily on immigration in its campaigns, said the Government 'will not do what it takes to control our borders'.
The proposals also sparked concern from employers, particularly in the care sector, following the announcement that care worker visas will be scrapped.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
an hour ago
- Scottish Sun
Firm linked to bra tycoon Michelle Mone begins court battle over dodgy Covid kit
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) A FIRM linked to bra tycoon Michelle Mone has begun a court battle to keep £122million it received for dodgy Covid protection kit. UK health chiefs are suing PPE Medpro — which Baroness Mone, 53, and her husband Doug Barrowman, 60, both from Glasgow, had denied for years they were involved with 3 A firm linked to bra tycoon Michelle Mone will appear in court Credit: Corbis 3 The bra tycoon and husband Doug Barrowman Credit: Getty 3 Michelle Mone ahead of the State Opening of Parliament Credit: PA The High Court in London was told 25million surgical gowns had been rejected as unsuitable for the NHS as it was deemed 'non-sterile' with 'invalid technical labelling'. It was later revealed that Baroness Mone had lobbied Tory ministers on behalf of the consortium. Both deny wrongdoing, as do Medpro over gowns supplied in 2020. Paul Stanley KC, for the Department of Health and Social Care, said 'initial contact with the firm came through Baroness Mone' and she remained 'active throughout'. But he added her communications were 'not part of this case', which was 'about compliance'. PPE Medpro won two contracts worth over £200million via the UK Government's 'VIP lane' procurement process. TELLY HOST'S SHOCK By Matt Bendoris BBC host Laura Kuenssberg has revealed the interview that 'sticks' with her the most is when Michelle Mone confessed to being a liar. Scots bra tycoon Mone spent two years fiercely denying through an army of lawyers any involvement with the firm PPE Medro, which had earned over £200million worth of Government contracts to supply face masks and surgical gowns during the Covid pandemic. But in 2023 it was revealed that the Tory life peer and her three adult children had received £29million from the company via her second husband Doug Barrowman. That led to a 'Prince Andrew-style' TV showdown with the politics presenter on her weekly show Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg. Appearing alongside Barrowman, 60, Baroness Mone, 53, made the jaw-dropping confession: 'I can't see what we've done wrong. Lying to the press is not a crime.' Read more HERE It was later revealed Mr Barrowman had received more than £65million in profits from the contracts. And he confirmed he transferred £29million from the firm into a trust benefiting Baroness Mone and her three children. Neither the Tory peer nor her husband are expected to give evidence during the trial. The UK Government is seeking to recover the costs of the contract plus transport and storage expenses. Trial continues. Carol Vorderman reignites feud with ex-pal Michelle Mone in furious rant on This Morning Meanwhile Mone's ex-lawyer has denied telling her to lie about links to a scandal-hit firm. Jonathan Coad insisted the Scots bra tycoon's allegation that he did was 'not true'. Baroness Mone, 53, blamed him for her three-year refusal to confirm her connection to PPE Medpro — given £200million for Covid protection kit and now being probed by cops. Mr Coad, 67, said: 'I did not advise her she should keep her involvement secret. "The suggestion she did so by taking the advice of her lawyers is just not true. "To have Baroness Mone make allegations against me of serious impropriety was potentially very damaging."
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Imperialism still overshadows our intellectual history
Peter Watson begins his survey of the history of ideas in Britain with the assertion that the national mindset (which at that time was the English mindset) changed significantly after the accession of Elizabeth I. His book – a guide to the nature of British intellectual curiosity since the mid-16th century – begins there, just as England had undergone a liberation from a dominant European authority: the shaking off of the influence of the Roman Catholic church and the advent of the Reformation, and the new opportunities that offered for the people. He describes how a culture based largely on poetry and on the court of Elizabeth then redirected the prevailing intellectual forces of the time. This affected not just literature (Marlowe, Shakespeare and Jonson) but also helped develop an interest in science that grew remarkably throughout the next few centuries. The 'imagination' of Watson's title is not merely the creative artistic imagination, but also that of scientists and inventors and, indeed, of people adept at both. The book is, according to its footnotes, based on secondary sources, so those well read in the history of the intellect in Britain since the Reformation will find much that is familiar. There is the odd surprise, such as one that stems from the book's occasional focus on the British empire and the need felt today to discuss its iniquities. Watson writes that the portion of the British economy based on the slave trade (which must not be conflated with empire) was between 1 per cent and 1.4 per cent. He also writes that for much of the era of slavery the British had a non-racial view of it, since their main experience of the odious trade was of white people being captured by Barbary pirates and held to ransom. While this cannot excuse the barbarism endured by Africans shipped by British (and other) slavers across the Atlantic, it lends some perspective to a question in serious danger of losing any vestige of one. Watson does not come down on one side or the other in the empire debate, eschewing the 'balance sheet' approach taken by historians such as Nigel Biggar and Niall Ferguson; but he devotes too much of the last section of his book to the question, when other intellectual currents in the opening decades of the 21st century might have been more profitably explored, not least the continuing viability of democracy. Earlier on, he gives much space to an analysis of Edward Said, and questions such as whether Jane Austen expressed her antipathy to slavery sufficiently clearly in the novel Mansfield Park. But then some of Watson's own analyses of writers and thinkers are not always easily supported. He is better on the 18th century – dealing well with the Scottish enlightenment (giving a perfectly nuanced account of Adam Smith) and writers such as Burke and Gibbon – than he appears to be on the 19th. He gives Carlyle his due, but cites an article in a learned American journal from 40 years ago to justify his claim that Carlyle's 'reputation took a knock' in 1849 with the publication of his Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question. Watson says readers were offended by the use of the term 'Quashee' to describe a black man. They may well, if so, have been unsettled by the still less palatable title that the Discourse was subsequently given, which was The Nigger Question: it appeared thus in a 1853 pamphlet and in the Centenary Edition of Carlyle's works in 1899. That indicates the Discourse did Carlyle's reputation no lasting harm at the time, whatever it may have done since. In seeking to pack so much into fewer than 500 pages of text, Watson does skate over a few crucial figures. Some of his musings on empire might have been sacrificed to make more space for George Orwell, for example. A chapter in whose title his name appears features just one brief paragraph on him, about Homage to Catalonia, and later there is a page or so on Animal Farm, which says nothing new. Of Orwell's extensive and mould-breaking journalism there is nothing – somewhat surprising in a book about the British imagination when dealing with one of its leading exponents of the past century. Watson emphasises scientific discovery and innovation, and the effect on national life and ideas caused by the Industrial Revolution. These are all essential consequences of our intellectual curiosity, and he is right to conclude that the historic significance of Britain in these fields is immense. He includes league tables of Nobel prizewinners by nation in which Britain shows remarkably well. But these prizes are not the only means by which the contribution to civilisation and progress by a people are measured. There are notable omissions. Although Watson talks about the elitist nature of 'high culture' – such as Eliot and The Waste Land – he does not discuss how far the British imagination, and the British contribution to world civilisation, might have advanced had we taken the education of the masses more seriously earlier. We were, until the Butler Education Act of 1944, appalling at developing our human resources, and have not been much better since. It is surprising that there is no discussion of British music, one of the greatest fruits of the imagination of the past 150 years. And there is no analysis of the role of architecture, which, given its impact and its centrality to many people's idea of themselves as British, surely merited examination. The book shows extensive and intelligent reading, but trying to cram so much information and commentary into one volume has not been a complete success, or resulted in something entirely coherent.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Chancellor unveils £6bn NHS funding after health-centred spending review
Some £6 billion will be spent on speeding up testing and treatment in the NHS, Rachel Reeves has announced, after she placed the health service at the heart of Government spending plans. The Chancellor unveiled the investment, which includes new scanners, ambulances and urgent treatment centres aimed at providing an extra four million appointments in England over the next five years, after Wednesday's spending review. The funding is aimed at reducing waiting lists and reaching Labour's 'milestone' of ensuring the health service carries out 92% of routine operations within 18 weeks. In the review, Ms Reeves set out day-to-day spending across Government for the next three years, as well as plans for capital investment over the next four years. The NHS and defence were seen as the winners from the settlement, as both will see higher than average rises in public spending. This comes at cost of squeezing the budgets of other Whitehall departments and experts have warned tax rises may be needed later this year. The Chancellor and Sir Keir Starmer both sought to portray the review as a 'new phase' for the Government, following the criticism Labour has faced during its first year in power, including over cuts to winter fuel allowance. Ms Reeves claimed the NHS had been 'put on its knees' as a result of under-investment by the previous government, adding: 'We are investing in Britain's renewal, and we will turn that around.' The new £6 billion investment will come from the capital settlement for the NHS and will also help to speed up diagnoses with scans and treatment available in places such as shopping centres and high streets. The scale of day-to-day spending for the NHS is akin to an extra £29 billion a year. In a broadcast interview on Wednesday evening, Ms Reeves said the Government was 'confident' it could meet its pledge to reduce waiting lists after the boost to NHS spending. But while health and defence have benefited from the review, the Home Office, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Department for Transport and Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are all in line for real-terms cuts in day-to-day spending. The Foreign Office is also in line for real-terms cuts, mainly as a result of a reduction in the overseas aid budget, which was slashed as part of the commitment to boost defence spending to 2.6% of gross domestic product – including the intelligence agencies – from 2027. Ms Reeves acknowledged 'not everyone has been able to get exactly what they want' following Cabinet squabbling over departmental budgets. She said 'every penny' of the spending increases had been funded through the tax and borrowing changes she had announced in her first budget. The Chancellor also insisted she would not need to mount another tax raid to pay for her plans, but experts warned the money for the NHS might still not be enough and the Government is under international pressure to boost defence funding further. Paul Johnson, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, described the hospital waiting times target as 'enormously ambitious', adding: 'And on defence, it's entirely possible that an increase in the Nato spending target will mean that maintaining defence spending at 2.6% of GDP no longer cuts the mustard.' At a summit later this month Nato members will consider calls to increase spending to 3.5% on defence, with a future 1.5% on defence-related measures. Steven Millard, interim director of the NIESR economic research institute, said the Chancellor's non-negotiable fiscal rules, coupled with the 'small amount of headroom' in her spending plans, meant 'it is now almost inevitable that if she is to keep to her fiscal rules, she will have to raise taxes in the autumn budget'. Elsewhere, policing leaders warned forces may need to make deep cuts after their settlement was announced. The spending review provides more than £2 billion for forces, but ministers have acknowledged some of that 'spending power' will come from council tax hikes.
