
Most voters already deeply distrust Starmer – which is why this week's admission about migration was so toxic
'I HEARD you want your country back. Ha. Shut the f*** up.'
So went the lyrics spewed at Glastonbury by Pascal Robinson-Foster, a vegan poet from Ipswich who now raps as part of the hilariously named duo 'Bob Vylan'.
3
Not even the most controversial part of the set, but a sentiment strangely echoed from the heart of Downing Street this weekend.
As part of a fairly miserable apology and U-turn tour to mark his first year in No10, Sir Keir Starmer was characteristically more long-winded.
Yet in abandoning and apologising for his landmark speech on immigration given just last month, he might as well have put it like bile-filled Bob.
'It was just a case of reading the words out,' Starmer actually admitted in a soft-soap interview with his bestie turned biographer, anti- Brexit campaigner Tom Baldwin.
I cannot remember a more toxic admission from a premier who most voters already deeply distrust and suspect holds very few views of his own.
Smell blood
Many saw May's speech as a desperately needed sign the PM had woken up to how immensely naffed off the country that elected him really is with the border farce, and his immigration clampdown was widely welcomed.
For a moment it had looked like Sir Keir had finally got it, only for him to now admit he was simply parroting a line.
At the time, bad faith critics on the left and within Labour's ranks leapt on his phrase that 'we risk becoming an island of strangers', as Enoch Powell once said Britons 'found themselves made strangers in their own country'.
It was an absurd row, and Starmer rightly rejected the criticism then and sent his Cabinet out to do the same.
Yet now with his clearly unquenchable thirst for U-turns, he now bleats: 'I wouldn't have used those words if I had known they were, or even would be interpreted as an echo of Powell . . .
Keir Starmer 'to BACK DOWN' on benefits cuts as he faces major revolt from MPs
'I had no idea — and my speechwriters didn't know either, but that particular phrase — no — it wasn't right. I'll give you the honest truth: I deeply regret using it.'
While he explained that he wished he had read the speech more closely, but was reeling from shock on the morning it was given due the firebombing of his old house, I suspect Starmer may come to regret this about-turn as much as he appears to regret giving the speech in the first place.
In accepting the premise of the Powell row he has handed his enemies an undeserved victory — and they already smell blood as Labour haemorrhages support on their left flank.
And to those that liked the speech and its content, the PM wishing that he had 'held it up to the light a bit more' will only cement the feeling he was once again speaking with a forked tongue.
Not least as he appears to admit he was only handed the speech the morning it was given to him to read out, which hardly screams leadership.
If he regrets the language he used, then what were the problems around uncontrolled immigration that he was trying to highlight?
The point was either correct or it was not.
Did he even believe a word of it at the time? Or is he just incapable of sticking to anything for more than a few weeks?
Well, clearly not, given the immigration row was not the only humiliating climbdown this weekend.
Starmer took to the Sunday Times to insist he was again too distracted — this time by world affairs and summit-hopping — to notice that the left of his party were up in arms about benefits cuts.
With the prospect of losing a vote this Tuesday, despite his massive 160 majority, most of the £5billion cuts to the mammoth benefits bill were chucked out the window on Friday.
When I asked Starmer in an interview in January whether he really had the balls to take on the left and cut benefits, he insisted he 'loved fights'.
So we can chalk that up to another reverse ferret, but this one comes with danger beyond Westminster.
With long-term government borrowing already more expensive than at the height of the Liz Truss fandango, it's a very dangerous message to send to the bond markets.
Doom loop
If Starmer can't even get a salami slice of cuts through with his massive majority, how on earth is he expected to stop the ballooning benefits bill, NHS black hole, more defence cash needs and mounting debt interest payments pushing the country into a doom loop?
City types I'm talking to warning buyers of UK government debt may well make their views on this all known in the starkest way possible this week when markets open.
That should solve any distraction problems the PM is currently suffering.
Just one year in and things are looking very bleak for this administration.
A fairly grim milestone, where No10 appears to be lighting bin fires everywhere rather than candles on cakes.
In a series of interviews to mark the unhappy birthday, the PM has stressed communication problems have blighted the 'story' his Government is trying to get across.
But there can be no story or a narrative when there is an utter lack of coherency from the very centre: Himself.
No amount of resets, or changes of spin doctor or advisers, are going to be able to hide the simple fact there appears to be very little behind the curtain.
SIR Keir is not the only one suffering with vision problems.
Meeting troops at Carver Barracks in Essex on Friday to mark Armed Forces Day, under-fire opposition boss Kemi Badenoch posed for photos squinting down a telescopic rifle sight.
3
Only after it was posted online by the Conservatives – and hastily deleted – did anyone notice the protective cover was still on the scope.
Hardly the only Tory to be staring into the dark these days.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
6 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Fury at 'unacceptable' waste as Parliament brings in new £150k-a-year 'commercial' boss after Lords shambles over £10m gates that don't work
Fresh fury has been aimed at Parliament's 'unacceptable and unnecessary' spending following the hiring of a new top boss on a bumper salary. The role of 'chief commercial officer' - based at the Palace of Westminster - has been advertised with a salary of around £150,000. But it has been claimed the total cost of the hire will be nearer £1million over the next four years, at a time when other budgets are being squeezed. This is once pension contributions and other costs, such as a headhunting fee, are factored in. Lord Hayward, the Tory peer, also used a letter to Parliament's management to hit out at 'obfuscation' as to whether it is an 'additional role'. The appointment comes amid plans to establish a joint commercial department between the House of Commons and House of Lords. 'In the private sector merging departments normally results in a reduction of staff but it would appear not in Parliamentary management terms,' Lord Hayward wrote. The former MP also highlighted other examples of eye-watering spending, including £9.6million on a new front door that doesn't open properly. Fresh fury has been aimed at Parliament's 'unacceptable and unnecessary' spending following the hiring of a new top boss on a bumper salary. Lord Hayward added: 'At a time when all aspects of government and individuals are having to cut expenditure severely... management of the parliamentary estate seem willing to spend money on costs which any ordinary person would find unacceptable and unnecessary.' There is a new front door at the main entrance to the House of Lords, known as the Peers' Entrance, following the approval of an upgrade in March 2022. It has since sparked anger after its £9.6million cost was revealed - a nearly 60 per cent increase from the original estimate of £6.1 million. Peers said earlier this month it is still not fully accessible for disabled peers and requires a permanent member of staff on site 'to press the button to open the door'. In his letter, Lord Hayward said the 'ongoing cost of security at Peers' Entrance appears to be... more than £2,500 per week'. 'Why is the taxpayer even covering for this?,' he added. Lord Hayward also criticised the ongoing cost of employing 'traffic marshals' on the parliamentary estate, when he claimed there were 'much cheaper alternatives'. 'The most public example of this ongoing cost which management appears willing to accept is the marshal at carriage gates,' he wrote. 'They have no role. The police and security control the vehicles and public going in and out of the estate. 'This individual position doing nothing costs at minimum £66,000 per annum. 'Can I please ask when parliamentary management is intending to acknowledge that it is spending unwarranted sums while individuals, the nation and government are short of money?' A House of Lords spokesperson said: 'Providing services that are value for public money is a key priority for the House of Lords Administration, as is ensuring effective systems of governance and financial management are in place to support this. 'Our approach is subject to rigorous oversight by the House Finance and Audit and Risk Assurance Committees and is set out transparently in our annual report and accounts.'

Western Telegraph
10 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Human rights group loses challenge over jet part exports amid Gaza conflict
Al-Haq took legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets, telling a hearing in May that it was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict. The grave risk to life in the ongoing military operations in the Gaza Strip is not created by the F-35 carve-out, and would not be removed by suspension of the export from the UK of F-35 parts into the F-35 programme High Court ruling But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, which are part of an international defence programme. The DBT defended the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law'. In a 72-page ruling on Monday, Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed the legal challenge. The senior judges said that 'the conduct of international relations' is a matter for the executive, rather than the courts, and that it would be unnecessary to decide whether there was a 'significant risk' that the carve-out could facilitate crimes. Defence Secretary John Healey had said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' (PA) They added: 'The grave risk to life in the ongoing military operations in the Gaza Strip is not created by the F-35 carve-out, and would not be removed by suspension of the export from the UK of F-35 parts into the F-35 programme.' The High Court was previously told that the decision to 'carve out' licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'. The F-35 programme is an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool. Israel is not one of the 'partner nations' of the programme, the court heard, but is a customer and can order new F-35 aircraft and draw on a pool for spare parts. The two judges later said they agreed with barristers for the DBT, who said it was not possible for the UK to 'unilaterally' ensure that UK-made parts did not reach Israel. Demonstrators outside the Royal Courts of Justice, central London during an earlier hearing (PA) Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn said: 'In short, the Secretary of State reasonably concluded that there was no realistic possibility of persuading all other partner nations that F-35 exports to Israel should be suspended.' 'Accordingly he was faced with the blunt choice of accepting the F-35 carve-out or withdrawing from the F-35 Programme and accepting all the defence and diplomatic consequences which would ensue,' they added. The two judges also said the case was about a 'much more focused issue' than the carve-out itself. They continued: 'That issue is whether it is open to the court to rule that the UK must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration which is reasonably regarded by the responsible ministers as vital to the defence of the UK and to international peace and security, because of the prospect that some UK manufactured components will or may ultimately be supplied to Israel, and may be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law in the conflict in Gaza. 'Under our constitution that acutely sensitive and political issue is a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts.' Following the ruling, Al-Haq director general Shawan Jabarin said the long-running case had caused a 'significant impact'. He continued: 'Despite the outcome of today, this case has centred the voice of the Palestinian people and has rallied significant public support, and it is just the start. 'This is what matters, that we continue on all fronts in our work to defend our collective human values and work towards achieving justice for the Palestinians.' A Government spokesperson said: 'The court has upheld this Government's thorough and lawful decision-making on this matter. 'This shows that the UK operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world. We will continue to keep our defence export licensing under careful and continual review.'

Western Telegraph
10 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Rap duo Bob Vylan banned from US ahead of planned autumn shows
Mr Landau announced the decision to revoke the pair's US visas after one half of the duo, rapper Bobby Vylan chanted 'death, death to the IDF (Israel Defence Forces)' at the festival. The BBC has since expressed its regret at not pulling the live stream of the act's performance during Glastonbury on Saturday, saying the 'antisemitic sentiments' expressed by the group were 'utterly unacceptable'. Bob Vylan played at Coachella in Calfornia earlier this year but will be unable to return to the US when they were set to perform in Chicago, Brooklyn and Philadelphia in the autumn. Birds pick through a field covered in litter at the end of the Glastonbury Festival at Worthy Farm in Somerset (Ben Birchall/PA) The duo, formed in Ipswich in 2017, have released four albums addressing issues to do with racism, masculinity and class. Bobby Vylan's real name is Pascal Robinson-Foster, 34, according to reports. In a statement posted to Instagram after the Glastonbury set, Vylan said: 'Teaching our children to speak up for the change they want and need is the only way that we make this world a better place. 'As we grow older and our fire starts to possibly dim under the suffocation of adult life and all its responsibilities, it is incredibly important that we encourage and inspire future generations to pick up the torch that was passed to us.' They are due to perform at Radar Festival in Manchester on Saturday and Boardmasters, a surfing and music festival in Newquay, Cornwall, in August.