Letter of the week: The case for immigration
George Eaton (Newsmaker, 16 May) exaggerates the Blair-era liberalism on immigration and is too generous to Keir Starmer. As Blair's home secretaries, David Blunkett talked of schools being 'swamped' by immigrant children, while John Reid attacked 'foreigners… stealing our benefits'. Eaton suggests that it is 'overwrought' to find echoes of Enoch Powell in Starmer's 'Island of Strangers' speech, as he has spoken positively about the role of migrants in our society. Yet these token words are overshadowed by his assertion the 'open borders experiment' caused 'incalculable damage'. This is unforgivable pandering to the racist narrative of the far right and tabloid press.
Labour must reframe the story about immigration as making an 'incalculably' positive contribution to our society. Immigrants are essential to the NHS, social care, universities, construction, manufacturing, hospitality and sport. Labour's failure to make the case for immigration will not stop Reform – why vote for the copy over the original? – and their hostile rhetoric and punitive policies will push progressives into the arms of the Greens or the Lib Dems.
Gideon Ben-Tovim OBE, Liverpool
No strangers here
George Eaton describes many similarities in Labour thinking at the time of Enoch Powell's 1968 speech (Newsmaker, 16 May), but omits one critical difference. Harold Wilson's Local Government Act 1966 had introduced a system of financial support for local authorities, enabling them to design and deliver special programmes to assist with integrating new immigrants to the UK. So-called Section 11 services grew in scale, scope and impact, providing many highly acclaimed programmes that aided integration and greatly improved new citizens' grasp of written and spoken English. The austerity years ushered in by David Cameron and George Osborne stripped away so much of the remaining adult education provision vital to the process of integration. Without such services, Nigel Farage can lament sitting on a train and not hearing English spoken, and Keir Starmer can express concern about an 'Island of Strangers' – but it doesn't have to be like that.
Les Bright, Devon
Keir Starmer's 'Island of Strangers' speech reminds me of a line attributed to the poet WB Yeats: 'There are no strangers here, only friends who haven't met yet'.
Brendan O'Brien, London N21
Osborne again
Thanks to Will Dunn for his exposure of how George Osborne's austerity mantra still shapes Rachel Reeves' and Labour's thinking (Cover Story, 16 May). First, they came to make it harder for children in families with more than two children, then for countless pensioners to keep warm, then for huge numbers of disabled people. No wonder non-Reform voters are fleeing Labour for the Lib Dems and the Greens. If Labour is serious about winning the next election, it must ditch Osbornomics.
Colin Hines, Twickenham
It is rare for there not to be an illuminating piece of information or statistic within the New Statesman. But one in Will Dunn's Cover Story screamed at you from the page: 'The specialist bank advising on the deal [to purchase the technology company Arm in 2016] made £96m in fees for a few weeks' work.' The man who waved through this deal, George Osborne, said as chancellor that we were 'all in this together'. But the numbers tell a different story and epitomise what is wrong – what is rotten – about the state of our country.
Michael Haskell, Broughton
The awful truth
I read your editorial with despair (Leader, 16 May) that, indeed, the heinous collateral damage of the war in Gaza are the innocent men, women and children who, if they are not killed by an indiscriminate bomb, will likely die from starvation. It breaks my heart to see images of emaciated infants and children, and, as is rightly stated, this is all happening in plain sight of the world's leaders. It is correct, too, that Hamas are unlikely to be vanquished. Our government could play its part, as it has done in trying to broker peace in Ukraine. Our leaders must facilitate some sort of denouement to this utter disaster. The dreadful events of 7 October still resonate profoundly, but the end game is becoming so horrific that it is a total humanitarian tragedy.
Judith A Daniels, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
A new Pope
Gordon Brown's view that 'we've got to persuade people that generosity should extend further' than those close to us (The NS Interview, 16 May) echoes both Pope Francis's letter to American bishops, prompted by Trump's excesses on migrants, and Pope Leo XIV's putdown of JD Vance's misuse of ordo amoris.
Francis's letter said: 'Jesus Christ, loving everyone with a universal love, educates us in the permanent recognition of the dignity of every human being, without exception.' In February, before becoming Pope, in a shared article Cardinal Prevost wrote four words: 'JD Vance is wrong.' He added: 'Jesus doesn't ask us to rank our love for others.' The new Pope and Brown might get on well.
David Murray, Surrey
Much as I enjoy Finn McRedmond's columns, I wonder if she was not overthinking Pope Leo's choice of attire for his first appearance on the St Peter's Square balcony (Out of the Ordinary, 16 May). After all, it had been a hard day for Robert Prevost: maybe he reached into the papal wardrobe and pulled out the first thing he could find. Perhaps he was just following Nick Cave's memorable advice about dressing for a gig: 'I'm kind of lazy and I don't have much interest in it… It's easy to put a suit on in the morning.' Swap St Peter's Square balcony for a stadium concert and there you have it. Like singer/songwriter, like Pope?
David Perry, Cambridge
Who do you think you are?
Megan Kenyon says she dreams about the life of her 18th-century ancestor and wonders 'what of her there is in me' (Personal Story, 16 May). She could work it out. She inherited 50 per cent from each of her parents, 25 per cent from each of her grandparents, 12.5 per cent from her great-grandparents, and so on. By my calculation, she inherited just 0.78 per cent from her ancestor.
Michael Bartholomew, Harrogate
Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk
We reserve the right to edit letters
[See also: Gordon Brown: the moral economist]
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
a few seconds ago
- Spectator
Lisa Nandy, Nigel Farage and a tale of two silly political shirts
Two shirts were in the news at the weekend, both worn by politicians. In the light blue corner, we had Nigel Farage launching his personally branded football strip top – in Reform colours, with the name Farage and the number 10, a bargain at £39.99 (£99.99 if you want it signed by the man himself). In the red corner, meanwhile, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy attended Wigan Pride – one of the never-ending LGBTQ+ moveable feast days that populate the calendar on either side of the holy Pride month itself – wearing the official t-shirt of the event, emblazoned with a 'trans rights' slogan. Farage's football top has gone down very well with the people it was intended to go down very well with, selling 5,000 units in its first day on sale. And it put ants in the pantaloons of Reform's detractors – another intended outcome, one suspects – who spent Sunday on the socials spluttering about how this was the acceptable face of the hard right, etc etc. Some sniff a whiff of burnt horsehair whenever Farage appears. This derangement, strangely, increases whenever he does something naff, like launching personalised schmutter. It's much the same syndrome as when Boris Johnson's slapdash demeanour was vaunted, often by the very same detractors, as the lid on a pot of simmering evil. People on the right aren't allowed the leeway of just being corny or erratic. The Reform FC shirt provided a tiny morsel of levity, which in these doomy times is much needed. A friend of mine has many of the same misgivings about Reform that I have, but thinks that while we wait we might as well vote for what is, undoubtedly, the campest of the political parties. You'd think Wigan Pride, festooned with the glitter and bunting that decorate all things LGBTQ+, might be a rival for the camp crown, but – as ever with such events – the sparkle was dimmed by shadows of contention, in this case Nandy's 'Protect The Dolls' t-shirt. This slogan, for those of you who are unaware, is an American rallying cry to extol the 'rights' of men who claim to be women to vault over the barriers placed around all other men. The 'dolls' in question are those chaps who make a better fist of convincing anybody that they might actually be ladies. (The ones who don't are known as 'bricks'.) So to sum up, this is the Culture Secretary taking a position aligning herself with the extreme fringes of a deeply unpopular campaign that her own administration is now trying, somewhat cackhandedly of course, to back away from. You may remember how Nandy declared, on being appointed to her cabinet role, that the culture war was now over. Peace in our time! Here she is, a year later, still fighting it, the Neville Chamberlain of 2025. Nandy is a born follower of whatever her milieu considers right and proper on a given day, however bizarre. She has form on this issue, telling an audience back in 2020 that rapists should be accommodated in women's prisons if they fancy it. And here she is again, doing and saying what is politically expedient, slipping on the Wigan Pride t-shirt. As Philip Patrick noted here the other day with reference to Nicola Sturgeon, one of the big problems with the trans issue is the enthusiasm for it from party workers and staffers. Added to this, Nandy, as an MP, has to engage with 'communities' and 'stakeholders' – which means wearing an item of their choosing and posing for photos wearing it. These are not the parish pump affairs of the old local politics. Political figures of all the main parties have been beclowned at Pride events, from Boris Johnson in a Pink Stetson to Keir Starmer swathed in glitter – which just made him look as if he'd contracted a particularly nasty case of psoriasis. I can't imagine someone as toxically agreeable as Nandy handling the awkwardness of the T-shirt situation in any other way but acquiescence. She shouldn't have had to. There should be a simple rule for politicians on their visits to Prides, mosques, or anywhere else: no merch, no slogans, no cultural frills or campaigning furbelows. This rule would enable the politician, when presented with a hat marked 'UP THE TALIBAN' or a badge marked 'DOWN WITH KITTENS' to sigh and say 'so sorry, obviously I'd love to don this tasteful item, but it's against the rules, I'm afraid; my hands are tied'. Today, silly emblems and slogans and campaigns abound in public life, and this rule would at least take politicians out of that loop. Another news story at the weekend, for example, informs us that the BBC has purchased 10,000 badges, 7,000 mugs and 6,000 lanyards branded 'Call It Out', at a cost of £61,000, in an effort to remind their staff not to harass and abuse each other. There is something quintessentially perfect about this story – a modern British institution thinking it can solve a serious problem of criminality with branding. The Blairite consensus smashed up our common culture and morality, forged after centuries of trial and error, and now seeks to replace it – with merch. Politicians should, if they absolutely must, slip into their own silly campaign wear, but they shouldn't go near anybody else's.
The Independent
a few seconds ago
- The Independent
Starmer hails ‘breakthrough' on security guarantees after crunch White House Ukraine talks
Sir Keir Starmer has hailed a "breakthrough" in efforts to end Vladimir Putin 's invasion of Ukraine as Donald Trump said he would broker a meeting between the Ukrainian and Russian presidents. The PM joined Voldymyr Zelensky, French president Emmanuel Macron and Nato secretary general Mark Rutte for crunch talks in the White House on Monday. And, following the meeting, Sir Keir said the UK and US would begin work on the specifics of security guarantees with the US as soon as Tuesday. "The two outcomes were a real significant breakthrough when it comes to security guarantees, because we're now going to be working with the US on those security guarantees," he told the BBC. "We've tasked our teams, some of them are even arriving tomorrow, to start the detailed work on that." Mr Trump said he had spoken directly with Vladimir Putin to begin planning a meeting between the Russian leader and Mr Zelensky, which will then be followed by a three-way meeting involving himself. The US president said Moscow will "accept" multinational efforts to guarantee Ukraine's security. Mr Zelensky, meanwhile, said he was "ready" for bilateral and trilateral meetings. But he told reporters following the White House meeting that if Russia does "not demonstrate a will to meet, then we will ask the United States to act accordingly". Nato secretary general Mark Rutte said the US and Europe would "do more" on tariffs and sanctions against Russia if the country "is not playing ball" on direct talks with Ukraine, in comments to Fox News. Sir Keir described the talks as "good and constructive" and said there was a "real sense of unity" between the European leaders, Mr Trump and Mr Zelensky. He said Mr Trump's plans to arrange the bilateral and trilateral meetings showed a recognition that Ukraine must be involved in talks. "That is a recognition of the principle that on some of these issues, whether it's territory or the exchange of prisoners, or the very serious issue of the return of children, that is something where Ukraine must be at the table." Mr Trump called the talks "very good". "During the meeting we discussed security guarantees for Ukraine, which guarantees would be provided by the various European countries, with a co-ordination with the United States of America," he posted on his Truth Social platform. "Everyone is happy about the possibility of PEACE for Russia/Ukraine. "At the conclusion of the meetings, I called president Putin and began arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between president Putin and president Zelensky. "After the meeting takes place, we will have a trilat which would be the two presidents plus myself." The US president met with Mr Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday, where he declared there was "no deal until there's a deal" to end more than three years of fighting in eastern Europe. "The Alaska summit reinforced my belief that while difficult, peace is within reach and I believe, in a very significant step, president Putin agreed that Russia would accept security guarantees for Ukraine," he said on Monday. "And this is one of the key points that we need to consider." He later said: "We also need to discuss the possible exchanges of territory taken into consideration the current line of contact." Future three-way talks "have a good chance" of stopping the conflict, the US president said. But he appeared to share conflicting views on whether a ceasefire was necessary to stop the war. "I don't think you need a ceasefire," he originally said, before later explaining that, "all of us would obviously prefer an immediate ceasefire while we work on a lasting peace". Mr Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, had suggested over the weekend that measures similar to Nato's article five mutual defence provision - that an attack on one member is an attack on the entire bloc - could be offered by the US without Kyiv joining the alliance. Sir Keir welcomed plans for "Article Five-style guarantees" during Monday's talks and said that they would fit with the work of his "coalition of the willing" group of countries. He said to Mr Trump: "With you coming alongside, the US alongside, what we've already developed, I think we could take a really important step forward today - a historic step, actually, could come out of this meeting in terms of security for Ukraine and security in Europe." Sir Keir also described potential future trilateral talks as a "sensible next step". The prime minister had disrupted his holiday plans over the weekend to join calls, including with Mr Trump and Mr Zelensky, before he headed to Washington. Mr Zelensky, whom Mr Trump greeted at the door of the West Wing with a handshake earlier in the evening, wore a black shirt with buttons and a black blazer to the meeting at the White House. His attire had appeared to become a point of irritation for Mr Trump during a previous meeting in February. Early in the meeting, the Ukrainian described the talks as "really good", saying they had been "the best" so far. Mr Zelensky said: "We are very happy with the president that all the leaders are here and security in Ukraine depends on the United States and on you and on those leaders who are with us in our hearts."
Daily Mirror
a minute ago
- Daily Mirror
Painted St George's Cross on mini-roundabouts sparks debate among residents
The roundabouts were painted as the council took down flags attached to lampposts Residents have taken a flag row to the streets by painting the St George's Cross on a handful of mini roundabouts across one major UK city. People in Birmingham hit out after the Birmingham City Council announced English flags hoisted from lampposts would be removed. The Union Jack and St George's Cross had been put on display in the Weoley Castle and Northfield neighbourhoods of the city. Local residents said that they were doing this out of a sense of patriotism. However, the city council removed the flags and made a safety appeal to residents who were considering putting the flags on lampposts and other street furniture. Locals put up the Union Jack and St George's flags as part of an online movement called Operation Raise the Colours. Council chiefs ordered the flags to be taken down due to safety concerns. They said the "unauthorised items" are "dangerous" and could potentially harm motorists and pedestrians. Following the announcement, several mini roundabouts in Kings Heath and Yardley Wood have been painted, and there are reports of more being painted in other areas. The Union Jack and St George's Cross have also appeared on lampposts in the Weoley Castle and Northfield areas of the city, according to SWNS. The council said it had removed around 200 flags while upgrading streetlights to energy-efficient LED lighting. West Midlands Police said it had not yet received any complaints of criminal damage. However, the police force said it would investigate any reports of criminal damage made by the local authority or a member of the public. Residents from the areas have expressed mixed views on the transformed traffic islands. One woman in Kings Heath said: "It is nothing more than sheer, wanton vandalism. There is nothing patriotic about having a spray can and damaging a roundabout. The council can't afford to fix the potholes, let alone repaint mini islands idiots have defaced." Resident Ian Anderson, 40, said: "I certainly don't agree with vandalising roads or roundabouts, after all flags are just flags and can be taken down. However, there is a real sense that people who are proud to be British are being made to feel ashamed of their patriotism. I don't see anything wrong with flags on lampposts, it reminds me of when the World Cup or Olympics is on." Speaking to the BBC, another local said it was "not patriotic", adding: "It just feels like an excuse for xenophobia. There are better ways to show pride - ways that are inclusive and respectful, not resorting to vandalism." Several residents from the Weoley Castle and Northfield neighbourhoods in Birmingham shared with BBC Radio WM their approval of the flags being displayed. One woman said: "It's patriotic, so I think it's wonderful. It symbolises us, doesn't it, Great Britain?" Another woman said: "I believe they're fantastic, [they] bring joy to people's faces. They're harmless, just fluttering in the breeze, representing England, which is where we are, of course."
