PM backlash over 'island of strangers' migrant speech - 'divisive and dangerous'
The PM was accused of using 'shameful and dangerous' language, with campaigners warning his words 'will only inflame the fire of the far-right'. In a bullish speech in Downing Street Mr Starmer also claimed a reliance on low-paid labour from overseas is 'contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart'.
His choice of words sparked a fierce backlash. Labour backbencher Nadia Whittome responded: 'The step-up in anti-migrant rhetoric from the government is shameful and dangerous.'
She added that Labour was not elected to 'parrot Reform's scapegoating', and asked in the Commons why Labour is "apeing Reform". Former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell - who was suspended last year after rebelling over the two-child benefit cap - accused the PM of "reflecting the language" of Enoch Powell's notoriously racist "rivers of blood" speech in the 1960s.
The Independent MP said: "When the Prime Minister referred to ... an island of strangers, reflecting the language of Enoch Powell, does she (Home Secretary Yvette Cooper) realise how shockingly divisive that could be?"
Keir Starmer's immigration white paper - the key details you need to know
Ms Cooper responded: "The point that the Prime Minister has repeatedly made is that we need people to be able to integrate, to be able to be part of our communities, to be able to share with our neighbours, and that does mean being able to speak English."
Also hitting out was Labour backbencher Olivia Blake, who warned the PM's words "risk legitimising the same far-right violence we saw in last year's summer riots". And Steve Smith, chief executive of refugee charity Care4Calais said: 'This is dangerous language for any prime minister to use. Has Starmer forgotten last year's far-right riots?
'Shameful language like this will only inflame the fire of the far-right and risks further race riots that endanger survivors of horrors such as war, torture and modern slavery.'
Migration minister Seema Malhotra hit back at suggestions that Mr Starmer's choice of words was anti-migrant. She said: "What that really recognises is that without ways in which we've got common ties that bind us together, the way in which we can communicate well with each other, neighbours can talk to each other, people can play a part and play a role in their communities, that we risk being communities that live side by side, rather than work and walk together."
It came after Mr Starmer unveiled a string of measures including an end to social care visas, moves to prevent 'abusive' asylum claims and doubling the standard time people have to live in the UK before being allowed to settle.
Speaking as Labour's long-awaited immigration strategy was released, the PM vowed: 'Now, make no mistake, this plan means migration will fall. That's a promise.'
But he refused to commit to a specific target. Care industry chiefs have hit out at the decision to scrap social care visas to new applications from abroad.
Last year there were 131,000 vacancies in the sector - a shortage the Government says it will tackle by introducing fair pay agreements to attract UK workers. But Professor Nicola Ranger, general secretary and chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing (RCN), said yesterday(MON): 'The UK is so reliant on overseas workers, especially in social care and the Government has no plan to grow a domestic workforce.
'This is all about politics. Pandering. Scapegoating. This should be about people.' The Government says it will permit visa extensions and allow people with care worker visas to switch jobs until 2028.
It said workers are at highest risk of abuse and exploitation. In a rebuke to 'squeamish' Labour MPs, Mr Starmer said: 'I actually think that the Labour Party has as its core values the idea that immigration should be controlled, it should be selective, we should be choosing who we want with high skills, high talent routes into our country.
'And it must be fair, they're basic Labour arguments and concepts for many, many years.' Speaking at a press conference the Prime Minister accused the Tories of dishonestly overseeing a 'one-nation experiment in open borders'.
He claimed this led to a 'downward pressure' on wages, telling the nation: 'Well, no more. Today, this Labour Government is shutting down the lab. The experiment is over.'
Chancellor Rachel Reeves watched on as Mr Starmer said the 'link doesn't hold' that higher immigration leads to economic growth. Last year net migration - the number of arrivals minus the total who leave - was 906,000, four times higher than the 224,000 recorded in 2019.
New rules mean migrants applying to come to the UK under skilled workers visas will have to be educated to degree level. And access to the points-based immigration system will be limited to occupations where there has been a long term shortage.
Employers will be required to invest in boosting domestic training - and could be barred from recruiting from overseas if they fail to do so. Universities will be ordered to pay a levy on international students, to be reinvested in skills, with stricter requirements for those who come to the UK to study.
The document said the Government will seek to revoke visas and remove people who commit a 'much wider range of crimes'. Government sources said these are likely to include assault, burglaries, sex offences or prolific shoplifting - which would not necessarily result in a prison sentence.
Ministers also vowed to clamp down on people who arrive with a 'pre-existing' intention to claim asylum on work and study visas. Language requirements will be tightened for workers and their dependents.
And the requirements for permanent settlement are set to be reformed, the white paper says, increasing the standard qualifying time from five to ten years. People will be able to reduce this time based on 'contributions to the UK economy and society', the strategy states.
Home Secretary Ms Cooper stated: 'We are clear that this chaotic system is unsustainable, and so too are the record levels of net migration we have inherited.
'We know that economic migration can help fill skills shortages and bring top international talent. But it should never be an alternative to training and recruiting at home.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
42 minutes ago
- Telegraph
A long-term plan is needed to get the country out of its financial hole
SIR – Whether by raising income tax rates, a wealth tax or through less overt measures, the Government will try to extract more money from the people that it serves ('Reeves facing £50bn black hole as tax pressure mounts ', report, August 6). However, such measures risk being self-defeating. Those who are unable or unwilling to leave the country will bear the brunt of the tax rises. That includes standard and higher-rate taxpayers. Every pound the Government extracts from their bank accounts is a pound that cannot be spent on businesses that provide goods and services. Thus, businesses will take another hit which, in turn, will reduce their tax payments. Since the failure of the Truss administration, there has been no long-term plan to get the country out of its financial hole. Eventually, there will have to be one and it will likely involve curbing the insatiable appetite of government to control and spend. When such a plan sees the light of day we may be surprised at the boost it gives to confidence and investment. David Porter Plymouth, Devon SIR – Labour dug itself a financial hole when it pledged not to increase National Insurance (NI), VAT or income tax rates. Instead of imposing VAT on private schools and possibly even on private health, a simple 1 or 2 per cent rise on NI and/or the basic rate of income tax would have solved the Chancellor's problems. Now she is having to cast her net wider – and creating more problems as a result. John Tilsiter Radlett, Hertfordshire SIR – Taxing jobs and taxing capital is not going to result in economic growth. Is it too much to expect a former Bank of England economist to grasp this? Patrick Loxdale Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SIR – There is a limit to which any economy can be taxed. The UK is at that limit. The British public understands this. It is plain that public sector expenditure must be cut to balance the books. Given the Government throws billions around like confetti – on the Chagos Islands, the immigration fiasco, welfare, public sector pay rises, excessive numbers of civil servants – there is much low-hanging fruit. The economy is being badly managed as never before. Enough is enough. Please can we have some economic sanity. Stuart Moore Bramham, West Yorkshire SIR – Having continually criticised the Conservatives for the last 12 months for creating a £22bn black hole in the public finances, I trust Labour will now be constantly criticising itself for doubling the deficit. Paul Webster Dyserth, Denbighshire
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Letters: What Trump has got right
Trumped up charges Sir: I am a huge admirer of Max Hastings, whose contribution to our knowledge and understanding of global conflict is unparalleled. However, his passionate condemnation of Donald Trump is typical of the one-eyed liberal Weltanschauung that will continue to drive people both here and further afield into the arms of populist administrations ('The indignity of Trump', 2 August). Yes, Trump is horribly flawed, personally, politically and economically. However, he was democratically elected by voters who felt ignored and let down by the ruling liberal elite. For balance, we might remember that he is delivering upon his manifesto promises, unlike our government: illegal immigrants are being removed wholesale; the global economy is being rebalanced to fairer levels; stock markets are at or near record highs, the left-wing mainstream media is being reined in; huge government waste is being slashed; virtue-signalling chat-show hosts are being cancelled; and Canada is being targeted largely because it has failed to halt the flow of deadly fentanyl across the border. I have been in the States a lot recently and, far from it having become 'an uglier place', it still seems full of polite, respectful, energetic and optimistic go-getters. If only our limp, directionless government listened and delivered to such a degree, we might regain some of our national pride and positivity. David Edwards Norton-sub-Hamdon, Somerset Business experience Sir: It was interesting to read about Varun Chandra, the most important business adviser to Sir Keir Starmer ('Starmer's business whisperer', 2 August). He clearly has huge charm and a sound networking skill set, but disappointingly it appears he too has never actually run a business. If he had, surely he would have advised the PM before the last Budget that SMEs, the heartbeat of the economy, are particularly susceptible to economic shockwaves. The sudden and unexpected significant increase in business taxes last October in a fragile economy can perhaps be viewed as the Starmer government's biggest mistake so far, underpinning many of the economic woes that we all face. The latest Institute of Directors business survey indicates that business confidence is on the floor and, with the Employment Rights Bill yet to have an impact and with another Budget fast approaching, surely the PM and the Chancellor must ensure they have sound advice from someone who has actually run a business, before policy is announced? Networking ability has its place, but the government and the UK cannot afford any more economic missteps. Andrew Haynes London SW6 Bestselling smut Sir: As an English teacher, I have followed the decline in undergraduate English literature enrolment in recent years with dismay. It is unsurprising, though, when my pupils' idea of literature consists of bestselling smut ('Losing the plot', 2 August). I imagine university modules covering the satirical genius of Eliot or Austen seem unappealing to prospective students who are hooked on grotesquely eroticised Narnia. In the classroom, out of desperation, I am often tempted to endorse the fifth 'right' in Daniel Pennac's creed: 'to read anything'. However, Lara Brown is right to label romantasy as 'literature taken to its lowest form'. I ought to condemn rather than condone recommendations of Cloisters of Carnality or Lust in His Lair. Sam Finniear Guildford, Surrey Christian England Sir: Mary Wakefield's brilliant article last week was sincere and heartwarming, and I hope that Danny Kruger's address in the Commons is seen by Conservatives countrywide ('The prophet Daniel', 2 August). Christianity has defined the spiritual life, identity and culture of England. It retains all that is good, worthwhile and honourable. Alan M. Varley Crowborough, East Sussex God's wonderful railways Sir: The priestly blessing of a signal box described by Matthew Parris ('A glimpse of the essence of Englishness', 2 August) illustrates the long affinity between the Church of England and the nation's railways. This is exemplified in the career of Eric Treacy, Bishop of Wakefield from 1968 to 1976 and for more than 40 years one of Britain's leading photographers of steam locomotives. He is famous particularly for his stirring studies of Sir William Stanier's streamlined Pacifics as they emerged in the 1930s. He died of a heart attack in May 1978 on Appleby station while awaiting the arrival of Evening Star, the last steam engine built for British Railways. A plaque pays tribute to a 'railway photographer, pastor to railwaymen, lover of life and railways'. Christopher Gray Oxford Birder he wrote Sir: Birding and bird-watching are different activities (Real Life, 26 July). Bird-watching is passive and is about enjoying birds wherever they may show up. Birding is active and involves going out to look for them, particularly the less-often-seen ones. The next step on this path is 'twitching', where a tick for one's life-list might involve frantic effort and expense. Bird-watchers might enjoy the sights and sounds of birds in their gardens or local park; birders make specific trips to special sites carrying expensive optics. Far from being a lefty invention, 'birding' is the preferred term of the more dedicated, optically endowed and knowledgeable individuals, to distinguish themselves both from the everyday punters and the demented twitchers. Martin Skinner Tunbridge Wells, Kent Write to us letters@
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
‘One in four councils could lose money' under Government's funding proposals
Around a quarter of councils in England could lose money under the Government's proposed reforms to how local authorities are funded, analysis has found. A report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said the changes would create big 'winners and losers' as ministers attempt to address perceived unfairness in levels of core funding across the country. Sir Keir Starmer's own council, Camden in north London, will be hit by the reforms when taking inflation into account, the IFS added. The think tank said Camden, along with other inner London boroughs including Westminster, will have less money to spend on services even if they increase council tax by the maximum amount allowed. Whitehall will provide a minimum level of funding, a so-called funding floor, for council leaders during the changes, but the IFS said overall cash for inner London town halls would be 11-12% lower in 2028-29 in real terms. The paper said: 'Around one in four councils would see real-terms falls in overall funding under the Government's proposals, with around 30 on the lowest funding floors seeing real-terms cuts of 11–12%. Conversely, another one in four councils would see real-terms increases of 12% or more.' The changes, which will come into effect from next year, are being consulted on by ministers. The Government plans to create a new methodology to assess local authority needs relatively and factor in population and deprivation. It will also assess need for adult and children's services. Overall spending will fall for 186 councils and rise by the same total sum for 161. One in 10 will see a fall in overall funding, while one in 10 will see an increase of 10% or more. The overall Government spend on local authorities will not change. The changes will be phased in across three years, from 2026/27 to 2028/29. Kate Ogden, co-author of the IFS report and a senior research economist with the think tank, said: 'England has lacked a rational system of local government funding for at least 12 years – and arguably more like 20. It is therefore welcome that the nettle of funding reform is being grasped, and some councils will benefit substantially under the new system. 'But the changes will sting for those councils that are assessed to currently receive too high a share of the overall funding pot, and so which lose out from moves to align funding with assessed spending needs.' The proposals are criticised in the report as 'not particularly redistributive to poor, urban areas of England'. It cites South Tyneside and Sunderland councils being among those to lose out from the reforms as slow population growth is accounted for. The report added: 'It is somewhat surprising that, on average, councils in the most deprived 30% of areas would see very similar changes in overall funding over the next three years to those for councils in the middle 40% of areas.' It noted that rural areas, which feared being badly hit by changes, will benefit from a 'remoteness adjustment' which will compensate areas with higher needs due to being far from large towns. London will gain the least, with a cash-terms increase in funding of 8% in the next three years. Analysis by the London Councils collective has highlighted the risk of the funding 'dramatically underestimating' needs for local services in parts of the capital. It noted the city has the highest rate of poverty in the country when housing costs are factored in. Outside the capital, the East Midlands (22%) and Yorkshire & the Humber (19%) are set to see the biggest increases in funding, with the South East set to see the smallest at 13%. However, the proposals have been criticised by youth charity the National Children's Bureau, which said it was 'significantly concerned' about the way the Government plans to work out needs for children's services. Ms Ogden added: 'The Government should consider giving highly affected councils which currently have low council tax rates greater flexibility to bring their council tax bills up to more typical levels to offset funding losses. 'More generally, reform of council funding allocations is just one part of the financial sustainability puzzle. Efforts to reduce demands on, and the cost of providing, local services through reform and the use of new technology will also be vital.' A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: 'The current, outdated way in which local authorities are funded means the link between funding and need for services has broken down, leaving communities left behind. 'That's why we are taking decisive action to reform the funding system so we can get councils back on their feet and improve public services, with the IFS recognising that our changes will better align funding with councils' needs.'
