Keir Starmer gears up to fight Nigel Farage at election as he launches immigration crackdown
SIR Keir Starmer has said the Tories are a 'busted flush' and the election will be him versus Nigel Farage - as he launches a major immigration crackdown.
On Monday the PM will announce a visa crackdown to wean Britain off foreign labour by saying migrants will need to have higher qualifications and better English to come here.
2
2
It comes after Reform UK wiped the floor with Labour and the Tories in the local elections - sparking calls from panicked Labour MPs for a reset in No10.
Speaking exclusively to The Sun on Sunday while on a trip to Kyiv, the PM said the next race for No10 is likely to be a dust-up between him and Nigel.
He said: 'Certainly we were planning on the basis we were likely to be facing Reform at the next election in any event. So that coincides with our thinking.'
Tearing into Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, he went on: 'I think the Tory Party is a busted flush.
"They haven't learnt the lessons of the last general election. They have no idea where they are heading.
'And they have got a leader who is showing no leadership.
'But what I take out of those election results is that we need to deliver change.
'We have already delivered significant change with the NHS waiting lists coming down and wages going up quicker than prices, minimum wage is going up, interest rates are coming down.
'But we need to make sure people feel that change in their pockets and in their everyday lives. That is what I am intent on delivering.'
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper will unveil Labour's long-awaited plan to bring down record immigration tomorrow.
There will be strict time-limits and restrictions on recruitment for jobs with critical skills shortages.
Farage promised an earthquake & he delivered - Labour are badly bruised & Tories face being brushed aside as opposition
And employers will also be told they must train workers in the UK.
Ministers want to drive down the reliance on foreign workers while getting soaring numbers of unemployed young Brits into jobs.
They are setting up groups with the Department for Work and Pensions to look at how this can be done.
Ministers want to drive down the reliance on foreign workers while getting soaring numbers of unemployed young Brits into jobs.
The Prime Minister added: 'Sun readers know this country's migration system is broken.
"A population the size of Birmingham arrived in just four years.
'No control, business hooked on cheap labour, and Brits' wages undercut. This failed experiment stops. I'm shutting down the lab.
'By clamping down on abuse of the system, tightening time limits on visas, and boosting training for Brits we'll make our borders secure, the system fair, and Brits better off. This is the change I was elected to deliver.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
42 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Here is the real reason River City is being axed by BBC bosses
The letter's subject was BBC Scotland cancelling River City, an act I had previously described as cultural vandalism. My correspondent had a cooler disposition and a better way with words. Summing up how the soap had been brought low in recent years, she wrote: 'Its viewing figures were adversely affected by stop/start production runs, erratic scheduling and a general lack of promotion.' Spot on. And then came this: 'I began watching River City out of loyalty to my city, but came to the view that it makes an important contribution to the culture of central Scotland.' BBC Scotland HQ at Pacific Quay Watching out of loyalty to my city. How wonderful, how generous, how Scottish is that? Of the thousands of words written and spoken about River City, all the BBC statements, the petition to save the show, the debate in the Scottish Parliament, not one sentence hits home as hard as that contribution. Watching out of loyalty to my city. There writes someone who 'gets' what River City means, and why it is not just another programme that can be binned by BBC Scotland because its face no longer fits. But what do you know, no one is listening. Not to my correspondent, not to those who have signed the petition, not to MSPs, or ministers. It seems the main arguments in favour of keeping River City - that it provides jobs and training for working-class Scots who might otherwise never get a start in TV, as well as being a pretty decent drama beloved by its audience - are not enough for BBC Scotland to change its mind. We know this because the executive who made the decision appeared before Holyrood's culture committee at the end of May and said so. Hayley Valentine, director of BBC Scotland, told MSPs that River City, with its 200,000 viewers in Scotland compared to Shetland's 700,000 'did not pass the value for money test'. But the money saved by axing River City would help to fund three new short-run dramas, she confirmed. Though these will 'absolutely cost more to make', the BBC would 'expect' them to deliver much bigger audiences than River City and 'really hope' they will. Expectations and hope. In other words, BBC Scotland is taking a punt. Making all those people redundant on a gamble. Having said that axing River City was a creative decision, it really does come down to money. As for River City being a way into TV, Ms Valentine said opportunities would still be offered across a wide range of other programmes. So that's okay then. Nothing more to see here, folks. Except it is not okay. It is very far from okay. Cancelling River City has always been about more than the end of one programme. It's about BBC Scotland fighting Scotland's corner within the corporation, and making sure the BBC represents and is reflective of all those who pay for it. Read more On the former, was London asked for more money to fund the short-run dramas? Was there ever a chance of building on the UK-wide iPlayer audience for River City by running a promotion campaign? Where are the figures showing potential job and training opportunities lost versus those created? Was there any analysis or was this simply a case of executives thinking they knew best? I understand BBC Scotland's ambition. It wants another Baby Reindeer. It wants the next Adolescence. But it doesn't have the money of a Netflix or an Apple+, which makes it all the more important to ensure that it is making decisions for the right reasons. When it comes to River City, I'm not sure it is. Just as to govern is to choose, running the BBC is all about choice. Who is out and who is in, who gets the money and who doesn't. BBC Scotland decided, ultimately, that River City was expendable. It has made the arguments about viewing figures and opportunities offered elsewhere, but I think there is another factor at work here. For my money - £174.50 licence fee - River City was vulnerable because it was a Scottish working-class soap made by working-class casts and crews. No one thought there would be the backlash there has been. It wasn't like cancelling Question Time with its well-connected panellists and audiences (now there's an idea). The class ceiling exists in the media in general - heck, in society as a whole. It's not just BBC Scotland. Indeed, BBC Scotland has done more than most to widen access and should be commended for it. Now and then, a youngster will appear who doesn't sound like your typical BBC sort. They thrive on the attention and encouragement, but then at some point they hit that class ceiling. They don't get invited into the room where it happens, so they can't shape the corporation's future, and the story of inequality rumbles on. Representation matters. As the old saying goes, if you can see it, you can be it. For many working-class Scots, River City was 'their' soap, and therefore 'their' way into TV. Doors opened that had too often been closed, and if it could happen for the guy down the road, it could happen for you. You cannot put a price on that kind of positive PR. The same goes for viewer loyalty. Fans of River City have had their patience tested to a degree that would not have happened with any other show. Yet they've kept faith with the programme. Even now, they trust executives will repay that faith and cancel the cancellation, but will they? Back to you, BBC Scotland. Alison Rowat is a senior politics and features writer on The Herald. Contact
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
What we know about the visa obtained by Egyptian man who injured a dozen people in Colorado
The Egyptian man charged with injuring a dozen people in Boulder Colorado, in an attack on demonstrators seeking the release of Israeli hostages is among hundreds of thousands of people known to overstay their visas each year in the United States. Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, was born in Egypt and moved three years ago to Colorado Springs, where he lived with his wife and five children, according to state court documents. He lived for 17 years in Kuwait. Soliman entered the country in August 2022 on a tourist visa that expired in February 2023, according to Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security. She said Soliman filed for asylum in September 2022 and was granted a work authorization in March 2023, but that also expired. The department did not respond to requests for additional information. Federal immigration authorities took Soliman's wife and children into custody Tuesday. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said authorities were investigating whether his family knew about his plan. What is known about visa overstays? There were 565,155 visa overstays from October 2022 through September 2023 among visitors who arrived by plane or ship — more than the population of the metro areas of Reno, Nevada, or Chattanooga, Tennessee, according to Homeland Security's most recent annual report. The total number of overstays is much larger but has not been quantified because it does not include how many people arrive and leave by land. The cost and technological hurdles to develop a checkout system at congested land crossings are enormous. The overstay rate for Egyptians on business or tourist visas was 4% in 2023, well below some of the biggest offenders such as Chad (49%), Laos (34%) and Sudan (26%). Historically, academics have estimated that roughly 40% of people in the United States illegally stayed past their visas, but reliable numbers are difficult to come by. In 2016, Homeland Security published the number of overstays for the first time in at least two decades. How did Soliman obtain a work permit? Homeland Security did not say. But asylum seekers become eligible for work authorization 180 days after arrival. That correlates with him arriving in the country in August 2022 and obtaining the work permit in March 2023. Some critics say work permits create a huge magnet for asylum applications from people with weak cases. Immigration courts are backlogged with about 3.6 million cases, which can take years to resolve. The relative ease with which asylum seekers gain work permits has also fueled some tensions with people who have been in the country illegally for years or decades. Immigration court records are not public, and the status of Soliman's asylum case is unclear. Egyptians had an asylum grant rate of 72% during the 12-month period through September 2024, compared with 45% for all nationalities, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Seamus Logan: Nigel Farage's visit shows what he knows about Scotland
The wisdom of that observation was brought into sharp relief for Scots on Tuesday, as Nigel Farage opted to take time out of his busy schedule of being anywhere but in his Clacton constituency to jet northwards for a day trip. The public-facing part of his day seemed to be mercifully short for all concerned. It began with him feigning concern for the welfare of energy workers in Aberdeen, before flying off to Glasgow Airport – en route to Hamilton – to get his picture taken to show him 'campaigning' in the by-election. READ MORE: Nigel Farage's Scottish conspiracy theories fit Reform's agenda. Don't fall for it When not attacking journalists for their cheek in wanting to ask him some questions, he seemed to spend the rest of his time finding ways to hide from them. Meanwhile, his press team were busy asserting that his party somehow represents a 'fresh, positive voice' between what they tried to describe as the Labour and SNP 'see-saw' in Scotland. If nothing else, his flying visit certainly showed up how much he knows and cares about Scotland. On both counts, about the nicest thing you could say is that it at least rhymes with 'see-saw'. Sometimes, as I wrote last week, politicians are lucky in their opponents. Farage has certainly been lucky on that score, but he's even luckier still in that after decades of his schtick, he still keeps getting away with it. His complaints about the 'institutionally biased' BBC and its licence fee show a particular lack of self-awareness. For without the institutional willingness of the BBC to platform him over the years with a frequency and prominence out of all proportion to the public support for whatever political vehicle he happened to be riding at the time, he'd be just another crank languishing on the fringes of politics, forever dependent on the patronage of wealthy idiots to keep him sporadically in the public eye. He's particularly lucky in that despite having won his long-term political prize of Brexit, it still manages to sustain him. Not through being able to bask in its successes, but instead, through the ability to feast off the political corpse of it being a disaster that somehow still has nothing to do with him. In this world, Brexit has been a failure – even in the fishing sector which potentially had the most to gain – not because the trade-offs involved in losing freedom of movement for goods and people simply weren't worth it. Rather, it's been a failure because 'politicians' have somehow 'betrayed' the noble vision of being able to 'take back control' free of there being any negative consequences to follow. In Farage-land, the economy doesn't struggle because of a failure to invest in people and infrastructure – it falters because taxes on the rich are too high. Public services aren't struggling from the consequences of ideologically driven austerity over many years from successive UK governments, but because of the pressures supposedly created by immigrants coming to the UK to consume those services. Every complex problem has a simple solution. He is held responsible for nothing, and nothing is ever his fault. Incredibly, both Labour and the Tories still seem to think that the best way to tackle his particular brand of grievance farming is not to do so head-on, but to lurch even further to the right themselves. And the more it fails to work for them, the louder the internal voices seem to become for them to keep doing it. READ MORE: Scottish Labour by-election candidate flounders after dodging question 11 times It's been obvious for a while that since the General Election, support for the Tories in Scotland has disappeared down the plughole. While there's no evidence that there are any significant numbers of SNP voters switching to Farage, there's ample evidence that a significant number of former Labour voters are happy enough for now to throw their lot in behind him. Maybe that shouldn't be a surprise. There's also always been a hardcore of anti-home rule of any kind Scots, who will vote in Westminster elections but who have tended to stay at home when it comes to Holyrood. Having spent the past two decades guided by nothing more principled than a steadfast and resolute #SNPBad-ism, it's hardly surprising that Labour and the Tories are now being outflanked by a party which seems well set up to cater to that sentiment far better than they can themselves. Farage's unpopularity with most Scottish voters is apparent, and was reflected in polling over the weekend which showed that were he to become prime minister, support for independence would rise by a further four points. If this time we are to turn that sentiment into pro-independence votes, then our arguments have to change. People are rightly concerned still about the cost of living, public services and the quality of life that they and their closest friends and relatives are able to have. So as well as delivering tangible results in those areas, we also have to be posing the fundamental question which affects all of those things for Scots. And that is the question of 'who decides?' If you are a Unionist who is happy for Westminster to continue setting budgets and clipping the wings of Holyrood, then you already know your answer to that question. If, on the other hand, you can be persuaded that decisions about Scotland should be taken in Scotland, for Scotland, by the people we elect in Scotland, then ultimately the answer to that question should also be clear. The reform that Scots need most is independence. And it's the job of everyone in our movement to do their bit in continuing to persuade the persuadable on that front.
