‘Cheap foreign labour' – this is how Keir Starmer denigrates the migrant carers looking after your loved ones
I would love to know what exactly happens, in the top-level meetings where the prime minister decides to be even tougher on immigration. Is there anyone in there saying: 'This will not halt Reform. This will not make Reform less obnoxious. This will not make them more moderate, and it will not stop people voting for them. All it will do is make your own supporters despair.' If there is, are they screaming it, or whispering it, with a thousand-yard stare?
It's bad enough that the government has swallowed this anti-immigrant rhetoric wholesale; that it's decided to land its misdirected toughness on the care workers is dumb on so many levels. First, Starmer's claim that that migrant care workers are 'cheap foreign labour'. Pause to note how extraordinary it is, to hear this kind of denigratory language coming from a human-rights lawyer. It is also untrue that migrants are driving down wages. People who employ care workers could tell him it's untrue; data could tell him it's untrue. The last vestige of faith in this Labour government was that it rooted its arguments in fact. As it ceased to be the anti-austerity party, and dropped its promises that anything would get better, it would – at the very least, and it wasn't much – not just say any old bilge that tested well with the imaginary Angry Red Wall Inhabitant.
Anyone who's ever interacted with any care workers feels a huge debt of gratitude to them, and yes, newsflash, this is irrespective of whether they were born in the UK. If you know any care workers, it's because they're caring for you or someone you love. It's a pretty tight bond, far more intimate and meaningful than any you've ever had with your MP. To hear that we risk becoming an 'island of strangers', as Starmer has said, because of foreign-born care workers – well, it's hard to muster the appropriate outrage because it's just so patently untrue.
Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
17 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Canada agrees to ratify Britain's accession to major trans-Pacific trade pact
Ottawa will seek to introduce legislation to its parliament this autumn to formally approve Britain's entry to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). The UK joined the bloc in 2024, but Canada is yet to ratify its accession – meaning Britain still faces pre-CPTPP trade barriers in exporting to the country. Following a bilateral meeting between the Prime Minister and his Canadian counterpart Mark Carney on Sunday, Downing Street said: 'Prime Minister Carney confirmed that Canada would ratify the UK's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), seeking to introduce legislation to their parliament in the autumn. 'This will bring huge benefits to UK businesses by lowering tariffs when buying from and selling to Canada. 'They also agreed to set up a joint taskforce to turbocharge progress on other areas of mutual benefit, including technology and artificial intelligence – in support of shared growth and our national security. 'The taskforce will also look to make progress on the wider UK-Canada Free Trade Agreement.'
Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Telegraph
NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs
Britain faces paying more for US drugs as part of a deal to avoid future tariffs from Donald Trump. The NHS will review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president', according to documents released after a trade agreement was signed earlier this year. White House sources said it expected the NHS to pay higher prices for American drugs in an attempt to boost the interests of corporate America. A Westminster source said: 'There's an understanding that we would look at the drug pricing issue in the concerns of the president.' The disclosure is likely to increase concerns about American interference in the British health service, which has long been regarded as a flashpoint in trade talks. It comes after Rachel Reeves announced a record £29 billion investment in the NHS in last week's spending review. The Chancellor's plans will drive spending on the health service up towards 50 per cent of all taxpayer expenditure by the mid-2030s, according to economists at the Resolution Foundation. The Telegraph has also learnt that under the terms of the trade deal with America, the UK has agreed to take fewer Chinese drugs, in a clause similar to the 'veto' given to Mr Trump over Chinese investment in Britain. The White House has asked the UK for assurances that steel and pharmaceutical products exported to the US do not originate in China, amid fears the deal could be used to 'circumvent' Mr Trump's punishing tariffs on Beijing. Mr Trump is enraged by how much more America pays for drugs compared with other countries and considers it to be the same issue as he has raised on defence spending. Just as the US president has heaped pressure on European nations to increase the GDP share they allocate to defence, he thinks they should spend more on drug development. An industry source said: 'The way we've been thinking about it and many in the administration have been thinking about it, it's more like the model in Nato, where countries contribute some share of their GDP.' Britain and the US 'intend to promptly negotiate significantly preferential treatment outcomes on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients', the trade deal reads. Pharmaceutical companies are also pushing for reductions in the revenue sales rebates they pay to the NHS under the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG) – a mechanism that the UK uses to make sure the NHS does not overpay. Non-US countries are 'free-riding' Last week, Albert Bourla, Pfizer's chief executive, said non-US countries were 'free-riding' and called for a US government-led push to make other nations increase their proportionate spend on innovative medicines. He said White House officials were discussing drug prices in trade negotiations with other countries. 'We represent in UK 0.3pc of their GDP per capita. That's how much they spend on medicine. So yes, they can increase prices,' Mr Bourla said. Industry sources said there was no indication yet on what the White House would consider to be a fair level of spending. Whatever the benchmark, Britain will face one of the biggest step-ups. UK expenditure on new innovative medicines is just 0.28pc of its GDP, roughly a third of America's proportionate spending of 0.78pc of its GDP. Even among other G7 nations, the UK is an anomaly. Germany spends 0.4pc of its GDP while Italy spends 0.5pc. Most large pharmaceutical companies generate between half and three quarters of their profits in the US, despite the fact that America typically makes up less than a fifth of their sales. This is because drug prices outside of the US can cost as little as 30pc of what Americans pay. Yet, pharmaceutical companies rely on higher US prices to fund drug research and development, which the rest of the world benefits from. A month ago, Mr Trump signed an executive order titled 'Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients', which hit out at 'global freeloading' on drug pricing. It stated that 'Americans should not be forced to subsidise low-cost prescription drugs and biologics in other developed countries, and face overcharges for the same products in the United States' and ordered his commerce secretary to 'consider all necessary action regarding the export of pharmaceutical drugs or precursor material that may be fuelling the global price discrimination'. Trung Huynh, the head of pharma analysis at UBS, said: 'The crux of this issue is Trump thinks that the US is subsidising the rest of the world with drug prices. 'The president has said he wants to equalise pricing between the US and ex-US. And the way he wants to do it is not necessarily to bring down US prices all the way to where ex-US prices are, but he wants to use trade and tariffs as a pressure point to get countries to increase their prices. 'If he can offset some of the price by increasing prices higher ex-US, then the prices in America don't have to go down so much.' Mr Huynh added: 'It's going to be very hard for him to do. Because [in the UK deal] it hinges on the NHS, which we know has got zero money.' Under VPAG, pharmaceutical companies hand back at least 23pc of their revenue from sales of branded medicines back to the NHS, worth £3bn in the past financial year. The industry is pushing for this clawback to be cut to 10pc, which would mean the NHS would have to spend around 1.54bn more on the same medicines on an annual basis. The Government has already committed to reviewing the scheme, a decision which is understood to pre-date US trade negotiations. A government spokesman said: 'This Government is clear that we will only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests and to suggest otherwise would be misleading. 'The UK has well-established and effective mechanisms for managing the costs of medicines and has clear processes in place to mitigate risks to supply.'
Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Full-term abortion ‘to become legal' under change planned by MPs
Women will be able to abort their pregnancies for any reason at any point up to birth without facing prosecution under law changes to be considered by MPs on Tuesday, according to a legal opinion. In the biggest proposed changes to the abortion law for nearly 50 years, two rival amendments would enable women to terminate their pregnancy on the basis of the sex of the foetus without the risk of prosecution, the legal opinion claimed. But while both amendments would decriminalise abortion for women, one would retain criminal prosecutions for doctors who facilitated late abortions in such circumstances. The second would only see medics face disciplinary sanctions by making the 1967 Abortion Act 'obsolete,' according to the legal assessment. The opinion, by Stephen Rose KC, a leading criminal barrister, was commissioned by Sir Edward Leigh, the Father of the House, who has previously voted against moves to liberalise abortion laws. On Tuesday MPs will debate the amendments to the Government's Crime and Policing Bill. MPs will be given a free vote on the basis that abortion is a matter of conscience. Six women have been prosecuted in the past three years for ending or attempting to end their own pregnancies outside abortion law, a crime that carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The first proposal put forward by Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi would amend the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act – which outlaws abortion – so that it would no longer apply to women ending their own pregnancies. It would not affect the 1967 Act which allows abortions after 24 weeks, agreed by two doctors and where there is a risk to the woman's physical or mental health, or of the child being born with severe abnormalities. A second amendment, known as NC20, proposed by Labour MP Stella Creasy would repeal the sections of the 1861 Act prohibiting abortion and defining the offence of concealing the birth of a child. Ms Creasy would also amend the Abortion Act of 1967 to create a 'human rights framework ' to ensure women had safe access to abortion rights and to maintain the 24-week time limit for a termination. Carry out own abortion In his legal opinion, Mr Rose said Ms Antoniazzi's amendment would mean that it would no longer be illegal for a woman to carry out her own abortion 'at home, for any reason, at any gestation, up to birth' but would still retain criminal prosecution for a medical professional who assisted in a late termination. However, he said Ms Creasy's amendment would go further in rendering the 24-week time limit 'obsolete' in respect of the prosecution of women who undertook terminations 'in typical circumstances'. He suggested it would create a 'a hybrid situation characterised by uncertainty'. 'While the registered medical practitioner would no longer face prosecution for the repealed offences, it seems they may face professional discipline,' he added. 'It is foreseeable that this amendment might contribute to an increase in the incidence of medical termination after the 24-week period.' In his legal opinion on Ms Antoniazzi's amendment, Mr Rose said it ' would not be illegal for a woman to carry out her own abortion at home, solely on the basis that the foetus is female'. However, it would remain illegal for a doctor to assist. On Ms Creasy's amendment, he said: 'The effect of the amendment is that a woman who terminated her pregnancy solely on the basis that she believed the child to be female would face no criminal sanction in connection with that reason, or at all.' Only one amendment may be allowed Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, will have to decide whether the amendments can be debated and subject to votes on Tuesday. Ms Antoniazzi's amendment has the support of more than 180 MPs, while Ms Creasy has the backing of more than 100. It is thought Sir Lindsay may only allow one vote on the issue. More than 70 per cent of MPs agree that women should not be liable for prison sentences if they have abortions outside the set rules, according to a YouGov poll of 100 MPs. There is, however, strong public opposition to changing the abortion time limits with only three per cent backing extending it to birth. A third amendment proposes a law change to ban the unsupervised use of abortion 'pills by post' to prevent women being coerced into terminations. Nearly 30 MPs including former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith are backing an amendment which would crack down on the pills-by-post scheme to prevent it being abused by coercive partners or result in mistaken terminations. Catherine Robinson, of Right to Life UK, said: 'The abortion lobby is pushing to decriminalise abortion to cover up the disastrous effects of its irresponsible pills-by-post scheme, which endangers women by removing the requirement for in-person consultations to reliably verify a woman's gestational age and assess any health risks, or the risk of coercion, before abortion pills may be prescribed.'
