Starmer is a walking deterrent for Albanians coming to Britain
The only visible difference between Sir Keir and his counterpart in Tirana was one of height. The gigantic Rama made Starmer look like a rejected member of Ken Dodd's nightmarish sidekick group, the Diddy Men. Our Prime Minister had spent the morning at the port city of Durrës, presumably as a one-man, walking deterrent to the vast number of Albanians seeking to get to Britain. The adverts would write themselves: 'Would you migrate to a country run by this man?'
Migration was the headline issue that brought Sir Keir to Albania. Normally on overseas trips, the job of the Prime Minister is to showcase the best of Britain to the world, encouraging trade, tourism and deeper engagement between us and the host nation. Here, his task was to do the opposite. In fairness, there are few people better qualified than Sir Keir to sell Britain down.
Much of the substance of the meeting, if you can call it that, was delivered in classic Starmerite form. A list of quangos, taskforces and the latest, 'return hubs', all designed to convince the nation that he's tough on immigration. This was about being 'practical, sleeves rolled up, getting on with the job' said Sir Keir, mercifully keeping his jacket on. Normally he prefers his visual metaphors as clunky as a bunker from the days of Enver Hoxha, Albania's Communist leader in the 1980s.
Ukraine was also mentioned; Starmer talked about 'the front line of Western values'. It had the slight air of those politburo appearances at the end of the Soviet Union; all that repetition of slogans and looking ahead to a fantasy future. The crumbling communist aesthetic and dour content that Starmer brings presumably makes older Albanians feel quite nostalgic.
Of course, the most popular Brit in Albania is famously not Sir Keir but another knight, Sir Norman Wisdom. As dictator, Hoxha believed the comedic incompetence of Wisdom's recurring character, Norman Pitkin, and engagements with his boss, Mr Grimsdale, were a perfect metaphor for the struggle of socialism, and made it practically compulsory viewing. Of course, our own Prime Minister has a line in ideological promotion of TV shows; I just suspect that there are more laughs in a Norman Wisdom film than in Adolescence.
It was with an air of hubris that Sir Keir hinted that discussions about offshore processing were gaining ground. 'Prime minister Edi and I think alike', he said. 'We prefer not to talk about a problem and walk around it but to get on with it'. This was certainly true of one of them. Within about two minutes, Mr Rama had very publicly destroyed Sir Keir's dreams, by flatly denying that his country would ever host a 'return hub'. Starmer didn't dare contradict him; the Albanian prime minister looked like he'd have him for breakfast.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
40 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour ‘playing gesture politics' with online safety, says Molly Russell's father
Labour is 'playing gesture politics' over protecting children from online harms, the father of Molly Russell has said. In an exclusive article for The Telegraph, Ian Russell warned that eight years after his 14-year-old daughter's death, social media platforms were still bombarding children with the same kind of suicide and self-harm content that led her to take her life. He claimed he had been met with 'radio silence' from Sir Keir Starmer and Peter Kyle, the Technology Secretary, over the six months since they personally assured him they would look again at toughening up the Online Safety Act. 'Sticking plaster ideas' And he accused the Government of being 'more interested in playing performative gesture politics with sticking plaster ideas' – such as two-hour caps on children's app use that would do little to tackle their exposure to online harms. Mr Russell is demanding the Government strengthen the Act by replacing Ofcom's 'timid' codes of practice with clear outcomes and targets for the social media companies to wipe their sites clean of harmful content such as suicide material. Research published on Tuesday by the Molly Rose Foundation, the charity set up in his daughter's memory, found TikTok and Instagram were still deluging teenagers with 'industrial levels' of dangerous suicide and self-harm content. The study claimed more than 90 per cent of the videos recommended to potentially vulnerable teenagers were promoting or glorifying suicide or self-harm. Molly took her own life after being bombarded with 16,000 'destructive' posts – including 2,100 on Instagram – encouraging self-harm, anxiety and even suicide in her final six months. The coroner at her inquest concluded she died from an act of self-harm while suffering from depression and 'the negative effects of online content' which had 'more than minimally contributed' to her death. Mr Russell, who chairs the foundation, said: 'It is staggering that eight years after Molly's death, incredibly harmful suicide, self-harm and depression content like she saw is still pervasive across social media. 'Ofcom's recent child safety codes do not match the sheer scale of harm being suggested to vulnerable users, and ultimately do little to prevent more deaths like Molly's. 'For over a year, this entirely preventable harm has been happening on the Prime Minister's watch and where Ofcom have been timid, it is time for him to be strong and bring forward strengthened, life-saving legislation without delay.' The researchers used accounts opened with a registered age and identity of a 15-year-old girl who had previously engaged with suicide, self-harm and depression material. The study was conducted in the weeks leading up to the implementation of the Online Safety Act, which requires companies to prevent and remove such content. However, the research suggested its algorithms were still driving content deemed harmful towards teenagers. Videos were classified as harmful if they either promoted or glorified suicide or self-harm, referred to suicide or self-harm ideation, or otherwise featured highly intense themes of hopelessness, misery and despair. Almost all (96 per cent) of the algorithmically recommended videos watched on TikTok's For You Page contained content that was likely to be harmful, particularly when viewed cumulatively or in large amounts. Some 97 per cent of Instagram short-form videos (known as Reels) contained themes likely to be harmful, particularly when being recommended and consumed in large amounts. 'The findings suggest safeguards were still not in place on either TikTok and Instagram, and that in the immediate period before regulation took effect, children could still be exposed to a substantial risk of reasonably foreseeable but preventable harm,' said the charity's report. More than half (55 per cent) of recommended harmful posts on TikTok's For You Page included references to suicide and self-harm ideation, and 16 per cent referred to suicide methods. The charity said the harmful content was achieving 'disturbing' levels of interest. One in 10 of the videos deemed harmful by researchers on TikTok's For You Page had been liked at least one million times. On Instagram Reels, one in five harmful recommended videos had been liked more than 250,000 times. The Technology Secretary said: 'These figures show a brutal reality – for far too long, tech companies have stood by as the internet fed vile content to children, devastating young lives and even tearing some families to pieces. 'But companies can no longer pretend not to see. The Online Safety Act, which came into effect earlier this year, requires platforms to protect all users from illegal content and children from the most harmful content, like promoting or encouraging suicide and self-harm. Forty-five sites are already under investigation. 'Ofcom is also considering how to strengthen existing measures, including by proposing that companies use proactive technology to protect children from self-harm content and that sites go further in making algorithms safe.' Meanwhile, a study by the Children's Commissioner found that children are more likely to view porn on Elon Musk's X than on dedicated adult sites. Dame Rachel de Souza found that children as young as six are being exposed to more porn since the Online Safety Act became law than they were before. That included illegal violent porn, such as strangulation and non-consensual sex. Social media and networking sites accounted for 80 per cent of the main sources by which children viewed porn. Dame Rachel said this easy access was influencing children's attitudes towards women, meaning nearly half of them believed girls who said no could be persuaded to have sex. With social media and networking sites accounting for eight out of 10 of the sources for children viewing porn, X, formerly Twitter, remained the most common source, outstripping dedicated porn sites. The gap between the number of children seeing pornography on X and those seeing it on dedicated porn sites has widened (45 per cent versus 35 per cent in 2025, compared to 41 per cent versus 37 per cent in 2023). Snapchat accounted for 29 per cent, Instagram 23 per cent, TikTok 22 per cent, and YouTube 15 per cent. The research, based on 1,020 young people aged 16 to 21, found 70 per cent of children had seen porn before the age of 18, an increase from 64 per cent in 2023, when the Online Safety Act received royal assent. In her report, published on Tuesday, Dame Rachel said: 'Violent pornography is easily accessible to children, exposure is often accidental and often via the most common social media sites, and it is impacting children's behaviours and beliefs in deeply concerning ways. 'This report must be a line in the sand. It must be a snapshot of what was – not what will be.' A TikTok spokesman said: 'Teen accounts on TikTok have 50+ features and settings designed to help them safely express themselves, discover and learn, and parents can further customise 20+ content and privacy settings through family pairing. 'With over 99 per cent of violative content proactively removed by TikTok, the findings don't reflect the real experience of people on our platform which the report admits.' A Meta spokesman said: 'We disagree with the assertions of this report and the limited methodology behind it. Tens of millions of teens are now in Instagram teen accounts, which offer built-in protections that limit who can contact them, the content they see, and the time they spend on Instagram. 'We continue to use automated technology to remove content encouraging suicide and self-injury, with 99 per cent proactively actioned before being reported to us. We developed teen accounts to help protect teens online and continue to work tirelessly to do just that.' Is Starmer ready to take decisive measures to save our children? By Ian Russell Eight years on from my daughter Molly's death, we continue to lose the battle against the untold harm being inflicted by tech giants. Every week in the UK, we lose at least another teenager to suicide where technology plays a role. However, the unfathomable reality is that I'm less convinced than ever that our politicians will do what's necessary to stop this preventable harm in its tracks. This week, Molly Rose Foundation released deeply disturbing new research that showed that in the weeks before the Online Safety Act took effect, Instagram and TikTok's algorithms continued to recommend the type of toxic material that cost my daughter's life. Vulnerable teenagers continue to be bombarded with suicide, self-harm and intense depression material on a near industrial scale. We should be in no doubt why this is still happening. The harms on social media are the direct result of business models that actively prioritise user engagement and a race for market share. Children's safety continues to be seen as an optional extra, and Ofcom's desperately unambitious implementation of the Online Safety Act will do little to change the commercial incentives that continue to cost children's lives. This preventable harm is happening on this Government's watch. Six months ago, I met with the Prime Minister and told him that further urgent action was necessary. Ofcom 'timid and unambitious' I told him that parents were heartened by Labour's commitment to strengthen the Online Safety Act in opposition. That they were encouraged by the Technology Secretary's recognition that the Act was 'uneven and unsatisfactory'. Crucially, I explained that swift and decisive action was necessary to fix structural issues with the Online Safety Act, still the most effective and quickest way to protect children from widespread harm while also enabling them to enjoy the benefits of life online, and to arrest the sticking plaster approach that Ofcom has adopted to implementation. I don't have confidence in the regulator's approach. Ofcom has proven to be desperately timid and unambitious, and seems determined to take decisions that are stacked in favour of tech companies rather than victims. For all the regulator's breathless claims to be 'taming toxic algorithms', buried in the detail of their plans is an expectation that the likes of TikTok and Instagram will only need to spend £80,000 fixing the algorithms that helped kill Molly, and that our research shows are continuing to cause widespread and pervasive harm today. This is pocket money to platforms making tens of billions every year. It sends the clearest of signals to the tech giants that the current regime expects them to pay lip service to online safety but doesn't really expect them to implement the achievable changes to prioritise safety over profit. Six months after I met the Prime Minister and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle, and received a personal assurance from them they would look again at this issue, all I have received from Number 10 is radio silence. Meanwhile, the Technology Secretary appears to be more interested in playing performative gesture politics with sticking plaster ideas like two-hour app caps that those who work in online safety immediately recognise will do little to meaningfully change the dial. Public support for Act is strong Despite the recent predictable howls of protest from free speech activists and tech libertarians, public support for the Online Safety Act remains strong. Our polling suggests that 80 per cent of adults want the Act to be strengthened, with a growing despair from parents and the public that our politicians seem unable or unwilling to protect our children, families and wider society from preventable harm. With all this in mind, my message to Sir Keir Starmer is clear. Is he prepared to take the decisive measures necessary to strengthen regulation and take on the tech companies which are a threat to children's safety? Will he listen to the public, bereaved families and civil society to deliver a comprehensive strengthening of the Online Safety Act, knowing that the majority of people in this country will be cheering him on? The alternative is that he leaves children and families at risk from largely unchecked but inherently preventable harm. Regulation that is well-meaning but isn't up to the job will not save the lives that it must.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
This attack on Nigel Farage is Labour's most pathetic yet
What would life actually be like, under a Reform government? In recent weeks, senior Labour figures have taken to issuing us with ever more terrifying warnings. According to Sir Keir Starmer, your mortgage would go through the roof. According to Wes Streeting, you'd have to pay £20,000 for a hip op. According to Angela Rayner, horrible men would post nude photos of your daughter all over the internet. And according to Peter Kyle, the Science Secretary, your grandchildren would be cyberstalked by the reanimated corpse of Jimmy Savile. On Sunday, however, Labour issued its most chilling warning yet. In short: if you put Nigel Farage in Downing Street, you'll no longer be able to eat fish and chips. That, at any rate, is the horrifying vision conjured by Bill Esterson, who has been the Labour MP for Sefton Central since 2010. He says that, if a Reform government ditches Labour's net zero schemes, the temperature of the seas around Britain will soar – causing our terror-stricken cod to flee for cooler waters. This, he grimly intones, could mean we 'lose our nation's favourite dish once and for all'. I'm sure Sir Keir will be grateful for Mr Esterson's efforts. I fear, however, that the wider electorate may not find them entirely persuasive. For one thing, voters may actually be aware that the overwhelming majority of the cod we eat doesn't come from British waters. Of the 115,000 tons we consume each year, 85,000 tons is imported from other countries, primarily Iceland, Norway and, believe it or not, China. So even if Mr Farage were to convert the English Channel into the world's largest hot tub, there is no reason to fear that your local chip shop will be reduced to serving deep-fried goldfish. Secondly, voters may also know that Britain is responsible for less than one per cent of global carbon emissions. Which means that, even if Mr Farage were to go Full Greta and achieve net zero within his first week in office, the effect on global temperatures would be negligible at best. He could stick a wind turbine in every field, garden and windowbox in the land, and the planet's cod community would be no likelier to say, 'Let's all move to Britain – I hear it's wonderfully chilly this time of year.' Perhaps the biggest problem with Mr Esterson's argument, however, is as follows. According to the chip shop industry's own representative body, the National Federation of Fish Fryers, the Government's net zero drive won't save the great British chippy. On the contrary, it could kill it off. Speaking to the Telegraph in March, Andrew Crook, the NFFF's president, said that full electrification of chip shops was not 'feasible or affordable' – and complained that ministers 'don't understand the fish and chip industry'. No one could accuse Mr Crook of having an anti-Labour agenda, either – because he added that he himself is a member of the Labour party. On the whole, therefore, I doubt that Mr Esterson's warning will have much effect on the polls. But then, I doubt that any other warning will, either. Because the truth is, there's only one way the Government can see off the threat of Mr Farage – and that's by actually doing its job. Tackling crime, fixing the NHS, growing the economy, stopping the boats – things that would make the public say, 'Why should we vote Reform? Labour's running the country perfectly well as it is.' Presumably, however, Sir Keir and co have concluded that such a scenario is so wildly implausible, they've got no alternative but to keep pumping out increasingly feverish fantasies about the hell of a Farage government. I look forward to seeing what they dream up next. Perhaps Reform would sell Trump your grandmother's smalls, or deport your German shepherd. Nandy's trans troubles Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, has proudly published a photo of herself sporting a T-shirt emblazoned with the words 'Protect the Dolls'. This fashionable slogan is intended to express solidarity with trans women in their fight against those who refuse to accept that they're women, merely because they're male. All the same, I can't help feeling that, if I were a trans woman, I would find the slogan quite hurtful. I'd think: 'What do you mean by calling me a 'doll'? A doll is a cheap plastic imitation whose appearance is based on a crude sexist stereotype of femininity. Are you saying that's what I am? How dare you, you hateful transphobic bigot!' So, if Ms Nandy wishes to signal her commitment to the gender identity cause, I think she needs a slogan that is less problematic. I suggest: 'Protect the Women Who Are Just as Much Women as Any Other Woman, Even if Protecting the Former Type of Woman Undermines Protections for the Latter Type of Woman.' A touch on the wordy side, I admit, but it would at least show that, in ideological terms, she's fully on board. Way of the World is a twice-weekly satirical look at the headlines aiming to mock the absurdities of the modern world. It is published at 6am every Tuesday and Saturday
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Hate preacher who praised terror attacks gets a visa to Australia - while democratically elected Israeli politicians are banned
Immigration Minister Tony Burke has been accused of 'double standards' after an elected Israeli politician had his visa revoked, while a controversial Muslim speaker who 'celebrated' the Hamas attacks of October 7 was allowed in to Australia. On Monday, it emerged that Australia had revoked the visa of far-right Israeli politician Simcha Rothman over some of his provocative comments including describing children in Gaza as enemies. Australia has also denied entry to former Israeli minister Ayelet Shaked, based on anti-Palestinian comments, and Israeli advocate Hillel Fuld. Canberra has further imposed sanctions on two far-right Israeli ministers, including travel bans. In response, Israel 's Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar said the visas of Australia's representatives to the Palestinian Authority had been revoked. He also instructed the Israel Embassy in Canberra to carefully examine any official Australian visa application for entry into Israel. The diplomatic tit-for-tat prompted Foreign Minister Penny Wong to accuse Benjamin Netanyahu of 'isolating Israel'. Mr Rothman's visa was cancelled despite the Australian governemnt last year allowing controversial British commentator Sami Hamdi to conducted a speaking tour across the country. Ten days after the October 7 Hamas attacks, which claimed the lives of 1,200 Israelis, Hamdi was filmed encouraging people to 'celebrate the victory' of the terrorist organisation. 'Celebrate the victory! Allah has shown the world that no normalisation can erase the Palestinian cause,' Hamdi said ten days after the worst loss of life for Jews in a single day since the holocaust. 'When everybody thought it was finished, it's roaring! How many of you feel it in your hearts? When you go the news that it happened, how many of you felt the euphoria? Allahu Akbar! How many of you felt it?' Before he came to Australia, Hamdi had been banned from speaking at two universities in Canada after his comments came to light. Shadow Minister for Home Affairs Andrew Hastie said it was 'just the latest example of Tony Burke's double standards when it comes to Australia's immigration system'. 'How can the Albanese Labor Government approve the visa of a Hamas supporter but deny entry to an elected politician of a friendly country?', he told the Daily Mail. 'Tony Burke must come clean on the secret and arbitrary process that he applies to create these inconsistencies leading to a current Israeli politician having his visa cancelled a day before he is set to arrive in Australia.' It comes as a controversial Muslim speaker who praised former Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was allowed to go on a speaking tour of Australia in June this year. Mohammed Ghuloom recently toured Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne where he gave talks , including one to primary school-age children. This is despite the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) writing to Burke and the Department of Home Affairs to warn them that Mr Ghuloom had expressed support online for listed terrorist organisation Hezbollah. 'Ghuloom has a record of support for Hezbollah – a listed terrorist organisation under the Australian Criminal Code,' ZFA president Jeremy Liebler told The Australian. 'Ghuloom's social media features video and images of him glorifying Hezbollah terrorist organisation leader Hassan Nasrallah, on stage in front of a large crowd, as well as uploading a post to his social media accounts eulogising the terrorist leader following his death.' Mr Liebler told the Daily Mail on Tuesday that Mr Rothman, the Israeli politician who has had his visa revoked, held many views that are 'highly offensive and do not reflect the values of the Australian Jewish community or the mainstream Israeli public'. 'It is one thing to disagree strongly with an elected representative of a democracy and ally, it is quite another to deny them entry on that basis,' Mr Liebler added. 'Australia ought not set such a precedent.' Senator Wong said the decision to revoke Australian visas in Israel was 'unjustified'. 'At a time when dialogue and diplomacy are needed more than ever, the Netanyahu government is isolating Israel and undermining international efforts towards peace and a two-state solution,' Senator Wong said on Tuesday morning. 'This is an unjustified reaction, following Australia's decision to recognise Palestine.' On Tuesday, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley demanded the Albanese government explain why the 'very unusual' decision was made to revoke Mr Rothamn's visa. 'Israel is a Liberal democracy in the Middle East and we should be supporting them as that liberal democracy and the steps that the Albanese government has taken over recent days and weeks certainly have not demonstrated that,' Ley said. 'This is an elected member of the Israeli parliament and it's a very unusual thing to refuse a visa and I haven't seen explanations from Tony Burke that actually explain what is going on here.' Mr Rothman had his visa revoked out of fear that his past comments might spark counter-protests among Australia's Muslim community, according to a leaked Home Affairs document reported by The Australian. 'I (the minister's delegate) consider that the visa holder has the potential to use these events and other platforms while in Australia to continue to making inflammatory statements to promote his controversial views and ideologies, which may lead to fostering division in the community,' the document stated. 'The use of platforms for inflammatory rhetoric can lead to increased hate crimes, radicalisation of individuals and heightened tensions in communities. 'Specifically, I consider his presence in Australia would or might be a risk to the good order of the Australian community or a segment of the Australian community, namely the Islamic population.' The document further warned that Mr Rothman's entry into Australia might 'encourage others to feel emboldened to voice any anti-Islamic sentiments'. A Department of Home Affairs spokesperson said it 'does not comment on individual cases'. 'All non-citizens who wish to travel to, enter, or remain in Australia must satisfy the requirements of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) and the Migration Regulations 1994, including identity, health, character, and security requirements,' the spokesperson added. 'The Australian Government is committed to protecting the community from the risk of harm posed by non-citizens who engage in behaviour of concern.' Burke, the Immigration Minister, has previously defended the cancelling of Mr Rothman's visa, claiming Australia would not accept people who sow hatred. 'Our government takes a hard line on people who seek to come to our country and spread division,' Burke said. 'If you are coming to Australia to spread a message of hate and division, we don't want you here. 'Under our government, Australia will be a country where everyone can be safe, and feel safe.'
