Keir Starmer has defended his plans to curb net migration after an angry backlash from MPs, businesses and industry to a speech in which he said the UK risked becoming an “island of strangers” without tough new policies.
The rhetoric was likened by some critics to the language of Enoch Powell, and the prime minister was accused of pandering to the populist right by insisting he intended to “take back control of our borders” and end a “squalid chapter” of rising inward migration.
Some politicians claimed that his words had echoed Powell’s notorious “rivers of blood” speech, which imagined a future multicultural Britain where the white population “found themselves made strangers in their own country”.
When asked to respond to accusations he had adopted Powell’s rhetoric, Starmer told the Guardian: “Migrants make a massive contribution to the UK, and I would never denigrate that.”
But in words that could further enrage his critics, Starmer insisted that new migrants must “learn the language and integrate” once in the UK. He said: “Britain is an inclusive and tolerant country, but the public expect that people who come here should be expected to learn the language and integrate.”
[…]
Starmer was speaking before the publication of a 69-page immigration white paper that sets out details of how the government intends to introduce restrictions across all forms of visas to the UK.A new Home Office assessment showing the impact of changes to study and work visas and the introduction of English language tests said there would be about 100,000 fewer people entering the UK. It suggests net migration could fall to 300,000 by 2029, but the government declined to confirm a target.
Net migration, the difference between the number of people moving to the UK and the number leaving, was 728,000 in the 12 months to June 2024. Under the previous Conservative government, the figure rose to more than 900,000.
Starmer said that the current immigration system “encourages some businesses to bring in lower-paid workers rather than invest in our young people”.
Rain Newton-Smith, the Confederation of British Industry’s chief executive, said: “The reality for businesses is that it is more expensive and difficult to fill a vacancy with immigration than if they could hire locally or train workers … When considered alongside the large fees and accompanying charges, foreign workers are simply not the ‘easy’ or ‘cheap’ alternative.”
UK Politics
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
view the rest of the comments
Alexi Sayle nailed his character from day one. Total wanker confirmed.
Which leads us to where the fuck was everyone during Corbyns media execution.
Corbyn wasn’t executed by the media. He locked himself in the bunker with a loaded pistol.
Utterly unwilling to work with anyone who didn’t completely agree with his views. Which directly sabotaged the best chance in Parliament to avoid hard Brexit.
Oh Corbin can fuck off. He was all for Brexit, mostly because the EU wouldn't let him do whatever arbitrary things he wanted to do. Typically because they were terrible.
He wanted us all to live in a world that frankly doesn't exist, all of his policies would have made perfect sense if we lived in that world, but since we didn't they were insane. E.g. his stance on nuclear weapons while laudable, was totally unworkable in practise.
Why on Earth he could not accept that hanging around certain individuals is bad for your political image, regardless of what you personally feel about them, is beyond me. Some politicians are bad at being politicians, but he was just bad at general life. He mostly most of his time mildly pissing people off.
What was his stance?
Total disarmament. The UK essentially getting rid of all our nuclear weapons, which I think we can all agree is something that would be nice to happen if everyone did it, but probably not a good idea for just us to do it, especially at the moment.
Not a practical man. An idealist makes a bad politician.
How was that unworkable?