Cleverly: Starmer more interested in housing asylum seekers than hard workers
He said he was 'furious' when the Prime Minister 'blithely' said there are 'plenty of houses' around the UK for asylum seekers.
Sir Keir Starmer insisted there is 'lots of housing available' to accommodate both rising numbers of homeless people and asylum seekers when he was questioned by the Liaison Committee earlier this week.
Sir James told Times Radio: 'I was furious, I genuinely couldn't believe he said this, when the prime minister was at the Liaison Committee and blithely said, 'Oh there are plenty of houses around the UK for asylum seekers'.
'When there are people telling us and telling him that they're struggling to get on the housing ladder and he dismisses their concerns in one line and once again demonstrates he is more interested in finding accommodation for asylum seekers than for hard-working young people here in the UK and that is toxic.'
He said he understands the frustrations of local people when asked about demonstrations outside hotels believed to be housing asylum seekers.
There has been a series of protests outside the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, since an asylum seeker was charged with sexual assault.
'I understand the desire to protest,' he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
'There is never any excuse for rioting and we are seeing that agitators, both on the left and the right, are descending upon these communities to try and stir things up and there's never an excuse for that, but I do understand why local people are frustrated.'
His new role makes him the opposition counterpart to Angela Rayner in her housing, communities and local government brief, but not in her deputy prime minister post.
Ms Rayner said on Tuesday that immigration was among issues having a 'profound impact on society' as she updated Cabinet on her work on social cohesion.
Sir James said that she 'makes a very good point' but that it 'rings a bit hollow when she was one of the people that took the knee during the BLM (Black Lives Matter) protest'.
She and Labour have 'spent so much time seeming to be on the side of the people who don't play by the rules, who jump the queue, who abuse the system,' he said.
'And now that they're in government, she is saying, 'Oh, well, I think you know, society is fracturing', seemingly blind to the role the Labour Party have played in driving wedges between communities.'
He was also asked for his view on leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) after Conservative Party leader Mrs Badenoch launched a review to examine the issue and said she was 'increasingly of the view' that the UK should withdraw.
Sir James would not say whether he was also 'increasingly of the view' that the UK should leave the international human rights treaty.
It would 'not necessarily be a silver bullet' to leave the ECHR, he told the BBC, but said that if the review leads to it becoming party policy he would abide by that.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
5 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
ANGELA RAYNER: 'National Minimum Wage was a lifeline for me and other low-paid workers'
Deputy PM Angela Rayner writes for The Mirror as the Low Pay Commission begins its annual work to consult with employers, trade unions and workers on the National Minimum Wage Like many Mirror readers, I know what it's like to graft every day just to cover the bills – but still struggle to make ends meet. As a young single mum, I worked long night shifts as a home help on low pay to get me and my young family through the week. That's why the National Minimum Wage - launched by the last Labour government - was such a lifeline for me and for other low paid workers. It put more money in my pocket and gave me the security and opportunity I needed to get on in life. But after 14 years of Tory failure, stagnation and decline that's no longer the reality for millions of hardworking people across the country who simply cannot afford to get by. This Labour government was elected a year ago on a promise to Make Work Pay. Which is why, within weeks of taking office we told the Low Pay Commission to consider the cost of living for the first time when setting the National Minimum Wage and National Living Wage. As a result, more than 3 million workers got an inflation busting boost to their pay packets from April, worth up to £1,400 a year. This helped raise living standards for the lowest paid who are the backbone of our economy. It also delivered a record cash increase for young people and apprentices – our skilled workers of tomorrow. And today, alongside my friend the Business Secretary, I will urge the Low Pay Commission to build on this success by pushing even further to make a genuine living wage a reality. We want to continue narrowing the pay gap for 18 to 20-year-olds as we move closer to setting a single rate for all adult workers in the years to come. This is our Plan for Change in action. This our promise to Make Work Pay. But it doesn't stop there. This is a government on the side of working people. You are at the heart of our landmark Employment Rights Bill, now going through Parliament. This Bill will tackle the low wages, job insecurity and poor conditions that working people face. It will bring stronger protections against unfair sackings, make sure workers get paid sick pay from day one, and stop you being threatened with dismissal for refusing to take lower pay. And it will guarantee hours and make work more flexible and family-friendly – benefits that will support business by creating a healthier, more productive workforce. Unelected Tory and Lib Dem Lords, cheered on by Nigel Farage and Reform are trying to block these rights in Parliament. But this Labour Government was elected by you to deliver them, and we will not let them get away with it. These historic reforms consulted with employers and trade unions are pro-worker, pro-business and pro-growth. So, if you are in casual work without guaranteed hours, if you are working hard on low pay but can't afford the essentials. Or if you want a country that is fairer for working people - then this Labour government is working for you. And we will keep on delivering.
The Independent
11 hours ago
- The Independent
Why has Kemi Badenoch fallen out with Liz Truss?
Dearie me, they're at it again. Former Tory leader Liz Truss and current Tory leader Kemi Badenoch are involved in another nasty spat, mainly about the infamous mini-Budget introduced by then Prime Minister Truss in September 2022. Badenoch has invoked that calamitous – and deeply Conservative – fiscal event in an otherwise routine attack on the government. Truss, ever ready to defend her record, because no one else will, has hit back and told Badenoch she's wrong and needs to do some more thinking, a particularly hurtful jibe when Badenoch thinks herself one of the brainier kids in the Westminster playground. Amusing and mildly diverting as it may be, this minor row also tells us some much bigger things about the Tory dilemma. What did Badenoch say? That Labour is even more incompetent than Truss was: 'For all their mocking of Liz Truss, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have not learnt the lessons of the mini-Budget and are making even bigger mistakes. They continue to borrow more and more, unable and unwilling to make the spending cuts needed to balance the books.' Is that new? Not really. Only a few weeks ago, the shadow chancellor, Mel Stride, evicted from ministerial office by Liz Truss when she formed her short-lived government, laid into the mini-Budget and apologised for it. Badenoch, meanwhile, has said she doesn't know whether Truss is still in the Conservative Party, and implied she doesn't really care either way. She's long let it be known she'd prefer Truss to just go quiet for a while. Badenoch has also been disobliging about the Sunak administration 'talking right but acting left'. But Sunak, like Johnson, May and Cameron, has, so far, preferred to ignore the present controversies and policy shifts, such as Badenoch's 'net-zero sceptic' stance. What's the Truss defence? The usual – her supposedly brilliant plan to turbocharge the British economy was thwarted by a terrible econo-bureaucratic blob and those, to the visionary Truss, idiots at the Bank of England. But increasingly she is having to adapt her line because of attacks from her own party (if she is indeed still in it), which means slagging off the administrations that came before her – Cameron, May, Johnson – and after, Sunak and now Badenoch's performance as leader of the opposition: 'It is disappointing that instead of serious thinking like this, Kemi Badenoch is instead repeating spurious narratives. I suspect she is doing this to divert from the real failures of 14 years of Conservative government in which her supporters are particularly implicated.' Er... weren't they both members of these dreadful governments? Yes. Truss continuously from 2012 to her ousting in 2022, and Badenoch from 2019 to 2024. Indeed, it was Truss who promoted Badenoch to the cabinet as international trade secretary. Neither showed much dissent, publicly or privately. Why are they scrapping? Neither wants to take responsibility for their own failures as a party leader, and that can inevitably lead to blame throwing for their disastrous showing at the election, and subsequently. But all politicians in all parties who find themselves thrashed by the voters are faced with this excruciating dilemma as they enter the wilderness of life in opposition: Do they denounce the record and policies of the government they were apparently happy to be a part of? Or do they defend their record instead? Do they agree with the voters' verdict or not? And if they want to, or have to, admit 'mistakes', are they going to be big or smaller ones? How to play it? By ear – there are no hard rules. Back in the 1970s, Margaret Thatcher, as leader of the opposition, did well out of renouncing most of what the Heath government had done because it ended in such chaos, and Thatcher was (like Badenoch today) a relatively junior cabinet member who could claim some innocence. In due course, because public opinion had shifted during the Blair years, David Cameron found that he'd have to criticise Thatcher herself, so he declared that 'there is such a thing as society' and told his fractious party to 'stop banging on about Europe'. Ed Miliband, after Labour's defeat in 2010, never seemed able to make up his mind about whether the Brown administration (in which he served) had failed, and, if so, how and why. Try as he might, Nick Clegg could never grovel sufficiently for what he did on tuition fees in the coalition government, and the Lib Dems were so punished at the 2015 general election that they were left with eight MPs compared to the 56 elected in 2010. At the moment, the Conservative-led government of 2010 to 2024 has few friends and many critics, the most vociferous being some of its leading lights. In this respect, the party is behaving more like Labour traditionally does after a defeat. Thus, after the 1974-79 Labour government fell from power, it was attacked by the Bennites on the Labour left for being too right-wing, and by the social democrats on the right for being too left-wing. Eventually, the long passage of time made arguments about pay policy, union power and unilateralism irrelevant. One day, when people have forgotten who Truss and Badenoch were, they may be ready to give the Tories a hearing. But, with Farage on their right flank, with no qualms about slagging off the last government, the Conservatives may not have the luxury of time to settle their differences and focus their attacks on him.
The National
13 hours ago
- The National
Human rights 'at risk as Police Scotland arrest Palestine activists'
The chair of the commission, a public body accountable to the Scottish Parliament, has written to both the Lord Advocate and the Chief Constable raising concerns around the policing of protests since the UK Government proscribed Palestine Action as a terror group. The Labour Government's move, which is facing a challenge in the courts, means it is now a criminal offence to support or be a member of Palestine Action, which is punishable by up to 14 years in prison. However, Professor Angela O'Hagan, the SHRC chair, has warned that policing of the proscribed group may be putting people's human rights at risk. READ MORE: Woman, 70, arrested under terror law after Edinburgh Gaza march 'It is vital that Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service remember that there are very narrow circumstances under which political speech and ideas can be lawfully restricted, under European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR],' O'Hagan said. 'Whether the proscription of Palestine Action amounts to a justified interference is a matter for the courts and UK Parliament. However, the proscription should not and does not inhibit the right to peaceful protest. 'There is a difference between support for a proscribed organisation and support for a political or moral viewpoint. Law enforcement that does not recognise this distinction is a risk to human rights. 'We urge Police Scotland to issue clear guidance to officers on the need for proportionality in their policing.' As The National has reported, activists in Scotland have been charged under terror laws for allegedly supporting Palestine Action. In one incident outside TRSNMT festival in July, a man was charged for wearing a T-shirt produced by the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign which read 'Genocide in Palestine time to take action'. In her letter, which Justice Secretary Angela Constance has also been sent, O'Hagan states: 'The SHRC is concerned that the application of the Terrorism Act 2000 in some of these arrests risks disproportionately restricting the right to peaceful protest, which is guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR. 'The right to free expression is protected by Article 10 ECHR. It protects the right to hold opinions and exchange and impart information, including the expression element of peaceful protest. This protection extends to speech that may be found offensive, shocking or disturbing. 'Article 11 protects the right to assembly and association. This protects the right to peaceful assembly, and it cannot be interpreted restrictively. 'In essence, this means that peaceful protest is highly likely to be covered regardless of the topic of concern.' Police Scotland chief constable Jo Farrell (Image: Andrew Milligan) She went on: 'An individual being arrested for the expression of views at a protest – including expressing support for a banned group – constitutes an interference under Article 10 ECHR and any restriction must be proportionate. 'Likewise, the policing of any protest engages the right to free assembly under Article 11 and therefore must be done in a proportionate manner. She added: 'The SHRC is concerned that strict oversight and explicit proportionality assessment must be applied to operational decision-making in order to take proper account of the necessary limitations on interference with rights, and to draw a reasonable distinction between support for a proscribed organisation and support for a political or moral viewpoint, which otherwise may pose a risk to human rights.' READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: The ban on Palestine Action is to scare folk into passivity It comes after the UN's human rights chief, Volker Türk, warned that Labour's proscription of Palestine Action raised 'serious concerns that counter-terrorism laws are being applied to conduct that is not terrorist in nature and risks hindering the legitimate exercise of fundamental freedoms across the UK'. Türk called on the UK Government to 'review and revise its counter-terrorism legislation, including its definition of terrorist acts, to bring it fully in line with international human rights norms and standards'. [[Police Scotland]] and the Scottish Government have been approached for comment.
