Labour upset over Starmer's ‘island of strangers' speech regret
Sir Keir Starmer is facing fresh criticism from ministers after saying he 'deeply regrets' warning that Britain risked becoming an 'island of strangers' without tough curbs on migration.
The prime minister was criticised for the speech in May in which he appeared to echo Enoch Powell's infamous 'rivers of blood' speech in 1968. Powell claimed Britain's white population would be 'strangers in their own country'.
After the speech, the prime minister's official spokesman said he 'absolutely stands by' the language, which included a warning that mass immigration had done 'incalculable damage' to the economy.
• Echoes of Enoch Powell drown out Labour's migrant message
A succession of ministers defended the prime minister's choice of language in the days after the speech. However, in an interview with his biographer Tom Baldwin in The Observer, Starmer said he regretted the speech.
He said: 'I wouldn't have used those words if I had known they were, or even would be, interpreted as an echo of Powell. I had no idea — and my speechwriters didn't know either. But that particular phrase — no, it wasn't right. I'll give you the honest truth: I deeply regret using it.'
• How vampire bats explain Keir Starmer's 'strangers'
A minister said: 'I don't understand why he's apologising now after we all went out of our way to defend him at the time. It doesn't make any sense. Why is he doing it?'
Starmer also conceded there were 'problems with his language' after he said that record numbers of migrants entering Britain under the last government had done 'incalculable damage'.
• Immigration to UK 'will fall by 100,000 a year' under new rules
In his speech in May, Starmer said: 'Let me put it this way. Nations depend on rules, fair rules. Sometimes they are written down, often they are not. But either way, they give shape to our values, guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to each other. In a diverse nation like ours … we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.'
The comments were criticised at the time by Labour MPs. Sarah Owen, chair of the women and equalities committee, who is of Malaysian-Chinese heritage, said: 'Chasing the tail of the right risks taking our country down a dark path. The best way to avoid becoming an 'island of strangers' is investing in communities to thrive, not pitting people against each other.'
Nadia Whittome, another Labour MP, said the rhetoric was 'shameful and dangerous'. She said: 'To suggest Britain risks becoming 'an island of strangers' because of immigration mimics the scaremongering of the far right.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
22 minutes ago
- ITV News
Starmer has ‘every confidence' in the First Minister and Welsh Labour ahead of Senedd election
The Prime Minister says he has 'every confidence in the First Minister and Welsh Labour' ahead of next year's Senedd election. Sir Keir Starmer was speaking to ITV Cymru Wales on a visit to RAF Valley on Anglesey. He'll also speak to Welsh Labour members at the party's conference in Llandudno today. In her speech to the conference, Eluned Morgan is expected to underline how difficult next year will be, saying that 'The next Senedd election won't be a routine affair. It will be a moment of reckoning. "Reform are rising. Plaid are mobilising. And across the country, people are asking big, serious questions about the kind of future they want for Wales.' The most recent Barn Cymru poll for ITV Wales and Cardiff University suggests that Labour could come third behind Plaid Cymru and Reform UK. Starmer to warn of 'backroom stitch-up' in Welsh elections I asked Keir Starmer if he was worried that Labour might lose Wales after more than a quarter of a century in power and a century dominating Welsh politics. He said that 'I have every confidence in the First Minister and Welsh Labour. They have delivered over many years for Wales and we have the added advantage now that, with a Labour government in Westminster, working hand in hand with the Welsh Government we are able to deliver... ...just to give some examples, the biggest settlement in the budget since devolution, hugely important under the spending review; much more money into transport in Wales; money for coal tips; money into the energy sector; supporting through the defence spend the 6,000 or so jobs in Wales. 'That's the benefit of having a Prime Minister and a First Minister who, yes, engage and of course the First Minister argues and makes her point and challenges and puts her propositions forward, as she should , as I'd expect. "And then we engage together and we deliver for Wales and what we both have in our mind is 'are we delivering for the people of Wales?' And the answer to that is yes, look at what we've done in the spending review, in the budget.' The Prime Minister's visit comes after a week in which he was forced to make major concessions on plans to reform disability welfare payments, following a threatened rebellion by Labour backbenchers. I asked him why it had taken that threat to force him to act and not earlier calls for a rethink from the First Minister. He said, 'I think that's the opposite of what you've just put to me because, true it is that the First Minister raised issues with me; we've been engaging with her and others. And look, for me, some of these things are common sense. "I want to get this right. I want the package right and therefore we've had a discussion with the First Minister and others as a result of which we've changed the package and that means that we can deliver the overall reform that we need now. 'In politics sometimes people pretend it's much more complicated than it is. It's common sense to hold a proposition up to the light and make sure it's the right package. We've done that now, we've adjusted the package, I'm pleased that we've gone through that exercise and now we can get on with delivery.' In her conference speech, Eluned Morgan, is expected to say that the 'moment of reckoning' created by the pressures from Plaid Cymru and Reform UK will mean that Labour needs to work together. She's expected to say, 'This is not a moment to look away. This is the moment to look forward - a moment of maximum opportunity and, yes, also of serious threat. It's time to stand up. It's time to get involved. 'Now, for the first time in a generation, we have two Labour governments - in Cardiff and Westminster - working together, pulling in the same direction. 'Reform don't want to protect the NHS - they want to dismantle it. Rip it up and replace it with an insurance system. Privatised. Profit-driven. Out of reach for the people who need it most. Because in their world, your health depends on your wealth. 'They point to problems. We are the party of answers - not the party of excuses. Not the party of fear. But make no mistake - they are a threat. To your NHS. To your rights. To our Welsh way of life.' Meanwhile, the Welsh Secretary Jo Stevens will announce a new £11 million fund for businesses in Port Talbot and the surrounding area s. She's expected to tell the conference that the 'Economic Growth and Investment Fund' wil support companies that take on workers in that region. Away from politics, perhaps the most difficult question of all, knowing that the Prime Minister is a big football fan and a supporter of England, is who would he support in the Euros, Wales or England? 'The third game is England versus Wales. I went to see the Lionesses and we discussed that very fixture. I'm afraid I'm going to have to say this: good luck to Wales in every game other than when they play England because I'm an England fan and I will be supporting England on that occasion. "But for all other games the best of luck [to Wales] - it'll be a great game and the Lionesses know that that is going to be a really important game in the group and I've talked it through with them and their preparation for it.'
The Guardian
30 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Starmer still faces Labour anger over risk of ‘two-tier' disability benefits
Keir Starmer is battling to stem the revolt over his cuts to disability benefits, with about 50 Labour MPs concerned the new concessions will create a 'two-tier' system where existing and new claimants are treated differently. Senior government sources insisted things were 'moving in the right direction' for No 10, with the whips phoning backbenchers to persuade them to support the bill on Tuesday. Government insiders said they believed they had peeled off enough of the original 120-plus Labour opponents of the legislation to win the vote, after the work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, promised to exempt current disability claimants from the changes, and to increase the health element of universal credit in line with inflation. However, rebel MPs will attempt to lay a new amendment on Monday giving colleagues a chance to delay the bill, which will still involve £2.5bn of cuts to future disability benefits. The continuing row over the changes is likely to blight the week that will mark the first anniversary of Labour's return to power. In an interview on Thursday, Starmer admitted to a range of mistakes – including using the phrase 'an island of strangers' in an immigration speech, and hiring his former chief of staff Sue Gray. His government has made a series of U-turns in the last 12 months, but his handling of the welfare bill might be the most damaging episode of them all. Starmer will next week be hoping to draw a line under the difficult period, in which the government has also reversed cuts to winter fuel payments and changed course over holding an inquiry into grooming gangs. Dozens of Labour MPs are continuing to criticise the welfare cuts on a Labour WhatsApp group. Many MPs are still undecided about how they will vote and are pressing for more assurances that it is ethical and legal to set up a division between current and future claimants. Disability charities have said the bill remains 'fatally flawed' and will lead to an 'unequal future' for different groups of disabled people, making life harder for hundreds of thousands of future claimants. The government confirmed on Friday night that people who have to make new claims for Pip after November 2026 will be assessed under the new criteria. This means those reapplying after losing their Pip or who have fluctuating health conditions will not have the level of their previous awards protected. Starmer defended the bill on Friday, saying it struck the right balance. The changes will protect 370,000 existing recipients who were expected to lose out after reassessment. The prime minister said: 'We talked to colleagues, who've made powerful representations, as a result of which we've got a package which I think will work, we can get it right.' Asked how the government would pay for the £3bn of concessions, which experts believe will have to be funded by tax rises or extra borrowing, Starmer replied: 'The funding will be set out in the budget in the usual way, as you'd expect, later in the year.' There would need to be at least 80 rebels to defeat the bill, and government sources were quietly confident they had given enough ground after Meg Hillier, the chair of the Treasury committee, said she would back the legislation following changes. Others were unconvinced. One leading rebel said 'everyone but a handful of people is unhappy', even if they do end up reluctantly backing the changed legislation. Another expressed frustration that No 10 and the whips were 'trying to bounce people into agreeing before we've seen enough details'. Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, a leading opponent of the bill, said: 'They are going to have to go back to the negotiating table … deaf and disabled people's organisations are rejecting these changes as it fails to address future need and gives no security for people with fluctuating conditions, for instance where people are in remission.' Other critics who plan to vote against the bill include the MP for Crawley, Peter Lamb, who said: 'Despite many improvements to the system set out in the bill, at its core the bill remains a cost-cutting exercise. No matter the level of involvement of disability groups in co-producing a scheme for new applicants, to save money the new scheme has to result in people with high levels of need losing the support necessary to wash themselves, dress themselves and feed themselves.' Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Simon Opher, the MP for Stroud, said he still opposed the bill. 'The changes do not tackle the eligibility issues that are at the heart of many of the problems with Pip [personal independence payments]. The bill should be scrapped and we should start again and put the needs of disabled people at the centre of the process.' Diane Abbott, a leading figure from the left of Labour, said the rebellion was 'far from over', while another Labour MP said: 'The bill starts from the premise of cuts, not reform. It's also arse about face in terms of impact assessments and co-production. It's simply a negotiated dog's dinner. In that sense, nothing has really changed except the fact they've negotiated more [people to] misguidedly to sign up to it.' One thing Labour MPs are pushing for is more clarity on the review of the Pip system, due to be done before autumn by Stephen Timms, a work and pensions minister. Many expect that process to change the points system from the current proposals. Some in the party also want Starmer to reinstate Vicky Foxcroft, who quit as a whip to vote against the bill before the U-turn was made. Stella Creasy, a leading Labour MP who had initially signed the amendment to delay the bill, said she wanted to see more details. 'We need to understand why we would treat one group of claimants differently from another,' she said. A Labour MP from the 2024 intake said: 'I'm waiting to look at the details before making any decisions. Many are in the same place as me and need to get something more than a midnight email on an issue of this much importance to hundreds of thousands of people.' The Labour MPs opposed to the changes are citing a fundamental rejection of the idea that a Labour government will be making disabled people worse off. At the same time, many of them have also been alienated by what they say is a No 10 operation that is out of touch with the parliamentary party, and has tried to strongarm MPs into backing the legislation with threats and promises of preferment. 'Good will has been lost and there is still huge suspicion about whether they will try and pull a stunt at the last minute,' said one Labour MP. The majority of disability charities and campaign groups still opposed the cuts. Ellen Clifford, from Disabled People Against Cuts, said: 'Many people who rely on Pip to survive have fluctuating conditions which means our support needs can go up and down. By penalising existing claimants if we go out of and then go back to the benefits system depending on our health, more people will be denied the support they need. 'This is exactly why no disabled people's organisation across the whole of the UK has welcomed these concessions because we know the complexities of the social security system and bitter experience from years of cuts that there are many ways in which grand sweeping statements about protections translate to very little in practice when you go into the detail of it.' The disability equality charity Scope said that despite the concessions, an estimated 430,000 future disabled claimants would be affected by 2029-30. Its strategy director, James Taylor, said: 'It is encouraging that the government is starting to listen to disabled people and MPs who have been campaigning for change for months. But these plans will still rip billions from the welfare system. 'The proposed concessions will create a two-tier benefits system and an unequal future for disabled people. Life costs more if you are disabled. And these cuts will have a devastating effect on disabled people's health, ability to live independently or work.' Additional reporting by Frances Ryan
The Guardian
33 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Worse than anything under the Tories': changes to welfare bill anger disability campaigners
'As a community we feel totally let down and these last-minute concessions do nothing to make up for that,' Andy Mitchell, a disability campaigner and a member of Unite Community, says. 'My friends are scared. Some have spoken about suicide. This is worse than anything that happened under the Tories.' With the government offering major concessions to the welfare bill, ministers will be hoping critics have at last been appeased. But many campaigners have reacted with anger and concern over the changes. Disabled people's organisations, such as Inclusion London, WinVisible and Long Covid Advocacy, have told the Guardian that plans to exempt only existing claimants from the cuts will create a 'two-tier' benefit system that 'condemns' future disabled people to poverty. 'Protecting entitlements for current recipients is the right thing to do and if it's right for current recipients then it has to be the right thing for future claimants too,' says Tracey Lazard, CEO of Inclusion London. 'Even with these concessions, the bill before parliament is not a reform – it's still rationing. There is no moral or economic case for balancing the books on the backs of disabled people. MPs must not condemn future disabled people to the poverty and indignity these devastating planned cuts will cause.' Claire Every, spokesperson for Long Covid Advocacy said: 'A last-minute napkin deal will not assure safety for disabled people. The concessions create an unfair two-tier system – it is unethical to only throw some people under the bus. 'These changes will negatively impact people with long Covid as they discriminate against those with fluctuating disabilities and will see those who contract the illness in the future receive less support than those who fell ill earlier in the pandemic,' she added. Some campaigners warn that a system that treats new and old claimants differently could lead to future legal challenges against the government. 'How can you justify someone with the same impairments getting two different rates of social security payments based solely on [when they applied or how long they've been ill]? Is it even legal?' says Linda Burnip from Disabled People Against Cuts. 'The concessions are ridiculous and [effectively mean] anyone not already ill or disabled in Britain can't become ill or disabled and expect to have enough money to live on in the future.' Others have accused the government of trying to sow division within the disabled community to quell opposition to the bill. 'We refuse the government's divide-and-rule between old and new claimants, and MPs should keep voting against the horrendous cuts they are planning,' says Claire Glasman from WinVisible. 'We won't stop campaigning – new claimants lose out massively across Pip and universal credit, especially women with invisible and fluctuating conditions. Labour is still going after sick and disabled people. 'These offers of concessions are a glimpse into the window of the soul of the government; that they think people are protesting these cuts for their own gain not the wellbeing of all disabled people,' says Cherylee Houston, co-founder of the #TakingThePIP campaign. It is still unclear whether the concessions will protect eligibility for the connecting benefits to Pip, such as carer's allowance, she added. 'We don't agree to anything which doesn't safeguard future disabled people from abject poverty and despair. How can they draw a line to which people who become disabled after a certain date will not receive the support they need?' The government has pledged the entire criteria system will be reviewed in conjunction with disabled people, but disability groups told the Guardian they are concerned any changes from the review will not be made before the bill passes, while MPs will not have sufficient time to consider proposals. 'MPs are going to be voting on these concessions without people having a decent enough time to look and understand them,' says Mitchell. 'One of the points from the amendment was that disabled people hadn't been properly consulted, so how can it be right when these concessions have not been consulted on at all?' 'If concessions are possible, so is proper reform,' added Lazard. 'Fast-tracking a bill with such major consequences is irresponsible and cruel. It denies parliament, disabled people and the public real scrutiny. We urge MPs to stand your ground, stop this dangerous bill and demand better for everyone.'
