I have the good fortune to rarely lose sleep. I don't underestimate the benefit. Just to remind me of how big that is I did lose sleep last night. I could not unwind from the anger I felt about comments Keir Starmer made yesterday.
Interviewed by the BBC in Scotland he seemingly set out to alienate as many people as possible. He definitely succeeded with me.
First, he appeared to rule out a referendum on Scottish independence, making clear that he is yet another colonising English politician as a result.
Then he ruled out ever going back to the EU or ever reintroducing freedom of movement for the people of this country again, alienating not only the majority in the UK as a whole who think Brexit a mistake but the majority in Scotland who see this as the reason for independence.
And then, within that context he had this to say:
Asked how many people he would be prepared to let into the country under a managed migration plan, he said: "We don't want open borders. Freedom of movement has gone and it's not coming back.
"So that means fair rules, firm rules, a points-based system.
"What I would like to see is the numbers go down in some areas. I think we're recruiting too many people from overseas into, for example, the health service.
"But on the other hand, if we need high-skilled people in innovation in tech to set up factories etc, then I would encourage that."
This tweet has the video of this comment:
'Freedom of movement has gone and it's not coming back. What I would like to see is the numbers go down in some areas. I think we're recruiting too many people from overseas into, for example, the health service' pic.twitter.com/q2k1t7z2Sx
— j (@jrc1921) November 6, 2022
I admit that I was furious on hearing this. Having lived with an NHS GP (albeit retired now because of ill health) for many years I know all the problems that the white racist population cause in the NHS, with people frequently telling both hospitals and GP surgeries that they do not want to be seen by foreign staff. You can imagine the devastation that this causes for the staff involved, and also for their colleagues who then have to see these people feeling laden with guilt for their colleagues who have been exposed to the humiliation of the refusal of the patient to see them.
Knowing that my reaction was this:
I was far from being alone in being appalled: the disgust was all over my Twitter timeline. This was a moderate version:
I wish I could think this inadvertent: I will be candid and say I do not. I think it was entirely deliberate. The deliberate framing does not allow for anything other interpretation.
This poll was indicative of sentiment:
Some Labour supporters, including an MP, said I had misinterpreted the comments and that Starmer was simply saying we should a) train more staff and b) not denude other countries of their staff. If he had said that I would have entirely agreed. That is true, except it takes years to happen and we need staff in the meantime, not least because so many are leaving because of poor pay and conditions on which labour is offering them precisely no support at all. But that is not what Starmer said. He said the NHS has too many foreign staff, and that is a dog-whistle for the racists who will use that as an excuse to attack all non-white British staff, many of whom are as British as they are, of course.
I remain furious with Starmer this morning, on this issue, about Labour's refusal via Ed Miliband to support nurses yesterday, about the EU, about Scotland, and about its total failure to offer any credible economic thinking in the face of recession and even depression.
But most of all I cannot readily forgive the abuse of hundreds of thousands of NHS staff that Starmer encouraged with this comment yesterday. I am shocked, appalled and disgusted.
I have argued for a vote for Anything But Conservative at the next election but with Starmer in charge of Labour making comments like this I doubt I could vote for Labour now. I loathe those who seek to divide society in the way Starmer is clearly seeking to do. How can a party headed by him form a credible government?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The interview showed that Starmer and Liebore are anti-democratic.
We knew that the B.Liar faction in Liebore always was anti-democratic but never was this so explicitly stated as by Starmer. I’ve said it before & I’ll say it again, I’ll be funding “the other bunch” (who I don’t like much) to make sure they win as many seats as possible in an effort to get a hung parliament. Starmer/Liebore cannot be allowed to run gov all on their own or it will be back to the old days of B.Liar/Broon/PFI etc etc. Starmer’s name sake must be rotating in his grave, perhaps Starmer should change his 1st name to something more suitable – “Troy-lite”? (reversal intended).
Mike, I’ve often wondered why I have disliked Starmer from a little after he became leader. It is, sadly, becoming clearer and clearer.
During the beginning of Starmer’s leadership of labour I posited that he was an establishment plant to destroy the Labour party as a bit of a joke. However, as he has continued and progressively destroyed anything that resembles what a Labour Party should stand for I become far more serious in my assertion. Under him the Labour Party is not only expelling anyone who has ever expressed support for Palestinians or socialism, he is destroying the internal democracy of the Labour party and rigging elections, including trying to remove any existing Labour MP who has a belief in socialism. https://skwawkbox.org/2022/11/06/breaking-byrne-asks-electoral-commission-to-investigate-mass-labour-abuses-in-selection-contest/
It is also noteworthy that it was under his watch as head of CPS that he positively refused to allow Sweden to come and interview Julian Assange, and he has never said anything about the appalling conditions that Assange is being held in.
The old right wing Labour view was that Labour cannot win power without the “middle of the road voters in marginal constituencies.”
Now it seems Starmer is targeting the lumpen working class racists that Enoch Powell targeted in England in the 1960s and in N Ireland in the 1970s.
Wow, just wow.
Aye, we’ll keep the Red Flag flying.
Doesn’t he realise that the only time a racist/fascist listens, is when you have your boot on their throat?
Please, let’s not descend to that “boot on their throat” level of discussion.
It was precisely by putting his boot on their throat that enabled my father and millions of his generation to destroy fascism the first time round. Don’t forget violence is fascism’s modus operandi. Appeasement never stopped them.
Sadly, Cliff, you are right. I wish it were otherwise.
How about ‘heads on poles’ then? That and similar violence are all that’s left when one’s views have no political representation.
Hi Richard. Thank you for these comments which I totally agree with. I am a member of the LP and supported Starmer’s leadership bid. His comments left me feeling betrayed, angry and taken for granted. He needs to put a clear distance between Labour and Tory policy, which he fails to do. Sadly our FPTP system is failing us all. Please come and work with @RebootGB on our Citizens Charter and strategy for rejoining the EU. Contact Liz Crosby admin@alliancenow.co.uk
I simply do not gave the time, sorry
Utterly appalling. The language was exactly the racist dog-whistle kind – not just ‘foreign’ but the crypto-racist trope “overseas”. When I saw posts mentioning this, I thought it must be being spun or otherwise massaged – but, not so. It really was just disgusting and along with the anti-free movement complacency an insult to the thousands waiting for appointments and to the millions now suffering anti-Brexit regret. How many people does this idiot want to alienate? And which media ‘barons’ is he so deluded as to think he may appease by this kind of display? I’m afraid that, as a Scot, I was already inured to the Labour Party’s staunch anti-democratic nature; they have long betrayed their own supporters and all of my country – but this was a new and truly awful low.
“Some Labour supporters, including an MP, said I had misinterpreted the comments and that Starmer was simply saying we should a) train more staff and b) not denude other countries of their staff.”
I think it was a coldly calculated response from him with some wiggle room in interpretation to give his MPs and the liberal media who back him cover to respond as those did to you. For them to be able to face their constituents and the party members and their base.
But its most important goal was as a dog whistle to certain parts of the British public they are targeting. Which is grim, cynical stuff
I wonder if it will backfire as it’s a fundamentally shameful thing to say and his supporters know it. A lot of the soft left who have turned a blind eye to Starmer’s right wing messaging because they are sick of losing to the Tories will be feeling a great deal of shame after the last week of media from the party and they’ll only go along for so long if it continues. NHS staff are amongst Labour’s staunchest supporters and I can’t imagine they’re happy this morning having watched Starmer throw co-workers and colleagues under the bus like this.
Personally I’m furious. To continue full speed ahead with the sort of anti-immigrant rhetoric Labour have been indulging in this week after a terrorist attack on an immigration centre is unforgivable.
Thanks
I have seen comments (Twitter) from Labour supporters saying that Starmer is being careful to “keep his powder dry) until he gets in office. He can then be free to pursue more socialist policies and move to rejoin the EU. But that is clearly not the case is it. Starmer really is not offering anything other than he’s not Conservative. But really that’s in name only. So far he’s not as extreme but he’s clearly not a socialist.
I agree with you
There is not a hint of anything left of centre about Starmer
Re Starmer and Brexit: have you read Larry Elliot’s item in The Guardian this morning?
I disagree with it
Disappointing is a kind description
Labour has always been seen by the ruling class as the B-Team – if the A-Team, Tories of course, are unable to control the economy for the elite any more, then the B-Team is expected to come in and do the job, while wringing their hands, about how they “have” to do it (state of the economy, “reality”, needing the middle-ground, which is aka the right wing of the population, and so on). What is unusual here is that Starmer (and Mandelson) have gone for this first – even before they are in power. Usually it is a matter of promises, a few of which are kept (though mostly liberal window-dressing that affect nothing underneath, like Sturgeon’s SNP in this regard), most are not. There is no conspiracy in this – it is the way ruling classes work the world over, unless they are physically removed. It is though for Starmer a big gamble – in Scotland Labour relied on “who else can they vote for?” and see how that turned out? He may just win that gamble, but it will be tighter than he thinks, I suspect. And he may not win.
Entirely in line with his other outrageous right wing comments such as: “I am a Zionist without qualification”.
I had this published a while ago
https://centralbylines.co.uk/letter-to-the-editor-on-labour-shortages-across-the-uk/
That of course was before the article in the FT which pointed out that UK wages are heading towards the wages you get in Slovenia for a lot of the population so many migrant workers are now able to earn as much or more as at home.
Secondly there never was the right of free movement within the EU, there are various limitations to this right however the UK never chose to apply them. It was interesting to hear someone describing living in Belgium where as with most European Nations you have an ID Card/Population Register and you have to register within three months of a move. If you weren’t earning enough then you had to leave, which would I suggest have put a damper on a lot of illegal or exploitative employment
It does suggest that Oliver Eagleton’s book about Starmer, decried by many in Labour as the work of a Corbynista (whatever that is supposed to be) is actually pretty accurate (and well-referenced).
I agree with the criticisms of Starmer’s right wing policies. I don’t understand why that does not go together with strong support for the Green Party whose policies would reverse the 40 year shift of wealth and income from the majority to the richest and would make us leaders in the struggle to save the planet.
I will have to read more on Green policy
I look forward to reading any conclusions you reach about the Green Party policies which you feel like to sharing.
Agree with most of what you say but this is kind of turning up the hyperbole to 11 Richard. Starmer’s centrism is depressing but his comments were pretty innocuous in a time when there are fascist governments springing up everywhere. He didn’t say anything racist – I wouldn’t even call it a dog whistle, it was just trying to get every single red wall seat without taking the trouble to outline an alternative Britain. Annoying for those who want a more hopeful vision but hardly particularly extreme.
It was repulsive
You’re banned here for apologising for it
This guy could be right about Starmer trying to appeal to the red wall people IMO, it’s something which ocurred to me just now making a cuppa in the kitchen between comments and I wander back in (slurp) to find the suggestion’s just been made. The inelegant and insensitive Starmer fails to realise in appealing to such low characters he’s utterly alienating the more liberal middle classes who he similarly depends on. He should never have been leader of a Labour party, never ever. Still, the country’s toast now whatever happens. I await, as I said many years ago when I was first commenting here, the greatest period of civil unrest since Cromwellian times. After that, who knows?
There are a lot of ex-members of the labour party who have known this all along. From now on, other voters will know this.
The fact that he has made the tory MP who crossed the floor a whip shows which side he is on.
I have two daughters in law, both teachers, who are Danish and Spanish respectively. It won’t be long before he says the same about teachers, even though both of them got their degrees here, having been given grants from their respective countries.
Teachers are having the same recruitment and retention problems as the NHS.
Both Starmer and his health secretary are being funded by hedgefund managers.
https://inwhoseinterests.home.blog/2022/06/08/hedge-fund-labour-why-is-the-party-of-the-nhs-now-receiving-money-from-private-health-investors/
That could explain a lot, although it doesn’t explain why they accepted the money in the first place. The labour party is almost bankrupt now because of the number of members that have left or been expelled.
I just feel desolate at having the party I believed in taken away from me. I left when he went back on his ten agreements which enabled him to be elected as leader.
I find Starmer very disappointing overall but I tend to think that if Labour formed a government and he were asked about these remarks he would indeed say that what he meant was that ‘we should a) train more staff and b) not denude other countries of their staff’ (both of which I would agree with). But his words were nonetheless depressing, as you say. I’m not sure I see a problem with a points-based immigration system in principle though – it depends on the detail, doesn’t it?
It takes ten years to train a doctor
What will he do in the meantime?
They will be and are filling the gaps (or trying to) with Nurse Practitioners. The one I regularly have phone appointments with seems fine to me. I have no complaints. However, I do gather figures suggest people live longer when supported by one doctor who sees them whenever needed rather than having a chat on the phone with them so phone consultations themselves do need to be a temporary solution.
Phone consultations are massively effective for many people
Not all, but often they are fine
Reply to Bill Kruse
Having Nurse Practitioners do more of what a GP has done in the past whilst takes nurses away from their previous role leaving another hole to be filled. Granted it doesn’t take as long as training a GP, but…There is of course the other role that has been dreamt up: Physician Associate – a bio science degree + 2 years training and you can be a pretend GP. Thanks but no thanks as far as I’m concerned. https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/medical-associate-professions/roles-medical-associate-professions/physician-associate/physician-associate
The endgame no doubt being to establish a two-tier system where the poor see substitutes as above and only those who pay get to see a doctor.
There is a valid sub text to all of this in that this stupid country has been under-investing in training and recruitment for years.
I’ve seen enough schools who have had to close down vocational training centres due to austerity to last me a lifetime.
Public sector pay has been reduced by 25% since 2010; NHS budgets frozen at 2010 levels to usher in real drops in funding via the back door. But not much said about this by Labour, Hmmm.
But to come out with this statement – laying blame on those who have filled a self-created gap – is just not on. This to me is the Blue Labour project all over again, the Labour party of Maurice Glasman and Paul Embery – the FLP – the Fascist Labour Party.
In a review of Embery’s book ‘Despised’ I wrote on Amazon:
‘As for Paul – I understand that as well as being frustrated and fearful about the future he is also a fireman by trade. In that case he should know better than to play with fire. His book does. We need to extinguish populism and replace its over emotionalism with something better.’
That something is reliving the ‘can do’ of Clem Attlee.
I’m sorry Keir but nothing else will do. It’s the Attlee Way or No Way will I be voting for you, you sad f**k.
For goodness’s sake get rid of your advisors and wake up boy. This is not the right route to take.
You know – as soon as Labour starts to spend money and invest in the country, all the petty squabbles that are identity politics will magically disappear as people stop competing for less.
It’s abundance that makes people happy – look at how the rich pricks above – straight, gay, black, white, Russian whatever all get on because they’ve all got something in common – a big wad, more than enough money.
Well, that’s all real people need as well – enough to live on, save, buy a house maybe and able to afford the prices the greedy rentiers charge for their services so that they too can live in harmony with their neighbours. Except for some reason that’s not allowed because all the rich dicks have taken all the money for themselves anyway.
And that’s the problem right there. And all Starmer can do is look at a symptom and call it the cause.
Hopeless bollocks does not make a prime minister. But after Truss I suppose anything can happen.
The interview either highlighted Starmers robotic inability to spot a bear trap no matter how obvious or revealed what him and his like really think in the Labour Party. Given the revelations in the leaked report and the conclusions of the Forde report I know where my monies at. There are lines that should not be crossed.
I can only assume he is pandering to the white van man. Anyhow I truly do not believe in completely open borders and I am a hard anti-capitalist. I firmly believe that a nation’s population should never exceed its ability to feed itself and my mind will never change on that fact. I do understand that there are economic consequences to my line of thinking.
What I want to see is MMT for infrastructure, public housing and services and in the form of counter cyclical welfare payments. An OECD agreement to fight inequality with capital taxes to make sure billionaires do not exist in the future. I don’t want to need to resort to wealth and inheritance taxes. Starmer couldn’t be further from my line of thinking.
I thought freedom of movement was a very positive part of EU membership. No country can have open borders as the world is, so that comment is a distraction, but we need people and we must allow refugees who arrive here however a place in our country. There was an excellent column on immigration by Craig Murray “Rampant Deprofessionalisation” two days ago that explains how we are being trashed. I remember Starmer getting huge applause at a Labour Party conference for saying there would be another referendum on EU membership. Do politicians think we don’t note their twists and turns?
Looking at the interview video and seeing the comments here, I acknowledge the criticisms of Starmer’s views on Brexit, open borders, immigrants, NHS staffing etc. However it’s worth remembering that this was a BBC Scotland production primarily for consumption in Scotland and, viewed from my Scottish-resident perspective, Starmer’s views and arguments came across as “foreign news”.
I saw a man who views everything through the eyes of a Westminster politician, yet so many of his views didn’t sound remotely like those of a leader of the Labour Party. On matters relating to Scotland he combined persistent dodging of tricky questions with misrepresentation of facts for which Martin Geissler should have been better prepared (Starmer’s assertion that NHS Scotland Waiting Lists are the worst in the UK at 1 in 7 of the population is easily disproved – latest figures suggest 1 in 12, whereas NHS England’s comparable stats show 1 in 8, although with the caveats that they may not be identically structured and the lack of information on average waiting times i.e. patient “churn”).
I thought Starmer particularly revealing when he couldn’t answer Geissler’s persistent questions on the UK-Union – is it a Union of concensus or is it impossible for one of its member nations to leave despite having won mandates for an independence referendum in multiple elections? Starmer tried wriggling out of this by stating that priorities overrule all other considerations, to which Geissler countered with “even manifesto pledges, electoral mandates and the democratic rights of a majority of the people?”, but was talked over by Starmer without addressing the question. To me that categorises Starmer as having a colonial mindset and scant regard for democracy.
He went on to demonstrate his ignorance of Scottish politics when he suggested that polls demonstrate that Labour is resurgent in Scotland and could win the next election here. Clearly he is unaware of Prof Curtice’s polls analysis which shows that the recent small upswing in support for Labour has been at the expense of the Tories, not the SNP, so it has no effect on likely outcomes of an independence referendum or Holyrood elections.
The lingering feeling I got was that Starmer has made life tougher for Labour in Scotland by his poor showing in debate and betrayal of socialist principles – let’s not forget that Scotland’s politics (with the exception of the Tories) are largely based on socialist principles. Above all he showed his ignorance of Scottish affairs and left me thinking he doesn’t care either. Martin Geissler has been mistrusted by a lot of independence supporting Scots, but I suspect they have mistaken his probing questioning for anti-Independence/SNP sentiment, when in fact he’s been doing what he’s paid for: being impartial, asking intelligent questions and holding power to account, as he showed here.
Thanks Ken