According to a report in The Telegraph this morning:
Sir Keir Starmer needs to stop “pussyfooting around” and make policy as decisively as Donald Trump, the chairman of Labour's Red Wall group of MPs has said.
Jo White has called on the Prime Minister to start showing some leadership after Labour suffered a string of defeats to Reform at Thursday's local elections, including losing the Runcorn and Helsby by-election.
She told the Prime Minister to “take a leaf” out of Donald Trump's book and announce policies such as a regional grooming gang inquiries, a crackdown on immigration and investment in left-behind industrial heartlands.
This group of Labour backbench MPs is particularly nasty and dangerously right-wing. I would describe the utterances of most of them that I have noticed as toxic. This is just another example, playing straight into the far-right agenda that is already failing in the US, and which will fail here in the UK when it becomes very apparent how dire Reform councils will turn out to be.
We do not want extra-parliamentary rule by our prime minister, with scant regard being shown for the democratic process.
The grooming gang issue has been investigated, and inquiries have been held, and the key thing is that recommended actions need to be taken (which the Tories totally failed to do), rather than more time being wasted in yet further inquiries, all of which pander to a far-right agenda that does not want solutions but which instead wants to provoke tension and fear.
A crackdown on immigration is a racist agenda: we cannot do without it.
And investment in industrial heartlands means what, precisely? I am not opposed to the idea, but the phrase is utterly meaningless.
This headless politics that is pandering to fear whilst fuelling it. It is the last thing we need. And almost ten per cent of Labour MPs are signed up to it. No wonder we are in deep trouble.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Oh God, so now we have a Labour Party with a Tory ‘1922 Committee’ style group to contend with – brilliant.
The aping of the Tories by Labour only to gain power is now almost complete.
The first two points (grooming gangs & immigrants) is dog-whistle stuff, as for “And investment in industrial heartlands”……….surely that means ta-da! an Amazon warehouse?.
The 10% of LINO MPs signed up shows the success of the LINO selection process for MPs – using the age old – brainless, nutless, gutless criteria.
It does seem as if the Uk is stuck in some strange stasis.
Jo White MP is married to John Mann, Baron Mann, former Labour MP for Bassetlaw and Antisemitism Tsar for the Conservatives.
IIRC he reported in the Commons that not one but two dead birds had been posted through his wife’s letterbox by antisemites. The journalist Kevin Maguire quized the story. He could believe one dead bird but not two and asked why would a non-Jewish local councillor be targeted by anti-semites, rather than by an angry constituent.
Sadly, there are many such incidents which tend to indicate that this couple are not good faith actors. You are completely on the money when you describe them as ‘particularly nasty and dangerously right-wing. I would describe the utterances of most of them that I have noticed as toxic.’
White is married to John Mann, a fervent right winger. These are the first moves to depose Starmer, note Streeting (Blairs choice) is doubling down on deportation. Politics in the UK has been totally subverted by the far right.
I was not aware of that.
He is truly revolting.
‘make policy as decisively as Donald Trump’ !!!
If someone thinks Trump is ‘decisive’ then the rest they have to say probably isn’t worth listening to.
Remind me how many times did the US tariff rate changed in April, and what has Trump decided the rate will be in June. We don’t know the latter because he doesn’t know.
Trump is the proverbial reed swayed by the wind.
“A crackdown on immigration is a racist agenda: we cannot do without it.”
Do not understand what this statement is trying to say.
If a crackdown on immigration is racist, would we not be better off “to do” or go forward without it?
Why does the UK need a crackdown, as currently enforced” on immigration?
I meant we cannot do without inward migration. That is a fact.
I’m not sure anyone is saying we need zero immigration, just we need to manage the level of immigration. That’s not racist, that’s simple economics.
That is not economics.
That is the exact economics. These people add value, as every economic analysis shows.
And the people you are talking about are a tiny proportion of the whole.
So I am right to look for another explanation for comments like yours. If it isn’t economics, what is it?
Regardless of what group is lobbying Starmer, I think we can be absolutely clear on one issue that’s been an open question for a while.
As I mentioned in a comment yesterday, and you’ve covered in a blog, there’s now convincing evidence from the Canadian and Australian elections that a move to (slightly) left of centre policies, and putting clear water between your party and Trump, is a winning strategy.
Consequently, over the next few months, if Starmer and co fail to follow that lead and pivot in that direction I think we can conclude that Starmer’s Party is never going to do so, and is conclusively “Labour in name only” (as I know plenty of people who read this blog already believe). In short, something very close to the Tories under Cameron.
What will then be interesting is whether the Lib Dems are prepared to undertake that pivot, and thus pick up all those people who can no longer bring themselves to vote for a LINO party (me). Or is it going to be the case that we enter the run up to the next election with four political parties ranged across the full spectrum and right wing politics.
Much to agree with
This is the , usually, simple method that I use to workout wether an utterance, or policy , is a good one : does it punch down ? If the answer is yes then I can safely say that it’s a poor idea. What do I mean by punching down , simply that already disadvantaged groups will be worse off.
Fair comment
You say that a crackdown on immigration is a racist agenda, but how do you square that with France being pretty similar racially to the UK and most of the immigration being complained about is people who have come from France.
Even Yvette Cooper, who is not among this cabal of Labour MPs, says that she wants to stop illegal immigration from France, and what is she doing to achieve her stated goal? Sweet fanny adams apart from observing that there are more crossings when the weather is favourable.
So serious question: is it racist to incentivise immigration from France as the current government are doing, or is it racist to seriously implement a solution which should stop it. It can’t be both.
The question is what is stupid.
There is no illegal immigration from France. Everyone has a legal entitlement to apply for asylum here. So your question makes no sense.
And France is not affiliating migration to here. No one is obliged to apply for asylum in France.
So, what is the solution? Give people boat tickets. Take the criminal gangs out of the game at a stroke. And invest in processing the claims very quickly, and then send those who don’t qualify (we know most will) back quickly. That is a humane and legal policy. It would also be a non-racist solution. Your question is laden with prejudice.
Don’t post again. I let you back once. I won’t again.
‘These people add value’
Which is absolute nonsense, and why you struggle so much with basic concepts around finance and economics.
Certain immigrants certainly add value – in aggregate, all immigration might add value (although it’s much more debatable whether that is really the case once you include the broader costs to public services etc, and certainly not the case when you look at the impact on GDP per capita). But it’s undeniable that plenty of immigrants do not add value and are a drain on the UK economy. Indeed it’s quite likely that a significant proportion of immigration is like this.
What some political parties are suggesting is to limit, where possible, immigration that is a net drain on the economy.
If you’re claiming that all immigration is beneficial, turn you are simply deluded. To claim that the people who are pointing this out to you are racist, rather than simply states undeniable facts, just makes you look stupid, in my opinion.
Now, set out your evidence.
Precisely please, given the conditions they face after being allowed to stay here. No bullshit. Please explain why people who must work, and do so mainly in jobs that other people do not want in the U.K., but need doing nonetheless, and who can’t claim benefits, and tend to be young, fit and without dependents, do not add value. As I say, precisely please.
You need to earn c. £30k to be a net contributor to the UK, on average. You honestly think that there aren’t a significant percentage of people who won’t ever earn anywhere near that?
If so, I have a bridge to sell you…
What a stupid comment.
You ignore added value, and that is crass.
This is good (if it happens):
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/05/green-deputy-zack-polanski-launches-leadership-bid-with-uk-eco-populism-vision
Polanski is a good communicator and – Polanski as leader, instead of the current arrangement – has been Owen Jones’s suggestion going forward in a Guardian piece he did a while back.
The Greens need to do more things that will ignite more of their untapped potential.
He has charisma