I put Starmer's speech, made this morning, into Ghapt GPT and asked:
Is this speech racist? If so, why?
The reply was:
Thank you for sharing the speech. Determining whether a speech is “racist” depends on analyzing both its language and implications. Based on the content provided, here's an assessment:
Is the speech explicitly racist?
No, the speech does not contain overtly racist language or slurs, nor does it directly target any specific racial or ethnic group in derogatory terms.
Could aspects of the speech be seen as racially coded or contributing to xenophobic narratives?
Yes, potentially. Here's why:
1. Framing immigration as a threat
The speaker describes immigration as:
a “squalid chapter”
“chaos” rather than control
an “experiment” that must be “shut down”
These metaphors frame immigrants not as individuals, but as a problem to be solved — often a red flag in xenophobic or exclusionary rhetoric. It implicitly casts migrants (especially those not deemed “high skill”) as a burden, threat, or source of disorder.
2. Implying a moral hierarchy among migrants
Phrases like:
“settlement becomes a privilege that is earned, not a right”
migrants must “commit to integration” and “learn our language”
the system should “actively distinguish between those who do and those who don't”
This language implies that some people — usually those who conform to specific cultural expectations — are more deserving than others. While this isn't inherently racist, it can reinforce ethno-nationalist or assimilationist attitudes, depending on how it's implemented.
3. Economic scapegoating
The speech links immigrants to:
lowering wages
displacing young British workers
overcrowded housing and strained public services
This kind of economic framing is common in anti-immigrant rhetoric. It risks blaming migrants for systemic issues like underfunded services or stagnant wages — which are often driven by broader government policy and market forces, not immigration per se.
4. Lack of nuance in discussing “integration”
Although the speaker says they “celebrate” diversity, the emphasis is placed on the responsibility of migrants to change, rather than on mutual adaptation or the positive cultural contributions migrants bring. This one-sided framing can be seen as culturally chauvinistic.
Summary:
While not overtly racist, the speech:
uses language that frames immigrants as a problem
promotes a hierarchy of acceptability
reinforces xenophobic economic tropes
and appeals to nationalist ideas of social cohesion that may marginalize minority groups.
These elements can be seen as racially coded or contributing to a political climate that enables racism and anti-immigrant sentiment, even if not explicitly racist on the surface.
Racist, then, as I suspected.
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 give it a rest and do something useful.. yiu have too much time on your hands.
No doubt that’s what the Nazi sympathisers said to those with concern in the mid-30s.
Stephen, your’s is a strange response.
What is upsetting in this from your perspective:
– Are you objecting that someone has taken the 2 minutes required to input the question into Chat-GPT
– the methodology ( e.g. potential issues with echoing an AI response – which was the test, after all)?
– the response given by AI (and potential problems in the (undeclared) sources used in training?
– the essence of the response.
I’d have thought the rationale provided as part of the response would be grounds for any questioning person to re-read Starmer’s statement and reflect on what is driving Labour to this kind of rhetoric. But lashing out at a person who used a tool as a rapid sanity check – that seems strange.
Oh give it a rest and do something useful, Stephen.. you have too much time on your hands replying to others on the Internet.
😉
All a bit rich coming from an anti-Semite such as yourself.
Or is it ok to be racist as long as it’s in support of Palestine against Zionists?
You do know Palestinians are Semitic, don’t you?
I don’t discriminate against Semitic group.
But Zionism is a political cause and I can most definitely object to that.
Is it racist to object to Zionists? Are they not a political grouping? Is it racist to object to Conservatives?
I’m inclined to think we’re going to have to stop using the term ‘anti-semitism’ – ‘racism’ is now better.
By conflating anti-zionism with anti-semitism, and attempting to label any criticism of Israel, or of extreme right-wing pro-Israel lobbying organisations, as anti-semitic, the political right has rendered the term ‘anti-semitism’ almost meaningless.
The term ‘racism’ I think now better describes real prejudice, discrimination, or any kind of oppression of jewish people – and has the advantage of being democratic – it can imply no privileging of oppression of one minority over that of any other.
Palestinians are Semites
In the Gaza conflcut the term is meaningless
I honestly think you nailed it the first time but if you must…………………….
It seems to me that Starmer is playing to the Reform agenda instead of taking a positive step to solving the obvious UK problems.
Which is exactly what Reform is set up and paid to do. To push the Overton window as far as their masters need it, stopping the government from doing what it needs to do, to protect us from predation by the rich, and prevent the consolidation of power in the hands of the few.
Richard can I just say that I am appalled at some of the response you have received. This is normally a safe space to have conversations on all subject, but for some reason you have be attacked in a manner which is not becoming to this blog.
I agree @David Marshall & @Cyndy Hodgson & @ex-Teacher – but then there are those who do not have the perspective, the understanding re Chat-GPT, of the methodology , of the understanding re the response given by AI, and/or of the essence of the response – and as for the ‘knuckle-dragging war-crime enabling troll fraternity being excited’ – yes @ RobertJ – again I agree in that hopefully the tide might be turning – and I add that I, personally, can only hope for those of us who care about others, those of us who care about other peoples welfare and those of us who care about these peoples futures, that it turns the way we wish for them, and the way that they may wish for themselves too.
Mine was not an attack on Richard, I just do not like AI.
Thanks.
Well, that got the knuckle-dragging war-crime enabling troll fraternity excited…
The tide might be turning.
😉
And the key point is that nobody really thinks he’s racist or bigoted. We all know it is an act of dog whistling to try and scrabble for Reform votes, just as his pretence at being left-wing was an act to win the Labour Party leadership. He’s possibly the most cynical and opportunistic MP in parliament at present, which is going some in the land of Lee Anderson and many other such grifters.
The most ridiculous thing of all is that he has sold his soul, such as remains, for absolutely no reason whatsoever. He’s lied to get into power where he is failing miserably. He’s destroyed his own reputation and that of his party in mere months. He’s made it all but impossible for LINO to gain re-election even so many years from the next election. He’s alienated anybody who is left-wing or has a progressive bent and yet, still, the Reformites hate him and will never vote for his ‘Labour Party’, no matter how far to the right he tracks.
It’s not long since we all thought nobody could ever be a worse PM than Liz Truss but Starmer is proving us all wrong, and in spades.
Many of the Labour MPs are craven careerists as well, but I can’t imagine Starmer will last anywhere near the full parliament before they eject him in panic. It’s just a question of how much more destruction he can enact before his political career ends in ignominy.
I do think he’s a racist, and bigoted.
I cannot see otherwise.
I see what he is doing.
It is racist and bigoted.
“Was Starmer’s speech this morning racist?”
Carefully worded to be not quite racist.
The man has legal training and I don’t suppose he wrote the speech himself, but unlike Johnson he will undoubtedly have read it before delivering it.
Pandering to the Reform agenda is possibly the worst way to be re-elected in 2029. (Not that expect he will still be leading the party at that time.)
What was the purpose?
– To gain Reform votes.
What was the method?
– Using xenophobic tropes and “fear of the other” to persuade voters.
Who was adversely affected?
– Everyone with an immigrant background.
What was a known, more than likely side-effect?
– Racist violence and abuse.
Could Starmer (as a former DPP, and also as PM last time this happened, in summer 2024) be expected to anticipate this outcome and the danger it posed?
– Yes, with absolute calculated certainty. The chance to bolster his credentials with anti-riot toughness would be part of his/McTeam’s utterly hypocritical plan. Any victims would be acceptable collateral damage.
To exploit misinformation and fear from a place of power and privilege so deliberately, is a far worse form of racism than even a violent or verbal attack against an individual on the street or workplace.
This was the cynical racism of the powerful, the educated, the privileged, the carefully spoken, too cowardly and careful ever to use overt racist language or violence. But it is racism nevertheless, and of a far, far worse sort, because of its widespread influence and intent, and because of its despicable calculated cowardly hypocrisy.
This is who Starmer IS.
This is the lying calculating ruthless hypocrite whose leadership hustings I attended in 2020 in Bristol. I haven’t changed my opinion of him since then.
Every Labour MP who fails to challenge him openly, bears an equal share of the blame. We need to make that clear to them personally.
Thanks
I personally felt like Starmer has spat in my face today. I don’t think Labour realise how personal this sounded. How could I ever vote Labour again? I never felt like this after anything Farage or any Tory leader said. A colleague of my cried. Do Labour even realise what the percentage of their voters who are of immigrant origin is?
This was just plain nasty and cruel.
Agreed
Seems to me there wouldn’t be a vacancies crisis in British health & care, or indeed worries about a falling birth rate, if we weren’t racist. The world is teeming with people, and some want to travel to increase their life opportunities, but apparently some just have too much melanin
Teachers have got to be valued so they install some morals and work ethics into the young, because people cannot be allowed to get away with not working just because they don’t want to. OTOH disabled people and older people cannot be targeted to fix RR’s purse.
We need workers in health & care, and if people are willing to come here to do it, we should be grateful and value them too. NB Care may be a low wage job, but it’s a difficult and valuable one, and shouldn’t be low waged.
Anyway, the thing he failed to address in this ‘island of strangers’ speech was the time lag for all these homegrown paragons of virtue to be trained. He stops people coming from abroad working in health & care at a click of his fingers, the whole thing will collapse.
What would a truly socialist prime minister say to their country about immigration ?
“Sánchez urged Spaniards to reject stereotypes and hoaxes about migration. In the past decade, 94% of migrants who had arrived in Spain had done so legally, he said. About 40% of them were Latin Americans, 30% hailed from other parts of Europe and 20% were from Africa. “We’re talking about a diverse migration flow that looks nothing like the image [perpetuated by] the far right.”
“Migrants were more likely to be working than people born in Spain, and less likely to access social services, he said. When age and income levels are taken into account, the rates of delinquency were about the same for both groups, he added.
““I want citizens to understand that this is not a battle between Spaniards and foreigners, or Christians and Muslims or saints and criminals,” he said. “It is a battle between truth and lies, between tales and data, between what is in the interests of our society and the interests of a few who see fear and hatred of foreigners as their only path to power.””
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/09/pedro-sanchez-unveils-plans-to-make-it-easier-for-migrants-to-settle-in-spain
Racism has been weaponised by all parts of the political spectrum.
Of course the speech on Immigration was near the mark. I listened on LBC, where as expected it was given due prominence.
People like Paul Mason have been campaigning for Labour to do something re immigration and Reform’s ability to undermine Labour’s more socially conservative generally older voter.
So Starmer’s team produced this speech to coincide with Home Office moves to bring immigration numbers down essentially going back to 2018 before Johnson got elected.
I’m sure Starmer thinks his job on this is done. Home Office can get on with the details.
A few of years of lower net migration figures and the temperature on Immigration will fall. That I suspect is the plan/hope.
We shall see if Reform can be neutered quite so easily. Some how I doubt it given the support of the BBC, Daily Telegraph, Mail, etc.
Eric, Hasn’t the appeasement of populism in general and the immigration rhetoric in Europe over the last ~25 years, in particular, not shown that a speech like Starmer’s is NOT the way to address this.
Are there many people in this country who are ‘left behind’ / disenfranchised? Absolutely. But leadership requires that issues are laid out, discussed and solutions explained. Should things be improved – yes. Is it the fault of immigrants or the outcome of 45 years of neoliberalism?
Your post suggests that Starmer hopes to stoke up racism in the hope of being seen to be ‘on your side’, hoping that things will get better, people will somehow neglect their racism when things get better, but somehow be cognisant of ‘Our mate Starmer’.
That seems deeply intellectually flawed – as well as morally repugnant. Such short-term appeasement doesn’t work in the playground, nor on the national or international stage.
Starmer’s speech reminded me of a line attributed to the poet W B Yeats, ‘there are no strangers here, only friends who haven’t met yet’.
Comment for Ex Teacher:
Morally repugnant and intellectually flawed?
Oh dear I have clearly given offence. I should have remembered this blog definitely doesn’t pull its punches.
Perhaps you are right & the voting pattern for Reform at the local elections may suggest that the 2 party system is coming to an end come the GE in 2029 & Reform probably in coalition will gain power. But I think it’s far from definite imo.
Starmer and Reeves may make awful decisions and aggravate matters but their inheritance from the last 14 years is poor. The International situation has also deteriorated further since January. I admit I have sympathy with any group faced with driving any improvement in the lot of the British People in such circumstances.