Starmer tried to look tough by calling Reform's policies racist this week.
I have already noted their backlash this morning.
But let's also be clear, if Starmer is bandying the word around, then it has to be applied to him and his policies as well. Take this from the Guardian this morning, which I have no doubt is reliably reported just as Labour would wish it to be:
People granted asylum will no longer be given “the golden ticket” of resettlement and family reunion rights, Keir Starmer said, amid deepening concerns from charities that his words are demonising refugees.
As the prime minister prepared to discuss illegal migration with European leaders, No 10 outlined plans to strip successful claimants of the right to automatically invite spouses and children to join them.
The right to permanently settle in the UK will be bestowed upon those who prove to be contributing to society, he said, “not by paying a people-smuggler to cross the Channel in a boat”.
Under current rules, successful asylum seekers have the right to invite family members to join them and settle in the UK.
There was no "golden ticket" in the policy Labour now wants to abandon. There was just the fundamental, long-established right to a family life in UK law, which Starmer now wants to overturn. Doing so is racist in the way he is proposing it.
Also note that in the process of doing this, he is claiming that UK citizens are superhumans and that migrants are subhuman, without the rights that the superhumans have. This, of course, also makes this a fascist policy.
If we must call things as they are, and Starmer seems to think we should, these things need to be pointed out.
Taking further action
If you want to write a letter to your MP on the issues raised in this blog post, there is a ChatGPT prompt to assist you in doing so, with full instructions, here.
One word of warning, though: please ensure you have the correct MP. ChatGPT can get it wrong.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
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!
And what people don’t realise is these hostile laws apply to those who fall in love with someone who isn’t British and try and bring them over here. A former neighbour worked in Zimbabwe and fell in love and married. When she brought her new husband over here under a legitimate visa which he had to reapply for at great cost annually he was unable to buy a house or be named on the deeds of the house bought solely under his wife’s name. He had to pay an NHS surcharge despite working full time and paying taxes. It was expensive and humiliating and by the time he got to apply for indefinite leave to remain he had two British children, had paid thousands in visa fees and taxes as he was working full time. His citizenship came through just before Covid and I noticed a difference in how he was as it gave him security and freedom. This was a loyal hard working person who I like and respect, who had already suffered a lot from the Zimbabwean regime. He has already contributed a lot and quite rightly wants his children to gain a good education and flourish. Do we really want to punish and exclude such people?
Noted
And I think you know where I stand.
Totally, but it’s this othering that is always done without understanding the consequences. And my former neighbour is always now highlighting othering as we live in a Devon village and her mixed race children encounter all sorts of othering and racism. Her daughter’s best friend told her her afro hair is weird. This saddened me as this child is the daughter of a mutual friend who I expected better of, and such behaviour has to be nipped in the bud. It might seem innocent but the affect on the receiver is not. I would never have dreamed of saying this when I grew up in London in the 60s and 70s.
Important to highlight this.
Presumably there are many people who want asylum and are more than willing to “contribute to society” but who are held in accommodation whilst waiting for their claim to be assessed, and are not allowed to work, i.e. are not allowed to contribute to society? Starmer gets worse and worse. Can he not sack his advisers?
“Can he not sack his advisors”
Better yet, he should resign.
I think Starmer is the puppet rather than the puppet master.
Craig
Observable policies that advocate exclusion and actively increase the amount of discrimination in the UK. Check. On a scale of 1 to 10, I put Starmer as a 4, Farage a 7, Corbyn a 2. Charles Kennedy 1. He made it clear that the Conservatives were soft on racism and soft on the causes of racism back in 2001. He would be saying the same about Starmer. I have no doubt about that. Same old same old. Labour a disappointment, Tories a disaster.
No steer, is using the Trump line, claiming that the ECHR plus UK Human Rights laws stops the UK deporting failed migrant applicants to states where they “might be imprisoned”, not just the state that they were born in.
Trump is happy to throw out citizens who have rights to live in the USA for example deporting Argentinians to the appalling El Salvador prison system.
All to show how “tough” he is.
I would like to think that at some point, Starmer had some common decency about him.
Unfortunately, something happens to weak people like him when they get some authority. It goes to their heads, and they start listening only to the people who advise them in one direction. They also stop listening to anyone who disagrees with them, hence the draconian measures against Labour MPs who vote with their consciences.
I met Tony Blair when he was Leader of the Opposition. I used to serve him his breakfast on the train. He always had kippers.
At that time I genuinely believed that his heart was in the right place. Nowadays he doesn’t even have a heart.
The trappings of power get to most of them in the end.
I can’t see Blair as a kippers person.
More kedgeree.
I seem to remember he only had kippers on the train because his wife didn’t like him eating them at home.
Much like my late father with tripe!
🙂
That crass ‘Golden Ticket’ phrase screamed out to be questioned on R4 BBC this morning , but of course it wasn’t. Was it the same script writer who brought us ‘island of strangers’?
These Starmer dog whistle phrases – are just feeding the monster ‘migrants are the cause of all your ills’ that Farage and the Tories created .
Of course he’s not racist – he has just decided to utter racist phrases, and sound racist in a doomed attempt to try to stay in power .
Uttering racist phrases make you a racist.
Trying to be ironic
“By going to unthinkable extremes, they can pull the mythical “middle” toward the far edge, normalizing and “mainstreaming” radical Republican positions that are anything but neutral.”
https://www.theframelab.org/wheres-the-middle-ground-between/
written about the US but applies to the effect of Reform on Labour in the UK.
If supposed progressives chase the middle then they can be manipulated into supporting the unacceptable and using the language associated with that and language matters. Someone in his position using the wrong language normalises it and strengthens the notions associated with it in peoples minds. Whether he truly believes it deep down or is just saying it to chase Reform votes doesn’t really matter.
Alternatively & simpler, if it quacks like a racist then it’s indistinguishable from a racist
That quote from ?Tony Benn the other day about gov’t’s doing to immigrants what they really want to do to most of us…
The “humans” in Starmer’s strategy are those “contributing” (he means those who do paid “work”).
The “SUB-humans” are those NOT contributing, such as the chronically sick or disabled or long term unemployed, who also do not apparently have the same rights as the rest of us.
Today’s noisy immigration dogwhistle is racist, and racist dogs will respond to it.
But there is another whistle being blown, not racist but fascist. Only those who “contribute” deserve to eat, to have a secure warm home, to be part of a functioning society, to be educated and kept safe. That really nasty fascist whistle (hanging from a DWP lanyard), is currently in the custody of Pat MacFadden, and when it gets blown, not so many people make a fuss about it. He too made a v nasty speech this week from the DWP podium.
Because his whistle isn’t being blown to beat Fa***e, it’s being blown because Labour genuinely, just like the Tories, or perhaps worse, despise those who don’t “contribute”, and they know they can mostly get away with it, because most of the public haven’t got a clue about what it’s like to be in that situation. After all, “it’s in the party name” said a minister this week. “Labour is not the party for those on benefits” said another, not too long ago. The policy of “workfare” (the Job Guarantee, or “slave Labour” as it used to be called, is once again on the agenda).
There are pragmatic economic arguments to defend the benefits of immigration.
But it requires a genuine commitment to our shared humanity to defend the rights of those who do not (economically) “contribute”.
Such principled people are hard to find, and there are only a small minority left in our legislature, and none at all in the Cabinet. We have a moral crisis.
KUTGW!
You would happily have open borders and let anyone reside here. That doesn’t work for the majority of the electorate. You have to accept this. And it is wrong to call anyone who doesn’t share your opinion racist.
Why doesnt it work though?
Please tell me. Precisely. What is the problem, and I stress, not the fiction, the problem?
“Why doesnt it work”
Well there is a housing shortage for the population as it is at present. The NHS can’t cope with the population at present. And we have near 25% of the adult working population on benefits. I could go on. No developed country has open and unfettered borders like you suggest. Yes we need skills added to our labour market but unfettered migration is not the answer. And i repeat it is just ridiculous to call those who disagree with you racist.
Migrants could build houses.
The NHS could cope – it just needs more people. Many migrants work for the NHS.
And how would migrants stpp people claiming benefits? That beats me…please explain (I am one, by the way: most of the people you refer to are OAPs – do you want to abolish the state pension?)
And we had unfettered borders in my lifetime.
So, please answer the questions.
My point with 25% of the population claiming benefits there must be some productivity in there particularly with youth unemployment. My point is we are not short of labour. And yes skilled migrants to fit our shortcomings make sense but do you think wave after wave of migrants into the south west coast is the best way to achieve this?
First, I was not aware the southwest was suffering many immigrant arrivals. Do you mean the south east?
Second, those coming on boats are less than 5% of the total. So, let’s talk the 95% with visas. What are you saying about them, all of whom arrive with an open welcome?
25% of the population claim benefits because wages are too low, they are pensioners, they are disabled, rents are excessive, they have children, and so on. My mum claimed child benefit throughout my childhood. I remember the book. I bet your mum might have done too. It does not mean they are unemployed – a cause of under 5% of payments.
And amongst the young, the causes of ill health are systemic – and most often becuase the employment system has rejected them e.g. because they are neuordiverse, and they become depressed, withdrawn, anxious and so on. Large numbers of graduates are in this situation, for example. Is that their fault?
I look forward to your answers.
Your opener, “You would…” is a bit of a give-away.
It works better if you say, “I would… ” or even better
“What would you…?”.
Try it sometime.