Forum menu
Given Starmers views on Palestine and denial of the blatant genocide going on there, and after 12 months the now clear evidence of the lack of any coherent strategic planning of Starmers labour project, I am more convinced that Starmer is a racist himself, rather than just making excuses for racism for political expediency.
I also expect him to turn on the lgbt community in the same way he has immigrants, he has been at best somewhat "wooly" in the language he has used around the issue so his lack of conviction to defend the vulnerable will once again be laid bare.
His main attribute seems to be as a confused authoritarianism who kisses the ass of the powerful and punches down to the weak.
He is to Trump what Thatcher was to Reagan.
He is still largely getting away with it because we want to believe in "Labour" and what it should mean and do in society, but under him and McSweeney we just have to accept this is no longer the labour we expect it to be and hope for.
I'm not sure he'll turn on the LGBT people because there's no votes in it, no money in it, and lots of his colleagues are so inclined (as well as providing freebie suits, glasses and sartorial advice). He's more likely to go for even more repressive measures to deal with any fightback against austerity. Whilst having no sympathy for them, the sentences handed out to the racist hotel protesters were comparatively harsh and the same will be used against people resisting the cuts.
He's already stated his admiration for Thatcher. How far is it between 'a country of strangers' and 'the enemy within'?
And I won’t stop there.
3:40 pm · 14 May 2025
That was yesterday afternoon. So rather than backing off he's doubling down with the rhetoric.
It is obvious that Starmer is enjoying the attention and disgust which his racist speech of a couple of days ago has generated as much as Nigel Farage clearly would.
And btw if we are to suddenly place the bar very high when debating whether someone is a racist or not (which generally is not the STW way) then perhaps we should reconsider whether Nigel Farage is actually a racist?
After all both Nigel Farage's wife and his current mistress are immigrants so it is obvious that he doesn't have a problem with immigrants per se, he just thinks that there are too many in the UK. And I think it is fair to say that Nigel Farage uses language perceived to be racist because it gives him easy votes and the attention he craves, just like the current leader of the "Labour" Party new found enthusiasm for the same tactic.
However imo it really isn't that complicated. If you use language and rhetoric which is designed specifically to bring comfort to racists, especially during an era of growing racial tensions, then you are a racist, irrespective of whether your name is Enoch Powell, Nigel Farage, or Sir Keir Starmer.
·
Is it possible this right wing stuff is playing well with some demographic in their research, and us progressive types just aren't seeing it in our socials? One would assume they're not just guessing about this.
As for racism - I think this word is massively over-used. It's really xenophobia, because there is just as much animosity in this rhetoric towards for example white Poles as there is to brown Bangladeshis. That's not to say racism isn't present in society, of course, and genuine racists will have no problem applying it to those who they want to hate. But is there really anyone on the medium right who doesn't want Indian immigrants but is happy for Romanians to move here?
Just more disappointing mental gymnastics to make excuses for racism.
With this particular 'pragmatic' version of racism I think the danger is - he's making it comfortable for people to join in with.
It's a slippery slope and what starts out as appearing rational just eventually ends up in the gutter.
It's heading in that direction. It's being normalised and that is ultimately flat out more dangerous than 'This is England' type meetings because the mainstream are not being appalled any longer.
Is it possible this right wing stuff is playing well with some demographic in their research
Certainly but what's wrong with getting on with fixing the real economic issues rather putting this GBnews stuff front and centre only a year in?
Starmer and Reeves claimed their number one 'mission-led' program was growth.
Fix the doorstep issues and most of this will take a back seat.
(But equally why pander to it? Change narratives. Challenge arguments.)
Besides shall we see where the next polls are heading?
Is it possible this right wing stuff is playing well with some demographic.....
What do you mean is it possible? Of course this "right wing stuff", as you call the latest racist dog-whistling from Starmer, plays well with certain demographics, why on earth do you think Nigel Farage and the Tories use it so much?
And now desperate Starmer?
So what is your point....... racism from a Labour Party leader is okay because it plays well with some demographics?
I have heard a lot of excuses for racism but the one that it's okay because some people like it is new to me.
And btw if we are to suddenly place the bar very high when debating whether someone is a racist or not (which generally is not the STW way) then perhaps we should reconsider whether Nigel Farage is actually a racist?
Wasn't he seen at National Front marches many years ago. I would say that is not a good start if putting forward a case that someone may not be racist.
With this particular 'pragmatic' version of racism I think the danger is - he's making it comfortable for people to join in with.
Yes that is the clear danger in doing it as he would full well know but doesn't seem to care.
Well in the Kafka-esque political climate du jour, I've just had an odd experience.
Andrew Neil has just been interviewed on R4 being extremely critical of a policy of a Labour government...
And I'm 100% in agreement with him.
I think I need to lie down.
🤪
They're going to be lapping up this 0.7% of growth - it's almost as if running marginally bigger deficits and cutting interest rates might just have encouraged that.
Imagine what could be done if we moved big time?
But can I remind you that the Tories also saw 2024 Q1 /Q2 growth of 0.6% and 0.5% respectively.
So well within what might be expected with this sort of economy. Nothing really to get excited about.
Deficit goes up so does growth when then the private sector is struggling.
They're going to be lapping up this 0.7% of growth - it's almost as if running marginally bigger deficits and cutting interest rates might just have encouraged that.
Imagine what could be done if we moved big time?
But can I remind you that the Tories also saw 2024 Q1 /Q2 growth of 0.6% and 0.5% respectively.
So well within what might be expected with this sort of economy. Nothing really to get excited about.
Deficit goes up so does growth when the the private sector is struggling.
Reduce deficit when p.s is booming.
Simple balance sheet maths.
Is it possible this right wing stuff is playing well with some demographic in their research, and us progressive types just aren't seeing it in our socials? One would assume they're not just guessing about this.
I don't give a shit. Wrong is wrong, whatever the supposed tactical thinking behind it. I'm not going to condone something just because the perpetrator thinks it is somehow clever.
Four years and a huge parliamentary majority. Yet that bonehead seems determined to try to appeal to lost cause Reform voters - whilst losing 2x or 3x that amount out of the other side.
His arrogant assumption is that moderates have no place to go. That may be true, but maybe they'll just stay at home rather than voting in future.
Wasn't he seen at National Front marches many years ago.
No. He wasn't. There were faked [EDIT: or rather wrongly attributed] photographs. He's a dangerous racist with a strange fasciation with Putin, but let's not get involved with the spreading of lies because it suits our own agenda... leave that to the politicians.
His arrogant assumption is that moderates have no place to go. That may be true, but maybe they'll just stay at home rather than voting in future.
I would think LibDem would be the place for moderates now and imagine quite a few who voted Labour now wish they had voted LibDem. I may be judging him wrong but I don't think Ed Davey is anywhere near the arsehole that Starmer is.
I don't give a shit. Wrong is wrong, whatever the supposed tactical thinking behind it. I'm not going to condone something just because the perpetrator thinks it is somehow clever.
Sure, if your main aim is to work out who are the baddies and who you can hate. I'm just trying to work out what's going on.
One would assume they're not just guessing about this.
Well thats a relief. They are pandering to the racists because their focus group tells them too. Leaving aside the moral and ethical viewpoint on this it just reinforces how dangerous your " I know it's not how the system is meant to work, but it's how it does work." approach is.
Since so long as people buy into this approach then the calculation of "if we do racist dogwhistles will we gain or lose votes" will be tilted, possibly, in favour of gain.
It's really xenophobia, because there is just as much animosity in this rhetoric towards for example white Poles as there is to brown Bangladeshis.
Aside from the normal definitions , including the equalities act, use "group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins."
No. He wasn't. There were faked [EDIT: or rather wrongly attributed] photographs. He's a dangerous racist with a strange fasciation with Putin, but let's not get involved with the spreading of lies because it suits our own agenda... leave that to the politicians.
No but he did march through a Sussex village singing Hitler youth songs.
Sure, if your main aim is to work out who are the baddies and who you can hate. I'm just trying to work out what's going on.
Let us know when you find out, yeah?
👍
but let's not get involved with the spreading of lies because it suits our own agenda... leave that to the politicians.
I am more of a fight fire with fire man.
And btw if we are to suddenly place the bar very high when debating whether someone is a racist or not (which generally is not the STW way) then perhaps we should reconsider whether Nigel Farage is actually a racist?
Wasn't he seen at National Front marches many years ago. I would say that is not a good start if putting forward a case that someone may not be racist.
That entire claim is based on one single photograph of someone who looks vaguely like Nigel Farage might have done when he was a teenager
I wouldn't dispute that Nigel Farage is a racist btw, because he exploits racism and fear of foreigners for political purposes. In the same way that Keir Starmer now does.
Starmer is a racist. The suggestion that Nigel Farage forced him to make a racist speech and he is therefore not responsible is absurd.
Starmer is a racist. The suggestion that Nigel Farage forced him to make a racist speech and he is therefore not responsible is absurd.
Agree, he knew what he was doing with the speech and that tells us all we need to know. The rest of the party must be going mad as they hate racist's, or they used to at least.
Jeremy vine talk show on R2 live now about labour veering to the right if anyones interested...I quite like his shows..
The rest of the party must be going mad as they hate racist's, or they used to at least.
You'd be surprised at just how much shite rank and file labour people will tolerate for a whiff of power. I know labour councillors/ex-councillors who identify themselves as leftwing and claim not to like Starmer but will parrot the 'it's better to be inside changing things from within' line. They delude themselves that they are actually changing stuff when really all they're doing is giving the leadership carte-blanche to do crap like this.
it just reinforces how dangerous your " I know it's not how the system is meant to work, but it's how it does work." approach is
Okay, let's just clear something up, ok? I'm going to type it in bold just to try and drive it home.
Pointing something out is not the same as condoning it.
Ok? It's not MY ****ing approach. I do not approve of what Starmer is doing.
But I also do not really approve of what you are doing, which seems to be shouting and booing loudly at the bad guys. That might be cathartic for you, but it doesn't actually help anything and is how you end up with mob mentality. A mob of about six or eight people is what we have here on this thread. It's not exactly fine political analysis.
They delude themselves that they are actually changing stuff when really all they're doing is giving the leadership carte-blanche to do crap like this
Their choices are to be a small part of something, or not a part of anything. It's certainly a difficult position to be in, although I fully expect you to ignore the complexities of the issue.
Pointing something out is not the same as condoning it.
It doesn't surprise me that some contributors need that stating. This is often the "room for an argument".
Our local Labour councillors have made clear their opposition to the policies and language unfolding from the Labour top team this week. They've definitely not been quiet. It's very easy to condemn people prepared to stand for office, and work for their community, under the flag of a political party.
Their choices are to be a small part of something, or not a part of anything.
Aye because being in a political party is the only way to effect positive change. 🙄
And besides, being a small part of something that resembles the National Front is nothing to shout about.
Our local Labour councillors have made clear their opposition to the policies and language unfolding from the Labour top team this week.
I'm sure they have, but they're still there though. I was going to write an email to our MP but last time I did that I got some non-committal reply and a flat refusal to go against the party line on benefits cuts for the disabled so I didn't see the point this time.
Pointing something out is not the same as condoning it.
Yeah I get that. Sir Keir Starmer simply pointed out, in no uncertain terms, that immigration has done "incalculable" damage to Britain. So he very obviously doesn't condone immigration.
If 30p Lee had made that comment in a speech it would definitely have been dismissed as racist, if Nigel Farage had made that comment it would also have been dismissed as racist, same too if it had been Boris Johnson, there isn't a get-out clause for the leader of the Labour Party.
It is not reasonable to argue that Sir Keir Starmer can parrot the same divisive rhetoric as Enoch Powell and Nigel Farage without any accusations of racism because he is the leader of the Labour Party.
The fact that he is leader of the Labour Party actually makes it even more offensive.
Whether he's swallowed the Brexit KoolAid and gone full "take back control of our borders" in his own head/heart, or is just pretending to do so to finish off the Tory party and begin a fight back against Reform... it almost makes no difference... his language is normalising fear, distrust, blame, even hate against "others" because they were born elsewhere. Xenophic, racist, or neither... to have a PM feed into anti-immigrant sentiment is highly dangerous, and should be condemned in no uncertain terms.
OK. So without my inherent sarcasm.
Two things:
1. It matters not whether Starmer himself is a frothing racist/xenophobe or his words this week are out of political expediency. A politician's words should be chosen, measured and without emotion. Starmer chose those phrases. He's not an idiot. He knows what they hark back to. He said them. He did not need to say them. He could just have set out his approach to immigration and the goals.
2. There are (or probably were before 2016) certain lines that mainstream political parties should not cross. And demonising inhabitants of the UK on the basis of their race, religion, heritage and where they were born is (was) one of them. Starmer was meant to be the unemotional, professional one. The one who could point to a career as DPP, QC etc and say "someone of my background in the law will not stoop to this level". But he has crossed the line.
I wonder what a reputable law firm would think of, say, a trainee lawyer or intern who has put on their socials the phrase "immeasurable damage" with regard to historic immigration to the UK.
Starmer has crossed a line for me now and there's no way back. I was in the wait and see camp. The thing is, I wasn't anticipating him lurching to the right like this, though.
To be clear.... tightening up entry requirements for migrants, because that is what many in the UK want is one thing. That could be said to be about acting for all your constituents, and listening to them properly, not just your own key support. Speeding up and improving the processing of asylum seekers is, again, a policy that is acting for constituents worried about such things, and also better then people living in limbo waiting for a creaking system to handle their claims. But speaking in a way that plays to the idea that immigration has been "damaging" to the UK, to stoke up fear of "strangers"... that is actively damaging relationships between us all that live here, and pushing this country down a course it was already heading fast... when we need a PM that will seek to arrest such negative attitudes and divisions.
. It matters not whether Starmer himself is a frothing racist/xenophobe or his words this week are out of political expediency. A politician's words should be chosen, measured and without emotion. Starmer chose those phrases. He's not an idiot. He knows what they hark back to. He said them. He did not need to say them. He could just have set out his approach to immigration and the goals.
I imagine his speech was wrote by his aids/advisors then put through numerous rewrites so he and his entire coterie of acolytes fully deserve all that’s thrown at them for such an utterly divisive and disgusting speech - they would be fully aware of how it echoed Powell’ss rhetoric, he/his party are continuing to court the reform ****s
Ok? It's not MY ****ing approach. I do not approve of what Starmer is doing.
Lets look at what you wrote "Well there is, because there's the possibility of it getting even worse still under someone else. I know it's not how the system is meant to work, but it's how it does work"
So you are buying into that approach by parroting it and announcing thats how it works. What I was pointing out if people mindlessly repeat that mantra then yes thats how it works. However what we have seen is if people dont then the equasion changes
A mob of about six or eight people is what we have here on this thread. It's not exactly fine political analysis.
Lucky we have you providing fine analysis. Well if you havent noticed the "who else will they vote" has failed repeatedly that is. At the risk of pointing out the obvious to a connoisseur of fine political analysis that some demographics had switched/stopped voting is the reason for him taking this line.
Or the quality " us progressive types just aren't seeing it in our socials?". I mean you could look at the polls or indeed the right wing social media where its quite clear he is thought to be lying iving the worse of both worlds.
Maybe we should post a bunch of childish ****ing memes nicked from the daily heil?
Lets face it binners, you and co werent exactly short of hurling abuse and mob mentality its just slowly vanished as people seem to have caught onto they have been had just as much as anyone left wing who voted for him during the leadership elections.
It matters not whether Starmer himself is a frothing racist/xenophobe or his words this week are out of political expediency.
I am always in two minds which is worse.
Someone who believes something unpleasant vs someone who knows its crap but claims to anyway for personal/political gain.
Generally tend towards the latter since the former might just not know better due to upbringing etc whereas the latter does.
Although I guess you could go meta and excuse them not knowing isnt good to do so for political gain due to upbringing etc.
Just watched the whole speech and follow up questions and thought it was all quite reasonable.
Can't see why the idea that we should control immigration so as to minimise issues and maximise its benefits for the existing population is in any way controversial.
Didn't catch the part where he said "incalculable damage" but I imagine he was referring to the secret tory open borders experiment rather than immigration in general.
Doubt it'll achieve much politically but Labour needed a sensible plan on immigration that works for ordinary hard working people, and it sounds like they've got one.
Onto more important matters now please Sir Kier.
roli case, this is not a thread for researched and considered out points, please return to condemning the PM and joining the urgent race to the far right, where we will find and exploit that magic money tree, as promised by magic grandad. may he rest in peas.
@roli case, what's your usual logon?
Some folk just aren't getting it, it would seem. The policy itself isn't so much the issue (unless it was in and of itself unnecessarily cruel). The point is that Starmer didn't need to be a **** about it with his "island of strangers" and "incalculable" damage.
You can read what meaning you like into, for example, "island of strangers" - but his entourage will contain someone familiar with Powell's speech and Starmer himself certainly ought to be. There is very little chance it was an accident. And if it was, the lack of historic political knowledge is ridiculous in its own right.
Now we've got a pseudo-Rwanda policy potentially too.
And if we were seeking to maximise the benefits of immigration and limit the downsides for the existing population (as suggested above), what is the need to demonise historic immigration?
The framing of all this is very, very wrong from the point of view that I voted Labour last year (as I have since 2010). He's lost me and he's losing two or three of me for every one he thinks he lost to Reform.
If nothing else, he's also a really shit politician (losing more than he is gaining) and Raphael Behr's analysis of him being a political scaredycat is disappointingly accurate.
Some folk just aren't getting it
Oh they get it, they just don't give a **** and would rather attack anyone they deem as "left" while claiming to be the victims.
roli case, this is not a thread for researched and considered out points, please return to condemning the PM and joining the urgent race to the far right, where we will find and exploit that magic money tree, as promised by magic grandad. may he rest in peas.
Point of order if we're talking about research and considered points - Magic Grandand didn't subscribe to MMT framework if that's what you're getting at and was firmly in the camp of tax and spend. (Fully costed blah)
It's amazing how often these sort of points exhibit the most amount of ignorance whilst trying to attack ignorance.
Just watched the whole speech and follow up questions and thought it was all quite reasonable.
Acid test: If Starmer's exact words were coming out of Farage's mouth would you have called it reasonable? Has anyone ever said anything that Farage says is reasonable?
I'm sensing a bit of the usual Centrist-twistery here.
Onto more important matters now please Sir Kier.
Good luck with that - he's motivated (badly) by Labour's shitty polling and recent performance.
ordinary hard working people,
Natives or migrants?
Can't see why the idea that we should control immigration so as to minimise issues and maximise its benefits for the existing population is in any way controversial.
Is controlling immigration a controversial issue..... what makes you suggest that?
What is currently being discussed here is the racist language and rhetoric used by Keir Starmer. And the effect it is likely to have in the prevailing political climate.
I haven't seen much in the way of criticism of policy announcements by Starmer, have you?
Personally I think that reducing net migration is probably a sensible policy goal. But I can say all that without throwing in the "immigration has done incalculable damage to the UK" bollocks. Apparently Keir Starmer can't.
Controlling immigration is absolutley nessesary, but we have to look at it in context... we need x amount of low skill workers as well as highly skilled workers.
Starmer basically saying that you can't come to the UK to work, unless you have a sponsor or a PHD is just blimming stupid...
...as always there is a middle ground somewhere in between that can be a net benefit for both the UK tax payer and immigrants.
'Illegal' immigrants are a different matter, but there doesn't seem to be any fair and transparent process to make those surgical choices.
IMHO, the whole 'immigration issue' is home grown one that can be solved by making the process more fair and more robust.. Sucessive govermnents have not only failed to do this one simple thing, they have activley ignored it.
Surely not?
And in case we have forgotten how we felt about the Rwanda gimmick :
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/off-topic/rwanda/
Nicely summed up in the very first post :
Just when you think this Government couldn’t get any worse. I despair.