Lead headline on BBC Politics Live: “Prime Minister accused of echoing far right language.” Was/is this the Downing Street comms goal in framing their immigration reform? If so, how is this helpful? If not, how has this happened?
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
TBH, whether he intended to echo Powell doesn't matter much; if heither he nor his operation can see that he's echoing the second-most well known prhrase in one of the most (in)famous British political speeches of the last century, on the same topic, that's almost as bad in what it says about No 10.
As I noted yesterday it is entirely Starmer’s polarising language that has driven this debate. Cooper’s language, in white paper and since, much more measured and balanced. Seems the Home Sec recognises the gravity and sensitivity of this issue but some in Downing St don’t.
... said, as the PLP unwardrobes its brown trousers now Starmer has lost the 16th-safest Labour seat, they could replace him, keep the massive majority, and turn to social democratic policies with a new leadership doing much good for the next four, three, two years.
I think many looking at Starmer thinking the job is too big for him. A technocrat who lacks any feel for the common touch.
His attempts to respond to the challenge of Reform seem stage managed and clunky, no finesse.
It’s very weird on all sorts of levels but it’s perhaps most weird that Starmer himself when reviewing the text didn’t look at words like ‘strangers’, ‘incalculable’ and ‘squalid’ and put a big red line through them.
Precisely, and that is on him. Given the jobs he’s done he should be well aware of the hazards of such emotive polarising language. All of this was easily avoidable without even changing the basic message conveyed.
Seems like during his review the only question he asked himself was "how will a Reform voter receive this?", and he failed to consider literally everyone else.
It has done what they intended, it's got the entire political and media worlds talking about it. Has that translated into the real world, and are the impacts going to be worth degrading themselves with this language?
Because they might reasonably expect Starmer to at least scan/edit the texts before promulgating them. He is, after all, the individual who will be accountable to the public for them.
What’s depressing is, as ever, the language drives the debate rather than facts doing so. Lots of threads over on Reddit firmly behind Labour on this. People who go “hey, but facts” are shouted down. I’ve seen a bunch of people claiming they might have voted Ref but this has kept them on board.
Now can’t shake the image of Starmer a la David Byrne: “you may find yourself uttering some sub-Powell pap. And you may ask yourself, well, how did I get here?”
If you cant get the right wing press to say “wow he's no emo snowflake, he really gets immigration.” And you can’t, because they won’t, then.. maybe you go so *utterly batshit* that you vault over Dacre completely into “has he gone completely mental and morphed into Suella Braverman.”
If indeed that was the case. He could possibly have meant every single word and was ignorant of how it would be interpreted. Either way, a large measure of incompetence in NO.10
Yes, because even if you think public opinion is the only measure worth considering here (something I don’t agree with), taking a megaphone and shouting “Reform is Right” isn’t actually helpful.
It would probably be different again if respondents were made to read the entire speech in context rather than a set of snippets shorn of their context.
A majority of those agreeing are not Labour voters. Which I guess is the point but this is a hell of a risk to take with your own base and LD/Green voters you will need back at the next election.
The 50% agreeing with him contain an awful lot of people who'll never vote Labour and will vote Reform or Tory (40/50 maybe?). The 30% contains pretty much every LibDem, Green and SNP voter, leaving maybe a rump of Labour supporters along with the 20% don't knows.
I wonder how much of the response is immigration specific and how much is more from a broader feeling that society is becoming less friendly and more isolated?
Yeeeaaah I'm definitely not saying I think he got the language, er, bang on perfect. It almost feels like someone said ‘they’ll completely ignore us unless our language is *so berserk* everyone drops their teacup’. Looking around, there are quite a few dropped teacups.
You can't "get something right", when that thing is downstream of you "getting" it, one way or another. Popular opinion is not self-standing, and it will obviously reflect elite consensus amongst both entrenched parties and their main contender on an issue and generalised media coverage on it.
We saw this in the US. The moment the democrats pushed back on immigration, the previous consensus collapsed, because, to put it plainly, with the dissent of one of the major parties, that consensus simply no longer existed.
I would think a forner lawyer and Attorney General would have a better grasp of language. Which makes me think that he knew exactly what he was saying, no matter who wrote the speech.
https://bsky.app/profile/blayneydeborah.bsky.social/post/3lp2cd6inxk2j
Except Yvette Cooper yesterday (12/5/25) in her BBC Newscast interview could not say Starmer's language echoing Enoch Powell was not a coincidence & had more than 3 opportunities to denounce & disassociate Labour from the racist Enoch Powell's divisive rhetoric, but didn't?
I think one of Farage's most underestimated skills is skirting the fine line between populist and far-right rhetoric. Politicians like Jenrick and now Starmer lack that finesse and experience so go blundering over it in an attempt to ape him.
Feels reminiscent of his comments about the civil service being ‘comfortable in tepid bath of managed decline’, whoever is signing of these lines seems to have terrible judgement for the impact of them.
The white paper played fast and loose with many of the economic arguments, and the stuff in bold and underlined looked ridiculous. But it to an extent tried to avoid rhetorical escalation that Starmer's speech has now unleashed, Jenrick has grabbed on to and Farage will push further
Cooper was genuinely impressive on #bbclaurak. Measured, intelligent, on top of the arguments - she made the proposed policies sound like common sense. Starmer simply rallied the far right troops, blowing any coherent argument to smithereens via a strap-on vest of explosive, idiotic, ‘nationalism’.
Starmer seems to be mixing with far too many of the wrong people. Palantir, Blackrock, Mandelson etc., I’m not sure
Morgan McSweeney is good for him either.
My simple take - frat boys in his comms team think they are tough and do not need to moderate their language! Wrong on so many levels not the least as it does not appear to be in this PMs nature anyway.
One of the most impressive things about lawyers is their use of language.
What I find disturbing is the idea that a lawyer of Starmer's seniority & experience can use words without understanding their meaning in that context seems risible.
He regularly uses the phrase 'mark my words'. I have.
Could be the goal: if your takeaway from US elections is that people will vote for literally anyone if the alternative is a candidate who (they believe) is hurting their feelings by telling them what they can and can’t say, your only route is “look! I’m saying the things you think too!”
It's certainly not the Downing Street comms goal but it absolutely is the unrelenting goal of the hard left who won't rest until they've seen off Keir Starmer. This is about Corbyn's defeat, a self-inflicted wound that they're still trying to blame on everyone else.
What Keir Starmer actually said as opposed to what the hard left wants you to believe he said:
"Nations depend on rules – fair rules. Sometimes they’re written down, often they’re not, but either way, they give shape to our values. They guide us towards our rights, of course, but 1/2
also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to one another. Now, in a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together."
Looking at him during that presentation, I wondered of he had seen the speech in advance. To me, an observer from afar, it looks like Starmer's schedule is quite tight. Perhaps too tight
I was thinking I may reluctantly have to vote Labour to stop Reform, but now I'm thinking there's not much point because they're virtually the same thing.
Is it conspiracy or cock-up? Either it's a complete lack of knowledge of the history of immigration debate by speechwriters, or it's an intended callback to. I'd hope/guess the former, but even that's a huge mistake.
I think Arlene Foster was right that the phrase 'island of strangers' feels too much like a term of art to be inadvertent and yet I'm nonplussed as to what they thought they'd achieve by including it.
When you have media and commentators concerned more with finding possible negative interpretations of what you say, rather than likely intent, or even plain reading of the words, the drafting becomes extremely important.
Zooming out ........... who cares? Starmer is a couple of degrees away from resurrecting the Rwanda Plan. Root cause is simple - this is what you get for "colonising" half of the damn world.
He didn't "echo the language". He talked about immigration. And he used the word "strangers" in a different context to Powell and shortly after talking about the diverse country that we are and that being part of our strength. Calm down.
So, the stuff about the 'incalculable damage' caused by the 'squalid chapter' that was the 'one nation experiment in open borders' was designed to remind migrants that he regards them as part of the nation's strength, was it?
Shudder to think what he'd have said if he wanted to make them feel bad.
He is a top lawyer, so words are his business. He has been disgusting on Gaza, on trans rights and now on immigration. It's as if he is an immoral sociopath who just cares for the trappings of power.
It was the goal.
It was not helpful (discussed on many posts)
It happened because the political mindset is about taking the ground of others to neutralise it.
There are no values behind it, it's a game disconnected from the public. A game where screwing over rivals other cliques is seen as winning.
Comments
Conniving a stupidly massive win in a general election out of an ill-informed, desperate, fearful and/or naïve electorate?
Five stars.
Hanging around in Downing Street advising on policy?
Epic fail.
All of which...
The sooner the better, mind.
His attempts to respond to the challenge of Reform seem stage managed and clunky, no finesse.
But not for the reasons we’re thinking of.
Maybe it was to shut down Farage? The idea being go as extreme as you dare?
The fallout gets covered by the media as a YouGov poll suggests it’s not had that huge of an effect?
It’s a shitty way to govern tho if it is.
What I am happy to say though is that he's a TERRIBLE politician.
And he needs to go.
It’s also not going to work out well for whoever came up with the language - and that’s not entirely their fault…
If you cant get the right wing press to say “wow he's no emo snowflake, he really gets immigration.” And you can’t, because they won’t, then.. maybe you go so *utterly batshit* that you vault over Dacre completely into “has he gone completely mental and morphed into Suella Braverman.”
Graph pinched from @heresy.bsky.social
Except Yvette Cooper yesterday (12/5/25) in her BBC Newscast interview could not say Starmer's language echoing Enoch Powell was not a coincidence & had more than 3 opportunities to denounce & disassociate Labour from the racist Enoch Powell's divisive rhetoric, but didn't?
They might do so.
Morgan McSweeney is good for him either.
Just sack the lot of them!!!
when do we want it? now
What I find disturbing is the idea that a lawyer of Starmer's seniority & experience can use words without understanding their meaning in that context seems risible.
He regularly uses the phrase 'mark my words'. I have.
https://bsky.app/profile/churchillsarrow.bsky.social/post/3loq6gvyvw22b
"Nations depend on rules – fair rules. Sometimes they’re written down, often they’re not, but either way, they give shape to our values. They guide us towards our rights, of course, but 1/2
Context is everything.
My brain can't avoid
Looking at him during that presentation, I wondered of he had seen the speech in advance. To me, an observer from afar, it looks like Starmer's schedule is quite tight. Perhaps too tight
By getting provoked, we help McSweeney get the message out to the voters etc. so they learn that Labour has abandoned the liberals and the left.
Or something like that.
Starmer is a bigot, happy to throw pensioners, LGBT people, immigrants, ethnic minorities, young people, *anyone* under the bus, for no gain.
This is him.
Nick Watt reports Nigel Farage's response to suggestions that some of the PM's language on migration echoed Enoch Powell.
#Newsnight
I think Farage's comments today we designed to weaken support for Labour but wonder how well this will work
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/may/14/keir-starmer-kemi-badenoch-pmqs-immigration-energy-assisted-dying-uk-politics-news-live-updates
Personally, the family I've managed to trace were milking cows in North Dorset at the time.
Shudder to think what he'd have said if he wanted to make them feel bad.
It was not helpful (discussed on many posts)
It happened because the political mindset is about taking the ground of others to neutralise it.
There are no values behind it, it's a game disconnected from the public. A game where screwing over rivals other cliques is seen as winning.
When are Labour gonna sort the BBC out