Who PM was really trying to echo with ‘island of strangers’ speech
Sir Keir Starmer is getting used to falling out with some of his MPs over policy decisions – be it on the winter fuel allowance, his approach to the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza or welfare cuts.
But on Tuesday the prime minister found himself embroiled in a row with MPs over something entirely different – his language over immigration.
The prime minister’s argument that Britain “risked becoming an island of strangers” if immigration levels are not cut has sparked a backlash from some of his MPs, and the London mayor Sadiq Khan is alarmed that his own leader is using language similar to that of Enoch Powell.
Politics latest: Senior Labour figures distance themselves from PM’s speech
In his infamous 1968 Rivers Of Blood speech, Powell warned of a future where white people “found themselves made strangers in their own country”.
It was a speech that cost him his shadow cabinet job and made Powell one of the most divisive and controversial politicians in Britain. It is also a speech that the prime minister’s team is now frantically trying to distance itself against, with one insider telling me on Tuesday the PM’s team hadn’t realised the similarity and hadn’t intended the comparison.
The politician the prime minister was trying to channel was about as far away from Powell as you could get in the 1960s, when the debate of immigration and race relations raged. Sir Keir had wanted to echo former Labour home secretary Roy Jenkins who had always argued that immigration was good for Britain, but needed to be done at a speed the country could absorb.
Take this from Jenkins in the House of Commons in 1966: “Let there be no suggestion that immigration, in reasonable numbers, is a cross that we have to bear, and no pretence that if only those who have come could find jobs back at home our problems would be at an end.
“But it does not follow that we can absorb them without limit. We have to strike a balance. That is what we are trying to do and I feel that we have been reasonably successful in recent months. We cannot lay down absolute numerical quantities, but I think that we have struck a reasonable balance and also that in the past year we have made substantial progress towards producing a healthier atmosphere, in terms of integration, on both sides – amongst both the indigenous and the immigrant community.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
PM’s ‘tough’ migration policies explained
One person familiar with No 10’s approach told me: “We want a more cohesive society, we are not trying to pick fights.
“But the last Conservative government let in 2.3 million immigrants [in the three years to June 2024] and during that time built about 600,000 homes. That creates competition between people and that is typically at the lower end of the market. Just issuing visas and creating a sense of an unfair system is not a way to build cohesiveness.”
If you look at polling from YouGov, it seems the prime minister is more in step with public mood than those in his party criticising him, with 41% of all voters polled on Tuesday about his “island of strangers” remarks agreeing with the sentiment and having no issue with the language.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘We need to reduce immigration’
But it is true too that Labour’s approach lands particularly well with Reform voters, with 61% of them supportive of the PM’s words.
Beyond the battle of language, there will be battles ahead too over whether the prime minister’s policies will help or hinder the economy.
Read more:
What are Sir Keir Starmer’s new immigration rules?
Starmer’s migration package is significant – but is it enough?
There has long been an assumption that higher net migration is positive of the economy and public finances, but there is growing concern in Number 10 that the benefits are being overstated, as it fails to take into account the additional resources needed for public services and the effect of lowering wages, which affects productivity growth – none of which is factored into the economic forecasts of the Office of Budget Responsibility.
There will be those in business that don’t like the cuts to visas. There will be those in government that will worry about the economic impact of cuts to visas – although the chancellor was on the front row for the prime minister’s speech on Monday. There will be those on the Labour left that will be uncomfortable about it.
I suspect the prime minister will be uncomfortable about the row over his language that has seen him attacked on both sides, as the left accuse him of trying to ape the far right and his opponents accuse him of being a “chameleon” for making the opposite argument on immigration when he was running for the Labour leadership in 2020.
But where his team think they are right is on the policy, and early polling suggests that voters from across the political divide broadly agree.
AI civil servants and sending human workers out of London are at the heart of the government’s plans to cut costs and reduce the size of the state bureaucracy.
Shrinking the civil service has been a target of both the current Labour and recent Conservative governments – especially following the growth in the organisation during the pandemic.
From a low in 2016 of 384,000 full time workers, in 2024 there were 513,000 civil servants.
Politics latest: Your views on PM’s migration speech
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is claiming a new swathe of tools to help sift information submitted to public consultations could save “75,000 days of manual analysis every year” – roughly the work of 333 civil servants.
However, the time saved is expected to free up existing civil servants to do other work.
The suite of AI tools are known as “Humphrey”, after Humphrey Appleby, the fictional civil servant in the TV comedy Yes, Prime Minister.
The government has previously said the introduction of AI would help reduce the civil service headcount – with hopes it could save as much as £45bn.
Speaking today, Technology Secretary Peter Kyle appeared to take aim at expensive outsourcing contracts, saying: “No one should be wasting time on something AI can do quicker and better, let alone wasting millions of taxpayer pounds on outsourcing such work to contractors.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
March: 10,000 officials could go
Move outside of London
Other money-saving plans announced today include moving 12,000 civil servants out of London and into regional hubs – with the government hoping it can save almost £100m by 2032 by not having to pay for expensive leases of prime office space in the capital.
Currently, 95,000 full time civil servants work in London.
Tens of millions of pounds a year are expected to be saved by the closure of 102 Petty France, which overlooks St James’s Park, and 39 Victoria Street, which is near the previous location of New Scotland Yard.
In total, 11 London offices are slated for closure, with workers being relocated to the likes of Aberdeen, Belfast, Darlington, Bristol, Manchester and Cardiff.
Read more:
More than 1,000 officials to be cut
Payouts for departing civil servants capped
Reeves hints at 10,000 cuts
‘Almost certain’ AI will lead to cuts
The reforms of the civil service are being led by Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden – one of Sir Keir Starmer’s most influential ministers.
Mr McFadden said: “To deliver our plan for change, we are taking more decision-making out of Whitehall and moving it closer to communities all across the UK.
“By relocating thousands of civil service roles we will not only save taxpayers money, we will make this government one that better reflects the country it serves. We will also be making sure that government jobs support economic growth throughout the country.
“As we radically reform the state, we are going to make it much easier for talented people everywhere to join the civil service and help us rebuild Britain.”
The government says it wants senior civil servants out of the capital too – with the aim being that half of UK-based senior officials work in regional offices by the end of the decade.
The government claims the relocations and growth of regional hubs could add as much as £729m to local economies by 2030.
Pat McFadden is leading the changes to the Civil Service. Pic: PA
Union welcome – cautiously
Unions appear to cautiously welcome the changes being proposed.
All of Prospect, the PCS and the FDA say it is positive to see better opportunities outside of the capital.
However, they have asked for clarity around whether roles may be lost and what will be offered to people transferring.
👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne’s on your podcast app👈
Fran Heathcote, the general secretary of the PCS union, said: “If these government proposals are to be successful however, it’s important they do the right thing by workers currently based in London.
“That must include guarantees of no compulsory redundancies, no compulsory relocations and access to more flexible working arrangements to enable them to continue their careers should they wish to do so.”
Two US senators are calling on Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to “exercise [the department’s] authority” and change a provision affecting taxes on corporate holdings of digital assets.
In a May 12 letter, Senators Cynthia Lummis and Bernie Moreno suggested Bessent had the authority to change the definition of “adjusted financial statement income” under existing US law in a way that could reduce what digital asset companies pay in taxes. The proposed adjustment was suggested as a way to modify a provision of the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law in 2022.
“Our edge in digital finance is at risk if US companies are taxed more than foreign competitors,” said Lummis in a May 13 X post.
According to the two senators, the proposed modification would provide “relief to corporations that invest in digital assets.” Lummis has been one of the most outspoken digital asset advocates in Congress, while Moreno took office in January after crypto-backed political action committees spent roughly $40 million to support his 2024 Senate race.
Related: Arizona governor kills two crypto bills, cracks down on Bitcoin ATMs
The Inflation Reduction Act, which went into effect in 2023, imposes a 15% minimum tax on companies that report more than $1 billion in profits for three consecutive years. The measure would seemingly include unrealized crypto gains and losses, leading to Lummis’ and Moreno’s calls for the Treasury Department to “act swiftly.”
Senate awaiting second vote on stablecoin bill
The call from the two senators came as lawmakers in the Senate are expected to consider another vote on the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins, or GENIUS Act — legislation to regulate payment stablecoins in the US. A motion for consideration failed to move forward in the Senate on May 8 due to Democratic lawmakers pushing back on Donald Trump’s ties to the crypto industry.
Lummis, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, suggested that she would continue to support digital asset regulation. The Senate could take up another vote in a matter of days.
Magazine: Best and worst countries for crypto taxes — plus crypto tax tips
Proponents of a bill to regulate stablecoins in the US Congress will likely take up another vote on the legislation in a matter of days without responding to concerns about President Donald Trump’s financial ties to the cryptocurrency industry.
The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins, or GENIUS Act, failed to get enough votes to pass in the US Senate on May 8 amid calls from some Democratic lawmakers to halt any legislation related to digital assets until Republicans could address Trump’s potential conflicts of interest.
Immediately following the vote, some lawmakers from both parties suggested they could reconsider the bill as early as this week, but without agreeing on a bipartisan path forward.
After the GENIUS Act failed to proceed in a 48 to 49 vote in the Senate, Majority Leader John Thune made a motion to reconsider, setting up a possible vote on the matter within days. A source familiar with the matter told Cointelegraph Republicans who backed the bill were unlikely to modify it to block Trump or any member of his administration from investing in digital assets, claiming it was beyond Congress’s authority under the Constitution.
“[…] this delay is not inherently detrimental,“ said Liat Shetret, vice president of global policy and regulation at blockchain analytics firm Elliptic. “We can expect the bill to return to the floor, with this pause giving both parties time to clarify provisions and address lawmakers’ concerns.”
The Cedar Innovation Foundation, an organization tied to the political action committee (PAC) Fairshake, issued a warning to Senate leadership to “avoid political games” and pass a stablecoin bill “in the coming days.” Fairshake spent more than $131 million to support candidates in the 2024 US elections, some of whom are currently serving in the House and Senate. There are still more than 500 days until the 2026 midterms, when many members of Congress are up for reelection.
On May 12, the Senate resumed consideration of the motion to proceed to consideration of the GENIUS Act, suggesting another vote soon.
Related: US Treasury Secretary expresses support for crypto bills at hearing
Changes to stablecoin or market structure bills?
Should Republicans in the Senate reintroduce the bill without any changes, it’s unclear whether they would have enough support to clear a 60-vote majority to avoid a Democratic filibuster — a process to delay or sometimes block a vote on a bill.
The Trump family’s ties to the crypto platform World Liberty Financial and its stablecoin, USD1, have raised potential corruption concerns, as has offering the top holders of his TRUMP memecoin the chance to pay for access to the president through an exclusive dinner and reception.
“[…] the Republicans’ bill did nothing to address Trump’s conflict, and instead voted to hand Trump the authority to write the rules over his and his competitors’ stablecoins,” said Democratic Representative Maxine Waters in a May 6 statement. She blocked a hearing to discuss a possible digital asset market structure bill, citing concerns about Trump’s “ownership of crypto.”
Democratic lawmakers have already introduced possible solutions to what they called the “biggest corruption scandal in the history of the White House” — with legislation in the House and Senate to bar members of Congress, the president, the vice president, and their families from profiting off memecoins. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Chris Van Hollen also reportedly called on the president to fully divest from USD1 before making any possible deals with foreign governments.
The nonpartisan organization State Democracy Defenders Action reported in April that Trump’s crypto holdings were worth roughly $2.9 billion, which accounted for 40% of his wealth. This report came before the launch of World Liberty Financial’s stablecoin, which an Abu Dhabi-based investment firm said it would use to settle a $2 billion investment in Binance. Trump’s sons, Eric, Donald Trump Jr., and Barron, were all listed as “Web3 ambassadors” for the platform.
Magazine: Trump’s crypto ventures raise conflict of interest, insider trading questions
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway