flamingos

Keir Starmer has defended his plans to curb net migration after an angry backlash from MPs, businesses and industry to a speech in which he said the UK risked becoming an “island of strangers” without tough new policies.

The rhetoric was likened by some critics to the language of Enoch Powell, and the prime minister was accused of pandering to the populist right by insisting he intended to “take back control of our borders” and end a “squalid chapter” of rising inward migration.

Some politicians claimed that his words had echoed Powell’s notorious “rivers of blood” speech, which imagined a future multicultural Britain where the white population “found themselves made strangers in their own country”.

When asked to respond to accusations he had adopted Powell’s rhetoric, Starmer told the Guardian: “Migrants make a massive contribution to the UK, and I would never denigrate that.”

But in words that could further enrage his critics, Starmer insisted that new migrants must “learn the language and integrate” once in the UK. He said: “Britain is an inclusive and tolerant country, but the public expect that people who come here should be expected to learn the language and integrate.”
[…]
Starmer was speaking before the publication of a 69-page immigration white paper that sets out details of how the government intends to introduce restrictions across all forms of visas to the UK.

A new Home Office assessment showing the impact of changes to study and work visas and the introduction of English language tests said there would be about 100,000 fewer people entering the UK. It suggests net migration could fall to 300,000 by 2029, but the government declined to confirm a target.

Net migration, the difference between the number of people moving to the UK and the number leaving, was 728,000 in the 12 months to June 2024. Under the previous Conservative government, the figure rose to more than 900,000.

Starmer said that the current immigration system “encourages some businesses to bring in lower-paid workers rather than invest in our young people”.

Rain Newton-Smith, the Confederation of British Industry’s chief executive, said: “The reality for businesses is that it is more expensive and difficult to fill a vacancy with immigration than if they could hire locally or train workers … When considered alongside the large fees and accompanying charges, foreign workers are simply not the ‘easy’ or ‘cheap’ alternative.”

Bluesky

Good day all, the Lemmy devs (the people that make the software this website runs) are currently underfunded. If you're willing and able, then it'd be greatly appreciated if you could donate to help out little corner of the internet get better.

If, for whatever reason, you don't want to support the hosting of lemmy.ml but do want to support the developers, then make donations through something other than OpenCollective.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/29579005

An open source project the size of Lemmy needs constant work to manage the project, implement new features and fix bugs. Dessalines and I work full-time on these tasks and more. As there is no advertising or tracking, all of our work is funded through donations. Unfortunately the amount of donations has decreased to only 2000€ per month. This leaves only 1000€ per developer, which is not enough to pay my bills. With the current level of donations I will be forced to find another job, and drastically reduce my contributions to Lemmy. To avoid this outcome and keep Lemmy growing, I ask you to please make a recurring donation:

Liberapay | Ko-fi | Patreon | OpenCollective | Crypto

If you want more information before donating, consider the comparison with Reddit. It began as startup funded by rich investors. The site is managed by corporate executives who over time have become more and more disconnected from normal users. Their main goal is to make investors happy and to make a profit. This leads to user-hostile decisions like firing the employee responsible for AMAs, blocking third-party apps and more. As Reddit is a single website under a single authority, it means all users need to follow the same rules, including ridiculous ones like censoring the name "Luigi".

Lemmy represents a new type of social media which is the complete opposite of Reddit. It is split across many different websites, each with its own rules, and managed by normal people who actually care about the users. There is no company and no profit motive. Much of the work is carried out by volunteer admins, mods and posters, who contribute out of enthusiasm and not for money. For users this is great as there is no advertising nor tracking, and no chance of takeover by a billionaire. Additionally there are no builtin political or ideological restrictions. You can use the software for any purpose you like, add your own restrictions or scrutinize its inner workings. Lemmy truly belongs to everyone.

Dessalines and I work fulltime on Lemmy to keep up with all the feature requests, bug reports and development work. Even so there is barely enough time in the day, and no time for a second job. Previously I sometimes had to rely on my personal savings to keep developing Lemmy for you, but that can't go on forever. We partly rely on NLnet for funding, but they only pay for development of new features, and not for mandatory maintenance work. The only available option are user donations. To keep it viable donations need to reach a minimum of 5000€ per month, resulting in a modest salary of 2500€ per developer. If that goal is reached Dessalines and I can stop worrying about money, and fully focus on improving the software for the benefit of all users and instances. Please use the link below to see current donation stats and make your contribution! We especially rely on recurring donations to secure the long-term development and make Lemmy the best it can be.

Donate

Zack Polanski, who has been deputy leader since 2022 and serves as a London assembly member, will challenge [Carla] Denyer and [Adrian] Ramsay this summer despite them taking the party to its best-ever general election result last year, winning four seats.

Polanski told the Guardian he believed the pair had done a good job, but that the Greens needed to meet the challenge of Reform UK, which has a membership about four times bigger than his party and surged to a mass of victories in Thursday’s local elections.

“People are done with the two old parties and we’re in this dangerous moment where Nigel Farage is absolutely ready to fill that vacuum,” Polanski said. “We should never turn into Nigel Farage. But there are things we can learn in terms of being really clear in speaking to people.

“There’s an empty space in politics, where we’re not being as bold as we can be. Being sensible and professional are good qualities. But I don’t think they should be the central qualities.”

The Greens in England and Wales have about 60,000 members, while Reform have more than 220,000, a discrepancy Polanski said indicated the need for a change of direction.

“I don’t believe there are more people in this country who align with the politics of Reform than they do with the Green party,” he said. “In fact we know that, because when Green party policies are polled, they are frequently the most-liked policies, and we are the most-liked party. So why are people not joining?

“We’re not visible enough. I don’t want to see our membership grow incrementally. I want to see us be a mass movement. There’s something here around eco-populism: still being absolutely based in evidence, science and data – and never losing that – but telling a really powerful story.”
[…]
Polanski argues the party needs to take advantage of “massive” disillusionment with the Labour government, something he said was for now mainly helping fuel support for Reform.

“If you were trying to create the circumstances for the far right to rise, you would be doing exactly what Keir Starmer is doing now, which is protecting the wealth and power of the super rich,” he said.

Opinion piece by the TUC General Secretary:

There’s no sugar-coating it: Thursday was a tough night for Labour.

Voters sent a clear message — the same one they sent at the General Election. They’re fed up with the status quo and desperately want real change. The government must listen. But it must not panic.

Labour still commands a huge parliamentary majority and a powerful electoral mandate. That mandate was won on a promise to rebuild Britain, fix broken public services, and raise living standards after 14 years of Tory failure.

That’s where the focus must remain. Now is the time to deliver — and show the country whose side Labour is on.

The Employment Rights Bill offers a powerful opportunity to do just that. This landmark legislation will transform millions of lives by banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, ending fire-and-rehire, and guaranteeing sick pay from day one.

These aren’t just good policies — they’re popular ones. They reflect the public’s deep appetite for change and stand in direct opposition to the politics of division. New polling for the TUC shows the Bill doesn’t just make moral and economic sense — it makes political sense too. Passing it will boost Labour’s standing and help cut through Nigel Farage’s hollow posturing.

Farage likes to pose as a “man of the people,” but his record tells a very different story. He ordered his MPs to vote against the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation.

He supports NHS privatisation. And he idolises dangerous strongmen like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin — whose agendas threaten British jobs and security. Let’s take the fight to Farage where he’s weakest and expose him for what he is: a plastic patriot offering nothing but chaos and division.

Labour has nothing to gain from trying to out-Reform Reform. It will just bleed votes in both directions. But this government will be rewarded if it delivers the change working people are crying out for.

That means an unrelenting focus on the cost of living, rebuilding the NHS, improving schools, investing in skills and delivering an industrial strategy that brings good, secure work to every corner of the country.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published interim guidance following last week's Supreme Court decision. It instructs organisations that manage public spaces and workplaces to create segregated mixed-sex bathrooms, washing and changing facilities for Trans+ people to use.

It does this on the basis that same-sex spaces can only be used by people that align with the Supreme Court's definition of 'biological sex', while also saying that Trans+ perceived to be of the wrong gender can't use bathrooms that match their biological sex.

If taken beyond interim guidance and made statutory, it would be the biggest human rights disaster since racial segregation and apartheid.

The guidance covers workplaces, schools, and services open to the public, such as hospitals, shops and restaurants.

It stipulates that, where possible, mixed-sex toilets, washing and changing facilities should now be provided. In an interim period, it sets out where this is not possible, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use.