Owen Polley: A strong prime minister would hold a firm line on immigration - Sir Keir Starmer repeatedly backs down
The prime minister has become so infamous for making U-turns that even US comedians have started mocking him for his weakness.
Recently, the talk-show Saturday Night Live featured a sketch portraying Sir Keir Starmer and his deputy, David Lammy, preparing for a telephone call with the US president. After asking, “Oh golly, what if Donald shouts at me? What do I say Lammy?” the actor playing the prime minister delivered the line, “I’ll do anything, except take a stand.”
The joke will have caused discomfort at Number 10, because it so accurately summed up many people’s impressions of Starmer.
The skit was concerned with tensions between the US and Britain over the war in Iran.
It is impossible not to have some sympathy with the prime minister over this issue. The UK has been dragged into the crisis without much choice.
Starmer clearly does not want to antagonise President Trump or seem soft on the vile regime in Tehran, but neither does he want to embroil Britain further in a conflict for which it is not prepared.
There are fewer excuses for other displays of weakness from his government, particularly when the prime minister’s overwhelming priority seems to be managing malcontents on the left of the Labour party.
Starmer came to power with a huge majority and he could have imposed his authority on his wilder colleagues, but instead he backed down repeatedly, to the point that his leadership now lacks credibility.
In the latest example, it looks likely that Starmer could water down plans to reform the immigration system. This is in response to criticism from Labour colleagues like the former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, who recently described the proposals as ‘un-British’.
Although the UK faces all kinds of problems, particularly now that the war in the Middle East has brought more uncertainty about the economy, immigration is going to remain one of the biggest issues for many years to come.
At times, Starmer’s government has shown signs of acknowledging that we have a migration crisis that is stretching our services and undermining social cohesion.
The prime minister and some of his ministers are at least prepared to discuss these difficulties, unlike, for instance, the pathetic so-called ‘progressive’ parties in Northern Ireland, which insist on maintaining the idea that an unprecedented influx of people can only be an unalloyed good.
Starmer actually came close to reflecting many people’s concerns when he gave a speech worrying that migration could make Britain “an island of strangers”. This should not have been a contentious point. Every nation state needs to be underpinned by some sense of belonging and togetherness.
Unfortunately, the prime minister soon expressed regret for his comments, after they were compared to language used by the former Conservative and UUP MP, Enoch Powell.
The home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, nevertheless unveiled plans to toughen up the migration system, which angered some of her own backbench colleagues. They were particularly opposed to plans to ensure that migrants had to be here significantly longer before they were entitled to apply for ‘indefinite leave to remain’. This process will also take into consideration whether they are earning a substantial salary.
The likes of Rayner claim this ‘moves the goalposts’ for people who are already here.
And while Mahmood insists that she is going ‘full steam ahead’ with her plans, reports suggest that Starmer is ready to compromise with the rebels.
The home secretary also briefed journalists last week that she would start to deport thousands of foreign criminals and failed asylum seekers as soon as their claims were rejected. This would prevent them from using human rights laws to launch appeals, which is causing a huge backlog.
The plan sounds like common sense, particularly because it applies only to people from countries that the government has deemed safe. The ever expanding definition of human rights law, and judges’ willingness to use it to prevent the deportation of foreign criminals, is causing increasing anger among the public.
You can be sure, though, that the left wing of the Labour party, as well as unthinking ‘progressives’ at Stormont, will use this issue to further burnish their holier than thou self-image.
This is the kind of pressure a strong prime minister would ignore, particularly because surrendering to his back benches will only help Reform UK and damage his party’s election hopes.
Unfortunately, it is also the type of argument that Starmer has routinely backed down from.
The immigration issue is not treated seriously by most of the executive parties at Stormont. We expect that. They are more interested in projecting a certain image than tackling issues that could cause real problems for our society, particularly in the future. We are used to them evading their responsibilities.
The debate at Westminster has generally been more serious and robust, even while successive governments have failed to find lasting solutions to our porous borders. At the same time, there are still too many MPs who will not discuss the issue properly, but prefer to use it to prove how kind and welcoming they are.
That is where a strong, responsible leader would know when to ignore backbenchers’ criticisms. It is still possible that Starmer remains firm on Labour’s migration plans, but given his record, and the briefings coming from Number 10, it is increasingly hard to have any confidence that his resolve will hold.