> THE language Keir Starmer has used to describe migrant workers has “echoes of Enoch Powell at his worst” and will make it harder for the care sector to hang on to key staff, the CEO of Scottish Care has said.
> Donald MacAskill has said he is “profoundly concerned” at proposals set out by the Prime Minister which include cutting overseas care workers.
>
> Starmer said the UK risks becoming an “island of strangers” without further controls on immigration.
> He also said the Labour Government would “take back control of our borders” and close the book on a “squalid chapter” for politics and the economy.
>
> The UK Government is set to close the care worker visa route as part of new restrictions which aim to cut the number of low-skilled foreign workers by about 50,000 this year.
>
>
> Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has said it is “time to end that care worker recruitment from abroad” and rules will change this year – instead requiring firms to hire British nationals or extend visas of overseas workers already in the country.
> MacAskill said the care sector in Scotland had not been consulted about the announcement.
>
> He told The National the language used by Starmer has echoes of Enoch Powell, who in 1968 criticised the rapid influx of immigrants from the Commonwealth to the UK in his “Rivers of Blood” speech.
>
> The Scottish Care CEO said Starmer’s approach will create a “hostile environment” for care workers, making it harder for the sector to hang on to international workers.
> He told The National: “The phraseology of the Prime Minister is extremely negative and almost reaches a level of anti-immigrant rhetoric which is really playing into the hands of some of our more negative voices in the political area.
> “That means holding onto the thousands of care workers that come from international communities, who are delivering care and part of our communities today, will be increasingly difficult because it’s creating a hostile environment.
> “As a bit of a student of political history I cannot but conclude that it has echoes of Powell at his worst. It is deeply regrettable that using language that plays into negative stereotypes around the contribution of migrants will lead to a devaluing of their contribution.
> “The skills and the abilities of our international colleagues are excellent and we have to hold onto our colleagues. We have to get the UK Government to reconsider.
>
> (Image: NQ) “I want Mr Starmer to answer me – where are we going to get these workers if not internationally?”
>
> MacAskill (above) is not the first to make the comparison between Starmer and Powell, with MP Zarah Sultana also saying he “imitated” the Rivers of Blood speech with his words.
> “That speech fuelled decades of racism and division. Echoing it today is a disgrace,” she said.
> MacAskill said even if every pupil coming out of Scottish schools were to go into the care sector, there would still not be enough people to deliver care and support.
>
>
>
>
> He said the plan announced by Starmer failed to recognise the problem Scotland faces of an ageing workforce, adding it has become clear the nation needs to have powers over immigration.
> “The rhetoric which is about at the moment, that all we need to do is train those who are economically inactive, is absolutely naïve,” said MacAskill.
> “There is this perception that care is low-skilled any anybody can do it with a bit of training and it’s absolutely false.”
>
>
> He went on: “We need an immigration system which is based on sector need, and that is clearly the case in Scotland, and secondly a system that is based on geographical priorities and I would argue there is a very strong case for a distinct approach in Scotland to the rest of the UK.
>
> “Similar systems exist in Canada and Australia, and very effectively. It’s because the question of nationalism becomes associated with this that we haven’t got the maturity of political debate to enable a recognition that parts of Scotland, parts of Wales and indeed parts of the south-west of England do need a different approach to immigration.”
>
> Immigration expert Emile Chabal, a professor of contemporary history at Edinburgh University, has also said the Labour Government’s approach could lead to a dismantling of the care sector.
> “The care sector has for a long time relied on cheap foreign labour and this overwhelmingly has come from non-EU migrants in the last two decades,” he told The National.
>
> (Image: PA) “So there’s a very real risk of the bottom falling out of that sector.
>
> “The problem is the lag – it takes time to recruit people, it takes time to train people, and if this legislation is implemented it will make it much more difficult for those in the care sector to employ people quickly.”
> Under the white paper proposals, migrants will have to spend 10 years in the UK before being able to apply for citizenship, but so-called “high-contributing” individuals such as doctors and nurses could be fast-tracked through the system.
> Language requirements will be increased for all immigration routes to ensure a higher level of English.
> Rules will also be laid out for adult dependants, meaning that they will have to demonstrate a basic understanding of the language.
>
>
> Meanwhile, skilled worker visas will require a university degree, and there will be tighter restrictions on recruitment for jobs with skills shortages.
> Ministers are looking to bring down net migration figures, which stood at 728,000 in the year to mid-2024.
> Chabal said there is a “real problem” with how successive UK governments have become “hostage” to net migration figures, making him doubt if Starmer’s plan is realistic.
> He said: “I think it’s a double edge sword – on the one hand successive governments have been using net migration targets to try and show they are doing something, they’re trying to signal ‘we can bring this down, we have a metric we can use to show you we’re doing something’.
> “But by emphasising migration targets that focuses public attention on the figures and actually, those are much more difficult to control than most governments are willing to admit and that’s a real problem.
> “So whether any of these policies will be effective, I’d be concerned about that.”
Let’s not pretend the care sector isn’t extremely biased when it comes to immigration. Care costs are at an all time high, and they’ve kept care work as a minimum wage profession despite it being one of the most needed and challenging jobs in our society.
The money these private care companies make is absolutely obscene, charging thousands for basic care and paying their staff the bare minimum by exploiting immigration laws.
Starmers language was unacceptable, but the care sector aren’t worried about the language – they’re worried about their profit margins.
He’s not wrong.
Ignoring for the moment the important fact that the vast majority of immigration into the UK is legal and by means of visas (for essential workers, students, and, decreasingly less so, their dependents), and take on face value the supposed need to respond to the “immigration issue”, what Starmer has done isn’t a rational or normal way to do it.
Group 1: There will always be ignorant racist fucks. They will never vote for Labour. They don’t care who you are of why you’re here if you’re not from here… or if you are but you’re dark skinned.
Group 2: There are people who don’t pay that much attention, but see the new articles about “hoards” of immigrants off small boats etc and believe it because someone they perceive to know more about such things (politicians, Journalists etc) are telling them this is the case. They might vote Labour if they’re seen to be doing something about these nebulous problems created by the hordes.
Group 3: There are the people who realise it’s not so clear cut, that immigration is, to a varying degree, necessary and valuable. They would likely be solid Labour voters.
It’s the middle group that Starmer needs to appeal to. What he should do, and indeed could do, is not treat these people as stupid by pandering to the Reform/Tory/Telegraph/Mail-led narrative and actually explain that immigration isn’t what they’ve been led to believe it is. Even if that means sensible reforms to immigration policy.
But he’s not willing to do that, he’s going for the cheap shot and leaning into the lie in the hope it will garner support from groups 1 and 2.
It won’t work for group 1. They will vote for more and more extremes, with Reform.
It might work for group 2, but it won’t retain their support because dumping on immigrants a) won’t solve the real problems they face and b) will likely make them worse.
Group 3, who would have been a steady base for them, will abandon them because they are nothing like the Labour party we expect them to be now. Tories in red ties.
It also has the effect of pushing the Overton window further to the right and sending the country off on the highway to far greater and far more expensive and far more damaging issues – all of which will be piled on top of the problems we already face.
He’s fucked it and there’s no going back from this for him, or Labour.
What would happen were the restriction of care home workers to actually take place should probably teach older Tories about the enormous scaffold of benefits and web of social sacrifices they absolutely refuse to acknowledge but are entirely dependent upon, up to and including their reliance on immigrant workers for their labour and taxes.
Instead, I suspect immigrants, women, people of working age, the Labour Party or trans people (somehow) will be blamed by newspapers, and it will be quietly reversed if/when Reform get in.
“I want to return immigration to the levels it was at in 2019”
“You are a racist and probably a fascist sympathiser”
Ignoring the fact Sir Kid Starver is a Red Tory, one huge issue in the private care sector is that they pay shite, yet charge so much for providing the care.
Where do these £6000+ fees a month go to? Paying off a new shitey building? Paying the bare-minimum wage to the staff (many of whom are immigrants / migrants / locals and do an incredible job)? Or is it, as I suspect, paying the profits of those investors and owners of the care provider? I would much rather pay that type of money to provide essential care if I knew it was going to the staff on the ground. But it’s not. So it’s something we have to deal with.
He really does seem to be targeting the wrong people.
People who work in care homes are not the enemy. Cracking down on them is not going to make the country safer or more “cohesive” if that what he wants.
All it is good for is a bit of media spin – at the expense of both care home workers and residents.
If you attack someone or break the law – then you should get the appropriate punishment- up to getting kicked out of the country. Punishing those who follow the rules is not the way to go about it.
I’d rather more resources go into police, welfare and education to keep the public safe and help to integrate refugees.
7 comments
Anti paywall: https://archive.ph/QIufZ
> THE language Keir Starmer has used to describe migrant workers has “echoes of Enoch Powell at his worst” and will make it harder for the care sector to hang on to key staff, the CEO of Scottish Care has said.
> Donald MacAskill has said he is “profoundly concerned” at proposals set out by the Prime Minister which include cutting overseas care workers.
>
> Starmer said the UK risks becoming an “island of strangers” without further controls on immigration.
> He also said the Labour Government would “take back control of our borders” and close the book on a “squalid chapter” for politics and the economy.
>
> The UK Government is set to close the care worker visa route as part of new restrictions which aim to cut the number of low-skilled foreign workers by about 50,000 this year.
>
>
> Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has said it is “time to end that care worker recruitment from abroad” and rules will change this year – instead requiring firms to hire British nationals or extend visas of overseas workers already in the country.
> MacAskill said the care sector in Scotland had not been consulted about the announcement.
>
> He told The National the language used by Starmer has echoes of Enoch Powell, who in 1968 criticised the rapid influx of immigrants from the Commonwealth to the UK in his “Rivers of Blood” speech.
>
> The Scottish Care CEO said Starmer’s approach will create a “hostile environment” for care workers, making it harder for the sector to hang on to international workers.
> He told The National: “The phraseology of the Prime Minister is extremely negative and almost reaches a level of anti-immigrant rhetoric which is really playing into the hands of some of our more negative voices in the political area.
> “That means holding onto the thousands of care workers that come from international communities, who are delivering care and part of our communities today, will be increasingly difficult because it’s creating a hostile environment.
> “As a bit of a student of political history I cannot but conclude that it has echoes of Powell at his worst. It is deeply regrettable that using language that plays into negative stereotypes around the contribution of migrants will lead to a devaluing of their contribution.
> “The skills and the abilities of our international colleagues are excellent and we have to hold onto our colleagues. We have to get the UK Government to reconsider.
>
> (Image: NQ) “I want Mr Starmer to answer me – where are we going to get these workers if not internationally?”
>
> MacAskill (above) is not the first to make the comparison between Starmer and Powell, with MP Zarah Sultana also saying he “imitated” the Rivers of Blood speech with his words.
> “That speech fuelled decades of racism and division. Echoing it today is a disgrace,” she said.
> MacAskill said even if every pupil coming out of Scottish schools were to go into the care sector, there would still not be enough people to deliver care and support.
>
>
>
>
> He said the plan announced by Starmer failed to recognise the problem Scotland faces of an ageing workforce, adding it has become clear the nation needs to have powers over immigration.
> “The rhetoric which is about at the moment, that all we need to do is train those who are economically inactive, is absolutely naïve,” said MacAskill.
> “There is this perception that care is low-skilled any anybody can do it with a bit of training and it’s absolutely false.”
>
>
> He went on: “We need an immigration system which is based on sector need, and that is clearly the case in Scotland, and secondly a system that is based on geographical priorities and I would argue there is a very strong case for a distinct approach in Scotland to the rest of the UK.
>
> “Similar systems exist in Canada and Australia, and very effectively. It’s because the question of nationalism becomes associated with this that we haven’t got the maturity of political debate to enable a recognition that parts of Scotland, parts of Wales and indeed parts of the south-west of England do need a different approach to immigration.”
>
> Immigration expert Emile Chabal, a professor of contemporary history at Edinburgh University, has also said the Labour Government’s approach could lead to a dismantling of the care sector.
> “The care sector has for a long time relied on cheap foreign labour and this overwhelmingly has come from non-EU migrants in the last two decades,” he told The National.
>
> (Image: PA) “So there’s a very real risk of the bottom falling out of that sector.
>
> “The problem is the lag – it takes time to recruit people, it takes time to train people, and if this legislation is implemented it will make it much more difficult for those in the care sector to employ people quickly.”
> Under the white paper proposals, migrants will have to spend 10 years in the UK before being able to apply for citizenship, but so-called “high-contributing” individuals such as doctors and nurses could be fast-tracked through the system.
> Language requirements will be increased for all immigration routes to ensure a higher level of English.
> Rules will also be laid out for adult dependants, meaning that they will have to demonstrate a basic understanding of the language.
>
>
> Meanwhile, skilled worker visas will require a university degree, and there will be tighter restrictions on recruitment for jobs with skills shortages.
> Ministers are looking to bring down net migration figures, which stood at 728,000 in the year to mid-2024.
> Chabal said there is a “real problem” with how successive UK governments have become “hostage” to net migration figures, making him doubt if Starmer’s plan is realistic.
> He said: “I think it’s a double edge sword – on the one hand successive governments have been using net migration targets to try and show they are doing something, they’re trying to signal ‘we can bring this down, we have a metric we can use to show you we’re doing something’.
> “But by emphasising migration targets that focuses public attention on the figures and actually, those are much more difficult to control than most governments are willing to admit and that’s a real problem.
> “So whether any of these policies will be effective, I’d be concerned about that.”
Let’s not pretend the care sector isn’t extremely biased when it comes to immigration. Care costs are at an all time high, and they’ve kept care work as a minimum wage profession despite it being one of the most needed and challenging jobs in our society.
The money these private care companies make is absolutely obscene, charging thousands for basic care and paying their staff the bare minimum by exploiting immigration laws.
Starmers language was unacceptable, but the care sector aren’t worried about the language – they’re worried about their profit margins.
He’s not wrong.
Ignoring for the moment the important fact that the vast majority of immigration into the UK is legal and by means of visas (for essential workers, students, and, decreasingly less so, their dependents), and take on face value the supposed need to respond to the “immigration issue”, what Starmer has done isn’t a rational or normal way to do it.
Group 1: There will always be ignorant racist fucks. They will never vote for Labour. They don’t care who you are of why you’re here if you’re not from here… or if you are but you’re dark skinned.
Group 2: There are people who don’t pay that much attention, but see the new articles about “hoards” of immigrants off small boats etc and believe it because someone they perceive to know more about such things (politicians, Journalists etc) are telling them this is the case. They might vote Labour if they’re seen to be doing something about these nebulous problems created by the hordes.
Group 3: There are the people who realise it’s not so clear cut, that immigration is, to a varying degree, necessary and valuable. They would likely be solid Labour voters.
It’s the middle group that Starmer needs to appeal to. What he should do, and indeed could do, is not treat these people as stupid by pandering to the Reform/Tory/Telegraph/Mail-led narrative and actually explain that immigration isn’t what they’ve been led to believe it is. Even if that means sensible reforms to immigration policy.
But he’s not willing to do that, he’s going for the cheap shot and leaning into the lie in the hope it will garner support from groups 1 and 2.
It won’t work for group 1. They will vote for more and more extremes, with Reform.
It might work for group 2, but it won’t retain their support because dumping on immigrants a) won’t solve the real problems they face and b) will likely make them worse.
Group 3, who would have been a steady base for them, will abandon them because they are nothing like the Labour party we expect them to be now. Tories in red ties.
It also has the effect of pushing the Overton window further to the right and sending the country off on the highway to far greater and far more expensive and far more damaging issues – all of which will be piled on top of the problems we already face.
He’s fucked it and there’s no going back from this for him, or Labour.
What would happen were the restriction of care home workers to actually take place should probably teach older Tories about the enormous scaffold of benefits and web of social sacrifices they absolutely refuse to acknowledge but are entirely dependent upon, up to and including their reliance on immigrant workers for their labour and taxes.
Instead, I suspect immigrants, women, people of working age, the Labour Party or trans people (somehow) will be blamed by newspapers, and it will be quietly reversed if/when Reform get in.
“I want to return immigration to the levels it was at in 2019”
“You are a racist and probably a fascist sympathiser”
Ignoring the fact Sir Kid Starver is a Red Tory, one huge issue in the private care sector is that they pay shite, yet charge so much for providing the care.
Where do these £6000+ fees a month go to? Paying off a new shitey building? Paying the bare-minimum wage to the staff (many of whom are immigrants / migrants / locals and do an incredible job)? Or is it, as I suspect, paying the profits of those investors and owners of the care provider? I would much rather pay that type of money to provide essential care if I knew it was going to the staff on the ground. But it’s not. So it’s something we have to deal with.
He really does seem to be targeting the wrong people.
People who work in care homes are not the enemy. Cracking down on them is not going to make the country safer or more “cohesive” if that what he wants.
All it is good for is a bit of media spin – at the expense of both care home workers and residents.
If you attack someone or break the law – then you should get the appropriate punishment- up to getting kicked out of the country. Punishing those who follow the rules is not the way to go about it.
I’d rather more resources go into police, welfare and education to keep the public safe and help to integrate refugees.
Comments are closed.