THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY has called on prime minister Keir Starmer to abandon plans for an official definition of Islamophobia, warning it could undermine free speech and hinder actions against wrongdoing.
Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick criticised the proposal, claiming that a "false label" of Islamophobia had obstructed investigations into child abuse grooming gangs involving men of Pakistani heritage.
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, Jenrick said, “The government should drop its plans for such a deeply flawed definition of Islamophobia.”
Jenrick argued that the label had been used to silence discussions during the grooming gang scandal. “It appears that the government has learnt nothing and is determined to press ahead with a definition that will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech,” he said.
In a social media post, Jenrick further alleged that crimes committed by predominantly British-Pakistani men had been “legalised and actively covered up” to avoid social unrest. He wrote, “The rule of law was abandoned to sustain the myth that diversity is our strength, destroying the lives of thousands of vulnerable white working-class girls in the process.”
Jenrick also linked the issue to mass migration, saying the foreign nationals involved must be deported, while officials who covered up the crimes should face jail time. His comments were partly in response to criticism by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who condemned the UK government’s handling of cases of sexual exploitation from over a decade ago.
Meanwhile, sources in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) reportedly confirmed to The Daily Telegraph that officials were examining a formal definition of Islamophobia. Although non-binding, such a definition would require adoption by organisations.
The debate over defining Islamophobia has been ongoing. In 2018, the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims described it as a “type of racism” targeting expressions of Muslimness. Critics, including Fiyaz Mughal of Tell Mama, have raised concerns about the potential misuse of this definition.
“Bad behaviour, wherever it is, needs to be called out. But when issues are concentrated within a certain group, we must uphold our core values,” Mughal told The Daily Telegraph.
The Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO) also cautioned against the APPG definition, arguing it could stifle free speech and hinder discussions on issues such as the history of the Indian subcontinent and the persecution of minorities.
“Adopting this contested definition into law would have serious implications on free speech,” the NSO said in a letter to deputy prime minister Angela Rayner last year.
In response, faith minister Lord Wajid Khan acknowledged the complexity of defining Islamophobia and said the government was working on a “more holistic” approach. “We want to ensure that any definition comprehensively reflects multiple perspectives,” he said, adding that further updates would follow.
Starmer had already softened the proposals last week following criticism from Labour MPs who said the planned cuts to disability and sickness benefits went too far. (Photo:
PRIME MINISTER Keir Starmer avoided a parliamentary defeat on key welfare reforms on Tuesday, after agreeing to further concessions amid growing pressure from within the Labour Party.
Starmer had already softened the proposals last week following criticism from Labour MPs who said the planned cuts to disability and sickness benefits went too far.
Despite the government’s large majority in the House of Commons, the scale of the internal backlash meant more concessions were made just hours before the vote.
Cuts delayed after internal pressure
Among the latest changes was a delay to benefit cuts planned for 2026, pending a review led by social security and disability minister Stephen Timms.
The last-minute move helped the government pass the vote comfortably, with 335 MPs supporting the legislation and 260 voting against, giving a majority of 75.
However, the changes significantly weakened the original bill, which had aimed to reduce spending on the UK’s welfare system by billions of pounds. Critics dismissed the revised version as ineffective.
“This is an utter capitulation,” Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservative opposition, posted on social media.
“Labour’s welfare bill is now a TOTAL waste of time. It effectively saves £0, helps no one into work, and does NOT control spending. It's pointless.”
Reforms scaled back again
Work and Pensions Minister Liz Kendall introduced the updated bill in parliament on Monday, as new government figures estimated that an additional 150,000 people could fall into poverty due to the revised proposals.
Starmer had initially aimed to cut £5 billion from the welfare budget. After last week’s climbdown, that figure fell to £2.5 billion. Following Tuesday’s concessions, it remained unclear how much, if any, would now be saved.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who has been under pressure due to low economic growth, will need to identify alternative ways to balance the budget.
First anniversary overshadowed
The developments have coincided with the one-year anniversary of Labour returning to power after 14 years in opposition. The situation has also led to further scrutiny of Starmer’s leadership and the direction of his government.
Starmer has made a series of U-turns in recent months and has struggled to meet his government’s goal of driving economic growth.
“One year of Starmer, one year of u-turns,” Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, said on Tuesday.
On June 9, the government reversed a plan to scrap winter heating benefits for millions of pensioners, following strong criticism and resistance from Labour MPs.
A week later, Starmer announced a national inquiry into a UK child sex exploitation scandal, having earlier declined to do so.
Growing discontent within party
Although Starmer has a parliamentary majority of 165 MPs, which should allow him to pass legislation with ease, many in his party have raised concerns about his approach.
Some Labour MPs say the leadership is too focused on countering the rise of Reform UK, and argue that it is moving away from the party’s traditional centre-left values.
A YouGov poll published last week, based on responses from more than 10,000 people, showed that Labour is losing voters to both Reform UK and, on the left, to the Liberal Democrats and the Greens.
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.
The aim is to attract graduate-level or above workers, making several low-paid roles ineligible for visas. (Representational image: iStock)
THE GOVERNMENT on Tuesday introduced the first set of tougher immigration rules in the House of Commons aimed at reducing the recruitment of foreign skilled workers, including in the care sector. The new measures are described as a “complete reset” of the UK’s immigration system.
The proposed changes, originally outlined in an ‘Immigration White Paper’ in May, include raising the skills and salary thresholds for foreign workers — including those from India — ending overseas recruitment for care worker roles, and removing more than 100 occupations, such as chefs and plasterers, from the shortage occupation list that currently allows certain visa exemptions.
If approved by parliament, the changes will take effect from July 22. The aim is to attract graduate-level or above workers, making several low-paid roles ineligible for visas.
“We are delivering a complete reset of our immigration system to restore proper control and order, after the previous government allowed net migration to quadruple in four years,” said home secretary Yvette Cooper.
“These new rules mean stronger controls to bring migration down, to restore order to the immigration system and to ensure we focus on investing in skills and training here in the UK,” she said.
Cooper added that the tougher approach “values skills, tackles exploitation and ensures those who come to the UK make a genuine contribution”.
Changes to care sector recruitment and work visa salary thresholds
A statement tabled in the Commons by Home Office minister Seema Malhotra said that skilled workers already in the UK will not be subject to the new skill level requirement, which will mandate a Bachelor's degree or equivalent from July 22.
“Salary requirements for work visas are being raised in line with the latest Office for National Statistics data, ahead of an upcoming thorough review of salary requirements (including discounts) by the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC),” Malhotra’s statement said.
From July 22, overseas recruitment for social care worker roles will close. New applications from abroad will no longer be accepted. However, transitional provisions will allow “in-country switching” for care workers already in the UK until July 2028.
The Home Office said the changes are meant to restore order to the points-based system by focusing on higher skills, fewer numbers and tighter controls. The department said this was an important step in reducing the UK’s dependence on lower-skilled overseas recruitment.
Temporary shortage list and next set of reforms
Only time-limited access below degree level will be allowed for certain roles included in a temporary shortage list of "critical roles". The independent Migration Advisory Committee has been asked to review this list, including the occupations, salary levels and benefits.
“Workers in occupations on the temporary shortage list will no longer be able to bring dependants and will not be permitted salary and visa fee discounts. The occupations included on the list are time-limited until the end of 2026 and will only remain beyond that date if the independent Migration Advisory Committee recommend it,” the Home Office said.
Further changes proposed in the White Paper are also expected to be implemented by the end of this year. These include increasing the immigration skills charge on companies that employ foreign workers and tightening English language requirements for visa applicants.
(With inputs from agencies)
Keep ReadingShow less
Keir Starmer speaks during a reception for public sector workers at 10 Downing Street in London on July 1, 2025. (Photo by CARL COURT/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
PRIME MINISTER Keir Starmer faced the most serious test of his leadership on Tuesday (1) as his government’s flagship welfare reforms came under fierce attack from within his own party.
The day was marked by emotional speeches, last-minute concessions, and a deep sense of division among Labour MPs, many of whom said the proposed changes would push vulnerable people into poverty
The atmosphere in the House of Commons as tense, with about 50 Labour MPs expected to vote against the bill, reported The Times.
The government, aware of the scale of the rebellion, was reportedly considering further concessions, including delaying the most controversial measures until after a full review of the welfare system.
One of the most contentious points was the introduction of a four-point threshold for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) eligibility, which critics said would deny help to those unable to wash or dress below the waist from November 2026
Marie Tidball, one of the only MPs with a visible physical disability, delivered a moving speech, saying, “It is with a broken heart that I will be voting against this bill today. As a matter of conscience, I need my constituents to know I cannot support the proposed changes to PIP as currently drafted. Low-level support like PIP helps disabled people, keeping us out of the dark corners of hospitals, prisons and social care settings.”
She warned that the changes could put about 150,000 people into poverty.
Apsana Begum, MP for Poplar and Limehouse, has announced she will vote against the bill, citing deep concerns about its impact on disabled people.
Apsana Begum
Begum said, “When it comes to people’s lives and wellbeing, there can be no compromise. Politics should serve people – not the other way around.” She criticised the planned £3.5 billion cuts to disability benefits, calling them unacceptable.
The MP expressed strong opposition to what she described as a “two-tier system” that would force disabled people into greater hardship.
Begum also pointed out the anxiety felt by disabled constituents in her area, who have already endured years of austerity and hardship. “I say to them: I am with you,” she declared.
She also condemned other welfare measures such as the two-child limit and the “poisonous narrative” that blames people for their poverty. “My constituents voted for an end to austerity. They want a welfare system that supports people, not one that pushes into poverty,” Begum said.
“That’s why I’m voting against this cruel Disability Benefit Cuts bill”
Rebecca Long Bailey, a former Labour leadership contender, echoed these concerns. She said the planned cuts “will still push hundreds of thousands of vulnerable sick and disabled people into poverty,” adding that “existing claimants will live in fear that if the situation changes and they are reassessed, they could lose everything under the new system.”
Long Bailey criticised the government for rushing the bill through without proper consultation, warning that it would worsen human rights violations already highlighted by the United Nations
Dame Meg Hillier, who had initially led efforts to block the bill, withdrew her amendment after the government agreed to a “staggered approach.”
She told the Commons, “Divided parties do not hold power or government. If we want to power our government, if we want to see our values in this country, we have to vote for this today.” Yet she admitted that “there is still a lot to be done” to protect disabled people and those seeking work
Meanwhile, the government’s climbdown last week was prompted by a major revolt from Labour MPs who argued the original proposals went too far. More than 120 MPs had signalled their willingness to rebel, forcing ministers to water down the changes.
The new plan means the stricter criteria for sickness and disability benefits will only apply to new claimants, not those already receiving support
Secretary of state for work and pensions, Liz Kendall, presented the revised bill to parliament, but newly released government data estimated that even the watered-down reforms could push an extra 150,000 people into poverty.
This left some Labour MPs still reluctant to back the bill, with backbenchers exposing “so many holes in the government’s plans,” as one put it
Business secretary Jonathan Reynolds told Times Radio, “We’re all trying to find a way to protect the most vulnerable people and get people back into work if they need it,” defending the government’s approach.
However, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch rejected the bill outright, calling it “a fudge” and saying, “A fundamental and serious programme to reform our welfare system is required, and this bill is not it."
(with inputs from AFP)
Keep ReadingShow less
Uber Eats and Deliveroo will tighten ID checks, including facial verification, to curb illegal migrant work after UK government pressure. (Photo: Getty Images)
FOOD delivery companies Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat have agreed to strengthen security measures, including facial verification checks, to prevent irregular migrants from working through their platforms, following criticism from the UK government.
The announcement came after the Labour government summoned the three firms for a meeting in response to a report by The Sun which exposed how some migrants were bypassing rules and working illegally in the gig economy sector.
Although the companies already have controls to verify workers’ legal right to work in the UK, the Home Office said "there continues to be abuse in the sector" through account sharing.
Facial verification checks to be expanded
According to the government, many asylum seekers who cross the Channel and await decisions on their asylum claims are using verified delivery driver accounts rented from others to work illegally. These individuals do not have the legal right to work while their claims are pending.
The Home Office said the delivery platforms have “agreed to increase the use of facial verification checks” to ensure “only registered account holders can work off their platforms.” The companies also committed to “combat illegal working”.
“We are taking a zero-tolerance approach to illegal working across the board,” said Border Security and Asylum minister Angela Eagle.
Immigration pressure and proposed legislation
Prime minister Keir Starmer has faced pressure from the anti-immigration Reform UK party led by Nigel Farage to reduce irregular migration. A new immigration bill currently before parliament seeks to expand police powers against smuggling networks and tighten work eligibility controls.
Since January, over 19,000 people have crossed the Channel in small boats to reach the UK from France, marking a record number for this point in the year despite efforts to deter such journeys.
French officials, including former interior minister Gerald Darmanin, have said that the availability of illegal work opportunities in the UK continues to act as a pull factor for migrants making the crossing.
Do not expect any parties in Downing Street to celebrate the government’s first birthday on Friday (4). After a rocky year, prime minister Sir Keir Starmer had more than a few regrets when giving interviews about his first year in office.
He explained that he chose the wrong chief of staff. That his opening economic narrative was too gloomy. That choosing the winter fuel allowance as a symbol of fiscal responsibility backfired. Starmer ‘deeply regretted’ the speech he gave to launch his immigration white paper, from which only the phrase ‘island of strangers’ cut through. Can any previous political leader have been quite so self-critical of their own record in real time?
This unconventional approach could be a reminder of Starmer’s best quality: that he is the antithesis of US president Donald Trump. Trump has a narcissistic need to be the main character, a hyperactive addiction to conflict, the attention span of a toddler and no interest in policy substance beyond the television and social media optics. So Trump is the disruptor in chief of global trade, security and the US constitutional order. Given a binary choice, it is infinitely better to have the serious sobriety of Starmer, trying to cooperate with allies to limit Trump’s chaotic contributions to increased insecurity.
Yet, it is a contrast that could be taken too far. Trump realises that politics is about what you say as well as what you do. What Starmer is palpably still missing is a clear public story of what his government is for. This was partly a matter of choice. A gritty public mood has little appetite for new visions, unless shown tangible progress first. It reflects the taciturn character of the leader too. Yet the issue is not simply one of communication. The challenge of finding a narrative reflects uncertainty about the strategic direction of the government.
Judged by its actions, this is a centre-left government. It has made many decisions that the previous Conservative government would not have taken. It changed the fiscal rules, borrowing much more for investment. Despite the constraints of its manifesto pledges on most taxes, it did raise taxes so as to have more to spend on the NHS, and on housebuilding. The government is committed to higher defence spending, and also to net zero, to closer UK-EU relations, within the ‘red lines’ which Labour set out, as it takes care to check if it can take the public with it. It will work with multilateral institutions, rather than quitting treaties and conventions. If this is a centre-left government in its deeds, it may prefer to self-identify as something else, without quite managing to articulate what that is.
So this has been a very tactical government, which has changed its mind about most of its tactical choices. The Comprehensive Spending Review was intended as a reset moment, in giving the government clearer priorities, though it has been challenging to make the numbers add up. But the parliamentary rebellion over its welfare bill could prove a more significant turning point. A government which won a landslide had lost its majority once 125 of its MPs - a majority of the backbench - declared they were unable to pass a government bill without a significant change. This was about the substantive impact of heavy income losses for disabled people - and the lack of a rationale beyond saving money. This rebellion is also about the political strategy of the government. Much of the parliamentary group seem diminishing returns in actively picking fights with progressives who Labour will need to keep the populism of Reform leader Nigel Farage out.
Can Starmer fix his government? The prime minister is 62 years old. He cannot change his personality or working style, not metamorphosis into a visionary speech-maker. There is little point in advisers inventing hypothetical strategies - such as choosing to present Starmer as a radical insurgent, rather than the sober incumbent, which cannot fit with the prime minister they have got, and his gradualist agenda for long-term change. Yet Starmer could use his evident capacity for self-reflection to identify feasible changes. He needs to repair how his Downing Street operation makes decisions - and now knows that backbench support is not unconditional.
Facing a fragmented opposition, Labour’s chances of re-election in four years time may be underestimated. Yet most of Labour’s tactical mistakes have come from trying to run a permanent election campaign in government, four years early. The government needs to govern to generate the substantive record and future agenda it would defend from the populist right in 2029. Australia's Anthony Albanese, who faced many similar criticisms to Starmer, bounced back to get re-elected, though the Canadian Liberals changed leaders to defeat the right. How many years Starmer has left in Downing Street is anybody’s guess. This time next year, he would need a stronger story to tell.
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.