Keir Starmer: Peak Migration.
What Happened to "Smash The Gangs"?
Sir Keir Starmer is on the brink of unwanted small boats crossing the Channel. The number of these boats crossing the waterway that divides Britain from France is far faster than under Sunak and Johnson. The number of people (because that's what they are) is on the brink of 50,000.
The Home Office Figures show that up to and including Sunday, a total of 49,797 people had crossed the Channel since 5 July 2024. Sir Keir knew when he was elected on 4 July 2024 that he had to get a grip on this situation.
The Tories reckon Sir Keir's term in office has seen 50,000 crossings. So what are they suggesting there has been a cover-up? Sir Keir hasn't achieved his goal of "smashing the gangs" and turning back the boats? Whatever the facts, and remember, the Tories will use any information they get, think, or make up to use as ammunition against this Labour government. Crossings will increase as the Channel waters become calmer over the summer months. It's a bonanza for the gangs as they make money pushing these hapless folk from God knows where into the Channel in overloaded dinghies. The autumn and winter months see a drop in crossings as waters become more stormy.
When Rishi Sunak was in power for 603 days, he hit the unwanted tally of crossings. Boris Johnson was in power 1,066 days when he hit the peak of boat crossings. At the same Boris was distracted by the pandemic, but we all know how that went, I'll leave it there!
20,000 boaters crossed the English Channel in the first 6 months of this year. The boaters are crossing the busiest shipping lane in the world. They are taking a massive risk in crossing this body of water. Some crafts have capsized and sunk with loss of life. Many question why they don't stop in France. Legally, they are supposed to stay in the first country they arrive in. However, France, for whatever reason, must not be an attractive place for these folk to stay. They believe that when they risk their lives crossing the Channel, they are coming to the promised land. And in some ways they are, in other ways they are coming to a hellhole.
Sir Keir made a deal with Emmanuel Macron, the "One in, One Out Deal". In theory, according to Messers. Macron and Starmer will deter the boats. Some migrants will face the prospect of being detained and returned from whence they came. Whether that "whence they came" is France or the actual nation they came from, I cannot say.
When Sir Keir made his "strangers in a strange land" speech, he was highlighting how many Native Brits feel about their country. Where you go to certain areas of the UK, and frankly, some places are no longer British. That's not a racist or anti-migrant/immigrant statement, that's just a fact. London, for example, is a majority non-Native British city. Even though overall, according to the 2021 census, Native Brits or whites are still the majority in the UK. Saying London is not a majority white city is somewhat misleading. The capital, like many places in the UK, has received many white immigrants. These numbers have ensured that people from Europe, the US, Australia, etc, keep London majority white.
So can Starmer "smash the gangs", "stop the boats", and deport those who have no right to be here in the time he has got. He has the time between now and the general election in 2029 to do it. Whether that happens or not is a matter for the future.
About the Creator
Nicholas Bishop
I am a freelance writer currently writing for Blasting News and HubPages. I mainly write about politics. But have and will cover all subjects when the need arises.
Keep reading
More stories from Nicholas Bishop and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Mo Salah: Asks UEFA A Question!
Mo Salah has to be the most recognised, adored, and famous Muslim/Arab footballer in the world. Salah has established his name for his Beloved Liverpool and Egypt. Salah rose from humble beginnings to become one of the most recognised Egyptians on planet Earth. Before him, Omar Sharif, the Egyptian actor, was famous as a leading man and heartthrob of many women. Famous for films like "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Dr. Zhivago". General Nasser, the Egyptian dictator, is also a well-known Egyptian. Famous for the Suez Crisis in the 1950s. Zahi Hawas, who styles himself as an Egyptian Indiana Jones, is a famous archaeologist in the modern era. We have the ancient Pharaoh Tutankhamen, famous for the golden death mask and what Howard Carter found in his tomb. More recently, we have actor Ramy Malik, an Egyptian American. Famous for his portrayal of Freddie Mercury in the Queen biopic movie. Also, playing the baddie in the Bond movie starring Daniel Craig, "No Time to Die". Egypt, for its ancient history and resorts, attracts visitors by the score.
By Nicholas Bishop5 months ago in The Swamp
Greenlanders Say “We Don’t Want to Be Americans” as Trump’s Threats Rekindle Arctic Tensions
When former U.S. President Donald Trump once again raised the idea of asserting American control over Greenland, the response from the Arctic island was swift, united, and unequivocal. Greenlanders, through their political leaders, made one message clear to the world: they do not want to be Americans. The renewed rhetoric from Trump has not only revived an old controversy but also exposed deeper questions about sovereignty, identity, and the rights of small nations in an era of aggressive geopolitics. Greenland, the world’s largest island, may be sparsely populated, but its strategic importance has grown dramatically in recent years. Melting ice due to climate change has opened new shipping routes and access to vast reserves of rare-earth minerals, oil, and gas. These developments have turned the Arctic into a focal point of global power competition, drawing interest from the United States, China, and Russia alike. Yet for Greenlanders themselves, the conversation is not about global dominance — it is about dignity, autonomy, and the right to decide their own future. A United Political Front in Greenland One of the most striking aspects of the current moment is the rare unity displayed by Greenland’s political leadership. All major parties in the Inatsisartut, Greenland’s parliament, issued a joint statement rejecting any suggestion that Greenland could or should become part of the United States. Their words were firm and symbolic: “We don’t want to be Americans. We don’t want to be Danish. We want to be Greenlanders.” This statement was more than a reaction to Trump’s remarks; it was a declaration of identity. Greenland has spent decades gradually moving away from colonial dependence on Denmark. Since gaining home rule in 1979 and expanded self-government in 2009, the island has taken control of most domestic affairs, while Denmark still manages defense and foreign policy. Many Greenlanders view eventual independence as a long-term goal, but one that must come through democratic choice — not external pressure. Public opinion strongly supports this stance. Surveys consistently show that the overwhelming majority of Greenland’s population opposes becoming part of the United States. The idea of being “bought” or absorbed by another country is widely seen as outdated, disrespectful, and incompatible with modern principles of self-determination. Trump’s Renewed Interest and Strategic Arguments Donald Trump’s fascination with Greenland is not new. During his presidency, he openly floated the idea of purchasing the island, reportedly seeing it as a strategic asset that could strengthen U.S. military positioning in the Arctic and counter rival powers. His latest comments, which hinted that America might take Greenland “one way or another,” reignited fears about coercive diplomacy. From Washington’s perspective, Greenland’s location makes it invaluable. The U.S. already maintains a military presence at Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), a key component of missile defense and space surveillance. Trump and his allies argue that greater U.S. control would enhance security, prevent Chinese investment, and limit Russian influence in the Arctic. However, Greenlandic leaders strongly dispute the notion that their island is vulnerable or incapable of managing foreign partnerships responsibly. They argue that security concerns should be addressed through cooperation with Denmark and NATO, not through threats or unilateral ambitions. To many in Greenland, Trump’s rhetoric feels less like a security strategy and more like a return to 19th-century power politics. Identity, Culture, and the Fear of Losing Control Beyond geopolitics, Greenlanders’ resistance is deeply rooted in cultural and social concerns. Greenland’s population, predominantly Inuit, has a distinct language, traditions, and worldview shaped by Arctic life. The island’s social model prioritizes community welfare, public healthcare, and local decision-making tailored to its harsh environment. Many fear that becoming part of the United States would fundamentally alter these systems. Questions arise about healthcare access, land rights, environmental protection, and the preservation of Indigenous culture. For a society that has already experienced the long-term impacts of colonial rule, the idea of exchanging one external authority for another is deeply unsettling. Local voices have repeatedly emphasized that Greenland is “not for sale.” This sentiment reflects a broader rejection of being treated as a commodity rather than a community. The frustration is not only with Trump personally but with the mindset that assumes powerful nations can redraw borders without the consent of the people who live there. Denmark, NATO, and International Concerns Denmark has firmly backed Greenland’s position, warning that any attempt to force a change in the island’s status would violate international law and strain alliances. Danish leaders have stressed that Greenland’s future can only be decided by Greenlanders themselves, in accordance with existing self-rule agreements. The controversy has also raised concerns within NATO. If a leading alliance member were to threaten the territorial integrity of another member’s realm, it could undermine trust and cooperation at a time when unity is already under pressure from global crises. Allies worry that such disputes weaken the moral authority of democratic nations that claim to uphold international norms. A Defining Moment for Greenland’s Future Ironically, Trump’s threats may have accelerated conversations within Greenland about full independence. While economic challenges remain — including reliance on Danish subsidies — the current situation has strengthened national consciousness and political solidarity. Many Greenlanders now see greater autonomy not just as an aspiration, but as a safeguard against external interference. This moment is a reminder that in the modern world, power should not override principle. Greenland’s leaders are not denying the island’s strategic importance; they are insisting that strategic value does not cancel human agency. Their message resonates far beyond the Arctic, echoing the struggles of small nations everywhere that find themselves caught between competing global powers. Conclusion: Sovereignty Is Not Negotiable As tensions simmer, one truth stands out: Greenlanders are determined to speak for themselves. They reject the idea of becoming Americans not out of hostility, but out of a profound commitment to self-identity and self-rule. In doing so, they challenge a world order that too often prioritizes strategy over sovereignty. Whether Greenland eventually becomes fully independent or continues its partnership with Denmark, its future will be shaped by the will of its people — not by threats, deals, or geopolitical ambition. And in asserting that right so clearly, Greenland has delivered a powerful message: in the 21st century, nations are not possessions, and people are not bargaining chips.
By Muhammad Hassan2 days ago in The Swamp
Comments (1)
The tragedy of modern politics is that everything hinges on the soundbite. Stop the boats vs Smash the gangs. Neither take account of the human tragedy. People have been visiting these islands in boats for thousands of years and we British are made up of those who survived and thrived here over the generations.