In a moment that has stirred both public debate and political tension, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer publicly apologised for what he described as being “overly rude” to Plaid Cymru MP Liz Saville Roberts. The incident occurred during a heated session in the House of Commons where Saville Roberts accused Starmer of abandoning his progressive stance on immigration. In response, the Labour leader dismissed her comments as “talking rubbish”—a remark that quickly drew criticism across the political spectrum.
This incident goes beyond a single comment. It’s reflective of the broader, simmering tensions surrounding immigration policy in the UK and the way political leaders communicate their visions and values. Starmer’s apology, while appreciated by many, also opened up larger questions: Is Labour shifting its stance on immigration to win favor with certain voter blocs? Is political civility eroding in the highest chambers of British democracy?
In this article, we’ll unpack exactly what happened, how it unfolded, the fallout it caused, and what it means for the future of UK politics. From the roots of Starmer’s rhetoric to the backlash it triggered, and from the apology itself to what it reveals about modern political discourse—this is more than just a moment in Parliament. It’s a window into a rapidly evolving political narrative.
What Happened in the House of Commons?
The Context Behind the Exchange
The spark that lit this political firestorm was an emotionally charged debate on immigration. Starmer, once viewed as a staunch defender of migrants’ rights and freedom of movement, has recently taken a more controlled, security-first approach. In a speech aimed at tightening legal migration policies, he warned that without strong controls, the UK risked becoming an “island of strangers.
This choice of words wasn’t received well by many, especially those who saw it echoing sentiments from one of the most inflammatory political speeches in British history—Enoch Powell’s infamous “Rivers of Blood” address. It was during this backdrop that Liz Saville Roberts rose in the Commons to question Starmer’s apparent shift. She challenged him on abandoning the principles of compassion and dignity for migrants that he had previously championed.
What followed was a stark deviation from typical parliamentary decorum. Starmer cut her off and bluntly responded that she was “talking rubbish.” The phrase, although not uncommon in informal speech, struck many as dismissive and disrespectful, particularly in such a serious context.
The Key Comments Made by Starmer and Saville Roberts
Saville Roberts, speaking with conviction, stated, “This prime minister once spoke of compassion and dignity for migrants, and for defending free movement. What happened to that leader?” Her remarks were sharp but grounded in a record of Starmer’s past positions.
Starmer’s response was immediate and curt: “Talking rubbish.” The brevity and tone of his comment sent shockwaves through both opposition benches and among some in his own party. While Starmer is known for a measured demeanor, this was a rare glimpse into a more reactive, confrontational side.
It wasn’t just the words but the setting that amplified the impact. The House of Commons is where measured debate and respectful dialogue are expected, especially between leaders of different parties. For many watching, it felt like a failure to uphold that standard.
The Apology
Starmer’s Statement in Parliament
Less than a week after the incident, Starmer took to the House of Commons floor again, this time to address his conduct. In a short but pointed statement, he said, “I think last week I was overly rude and I apologise. I do respect the honourable member.” These words, while simple, marked a significant moment—not all political leaders in recent memory have taken accountability so publicly.
Starmer’s apology is notable not just for what he said but for what it represented: a step back, a moment of reflection, and an acknowledgment that tone and respect matter in politics. It was a clear attempt to recalibrate his image and reassure critics that the Labour leader still values civility and decorum in discourse.
Critics and supporters alike acknowledged the gesture. For some, it felt sincere—a necessary correction. For others, it appeared calculated, a response to growing media scrutiny rather than a spontaneous expression of remorse.
Liz Saville Roberts’ Response to the Apology
Liz Saville Roberts accepted the apology graciously but didn’t let the opportunity slip to make a broader point. She stated, “We all benefit when members acknowledge their mistakes in this chamber.” Her response was calm and dignified, reflecting the kind of leadership many believe should be standard in public office.
Roberts’ ability to accept the apology without softening her stance on the underlying policy debate showed political maturity. She wasn’t interested in scoring points but in ensuring the discourse around immigration remained respectful and rooted in facts.
Her measured reaction stood in stark contrast to the political heat of the initial exchange and offered a compelling example of how disagreement in politics doesn’t have to devolve into personal attack. It’s a reminder that humility and grace can go hand in hand with strong convictions.
The Controversy Over Immigration Rhetoric
Starmer’s Immigration Speech and Its Fallout
In the days leading up to the row, Starmer delivered a speech outlining stricter controls on legal immigration. Key proposals included preventing care homes from hiring foreign workers and raising the bar for attaining settled status in the UK. These policies signaled a marked shift from his earlier support for free movement and migrant rights.
While some praised the speech for addressing legitimate concerns over public services and housing pressures, others were alarmed. Critics argued that the language used—particularly the term “island of strangers”—was deeply troubling. It invoked imagery and sentiments long associated with anti-immigrant rhetoric, alienating those who once saw Starmer as a champion for multicultural Britain.
Human rights groups, Labour backbenchers, and even former allies voiced concerns that Starmer was pandering to right-leaning voters at the cost of principle. The backlash wasn’t just about policy—it was about what kind of country Labour envisions, and who belongs in it.
Criticism from Across the Political Spectrum
The criticism was swift and came from all sides. Left-wing Labour MPs argued that the new stance betrayed the party’s historic commitment to inclusion and internationalism. Plaid Cymru and the SNP viewed the rhetoric as not just tone-deaf but dangerous, especially in a post-Brexit UK that’s still grappling with its identity.
Conservative MPs, while not necessarily defending Saville Roberts, found the opportunity to question Labour’s consistency and integrity. Even centrists who support controlled migration questioned the necessity of using such emotionally charged language.
This diverse pushback highlights a critical point: language matters. When political leaders speak about sensitive topics like immigration, every word carries weight. And when those words evoke historical traumas or stir public anxiety, the backlash can be fierce—and justified.
