Sir Keir Starmer has used Labour’s conference to repeatedly attack Nigel Farage (Image: GETTY)

Labour peer Lord Glasman last night offered the Clacton MP a personal apology.

Speaking on his GB News show, he said: “First of all, before we go any further, I’m very proud to be Labour and I’m very ashamed about the accusation of calling you a racist.

“I’m honoured to be on GB News. I’m honoured, actually, to think of you as a friend. So that’s a disgrace to me as well.”

It comes as Sir Keir today said Mr Farage and his supporters are not racist despite claiming his policy to scrap indefinite leave to remain for migrants is.

In an interview with Sky, he said: “No, nor do I think Reform voters are racist.

“They’re concerned about things like our borders, they’re frustrated about the pace of change. I’m not for a moment suggesting that they are racist.”

POLL: Should Keir Starmer say sorry to Nigel Farage over Reform attacks?

Keir Starmer’s increasingly direct attacks on Nigel Farage and Reform UK have opened another political row at Westminster, with questions now being raised over whether the prime minister should apologise for the language he used during Labour’s annual conference.

The dispute intensified after Starmer devoted a substantial part of his conference speech to attacking Reform and its leader. He accused Farage of failing to speak positively about Britain’s future and questioned whether the Reform leader genuinely “loves our country”. Starmer also urged Labour supporters to “fight Reform with everything that this movement has”.

Farage responded angrily, saying he was shocked by Starmer’s comments and accusing the prime minister of using rhetoric that could place Reform politicians and activists at greater risk. Farage said he had previously regarded Starmer as a decent man despite their political disagreements, but argued that the prime minister’s language had crossed a line.

The resulting argument raises a broader question about political debate in Britain: how far can party leaders go when attacking a rival party before criticism becomes unnecessarily personal or potentially inflammatory?

That is the issue behind the latest poll question.

Starmer’s attack on Farage

Starmer’s conference speech represented a significant escalation in his direct confrontation with Reform.

The prime minister described the next few years as a “fight for the soul of our country” and portrayed the political choice as one between what he called national renewal and the politics of grievance.

He specifically targeted Farage, saying: “When was the last time that you heard Nigel Farage say anything positive about Britain’s future?” Starmer then argued that Farage “doesn’t like Britain” and “doesn’t believe in Britain”.

He also questioned whether Reform genuinely wanted to serve the whole country or instead wanted to “stir the pot of division”.

The Labour Party subsequently published the full speech, showing that Starmer connected his criticism of Reform with wider arguments about immigration, patriotism, public services and economic policy.

For Starmer, the argument was not simply about Farage personally. He presented Reform as a political alternative that Labour needed to confront directly.

In a subsequent interview with ITV News, Starmer described the contest with Reform as “the fight of our times” and rejected the suggestion that ignoring Farage would be a better strategy. He said that pretending Reform did not exist would be a political mistake.

Farage’s response

Farage interpreted the speech very differently.

Following Starmer’s address, the Reform leader released a video response in which he said he was “completely shocked” by the prime minister’s behaviour.

Farage argued that Starmer’s language had gone beyond normal political disagreement. He accused the prime minister of contributing to an atmosphere in which Reform politicians could face hostility.

He also described Starmer’s attack as evidence of political pressure on a government struggling to deal with Reform’s growing prominence.

Those are Farage’s political claims, rather than independently established facts. The question of whether political rhetoric directly contributes to threats or violence is considerably more complicated than establishing that one particular speech caused a particular incident.

That distinction matters because the row has increasingly become a debate about political language itself.

The immigration dispute behind the argument

The confrontation did not begin with Starmer’s conference speech.

In the days leading up to the address, Labour politicians had sharply criticised Reform’s immigration proposals, particularly its proposal concerning migrants who have indefinite leave to remain.

Starmer described the policy as “racist” and “immoral”. Reform rejected that description.

Afterwards, Starmer clarified that he was not calling Farage or Reform voters racist. He told Sky News that many Reform supporters were concerned about borders and frustrated about the pace of political change, and that those concerns were not themselves racist.

Instead, he said he was referring specifically to the policy and its potential consequences for people who were lawfully living in Britain.

That clarification is significant because it separates criticism of a political proposal from an accusation about the character or motives of every person supporting the party.

It also illustrates the difficulty faced by party leaders when trying to distinguish between attacking a policy and attacking the people who support it.

Does criticism of Farage justify an apology?

Whether Starmer should apologise depends largely on what standard is applied to political debate.

One argument is that politicians have a responsibility to challenge opponents on policies and records rather than make claims about whether they love or believe in their country.

From that perspective, saying that Farage “doesn’t like Britain” can be viewed as a statement about his political outlook rather than a factual claim that can be objectively established. Starmer’s critics can therefore argue that such language lowers the tone of political debate without contributing much to discussion of policy.

Another interpretation is that the prime minister was making a clearly political argument about Farage’s repeated criticisms of Britain’s institutions, government and political establishment.

Starmer’s broader speech was built around a contrast between his own vision of national renewal and what he characterised as Reform’s politics of grievance. His supporters could therefore regard the language as part of legitimate political argument rather than something requiring an apology.

The difference between those interpretations is central to the poll question.

Reform’s growing role

The dispute also reflects Reform’s increasingly prominent position in British politics.

Starmer has openly acknowledged that Reform cannot simply be ignored. In his ITV interview, he said the next general election would not be a traditional contest between Labour and the Conservatives, arguing instead that Labour and Reform represented the central political confrontation.

That strategy has consequences.

By making Farage a central target, Starmer gives Labour supporters a clear political opponent. But it also ensures that Reform remains at the centre of national political discussion.

This has produced criticism from politicians outside both parties.

During the conference, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch characterised the Starmer-Farage confrontation as an argument between two politicians while saying she wanted the focus to remain on how government could improve people’s lives.

The debate therefore extends beyond Labour and Reform. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Greens all have an interest in how voters interpret the growing confrontation between the two parties.

The importance of political language

Political rhetoric has always been part of British elections and party conferences. Leaders routinely accuse opponents of taking the country in the wrong direction, failing to understand voters or pursuing damaging policies.

The question becomes more sensitive when political leaders use language concerning patriotism, national identity or whether an opponent genuinely cares about the country.

Starmer’s conference speech deliberately placed patriotism at its centre. He argued that Labour could combine national pride with tolerance and diversity and rejected the idea that Reform had a monopoly on patriotic politics.

For Labour, this was an attempt to contest an area of politics in which Farage and Reform have sought to establish themselves.

For Reform, the same language can be interpreted as an effort to discredit its political message by questioning the motives of its leader.

Neither interpretation automatically establishes whether an apology is warranted.

What voters are being asked

A poll asking whether Starmer should apologise is ultimately asking voters to make a judgment about political standards as well as the substance of the dispute.

Those who believe the prime minister went too far may regard an apology as a way of lowering the temperature and returning the argument to policies.

Those who believe Starmer was making legitimate political criticism may see an apology as unnecessary and potentially as a retreat from his decision to confront Reform directly.

There is also a third possibility: voters may distinguish between different parts of the dispute.

They may accept criticism of Reform’s immigration policy while rejecting personal attacks on Farage. Equally, they may believe Starmer’s comments were legitimate political rhetoric while still considering some of the language unnecessarily provocative.

That is why a simple poll question cannot fully capture the complexity of the argument.

A wider test for Labour and Reform

The controversy is likely to remain relevant because the relationship between Labour and Reform has become an important part of Britain’s political debate.

Starmer has made clear that he intends to challenge Farage rather than avoid him. Reform, meanwhile, has responded by portraying Labour’s attacks as evidence that the government is threatened by its growing political presence.

The two sides are therefore locked into competing interpretations of the same events.

For Labour, the conference confrontation was an attempt to define the government’s political project and draw a sharp contrast with Reform.

For Farage, it provided another opportunity to argue that Labour is concentrating on attacking Reform rather than addressing the issues that have helped the party attract support.

The question of an apology consequently goes beyond one exchange between two politicians.

It touches on a larger debate about how Britain’s political leaders should conduct disagreements over immigration, patriotism, national identity and the future direction of the country.

Starmer has not indicated that he intends to apologise for the conference speech. Instead, he has defended his decision to confront Reform directly, arguing that ignoring the party would be a political mistake.

Farage, for his part, has continued to challenge the prime minister’s characterisation of Reform and its supporters.

The poll therefore gives voters an opportunity to assess the controversy for themselves: whether Starmer’s comments amounted to legitimate political criticism, whether some of his language went beyond what was necessary, or whether no apology is warranted.

Whatever the answer, the episode illustrates how sharply political competition between Labour and Reform has developed — and how questions about the tone of that competition are becoming almost as significant as the policy disagreements themselves.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.