Reform Accuses Reeves of “Flagrant Racism” After She Conflates Being British and White
Reform UK has accused Rachel Reeves of “flagrant racism” after she conflated being British and being white as she claimed that Nigel Farage would take benefits away from people because of their skin colour. The Telegraph has more.
The Chancellor was accused of conflating skin colour and nationality in a row with Mr Farage over the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap.
Earlier this week, Mr Farage confirmed that Reform’s MPs would vote against lifting the cap because it would “benefit huge numbers of foreign-born people”.
Responding to his comments, Ms Reeves told the Guardian: “I don’t really care what colour a kid’s skin is. Some deserve to be in poverty and some don’t? That makes me pretty angry.
“Does Nigel Farage want to go around and say, ‘white – yeah, you can have the money, black – no, I’m sorry, it’s not for you’? What sort of country does he think we are?
“If you’re the mum next door who works in the NHS, has lived here all her life, her kids lived here all their life, but she was born somewhere else – we’re saying that that family deserves to grow up in poverty, whereas the one next door doesn’t? That’s not the sort of country I believe in.”
A Reform UK source said: “Rachel Reeves is suggesting that black people can’t be British. This is flagrant racism from the Chancellor.”
Zia Yusuf, Reform’s Head of Policy, said: “Rachel Reeves comes out as an ethno-nationalist. She believes only white people can be British. She’s accused Nigel Farage of racism for wanting to keep the two-child cap in place for everyone except British-born families, equating foreign-born with non-white.
“Nigel said Reform would oppose lifting the cap for all because it benefits huge numbers of foreign-born people, underscoring the need to prioritise British-born people for benefits and housing.
“She equates Britishness with race, according to her only white people are truly British. Reform will end welfare payments to all foreign nationals, and put British people first.
“Rachel Reeves’s comments to the Guardian equating Britishness with race are beyond the pale and overtly racist. Keir Starmer must sack her.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
An interesting line of attack but rather silly and I think they know it.
Reeves was simply playing the “Farage is a racist” card.
Straight from the Diane Abbott school of political discourse.
‘Race card, never leave home without it.’
Probably only Diane Abbott could have made a worse mess of the economy than the lying incompetent Reeves.
Except cards are so 20th century, it should be a DIGITAL race card on your phone these days
Stumbler won’t sack Rachel from Accounts because she is too useful in attracting blame that would otherwise hit him.
He won’t sack her right up to the point where she becomes a greater liability and then she will be gone overnight. Who we would get instead is another debate.
“If you’re the mum next door who works in the NHS, has lived here all her life, her kids lived here all their life, but she was born somewhere else – we’re saying that that family deserves to grow up in poverty, whereas the one next door doesn’t? That’s not the sort of country I believe in.”
In other words poverty or the lack of it is at the discretion of the government. Straight from the horse’s mouth.
The Holy incantation “NHS” – the sacred word, at the sound of which all must make obeisance – and any servants of the Holy Edifice are to be revered, worshipped and showered with gifts of thanks.
Pass the vomit bowl nurse.
Seconded 👍
What poverty? There is none of the grinding poverty that people experienced as recently as the 20s and 30s. I read Eric Sykes’ autobiography where all he might eat in a day was a slice of bread and dripping as he grew up. The Far Left bleeding hearts use the lie that is ‘relative poverty’ which says you are not as rich as other people. Not having the latest Xbox is considered ‘poverty’.
If a person born in this country is unemployed and gets a job, there is a case for subsidising the job with in work benefits. It gives the person a job, reduces overall benefits costs and helps the economy. While we have so many people not in work, either unemployed or fake ‘on the sick’ claimants, we should not be subsidising anyone imported to this country to work. If the job doesn’t pay enough for a European, African, American or Asian to cover their living and any family, then the employer should increase the salary so that they can live here without benefits. If the employer can’t afford to do this or can’t afford to recruit and train a person, then the job is not economically viable. It is insane to subsidise business from our taxes only for them to report vast profits while bankrupting the nation. And while we’re at it, everyone working for Amazon, Uber, and any other online business, should be employed by the business and not on some bullshit self employed contract. That way, all jobs will be at least minimum wage, subject to tax and national insurance and the employee will be identifiable and not… Read more »
“… there is a case for subsidising the job with in work benefits…”
No it isn’t. It means their labour isn’t worth spit and they shouldn’t be here. Their economic contribution is less than their cost to the economy and that makes the rest of us poorer.
The fact they will work for peanuts, reduces labour efficiency, pulls the whole wage structure down and makes us poorer.
In a purist world, I would agree with you, but sadly that world will never exist, so the discussion is, does 100% of someone’s income derive from the state, allowing them to sit on their arse and do nothing all day, or do they start working, reducing the amount the state has to pay them and maybe, over time, getting to the point where all of their income comes from work and none from the state. They get self respect, maybe improved health, mental or physical, reducing the burden they impose on us. It might even break the generational unemployment and their children will be encouraged about the value of work.
Lots of ifs in there.
Lots of ifs forms the basis for pretty much every well meaning but disastrous socialist, centrally planned economic intervention, the unintended consequences of which we all end up burdened with.
Yawn.
No, no, no, Reform UK, stop pandering to the cultural enrichers.
British… inhabiting an island…. from Pritanï… from Common Brythonic, the language of the Brittonic/Brythonic Celts who settled the island around 8 000 years ago.
Only – repeat only – those whose bloodline goes back to the Celts is Brittonic/British.
Just being born here or having a British Passport no more makes someone British than a Japanese born in Nigeria or with a Nigerian passport, Nigerian. And note: a child born to Nigerian parents in KwaZulu-Natal cannot be a Zulu. If any one has any doubts about that ask a Zulu.
British is an ethnicity as is English – who can be both. Why is it we are not allowed an ethnicity but everyone else is?
Well, yes, but then you’d need to find a word to describe people who have UK citizenship but are not a Celt, English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish. British-Nigerian, etc?
Germans aren’t allowed an ethnicity, either. Currently most fashionable is the claim that the Romans used Germans similar to the Greek use of Barbarians as description of anyone wasn’t Greek as general description for all people living beyond the eastern and northern borders of the Roman empire and that Germans thus simply don’t exist and never existed.
Oops, she picked up the racism stick to smash it over Farage’s head and ended up poking her own eye.
Performative anger as a device to maliciously attack someone.
What a sociopath.
We all enter the world poor. They should be asking how people get wealthy..?