Read more on post.

Keir Starmer was at his most clear today not in his speech to the Global Progress Action Summit in London, trailed as a fightback against the politics of hate and division, but in the panel afterwards. That’s when he said he wanted the next election to be an “open fight” between “Labour and Reform”. In the speech itself, however, he identified his enemies in the abstract. He was against the “politics of predatory grievance”, which used the “infrastructure of division”. He also made a lovely case for London at the start, with its plentiful pubs and pleasant parks, remarking wryly that it was nothing like “the wasteland of anarchy that some would have you believe”.

The problem is he needs to pick a lane. Either he was referring to Donald Trump’s comments at the UN earlier this week, when the leader of the free world said Britain’s capital had a “terrible mayor, terrible, terrible mayor, and it’s been changed, it’s been so changed. Now they want to go to sharia law”, in which case Starmer should say so. Or he was attempting to describe the ascendant hard right upturning our politics without identifying or reflecting upon its main mouthpieces, in which case, what the hell is he thinking?

One issue is that you very often cannot tell what the prime minister is thinking, so camouflaged is any thought under the buzzwords of the day. “Patriotic renewal” is today’s invention, which could mean anything from bunging some cash to a community centre to becoming a clean-energy superpower. If you ever feel dispirited by this pabulum, just be thankful you weren’t in whatever meeting it was probably dreamed up in at the Tony Blair Institute.

A far larger problem is the substance of Starmer’s fight with Reform. The most concrete announcement he made was that of digital ID cards, which will be mandatory for anyone trying to work in the UK. (It wasn’t in Labour’s 2024 manifesto, there are certainly people who wouldn’t have voted Labour had it been, but worrying about things like that feels very 20th century.) He explicitly proffered ID cards as a solution to illegal immigration. “It has been too easy for people to come here [and] slip into the shadow economy,” Starmer said. “We’ve been squeamish about saying things that are clearly true … the simple fact is that every nation needs to have control over its borders … our immigration system does need to be fair, otherwise it undermines trust, undermines people’s faith that we’re on their side.”

By his own words, then, he condemns his intelligence: if migrants are in the shadow economy, how are ID requirements in the regular economy supposed to deter them? It’s almost as though that’s not the question he’s trying to answer. What’s really going on is an attempt to echo the anti-migrant passions of Reform, while simultaneously coming up with solutions that don’t sound fanciful. Starmer’s animating question at the moment is this: how can he appeal to those who love authoritarianism while not alienating those who hate it?

Green energy was the other front of Starmer’s “fightback”, and he talked a decent game on renewables – first decrying Vladimir Putin’s boot on our neck, then promising nuclear, wind and solar energy, which would create jobs, drive down prices and address the climate crisis. We could cavil about the prominence of nuclear there, but the essence is fine. It broadly reiterates the promises made when Green New Deal was the buzz phrase, even if the surrounding emphasis on growth above all and fiscal responsibility hints that the ambition has been scaled right back.

Realistically, though, the speed at which this Labour government has rolled over on the issue of immigration and asylum seekers – accepting Reform’s insistence upon its salience, failing to make the positive case for migration – makes you wonder how long its green credentials will last, once the right has them in its crosshairs. Will Starmer’s green promises survive until Nigel Farage starts a new campaign to end net zero? Or will he start to falter as soon as Kemi Badenoch promises to bring down everyone’s energy bills with the dregs of the North Sea?

It’s a well-established feature, arguably the main feature, of any era where the hard right is on the march: elites make common cause with the masses, by means of an out-group, often racial minorities or people who aren’t citizens, and use the hatred thus generated as the abundant energy source for the movement. Our prime minister identified, in vague terms, a “cynical attempt to exploit [working class] fears” and kept himself above the fray, when in fact he is critical to the fray. He’s the poster boy of the ineffectual liberal who watches the world swerve to the right and tries to appease it with some light or, if you prefer, diet xenophobia. If we’re now talking about an “open fight” between Labour and Reform, let’s be open about this: he will not beat them by becoming more like them.

• Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist

Read more on post.

Nigel Farage’s proposal to end indefinite leave to remain is not just an immigration stance (Nigel Farage roundly condemned over plan to abolish indefinite leave to remain, 22 September). It is a direct threat to the NHS. Foreign-born staff make up a vital share of our health service workforce. More than a third of doctors and one in five of all NHS workers were born overseas. These are not temporary contributors. They are long-term carers and specialists who have built their lives here and sustained our public health system through crisis after crisis.

To deny them the right to settle is to destabilise the NHS. It sends a message that their labour is welcome, but their lives are not. Without the security of indefinite leave to remain many will leave or never come in the first place.

The consequences are already visible. Waiting lists grow. Wards close. Burnout spreads. If Farage’s proposals were enacted the exodus of skilled migrant workers would accelerate. And when the NHS cannot meet demand the private sector steps in to monetise its absence. Reform UK’s manifesto speaks of efficiency and choice but the trajectory is clear. No migrant workers leads to staffing collapse, which leads to service failure and ultimately privatisation.

This is not reform. It is dismantlement by design. The NHS was founded on principles of universality and care. It has always relied on international solidarity. To strip away the rights of those who serve it is to strip away our own access to care. We must resist this erosion. The future of the NHS depends on valuing those who sustain it.
Danny McCloskey
London

Nigel Farage says if he became PM he would expel hundreds of thousands of immigrants within five years. He accepts that this would mean leaving the European convention on human rights (ECHR). Instead, he proposes a UK bill of rights which would apply to UK citizens only. However, the former attorney general Dominic Grieve has pointed out that the trade and cooperation agreement (TCA) negotiated with the EU by Boris Johnson and Lord Frost has a clause which requires the UK to remain a member of the ECHR. The implication of that clause is that if the UK does leave the ECHR, then the TCA becomes invalid, and some new arrangement for trade with the EU will become necessary.

In view of how Farage insulted the European Commission during his time as an MEP, it would seem unlikely that the EU would be willing to play ball in arranging a new free trade agreement, so World Trade Organization rules would apply. This would be a disaster for the UK, which could result in many people finding themselves jobless. Has Farage not done his homework, or is he deliberately misleading the population by not telling the whole truth? He is a dissembler, like Johnson, not to be trusted.
Ian K Watson
Carlisle

In his speech, Nigel Farage made a big issue of the “Boriswave”. As this, and the influx of asylum seekers crossing the Channel in small boats, has clearly been a consequence of the Brexit he campaigned for perhaps in future articles on immigration the Guardian should refer to the “Farage flood”, although I doubt Farage will admit to any responsibility.
Jan Syska
Caernarfon, Gwynedd

Nigel Farage’s seemingly inexorable path to Downing Street will indeed be unstoppable, so long as Keir Starmer lacks the courage to overtly condemn Brexit. There was no “small boats crisis” prior to Brexit, while we remained party to the Dublin agreement. The individual on whom blame must be pinned is Mr Brexit himself, Nigel Farage. This needs to be spelled out, loudly and clearly, on every possible occasion. If the timorous Labour leadership dare not do so, then Labour is doomed.
Derek Robinson
Matlock, Derbyshire

Read more on post.

Your editorial raises the question of whether Staffordshire’s potteries can survive (21 September). The answer has got to be “yes”.

The real question is: will the government grasp the immensity of the situation we face? It needs to urgently focus its industrial strategy on short-term transitional support for intensive users of energy like the ceramics sector, to help them towards emissions reductions targets. It also needs to work with the industry and local MPs to secure investment in research, design and skills for the long term.

Next it needs to take account of the legacy costs of the heritage emergency that the closure of so many potbanks has already landed us with. All these derelict industrial sites, together with the public buildings and cultural assets that came about as a result of our local industry, need investment too.

Collective efforts to rescue Middleport Pottery showed a way forward. We are grateful for the several grant programmes which are starting to emerge, but two swallows don’t make a summer. We built our city from natural resources and through the commitment of a loyal workforce. Ceramics remain essential to the national economy. In this, Stoke‑on-Trent’s centenary year, now is the time for the government to tell us how it will liaise with our MPs to bring forward a long-term strategy to ensure certainty and investment to protect output, skills and heritage buildings.
Joan Walley
Stoke-on-Trent

One of the reasons that ceramics prospered in the Potteries was the abundant fast-burning coal that fired the kilns that gave the city a skyline as distinctive as Manhattan. But the various clean air acts and the move away from coal broke the link between localised energy and manufacturing, and contributed hugely to the various crises that the industry has faced. It also led to most of those kilns disappearing.

So what to do? One of the more obvious things would be to help the industry and the city invest in green energy production and infrastructure modernisation. There are many locations across the Potteries where green-energy production is possible – such as the former Chatterley Whitfield colliery – and this would help to re-establish that lost link between manufacturing and local energy.

And those that are in the business of ceramics in the Potteries should cooperate and collaborate far more in terms of marketing. The Potteries is a world-class brand, and they should exploit it to the max. Josiah Wedgwood was a marketing pioneer, and his legacy is there to learn from. Just ask Apple executives what they think about Wedgwood.
Dave Proudlove
Knypersley, Staffordshire

The brand benefits of authenticity and staying true to a brand’s heritage by remaining made in England, mentioned in your leader in connection with the success of Burleigh and Emma Bridgewater, are also true for Denby pottery, which has been, and remains, made in Derbyshire for over 200 years and which has thrived in recent years, especially in Asian markets like South Korea

But Denby, along with the entire ceramics industry across the UK, is equally being challenged for staying made in England by the lack of support so far from the government’s industrial policy. Denby continues to secure new business precisely because it is made in England, but securing the future will also need the help of government.
Sebastian Lazell
Chief executive officer, Denby Group