When lectures on women’s rights collide with the reality of open borders: Keir Starmer’s unavoidable political dilemma
In politics, contradictions rarely reveal themselves through lengthy policy papers. Sometimes, they emerge far more simply — through what a leader chooses to speak out about, and what he chooses to avoid.
Last week, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer appeared on the television programme Loose Women with a familiar message: the need to take a tougher stance against discrimination towards women, particularly the toxic influence of online figures such as Andrew Tate. He called for stronger education for young people, tighter regulation of online content, and a renewed commitment to making society safer for women and girls.
On the surface, the message was difficult to oppose. Yet it was met almost immediately with a wave of fierce criticism — not because what he said was wrong, but because of what he did not say.
A sermon on misogyny and accusations of “double standards”
During the interview, Keir Starmer described Andrew Tate as “one of the worst role models” for young men. He stressed that content promoting violence and contempt towards women on social media was corroding fundamental values, and that government had a responsibility to intervene.
However, commentators featured in the criticised video argued that while Starmer appeared deeply concerned about the indirect influence of an internet personality, he was overlooking what they described as a “direct, tangible and controllable threat”: the large-scale flow of illegal migration across the English Channel.
According to this line of criticism, the apparent “red carpet” being rolled out for hundreds of thousands of largely unchecked male migrants — many from cultures accused of systematically undermining women’s rights — represents a serious contradiction in the Labour government’s approach.
The presenters posed a blunt question: how can a government denounce misogyny online while allowing real-world risks to grow without equivalent controls?
The numbers that speak — and divide opinion
The video cited a series of figures to reinforce its argument. In a single day, around 500 people reportedly crossed the Channel from France to the UK in small boats. Over the course of just over a week, the number reached 2,000, with total illegal arrivals this year estimated at around 41,000.
While such statistics are often fiercely contested across the political spectrum, they nevertheless point to an undeniable reality: crossings continue at pace despite repeated political promises to stop them.
For critics, the issue is not simply the scale of arrivals, but their composition — predominantly young men whose backgrounds, criminal histories and social values, they argue, have not been adequately vetted.
Donald Trump and the image of moral authority
Another notable segment of the video focused on Starmer’s reaction when questioned about Donald Trump.
Asked about Trump’s use of language widely viewed as insulting — including the phrase “quiet piggy” — towards a female journalist, Starmer struck a firm tone. He said he would never tolerate anyone speaking that way to his wife, daughter or colleagues, and insisted he would “call it out” if such behaviour occurred.
The presenters, however, expressed scepticism. In their view, this was a performance of moral toughness — an image crafted for domestic television audiences. In the realities of international diplomacy, they doubted that Starmer would confront Donald Trump directly or publicly in such terms.
This scepticism reflected a deeper concern: the gap between moral rhetoric and political action.
Borders, security and promises yet to be fulfilled
The Labour government has repeatedly emphasised that it has reached agreements with France to prevent boat crossings and dismantle people-smuggling networks. Keir Starmer has spoken of “smashing the gangs” and restoring control over Britain’s borders.
Yet according to the video, the situation on the ground tells a different story. Clashes between French police and migrants continue, and whenever weather conditions allow, small boats still reach British shores almost daily.
The video also cited a highly controversial and sensitive statistic, claiming that Afghan nationals are up to 20 times more likely to commit sexual offences. While such figures require careful scrutiny and context, they were used to underline the perceived risks of admitting migrants without comprehensive screening.
Border Force: large numbers, limited impact?
Criticism was also directed at the effectiveness of enforcement. The UK is said to have around 10,000 Border Force personnel. In practice, however, fewer than 150 officers are deployed across roughly 10 patrol vessels tasked with monitoring thousands of miles of coastline.
According to the presenters, this imbalance highlights a bloated but ineffective system, ill-equipped to meet the scale of the challenge. Their proposed solution — deploying the Royal Navy to secure the coastline and intercept boats before they enter UK waters — is politically charged, but indicative of deep frustration with current policy.
A leadership issue, not just a policy debate
In its closing remarks, the video reached a sharply personal conclusion: Keir Starmer was portrayed as a “major hypocrite”.
The presenters argued that focusing on educating young people about Andrew Tate — a symbolic and indirect threat — while failing to address the ongoing border crisis demonstrated a distorted set of political priorities.
If Starmer were genuinely concerned about the safety of women and girls, they contended, he would act far more decisively where the government has the clearest and most immediate power: controlling the nation’s borders.
The final metaphor: a house with its doors wide open
To illustrate their criticism, the presenters offered a deliberately provocative image. Keir Starmer, they suggested, resembles a homeowner preoccupied with teaching his children good online manners while leaving the front door wide open to unknown strangers.
The metaphor, controversial as it is, taps into a deeper anxiety among sections of the public: that lofty moral language is not being matched by robust action to protect society.
When the question is no longer right or wrong
The dilemma facing Keir Starmer is not simply a matter of moral right or wrong. It is a question of consistency — of whether a government can uphold progressive values while simultaneously guaranteeing basic security for its citizens.
In a democracy, such contradictions rarely remain buried. They are debated, dissected and exposed — not only on television and social media, but ultimately at the ballot box.
And when that moment arrives, voters will deliver the final verdict: whether they place their faith in moral lectures — or in doors that are firmly locked when it matters most.
