Gun Boats and Disaster Nationalism
We frequently point to the failings of the media – particularly the tabloid press and the fringes of far-right broadcasting and blogging. But such is the shift to the right that some of the most rancid commentators are operating in what would have previously been thought the absolute mainstream.
Here’s Jon Craig from Sky News …
As Adam Bienkov notes, this is the chief political correspondent for Sky News asking: ‘Is it time for the Government to drown innocent human beings for political advantage?’ and other questions now apparently deemed acceptable in the British media.
Mind you, this isn’t new. This is from the Sun when it was being edited by David Dinsmore, who has just been made Labour’s chief of communications.
Meanwhile the cultural-political suppression continues apace, even as the far-right scream about being ‘cancelled’ from their pulpits and newspaper columns. Today award-winning Scottish screenwriter Paul Laverty was arrested under ‘terror laws’, at the weekend Irish band the Mary Wallopers saw their set cut short at at Portsmouth’s Victorious festival after showing their support for the people of Palestine, and Rent-a-Gob Mike Graham wants to shut down the Notting Hill Carnival for ‘not being British’.
As this unfolds, a tweet I put out pointing out that the far-right’s new poster-girl Lucy Connolly was a convicted criminal who advocated setting fire to hotels full of asylum seekers has reached 118k views.
Is Slavery Bad?
I’ve covered this Stochastic Violence and the Fascist Atmosphere before, but it’s worth monitoring where this is going.
Now, as the ethno-nationalist media get the bit between their teeth, emboldened by the atmosphere they themselves are helping to curate, previous ideas like ‘slavery was bad’ are put to the test. Here’s Matthew Syed in the Sunday Times:
This rhetoric, to reinstate Empire and Slavery as legitimate, even noble concerns, is mirrored back and forth across the Atlantic. This is part of a concerted effort by the white-nationalist movement to extinguish critical history and to whitewash the imperial past. In its most shocking form, this is to rehabilitate slavery as a legitimate thing. Here’s Trump:
As Morgan Freeman writes [Slavery’s Brutal Arc and Why Trump’s “Revision” is a Dangerous Cover-Up] : “A review that softens slavery’s horror is not education—it’s manipulation. It undermines the truth, wounds survivors, and enables denial. We must remember. We must teach. If we don’t name the full scope, the brutal machinery of history becomes archaeology—and that’s exactly what authoritarian memory wants.”
Freeman lays it out:
A Concise, Unvarnished History (1619–1865)
- Transatlantic kidnapping: Between 12 to 15 million Africans were forcibly transported across the Atlantic between the 16th and 19th centuriesWikipedia+4Wikipedia+4digitalhistory.uh.edu+4.
- Death toll aboard ships: Roughly 10–19% died during the Middle Passage—about 2 million people died en route, and millions more perished during raids, marches, or in “seasoning” campsdigitalhistory.uh.edu+1.
- Broken families and sexual violence: Enslaved men, women, and children were permanently torn from their communities. Young women and girls were routinely raped by ship crews and enslaversWikipedia.
- Enslaved in America: Only about 600,000 of the 12 million brought across were transported to the U.S.—yet this system forged centuries of forced labor, torment, and generational traumaThe Library of Congress+10Wikipedia+10Equal Justice Initiative+10.
- Reward for captors: North American settlers built immense wealth in tobacco and cotton, enriching “white men” with stolen labor, while enslaved families received nothing but brutality and unending toil.
But even by having the debate, you are immediately dragged into a ridiculous framing of reality.
A Constant Presence
We have entered the grotesque imaginary of the new far-right, which whines about ‘cancel culture’ while criminalising protest and censoring dissent. The hypocrisy is rife, as I pointed out, the notion of ‘victimhood’ [Douglas Murray, the Summer of Hate and the Victimhood Olympics] is cast out against others while embracing the very notion.
Individuals like Matt Goodwin, Douglas Murray, Jon Craig, Nigel Farage, Rupert Lowe, Robert Jenrick, Richard Tice, Lee Anderson, Ben Habib, Tommy Robinson, Laurence Fox, Carl Benjamin, Isabel Oakeshott, Allison Pearson, Douglas Carswell, Dan Wootton, Elon Musk, Iain Macwhirter, Neil Oliver, Kevin McKenna, Suella Braverman, Calvin Robinson are like a Fifth Column for the new right. It’s becoming all-encompassing, like a surround-sound. It’s difficult to switch it off.
As Daniel Trilling wrote in a review of Richard Seymour’s Disaster Nationalism: The Downfall of Liberal Civilisation [Daniel Trilling · Is this fascism?]:
“The other way of thinking about fascism is as a constant presence. Some see it as the expression of a human tendency towards domination. ‘Once you decide that a single vulnerable minority can be sacrificed,’ Judith Butler wrote recently in relation to trans rights, ‘you’re operating within a fascist logic.’ Others see it as an inherent feature of unjust, oppressive societies. Fascism, Langston Hughes wrote in 1936, ‘is a new name for that kind of terror the Negro has always faced in America’. Aimé Césaire argued that interwar fascism was the result of a ‘terrific boomerang effect’: all the brutality of European imperialism – which had dehumanised the coloniser as well as the colonised – was visited on the home continent. Many historians and political theorists have described fascism’s appeal to the emotions. Paxton called them its ‘mobilising passions’: a sense of overwhelming crisis and victimhood, a fear of the decline of one’s group, a lust for purity and authority, a glorification of violence. Fascism could return in ‘the most innocent of disguises’, according to Umberto Eco, who grew up in Mussolini’s Italy, because we are all vulnerable to its emotional pull.”
We know that this craziness has a way to go. We know that Starmer’s Labour is incapable of providing an alternative narrative that people can buy into about the state of Britain, the reality about asylum seekers, the true origins of decline and crisis.
Coming over the hill is Farage. The Sunday Times reported that: “Next week, Farage will make his biggest move yet. On Tuesday, he will publish his proposal for the mass deportation of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants. To describe the plans as aggressive is an understatement.”
[Nigel Farage: This is a massive crisis. We need mass deportations]
“They include the arrest of asylum seekers on arrival, automatic detention and forced deportation, with no right of appeal, to countries such as Afghanistan and Eritrea.
Thank you, Mike, you write well, but on this occasion a conventional left wing perspective that is at once humane, but is in fact doing the left wing, society and the immigrants no good at all.
At the risk of being labelled a fascist, the UK has a problem. It is a grossly overpopulated island whose ecological footprint exceeds its ecological carrying capacity by 250% (the ecological deficit). I would hazard a guess Scotland’s will be less than England’s though. Without immigration, legal or illegal, the UK’s population would have peaked some years ago. We might even have enough housing and hospital beds as a consequence. Basically the UK needs more people like my diabetic patient needs more cream buns. Many economist sand politicians worry inordinately and irrationally about an ageing population and see immigration as a solution (actually an ageing population is not a problem, just an invented one). But if you know your demographics, to achieve even a 3% reduction in the proportion of people over the age of 65 in any static population, hardly a major figure, for the UK this could amount to a million people per annum in perpetuity. The figures just don’t add up – they are unsustainable.
Does Scotland or the UK have a population policy? An immigration “policy” without a population policy is a nonsense. Can anyone honestly say that when I was born, in 1946 the population of the UK then 48.9 million was “underpopulated”? What would that even mean?. The Scottish Enlightenment took place in a population of 1.5 million people. So what is Scotland looking for? Six million, even ten million? What advantage to those already living here never mind those that might wish to come, legally or illegally is this extra number of people? Every human being deserves a warm home, we can’t even provide that for our incumbent citizens. They need water, food, a system where they can crap without their faeces ending in the rivers or seas, they need education, employment, affordable energy, room, transport, policing and justice, jobs, health care, parks and recreation, public resources, enough money to have enjoy a reasonable standard of living. What promise can a failing economy like the UK’s bring to its present citizens, never mind all these extras.
Look at the picture of the boat people you provide. They are almost all young or youngish men. The figures for 2022 were 87% men, 75% of who were age 18-35. Is this demographic really likely to be asylum seekers or refugees? Or are they much more likely economic migrants just wanting a better life for themselves? Do I blame them, no, but are we obliged to take them in the UK. I’d also say no.
Global warming, ecological degradation, drought, water and food shortages, overpopulation, disease are converging crises that threaten all of humanity (and our own Sceptred Isles) – we may be looking at hundreds of millions of displaced people around the world by 2050, only 25 years away. Are we equipped to deal with this, and is a simple concern for their humanity going to be enough?
It is wonderful to have a charitable frame of reference when thinking about immigration and refugees and the humanity of the people involved, but to be a citizen in the UK, many now living very austere lives and in actual serious poverty and want, concerned about the sheer number of people arriving and the obvious cost to society of accommodating them is I believe rational, understandable and could even be seen as caring. Not a single human being on the planet has a right of abode on these crowded shores, and the country has a sovereign right to police its borders as resolutely as it wishes. Ignoring the rational concerns of your fellow citizens and labelling them as racist, fascist or whatever, may apply to some monstrous people, but when societies are under stress, and the UK is, what do you expect but an increasing disorder? The history of slavery to people under stress in the UK is very unlikely to feel relevant, and in fact, raising the matter might even seem condescending. They do not feel responsible for such, nor should they.
If you seriously wish to see these fascist tendencies defeated then deal to immigration, both legal and illegal. Have a population policy. Rejig retirement policies and legislation, so all older people can contribute more – I worked as a GP until I was 72 yrs old, I’m still alive and kicking. And do all the other reforms to deal to the horrible neoliberal capitalism that is ruining the country and the planet. It might help too to reinstate adequate overseas aid, particularly try to get countries much more involved in family planning and reducing unsustainable population increases. eg Sub-Saharan Africa where populations of some countries will double in around 22 years at present rates of growth. You see, I am actually a socialist and support almost all of what you write here, but in immigration I see a serious left wing ideological failure that just doesn’t brook an alternative view, that is dismissive and ofttimes insulting to concern, which I am trying to enunciate here, however inadequately. It’s a failure which leads inevitably to the sort of social stresses and reactions, of folks that rightly in my opinion feel not listened to, that we are now seeing. In dealing with immigration directly, and in dealing to the serious social problems in the UK there should be no false dichotomy. Both are serious and urgent undertakings.
Cheers, and I look forward to continuing to read your posting here.
John – Scotland’s population has hardly risen since you were born in 1946.. The biggest increase in population is in the over 60’s which is testimony to progress on living standards and to healthcare which both you and I worked in. We do have an increasingly aged population due to a combination of extended life expectancy (now stalling) and falling birth rate. This is bound to lead to an increased pressure on both NHS and pensions so I fail to see how this will not increase pressure on public finances in the immediate future perhaps you can explain your denial of this seemingly obvious fact?
The article, quite rightly IMO, sets out how the tv media have piggy backed on right wing media concerns on asylum seekers to flood airwaves. This inevitably leads to a rise in how people perceive immigration as a major problem and anti immigration sentiment. It is funny how polling shows that the areas with highest concern about immigration are often areas with a low number of immigrants. What is also rarely reported is the correlation between country of origin of immigrants and western countries (especially UK) military involvement in these countries. Afghanistan, Iraq etc.
The media in Scotland have , as they so often do, slavishly followed UK media line to talk up issue in Scotland out of all proportion eg making 2 protest outside hotels in Falkirk and Perth the top item in Scottish news for days.BBC headline ‘Hundreds of protesters outside Perth hotel’ when it was circa 150 and last night ‘dramatic polling news’ on immigration in Scotland.
I am not saying that immigration is not a serious issue and that there needs to be an element of control for public cohesion.
My last thought is that there are no boats of asylum seekers landing in Scotland for very obvious geographical reasons and Scotland is expected to take its share of people arriving boats in England (indeed Glasgow appears to be taking more due to refusal of councils in England). At the same time Westminster refuses to devolve immigration policy to Holyrood. Perhaps Scottish government and local authorities should refuse to house asylum seekers arriving in England until Westminster devolves immigration policy for Scotland to Holyrood?
Thanks John. Well I profoundly disagree with you. The crisis in the public services, the cost of living, the ecological crisis has precisely nothing to do with asylum seekers. What we have here is a failure of the political class to identify the real cause of our problems and instead scapegoat it on minorities.
You say: “The history of slavery to people under stress in the UK is very unlikely to feel relevant, and in fact, raising the matter might even seem condescending. They do not feel responsible for such, nor should they.” But it is not I, or the Left who has raised the issue of slavery but the far-right, as I evidence. This is because they are trying to re-write history to further their own rancid political agenda, and subjugate and dehumanise people.
I think this a valuable perspective and worth stating.
The problem is, if one agrees (with the thrust of it anyway), what to do? Farage’s plans announced yesterday, even if we ignore the inhumanity of them, seem total pie in the sky, and to enact them Reform would need to be in power and then we have a country run by a bunch of hard right incompetents whose wider plans are mostly unknown but ain’t gonna be good.
What I do agree with is the idea that some vocal sections of the left just refuse to discuss immigration (legal or otherwise) and tend to criticise any politician who does (unless they say it isn’t a problem of course). The daily channel crossings are having a powerful effect on people’s minds, whichever way you look at it and whoever you are. To dismiss them as basically irrelevant is as ostrich-like as it is possible to imagine in the current climate.
Starmer is trying to do something. Unfashionable as it is, we should wait to see if it can have some genuine positive effect. Farage wants to drop a bomb on the problem but the real solution is almost certainly going to be the slower, more technical approach. But the more we attack Starmer over that, the more likely we will have the nightmare of a Reform government which will affect Scotland as much as the rest of the union.
Niemand- the channel boat crossing of asylum seekers (legal and illegal) have increased since we officially left EU in 2019. There were reciprocal arrangements for stopping and returning refugees with EU that are no longer applicable. Free movement within EU involved a greater proportion of people who would return to their country of origin within EU. In addition there had been a clampdown on legal routes for asylum seekers which incentivises the gangs organising the boat crossings. Add in the gross inefficiency of Home Office to quickly process asylum seekers and you end up with the enormous backlog of people languishing in hotels, flats etc and causing concern in local communities.
The number of people entering UK is lower than most countries in western Europe and the causes are many and the demand is unlikely to reduce much with the effects of global warming. If we stopped bombing and destabilising some countries (Iraq, Afghanistan) we could see less refugees fleeing them?
I am not downplaying the importance of immigration but the boats are a small proportion of total immigration (which is legal). The reporting of boat arrivals is out of all proportion to the impact this has on everyday life for vast majority of people. How affected are you by illegal immigration?
Starmer is handling this issue poorly/ amplifying it as an issue following Teform and thus amplifying them (eg island of strangers comment) plus lit direct repudiation of Farage’s comments yesterday. Compare to how Heath & Wilson responded to Powell’s rivers of blood speech with complete repudiation even though it was a popular speech with a large section of population. Politicians can also set the tone as well as follow the herd. If Starmer implemented sensible policies to reduce backlog, thus emptying hotels etc he could also put blame back on Brexit and make a case for greater integration within EU to help stem numbers coming over the channel.
Post Brexit there has been, as many predicted, a decrease of immigration from Europe but an enormous increase in immigration from non European countries.
This Labour line that we cannot criticise Starmer because it will usher in Reform is at best weak and an insult to electorate especially in Scotland especially when Westminster refuses to devolve responsibility for immigration to Holyrood.
I think the point is the psychological effect of the channel crossings on the populace, which whether we like it or not, the media will amplify. This isn’t going to go away no matter arguments about proportion. So it is not necessarily about how much individual UK citizens are directly affected. This is exacerbated by the fact that if you have rules regarding immigration that are seemingly thrown in the bin by such an approach to getting into the country, enabled by ruthless criminal gangs who care only about the money they make and don’t even care if people die in the process, and do nothing of significance to end it (whilst at the same time reducing or at least stabilising the overall amount), then people think this is simply wrong.
I agree with some of your basic points about the bigger picture and Brexit though reducing the backlog of claims is a priority for Labour, or so they say. Scotland may well be a bit different to England in the way people think about all of this (as well as being clearly quite distanced, literally, from the hard end of the issue) but a Reform government would make no such distinction. I am no cheer leader for Labour but no-one defends or supports Labour for *anything* on this site, quite the opposite, so talking about ‘legitimate’ criticism of them is euphemistic since there is only criticism, and that is putting it mildly; it undermines notions of ‘legitimate’.
There was a piece in The Guardian today saying that Farage can be defeated if only Starmer told the truth about the disaster of Brexit and the lies people like Farage told to help it happen. But, he said Starmer won’t do this (how he knows, I do not know). It’s as if Labour and Remain voters have never pointed this out, endlessly! And even if it might have a small effect, the idea it is the answer shows just how much of bubble some people are (still) in: it will mostly speak only to those who agree with it already.
I am pretty firmly convinced that only actually significantly stemming the amount of channel crossings will stop Reform, at least from being able to form some kind of government at the next GE. The only thing that might stop that is an implosion within Reform.
Niemand – thank you for your considered reply. The issue of Brexit is that it has actually exacerbated the issue of people smuggling gangs and immigration demand overall. Farage needs to be held to account for this. (Stephen Gethins was very good on this on radio this morning.) Farage and Brexiteers always evade responsibility and move onto blaming the next minority group. I notice today that after push back on deporting women and children that Farage is equivocating on this point today. He is at heart a bully (like Trump) and bullies are usually cowards who need to be confronted rather than accommodated.
Though everyone wants them to stop them there appears to be no easy, humane way to completely stopping these boat crossing. It will take cooperation, resources and hard work to reduce numbers attempting to cross channel not empty, populist rhetoric.
Westminster refuses to devolve immigration policy to Holyrood and I personally think that as channel boat crossings are landing in England Holyrood and local authorities in Scotland should play hard ball and challenge locating asylum seekers from England in Scotland until Scotland has control over its own immigration. The birthrate stats yesterday graphically illustrate why Scotland will continue to need controlled immigration for foreseeable future. The key is controlled by Scottish government.
Lastly whoever forms next government at Westminster it is highly likely that whichever way we vote in Scotland it will not alter outcome one iota. The prospect of a Reform government at Westminster being imposed on Scotland by electorate south of the border is another reason to question why and what Scotland gains from remaining in UK.
Great analysis of the rightward march of the centre of British politics. Interesting to see what they have to say about Farage’s plans, by this rate they’ll soon be openly supporting Trump.
We desperately need a competing narrative. The firewall constituted by disdain for English nationalism in Scotland may come down, especially with the SNP’s popularity fading. The narrative could ask if people would care so much about immigration if homes, GP appointments and school places were abundant. It could focus on integration of migrants to quell concerns about immigration (I believe xenophobia is a human phenomenon). When asked about trans rights we ask why are you so obsessed with 1% of the population, or segway to the 1% who own 50% of the wealth. I think alternative nationalism is also essential. The English flag being lost to the far right is a huge point of vulnerability for the English left. Not in Scotland, but we need to learn from the mistakes of others.
When it comes to us on the left we ought to tone down the intellectualism. In general we can learn a lot from the critiques made of us from the right, rather than dismissing outright anything they have to say.
Thanks Duncan, agree 100% on the (desperate) need for a different narrative. What are the critiques from the right you think we should learn from? #genuinequestion
A sort of manicheanism which leads to a lack of a critical viewpoint on many issues. Being stuck in urban echo chambers, insulated from the issues affecting the majority of the population. Being offended on behalf of other groups without necessarily listening to a variety of viewpoints on the issue at hand. Cancel culture was also a fantastic publicity boost to formerly marginal figures. Mostly problems of conducting political debate on social media.
I think these are examples of right-wing criticisms of the left, though they mostly come from personal experience.
These strike me as criticisms that can be made of the right by the left just as much as the other way round.
Sure Paddy, but if they do apply to us on the left we should address them. I think it boils down to a lack of open self-criticism. Rather than make a critical comment at a left wing group, in the past I have just stopped going. If that happens en masse it’s not great.
At a BBQ last month, I was talking to a (white, Scottish) guy who lives in a flat in Maryhill (North Glasgow).
He told me that his neighbouring flats were increasingly occupied by young immigrant men and that they were becoming a problem. He said that the immigrants were “following young lassies around” and that he and his neighbours had started a FB group to “keep an eye on them”.
Here’s a reasonable, moderate man who is feeling distincltly unsettled by the changes in his neighbourhood. How do we as left-leaning, anti-racist, anti-fascists respond to concerns like this? His experience is real and lived.
Wul – your friends could report misbehaviour to the police as you would with any young guys living in a flat.
Who owns the property- how about complaining to them or about them to the relevant authorities including elected representatives.
He doesn’t want to be seen as a racist.
We talked about how if, say fifteen 25yr old, male Scots, or any nationality, were to suddenly move in, it would disrupt equilibrium in a block of flats.
There’s no one in power, no leader, no one on the TV to explain to this guy, why these migrants are here, why they are legitimate, how they can contribute to Scotland, what he should do with concerns, how they will be “integrated”, how he can get to know them as people etc etc.
There’s a vacuum. And Farage & co. are filling it.
The racists and fascists spend billions every year on advertising their messages of hate and intolerance; Daily Mail, Express, GB News, Farage etc etc.
How much has the UK or Scottish govt. spent on advertising tolerance, education, understanding, knowledge of the issues etc?
I’m talking about big newspaper adverts, TV and internet campaigns; not cosy wee workshops in the bohemian West End for me and my liberal fellow lefties.
It’s almost as if hating our fellow, struggling brothers and sisters suits someone.
Wul – might be worth informing your friends that:
1)Immigration is not devolved despite Holyrood request so Westminster responsible for current situation.
2)Brexit has made situation significantly worse and Farage, Reform and other Brexiteers have a heavy responsibility for current situation.
3)Asylum Seekers come from countries which the UK has had military involvement in (Afghanistan, Iraq etc) which has caused both humanitarian and economic problems leading to people leaving country.
4)Channel crossing is dangerous, hence most attempting are desperate and younger males.
5)Birthrate in Scotland is at a record low, as is death rate so we do require immigrants to work, pay taxes to fund NHS, pensions and public services.
6)Agree immigration needs to be controlled, most asylum seekers land in southern England so while we should help people in distress it is essential that Scottish government has control of it.
Admittedly this won’t cut much ice with xenophobes etc but most people in Scotland should be open to this type of discussion?
@Wul, there’s so much evidence that the British are extreme threats to the localities they migrate to that perhaps this domestic fear is partly either projection or self-knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_Training_Unit_Kenya#Crimes_and_injuries
And that’s just what’s currently in the public domain. There’s certainly more in the pipeline. And if the regular British Army is this bad, what about special forces, MI6 and the paramilitaries/mercenaries whose activities aren’t at all well known outside their circles (unless a rare whistleblower or court case or inquiry crops up)?
The problem with national myths as histories, of course, is that they have to content in a global milieu where the British are common stock villains in the rising cultural industries of nations where we once once greatly offended. There’s even a kind of modern British ‘good egg’ colonial-era type movie as if to say “we weren’t *all* *that* bad”, like the British Museum claim that “it wasn’t all looted”. This sort of thing is getting pretty desperate, though. Perhaps foreign “anti-British” culture will be banned under a Reformitty regime.
Did your flat-dweller say that these ‘lassies’ had requested protection from their (white, male) neighbours?
I agree with the arguments put forward by Mr Monro and Niemand. The visuals (channel crossings) are the problem & are being leveraged by Fart-rage & co. The data: mostly young men points to economic migrants. Addressing the visuals (channel crossings) punctures the Deform ballon. Sooner done, sooner mended.
PS: the problem has been around for at least 2 decades. e.g. why were a bunch of Chinese people drowned in Morcombe Bay in the 2000s – picking cockles – what the hell were they doing there? They weren’t asylum seekers – they were economic migrants.