Where are we now?
The scenes across England (Liverpool, Walthamstow, Oxford, Bristol) last night were heartening and inspiring. As Armando Iannuccci put it: “Civil society, not civil war.” The scenes allowed people to step out beyond the algorithm and the tabloids and the tv coverage to see their own communities standing shoulder to shoulder.
Powerful stuff, and hopefully replicated in Scotland very soon.
But the whole problem – the whole political crisis doesn’t just go away, even if the suddenly bashful recalcitrant Daily Mail thinks it can wash away decades of its own bile and hatred with a front page like this:
Lots of the hard and far right are backtracking very fast (we see you Nigel) suddenly realising that the demons they have released have real-world consequences for THEM, ranging from incarceration to an end to their miserable political careers.
As George Monbiot wrote: “The story senior Conservatives kept telling was of “outsiders” threatening all we held dear. Overwhelmingly, but not exclusively, the groups they targeted were Muslims, and asylum seekers and other immigrants. Others were demonised less often, though no less harmfully: for example, Priti Patel, now a leading contender for the party leadership, targeted Travellers, and pushed legislation through parliament that could destroy their travelling lives, as well as those of Gypsies and Roma.”
It’s a target the late, un-lamented leader of the Scottish Tories was keen on abusing. Now senior Conservatives such as Priti Patel are desperately trying to white-wash and de-toxify their own recent history. But, that’s not going to work. We have the receipts, as the saying goes.
The Conservatives used this fear and ramped it up over and over for electoral gain, ultimately to political failure, and in doing so poisoned the well of public discourse so that our timelines and our heads are filled with not just disinformation and misinformation but entire narratives and plotlines that are just based on nonsense to distract and divide us . Monbiot again writes: “Repeated statements by Conservative MPs – sometimes subtle, sometimes crude – could scarcely have been better designed to inflame racist mobs. When Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, falsely claimed that Britain was “sleepwalking into a ghettoised society”, and that “Islamists … are in charge now”, she was allowed by Rishi Sunak to stay on the party benches.
Robert Jenrick, now a contender for the Tory leadership, claimed in parliament, without evidence: “We have allowed our streets to be dominated by Islamist extremists.” Prominent Conservatives, sometimes with the party leadership’s apparent endorsement, repeatedly smeared the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, falsely associating him with radical Islamism simply because he was a Muslim.”
They did this repeatedly, relentlessly. They were not alone. Other enablers of this spasm of fascism include Douglas Murray, Fraser Nelson, Isabelle Oakeshott, Nigel Farage, Kemi Bad Enoch, Andrew Pierce, Lawrence Fox, Jamie Bryson, Andrew Tate, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, Alison Fuller Peadley, Sarah Edwards, Kelvin Mackenzie, Paul Dacre, Elon Musk, David Starkey, Katie Hopkins. Individuals do not create a political culture alone or in a vacuum but these are powerful people who are culpable for fomenting hate.
This is the nightmare the new Labour government have inherited, and, by many accounts are fumbling. As Daniel Trilling notes in the London Review of Books (This Times its Worse):
“Islamophobic, anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiment has been a staple of Britain’s right-wing press for decades, but we are emerging from a period in which a Conservative government made right-wing populism a central part of its platform. The damage done on this front by the Johnson-Truss-Sunak government needs to be recognised. At each inflection point since 2019, the Conservatives and their media cheerleaders chose to double down on the populist rhetoric, painting their opponents as enemies who threatened the integrity of the nation. The Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 were treated as signs of an ‘alien’ culture that had taken over Britain’s cities. Demonstrations demanding a ceasefire in Gaza were smeared as ‘hate marches’ by Suella Braverman when she was home secretary.”
How do you climb down from this level of toxicity? While I can name a dozen key enablers (suggestions welcome) it’s very hard to see how any of them will have any recompense? Who is going to hold Elon Musk to account, or Nigel Farage. The Irish have announced a legal challenge to Musk’s carnage, and good luck to them, but I don’t hold out much hope.
The reality is that the debate in – what’s nominally called ‘this country’ – has been distorted and disfigured to such an extent that it’s going to be a hard task to tell new stories, to change minds in the face of the past many years of relentless hatred and racism. The SNP, despite their many failings, in the shape of Humza Yousaf and Stephen Flynn (on QT) are rare in mainstream politicians making the positive case for immigration.
The problem, as sections of the right try desperately to backtrack and screen wipe their social media histories, and others manoeuvre to try and pick the bones of their crisis to further it, is who is able to put this back together again? The Better Together of ten years ago urged us to cleave to a bigger idea, a more progressive beacon, that of the outward-looking multicultural Britain. It’s hard to see anyone in government able to convincingly replicate that (far-fetched) vision.
As someone responding to Daniel Trilling’s (brilliant) article said: “I sometimes think we live in an era of “strategic racism” where most political parties use racism consciously and cynically to maximise their political gains. The fate of who and how many get hurt when violence finally and inevitably erupts being largely inconsequential in the calculus employed.”
They are absolutely right.
We do.
The reconstruction of civil society (Iannuccci) will take deep regulation of the online tech giants, or more positively and urgently the creation of a publicly managed online commons, as well as us empowering ourselves to operate IRL, off-screen*, face-to-face, in our communities and reclaiming our cities. Beginning to think about the potential of that makes even these very dark times have the possibility of light.
What do you think?
*I include myself in that
We are supported only by our readers. We don't have corporate backers and we don't take advertising, so we rely entirely on your support.
Help to support independent Scottish journalism
Kemi Bad Enoch? If not a typo, quite brilliant.
Not a typo but not my own, read it somewhere : )
I work in a shop that repairs things. It doesn’t matter who the person is; they want their thing repaired. The colour of their skin is irrelevant. I don’t book repairs based on anything other than my available time.
I am not sure that deep regulation of social media is desirable. There already are regulations about what people post on social media, but I doubt there are many prosecutions – life is too short. The State and Revolution by Lenin isn’t subject to deep regulation although it is a call to arms for intellectuals. Double standards?
Good article.
I doubt there is much we can do about Musk though I agree he is a serious snake in the grass that gets headlines worldwide with his dangerous Trump-like drivel. Farage is a different as he is an elected UK politician and can at least, to some extent, be held to account. I do not think he has come that well out of things recently and has been made to look gullible, foolish and weak. His main supporters won’t change but I doubt he has gained many recently and possibly lost some.
You make a decent point about the SNP and their attitude to immigration (though we are aware it is not necessarily one that is widely shared). But in light of that I think it a mistake to lay into the UK Labour government so much. I think they have handled this crisis pretty well – decisive and firm and supportive of relevant communities as well as the police. There is a sense of the vast majority pulling together against these extremists and thugs and Starmer’s tone and emphases has very much helped this.
Yes, Labour have an issue of how to balance voter’s worries about migration (not illegitimate) and the stuff surrounding that (resources, rapid demographic change), with humanity, practicality and avoidance of bigotry. It is not easy but no serious political party can ignore this conundrum (the SNP would, if levels of migration Scotland match England’s, have exactly the same problem and arguably already do if we think of the English as immigrants to Scotland).
In my view Labour actually need considered / critical support in doing this because it is far too important to be subsumed by more petty party political concerns. Endlessly trying to undermine Labour will lead to more social unrest of the worst sort like we have seen in recent days, not less. And that is more likely to lead us back to the Tories, or even Reform.
One way Labour could signal a genuine break with the past would be to repatriate Shemima Begum to the UK. It’s her country as well, after all.
Niemand – I agree with much of your comments and I don’t disagree that Starmer has handled this situation reasonably well. I would add that this should be an area of strength for him as a former DPP.
I would argue however that some other members of Labour Party have indulged in chasing the anti immigrant vote eg Jonathan Ashworth, Sarah Edward’s.
While obviously supporting any government which tries to address racist violence and racism I find their support to the 2 child benefit cap and arbitrary restriction on pensioner fuel allowance concerning. You could argue that such policies are counterproductive to trying to alleviate the concerns of many poorer members of society who are being directed to blame immigrants by Farage, Musk, Braverman etc
Decent points John. I assume the issue of benefit caps and the lesser one in my view about fuel payments is all about cost and the bad financial situation inherited. But it must also be about perceived priorities.
As for Begum, that strikes me as a bit of red herring. I have no strong view on it but can the government override the supreme court anyway? I don’t know.
Niemand – you raise an interesting point about SNP and attitudes to immigration. I think that Flynn and Swinney have shown leadership in the area of immigration. Politicians do have a responsibility to set the tone and agenda rather than just following it. I am confused about the point you’re trying to make re English people being immigrants in Scotland?
Your point about policies that should be followed to avoid having another Tory (or even worse Reform) Westminster government rather makes the point for independence. Neither of these parties have a realistic chance of forming a government in Scotland (especially under PR) therefore their influence upon politics in Scotland is considerably diminished compared to elsewhere in UK. The circumstances and culture around immigration are different in Scotland and therefore the political solutions need to be different as with so many other issues. The recognition of this leads me to the inevitable conclusion that greater devolution of power and decision making is required not only within nations of UK but within Scotland itself.
Oh I agree about independence. Kind of a given really. But we are where we are and the UK government affects everyone, but yes, less so in the devolved nations. There can be nothing wrong with more devolution, the most realistic prospect in the short-medium term.
The point about the English in Scotland is not that there will be riots over it (very hard to imagine!) but that there is undoubted disquiet in certain circles (you see it here btl and much more so on some other nationalist blogs) where they are indeed called ‘foreigners’, ‘colonists’, ‘invaders’ and in the mouth of one especially obnoxious Wings’ poster, ‘vermin that need to be exterminated from the Highlands’ (I am not joking, they go by the name of ‘confused’ but they are not alone there by a long chalk). The Scotland is a colony of England theory is predicated on the idea that the English in Scotland are ‘white settlers’, indulging in an ‘occupation’ blah blah.
Thanks for your reply and clarification.
I agree that there are ‘ethnic nationalists’ who support independence and they should be called out at every turn. A citizen of Scotland is someone who has made the country their home regardless of background.
If the case for independence is positive and robust enough citizens will support it regardless of whether they were born.
no they won’t
That is up to each and every member of Scottish electorate to decide. That is called democracy- when you are allowed to vote.
hmm, the first letter is F,
the 2nd is O,
U know what 2 do
Ted the troll with nothing else in his life – saddo mate.
Take your own advice and go and troll somewhere else.
agus mar a tha beatha ann an Dun Eideann
ciamar a tha an sluagh a’ fàs nas sine
a bheil a h-uile duine a’ tarraing chun t-slighe cheart
Must agree with this. Some of the comments on the National’s website are completely bigoted and vile and yet not removed. As an Englishman with a Scottish wife and one child who sees herself as more Scottish than English, I despair. I fully support independence but when I see comments like those I wonder why I bother. Unfortunately the National has turned into the independence movements version of the Daily Express.
You left out Nicola Sturgeon, Mike. She was very vocal on the xenophobia & racism being stirred by the brexit referendum and its aftermath.
Might I also suggest you put in brackets “small fry in comparison to the other major parties” after “The snp, despite their many failings “.
priti patel wis beamed doun frae planit twiglit min
Indeed, sumbdy needs ti start drug testing & breathalysing these politicians before & after they are permitted to make statements which (as has been recently demonstrated) only ever lead to one bludy conclusion.
The actions of people in England this week in demonstrating their opposition to Islamophobia, racism and thuggery, was heartening and showed that the majority of people are humanely respectful of others and will seek to protect people being nastily attacked.
Eventually, Labour Cabinet ministers and MPs began to set aside their mealy-mouthed pronouncements and began to describe these riots for what they are. However, they are still feart of the reactions of the right wing media and are avoiding discussing immigration in a nuanced and informed way. They are failing to move decisively away from the ‘stop the boats’ rhetoric of the Tories and are still dealing with the issue within these narrow parameters with rhetoric about border controls and tackling people smugglers. These things are part of the issue, but only a small part.
The resentment being stirred up by the right wing activists strikes a chord with many people because the growing inequality arising from austerity and the mendacious economic paradigm which Labour shamefully seems to accept, has had a seriously detrimental effect on levels of poverty and on public services, housing and wages. Labour has to invest significantly in public services as soon as possible so that people see that things can be better. Labour has to start empowering communities to give people agency to enable them to improve their communities. The thuggish actions seen during the riots are people trying to exert some control over their lives. This is not condoning such conduct; it needs to be dealt with firmly as has been done last week. But jailing the perpetrators only provides a bit of breathing space.
Labour needs to start talking the nuanced talk and presenting a different narrative to change the hegemony of neoliberalism. It also must start walking the walk as soon as possible and removing the iniquitous two child benefit cap is the way to start. (As a pensioner who will not receive my winter heating allowance, I am not concerned because I have always donated it to charity).
During the election Labour was promising to ‘start from Day 1’. It did some hopeful things during the first fortnight and it has settled a number of important pay claims in England. But, the performative rage displayed by the Chancellor reading from the script she pulled from her £1100 handbag presented to her by bankers whose ‘fingerprints are all over Labour economic policy’ and her actions which are ‘not austerity’ but look and smell like it, does not give the impression that we can expect seriously redistributive policies any time soon.
I hope I am wrong, and these are, indeed, early days for a new government, and the riots were a Trumpian attempt to destabilise it, but some positive actions and visionary words are needed.
Thanks for this. It’s so good to see people standing up for each other and against rule by fear.
The foundation of the crisis we all face is a view of the world that sees only money and the power it buys as having any value at all. It is fundamental to modern economic and political thinking and unless challenged, we will always arrive again and again at the same place of violence and destruction because in this philosophy, ‘ethics’ are merely ‘virtue signalling’, a means to an end.
But by their fruits – genocide and atrocities in Palestine and elsewhere, pogroms in the UK, manufactured wars, an Orwellian world – shall ye know them. 99% of the world’s population, and 100% of non-human species, not to mention all minerals and organic matter, even the electromagnetic waves we are made of, are mere resources to be exploited and destroyed. There’s no longer even the pretence of ‘trickle-down’ – the hyper-wealthy and powerful expect to rule the planet entirely for their own perceived self-interest.
This is not a philosophy at all. It is madness and it is nihilism, a denial that life has any meaning at all beyond a personal struggle to possess and control. It is in reality just an expression of addiction and fear, and it breeds fear and grows through that. Like any addiction it rules the addicted and the needs of others are disregarded. Fearmongering may also be deliberate – Project Fear, for example. But it underpins corporate capitalism, and its offshoot, fascism. Anything is only ‘justified’ if it delivers ‘shareholder’ (now ‘stakeholder’) ‘value’, or absolute power.
Secrecy, conspiracy and denial of responsibility are absolutely central to capitalism. No doubt that’s why those in power are so terrified even of their own ‘conspiracy theories’. The mailed fist of violence, as it seizes the assets of the planet by force, is usually kept within the velvet glove of what NATO calls ‘cognitive warfare’. But sometimes it emerges, and exposes its weakness.
The neo-Darwinists, Freudians and others tried to persuade us that human nature is self-centred and competitive. It suited an era of colonialism: with God dead, wealth and power were their own reward.
However the survival of the fittest does not mean the survival of the most reckless and ruthless at the expense of everyone and everything else. You and I are nobody’s ‘human resources’, to be valued only in monetary terms. We are not (yet) concentration camp inmates or factory farmed animals to be exploited, bought, sold, and then thrown away.
Kropotkin, Morris and others envisioned a world based on mutual aid rather than an endless fight to the death. Ecology demonstrates that the fittest to survive are those that benefit the system as a whole. And human nature is neither ‘good’ nor ‘evil’: it is in essence no different from non-human nature. This means we have the capacity – in fact the overriding purpose – to act in the interest of people and planet as a whole. We are the planet, not separate; hell is not other people.
Whatever the technocrats may claim, human society cannot be separated from the non-human ecosystem. It is not a computer system that can be ‘reset’. It is a living organism that will heal and renew itself.
We need above all to cut out the cancerous, hubristic ideology that denies these things. It cannot deliver a future for any of us, even Elon Musk, Mark Zucketberg, Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, ‘king’ Charles, the Bilderbergers and their ilk. This model is obsolete.
And their wealth and power only exist if we grant it to them. Because ultimately the planet, including its people, animals, plants and minerals, ‘belong’ only to themselves.
‘You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy’, we’re told. It’s nonsense. The post-war Labour government introduced the Welfare State to address the ‘Five Giants’ of disease, squalor, want, ignorance and idleness. Over the last few decades these very things have been weaponized and used against us
It’s time to reclaim our humanity. It’s great to see people out on the streets doing just that.
Excellent remarks, and the values that motivate and show themselves in the course of your exposition. May the movement for mutuality and activism ramp up quickly, as the earth does not fail to show us the urgency of this moment.
Hopefully NOT replicated in Scotland.
I find that comment offensive.
I meant replicating the peaceful opposition to fascism?
Where are we now ?
Immediately, the state has shown, via the police and courts, that it is much less enfeebled than often seems to the case.
A motley collection of thugs and criminal racists have been quickly arrested and jailed. Wannabe copycats have vanished like snow off a dyke. That is a cause for rejoicing.
This is another article in which Mike Small highlights fascism. There are almost no fascists in the UK; no fascist party, no fascist leader, no fascist ideology. (There are clearly thugs and racists but there is much more to fascism than that.)
There is a major problem in parts of England with a post-industrial working class which is alienated and resentful. Scotland shares this problem. It occasionally erupts into rioting here, in places like Granton and Niddrie. This class has little education and some employers find it preferable to import workers. This is a class issue though class issues are now anathema to much of the left.
There is also a problem with a system of failed multi-culturalism which has left parts of the north of England with, de facto, apartheid. By that I mean that some areas are almost entirely ‘white’ and others equally ‘non-white,.’ This is a particular problem in schools.
The social problems mentioned above have been left to fester for decades. For the middle class, they are out of sight and mostly out of mind – apart from when there is a bit of denouncing to be done.
Thanks for speaking some reality-based sense. A refreshing change from self-centered sociological hypothesis on here.
Exactly Florian,
The ‘fascist riots’ tool place in the most deprived areas of England, historically fascism was a middle class movement set up to counter the organised left wing working class left.
The modern left has embraced identity politics and given up on the class struggle and the white working class has been abandoned.
When West Indians rioted in the early 1980’s (Brixton/Moss Side/Toxteth) the govt tried to address the problems, will the current govt address the issues raised in the last week. Unfortunately I suspect the white working class will just be ignored until trouble inevitably rears it’s ugly head once again.
“Immediately, the state has shown, via the police and courts, that it is much less enfeebled than often seems to the case. A motley collection of thugs and criminal racists have been quickly arrested and jailed. Wannabe copycats have vanished like snow off a dyke. That is a cause for rejoicing….There is a major problem in parts of England with a post-industrial working class which is alienated and resentful. Scotland shares this problem. It occasionally erupts into rioting here, in places like Granton and Niddrie. This class has little education….This is a class issue though class issues are now anathema to much of the left….
The social problems mentioned above have been left to fester for decades. For the middle class, they are out of sight and mostly out of mind – apart from when there is a bit of denouncing to be done.”
I am greatly struck by the excessive discernment which I see, but which Florian apparently does not, between the 2 quite disjoint sets he presents to us:
i) ‘thugs & criminal racists’
ii) ‘a post-industrial working class…alienated and resentful’
I was also greatly struck by the language of deterrence and, for want of a better word, repression printed on the hymn sheets from which the entire cohort of Nu-nu-Labour Ministers and minions, not to mention the complete judicial world whether prosecutorial or adjudicatorial sang with such gusto; the hitherto highly self-effacing former DPP proving himself exceptionally at ease in his return to that role.
Are the harsh punishments visited upon the hapless thugs and criminals who, through lack of social and legal nous were foolish enough to plead guilty as charged in the court of first instance and so set themsleves up as sacrificial victims of political and social forces way beyond them not also worthy of being classified as ‘a class issue’ ?
Or is this newly discovered penchant for the harshest of punishments for law breakers by the newly elected UK government also likely to see Barlinnie subject to a significant new influx of middle class jailbirds, some from the upper echelons of society, some even died in the wool ‘socialists,’ who, not least in the times of Covid, have fleeced the country with an impunity which would make the thugs and criminals recipients of these exemplary sentences puce with envy?
‘dyed-in-the-wool’
Mea Culpa
I make no apology for writing about fascism when fascists are on the streets and the most widespread violent disorder is happening.
You write: “the state has shown, via the police and courts, that it is much less enfeebled than often seems to the case.”
The British state enfeebled? Huh? If you’d been reading Bella more carefully you would have read dozens of accounts of how the British state has been given more and more powers of arrest and surveillance and we have sleepwalked into an authoritarianism that few have ever witnessed.
Then you write that “There are almost no fascists in the UK; no fascist party, no fascist leader, no fascist ideology.”
Many writers have pointed to the complex and diverse nature of the far-right movement, but to dismiss it because they don’t have uniforms and come with a big banner saying ‘we’re the Fascist Party’ is just nonsense.
By equating the riots in Niddrie a year or so ago with the events in England is just incoherent. The far-right in England have ideology, leadership, aims and far reach into government. By trying to strip them of any political agency is a serious mistake.
The biggest difference in the previous riots some commentators have mentioned is that they were directed against property not people.
The current riots were racially motivated and primarily directed against vulnerable minorities.
The current riots are being orchestrated by bad actors on line against an undercurrent of demonisation of the attacked minorities by many in the media and politicians.
This has all been played out over a period of economic decline caused in part by a major financial collapse in 2008.
You can argue over terms such as racism but you do not need to have a History degree to see the connection with the 1930’s.
Lastly to FA – to say multiculturalism has failed is nonsense. The same thing was being said in early 1980’s after riots. The UK is, despite the current tensions, by any standard far more multicultural than it was 40 years ago.
Apologies for typing error – it should read ‘you can argue over terms like fascism’ not racism. There is no argument that the riots of last week have been racist.
riots are enacted by nutters (trying to classify the political position of such nutters is a waste of everyone’s time, including yours & mine.)
Not quite as big a waste of time as reading your inane comments.
John,
There have been Pakistani vs Hindu riots in Leicester, west Indian vs Pakistani riots in Birmingham and very recently (but virtually unreported) Bangladeshi vs Bangladeshi riots in Wandsworth (London) whilst Jews across the country live under fear of racial violence not from the ‘far right’ but from Muslims.
Fascism in the 1930’s arose because the middle classes felt threatened by the largely communist working class.
The current situation is a direct result of multi-culturism where people identify primarily based on their ethnicity NOT on their class.
John L – your highly selective information and interpretation of recent events show you are as well informed about 20th century history and contemporary race relations as you are about climate change.
The current riots punching down on vulnerable minorities were caused by racist thugs, (many of whom have previous convictions) stimulated by racist on line narcissists and emboldened by the underlying racism and Islamophobia of many politicians and large sections of media commentators over last 25 years.
The last Tory government are particularly responsible doing nothing to address underlying economic and social tensions that always cause discontent while whipping up anti immigrant and Islamophobia rhetoric for political purposes. It would appear from the much larger crowds that have attended anti racist protests protecting the vulnerable minorities that there are still thankfully many more tolerant people in UK than right wing media would have us believe.
“Jews live under fear of racial violence…”
We have heard this nonsense before. And that is what it is.
sounds like the type of prepare prior to budget excuse (written by someone with a middle or upper managerial role within the Great British hierarchical class system) that gets rolled out every year in an attempt to justify further investment in pie in the sky projects at the expense of the working poor
John, those who keep trotting out the mantra that the multicultural society in the UK (and especially England) has ‘failed’ are not just wrong, but wish it to fail and so keep trying to undermine it but making such a false claim. Some tensions between migrant communities and a very small minority of neo-fascist hooligans on the streets do not mean it has failed because that should be set against a backdrop of a vibrant and mostly cohesive society on an everyday level. This is not wishful thinking – the reaction to the riots by tends of thousands of ordinary people across England is proof.
There is definitely a battle of the labels going on, and we need to wise up to it. Farage and the Reform party strenuously reject the ‘far-right’ label for example. The same is going on in other European countries: Marine Le Pen in France also rejects the labels far-right and fascist, as part of her campaign to ‘de-diabolise’ her party and make it more acceptable electorally. Instead, she wants it referred to as ‘la droite nationale’ (the national right-wing). I’ve heart of others insisting that Victor Orban’s government in Hungary is not far-right but ‘populist’. But let’s be honest: these are but euphemisms. These parties are far-right to the core, in that, ultimately, they reject democratic values.
What is certainly true is that the centre of English politics has moved further to the right in recent years, to the extent that far-right views are now commonplace within the Conservative Party. The fact that they are commonplace does not make them any less far-right. When they embrace or pander to the systematic, organised racist violence we have witnessed in some towns in England, only the term fascist is adequate.
Thanks Paddy
You produce no evidence that fascism or fascists were a significant factor during the recent riots in England. You then go on to use a different term, ‘far right’. This is much used but so broad and vague as to be meaningless.
A bit of context is needed here. A few weeks back, we had a general election. The Scottish left, as is now customary, sat this out. The prospect of fighting fascism promises relevance in a worthwhile role. However, if there are very few or no fascists, it all falls apart.
One way out of this for the left, on both side of Hadrian’s Wall, would be recognize and attempt to remedy, the genuine grievances of what is left of the traditional working class. It would also allow them to re-enter electoral politics. It worked for Tommy Sheridan, – remember him ? His personal failings should not blind us to his successful political strategy.
Florian – from what I observed far more working class people, from all sections of society, came out to face down the racist thugs who have been attacking muslims, asylum seekers etc in the last week.
These racist thugs, whose violent, racist actions, are by any definition representative of far right politics.
How is traditional working class different from the general working class?
The policies of the government of the last 14 years, arguably last 45 years, have been detrimental to many poorer sections of society. In the last 14 years the government and their supporters in the media have tried to deflect blame for the deteriorating economic and social conditions of many people by punching down blaming easily identifiable minorities such as assylum seekers and Muslims rather than trying to address the problems.
@florian albert, for a bit more context, one might add that fascist groups are likely to have been proscribed by the UK government, and therefore people would face arrest by openly claiming membership of one of these. This is largely why the names of groups keep changing and perhaps why they don’t tend to have ‘fascist’ in their titles (national socialist seems to remain perennially popular, though).
From the official UK government position:
Terrorgram added to list of proscribed terrorist organisations
“The Terrorgram collective is an online network of neo-fascist terrorists who produce and disseminate violent propaganda to encourage those who consume its content to engage in terrorist activity.”
“The Terrorgram collective glorify attacks committed by neo-fascist terrorists, who they consider to be ‘saints,’ and encourage replication of such heinous attacks including by disseminating instructional material to help others prepare to commit acts of terrorism.”
“It also subscribes to militant accelerationist and neo-fascist ideologies, notably pursuing the collapse of the Western world and a ‘Race War’ through violent acts of terrorism, and often seeks to target young individuals to adopt their ideology.”
“The Terrorgram collective is a dangerous neo-fascist organisation that actively encourages and promotes terrorist activity.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/terrorgram-added-to-list-of-proscribed-terrorist-organisations
The UK government has already ruled that “The neo-Nazi group National Action was banned last year following an assessment that it was ‘concerned in terrorism.’ The order laid today means that it cannot operate as Scottish Dawn or NS131, which have been identified as alternate names the group has used.” And ‘neo-Nazi’ seems fairly interchangeable with ‘fascist’ in official announcements.
The Times has recently written about how UK ‘Armed forces grapple with more neo-Nazis in the ranks’. The BBC wrote in 2021 that ‘UK bans fifth neo-Nazi group under terror laws’. (and you have ex-EDL members overlapping with rioters, and police reportedly finding various far-right ideology materials at the homes of convicted rioters)
So, what is your attachment to the far-right that you want to clear their names? Did any of these far-right groups (or members of) condemn the riots?
“You produce no evidence that fascism or fascists were a significant factor during the recent riots in England.”
I mean where have you been? Wtf are you on about?
George Orwell wrote; ‘The word Fascism now has no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.’ That was in 1946.
To be honest I don’t have time to explain this to you
They are not ‘de facto apartheid’ areas in the north of England. Apartheid is a system of institutionalised racial segregation and nothing like this is happening. Yes there are places where the different ethnic communities stick to their own and thus create areas dominated by one group, but there is no apartheid in any sense (and ‘de facto’ is meaningless in this context and serves only to tar by false association) and that comment reveals more about your mindset than the truth. While this tends to undermine credibility, the rest of the post has some good sense in it.
Fair enough; the phrase ‘de fact apartheid’ is inappropriate. The reality I was describing is a major problem. Call it ‘communal self-isolation’, where groups from one community have little or no informal, social contact with people – from a different community – living in the same town or city.
Such circumstances do not lead inexorably to violence but they make it more likely. The nearest parallel in the UK would be Belfast. During the ‘Troubles’, 1,500 people died violently in a city of some 350,000 people. The two main groups in Belfast had far more in common than the groups living separately in towns across the North of England.
Yes you can see it as a problem but it is also naturally what human beings do – stick to their own. One needs to be sensible about how much it is seen as a problem and how much any attempt to break up such areas demographically would be counterproductive. Some of the perceived problems are still racist in their origin – ‘we can’t have all these brown and black people grouping together, it is bound to be dangerous!’. But I agree that it is better that such areas are mixed to some extent to avoid literal segregation and tbh there are actually very few areas that are as monocultural as you suggest (except white ones of course).
As for NI, the other truth about human beings is that the most hatred is often felt between those who are most similar but have a difference that is seen as crucial but beyond all reasonable proportion like Protestant and Roman Catholic and . . . nationalist and unionist.
FA – any cursory glance of history shows that immigrants tend to live close together when they move to a new country eg little Italy in New York, Chinatown in nearly every big city etc etc. This is done due to family connections, economic support and security – in short it is human nature. These communities nearly always integrate with each following generation as they become more confident, economically and physically secure.
Your claim that multiculturalism has failed in UK does not stand up to scrutiny under any parameters of multiculturalism and life in the UK in 2024. Is it perfect- of course not but as Niemand has noted the people that say it has failed tend to be people who do not support it and want it to fail.
In earlier post you talked about the ‘traditional working class’ which I asked you to explain further. The working class of 2024 contains people of a whole variety of ethnic backgrounds who not surprisingly actually constitute a higher percentage in working class than in other class groups in 2024. The snakeoil salesman like Farage, Robinson etc are trying to split the working class by pitting different ethnic groups against themselves for their own political gain.
Al Jazeera’s Inside Story asks Is far-right violence in the UK in retreat?
https://www.aljazeera.com/program/inside-story/2024/8/9/is-far-right-violence-in-the-uk-in-retreat
Notable for an even larger montage of anti-immigrant UK newspaper front pages. The panellists also ask why there isn’t a UK legal definition of Islamophobia.
“The reconstruction of civil society (Iannuccci) will take deep regulation of the online tech giants, or more positively and urgently the creation of a publicly managed online commons, as well as us empowering ourselves to operate IRL, off-screen*, face-to-face, in our communities and reclaiming our cities. Beginning to think about the potential of that makes even these very dark times have the possibility of light.
What do you think?”
I agree. I’d just like to point out that the online tech giants are unsustainable. They cannot actually control the internet, as they are beginning to discover. It is decentralising itself. People are rapidly learning for themselves how to navigate it and how to make up their own mind about what is ‘misinformation’; and AI is a complete flop.
The tech giants therefore cannot control the narrative. Nor can they have a monopoly on surveillance and invasion of privacy. The monetisation of the internet is going to get harder and harder, and the tech giants are themselves getting confused by their own scheming.
I remember many years ago, computers were huge things that required air conditioned basements to work in. Data entry and extraction was by punched card. The next stage was the terminal – a screen and keyboard linked to the mainframe. But the desktop computer freed itself from that and processed things locally. Now we carry the computing power around in a pocket, and whether we choose to share our data and how we do it are up to us. Peer to peer sharing is possible. The tech giants, the CIA, politicians and the rest are terrified of their own privacy being invaded – as we saw with the deletion of WhatsApp messages, and the persecution of Julian Assange. But they can’t stop it.
The other thing is that their grandiose schemes for totalitarianism require such vast resources that they cannot power them. The data centres and grid upgrades are not affordable. Energy is becoming renewable and decentralised. And with the switch to VOIP, we will all be powering our own connections.
We are starting to break free from dependence. The internet has given millions of people a voice for the first time, and that voice cannot be silenced by ‘cognitive warfare’. We shouldn’t assume that any unofficial voice is a danger, in fact the opposite is more likely to be true. We have been seeing the creation of online commons for some time, which is great. And people generally are getting far more sophisticated at managing their communication and recognising disinformation and censorship when they see it. The tech giants are going to go the way of the dinosaurs. And not before time.
More is starting to happen offline. More people are starting to use cash again, and in local / independent businesses. When we were all forced online by Covid we saw the disastrous effect that had on everything and everyone. The ‘metaverse’ is just horrible. People hate being treated like robots. And hardware and software can increasingly be built by anyone. Big Tech / Big Pharma / Big Oil do not own the science and they do not own the truth. Thank goodness.
So I think there’s plenty of reason to be hopeful, even though the tech / pharma / energy giants are increasingly desperate to hang onto their power and wealth. They are now all fighting each other, let’s just leave them to it.