Lizzi Collinge is my MP and we have three Reform County Councillors in Morecambe and Lunesdale since last May. I am so proud she speaks out and paves the way for us to also stand our ground for our values .
Like you, I’m a bit reluctant about the whole cancelling / doxxing people just because their declared views identify them as an obnoxious fool - I’m quite sure those facets of them will be revealed to those around them soon enough without that: but in these cases, if that foolishness extends to harassment, intimidatory abuse, acts of vandalism and material criminal damage, then anyone who doesn’t side with these eejits should have absolutely no compunction at all in reporting them to the relevant authorities. Let them stand up and be big and brave and proud of what they are doing, like they pretend to be, by actually giving their name to their behaviour. Pensioners who allow themselves to be arrested in the name of a cause have principles. Anonymous young boys and men being thugs and vandals merely have impulses and poor self-control.
1. It’s interesting how much the abundance critique of infrastructural malaise, and the right’s critique of the immigration system resemble one another in outline. It sometimes seems like the contemporary British state is Bat Tunnels all the way down. The Afghan Resettlement Scheme is about 40x Bat Tunnels, for scale. No doubt the Afghan fear of persecution is as real as the bats are, but the solution is self-evidently disproportionate to a degree that seems almost insane, and driven by a vast and formless fear of legal risk rather than any kind of reasoned assessment of appropriateness or targeting (see for example recent Sky News report -- not sure I can link here?).
Like planning or housing, the immigration system has a basically reasonable set of goals, which are systematically frustrated or circumvented by pervasive, often specious, but ultimately effective litigation. It has long been recognised that the most effective way to claim asylum is not to actually satisfy the criteria, but rather to spin out the process by pulling every legal lever possible (Human Rights Act, Modern Slavery Act etc etc) until the status quo ante (one’s presence in the UK) becomes effectively impossible to change. Does this in any way sound familiar?
This cognitive mapping ofc extends to the bizarre policy monstrosities with which the system attempts to circumvent the basic problem of a herbivore government beset by litigious predators. For Fish Disco read Rwanda Scheme, etc.
2. ‘Raise the flags’ is obviously a provocation, but I think provokes British liberals much more directly than it does immigrants themselves (who I think in many cases are more or less oblivious). I mean this more with regard to the campaign as a national media phenomenon than a localised one: obviously there has been a certain amount of overt racism around the events themselves in certain places.
I think part of its effectiveness is that lots of broadly pro-European liberals (I am sensitive to this because I am, or certainly was, one) are known to find Englishness and English identity a bit cringey, but themselves know that this view is very unpopular in the country as a whole. Thus all the responses are to some extent unconvincing. Liberals are caught between the Scylla of pandering (’I have flags at home!’) and the Charybdis of outright antagonism (’the flag of St George is racist’): neither is good politics. I can see why Starmer and others just want to avoid taking too much damage and wait for it to die down.
Starmer should have done that speech Monday morning. He should have been there at the lectern with his blood boiling and moral outrage coming from every word. He should still give the speech but the fact he missed the moment, that he didn't feel an unstoppable urge to tell the racists to fuck off makes me pessimistic that he will be able to deal with this adequately.
Remember the doom & gloom speech about how deep the hole the UK is in (It was a speech from No.10 garden, last autumn I think)
That speech was poorly timed, completely unnecessary, widely criticised. Yet Starmer had the urge to do that speech.
Maybe people are right and he's not got good judgement
I've watched a fair amount of video from the march on Saturday - not because I supported it but because I wanted to understand better - and whilst I couldn't agree with most of what the parade of irritating speakers were saying, I also saw a pretty diverse and peaceful crowd waving flags. There was a Maori Haka performed. There was much talk of community and culture, and very little of race. Apparently the actual violent instances were away from the main march where a separate group confronted the counter-protesters. Some sources also say that more of the arrests were of counter-protesters than not, but the official police line doesn't identify them one way or another. Nevertheless, 25 arrests is pretty small for a gathering this size.
Were the far right there? Certainly. But were they even a significant minority within the 100k? I don't think so. Robinson has galvanised his support, but has done so partly by taming his message - today he even tweeted "f*** any Ethnat that says integrated non whites must leave." - which if you want to go and look, generated a mixed response from his followers, with some clearly leaning towards much more overt racism.
In this context Lizzi Collinge's words are very carefully chosen - they will resonate with many of the marchers and their ilk in her constituency. They will agree with her, but also with what TR has been saying recently. They'll probably also agree with Hopkins, Fox and co, but whilst these people are overtly right wing and rather annoying, they don't express actual racism or advocate actual violence - perhaps because they know it won't serve their purpose.
If we're being reasonable and objective, I think there are two key questions to consider very carefully and not shy away from -
* Are the net migration numbers of 500-700k a year a problem or not? If that's too many, what number would be acceptable, and if it's not, what number (if any) would be a problem? How do we justify that answer?
* Do we define racism as including negative judgements on variations in cultural standards? For example in Saudi Arabia, men can have up to four wives. In Sudan, child marriage is common. There are social attitudes that accompany these cultural differences. The recent Epping case highlighted that perhaps the perpetrator didn't understand the inappropriateness of his behaviour towards the women involved. Are we expecting victims to be tolerant of unacceptable behaviour because the perpetrator is a recent arrival with a different cultural background? Or are we expecting recent arrivals to be versed in all the social codes of the country they've just arrived in? Is either position reasonable?
I mean it's an option I guess, but why choose that one? Why didn't you go for, say, proving that every immigrant is safe before letting them be here?
Or releasing the tax and benefits of every ethicity like they do in Finland and Netherlands? Y'know just to prove the fiscal benefits?
Or showing why you're so sure that increasing the propensity of Honour Culture in the UK will be a good thing? Maybe show why North Luton is improved by having schools with 2 white kids in them?
Yeah, on reflection I can guess why you went for "tell them to fuck off".
We are/were a Shame Culture rooted in in The Enlightenment. These are terms understood at an academic level of detail.
This combination is associated with with the most the most wealthy, healthy and liberal Nations ever known.
And we set the Nation State as the political unit cos it's the largest political unit consistent with democracy and voluntary redistribution of wealth.
We hold this is a positive position, and diluting this (eg through importing Honour Culture or creating global governance structures) to be regressive.
The era of progressive rule in Britain, a generation long, is coming to its natural and ignominious end. You are incredibly fortunate that those you want to believe are monsters are actually mostly normal people who do not wish death on their opponents or celebrate their murder. They will very soon have their hands on the levers of power. They will make the law and the culture. Those that have run the country into the ground will be marginal voices, irrelevant, isolated and few. Wrap up warm.
Ideally, what it sounds like will be more important. The language of victimhood encapsulated in this appalling piece of drivel will, in future, be lost in the void. Nobody cares if you call them racist anymore.
All well intended, but I find the premise that Keir Starmer can say much to set a social norm as implausible given how much people basically despise him.
The Left and even liberals to some extent have created the conditions for the Right to set this trap that they've fallen into. If you portray patriotism/flag-usage as inherently sinister, it becomes really hard to take it back once racists fully claim it as theirs. A serious distinction needs to be made that this stuff is bad because it's an attempt to intimidate, not because it's the flag of the country. If the left's public position is "using the flag is racist" then once again they'll give reform an open goal as they always seem to.
Thanks for this great piece which echoes my feelings exactly. The far right seem to have grasped the narrative because it is easy to be shocking. The problem is that the rest of us just don't know what to do in response.
Wow on that Michael Barrymore clip, mainly because of the number of children in it and the dance routine they had to be taught. Our children perform in dance shows and routines like that take weeks or months to learn — so this isn't just evidence of what was acceptable on telly in the early 90s (a comedian ad libs a comment, or even writes a sketch for themselves which is quickly recorded without much scrutiny) but much more widely.
Recruiting that many children to appear on TV will have involved far more production staff than a skit with some adult performers, as well as choreographers, dance teachers, and the parents of all those children who all apparently thought that this was OK?
And even if some other parents or dance teachers declined to be involved on grounds that it was racist, that wasn't enough for the production company to twig that this was all a terrible idea. Incredible!
Strongly recommend the work of Stuart Millard on YouTube, who creates brilliant videos digging through old TV like this. Makes it clear things like blackface were considered acceptable right up into the late 80s in some cases.
Normally I read the piece and then hit the like button. This one I hit the like button just off the strength of the title.
Lizzi Collinge is my MP and we have three Reform County Councillors in Morecambe and Lunesdale since last May. I am so proud she speaks out and paves the way for us to also stand our ground for our values .
Like you, I’m a bit reluctant about the whole cancelling / doxxing people just because their declared views identify them as an obnoxious fool - I’m quite sure those facets of them will be revealed to those around them soon enough without that: but in these cases, if that foolishness extends to harassment, intimidatory abuse, acts of vandalism and material criminal damage, then anyone who doesn’t side with these eejits should have absolutely no compunction at all in reporting them to the relevant authorities. Let them stand up and be big and brave and proud of what they are doing, like they pretend to be, by actually giving their name to their behaviour. Pensioners who allow themselves to be arrested in the name of a cause have principles. Anonymous young boys and men being thugs and vandals merely have impulses and poor self-control.
Bravo, well said. I think I like angry James!
A couple of observations:
1. It’s interesting how much the abundance critique of infrastructural malaise, and the right’s critique of the immigration system resemble one another in outline. It sometimes seems like the contemporary British state is Bat Tunnels all the way down. The Afghan Resettlement Scheme is about 40x Bat Tunnels, for scale. No doubt the Afghan fear of persecution is as real as the bats are, but the solution is self-evidently disproportionate to a degree that seems almost insane, and driven by a vast and formless fear of legal risk rather than any kind of reasoned assessment of appropriateness or targeting (see for example recent Sky News report -- not sure I can link here?).
Like planning or housing, the immigration system has a basically reasonable set of goals, which are systematically frustrated or circumvented by pervasive, often specious, but ultimately effective litigation. It has long been recognised that the most effective way to claim asylum is not to actually satisfy the criteria, but rather to spin out the process by pulling every legal lever possible (Human Rights Act, Modern Slavery Act etc etc) until the status quo ante (one’s presence in the UK) becomes effectively impossible to change. Does this in any way sound familiar?
This cognitive mapping ofc extends to the bizarre policy monstrosities with which the system attempts to circumvent the basic problem of a herbivore government beset by litigious predators. For Fish Disco read Rwanda Scheme, etc.
2. ‘Raise the flags’ is obviously a provocation, but I think provokes British liberals much more directly than it does immigrants themselves (who I think in many cases are more or less oblivious). I mean this more with regard to the campaign as a national media phenomenon than a localised one: obviously there has been a certain amount of overt racism around the events themselves in certain places.
I think part of its effectiveness is that lots of broadly pro-European liberals (I am sensitive to this because I am, or certainly was, one) are known to find Englishness and English identity a bit cringey, but themselves know that this view is very unpopular in the country as a whole. Thus all the responses are to some extent unconvincing. Liberals are caught between the Scylla of pandering (’I have flags at home!’) and the Charybdis of outright antagonism (’the flag of St George is racist’): neither is good politics. I can see why Starmer and others just want to avoid taking too much damage and wait for it to die down.
Well said James.
Starmer should have done that speech Monday morning. He should have been there at the lectern with his blood boiling and moral outrage coming from every word. He should still give the speech but the fact he missed the moment, that he didn't feel an unstoppable urge to tell the racists to fuck off makes me pessimistic that he will be able to deal with this adequately.
Remember the doom & gloom speech about how deep the hole the UK is in (It was a speech from No.10 garden, last autumn I think)
That speech was poorly timed, completely unnecessary, widely criticised. Yet Starmer had the urge to do that speech.
Maybe people are right and he's not got good judgement
Enabled by the BBC ! All the way 🥲
I've watched a fair amount of video from the march on Saturday - not because I supported it but because I wanted to understand better - and whilst I couldn't agree with most of what the parade of irritating speakers were saying, I also saw a pretty diverse and peaceful crowd waving flags. There was a Maori Haka performed. There was much talk of community and culture, and very little of race. Apparently the actual violent instances were away from the main march where a separate group confronted the counter-protesters. Some sources also say that more of the arrests were of counter-protesters than not, but the official police line doesn't identify them one way or another. Nevertheless, 25 arrests is pretty small for a gathering this size.
Were the far right there? Certainly. But were they even a significant minority within the 100k? I don't think so. Robinson has galvanised his support, but has done so partly by taming his message - today he even tweeted "f*** any Ethnat that says integrated non whites must leave." - which if you want to go and look, generated a mixed response from his followers, with some clearly leaning towards much more overt racism.
In this context Lizzi Collinge's words are very carefully chosen - they will resonate with many of the marchers and their ilk in her constituency. They will agree with her, but also with what TR has been saying recently. They'll probably also agree with Hopkins, Fox and co, but whilst these people are overtly right wing and rather annoying, they don't express actual racism or advocate actual violence - perhaps because they know it won't serve their purpose.
If we're being reasonable and objective, I think there are two key questions to consider very carefully and not shy away from -
* Are the net migration numbers of 500-700k a year a problem or not? If that's too many, what number would be acceptable, and if it's not, what number (if any) would be a problem? How do we justify that answer?
* Do we define racism as including negative judgements on variations in cultural standards? For example in Saudi Arabia, men can have up to four wives. In Sudan, child marriage is common. There are social attitudes that accompany these cultural differences. The recent Epping case highlighted that perhaps the perpetrator didn't understand the inappropriateness of his behaviour towards the women involved. Are we expecting victims to be tolerant of unacceptable behaviour because the perpetrator is a recent arrival with a different cultural background? Or are we expecting recent arrivals to be versed in all the social codes of the country they've just arrived in? Is either position reasonable?
Sucking up to a billionaire whi gives nazi salutes…
Diverse?
White supremacy is basically working for Putin in our post colonial nation.
Brits are every colour and freaking out about migration by voting for reform is a gift to Russia.
I mean it's an option I guess, but why choose that one? Why didn't you go for, say, proving that every immigrant is safe before letting them be here?
Or releasing the tax and benefits of every ethicity like they do in Finland and Netherlands? Y'know just to prove the fiscal benefits?
Or showing why you're so sure that increasing the propensity of Honour Culture in the UK will be a good thing? Maybe show why North Luton is improved by having schools with 2 white kids in them?
Yeah, on reflection I can guess why you went for "tell them to fuck off".
Why not be more positive about what you have to offer the world…?
Why not stand behind your values and believe in them instead of running away to fascism and ordering people to conform…?
We are/were a Shame Culture rooted in in The Enlightenment. These are terms understood at an academic level of detail.
This combination is associated with with the most the most wealthy, healthy and liberal Nations ever known.
And we set the Nation State as the political unit cos it's the largest political unit consistent with democracy and voluntary redistribution of wealth.
We hold this is a positive position, and diluting this (eg through importing Honour Culture or creating global governance structures) to be regressive.
The era of progressive rule in Britain, a generation long, is coming to its natural and ignominious end. You are incredibly fortunate that those you want to believe are monsters are actually mostly normal people who do not wish death on their opponents or celebrate their murder. They will very soon have their hands on the levers of power. They will make the law and the culture. Those that have run the country into the ground will be marginal voices, irrelevant, isolated and few. Wrap up warm.
And what will your non-progressive Britain look like?
Ideally, what it sounds like will be more important. The language of victimhood encapsulated in this appalling piece of drivel will, in future, be lost in the void. Nobody cares if you call them racist anymore.
All well intended, but I find the premise that Keir Starmer can say much to set a social norm as implausible given how much people basically despise him.
The Left and even liberals to some extent have created the conditions for the Right to set this trap that they've fallen into. If you portray patriotism/flag-usage as inherently sinister, it becomes really hard to take it back once racists fully claim it as theirs. A serious distinction needs to be made that this stuff is bad because it's an attempt to intimidate, not because it's the flag of the country. If the left's public position is "using the flag is racist" then once again they'll give reform an open goal as they always seem to.
Thanks for this great piece which echoes my feelings exactly. The far right seem to have grasped the narrative because it is easy to be shocking. The problem is that the rest of us just don't know what to do in response.
And why wouldn't you respond like Social Democratic countries such as Denmark?
Wow on that Michael Barrymore clip, mainly because of the number of children in it and the dance routine they had to be taught. Our children perform in dance shows and routines like that take weeks or months to learn — so this isn't just evidence of what was acceptable on telly in the early 90s (a comedian ad libs a comment, or even writes a sketch for themselves which is quickly recorded without much scrutiny) but much more widely.
Recruiting that many children to appear on TV will have involved far more production staff than a skit with some adult performers, as well as choreographers, dance teachers, and the parents of all those children who all apparently thought that this was OK?
And even if some other parents or dance teachers declined to be involved on grounds that it was racist, that wasn't enough for the production company to twig that this was all a terrible idea. Incredible!
Strongly recommend the work of Stuart Millard on YouTube, who creates brilliant videos digging through old TV like this. Makes it clear things like blackface were considered acceptable right up into the late 80s in some cases.
Little Britain were still doing blackface as late as 2006!
Harry Enfield blacked up as 'Barry Helafonte' in "A Story of the Twos" in 2014.