Thank you Ian, for articulating this so very well. I appreciate reading what’s burning in my soul. Now I cannot avoid finding a way to do something about it. Thank you.
1) Replace whoever in Starmer’s team is advising that messages need to be acceptable to Reform voters.
2) Quit using Twitter for Govt and MP messaging.
3) Stop making policy and comms designed not to upset Trump, Musk and the Project 2025 funders.
4) A big ask, but all the parties except Reform & Tories need to start planning for an anti Farage coalition at the next election. And this means all parties (and particularly Labour) swallowing their partisan pride and past feuds working cooperatively together to stop the slide to a Far Right govt.
The only problem is, that Starmer isn't in the slightest bit interested in any of those things. He enacts Conservative policies, he talks Conservative talk, he is a Conservative. He was given an easy ride to the top of the Labour party 'for' that reason. There is no use saying therefore, he needs to cut out the right wing rhetoric (which started long before the election, never mind now - just people didn't want to listen), stop making policies not to upset the US far right, and suggesting a coalition he has already ruled out. He 'wants' to please Trump, he is happy pleasing various nasty people in the USA, Israel, and sees himself as Thatcher's natural heir even more so than Blair did.
People need to drop those scales, and accept, as Johnny Rotten once said, 'ever get the feeling you've been cheated'?
Labour were elected on a protest vote, more in hope than expectation, and sadly, they've delivered even less than that low expectation. The polls are not lying, people indeed feel they were cheated.
The question is, with the establishment pushing so hard for a far right election victory, are Labours leadership all part of it?
You sound as angry as I am. Also extremely frustrated that Starmer is so silent about his real motives which, I believe are to line the pockets of big business and ignore any pleas on behalf of poorest which include all asylum seekers.
He won’t. Starmer is not interested. He is a Tory in all but name, in awe of Trump and to the right of Reform in some policy. Don’t forget his huge majority is wide but shallow - only 20% of the actual electorate voted Labour - 80% of those eligible to vote told him to sod off and he’s draining support. His personal polling is the worst ever seen - worse than Truss. He is detested & distrusted. Labour may be able to recover, but Starmer won’t and they need to ditch him. If Labour take a pounding in next years’ English locals, London boroughs, Senedd and Holyrood, as is being predicted, it’s only a matter of time before the Party replace him. I wouldn’t vote for Labour if you paid me and it goes without saying I’d never vote Tory or Refofm
Please find that way, Thangam, and bring as many of your colleagues with you as you can. Don’t let Labour’s epitaph be that they let the country walk into a nightmare without even trying to oppose it.
Thanks for this. It feels like you did a brain dump of my brain!! I feel I need to fight this, now before we catch the same disease as the US. The fasc are on manoeuvre and we need to wake up.
Superb. Your frustration and anger come off this piece like heat from a radiator - as they should. I listened earlier this week to your and Dorian's Origin Story about Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of blood' speech in 1968. What struck me most was the contrast between the contemporary reactions to that and to the nonsense Farage served up this week.
In '68, both Wilson and Heath were unequivocal in condemning Powell - and quick to do so - as were many other leading political figures and newspapers, both broadsheet and tabloid. Serious people were appalled and not afraid to say so.
Nearly 60 years later - in a country much less monocultural - the lack of serious pushback, especially from the Government is both baffling and deeply worrying. Some things are just morally wrong and should be called out as such - whatever the focus groups are saying.
If this isn't a red line for Starmer (and Badenoch for that matter), what is?
Fabulous piece as ever and one that almost completely mirrors my own thoughts. When the BBC this week, simply reads out Farages line that "illegal immigrants are a scourge on society" (on both Radio 4 and 6 Music) WITH NO COUNTER FOR BALANCE ABOUT WHY THIS IS BOLLOCKS I was both enraged and scared in equal measures. I guess in part this was because there was no response from labour. But even so, to just give him the voice is an ffing disgrace. I'm finding it increasingly hard to stay positive at the moment and just have to keep biting my tongue. Aaaargh....
Hardly surprising though is it? The BBC is overseen by a Conservative Baroness, the politics section and its members are made up of self confessed Tory members, supporters, and overseen by former advisors to Tory party leaders. Its been politicised in a way that would never have been tolerated in the past. You knew how far it had gone when it issued its statement that the board had decided to alter programming to 'reflect the views of Reform voters'. Since when did one section of UK society have its demands reflected in BBC programming - by order of the board?
The grift of performative moral outrage is up.It has lost almost all its power however artfully one drops the f bomb. It is a view that ceases to generate social status - and not a moment too soon. The problem for progressives is they confer on strangers and foreigners rights to identity that are strictly disallowed to the English. Ptogressives would be outraged, or at least pretend so to be, if a non western culture was being inevitably and irrevocably altered by mass immigration where people of said culture had consistently opposed the demographic change . But they regard that as the just outcome for Britain and the west more generally. Ultimately this is just sowing a chaos that was entirely avoidable.
I do love people having a good sneer, in particular when they do so on the basis of absolute nonsensical beliefs. Sneering at progressives for being disgusted while politicians fan the flames of hate is a wonderfully perverse position to take, but hey, until Farage gets in, this is a democracy and feel free to vent forth.
Lets though, deal with the really funny stuff. Progressives deny the English a right to identity? How exactly? First, progressives in the UK have no power. Zero, zilch. They are not in power, and haven’t been since 1979. Unless I blinked and missed the election of a Socialist govt? I know progressives argue that people who immigrate to this country should be allowed to retain their cultural identity, but why is that a bad thing? We don’t shed our cultural identity when we migrate, so why should others sacrifice it here? More on that later.
Then of course there is another teensy problem with your argument, what is English identity? Its something few can define. The best anyone can come up with is a love of cricket, tea, and having a stiff upper lip. Indeed, in a Yougov poll, the only thing that the majority defined as being English was being born in England. How, pray, can you deny anyone that? What the Right really mean as having their identity being denied is the same as their claim that their free speech is denied, that they want England to be white, free of migrants, free of other undesirables (Gays, Socialists, Liberals) and want to be able to attack verbally, any of those groups without being criticised for doing so. Dress it up how you like, its as simple and as complex as that.
The next point made me laugh out loud. Let’s think of a few examples of that shall we? North America ring any bells? Where a White (mainly British) minority all but completely wiped out the culture, lifestyle, and even the population of the native Americans. Australia, where a totally British minority, well, you can see where this is going? Then we have our other colonial conquests, where no thought was given to the natives needs, our religion was imposed, as was our language. To this day, parts of India, Africa, and even South America, speak English as their native language. Yet the English moan that a small percentage of the UK, and, compared to other nations, small number of refugees are ‘taking the country over’.
Never mind the hypocrisy, the leap of imagination needed for the latter to be true is staggering.
Then we have the way the English behave when migrating in the modern era. ‘Integrate or go’ say the flag shaggers. Good job that’s not applied in Europe, or in the med area, or the Germans, French, Spanish, Greeks, and North Africans would be tossing out the English by the (hundreds) of thousands. They make no attempt to integrate at all. They refuse to speak the language, learn the culture, and set up English pubs, shops, clubs which they, and they alone are welcome in.
In other words, everything you assume is wrong, indeed, the boot, as it ever has been, is very much on the other foot. As a study of the treatment of the Irish (19th C and onwards) the attitudes of the BUF, NF, and BNP (EDL and the rest of the far right garbage) shows, the British, and mainly the English have for centuries, but more so since larger number of non white migrants have arrived, always complained that ‘they are taking over’, ‘they have more rights than us’, ‘our identity is being eroded’. Yet here we are.
Then we have the lie of ‘unlimited’ migration, the claims of ‘illegals’, the threat of ‘sex crimes by refugees’. Fact: every immigration act since 1945 has restricted immigration, regardless of ruling party. Fact: Asylum seekers and refugees are protected status as agreed by the UN and the UK govt after the second world war. As such they are not ‘illegal immigrants’ at all. Fact: not only are the vast majority of sex crimes committed by White males, its in fact disproportionately high per head of population. Yet you wouldn’t know that from the news, or from politicians.
Lets move on then to another important fact. The vast majority of sexual assaults are committed by people the victims know. Will we see then, our flag waving chums, protesting outside that dodgy neighbour of theirs? That family friend that for some reason their kids are frightened of? That uncle that they never really liked, but allowed to babysit with disastrous results? But you say, there is no proof that any of these have committed a crime! Yes, indeed. But that hasn’t stopped the ‘totally non far right’ thugs harassing refugees outside hotels in heavily middle class areas now has it?
Whether you choose to accept it or not, and you won’t, if there is chaos in the UK due to refugees and asylum seekers, its because cynical politicians have chosen to exploit the long standing racism among many British people, not because ‘there’s too many of ‘em’.
But then racism denial is a strong, and again, long standing streak among the British, and in particular the English. There, we’ve found something that defines Englishness!
I take issue with your view that progressives are marginal. The civil service/entire political apparatus is culturally far more progressives than the average voter and so by that measure very progressive – and also anti democratic.
You make 3 points relating to English identity: (1) that progressives do not deny it; (2) that it is difficult to define; and (3) that on reflection/ultimately it may be defined by its racism, to wit: “But then racism denial is a strong, and again, long standing streak among the British, and in particular the English. There, we’ve found something that defines Englishness!”
I do think that point (3) rather proves point (1). In your response you refer to English and non English groups but you criticise only the conduct of English groups and this leads you to the conclusion that there is something uniquely racist about the English. I take a rather different approach. I accept that the English prefer/have a bias to their own (which you would see as racist) but think all national, ethnic and racial groups do this. I also think there’s a decent argument that English/European groups do so the least in relative terms e.g. Western civilisation would appear to be the only civilisation that voluntarily and out of moral compunction abolished slavery/ stepped away from colonisation. In contrast, while it was seeking dominance and enslaving other groups it was merely engaging in the norm i.e. doing what all/most groups with capacity have done throughout history. That the west could so at a greater scale because of technological dominance is rather beside the point, unless one takes the view that other groups would not have pressed such advantage had they had it.
In relation (2), I would define the English as an ancient ethnic group in exactly the same way as I would defined the Japanese, the Kurds or the Igbo as ancient ethnic groups. The defining features of an ethnic group are shared ancestry, shared cultural traditions, the fact of being self identifying as such and a homeland. The English obviously meet this criteria and the only reason people struggle to say this is because post WW2 the efforts to play down Western ethnic identities ultimately morphed into rendering them verboten. And the British (not really a people to make a fuss) went along with this for a very long time. In part this was out of politeness but increasingly because of being shamed/coerced into doing so e.g. accusations that any form of group identity was by definition racist.
What you see now with the flagging and the rise of the so called right is the dam breaking on this. The reasons for this is that the State and the broader cultural apparatus in the UK pressed its hand too hard, mass migration against democratic will, with the price of peace being the increased suppression English identity as nothing (or in John McTernan’s words evil) while asymmetrically recognising and advancing the interests of other (already very clannish) ethnic and religious groups. The English majority reduced to being variably hugely problematic or non existent or a container for other identities.
On any sensible, self interested view this is a complete inversion of the natural order. If one is to be biased at all, it should be towards one’s own group – broadly defined. In exactly the same way as one is biased towards family and friends over strangers in relation to e.g. distribution of assets. Of course, there are limits to this. One of the reasons the West progressed was that it became less clannish as compared to other groups. However, there must also be limits to the liquidation of group identity or it will be destroyed and our country as English will disappear along with it.
Tbh, I do wonder where all this comes from? As a former public sector worker, the idea that the senior civil servants are progressive is absolutely dumbfounding. Not only has all the literature on the civil service, past and presented identified them as a staid, conservative body, that are anything but Progressive, but from own experience they were more often than not, not just conservative, but Conservative supporters. All of our senior staff at the depts I worked in were openly Tory, quite happy to tell we mere minions that they were, and sneer at those of us they knew were in the Unions, or that were openly Labour. As such, from personal experience, and having read around the topic, that assertion is quite bizarre.
Then we have the issue of racism denial. Again read around, and you will find it is uniquely British. Indeed, Britain, or more focused, England is the only nation that various tests to get people to see how it feels to be treated as a minority failed. Because the subjects refused to accept even the idea that they could be racist. Oh dear. As for being ‘ethnic English’, and that being in common with other peoples, again, where does this come from? The English are a mongrel race. We are part anglo Saxon, part Norman, part French, part celt, and we were completely conquered on more than one occasion, during which time our ‘people’ were effectively subsumed beneath a ruling class that was not ‘English’.
I think you’ll find in modern times, a tiny handful of people campaigned to abolish slavery, and if you actually read the history, were fiercely resisted. In one ‘Western Nation’ they fought a war to resist its abolition. Abolition came about despite strong objections, often from the ‘people’ (people in slave cities were in the habit of chasing abolitionists out of town), and only the wealth and individual power of abolitionists brought change about. On the timeline of abolition (from ancient World to now) all over the World, abolition was carried out by various different peoples. There is no ‘uniqueness’ at all to Western abolition.
There is no such thing as ‘mass migration’. Its a right wing fantasy promoted by some very ugly people indeed. Every single immigration act since WW2 has restricted immigration, and the only change to that sequence (and subsequent acts) was the freedom of movement introduced by the EU. But since that saw a million Britons move to Europe, a balance was struck. The alleged favouring of ethnic minorities, is another myth. All govt did was try and balance out the treatment of minorities from being persecuted and abused to being able to live their lives without fear of harassment. Hardly ‘favouring them over the native population’. This is an utterly perverse reading of an attempt to stop years of unacceptable racism and bigotry.
The West became less clannish than other groups? Ah, the old, we conquered them all, the savages, because they were busy fighting each other. You mean the Europe that has seen endless wars? The West that since 1066, has seen Europe constantly involved in one conflict or another. You would like to think that two World wars would satisfy our love of invading one another, but no. Since WW2, ‘the clannish’ West has seen wars in Eastern Europe almost non stop. Currently, two clans are fighting in the Ukraine. The USA has been involved in one conflict or another even since it existed.
Group identity? Again, what group identity? Take away the hatred of ethnic minorities as our Nigel proposes to eject them, and what will happen? Southerners will go back to despising Northerners, Northerners hating ‘Home County stuck up bastards’. Yorkies will go back to loathing Lancastrians, and, the country can go back to local areas all happily loathing each other. We may all get together to wave flags at the royals for some big occasion, support our national football teams, but given the chance, and with dislike of foreigners gone, it’ll be back to business as usual.
If the UK falls apart it will be due to the inverse of your proposal. Farage forcing his bigoted views on parts of the country that aren’t comfortable with them, will achieve what the SNP could not - the breakup of the country into bitter divided groups. Trump is already succeeding in mapping out what’s to come - hate, division, and ultimately the use of force to coerce those who dared to vote against him. That may be your vision of a happy Britain, its not mine.
My family is leaving the US to go back to live in the UK (we’re all dual US/UK citizens). I’m terrified that we’re leaving one nightmare behind only to jump into another one. I’m praying that the British people will see through right wing BS and keep the true spirit of their country alive.
Hope the move itself goes smoothly- having done it as a couple almost 25 years ago I have every sympathy with you for doing as a presumably bigger family.
I also hope you find things a little less febrile compared to where you’ve come from. I want to believe that we haven’t gone too far down this path and that saner heads will prevail, but I’ll confess I don’t know where that will come from 🤞🏻🙏🏻
Sorry to clutter up the board but I’m borderline fascinated by how people in this parish see things. I admit to often thinking of it as moral grandstanding on positions where most espousing do nothing in the real world to address the issues apparently cared about : For example housing “refugees” or commuting the majority of one’s income to suitably just causes. But perhaps that’s cynical of me. Perhaps you really care in a way that I have virtually no capacity to understand. But even if you do, your ideas are to my mind utterly impractical and genuinely ruinous for what I regard as good for England/Britain.
That repugnant social media post of Starmer’s this week really shocked me. And then I was even more shocked and chilled by how little reaction there was to it. So thank you for making me feel like I’m not mad Ian. I voted for this government and I am so bitterly disappointed by their conduct.
As ever, my own thoughts. It is just heartbreaking to see this country so debased by these people. I’ll be dead relatively soon, but I weep for the future of my kids and grandkids under these nazis.
It makes my blood boil that these monsters are being so enthusiastically enabled by the current government, media & British people who previous generationswho sacrificed their lives against people just like Farage
Thank you Ian for your passion and clarity of writing but above all for the argument which is so clear and forceful that nobody could rebut. You are truly a wonderful human being.
Thanks Ian great stuff. I hope Starmer reads it and realises what needs to be done. It's so utterly depressing, so much so I've stopped listening to main stream media. The BBC totally has lost it. As Kichener once said the country needs Ian Dunt, well almost.
Thank you Ian, for articulating this so very well. I appreciate reading what’s burning in my soul. Now I cannot avoid finding a way to do something about it. Thank you.
Four possible avenues to follow:
1) Replace whoever in Starmer’s team is advising that messages need to be acceptable to Reform voters.
2) Quit using Twitter for Govt and MP messaging.
3) Stop making policy and comms designed not to upset Trump, Musk and the Project 2025 funders.
4) A big ask, but all the parties except Reform & Tories need to start planning for an anti Farage coalition at the next election. And this means all parties (and particularly Labour) swallowing their partisan pride and past feuds working cooperatively together to stop the slide to a Far Right govt.
The only problem is, that Starmer isn't in the slightest bit interested in any of those things. He enacts Conservative policies, he talks Conservative talk, he is a Conservative. He was given an easy ride to the top of the Labour party 'for' that reason. There is no use saying therefore, he needs to cut out the right wing rhetoric (which started long before the election, never mind now - just people didn't want to listen), stop making policies not to upset the US far right, and suggesting a coalition he has already ruled out. He 'wants' to please Trump, he is happy pleasing various nasty people in the USA, Israel, and sees himself as Thatcher's natural heir even more so than Blair did.
People need to drop those scales, and accept, as Johnny Rotten once said, 'ever get the feeling you've been cheated'?
Labour were elected on a protest vote, more in hope than expectation, and sadly, they've delivered even less than that low expectation. The polls are not lying, people indeed feel they were cheated.
The question is, with the establishment pushing so hard for a far right election victory, are Labours leadership all part of it?
At the weekend I was going to reply to say I was on the fence re Starmer’s motives, but after his comments today, I think you are right.
You sound as angry as I am. Also extremely frustrated that Starmer is so silent about his real motives which, I believe are to line the pockets of big business and ignore any pleas on behalf of poorest which include all asylum seekers.
Thangam
From a former constituent
Points 1, 2, 3 above definitely
Point 4 invites some modulation of the electoral tactics that were so effective in June, July 24; I suggest "merely repeat" could be lazy analysis
Kindest regards
Dave A BS7
He won’t. Starmer is not interested. He is a Tory in all but name, in awe of Trump and to the right of Reform in some policy. Don’t forget his huge majority is wide but shallow - only 20% of the actual electorate voted Labour - 80% of those eligible to vote told him to sod off and he’s draining support. His personal polling is the worst ever seen - worse than Truss. He is detested & distrusted. Labour may be able to recover, but Starmer won’t and they need to ditch him. If Labour take a pounding in next years’ English locals, London boroughs, Senedd and Holyrood, as is being predicted, it’s only a matter of time before the Party replace him. I wouldn’t vote for Labour if you paid me and it goes without saying I’d never vote Tory or Refofm
No 2 is hugely important !
Hahahahahhhahahahah
100%
Please find that way, Thangam, and bring as many of your colleagues with you as you can. Don’t let Labour’s epitaph be that they let the country walk into a nightmare without even trying to oppose it.
Absolutely spot on
Thanks for this. It feels like you did a brain dump of my brain!! I feel I need to fight this, now before we catch the same disease as the US. The fasc are on manoeuvre and we need to wake up.
Superb. Your frustration and anger come off this piece like heat from a radiator - as they should. I listened earlier this week to your and Dorian's Origin Story about Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of blood' speech in 1968. What struck me most was the contrast between the contemporary reactions to that and to the nonsense Farage served up this week.
In '68, both Wilson and Heath were unequivocal in condemning Powell - and quick to do so - as were many other leading political figures and newspapers, both broadsheet and tabloid. Serious people were appalled and not afraid to say so.
Nearly 60 years later - in a country much less monocultural - the lack of serious pushback, especially from the Government is both baffling and deeply worrying. Some things are just morally wrong and should be called out as such - whatever the focus groups are saying.
If this isn't a red line for Starmer (and Badenoch for that matter), what is?
Badenough wouldn't recognise a red line painted on her face
BBC has to be pulled up fast !!!
Fabulous piece as ever and one that almost completely mirrors my own thoughts. When the BBC this week, simply reads out Farages line that "illegal immigrants are a scourge on society" (on both Radio 4 and 6 Music) WITH NO COUNTER FOR BALANCE ABOUT WHY THIS IS BOLLOCKS I was both enraged and scared in equal measures. I guess in part this was because there was no response from labour. But even so, to just give him the voice is an ffing disgrace. I'm finding it increasingly hard to stay positive at the moment and just have to keep biting my tongue. Aaaargh....
The BBC's role in Farage's rise is simply unforgiveable
Hardly surprising though is it? The BBC is overseen by a Conservative Baroness, the politics section and its members are made up of self confessed Tory members, supporters, and overseen by former advisors to Tory party leaders. Its been politicised in a way that would never have been tolerated in the past. You knew how far it had gone when it issued its statement that the board had decided to alter programming to 'reflect the views of Reform voters'. Since when did one section of UK society have its demands reflected in BBC programming - by order of the board?
Thank you, it does help to know there are others out there feeling the same way and you articulate these feelings so well.
The grift of performative moral outrage is up.It has lost almost all its power however artfully one drops the f bomb. It is a view that ceases to generate social status - and not a moment too soon. The problem for progressives is they confer on strangers and foreigners rights to identity that are strictly disallowed to the English. Ptogressives would be outraged, or at least pretend so to be, if a non western culture was being inevitably and irrevocably altered by mass immigration where people of said culture had consistently opposed the demographic change . But they regard that as the just outcome for Britain and the west more generally. Ultimately this is just sowing a chaos that was entirely avoidable.
I do love people having a good sneer, in particular when they do so on the basis of absolute nonsensical beliefs. Sneering at progressives for being disgusted while politicians fan the flames of hate is a wonderfully perverse position to take, but hey, until Farage gets in, this is a democracy and feel free to vent forth.
Lets though, deal with the really funny stuff. Progressives deny the English a right to identity? How exactly? First, progressives in the UK have no power. Zero, zilch. They are not in power, and haven’t been since 1979. Unless I blinked and missed the election of a Socialist govt? I know progressives argue that people who immigrate to this country should be allowed to retain their cultural identity, but why is that a bad thing? We don’t shed our cultural identity when we migrate, so why should others sacrifice it here? More on that later.
Then of course there is another teensy problem with your argument, what is English identity? Its something few can define. The best anyone can come up with is a love of cricket, tea, and having a stiff upper lip. Indeed, in a Yougov poll, the only thing that the majority defined as being English was being born in England. How, pray, can you deny anyone that? What the Right really mean as having their identity being denied is the same as their claim that their free speech is denied, that they want England to be white, free of migrants, free of other undesirables (Gays, Socialists, Liberals) and want to be able to attack verbally, any of those groups without being criticised for doing so. Dress it up how you like, its as simple and as complex as that.
The next point made me laugh out loud. Let’s think of a few examples of that shall we? North America ring any bells? Where a White (mainly British) minority all but completely wiped out the culture, lifestyle, and even the population of the native Americans. Australia, where a totally British minority, well, you can see where this is going? Then we have our other colonial conquests, where no thought was given to the natives needs, our religion was imposed, as was our language. To this day, parts of India, Africa, and even South America, speak English as their native language. Yet the English moan that a small percentage of the UK, and, compared to other nations, small number of refugees are ‘taking the country over’.
Never mind the hypocrisy, the leap of imagination needed for the latter to be true is staggering.
Then we have the way the English behave when migrating in the modern era. ‘Integrate or go’ say the flag shaggers. Good job that’s not applied in Europe, or in the med area, or the Germans, French, Spanish, Greeks, and North Africans would be tossing out the English by the (hundreds) of thousands. They make no attempt to integrate at all. They refuse to speak the language, learn the culture, and set up English pubs, shops, clubs which they, and they alone are welcome in.
In other words, everything you assume is wrong, indeed, the boot, as it ever has been, is very much on the other foot. As a study of the treatment of the Irish (19th C and onwards) the attitudes of the BUF, NF, and BNP (EDL and the rest of the far right garbage) shows, the British, and mainly the English have for centuries, but more so since larger number of non white migrants have arrived, always complained that ‘they are taking over’, ‘they have more rights than us’, ‘our identity is being eroded’. Yet here we are.
Then we have the lie of ‘unlimited’ migration, the claims of ‘illegals’, the threat of ‘sex crimes by refugees’. Fact: every immigration act since 1945 has restricted immigration, regardless of ruling party. Fact: Asylum seekers and refugees are protected status as agreed by the UN and the UK govt after the second world war. As such they are not ‘illegal immigrants’ at all. Fact: not only are the vast majority of sex crimes committed by White males, its in fact disproportionately high per head of population. Yet you wouldn’t know that from the news, or from politicians.
Lets move on then to another important fact. The vast majority of sexual assaults are committed by people the victims know. Will we see then, our flag waving chums, protesting outside that dodgy neighbour of theirs? That family friend that for some reason their kids are frightened of? That uncle that they never really liked, but allowed to babysit with disastrous results? But you say, there is no proof that any of these have committed a crime! Yes, indeed. But that hasn’t stopped the ‘totally non far right’ thugs harassing refugees outside hotels in heavily middle class areas now has it?
Whether you choose to accept it or not, and you won’t, if there is chaos in the UK due to refugees and asylum seekers, its because cynical politicians have chosen to exploit the long standing racism among many British people, not because ‘there’s too many of ‘em’.
But then racism denial is a strong, and again, long standing streak among the British, and in particular the English. There, we’ve found something that defines Englishness!
Thanks for the response.
I take issue with your view that progressives are marginal. The civil service/entire political apparatus is culturally far more progressives than the average voter and so by that measure very progressive – and also anti democratic.
You make 3 points relating to English identity: (1) that progressives do not deny it; (2) that it is difficult to define; and (3) that on reflection/ultimately it may be defined by its racism, to wit: “But then racism denial is a strong, and again, long standing streak among the British, and in particular the English. There, we’ve found something that defines Englishness!”
I do think that point (3) rather proves point (1). In your response you refer to English and non English groups but you criticise only the conduct of English groups and this leads you to the conclusion that there is something uniquely racist about the English. I take a rather different approach. I accept that the English prefer/have a bias to their own (which you would see as racist) but think all national, ethnic and racial groups do this. I also think there’s a decent argument that English/European groups do so the least in relative terms e.g. Western civilisation would appear to be the only civilisation that voluntarily and out of moral compunction abolished slavery/ stepped away from colonisation. In contrast, while it was seeking dominance and enslaving other groups it was merely engaging in the norm i.e. doing what all/most groups with capacity have done throughout history. That the west could so at a greater scale because of technological dominance is rather beside the point, unless one takes the view that other groups would not have pressed such advantage had they had it.
In relation (2), I would define the English as an ancient ethnic group in exactly the same way as I would defined the Japanese, the Kurds or the Igbo as ancient ethnic groups. The defining features of an ethnic group are shared ancestry, shared cultural traditions, the fact of being self identifying as such and a homeland. The English obviously meet this criteria and the only reason people struggle to say this is because post WW2 the efforts to play down Western ethnic identities ultimately morphed into rendering them verboten. And the British (not really a people to make a fuss) went along with this for a very long time. In part this was out of politeness but increasingly because of being shamed/coerced into doing so e.g. accusations that any form of group identity was by definition racist.
What you see now with the flagging and the rise of the so called right is the dam breaking on this. The reasons for this is that the State and the broader cultural apparatus in the UK pressed its hand too hard, mass migration against democratic will, with the price of peace being the increased suppression English identity as nothing (or in John McTernan’s words evil) while asymmetrically recognising and advancing the interests of other (already very clannish) ethnic and religious groups. The English majority reduced to being variably hugely problematic or non existent or a container for other identities.
On any sensible, self interested view this is a complete inversion of the natural order. If one is to be biased at all, it should be towards one’s own group – broadly defined. In exactly the same way as one is biased towards family and friends over strangers in relation to e.g. distribution of assets. Of course, there are limits to this. One of the reasons the West progressed was that it became less clannish as compared to other groups. However, there must also be limits to the liquidation of group identity or it will be destroyed and our country as English will disappear along with it.
Tbh, I do wonder where all this comes from? As a former public sector worker, the idea that the senior civil servants are progressive is absolutely dumbfounding. Not only has all the literature on the civil service, past and presented identified them as a staid, conservative body, that are anything but Progressive, but from own experience they were more often than not, not just conservative, but Conservative supporters. All of our senior staff at the depts I worked in were openly Tory, quite happy to tell we mere minions that they were, and sneer at those of us they knew were in the Unions, or that were openly Labour. As such, from personal experience, and having read around the topic, that assertion is quite bizarre.
Then we have the issue of racism denial. Again read around, and you will find it is uniquely British. Indeed, Britain, or more focused, England is the only nation that various tests to get people to see how it feels to be treated as a minority failed. Because the subjects refused to accept even the idea that they could be racist. Oh dear. As for being ‘ethnic English’, and that being in common with other peoples, again, where does this come from? The English are a mongrel race. We are part anglo Saxon, part Norman, part French, part celt, and we were completely conquered on more than one occasion, during which time our ‘people’ were effectively subsumed beneath a ruling class that was not ‘English’.
I think you’ll find in modern times, a tiny handful of people campaigned to abolish slavery, and if you actually read the history, were fiercely resisted. In one ‘Western Nation’ they fought a war to resist its abolition. Abolition came about despite strong objections, often from the ‘people’ (people in slave cities were in the habit of chasing abolitionists out of town), and only the wealth and individual power of abolitionists brought change about. On the timeline of abolition (from ancient World to now) all over the World, abolition was carried out by various different peoples. There is no ‘uniqueness’ at all to Western abolition.
There is no such thing as ‘mass migration’. Its a right wing fantasy promoted by some very ugly people indeed. Every single immigration act since WW2 has restricted immigration, and the only change to that sequence (and subsequent acts) was the freedom of movement introduced by the EU. But since that saw a million Britons move to Europe, a balance was struck. The alleged favouring of ethnic minorities, is another myth. All govt did was try and balance out the treatment of minorities from being persecuted and abused to being able to live their lives without fear of harassment. Hardly ‘favouring them over the native population’. This is an utterly perverse reading of an attempt to stop years of unacceptable racism and bigotry.
The West became less clannish than other groups? Ah, the old, we conquered them all, the savages, because they were busy fighting each other. You mean the Europe that has seen endless wars? The West that since 1066, has seen Europe constantly involved in one conflict or another. You would like to think that two World wars would satisfy our love of invading one another, but no. Since WW2, ‘the clannish’ West has seen wars in Eastern Europe almost non stop. Currently, two clans are fighting in the Ukraine. The USA has been involved in one conflict or another even since it existed.
Group identity? Again, what group identity? Take away the hatred of ethnic minorities as our Nigel proposes to eject them, and what will happen? Southerners will go back to despising Northerners, Northerners hating ‘Home County stuck up bastards’. Yorkies will go back to loathing Lancastrians, and, the country can go back to local areas all happily loathing each other. We may all get together to wave flags at the royals for some big occasion, support our national football teams, but given the chance, and with dislike of foreigners gone, it’ll be back to business as usual.
If the UK falls apart it will be due to the inverse of your proposal. Farage forcing his bigoted views on parts of the country that aren’t comfortable with them, will achieve what the SNP could not - the breakup of the country into bitter divided groups. Trump is already succeeding in mapping out what’s to come - hate, division, and ultimately the use of force to coerce those who dared to vote against him. That may be your vision of a happy Britain, its not mine.
We see the world so differently that it’s difficult to know even where to begin. All the best.
My family is leaving the US to go back to live in the UK (we’re all dual US/UK citizens). I’m terrified that we’re leaving one nightmare behind only to jump into another one. I’m praying that the British people will see through right wing BS and keep the true spirit of their country alive.
Hope the move itself goes smoothly- having done it as a couple almost 25 years ago I have every sympathy with you for doing as a presumably bigger family.
I also hope you find things a little less febrile compared to where you’ve come from. I want to believe that we haven’t gone too far down this path and that saner heads will prevail, but I’ll confess I don’t know where that will come from 🤞🏻🙏🏻
Thanks Ian, not something I wanted to read about Labour but it had to be said.
Is there anyone in the Labour Party who can push Starmer to do the right thing before it’s too late?
Or is it already beyond repair?
Thangam
She needs to have a word… now
Compare and contrast: UK Labour vs JB Pritzker
Also:
Donne: Any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind
Bible: Do unto others....
Dunt (not verbatim, but I can imagine you saying it ;) ): Just don't be a dick
Why is such a basic philosophy seemingly so bloody difficult for some people?
It's no wonder I'm far happier immersed in work and study these days and actively avoid news
Surely
Dunt: Just don’t be a cunt.
I was going for the alliteration, not the rhyme;)
I was going more for the fact he says cunt a lot!
On a slight tangent, Russ Jones' post the other day was worth a read:
https://bsky.app/profile/russincheshire.bsky.social/post/3lxakpl2sw22o
Sorry to clutter up the board but I’m borderline fascinated by how people in this parish see things. I admit to often thinking of it as moral grandstanding on positions where most espousing do nothing in the real world to address the issues apparently cared about : For example housing “refugees” or commuting the majority of one’s income to suitably just causes. But perhaps that’s cynical of me. Perhaps you really care in a way that I have virtually no capacity to understand. But even if you do, your ideas are to my mind utterly impractical and genuinely ruinous for what I regard as good for England/Britain.
Can we paint those last few paragraphs on every single fucking mini-roundabout in the country?
That repugnant social media post of Starmer’s this week really shocked me. And then I was even more shocked and chilled by how little reaction there was to it. So thank you for making me feel like I’m not mad Ian. I voted for this government and I am so bitterly disappointed by their conduct.
Thank you, I needed to hear this after the events of this week.
As ever, my own thoughts. It is just heartbreaking to see this country so debased by these people. I’ll be dead relatively soon, but I weep for the future of my kids and grandkids under these nazis.
It makes my blood boil that these monsters are being so enthusiastically enabled by the current government, media & British people who previous generationswho sacrificed their lives against people just like Farage
Ooops, pressed too soon - that should end generations that sacrificed their lives against people just like Farage would spit on!
Thank you Ian for your passion and clarity of writing but above all for the argument which is so clear and forceful that nobody could rebut. You are truly a wonderful human being.
Thanks Ian great stuff. I hope Starmer reads it and realises what needs to be done. It's so utterly depressing, so much so I've stopped listening to main stream media. The BBC totally has lost it. As Kichener once said the country needs Ian Dunt, well almost.
I needed to read this today, thank you
Ian
Thank you
I hope you are ok - it must be a bad week if there are no Odds and Sods