Over the days following the biggest far-right demonstration in British history, a particular expression continues to echoing. Acquaintances discuss those scenes, the way London filled with more than 100,000 day-trippers shouting “send them back”. Then they’ll say: “It feels like the 1970s all over again.”
As someone with comparable age, I also remember harassment in schoolyards, getting chased by aggressive groups, and unwelcome presents like a brick shattering the window. Fortunately, things are not quite from that era, but a key difference is more alarming. Back then, bigotry was secretive, a shameful indulgence: deep down, those with prejudice recognized their attitudes were wrong. No more.
Lack of Shame and Acceptance of Extremism
The most notable regarding the recent protest was not the crowd size, which paralleled by some demonstrations over Gaza. It was the lack of shame, the brazen insistence on a citizen’s right to make others feel small. It represents the mainstreaming of what was seen as harmful radicalism. A major catalyst isn’t the crowds on the ground, but the officials in our supposedly progressive government.
Starmer’s Reaction to Racist Aggression
Each time confronted with racist violence, Keir Starmer hesitates, stammers, and chooses the easier way out. He either acts as if he does not see bigotry or panders to it.
Just over two months ago, in small towns across the UK region, foreign nationals were burned out of their homes and a place of worship was petrol bombed. The prime minister’s response? Primarily, he condemned violence on the police. The targeted community bombarded with hate and fearing for their safety received only a promise of “every step possible” to keep you safe. Removed of rhetorical flourish, this is the bare minimum any citizen might expect from the government.
Pandering to Prejudice for Poll Numbers
Worse still is when the leader simpers in the face of intolerance, something he is doing more and more as his popularity go further and further south. Recently, the Reform chief promised mass deportation of almost all those requesting refuge, even if it meant returning vulnerable groups to the Taliban or exiling activists to their demise. To the press, the government did not so much as raise an eyebrow at the opposition figure referring to other humans as a “scourge” or an “overflow”.
For the general public, it posted an remarkable advert: “While he complains from the edges, the government is getting on with the work,” stating, showing an image of the PM labeled with “deported over 35,000 people”. Why vote for the full-fat agitators when diet bigots will suffice just well?
Impact Over Motivation
Plenty of government people will say they are not prejudiced at all, and I wouldn’t wish to dispute. But one lesson about bias I understood early growing up was to prioritize consequence rather than debate about purpose. A brick, in other words, is always a brick, regardless of the excuses of the clown chucking it.
No matter how perfectly progressive Labour ministers might consider themselves, they are effectively engaging in the politics of hatred to gain a point or two in surveys. Getting thrashed by the opposition? Then we’ll get the prime minister to call immigration a “shameful period” causing “immense” damage. Voters won’t wear that? Then we’ll say the entire speech erred greatly due to, um, the PM dealing with too much in his workload.
Shifting Overton Window and Results
To preserve of a handful of undistinguished positions, no strategy is beneath them and every single principle can be discarded. So after a bit of throat-clearing, No 10 tells certain media how concerned it is about the protest of extremists, while sending a official on TV to declare the broader public that the event shows free speech is “alive and well”.
“The British people have a far more nuanced view of immigration than the press and political narrative would suggest,” notes an expert of anti-extremist organisation a campaign group in his recent publication. Just one out of 10 Britons is completely opposed to immigration, while a significant number who identify asylum seekers as a major issue have no direct experience with one.
Ignored Opportunities and Coming Dangers
Armed with such findings and a historic majority, Labour could readily counter some of the wild extremism. Officials might highlight that a leading figure is an non-UK citizen who hunkers down in Spain and has a extensive record of legal offenses. Starmer might note how much of the UK would collapse without migrants—from hospitals to education to elderly facilities. How universities face collapse without international enrollees and their bumper fees. He might even point out that migrants are human too, with lives and aspirations. We could get on to the history of empire, or how climate crisis and need force populations to move.
This is unrealistic? This government would rather entertain a planeload of wealthy foreigners taking property for tech infrastructure, financial support for their businesses, and demand we alter our tax code for their investors. Regarding the general populace, any hope of material improvement is blocked by “financial systems”, “budget restrictions” and “refugees”.
Significant Role and Failure
The past has a tendency of giving ordinary figures big tasks. The Prime Minister’s one critical role is to prevent the hard right. He is not only failing, he is paving the way for Farage and his crew. The so-called “centrists” are bringing fringe politics into the mainstream and normalising the abhorrent.
But just listen to the addresses and chants of the radicals. The final cost for that will not be borne by a leader, but by individuals distant from power: a vulnerable child, perhaps, with no support, or a young person gazing out the window one evening.
