Politics: contrary views
By Richard North - November 27, 2023
Depending on where you stand, Tommy Robinson is either a far-right, opportunistic rabble-rouser, or a voice of sanity protesting about the growing encroachment of Islam in our society – or any other combination that you might wish to concoct.
Either way, his presence in London at the antisemitism march yesterday had been signalled as “unwelcome” by the march organisers yet, despite that he chose to show up at the venue, styling himself as a journalist intent on reporting on the proceedings.
The action was undoubtably provocative, and intentionally so, but it did rather show up the Metropolitan Police. A force which had earlier professed itself powerless to prevent jihadists clambering over war memorials, suddenly found it had the power to remove someone whose presence would “cause harassment, alarm and distress to others” – and then devote substantial resources to arresting him.
In full view of the cameras, one constable directly applied pepper spray to Robinson’s face, at close range – which hardly seemed necessary given that he was surrounded by over 20 police officers – provoking substantial criticism on social media.
Thus, even a dispassionate observer might conclude that the Met had once again acted with the sensitivity and intelligence of a rabid camel (yes, they can suffer from the disease), serving to illustrate to those who are already convinced of such things, that two-tier policing is in operation.
Others, of course, might have different views, and that is becoming a by-word on a number of contentious issues currently in the public domain. Views are already established and hardened – there is no middle way and no scope for compromise.
That might be said of our guest post from yesterday, which took a structured look at terrorism, concluding that all terrorist groups – whether the IRA or Hamas (or any other for that matter) – are “destructive cults” with similar characteristics.
On an optimistic note, our writer suggests that such cults can be overcome, particularly by state agents including military personnel, police officers and intelligence operatives. They can be part of a strategy for creating an environment in which an “idea” and the violent strategic objectives of a terrorist or insurgent group can be defeated.
There can be no dispute that this is a difficult task, but it can be done. That is what Israel is trying to do, the aim being to liberate Gaza from Hamas, for want of which the people on the strip will never prosper. Unfortunately, defeating Hamas necessitates a large military operation and, as with most conflicts, there will be civilian casualties. Yet there is no alternative but to “give war a chance”.
Inevitably, there will be those who will never agree with that analysis, in the same way that there are those who take a contrary view on the other great issue of the day – immigration – and will argue that the UK can not only sustain the current levels, but that such levels are necessary .
Public opinion though is extremely hard to discern, as polls can be easily manipulated to give the desired answers, according to source, although recent polling conveyed by an equally partisan source suggests that 53 percent of respondents thought there should be a five-year moratorium on all immigration.
Where there is no dispute, however, is in the view that – with the last set of figures – immigration has become a political hot potato. It is now generally accepted that this will be the main issue for the coming general election and make-or-break for Sunak’s continued leadership of the Tories.
The prospects for the Tories as a whole are not improved by the continuing fallout from Braverman’s sacking, with the Telegraph reporting that that Sunak’s migrant deal with the former home secretary have now been “revealed”.
As was claimed by Braverman’s post-sacking letter, Sunak did agree to a four-point plan as a condition for her support. Chief among the points was a pledge to raise the minimum salary threshold required for a foreign skilled worker visa from £26,000 to £40,000.
Other points were a proposal to close down the graduate visa route, a restriction on the number of dependants that legal migrants could bring in with them, and a plan to prioritise Russell Group university applicants when evaluating student visa applications.
Yet we now learn that six letters, each setting out detailed policy options and sent to No 10 either by Braverman or her office, were ignored. In one, in November 2022, weeks after her appointment, she said she had instructed officials to “work up a set of proposals”.
The letter set out two additional proposals, one for a cap on overall visa rates, with numbers annually set by Parliament, and a second scrapping the shortage occupation list, where employers can hire foreign workers at 20 percent below the going rate.
Tackling net migration was the top item in the agreement, which opened by warning record numbers of visas were being issued including a “large increase in numbers of foreign students from developing countries attending non-Russell group universities on business studies master’s with dependants”.
As such details emerge, it becomes more and more clear that Sunak had absolutely no intention of curtailing “legal” migration, and his focus on attempts to “stop the boats” are exposed for the cynical ploy that they always were – deflecting attention from the numerically more serious problems.
But even this looks as if it could backfire on him, as an unconfirmed report suggests that his Rwanda plan B is now at risk of collapsing. Rwanda is said to be refusing to sign the new treaty guaranteeing migrants will not be returned to their countries of origin, because it includes British involvement in its legal system.
This, potentially, leaves Sunak with nowhere to go, bereft of ideas on one of his flagship policies, just as home office minister Laura Farris warns that rising levels of immigration could lead to a resurgence of the far right.
And here we go again – concern about record and unsustainable levels of immigration automatically labelled as a “far right” preoccupation, mirroring the official response to the riot in Dublin after the stabbing of three children by an Algerian migrant.
The plot now thickens as it is confirmed that the migrant in 2003 had been the subject of a deportation order but had successfully fought it off with the aid of one of the many migrant support NGOs. Had he been deported in 2003, nobody would have been stabbed.
The Irish police are now said to be on high alert, with rumours persisting that barriers have been erected around various government buildings in Dublin in anticipation of the death of one of the worst-injured children. Should she die, Thursday night’s violence may just have been a dress rehearsal.
Yet there are those – not least the Irish establishment – who maintain that the rioting is down to “far right thugs”, as they seek to clamp down on dissent with new hate speech laws.
By contrast, when in 1981 we had the Brixton riot, followed by copycat riots elsewhere in the country, the subsequent Scarman report spoke volubly of the social, economic and political context of the acute deprivation in the affected areas, largely inhabited by blacks.
The riots, Scarman said, were a spontaneous outburst of built-up resentment sparked by particular incidents, where “complex political, social and economic factors” created a “disposition towards violent protest”, in response to which the government of the day threw millions at the progenitors of the violence in a vain attempt to improve “community relations”.
But now we have the white population kicking off about immigration, there are no complex factors involved. This is all the fault of “far right thugs”, which justifies the imposition of a draconian control regime.
Such is the extent to which society is broken that here, and in many other countries, there is no longer any common view of the causes of the main problems confronting us. Instead, there is increasing discord between rival factions. We live in a divided society, riven by contrary views.
