This is from The Guardian yesterday:
The chart shows the overall sentiment towards migration and migrants expressed in the House of Commons by year. It is based on linguistic analysis of more than 200,000 comments in debates.
Note that sentiment was always positive, except in 1927, for 80 years.
Then, in 2006, sentiment turned negative before going positive again, only to reverse in 2010 amid recessionary stresses and anti-EU sentiment whipped up by the Tories and Farage.
Surprisingly, perhaps, sentiment then turned strongly positive until the post-Covid era, since when there has been a massive backlash fuelled by the politics of hate that has been deliberately promoted by the Tories and Farage.
There are three things to note.
First, if parliament reflects national sentiment, we have not traditionally been hostile to migrants, although I do not, of course, deny that racism has existed.
Second, the anti-migrant sentiment now being witnessed has been deliberately politically generated. We see the evidence of this in parliament.
Third, the change has not followed public sentiment. It has deliberately sought to create public sentiment. Toxicity has followed.
Who has done this?
Farage is obviously high in the list.
So is Theresa May, with her hostile environment policy as Home Secretary.
Then add in the now ex-Tories in Reform. Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman take particular blame.
But do not ignore the backbenchers: Lee Andersen, Danny Kruger and Miriam Cates.
And who else? GB News and other toxic media like it, such as Talk Radio.
Then there are papers such as the Mail, Express and Sun.
A special place should be reserved for The Telegraph.
The effort invested in creating toxicity has been extraordinary.
So, what is the return those who have doine this seek? Forgive me for being so base as to ask cui bono? It does seem appropriate.
Of course, the politicians themselves do. But it is more to it than that. The backers want returns, and the odd thing is, most of them must know that racism, let alone deportations, cannot deliver them.
They want:
- Freedom to exploit labour. Expect:
- The end of the minimum wage.
- Attacks on trade unions and their rights.
- Restrictions on employment tribunals.
- An end to discrimination at work regulation.
- A rise in zero-hours contracts.
- Freedom to charge exploitative rents, whilst letting slum conditions return.
- The destruction of the social safety net.
- More privatisation, as none of them has a viable commercial business idea they could actually pursue.
- Lower taxes, especially on businesses, rents and the returns from capital.
- Attacks on democracy so that these changes cannot be challenged.
And amidst all this, it will be appreciated that planned deportations are not possible, not least because of the massive cost and total economic destruction they will cause.
My suspicion is that the deportation policy will be quietly dropped, although the creation of a toxic environment will be retained. The fear will be kept, but so will the people be. Their labour is needed, after all.
The aim is something quite different. It is to break the will of most people so that they will comply with, and not complain about, the toxic state that the far-right wants to create, at a cost to most of the population. That's the conclusion that asking cui bono leads to.
Nothing in this offers any hope. There is only bleakness, exploitation and abuse offered by the far right. The sad thing is that many are falling for it because of the hatred they are promoting to cover their true cause.
I can only hope they do not win in Manchester today, but I will still live in fear that they might, there or elsewhere.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Look at the Trump’s USA: federal funding slashed; tax cuts for the rich, taxes up for the masses; consumer protection agencies dismantled; attacks on anti American opposition such as unions, universities; the media does as it’s told; $bns being spent on the deportation plan; using the Department of Justice to pursue personal vendettas; allegations of future voter fraud; grift to enrich the administration: let the tech bros off the leash especially Palantir.
Regrettably the UK audience do not realise that the far right intend, as you say, to hit the majority hard.
Can I expect no steer, the media ( including the BBC) or anyone else with regular access to main stream media to challenge this garbage? No.
It’s hard work dealing with claims such as ” asylum seekers have pushed up violent crimes rates in our town”. Sub text all violent crime rates have gone through the roof and all due to asylum seekers. “Sorry, but there is no evidence of this.” Then you have to keep going politely challenging this view.
Much to agree with
Having watched the first three episodes of Dirty Business last night, I think things are bad enough in this country already. I cannot envisage a scenario where things could be worse, unless we get a Reform government, which will make Starmer look competent.
I wouldn’t want to live in a country without immigration. My partner is the daughter of immigrants and some of the finest people I know are first or second generation immigrants.
Much to agree with
I will watch it soon
I made the same comment last night to a friend that the Hostile Environment is to intimidate and silence critics of the Far Right. It will be, as you say, reinforced by the Toxic Tory Tabloids and Terrible Telegraph and that echoed on social media.
Stumbled by accident on Talk Radio one afternoon – a presenter called Ian Collins. It was actually quite shocking to hear, the public bar level of discussion and invective directed at everyone and everything that wasn’t Reform or even farther right (which they actually see as the “centre”).
To quote some examples, Starmer is presiding over a “totalitarian state” and living in the UK feels “like living in North Korea”; the Greens (and Labour) are “communist, paedophile enabling, Muslim-lovers”; and Andrew has done “nothing wrong” and the police investigation is “waste of taxpayers’ money”.
I suppose it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Talk Radio is funded primarily by News UK, a subsidiary of Murdoch’s News Corp, but should not Ofcom, as the regulator for radio in the UK, be holding the likes of Talk Radio to account on some sort of journalistic standards?
Or does “freedom of speech” over-rule everything, even when it descends into the gutter?
I have been on with Ian Colins
Let’s say we did noit get ion
I think he closed me down bevause I would not agree with him.
Again, quoting liberally from the film ‘Mississippi Burning’
‘People who are full of hate are unable to realise what is really making them poor’.
It’s a slavers dream of society.