Anti-refugee protests began with the fury of racists and xenophobes, but there is evidence they are changing. Yet quite how and with what consequences are not yet clear.
Read the comments from some of those presently attending anti-refugee protests and you will see it. Fewer of the outright and malevolent “We don’t want them here!”, and more of the “My husband and I have worked hard all our lives, yet we have nothing to show for it”. And dear reader, it is difficult not to empathise with the second point.
Driven to frustration with politics, it looks as though some may be tempted to jump on the anti-refugee bandwagon as a convenient way of making their voices known. If so, it means the protests are becoming a useful if unhappily unconsidered conduit for unrelated but more understandable frustrations about living standards and the state of the NHS and the rest. All that frustration at our politicians had to go somewhere eventually.
*
A change in refugee protests would pose difficulties for all sides, however. For the left and supporters of refugees, they can’t simply dismiss their opponents. We shall actually have to put aside our moral self-righteousness and accept that others have legitimate opinions too – however disreputably we believe they express them.
For the right-wing organisers, this isn’t quite the victory they may anticipate. Group dynamics dictate that they would have to curtail drastically the way they and their supporters conduct themselves. It’s easy to chuck bottles at the police when you’re with 20 of your mates; much less when you’re with 200 who aren’t, and would be horrified. Their arguments would have to become more ‘respectable’.
But danger too for the government. Perhaps for the first time, ordinary people are out on the street, making their frustrations known. They may have borrowed the wrong vehicle to express them, but once they find they have a voice, they may not be content to have the racists shout for them. They may want their own protests, without hiding behind resentment of refugees. So what do the government do then, poor things? Do they declare that, like Palestine Action, protesters for better pension rights or shorter NHS waiting lists are to be defined as terrorists too?
*
Not only is our fractious and frustrated country becoming ungovernable, but political parties are more unstable. The latest party to suffer, ironically, is Reform. In one or other of its previous guises, it had its members infiltrate the Tories, to drive them further to the right and so destroy them from within.
But now we learn that Reform itself is suffering entryism, from the even further right: the outright Hitler fans and white supremacists. Pecksniff has warned often enough that the revolution always eats its children. Right wing headbangers supported Reform as representing their views; but it takes very little for the uber fascists to persuade them that they, not Reform, are the upholders of whatever foetid little delusions these people hold.
So how does Nigel Farage prevent it? Does he move Reform even further rightwards, as he forced the Tories to do? The further right he goes, the more he may hold on to his hard core, but the more he distances himself from mainstream public opinion.
*
A report published this week may tell us. Best for Britain has a poll by YouGov which analyses the five different groups they claim make up potential Reform supporters. In many ways it is surprising.
Those perhaps we might most associate with extreme right-wing politics fall into two groups: ‘Disgusted Disruptors’ and ‘Left-Behind Collectivists’. These are the groups who feel they have suffered more than their fair share of the ordinary vengeances of life. They are the most anti-establishment and most resentful: they envy those ‘above’ them and believe they have had a raw deal. Immigrants and refugees are just another threat to their wellbeing. But these are the only groups for whom anti-establishment rhetoric holds appeal.
‘Traditional Conservatives’ and ‘Melancholy Middle’ are mostly financially secure and supportive of a meritocratic establishment. The TCs are what they sound and are the most unlikely to vote for anyone other than Reform except the Conservatives.
The other group is the ‘Civic Pragmatists’, and they are the most intriguing. They are mostly younger and financially secure, and perversely most likely to support progressive causes like climate action and EU membership. Why then are they potential Reform voters? Probably because the other parties are so anonymous and pusillanimous, the CPs are floating voters. One fascinating point, however, is that this group – younger, financially secure, progressive, are also the most patriotic.
But one thing is clear, in spite of all Labour’s preoccupations and in line with all other evidence: none but a tiny minority within these groups is ever likely to vote Labour.
*
For the migrating tribes of the left, roaming the political tundra searching for a sign, word of a new party is always likely to engender excitement. Though news that Jeremy Corbyn, George Galloway and Tariq Ali may all be involved in some way might well put the mockers on that.
We still know almost nothing about what is planned, except they couldn’t decide among themselves. The website gives nothing away. There is however already a dispute as to whether the party – if it ever gets that far – should be defined bottom up by its members or top down by the organisers. (Experienced leftie activists will be smirking by this point.) But even for the left it must be a record to have a split over how the party is run before it even has a name or agreed objectives.
Potential recruits so far seem the usual suspects: a gallimaufry of frustrated Labour members, disgruntled Corbynists, People’s Assembly (ditto but with beards), Gaza activists, Revolutionary Communists, Trots, Tankies, George Galloway’s apostles and Tariq Ali. “Few take them seriously,” says one informed source among the wise men at the Muckrakers.
Hopeless. But my dears, if only somebody could get their act together, we could expect to see them immediately challenge Reform, since much of their support is tissue-thin and dependent on there being nobody else plausible enough to vote for.
*
It is probably not well understood that there is a third option on the current leadership ticket of the Green Party. There is the present leader Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) and his new joint sidekick Ellie Chowns in a joint leadership bid; Zack Polanski, who is the present deputy leader – and a dark horse who could still put the Greens in a pother: RON.
RON is the real troublemaker here and is part of what is sometimes called ‘rank choice voting’. He (or actually it) stands for ‘re-open nominations’. In other words, none of the above. Therefore there are three options on the ballot paper: Ramsay/Chowns, Polanski, and RON, and members place them in preferred order.
It is typical of the party to have this kind of recherche structure but imagine having the re-open nominations option on our general election ballot papers. Dear reader, RON would sweep aside all opposition. Imagine how smug we would all feel – and how chastened the parties – if, the day after, the poll showed we were sick and tired of all of them, RON had swept the board, and they would all have to slink off and do better.
*
Robert Peston is the latest to question why on earth the Liberal Democrats aren’t incessantly banging on about joining the EU and proportional representation. They are the party’s two main policy points, and they also happen to be both at the top of the electorate’s bucket list. Ed Davey recently declared his desire for a customs union, but then as expected bugger all else happened. Nobody said another word.
East Anglia Bylines has more than 100,000 readers every month, and most of them come here for the politics. That makes us by far the most influential regional politics media player. So why are we not bombarded by LibDem claims about the EU, or details of how they are working towards PR? Their scarcely believable reluctance to grab the goodwill of all those EU-friendly voters is another reason why we need that new party…
*
There is no pretence of Tory party discipline anymore. Six weeks ago, Kemi Badenoch (NW Essex) stood at Wethersfield and declared: “I know many people in the area did not necessarily want a prison, but the people in the surrounding area of Essex did want one and we have to do the right thing”.
This week, James Cleverly (Braintree) and supporters stood on the same spot with a placard claiming “Conservatives say no to a prison at Wethersfield”.
Well after all, Ms Badenoch’s Nemesis awaits at October’s party conference, so Mr Cleverly has to make his move. He is already incurring criticism for the expenses claimed for running his website. Though it seems reasonable to wonder whether the taxpayer should be expected to pay the cost of his personal ambition.
*
Speaking of personal ambitions, it will probably not come as a surprise that Tory-controlled Suffolk County Council believe the best new model for the county’s re-organisation would be, er, one council, controlled by them.
Times were when Ipswich was the only non-Tory fortress; but these days they have also lost control of all the others: East Suffolk, Mid Suffolk, West Suffolk and Babergh. So they have only one basket into which to put their eggs.
That basket they are calling OneSuffolk, an aggressive attempt at steamrollering through their last chance. Your diarist asked them whether the plan had received unanimous approval by the members. No answer was forthcoming, because of course it had not. The Tories’ attempted lebensraum is being promoted with local taxpayers’ money.
Labour’s Councillor Sandy Martin has also criticised OneSuffolk for deleting from the Facebook page any criticisms of the plan from local taxpayers. So they are using taxpayers’ money to fund their own egos, and then pretending nobody objects.
*
There is much that can be written about Councillor Jaymey McIvor, who represents Ongar on Essex County Council. Pecksniff has already recounted his eleventh-hour disqualification from being Tory candidate for Hemel Hempstead at the general election; then jumping ship to join Reform. The last time he featured in this diary it was to record the claim by Labour’s Councillor Aidan McGurran that Cllr McIvor was expelled from the Tories for sending unsolicited pictures of his private parts through social media.
But it is clear that, in Cllr McIvor, Reform have a representative after their own hearts. The latest reason for him to blot your diarist’s copperplate is that on his record he has been appointed – put down that drink before you read on – Reform’s national ‘director of local government’. Bylines Times reports:
“In March this year, Infinitus Group, a florist run by Cllr McIvor with him as the sole director, entered liquidation after the firm voted to voluntarily wind itself up. A liquidator’s report shows that Infinitus owes £141,025 to creditors. This includes £42,370 to “trade creditors”, £31,000 of a Bounce-Back Loan and £5,154 owed to HMRC in corporation tax.”
Readers will recall that the Bounce-Back loans were government-backed. So the company’s failure costs the taxpayer £31,000. Cllr McIvor meanwhile is home free.
*
One politician who always seems to represent something more wholesome is Terry Jermy (SW Norfolk), though after Liz Truss – the MP he beat – he rather has a head start. Mr Jermy has frequently been quoted in this august tome with approval. This week, Labour’s Rural Research Group reported that 75% of those living in rural areas feel neglected. Mr Jermy is fully supportive. He recognises the special needs of those living in the countryside and is demanding a new strategy focused on those unique challenges they face, such as poor access to public services and affordable housing.
Mr Jermy was born and brought up in his constituency and still lives there. There is nothing he doesn’t understand about it. Against the needs of his own people, the demands of the party whips are very small beer.
*
With thanks to Malcolm Lynn, Mary Marshall, James Porter, Karl Whiteman, Liz Crosbie, Celina Błędowska and Mark Popay.
<<< Previous Pecksniff’s Diary
More from East Anglia Bylines
