Search

Friday, 29 August 2025

Liberal Preferences

Chris Dillow, building on a post by David Allen Green, notes that UK politics is in crisis because "destabilizing forces have strengthened and stabilizing ones have weakened." What he means by this is that the tendency to rein in the extremes is no longer instinctive among the main parties (obviously stamping on herbivorous lefties is another matter). He gives a good example in the relative treatment of Enoch Powell after his Rivers of Blood speech (sacked by party leader Ted Heath) and Robert Jenrick after thoughtlessly hobnobbing with Fascist activists (not a hint of disciplinary action from Kemi Badenoch). Instead of negative feedback, we get positive feedback as bigotry is mainstreamed, urban myths are cast as legitimate concerns, and someone who incited racial hatred and advocated burning people to death is hailed as a political prisoner. Elsewhere, economic illiteracy is promoted by both politicians and the media because they believe the electorate is ignorant and can only be appealed to through crass simplifications such as the nation's "maxed-out credit card".

As Chris explains, "All I'm doing here is spelling out a few mechanisms in support of David Allen Green's recent attack on the complacent idea that 'unpleasant situations will resolve themselves' and that balance will be restored. For this to happen, there must be negative, stabilizing, feedback mechanisms. But our political-media class has weakened these, preferring to pander to racism. I'm not surprised that so many in this class choose barbarism over socialism. What is surprising is that they choose barbarism even over liberal democracy." So why do they make that latter choice? One place to seek an answer is the house journal of British liberalism, The Guardian. I would argue that its most typical columnist is John Harris, who can be characterised as a liberal pessimist in that he regularly chides "progressives" for not doing enough to resist racism or improve public services, but whose only solution is vapid symbolism and otherwise cultivating your garden. There are others who are more optimistic (Polly Toynbee) and more pessimistic (Rafael Behr), but Harris is representative because he tends to sway between those poles, like a depressed ruminant who spots a buttercup.

He certainly wasn't an advocate of Labour's shift to a more genuinely progressive politics under Jeremy Corbyn, though his attempts to parse the upswell of enthusiasm that gave rise to it between 2015 and 2019 are interesting precisely because of his need to welcome that progressive intent while dismissing the left as a viable vehicle for it. Thus during the leadership contest in 2015 he welcomed that Corbyn offered clarity, but by the time the 2017 general election came into view, he was dismissing a Corbyn-led Labour Party as deeply irrelevant. Immediately after the unexpectedly positive result for Labour, Corbyn was apparently chiming with the times. By 2019 Harris was fully on board with the hunt for antisemites, insisting that Labour's only hope was to ditch its fringe views and toxic culture, and even adopt his favoured panacea of localism for good measure (nothing fringe about that). Viewed rapidly like a flip book, what we see is a liberal, keen to avoid the charge of being an out-of-touch curmudgeon, frightened by the prospect of a government promising mild social democracy.


In his latest contribution to the discourse, Harris claims that while the far-right protests outside hotels housing asylum-seekers have been damp squibs, progressive forces are "so dumbfounded and confused by what is happening that they seem almost completely unable to respond". What he fails to acknowledge is that the left is not silent, it is merely marginalised by the media (the larger counter-demonstrations have been barely reported, and when they do appear in the Guardian it's as likely to be an opportunity for tone-policing). The real culprit here is the Labour government, which has provided rhetorical cover for street-level racism while simultaneously curtailing the rights of protest by anti-racists. And it is the media that explains how protests with minimal support on the street beyond the old Fascist right can dominate politics. Indeed, if you're looking for a "new right" you should start with the increasing derangement of newspaper columnists like Allison Pearson and Melanie Phillips, not with the latest neo-Nazi groupuscule to emerge from under a rock.

Harris's prescription in the face of an increasingly Fascist press, and a complacently centrist TV insisting on impartiality between truth and lies, is nostalgia, and specifically the symbolic power of Rock Against Racism. What he doesn't appreciate is that RAR and the Anti-Nazi League reflected a wider revolt against the political establishment in the late-70s and early-80s that notably roiled the Labour Party. What Harris wants is the free concerts, not Tony Benn bidding for the Deputy Leadership or Ken Livingstone defying the Thatcher government. His claim that "The prominence of Palestine flags at this year’s festivals proves that music’s radical edges have not been completely blunted" is an admission that he sees this radicalism (of the music note, not the people) as purely symbolic, otherwise he might wonder whether there was any connection between opposing genocidal racism abroad and defending migrants at home.

Chris Dillow's model of stablisation through negative feedback depends on authority. When Ted Heath sacked Enoch Powell he not only had the authority of his position as Conservative Party Leader, he was also the representative of an establishment that still commanded popular respect, despite the downward trend since the Suez crisis, not least because of its eventual resistance to Nazism (Heath himself had opposed appeasement in the 1930s). The establishment has lost a lot more respect since the 1980s, due to the secular failure of its preferred economic policies, the decay of the public realm, and because of specific scandals of trust, from Iraq to MPs' expenses. As the establishment's man, Keir Starmer has clearly failed in his goal of restoring the authority and gravitas of government after a decade and a half of disastrous Tory rule. Yet his political strategy, to occupy the centre-right of politics and marginalise both the far-right and the left, remains unchanged, largely because the Conservative Party has fallen apart in the face of Reform's rise, leaving the ground clear to Labour. He has the field, but the battle may already be lost.


Starmer's problem is that his centre-right offer acts as positive feedback to Reform, which encourages right-leaning voters to go for the full-fat version, while it alienates both centrists and soi disant progressives like John Harris because it fails to reflect their self-image as rational and virtuous. Who can provide the negative feedback to arrest the rightward drift of politics in such an environment? Harris may posture about that drift, but he has played his own part in it. Consider this classic of the legitimate concerns genre from a couple of weeks ago: "Just to be clear, the grim scenes that have materialised at those hotels are the signs not just of far-right activism and provocation, but broken policy. No one should underestimate how much the grooming gangs scandal has given many people a deep fear about the safety of women and girls, not least in places that have long felt ignored and neglected". The roots of the grooming scandal lay in the habitual contempt shown by the police and social services to working-class girls, not in the shortcomings of asylum policy.

The problem then is that liberals are not defending liberal democracy and are happy to accept the right's framing of social ills. One way of explaining this is to note that centrists, the largest component of the British politico-media class, aren't actually liberals, neither in the broader sense of defenders of civil liberties against authoritarianism, nor in the narrower sense of advocates of free markets (their's is a capitalism of managed markets and corporate graft). That broader sense is still prevalent in British society, but it has no real political articulation at present, and its more vigorous proponents regularly find themselves marginalised as extremists by the media and even criminalised by the state. At this point we have to ask if the UK is actually a liberal democracy in any meaningful sense. The classic definitions of the term usually focus on the mechanics: fair elections, an independent judiciary, the separation of powers etc. But the acid test is arguably equal protection under the law. This is, for example, why Israel cannot be considered a liberal democracy. 

In the UK we have not gone so far as to pass a basic law that guarantees superior rights for certain groups, and thus inferior rights for others, but that may well be on the cards should Reform get into government and withdraw us from the European Convention on Human Rights (both the government and media are already assessing Farage's mass-deportation promise in terms of achieavability rather than morality or civil rights). But this won't be a sudden lurch away from liberal democracy. The current government's unwillingness to secure the rights of trans people, and its proscription of Palestine Action on the flimsiest of pretexts, are clear indicators of the direction of travel. And before that, we can see a common thread of contempt for those who resist the politico-media consensus running backwards through the Labour antisemitism nonsense, via Brexit and the dismissal of the Iraq War protests, all the way to Thatcherism. British centrists chose barbarism over liberal democracy a long time ago.

5 comments:

  1. Isn't the most important point about the Anti-Nazi League that their opponents (the 1970s-era National Front) had a leadership who genuinely admired Hitler, and who in some cases had even been photographed in Nazi uniforms?

    The main point of the ANL branding the NF as "Nazis" was to turn the NF rank-and-file (who saw themselves as British patriots, and thus likely identified like other less bigoted British patriots with the Allied side of World War II) against their Hitler-admiring leadership.

    This ties in with David Renton's recommendations on how to fight today's anti-refugee protestors: since those protestors claim to be "protecting women" (from Muslim refugees stereotyped as sexual predators) the way forward is to refute those claims by pointing how many of the protestors themselves have records of violence against women.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The NF rank and file in the 70s were for the most part either admirers of Hitler or skinheads who didn't give a toss. The idea that a majority of them were naive patriots, shocked to find that John Tyndall had a passion for swastikas, is bunk.

      David Renton's Guardian article is a cut-down version of his original blogpost criticising SUtR and the SWP (he is a former member): https://livesrunning.wordpress.com/2025/08/21/working-with-stand-up-to-racism-the-good-the-bad-the-deeply-annoying/

      It's clear that what the Guardian wanted was a version that would drop the sectarian beef and accentuate their editorial priors: the working class are incorrigible fools who must be led by the nose; that you can stop Nazis by highlighting their lack of personal virtue; and that sweet reason will eventually prevail.

      I expanded on the point here: https://x.com/fromarsetoelbow/status/1961366180423159840

      Delete
    2. Comments on Blogger blogs like this one support "a href", so why didn't you use it for those links?

      And you do have a good point that pointing out the widespread violence against women perpetrated by 2024's male racist rioters won't necessarily be effective at undermining the heavily female demonstrations against the Epping asylum hotel.

      Delete
  2. It seems to me that Palestine Action was proscribed because the government feared the Seeds of Hope precedent: in that 1996 incident four female activists vandalised a Hawk combat aircraft at a British Aerospace airfield near Preston, to prevent its export to Indonesia.

    The jury acquitted the Seeds of Hope activists, arguing that their action was justified on the grounds that Indonesia was then committing a genocide in East Timor, and Starmer's government no doubt feared that if they simply tried the RAF Brize Norton attackers for their act of criminal damage, they too would be acquitted by a jury arguing that their action was justified in resistance to Israeli genocide in Gaza (even though this is a weaker argument as in this case the vandalised aircraft belonged to the British state, rather than being one to be exported to the alleged genocidal regime).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Reform's thumping local election victory in Red Wall places like County Durham must have been utterly terrifying to Keir Starmer and his cabinet.

    Even in 2021 when Boris Johnson's Tories were riding high, they were only able to participate in running Durham County Council as part of an anti-Labour grand coalition with Lib Dems and independents, but now Nigel Farage's Reform UK has won outright control of the council. The (famously elderly and right-wing) Tory party membership have seemingly euthanised their own party for Reform's benefit by picking a black female Diet Farage as the new Tory leader, and Reform likely has an advantage over the Tories in Red Wall areas as they lack the "they shut our pits!" stigma (substitute other dead industries as appropriate, eg "shipyards" for Sunderland).

    Given that the December 2019 election (in which Corbyn's Labour remained strong in metropolitan seats) demonstrated that Labour cannot afford to lose even part of the Red Wall, how is Starmer supposed to compete in the Red Wall against Farage's appeal based on bigotry and nativism? While I notice that even former pit villages have black inhabitants now there's certainly nowhere near enough of them to be electorally significant, and indeed their presence may be increasing the motivation of white racists to vote Reform.

    And many Red Wall towns (shorn of their original economic raison d'ĂȘtre) have indeed now become places to warehouse economically non-productive people such as pensioners, those unable to work due to disability or illness, and full-time carers for the first two groups. To give one example, Seaham's population of 22,000 has just 6,000 full-time workers among them, along with about 1,500 part-time workers.

    In such places, policies to benefit workers (via higher wages or better working conditions) will also have limited electoral benefit, and the lack of local spending power has caused most "third spaces" to disappear, leaving people spending their time at home on social media platforms dominated (due to the "enragement drives engagement" financial imperatives of their owners) by far-right messaging.

    That I guess leaves increasing benefits or the state pension, or spending more on the NHS, but such policies are really expensive, and something that the government is likely ill-equipped to afford, given the mountain of debt left over from the Covid pandemic, as well as the need for rearmament to confront Russian imperialist aggression.

    Any suggestions for how Labour can solve its Red Wall problem?

    ReplyDelete