Don't Vote Labour Again

The riots

My 'Don't Vote Labour' series was cut short by Sunak's disastrous decision to call an election. As predicted it was a real drubbing, reducing the Conservative majority fourfold. Also as many of us predicted, Labour in power has been dreadful; although nobody foresaw just how quickly it would descend into incompetence, corruption, and insidious ideology. After just three months, Starmer's party are a huge disappointment to anyone (bar the diehards) who believed they would be an improvement. For the rest of us we have the satisfaction of being vindicated, and the amusement at watching Starmtroopers grasping to justify themselves. Unfortunately it is tempered by the inescapable horror of the situation.

The Riots

The Southport killings triggered unrest on the streets of Britain. This was not as large-scale as was made out, but was widespread nonetheless. Although Starmer of course cannot be blamed for a psychopath stabbing children, or for hooligans using it as a reason to throw missiles at policemen, it did happen on his watch. He did appear to temporarily lose control of the streets, which was hardly a great look one month in. It was Starmer's approach, however, that worsened the situation. He showed no understanding of why people were angry, and demonstrated no sympathy for that anger. He offered no solutions to the violent crime which is plaguing our country, or to the high levels of immigration. All he could do was denounce the rioting as 'far-right thuggery' - with the arrogant tone of a thrusting barrister, well practiced in his career.

Of course, there was thuggery and inexcusable violence. The fires outside the Rotherham hotel were lit to harm, kill, or at least terrorise asylum claimants. Some of the perpetrators were shouting racially or religiously charged things. But did all the protesting constitute rioting, any more than all of the BLM protests in 2020 did? In Aldershot on July 31 there was a largely non-violent demonstration, with a minority throwing missiles. In Liverpool, a protest went by without violence on August 2. On August 7, Chatham, Bournemouth, Portsmouth and Southampton also saw demos without significant violence. By labelling all protests as riots, you scare people away from attending protests, which is their democratic right. It was even implied by one judge that merely by being in the vicinity of violence but not partaking, you would fall foul of the law. The distinctions employed by the left for the Gaza protests were nowhere to be seen.

Did most of the rioters really have 'far-right' affiliations or motives? Or were most simply furious about children being killed, on top of wider concerns about borders and immigration? Some appear to have just been mindless hooligans, often drunks or drug addicts with lengthy criminal records. Any kind of unrest would likely have attracted these types. The offenders so far convicted have generally been locals, not travelling political activists. Indeed only one proven far-right activist was spotted in attendance at Southport.

If I was Starmer, while condemning the violence I would have shown that I understood the strength of feeling in the country. I would have admitted that immigration is a factor in such violent crime, and announced steps to bring down the vast migration levels. The man charged with the murders is after all a second generation migrant from a country with a violent recent past. Arguably he should not have been here. As the left point out, we have our own violent criminals, but why must we take the risk of importing more? I would also have announced tangible policies to deal with knife crime, drugs and mental illness.

Of course, Starmer does not want to admit to faults in immigration, nor lower it; and the other things might involve spending money, which he also seems reluctant to do. So instead he contented himself with talking tough about the troublemakers, promising the full force of the law would come down upon them. This was met with relish from the mainstream left: these white working class gammons were getting what they deserved. Outside Labour's support base, though, the contempt and one-sidedness was noted and bookmarked for later.

The diehard Labour faithful celebrated Starmer 'dealing' with the riots after a week. While there were various factors, including the weather cooling, and the tendency for such agitation to burn itself out anyway, it must be said that the swift and harsh sentencing seemed to have an effect. Starmer implied at one point this was under his direct supervision, which would be unethical, but there we have it. For would-be rioters or demonstrators, it was simply not worth losing two years of your life to have a short-lived adrenaline rush. However, this toughness came at a cost.

It gave credence to the powerful concept of a 'two-tier' justice system, because at the very same time the government was gearing up to release thousands of prisoners. There were and still are daily stabbings, shootings and other serious crime, which seem to be lightly punished in comparison, meaning such crimes just keep happening. The Manchester Airport duo appearing to attacking police officers on video have not yet been prosecuted, and there is some doubt they have even been charged. Also, most of the so-called 'counter-protesters' who committed violence, especially in Birmingham, have so far avoided being charged; and the media and Labour Party were playing defence for them. Jess Phillips, now a junior minister (God help us) appeared to try and justify why the mainly Muslim mob in Birmingham had turned up, while they menaced journalists, seemed to attack random white people and openly carried weapons.

So yes, the riots were 'dealt' with, but the ingenious viral nickname for Starmer, 'Two Tier Keir', is not going away. Millions of voters, many in the Red Wall areas Labour need to win, have seen him fail to act like a leader by understanding their concerns. Blair would have done so, something he's hinted at in recent interviews - but not the son of the toolmaker. And sadly, outrages such as Southport are going to happen again, as immigration spirals out of control and the system struggles to keep order. The possibility of further riots remains - regrettably - and the self inflicted political damage has been done.       

Although a message has to be sent to criminals in a situation of national unrest or an emergency, many of the sentences are still very harsh. Contrary to some right-wing opinion, most convicted have committed a criminal offence, with one or two dubious cases. But undoubtedly the justice system has gone too far in the sentencing, especially at such a politically sensitive time (because of the widespread decay of law and order).

It should also be said that there are worrying implications for freedom of expression. Again, most of the people charged over malicious communications have broken existing incitement or hate speech laws, but the sentencing seems disproportionate. What is more alarming is the notions around criminalising 'misinformation'. Is it really reasonable for an individual to be prosecuted for spreading false information - information that has allegedly inspired people to engage in unrest? The current law stipulates the intent to incite violence or lawbreaking needs to be proven. There is no law against being wrong or lying, unless it is perjury or defamation (a civil matter). Nor should there be.

So far nobody has been charged or convicted of simply sharing a falsehood. Bernadette Spofforth was one of the first people to put out the incorrect rumour that the Southport attacker was a Muslim asylum seeker who was on the intelligence service watch list. She did not say this was definitely the case, using the phrase "if this is true", and no further action was taken against her. However, there have been plenty of Labour-adjacent people calling for prosecution of such people, and it feels we are on a slippery slope towards it. This is especially rich given a Labour MP shared the incorrect Tweet, put out by Nick Lowles of ‘Hope Not Hate’, that there were 'reports' a Muslim woman had been attacked with acid in Middlesbrough. Josh Fenton-Glyn MP reposted Lowles, adding the comment: "Far right cowards attacking women. When people show you who they are, believe them".

Another aspect of the riots being 'defeated' was the obvious psy-op whereby someone claimed there was a whole raft of 'far-right' protests being planned on August 10. Left-wing rentamobs were then assembled in those places, which showed that 'the community' was 'standing up to far-right racism'. This strangely appeared on every national newspaper the next day. The only thing that spoiled it was a Dartford Labour councillor, Ricky Jones, proclaiming that we needed to "cut the throats" of the far-right and "get rid of them". Jones is still on remand for this act of incitement - a wise move by the authorities to avoid two-tier accusations, but we shall see what the trial brings.

If Starmer was the brains behind this spin-job and not the well-established nudge units working with media allies, then perhaps some reluctant credit is owed. However, he likely wasn’t and the whole thing was so transparent and cynical it is probably a net negative in the long term.

Written by Ed Pond, 2024, all rights reserved