I’m So Bored With the USA: A State of Hate

 

 

“And you think love is to pray But I’m sorry, I don’t pray that way”

 

 

This week it is the tale of two nations, with politicians creating hatred and discontent and causing internal divisions.

Both countries believe they are locked into a special relationship. In truth, it is based on the weaker proving that love is blind, and the stronger seeking to exploit this adoration. “A bad relationship is like standing on broken glass, if you stay you will keep hurting. If you walk away, you will hurt but eventually, you will heal.”

This is the tale of one leader and one would-be leader. The latter is totally besotted, but is a mere pound shop version of the former,

We start with our pound shop Farage, who this week further upped the ante in the immigration stakes. Seemingly safe in the knowledge that his followers have no limits and raising the stakes to a level that the opposition will fear to follow.

However, in his haste to up the stakes, Farage has left himself vulnerable to his bluff being called.

To set the scene properly what has Farage put on the table?

Reform’s latest proposal, “Prioritising UK Citizens”, seeks to expel hundreds of thousands of people who have been granted indefinite leave to remain (“ILR”) in the UK. In addition, those with permanent residency will e forced to reapply under tougher rules, including higher salary requirements, and abolish the status of ILR, which gives migrants rights and access to benefits.

Reform’s Zia Yusuf argued the changes would lead to “hundreds of thousands of people having to apply and ultimately losing their settled status in the UK. Many of those who will lose their leave to remain are entirely dependent on the welfare state and will leave voluntarily upon losing access to benefits.”

As a result, the proposal, “will save the taxpayer £230bn by taking decisive action on immigration and welfare. ILR will be abolished. No new awards granted and existing ones rescinded.”

This number was based on research by the Centre for Policy Studies (“CPS”), who then said that the fiscal data contained within it was the “subject of dispute”, meaning that the overall cost estimates should no longer be used.

Jonathan Portes, the professor and former government economist, said that if the CPS had properly interpreted the OBR data, there would be a net fiscal benefit of about £125bn in the next few years.

Portes has reportedly said “it is absolutely not true” that most new migrants rely on benefits, because of provisions barring most from receiving government funds.”

In typical Farage style, he dismissed this saying: “The £230bn figure … is without a doubt too low. It underestimates things.”

Ben Brindle, a researcher at the Migration Observatory at Oxford University, said increasing the salary thresholds and removing ILR status could leave businesses struggling to fill vacancies in the agriculture, construction and care sectors.

“These jobs are not attractive to domestic workers because they are difficult jobs, with poor pay and conditions. You might eventually be able to fill these jobs but you will not to do it overnight and many of these sectors could struggle for some time.”

Of course, cynics such as myself should not forget that, aside from the economic drain of immigration, there is also the threat to our women!

In the words of Tommy Robinson,: “Our women, our daughters are scared to walk the streets. Their safety has been taken from them”.

Not wanting to miss out, Reform MP Sarah Pochin said: “We are the only party that is talking about what we need to do to protect women and children from the ever-increasing number of illegal migrants living in our communities.”

Rob Ford, a professor of political science at the University of Manchester, said that this scaremongering achieved three things:

 

• Legitimisation; Reframing aggressive hostility towards immigrants as something calmer and entirely justified in the interests of defending vulnerable members of society. Ford said. “You’re saying: ‘We’re not the aggressors. They are the aggressors’.
• Stereotyping; Brings to fore the most negative possible stereotypes about immigrant groups; “violent criminals and rapists being the go-to trope.”
• Mobilisation; “If you’re trying to mobilise people, you need to get people to see a political issue in terms of a clear and present danger, an imminent threat that they need to defend against.”

 

Their narrative is borrowed from Trump, who spoke about the need to defend women and children from undocumented migrants during his election campaign, promising: “I will protect women … The suburban women are under attack.”

This is the same Trump who bragged about “pussy grabbing”.

 

This is the same Trump who bragged about “pussy grabbing”

 

This lead to what is referred to as “tradwives”; wife’s who choose to adhere to traditional gender roles, focusing on domesticity, homemaking, and nurturing their families. it might be redolent of the 1950s, but Mark Zuckerberg is already praising masculine energy in the workplace.

What appears to be unreported in the right-wing media is the propensity for violence of those claiming to “protect woman”.

Last summers’ riots which spread across the country in response to the murder of three young girls in Southport seem to have attracted some choice individuals.

Police data released under freedom of information laws shows that 41% of 899 people arrested had been reported for crimes associated with intimate partner violence.

Previous offences include actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, stalking, breach of restraint and non-molestation orders, controlling coercive behaviour and criminal damage.

 

Specifically:

 

• In Bristol, of the 60 arrested, >66% had been the subject of a previous domestic abuse report.
• In Hartlepool and Middlesbrough, of the 107 arrested, 44 had been subject to a prior domestic abuse report.
• In Rotherham, of the 75 people arrested, 35 of whom had been reported for domestic abuse.

 

Whilst this is conveniently unreported, the media delight in stories such as this from Farage in August: “An Afghan male has a 22 times more likely chance of being convicted of rape than somebody born in this country”. This is based on analysis of Ministry of Justice figures conducted by the Centre for Migration Control, an organisation “committed to controlling and dramatically reducing migration to Britain”.

Comments and headlines such as this are designed to whip-up the mob, to create divisive hysteria. And, it works.

Lorraine Cavanagh, who received an OBE for her work as a community organiser in east London, set-up a “pink patrol” movement in July after the Britannia hotel on the Isle of Dogs was repurposed as accommodation for asylum seekers. Eighty women, dressed in pink, will be tasked with supervising parks and playgrounds in the area, watching out for harassment of women and children by migrants.

She acknowledged that the group was set up in response to a “fear of” attacks rather than any recorded local instances of sexual assault. “We make it quite clear that probably 99% of the people that are in the hotel wouldn’t hurt a hair on a child’s head, but we are not prepared to play roulette with our children,” she said.

 

‘the government is starting to react to the electoral threat of Reform but are seemingly unconcerned by the divisiveness caused by their comments and proposals’

 

There are signs that the government is starting to react to the electoral threat of Reform but are seemingly unconcerned by the divisiveness caused by their comments and proposals.

A Downing Street source said: “We have to have an answer to those questions. We need to be able to step up,” adding that this included a response to rising concerns about immigration. They said it would be a “fatal flaw” for social democrats to ignore those concerns.

“If the social democratic response to these big questions doesn’t provide the answers they need, then people will look elsewhere, as obviously they already are.”

This somewhat weak government statement shows why the LibDem leader, Ed Davey, told his party’s annual conference, we are the only remaining block against “the forces of darkness” led by Nigel Farage.

There were some very pointed comments aimed at Farage, including the prediction that a Reform government would dismantle the NHS, enable racism and misogyny, and roll back gun laws so British schools would have to teach children what to do in a mass shooting.

He concluded: “We are in a battle for the very future of our country. And it’s not a battle we can afford to lose.”

Davey’s strategy of attacking Farage is aimed at the many who find his politics abhorrent. In this, Davey has a clear target audience and can galvanise an electoral coalition that would otherwise lack coherence.

 

“We are in a battle for the very future of our country. And it’s not a battle we can afford to lose.”

 

The speech included no new policies, instead he sought to present the Lib Dems as the party of choice for voters who want to block Reform and feel let down by the Labour and Conservatives’ response to Farage.

In a particular appeal to more liberal-minded Conservative voters put off by the party’s shift towards the populist right, Davey said: “My message to you is this – come and talk to us.”

The Tories, still seem unable to take the LibDems seriously despite losing 60 seats to them in 2024, including those of former PMs, Messrs Cameron, May and Johnson. More recently, in this year’s local elections, the Lib Dems gains were almost entirely at the Tories’ expense.

Kemi Badenoch seems not to understand that her party has alienated many of its long-term supporters by becoming so right-wing, dismissing the LibDems as people who “don’t have much of an ideology other than being nice”; the sort of busybodies “who are good at fixing their church roof”.

In a way Kemi has described the countries divide. There is a minority, I.E., < 50%, that are racists, or are allowing themselves to be influenced by them. This is being fuelled by a predominantly right-wing media reporting the stories they want, how they want. Whilst, I suspect this media would prefer a Tory government, they will settle for Reform

The majority, I.E., >50%, find Reform’s racism repellent, and understand that their policies are uncosted unrealistic and simply nasty.

The divide has clear geographical dividing lines, which is highlighted by the success of the LibDems in relieving the Tories of so many seats in their supposed heartlands; it’s a north-south thing. Which, rather neatly, confirms my oft cited claim that the crisis, and there is one, is driven by the cost-of-living and inequality. Both of which the hard-right are exploiting by weaponizing immigration.

 

‘their policies are uncosted unrealistic and simply nasty’

 

Unfortunately, with our electoral system, Reform, who currently poll around 35%, could win a majority.

In his speech, Davey repeated this several times: “Trump’s America. Don’t let it become Farage’s Britain.”

Before we go, a quick look at what is proving a busy week for the president.

He has, allegedly, found “the answer to autism”: Tylenol, or, as we know it, paracetamol.

In an address to the UN, he used the opportunity to lecture everyone on what they were doing wrong.

European leaders should follow his example and embrace a blood-and-soil nationalism: “It’s time to end the failed experiment of open borders. You have to end it now … Your countries are going to hell.”

 

“It’s time to end the failed experiment of open borders. You have to end it now … Your countries are going to hell.”

 

London had “a terrible, terrible mayor, and it’s been changed, it’s been so changed”, adding: “Now they want to go to Sharia law.”

He has personally ended seven wars, whilst all the UN does is write strongly worded letters that it does not follow-up. Empty words, he said, did not end wars.

Climate change was “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world” and was lumbering European countries with expensive energy costs compared to fossil fuels.

The UK government was criticised for imposing new taxes on North Sea oil and told: “If you don’t get away from the green energy scam, your country is going to fail.”

Russia was dismissed as a “paper tiger” and not a “real military power.”

And of course, at home, the US was living through a golden age.

 

“Trump’s America. Don’t let it become Farage’s Britain.”

 

Trump’s speech appears to show his disquiet with recent global regulatory accords and international law, rather than post-1945 institutions, such as the UN, that the US can dominate. This explains why he hates the climate accords, and the EU, and why he wants to export his ideas to Europe and Britain, and therefore weakening these institutions.

His speech’s main theme was based on his enduring priorities of ending the threat to sovereign nations from migration and the green agenda. This is likely to have continuing repercussions in the domestic politics of Europe, and, because our supposed special relationship, on British politics.

This, perhaps, explains why, in his speech, we were picked-on to a greater extent than China, Russia and North Korea. We were attacked over migration, international law, renewable energy, North Sea oil and the recognition of Palestine.

It’s hard to know whether we are now friend or foe.

Ed’s right: “Trump’s America. Don’t let it become Farage’s Britain.”

 

 

“You and I had to be the standing joke of the year”

 

This week has been interesting for a number of reasons.

Reform continues to hog the headlines with more policy proposals, each more extreme than the other. It feels like Farage is slowly revealing his overall agenda, and, as the population’s frustrations mount, exposing them to increasingly extreme proposals.

Farage is clearly hedging his bets when it comes to the US and Trump, doing just enough to try and hide the fact he is Donald’s bitch. This might well be his Achilles heel.

We are still awaiting any substantive push-back from the PM and government. I suspect there might be some tokenism, but little more.

With the exception of the health secretary, Wes Streeting’s comments, other members of the government have been uncomfortably silent over Trump’s absurd and racist criticism of the London Mayor.

The LibDems have clearly set -out their stool, anti-Farage, anti-Trump. This will play well in the south and likely see them capture some more seats from the Tories and Labour. It doesn’t stretch the imagination too far, to suggest they could have around 100-seats come the next election, which would likely see them holding the balance of power.

If they achieve this level of success the north-south divide will have added another facet to it, as populism further divides the nation.

We are seeing something similar in the US, and the whole thing looks increasingly unstable.

There are always shootings in the USA, but two, Charlie Kirk and yesterday’s in Texas, appear to be politically motivated. Trump, of course blames the extreme left, but, I do wonder if the hard-right are utilising a “strategy of tension” to create a situation where they can further clamp down on opposition?

Anyone who thinks that is far-fetched, should refer to America’s involvement in Italy’s anni di piombo, specifically the Bologna bombing.

Lyrically, we address the so-called special relationship and the ongoing love-in between Farage and Trump. We start with “Tainted Love” and end with “Say Hello, Wave Goodbye”, both by Soft Cell.

At least we can enjoy Donald’s more entertaining moments!

Philip.    

 

@coldwarsteve

 

 

Philip Gilbert is a city-based corporate financier, and former investment banker.

Philip is a great believer in meritocracy, and in the belief that if you want something enough you can make it happen. These beliefs were formed in his formative years, of the late 1970s and 80s

Click on the link to see all Brexit Bulletins: