UK a 'powder keg' for more summer riots due to dangerous 'doom loop' warning
The UK is a "powder keg" at risk of more violence like the riots that broke out last summer, an alarming report published today(TUE) warns.
A "doom loop" of inaction and lack of social contact has left the UK deeply divided and mistrustful, researchers found. Former Tory Home Secretary Sir Sajid Javid said the UK is "sitting on a tinderbox of disconnection and division".
The report, The State of Us, found the mismanagement of immigration, the cost of living and online extremism - alongside growing mistrust in government and rising equality - cannot be ignored. It said that a year on from the violence last summer, fuelled by misinformation about the Southport murders, these issues remain unaddressed.
Jake Puddle, senior researcher at British Future, who led the research, said: 'We are facing a long, hot summer, with a powder keg of tensions left largely unaddressed from last year that could easily ignite once again. People are unhappy about their standard of living and the state of their local area, and don't trust politicians to sort it out."
The document warns that too little has been done to bring communities together. In a stark foreward to the report, Sir Sajid and former Labour MP John Cruddas wrote: "These forces are converging into something altogether more dangerous - leaving the UK sitting on a tinderbox of disconnection and division."
READ MORE: Keir Starmer to have secretive catch-up with Donald Trump during Scotland golfing holiday
The report found that 15million people say they never or rarely meet people from different backgrounds. A further 30% say they do not meet people in their local communities.
Mr Puddle said: "Public concerns about immigration and asylum can also be a flashpoint. That's only made worse when people have little contact with new arrivals, where public voices exacerbate division, and where governments fail to support or consult communities in their plans for asylum accommodation.'
People are more exposed to online hatred through social media, the report stated. Last year violent thugs attacked hotels housing asylum seekers as unrest spread across the country following the murder of three young girls in Southport.
The report states: "The visible lack of control in the Channel, along with tensions around accommodation sites and a highly polarised political debate, has contributed to more negative views on asylum. This is exacerbated by a heated media and online debate, along with limited opportunities for people to meet and interact with new arrivals."
Sir Sajid and Mr Cruddas said there is hope, however - saying the UK's local pride and commitment to fairness makes it "better placed than many other countries to weather the storm". The pair are co-chairs of the new Independent Commission on Community and Cohesion, which is looking at ways to tackle tensions and prejudice.
The study found 69% of people believe their local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together. Kelly Fowler, chief executive of the Belong Network, one of the organisations behind the study, said: "Good work is happening across the UK on cohesion and community strength, but it is patchy and often confined to areas of high diversity or where tensions have spilled over into unrest.
"A lack of sustained funding limits its impact. It's time this issue was treated with the urgency it merits, in every part of Britain. We must not wait for more riots to happen.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
35 minutes ago
- New Statesman
The Tories are responsible for the Afghan resettlement fiasco
It is difficult to fully get one's head around revelations of the super-injunction preventing the public – and MPs – from discovering that a data-breach in early 2022 put tens of thousand of Afghan lives at risk from the Taliban. Both the scale of the debacle – a spreadsheet full of highly sensitive data accidentally sent by an unnamed 'defence official' to the wrong recipients – and the scale of the cover-up, in the form of an unprecedented two-year super-injunction and a secret resettlement scheme with a price-tag in the billions, are jaw-dropping. After the court order was lifted at noon, Defence Secretary John Healey made a statement to the commons – and you could see the shock on the faces of MPs across the House. The unanswered questions kept coming. Which individual was responsible? Were they still in their post? Was £7bn really earmarked for the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR) to safely resettle those affected by the leak? And could the government confirm that any Afghan who had assisted the British armed forces and was therefore in danger had been or could be rescued and repatriated to the UK? It is the job of a minister to fend off these sorts of challenging questions – and on issues of life and death where there has been a government failure of this magnitude, such scrutiny is vital. But watching Healey in the spotlight, it was hard not to feel a touch of sympathy for him – and for the Labour government thrown once more into a tailspin just a week before the summer recess. This is not a crisis of Labour's making. The data leak occurred in February 2022, when Boris Johnson was Prime Minister. It has been reported that the government only learned of the breach in August 2023, when Rishi Sunak was at the helm. The super-injunction was requested when Grant Shapps was Defence Secretary; the resettlement scheme covertly planned out during the Foreign Secretary tenures of James Cleverly and David Cameron. And yet it is Keir Starmer and John Healey holding this long-unexploded grenade at the crucial moment when it has blown up. The Labour government is not devoid of culpability. Despite Healey's insistence in the chamber today that 'No government wishes to withhold information from the British public, from parliamentarians or the press in this manner,' under his watch the MoD continued to do just that, by requesting that the super-injunction remain in place. It was only abandoned after an independent review into the dangers involved concluded not just that the risks had diminished but that the insistence on secrecy could in fact have made them worse. The government also chose to push ahead with the resettlement scheme drawn up by the Tories, with Rachel Reeves signing it off in October. Different choices were presumably available (although they would have come with their own risks and consequences). Yet amid all the justifiable horror and outrage, it should not be forgotten that this was a scandal that occurred during a Conservative government, that has now landed on Labour's desk to clean up. Healey told the House today that, as shadow defence secretary, he was informed of the resettlement scheme and issued with the super-injunction in December 2023, but that 'other members of the present cabinet were only informed of the evidence of the data breach, the operation of the ARR and the existence of super-injunction on taking office after the general election', at which time the scheme was fully established. As he spoke, Luke Pollard, the parliamentary under-secretary of state for the armed forces who was sitting beside him, started nodding vigorously, his eyes wide in memory of that a meeting that must have seemed utterly beyond belief to a new minister. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe This is the latest in a long line of time-bombs inherited from the Tories – hidden traps the new government has stumbled into that began years ago only came into the spotlight after the election. In addition to the state of the public finances (over which the parties are still squabbling), we can add: the over-crowded prisons that threatened to overflow weeks after the election, the crisis in Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) funding, the fall-out from the decades-long grooming gangs. Then there are all the compensation schemes for historic injustices, from the Post Office to infected blood – consequences of governments long-gone, the can for which was kicked into the future by a line of ministers hoping it would be someone else's problem by the time the public demanded actions. Every time the government hopes to have won itself some breathing room, a new landmine goes off. Today, Healey offered in sombre tones his 'sincere apology' to all those whose information was compromised. The shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge, a defence minister when the super-injunction was first requested and the resettlement scheme planned, added his own apology to those affected. The Conservatives will not be opposing the government's decision to conclude the ARR. But the fall-out from this catastrophic failure – the costs of the scheme and of the lawsuit already in the works, to say nothing of the revelations that may emerge if it transpires deaths occurred due to the breach – will be Labour's to manage. And the blame if it is mismanaged in any way will be laid firmly at Labour's door. [Further reading: A glimpse of the Taliban at work] Related
Daily Mirror
38 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Sex chatbots show danger AI could be used to plan terror attacks, watchdog warns
In his annual report Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said the popularity of sex-chatbots should serve as a warning to counter-terror chiefs Terrorists will use AI to plan atrocities with "chatbot radicalisation", a counter-terror watchdog has warned. Jonathan Hall KC said artiticial intelligence could be used for propaganda, attack planning and spreading disinformation which may trigger acts violence. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation said new laws may be needed to ban software designed to stir up racial or religious hatred. Mr Hall said terrorist chatbots already exist "presented as fun and satirical models". In his annual report he said: "The popularity of sex-chatbots is a warning that terrorist chatbots could provide a new radicalisation dynamic, with all the legal difficulties that follow in pinning liability on machines and their creators." The report pointed to the case of Jaswant Singh Chail, who climbed into the grounds of Windsor Castle in 2021 armed with a crossbow. He had conversed with a chatbot called Sarai about planning the attack. More widely, Mr Hall said "generative artificial intelligence's ability to create text, images and sounds will be exploited by terrorists". It comes as MPs were told that identifying extremists from their online activity is "not an exact art". Robin Simcox, the UK's Commissioner for Countering Extremism, said the internet gives an "unbelievable boon" to terror groups. But he told members of the Home Affairs Select Committee that the internet is "not the only show in town" - with many radicalised by a combination of online and offline influences. Lord David Anderson, Interim Commissioner of the Prevent programme - which counters the threat of extremism - said that that the average age of those referred is now 16. Lord Anderson, who will today(WED) publish a long-awaited report into Prevent's effectiveness, said 40% of referrals are aged 11 to 15. This will examine the cases of Southport killer Axel Rudakabana and Ali Harbi Ali, who murdered Tory MP David Amess in 2021. He told MPs his report will look at changes made to the Prevent programme in light of the horrific violence by perpetrators who had previously been referred.
The Guardian
41 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Send parents are not ‘gaming the system' Letters
I usually enjoy John Crace's frank views and commentary, but was stopped in my tracks when he said the bill for special educational needs and disabilities (Send) provision was rising 'thanks both to better diagnosis and to some parents gaming the system' (Labour picks on kids as Farage reaches for his human punchbag, 7 July). Sadly, when the government is challenged as to why it is not providing thousands of children with an adequate education, it often resorts to victim-blaming, implying that parents are exaggerating their children's difficulties, and I'm astonished that John has regurgitated such nonsense. As the mother of an autistic child who needs a high level of care in his school environment, I have to fight tooth and nail every single year to prove that he still has high needs and still requires specialist provision. This is true of many thousands of parents with children in the system. Does John really believe that there are parents in enough numbers who are successfully exaggerating their children's special educational needs and disabilities to have caused a notable increase in the bill for Send provision? Please. I ask him to do some research and instead ask why the government keeps letting these vulnerable children down before pointing the finger at parents who are simply fighting for their children to access education, the same as any other child deserves in the NolanEast Molesey, Surrey Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
