The conflicts that shape us
There is plenty of humour in the letters inbox, too. This week, I especially enjoyed Michael Henderson's note hailing the delights of Italian culture following Finn McRedmond's dispatch from Chianti last week. 'It is indeed a magnificent culture,' Michael wrote, before adding a delightfully controversial 'but' – there is always a but. When it comes to 'ale vs Sangiovese', as Michael put it, 'the English win every time'. By publishing these words, I fear I may have sparked a diplomatic incident. A letter of protest from the Italian ambassador is no doubt already winging its way to us. If so, perhaps I should provoke further – can we agree Cheddar is superior to Parmesan, and nicer on pasta? That cheese with fish is fine? And Marmite, of course, is king of all European condiments? I shall now assume the brace position under my desk.
Beyond such culinary disputes, readers have also urged a greater focus on class as the driving force of British politics. I agree, and hope in the coming weeks we will be able to do more on this subject. The very question of what constitutes the 'working class' today is a fascinating topic. I remember visiting Ohio in an attempt to understand why working-class auto workers were abandoning the Democratic Party for Donald Trump. Yet, when I visited their homes, I found many had often already retired with good pensions and no mortgage. Some even spent winters in their second homes in Florida. The very poor in the cities I visited were often African American, did not own their homes and were still voting Democrat. The story, as ever, was complicated.
I wonder whether it is fair to assume the university-educated children of middle England inherit their parents' class, even if they do not own assets, cannot conceive of ever doing so and, as Marx might have put it, sell their labour for increasingly poor wages. Are they middle class or part of a new working class? One thing is clear: the lure of a new left-wing party under Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana is strong for this cohort, who should not be ignored – a point made by Jason Cowley in his Diary.
The main subject of this week's magazine, however, is the growing sense of unease in the country as we head into the depths of summer. As George Eaton writes, there is now real concern in Westminster at the continuing strike action over NHS pay, mounting fiscal pressure on the government and the spreading protests over so-called asylum hotels. I said when I became editor that I wanted the New Statesman to cover difficult topics like these with old-fashioned reportage – doing the hard work of travelling the country and talking to people. That is exactly what Anoosh Chakelian has done this week, visiting Diss in Norfolk and Epping in Essex to understand what is happening and why. As ever, her reporting is first-rate: thoughtful, compassionate and illuminating. I urge you to read it. Sitting alongside this is another piece of excellent writing from our new culture editor, Tanjil Rashid, who argues that the government must be prepared to have difficult conversations if resolution and integration are to be reached.
Elsewhere, Will Lloyd meets a man still searching for justice after the Battle of Orgreave, Freddie Hayward details the continuing radicalisation of the Maga movement in Washington and Will Dunn offers a painfully funny – and at times just plain painful – account of King-Emperor Donald Trump's bizarre visit to Scotland. I hope you enjoy it. If you don't, the Correspondence page is all yours. Oh, and here's one for Finn: a pint of Theakston's beats a pint of Guinness. And now I'm back under my desk.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Related
This article appears in the 30 Jul 2025 issue of the New Statesman, Summer of Discontent
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Palestine Action ban coupled with Online Safety Act ‘a threat to public debate'
The Online Safety Act together with the proscription of Palestine Action could result in platforms censoring Palestinian-related content, human rights organisations have warned. Open Rights Group, Index on Censorship and others have written to Ofcom calling on it to provide clear guidance to platforms on distinguishing lawful expression from content deemed to be in support of terrorism. They say failure to act by the regulator act risks misidentification – including through algorithms – of support for Palestine as support for Palestine Action, which on 5 July became the first direct action protest group to be banned under UK anti-terrorism laws. It also runs the risk of misidentifying objections to Palestine Action's proscription as unlawful support for the group, the signatories claim. Sara Chitseko, a pre-crime programme manager at Open Rights Group, said: 'Crucial public debate about Gaza is being threatened by vague, overly broad laws that could lead to content about Palestine being removed or hidden online. There's also a real danger that people will start self-censoring, worried they might be breaking the law just by sharing or liking posts related to Palestine and non-violent direct action. 'This is a serious attack on freedom of expression and the right to protest in the UK. We need to ensure that people can share content about Palestine online with being afraid that they will be characterised as supportive of terrorism.' The organisations' concerns are exacerbated by Ofcom's advice that platforms can avoid worrying about their duties under the Online Safety Act (OSA) if they ensure they are more censorious than the act requires. 'This approach risks encouraging automated moderation that disproportionately affects political speech, particularly from marginalised communities, including Palestinian voices,' the letter says. Unlike in the EU, there is no independent mechanism for people in the UK to challenge content they feel has been wrongly taken down. The signatories want platforms – the letter has also been sent to Meta, Alphabet, X and ByteDance – to commit to an independent dispute mechanism, if evidence emerges of lawful speech being suppressed. The letter, also signed by Electronic Frontier Foundation in the US and organisations from eight European countries, as well as experts and academics, says: 'We are concerned that the proscription of Palestine Action may result in an escalation of platforms removing content, using algorithms to hide Palestine solidarity posts and leave individuals and those reporting on events vulnerable to surveillance or even criminalisation for simply sharing or liking content that references non-violent direct action. 'We are also concerned about what platforms understand by their legal duties regarding expressions of 'support' for Palestine Action.' The letter comes a week after the OSA's age-gating for 'adult' material came into effect, prompting fears about access to Palestine-related content. For example, Reddit users in the UK have to verify their age to access the Reddit sub r/israelexposed. Ella Jakubowska, the head of policy at EDRi in Brussels, said there would inevitably be suppression of 'critical voices, journalism and social movements around the world. The problem is worsened by automated content moderation systems, well known for over-removing content from Palestinian creators, in support of Black Lives Matter, about LGBTQI+ issues and more. 'It is very likely that in trying to comply with these requirements, platforms would unjustly remove content from people in the EU and other regions.' She said that would contravene laws such as the EU Digital Services Act, designed to strike a balance between keeping people safe online and freedom of expression. An Ofcom spokesperson said: 'We have provided detailed guidance to platforms about how to identify the particular types of illegal and harmful material prohibited or restricted by the act, including how to determine whether content may have been posted by a proscribed organisation. 'There is no requirement on companies to restrict legal content for adult users. In fact, they must carefully consider how they protect users' rights to freedom of expression while keeping people safe.' Meta, Alphabet, X and ByteDance were all approached for comment.
Daily Mirror
4 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Windrush hero trapped in limbo for 26 years finally allowed home to Britain
Windrush hero George Lee left Britain to teach in Poland for two years in 1997. When he tried to enter Britain, his visa was rejected. Now 26 years later, he's finally back home. When Windrush hero George Lee touched down at Birmingham Airport last week, it marked the end of 26 years in exile – and the close of yet another heartbreaking chapter in the Windrush Scandal. For 26 years, George has been trying to get back to the UK after going to teach in Poland for two years in 1997. When he left the country John Major was still Prime Minister, the country was reeling from 'mad cow disease' and Princess Diana was still alive. He has been unable to visit his mother or his brother's graves and has lost touch with his sisers. And he has never been able to access the state pension he is entitled to. "When you're in this position, every single morning when you wake up you have a wrench in your gut," he says, speaking for the first time about his ordeal. "No matter how long it went on I had that feeling. It's about belonging nowhere. There's nothing you can do about it – your constitutional and human rights have been stripped away and that leaves you vulnerable. I started adopting Theresa May's epithet that I was a citizen of nowhere." Born a Commonwealth citizen in Kingston Jamaica, George was brought to the 'mother country' at the age of eight by his aunt, to start a new life in London. George spent 36 years in the UK before he went to Poland. He went to school here, got into grammar school, set up his own business, got married and eventually became a teacher, all in Britain. But after heading to Poland in 1997, he found himself locked out. He was told he'd need a special visa to re-enter the UK but when he tried to get it from the British embassy in Krakow he was refused. Instead, George, now 72, spent the next 26 years stuck in Poland. George is one of many Windrush heroes campaigners now believe may be trapped in third countries by Tory 'hostile environment' policies that endure long after Theresa May's government. Uncovered in 2017, the Windrush Scandal saw thousands like George – members of the 'Windrush Generation' who came here to build Britain – wrongly detained, deported and denied legal rights. Trapped in Poland, George made repeated attempts to access support. It was only when a Windrush campaign group heard about his plight that he was able to get help raising his case with the British Home Office. With their support, last week he finally made it home to the UK. "From the moment they refused to allow me to come home to the UK, everything changed," he says. "It's dehumanising, because you create a situation where people can't easily get a home, get a job… when you're in a third country that is hostile, that's very difficult. My landlord was terrible. I didn't have utilities for three months. There is no legislation that shows I'm not a British citizen. When I was 18, I was so proud of Great Britain, I would never have believed that the British government would do this to me. The British government took away our rights." He moved to Poland to take up a two-year contract teaching at a private English language school. "I got offered a job that I couldn't refuse," he explains. "I did really well, and got seconded to a university. When I decided to come back, I'd gone slightly over the two years I'd planned to be away, so I was told to go and get a visa for my re-entry back to the UK. But I went to the British Embassy, and they would not let me in the building." Desperate, he travelled to another Polish city, Warsaw, to try there. "I went to Warsaw and it was the same. I tested it by trying embassies in other places…Prague, Switzerland. I realised that any British embassy you go to, as a Windrush person, you always meet a block. I feel that when the British government were planning the Immigration Act 1971, they made the decision that they were going to get black people out of the United Kingdom. "That is the root of the scandal." George gave up. "I was resigned for many, many years. I was stuck." When he read about the emerging Windrush scandal, George hoped it might help. "It was a real knock when the Windrush scandal broke and I went back to the British Embassy, but they wouldn't let me in," he says. "They sent a Polish person out to see me on the pavement." Then, last year, George made contact with Bishop Desmond Jaddoo – chair of the Windrush National Organisation – who spoke to the Home Office on his behalf and started compiling evidence of George's life in the UK. "We are only just discovering people in these third countries – there will be more Georges," Bishop Desmond says. "The Immigration Act allowed people from the Commonwealth to go in to Europe and work which many people did. The problem was that then their status was called into question." Bishop Desmond's team were able to gather his school records, national insurance number, old passport and marriage certificate to build his case. "We were able to map his life from the day he arrived in the UK to when he went to Poland," he says. "No-one had bothered to look at George's case." Once they were made aware, Bishop Jaddoo says the Home Office was helpful, arranging George's flight home, temporary accommodation and to transport his few possessions. And the Labour government say the tide is turning with the appointment of senior pastor Reverend Clive Foster MBE as the first Windrush Commissioner – to fulfil a manifesto commitment to achieve justice for victims. A Home Office spokesperson said: "It is longstanding policy not to comment on individual cases. However, when this government arrived a year ago, it pledged to do things differently. For 77 years, the Windrush community has made an immense contribution to our country, weaving a vital thread in the fabric of British society. We have made a longstanding commitment to ensure victims of the Home Office Windrush scandal are heard, justice is sped up, and that the compensation scheme is run effectively." Since landing on British soil in Birmingham last week, George has begun the process of trying to access his state pension, find a GP and look for his two sisters. He also plans to visit his mum and younger brother's graves in north London. "I just want to get settled and I want to join the fight for our rights," George says. "I don't now have to work any more – which means I can spend my time trying to help others."
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Terror arrest over Palestine Action RAF attack
Counter-terrorism police have made a further arrest over an attack on two aircraft at an RAF base claimed by Palestine Action. A 22-year-old man, of no fixed abode, was arrested on Friday in Bedford on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, contrary to Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The arrested man is currently in police custody, Counter Terrorism Policing South added Two Voyager planes were damaged at RAF Brize Norton, Oxfordshire, on June 20. The action, which was claimed by the group Palestine Action, caused £7m worth of damage to the aircraft. Four people were charged last month in connection with the incident. The Government subsequently moved to proscribe the group under anti-terror laws after the group claimed responsibility for the action. The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, saying that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful'. However, Palestine Action's co-founder has since won a bid to bring a High Court challenge over the group's ban as a terror organisation. Lawyers for Huda Ammori asked a judge to allow her to bring the High Court challenge over the ban, describing it as an 'unlawful interference' with freedom of expression. In a decision on Wednesday, judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said two parts of the arguments on Ms Ammori's behalf were 'reasonably arguable' and would be heard at a three-day hearing in November. However, he later refused a bid to temporarily pause the ban on the direct action group until the outcome of the challenge. In his first ruling, he said it was arguable that the proscription 'amounts to a disproportionate interference' of Ms Ammori's rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. He said: 'That being so, the point will have to be determined at a substantive hearing and it would not be appropriate for me to say more now.' The judge continued that a second argument, that Ms Cooper failed to consult Palestine Action 'in breach of natural justice', could also go to a full hearing. Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'As a matter of principle, I consider that it is reasonably arguable that a duty to consult arose.' He continued: 'Having considered the evidence, I also consider it reasonably arguable that there was no compelling reason why consultation could not have been undertaken here.' The judge refused to allow Ms Ammori to challenge the Government's decision on several other grounds, including a claim that the Home Secretary failed to gather sufficient information on Palestine Action's activities or the impact of the proscription on people associated with it. He also refused the request for a temporary block, finding there was a 'powerful public interest' in the ban continuing and there was not a 'material change of circumstance' since a previous hearing. Following the first ruling, Ms Ammori said: 'This landmark decision to grant a judicial review which could see the Home Secretary's unlawful decision to ban Palestine Action quashed, demonstrates the significance of this case for freedoms of speech, expression and assembly and rights to natural justice in our country and the rule of law itself.' She continued: 'We will not stop defending fundamental rights to free speech and expression in our country and supporting Palestinian people against a genocide being livestreamed before our eyes.' Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, previously told the court at the hearing on July 21 that the ban had made the UK 'an international outlier' and was 'repugnant'. Mr Husain added: 'The decision to proscribe Palestine Action had the hallmarks of an authoritarian and blatant abuse of power.' The Home Office is defending the legal action. Sir James Eadie KC, for the department, said in written submissions that by causing serious damage to property, Palestine Action was 'squarely' within part of the terrorism laws used in proscription. Previously, Ben Watson KC, also for the Home Office, said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Sir James said that an 'exceptional case' would be needed for it to go to the High Court, rather than the POAC. Mr Justice Chamberlain said on Wednesday that a High Court challenge could take place in the autumn of this year, whereas an appeal to the specialist tribunal would take much longer. He said in a summary of his ruling: 'If it were necessary to appeal for deproscription, it is very unlikely that an application before POAC would be listed before the middle of 2026.' In his 18-page written judgment, Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'If the legality of the proscription order can properly be raised by way of defence to criminal proceedings, that would open up the spectre of different and possibly conflicting decisions on that issue in magistrates' courts across England and Wales or before different judges or juries in the Crown Court. 'That would be a recipe for chaos. 'To avoid it, there is a strong public interest in allowing the legality of the order to be determined authoritatively as soon as possible. The obvious way to do that is in judicial review proceedings.' The judge also said that people protesting in support of Palestine and Gaza, but not expressing support for Palestine Action, had 'attracted various kinds of police attention, from questioning to arrest'. He continued that it was 'important not to draw too much from the fact that police and others appear to have misunderstood the law on some occasions'. But he added: 'Nonetheless, reports of the kind of police conduct referred to… are liable to have a chilling effect on those wishing to express legitimate political views. 'This effect can properly be regarded as an indirect consequence of the proscription order.' Mr Justice Chamberlain later dismissed a bid by the Home Office to bring an appeal over his decision about the POAC. Sir Mark Rowley, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said on Wednesday that he understood Ms Cooper's decision, adding: 'As long as that's the law, we'll enforce the law rigorously, because supporting a terrorist organisation is a serious offence.'
