
Labour must confront the uncomfortable causes of immigration protests
Government officials, reports the Times, have warned the cabinet that Britain is 'fraying at the edges', after more protests outside of asylum hotels in Epping, Diss and now Canary Wharf (of all places). Angela Rayner is said to have told colleagues that immigration was having a 'profound impact on society', insisting the government needed to acknowledge 'real concerns' about rapid social change, twinned with a decaying economy.
Indeed, the way Tory and now Labour governments have up to now dealt with the asylum issue would only make sense if it were designed to generate social conflict. The brunt of the small-boats crisis has been borne by some of the most poverty-stricken communities in the UK, purely because the hotel rooms there are cheaper and the glare of the London-based media is miles away. Then, locals' fears about the violent and sexual crimes committed by some of the men who have arrived illegally and unvetted are ignored, up until the point they spark a protest. Or worse.
We've seen this time and time again. In Knowsley, in Merseyside, in February 2023; in Epping, now. A migrant is accused, or indeed charged, of sex crimes, leading to a protest, which then descends into mindless violence. In the case of Epping, the Ethiopian asylum seeker – whose arrest triggered last week's protests outside the Bell Hotel – was charged with three counts of sexual assault, one count of inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity and one count of harassment without violence. He'd racked up these offences after just eight days in the country.
The protests in Epping – a leafy, prosperous Essex market town, populated by the old East End working-class-done-good – show this is clearly not just about poverty, either. There is now a deep sense of unease bubbling across society, about an asylum and migration system that has become an affront to common sense and a menace to public safety. And those who haven't imbibed the metropolitan multiculturalist script, which insists we all ignore the evidence of our own eyes, are now increasingly emboldened to voice their opposition.
For a year, the government has refused to walk and chew gum at the same time on this issue. There is, of course, nothing that justifies the violence and racism we saw after Southport, or following otherwise peaceful protests since. Those on the right who cannot summon the minerals to condemn this bigotry, even when masked men are trying to push a flaming wheelie bin towards a Holiday Inn which has migrants inside, are engaging in their own form of moral cowardice. But only condemning this racism, or painting it all as some concerted 'far right' insurgency, as the government has, is clearly not enough, either.
Whatever else you might say about them, the peaceful protests outside of that hotel in Epping are clearly not mini BNP rallies. Even the mainstream media have begun to concede this, with Sky News noting that Sunday's big demonstration was made up of 'families sat on the grass, multigenerations of them, kids playing in the sunshine'. 'Residents are simply angry about events that have unfolded here in recent weeks.' In voxpops from the demos and the town, residents seem ever-keen to insist they are not 'far right' and condemn the troublemakers who have also, inevitably, shown up looking to clash with police, attack hotel staff and abuse migrants in the street.
By ignoring legitimate public anger, and the catastrophic policy failures that have produced it, the government has only created more space for those who want to leap on the asylum issue for their own despicable ends. The Labour government now has a choice. It can double down on decades of failed orthodoxies, while mumbling something about 'reasonable concerns', or it can rip them up those orthodoxies for the good of the country. Locking up rioters and condemning the uglier side of this unrest is the easy bit. Now is the time to end the mix of uncontrolled illegal immigration, govenment-compelled multiculturalism and official neglect of communities that has brought us to this precipice. Tough on riots, tough on the causes of riots.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Angela Rayner on lessons learned from Labour's first year
Pippa Crerar and Kiran Stacey speak to Angela Rayner about Labour's first year in government and the challenges ahead. The deputy prime minister reveals the issue that keeps her awake at night, reflects on why voters are frustrated with Labour, what she thinks the party can do about it, and how it's planning to take the fight to Reform

The National
an hour ago
- The National
It's hard to see new left party cutting through in Scotland
The first thing to say is that if it is able to break out of the factions and abbreviations which abound in the terrain to the left of Labour – and with 300,000 claimed sign-ups and a poll rating of 10% it just might – then it marks a very big change in socialist thinking. For more than a century, socialists who wanted to change capitalism have rubbed along in the Labour Party with those who just wanted a bit more from it. Now large sections of the Labour left look set to give up the ghost. For me, that ship sailed long ago. It's more than two decades since I became convinced that using the powers that Scotland would get with political independence offered a much better prospect of changing the world than trying to reform a British state run by people still steeped in the mindset of empire. READ MORE: Man arrested for 'carrying a placard calling Donald Trump an offensive word' Nonetheless it's an important debate. The political character of England should matter greatly to Scotland and this new party might even play a role here. In one sense the Labour left has nowhere to go. Those now in control of the party have made it perfectly clear radical views are no longer welcome within it. They have been demonised and purged. Labour is manifesting every bit as much intolerance and authoritarianism in its internal structures as it does in government. But how did it come to this? A short time ago the Labour left had more power than at any point in the party's history. Corbyn was leader and commanded the considerable resources provided to the parliamentary opposition by the state. The left controlled the conference and the NEC. And the mobilisation of the grassroots through Momentum was impressive in its day. Yet within a few short years it had all evaporated. Corbyn and others left or were expelled, policy was abandoned wholesale, and the Labour conference would sing the national anthem with no visible dissent. It has been a remarkable transition both in speed and scale. In part this is because the Corbyn project failed abjectly (Image: Getty) in its own terms. Jeremy became leader by accident. And he wasn't very good at it. I watched for years in the House of Commons the breathtaking disloyalty of the right-wing Labour parliamentarians towards the Corbyn front bench. It was embarrassing. Never have I seen such hostility and hate between political parties, never mind within one. But no-one got suspended, or expelled or deselected. They were ignored, left alone to operate as a party within a party. Despite his strength in the wider party organisation, Corbyn never moved against his enemy within. Too naïve, or too nice. Either way, a fatal mistake. Corbyn also never got out of his silo, unwilling or incapable of moving beyond his natural support. He should have developed a narrative about Brexit or constitutional reform that would have galvanised a wider alliance which the left could lead. He didn't. Once defeated, his opponents lost no time in eradicating any possible legacy. These right-wing parliamentarians had been busy making plans. There were organised by a ruthless and clever Irishman called Morgan McSweeney under the banner Labour Together. McSweeney built a strategy for power inspired by Odysseus. Seeing the popularity of left policies in the party, and among the electorate, he argued for 'Corbynism without Corbyn'. But he needed someone to front it who couldn't immediately be outed as a right-wing hack. Step forward the hapless Keir Starmer. You'll cringe to look now at the ten-point platform McSweeney drew up for Starmer's leadership bid. Common ownership, higher income tax on top earners, improving welfare, and more. It worked at the time. Those Labour members who hadn't left after their leader fell lapped it up. Once in position, McSweeney and his acolytes didn't show any hesitation that might have come from wanting to be nice or fair. At breakneck speed and with ruthless efficiency they brushed aside anyone in their way, including many on the soft left, which they saw as a gateway for extremists. They won through deceit, but at the price of the party itself. Which is why we've got a new one. So, what does this mean for us? We've just got used to Scotland being a plurality in which six parties compete. Are we now to have seven? It's hard to see. Certainly, there's plenty of discontent within Labour ranks, but not nearly as much as in places like London. Besides, there's already plenty of options where the disenchanted could escape to. And across it all lies the independence question. Not really something you can avoid. Is it plausible, or possible, for a new party to say we're really radical and want a complete overhaul of the system, but we are agnostic on whether Scotland should be an independent country or remain in the UK? Especially when they would, by definition, be living proof of the failure of the latter option.

The National
an hour ago
- The National
John Swinney hints at rescue package to save Alexander Dennis jobs
The Scottish Government has today confirmed it is looking at a rescue package it thinks could save jobs at Alexander Dennis – but said details were being kept under wraps due to 'commercial sensitivity'. The firm has threatened to end its manufacturing operations in Scotland by closing its sites in Larbert and Falkirk, putting 400 jobs on the line. It is planning to centralise its operations in Scarborough, North Yorkshire. In a statement, Swinney indicated that a package of new work to keep jobs in Scotland was being explored. READ MORE: Protesters to slam SNP's £180,000 cash award to Donald Trump golf course He said: 'Scottish Ministers place the utmost importance on the presence of Alexander Dennis in Scotland and the retention of its highly skilled manufacturing workers. 'The Scottish Government has committed to exploring any and all viable options throughout the consultation period to allow the firm to retain its skilled employees and manufacturing and production facilities. 'While I cannot provide details due to commercial sensitivity at this time, I hope this update provides the workforce and local community with further assurance that the Scottish Government remains wholly committed to supporting the future of bus manufacturing in Scotland. 'We will undertake this work in tandem with every other short, medium and long-term opportunity we continue to explore in close collaboration with the company, Unite, GMB, Scottish Enterprise, Transport Scotland and the UK Government.' Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes is meeting unions GMB and Unite to discuss the proposal while [[Transport]] Secretary Fiona Hyslop attends a meeting of the UK Bus Manufacturing Expert Panel in London focusing on the future pipeline of zero-emission bus orders. READ MORE: Trans toilet rules 'may force Scottish museums to close' It was reported earlier this month that a consultation with the workforce on job losses would be extended for another fortnight to explore ways of keeping jobs in Scotland. There have also been proposals to put staff on a furlough scheme to retain jobs in Scotland before work on new orders came in. Unite's regional secretary for Scotland Derek Thomson previously told a Holyrood committee that the closure of Alexander Dennis's Scottish operations would be "catastrophic" for the local area. The threat of closure has already spilled into the Scottish economy, with Greenfold Systems Ltd, based in Dunfermline, Fife, closing because a major proportion of its operations were involved with the troubled bus firm. A total of 81 jobs were lost after the "loss of a major contract", administrators said. The threatened closure has become a major political issue, with Scottish Labour accusing the SNP of failing to do enough to support the firm. Anas Sarwar has repeatedly criticised John Swinney of having done "nothing" to save jobs, pointing out that the [[SNP]] were ordering "buses from China, instead of from Scotland". But it later emerged that in Labour-run Edinburgh, where the buses are municipally owned by the council, had not bought buses from Alexander Dennis in the last three years.