The Right Wing War on the BBC

The resignations of Tim Davie, BBC Director General, and Deborah Turness, the corporation's Head of News was some unexpected Sunday news. The trigger, as if you didn't know, were accusations of bias and unfavourable editing of an edition of Panorama. 'Trump: A Second Chance?' was found by an internal review to have misled viewers after showing a clip that spliced together two parts of the speech Donald Trump gave to his supporters on 6th January, 2021 prior to their storming the Capitol. As James Ball rightly noted, while the actualité was off, the substance was true. Trump did rile up his rabble, and he did try to prevent the constitutional passing of the presidential office to Joe Biden. But the truth doesn't matter. The White House has been crossed and there had to be consequences. The departure of Davie and Turness was the price to be paid.

I've occasionally written about the BBC and the role it plays in British politics. The ideal of fact-based reporting, impartiality, and balance have always been values worth striving for. These are the chief props around which the corporation's illusio is draped. But like most official ideologies, these are for the little people - those who produce BBC programming, and those that consume them. As Tom Mills argued a while back, as an institution its leading cadres have always been clear which side the BBC is on. It cleaves to the state, is always guarded in its critical reporting, and takes its political coverage cue from the right wing press. Even though they're in such an advanced state of decay that their collective editorialising reaches niche as opposed to mass audiences.

Despite this, and having been led for the last five years by a close ally of the Tories, being overseen by committees of Tory appointees, and Turness's own efforts to skew news story selection to "win over" Reform supporters, the right in this country want to see the BBC destroyed. The media interests BBC news coverage does so much to emulate want an end to a non-commercial competitor. They want it gone so there's more eyeballs on their programming, more markets, and more opportunity to shape output through the pressure of advertising. They want to rid the airwaves of the idea of journalism, and reduce news coverage to the abysmal level of GB News-style propaganda. The BBC, like the NHS, also demonstrates that organisations based on state funding independent of markets can be successful. Which is anathema to the small-minded but hyper-class conscious elites that dominate this country's media production.

What now? There is an opportunity for the government here. The BBC Board will appoint the next Director General, and considering its present make up another establishment worthy with solid links to the right wing press and/or the Tories would be a likely pick. However, though the body is arm's length there are ways and means Keir Starmer and Lisa Nandy, as culture secretary, can engineer an outcome congenial to them. There are plenty of former Blairites orbiting around the consultation/CEO/directorship circuits available for the role. It is in their interests to have someone at the helm that would nudge the BBC's steering wheel away from amplifying right wing talking points and give the government a bit of a break. But as we've seen time and again, this Labour leadership's first instinct is to appease the right. In my view, Starmer is more likely to acquiesce to the appointment of another right winger than get anyone committed to the BBC as an institution. After all, giving in to what the oligarchs want is the grown up thing to do.

Image Credit

The Man Who Would Liquidate Labour

In the week, The Times published polling that suggested large number of Liberal Democrat and Green voters would be prepared to support Labour if they were the party best positioned to block Reform from winning a seat. 57% and 46% respectively, to be precise. Crazily, 39% of Lib Dems, 34% of Labour, and 19% of Greens would even vote Tory to keep Reform out. Something Nigel Farage would be grateful for as a lash up between the two is likely, considering the Tory adoption of outright racism, and Farage's new found love for the Tories' oligarch-friendly economics.

Of interest were comments from The Graun's political editor, Pippa Crerar. Reiterating one of Westminster's worst-kept secrets, she said that this polling backed up Morgan McSweeney's view. I.e. That people will vote Labour come what may to keep Farage out of office. The implication is clear. The political direction of the government doesn't need to change. "Even if they hate us, they hate Farage more," said Sweeney McMorgan, a close ally of the Prime Minister's chief of staff.

As recently noted, politically he's no nore a genius than most Labour MPs. He ran Liz Kendall's ill-fated Labour leadership push on a Blairite ticket that he thought would prove popular. And when the parliamentary party were despairing about whether they would ever get their control back, his clever-clever strategy was to build a leadership campaign based around lies. Not once did he offer a political justification, because like the milieu he sprung from he was incapable of doing so. He knew how to ban people from running as Labour candidates, once he had control of the party apparatus. He knew how to expel people. McSweeney also knows how to gloat publicly about what he's done. But win an argument? Do a politics? Not so much. That's why he bounced Keir Starmer into hiring Peter Mandelson, so he could ring up Washington and pick his brains when lies and and bullshit couldn't cut it.

McSweeney's fondness for it's us or Farage underlines his stupidity. This strategy worked so well for the Democrats in the US, and the SPD in Germany. And with Labour attacking its support base and driving them away to the likes of the Greens, there's no reason to believe the result here would be any different. If, for instance, you're a trans person, why would it matter to you whether the government denying you your rights and your health care are Labour or Reform? Or if your disability support is getting cut? Or if housing is out of your reach? Or if their stoking of racism is a matter of degree and not of kind?

None of this matters to Labour's leadership. Should the party get wiped out, a miserable, penurious fate of multiple directorships and nice executive jobs await. Nick Clegg-style options will be available to some of them. Even better from the standpoint of British capital, Starmer's disastrous leadership is on the verge of liquidating organised labour as a political force. Something worth a shower of damehoods, gongs, and knights garter.

The problem McSweeney has that he is willing to push this, but Labour MPs are less keen. They can see the polls. they can see the disintegration of Labour's base tracked in by-elections. They know from their own dire voter ID data the leadership's hubris has opened the door to their nemesis. And they also know that no party or Prime Minister has ever recovered from the terrible ratings that have been posted this year. They should remove Starmer, McSweeney, and this useless cabinet of the crooked, the criminal, and the crap if they want to stand a chance.

Baudrillard Vs Advertising and Fascism

Folks may or may not know that I'm currently reacquainting myself with the work of Jean Baudrillard as part of a research project around hegemonies/anti-hegemonies/counter-hegemonies. Having recently polished off his The Agony of Power, I've returned to Symbolic Exchange and Death - the ground zero for all his thoughts about simulation, the death of reality, and the end of the social. Not only am I getting on much better than when I first had a crack at it 25 years ago, it's proving itself to be a thoroughly enjoyable and relevant read.

Some remarks may come about the book in the near future, but for tonight I'm handing the reins over to the Acid Horizon comrades as they chew over and have a few laughs with Baudrillard's work.

Preserving the Wealthy

I doubt Rachel Reeves wanted to lecture the country on the state of the public finances over their cornflakes, so what she had to say must have been important. Right? Her curious little speech on Tuesday morning, flanked by sharply folded Union Jacks in the Downing Street media room, basically said tax rises are coming - without explicitly saying tax rises were coming. Her warning was coded under layers of "years of failure", "difficult circumstances", and "poor productivity". This matters because one of the promises Labour made in its otherwise throwaway manifesto was no taxes on "working people". A promise made, a promise about to be broken.

Contrary to what politicians think, most of the British are electorate are not mugs. They are also quite capable of listening to justifications for unpopular or painful policies, and accepting them if they believe there is no alternative and they trust the government of the day. So limbering up to break tax promises wouldn't automatically put a black mark against the Labour's name, provided most people thought they were doing an okay and competent job. Unfortunately for this government, this is far from where the public are.

On the mess Labour inherited, most people would agree the Tories made a hash of things. In the abstract some would even accept the "tough choices" Labour promised to get matters fixed, albeit that pledge had less to do with getting the economy chugging and was more about managing political expectations. What the public weren't and aren't prepared to accept were self-evidently cruel, stupid, and counter-productive decisions. For instance, in her Tuesday morning address Reeves rightly attacked the Tories for their austerity programme, which led to crumbling public services and sucking demand out of the economy. Yet isn't the latter what she did with her Winter Fuel nonsense, and what would have happened with her plans, now largely abandoned, to hammer disabled people? Labour's stubbornly catastrophic polling shows that, as far as the electorate are concerned, they have traded away their right to look serious, and no amount of grown up cosplay and wittering about fiscal rules will change their mind. Their minds look made up, and Labour inhabits the same political place of pain John Major did after Black Wednesday, Gordon Brown after the election-that-never-was, Boris Johnson during Partygate and Pinchergate, and Liz Truss following ... Liz Truss. That is until the party retires its leadership. Then it might claw its way back to prominence.

The other problem is that, just like the Tories that came before them, Labour is seemingly determined to make "working people" pay for the country's difficulties. Leaving aside the fiscal rules, even if state finances resembled household finances, there was no hint whatsoever that Reeves was preparing to make further inroads into wealth. Be it propertied, sitting idly offshore, zipping through the City's speculative circuits, or materialising as dividends or rents. She might want to raise tax receipts to "modernise" the state, but at base what her speech previewed was a scheme for preserving the exact same class relations that exercised Nigel Farage's foray into economics.

Image Credit

Nigel Farage's Tory Economics

That Nigel Farage, he's proven himself a dab hand at politics. Having replaced the Conservatives as the main party of the right, at least in the opinion polls, he said he was coming for Labour. And a number's been done on them too. Their figures are the worst ever while Keir Starmer's personal ratings sit somewhere between Liz Truss's and Vladimir Putin's. Even more unbelievably, it's only recently that the very clever politics brains the Prime Minister employs have come to the conclusion that challenging Farage's politics might be a good idea. Having spent the last few years caving to his framing. The result? Farage riding high on a bubble of popular support. Sure, Reform are stealing a march on the politics of anti-immigration and race, but can they convince as many people that they - the party that successfully defended the sovereignty of sterling - care about the pounds in their pockets?

It's telling, but not surprising that the champion of Brexit chose the City as the venue for his big economics speech. The symbolism will not be lost on the oligarchs who are now assessing Farage's suitability as the political custodian of their interests. And it's these people, not the downtrodden little men that comprise his usual audience, he wanted to address. The most eye-catching item in his list of promises was not the rowing back of the ridiculous tax cuts promised previously ("they were only ever aspirations"), but his desire to put the screws on young people. "The minimum wage is too high", and poor businesses are suffering. Cutting it would boost aspiration. Either that, or employers' National Insurance Contributions should be cut by lifting the cap at which they should be paid. It's a good job Reform's imaginary army of enthusiastic young people are imaginary, otherwise they would be in the process of evaporating.

Farage said he would abolish George Osborne's - and now Labour's child benefit cap. But only for British nationals, and only if both parents were working. In other words, those most in need would lose out. He also wouldn't be drawn on whether to keep the triple lock on pensions, which usually indicates that yes, they are thinking of tinkering with it in some way. A reminder that the state pension here is still weaker than it is in Ireland, Germany, France, Denmark, etc despite the upratings the lock has delivered these last 15 years. While we're on pensions, having consumed many a Telegraph editorial, Farage thinks he can clamp down on spending by attacking the "gold plated" schemes public sector workers apparently enjoy. Also, disabilities are "over-diagnosed", so more penny pinching and cruelty is being plotted against the most vulnerable people in our communities.

Gruel for the little people. But treats for the rich. The pledge to reverse Labour's land tax on the rural rich made the cut, as did a promise to abolish inheritance tax on family-owned businesses. He argued that Britain operates a punitive tax regime that drives successful people abroad. Out of the ether, he pulled the example of £100k/year "young professionals" leaving these shores. He knew none of his adoring stenographers would ask him how those fleeing abroad would take those jobs with them. There were the ritual assaults on net zero, and he took aim at diversity and inclusion policies. Recalling his time as a metals trader during the 1980s, he said no one cared about race, religion, or gender on the famously diverse commodities floor. There were, after all, blond white men, bald white men, dark haired white men.

What is striking about his speech is the dropping of anything approaching the populism, however you define it. Farage has made a solemn vow that regardless of the rhetoric and the chaos, he has no plans whatsoever to reshape Britain's political economy. Which isn't a surprise, seeing as his party are as much affected by the crisis in mainstream politics as the rest. What he presented is pure and simple Tory economics, a programme openly dedicated not to driving GDP growth, increasing employment, and doing the things responsible helmsmen of British capitalism are supposed to do. This is the economics of strengthening class relations by throwing more people off social security and onto the job market without support, while driving down the wages and conditions of young people who subsist on the minimum wage. It's not difficult to work out who benefits from this. The political of Farage's economy also owes more to the miserly managerialism of Rishi Sunak than the bombast of fellow "populist" Boris Johnson. As per the last Tory government, Farage is promising a smaller state not to meet his ideological peccadilloes but to try and manage the politics. People demand less if the state is underfunded, run down, and barely works. For all intents and purposes, Farage has stolen the Conservatives' prospectus. Reform is set on becoming a Tory home from home.

At the same time, this leaves Farage vulnerable. We've seen in recent weeks that overt racism can damage Reform. Most of the public aren't on board with his anti-Net Zero drivel, and Farage's murky finances and penchant for Russian talking points are hanging round his neck like a 300lb albatross. This City speech is also a political liability, as he unambiguously paints which side he is on. And it's not the one most of his support think it is. Pathetically, both Labour and the Tories have attacked his plans as "unworkable" and spun a weave of boring, technocratic reasons why they won't work. But Farage has made himself uncharacteristically vulnerable by painting a target on his rather large weak spot. He's conceded populist ground where, should they choose, the Greens, the left, and the labour movement can have him.

Image Credit

Exiling Andrew

How was your week? It probably wasn't as bad as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's. Gone are his titles and honorifics, his position in the royal family, the imprimatur of the British establishment, and his 30-room grace-and-favour "lodge". He remains, for now, in the line of succession but the purge of Andrew is every bit as efficient as the deletion of problem DJs and celebrities of yesteryear from the BBC archive. All that remains is his vice-admiralty of the Royal Navy, and its days are numbered. According to the Sunday papers, a half-million pay off, an annual stipend from the King, and accommodation out of the public eye on the Sandringham estate is the shape of his exile. As crushing this is for him, there wouldn't be many people who would sniff at these spoils of disgrace.

It was oft-noted while the Queen was alive that she was ruthless in preserving the family firm, but this goes beyond her treatment of Diana, Sarah Ferguson, and the well-publicised fallings outs and failed reconciliations with Prince Harry. Andrew, somewhat protected by his mother's most-favoured-son status is not so indulged by big brother. His sacking and disowning is almost on par with the expulsion of Edward VIII/the Duke of Windsor 90 years ago, though hopefully Andrew won't further embarrass his family by cosying up to fascists.

There has been unanimity between the King and the leaders of his most loyal political parties during Andrew's filleting. For Keir Starmer, being seen to back tough measures against Andrew will, he hopes, bury memories of Peter Mandelson and his unfortunate Jeffrey Epstein connections. And for Kemi Badenoch, the Tories still have to pretend their political standing matches their constitutional relevance. More importantly, they are one because Andrew's relationship to Epstein and the harrowing allegations levied by Virginia Giuffre was a blot on an institution already on the skids, and further embarrassments were likely. There have been lurid stories about Andrew's sexual escapades while working as an overseas trade envoy, dodgy business transactions, and unhelpful questions over his murky income arrangements. And there is the drip, drip of further revelations. Like uncomfortable emails, and more secrets ready to spill from the Epstein files.

The King was not prepared to tough any of this out, and so for the family's greater legitimacy much water needed putting between the royal household and Andrew. The thoroughness of the break is demonstrative of Charles III's seriousness of purpose. Getting pictured with an alleged sex offender at family gatherings or on the palace balcony would tarnish by association, and raise questions about how much the King and golden boy Prince William knew, and when. Likewise, for the mainstream parties, with their reputation and political roles in abject crisis, there was no question of them not rallying around the crown and endorsing the King's tough measures.

What does this unwelcome episode for our sovereign tell us? That, unlike his Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, he is aware of the monarchy's precarity and has a firm grasp on public opinion. Certainly more so than dear m'ma. But this is an institution in retreat. Defending it by offloading a liability is quite easy, if personally painful. The challenge is winning over new support and securing the future. An altogether much harder task.

Image Credit

Local Council By-Elections October 2025

This month saw 79,149 votes cast in 35 local authority contests. All percentages are rounded to the nearest single decimal place. 24(!) council seats changed hands. For comparison with September's results, see here.

Party	Number of Candidates	Total Vote	%	+/- Sep	+/- Oct 24	Avge/ Contest	+/- Seats
Conservative	37	12,544	15.8%	+0.5	-11.6	339	-6
Labour	30	9,904	12.5%	-1.9	-9.9	330	-6
Lib Dem	36	19,722	24.9%	+8.7	+3.7	548	+8
Reform	37	23,414	29.6%	+3.7	+24.2	633	+10
Green	29	6,336	8.0%	-5.7	-3.0	218	-1
SNP*	2	1,598	2.0%	+0.4	-2.0	799	0
PC**	0						0
Ind***	25	3,940	5.0%	-4.5	+0.1	158	-5
Other****	7	1,691	2.1%	+1.3	-0.2	242	0

* There were two by-elections in Scotland
** There were no by-elections in Wales
*** There were six Independent clashes
**** Others this month were Caterham Residents (131), Guildford Residents (565), Heritage Party (97), Our West Lancashire (704), Rejoin EU (81), Tunbridge Wells Alliance (105), TUSC (8)

Congratulations to the Labour Party. This is the first time since last November that they didn't come bottom of the month's contest. Instead, they got to share that ignominy with the Conservatives. Losing six seats apiece, Reform and the Liberal Democrats surged. The former the catch-all protest party, as heavily trailed by the media. The latter, it seems, tha catch-all tactical choice to keep Reform from winning.

October was also notable because for the third time ever, Reform lost a seat defence. The Lib Dems scooped one up from them in Bromsgrove. But before there are any celebrations, the yellow party dropped one to them near Ipswich. No sign of the tide going out for Reform yet, despite its well-publicised difficulties in local government.

Is November likely to tell a different story? It's possible the Tories could do worse than Labour, but things being as they are this month will look like last month, and all the months of the past year.

2 October
Brentwood, Hutton South, Ref gain from Con
Cheshire West & Chester, Strawberry, Lab hold
Isle of Wight, Lake North, Ref hold
Maidstone, Harrietsham Lenham & North Downs, Ref gain from Ind x3
Wigan, Wigan Central, Ref gain from Lab

8 October
Hart, Yateley West, LDem hold

9 October
Bath & North East Somerset, Widcombe & Lyncombe, LDem hold
North Northamptonshire, Lloyds & Corby Village, Ref hold
Redcar & Cleveland, Skelton East, Ref gain from Con
Teignbridge, Kenn Valley, LDem gain from Con
West Lancashire, Aughton & Holborn, Oth gain from Lab
Wychavon, Bretforton & Offerton, Ref gain from Con

16 October
Babergh, Copdock & Washbrook, Ref gain from LDem
Preston, Ashton, LDem gain from Lab
Reigate & Banstead, Meadvale & St John's, LDem hold
South Ayrshire, Ayr North, Ind gain from SNP
Spelthorne, Staines, LDem gain from Grn
Surrey, Camberley West, LDem gain from Con
Surrey, Caterham Valley, LDem hold
Surrey, Guildford South East, LDem gain from Oth
Tandridge, Whyteleafe, LDem hold
Trafford, Broadheath, Con gain from Lab

23 October
Birmingham, Moseley, LDem gain from Lab
Colchester, New Town & Christ Church, Lab hold
Fenland, Whittlesey North West, Con hold
Portsmouth, Paulsgrove, Ref gain from Ind
Somerset, Dunster, LDem gain from Con
Somerset, Glastonbury, LDem hold
Torridge, Milton & Tamarside, LDem gain from Ind

30 October
Barnet, Hendon, Con hold
Stevenage, Roebuck, Ref gain from Lab
Stirling, Stirling East, SNP gain from Con
Thanet, Garlinge, Ref gain from Ind
Tunbridge Wells, St Johns, LDem hold
Worcestershire, Bromsgrove South, LDem gain from Ref

Image Credit

Five Most Popular Posts in October

Did you get mugged by costume-clad kids last night? Don't worry, I have some post-Halloween treats for you: what was hot in October as decided by the internet going public.

1. Uncovering Starmer's Fraudulent Politics
2. What about the Little Lenins?
3. What Happened to One Nation Conservatism?
4. Politics after Caerphilly
5. Racism and the Right

Coming out on top was my right up of Paul Holden's press conference about his new book, The Fraud. It contained detailed and evidenced claims about the dirty tricks and the law flouting that has attended Keir Starmer's rise to and leadership of Labour. Mr Rules indeed. Second was a meditation on the far left and what role for them in Your Party. I see from reports around the country that the SWP have shown themselves keen to run events themselves, up to and excluding others from any organising role. Even so, I still wouldn't favour banning them from the new party. In at three as my thinking about one nation conservatism, a philosophy and attitude long departed from the Tory party as it exists today. Four was the fall out of Labour's catastrophic loss of their Caerphilly seat for the Senedd. Are there any signs that they recognise the roots of their malaise? Nope. And coming up last is a foray into considerations around the shape of hegemony in Britain today. What does Sarah Pochin's racist "outburst" say about the state of elite politics?

The post selected for the second chance promo treatment is The Second Green Surge. Has Your Party missed the boat with dithering and infighting? What's powering the rapid growth of the Greens? Is it just because Zack Polanski is a dab hand at the social media?

The unwelcome intrusion of Covid meant I didn't write quite as much as I hoped in October. But for the first time in a long time, I'm feeling motivated - even if politics is still a bin fire. Bubbling under I've got more things I want to say about the Greens, about Your Party, and what's going on with the Labour Party. Is it too caught in the grip of a process of long-term decline just like the Tories? I want to throw down some more thoughts about the debates around hegemony/anti-hegemony, and something might appear about our old chum Jean Baudrillard. On top of that the usual commentary on events, dear boy will populate this blog. As ever, if you haven't already don't forget to follow the (very) occasional newsletter, and if you like what I do (and you're not skint), you can bung a few quid and help support the blog. Following me on Bluesky, Facebook, and for what it's worth, Twitter, are cost-free ways of showing your backing for this corner of the internet.

Image Credit

"Inadvertent Errors"

Poor Rachel Reeves, she cannot catch a break. In today's news, the chancellor is having to defend herself against dodging payments due to Southwark council for renting out her home. According to local rules, landlords have to purchase a £945 licence. When Reeves put her family home up for rent following the general election, she failed to cough up and - apparently - only found out she was liable after the Daily Mail did some digging. She said it was an inadvertent mistake, the government's ethics advisor concurs, and Keir Starmer said he has full confidence in her. In the facts presented, it does indeed appear that Reeves is free of blame. As the rental was handled by a lettings agent, they should be responsible for knowing the requirements and sorting out the levy. This has since been corroborated by their admission of error.

I have no sympathy for landlords, and especially landlords who happen to be a dishonest and incompetent chancellor. Finding out her family home was 200 miles from her Leeds constituency came as no surprise either. Even if there is no wrong doing and it is the agency who are at fault, it's not a good look. Especially when Angela Rayner was forced out for another "innocent mistake". It builds up the impression that this government are in it for themselves, that they break the rules everyone else is expected to abide by and only apologise when they get found out.

The problem Labour has is this is starting to look like a pattern. There is a marked contrast between this government and the flouting of conventions and rules that marked Boris Johnson's time in office. Yet the context of Reeves's error is not only a cabinet who help themselves to freebies, whether they're personal clothing allowances from Waheed Alli, or tickets for prestigious sporting events and pop concerts, they defended their right to accept these gifts. What is the point of the spoils of office if you can't spoil yourself in office? Reeves looks crooked because she and her peers have decided that being seen to be on the take isn't a problem. This blindness to how they're perceived is partly cluelessness, but is also symptomatic of the collapse of mainstream politics. And that means even if Reeves is completely exonerated, it adds to the troughing vibes surrounding this government and politicians generally. Something that the far right can capitalise on, but so can an insurgent green left populism.

Image Credit

Racism and the Right

Racist party in racism shocker. Reform MP Sarah Pochin has been forced to apologise after saying "it drives me mad when I see adverts full of black people, full of Asian people, full of anything other than white." Her non-apology partially withdrew her remarks, saying she wanted to say something about how unrepresentative adverts are. As far as the rest of mainstream politics was concerned, this was a straightforward racist outburst. Wes Streeting didn't mince his words, seeing as Labour have belatedly discovered that opposing racist arguments is a good thing. The Liberal Democrats have moved a Commons motion of censure against Pochin too. But more interesting were the remarks from Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary. Asked to respond, he said "It’s not language I would have used ... but we should acknowledge the public do have legitimate concerns about large-scale immigration and discussing that is certainly not racist." That Pochin was not talking about immigration suggests, at best, that Philp has a blind spot on racism.

It's hard not to conclude that the right are embracing racism in ways we haven't seen for years. The last Tory government certainly pursued racist policies. From Theresa May's hostile environment and victimisation of Windrush citizens, Rishi Sunak's Rwanda scheme, and the rubbish peddled by Suella Braverman, they sailed close to the wind of mainstream conventions but purposely had an element of plausible deniability. We aren't targeting black and brown people, our beef is with legal and illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. We have to control our borders, Britain is only a small island, and this have nothing to do with race. These pretences have evaporated. The repugnant Robert Jenrick can complain about not seeing any white faces during a trip to Handsworth. Nigel Farage can unveil plans for deporting everyone with indefinite leave to remain, while having a convicted racist hatemonger address his conference. The Tories have tried outbidding Reform, with the "rising star" Katie Lam calling for more deportations to make the country more "culturally coherent", which Kemi Badenoch has said is broadly in line with party policy. And then the Pochin/Philp nonsense.

There are a couple of popular theories circulating around online political chatter. The first is about Twitter, or what it has become. Under Elon Musk, it is an open sewer, a welcome home for neo-Nazis, Holocaust denial and antisemitism, anti-Muslim and anti-black racism. Musk has created a safe space where the far right are not just tolerated, they're coddled. The algorithm boosts their posts, and several times Musk has publicly intervened to promise that Grok, the AI chatbot he's forcing down users' throats, backs up and supports racist views of the world. Meanwhile, links to external sites have been downgraded, and the reach of left wing and even centrist views are algorithmically dampened. The theory goes that the right, and much of the political establishment for that matter, have remained on the site and treat it as they always have: as a window on the world. Because the far right have been normalised on the platform, political and media elites assume this is reflective of real life. With Reform topping the polls and immigration surging as a priority issue, these serve as secondary confirmations of this belief. Hence the overboard coverage and discourse here about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and the importation of many a trope and trick from Trumpland. Twitter brain makes them think overt racism is popular, that it has cut through.

The second is a consequence of the aforementioned immigration policies pushed by the Tories. The relentless scapegoating and dog whistling around refugees only has one place to go, and that's outright racism. Cut the crap and go for plain speaking. The racist rioters last year knew what they were about, and follow up remarks from the Tories showed they understood too. With Reform stealing the Conservative base from under the party's feet, going ever more extreme is the only way of holding the central components of their coalition together. This was aided and abetted by Labour too. Keir Starmer's critique of the Rwanda scheme was about cost and practicality. Nowhere did he or his front bench challenge the politics. Over this year, they've tried to look credible and failed utterly on small boat crossings while ratcheting up immigration controls. And we had the utterly shameful spectacle of Labour ministers refusing to criticise this summer's far right-organised protests against asylum seekers, saying they were sympathetic to their "genuine concerns". And they wonder why the Greens are surging. The consequence of this? Laying the ground work for open racism to flourish.

Both points have something to recommend them, and neither excludes the other. But I think they speak to something fundamental - a deep crisis in ruling class politics that goes beyond the decline of the Tories and the evaporation of Labour in office. Gramsci's celebrated discussions of hegemony were more than a question of securing popular consent for class rule. It was inseparable from providing leadership, of a tiny class and its allies generalising their particular interest as the universal interest, their class-bound outlook as the proper, commonsensical outlook. Their rule as the natural state of things. Generally this sits in the background, and only comes to the fore at moments of crisis. The post-war consensus, the compact between labour and capital to ensure the latter's continuation was refracted through Labourism and one nation Conservatism and helped pacify the radical mood following the war. The class battles of the 1970s and the ruling class "solution" of Thatcherism was another. Though not at the same level, New Labour emitted sub-intellectual hogwash about the third way that gestured toward political leadership, as did the Tories of the coalition years with their Big Society hand waving, and after them May with her talk about the burning injustices, and Boris Johnson with the mashing together of Brexit and "levelling up". When Liz Truss induced a crisis in public finances, it was simply introduced as a measure that would straightforwardly favour the wealthiest. Sunak abandoned this, but retreated from offering leadership as he tried keeping his government on an even keel. And Labour? As Starmer has retreated from his leadership pledges, he's also drawn back from those aspects of his platform that might have laid the foundations of a new hegemony. The devolution agenda, green energy, expansive workers' rights, all have been toned down. And what do we have instead? Breakfast clubs, AI boosterism, arms for a genocide, and blandly technocratic statements about economic growth.

This is a problem, because their system is beset by trouble. The old way of governing is in crisis, it is not delivering the goods, and their traditional political agents find their legitimacy collapsing. Labour is an ideas-free zone, and their effort to rest their appeal on "delivery", as if voting is a simple question of customer satisfaction, is doomed. There is no sign from within that they're capable of providing the leadership this moment if crisis requires, either for their own electoral wellbeing, for sustaining class relations, nor providing initiatives for gaining popular consent for the persistence of this state of affairs. They're relying on social inertia to keep things going.

The same applies to the right. Strip Reform of its racist programme and what does it offer? Is there any sense of giving Britons their sense of self-respect? Of rebuilding a country of community and belonging? Of a policy agenda that might restore the country to the land of nostalgic fancy? No. Theirs would be a straightforward rule of oligarchical interests just like Trump's America. A hellhole of roving deportation gangs, crude and racist public discourse, shuttered cultural institutions, and a hobbled politics. The Tory programme, at this stage, is identical. It too is stripped back, the bones of the class relations they uphold visible through paper thin skin. Because the starting point of right wing politics is dishonesty, of presenting the elite interest as the general interest, central to these politics across time and space has been division, of preying on existing divisions or generating them where they haven't previously existed. The latter does require some political nous to identify and articulate new out-groups, which is what the press is for in this country. But the right are now so bereft of talent, so clapped out and lazy, that they turn to the basest forms of divide and rule transmitted and received from the past. Again, Trump is the model and the possible future. A racist administration largely unconcerned with popular concerns as they trough on state coffers, lock up Americans, and erode democratic norms and mechanisms of accountability, such as they exist. And for what? there's no sense of historic mission, just a grab-what-you-can while they can before multiple crises get so bad that they either cannot get away with this any longer, or what they're doing becomes impossible. This is where the recrudescence of racism on the right comes from, a class project butting up against its limits without any obvious way forward. Faced with the end, this has encouraged the opposite of thinking, the opposite of leadership. All that's left is an opportunity for one more round of looting, and collective stupefaction. The right's re-embrace of racism is a morbid symptom, and one that cannot abate.

Image Credit