On the sentences meted out, 45% believed the severity was about right versus 27% who thought they were too lenient and 16% saying saying too harsh. What's interesting are the findings by voter intention. Labour, Lib Dem, and Tory voters are all more or less the same on 'not harsh enough' (27%, 27%, and 28% respectively), though there is more sympathy among the last saying they were "too harsh" (5%, 7%, and 20% - reflecting the ambiguity among the Tories themselves). But customers of Nigel Farage's Reform Ltd stand out a mile. Only 15% thought the penalties were not harsh enough, 29% "about right" (compared to the other parties' 58%, 57%, and 48%), but more than half - 51% - said the sentences were too much. This tallies with YouGov's earlier findings that 84% of Reform voters supported the idea of anti-immigration/anti-Muslim "protests", and 21% the violent disorder. Which seems at odds with right wing voters who generally like law and order. What gives?
Reform took votes from the Tories and allowed a slew of Labour and Lib Dem candidates slip through in July, but the bedrock of its support base, like the Brexit Party and UKIP before it, is somewhat different. Sociologically, Reform's voters are more male, whiter, and aged (though not quite as aged as the Tories) than the typical voter. Reform's strong political attractor is its authoritarianism, and not the flat tax/scrap the NHS drivel that passes for the party's political economy. People vote for it because it offers a certain aesthetics of politics that fetishises state violence as a "solution" to intractable "problems".
The political science literature on populist right and extreme right parties in Western Europe have all found similar features. Their supporters are more likely to have low to no trust in the prevailing political order, low to no trust in parties, and be sceptical about the efficacy of other institutions of state. One reason why they are attracted to 'great leader' personalities is because they offer a direct imaginary connection between the charismatic political figure, certain positions that are "not allowed" in the mainstream, and the (apparent) circumvention of the (lying, liberal) media, corrupt parties, and the other trappings of democracy. And those who find this politics most congenial are the petit bourgeoisie. As is well known, their lived existence could be snuffed out by the vagaries of the market, and are threatened by "unreasonable" wage demands, employees who don't pull their weight, and the costs demanded of businesses by local and national government. This makes for a very volatile force. They are predisposed to an authoritarian politics because it promises order and stability, as well as attacks on perceived sources of unease and threat. Of course, not all the petit bourgeoisie support populists but at their core this constituency is overrepresented.
What makes Reform's voters "special" is that this group was cultivated and persuaded to turn out for the Tories in 2019, and ever since Rishi Sunak tried desperately to keep them on side. It didn't work because, despite the populist messaging and posturing, the Tories didn't follow through with the brutal "solutions" their policies required. Rwanda didn't see the light of day. Setting aside the ECHR to deport refugees never happened. On these issues, which the Tories have relentlessly talked up with the aid of its press, they lost all credibility. Farage, however, has proved his outsider status by being the catalyst responsible for Britain's exit from the EU. He tells it like it is and has the track record to back this up.
Like all populist politicians, Farage is using "the people" against "the elites" for his own selfish ends, but pointing this out won't cut the mustard. Nor will Labour by appealing to these same people with its hard-on-immigration lines and aversion to confronting the racist right politically. It is, to be honest, pointless trying to win this constituency over. What is not is containing them. This requires taking on their arguments, debunking their myths, condemning Tory efforts to fish from these waters, and shifting politics away from issues that feeds the populist right's affected sense of injury. The chance Labour won't do this, seeing as it thinks everything will be fine if it delivers on GDP and has an efficient refugee removals system. And that means, as always, that it falls to anti-fascists, the labour movement, and others to do the job the Labour Party is unable and unwilling to do.
Image Credit
6 comments:
> Which seems at odds with right wing voters who generally like law and order. What gives?
Ok, sarcasm and all, but come ON, now.
Of course they only like law and order when they expect it to favour themselves.
And they'd level the exact same charge against us, with some justification. We nod with approval when the state does its job (according to what WE think it should be doing) and puts racist thugs away. When the throwbacks briefly think they have the upper hand and try to take over, folks like us become very pro law and order!
The difference is that our politics doesn't have performative sucking up to the forces, and trying to convince them that they should favour us, as one of its central pillars. For better or worse. In this country at least I believe that the forces aren't generally fooled by the act, but reportedly at least one very important branch is stubbornly rotten with members who are drawn from the same cesspool as Reform voters. I also notice that the throwbacks are being quite consistently strident in blaming their imaginary "two-tier policing" woes entirely on Starmer and Labour, NOT on the police themselves, nor even on the party that was in power for the last 14 years - who at least made the correct noises to make them feel like the country was run by people of their own wretched type.
Reformists and statists might think the capitalist state should be doing things it will only ever do in the interests of capital, but Marxists certainly do not, and never have.
It is why the central plank of all Marxist positions on fighting fascism has been "No To State Bans". On every occasion, it has ultimately been been the organised working-class that has kicked the fascists off the streets, not the capitalist state, and its armed men.
Starmer has used the riots to justify his authoritarianism and Bonapartism, which represents a bigger threat to workers than a few hundred fascists. All of the stuff now coming out about banning hate speech, and extremist language, will be used against the Left, as Starmer has already done to great effect in utilising the false equation of Anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism, to close down debate, expel LP members, and limit criticism and protest against the genocide committed by the Zionist State in Palestine, and the support for it by Britain, and Zionists in Britain.
Not long ago I saw a meme on social media that called for Marx and Marxism to be banned because of its critique of capitalists, and of finance capital, which it similarly equated with meaning Jews. Ludicrous of course, but much of what currently passes, is no less ludicrous.
The amazing power of self pity. George Orwell nailed this is 1940:
[A photograph of] "Hitler in his early Brownshirts days. It is a pathetic, dog-like face, the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs. In a rather more manly way it reproduces the expression of innumerable pictures of Christ crucified, and there is little doubt that that is how Hitler sees himself.
https://carnegiecouncil-media.storage.googleapis.com/files/v18_i007-008_a010.pdf
«Like all populist politicians, Farage is using "the people" against "the elites" for his own»
This phrase contradicts itself: Farage is part of "the elites". As politics is the struggle of class interests there can be different class alliances and even among different factions (based on main assets or nationality) of the same class.
"Populism" since greek and roman (and probably earlier) times has been the alliance of a faction of the upper class with the lower classes against another faction of the elites. Here are some currently relevant combinations:
* Nationalist populism: nationalist business faction of the upper class in alliance with the lower class against the neoliberal alliance.
* Neoliberalism: alliance between the globalist finance faction of the upper class and the globalist rentier factions of the upper and middle class.
* Classic liberalism: globalist business faction of the upper class with the globalist professional faction of the middle class.
* Social-democracy ("left-wing populism"): progressive employed faction of the middle class with the lower class.
* Classic fascism: nationalist business faction of the upper class with the "petty bourgeoisie" faction of the lower upper class.
Gosh @Bliss, you do realise that our Phil is a Lecturer in Sociology and Course Director in Social Sciences, among other things? And he has written a book on the likely demise of the Tory party based on, one imagines, a fairly sophisticated understanding of the different groups in society and their politics? As such, it seems that he just have might worked out the Farage is part of what could be termed an Elite.
Presumably though, any government would be considered part of the elite, regardless of their proclaimed politics. So, by definition, all movements that get into power must be a combination of one faction of the elite with some other group(s). The fun part is in assigning names so that we can conveniently file them under suitably judgemental labels. From your list there doesn't seem to be a critical marxist intelligentsia with industrial workers combination, or a communitarian ecowarrior with rural peasantry combo. Shame. What about anticapitalist fundamentalists and parochial nationalist business elites? We could have lot of fun with these.
«he just have might worked out the Farage is part of what could be termed an Elite.»
A silly hallucination again: I did not write "Our blogger contradicts himself", but "This phrase contradicts itself", I made absolutely no comment on what our blogger thinks or on the list of of titles and publications of our blogger that support his authority. Why would he write a self-contradictory phrase that may or may not reflect his real understanding? I do not know, I just remarked that for me the *phrase* is self-contradictory.
«Presumably though, any government would be considered part of the elite, regardless of their proclaimed politics. So, by definition, all movements that get into power must be a combination of one faction of the elite with some other group(s).»
I think that definition is rather superficial and perhaps it is the result of little knowledge of the elites and the classes below them, because most of the government is upper-middle class people who are not part of the elites (Farage has become part of the elites not because of his roles as party leader or MP or TV commentator, but because he is now rather rich).
I think a much better understanding is this:
* The elites (the masters, the oligarchs) *rule* which is not the same as governing. Most indeed do not govern, even if in the past the english elites did personally participate in the government (for example Douglas-Home, MacMillan, Heseltine, Sainsbury), something that most USA elites did rather less often (except for the presidency like JFK or Bush or Trump; it is rarer for some like Rubin and Paulson to accept being mere heads of departments, but then they started as "trusties"). They set long-term strategies and "sponsor" their "trusties" to govern in their interest.
* Below the people who rule there are the people who *govern* and usually are not part of the ruling class, they merely execute the strategies of the ruling class. For example Starmer is not part of the elite, but rather works for the elite. Most people who govern are "trusties", not "principals"/"masters", some are members of the "petty bourgeoisie" but more merely upper-middle class (still largely part of the servant classes even if they are delegated some supervisory/foreman powers by the ruling class).
For a notable example Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind and the "cash for access" story shows that they were merely upper-middle class. Some people after government become members of the elites (for example Cheney, Clinton, Obama, Blair) as they go into "business" and get hugely rewarded.
* Then there are the people below those who govern, and they are those who *administer*. These are upper and lower middle class people, and mostly members of the servant classes too. For example most civil servants, even permanent under-secretaries of departments of state, at least officially.
«The fun part is in assigning names so that we can conveniently file them under suitably judgemental labels.»
That silly guy from Trier and even our titled and published blogger seem rather fond of doing like that, but I guess that you would like to teach them :-).
Post a Comment