The cracks are showing for Labour
I must apologise to subscribers for my absence from Substack. I am prone to occasional bouts of writer’s block where I find it best to say nothing at all than reduce the overall standard. I do note, though, that I’m very far from alone in finding British politics wholly uninspiring. There’s a profound sense of gloom and tedium among all the pundits I know. We are a long way out from an election and there isn’t enough going on that we haven’t already dissected a thousand times.
This is one the reasons, I might venture, as to why British pundits invest so much energy in American elections. It fills a certain gap, and we have a tendency to focus on what is available to us. For my part, though, I tend to swerve American politics. It is often remarked that the left has a tendency to import American political fads, but the right is no better. While the left imports American academic dogma, the right indulges in the dross of American YouTube punditry.
As such, if I want in on all that (which I really don’t), then I need to cast an eye on the likes of Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes, among others. Only I’m not interested in that debate. Britain has distinct problems and a different political culture, and though broader geopolitics are downstream of American politics, we do ourselves a disservice to be absorbed by it.
As it happens, I have very little interest in British YouTubes either. Though I appear on quite a few, I find I can’t watch them at anything less than 1.75 speed because the information to waffle ratio leans toward waffle. Especially true if I’m talking. Oral transmission of complex ideas tends to be imprecise and can easily stray off the point.
That, though, didn’t stop me from a jolly down to Swindon to appear on Lotus Eaters, both for the daily podcast and a soon to be published long form interview with Firas Modad. While I do not indulge in American politics, Lotus Eaters most certainly does. In the podcast we discussed the New York mayoral election.
I have to admit, I was left a little out of my depth in that I am not given to the histrionics surrounding the victory of Zohran Mamdani. While he stood on a radical leftist platform, the US constitutional arrangements are as such that he is limited in what he can actually do - and regardless, it’s not really our problem.
The conclusion, though, was most pertinent. Mamdani’s victory is very much what happens when you swap out the native vote for foreigners. While there has always been fierce disagreement in American politics, until very recently, America remained a country built by white Europeans for white Europeans - and there was a common idea of what America was supposed to be. Now that there are no real controls one who can come into America and who can vote, there is a broader range of opinions on what America is supposed to be.
The point here is that this demographic swap-out changes the values of a country. This exposes the fundamental flaw in civic nationalism which maintains that values and identity are abstract to ethnicity. The Lotus Eaters chaps articulate this point in the podcast better than I have here, but I’m assuming you get the gist - otherwise you wouldn’t still be reading me. But again, we do not need to absorb ourselves in American politics to work this out. The rising sectarianism and the election of Islamist MPs puts us far ahead of the game. On that score, I don’t think we can afford to expend too much energy on American politics.
Bringing us all back down to earth this week, Shabana Mahmood has announced that Refugees will now be barred from bringing their families to the UK unless they can show that they are earning enough to pay for their upkeep without claiming benefits. She will end the current automatic right for successful asylum seekers to bring their spouses and children to the country, irrespective of their earnings. The changes, along with revisions to ILR, are aimed at making the UK a less attractive destination for illegal migrants, leading to reduced small boat crossings and asylum claims. Currently refugee status lasts for five years, after which people can apply for indefinite leave to remain or settled status. Mahmood wants to lengthen this to 20 years.
This is the first indication that anybody in Labour actually gets it. In a television interview Mahmood remarked that “The issue of illegal migration is tearing the country apart and I think we are in danger of losing public support for having an asylum system at all”.
While these are only marginal reforms, and it’s unclear if they are retroactive, or whether her Labour comrades will even allow her to implement them, it still sends the message that even a Muslim woman is tougher on immigration than the Tory party. Hard to see how they come back from this.
It will not, however, appease Reform voters, not least because there is no good reason to trust Labour - especially when Mahmood is also talking about opening up “safe and legal routes”. In any case, she is no closer to stopping the boats or curbing illegal immigration when migrants can operate in the black economy undetected. While Home Office raids last week illustrate the scale of the problem, the kind of local enforcement and surveillance we need simply isn’t there. Mahmood is setting herself up to fail - even if she is sincere.
We should, of course, note that the open borders blob isn’t going to go any easier on Mahmood. Unless these reforms are put down in primary legislation, she could face any number of legal challenges, further strengthening Reform’s case for a constitutional overhaul. It could very easily play into Reform’s hands. It could be even that Mahmood is reliant on Tory votes to make any of these changes which will further split the Labour party. That may be a reason why nothing happens at all and we find ourselves back at square one.
What is abundantly clear, is that this ailing government cannot endure another summer of endless dinghies and growing protests. There is already talk of ousting Starmer and we can safely assume that such speculation will intensify. It may even be that Mahmood’s proposed changes are a leadership bid, fancying herself for the role. If by some means she can make a dent in illegal immigration, while keeping some of the Muslim vote on side, she is a strong contender.
I’m unsure of the precise arithmetic here, but with the Islamo-leftist coalition already falling apart over trans rights, socially conservative Muslims may be persuaded to stay with Labour under a Muslim leader. They’re deluded, though, if they believe the wider public will put up with a Muslim PM.
What’s clear is that this is already the beginning of the end for the Starmer administration, and Labour’s second act will be a desperate attempt to find a working coalition that will prevent a wipeout in 2029. It may even realise that it needs working class white voters after all, whereupon the left will accuse Labour of pandering to the “far right”. It’s all so very tedious.
The hard right, meanwhile, will (rightly) note that all of this politicking is fiddling around the edges. There is no serious resolution to our immigration woes without extensive remigration. Even Reform’s modest but realistic target of removing 600k over five years is not going to cut it. Asylum and illegal immigration issues aside, there are still millions with no business being here at all. The future is increasingly one of sectarianism, voluntary segregation and Ulsterisation - perhaps even with low level civil war on the cards.
To this, there is no likely interim resolution. Certainly, Reform will not be decisive or coherent enough in government, nor is is likely to have an explicit mandate for anythign radical. There is no Reform policy that would satisfy their disparate supporters as each group has aspirations of its own, which are not compatible with the other groups. The only way Farage can keep a lid on this fermenting mass is not to have any fixed policies on anything. The moment he fixes a policy that satisfies one group, the others will peel away.
As such, Farage’s only safe stance is one of constructive ambiguity - which may serve to keep his voting base intact, but presages disaster if he ever got into No 10. In a way, though, his predicament mirrors contemporary society, where there is no consensus over a wide range of issues, which makes it impossible to foster any sense of national unity. Societal fragmentation is now so advanced that we have become essentially ungovernable.
The trouble is that, for there to be a democracy, there has to be a [unified] demos. The actual demos is now so fragmented - and irreconcilably so - that framing a common policy framework that will attract a stable majority is no longer a viable proposition. Even if you can attract a temporary coalition, it will collapse under the stress of implementation, when reality starts to intrude.
This is basically what is happening to the Labour Party, a dynamic that will afflict any party that attains the status of a government but lacks the power, the authority or the mandate to pursue any coherent programme. We should not be surprised if a Reform government also fall apart within two years or less. Any hope that 2029 will be a turning point in our inexorable decline looks increasingly unrealistic. All that I can tell you is that the answers are not to be found by listening to American podcasters.