Main Edition
US
FR
September 24, 2024 - 7:00am
Liverpool
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has claimed that the new Labour government must address the underlying causes of the recent riots.
Speaking at a Labour Party conference fringe event in Liverpool, the MP for Wigan said: āIām not under any illusions that just by ending that outpouring of violence have we solved the problem.ā She added: āWhere these people [the far-Right] thrive is in the conditions in which people feel very, very anxious.ā
The Culture Secretary outlined several aspects of social deterioration which she argued had made many post-industrial towns across Britain fertile ground for ethno-nationalist rioting. āWhen they [communities] see their town centres falling apart,” she said, “when they see an increase in knife crime and stabbings where traditionally there hasnāt been anything like that, where they see half the houses in their street are bought up by Serco, often for asylum accommodation and overnight, they go from living on a street where they know their neighbours to living in a very transient community.ā
Nandy also spoke of the problem of houses of multiple occupancy and the ālitter bins [that] are overflowing because no oneās thought about what it means to have three families in a house instead of one.ā
These comments come amid a tough first conference as the governing party in almost a decade and a half for Labour. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has simultaneously been labelled āfree gear Keirā over a donor scandal and ātwo-tier Keirā for a perceived misapplication of justice during the riots. One recent example that garnered much criticism involved a woman imprisoned for hateful speech posted online while the Government released almost 2,000 criminals less than halfway through their sentences due to prison overcrowding.
Starmerās response to the riots has been focused on restoring safety to communities, punishing rioters harshly and maintaining that āfar-Right thuggeryā does not belong on Britainās streets. He has gone further, though, admitting that the āsnake oilā of populism must be fought through ādeliveryā and āshowing there are progressive, democratic answers to the many challenges we faceā. Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said attacking migrant hotels was ānot the way we do politicsā and did not represent āBritish valuesā. But the comments of prominent frontbenchers have always remained far less direct and explicit than Nandyās today.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhat a rabble!
So…any answers to the problems…or just talk…again?
She doesn’t even seem to have any idea what the right questions are so will never have any answers beyond those that promote and support her own ideology.
The logic of her argument is that the government should spend even more on housing asylum seekers by accommodating them in more expensive neighbourhoods.
Next door to Lineker would be a good start.
What’s your answer Mr Cazaly?
At least she seems to acknowledge the issue, unlike many – be interesting to see if there is a kickback from the left for her acknowledgement that immigration causes issues.
In contrast, look at Starmers comment –
‘He has gone further, though, admitting that the āsnake oilā of populism must be fought through ādeliveryā and āshowing there are progressive, democratic answers to the many challenges we faceā’
Society / the country / the west / the world has been getting worse and worse for 25 years or so, yet ‘populism’ is somehow the snake oil? Not the neoliberal economic system that has actually been in place over that time?
Her ‘acknowledgement’ of the cultural and societal problems caused by immigration is tangential to say the least.
Indeed, and to the root problem. Those forced to live with immigrants least want immigration.
On assumption the housing Nandy refers to is used for asylum seekers – we spent Ā£240m on Rwanda scheme. That’s alot of extra asylum claim processing capacity or even some decent holding centres.
We spend cĀ£2b per annum on asylum seeker accommodation. 3 times more than the previous Govt declared. Recently reported much of that is mismanaged and hotel chains/providers of the accommodation rip off the Home Office because it’s not set up to manage it properly. And why? Just perhaps because spent more time on Rwanda scheme? And which Govt deposited asylum seekers into these localities rather than Sandbanks or Mayfair? Couldn’t have engineered it better could they.
No quick solution. Backlog allowed to grow too high without any real grip. Doesn’t excuse thuggery and that always has to be hit hard, but plenty on Labour side know how toxic this is.
Don’t worry Angela Eagle the “irregular” migration minister is all over it…
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/sep/23/top-tories-and-trump-helped-create-overt-racism-in-uk-says-labour-minister
Not even the slightest hint that any of this was caused by their policies (or policies they supported) or that they need take any responsbility for the outcomes.
So, Lisa Nandy believes that not only do we need “better systems”, but that these “better systems” are available.
It is always the same with these dimwits. They never stop to consider whether the underlying policies are still correct or valid (whether it’s asylum and refugee policy, Britain’s relationship with the EU or anything else). You or I might recognise that times change and policies may also need to. Refugee policies designed in the 1940s may no longer work in the modern world. But no. There’s always some magic better implementation they naively suppose is possible.
I found myself watching a BBC documentary from 1971 this morning: “Yesterday’s Men” about the senior ministers of the former Labour government. I’d take all of them over the current moronic rabble.
Will Labour make it to the next election? Of course Starmer is already toast but will his successor do any better?
‘Starmerās response to the riots has been focused on restoring safety to communities,….’
If Starmer talked about making the public safer, instead of dog-whistles about ‘communities’…..
…troubled teenage girls in many towns and cities in the Midlands and North clearly aren’t a “community” that needs to kept safe. One wonders what does constitute a “community” in those towns and cities? One that does need it’s “safety” restored?
Answers on a postcard, please…
What were the headlines after the riots in Liverpool in 1981, which saw almost 1000 police officers injured and 70 buildings had to be demolished because of damage?
‘More help for blacks or the riots will spread’ was a headline in a newspaper.
MP’s at the time were warned by a black organisation (unnamed) that ‘what you see in Liverpool is a sign of things to come.’
That would be the Labour Party then (the root of mass immigration orthodoxy). And all the Tory politicians who’ve lost their seats with the exception of immigration queen Ms Badenoch.
The ship of ‘addressing the root causes’ has already sailed around the world, returned for a refit and set off again. Despite all the mealy-mouthed platitudes, the government has quickly labelled anyone protesting as ‘far-Right’. It’s a handy lazy label that will allow them to become even more draconian and authoritarian, under the guise of protecting communities. A legal definition of ‘Islamophobia’ is only just around the corner, which will assisted them in suppressing their critics even more easily.
Iām so very bored of people being branded far right. A lot of the rioters look like they donāt belong to any ideology. They just look thoroughly dejected and seriously angry.
I wish MSM would push back on our politicians when they throw around the far right accusation. Itās so damn lazy.
the media is of like mind with the politicians, so any pushback will be limited to, well, ‘far right’ outlets, of course. Both groups have a limited playbook. Central to it is the demonization of anyone not toeing the approved line.
That is just not true. We do have a situation where one side is wrong and the other side is NOT wrong but right. Even the progressivists admit it by saying that the right is not only right but even hard right š
“my town is incredibly welcoming of asylum seekers and refugees”
That’s your problem right there, luv.
I know several people who live there and they are less than impressed by all the random new arrivals.
They’ve probably already passed the immigrant event horizon where the incomers now out number the long term residents, so they may well be very welcoming as they reunite with uncle Azim and auntie Aisha . . .
According to polls immigration is of major concern to a minority, 17% immigration is “very bad” and 16% merely ” bad”, the remainder consider it “neither good nor bad”, “good” or ” very good”.
It would appear that those who feel strongly enough about immigration to riot about it are a small fraction of a group already a minority. Recent serious civil disturbance is probably down to general discontent.
OK so that’s a third of the population who think it’s at least ‘bad’. And what proportion of the population are typically the ones who decide elections?
Oh come on… the outcome of polls very much depends on who you ask and where they live. It may well be that a minority think immigration to be a bad thing, but they’d almost certainly be concentrated in areas which invariably already have social problems due to relative poverty, e.g. towns in the Midlands/North.
Naturally, those citizens with little experience of the effects of rapid immigration which changes the very fabric of their communities and lives will have a more benign opinion. Yes, the recent civil disturbances included an element of very long-standing discontent, which simply required an event to ignite the keg. There will be others.
I took a look at YouGov, which noted that well over 60% think immigration is ātoo highā. This is different to good/bad. What was the proportion of ādonāt knowsā from the polling you looked at?
Was that an IPSOS poll in Feb. 2024?
The same poll says ‘A majority of people now want to see immigration reduced, while those wanting an increase has reduced to around one in six.’
Do you think the number of immigrants coming to Britain nowadays should be increased a lot, increased a little, remain the same as it is, reduced a little, or reduced a lot?
Reduced a lot was 35%
People were asked to rate immigration on a scale from 0-10.
Well, you can’t do those kind of stats with Likert scales. The pollsters classified all ‘6’s as positive, and lumped all ‘6’s in with ’10/10′ Did respondents mean 6/10 to be positive, to be lumped as 10/10 by the pollsters?
I don’t know , and neither do the researchers.
Not sure which polls you read. The latest IPSOS poll in August 2024 found that immigration was the number one issue of concern for people, coming in at 34% and taking the top slot for issues for the first time in 8 years.
Cummings said Nandy was the one who was the real deal. Thought Starmer would be a busted flush. I think he might have been right.
But , but her father.
What could be more peak left than a govt failing its people on an issue of importance and then blaming the ones who dare to notice the failure.
“Nandy assured the audience at conference today that itās not just those on the far-Right who are annoyed at the current scenario. āThis is the decent majority who arenāt racist at all.”
Well that’s progress, I guess. But this is where all the pre-election propaganda and vague promises come up against the hard reality of actually fixing problems. I’m afraid changing Tweedledum for Tweedledee just won’t cut it.
‘Nandy assured the audience at conference today that itās not just those on the far-Right who are annoyed at the current scenario. āThis is the decent majority who arenāt racist at all; my town is incredibly welcoming of asylum seekers and refugees,ā she said.’
Here we go again! The fundamental problem is the far-Right. Yawn!
No – the problem is the far-Left; represented by people like Nandy who are “incredibly welcoming of asylum seekers and refugees’, who think woman can have penises, who despise decent working-class ‘gammons’ for daring to clutch at their own diminished identify, resenting the forced intrusion of aliens into their midst.
.’ He has gone further, though, admitting that the āsnake oilā of populism must be fought through ādeliveryā and āshowing there are progressive, democratic answers to the many challenges we face’
Can someone correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the labour party originally founded for working people and based on a form of populism? Surely the trade unions and industrial workers that founded it could have been described as ‘populists’ at the time?
Starmer is just a deputy for someone too much of a coward to show his face.
I am willing to bet that Lisa Nandy will join Reform (or whoever will be the UK counterpart of the movement that is currently taking shape in the USA) within less than 2 years.
āWhere these people [the far-Right] thrive is in the conditions in which people feel very, very anxious.ā
A slight correction:
āWhere these people [ordinary people] thrive is in the conditions in which people feel very, very anxious.ā
āWhere these people [the far-Right] thrive is in the conditions in which people feel very, very anxious.ā
Ms Nandy makes a distinction between ‘these people’ and ‘people’. Is there such? One would not be so uncharitable as to see a minister not only make the wrong diagnosis but also prescribe the wrong medicine. No one would benefit from that.
It’s all about feelings. It’s all down to conditions. But is it? Change the feelings and the conditions and everyone would be as welcoming of migrants as Ms Nandy’s town?
āWhen they see an increase in knife crime…” The main reason cited by campaigners against the carrying of knives is that the carriers feel anxious on the street.
To identify ‘better systems’ it is first necessary to define what the current system is. Is there a better system of governance than one where the police and other authorities negotiate with community leaders as would a colonial administration, applying different approaches to different communities?
It must be galling to the political class that they are not as popular as the ‘populists’ and never will be.
Some common sense there from Ms Nandy.