Rioters, police, and sentimentality

Unclear thinking about social disturbances.

Sentimentality and partisanship are the banes of English political life. It may well be the same in other countries, but the polarisation which means that normally sensible people think that abuses of power are only what the "other side" do has been a feature of our domestic politics since well before the 1688 revolution.

For some people, usually conservatives, there is sentimentality about the police. This is notwithstanding the repeated evidence of police corruption and brutality, and the casual dishonesty of police spokesmen whenever some new tragedy comes to light. The "boys in blue" do a "difficult job". It is "not easy, you know".

For others, the sentimentality is about rioters. And this is notwithstanding that the criminality that often accompanies or follows-on on from protests cannot be justified in terms of politics, or indeed anything else. Instead of protesting earnestly outside Currys and JB Sports about the evils of highly priced consumer goods and the low wages of those who usually make them, the windows were smashed and those same goods were simply carried away in shopping trolleys.

In fact, neither the police nor the rioters can be praised or blamed in universal terms. There has been a sequence of civil disturbances, some spontaneous, some planned; the police dealt with some of these well, and sometimes badly; and some protestors had a point, and some just took full advantage of an opportunity. But even now, the sort of people who have strong but easy political opinions are seeking out who is really to blame, whether it be certain hapless politicians on holiday, the loathsome bankers, the police, or the looters.

And in all this, nobody's mind will actually change, for -- as usual -- civil disturbances will re-affirm and not challenge views already held. The other side will again been at fault. They always are.

 

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

Getty
Show Hide image

How Theresa May laid a trap for herself on the immigration target

When Home Secretary, she insisted on keeping foreign students in the figures – causing a headache for herself today.

When Home Secretary, Theresa May insisted that foreign students should continue to be counted in the overall immigration figures. Some cabinet colleagues, including then Business Secretary Vince Cable and Chancellor George Osborne wanted to reverse this. It was economically illiterate. Current ministers, like the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Home Secretary Amber Rudd, also want foreign students exempted from the total.

David Cameron’s government aimed to cut immigration figures – including overseas students in that aim meant trying to limit one of the UK’s crucial financial resources. They are worth £25bn to the UK economy, and their fees make up 14 per cent of total university income. And the impact is not just financial – welcoming foreign students is diplomatically and culturally key to Britain’s reputation and its relationship with the rest of the world too. Even more important now Brexit is on its way.

But they stayed in the figures – a situation that, along with counterproductive visa restrictions also introduced by May’s old department, put a lot of foreign students off studying here. For example, there has been a 44 per cent decrease in the number of Indian students coming to Britain to study in the last five years.

Now May’s stubbornness on the migration figures appears to have caught up with her. The Times has revealed that the Prime Minister is ready to “soften her longstanding opposition to taking foreign students out of immigration totals”. It reports that she will offer to change the way the numbers are calculated.

Why the u-turn? No 10 says the concession is to ensure the Higher and Research Bill, key university legislation, can pass due to a Lords amendment urging the government not to count students as “long-term migrants” for “public policy purposes”.

But it will also be a factor in May’s manifesto pledge (and continuation of Cameron’s promise) to cut immigration to the “tens of thousands”. Until today, ministers had been unclear about whether this would be in the manifesto.

Now her u-turn on student figures is being seized upon by opposition parties as “massaging” the migration figures to meet her target. An accusation for which May only has herself, and her steadfast politicising of immigration, to blame.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496