Social Items

TPQ
Donal O'Driscoll ⚽ Two contradictory things can be correct at the same time. 

I have long maintained that this 'Slot won the league with Klopp's team' line is nonsense. Klopp couldn't win the league with Klopp's team the year before and I have no doubt whatsoever that he wasn't winning it last season. What Slot did, and yes it was Slot who did it, was nothing short of magical. For what he achieved Last Season, put some respect on his name.

However, what tonight has proven is that Slot is a momentum manager. When the team has it, when all is going well, the man is a genius. He'll have us unplayable. But when things go to south, as they have done, he just can't react. It reminds me of that episode of the Simpsons, when someone, I think it was Homer, who tried to get himself out of quicksand by putting his hands into it, causing him to sink further. Slot has found himself in a crisis situation and he has no idea how to resolve it.

The problems are by no means of his making. People talk about all the signings as if Slot signed them. He didn't, Hughes and Edwards did. That's not to say, they were bad signings, and when they click,  we'll be unreal, but until that happens, we need someone who can steady the ship. Slot can't. He's an exceptional manager who will go on to do great things elsewhere, but he's not the man for the situation we are currently in. Obviously, the tragedy of Jota was not something Slot could prepare for, but, had that happened under Klopp, he had the personality to manage it. The let's hug and go for a pint type mentality that Arne - as sound and all as he seems - just doesn't have.

So with a heavy heart, I have to say, tonight I have joined the ranks of Slot out. Not because I don't appreciate what he did before, but because he can't do what we need him to do Now. 

Thanks for everything Arne, but we need a change quickly. Who that person is I'm not so sure, but we need a caretaker manager in charge for the West Ham game.

⏩Donal O'Driscoll is a Liverpool supporter.

Momentum Manager

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Eight Hundred

 

Pastords @ 18

 

A Morning Thought @ 2981

Pádraig Drummond  ✊ The framing used in this case, particularly the repeated claim that individuals “connected with Antifa” pose a threat, deserves serious scrutiny. 

It is vital to state clearly that “Antifa” is not an organisation. It is simply an abbreviation for anti-fascist or anti-fascism, a long-standing political position held by people across the world, including Ireland, for generations. Anti-fascism is a stance against authoritarianism, racism, and far-right violence; it is not a membership-based group, has no leadership, no central structure, no registry, no meetings, and no organisational hierarchy.

To treat “Antifa” as though it were a single coordinated body is to fundamentally misunderstand what anti-fascism is. Worse, it risks setting a dangerous legal and political precedent: if a court begins defining broad political ideologies as formal organisations, then any individual who simply identifies with a belief could be portrayed as part of a coordinated network, even when no such network exists.

This has implications far beyond this case, it opens the door to mislabelling and potentially criminalising diverse political viewpoints under the guise of dealing with “groups”.

In Ireland, where political policing has a long and painful history, such conflation should alarm everyone across the political spectrum. Ideas are not organisations. An ideology cannot “hate” a person, and suggesting otherwise obscures the distinction between individual actions and broad political principles. If some individuals dislike said individual, that is a matter between those individuals and the law, not evidence of a unified “Antifa” body determined to harm him.

Invoking “Antifa” as a shadowy organisation responsible for threats is not only factually incorrect but reinforces a narrative that has been imported uncritically from other countries, particularly the United States, where far-right commentators routinely use the term to manufacture a sense of organised menace. Ireland should resist adopting such sensationalised frameworks, which do little but muddy the waters and distort public understanding of political activism.

No one disputes that said individual may face hostility from certain individuals, but mischaracterising anti-fascism as an extremist organisation risks undermining democratic freedoms and shifting attention away from the core issue before the court: whether the defendant sent grossly offensive communications and whether proportionality was applied in sentencing.

Anti-fascism, as an ideology, cannot target or hate a living being. Only people can. And individuals must be held accountable for their own actions, not for a political ideology that has no central body and cannot be said to act in any coordinated way.

If Irish society values clarity, fairness, and political freedom, we must challenge any attempt, intentional or not, to turn political principles into imaginary organisations. Doing so protects not only anti-fascists but all who hold strong political beliefs, whether socialist, republican, conservative, or otherwise.

⏩Pádraig Drummond is an anti-racism activist.

A Dangerous Precedent

Anthony McIntyre  ⚑ Irish roads have not been kind to those travelling in Louth and Meath in the past fortnight. 

Five young people in the same vehicle all died in a crash close to Dundalk. Nine days later on a stretch of road at Gormanstown between Drogheda and Balbriggan, two more people lost their lives, both behind the wheel of the vehicles they were driving at the moment of impact.

On occasion I have grumped on this blog - and been slagged off about it by Steve R - about the service delivery of Bus Eireann not being up to scratch. But the death of one of the company's drivers doing a day's work is a cause for sadness. Paul Conway, a father of seven, was crushed to death after colliding with a lorry driven by Wesley O'Reilly, a father of three. A car was also involved, with both occupants sustaining serious injuries. Many of the passengers on the bus were also hurt. 

The cause of the accident or culpability for it, if any, will emerge in time. For now, the very real human impact resides in ten children and two partners left without a spouse and father a month short of Christmas. Presents for both men if not actually purchased will have been planned. Such a gap will not be filled by Christmas festivity in those homes, and will in all likelihood be palpably larger due to the season in it, the riderless horse more noticeable because it is not what it should be; the empty chair at the table crying out to be filled.

I was travelling on a Dublin bus myself out to Clontarf Hospital to visit a friend when I scrolled across news of the accident on my phone, immediately phoning my son to tell him. He too was travelling on a bus to a college project. We are both frequent users of public transport, making it so easy to identify with the real people who deliver the service.
 
I have travelled on the 101 possibly a thousand times, either to or from Dublin, getting to know many of the drivers by sight or to exchange pleasantries with. Even though I now more frequently travel by train - the free travel pass for people in my age range making rail a first choice - I still occasionally take the 101 and have probably met Paul Conway on my travels. I have always found the drivers considerate and polite, helpful when asked, never jobsworths. My frustrated gripes with the company were just that, not about the drivers.

Bus drivers on our public transport system, regardless of colour, creed, sex or nationality, render a valuable public service. It was a job to Paul Conway which helped keep the wolves at bay and away from his door. He and his colleagues routinely getting us to work on time helped keep the same wolves away from our own doors. Our appreciation for their endeavour can never be expressed strongly enough. The 101 route will forever be a driver short.

⏩Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre.

Bus 101

Brendan Curran ✒ with a poem from his expansive body of work.



 British Tommies On Our Streets

British Tommies on our streets,
hob nail boots on their feet 
Big Tin hats upon their heads, 
holding weapons that shoot us dead
 ♞♜♝
Ferret cars that go so fast,
a searing noise as they speed past 
A Huge whip Ariel on the fox car roof,
a small triangular flag to detonate its group 
♞♜♝
Massive rubber tyres make a squeaking sound
as the huge metal wheels slowly Turn around
 Rolls of barbed wire on the huge green trucks, 
Large Camouflage covers so nobody can look 
At all the hooded men they just took 
♞♜♝
They say they were peace keepers
…but ignoring the facts
They murdered so many
. . . shot in the back 
 ♞♜♝
The BBC covered up their lies,
saying they were only keeping apart the warring sides
But at long last the truth starts to seep out…
but the victim’s family’s still have to bang and shout . . . to get justice!

⏩ Brendan Curran,  Irish conflict poems 2020

British Tommies On Our Streets

A Digest of News ✊ from Ukrainian Sources ⚔ 17-November-2025.

In this week’s bulletin

⬤ Seapeak sanction-busters stopped.
⬤ Russian army refusenik speaks in court.
⬤ More Russian torture evidence.
⬤ Crimean Tatar genocide recognised.
⬤ in danger.
⬤ Civilians’ front-line stories.
⬤ Social Movement appeal to workers.
⬤ Ukraine anger at corruption.

News from the territories occupied by Russia

Russia stages new ‘trial’ of savagely tortured Ukrainian partisan already sentenced to 26 years (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, November 14th)

Crimean woman sentenced to 5. 5 years for social media criticism of Russia's war against Ukraine (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, November 13th)

Ukraine 10 years ago recognised Crimean Tatars’ Deportation as Genocide (Crimea Platform, November 12th)

“This isn’t the Middle Ages, and we aren’t serfs”: Locals in Ukrainian-controlled parts of Donbas react to Putin’s territorial demands (The Insider, November 12th)

Weekly update on the situation in occupied Crimea (Crimea Platform, November 11th)

Sentenced to die in immense pain for religious independence in Russian-occupied Crimea (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, November 11th)

Russian FSB uses propaganda and hate speech to justify its terror against Crimean Tatar women (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, November 10th)

Review: Human rights in Crimea July-September 2025 (Crimea Human Rights Group, 29 October)

News from the front and ‘peace’ negotiations

Ukraine defenders stop 107 Russian offensives near Pokrovsk (Ukrainska Pravda, November 15th)

Is the fall of Pokrovsk, Ukraine’s key eastern stronghold, inevitable? (Al Jazeera, November 10th)

Kherson: petals of roses and mines (Ukrainer, 10 November)

News from Ukraine

Cold calculation: Kremlin trying to leave Ukrainians without power in winter again (The Insider, November 14th)

Military support: Ukraine's creative fundraising ecosystem (Ukrainska Pravda, November 13th)

The president's men: Zelenskyy's friends plundered Ukraine in wartime (Ukrainska Pravda, 10 Nov)

The Kudrytskyi Case: Why Presidential Office Persecutes ex Ukrenergo boss (Zerkalo Nedeli, 4 Nov)

War-related news from Russia

Russian man found guilty – posthumously – under LGBT law (Mediazona, 14 November)

Twenty years on: Timur Kacharava’s murder remembered (The Russian Reader, 14 November)

First arrest under new Russian law over an Internet search for Ukraine’s Azov Regiment (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, November 14th)

Russia feels the heat from oil sanctions (Meduza, 13 November)

Migrant women and the war: new discriminatory laws (Posle.Media, 12 November)

Russian anti-war prisoner: ‘I just did not want to murder Ukrainian people who have done me no ill’ (People & Nature, 12 November)

The carousel: Russia’s system for re-arresting protesters (Meduza, 12 November)

To force deserters back to war, Russia’s military tortures their families (Meduza, 12 November)

“Thou shalt not idolize your motherland”: Russian Orthodox priests on the war in Ukraine and the degradation of their church (The Insider, November 10th)

Tracked down, coerced, threatened: How Russia hunts down deserters and forces them back to the front lines in Ukraine (The Insider, November 10th)

Analysis and comment

Free Trade Union of Medical Workers of Ukraine solidarity statement to BMA and UK resident doctors (Ukraine Solidarity Campaign, November 15th)

Tribute to Pavel Lisyansky, trade union and human rights activist (Denis Pilash on facebook, 15 November)

On silencing voices from eastern Europe at anarchist events in the EU (Solidarity Collectives, 14 November)

Appeal by Social Movement: Workers, you are important for the future of Ukraine (Ukraine Solidarity EU, November 13th)

The Mineral Deal: The Price of Partnership in the Trump Era (Commons.com, November 12th)

Betrayal or rebirth: Europe’s left wing has adapted to Russia’s war (The Insider, November 11th)

How Polish Politics Turned Solidarity into Suspicion (Balkan insight, November 11th)

Capital vs. Sanctions (Posle.Media, November 5th)

Research of human rights abuses

Saw the scale of destruction, the underground school, and honored the dead children: Participants of the “Crimea Global” International Conference Visited Kharkiv (Zmina, November 16th)

Lviv became the first stop of the international delegation within the framework of the “Crimea.Global” conference (Zmina, November 15th)

International solidarity

Why EU multi-entry visas matter to Russian journalists and dissidents (Meduza, 14 November)

Victory for the Stop Seapeak Coalition (Ukraine Solidarity Campaign Scotland, November 13th)

Speaking out against Putin from the dock (Labour Hub, November 13th)

As UK Takes Steps to Starve Kremlin of LNG Revenues, Ukrainian Campaigners Urge Swift Cancelation of TotalEnergies Contract (Razom, November 12th) 
🔴This bulletin is put together by labour movement activists in solidarity with Ukrainian resistance. More information at Ukraine Information Group.

We are also on twitter. Our aim is to circulate information in English that to the best of our knowledge is reliable. If you have something you think we should include, please send it to 2U022ukrainesolidarity@gmail.com.


We are now on Facebook and Substack! Please subscribe and tell friends. Better still, people can email us at 2022ukrainesolidarity@gmail.com, and we’ll send them the bulletin direct every Monday. The full-scale Russian assault on Ukraine is going into its third year: we’ll keep information and analysis coming, for as long as it takes.

The bulletin is also stored on line here.

To receive the bulletin regularly, send your email to:
2022ukrainesolidarity@gmail.com.
To stop it, please reply with the word “STOP” in the subject field.

News From Ukraine 💣 Bulletin 171

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Eight Hundred And Ninety Nine

 

A Morning Thought @ 2980

Tommy McKearney ☭ The current dispute between the US and China relating to the supply of microchips has more profound implications than a one-off spat over trade.

31-October-2025

 It points to a fundamental change in the global economic system, as the realisation is dawning on Washington and Brussels that the People’s Republic is inexorably gaining the upper hand. After centuries of world dominance, the era of European and US supremacy is coming to an end.


In a desperate attempt to stave off the inevitable and reinforce the rule of capitalism, Donald Trump is thrashing around, seeking measures to halt the advance of history. Among a plethora of often erratic measures, he is now trying to stall the flow of hi-tech equipment from the US and EU to China by focusing on microchips. From smartphones to computers, from weapon systems to satellites, from the stock market to industrial control systems, practically everything works today thanks to a tiny yet powerful resource: microchips. Hence the effort to deny China access.

Not for the first time is the United States leading a drive in an effort to prevent the technological advance of other countries. In 1949, they launched the ‘Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls’ in order to prevent the USSR from gaining access to Western technology. How successful this strategy was may be gauged from the fact that over the following decade the Soviet Union launched the world’s first satellite into space and, two years later, sent the first man into orbit around the earth.

In the modern era, though, the current US president has decided to continue with a policy first introduced by his predecessor, Joe Biden, and that is to target Nvidia’s exports to China. Under the management of Jensen Huang, the California-based company manufactures state-of-the-art microchips, including those used in the production of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) applications. For a period of time, the hi-tech industry in China bought large quantities of microchips from Nvidia.

In light of this, Trump decided to double down on Biden’s restrictions and in April of this year imposed a complete ban on the export of the valuable H20 chip. However, a number of factors intervened that forced the Donald to retreat.[1] Deprived of access to the Chinese market, Nvidia lost a huge slice of its regular income, resulting in the company being forced to cut back greatly on research and development. At a time of rapid advances in this field, it would probably have meant the company losing its lead in this crucial area.

A fact reinforced by the shock delivered to the smug US “tech-bros” and their volatile asset in the White House by the creation of the Chinese AI app, DeepSeek. By developing and granting open access to this high-powered app, China demonstrated that its citizens had the technical ability to match (and possibly outperform) anything Silicon Valley could do. More recently still, after being barred from markets in the US and much of Europe, the Huawei company has succeeded in manufacturing advanced microchips on a par with those produced by Nvidia.

And if that wasn’t enough, China has fired a shot across its competitors’ bows by restricting the export of rare earth materials. China controls an estimated 90% of the world’s rare earth refining and processing capacity [2] and holds nearly half of the global total rare earth reserves—materials necessary for the production of a wide variety of hi-tech devices, from lightbulbs to guided missiles. For example, the American F-35 fighter jet depends on rare earth magnets for its sensors, engines and wing flaps.

Faced with being out-manoeuvred, Trump did what any unprincipled capitalist (is there any other type?) would do and did a deal. In August, Nvidia and another, albeit smaller, US company, AMD, were permitted to sell mid-range microchips to China, but only after paying the US Treasury 15% of their revenue from these exports.

Conceding ground in this crucially important sector is indicative of the overall change in the global economic system referred to at the beginning of this article.

According to a report in the Financial Times last month, “China accounts for two-thirds of global EV (electric vehicle) sales, compared with just 9% in the US. China also has about 70% of the world’s battery share, as well as dominance across the processing of nickel, cobalt and graphite and production of cathodes and anodes.” [3] All are crucial to battery performance, longevity and energy density in advanced engineering. Complementing its manufacturing capacity, the People’s Republic assists climate improvement, as it leads the world in renewable energy deployment, producing 60% of global wind turbines and 80% of global solar panels.

Central to the emergence of the new order being led from Beijing is the country’s employment of socialist-driven central planning. Currently in the process of developing the country’s 15th Five-Year Plan, the emphasis will continue to be on the pursuit of greater self-reliance and strength in science and technology. Standard Chartered’s conservative estimate is for China’s economic growth at 4.3% over the next five years. Goldman Sachs estimates the US rate for the same period to be approximately 2.1%.

No surprise, therefore, why the White House and its allies are desperately trying to stall the rise of China, with its practice and example offering solid evidence of a viable alternative to monopoly capitalism. Because when the chips are down, history is on the side of progressive humanity, as exemplified by ‘Communist China’.

Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. 
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney

European And US Supremacy Is Coming To An End

Event Announcement 🎤 Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign march in solidarity with Palestine.

Assembly Point: Garden of Remembrance, Dublin.

Destination: Dáil Éireann.

Date: 29 November 2025

Time: 1300.


Solidarity With Palestine March

Barry Gilheany ✍ It was the endorsement from Hell. 

Far right activist, grifter, felon and self-styled “ citizen journalist” Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, in a response to a post on X that predicted the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood would announce that refugees will be granted only a temporary stay in the UK and deported if their home countries are later deemed safe, posted: “The Overton window has been obliterated, well done patriots”[1]. 

This post went out on the weekend that the Home Secretary published her proposals to reform the UK’s admittedly dysfunctional asylum and immigration system. When the proposals modelled on the model implemented in Denmark by Labour’s sister Social Democratic government were brought to the House of Commons on Monday last, Ms Mahmood in response to a question that referenced Yaxley-Lennon’s congratulatory post, said that his name will not be mentioned in the House. In her introduction of the proposals, she stressed how toxic and divisive the asylum and immigration debate had become; that there was a moral imperative to sort out the chaos and unfairness in the system and described the racist abuse she, as a woman of South Asian heritage has been subjected to. Still, one can only imagine the frisson of horror felt by many Labour MPs as well as many refugee advocacy organisations at such support coming from a figure many of whose followers would deem her eligible for deportation because of her skin pigmentation and the faith she professes.

Before entering into a discussion of the merits and demerits of the 33-page document released by Ms Mahmood entitled Restoring Order and Control, it is necessary to give a precis of the core proposals. The Home Secretary hopes that the following policies will curb bogus asylum seekers and cut the numbers of people attempting to cross the English Channel in vessels that have entered the lexicon of national threat, namely “small boats.” The document proposes:

The end of permanent protection or refugees. Currently refugees in the UK receive a five-year initial period of leave. It is proposed to make refugee status temporary and to review it.

To escalate the removal of families including children whose asylum claims have been refused.

To axe legal requirement to support destitute asylum seekers. This will be replaced by a discretionary power to offer support, as previously provided under UK law. Support will be denied to those who have the right to work, a category which entrants on work or student visas before claiming asylum. Those working illegally, who commit crimes and who do not comply with deportation, will likewise no longer receive support.

Plan to introduce a new definition of “family” to curb claims from extended families. On Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the UK government is promising to legislate to make sure the right to family life only applies to immediate family.[2].

These proposals have this week been supplemented by proposals out to consultation by Shabana Mahmood on the eligibility of migrants for the receipt of welfare benefits. Under these, people who migrate to the UK will be eligible for benefits and social housing only when they become British citizens rather than being granted settlement on arrival in the UK as is currently the case. Those [3]who arrive by small boat could have to wait up to 30 years for residency.

The plan for “earned” settlement and doubling the wait time before eligibility for long-term status was announced in the Government’s White Paper on immigration. Arrivals will now be able to remain in the UK. Residents may qualify for resettlement through the much faster lane of a new contribution-based model, such as volunteering in the local community, having A-Level standard English and not being on benefits.[4]

More than 600,000 people and family members who arrived on health and care worker visas will be eligible for settlement after 15 years, under the new plans. If anyone on these visas, or their dependents, have claimed benefits for a year and more, thus would increase to 25 years. Visa overstayers and those arriving in small boats or lorries would have to wait for up to 30 years to settle. Doctors and nurses working in the NHS can settle after five years while high earners and entrepreneurs will be able to settle for three years.[5]

The context of this earning level and residential settlement model is the “Boriswave” of over than 1.6 million people who came to the UK after the post-Brexit wave of relaxation of visa rules. It is of course of no small irony that the man whose endorsement of Vote Leave was crucial to the Brexit vote in the 2016 referendum; whose sabotage of Theresa May’s EU Withdrawal Agreement caused such turmoil in British politics and whose negotiation of a Hard Brexit as PM has led to a fourfold drop in GDP; stands accused of facilitating “an open borders experiment” as current PM Keir Starmer has with sone degree of disingenuity put it. Was Brexit supposed to “secure our borders” though the ending of free movement of people from the EU? Did Vote Leave not promise to “take back control” of immigration policy? For the Boris visa scheme was a stark example of the deception at the heart of Brexit: the dishonest conflation of asylum, immigration and internal EU freedom of movement of labour by the charlatans the biggest act of economic and reputational damage to the UK since, in the opinion of Professor AC Grayling, 1914.

The Danish Model

Before the announcement of the Home Secretary’s immigration proposals, the imprint of the model adopted by Denmark to deal with its migration divisions was widely trailed. When Mette Frederiksen, the Social Democratic Prime Minister came to power in 2019, she announced her intention to cut the number of asylum seekers to zero. Of all the measures introduced to deter would be asylum seekers over the past decade, the impermanence of refugees’ status is often held up as the most effective. Before 2015, refugees were initially given residency permits for between five and seven years after which they automatically become permanent. But then after the deluge of a million refugees arriving in Europe fleeing war and persecution mostly from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Eritrea the Danish government implemented stringent changes to this relaxed migration regime.[6]

Since then, temporary residence permits have only been granted for one to two years at a time. To gain permanent status refugees have to be fluent in Danish and must have been have had a full-tine-job for several years.[7]

Most controversial is the so-called law “against ghettoes” (now known as “parallel societies”) which allows the state to demolish apartment blocks in areas where at least half of the residents have a “non-western” background. In February, a senior adviser to the European Court of Justice found the law constituted direct discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin.[8] At least critics of Shabana Mahmood’s proposals can console themselves that they include no such provisions.

In terms of efficacy, the measures appear to have met their objectives. In 2014 a total of 14,792 asylum seekers arrived in Denmark, with the largest numbers of coming from Syria and Eritrea. By 2021 that figure had dropped to 2,099 and in 2024 it was 2,333. Of nearly 100,000 residence permits granted in Denmark last year just 1% were recorded as having gone to refugees. The 99% included 9,623 refugees from Ukraine who are categorised separately, migrants from other parts of the European Economic Area, family reunification and people on study permits.[9]

The political debate in Denmark over these measures have similar contours to that in Britain. Critics can point to the increase in support for the far-right DPP which advocates remigration – the mass deportation of people with immigrant backgrounds as evidence that, rather than spiking the guns of the far right, the measures have helped shift the agenda further onto the ground of the nativist nationalists. Mirroring the sentiments of her UK counterparts, Eva Singer, the director of asylum and refugee rights of the Refugee Council, said it was politicians, not the public, driving anti0-immigrant sentiment:

The politicians say they follow the popular mood, but maybe the popular mood is coming from what the politicians are saying which is not based on fact.

Michala Clante Bendixen, who runs Refugees Welcome Denmark and the country coordinator for the European Commission’s migrant integration hub, claims that the temporary nature of refugee status is “poison for integration” because it did not give people to establish their lives in a new country.”[10]

Love's Labour Lost (Again)

Most fundamentally, Danish critics say that the adoption of such populist right-wing ideas as zero asylum admissions into nominally centre-left; politics has corroded some of the ideals that Denmark (and indeed all Scandinavian nations) are renowned for: progressive internationalism, welcoming of outsiders and a liberal social dispensation. Much of the angst felt by potential Labour opponents of the Home Secretary’s proposals is of a similar character; that they are not “who we are” and that Labour has camping out on Reform UK ideological territory in the hope of recovering defecting Labour voters to Reform who are not going to return. Instead, the asylum proposals will alienate Labour from what has become his liberal middle-class, professional base.

By contrast, in her combative address to the Commons Shabana Mahmood defended them as being rooted in Labour values of fairness and contribution. For her it is “a moral mission” for “a country without secure borders is a less safe country for those who look like me” and to take the UK back from the “dark forces stirring up anger in this country, and seeking to turn that anger into hate.”[11]

At the moment two dozen Labour MPs have raised concerns about families being forcibly removed from the UK if they refuse cash incentives to return to their countries. Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has admitted to not being “comfortable” with forcible deportations while agreeing that “it is the right thing to do for the country.” When Mahmood in her address to the Commons Monday before last, cited “around 700 Albanian families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation having failed their asylum claims – despite an existing returns agreement, and Albania being a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights” she drew the accusations of “demagoguery” and of a poor echo of the “rhetoric of the populist far right” by Albania’s prime minister, Edi Rama.[12]

The suggestion that, because of its presence in the Danish model, that in some cases asylum seekers surrender jewellery or other valuables to cover costs prompted accusations of economic and political illiteracy by one Labour MP. Others said that “the policy of chasing Reform will not build confidence but fear” and that any Labour MP facing the probable danger of losing their seats to the Liberal Democrats or Greens would in all probability say no to the proposals.[13] However it should be emphasised that confiscation of jewellery and other personal effects do not form part of the Home Secretary’s current proposals.

The wider context of Labour discontent at the asylum proposals is the current dysfunction at the top of the Labour government. Along with the anonymous briefings against alleged leadership coup plotter Wes Streeting and the mixed messages being conveyed about this week’s Autumn budget, this latest hard-line immigration crackdown is a totemic illustration of the accurate perception of an out-of-control and chaotic No.10 under the unpopular chief of staff Morgan McSweeney.[14] (Winning campaigner of legend he is; people manager he certainly is not.)

Mahmood’s plan seems to illustrate the crisis at the heart of Labour. As a result of the toxic staffing relationships within 10 Downing Street that is the legacy of the dismissal of Sue Gray as Chief of Staff due to hostile briefing, the people inside No.10 do not trust the cabinet, Labour backbenchers, or even one another. They have alienated almost every base of power upon which a government relies. Much of their media briefing seems designed to alienate the liberal urban voters who are Labour’s core vote in the 21st century.[15] If not on the scale of the chaos and malevolent incompetence of the Boris Johnson administration laid bare in the Hallett Report on the decision taking during and management of the Covid pandemic, then the state of No 10 appears to be past the point of return with a leadership challenge to Keir Starmer appearing to be a matter of “when” rather than “if”.

In this maelstrom of Labour Party politics with prominent figures such as Andy Burnham and Wes Streeting on barely disguised manoeuvres, Shabana Mahmood’s immigration plans are likely her pitch for the top job given her well attested ambition and her oft told backstory of growing up as a woman of Pakistani Muslim heritage in Birmingham where a baseball bat had to kept on the premises of the family business as a deterrent to criminals and where she experienced racism. While there were “no dissenting voices” in the Cabinet meeting of 18th November when she restated the case for the biggest changes to the asylum system since the Second World War, Mahmood may also have recognised that some Labour politicians privately worried with the plans were in attendance and that, should the plans unravel, cabinet colleagues will turn on them in order to stake out positions in any future leadership contest.[16]

For it is no secret that Mahmood was Morgan McSweeney’s pick for Home Secretary and that the main aim of the Cabinet reshuffle in September in which she was appointed was to get in someone prepared to do “whatever it takes” to reduce small-boat crossings. The primary and all-consuming motivation behind the asylum proposals for No.10 is to ensure that immigration is not top of the agenda at the next general election. The trouble for the Labour high command is that, as hinted by Wes Streeting’s “discomfort” with the proposals, is that they risk the exposure of a split between two figures within the Labour “Right” : Streeting from the Blairite, pro-business, socially liberal traditions of the Progress think-tank and McSweeney of the Blue Labour, Labour First tradition that combines state interventionism with social conservatism. Mahmood would appear to lean towards the latter ideological orientation. The new asylum and immigration policy represents an internal victory for the McSweeney brand of politics[17] – his valorisation of the “hero voters” of the “Red Well” and all that but at what cost; the alienation of scores of Labour backbenchers in marginal seats and members and the possible loss of millions of Labour voters to the Liberal Democrats, Greens or even the Dave Sparts of Your Party if it can decide between its People’s Liberation Front of Judea or Judean People’s Liberation Front version. All of which could come to pass even if immigration is the salient issue at the next General Election.

There is consensus that the UK immigration system (indeed that of any nation) needs to be controlled and that borders need to be secure. However, as the Labour MP Sarah Owen, says, “a strong immigration system doesn’t need to be a cruel one.” Instead of enforcing these new policies, the UK should work with other European countries and bodies such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to ensure asylum seekers are fairly distributed between safe countries, and that the right to seek sanctuary for those fleeing persecution is not eroded beyond recognition.[18]

The headline aspects of Labour’s asylum removals do not add up to really successive outcomes on their own merits. Removals have increased, with 11,231 asylum-related returns in the year to November 2025. But many of these removals were to countries regarded as safe, like Brazil and India, which have historically low asylum grant rates. Mahmood’s plan to get tough on Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo by refusing to grant visas to their nationals if they don’t take back foreign national offenders will have a pin-prick impact on overall immigration figures despite the huge difference made to the lives of those involved since only a few thousand visas were granted to migrants from all three countries combined, according to Home Office data.[19]

Meanwhile, migrants and refugees who currently work in the UK; have families and are progressively integrating into British society face the possibility of enforced return to their countries of origin if deemed “safe” should they lose Right to Remain status; regardless of the actually existing conditions on the ground.

Migration As A Barometer For Breakdown Of Societal Trust

And yet there are legitimate grounds for dissatisfaction and anger with the current asylum and immigration system. The use of hotel accommodation to house asylum seekers which has generated such ire is the result of the build-up of asylum claims which the previous government virtually ceased tackling and of its profitability for the private companies entrusted with housing migrants. That latter factor explains why so many asylum seekers are placed in some of the poorest areas of the country and in houses of multiple occupation (HMO).[20] Poor communication from and inefficient working practice within the Home Office continues to bedevil policy and implantation as much as it did when New Labour Home Secretary John Reid in the 2000s declared it “not fit for purpose”.

However, what shapes hostility towards migrants is not the presence of migrants but perception of trust and cohesion. In this regard, Kenan Malik cites the work of sociologists Vera Massing and Bence Sagvari who have been tracking long-term trends in public attitudes in immigration using the European Social Survey (ESS), a biannual study conducted since 2002.This tool allows for comparison between migration policies and different attitudes to social institutions.[21]

They find that:

People in countries … with a high level of general and institutional trust, low level of corruption, a stable, well-performing economy and high level of social cohesion and inclusion … fear migration the least.

They note, whereas:

people are fearful in countries where the basic tissue of society is damaged , where people don’t trust each other or the state’s institutions, and where social cohesion and solidarity are weak.

Since “countries with a negligible share of migrants are the most hostile” then Messing and Sagvari conclude are an “expression of people ‘s lack of safety and security, and a symptom of deep-rooted problems in the society.” [22]

Thus, immigration has become symbolic of a seemingly insecure, precarious and out of control world. It has become a lightening rod for the discontents of globalisation, social atomisation, uncertainty in the worlds of work and business, the degradation of public services and loss (or perceived loss) of identity at the level of the personal, social and national. The list can go on. Migration anxieties can speak to one of the most elemental fears; that of change. In the UK, they reflect a plethora of indicators of lack of trust and belief in the capacity of the state to deliver social and economic change and in politics to address people’s grievances. Shabana Mahmood’s asylum proposals will not ameliorate such popular discontent. For those of us alarmed by the draconian tenor of the core proposals it is to be hoped that they will at least be modified in the course of their parliamentary passage if not withdrawn altogether as a consequence of a change at the top.

References 

[1] Diane Taylor Labour’s asylum plans are cruel, clumsy, and unachievable. The Guardian Journal. 18th November 2025 pp.1-2

[2] Guardian, 18th November 2025

[3] Rajeev Syal Migrants must be UK citizens before getting benefits, says Mahmood. The Guardian, 20th November 2025 p.16

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

[6] Miranda Bryant, The Danish system. What are the policies the UK is hoping to emulate? The Guardian. 16 November 2025 p.9l

[7]Ibid

[8] Ibid

[9] Ibid

[10] Ibid

[11] Shabana Mahmood Dark forces are stirring up anger in the UK. My asylum reforms are our chance to stop them The Observer 16th November 2025.

[12] Rajeev Syal and Rowenna Mason Migration. Streeting says he is not ‘comfortable’ on removals The Guadian 20th November 2025.

[13] Peter Walker and Jamie Grierson Immigration and asylum. Mahmood’s proposals branded ‘illiterate’ by backbenchers The Guardian 15th November 2025.

[14] James Ball Inside Starmer’s Shambles The New World Issue 460 20th November 2025 pp.14-15


[15] Ibid

[16] Ailbhe Rera, Morgan McSweeney is pinning everything on Shabana Mahmood’s immigration plan. The New Statesman 21-27 November 2025 p.11

[17] Ibid

[18] Taylor, op cit.

[19] Ibid

[20] Kenan Malik, The real crisis Britain faces isn’t immigration but a profound breakdown in trust. The Observer 23 November 2025

[21] Ibid

[22] Ibid

⏩Barry Gilheany is a freelance writer, qualified counsellor and aspirant artist resident in Colchester where he took his PhD at the University of Essex. He is also a lifelong Leeds United supporter.

The Lunacy Of UK Asylum Policy 🪶 Labour’s “Reform” Proposals

Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)