the brilliantly leaping gazelle

Last week I suddenly realised that the notion of Britain that I’d always imagined existed, didn’t, and hasn’t for longer than I dared dwell on. My reactions to seeing photo’s of an angry mob triumphant in their ability to force their hatred onto the streets of Birmingham were equally as concerning, linked as they were by an uncomfortable truth.

Initially the photo’s reminded me of disturbingly similar one’s, albeit ones normally captioned ‘Jubilant scenes in the streets of Tehran as…’,’ Crowds gathered in Lebanon yesterday to celebrate the deaths of…’ or ‘Fury erupts in Cairo as as another Israel/Palestinian peace initiative was announced.’ In that regard they were akin to having the contents of a bucket of ice-cold water thrown violently in my face.

But on the other, it was just a reminder that this is the new normal now. How after two years of anti-semetic hate gatherings in British cities being allowed to happen, with the police seemingly unwilling to enforce the laws that they already have, and with a government that prioritises short term electoral considerations above a duty to uphold civil liberties suggesting new ones, it is irrefutable evidence of the truth of this uncomfortable truth. 

An uncomfortable truth which helps to explains much of what is playing out n our screens and our streets. A truth moreover, that is fast becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Because the more those in power seek to appease it, the more those on those screens and on those streets will feel emboldened by it. The truth that might is right and that the rights of some to exercise their might are now more important than the rights of others. One that also grimly proves that the ‘paradox of tolerance’ far from being a abstract philosophical concept, is now an observable phenomena in the Britain of 2025.

The paradox of tolerance is an elegantly simple one. It suggests that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance itself. First articulated by Karl Popper in 1945, it is also descriptive of the way Hitler used the letter of the law to subvert the law to take control of the German government in 1933.  

All of which makes me think of Martin Bell. He was the distinguished BBC war corespondent who in the election of 1997 resigned from his job to stand against the sitting MP in Tatton, Neil Hamilton. Massively embroiled in the ‘cash for questions’ scandal, Hamilton had little chance of winning, which quickly vanished once both Labour and the Liberal Democrats withdrew their candidates to give Bell a clear run. He won comfortably. Everyone relaxed. The prevailing narrative was that democracy itself had been the ultimate victor, marshalling traditionally opposing elements – voters, political parties and the media – in pursuit of a nobler objective. 

By tapping into voters discontent – with a decades long Conservative rule generally,  with Hamilton and sleaze specifically – Bell was able to use that discontent to propel him to Westminster.  The media also acted in helping lay the groundwork for his campaign, by for years detailing government scandals, cover ups and incompetence for the public to be annoyed over. He didn’t know it, but he his victory was both a vindication of, and a repudiation of our electoral system.

The ‘First Past The Post’ (FPTP) method manages to be both incredibly simple and simply incredible – in that is astounding that a more equitable voting system has yet to have been adopted here. Whoever comes first wins and everyone else; thanks for taking part and better luck next time. Which is fine for the Olympic 100m final, The Grand National or Big Brother, not so much for parliamentary democracy, not if we want everyone to meaningfully participate in it. Last years years by-election in Rochdale proved that.

Because in the Rochdale by-election, Fedora used FPTP against itself to quite devastating effect. Like Bell, he capitalised on voters unhappiness with a government it felt was increasingly not for them. From the day it took office, this was government whose many failings were forensically examined by a tyrannical 24/7 media. Its  relentlessly critical coverage of Israel and the war in Gaza didn’t do Fedora any harm either.  Making it clear that he was targeting the Muslim community that made up 30% of its population and shifting the focus away from local or even national issues, but instead onto Israel/Gaza was many things, but one of them was being from the same election strategy handbook every other political party ever has used.

As I noted shortly after his victory, ‘His win is a perverse win for democracy, because the if other parties had got their acts together, this probably wouldn’t have happened. He only got just over 12,000 votes and I don’t know how large the electorate was, but only 39.7% of them bothered to vote, compared with 60.1% at the 2019 general election. Granted, a low turnout but the by-election wasn’t held at a moments notice, there was loads of publicity about it and still people couldn’t be bothered to vote! And with rumours of a general election in 100 or so days anyway, his victory will be short lived.’

Fast forward to that election. Three candidates ousted sitting Labour MP’s by using the a depressingly similar strategy to the one Fedora had used.They identified constituencies with a significant Muslim electorate and ruthlessly focused on them. Sure, they may have thrown in the odd platitude about opposition to welfare cuts and made the right noises about the cost of living crisis but everyone, especially the people who voted for them, knew that it was about Gaza. Another repeated it in a newly formed constituency, one with a significant Muslim electorate.

And that’s the problem. It’s not just that last year proved how the FPTP system could be used to reward a newer, more nakedly divisive kind politics, one that prioritised identity above all else. Or that it highlighted how voter apathy might be reasonably be predicted to occur and could well have been instrumental part of the campaign strategy; to get their voters to vote whilst calculating other voters would not bother to. It signalled a shift towards more ruthless politics, one not primarily concerned with traditional, broader and more structurally real class based struggles, but of ever more divisive and contentious notions of identity.   

The incredibly fragile basis upon which a coalition of temporarily mutual convenience is doomed by its own contradictions Is neatly illustrated by the political absurdity of what is known as the ‘Islamo-left.’ Broadly, the term describes an alliance between elements of the political left and various Islamist groups, based upon opposition to Western foreign policy, capitalism, and globalism. Specifically, and in relation to the Britain of 2025, its main unifying features are opposition to the war in Gaza, anger at – bogus –  claims of genocide, starvation and other nonsenses committed by Israel in that war, and fury that Israel had the temerity to be winning the war.

Equally broadly, the two main groupings who I contend make up the Islamo-left, are Greens and Muslims. Greens are known for their staunch defence of homosexuality and transgender rights. And also on assisted dying and abortion. That’s possibly why people support them. But the policies their supporters support so much are diametrically opposed to the values of more socially conservative Muslim. It’s not me just making this up either. Earlier this year, a Green Party councillor and practising Muslim, Mothin Ali, appeared reluctant to sign a set of ‘pledges’ on behalf of LGBTQIA+ Greens, Feminist Greens and other similar groups. This provoked a comment from the MP for Blackburn, Adnan Hussain, one of the pro Gaza five, who observed. ‘It’s no secret that Muslims tend to be socially conservative.’

Such alliances are doomed because of their fundamental incompatibility, no matter how much short-term political expediency might initially suggest otherwise. And that the uncomfortable truth I mentioned earlier is actually comprised of other smaller ones.

The truth of how easy it is to sow division and create political opportunity. The truth of how poorly served by the way we conduct elections we are, and of how those who have benefited from it haven’t been minded to change it. The truth of the power of the mob, those keyboard warriors and the permanently protesting and how willing officialdom is to appease them. The truth that the failures of our media – even as they are revealed, and even as the BBC has been exposed to having being guilty of  – will only be repeated. 

The truth that all of this truth is only going to get truer.