Politics & Stuff

[Vesper 30,234]

[Vesper 30,234]

Elon Musk should face arrest if he incited UK rioters, says ex-Twitter chief

Bruce Daisley calls for ‘beefed-up’ online safety laws and compares tech billionaires to unaccountable oligarchs

• As an ex-Twitter boss, I have a way to grab Elon Musk’s attention. If he keeps stirring unrest, get an arrest warrant

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/12/elon-musk-should-face-arrest-if-he-incited-uk-rioters-says-ex-twitter-chief

Elon Musk should face “personal sanctions” and even the threat of an “arrest warrant” if found to be stirring up public disorder on his social media platform, a former Twitter executive has said.

It cannot be right that the billionaire owner of X, and other tech executives, be allowed to sow discord without personal risks, Bruce Daisley, formerly Twitter’s vice-president for Europe, Middle East and Africa, writes in the Guardian.

He said the prime minister, Keir Starmer, should “beef up” online safety laws and reflect on whether the media regulator, Ofcom, “is fit to deal with the blurringly fast actions of the likes of Musk”.

“In my experience, that threat of personal sanction is much more effective on executives than the risk of corporate fines,” Daisley writes, arguing such sanctions could impact the jet-setting lifestyles of tech billionaires.

The UK government has called on social media platforms to act responsibly after violent unrest swept through the UK following the fatal stabbing of three young girls at a Taylor Swift-themed holiday dance class in Southport last month. The prime minister has blamed social media companies for allowing the spread of false claims that the attacker was an asylum seeker and police are increasingly going after those suspected of using online posts to incite violence.

In one post, Musk wrote: “civil war is inevitable” in the UK, language that the justice minister, Heidi Alexander, described as “unacceptable”. Musk has called Starmer “two-tier Keir” and a “hypocrite” over his approach to policing. Musk also shared a false post suggesting Starmer was planning to set up “detainment camps” in the Falkland Islands, a post he later deleted.

Daisley, who worked at Twitter, now X, from 2012-2020, describes Musk as someone who “has taken on the aura of a teenager on the bus with no headphones, creating lots of noise”.

He adds: “Were Musk to continue stirring up unrest, an arrest warrant for him might produce fireworks from his fingertips, but as an international jet-setter it would have the effect of focusing his mind.”

“Musk’s actions should be a wake-up call for Starmer’s government to quietly legislate to take back control of what we collectively agree is permissible on social media,” he argues.

Daisley says: “The question we are presented with is whether we’re willing to allow a billionaire oligarch to camp off the UK coastline and take potshots at our society. The idea that a boycott – whether by high-profile users or advertisers – should be our only sanction is clearly not meaningful.”

He continues: “In the short term, Musk and fellow executives should be reminded of their criminal liability for their actions under existing laws. Britain’s Online Safety Act 2023 should be beefed up with immediate effect.”

Referring to X’s algorithm, which he said prioritised Musk’s own tweets, he writes: “Musk might force his angry tweets to the top of your timeline, but the will of a democratically elected government should mean more than the fury of a tech oligarch – even him.”

Ofcom should have the right to demand certain voices, “like Tommy Robinson’s, are deplatformed”, he argues.

He continues: “Despite the attempts to position ‘free speech’ as a philosophical conviction, the reason for its popularity among tech firms is pure and simple – it is cheap.

“The approach taken by tech firms is less about deeply held principles and more about money – as evidenced by the growing support for Trump in the San Francisco venture capital community.

“We’ve hesitated from labelling tech billionaires as oligarchs because the likes of Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey wielded their political power gently. Asking oligarchs to be accountable for what their platforms permit is straightforward and entirely possible.”

 

[Vesper 30,234]

Trump rambles, slurs his way through Elon Musk interview. It was an unmitigated disaster.

---

 

For a fascism-curious billionaire who loves cuddling up to right-wing loons, Elon Musk sure is good at making right-wing politicians look stupid.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/08/12/trump-musk-interview-x-twitter-spaces-disaster/74774628007/

A campaign pin at a rally supporting Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in Bozeman, Mont., on Aug. 9, 2024.  

Natalie Behring/AFP via Getty Images

 

Former President Donald Trump had loudly trumpeted a planned Monday night interview with Musk that would stream on X. But much like the disastrous X-platformed launch of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ presidential campaign, the Musk/Trump interview failed to launch, leaving social media users laughing at the collective incompetence.

Since Vice President Kamala Harris rose to the top of the Democratic presidential ticket last month, Trump’s reelection campaign has been flailing. His childish attacks against her aren’t working. His racist comments about her mixed-race heritage have repelled all but his most loyal supporters. His vice presidential pick, JD Vance, becomes less likable every time he speaks.

So his answer, weirdly, was to sit down with Musk and talk to what would undoubtedly be a very online audience that doesn’t represent the broader electorate. Had the conversation gone off without a hitch, it still would have been odd and largely useless for Trump’s effort to halt Harris’ momentum.

Trump's interview with Elon Musk was an unmitigated disaster

But the online interview went off (the rails) with a multitude of hitches. X users erupted with either frustration or laughter as the planned start time passed, and nothing could be accessed. It took more than 40 minutes before the interview could start and be heard by anyone. It was amateur hour, the last thing a campaign struggling to project competence needed.

In May 2023, when DeSantis' presidential campaign premiered with a glitch-tastic interview with Musk on what was then called Twitter, Trump mocked the debacle, writing on social media: “Wow! The DeSanctus TWITTER launch is a DISASTER! His whole campaign will be a disaster. WATCH!”

On behalf of DeSantis, allow me to say this: HAH!

Forget the glitches, Trump's X interview got worse when he started talking

Of course, things didn’t get better for Trump once the interview was able to proceed. 

Trump says AI did it: Trump blames Harris' crowds on AI, so let's all assume everything we don't like is fake!

He was rambling, babbling on about crowd sizes and immigration and President Joe Biden and whatever else seemed to pass through his mind. He was also badly slurring his words, raising questions about his health, and doing nothing to knock down rising concerns about his age and well-being.

He sounded like a disoriented, racist Daffy Duck.

Elon Musk is no Barbara Walters – his interview skills stink

Musk, meanwhile, has the interviewing skills of a stoned introvert. He did little but cheerlead Trump and agree with every bizarro thing that fell out of his mouth, while occasionally going on the kind of odd right-wing tangents you’d expect from a man too rich to ever be told to pipe down.

I’m not going to quote anything Trump said in the interview because it was either too stupid to merit transcription or a mere repetition of the nonsense he spouts at every rally he holds.

Harris can beat Trump: I was wrong about Kamala Harris. And that's a huge problem for Donald Trump

A big part of Trump’s problem right now is he has become almost unbearably boring. Build a wall. Drill, baby, drill. Marxist, socialist something-something. Harris only recently became Black. Blah, blah, blah.

Musk gave Trump the same gift he gave Ron DeSantis. Whomp whomp.

So for Trump, sitting down with a rich weirdo few people like and slurring his way through an interview that failed to launch was, in the words of one Donald J. Trump, “a DISASTER!”

Musk, with his social-media ineptness and unmerited sense of self-importance, made DeSantis look like a fool. And now he’s done the same to Trump.

Heck, if Musk keeps this up, I might start to like him.

[Fulham Broadway 17,335]

1 minute ago, Vesper said:

Trump rambles, slurs his way through Elon Musk interview. It was an unmitigated disaster.

---

 

For a fascism-curious billionaire who loves cuddling up to right-wing loons, Elon Musk sure is good at making right-wing politicians look stupid.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/08/12/trump-musk-interview-x-twitter-spaces-disaster/74774628007/

A campaign pin at a rally supporting Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in Bozeman, Mont., on Aug. 9, 2024.  

Natalie Behring/AFP via Getty Images

 

Former President Donald Trump had loudly trumpeted a planned Monday night interview with Musk that would stream on X. But much like the disastrous X-platformed launch of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ presidential campaign, the Musk/Trump interview failed to launch, leaving social media users laughing at the collective incompetence.

Since Vice President Kamala Harris rose to the top of the Democratic presidential ticket last month, Trump’s reelection campaign has been flailing. His childish attacks against her aren’t working. His racist comments about her mixed-race heritage have repelled all but his most loyal supporters. His vice presidential pick, JD Vance, becomes less likable every time he speaks.

So his answer, weirdly, was to sit down with Musk and talk to what would undoubtedly be a very online audience that doesn’t represent the broader electorate. Had the conversation gone off without a hitch, it still would have been odd and largely useless for Trump’s effort to halt Harris’ momentum.

Trump's interview with Elon Musk was an unmitigated disaster

But the online interview went off (the rails) with a multitude of hitches. X users erupted with either frustration or laughter as the planned start time passed, and nothing could be accessed. It took more than 40 minutes before the interview could start and be heard by anyone. It was amateur hour, the last thing a campaign struggling to project competence needed.

In May 2023, when DeSantis' presidential campaign premiered with a glitch-tastic interview with Musk on what was then called Twitter, Trump mocked the debacle, writing on social media: “Wow! The DeSanctus TWITTER launch is a DISASTER! His whole campaign will be a disaster. WATCH!”

On behalf of DeSantis, allow me to say this: HAH!

Forget the glitches, Trump's X interview got worse when he started talking

Of course, things didn’t get better for Trump once the interview was able to proceed. 

Trump says AI did it: Trump blames Harris' crowds on AI, so let's all assume everything we don't like is fake!

He was rambling, babbling on about crowd sizes and immigration and President Joe Biden and whatever else seemed to pass through his mind. He was also badly slurring his words, raising questions about his health, and doing nothing to knock down rising concerns about his age and well-being.

He sounded like a disoriented, racist Daffy Duck.

Elon Musk is no Barbara Walters – his interview skills stink

Musk, meanwhile, has the interviewing skills of a stoned introvert. He did little but cheerlead Trump and agree with every bizarro thing that fell out of his mouth, while occasionally going on the kind of odd right-wing tangents you’d expect from a man too rich to ever be told to pipe down.

I’m not going to quote anything Trump said in the interview because it was either too stupid to merit transcription or a mere repetition of the nonsense he spouts at every rally he holds.

Harris can beat Trump: I was wrong about Kamala Harris. And that's a huge problem for Donald Trump

A big part of Trump’s problem right now is he has become almost unbearably boring. Build a wall. Drill, baby, drill. Marxist, socialist something-something. Harris only recently became Black. Blah, blah, blah.

Musk gave Trump the same gift he gave Ron DeSantis. Whomp whomp.

So for Trump, sitting down with a rich weirdo few people like and slurring his way through an interview that failed to launch was, in the words of one Donald J. Trump, “a DISASTER!”

Musk, with his social-media ineptness and unmerited sense of self-importance, made DeSantis look like a fool. And now he’s done the same to Trump.

Heck, if Musk keeps this up, I might start to like him.

Two extremely rich individuals working out how to create more division amongst the masses, get them at each others throats -it's what the rich do to protect themselves and for amusement

[Vesper 30,234]

The Week in Weird

[Vesper 30,234]

How Project 2025 Targets Atheists (and Non-Religious Americans)

 

[robsblubot 3,595]

16 minutes ago, Vesper said:

How Project 2025 Targets Atheists (and Non-Religious Americans)

 

which means it also targets Trump, or closet atheists don't count? 😅

[Vesper 30,234]

17 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

which means it also targets Trump, or closet atheists don't count? 😅

Trump is a theist

his god is himself

[cosmicway 1,333]

Harris ahead of Trump in the betting (1.80 - 2.00).
The one ahead in the first week of September is almost always the winner.
 

[Vesper 30,234]

10 hours ago, cosmicway said:

Harris ahead of Trump in the betting (1.80 - 2.00).
The one ahead in the first week of September is almost always the winner.
 

Tell that to Hillary.

Never underestimate the greed, hate, fear, and raging ignorance of a vast neurolinguistically programmed right wing/white wing segment of the American populace.

We have seen a similar stream from the same sewers flow out into the UK streets lately.

Atm I think Harris wins, but many rows to hoe beforehand. 

[Vesper 30,234]

 

 

Edited August 14, 2024 by Vesper

[cosmicway 1,333]

9 hours ago, Vesper said:

Tell that to Hillary.

Never underestimate the greed, hate, fear, and raging ignorance of a vast neurolinguistically programmed right wing/white wing segment of the American populace.

We have seen a similar stream from the same sewers flow out into the UK streets lately.

Atm I think Harris wins, but many rows to hoe beforehand. 

Hillary was an exception to the rule.
She was 2% ahead but Trump was closing and eventually Hillary did win the national vote by 0.5% but lost the states.
The huge upset was in 1948, Truman v. Hewey but I guess the gallop polls were in archaic state then.

Do you know when the first Greek poll was published ?
It was in 1985 !
I had a friend who was a doctor and we were good at this but when we saw every silly tabloid publishing polls after that we said "pfff laisse les pauvres" and did n't bother anymore.
What a miscalculation ! We would be the first table infront of the orchestra now.
 

[Vesper 30,234]

JD Vance in 2020 agreed grandmothers raising children is ‘whole purpose of the postmenopausal female’

https://heartlandsignal.com/2024/08/14/jd-vance-in-2020-agreed-grandmothers-raising-children-is-whole-purpose-of-the-postmenopausal-female/

Republican vice presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio speaks at a campaign event, Wednesday, Aug. 14, 2024, in Byron Center, Mich. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)

While appearing on “The Portal” podcast in April 2020, Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) agreed with host Eric Weinstein’s claim that “postmenopausal females” exist just to help take care of children.

In the podcast, the current Republican vice-presidential nominee mentioned that his son benefited from having exposure to his grandparents, expressing importance for the multigenerational family. Weinstein replied saying “that’s the whole purpose of the postmenopausal female in theory,” to which Vance immediately agreed with by saying “Yes.”

 

Vance went on to explain that his mother-in-law, who worked as a biology professor, took a sabbatical for a year to move in and help take care of his newborn child. He says it’s just “what you do.”

He also agreed with Weinstein that grandparents helping raise his children is a “weird, unadvertised feature of marrying an Indian woman.” 

Vance said that “hyper-liberalized economics” would want his mother-in-law to continue working, but still give them money to hire someone to help them. 

“I think it’s super important that we one, not idealize especially the 1950s version of an American housewife, because as my grandma told me, it was very lonely,” Vance expressed. “And I do try to emphasize the point about choice, whether it’s structurally driven, culturally driven, individually driven.”

Vance has also taken a position in favor on a national abortion ban, preventing no-fault divorce even in violent marriages, and criticizing working mothers for needing affordable child care.

At the time of the recording, Weinstein was the managing director of Thiel Capital, a hedge fund founded by PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel. Vance pivoted from law to venture capital in large part because of Thiel’s mentorship, and the senator benefited greatly from the billionaire’s funding for the 2022 Ohio Senate race that he ultimately won.

[KEVINAA 129]

 

This was posted at 05:46 am Thursday 15 August 2024 my AUCKLAND NZL time, which is 6:46 pm Wednesday 14 August.

Are you ready to defend yourself from them.

[Vesper 30,234]

 

[Vesper 30,234]

 

[Vesper 30,234]

 

Riot Act: Unpicking Matthew Goodwin’s Arguments in Defence of ‘White Anger’

The honorary professor attempted to explain why the riots swept across the UK – but did so using information selectively, choosing to emphasise certain details that supported his narrative

https://bylinetimes.com/2024/08/13/uk-riots-matthew-goodwin/

Of those tossing a blanket of respectability over the racist violence of the past fortnight, one of the most energetic was Matthew Goodwin.

The British academic, an honorary professor at the University of Kent, tried to explain the motives of those involved – some 977 people have been arrested so far; 466 charged, Sky News reported.

In recent years Goodwin has moved from studying the populist right to advocating its policy agenda. In articles, speeches, and his book Values, Voice and Virtue: The New British Politics, Goodwin has promoted a reactionary form of nationalism. He argues that the UK is run by a liberal elite which has flooded the country with immigrants, changing Britain for the worse. 

An anti-immigration supporter confronts riot police after scuffles broke out during a Stand Up To Racism unity rally against anti-immigration supporters on August 3. Photo: ZUMA Press Inc / Alamy

 

After false claims were spread online that the alleged killer of three young girls in Southport was a Muslim asylum seeker, and far-right groups started a pogrom in several towns, Goodwin attempted to legitimise their motivations.

In a piece on his substack on 1 August tilted ‘What did you expect?’, Goodwin painted the ongoing riots as a symptom of public feeling about decades of “mass immigration”.

He made a point of describing the alleged Southport killer, who was born in Cardiff to parents from Rwanda, as “the son of immigrants from Rwanda”, in what appeared to be an attempt to emphasise the man’s foreign heritage and fit him into this anti-immigration narrative. Goodwin then listed a series of bad things – from Islamist terrorism, to “grooming” rape gangs, to the supposed failures of multiculturalism, to migrants arriving in small boats – and asserted that people who object to these events are unfairly labelled far-right.

In a post on X on August 3, he wrote: “Anybody who breaks the law should be arrested. But what you are also witnessing in the UK right now is a concerted & most likely coordinated effort by the elite class to inflate ‘far right’ to stigmatise & silence millions of ordinary people who object to mass immigration and its effects.” 

Anyone who hasn’t been asleep for the past decade or two will know that this is false as these issues are discussed regularly in print and broadcast media, and are a major part of Government policy.

 

Far from being bullied out of public life, “concerns” about immigration have dominated British politics, especially since Brexit. And while some have criticised anti-immigration politics as cruel or xenophobic, Goodwin’s sketch of a censorious Britain is a distortion of reality, designed to serve a political function. 

The ‘What did you expect?’ article is an exercise in grouping unrelated events together to create an impression of association. But the professor fails to join the dots.

Goodwin neglects to say whether he thinks being an immigrant, or a child of immigrants, or a Muslim, makes one more likely to commit a crime. So for all his urging of candour, he declines to voice his opinion. The result is a piece of shady innuendo, which is the opposite of an “open and honest debate”. 

Another Goodwin method is to cherry-pick data from opinion polls to suit a narrative. In a substack piece titled ‘What Brits REALLY think about the immigration riots and protests’, Goodwin accused YouGov of trying to “downplay some of the key findings” of a poll it published on 6 August. Goodwin called it “very significant” that 67% of respondents blamed the riots on “immigration policy in recent years”. 

“Significance” is in the eye of the beholder. For context, 88% pinned responsibility on the people taking part, followed by social media (86%), far-right groups (74%) and the news media (69%), with Goodwin’s favoured answer coming fifth.

These numbers are a combination of “a great deal” and “a fair amount” of responsibility. So if we stick to “a great deal”, it’s 71% for the rioters themselves, 56% for social media, and 53% for far-right groups, while immigration policy drops to just 36%. And pollsters didn’t ask people what they meant by “immigration policy in recent years” being responsible for anti-immigrant violence, which is open to interpretation. 

As this example shows, opinion polls are notoriously easy to exploit, from the way a question is asked to how the results are reported. But it wouldn’t matter if 100% of the public thought something – this wouldn’t make it true, let alone wise or moral.

This concept of a single and authentic “will of the people”, and of adherence to its wishes as the measure of democracy, is a hangover from Brexit and the populism Goodwin hopes to revive.

Incidentally, have we not just had a rather big democratic test of public opinion, with the landslide election of a Labour Party critical of Conservative posturing on immigration? Not so, according to the professor, who reads the election (with its Conservative swing to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK), as a verdict on the failure of “elite” Conservatives to tackle immigration. 

The author of a book called National Populism, Goodwin’s real contribution to the field is to deploy its rhetorical methods so blatantly. If one were to take Goodwin’s work and replace the words “many ordinary people think” with “I think”, we would often be much closer to the truth.

Goodwin spent the riots in Viktor Orban’s Hungary, (“a conservative country criticised by elites across the West”), where, he writes: “I saw no crime… no riots… no mass immigration”. Here’s a question: What does “mass immigration” look like?

On Thursday, he took it upon himself to define who is and is not English, telling a journalist of Asian descent: “I think you can be British and English in terms of nationality but not English in terms of ethnicity.”50 A YEAR

On Saturday, comparing responses to “Black Lives Matter rioting and protests” with the post-Southport riots, Goodwin lamented that “today, it’s apparently illegitimate to ask what lies behind white anger”. 

Volunteering for the role of “white anger” interpreter has its perks. Far from being silenced for his views, Goodwin claims he has been doing “a lot of international media”.

When approached by Byline Times, Goodwin noted that the opinion he expressed was shared by others, again citing the YouGov polling that showed that more than two-thirds of all British people, some 67% blame “recent immigration policy” as having contributed to the violence.

Goodwin further argued that people like Tommy Robinson – who was accused of stoking tensions while holidaying abroad – and Nigel Farage “also reflect this underlying anger over mass immigration”.

“Indeed, as my own research has shown, wanting to stop the boats and reduce legal immigration are the top two drivers of support for Nigel Farage and Reform,” he told Byline Times.

 

[robsblubot 3,595]

7 hours ago, Vesper said:

 

He's just as senile as Biden... and honestly it seems to be progressing as rapidly as it did for Biden. I wonder how he will sound a couple of months from now given he slurs often already.

Edited August 17, 2024 by robsblubot

[cosmicway 1,333]

On 17/08/2024 at 09:08, robsblubot said:

He's just as senile as Biden... and honestly it seems to be progressing as rapidly as it did for Biden. I wonder how he will sound a couple of months from now given he slurs often already.

Windage and elevation mrs Langdon.

[Fulham Broadway 17,335]

On 17/08/2024 at 05:24, Vesper said:

 

Riot Act: Unpicking Matthew Goodwin’s Arguments in Defence of ‘White Anger’

The honorary professor attempted to explain why the riots swept across the UK – but did so using information selectively, choosing to emphasise certain details that supported his narrative

https://bylinetimes.com/2024/08/13/uk-riots-matthew-goodwin/

Of those tossing a blanket of respectability over the racist violence of the past fortnight, one of the most energetic was Matthew Goodwin.

The British academic, an honorary professor at the University of Kent, tried to explain the motives of those involved – some 977 people have been arrested so far; 466 charged, Sky News reported.

In recent years Goodwin has moved from studying the populist right to advocating its policy agenda. In articles, speeches, and his book Values, Voice and Virtue: The New British Politics, Goodwin has promoted a reactionary form of nationalism. He argues that the UK is run by a liberal elite which has flooded the country with immigrants, changing Britain for the worse. 

An anti-immigration supporter confronts riot police after scuffles broke out during a Stand Up To Racism unity rally against anti-immigration supporters on August 3. Photo: ZUMA Press Inc / Alamy

 

After false claims were spread online that the alleged killer of three young girls in Southport was a Muslim asylum seeker, and far-right groups started a pogrom in several towns, Goodwin attempted to legitimise their motivations.

In a piece on his substack on 1 August tilted ‘What did you expect?’, Goodwin painted the ongoing riots as a symptom of public feeling about decades of “mass immigration”.

He made a point of describing the alleged Southport killer, who was born in Cardiff to parents from Rwanda, as “the son of immigrants from Rwanda”, in what appeared to be an attempt to emphasise the man’s foreign heritage and fit him into this anti-immigration narrative. Goodwin then listed a series of bad things – from Islamist terrorism, to “grooming” rape gangs, to the supposed failures of multiculturalism, to migrants arriving in small boats – and asserted that people who object to these events are unfairly labelled far-right.

In a post on X on August 3, he wrote: “Anybody who breaks the law should be arrested. But what you are also witnessing in the UK right now is a concerted & most likely coordinated effort by the elite class to inflate ‘far right’ to stigmatise & silence millions of ordinary people who object to mass immigration and its effects.” 

Anyone who hasn’t been asleep for the past decade or two will know that this is false as these issues are discussed regularly in print and broadcast media, and are a major part of Government policy.

 

Far from being bullied out of public life, “concerns” about immigration have dominated British politics, especially since Brexit. And while some have criticised anti-immigration politics as cruel or xenophobic, Goodwin’s sketch of a censorious Britain is a distortion of reality, designed to serve a political function. 

The ‘What did you expect?’ article is an exercise in grouping unrelated events together to create an impression of association. But the professor fails to join the dots.

Goodwin neglects to say whether he thinks being an immigrant, or a child of immigrants, or a Muslim, makes one more likely to commit a crime. So for all his urging of candour, he declines to voice his opinion. The result is a piece of shady innuendo, which is the opposite of an “open and honest debate”. 

Another Goodwin method is to cherry-pick data from opinion polls to suit a narrative. In a substack piece titled ‘What Brits REALLY think about the immigration riots and protests’, Goodwin accused YouGov of trying to “downplay some of the key findings” of a poll it published on 6 August. Goodwin called it “very significant” that 67% of respondents blamed the riots on “immigration policy in recent years”. 

“Significance” is in the eye of the beholder. For context, 88% pinned responsibility on the people taking part, followed by social media (86%), far-right groups (74%) and the news media (69%), with Goodwin’s favoured answer coming fifth.

These numbers are a combination of “a great deal” and “a fair amount” of responsibility. So if we stick to “a great deal”, it’s 71% for the rioters themselves, 56% for social media, and 53% for far-right groups, while immigration policy drops to just 36%. And pollsters didn’t ask people what they meant by “immigration policy in recent years” being responsible for anti-immigrant violence, which is open to interpretation. 

As this example shows, opinion polls are notoriously easy to exploit, from the way a question is asked to how the results are reported. But it wouldn’t matter if 100% of the public thought something – this wouldn’t make it true, let alone wise or moral.

This concept of a single and authentic “will of the people”, and of adherence to its wishes as the measure of democracy, is a hangover from Brexit and the populism Goodwin hopes to revive.

Incidentally, have we not just had a rather big democratic test of public opinion, with the landslide election of a Labour Party critical of Conservative posturing on immigration? Not so, according to the professor, who reads the election (with its Conservative swing to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK), as a verdict on the failure of “elite” Conservatives to tackle immigration. 

The author of a book called National Populism, Goodwin’s real contribution to the field is to deploy its rhetorical methods so blatantly. If one were to take Goodwin’s work and replace the words “many ordinary people think” with “I think”, we would often be much closer to the truth.

Goodwin spent the riots in Viktor Orban’s Hungary, (“a conservative country criticised by elites across the West”), where, he writes: “I saw no crime… no riots… no mass immigration”. Here’s a question: What does “mass immigration” look like?

On Thursday, he took it upon himself to define who is and is not English, telling a journalist of Asian descent: “I think you can be British and English in terms of nationality but not English in terms of ethnicity.”50 A YEAR

On Saturday, comparing responses to “Black Lives Matter rioting and protests” with the post-Southport riots, Goodwin lamented that “today, it’s apparently illegitimate to ask what lies behind white anger”. 

Volunteering for the role of “white anger” interpreter has its perks. Far from being silenced for his views, Goodwin claims he has been doing “a lot of international media”.

When approached by Byline Times, Goodwin noted that the opinion he expressed was shared by others, again citing the YouGov polling that showed that more than two-thirds of all British people, some 67% blame “recent immigration policy” as having contributed to the violence.

Goodwin further argued that people like Tommy Robinson – who was accused of stoking tensions while holidaying abroad – and Nigel Farage “also reflect this underlying anger over mass immigration”.

“Indeed, as my own research has shown, wanting to stop the boats and reduce legal immigration are the top two drivers of support for Nigel Farage and Reform,” he told Byline Times.

 

Its the same old story - uneducated folks gaslit by intelligent racists who never get their hands dirty - take all right wing leaders and rabble rousers from Hitler, Mussolini, Putin, Netanyahu -they all depend on a disenfranchised uneducated working class who are looking for someone to blame, whereas the unscrupulous 'leaders' should be their target.