What Do We Have To Lose

If Keir Starmer won’t even make a moral case against deporting our friends and neighbours, then what is the point of him? Plus: some natural borders; and the non-existence of grey, and other letters.

There’s a long forgotten viral tweet which someone calling themselves @WarrenIsDead posted all the way back in 2016.¹ Here it is now:

American fascist: your going to the camps,

American Liberal, chuckling: ‘you’re’.

The point being that this is technically correct while also being completely the wrong answer. You don’t fight the politics of violence by quibbling with the details! You stamp it into a million pieces! You draw a f*cking line!

I’ve been thinking about this in relation to what I’d refer to as the latest awful policy from Reform, were it not for my suspicion they’ve almost certainly knocked out a couple more of the things since. On Monday, Nigel Farage – who for legal reasons I should make clear I’m not calling either an American or a fascist – pledged to scrap Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). At present, migrants can apply for the status after living and working in the UK for five years continuously. A year after that, they can start the (lengthy, annoying, expensive) process of applying for citizenship, if they fancy, but the point is that they don’t have to: they have a legal right to be here anyway.

Under Reform’s plans, ILR would be no more. This would not apply simply to future migrants: it would be retrospectively revoked, too, from the tens of thousands of people who’ve already used it to make their lives here. Those who weren’t put off by this giant neon sign reading “F*CK OFF” could still apply for citizenship, of course; but only after waiting seven years and giving up any other citizenships they hold.

There is, inevitably, more. The route still open to migrants would be to apply for a visa. But they’d be able to do this only if they earned above an unknown but high salary threshold (the Times puts it at £60,000). This would be utterly ruinous for vast chunks of both the private sector (construction, hospitality) and public services (the NHS, social care): every one of us would be affected.

But some would clearly be more affected than others. Take a moment here to think of the people in your life who want to live here without claiming citizenship, or without narrowing themselves down to a single passport.² Consider the friends, colleagues, family members who would, under a strict interpretation of Farage’s plans, face deportation.

And note how long ago you stopped even thinking about their nationality.

All this is quite obviously awful. It would rip families apart. It would cripple the economy. It doesn’t even work as populism, if only because it is extraordinarily unpopular.³ Principled opposition to this plan would not merely be the right thing to do for the government: it would align it with the vast majority of the electorate.

Here, as reported in the Guardian, is the actual response.

Keir Starmer’s political spokesperson said the country was at a crossroads between “national renewal” and “the path of division and decline, which Reform wants to put the country on”.

She said: “Every week Nigel Farage sets out unrealistic, unworkable and unfunded plans. You’ve heard the prime minister talk about the politics of grievance that Reform thrives on. They don’t want to tackle the issues facing the country, they want to foster division.”

Or, to summarise that in fewer words:

[chuckling] You’re.

You’ll notice that these quotes come from the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson. That’s because the actual Prime Minister is still missing, presumed shit. In the last week he’s written an op-ed for the Sun, telling its dwindling number of readers that he will not give up the flag to racists, only a fortnight after such a take would have been relevant. He has issued at least one statement to the Guardian. But he seems entirely unable to locate a television camera, let alone to articulate into it the overwhelming moral case against deporting our friends and loved ones.

The government has decided to oppose Reform, not by arguing that they’re⁴ wrong – in their understanding of migration, the British people, the basic rules of morality and fair play – but by claiming that their sums don’t add up.

The job of a national leader is not merely to manage the state (that part isn’t going very well either, as it happens, but that’s by the by). It’s to paint a picture of where we’re going and how we’re going to get there – to speak both to and for the nation. The job of a leader is to lead.

Perhaps Starmer doesn’t understand this, and thinks the job is something else. Perhaps he does understand it, and thinks he’d be so bad at it he’d best not try. Perhaps he thinks that a plan to break promises and abandon our friends and neighbours is in some sense fine. I am not sure at this stage that it matters. What does matter is that Starmer has made it abundantly clear he is simply not going to do a large chunk of his job.

It would obviously be mad for a government with a huge majority to switch leaders just 15 months into its term.

But really, if he isn’t going to bother leading anyway, then – what do we have to lose?

I’m on the list

A handbrake turn into some light self-promo. Cor, would you look at that:

This is not, I should make clear, a unique accolade: a fair few other books are on the list, not least Lewis Baston’s quite excellent Borderlines. But obviously I’m going to shout about it, and obviously as what the book trade likes to call “gifting season” approaches I hope you will consider giving your loved ones the gift of borders.

Talking of books:

Some natural borders

I have been reading a book that hasn’t been published yet⁵: This Way Up, the debut from YouTube’s Map Men Jay Foreman and Mark Cooper-Jones. I thought mentioning it here might be doing them a favour in the old publicity stakes; but then I saw their Amazon ranking and blimey those guys don’t need my help they’re going to make a fortune. Did I just lose the Christmas market? Shit shit shit shit shit.

Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, the book is extremely good and you will all like it. But! The reason I am using it as a drop intro is that one of the stories contained therein started me thinking.

The story in question involves the Donner Party, a group who in 1846-7 made the rookie error of trying to take a shortcut when crossing North America before anyone had built any roads or railways, let alone motels or 7-Elevens. That chapter (which is lots of fun, by the way; you really will enjoy the book!) includes a reference to the point they crossed the Great continental divide – the notional line that marks the United States’ main hydrological divide. Pour a glass of water out almost anywhere on the eastern side of the line, and it will flow, eventually – it will take some time, and possibly a lengthy diversion via a smaller sea – into the Atlantic. Pour it out on the other side of that line, and it will flow, probably rather more speedily, to the Pacific.

The reason for the difference in timescales is that the continental divide doesn’t actually run down the middle of the continent, or anything like. It’s some way to the west, following the line of the Rocky Mountains: for the vast majority of the US and much of Canada, water will flow, eventually, eastwards.

Why the Rockies should form part of the divide is self explanatory – water is not famous for flowing uphill. But isn’t there another sizable mountain chain in the eastern United States? Why doesn’t that pose a similar barrier?

Actually it does. Here comes the map: