Tommy Robinson (born Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, right) leads a demonstration on September 15 demonstration © Shayan Barjesteh van Waalwijk van Doorn

Recent events in the UK suggest that right-wing nationalism is a growing phenomenon there. Some people (myself included) find this flag-waving “Britain in best” nonsense rather offensive, but the trend is clearly visible in the rash of ultra-patriotic (?) shows and in tabloid newspaper headlines. Even in the small Lincolnshire village I call home there are a number of Union Jack flags flying, alongside the Cross of St.George, for reasons I find hard to understand. After all, the Cross of St. George is actually the official flag of Barcelona as well as forming part of Georgia’s national flag, and is flown proudly throughout Catalonia. I assume that the householders of a Lincolnshire village (and other parts of England) are not displaying their patriotism for a Spanish region, nor for the lovely country of Georgia.

It’s nothing to do with actual patriotism, of course. It’s really meant to demonstrate that the people displaying it are opposed to the acceptance of refugees and would rather see the boats sent back to wherever they came from. I’ve never really understood why. Most refugees are leaving behind the harsh conditions of their lives in the hope of a brighter future for them and their children, which seems to me to be an admirable ambition. Displaying flags is OK, I suppose, as long as things don’t get worse. Sadly, there have been examples of things getting considerably worse with violence taking place on occasions. Of course, there is a certain segment of society that quite enjoys violence and even encourages it. We’ve often seen it at football matches in the UK and it has led to quite a number of supposed football “fans” being sent to prison. What violence has to do with sport is completely beyond my comprehension. I’m sure that most of these bungalow- dwelling middle class flag wavers in English villages don’t really favour seeing people (even asylum-seekers) suffering violence at the hands of their fellow-Britons. Many observers, however, think the flags are intended to intimidate those from overseas and to make them realise they’re not universally welcome. Violence, however, is a rather “un-British” way to behave, after all, in everyday life. However, the tensions over asylum and the arrival of small boats on British shores, loaded with a few of the World’s poorest and most threatened people, have given a boost to the right wing of politics.

The so-called “Reform” party, very right wing and led by Nigel Farage, has seen its share of the votes rise and a number of local authorities, especially in the North of England, are now in that party’s control. Those regions used to be regarded as mainly “Labour-voting”. Mr. Farage himself has predicted that he will become Prime Minister of the UK by (or in) 2027. He may well be right. I always got on quite well with Mr. Farage when he was a member of the European Parliament and I was reporting on it for various television station and news organisations. We occasionally even sat for a chat over a beer at a bar near the press entrance of the European Commission. We never agreed over things like policy, of course, but we were, as I recall, invariably polite to each other. The bar in question, which was called “The Old Hack”, was owned by a retired tabloid newspaper reporter who chose the name because “hack” is a slang word for a journalist and the bar owner was, of course, quite old.

| THERE’S “RIGHT” (AS IN “RIGHT WING”), BUT ALSO “WRONG”

I’m rather more worried about the apparent surge in support for a more extreme right-wing figure: Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who chooses to call himself Tommy Robinson He is an ardent anti- Islamic campaigner who has been arrested and jailed several times for a variety of offences, and who chose his adopted name in honour (if that’s the right word) of a well-known Luton Town football hooligan. The choice was made at the urging of Mr. Yaxley-Lennon’s uncle, who disliked the real Tommy Robinson and who hoped his nephew’s activities would damage him, or at least be an embarrassment. Mr. Yaxley-Lennon identifies as a Fascist and has a lengthy prison record.

Most of his followers share his somewhat extreme views about foreigners, which may unintentionally provide a boost for Nigel Farage. Some people with right-wing nationalist opinions may sympathise with the Fascist beliefs but be afraid to support them too overtly, which could mean more votes for the rather more moderate Mr. Farage. Given the electoral support already shown for Mr. Farage’s political party, the activities of Mr. Yaxley-Lennon may offer Mr. Farage’s supporters a “more respectable” alternative to vote for. At least slightly. It’s certainly true that some Conservative politicians have been defecting to Reform, seeing it as offering a better chance of re- election and electoral success. Additionally, the government of Keir Starmer has disappointed quite a few former Labour Party voters, who voted Labour in the belief that it was a show of support for Socialism. As it is, Mr. Starmer and his team have disappointed them and many would argue that Mr. Starmer’s Labour Party is not Socialist at all. We must recall here Mr. Starmer’s former deputy leader, Angela Rayner, who seems to have collected quite expensive properties al over Britain in much the same way other people might have collected stamps or rare butterflies.

The various scandals attending some of the ministers and other senior figures certainly haven’t helped. It’s the sort of thing that leaves voters undecided and disillusioned. Labour’s first leader was James Keir Hardie and I’m afraid he might have been shocked. Not that the other leading British political party, the Conservatives, have been winning friends, either. Some ardent supporters still miss Margaret Thatcher. Is everyone living in the past?

| LIES APLENTY!

The fear being expressed in some places is that Mr. Yaxley-Lennon may actually be a symbol of the future, too. It’s a worrying thought. Not so long ago a 20-year-old Sikh woman was dragged into bushes by two shaven-headed white men and beaten and raped. One of the men is reported to have said to his victim “You don’t belong in this country. Get out”. The police have stepped up their patrols around Birmingham, where the attack happened, but it’s still shocking. The incident is being regarded as a racially motivated sex assault. Not long afterwards, the far-right campaigner Mr. Yaxley-Lennon led a protest march against the admission of asylum seekers. Incidentally, among his wide range of outrages, Mr. Yaxley-Lennon has also shown his liking for Vladimir Putin, promoting his propaganda and even visiting Moscow to talk with some of Mr. Putin’s allies with a view to urging cooperation to “preserve our Christian values, culture and identity”. I don’t know about you but I never thought of rape as being included in what could be called “Christian values”. Mr. Yaxley-Lennon untruthfully claimed that the London event, which attracted a worrying 150,000 supporters, was the biggest protest in British history, despite falling woefully short of the milion- plus protestors who took part in the rally and march against Brexit (I know because I was there and saw one Conservative MP standing on the balcony of a private club, watching the march and laughing, which made me realise that ours was a lost cause) Unfortunately the march failed to change the government’s mind (it never could have done). The pro-Brexit movement was largely led by Boris Johnson, whose fondness for truth and honesty has been called into question from time to time.

He’s just a mild nuisance, however, when compared with Mr. Yaxley- Lennon. At the London rally held shortly after the Birmingham rape – a rally which Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, with no trace of irony, billed as “a festival of free speech” – some of his supporters were openly snorting cocaine, while some were allegedly calling for Kier Starmer to be murdered and even, in some cases, chanting “Heil Hitler”. As you can judge, it was not a friendly event, nor a sensible one that was ever likely to win widespread popular support (I hope). We must assume that the attendees, by and large, were not very bright and nor were they well-informed. Its organisers seem to hate all foreigners indiscriminately, but especially those with a slightly darker skin and a dream of living in the UK, and are urging others to share their views. It must be mentioned, though, that Nigel Farage resigned from the UK Independence Party over its support for Mr. Yaxley-Lennon and its general anti-Islamic attitude. My money would be on Mr. Farage to take power, rather than Mr. Yaxley- Lennon; if Mr. Yaxley-Lennon ever got close to power I would be surprised and somewhat perturbed. I don’t think I’d like to see swastikas on display. The Conservative Party. However, whilst not espousing the murderous hatred of some extremist elements, but they may still favour the deportations of immigrants, at least in theory. Britain has long been a multi-cultural society, however, and it is to be hoped that it stays that way. It is not what Mr. Yaxley-Lennon wants, it seems: he would prefer the Putin-style extremism he apparently admires. The Economist magazine reminded readers that in the past it has been the moderate centrist parties that have called the shots, but now that centre seems to be crumbling, while Mr. Farage seems to be in the driving seat. Perhaps we should just be grateful that it isn’t Mr. Yaxley Lennon. At least, not yet. But leaders have their weak spots. According to my 1827 edition of “A Classical Dictionary”, edited by Dr. J. Lempriere, most people admired the great Greek hero Achilles, but in attempting to make him invulnerable, Thetis plunged him into the River Styx, although he did so by holding on to his heel, which therefore didn’t get into the water, meaning it would remain vulnerable. That is why a person’s weak spot is often referred to as their “Achilles’ Heel”. All politicians have them by the score, (more heels than one might expect with a centipede) despite never having been dipped even partially in the Styx. Of course, they didn’t get their education from a centaur, either, as Achilles supposedly did from Chiron, according to the legends. What one might learn from a horse with a human brain one can only guess at. How to spot a good stable, perhaps?

The current issues in Britain over flag-flying are stirring up the almost forgotten memories of racial tensions in the past. One pub landlady, interviewed by the “I” newspaper, said she would refuse to take down her flags because she’s “British and proud of it”. I’m sure the patriots of Barcelona and Georgia would applaud her. But the locals of those old industrial northern towns have a point, of course. Constant factory and mill closures and the way many of the old towns have been allowed to become run-down is disheartening in the extreme. The Labour and Conservative parties must come up with solutions to deindustrialisation, but it won’t be easy. Not that the sorts of solutions that might emerge from the ranks of Mr. Yaxley-Lennon’s party are likely to hold much promise of change, but we should remember that Adolf Hitler used the poverty that had seized the old industrial parts of Germany to bolster his personal support. Like Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, Hitler had also spent time in prison, although he still managed to climb the slippery pole to seize power. The world has changed and continues to change, of course. It’s not the fault of any individual politician or party, it’s just what happens in a vibrant, living world. No-one said it will always change for the better; only that it will change. But while flying flags is one way to demonstrate your allegiance, there’s no excuse for hating people, especially if they’re people to whom you’ve never spoken and don’t know. You cannot judge people purely by the colour of their skin, as Mr. Yaxley-Lennon seems to do. And, of course, no political beliefs, however deeply felt, can ever excuse rape, which is merely the uncontrolled lust of violent men with no social conscience. Gosh, they must have hated their mothers to do anything so inexcusably awful.

| DEALING WITH ECONOMIC COLLAPSE

So what is anyone to do to tackle industrial decline, which seems to lie at the heart of the problem? Make no mistake: it’s the sort of thing that empowers extremists, who then try to blame foreigners for all their ills, however undeservedly. In Hitler’s case, he blamed German Jews; in Mr. Yaxley- Lennon’s he appears to be trying to shift the blame onto Asians, or anyone foreign seeking a better life in the UK. Looking at the history of Britain during the 20th century it’s easy to concentrate on Sir Winston Churchill, but despite his many admirers’ Churchill lost Britain’s 1945 election to Clement Attlee, whose Labour Party administration gave the country its National Health service, introduced National Insurance and saw Britain join NATO and experience the fear and excitement connected to the development of the atomic bomb. He always believed in humanity and many historians have described him as Britain’s greatest peace-time Prime Minister. Incidentally, Attlee remained an admirer of Churchill and the two men, eho were great friends. would sit and talk together, often laughing, although Churchill’s worsening deafness meant he couldn’t hear what Attlee said to him, largely because he refused to use his ear trumpet.

The economic crisis, however, was and still is very real. It began in earnest in 2008, the unfortunate result of a deregulated market with too much liquidity and low interest rates, coupled with a global real estate bubble, according to the economist Joseph Stiglitz in his excellent book, Freefall. It had nothing at all to do with foreign immigrants, of course. He believed that the crisis was caused by the United States, just as the Great Depression of the 1930s had been. First came the bursting of the “tech bubble”, which the chairman of America’s Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan had allowed to build up. Stock prices for tech companies plunged by 78% between March 2000 and October 2002. Naturally, this affected other industries, not just those directly connected, and America was plunged into recession.

President George W. Bush thought the best solution would be to cut taxes for the rich, but this rather failed to stimulate the economy. Greenspan flooded the market with liquidity by lowering interest rates, but this totally failed to result in more investment in plant or equipment, as many economists had predicted. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 led to soaring oil prices and Washington was obliged to spend billions of dollars importing oil, rather than pouring it into the US economy. Wall Street failed to come up with a solution, putting their greatest efforts into maximising profits, instead of stabilising mortgage prices. Homeowners lost their properties while the rich profiteered. It was hardly the fault of poor asylum-seekers in Britain or anywhere else.

Naturally, how much anyone earns must depend on their productivity, which in turn depends to a great extent on their education and training. “The supply of skills depends on, among other things, the state of the educational system,” wrote the economist Thomas Piketty, in his book “Capital in the 21st Century”, but the elimination of educational inequality in France, for instance, failed to affect wage inequality. It had nothing to do with the arrival of foreigners seeking jobs and everything to do with straightforward economics. No far right political rabble-rouser can change that and nobody should believe them if they say they can. Even the governmental theorists get it wrong, according to Mr. Piketty: “Theoretical discussion of educational issues and of meritocracy,” he writes, “is often out of touch with reality, and in particular with the fact that the most prestigious schools tend to favour students from privileged social backgrounds.” Civilisations throughout history have mainly found it impossible to create the legendary “level playing field” for job and earnings opportunities. But I digress. What one can say, unequivocally, is that the relative wealth of any country or community has nothing whatever to do with foreigners trying to set up home there. Waving flags at them will not make a difference.

| SHIFTING THE BLAME – FOR WHAT?

It’s a sad fact of life (and has been since our ancestors first came down from the trees) that some people do better out of life than others. It’s not necessarily anything to do with skill, dexterity or even who your relations are, either. Some people are simply luckier in life than others because of sheer chance. But, of course, it’s always comforting if we can find somebody to blame. A scapegoat, you may say. The far right political figures may not even believe what they claim about immigrants: they are a way to power, especially for those lacking any real talent, although having what’s called “the gift of the gab” is certainly a help. The plain fact is that those who have been dealt a bad hand in the card game of life will inevitably try to find someone or something to blsme. Their misfortune could not possible be due to a failing on their part. Somebody has deliberately cheated, to rob them of their birthright. I think it’s probably true to say that it’s been going on for centuries.

It is not – cannot ever be – possible to ensure that absolutely everyone gets a square deal. Life simply isn’t like that. There is now and has always been global inequality. After all, the migrants themselves would clearly prefer nt to have to risk life and limb, for themselves and their families, in order to get a fair chance to make a successful living. To borrow from Piketty again, this time from his book “Nature, Culture and Inequality”, in a perfectly egalitarian society a person’s share would equate to their fair proportion of overall income, but that doesn’t happen in the real world. In fact, just how fair the divisions are varies according to where in the world you are. It’s really very complicated and the picture is further muddied by the way in which everyone strives to do better, earn more and overtop their rivals and their friends (often the same people). It’s very understandable and completely inevitable. We wouldn’t be human if that was not so.

However, seeking gain for one’s self and one’s family should not involve slandering an entire section of society, I feel When t does, something has gone badly wrong, and that appears to be what is happening in parts of Britain. Rivalry and “one-upmanship” are just part of human nature; blaming others for doing much the same thing clearly is not. That’s why current trends in the UK bother me, and why I shudder at the sight of flags which seem not to be being displayed as an act of patriotism but rather as a way of saying “go away” to those whose right to nearby residence you dispute. People have to live where they can, preferably without annoying the neighbours by playing loud music, especially at night. But tolerance costs nothing. I’m afraid that its opposite can prove very costly indeed. So let’s have fewer flags flapping about, especially if they’re a message to no-nationals that they are unwelcome and unwanted. Yes, there have been racial tensions in the past, but things work better – far better – when mistrust and suspicion are replaced by cooperation. I would urge the people of Britain to ignore the rabble-rousers and the fomenters of hate and learn to live with their neighbours – even those new neighbours – with sympathy and understanding. It will make the world a much nicer place, free from hatred and pointless violence. Save those flags for national celebrations, such as anniversaries of wars ending or even the King’s birthday. I feel sure he’d appreciate it and nobody would get hurt. As for those people who seek to foment violence because they enjoy it, I can only say they’re being very UN-British, the reverse of what they claim to represent. Perhaps we should consider changing the words of that patriotic son, “Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves” to the sadly more accurate “Rule Britannia, Britannia waives the rules?”.