Sympathy for the Daily Mail: How Virgin’s Corporate Censorship Imperils the Internet

It is a well-worn adage, in politics as in life, that the enemy of your enemy is your friend. And so it is easy to feel a sense of gratitude at the news that Virgin Trains have decided to cease selling the Daily Mail on its services.

The howls of indignation from the paper are just too ironic, too delicious. After all, what could it be more in favour of than a private company exercising its prerogative to propagate what news it sees fit to. It can be observed that the paper’s advocacy of this moral imperative is particularly pronounced whenever the Leveson Inquiry is brought up. (One is put in mind of the spectacle of hard-core, alt-right libertarians on YouTube who, whenever their videos are hidden by this private company, transmogrify into big state Liberals demanding what they would otherwise consider intolerably intrusive government regulation.)

Here’s the hitch, though: baked into the irony of the situation is the problem that it is by the logic of the right that Virgin is most justified. Essentially, by justifying Virgin’s behaviour we affirm that logic – and that is dangerous.

The right can justify this act of corporate censorship and remain consistent – we cannot.


Despite a Virgin spokesman half-heartedly mentioning “one paper sold for every four trains” when the story broke, this was an ideological decision – that much is clear from the internal memo that began this sordid affair. In it, Drew MacMillan, Head of Colleague Communication and Engagement, wrote that the Daily Mail was “not compatible with the VT brand” and so would be dropped. There was no economic rationalisation on display here.

The very same accusations of corporate censorship would be raised if it was a shibboleth of our own being assailed. Indeed, this is a matter of empirical fact. When suspicions emerged that LGBT content was disproportionately more likely than heteronormative content to have age restrictions placed on it by moderators on YouTube – not even be deleted – there was much talk of censorship. More widely, the concept of corporate censorship has had currency on the left for a while. In Naomi Klein’s seminal No Logo, there is an entire chapter entitled “Corporate Censorship”.

Setting aside the matter of ideological consistency, we must consider the practical implications of this normalisation of corporate censorship at a time when net-neutrality hangs perilously in abeyance. While the decision in December of the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) to kill off net-neutrality does not overwrite it in the UK, it is a poor portent for it. The affirmation of net-neutrality in the UK is predicated on the EU’s Regulation on Open Internet Access. Despite the government’s commitment to transfer all EU regulations into the statute book with its Great Repeal Bill, it will become eminently repeatable where once it was not. We remain under a Conservative government, with all the disdain for “red-tape” and unthinking emulation of the United States that this entails.

We should be especially concerned when it is Liam Fox who is entrusted with negotiating future trade deals for this country in his capacity as Secretary of State for International Trade. This is a man who set up a forum to bring Conservatives and Republicans closer together, the Atlantic Bridge, and thought it such socially useful work to claim for it the status of a charity – a move so egregious the Charity Commission had to eventually withdraw it. Could you count on such a man to stand up for the regulatory vouchsafe of net-neutrality as the United States demands entry into the UK market on favourable terms for their corporate paymasters? An isolated post-Brexit Britain has little leverage to begin with and the Trumpist United States even less inclination to go easy.

It is not just the death of net-neutrality as a prelude to outright corporate censorship that should concern us, but also the way it would facilitate digital monopolisation – both, after all, would have the effect of silencing new or dissenting voices. It is in the nature of organisations such as Virgin to synergise across its divisions, cut-out competitors and create what Naomi Klein describes as a “self-sustaining lifestyle web”. Sir Richard Branson imagined not so much customers as branded serfs who would “cross the Atlantic on a Virgin plane, listen to Virgin records and keep their money with a Virgin bank”. Note how Virgin operated in the 1990s. Both record label and retailer, it used its Megastore to push its talent over that of other labels and mould consumer choice. This endeavour was ill-fated, however how successful would it have been if Virgin had controlled the means by which you consumed all media? Given that the Virgin brand now operates as an ISP (Internet Service Provider), we may be about to find out.

Virgin Media is itself a subsidiary of Liberty Global, the international telecommunications giant. Also owned by Global is ITV. In other words, Liberty Global controls both a sources of news and what is for many the principal means of consuming it. Absent any enforcement of data-neutrality, Liberty Global and Virgin could put new sources of mews into slow-lanes, if not cut them out completely, and promote its own concerns.

Virgin already practises a form of data-interference. As a mobile phone network, it privileges some services – such as Twitter, WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger – over others by allowing them to be streamed by subscribers on smartphones without taking up mobile data. Ominously, it is far from the only mobile phone network to engage in this kind of practice.

Given the opportunity to properly breach data-neutrality, Virgin would eagerly oblige. As former Virgin CEO. Neil Berkett, remarked in 2008, “this net-neutrality thing is a load of bollocks.”

The prosaic reality is that it would not take a conspiracy of corporate censorship to stymie alternative, left-wing news sources. A system of incentives and favours that could deny it the room to cultivate a following would be enough. By allowing Virgin to censor without censure, we normalise data interference and make such a system more likely. We are like peasants appealing to an enlightened despot to put right the depredations of an inconvenient bourgeoisie with little regard for the long duree. Are we so pathetic that we cannot organise independently?

So smile now left-friends, but when the corporate brownshirts knock at our door at the dead of night we will wonder why we did not say anything when they came for the Daily Mail.


How Corbyn Lost the Working Class: Robbing Peter to Pay Sebastian

One thing that has gone unnoticed in the braying triumphalism of the Corbynites’ post-election love-in is that Labour lost the working class vote: socioeconomic groups C2DE voted Conservative ahead of Labour by 12 points. Far from being on the cusp of electoral glory, Labour has suffered a historic estrangement from its core constituency which will likely preclude its gaining power for the foreseeable future. 

How could this have happened? How did Labour, who offered so much in the way of benefits, lose among this class? The key to understanding this is to realise that it is both a mistake and a myth to think that Labour offered benefits for everyone: their blandishments were of a distinctly middle class flavour – like an After Eight – and were only made possible by taking away what it could offer the working class. Labour’s politics often get depicted as robbing Peter to pay Paul, though a better way to characterise this would be robbing Peter to pay Sebastian. It is no coincidence that while it lost the working class vote it picked up the middle class vote, socioeconomic groups ABC1, by 12 points.

Consider free tuition. By making tuition free we are compelling someone who has not received the benefit of an education – someone who is more likely to be of humble station if social mobility is anywhere near as bad as we are led to believe (and it is) – subsidise the education of someone who is in most cases of higher social provenance. One could argue that access to higher education being tied to class is a function of increased tuition fees inhibiting participation and so lifting these will benefit poorer people. However, that assumes that the poor would wish to go into higher education – not everyone does – and would actually benefit from going to university. As poorer people are less likely to receive the grades to get into elite higher education institutions, the latter proposition is not at all self-evident. If we were able to make secondary education produce more egalitarian outcomes it would make more sense to make tuition free, but at the moment to do so would lead to a subsidisation of a middle class lifestyle.

The argument is often made that free tuition will benefit society as a whole because the recipient will pay higher taxes. However we know that higher education often does not lead to a higher wages and tax fields. In which case, what would the person who has not gone to university have benefitted from? Why should they pay for the middle class’ roll of the dice? As most of the benefit will accrue to the recipient it is only fair that some contribution be made. After all it is the working class in the form of taxes which will have to pay for the course if the prospective increase in tax yields does not cover it. In other words, the risk is socialised and the profits privatised which is hardly very equitable.

Labour’s opposition to the Dementia Tax was also more on behalf of the middle class than the working class. The mere suggestion that a property owner use their capital over £100,000 to pay for any care they receive – the same as someone with savings – was enough to cause Labour to clutch its collective pearls. Prithee, what other purpose would that money have for someone at such advanced age than to be transferred as unearned income to the next generation thereby solidifying class privilege? And as such does it not make more sense that this be used so that finite NHS resources go towards those who need it? What a strange world when a Conservative government makes a proposal which would have the effect of mitigating the transfer of class privilege – inheritance – and it is Labour who protest this. Instead it is somehow more fair for the tax payer to maintain the inheritance of the middle class.

Now the tone that I have taken could be seen as very stingy. Why begrudge the middle class their share of assistance. I can certainly see the political and strategic benefit in having the middle class as stakeholders in the welfare state. But while plenty of resources were found for the middle class, what was offered for the working class? Slim pickings it turns out. Of the £9 billion in welfare cuts announced in 2015 by then Chancellor George Osbourne, and which were so ardently inveighed against by Jeremy Corbyn, Labour’s manifesto undertook to reverse just £2 billion.

We also need to consider the cultural components of this great estrangement. Corbyn’s reflexive anti-patriotism while very right-on for segments of the middle class is simply a non-starter for much of the working class. It is not that he possesses a healthy scepticism of nationalism and does not sing the national anthem, but that he sides against British interests at every opportunity seeing them as imperialistic almost by definition. This is something that he shares in common with his director of communications, Seamus Milne. His stated desire to ultimately cede Northern Ireland is not unreasonable, until you place it alongside his also wanting to share the Falklands with Argentina despite their never having possessed it. Self-determination never enters into the calculation when there is an opportunity to give Britain a bloody nose. When he stated that he would endeavour to keep Gibraltar British, what would otherwise have been an unexceptional statement from virtually any other head of a political party became a legitimate news event: Corbyn standing up for British territorial integrity.

The people whom he puts into positions of authority also do little to endear Labour to the working class. Having politicians like Emily Thornberry in the Shadow Cabinet with multiple roles plays up to the perception that Labour holds them in contempt. Brexit was a cry by the working class for recognition of its culture and identity, the projected baleful economic consequences be damned. National identity may mean nothing more to mobile young professionals who define themselves by sophisticated hobbies and occupations than a dangerous detritus swept up from an arbitrary past, but to parts of the working class it is their touchstone. When Emily Thornberry tweets her disdain for the white van man who puts the St George’s flag up outside his house, she encapsulates why for many Labour no longer speaks for it.


Labour, spendthrift but not socialist, won over the middle class by proposing that the working class, for which it has ostensibly shown little respect, effectively subsidise its lifestyle. As it turned out the working class had different ideas and decided to dissent.

What is the significance of this, though? After all, in the past parties have become unmoored from their base and shipped themselves to new constituencies. In the United States during the 1960s, for example, the Democrat Party alienated its southern strongholds by implementing civil rights for minorities who they would then rely on instead. The Republicans responded by moving into the old southern Democrat constituencies with their infamous Southern Strategy. Given that the Tories also lost their traditional middle class stronghold maybe what has occurred is a similar swapping of places – think a political Freaky Friday? Unfortunately Labour cannot count on this new base. The Conservative Party will not make the same mistake of allowing itself to be outgunned in its key constituency again. Consider the Dementia Tax an own goal – sure, this is wonderfully convenient but you cannot count on your opponents doing this each game. Also Labour will become a lot less appealing to vote for from a middle class perspective when they are seen as a realistic government in waiting rather than a way to stick it to the Tories. Corbyn to his credit seems aware of this, hence his enforcing the whip on triggering article 50 and leaving the single market to ingratiate himself with the working class in spite of any offence this might give to middle class remainers. This is a start, but not something he will be able to beat the Conservatives on who of course started the process and at least speak roughly the same language as the working class.

Why Corbyn was Right to Enforce the Whip on Leaving the Single Market

Corbyn was right. As a purely political calculation Labour had to snuff out, or been seen to snuff out, any attempts to keep Britain in the single market. There was simply nothing to gain from it and everything to lose.


It was clear what the Brexit vote signified: the wish for controls on immigration. The very same liberal left who depict Brexit as evidence of monstrous racism and xenophobia cannot then turn around and baldly proclaim it had nothing to do with concerns over immigration. You can have many arguments about whether Brexit strictly speaking meant leaving the single market and getting to self-determine on matters of immigration but doing so is an exercise in semantics when the meaning is clear as far as the British public are concerned, and that is the political reality that Corbyn has to deal with.

When we understand the Geist of Brexit it becomes apparent that arguing to keep Britain in the single market would be seen as a negation of the referendum – and we all know at this point how negation of the referendum will be dealt with. I am alluding to the Lib Dems, of course. This does not seem to me to be the formula for political dynamite, unless you mean to explode your party’s electoral prospects.

In any case, whatever gains can be made by appealing to such obstructionist sentiment have already been tapped into by the Lib Dems. How much could be gained by fine grain tinkering, remains – if you pardon the pun – to be seen.

Not only is it generally unappealing to the country, but it is specifically so to the northern Brexit constituencies which also form Labour’s traditional – and increasingly estranged – base. It was only by enforcing the whip to enact Article 50 that he made sure that Labour held on to the north; it was one of the few things he got correct. Make no mistake: Brexit mattered for the working class, hence the Tories with their more explicit Brexit-means-Brexit platform winning among it, the socioeconomic groups C2DE, by 12 points. Even with this pandering Labour still managed to lose the Leave seats of Derbyshire North East, Mansfield, Middleborough South and Cleveland East, Stoke-on-Trent South and Walsall North to the Tories attesting to the absolute massacre averted by taking into account Leave sensibilities.

What is more, the seats that swung to Labour had little to do with a Remain rebellion. Excluding Scotland where the predominant issue pertained to another referendum, 27 out of the 29 seats gained came from the pro-Brexit Conservatives. But of these seats, just 11 were in Remain constituencies. It is a mainstream media myth that these gains were just in university towns and cities – a confection if I were more cynical I would attribute to a wish to co-opt the General Election result for the Remain camp. The lion share of swung seats then, such as Lincoln and High Peak, would see little reason to rebel against Labour protection of the Brexit mandate.

These are the real, tangible gains that Labour has to protect. Most of the middle class votes would have been piled up in safe, less numerous metropolitan seats – very much analogous to Hillary Clinton’s problems with the Electoral College during the 2016 Presidential Election – and had little effect on wining seats in places like Derby North and Ipswich. As such Labour could easily weather the loss of muddle-headed, middle-class airheads who did not bother to read the Labour manifesto – or else they would have known about the commitment to end freedom of movement.

Of the paltry two that swung over from the Liberal Democrats, it is safe to conclude that these would have had little to do with the anti-Brexit proclivities of their constituents otherwise they would have remained Lib Dem.

When Labour risks losing so many of its seats it had better do so for a sure thing. Lame duck, paper tiger, constipated snake – call it what you want, but the anti-Brexit vote is not that.

How Long Before Anti-Muslim Vigilante Violence On The Streets of England?

The really scary thing about tonight’s events is not the report of fatalities– it is getting to the stage where this is deadening, rather than shocking – but the reaction that it might have prompted. One has to wonder: how long will it be before we see anti-Muslim vigilante violence on the streets of England? And once this happens what response will this draw in its turn? If there is this level of terrorism at the moment without any real level of oppression against Muslims in the domestic context, what can we expect the level to be when there is a legitimate and deadly threat to Muslim life of any scale?

The answer to that question is obvious; the exact extent can only be guessed at, though.  


What we know from history is that these things spiral. We cannot forget it was when the Ulster Defence Association formed to protect the Protestant community that the Troubles took on its bloody and seemingly intractable nature.

That is what we are potentially dealing with, but only worse. There were no attacks in the Troubles purposefully targeting children, whereas this is a distinguishing feature in Islamic terrorism that transcends any local conditions (see Beslan in Russia, Manchester in England, Toulouse in France and Peshawar in Pakistan).

Indeed many attacks during the Troubles came with a warning so as to avoid casualties whereas this is lacking in Islamic terrorism. For instance, the 1996 Manchester Bombing destroyed much of the city centre but did not claim a single casualty as authorities were forewarned.

There are already “self-defence” forces on mainland Europe with an explicitly anti-Muslim bent, formed in response to Europe’s migrant crisis. Groups such Génération Identitaire represent a counterpart to the anti-state militia culture that exists more prominently in the United States, and which has been identified as terrorist threat by the FBI. These European groups are becoming normalised, as you can see in this video where prominent alt-right social media personality Laura Southern effectively gives Génération Identitaire free advertisement for their cause.

Luckily, Britain lacks the culture of para-militarism that exists elsewhere, but just as we must worry about lone wolf extremists so we must about lone wolf vigilantes. The stabbings in Portland this week exemplify how easy it is for a right wing fanatic to act out murderous intentions. And in the United Kingdom itself we have the example of the MP Jo Cox’s murder in the build up to the Brexit vote.  

With this in mind it is paramount for all our sakes that we pare down any rhetoric and maintain perspective to guard against any reprisals.

Trump, Regan, Nixon: What to Expect Next From Trump and Russia

It is happening again.

No, I am not referring to the (blessed) return of Twin Peaks to television. What is the subject of this missive, however is no less sinister and seemingly opaque.

What is happening again is that the American people are being betrayed by a Republican President who was colluding with a foreign power before they were even in office – and in fact owe their election to this.

TP Meme

It is very frustrating reading coverage President Trump’s obstructing the FBI investigation into his campaign’s – surely indisputable now – relations with Russia if for no other reason than that such commentary lacks historical perspective. Simply put, Republican Presidents conspiring against their country for electoral gain is a very common and important occurrence.

The quintessential parallel reached for in the Age of Trump is Watergate. And of course it would be. By firing the special prosecutor Archibold Cox – and getting through two Attorney Generals to do it – President Nixon fundamentally and egregiously breached the separation of powers so key to the American constitution. This is the same principle President Trump fell foul of when he asked FBI director James Comey to cease the ongoing investigation into his campaign’s possible collusion with Russia – and dismissed him when he demurred.

In the rush to devour this low hanging fruit another arguably more pertinent example from the Nixon administration gets overlooked: the sabotaging of the Paris Peace Accords of 1968. Rather than allow the administration of Lyndon Johnson to claim the political victory of a negotiated settlement between South and North Vietnam, strengthening the Presidential campaign of fellow Democrat Hubert Humphrey, the Nixon campaign team plotted to derail negotiations. Nixon campaign manager John Mitchell, his future National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, and Republican socialite Anna Chennault all encouraged the South Vietnamese to double down with the promise of better terms under a Nixon administration and to avoid any Democrat-brokered settlement in the meantime. The FBI would identify this strategy as both having played out and of being integral to why the South Vietnamese did not go to the table. 

A week after LBJ ordered a cessation of in American operations in the hope of concomitant commitment from Ho Chi Minh which did not come, Nixon, who ran on the promise of “peace with honour”, beat Humphrey by just one point in the popular vote.

For an administration awarded for its duplicity from the outset, it should be no surprise that Watergate followed, nor the clandestine bombing of Cambodia. The attempt to conceal the latter from the American public and Congress was considered so egregious that Congress moved to circumscribe the power of the executive branch to wage war without its express permission under the 1973 War Powers Act.

Just as these treasonous tricks worked for Nixon, so they did for another Republican President: one Ronald Regan. It would appear then that Trump and Regan have more in common than being geriatric celebrities in the all too palpable throes of a nascent dementia.

It was unfortunate for Jimmy Carter that the 1979 Iranian Revolution occurred during his administration. In the course of it, 52 American embassy staff were seized as hostages by radical Islamist students. The Carter administration was gravely wounded as it tried and failed to secure their release before a Presidential election it would go on to lose to Regan in 1980. It was during this negotiation between the Carter administration and the new Iranian regime that members from the Regan campaign team allegedly ensured that the release of the hostages would not occur in Carter’s administration. Both NSA council member under the Ford and Carter administration, Gary Sick, and Iranian president at the time, Abolhassan Bansidar, have drawn on their experience of events to advance this theory.

And so it passed that mere minutes after Regan became President on January 20th 1981, the hostages were released. The measure of debt that the Regan administration thus felt towards the Iranians explains the great lengths he would go to give arms to the new regime and conceal this, the most notable example being, of course, the Iran-Contra affair.

The rewards were reaped in a country where the political culture strongly favours the incumbent in presidential elections. Nixon would go on to win another term before being brought down by his hubris and incompetence, and after Regan’s victory the GOP would hold on to the presidency until 1994. Insofar as this helped to give the edge of their candidate, the ends seemingly justified the means. 

What is particularly concerning with the parallels of Nixon and Regan, is how emboldened by their initial intrigues they would go on to mislead the American public again. In what ways then, can we expect to be misled by Trump? Does it have something to do with Jared Kushner’s request to the Russian ambassador to set up a back channel hidden from American intelligence agencies, I wonder? And why have Mike Flynn and Jeff Sessions been caught out lying about their relations with the Russian state?

Maybe these historical instances are side-lined because it lessens the hyperbole than can be applied to this story. This has simply happened far too often, and with far too little consequence that it becomes hard to remain excited with a perspective going further back than the latest 24 hour news cycle.


Why Labour Will Lose the General Election: The Entirely Predictable Death of Corbyn’s Labour

Of course  Theresa May has called a general election: the Tories are almost 20 percentage points ahead in the polls, and have been for some time. This is not even going to be close. If Labour could not even hold a safe seat in a by-election in Copeland (Labour since 1935) what do you think is going to happen here? Before then the last time the governing party had won a seat in a by-election was 35 years ago.

 I almost feel sorry for Corbyn, this (omni)shambling zombie of Old Labour.


A good half of his awful polling is down to his not being able to marshal the support of his MPs, which serves as its own justification.

To sum up the position of the Parliamentary Labour Party: we do not have faith in Corbyn because he does not cannot lead us. Why can’t he lead us? Because we do not have faith in him.

The logic is circular which is quite fitting because so is the noose which I am imagining around his neck, electorally speaking.

Unfortunately he does not have the moral authority to break the Gordian knot in which the noose is tied – YES, I’m still on the rope metaphor – after having rebelled so much himself. To wit, he defied the whip 428 times under Blair and Brown.  

The other half of his awful polling is that he is simply, well, just a bit much.

Let us put it in to context: I am a left wing, Guardian reading guy of Irish ancestry born in Islington– in other words precisely his demographic – and I am distinctly uncomfortable with him. I cringe when he cannot even condemn the IRA. And when he states that the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland should be respected but adds for absolutely no reason that he thinks Ireland should be united. (I do not care if that is what he thinks, he should have as the leader of opposition maintained a studied disinterestedness in the matter, not nourish the resentments of yesteryear.) And when he talk about our “friends in Hamas” and the “tragedy” of Osama bin Laden’s death. Or when he appoints Seamus Milne as his director of communications, a man who thinks the literal imperialism of Russia’s annexation of Crimea was justified by the not-at-all imperialism of the US.

Just call it a hunch but if it is not working with me I do not think this is going to play in, I don’t know, rural Cumbria…

Some shit is just unspinnable.

Trump vs Sweden

As much as I would love to discuss the pros and cons of different compilations of Swedish crime statistics, I think people are in danger of not seeing the woods for the trees here.

Even if immigration of certain groups leads to more crime – and this is not at all straightforward – this does not necessarily render it a non-starter. There is a principle of compassion at stake here, which does not just stop at some border.

At the very least against any putative increase in crime there must be a consideration of the suffering which has been alleviated. This seems an astoundingly bold thing to say, and I am well aware it goes against the grain, but it is just the basic principle of utilitarianism taken to its logical end point. You may well wish to weigh the interests of your compatriots higher than those of outsiders. There are certain moral imperatives of community, as people understand it. The point is you can factor in for these and still see both sides of the equation.

At the moment we have this myopic focus on just one side. To take one instance, Donald Trump made an executive order on his fifth day tasking his Secretary for Homeland Security to weekly “make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens”. Can we detect the hand of Steve Bannon, whose Breibart website maintains a whole section called “black crime”?

We also have to be realistic that doing the right thing can often bring its own set of difficulties. Principles are like that. What we should not do is what I saw Don Lemon do in his interview with the film maker who inspired President Trump’s “last night in Sweden” comments this week. When confronted with very inconvenient data and asked to make very straightforward inferences on the upward trend of at least of some crime according to some statistics, he shamefully prevaricated in such a way as to play into the hands of those who doubt the sincerity of advocates for refugees. You can disavow the providence of certain statistics, but you cannot disavow statistics.


And before anyone rebukes me for a presumption to accept risk and difficulty on others’ behalf who may not ask for it, right wingers ask us to tolerate harm all of the time in favour of their principles.

Compare an America where we have sensible – read: any – gun control to the America we have now. But we put up with the America we have now because of the (ridiculous and anachronistic) principle of the Second Amendment. Far more people die from loose gun laws that allow mentally ill people or people on no fly lists to buy guns than from immigration. There were 15,809 homicides by firearm in America in 2015, against the 14 deaths by Islamic terror (and in deathly cross pollination these were killed by legally purchased firearms.) We lose a tremendous amount of life, and we receive no boon in the alleviation of suffering to offset this. In other words it is a massive and unambiguous net suffering, which you cannot say for immigration. There were 15,809 homicides by firearm in America in 2015, against the 14 deaths by Islamic terror (and in deathly cross pollination these were killed by legally purchased firearms.)

It is especially egregious that people tolerate this risk but not the other because America and Britain played a part is destabilising the Middle East with its foreign policy. Why is it that the same Americans who are so quick to take credit for the glories of their country, at the same deny any responsibility at all when it does something bad – and all the while lecture us about “accountability”? I believe its “My Country Right or Wrong”, not “My Country When It Suits Me”. And yet we who would wish to bear the burden are decried as snowflakes, while those who shirk it with hysteria and hyperbole idealise themselves as modern day, rugged frontiersmen.

There is just not enough perspective – on the right – or honesty – on the left – being brought to debates on immigration to begin with. We need to put this aside and ask ourselves what would truly bring the greatest good to the greatest number of people.