Keir Starmer's "Standing Army".

Defending England From Itself: Those dismissed as “far right thugs” don’t hate the refugees holed-up in hotels because they’re Muslims, or because their skins are a different colour, they hate them because they are changing a lifeworld Englishmen like themselves no longer feel able to defend, and which no one – least of all their iron-fisted “Labour” government – is prepared to defend for them.

KEIR STARMER’S promise to create a “standing army” of specialist riot police undoubtedly evoked a number of disturbing historical associations. Not the least of these would have been the Cromwellian Commonwealth of the 1640s and 50s. The one and only time the British Isles have lived under a republican form of government was made possible by the existence of a large standing army. Indeed, without Oliver Cromwell’s “New Model Army” it is doubtful King Charles I would have lost the English Civil War – let alone his head! Inspired by the ideals of radical puritanism, it was Cromwell’s “plain, russet-coated troopers” who ensured the victory of Parliament over the Crown.

That said, the New Model Army would likely strike contemporary Englishmen and women as something akin to the Taliban in breastplates. Even in the Seventeenth Century, the heavy-handed imposition of the puritans’ abstemious and censorious version of Christianity provoked alarm and despondency.

While Cromwell and his standing army ruled, Bibles in one hand, swords in the other, “Merry England” fell silent. The Puritan-dominated Commonwealth Parliament closed all the theatres and ruthlessly enforced their no-frills observance of the Sabbath. Determined to root out “paganism” in all its forms, the Puritans cut down village maypoles and outlawed the celebration of Christmas!

With Cromwell’s death, England fell under the sway of the New Model Army’s Major-Generals. For a brief period the country was forced to endure a military dictatorship.

The British people’s longstanding hostility towards the maintenance of large standing armies was born out of these bitter experiences. Radical ideology, backed by armed men, has been seen as profoundly un-English ever since.

All the more reason, then, to wonder at Starmer’s use of the term in relation to the violent civil disturbances which have shaken the British people over the past fortnight. It is possible that the United Kingdom’s new prime minister promised to create a standing army of special police in complete ignorance of the term’s historical resonances. But, even if he did, the promise is fraught with danger.

Sir Robert Peel, the British prime minister responsible for the creation of the British police force was careful to reject the idea of modelling his new law enforcement body on the armed French gendarmerie. Aware of the British people’s deep aversion to being ordered about by men with guns, Peel was the original promoter of “policing by consent”. Prior to Peel’s force, the quelling of public disorder had largely been left to the “Redcoats” – soldiers who tended to shoot first and not ask questions later.

Outside of Northern Ireland, it is many years since the British Army has been called to the aid of the Civil Power. This is hardly surprising, since the issuance of such an appeal is the last resort of a state under immense internal pressure. After calling out the armed forces, there is no one left to summon. If soldiers cannot restore order, then the next step is full-scale revolution.

What does it mean, then, that as anti-immigrant rioting peaked across north-west England some Members of Parliament were openly calling for the UK Defence Force to be unleashed upon its own people?

Sadly, it means that the UK political class, like Cromwell’s radical puritans, no longer sees itself as an integral part of the body politic, but as something extrinsic to it. The puritans believed themselves to be the elect of God, a holy minority of true Christians whom the Almighty had already predestined for paradise. The contrast between themselves and the sinful majority, all headed for the endless chastisement of hellfire, could hardly have been sharper.

The contrast between today’s puritans (often labelled “woke”, a term they heartily despise) and the rioting crowds of rock-throwers and arsonists who do not share their betters’ love for refugees and migrants, is every bit as pointed. What’s more, in their hearts, Starmer and his Labour colleagues know that for every angry protester on the street waving the Union Flag and England’s red cross of Saint George, there are hundreds more watching the action unfold on their screens – and urging them on.

The irony of all these riots breaking out along Labour’s “Red Wall” can hardly be lost on its newly-elected MPs. Nor the fact that in so many of the seats Labour reclaimed from the Tories, Nigel Farage’s anti-immigrant Reform Party came second. While Starmer and his Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, promise the perpetrators of “far-right thuggery” a lengthy holiday at His Majesty’s expense, and the UK’s terrifying Director of Public Prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, threatens to incarcerate Freedom of Expression along with them, the yawning gulf between rulers and ruled grows ever greater.

It is tragic that no one entrusted with the running of the UK has thought to wonder publicly what could possibly inspire sufficient rage to render otherwise ordinary people capable of attempting to set fire to a hotel containing scores of terrified refugees.

The go-to explanation for the Prime Minister, and for the UK’s mainstream news media, is that the riots are the work of “far right thugs”. This is, in part, a plausible charge, inasmuch as a great deal of the disinformation carried by social-media has, indeed, been the work of white supremacists and outright fascists.

It is wide of the mark, however, at the level of the working-class lad marching alongside his mates in the name of the community they all grew up in, but which is now fast dissolving before their eyes. These youths do not come from Far Right families. There was a time when all of them voted, with an almost religious fervour, “not for the iron fist, but for the helping-hand”. For Labour.

These guys don’t hate the refugees holed-up in the hotels because they’re Muslims, or because their skins are a different colour, they hate them because they are changing a lifeworld Englishmen like themselves no longer feel able to defend, and which no one – least of all their iron-fisted “Labour” government – is prepared to defend for them.

What do they want from Keir Starmer? They want a “standing army” to protect their communities from being overwhelmed by a flood of refugees and immigrants (more than two million in the last two years) that they did not ask for and cannot absorb.

What are they being offered by Keir Starmer? A standing army of special coppers bearing a frightening resemblance to the ones who cracked their father’s heads during the Miners’ Strike of the 1980s. Or, for those among them who know even more of their nation’s history, to Cromwell’s standing army of radical puritans who silenced Merry England in the 1650s.

This essay was posted on the Bowalley Road blogsite on Monday, 12 August 2024.