For nearly two weeks, towns and cities across the United Kingdom have been convulsed by a wave of nationalist, anti-Muslim, and xenophobic violence, with authorities, including the newly elected prime minister, struggling to contain the country's worst civil unrest in more than a decade.
Protests erupted across England and Northern Ireland following the killings of three girls in the northwestern part of the country. It did not take long for the tragic incident to be exploited by far-right influencers, anti-Muslim extremists, and fascist groups to whip up attacks against migrants and Muslims.
To no one’s surprise, immigration has been a festering sore in British politics, fuelled by a mix of genuine concerns and what many see as political opportunism, which unfolded more openly during the recent election. Yet this current wave of unrest is more than a fleeting surge of summer violence – Britain’s history is marked by similar outbreaks against minority communities. In the summer of 1919, just 20 miles from the current flashpoint in Southport, riots erupted over competition for jobs and housing between returning white soldiers and Black immigrants from the Caribbean, fuelled primarily by economic hardship and xenophobia. This major disturbance was part of a broader wave of racial violence across the UK, particularly impacting Black and Asian communities. In 1948, racial tensions resurfaced in Liverpool with the arrival of the first significant group of Caribbean immigrants aboard the passenger ship, the Empire Windrush. Facing post-war economic difficulties and increased competition for jobs and housing, the local population responded with hostility, resulting in racial attacks and discrimination against the Caribbean community. This period marked the beginning of significant racial strife in the city, shaping future policies and race relations.
Over forty years ago, Stuart Hall, a prominent Black cultural theorist, observed that post-war violence was accompanied by a pervasive form of ‘popular’ racism. The trailblazing British scholar and founding editor of the New Left Review argued that this form of racism was both shaped by and utilised within political discourse, often as a tool to manage and distract from broader economic and social insecurities. In 1958, this form of racism was on display in attacks against West Indian migrants in Notting Hill. Shortly thereafter, during the 1964 by-election three miles west of Birmingham, in Smethwick, the Conservative Party campaigned with the racially charged slogan, “If you want a n—r for a neighbour, vote Labour.” By 1968, Tory leader Enoch Powell took this rhetoric to new extremes, declaring that the British population was becoming “strangers in their own country” and predicting bloody upheaval if immigration was not drastically controlled. A decade later, at the Conservative Party Conference, Margaret Thatcher, then a leading Tory figure, made a controversial statement about the country being ‘swamped by people with a different culture.’
Fast forward to the present day, and the Conservatives, from Theresa May to Rishi Sunak and other politicians recently ousted in the election, have consistently used inflammatory rhetoric to divide and distract voters from the pressing issues many experts argue the Tories failed to address during their 14-year tenure at 10 Downing Street. More recently, Sunak, who remains the leader of the Conservative Party, infamously pushed a controversial plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, while condemning what he described as “violent, criminal behaviour that has no place in our society.”
History shows that Labour, Starmer’s own party, is not exempt from the ideological decay. The targeting of Muslim communities and the portrayal of immigration as a ‘problem’ were evident during the New Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who were in office from 1997 to 2010. Blair introduced a contentious policy to settle asylum seekers into areas that were already economically struggling, while Brown echoed the divisive slogan “British jobs for British workers.”
In this context, when current British Prime Minister Keir Starmer describes the recent racist protests as merely organised, violent thuggery, he may have inadvertently overlooked the historical context. Hate and divisive politics have become mainstream in Britain, a trend that has evolved over time under both Labour and Conservative governments.
While the unrest may have temporarily subsided in parts of the country, there is scant evidence of direct criticism or any serious effort to address the root cause of the issue—divisive, inflammatory, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, and broadly xenophobic rhetoric that has entrenched itself in British politics for decades.
Experts contend that this calculated evasion might serve to shield figures such as Nigel Farage, leader of the populist right-wing party Reform UK and a prominent practitioner of dog-whistle politics. In the wake of the unrest, Farage—whose inflammatory rhetoric continues to sway right-wing voters disillusioned with the Conservative Party—released a video casting doubt on the accuracy of the information provided by British authorities about the Southport attacker. This action was designed to bolster the rioters' beliefs and lend credibility to their claims.
All that said, a decade after Stuart Hall’s passing, the evidence supporting his argument has only grown more compelling. Hall asserted that racism in British politics transcended mere individual prejudice, being deeply embedded in the nation’s political and social structures. He contended that racism had evolved into a mechanism of social control, deliberately used to create rifts within the working class and stifle unified opposition to the political establishment.
In the current British political climate, the unchecked use of racism continues, exactly as Hall had anticipated.
What went wrong?
The unrest began in Southport following the stabbing deaths of three girls on July 29. Agitators on social media rapidly exacerbated the situation, flooding platforms with baseless claims that the suspect was a Muslim and a migrant. For many Britons, already riled and blaming immigration for a range of violent crimes and social and economic problems, these accusations were enough to incite a charged and violent reaction. However, British law enforcement later clarified that the suspect, Alex Rudakubana—a teenager born in Cardiff, Wales—is neither Muslim nor a migrant.
As disinformation spread online, it fuelled physical confrontations on the streets. In Rotherham, northern England, anti-immigration rioters attacked a hotel housing asylum seekers, smashing windows and setting fires. The previous day, violence had erupted from Liverpool to Belfast.
Protests quickly escalated across the country. In Middlesbrough, a group of mostly masked men threw bottles and rocks at riot police, setting cars ablaze. Violence also flared in Bolton, near Manchester, where clashes between two groups occurred despite a heavy police presence.
In response, the National Police Chiefs’ Council reported the deployment of nearly 5,000 public order-trained officers to manage the situation, and British media outlets reported around 700 arrests nationwide since the onset of the protests.
Before these arrests, several mosques, private properties, and asylum centres were targeted. In Southport, a local mosque was attacked as protesters hurled bricks, bottles, and other projectiles at the building and the police. According to the BBC, a police van was set on fire, and 27 officers were hospitalised due to the violence.
Elsewhere in Britain, pockets of disorder led to scuffles outside or around local mosques. In Liverpool, disturbances outside a mosque were reported, while in Sunderland, far-right rioters attacked police, set fire to an advice centre adjacent to a police station, threw stones at a mosque, and looted shops.
Despite government calls for stricter measures against the rioters, Muslims, migrants, refugees, and ethnic minority groups across the country remain increasingly on edge.
Who to blame?
According to experts, the UK faces a three-pronged challenge: the rise of a more amorphous and online form of white nationalism, the political weaponisation of these ideologies, and the widespread misinformation that fuels both. The recent disorder, the worst the country has seen in years, was sparked through social media platforms. A BBC analysis of online activity across both mainstream and smaller public groups reveals a pattern of influencers encouraging protests, though no single organising force is apparent.
Britain’s public broadcaster reported that not all participants in these protests or discussions about the Southport attacks hold extremist views or support the rioting. Many, it said, are driven by concerns over violent crime or are misled by misinformation linking the attack to illegal immigration.
Multiple influencers within various circles amplified false claims about the attacker’s identity, reaching a wider audience that includes ordinary people unconnected to far-right groups. On X, formerly known as Twitter, Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, and a founder of the far-right English Defence League, posted inflammatory messages to his nearly one million followers while on holiday in Cyprus. Another influencer on X associated with Yaxley-Lennon, posting under the handle “Lord Simon,” was among the first to call for nationwide protests.
Jonathan Freedland, a columnist for The Guardian and host of its “Politics Weekly America” podcast, has placed the blame squarely on X for the violence that has swept across the country. “Direct guilt sits with those who brought violence to our streets, but their hatred was inflamed by lies spread on X,” Freedland wrote. His criticism extends beyond the platform itself, as he has also called for holding Elon Musk, the new owner of X, accountable.
What amplified the phenomenon were the ‘super-sharers’ — prominent figures with extensive online followings who serve as key nodes for spreading misinformation. Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, known as Tommy Robinson, and Andrew Tate were instrumental in propagating the initial false claims. Their amplification ensured that these misleading assertions reached millions. According to disinformation analysts cited by British media outlets, the impact of the Southport unrest would have been considerably diminished without the influence of ‘super-spreader accounts’ known for promoting inflammatory anti-immigration rhetoric. Experts argue that Southport was a situation primed for conflict. These opportunistic influencers used the incident to legitimise their biases and direct the accumulated anger of their followers toward specific targets – in this case Muslims and migrants.
Freedland also places direct blame on Musk, arguing that the Tesla owner swiftly transformed X into a haven for racism and hate after acquiring it. According to The Guardian, the impact was immediate. An analysis by the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank, revealed a nearly 500% increase in the use of racial slurs within 12 hours of Musk's takeover.
Musk, who has owned X since 2022, has not shied away from sharing unverified information with his 193 million followers. Recently, he deleted a post claiming that the British Prime Minister planned to send all rioters to ‘emergency detainment camps’ in the Falklands. Although Musk removed the post after about 30 minutes, a screenshot captured by Politics.co.uk shows it had gained nearly two million views before being taken down. In the controversial tweet, Musk shared an image originally posted by Ashlea Simon, co-leader of the far-right group Britain First, who captioned it with, ‘we’re all being deported to the Falklands.’
What is next?
For Keir Starmer, whose post-election honeymoon has been brief, the primary challenge now is to mend a deeply fractured nation. Britain has not seen unrest on this scale since 2011, when riots erupted in London following the fatal police shooting of a Black British man in north London. In a twist of déjà vu, Starmer, then a public prosecutor, was responsible for bringing the offenders to justice. Additionally, experts argue that Starmer must address the root issue of divisive rhetoric used by politicians across the spectrum, including the far-right, if he is to tackle the deep-seated divisions in the nation. They emphasise that dog-whistle rhetoric, a fixture in British politics for decades, needs to be significantly reduced, if not entirely eradicated.
Controversial rise of the far-right
In a recent article published by Middle East Eye, John Rees, a visiting research fellow at Goldsmiths, University of London, and co-founder of the Stop the War Coalition, argues that the far-right, which has aligned itself with Israel, has been revitalising its movement in response to the Gaza protests. He also claims that the right-leaning political establishment in the UK has played a pivotal role in facilitating their resurgence.
According to Rees, Israel’s assault on Gaza has significantly altered the political landscape in the UK, tilting it in favour of the far-right. Shortly after the conflict began, former Conservative Home Secretary Suella Braverman provided the far-right with a substantial boost by attempting to ban the Gaza march last year. Her now-infamous column in The Times, titled ‘Police Must Be Even-Handed with Protests,’ directly appealed to far-right football fans, accusing the police of bias toward left-wing groups. This marked the first time since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech that a serving cabinet minister has openly courted the far-right.
In response to Braverman’s article, hundreds of far-right protesters clashed with police near the Cenotaph on Armistice Day. They subsequently tried to disrupt a pro-Palestine march moving to the US Embassy but were overwhelmed by the 800,000 demonstrators and a police force agitated by the earlier confrontations.
In July this year, faced with the prospect of losing to Starmer’s Labour Party, former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak pivoted sharply to the right. The beleaguered Conservative leader spotlighted right-wing culture war issues, with immigration and opposition to environmental initiatives becoming the core of his strategy. Experts believe these moves were intended to create "wedge issues" to compensate for a lack of credible plans to win the election—a contest the Tories ultimately lost.