Amid riots in Belfast, Restore promises to put “murderous third-world savages to death”
Illustration: Nate Kitch
Listen to this story
Your browser does not support the <audio> element.
W hen a Sudanese refugee was caught attacking a man in Belfast on June 8th, Restore, a far-right party, pledged: “A Restore Britain government will put murderous third-world savages to death.” Tragedy brought clarity: the British right is moving right. Ideas that were until recently extreme, whether capital punishment or mass deportations, are now mainstream. Small parties, such as Rupert Lowe’s Restore, may attract low single-digit support in polls. Yet they are pulling Reform UK and the Conservatives further to the right with a simple remorseless logic: that there is no limit to how nasty the British public can be.
What was once taboo is now up for debate. After footage of the attack in Belfast emerged, Mr Lowe pledged to have the accused executed “with the British people’s approval”. Thanks to his party’s surprising breakthrough in Makerfield, which soon faces a by-election where Restore is expected to come third, way ahead of the Conservatives, these sweeping threats are now read out on BBC Radio 4 as just another political opinion. Others are more coy. The death penalty will “be back within the next decade as an issue of major national debate”, said Nigel Farage, Reform’s leader, last year, passively. It is something that will bubble up naturally. If so, runs Mr Farage’s logic, so be it.
Calls for execution were soon replaced by calls for mass deportations. “Deport them all,” said one anchor from GB News, a right-wing channel ostensibly regulated by Ofcom. “Nothing else will stop this.” A once-lonely demand by Mr Lowe that “millions must go” has become a key policy for Reform, which sits at the top of the national polls. It is a remarkable lurch right. In late 2024 Mr Farage still cowered from the idea of mass deportations. “I’m not going to get dragged down the route of mass deportations or anything like that,” he said. Skip forward a year and his tune had changed. Standing in front of a mock airport-departures board with the destinations of “Sudan”, “Afghanistan” and “Yemen”, Mr Farage launched an Illegal Migration (Mass Deportation) Bill.
If such action is not taken, they warn, violence will follow. The sight of young men in masks burning down houses in Belfast led to a strange cocktail of loud condemnation and quiet vindication on the British right. Parties trying to appeal to authoritarian voters appalled by the attack have started suggesting that a riot is a voice of the unheard. Mr Lowe offers advice for protesters to avoid arrest; Mr Farage, for now, sticks to euphemism, warning repeatedly of “civil disorder” unless his precise policy prescriptions are followed. It is an unfamiliar position for a man who has never had to shore up his right flank.
Even the centre-right has fallen prey to violent fantasy. Though Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Tories, condemned the riots in Belfast, she also argues that politicians relying on votes from “one particular community” is “how you end up with civil war”. The result is a strange spectacle whereby the Tory leader can decry violence, do a photo opportunity in Marks & Spencer, the symbol of Middle England, and predict civil war all in the same week.
What would the sides be in such a war? The scene from Belfast provided them: a black refugee straddling a white victim. What clearer proof could there be of the “anti-white prejudice” Mr Farage now rails against? Predictions of race war that would make Enoch Powell blush are churned out on X and Facebook and cheered on by everyone from Mr Farage to J.D. Vance, America’s vice-president. Now they have an image to go along with it.
Fundamentally, the British right has bet that the British public are, for want of a better word, bastards. Mr Lowe expanded on this philosophy in a podcast: “When you’re called a racist, or you’re called a bigot, or you’re called right-wing—which I don’t even think we are, I just think we’re the common-sense party—the three key words are: ‘I don’t care’.” But what if people do? There is a reason the first line of defence is always “I’m not racist, but”, rather than “I am racist, and”. It is an irony of British populism that those politicians who claim to speak for the people are often furthest from them.
Once the fever breaks, support for the death penalty wilts as people are grilled on who should actually be put to death. The idea of “mass deportations” is a bold one in a country where the mistaken deportation of a few dozen British citizens led to the fall of a home secretary and a years-long scandal that still shames the state. Punitive sentences for those who burned down houses in Belfast will be cheered by voters, who will care little for the rioters’ motivation. That politicians are willing to discuss the idea of civil war—never mind race war—reveals a political elite utterly disconnected from the daily frustrations of British voters.
Come and have a go if you think you’re hard enough
The right’s base instincts fill the airwaves in part because there are few willing to fight them. Britain is cursed by a prime minister incapable of meeting this particular moment, as high-profile crimes blend with ridiculous fantasy. Never has a prime minister proved less willing to use their pulpit. While his opponents preach anarchy, Sir Keir Starmer is mute, surrendering to the right’s idea that the public are irredeemable. Fatalism has infected Labour when it comes to dealing with Reform, which, though first in the polls, is only roughly as popular as Rishi Sunak’s Conservatives, who enjoyed their worst-ever result in the 2024 general election.
It is after a heinous crime that the right’s low expectations of hard bigotry become clear. The British right is offering a world in which criminals are put to death; where “millions must go”; where pogroms are the inevitable result of a country in which white people are now second-class citizens. It is increasingly clear what the likes of Mr Farage and Mr Lowe are selling. The hope is that British voters will not buy it. ■
논증 분석
유형: diagnosis
핵심 주장
영국 우파 정치권은 사형제·대규모 추방·인종 전쟁 등 극단적 의제를 주류화하며 경쟁적으로 극우 방향으로 이동하고 있으나, 이는 영국 유권자의 실제 정서와 괴리된 엘리트의 정치적 도박이다.
논리구조
- 전제: 벨파스트에서 수단 출신 난민이 백인 남성을 공격한 2026년 6월 8일 사건이 영국 극우 정치 의제를 촉발하는 도화선이 되었다.
- 진단: Rupert Lowe의 Restore 등 소규모 극우 정당들이 사형제·대규모 추방 등 이전에는 금기시되던 의제를 공론화하며, Reform UK와 Conservatives를 오른쪽으로 끌어당기는 ‘하방 경쟁’ 구도가 형성되었다.
- 논거: Nigel Farage는 2024년 말까지 대규모 추방에 거리를 뒀으나, 1년 후 수단·아프가니스탄·예멘을 목적지로 표시한 가상 출국 게시판 앞에서 불법이민(대규모추방)법안을 발표하며 입장을 전환했다.
- 논거: Kemi Badenoch 보수당 대표도 폭동을 규탄하면서 동시에 ‘특정 공동체’에 기댄 정치가 내전으로 이어진다고 경고하는 등, 중도우파조차 폭력적 언어에 포획되는 양상이 나타났다.
- 논거: Farage와 J.D. Vance 등은 벨파스트 사건 영상을 ‘반백인 편견’의 증거로 활용하며 인종 전쟁 서사를 소셜미디어에서 확산시켰다.
- 반론: 영국에서 사형제는 구체적 대상이 논의될수록 지지가 약해지고, 소수의 영국 시민을 잘못 추방한 Windrush 스캔들이 내무장관 사임과 수년간의 국가적 오명을 초래했던 역사는 ‘대규모 추방’ 정책의 실현 가능성과 대중 지지에 한계가 있음을 시사한다.
- 반론: 영국 대중주의 정치의 아이러니는 ‘국민의 목소리’를 자처하는 정치인들이 실제 유권자의 일상적 불만과 가장 동떨어져 있다는 점이며, ‘나는 인종차별주의자가 아니지만’이라는 첫 방어선 자체가 공공연한 인종주의에 대한 사회적 거부감을 반증한다.
- 진단: Keir Starmer 총리는 이 국면에서 공론의 장을 내주며 침묵하고 있고, Labour는 Reform UK에 대한 숙명론에 빠져 대항 서사를 제시하지 못하고 있다.
- 결론: 영국 우파는 유권자가 근본적으로 편협하다는 가정에 정치적 도박을 걸고 있으며, 이 도박이 실패할 가능성—즉 영국 유권자들이 그 상품을 사지 않을 것이라는 희망—이 유일한 견제 기제로 남아 있다.
결론
영국 우파가 사형제·대규모 추방·인종 전쟁 서사를 주류화하는 것은 유권자의 최악을 가정한 정치적 도박이며, 역사적 선례와 대중의 실제 정서는 그 도박이 빗나갈 여지를 남긴다.
Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.