The “Far-Right” Smear: How & Why Politicians Silence Legitimate Concerns?

Many left-wing politicians like Kier Starmer are still labelling ordinary and genuinely concerned people as far-right. This happened very recently with the Unite the Kingdom march in May 2026. Why do they keep making the same mistake?

Why Do They Label Ordinary People Far-Right?

Post-1960s progressive ideology views nation-states, borders, and “nativism” with suspicion. Large-scale non-Western immigration is often seen as a moral good, such as rectifying colonialism and historical injustices, enriching diversity, and expanding the electorate toward more left-leaning demographics.

Questioning its scale or pace challenges core tenets like multiculturalism and universalism. Labelling skeptics “far-right” moralizes the debate. Your concerns aren’t empirical (e.g., housing shortages, NHS waiting lists, or specific crime patterns), they’re character flaws akin to 1930s fascism.

This framing delegitimizes or demonizes opponents without engaging data. UK net migration hit peaks over 900k recently before declining to ~204k (Year Ending June 2025), still historically high. Public polling consistently shows broad concern across classes and former Labour voters, not just a minority of “extremists.”

Some of this is down to contrast and self-identity. They see themselves (self-identity) as centralists and moral. So, anybody that disagrees, or has concerns is automatically labelled as an extremist. Not considering that they themselves could be the extremists.

Avoid Accountability & Denial

Labour historically benefited from open-border tendencies (or lax enforcement). High migration strains public services, depresses wages in low-skilled sectors, and correlates with parallel societies and grooming scandals in some towns. Admitting policy failure risks losing working-class support. Smearing shifts focus: “The problem isn’t our record, it’s racist agitators.”

They are in denial about how much damage they have done, and how much pain they have caused. Also, how wrong and incompetent they are. Their egos and identities cannot handle the reality of the situation. They believe themselves to be intelligent, and moral. The truth threatens them at a deep and personal level.

Labour also seem to be in denial about how they won the election. They like to tell people that they won on their policies. They didn’t, they won because the Conservatives completely betrayed their voters. They won by default. It’s either denial or delusion.

Defensive Tactics

Reform UK’s rise shows the strategy failing. When large majorities (including many ethnic minorities on specific issues like grooming or integration) share “ordinary” concerns, smearing tactics accelerate. Polls and by-elections reveal working-class desertion. Labour is tightening rules under pressure but maintains the rhetoric. They keep on with the attacks like it’s a defence mechanism.

Part of their defensive tactics is to misrepresent their opponents to support their attacks. Calling their opponents far-right or fascist is often likely an intentional misrepresentation designed to discredit and demonize.

Engaging in cover-ups is also a classic defensive tactic that those with authority do. Admitting faults can make them look incompetent or immoral.    

Ignorance

Ignorance of human psychology and history will be big contributors. Incomplete history puts more focus on the evils of the far-right, and not on the far-left.  

Final Comments

They keep knuckling down with the same script, the same failing tactics. I suspect that people like Starmer and his associates have held the same beliefs most of their lives. It’s like a fixed and inflexible perception of history and the world. Their failure will be their lack of mental and political flexibility. These are not the best minds running things.