Home » 2026
Yearly Archives: 2026
Immigration policy Mahmood-style: no one is safe
In an earlier blog,[1] I explained the first steps in the UK’s new asylum and immigration policy announced by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood last November. Her hostility to asylum seekers is clear in these proposals: she sees them as abusers of the asylum system. She declares (wrongly) that if you are an asylum seeker off a small boat arriving in Dover you are “illegal”. But her hostility doesn’t stop at asylum seekers. It is extended to recognised refugees and, as we shall see, to a whole range of other migrants.
A quick reminder of the story so far: after you have been granted asylum, you will only be given temporary protection for 30 months instead of the permanent protection offered under the old system. If, before the end of that period, you apply for an extension and the government decides, without consulting you, that you no longer need protection, you will be deported back to your country. If the government does decide that you still need protection, you will get it for another 30 months. You can apply for an extension four times, at a cost of £3,908.50 a throw. If the government eventually agrees that you still need protection, you will nevertheless not be able to apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILR), which gives you permanent status, until you have been here for 10 years (under the previous system it was five years). If you are receiving social security benefits you will have to wait longer (15 or 20 years) before you can apply for ILR.
If you think all this delay and uncertainty is harmful and destabilising to people already traumatised by the experiences that forced them to leave their home countries in the first place, you are right.[2] But Mahmood claims to have provided a solution: the Protection Work and Study Visa scheme. When we last saw this scheme,[3] it was up for consultation. Now the consultation process has ended. The scheme is being rolled out. Against the background of the current changes, it may seem to have one advantage: if you’re on a work-and-study visa, you may get a shorter qualifying period to ILR.[4] This sounds consistent with Mahmood’s claim that migrants are welcome here if they are willing to work and contribute to society. However, we should not take that claim at face value. We should remember that the government’s overriding aim as it introduces the new policy is to discourage all but the most determined (or, indeed, desperate) people from applying, not just for ILR, but for asylum in the first place. It hopes that people seeking safety will see the obstacles being erected and rule out coming here at all. Mahmood says this ploy works, that other European countries have tried it and asylum applications have fallen. She believes that applications must be made to fall in the UK too, and this is the way to do it. She doesn’t say what the solution is for those who need to flee their countries. But then none of her favourite European countries, including Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands,[5] seem to address that question either.
Mahmood’s policy contradicts her claim that migrants are welcome if they’re ready to knuckle down and work. For one thing, the policy reduces the number of people allowed to work, regardless of the need for labour in any sector of the economy. For example, jobs counted as medium-skilled can no longer be sponsored unless the Migration Advisory Committee[6] recommends an exemption from the new rules, and unless “the industry demonstrates efforts to recruit domestically”.[7] The fact that the policy operates regardless of the need for labour is most clearly seen in the case of social-care workers (generally counted as low-skilled). They were urgently recruited during the Covid pandemic on a promise that, after five years of work in the sector, they would be able to apply for permanent settlement and bring their families here. That promise has now been broken. Indeed, employers can no longer recruit social-care workers from abroad at all: together with the reduction in the number of skilled jobs eligible for visa sponsorship, “overseas recruitment of social care workers also ended on 22 July 2025.”[8]
The government says that to do otherwise would be too costly. A Reuters report notes that between 2022 and 2024,
around 616,000 workers and their dependants moved to Britain on a specific visa for care workers, nurses and doctors. Around 384,000 are expected to become eligible for ILR between 2027 and 2029.[9]
The Home Office claims that, as a result, around 350,000 low-skilled workers and their dependants would cost about £10 billion in public services and benefits, including pensions, during their lifetimes.[10] Is this claim tenable? Not according to Jonathan Portes, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at King’s College, London. He described the estimate as “at best deliberately misleading”. The rule change would only save that amount if “every single person” modelled in the projection left the country.[11]
On the need for workers, the same report notes that:
job vacancies in the sector already stand at nearly three times the national average – a problem that can affect the running of the National Health Service when it cannot discharge patients into care homes, and a major challenge for Britain’s ageing population.[12]
But the government insists that “restricting foreign labour would force care homes to pay higher wages to attract local staff”.[13] At the time of blogging, however, there is no sign that care homes are ready to fulfil this fantasy. Meanwhile, “Britain’s ageing population” will continue to suffer.
Mahmood claims that she wants refugees on temporary core protection to move to the Protection Work and Study Visa route to ILR:
We want to encourage refugees to integrate more fully into the communities providing them sanctuary. To address this, we will encourage refugees to switch out of the Core Protection route wherever possible. We will introduce a new, in-country Protection Work and Study route. A person granted protection will be eligible to apply to move into this route if they obtain employment or commence study at an appropriate level and pay a fee. Once on this route, they will become eligible to “earn” settlement sooner than they would under core protection alone.[14]
It is difficult to see how refugees counted as medium or low skilled will be able to do that under the new scheme, either through employment or through study. Not only are there now increased employment restrictions on medium- and low-skilled migrants, but there are also tougher rules for universities if they want to sponsor students.[15]
However, these restrictions do not apply to all migrants. In particular they do not apply to those the government sees as having more to contribute to the UK, and who are also likely to be more affluent, than your average small-boat traveller. Take, for example, those who are eligible to apply for the Global Talent Visa. This visa has been created “for talented and promising individuals in the fields of science, digital technology and arts and culture wishing to work in the UK”.[16] According to the Home Office,
we are making it easier for top design talent to use the Global Talent visa and come to the UK. To do this, we are expanding the route to include a design pathway, covering additional design roles which are not currently catered for.[17]
Such individuals will not have to spend time worrying about temporary status. The Home Office reassures them:
There’s no limit to how long you can stay in the UK in total, but you will need to renew (“extend”) your visa when it expires. Each extension can last from 1 to 5 years – you choose how long you want the extension to be.[18]
For most migrants, however, this is an impossible dream.
Resistance
Mahmood’s changes to asylum and immigration policy have not gone unchallenged, even from within the Labour Party. A joint letter opposing the asylum changes was sent to Mahmood in January. It was signed by Neil Duncan-Jordan, the Labour MP for Poole, Andrea Egan, the General Secretary of the Unison trade union, and Doctor Gloria-Olivia Vicol, CEO of the Work Rights Centre. It was signed by 53 MPs, 21 peers and 33 civil society organisations. Duncan-Jordan, highlighting the care workers, said:
A Labour Government has lost its way when it’s making policy designed to chase Nigel Farage’s tail instead of doing what’s best for the country. I worked with migrant care workers for years as a trade unionist – they’re decent, hardworking people who do a challenging job in difficult conditions, often for low pay.[19]
He said the policy “pushes a struggling sector closer to crisis” and argued that the government “must not apply these changes to people already here – we punish those who have already built their home and their work around promises our government made them.”
In the next blog: Vanishing rights of appeal.
The first page of the letter to Mahmood.
[1]The new asylum regime: the first steps: https://bobmouncer.blog/2026/03/27/the-new-asylum-regime-the-first-steps/
[2] See my earlier blog for concerns expressed by others: The new asylum regime: the first steps, Concerns: The new asylum regime: the first steps « Bob Mouncer’s blog
[3]New and old hostilities: New and old hostilities « Bob Mouncer’s blog
[4] See New and old hostilities, Earn your keep: New and old hostilities « Bob Mouncer’s blog
[5] Restoring Order and Control: A statement on the government’s asylum and returns policy, Foreword from the Home Secretary, and para 2: Restoring Order and Control: A statement on the government’s asylum and returns policy (accessible) – GOV.UK
[6] The Migration Advisory Committee is a public body that advises the government on migration policy (see Migration Advisory Committee – GOV.UK).
[7] Changes to UK visa and settlement rules after the 2025 immigration white paper, House of Commons Library, 20 March 2026, section 1: Changes to UK visa and settlement rules after the 2025 immigration white paper – House of Commons Library
[8] Changes to UK visa and settlement rules after the 2025 immigration white paper, House of Commons Library, 20 March 2026, section 2: Changes to UK visa and settlement rules after the 2025 immigration white paper – House of Commons Library
[9] UK’s migration crackdown risks care home staffing crunch, 22 April 2026: UK’s migration crackdown risks care home staffing crunch | Reuters
[10] UK’s migration crackdown risks care home staffing crunch, 22 April 2026: UK’s migration crackdown risks care home staffing crunch | Reuters
[11] Cited, UK’s migration crackdown risks care home staffing crunch, 22 April 2026: UK’s migration crackdown risks care home staffing crunch | Reuters
[12] UK’s migration crackdown risks care home staffing crunch, 22 April 2026: UK’s migration crackdown risks care home staffing crunch | Reuters
[13]Cited, UK’s migration crackdown risks care home staffing crunch, 22 April 2026: UK’s migration crackdown risks care home staffing crunch | Reuters
[14] Restoring Order and Control: a statement on the government’s asylum and returns policy, 21 November 2025: Restoring Order and Control: A statement on the government’s asylum and returns policy (accessible) – GOV.UK
[15] Changes to UK visa and settlement rules after the 2025 immigration white paper, 20 March 2026: Changes to UK visa and settlement rules after the 2025 immigration white paper – House of Commons Library
[16] Explanatory memorandum to the statement of changes in the Immigration Rules:Explanatory memorandum to the statement of changes in the Immigration Rules: HC 1691, 5 March 2026 (accessible) – GOV.UK
[17] Explanatory memorandum to the statement of changes in the Immigration Rules, para. 5.67: Explanatory memorandum to the statement of changes in the Immigration Rules: HC 1691, 5 March 2026 (accessible) – GOV.UK
[18] Apply for the Global Talent Visa: Apply for the Global Talent visa : Overview – GOV.UK
[19] “Neil Duncan-Jordan MP opposes Home Office planned changes”, Bournemouth Echo: Neil Duncan-Jordan MP opposes Home Office planned changes | Bournemouth Echo
Truth is falsehood — or is it the other way round?
The Guardian says:
The fate of the two-week ceasefire in the Iran conflict looked in peril on Wednesday as both sides gave divergent versions of what had been agreed, Israel intensified its bombing campaign in Lebanon and Iran halted the passage of oil tankers because of an alleged Israeli ceasefire breach.
So if the Guardian editor asked for a summing up of the situation, just to save space, it ought to be “There is no ceasefire. Zilch! It’s over.”
That would also be more truthful. The UN human rights chief, Volker Turk, talks of “pressure on a fragile peace” after calling Israel’s attack on Lebanon “carnage”! How fragile can you get? Peace is war — or war is peace — where have I heard that before? In truth (and let’s hang on desperately to that idea before it becomes “truth is falsehood” or “falsehood is truth”), in truth, I say, there never was a ceasefire, either here or in Gaza. The war will go on in both cases until Trump is triumphant. That’s what the MAGA doubters want. They don’t want “forever wars”, they want a quick undeniable victory that will Make America Great Again. And Trump’s willingness to destroy “a whole civilisation” promises that “like never before”. Will he deliver it? Let’s hope not.
The new asylum regime: the first steps
The first steps towards the UK’s new asylum regime have now been taken. The Immigration Rules have been changed so that if you apply for asylum now and, after the Home Office has considered your application, you are recognised as a refugee, your protection will last only 30 months, after which you will have to apply to renew it. If at that point the Home Office decides that your country is safe for you to go back to, you will be sent back there.[1] If the Home Office decides that your country is still unsafe, your temporary leave will be extended for another 30 months, but you won’t be able to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) until you’ve been here for 10 years (previously it was five years). Under this scheme, you can apply to renew your 30-month visa four times, at a cost of £3,908.50 each time.[2] However, if you have been receiving benefits (including while in work) for up to 12 months you will have to wait 15 years before you can apply for ILR; if you have been receiving benefits for more than 12 months you will have to wait 20 years before applying for ILR.[3] Incidentally, if you are eligible to apply for ILR, the sooner you do it the better – from 8 April, the cost of an application will rise to £2,064, from the previous £1,938.[4] Maintaining the Home Office’s capacity to invent money-making schemes has been a consistent element in asylum policy for several decades.
Concerns
Critics have expressed their concerns about these changes. UNHCR commented on the original proposal to make protection temporary:
Providing refugees with only 30 months of leave at a time is likely to be detrimental to refugees’ sense of security, belonging and stability, factors critical to positive engagement and participation in society. Status of such a temporary nature may impact on a person’s ability to find housing, seek employment, learn English and develop skills, and risks undermining the Government’s intention to enhance refugees’ ability to contribute to their new communities.[5]
Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, gave this warning:
The rules announced today will create prolonged uncertainty for people who want to live free from danger and have been recognised by the government as needing protection. The changes stand in tension with Article 34 of the Refugee Convention, under which the UK has agreed to facilitate as far as possible the assimilation and naturalisation of refugees.[6]
Sophie McCann of Médecins sans Frontières, said:
Embedding prolonged uncertainty and fear within the asylum system will create further psychological harm and inhibit refugees’ – including our patients’ – ability to heal from their experiences and rebuild their lives with dignity.[7]
Nothing new under the sun?[8]
In one sense, these changes, and the rhetoric behind them, are part of a long-standing, and increasing, unwillingness of UK governments to accept refugees. In 1995, Tory Home Secretary Michael Howard declared that asylum applications were rising in the UK and falling in the rest of Europe because the UK gave easy access to jobs and benefits, claiming that “only a tiny proportion of them are genuine refugees”. Social Security Secretary Peter Lilley claimed that “genuine political refugees are few” and that Britain was “a soft touch”.[9] In 2002, Labour Home Secretary David Blunkett suggested that asylum-seeking children should be educated separately from other pupils so that they weren’t “swamping the local school”. Labour MP Diane Abbott responded, “For goodness’ sake, we’re talking about children here, not raw sewage!”[10] In 2003, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s chief of staff Jonathan Powell proposed withdrawing from Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment – so that more asylum seekers could then be deported back to their home countries.[11] Blair scribbled in the margin of one document that raised doubts about the legality of such a policy: “Just return them. This is precisely the point. We must not allow the ECHR to stop us dealing with it.”[12] Lord Irvine, the Lord Chancellor, gave such proposals short shrift, telling Blair and Home Secretary David Blunkett, with much irony, “I don’t know why you guys don’t just adopt the Zimbabwean constitution and have done with it.” Finally, the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, told them that any attempt by the UK to avoid its responsibilities under the European Convention would put the UK in breach of its EU membership obligations.[13] The policy was not adopted. The current Labour government is lobbying in the European Commission for changes to the ECHR, but has not so far tampered with it. Indeed, in its Explanatory Memorandum justifying Mahmood’s new asylum policy, the Home Office carefully explains that the new regime “aims to provide entitlements for refugees that are entirely in accordance with our international obligations but do not exceed them” (my italics).[14] But the unashamed cruelty of Mahmood’s policies, and the deep hostility to asylum seekers she openly displays in her rhetoric, are unprecedented. We would be foolish to imagine that ECHR safeguards are safe in this government’s hands.
Visa brake
The government is refusing all study visas for people from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Sudan and Cameroon. It will also deny Afghans another visa: “Additionally,” says Mahmood, “we will refuse Skilled Worker visa applications from main applicants who are nationals of Afghanistan.”[15] The visa brake “will come into effect from 26 March but will not affect applications made before 26 March” – which is one bit of good news at least. Mahmood claims that the visa brake is “not intended to be permanent and will be regularly reviewed, with the aim that it can be released as soon as it is considered appropriate to do so”. We shouldn’t expect that promise to be fulfilled any time soon.
So what is the reason for applying the “visa brake”? It’s the usual one: asylum seekers are “taking advantage” of us. The Home Office says that high numbers of asylum claims are made by people from these countries after they have finished their study periods in the UK – and the Home Office sees this as abuse: “The government is clamping down on visa abuse so the UK can maintain its ability and proud tradition of helping those genuinely in need.” Mahmood, in typically strident mode, said she was “taking the unprecedented decision to refuse visas for those nationals seeking to exploit our generosity. I will restore order and control to our borders.”[16] There is, however, conflict, war and human rights abuse in all four of these countries: the Taliban are still the government in Afghanistan and the security situation is volatile. Moreover there have been increased tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan, with violent clashes on the border. In Sudan there has been civil war since 2023, during which millions have fled their homes. The United Nations (UN) has called this the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. There is unrest in Cameroon, where militia are fighting for the independence of the country’s two English-speaking regions in what is mainly a French-speaking nation. There has been civil war in Myanmar since 2021, following a military coup.[17]
So “abuse” and “exploit” may not be the most appropriate words to describe the actions of students and skilled workers from those countries who need safe routes to protection. (You will notice there is no question of the government listening to their asylum claims, which is an obligation under the Refugee Convention. There is just a total ban on the visas. And if anyone from these four countries, in desperation, dares to arrive in a small boat, don’t worry – we’ve already declared that to be “illegal”.[18])
Nevertheless, there is a chance that the visa brake will put the Home Office in more trouble than it expected. Five students from Sudan and one from Afghanistan, with undergraduate degrees in medicine and other science-based subjects, have written an open letter to the Home Secretary saying that the decision to deny visas to students from only four countries is not only unlawful and irrational but also a violation of their human rights. They have launched legal action against the government.[19] Maybe others will join them. It is always possible to resist.
[1] For the notorious, and disastrous, record of governments in assessing whether a country is “safe”, see Mouncer, Bob (2009), Dealt with on their Merits? The Treatment of Asylum Seekers in the UK and France, University of Hull, Kingston-upon-Hull, paras 6.5.3-6.5.9: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:ecdd073f-c9b1-4905-859b-33bd62c23f47 For more recent inspections of the Home Office’s use of country reports, see An Inspection of the Production and use of Country of Origin Information, Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, Chapter 6, January 2018: An_inspection_of_the_production_and_use_of_Country_of_Origin_Information.pdf
[2] “UK migrant families face giving up vital in-work benefits to avoid being ‘punished’, The Guardian, 20/2/2026: UK migrant families face giving up vital in-work benefits to avoid being ‘punished’ | Benefits | The Guardian
[3] “Some migrants to face 20 year wait for settled status”, BBC News, Some migrants to face 20-year wait for settled status – BBC News
[4] “Emergency Brake” Visa Pushback, Key Asylum Changes and More – UK March 2026 Updates, Immigration Advice Service: Emergency Visa Brakes, Asylum and More – March 2026 Updates
[5] UNHCR Observations on UK Asylum Statement “Restoring Order and Control”, UNHCR, 31 December 2025, para 5.9: UNHCR Observations On UK Asylum Statement ‘Restoring Order and Control’ | UNHCR UK
[6] Article 34 reads: “The contracting states shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalisation of refugees. They shall in particular make every effort to expedite naturalisation proceedings and to reduce as far as possible the charges and costs of such proceedings.”
(“Mahmood’s move to make asylum temporary ‘may undermine refugee convention’”, The Guardian, 2 March 2026: Mahmood’s move to make asylum temporary ‘may undermine refugee convention’ | Refugees | The Guardian)
[7] “Mahmood’s move to make asylum temporary ‘may undermine refugee convention’”, The Guardian, 2 March 2026: Mahmood’s move to make asylum temporary ‘may undermine refugee convention’ | Refugees | The Guardian
[8] The biblical book of Ecclesiastes, chapter 1, verse 9: “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.”
[9] Mouncer, Bob (2009). Dealt with on their Merits? The Treatment of Asylum Seekers in the UK and France, University of Hull, Kingston-upon-Hull, pp. 96-97: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:ecdd073f-c9b1-4905-859b-33bd62c23f47
[10] “Row erupts over Blunkett’s ‘swamped’ comment”, The Guardian, 24 April 2002: Row erupts over Blunkett’s ‘swamped’ comment | Politics | The Guardian
[11] Nicholas Watt & Patrick Wintour, “How immigration came to haunt Labour: the inside story”, The Guardian, 24 March 2015: How immigration came to haunt Labour: the inside story | Immigration and asylum | The Guardian
[12] “Tony Blair considered sending asylum seekers to a camp on the Isle of Mull, documents reveal”, the Independent, 29 December 2023: Tony Blair considered sending asylum seekers to a camp on the Isle of Mull, documents reveal | The Independent
[13] Nicholas Watt & Patrick Wintour, “How immigration came to haunt Labour: the inside story”, The Guardian, 24 March 2015: How immigration came to haunt Labour: the inside story | Immigration and asylum | The Guardian
[14] Explanatory memorandum to the statement of changes in the Immigration Rules, section 2.25, para. 5.7: Explanatory memorandum to the statement of changes in the Immigration Rules: HC 1691, 5 March 2026 (accessible) – GOV.UK
[15]Explanatory memorandum to the statement of changes in the Immigration Rules, section 2.25, para. 5.3: Explanatory memorandum to the statement of changes in the Immigration Rules: HC 1691, 5 March 2026 (accessible) – GOV.UK
[16]“Mahmood to stop study visas from four countries due to ‘abuse’” BBC News, 3 March 2026: Mahmood to stop study visas from four countries due to ‘abuse’ – BBC News
[17] “Mahmood to stop study visas from four countries due to ‘abuse’”, BBC News, 3 March 2026: Mahmood to stop study visas from four countries due to ‘abuse’ – BBC News
[18] See my earlier blog, New and Old Hostilities: New and old hostilities « Bob Mouncer’s blog
[19] “Six students challenge Home Office visa ban on four countries”, The Guardian, 23/3/2026: Six students challenge Home Office visa ban on four countries | Immigration and asylum | The Guardian
How a poem was composed in a time of war
It’s 1917, towards the end of the First World War. The poet and soldier Siegfried Sassoon has made his Declaration against the war:
I am making this statement as an act of wilful defiance of military authority, because I believe the war is being deliberately prolonged by those who have the power to end it. I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers. I believe that this war, upon which I entered as a war of defence and liberation, has now become a war of aggression and conquest. I believe that the purposes for which I and my fellow soldiers entered upon this war should have been so clearly stated as to have made it impossible to change them, and that, had this been done, the objects which actuated us would now be attainable by negotiation. I have seen and endured the suffering of the troops, and I can no longer be a party to prolong these sufferings for ends which I believe to be evil and unjust. I am not protesting against the conduct of the war, but against the political errors and insincerities for which the fighting men are being sacrificed. On behalf of those who are suffering now I make this protest against the deception which is being practised on them; also I believe that I may help to destroy the callous complacence with which the majority of those at home regard the continuance of agonies which they do not share, and which they have not sufficient imagination to realize.
S. Sassoon
In Craiglochart hospital, where Siegfried Sassoon was sent after making this Declaration, he and fellow inmate Wilfred Owen are discussing a draft of Owen’s latest poem.
Sassoon took the sheet and read the whole poem through twice, then returned to the first two lines. “What minute-bells for these who die so fast? – Only the monstrous/solemn anger of our guns.”
Owen: “I thought ‘passing’ bells.”
Sassoon: “Hm. Though if you lose ‘minute’ you realize how weak ‘fast’ is. ‘Only the monstrous anger …’ “
Owen: “‘Solemn’?”
Sassoon: “‘Only the solemn anger of our guns.’ Owen, for God’s sake, this is War Office propaganda.”
Owen: “No, it’s not.”
Sassoon: “Read that line.”
Owen: “Well, it certainly isn’t meant to be.”
Sassoon: “I suppose what you’ve got to decide is who are ‘these’? The British dead? Because if they’re British, then ‘our guns’ is …”
Owen shook his head. “All the dead.”
Sassoon: “Let’s start there.” Sassoon crossed out “our” and pencilled in “the”. “You’re sure that’s what you want? It isn’t a minor change.”
Owen: “No, I know. If it’s ‘the’, it’s got to be ‘monstrous’.”
Sassoon: “Agreed.” Sassoon crossed out “solemn”. “So: ‘What passing-bells for these who die …’ so fast? ‘– Only the monstrous anger of the guns.'”
Owen: “Well, there’s nothing wrong with the second line.”
Sassoon: “‘In herds’?”
Owen: “Better.”
A few days later:
Sassoon: “What draft is this?”
Owen: “Lost count. You did tell me to sweat my guts out.”
Sassoon: “Did I really? What an inelegant expression. ‘What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?’ I see we got to the slaughterhouse in the end.”
Sassoon read through the poem. When he’d finished, he didn’t immediately comment.
Owen: “It’s better, isn’t it?”
Sassoon: “Better? It’s transformed.” He read it again. “Though when you look at the sense … You do realize you’ve completely contradicted yourself, don’t you? You start by saying there is no consolation, and then you say there is.”
Owen: “Not consolation. Pride in the sacrifice.”
Sassoon: “Isn’t that consolation?”
Owen: “If it is, it’s justifiable. There’s a point beyond which –”
Sassoon: “I don’t see that.”
Owen: “There’s a point beyond which you can’t press the meaninglessness. Even if the courage is being abused, it’s still …” Owen leapt up, went to the drawer of his washstand and produced the typescript Sassoon had lent him. He began leafing quickly but carefully through it. Sassoon, watching, thought, he’s getting better. No stammer. Quick, decisive movements. The self-confidence to contradict his hero. And the poem had been a revelation.
Owen: “Look, you do exactly the same thing:
O my brave brown companions, when your souls
Flock silently away, and the eyeless dead
Shame the wild beast of battle on the ridge,
Death will stand grieving in that field of war
Since your unvanquished hardihood is spent.
And through some mooned Valhalla there will pass
Battalions and battalions, scarred from hell;
The unreturning army that was youth;
The legions who have suffered and are dust
“What’s that if not pride in the sacrifice?”
Sassoon: “Grief? All right, point taken. I just don’t like the idea of … making it out to be less of a horror than it really is.” He looked down at the page. “I think you should publish this.”
Owen: “You mean in the Hydra?”
Sassoon: “No, I mean in the Nation. Give me a fair copy and I’ll see what I can do. You’ll need a different title, though. ‘Anthem for …'” He thought for a moment, crossed one word out, substituted another. “There you are.” He handed the page back, smiling. “’Anthem for Doomed Youth’.”
The completed poem:
What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?
–Only the monstrous anger of the guns.
Only the stuttering rifles’ rapid rattle
Can patter out their hasty orisons
No mockeries now for them; no prayers nor bells;
\nor any voice of mourning save the choirs, —
The shrill, demented choirs of wailing shells;
And bugles calling for the from sad shires.
What candles may be held to speed them all?
Not in the hands of boys but in their eyes
Shall shine the holy glimmers of goodbyes.
The palor of girls’ brows shall be their pall;
Their flowers the tenderness of patient minds,
And each slow dusk a drawing-down of blinds.
Owen was killed in action several days before the Armistice ended the war. Sassoon was wounded in 1918 and spent what was left of the war in London. He died in 1967.
Conversation between Sassoon and Owen adapted from Pat Barker (1992), Regeneration, Penguin Books, London, pp. 141-142, 156-158.
Bob Mouncer's blog 