A resigning matter?

Justin Welby resigned as Archbishop of Canterbury as a result of the conclusions of the Makin report into the activities of John Smyth, a lay reader and preacher in the Church of England, as outlined in this previous blogpost https://bit.ly/4fIhr2V Welby was criticised in this report for his ‘lack of curiosity’ when informed of the claims made by some of Smyth’s victims.

There was absolutely no need for Welby to resign. The beatings for which Smyth was responsible took place before Welby was even ordained as a priest, and nearly four decades after he was appointed Archbishop. The beatings against the young men, who were almost all over the age of 18, were consensual based on the belief that this form of chastisement would purge them of their sins and make them better Christians. None of the beatings took place on church premises, or under the auspices of the church. When informed of these events Welby correctly assumed that any investigation would be a matter for the police. In any case he would have had many more important and immediate matters to attend to, than to agonise over events from the distant past that should be of only a very peripheral concern to the church.

Welby was succeeded as archbishop by Sarah Mullally. It is highly probable that she was appointed primarily because she is a woman. In a widely shared photograph in the media, she is shown proudly handing an award for ‘interfaith cooperation’ to a Pakistani Muslim cleric. At the time this ceremony caused some media controversy as the wife of the cleric is standing next to him fully veiled with only her eyes visible. A second woman, believed to be his daughter, is also present heavily masked.

In her confirmation ceremony as Archbishop Sarah Mullally opined that the issue of misogyny needed to be ‘brought into the open’ and committed herself to doing so. It would be difficult to witness a more glaring example of misogyny than the way these two women were dressed, but as criticism of their appearance would be considered as ‘Islamophobic’ in the warped liberal mindset, she stayed silent.

More seriously it soon emerged that the Muslim cleric had voiced some opinions that were toxic to even the most deluded liberal apologist for regressive Islamic practices. He had honoured the 9/11 mastermind Osama Bin Laden with the title ‘Sword of Allah’ in response to Salman Rushdie being awarded a knighthood. He called for restrictions on freedom of speech after the murder of journalists at Charlie Hebdo. He considered that it was only ‘common sense’ that men would rape women if they wore ‘very few clothes’.

Following these revelations Sarah Mullally rescinded the award. However, no apology has ben given, and no explanation offered as to why she failed to investigate the cleric’s repulsive views, given that they could easily have been discovered after only a cursory internet search. If anyone is guilty of a ‘lack of curiosity’ it must surely be the current archbishop. However, it can be safely assumed that she will not be following Welby’s example by offering her resignation. To do so would be to surrender to the misogynist forces that have supposedly held her back in her journey to the archbishopric. Nor will Channel 4 be instigating the kind of selective simplistic one-sided campaign they pursued against Welby.

Demographic security v national self-hatred

The next three years before the next general election is due to be held will determine whether Britain remains a recognisably stable and cohesive nation. The defining issues will be identity, race and culture as these intertwined factors now constitute the principal dividing line in British politics. Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens will be on one side of the divide, and Reform and Restore will be on the other. The Conservatives in the past have sided with the former, which means that their credibility has been destroyed in the new political reality.

So, the choice will be between those political parties that are committed to protecting and preserving our national identity, and those that are intent on its destruction. It should now be clear to all rational observers that the liberal utopian dream of creating a harmonious society through greater top-down imposed equality has now mutated into a destructive orgy of collective self-flagellation. This manifests itself in an open hatred of Western European society, dismissing the value of its culture, promoting an unwarranted guilt complex over its history and a denial of its incredible achievements both artistic, technological and scientific. This is coupled with a slavish and uncritical support for other cultures, whilst ignoring their often regressive or primitive characteristics.

The most critical objective for parties of the right will be the preservation of our demographic security. In practical terms this will mean the cessation of non-European immigration into Britain and the introduction of a determined raft of policies to encourage the outflow of unassimilable non-Europeans, who should be offered incentives to allow them to return to their countries of origin or ancestry, as originally advocated by Enoch Powell in his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech.

The reason why such measures are crucial is because white Europeans are on a trajectory to becoming a minority in their own country. This is their homeland and there in nowhere else for them to go. If no action is taken national identity and societal cohesion will collapse. People of ethnic origin can return to their countries of origin where they will be immediately accepted as belonging to their communities. Large numbers of them already visit their ancestral homelands on a regular basis to maintain contact with friends and relations.

There have been several reports in recent years of communities in many English towns and cities leading parallel lives in self-segregating ghettos comprising separate majority white and majority ethnic areas, with little interaction between them. This is understandable as it is human nature for people to prefer living amongst their own kind whenever possible. This is just as true for liberals who encourage immigration as it is for those who oppose it. The belief that ethnic immigrants would integrate over time has ben shown to be false. Those born here are often more hostile to British values and culture than their parents who arrived from overseas.

It should be realised that white liberals are the only group of people who engage in self-hatred and obsess about the sins of ‘racism’. All other races pursue their own self-interest and, although willing to accept the benefits of favouritism and positive discrimination flowing from liberal self- abasement, they privately regard such people with contempt as useful idiots destructively engaged in treachery to their own race and community.

The first step in reclaiming our national identity will be to remove all illegal immigrants who have no legal right to be here. Restore Britain have published a detailed and well thought through plan on how this can be achieved. Although this will involve a significant number of forced removals, the majority are expected to leave of their own free will, encouraged by financial incentives and a gradually increasing hostile environment. This target could be achieved within a single parliamentary term, after which focus would need to shift towards those least willing, through culture or behaviour, to assimilate into British society or who make a detrimental impact on wider society.

Makerfield by election

Didn’t he do well. Andy Burnham wins the Makerfield by election with more than half the votes cast. He was twenty points ahead of the Reform candidate despite the pundits claiming that it was a very close contest. So, has the Reform bubble burst now that Labour has got its act together?

Such a conclusion overlooks many of the special factors involved in this by election. Andy Burnham was no ordinary candidate but the sitting Greater Manchester mayor who was tipped to replace the seriously unpopular Keir Starmer as prime minister if elected. The previous Labour MP stood down to allow Burnham an opportunity to acquire a parliamentary seat. It was a risky strategy given the relatively slim majority over Reform at the last election, and the Reform landslide in the council election only a few weeks earlier. Nevertheless, it succeeded spectacularly, thanks to Burnham’s personal popularity in the constituency. So, this was primarily a vote for a personable candidate, rather than for the Labour Party.

Although, the personal vote for Burnham was the main factor there were problems with the Reform campaign. The candidate was pilloried in the media over some crude anti-women comments which may have alienated a chunk of potential female voters. However, there were other difficulties. He was chosen as a local candidate and employed as a plumber, in what looked like an attempt to emulate the recent Green Party by election success in the nearby Gorton & Denton constituency. Unfortunately, his lack of professionalism was exposed in the special BBC Question Time programme when he was outclassed not only by Burnham but also by the politically experienced Conservative candidate. To put it bluntly, he didn’t inspire much confidence that he could argue the Reform case lucidly and convincingly.

There was also the matter of the Restore Party standing in the election which many feared would split the right-wing vote. In the event Burnham outpolled the combined votes of both parties. But it still resulted in too much time and effort wasted attacking one another rather than presenting a united front to the electorate. It should be noted that despite all these problems Reform and Restore combined achieved a creditable 42% of the vote, which in many contests would have been enough to be elected. However, in this election the complete collapse of the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Green vote resulted in a two-horse race with Labour as the winner.

It looks almost inevitable that Andy Burnham will soon replace Kier Starmer as prime minister. Although Burnham will be a much better communicator, he will still be presenting much the sane cocktail of discredited ideas and policies as before. Thus, it should only be a matter of time before the electorate again becomes disillusioned and they turn to supporting Reform as the only serious and credible alternative.

Woke regime two tier agenda

There has been national outrage in Britain during the past week over the police response to the murder of teenager Henry Nowak in Southampton. The police officers attending the scene of his attack credulously accepted the Sikh killer’s false claim that he had been subject to a ‘racist’ assault by Henry, contrary to the visible reality that his victim was lying on the ground dying from his wounds. The police officers compounded this wilful error by replying to Henry’s pleading that he had been stabbed with the insolent put down ‘I don’t think you have, mate’. They then proceeded to handcuff him despite pleas that he couldn’t breathe, finally notifying the teenager when about to draw his last breath, that he was being charged with a trumped up ‘racist’ offence.

Many commentators have concluded that this is clear evidence of a two-tier justice system, the consequence of a ruling class obsession with the diversity agenda which prioritises the concerns of ethnic minorities over the interests of the white majority. In this case the police attached more importance to a fabricated claim of ‘racism’ over the actual reality of a fatal stabbing. To be fair to the officers caught up in this incident their outlook would have been determined by years of indoctrination over ‘institutional racism’ stemming from the sinister and extremist Macpherson Report.

In fact, this particularly egregious incident is merely the tip of an iceberg in which the DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) agenda is deeply embedded in a raft of policies which are designed to present minorities in a favourable light at the expense of the white majority. For example, it is why positive discrimination in favour of minorities is encouraged in the workplace, particularly in the public sector. It results in social housing intended for the white working class to be now largely occupied by the immigrant community. It explains the wholly disproportionate number of black faces in advertising, their false and historically inaccurate appearances in earlier period dramas and the typecasting on TV of white men as villains, criminals, buffoons or dim-witted subordinates. It demonises blameless individuals for the original sin of ‘white privilege’ and today’s generation for the supposed evils of colonialism. There are plenty more examples which are intended to further this malign objective.

This pernicious agenda has been allowed to take hold thanks to the supine response of previous Conservative administrations who consistently failed to stand up to communist inspired subversion, fearing the accusation of ‘racism’ if they challenged the vocal leftist fanatics intent on destroying the cohesion of British society through mass third world immigration. As accurately observed by US Vice-President Vance these agitators are consumed by ‘self-hatred’, a guilt complex over the achievements and creativity of their own race and people, coupled with a loathing of their country’s incredible culture and history.

English local elections 2026

What are we to make of the recent local election results? Reform UK have won nearly 1500 seats, Labour have lost over 1000 seats, and the Conservatives have stalled at the low level of support that is still below their dismal general election performance. One trope that has been exploded is that parties can win elections only by moving to the centre ground of politics.

The Labour government is now in crisis with a leadership election impending. They have clearly lost their working-class base which has now largely migrated to Reform. Keir Starmer is taking the blame for his lacklustre communication skills and his unpopularity on the doorstep. But Labour activists are deluding themselves that a change of leader will improve matters. The underlying problem is not even confined to the Labour party itself but embraces the broader ruling elite.

The dominant values of this elite are an obsession with the interests of minorities - racial, cultural, sexual and religious, coupled with a disdain for white working people who are now perceived as far right bigots, hostile to the prevailing ‘progressive’ agenda that has been adopted by all the traditional parties including many Conservatives.

The moment of revelation for the British public was the response of Keir Starmer to the unrest which took place in many working-class areas following the Southport atrocity. Instead of sympathising with their outrage the prime minister denounced their concerns and branded them all as far right agitators for blaming the murders on an asylum seeker, which subsequently turned out to be very close to the truth.

Since then, the working-class electorate has concluded that the Labour party no longer represents their interests. Reform UK have responded to this new reality, pledging to address their concerns over the unsustainable levels of global immigration which is destroying the cohesion of their communities and the identity of the nation. None of the other political parties have shown much awareness or interest in this matter.

These local election results have given a huge boost to the credibility of Reform, and it is to be hoped that a bandwagon effect has been created that will result in increasing electoral support for them, as they provide the only viable vehicle for the kind of change that the public are demanding.

Reform UK v Restore Britain, which is best?

Over several decades Britain has lacked a credible right-wing party. The only show in town has been the Conservative Party, whose main focus has been furthering the interests of global capital. Since the banking crisis of 2008 this has resulted in a stagnant economy leading to prolonged cost of living problems for those on average incomes and below. Most Conservative policies have been indistinguishable from those pursued by the Blairite Labour Party.

The problems created have been not just economic, but more seriously have impacted our cultural values and national identity. The Conservatives have allowed huge levels of immigration from around the globe that facilitates the undermining of social cohesion, the deterioration of public services and renders housing unaffordable for those of average means. They have pursued net zero policies which have resulted in the highest energy costs in the world. They have retained DEI policies whose only purpose is to favour minorities at the expense of the majority, particularly white males. They have undermined traditional values by introducing same sex marriage, allowed LGBT and black ‘history’ indoctrination in schools, and facilitated exaggerated one-sided attacks on our cultural history particularly on the issues of slavery and colonialism.

As a consequence of repeated betrayal by the Conservatives, Reform UK was created by Nigel Farage and others with the aim of pursuing more robust right-wing policies untainted by surrender to liberal orthodoxies. In the 2024 general election Reform achieved more votes than the Liberal Democrats but won only a handful of seats as their support was spread out fairly evenly across the country. Due to the collapse in support for the Labour government under Kier Starmer they have topped the opinion polls for over a year, although that has dipped slightly in recent months. Reform have attracted a number of high-profile defectors from the Conservatives, not all of whom have been greeted with unalloyed enthusiasm by activists. In the other direction the outspoken MP Rupert Lowe was expelled from the party after falling out with the leadership. He has now set up his own political party Restore Britain. So, it is worth examining which of these two parties would most effectively implement a genuinely right-wing policy agenda.

The main concern of both parties, and also of right leaning voters, is immigration. Reform appear to focus mainly on the problem of illegal immigration. They pledge ‘to stop the boats by immediately leaving the ECHR, restoring full control of our borders, intercepting and detaining all illegal arrivals, and deporting them’. They would also end free housing, financial benefits and any incentives that facilitate illegal immigration. They would commence a five-year programme to identify, detain and deport illegal immigrants, and introduce ‘mass deportation of illegal immigration’ legislation to end the right of asylum for all illegals. So, their policy on illegal immigration is very tough, one that should have been introduced by the Conservatives years ago.

With regard to legal immigration Reform are committed to end ‘the era of cheap low-skilled foreign labour’. They will achieve this by ‘introducing a 5-year renewable visa for migrants with higher salary thresholds, mandatory fluency in English, and stricter good character requirements’. There will be no recourse to benefits for foreign nationals. Shortage visas will be issued in limited and capped numbers only when there are clear and acute shortages in national-critical roles’. They will scrap indefinite leave to remain and rescind existing awards. This is clearly an improvement on recent years but there is no indication of the likely numbers that will still be permitted to enter Britain, nor are there any proposals to encourage the outflow of those from immigrant communities who are unable or unwilling to assimilate into traditional British culture and values.

Restore’s policy on illegal immigration is similar to that of Reform and includes a commitment to remove all illegal migrants from Britain, claiming that ‘this is necessary for public safety and national security’. On legal immigration they will introduce a ‘red list’ of countries where nationals will face stricter and higher barriers to entry. They promise to abolish the asylum system in its entirety regarding it as no longer fit for purpose, and to introduce various further measures including deporting foreign criminals and revoking dual citizenship where it is in the British interest. They recognise that ‘mass migration has been a disaster for Britain and promise to ‘reverse this process and deport them’. However, no explanation is provided how the latter will be achieved. Despite this Restore’s policy on legal immigrants appears to be more restrictive and detailed than that of Reform.

Another subject where Reform have taken a tougher approach than Conservative governments is climate change. They promise to scrap net zero targets which are described as a ‘bad ideological policy’ that has resulted in Britain having ‘among the highest energy costs in the world’. This is a most welcome commitment which is long overdue. Restore have also promised to repeal net zero goals and to abolish the Climate Change Act 1998. They rightly point out that ‘luxury beliefs around net zero’ have for too long been prioritized over the country’s ‘critical energy needs’. In conclusion both parties have made a welcome commitment to addressing climate change alarmism and the exorbitant energy costs caused by net zero targets.

On the question of sovereignty Reform ‘will ensure that no foreign court, treaty or institution overrides the will of the Brish people or authority of parliament’. Again. a long overdue policy, on a matter that previous Conservative governments were very remiss in addressing. Restore correctly point out that the British political establishment have been more interested in ‘serving the world, international institutions, or foreign states than pursuing our own national interest’. They will ensure that ‘the interests of the British people would forever be our solemn priority’. So, it is encouraging that both parties are serious about preserving national sovereignty.

With regard to criminal behaviour both parties propose numerous tough measures to address this problem which has blighted the lives of many citizens. One policy that both are agreed on is to introduce the widespread use of stop and search to reduce knife crime. It is to be hoped that this action targets those who most fit the profile of offenders most likely to carry knives, rather than stopping the wider public at random.

Under the Conservatives the welfare bill increased enormously with millions of people of working age trapped in a life of benefits. Both Reform and Restore are committed to ensuring that work should be rewarded and that benefits should be limited to the most vulnerable and needy.

Conservative governments have remained largely silent when faced with the destructive campaign of supposedly ‘progressive’ radicals, intent on attacking, denigrating and undermining British culture, traditions and history. Reform have stated that they will ‘defend free speech, uphold British traditions, ban DEI quotas and reject the policies of guilt’. They will end the shame inducing indoctrination of schoolchildren and promote pride in British culture and history. Restore would honour our religious historical and moral tradition and uphold Britain’s ‘literature, art, culture architecture and institutions’ to ensure a better understanding of our national story. It is reassuring that both parties are committed to restore national pride in our culture and history and to end the guilt-ridden self-abasement towards our past.

In conclusion both Reform and Restore are proposing a raft of much needed policies on critically important national issues which the Conservatives neglected to address when in government. The single apparent policy difference between Restore and Reform is that only the latter recognise the need to address the problem of unassimilated large scale ethnic ghettos that has resulted in British residents being supplanted from their neighbourhoods and communities in many towns and cities. Given the wide consensus on other issues, it makes no sense for the two parties to compete against one another. It would be in the best interests of both to merge and form a single party. If this is not possible an electoral pact should be made in which candidates agree not to stand against one another.

Jeffrey Epstein establishment disinformation conspiracy

This blog has been aware of the Jeffrey Epstein saga as background media noise which occasionally flares up such as when the BBC interview with former Prince Andrew was broadcast. Given that it is not possible to keep tabs on all stories considered newsworthy by the mainstream media, only passing interest was shown on this matter. It was considered that as the main action was taking place in the USA, and British interest was confined to the scrutiny of personal relationships of some prominent individuals, there were no wider issues of public concern that merited investigation.

This has all changed with the publication of millions of documents relating to Epstein released by the US authorities. The revelations they contained led in quick succession to the stripping of the royal titles from Andrew and the sacking of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador, leading to major crises for both the royal family and the Labour government. So, it is worth taking a look to discover whether the mainstream media revelations stack up to justify such drastic action being taken.

The mainstream media narrative can be briefly summarised. Jeffrey Epstein was a prolific paedophile who personally sexually abused hundreds of underage girls. Furthermore, he trafficked these girls for the sexual pleasure of prominent ‘rich and powerful men’ who were flown to his Caribbean island for this purpose. The ‘Epstein Files’, containing the names of these ‘rich & powerful men’, are being held by the US authorities who are refusing to release them to the public, thus allowing the protection enjoyed by these men to continue. Former Prince Andrew and Peter Mandelson have been justly condemned for maintaining contact with Epstein after his paedophile conviction was revealed. There is almost total unanimity by the public and media that all of the accusations against Epstein did most definitely occur and the opprobrium heaped on Andrew and Mandelson is entirely justified. Anyone questioning this account risks being accused of promoting an odious conspiracy theory with the intent of causing huge distress to Epstein’s many victims.

However, there appeared to be some unexplained discrepancies in the mainstream media account. Despite the release of millions of Epstein documents, and as Elon Musk observed, the number of ‘rich and powerful men’ identified as abusers through their visits to Epstein’s Caribbean island remains stubbornly stuck at zero. Moreover, the only person that Ghislaine Maxwell was accused of trafficking girls to was Epstein himself and nobody else was involved.

So, after further research it has been discovered that very little of the mainstream media narrative appears to be based on actual facts. Instead, a false picture has built up due to the failure of the media to question whether the claims made about Epstein have any foundation in reality. Fortunately. one American Substack blogger, Michael Tracey, has carried out a thorough investigation and his findings are summarised below, which are mainly confined to their impact in Britain.

The first thing that the public associate with Epstein is that he was a ‘paedophile’. In a recent BBC television interview with Peter Mandelson, Laura Kuenssberg referred to him as a ‘convicted paedophile’ and the BBC has repeated this description many times when reporting on Epstein. So, it may come as a surprise to many people that the sexual offence for which Epstein was convicted, the ‘victim’ was very close to her 18th birthday. The sexual activity was consensual, and she was unwilling to testify against him but was compelled to do so by the prosecutor. No other person was involved in this sole conviction which took place in Florida where the age of consent is 18. So, Epstein would not have been charged with this offence in the UK for sexual activity with a female of this age where the age of consent is 16.

Andrew and Mandelson have been widely condemned for not ending their contact with ‘the sex offender and paedophile’ Epstein after his conviction. But nobody asks why they should be compelled to cancel a friend with whom they have a good relationship for an activity that is perfectly legal in Britain? This point is never considered let alone addressed. As a recent Guardian article has revealed many prominent individuals continued to maintain their association with Epstein for up to a decade after his conviction. For context, it should be remembered that the sanctimonious BBC for many years employed a convicted murderer in one of their trashy soap operas. Also, the high-minded Prince of Wales has recently cosied up to the Saudi crown prince who ordered the murder and dismemberment of one of his opponents who was lured into a Saudi embassy.

If this is all that Epstein has been found guilty of many people might reasonably ask why the mainstream media continues to refer to the hundreds of victims of Epstein. It is now becoming evident that the so called ‘Epstein Files’ are nothing more than a mirage. Although there are vast quantities of emails, documents and photographs relating to Epstein none have revealed any trafficking of under-age girls to ‘rich & powerful men’. So, it can reasonably be concluded that the mainstream media has been sucked into a conspiracy theory about ‘rich & powerful men’ for which there is no basis in reality, given the total lack of evidence for this widely trumpeted belief.

So, it could be asked, what about the testimony of those claiming that they were victims of underage sexual relations with Epstein? The evidence shows that many of the accusers were either over 18 when they met Epstein or have had their claims dismissed by US investigatory authorities as unreliable. A sinister new development is that some of these women are now claiming that they were ‘groomed’ by Epstein when they were in their 20s, thus attempting to extend the boundaries of potential male heterosexual criminality. These women were of an age when it could reasonably be assumed that they would take responsibility for themselves in their personal relationships.

The reality is that they were recruited solely to provide massage services to Epstein, for which Epstein appears to have had an almost daily fetish. Many were employed in local massage parlours and were asked to confirm that they were over 18 before being engaged by Epstein. They were paid $200 for a massage session, so many lied about their age to take advantage of this very lucrative casual work, to which many of them repeatedly returned. It should be remembered that Epstein was never allowed to mount a defence in open court against the sexual allegations made against him, as he was pressurised into accepting a plea bargain to avoid more serious charges involving widespread collusion by his accusers. Also, many of the claimed ‘victims’ have received huge financial payouts from the Epstein estate with only cursory investigation.

The most notorious Epstein accuser was the late Virginia Giuffre who for several years was employed as a travelling masseuse by Epstein. It was during one of these overseas visits that she was photographed with Andrew at Ghislaine Maxwell’s London home aged 17. There is no doubt that this photograph is genuine and Andrew’s attempt in the BBC interview to obfuscate the matter resulted in his credibility being seriously undermined. Giuffre alleges she was trafficked to Andrew on three occasions. However, the two alleged to have taken place in the USA have now been disproved, meaning that she was lying. Andrew denies having any sexual relations with her, so it is one person’s word against another. Giuffre has never claimed that she was raped by Andrew just trafficked to him. So even if what she claimed is true during her London visit, she was over the age of consent in the UK.

It should be noted that Guiffre was the subject of several claims against her for defamation, she grossly exaggerated her injuries in a car crash and allegations contained in her published memoirs were based on a much earlier fictional account. In summary, Virginia Giuffre was a seriously unreliable witness whose fabricated accounts have been credulously accepted by the mainstream media, political establishment and general public. There needs to be an investigation as to what happened to the £12 million pounds allegedly paid by the royal family into Giuffre’s charity, and an explanation as to why such an astronomical sum of money was ever paid in the first place.

The only conclusion that can be reached, on the evidence that has been uncovered, is that the baying media, politicians and populace on both sides of the Atlantic have been duped by an out-of-control fantastical epidemic of groupthink and mass hysteria that created the fictional paedophile monster Jeffrey Epstein.

Speak for England, Amelia

The Home Office Prevent programme is a strategy designed to stop individuals from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism, focussing on early intervention and tackling ideological causes. During the present century virtually all terrorist incidents in Britain have been inspired by Islamic jihadism. But instead of concentrating on the threat from this source, Prevent has instead focussed principally on the almost non-existent danger from what is termed ‘right-wing extremism’.

As part of the Prevent strategy Hull City Council and East Riding of Yorkshire Council have sponsored an interactive game called Pathways aimed at secondary school pupils. Players identify as either a white teenage boy or girl called Charlie who are helped to avoid being reported for ‘extreme right-wing ideology’. They risk extremism referrals if they decide to contact groups that encourage ‘harmful ideological messages’ or are against the ‘erosion of British values’.

In short, Pathways is a pernicious device to indoctrinate white school children against any display of patriotism and to create a guilt complex around their own race, people and nation. Fortunately, this Marxist inspired propaganda initiative has severely backfired. One of the characters Charlie encounters is a ‘goth girl’ called Amelia who, from a woke perspective, holds some seriously unreconstructed political views. Many Youtube videos have adopted Amelia as a mascot and sympathetically spread her patriotic right-wing views whilst simultaneously ridiculing and spoofing the Pathways agenda. Naturally the Guardian disapproves of this trend decrying that those encouraging the Amelia character ‘created to deter young people from extremism’, has instead ‘been subverted to disseminate far right messaging’.

It is to be hoped that Amelia becomes a permanent political symbol behind which the majority opposed to woke brainwashing can unite in deriding and undermining this subversive and insidious agenda that is targeting white school children.

Ian Dunt, apostle of woke virtue

At a recent public event this blog engaged in a brief political discussion with the mainstream media journalist Ian Dunt, an individual of whom we were previously unaware. Further investigation revealed that in addition to his main platform he also has a regular weekly Substack blog through which his unfiltered political views and opinions can be voiced, thus avoiding the constraints of his principal media outlet. His blog provides an interesting open window into the mindset and outlook of the woke establishment class who have hijacked many of our institutions. So, it is worth examining the contents of his blog to gain an insight into the thinking underpinning this now dominant ideology.

What needs to be explored is the motivation behind woke activism. Is it a genuine high-minded concern for racial and other minorities who are considered to have been oppressed, persecuted or discriminated against in the past? Or is it a desire for activists to signal their own virtue with their woke peer group by presenting themselves as ‘holier than thou’ adherents of the great noble cause that they have all embraced? Alternatively, is it an attempt to destroy the established order of the white western capitalist society for which they seem to have a loathing, and to replace it with one more debased that fulfils their extremist ideology fuelled by a racial guilt conscience, coupled with an unrealistic and idealised egalitarianism?

So, what does Ian have to say about the level of immigration into Britain considered by many on the right to be totally out of control. He claims correctly that ‘many immigrants come to work… and want a better life’ an outlook and objective that is uncontroversial. However, although it would be wrong to blame all the evils of society on immigration, he wilfully ignores whether there might be any downside to huge third world immigration. Such as, for example, the creation of ethnic ghettos, divided communities, increased competition for housing, greater pressure on public services and transport, increase in crime and greater risk of religiously inspired terrorism. These are all matters of deep concern to ordinary members of the public who are most affected by such changes to their communities. But to the woke activist such views are instead evidence of entrenched bigotry and irrational prejudice. For those like Ian, mass immigration must always be presented as a positive benefit, and thus they remain blind to the undermining of societal cohesion and national identity that invariably follows.

Ian takes a strong line on transgender rights, denouncing a recent ruling of the Equality & Human Rights Commission (ECHR) ‘as one of the most disreputable and irresponsible documents’ from a public body; expressing a position which he considers to be ‘on the very furthest fringes of anti-trans activism’. And what is this outrageously extremist view? Merely that ‘trans women should use men’s toilets, and trans men should use women’s toilets’. In other words that biological males should keep out of women’s private spaces, a view held by the overwhelming majority of the public for as long as anyone can remember. He hysterically concludes that this decision would lead to ‘the eradication of trans people from the country’s social fabric’. Sensibly, the conclusion of the ECHR is the only logical response to the ruling of the Supreme Court on this subject. Ian’s angry and unhinged response clearly illustrates how far removed from reality woke activists have become in pursuing their delusional obsessions about gender.

Predictably Ian is an enthusiastic supporter of the BBC describing it as ‘the most trusted news source’. He denounces attacks on the BBC by the political right on the grounds that ‘the entire notion of objective, impartial public service broadcasting is an anathema to them’. Despite this he claims that the BBC has the audacity at times to ‘accept right wing narrative frames’, so his own notion of impartiality has a clear political bias. He overlooks the reality that overwhelmingly the BBC is a bastion of woke ideology, promoting issues such as climate change alarmism, multiculturalism and favoured minority concerns at every opportunity, whilst simultaneously deriding or ignoring traditional and conservative perspectives.

During the 1960s and 1970s the political left in British politics was vocal in its support of ordinary working people. It was during this time that young middle-class left-wing activists would try and ape the manners and appearance of the working-class, whilst denouncing the ‘bourgeois’ society into which they were born. For example, they would remove books by Enid Blyton from school libraries for being too middle class and idealise vocal working-class heroes in ‘kitchen sink’ dramas. This sentimentalised outlook and patronising posturing was clearly inauthentic and was looked at with bemusement by genuine working-class people. But at least it was well intentioned, seeking to materially help those living less comfortable lives than themselves.

Today the working class that was once feted is now demonised. Ian made the mistake of arriving at Waterloo station on the day that Tommy Robinson held his massive rally against uncontrolled immigration, attended by countless thousands of ordinary working people from all over the country. He was horrified for having inadvertently joined this gathering of ‘fascists’, as he termed them, complaining that these people ‘were everywhere, surrounding Waterloo like an army and there was no way to avoid them’. He accused them of doing something ‘which can never be forgiven, they had introduced a notion of racial awareness that made brown people feel unsafe’. In reality ‘brown people’ had nothing to fear from these supporters as all the evidence suggests they were well behaved, a contrast to the alarm faced by white residents living in culturally diverse areas who have to contend with unacceptable levels of street crime, harassment and intimidation.

This summary attempts to provide a flavour of Ian’s political outlook. Although there is a veneer of good intentions underpinning his agenda he lives in a fantasy world divorced from reality. It is not clear whether his intentions are malign or his thinking just plain naïve. However, by always taking the side of minorities, and denouncing the reasoned attitude of ordinary fellow citizens, he comes across as an angry fifth columnist who appears intent on subverting and destroying the well-ordered, cohesive and harmonious society that was once widely taken for granted, and which is now in danger of being lost due to woke extremism.

Black overrepresentation in advertising

The Reform MP Sarah Pochin, who was elected in a by election earlier in the year, has put the cat among the pigeons with her comments about the overrepresentation of black people in British advertisements. This is a subject which for some time has been discussed in private by millions of ordinary citizens but which until now has been deliberately ignored by the mainstream media.

The comments occurred in a radio phone-in programme in response to a listener asking whether Reform would do anything about the disproportionate number of ethnic minorities in advertising. The MP replied that the listener was ‘absolutely right’ and that it ‘drives her mad when she sees advertisements full of black people’. She added that these do not reflect our society, and that the average white family is no longer represented, with many advertisements featuring no white people. This is a rare example of plain speaking by an MP committed to voicing the concerns of the majority of her constituents.

Needless to say, there has been a huge backlash from the liberal elite, furious that this previously clandestine agenda has now invaded the public discourse, and outraged that an MP would be willing to use such ‘racist’ language. The fact that everything she said was factually correct is totally ignored, and that the advertising industry has been gaslighting the public for years with this manipulative ideology.

Keir Starmer denounced her views for expressing ‘shocking racism, the kind of thing that will tear our country apart, and that Nigel Farage will need to root it out of his party’. The prime minister appears to be living in a fantasy world since the overwhelming number of comments on Youtube and newspaper articles fully agree with the MP, and are disappointed with the semi apology she issued. Far from rooting such views out of his party, Nigel Farage should instead fully support his MP, since the electoral dividends should be huge as he will be able to demonstrate to the British public that he is on their side, and against the woke agitators intent on undermining the cohesion of our society through continually appeasing favoured vocal minorities.

No white faces in Birmingham

The shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick gave a talk at a Conservative party dinner earlier in the year which was secretly recorded. Released by the Guardian newspaper to coincide with the Conservative party conference, the recording revealed Jenrick observing that in a ninety-minute visit to the Handsworth district of Birmingham he had not seen ‘another white face’.

Handsworth is described as a ‘melting pot of different ethnicities’, an accurate description as over a third of residents are Muslim, about a quarter are Indian, another quarter are black leaving less than 10% who are white. Predictably Jenrick has received quite a lot of flak for his observation, with the usual accusations of ‘racism’. He was denounced for fuelling a ‘fire of toxic nationalism’. Unusually, in the face of this kind of intimidatory criticism, Jenrick has stood his ground, stating that it would be wrong to ‘shut down an important debate that we need to have about integration’.

However, it is not clear what such a debate would achieve. It has been glaringly obvious for a long time that neither the indigenous population, nor the various ethnicities, have any desire to integrate whenever they can exercise any freedom of choice on this matter. Ethnic minorities prefer to congregate in their own communities, and when this displacement reaches a tipping point ‘white flight’ occurs. No amount of hand wringing by politicians of either the right or left is going to have any impact on this phenomenon, given that it is human nature for people of whatever culture or race to prefer to live with their own kind, and it is folly to pretend otherwise.

So, politicians and pundits should stop living in a fantasy world, in which exhortations are made that if only people would put aside their differences, then we could all live harmoniously together in an enriching integrated yet multicultural society where diversity is our strength. This liberal utopia will never be achieved, but instead we risk societal breakdown by playing with fire through continuing large scale open ended third world immigration. Instead of talking about integration Jenrick would be better advised to start promoting well-funded schemes of repatriation of those unable to assimilate into our country.

Soft totalitarianism

Many are asking whether the British people are finally waking up to the realisation that they have been treated with contempt for decades by successive governments on the issue of open-ended immigration from around the world. The evidence for this possible awakening is the continuing protests outside hotels holding illegal immigrants, the sudden appearance all over the country of the flag of St George under the campaign slogan ‘raise the colours’, and the huge patriotic rally in London organised by Tommy Robinson.

The liberal elite are claiming that these protests are being orchestrated by the ‘far right’ with the intention of establishing their own territories from which immigrants and ethnic minorities are excluded. But the reality is that they are almost wholly initiatives of ordinary local residents who have finally started to notice that the authorities are largely indifferent to their concerns. The problem is that we have been living under a regime of increasing soft totalitarianism, in which the priorities and agenda of the elite have become far removed from the interests of ordinary citizens.

The issue of immigration is only the most visible manifestation of a wider problem. The liberal elite that has been ruling us for decades is not particularly interested in the concerns of ordinary citizens but instead prioritizes a quite separate agenda. This has two main strands: the surrender of national powers to external international bodies, and the promotion of the interests of favoured minorities and of fashionable causes.

So, it does not much matter which political party is in government since the same top-down agenda will continue to be implemented. This agenda is driven by the left through a largely behind the scenes network of activists in universities, broadcasters spearheaded by the BBC, public sector bureaucrats, teachers, liberal media outlets, creative industries and trade unionists. These policies are then given shape by the political parties, principally Labour, Liberal Democrats, Greens, Scottish and Welsh nationalists that (with the exception of the nationalist issue) share the same objectives and compete only on which party can best deliver the same agreed outcome.

Politicians of these parties all brand the Conservative Party as ‘right wing’, demonising the Tories as uncaring, bigoted, racist, reactionary, etc. The reality is very different, since far from rejecting leftist subversion, they are happy to collude in its implementation, with the result that the election of a Conservative government provides minimal protection against the determined and vocal scheming of the hard left. However, despite this appeasement Conservative politicians gain no benefit, the vitriol against them continues unabated. To be fair, some Tory backbenchers do voice their opposition to the prevailing narrative, but they are largely marginalized.

So, what is the agenda that is driving this soft totalitarianism? Well, it is the furtherance of the ideology which has become known as ‘woke’ which promotes the interests of favoured minorities at the expense of the majority and denigrates nationalism whilst surrendering administrative control to international bodies.Favoured groups are ethnic minorities, particularly Afro-Caribbeans and Muslims, militant feminists, homosexuals, those claiming to be ‘transgender’ plus green alarmists. The mechanism through which woke liberals operate is a ratchet effect whereby a genuine grievance is raised and then rectified, which leads to a campaign to address additional less deserving complaints, which eventually results in an outcome where the minority calls the shots and the majority is openly discriminated against and/or denigrated.

Black people were once subject to a ‘colour bar’ preventing them from accessing places and services open to the white population. Legislation was introduced to put a stop to this practice, but the allegations of discrimination did not end there. So, we now have a situation where white people can be debarred from jobs which are only open to ethnic minorities, immigrants largely occupy social housing that was originally built for white residents, black people dominate advertisements and disproportionately fill positive roles in TV dramas as well as falsely appearing in historical dramas. White people are condemned for their ‘white privilege’ and for their colonialist past, particularly slavery which was abolished two centuries ago. Islam is likely to be given special protection when the government’s definition of ‘Islamophobia’ is revealed.

The private activity of homosexual men was for a long time criminalized and thus they were persecuted by the state. The repeal of this legislation was clearly the right thing do. Once the risk of criminality was lifted homosexuals soon started to proselytize for equal rights, and their cause became a cornerstone of the liberal elite. Despite the fact that they could never procreate same sex marriage was legalised, a patently meaningless innovation given that the purpose of marriage has always been to provide a stable background, recognised by wider society, for the upbringing of children. ‘Gay Pride’ marches started to appear although it was never explained why what many regard as a deviant and promiscuous lifestyle should be celebrated. So, we have now reached a situation where criticism of homosexual behaviour is deemed ‘homophobic’ and risks criminalisation, matters having turned full circle on this matter. At the same time heterosexual male behaviour has been branded by activist feminists as predatory, the result is a climate in which heterosexual men are increasingly imprisoned for uncorroborated sex crimes sometimes alleged to have occurred decades ago, and normal physical attraction is condemned for ‘objectifying’ women. White liberals, particularly male, are curiously addicted to guilt tripping and self-flagellation.

Various dubious causes have emerged to become the bedrock of the woke agenda, such as uncritical support for the climate change hoax, the belief that people can change their sex by self-declaration, and that outside bodies such as the European Union and European Court of Human Rights provide superior forms of government to parliamentary democracy. These are all top-down ideas embraced by the political elite and imposed on the rest of society in the face of much scepticism.

Nigel Farage has recently compared Britain to North Korea. On the face of it this appears nonsensical, but there is some truth to his claim. Farage cites the case of an Irish TV comedy script writer who was detained at Heathrow airport by five armed police officers for some allegedly ‘transphobic’ tweets, and a well-publicised case of a woman given a hefty prison sentence for threatening comments about illegal immigrants in hotels. The language and tone of both comments were disgraceful reflecting the degeneracy of our times. Nevertheless, the response of the authorities to both remarks was wholly disproportionate. In North Korea citizens can get into serious trouble for criticizing the regime, but this is far from the case in Britain where politicians can be lampooned and ridiculed with no consequences. However, it is a different matter when the ideology is undermined or challenged, particularly when favoured minorities are involved. So, under soft totalitarianism the modus operandi employed against dissidents is cancellation leading to possible loss of employment, and increasingly the threat of imprisonment under the guise of combatting ‘hate-crime’.

The Battle of Epping Forest

Over fifty years ago the progressive rock band Genesis released the song Battle of Epping Forest about fighting between two rival East End gangs. During the past week Epping has again become a battleground. This time it involves residents concerned about a local hotel being used to accommodate illegal immigrants, almost all of whom are believed to be dark skinned young men. One is alleged to have carried out a sex attack on a young teenage girl.

These protests have gained national prominence as they reflect the extent to which ordinary people have finally reached breaking point on the level of third world immigration that has been facilitated by politicians of all the traditional political parties. Predictably some hard left agitators (in reality, establishment regime stooges) have been bussed in to cause trouble, ludicrously branding the local protestors as ‘far right’, but this tactic no longer works as videos clearly show them to be ordinary residents, many of whom are women concerned about the safety of their children.

The local council has asked the government to agree to the demands of the protesters to remove the illegal immigrants from the hotel. Such a request is unlikely to succeed as it would likely trigger similar protests at the other 200 hotels housing illegal immigrants, a process that may already have started. This would create a major crisis for the government who would be faced with protests on a national scale without any obvious remedy to quell them.

Politicians have known since the time of Enoch Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech how deeply unpopular open ended, third world immigration of largely unassimilable people, is regarded by the British public. It has led to ethnic ghettos, divided communities, erosion of national identity, pressure on local services, those on lower incomes priced out of rented housing, and creation of innumerable criminal hotspots. But the politicians have paid no attention, parroting delusional nonsense about diversity and enrichment, whilst at the same time openly discriminating against the white population through one sided DEI initiatives, and demonising as ‘racists’ those who speak out. Payback time for their persistent arrogant contempt of the British public is long overdue.

Ethnonational society v multiracial society

There are many ethnonational countries in the world. These can be defined as countries where all but a small minority of citizens belong to the same racial group. Examples are Japan, South Korea, Hungary, Poland, and all African countries except South Africa. Until the 1950s Britain was also an ethnonational country as over 99% of citizens belonged to the white European race.

At that time British people considered that such a state of affairs was completely natural and normal, and nobody gave the matter any thought. They considered it to be as permanent as the sun rising in the east, or that winter would be cold and summer hot. There was absolutely no demand for this situation to be changed in any way, and most people assumed that it would and should continue indefinitely, just like it always had in the past.

This all changed with the passing of the British Nationality Act 1948 which granted to all Commonwealth and colonial citizens the automatic right of entry into Britain without a visa allowing them to take up permanent residence. It was based on the delusional fiction held by the authorities of the time that the citizens of the UK, Commonwealth and colonies were together, one family of people united in their allegiance to the British crown. The reality was the exact opposite; almost all the colonial countries wanted an end to British rule to allow them to take responsibility for their own governance. Apart from the white dominions, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the majority of Commonwealth countries were both racially and culturally vastly different to Britain. So it must be concluded that the justification for the granting of British citizenship to non-white people from the Commonwealth was a gigantic deceit perpetrated on the British people without their consent or wish.

The implications of this global extension of British citizenship were never explained to the British people. So it came as a surprise when the SS Empire Windrush docked at Tilbury in June 1948 with nearly 500 Jamaican men aboard looking for work. Over the following decade they were followed by hundreds of thousands more from the Caribbean and Indian sub-continent. These people came on their own volition as they sought to better themselves by moving to a country with low unemployment and a relatively high standard of living. It was most certainly not the case that they were encouraged to come to fill the jobs British workers were supposedly unwilling to perform.

Opposition to this development was fairly muted during the early 1950s, the main objections coming from trade unions who feared that their members’ wages would be undercut by the importation of cheap foreign labour. Presciently, a group of Labour MPs voiced their concern that 'an influx of coloured people domiciled here is likely to impair the harmony, strength and cohesion of our public and social life’. Despite these representations, the issue of third world immigration was beneath the radar of the vast majority of British people. This was because the new arrivals began to congregate in their own ethnic ghettos, so that those living everywhere else were largely unaware that a problem was developing.

This complacency ended when the British public were jolted into reality after the Notting Hill riots in the summer of 1958. These clashes between white ‘teddy boys’ and local West Indian residents brought home to an alarmed public just how easily racial conflict could now arise in Britain. As a consequence, the government came under increased public pressure to end the open door policy on Commonwealth immigration and to introduce controls. The Conservative government of Harold Macmillan eventually responded with a half-hearted measure, the Commonwealth Immigration Act 1962, which sought to reduce the number of unskilled workers entering the country. This disproportionally impacted potential black immigrants, which was the undeclared intention, never openly stated, and which nevertheless established the principle of non-white immigration control.

The measures taken by the Conservative government remained insufficient to prevent the continuing inflow of non-white immigrants in significant numbers. The Labour Party leadership in opposition were committed to repealing this ‘racially discriminatory’ legislation believing that ‘every Commonwealth citizen has the right as a British subject to enter the country at will.' However, after Harold Wilson won the 1964 general election, he pragmatically decided to retain immigration controls, probably spooked by the success of the strongly anti-immigrant Conservative candidate in the Smethwick constituency.

Instead of taking firm action to restrict the growth of the non-white population, political parties would start to vilify those who warned of the consequences. This was brought into sharp focus with the furore created by Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech in which he spelt out in the starkest terms the long-term disastrous consequences of open-ended large scale third world immigration into Britain. This was unquestionably a historic speech, of incredible boldness, which mercilessly exposed the wilful blindness of successive governments on an issue of crucial national importance.

Powell accurately predicted the potentially unlimited growth of the ethnic population and its distribution into ghettos. He identified the disproportionate concern given to allegations of discrimination against the ethnic population, contrasted this with the near complete disregard of the fears of the indigenous population on the open ended nature of immigration, exposed the naiveté of policy on integration and anticipated the cultural separation of much of the ethnic population from mainstream society. Most importantly, Powell also came forward with the only credible policy for permanently addressing the problem, namely ending all further third world immigration and instituting a well-funded high profile programme offering financial incentives to persuade the ethnic population to return to their countries of origin or ancestry.

Powell’s speech struck a deep chord with many British people - he claimed to have received over 120,000 letters as a result, the overwhelming majority sharing his concerns. Opinion polls also showed strong support for Powell’s stance. However, the British political establishment, then speedily moving in a liberal direction, denounced Powell as a populist agitator, intent upon stirring up race hatred for his own personal ends. So instead of heeding and acting upon his entirely justifiable warnings, the media, the government and even his own party leadership, denounced him in the strongest terms for the temerity of raising the issue of immigration and fuelling racial tensions.

Most unfortunately, the legacy of Powell’s speech has been the complete opposite of what he hoped to achieve. The uproar it caused galvanised liberals into the creation of a vast race relations industry with intrusive new initiatives to oversee public thought and behaviour, such as the Commission for Racial Equality, race equality officers in the public sector, race monitoring by local councils, 'hate' crimes, public funding of ethnic organizations, all overseen by the self-righteous cant of the politically correct obsessives, which has created a stifling climate in which white people have been silenced from publicly expressing their true feelings and concerns.

So what are the benefits of a multiracial and multicultural society? Well, in reality, there are very few. The most often quoted is the increased variety of cuisine that is now available to the public. Another that comes to mind was the contribution of black artists to popular music between the 1950s and 1980s, although most of the best acts were American. It is pointed out that many ethnic minority people occupy socially beneficial occupations such as doctors, nurses, carers etc. However, neither their ethnicity nor race brings anything to their competence or ability to perform the work involved in these kinds of jobs.

Although the benefits are few the disbenefits are extensive. The ethnic population is not evenly distributed throughout the country but is distributed into ghettos, from which many white residents have felt compelled to leave in order to continue living with their own kind. Many towns and cities have been divided into segregated communities where residents inhabit parallel societies. Statistics show that black people are more likely to be involved in criminal activity. Muslims have been responsible for virtually all the terrorist outrages carried out this century, all done in the name of their religion. In many occupations white people, particularly men, are openly discriminated against in pursuit of DEI objectives. Large-scale open-ended immigration has created a housing crisis preventing millions from accessing the housing ladder. In addition, health and transport services have been placed under severe pressure. TV dramas and advertising now disproportionately feature black actors rendering them annoying and alienating to white audiences. We have a plethora of intrusive laws, regulations and targets controlling many aspects of our lives, resulting in the diminution of personal liberty and freedoms on how individuals manage their day to day lives.

It is clear that the creation of a multiracial and multicultural society has been highly detrimental to the interests of the British people. So why was it allowed to develop despite a huge amount of public opposition? The reason is that governments, both Labour and Conservative, have been far more concerned about appeasing the race relations lobby and interests of ethnic minorities than listening to the concerns of white people, particularly those of working-class background. They feared being denounced as ‘racist’ by the hard left extremist elite who have captured the majority of our national institutions. The only limited opposition has come from a few right of centre newspapers, and even they sounded an uncertain trumpet.

Fortunately, with the arrival of the internet, the traditional gatekeepers of permissible debate have been considerably weakened, and a far wider range of opinions can now be voiced, giving a platform to those challenging the out-of-control immigration racket that has continued unabated for many decades. So far this has not had any impact on the level of immigration, but it has resulted in appreciable support for Reform UK, who are committed to addressing immigration concerns with more determination than has been shown by other political parties.

Reform has a policy of ‘net zero’ immigration and, although this is a step in the right direction, it is still an inadequate response given the scale of the problem, as it will merely freeze the ethnic population at the current level. The only answer, as Enoch Powell warned, is to stop completely the inflow and to enthusiastically promote measures to encourage the outflow. Recent projections have shown that white people in Britain will be in a minority within about 40 years, so the situation is critical if our descendants are to continue to live in a country in which their culture and way of life is preserved.

Are the Tories doomed?

Pundits are claiming that there has been a political earthquake following recent elections in England. Reform UK has captured the very safe Labour seat of Runcorn in a by election, gained nearly 700 county councillors, taken control of ten county councils from the Tories and acquired two elected mayors. The question being asked by many is whether there is now any future for the Conservative Party.

This is not the first time that there has been speculation about the end of the two party system. In the early 1980s the Social Democratic Party (SDP) was created by Roy Jenkins and other former Labour ministers on the right of the party to ‘break the mould’ of British politics. It was a top down elite creation, preaching ‘moderation’ interpreted as pro global capitalism, free trade, welfare state egalitarianism and closer links with the ‘Common Market’ as the European Union project was then known. It attracted a sizeable number of earnest, liberal minded, middle class supporters, and won two sensational parliamentary by elections at Crosby and Glasgow Hillhead on huge swings. However it performed poorly at the subsequent general election and gradually faded away before merging with the Liberals.

So the question that needs to be asked is whether Reform UK will suffer the same fate. Its biggest weakness is that it has been largely under the personal control of the leader Nigel Farage, who appears to take exception to anyone who might challenge his authority, as demonstrated by the recent removal of the MP Rupert Lowe. Consequently he has a near stranglehold on the policy and direction of the party, which increases the risk of conflict with senior colleagues who may have different ideas, and such divisions could lead to a possible loss of confidence by the electorate in the party.

On the other hand, the recent achievements of Reform are largely due to Farage’s communication and campaigning skills. He enjoys wide public recognition and appears to be far more in tune with the concerns of right leaning public opinion than the current Conservative Party leadership.

The Tories since the 1960s have consistently failed to promote anything resembling a right wing narrative. They presided over open ended third world immigration subverting our national identity and culture, they colluded in the destruction of grammar schools, for decades they were cheerleaders for surrendering powers to the European Union, they opposed Brexit, introduced same sex ‘marriage’, endorsed transgender lunacy, imposed an unnecessary covid lockdown and mask wearing regime, promoted the ‘climate change’ hoax, failed to abolish intrusive equality legislation, and as a final straw they encouraged record levels of both legal and illegal immigration leading to the current housing affordability crisis. In other words they shamelessly surrendered completely to the agenda of the cultural Marxist left.

The reason they could get away with this betrayal was because there was no credible alternative party of the right. But with the rise, and now electoral success, of Reform this has all changed. The Conservatives can no longer claim that a vote for any one else will let in Labour. The new reality is that a vote for the Conservatives now risks splitting the vote on the right to the benefit of parties of the liberal left. Trust in the Tories has evaporated; the party is now an empty shell, a busted flush, that will now pay the price for their past arrogant contempt and dismissal of the concerns of their traditional voter base.

Woman defined

During the past decade and more the political left has been captured by transgender agitators promoting the delusional belief that people can become the opposite sex to that into which they were born. As a consequence public and private institutions, sporting bodies and even purely private member associations have been compelled or intimidated into accepting a raft of transgender demands under the guise of equalities legislation.

Until relatively recently there had been very little pushback against this agenda since all political parties, including the Conservatives, were happy to embrace it in order to burnish their ‘progressive’ credentials. However, the overwhelming majority of the public were either sceptical or hostile to this agenda which they could clearly see conflicted with biological reality. The most pernicious outcome of this propaganda campaign impacted confused young teenagers who were pressurised into taking puberty blockers, as the first stage in the misguided notion that they could ‘transition’ to becoming the opposite sex.

Fortunately, the transgender advocates have begun to suffer some serious setbacks. As a result of a recent court case young people under the age of sixteen can no longer be prescribed puberty blockers. Moreover, the Cass NHS review concluded that there was a lack of evidence about the efficacy of such medical interventions, that there was a toxicity of debate creating a climate of fear that prevented the open expression of dissenting opinions, and that many of the youngsters presenting as transgender had other difficulties such as mental health and autism which were not properly investigated.

The Supreme Court has now delivered a further serious blow in unanimously deciding that only biological women are covered by the definition of ‘woman’ in the Equality Act 2010. The case was brought by a group of Scottish women challenging the decision of the extremist devolved Scottish regime, which had determined that men in possession of a ‘gender recognition certificate (GRC)’ could be classified as ‘women’ when appointments are made under ‘gender equality’ legislation to public bodies.

The implications of the Supreme Court’s decision encompass issues wider than just public appointments. It means that single sex spaces such as toilets and changing rooms are intended for use by biological women only. It is likely that sporting bodies could be vulnerable to successful legal challenges if they continue to allow ‘trans-women’ to compete or play alongside biological women in female only sports.

Previous to the Supreme Court decision ‘trans-women’ claimed that they were legally just as entitled to enter women only spaces as biological women, a viewpoint that appeared to gain widespread acceptance. It should be noted that individuals in possession of a GRC do not have to undertake any surgery or hormone treatment and thus are often physically indistinguishable to ‘trans women’ who merely self identify as such. In other words both categories can be physically male in all respects.

Former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption has expressed the view that although the ruling allows organisations to exclude ‘trans-women’ from women only spaces, they are not necessarily obliged to do so. Given how deeply the trans agenda has become embedded in some parts of society, there may well be many organisations that believe on ideological grounds that ‘trans-women’ should continue to be allowed into women only spaces, and adopt policies to this effect.

The Supreme Court’s decision has caused predictable outrage amongst woke activists, who are clearly not going to roll over and admit defeat without a determined fight. For example the Liberal Democrat Voice website bewails ‘the horrendous and mortifyingly scary Supreme Court judgment’ which has ‘removed hard won trans rights’, adding that ‘necessary changes in the law’ will be needed ‘to make sure that woman and man are not determined by biological sex’. Such changes ‘will need careful drafting to ensure that women will include those born as women and those who have changed gender’. So the delusional madness has not gone away.

The necessary response to this subversion must be to repeal all transgender legislation, thus ending absurdities such as gender recognition certificates which conflict with biological reality. Transgender people have always enjoyed the right to express their delusion that they are a different sex to that into which they were born, given that there has never been any law forbidding them making such claims and living their life accordingly. However, the right that they have been foolishly given to browbeat the rest of society to accept their delusion as reality should be taken from them.

A fantasy far right response to the immigration problem.

This blog, in some recent posts, has drawn attention to the problems created in British society by large scale, open ended immigration, of people from around the globe. This has been exacerbated by a guilt ridden, virtue signalling politically correct establishment, which has consistently denigrated British culture, history and achievements, whilst simultaneously uncritically embracing and promoting the values and interests of the immigrant communities.

This incremental process has now reached the point where large numbers of British people, particularly those who are working class, feel a deep resentment about the way they have been marginalised and ignored, on a matter about which they have deep concerns. This is reflected in the recent surge in support for the Reform Party, and the riots which took place in response to the Southport stabbings.

This concern is not new; it was made clearly visible at the time of Enoch Powell’s ‘River of Blood’ speech in 1968. Powell warned that as a country we were sleepwalking into disaster by allowing the inflow of vast numbers of third world immigrants into Britain, who were racially and culturally separate from the indigenous native population. He was denounced by the political establishment of the time, but in contrast he received a hugely favourable postbag from the public, the overwhelming majority supporting his stance.

Powell accurately predicted the potentially unlimited growth of the ethnic population and its distribution into ghettos. Most importantly, he also came forward with the only credible policy for permanently addressing the problem, namely ending all further third world immigration and instituting a well funded high profile programme of offering financial incentives to persuade the ethnic population to return to their countries of origin or ancestry.

However, the British political establishment, then speedily moving in a liberal direction, denounced Powell as a populist agitator, intent upon stirring up race hatred for his own personal ends. This was a moment in time when the British nation was presented with an opportunity to look into the abyss and step back. Instead our political leaders hurled us headlong forward to our almost certain doom.

So, most unfortunately, the legacy of Powell’s speech has been the complete opposite of what he hoped to achieve. The uproar it caused galvanised liberals into the creation of a vast race relations industry with intrusive new initiatives to oversee public thought and behaviour. Powell accurately predicted race riots, ethnic ghettos, civil disturbances, the open ended increase in the numbers of ethnic people, and the ever expanding state apparatus to force race 'equality' on an unwilling population.

So the position now is that we have a situation in which white people can be openly discriminated in employment under the guise of so called ‘equity’ and ‘inclusion’. We are delusionally told, in Orwellian terms, that ‘diversity is strength’, a trope which even appears on our coins. We are led to believe that huge levels of alien immigration bring ‘enrichment’ to our society. We are flooded with greatly disproportionate images of black people in advertising, and in TV dramas, including those set in an all white past. Finally, if we draw attention to any of this manipulation we are denounced as racist bigots promoting hatred. It should not be forgotten that Enoch Powell warned us who would have ‘the whip hand’ in the future, and we have allowed it to happen.

There are also adverse indirect consequences to high level immigration. The most notable is the steep rise in housing costs reflecting the ever increasing demand, with the result that many young people are priced out of owning a home, or even of renting one. A significant amount of social housing is allocated to immigrants as they are deemed to be in greater need, causing immense resentment to those on a waiting list. Immigration also increases pressure on the health service, transport network and education provision.

In contrast, the benefits specifically accruing to this immigration are very limited. The most obvious is the wider range of cuisine which has been introduced to the British public. There was some contribution to popular music by black artists, but all of this is in the past since much of their current output is seriously degenerate, frequently featuring gratuitous obscenities. Some members of the black community have attained eminence in sports such as football and athletics where they appear to have greater natural abilities, but this has mainly given this country’s national teams an unfair advantage over other European countries such as Poland with very few black residents.

So on this issue the British public have been treated with contempt over many decades by successive governments, intent on appeasing the vocal self righteous progressive elite at the expense of the cohesion of British society. This is not to blame the people of ethnic origins who came to this country to improve their economic prospects. Those who were born here have been placed in the extremely difficult situation of being in a visible minority, and notionally British citizens, but not fully accepted as such by many of the white majority because of their race and ethnic identity.

So the British people have a choice. They can continue to accept the narrative of the woke elite which will continue to subvert our traditional society and communities, or they can wake up and take the necessary action to address this issue.

So what should that action be? The first obvious necessity is to repeal all the equality laws (other than those relating to physical disability). These laws were never intended to create a level playing field, but rather to provide a mechanism to ensure that the interests of ethnic people would always prevail over the white majority. This move will signal that the rules have changed and that the majority will no longer accept being passive victims in their own subjugation.

All diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) schemes in the public sector will need to be ended with immediate effect. With regard to private businesses they should be free to recruit whoever they please from those who are resident in Britain, and suffer the consequences if they prioritize identity over talent and ability. Public sector bodies should be banned from requiring private firms bidding for contracts to meet DEI targets. As many local authorities and quangos are likely to continue to operate DEI objectives, it will be necessary that all applicants for white collar employment in the public sector must pass an examination to test their competencies in English, arithmetic, intelligence and computer skills, similar to those operated by the Civil Service for many years. More challenging tests should be required for those seeking promotion to higher posts.

The allocation of all publicly subsidised housing should be confined to those born in Britain meaning that immigrants will have to make their own arrangements in the private sector. This will end the unfairness of new arrivals jumping the social housing queue over British residents. People living abroad should be debarred from purchasing housing in Britain as this prevents British people joining the housing ladder.

The current level of immigration into Britain is clearly unsustainable and it needs to be drastically reduced. A net zero approach as proposed by the Reform Party is inadequate as it allows far too high a level of undesirable immigration. As most immigration is legal there will be a need for drastic action to bring down current numbers. All immigration from outside Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand should be prohibited other than in exceptional circumstances.

It is nonsensical that we donate billions of pounds in aid to developing countries whilst at the same time poaching their most educated and skilled citizens. The health service and care sector will need to stop relying on cheap foreign labour and start to train up British residents. Chain migration through arranged marriages from the Indian sub continent will need to be prohibited. In future such marriages must be confined to those already resident in Britain.

By definition, all illegal immigrants commit a criminal act by setting foot in this country. So they can be legally detained pending deportation. However, large numbers continue to remain here so a deterrent is required to stop them coming in the first place. The policy of the previous Conservative government was to deport illegal immigrants to Rwanda, but it was never implemented as they lost the election. Something similar needs to be adopted. As a matter of principle all immigrants should be ineligible for benefits.

It will be necessary to not just reduce the inflow but to take measures to increase the outflow. This will be achieved by offering financial incentives to ethnic minorities to settle elsewhere, beginning with those who appear to make the least contribution to British society, namely those with a criminal record, or unable to speak English, or with low educational attainment, or on benefits. Many ethnic minorities express how much more comfortable they feel when visiting their ancestral homelands where they are surrounded by people ‘who look like themselves’. So they too would benefit from this initiative.

These suggestions are proposed as a start to address the problem of societal breakdown, but further measures may be required in due course. For it to work it needs to be implemented as a national priority.