An event took place in London this week. You might have heard about it in the news or read about it on Twitter. It was called ‘NatCon’ and people got excited about it.
You would, however, be forgiven for wondering, from the rather hysterical media coverage of the ‘National Conservatism Conference UK 2023’, a) what all the fuss was about; b) what on earth ‘national conservatism’ is; and c) why the conference was taking place. To be perfectly frank, having attended most of the event and enjoyed listening to many of the speakers, I was left none the wiser with respect to these questions myself. But I can perhaps at least shed some light on what I hope I will be forgiven for calling the semiotics of NatCon and the reaction to it – which I think are significant.
Before getting to that, some comments on the substance of the conference itself would be helpful – as most people reading this article will I suspect have drawn the conclusion from media coverage that all manner of outlandish and controversial things were said. In fact, I will have to disappoint you. It would be unfair to the speakers, many of whom were excellent, to say that I’d heard it all before, but to anyone who pays attention to right-wing media commentary on either side of the Atlantic, it was in large part rather familiar stuff. Conservatives, we learned, need to build more houses. They need to fight against wokeism with “facts and truth”. They need to be worried about demography. They need to be prouder of Britain’s history. They need to do more to support the nuclear family. They need to have a youth policy or something like it. They need to manage immigration better. They need to sort out universities. We know all this (and to be honest a lot of Labour MPs would agree with chunks of it, too). So that’s the ‘what was all the fuss about?’ question covered: mountains, molehills, etc.
Where things got interesting, and where something like a debate seemed to be emerging, was on the question of what ‘national conservatism’ really is and whether it is even a useful concept in the British context. Here, there was one major cleavage in evidence: whether being a national conservative means embracing free market capitalism or One Nation Toryism of the paternalist, interventionist stripe. Is capitalism a good thing that increases prosperity and opportunity and means people need the state less since they can look after themselves? Or is it a dangerous thing that reduces us all to a swarm-like borg of alienated, atomised worker-cum-consumer drones lacking culture, family or community?
This is a genuinely vexed question and the speakers had very mixed views. Dan Hannan and Lord Frost argued the former position; Matt Goodwin, Melanie Phillips and Juliet Samuel the latter. But the audience seemed to my eye in any case to have made up its mind: Thatcherism is dead as an intellectual force, irrespective of its merits. The big cheers in the auditorium were for Disraeli, not Hayek. (I was astonished to find myself, at a conference billing itself as being about ‘national conservatism’, hearing Philip Pilkington giving a straight-up Marxian critique of consumer capitalism and its effects on the family, and being roundly applauded for doing so. How things have moved on from Thatcher producing The Constitution of Liberty from her handbag and saying: “This is what we believe.”)
The future of the conservative movement in Britain, then, seems to lie in the big state, for good or ill. Is this, then, what ‘national conservatism’ means? Reheated One Nation Toryism, emphasising intervention in the economy, family, community, and national togetherness and belonging? Tim Stanley and Melanie Phillips, who were among the most impressive speakers I saw, seemed to think so. Nigel Biggar and David Starkey, both also (predictably) good value, supported this reading in their own ways – emphasising the importance of historical narratives in binding a national community together. Seems like it would be politically palatable to a big section of the population, but one wonders what the concept of national conservatism really adds to that old recipe. It sounds rather like what the Tory Party stood for when Harold Macmillan was in charge. I’ve nothing against that, but he didn’t need a concept of ‘national conservatism’ to do any heavy intellectual lifting.
And things get more puzzling when we reflect that Britain has never accurately been described as being a nation – it’s four of them – and that in the modern day devolution has created serious and intractable divisions which it is hard, on its face, to see being mended. Scotland in particular feels like a foreign country to the English visitor now in a way that it never used to before devolution (and I speak as the son of a lad from Paisley). It’s easy to see why the concept of national conservatism works for Hungarians and Israelis, and to a certain degree Americans too – and there were plenty of representatives of all three nationalities at the conference. For the British, I’m just not convinced, and I’m not sure many of the speakers were, either.
So much for what national conservatism is all about, then – still very much open to interpretation. The final of my initial three questions was why the conference was taking place at all. And here, if I am being scrupulously honest, I’m not sure. I am an academic and I know what academic conferences are for (at their best): presenting experimental ideas and getting interesting feedback from an engaged audience. This simply wasn’t the format of NatCon – it mostly consisted of speeches with a little bit of time for Q&As here and there. There was no cutting-edge intellectual agenda being formulated. (I was at times reminded of Ted Honderich’s old complaint that conservatives “make a virtue of not even trying” to explicate anything like a proper political philosophy. We could have heard about Aristotle, MacIntyre, Plato, Strauss, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Girard, and so on, and what they might have had to say about our current predicament – put in an accessible way. We didn’t.)
Yet nor did we get what one would I think have encountered at a lefty equivalent – i.e., lots of break-out sessions and discussion groups and hashing out of tactics that attendees could take away and put into effect in their workplaces or universities. There was no real activism on display. If anything, the mood was more like that of a support group – an opportunity for like-minded people (broadly united by the one really deep-rooted common thread: a hatred of wokeism) to vent and reassure themselves that they were not alone. There’s nothing wrong with that, but I’m not sure what value was being added in practical terms.
It seemed in other words to be an event that hasn’t quite found its feet or worked out what it wants to be. I mean this by way of constructive criticism from an uninvolved well-wisher spectating from the sidelines: it needs to figure this out quickly if it is to do anything constructive.
On, though, to the major issue, which I earlier, inexcusably, labelled the ‘semiotics’. Here, again, I should emphasise that any critical comments I make are intended in good faith. But I think this was where the real significance of the event lay – and the signals being sent were in many regards undesirable.
First, it is undoubtedly true that there was a huge difference between the event that actually took place this week and the event that Guardian and New Statesman journalists imagined was happening. There are big sections of the chattering classes in this country who have simply convinced themselves that the word ‘conservative’ is synonymous with ‘fascist’ and that the word ‘national’ is synonymous with ‘racist’, and that any event describing itself as being about ‘national conservatism’ is QED illegitimate. NatCon had a kind of symbolic value in revealing this to be so – that nobody even bothers pretending to approach these subjects with an open mind anymore. Indeed, it now seems to be the case that the very notion of a group of conservatives getting together to discuss ideas is somehow dangerous per se: the gang of protestors relentlessly disrupting proceedings outside the conference certainly seemed to think so.
But by goodness we (if I can use that word) don’t help ourselves, and it is worth reflecting on the kind of messages that are sent – usually unconsciously – by body language, vocabulary, mood, and approach. While attending the sessions at NatCon, I found myself again and again returning to the question of what I would make of all of this if I was David Aaranovitch (who I spotted, to his great credit, paying attention more or less throughout). And I think – not wishing to put words in his mouth – that I would have found the mood to be two things: a little bit sneering and a little bit insecure.
The sneeriness first. It would be wrong to say there was no humour in evidence at NatCon. It was thin on the ground, but it was there. But there was almost none of the likeable, self-deprecating kind of humour that tends to get an initially dubious audience onside. Instead, I heard a lot of jokes at other people’s expense – usually, let’s face it, about ‘the woke’ and their inconsistencies. I get it: wokeness is incoherent. But a lot of people sincerely do believe in a woke-ish form of social justice, and an awful lot of people already have in their head an image of Tories as smug, self-entitled, snooty and sinister. Does a hall full of ‘national conservatives’ sniggering with derision about the idiocy of social justice warriors, then, send the right kind of signal, or does it rather confirm the image that most normal people have in their heads when it comes to conservatives already? And does it make it more, or less, likely that the average person will uncritically accept the mainstream narrative about NatCon – that is all a bunch of closet racists getting together to plot against social justice?
This matters. Non-conservatives have a network of images in their minds about what ‘conservatism’ really means – i.e., greed, snobbery, discrimination and fustiness. And here I think I should say, trying again to be scrupulously honest, that Douglas Murray’s widely-shared speech struck the wrong kind of tone in emphasising the left’s politics of ‘resentment’ (while standing on a podium in the Natural History Museum beneath a giant skeleton of a blue whale, let’s not forget). Not only do I think that the politics of resentment line is simply wrong (the great problem that the left faces is – as we encounter time and again – a hypertrophied sense of compassion rather than resentment); it just confirms everybody in their pre-existing view that Tories look down on poor people and think of them as envious. We have to get serious about whether we want more political polarisation rather than less. I would much rather there was less, and I think indeed that conservatism – which prizes, after all, national cohesion and shared common ground – ought to be fighting harder for that.
But what I also think David Aaranovitch would have reflected upon is how insecure everybody sounded. Conservatives (rightly, in many cases) feel themselves almost to be under siege culturally and think of themselves as witnesses to a slide into civilisational oblivion. But one doesn’t win converts to a cause by exhibiting a siege mentality, and one really doesn’t win converts by presenting oneself as the passive observer of decline. NatCon was characterised too often by what a centrist or leftwing observer would describe as whingeing from the sidelines about the state of the world. That’s weak and unattractive (even if I often indulge in the temptation myself).
This problem can partly be rectified by trying to get ahead of the game in addressing the genuinely catastrophic problems which are unfolding before our eyes. That requires a proper intellectual agenda, to hark back to a point I made earlier. But it also requires an awareness of what conservatives look like to outsiders, how they comport themselves, the vocabulary they use, and the tenor of their conversations. NatCon had, I’m afraid, a bit of a tin ear when it came to those matters. Quite a few speakers (Nigel Biggar spoke very movingly) mentioned that conservatism is fundamentally about love – of family, of locality, of community, and of country. I agree. But the overall mood being projected was not a particularly loving one.
However, there was another sense in which the conference had a kind of semiotic significance. This was the message it sent about conservatism beginning to get serious again.
Conservatism, it is important to remember, is not an ideology like Marxism, fascism or liberalism. It is, rather, a reflexive opposition to change which is too rapid. This means that its fortunes wax and wane in direct proportion to how rapidly change is taking place. Conservatism was born in the crucible of the French Revolution – the historical example par excellence – and has been at its strongest at other periods of great unsettlement, like in the middle of the 19th Century, the beginning of the Cold War, and in the 1970s and 80s as the social consequences of the 1960s began to play out.
For a long time – roughly between 1991 and 2016 – political consensus was strong and one could kid oneself into thinking that whoever held political power wouldn’t really change a great deal. Now, it is beginning to seem that it matters very much indeed – that, in fact, the most fundamental questions of all (whether women are women, whether national borders should exist or not, whether the nuclear family is good or evil, whether men are intrinsically ‘toxic’, what a human being is, whether there is such a thing as the human soul, whether there should be an age of consent) are at stake and that almost nothing is off the table. It is a time of profoundly disturbing and destabilising change, in other words. And it seems that, as one would expect in such circumstances, conservatism is just beginning to flex its muscles in response.
In this respect, the event was a fascinating one to attend. On the one hand conservatives seem to be sensing that they need to actually get off their backsides and win back political and cultural influence. And on the other, the left seems to have noticed. This, above all, explains the bizarrely histrionic nature of the media’s response to NatCon. If the political establishment felt secure, a few hundred ‘national conservatives’ getting together in London to hobnob would be ignored as a bunch of cranks. That they weren’t indicates in turn that the Establishment itself has figured out there might – just might – be a fight on. This may be the most important set of messages that the conference and the reaction to it sent – that a braver and more determined brand of conservatism is emerging and that the ‘new elites’ really don’t like it. Early days, but it seems on this evidence that things are going to get interesting.
My own gut instinct is that while the Conservative Party hasn’t quite grasped all of this yet, history suggests that it will reinvent itself in order to do so. The Tories basically exist to win elections – that is the parliamentary party’s only real ideology – and a mixture of economic nationalism and social conservatism would be I think a pathway to doing so, irrespective of whether I would personally find it appealing. This probably means that we’re in for a lot more culture war and, frankly, a worse economy. The general mood amongst attendees at NatCon was one of ‘intense relaxation’ about that. My own feeling is that, unfashionable as it might appear, we need to remind ourselves that, as Ryan Bourne recently put it, “When you stray from limiting the state’s role to clear and unambiguous necessities, you create the tools for your opponents’ mischief.” But that ship seems to have sailed.
Dr. David McGrogan is Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School.
Stop Press: In CapX, William Atkinson has written a mixed but largely positive report about the National Conservatism conference.
Stop Press 2: Lord Frost writing in the Telegraph says the Tories should embrace National Conservatism.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Labour vows to ‘eliminate’ fox hunting
‘……there is not a majority in “any part of the country” that wants it to continue’
Or not really……..
‘To what extent do you personally support or oppose a ban on hunting with dogs in England and Wales?’
A MORI survey for BBC ONE’s Countryfile programme has revealed that support for a ban on hunting with dogs in England and Wales has fallen from nearly two thirds of British adults to around half.
The Hunting Act is a disaster for animal welfare.
‘Both shotguns and rifles are used to shoot foxes and we observed and filmed foxes shot at by all the main methods. We obtained data from the Scottish gun packs for the 2002-2003 season documenting the outcomes of 574 shots fired at 386 live foxes. This revealed an average kill rate of 55% (range 20-79%) for all shots fired……’
‘……..different known causes of mortality of British foxes………They concluded that 80,000 foxes were shot and retrieved each year and that a theoretical further 115,000 fox deaths remained unaccounted for. Some of these may be foxes that have been shot and died later without being retrieved”.
https://www.falcons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Wounding-rates-in-shooting-foxes.pdf
The Hunting Act bans the use of more than two dogs to follow up a wounded fox. Two dogs are useless for that task in thick cover……
The shape of things to come:
Since his lambing season began three weeks ago, Meirion Jones has collected 27 carcases from his fields at Cwm Mynach Isa farm.
Two more lambs were rescued with severe head puncture wounds but are unlikely to survive despite intensive nursing.
Mr Jones, 67, said the foxes are harbouring in the adjacent Coed Cwm Mynach, a 1,000-acre woodland owned and managed by the Woodland Trust.
“We were born and bred in the countryside but these people don’t think our ideas count for anything.”
And in Colorado, where Grey Wolves have just been re-introduced:
‘….when Coloradans are recreating in the wild…….they must pay attention to their surroundings. That means that while outdoors, remove one or both headphones and remember to look around and take note of your environment.’
“If we can teach people proper behavior, we’re not going to see any human conflicts whatsoever,”
Good luck with that…….
Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought fox hunting with dogs was already banned?
The hunt just goes through the motions following a pre trailed scent.
So why ban it again? Don’t get it!
Very well said!
I believe the ‘labour’ party imagine that all they have to do is get their core vote out in order to win the next general election. The conservative party has been so utterly contemptible in government that ‘labour’ are probably correct in that assessment.
In any case, the ban, ‘regretted’ by Blair, its architect, was never about hunting in the first place:
‘why was this low priority, hopelessly ill drafted, time consuming, expensive and utterly impractical act ever passed?
The two dog follow up limit…..responsible for the biggest wild animal welfare disaster in living memory……
Why did the proponents of this mindless piece of legislation in England talk all sensible and practical amendments out of time in parliament?
Why was the idea of an amended wild mammals protection bill, calling for the general protection of all wild mammals from undue suffering, also talked out of the commons?
Why did the hunting act have to be forced through parliament by inappropriate use of the parliament act, described as ‘the most illiberal act of the last century’ by one of our most distinguished parliamentarians, Roy Jenkins (Labour and Social Democrats)?
The answer to those questions is quite simply (freely admitted) that the hunting act has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with partisan political agendas entirely unconcerned with animal or human welfare:
“Hilary (Armstrong) told him that if he didn’t bring back the Hunting Bill for a third reading soon we would not have a hope in hell of winning the foundation hospital vote. Tony Blair said sane people just would not understand how we can put at risk our whole public service agenda over hunting. Hilary said he had to understand that hunting went deep, and was symbolic.”
Alastair Campbell Tuesday 17th June 2003
“Now that hunting has been banned, we ought at last to own up to it: the struggle over that Bill was not just about animal welfare and personal freedom, it was class war.’’
Peter Bradley, former Labour MP for The Wrekin, Sunday Telegraph – 21stNovember 2004
“This is a dispute we must win, having long ago ceased to be about the fate of a few thousand deer and foxes. It’s about who governs us. Us or them?”
Chris Mullin, former Labour MP for Sunderland South – A View from the Foothills(2009)
“This has nothing to do with animal welfare – this is for the miners”
Dennis Skinner MP, Labour Party Conference – September 2004
“As one of those who voted for the Act, I made it clear beforehand in many discussions with the pro-hunting lobby that I expected farmers to shoot more foxes (an acknowledged agricultural pest) after the Act was passed.”
David Rendel, former Liberal Democrat MP for Newbury, letter to the Independent– 1st December 2006
Fox hunting truly serves no useful purpose, much like sport and trophy hunting in general. To all those who still do it: hey, what did that fox ever do to you?
Fox hunting is the most humane way of selectively dealing with problem foxes preying on lambs, poultry. Shooting wounds thousands of unrecoverable foxes every year, an animal welfare disaster.
Completely agree, True. They tell themselves ( and us ) stories and give excuses to justify it but it’s a seriously barbaric and cruel activity. Much like bull fighting in Spain, how anybody can have a party and gleefully find the suffering being inflicted upon a poor creature for entertainment ( oops, soz…”tradition”! ) value makes these people disgusting psychopaths. There is no justification. None. You want to hunt or cull an animal then you do so in the most humane way possible, which minimizes suffering. Hunting a small mammal down by terrorizing it with a herd of horses, pack of dogs and people accompanying on foot until it meets a terrible, grisly end does not meet my definition of ”minimizing suffering”. Then there’s the cubs that inevitably get torn to shreds…People who find this enjoyable and a ‘sport’ make me sick.
You’re probably already aware of this lady who goes around saving foxes from fur farms in the US. She deserves a medal. So many adorable videos of her rescues and these beautiful animals all have their own little characters. Just gorgeous, but everybody knows Finnegan fox;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh-4I2pggNo&ab_channel=SaveAFox
I have rarely read such nonsense.
You would not ignore evidence regarding covid vaccines etc and yet you completely ignore the evidence that I have provided above.
Hunting kills aged and infirm foxes quickly; fit and healthy foxes easily evade foxhounds.
Shooting wounds 45% of foxes fired at.
Problem foxes kill lambs, poultry kept by smallholders, often amongst the poorest in the land and must be controlled.
Hunting is the most selective and humane way of killing problem foxes, aged and infirm foxes often wounded by shooting.
The hunting act is widely acknowledged to be an animal welfare catastrophe.
Nothing has been done about it because it was never about hunting in the first place, as I show above.
‘Peter Mandelson, the peer and former Labour MP, said the former prime minister included a commitment to hold a free vote on hunting with dogs in Labour’s 1997 manifesto after receiving money from an animal welfare fund.
Blair has said the foxhunting ban, which was finally enacted in 2004, was one of the policies he most regrets…..
Mandelson was speaking during a discussion on whether political donations can affect policy on the Times Radio podcast How to Win an Election.
He said: “I can offer you an example from 1997 where an organisation – it was a fund to do with the welfare of animals – got pretty transactional with us.
“They wanted a ban on hunting in return for a very sizeable amount of money. And Blair and co were sort of reluctant obviously to enter into some sort of trade over this policy……
“And we got into a difficult situation where frankly we went a little bit too far – further than Blair wanted – in making this commitment in our manifesto. It was frankly under, not duress, but under some sort of pressure. It wasn’t attractive and it’s not been repeated.”
Mandelson did not name the group responsible. However, in 1996 Labour accepted £1m from Brian Davies, who founded the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Follow the money…….
Net Zero Pets The New Target – latest leaflet to print at home and deliver to neighbours or forward to politicians, media, friends online.
No, that’s not why dogs should be banned from public spaces, or muzzled, as they are in countries like Austria.
Jack Russells killed a week-old baby in London, 1986, and another in Telford, 2012. Staffies killed a London man, 45, in 2003; a County Durham man, 33, in 2009; a Manchester girl, 14, in 2013; a Liverpool woman, 43, in 2014; and a Cumbrian man, 45, in 2016, to name but a few.
“Researchers at the University of Liverpool with Public Health England recently estimated the total cost of dog attacks to the NHS, using hospital attendance and admissions data in England. Publishing their findings in Scientific Reports last year, they estimated direct costs of treatment to be more than £25m for the financial year 2017-18. Estimates for total costs of hospital attendance and admissions amounted to more than £70m for the same period.”
Rising fatalities, injuries, and NHS costs: dog bites as a public health problem British Medical Journal 27 April 2023
https://www.bmj.com/content/381/bmj.p879#:~:text=Researchers%20at%20the%20University%20of%20Liverpool%20with%20Public,more%20than%20%C2%A325m%20for%20the%20financial%20year%2023
That means the NHS had to spend nearly £100,000,000 in one year alone to treat victims of dog attacks.
Monday morning Sopwith Rd & Harvest Ride Warfield Bracknell
“Net Zero” should simply be shortened to “NERO”
Please give thought to Julian Assange today and tomorrow as his final appeal against extradition goes to court.
Stella Assange interview yesterday
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIm4aIcJWig
John Mearsheimer (amongst many others) appeal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN_Shacd2Iw
Shout out to the farmers in Spain who are still revolting with no plans to let up;
”For 11 days in a row, Spanish farmers have blocked highways and ports, dumping cheaply imported Moroccan vegetables and cereals on the roads and marching with tractors into the centers of large cities.
Farmers took over Santander on the weekend, while this Wednesday, farmers plan to hold tractor marches and protests in Andalusia, Extremadura, and Castilla and León, with media reports warning of additional road closures and blockaded roads in these regions.
Last week, on Wednesday, Spanish protesters paralyzed traffic for hours at the port of Motril in southern Spain, where a large part of Morocco’s fruit and vegetable shipments arrive. Several of the vans stuck inside had their holds opened and tomatoes found inside were thrown onto the road in protest at cheap imports of agricultural products from Morocco, which do not meet EU standards.
Meanwhile, scores of farmers with tractors and human chains have blocked the busiest highways in Spain, and have also made crossing the Spanish-French border at La Jonquera difficult for more than two days.
The farmers’ mass protest, planned for Madrid on Feb. 21, is expected to cause major disruptions in the city. There are also fears that clashes with police could ensue. Farmers also announced on Thursday morning of last week that they would mobilize on Feb. 26, the day EU agriculture ministers meet in Brussels.”
https://rmx.news/economy/farmer-blockades-continue-to-paralyze-spain-on-11th-day-mass-protest-scheduled-for-madrid/
Much respect for these brave Spanish farmers.
‘No farmers No food.’
In the BBC news today:
Gloucestershire vertical farm is one of UK’s ‘most advanced’
Great. We can now grow salad and herbs all year in the UK. We can have the L and T in our BLTs. What about wheat or other staple foods? Dairy? Meat?
This cannot be the future of most farming.
One thing they don’t mention: I bet they increase the CO2 levels inside the warehouse in order to boost growth.
Not food farming. Garnish growing.
I disagree with almost every goal of tearing up tradition – I think tradition is the bedrock of a functional society – but elites hunting a fox on horseback, with a pack of excited dogs eager to hunt and to kill, while the animal being pursued runs in complete panic for its life, knowing the odds are it will die being ripped apart by a pack of frenzied hounds (although sometimes through sheer exhaustion), isn’t a tradition I want to uphold. It’s elitist cruelty and not something I will ever support.
Support? No.
Support others’ right to support? Yes.
They are not ‘elites’, many are farmers, farm workers, equestrian workers. Some follow on foot. Hill packs hunted problem foxes on foot.
Hunting selectively swiftly kills aged and infirm foxes that would otherwise die (and do now, after the Hunting Act) a slow and lingering death alone underground. Fit and healthy foxes are too smart and elusive even for the best foxhounds.
Shooting is not similarly selective and wounds thousands of foxes every year that cannot be recovered due to the Hunting Act two dog follow up limit.
You are complicit in an inhuman, barbaric, animal welfare disaster.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/andrew-bridgen-tells-james-roguski-we-must-just-say-no/
Video of the Interview. Transcript embedded. The indomitable Andrew Bridgen.
With regards to our Iranian friend in the video above, the Met police have released a statement justifying their picking on him. Yes it was his fault for being provocative and therefore his fault he got sticks and soil lobbed at him from a load of triggered terrorist supporters. What this chap needs is some allies. I’d laugh my bits off if he turned up on Saturday with 50 mates. What would the bent bizzies do then??;
https://twitter.com/GhorbaniiNiyak/status/1759732475419340955
“Mr Nkozi was arrested and held overnight in police cells for being provocative by being black in a whites only area. He had only himself to blame that the lynch mob almost got him.”
“Labour has vowed to eliminate fox hunting within its first five years in power, saying there is not a majority in “any part of the country” that wants it to continue,”
Will they apply the same logic to immigration. That requires them to stopp legal immigration and require all future illegal arrivals to live solely in London?
That is an absolutely brilliant point, and one we can all use in communicating to our MPs.
“Mass immigration is bringing a European-style populist revolt to Ireland”
At long last, the Irish are rising against their real enemy, instead of always against the English. Ethnic Europeans worldwide are all in this together.
Wildlife campaigners worry about providing “safe havens” for wildlife in danger of extinction. Maybe they should look at their own situation.
What is common across all the wokeness in the newsm tems above, is that this is essentially communism and nazism being enacted in our societies. The nazis took control of their societies and so did the communists. One way they did this was to take control of the media and entertainment and embed control ‘messages’ into the content. It is as plain as day that we are becoming a communist/nazi-fied society.
The economy in particular is being nazi-fied: companies are being controlled to do the bidding of government policies, even under the tories, and/or by pressure group wokeness threats. It will be very much worse under Stalin Starmer and his comm-nazis.
See Tik History on YouTube for more fascinating detail on how the nazis were a branch of socialism (not capitalists!l