Some definitions. Chamber history – on an analogy with chamber music – is history with a small orchestra. Not symphonic history, not total history, which is a chaos like Schnittke or Penderecki, but something small and orderly, charming. David Starkey = a historian. He has a wonderfully Tudor name – Starkey – but, unlike his name, does not try to unlock the riddle of the heavens, but has come to earth, like the good bodhisattva he is, to explain the riddle of our kingdom. I call his history “Starkey Chamber History” also because it alludes to the Star Chamber: an English court which tried to make sure that laws were enforced even against the powerful. It seems to fit, somehow. (Even in the irony that the Star Chamber, originally a force for good law, ended up being used by the king to punish dissenters, which led, inevitably enough, to its dissolution in 1640. What begins fair, and this, I suppose, is the moral of what I am saying here, may end foul.)
What David Starkey is trying to do is deliver to the British (or English) public a jeremiad informed not by moral posturing or theoretical commitment but by a sense of history. This is so valuable it should almost come without criticism. I think that Starkey’s vision of history is so arresting it deserves to be expressed in short form and so I will attempt a summary of the position. Starkey is an admirably entertaining speaker, and offers a vision that is several dimensions more complicated than we hear from anyone else at the moment. He is full of prepared lines, and has a ready mind: “Niall Ferguson, the good Niall Ferguson, not the bad Neil Ferguson…”; “All bad ideas begin with the French”; “The Union of England and Scotland made the modern world”; “The monarch changes religion as he crosses the border: he begins Anglican, and becomes Presbyterian”; “The Labour party is the equivalent of the Nomenklatura of Soviet Russia: a privileged class”; etc.
I have some criticisms. But first, his vision of our history.
Let me begin by summarising Starkey’s view of history as it conditions the present. He argues the following:
1. On the nature and relevance of history. History is fundamental. We cannot understand ourselves using theory. Avoid abstraction. Use history instead. It is concrete. He suggests that we have always studied history for the sake of the present, though in recent centuries we have also studied it for its own sake. He adds that we should make analogies between past and present.
2. On English history. Starkey says that we were first part of Greater Scandinavia, then, from 1066, were part of an Anglo-French order. The third stage of our history began with the Reformation. Starkey likens the Latin Christendom of the Papacy to the European Union: and so calls Henry VIII the first Brexiteer. The consequence of the Reformation was that Britain and Europe become antagonists. For the first time the sea was reconfigured as a barrier, defended by the navy: and this happened at the same time that energies were thrown outward to the rest of the world. What the English managed to do, along with the Scots, was build something out of the strong language that rises from Chaucer to Shakespeare: the two home countries united to make it impossible to be invaded; they united to make an empire in the world; and they united to make use of remarkable innovations in finance and later industry.
One of Starkey’s great themes is this Union of England and Scotland: first by King in 1603 and second by Parliament in 1707. Starkey says England is not a nation. It lacks a ridiculous national dress (since its national dress, of coat and trousers with tie, was given to the world as universal official dress). And the Union was wholly original, as it subjugated Scotland to England’s Parliament, abolishing the Scottish Parliament, while leaving Scottish law, religion, military tradition and heraldry alone. England and Scotland are politically united, but only politically united. Starkey’s point about all this is that it was never about ‘identity’. There was no such thing as a ‘Briton’. There was no national system of education. So there was no nonsense of any modern-style post-French Revolution nationalism. Instead, we were natural liberals, able to take in immigrants without difficulty. However, throughout all this England is politically dominant in Great Britain and in the Empire.
3. On the present time. Starkey has two points of reference. One is the 1970s, when things went wrong, with a short reversal under Thatcher, and in the 1990s, when things went even more wrong, and perhaps permanently wrong, because constitutionally wrong. The 1970s was the culmination of the Labour politics of welfare, accepted weakly by Macmillan and Heath, but the 1990s was worse because political and constitutional. Labour took things in the wrong direction by making the Bank of England independent and by enabling a new Scottish Parliament to emerge: also by bringing about the Equality Act of 2010 (actually an innovation of Gordon Brown); also by creating a Supreme Court. Then, finally, Charles III removed Parliament from the Coronation, and there was no mention of politics: whereas, since 1688, the Coronation had been a political act. Political power has been fragmented and dispersed from the King-in-Parliament to the quangos, to the Bank of England, to the lawyers. The principle of balance is lost, as every institution has become an interest group, pursuing single issues: an entire raft of Anti-Corn Law Leagues.
Starkey suggests that England will remain an idea, much as the idea of Rome survived the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. This is pessimistic judgement. His optimistic judgement, or hope, is that some sort of “restoration”, like the Glorious Revolution, can be enacted. As far as I have heard, he has not yet sketched the form of his restoration, though it has been promised.
Is this clear? Henry VIII broke the monasteries, threw out the Papists, built Oxford and Cambridge in new form, fortified the coast and began the story of Greater England. If we fill the gaps, there were difficulties with the consequences, religious and political, through the reigns of Mary, Elizabeth, James and Charles, but these were resolved in 1688 and then 1707. Then Great Britain became a great power. This remarkable creation was politically and constitutionally destroyed by the theorists and politicians of the late 20th century, since they demoted England within Britain, unleashed petty nationalisms in political form, and, in passing, did not do enough to restrain the welfare state or, we might add, enough to prevent English tolerance being twisted to accommodate net immigration of 700,000 people of fairly antagonistic cultures per year. Britain is now ruled not by Government-in-Parliament but by delegated arbitrary powers and influences which offer sops to partial interests and mean that nothing can be done. No one has an adequate conception of the entire state.
Now for the criticisms.
1. His suggestion that we should study history for the sake of the present is badly formulated. Unfortunately, most historical comparisons are naïve. If we compare our time to the 1930s then we are naïve. Niall Ferguson tells us that Netanyahu is like Bismarck. Alright, suggestive, interesting as far as it goes (and Starkey mentions it approvingly), which is not very far. It is naïve. Now there is nothing wrong with this – I have done it too – but it is naïve and has strict limits. No historical parallels ever apply without almost entire qualification. You know: Thesis: our time is reminiscent of the Civil War, the 1930s, the Barbarian Invasion. Antithesis: well, it really isn’t in almost every other respect than the one of which you are thinking. No synthesis need apply.
In fact, Starkey mostly avoids this naïve sort of comparison, though he extols it. What he does instead is something subtler which is tell a story at several levels about changes across time. He is in fact contributing to what we could call ‘enlightened’ or ‘Whig’ history, in which we use the past to explain the present (not to explain what do in the present, but to explain how to we got to be where we are – these are different).
But there is a problem even with this. For we cannot restore anything by studying history. We certainly cannot reconstruct tradition by reading history. History is conscious, and roots around amongst relics, and engages in textual and contextual criticism of various sorts. It is sceptical. Whereas tradition is unconscious and, if not exactly dogmatic in itself, then not exactly sceptical: it usually depends on settled beliefs. We cannot hope to restore or rebuild anything, including England, simply by becoming more conscious of history. The thing cannot be done. And I say this as at least half a historian: and as someone who agrees with Starkey that we should read more history: as that at least would encourage us to have more respect for our ancestors, and less respect for our contemporary trivialists.
2. I have fewer criticisms of Starkey’s remarkable history of England, and the Union, because it is anything but naïve. It is, in fact, the sort of constitutional history we might find in Stubbs as combined with the sort of history of politics we might find in Seeley. The sort of history we stand in need of is not cultural history, or social history, but good old political and constitutional history: because it is only by looking at politics and law that we can make sense of our own institutions. We could perhaps add a bit of something about feudalism, something about capitalism, something about political parties, something about Victorian reforms, something about the World Wars, something about the rise of the USA, something about meritocracy, modern class divides, managerialism and so on, but the picture is a good frame: a good bit of chamber history. The basic moral of the whole story is that of Edmund Burke in 1790, as updated by Michael Oakeshott and Antony Quinton, and now updated, post-Blair and post-COVID-19, by Starkey himself. Starkey believes in political practice, continuity, balance, tradition and what Quinton called “a politics of imperfection”.
3. About the modern time, I, again, find most of the picture persuasive, about the 1970s and the 1990s. But there are problems. For instance, Starkey is rather too admiring of Thatcher. As I said in an earlier piece, Thatcher only understood one of Enoch Powell’s concerns: the managed economy. She did not understand the problem of Europe until very late on, and never understood the problem of immigration, which remains a taboo subject. Starkey likes Keith Joseph, Friedrich Hayek and the 1979 Conservative Party Manifesto. But Hayek wrote ‘Why I Am Not a Conservative’: he was liberal. And this gives us a clue: that Starkey, as a humorous atheist, is unwilling to extend his political and constitutional analysis to include religion. He sees the Reformation as political – and, in this, he follows his teacher G.R. Elton – and not as religious. He therefore does not make much of the fact that Scotland and England are religious enemies (since the English are moderate and the Scottish, whether Calvinist or Catholic, are not), and that this has a legacy too, even secularly. Scotland has gone back to the Auld Alliance with a continental power.
I suppose I dislike some of the cartoonish, or naïve, analogies, such as the comparison of Christian Europe to the European Union. Anyone could tell us – a historian like Maitland, for instance – that the Papacy was a highly ambiguous entity, neither an empire nor a state nor a pure communion, yet somehow seeming a bit like all of these. It appealed to belief, and depended on faith or truth. No one has ever claimed the EU depends on truth or belief. Indeed, it entirely lacks either. It hasn’t got a single admirable building or work of art. (Contrast Christian York or Aachen or Florence or Krakow.) It stole its music from Beethoven and its flag from the Council of Europe. It is a confection, an arbitrary construction, a sort of Heath Robinson conspiracy whereby secular rational universalists – who are influenced by, alas, those English or Scottish habits of universal trade and profit-arousing and rent-seeking as well as by French and German habits of control and planning – attempt to break down all national significance, and, worse, all independent political significance. The story is a bit more dialectical than I think Starkey could admit without damaging his story.
This brings me back to the basic criticism I had. Good history may be bad politics. This is the triumphant discovery of Herbert Butterfield. And good politics may need bad history. Starkey is right to say that our bad politics has its own bad history. But we are going to be badly misled if we think that good history will grant us the good politics we want.
Yet, even though I say this, I think there is a great deal to be said for Starkey’s particular history, and for his attempt to say something about the past that enables him to make a copious criticism of the present. We have ‘alternative’ learned voices from law in the public sphere – Sumption – and voices from psychology – Haidt and Peterson – and voices from biology – one Weinstein – and voices from science and technology – Musk and the other Weinstein – but almost no sound voices from history. Almost all the established historical writers are on the Left, and therefore incapable of criticism of this established order. Niall Ferguson is a great historian. But Analogies are not enough. Starkey seems to be the only historian who has managed to turn history into prophecy in a powerful way. Everyone has something to learn from his recent lectures.
Dr. James Alexander is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.
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 already being attacked by the pro Palestine wing and losing seats to them.
They are not going to be so easy to push around as Reform.
Interesting times and we are already betting on which group will call a strike before the Summer recess. My money is with the train drivers.
Junior doctors and Port Talbot steel workers.
Come to think of it, are there any steel workers elsewhere in the UK?
Certainly there are in Sheffield, the main factory is opposite our offices.
Although Sunak did manage to spoil the strike chances of the Teachers and College Lecturers!
Aren’t the train drivers still on strike but everyone simply ignores them?
No-one much bothers using the trains anymore.
It’ll be interesting to see Unite attacking Labour for it’s determined destruction of our oil and gas industry.
Well you can say what you like about the Tories, but both Chris Chope and David Davis have kept their seats. Chris Chope was trying to sort out vaccine damage compensation if I remember correctly. And David Davis (no not David Davies) also challenged the vaccine passports and was trying to raise awareness about Vitamin D. There were others on the Tory side who questioned lockdown like Charles Walker (seat lost), but Sir Desmond Swayne has kept his seat. Not too many Lib dems, nor labour, nor greens did much of that.
Esther McVey has also got re-elected. She did quite a nice speech criticising the MHRA and their ties with big pharma. Of course likely to have made no difference.
That’s good news about Sir Desmond Swayne.
Whilst pleased that the Lib Dems aren’t the official opposition, it would have been better if the Tories got only a handful of seats more than them. As things stand, there are inevitably talks on ConservativeHome of ‘how we rebuild’, with the comments section infested with wets that can’t stand Farage. That being said, this piece was fairly on the money.
https://conservativehome.com/2024/07/05/requiem-for-the-lotus-eaters/
Focussing on the positives:
Woke fascists in Scotland got their comeuppance
Penny Mordant is now unemployed and busy setting up an OnlyFans account, no doubt.
Due to delayed voting, fake-rightist Kemi might miss out on the Tory leadership election in which case Suella could become leader.
It would have been if Reform had won, or failing that, the Tories have fewer votes and crucially seats than Reform. But 6 million+ supposed conservatives voted for more of the same Blairism even when they had a clear, viable alternative.
I will repeat my take on the election result, with reference to this article and the focus on Labour. Instead, look at the % of votes. 80%+ of those who voted, voted for some variation of a left wing Big Government party. We’re doomed!
Doomed in the sense that the population will never vote to reform or change anything substantial. Change will never come from within.
What will happen is that the system will collapse. Eventually. When is impossible to predict. The economics won’t hold up forever. Eventually the capability to confiscate wealth and print money to sustain it all will come to an end. And all the madness and contradictions will become unsustainable.
We are a society that has actively chosen to live in self delusion, mesmerised by riches and welfare that we cannot afford. We have allowed ourselves to be convinced that we deserve all these things and are owed them.
It’s all going to end badly. And honestly I can’t wait because I can’t bear the stupidity. It’s become oppressive.
I agree but it will take more than our lifetimes to happen.
I find the hardest part of it all is the loneliness. It’s not much fun living amongst a population for most of whom I have little more than contempt, and some degree of fear (what will the ****ckers do next?). Maybe I’ll join Reform just to make some friends
Not a unique feeling. I’ve never forgotten my Marxist fellow student at medical school who looked a bit down in the mouth. When I asked him why, he said, “I’m the only socialist amongst six hundred fascists.”
Just resist following his therapy of making lists of the categories of people who would be shot come the revolution…
But we DO deserve all these good things, because our Ethnic European = “White” ancestors worked hard to build up the West into great nations, and we did, too, as their descendants.
Collapse will come as planned by the Globalists forcing it upon us, using lawyers & judges & chicanery to thwart any populist revolt against it.
And they will continue to welcome swarms of termites to eat up your house, smiling all the while, telling you that they really love your house, and your “values”, and that you should just lay down and let them eat up your house, because you are “racist” and “guilty of white privilege”.
True, but continuing, ironically, with unsustainable policies, like NET Zero, DEI, High Carb diets, ‘a pill (or jab) for every ill’, and promoting corrupt Arts, Humanities, Social and Climate Science at the expense of STEM subjects and Manufacturing, does hinder receiving our inheritance.
Yes, I agree. I think sums it up;
https://x.com/Earthdriver/status/1809101947523207615
How many voted Tory to keep someone out, rather than voting *for* anything?
I am baffled as to why anyone supposedly conservative would have voted Tory this time given that there was a clear conservative alternative. Monro has explained his reasons for doing so which I think were illogical but he obviously has strong feelings, but I think most of them are asleep.
Penny Mordaunt has that kind of dominatrix look about her that may be in huge demand in certain London gentlemen’s clubs which could, I imagine, be quite financially rewarding.
Not unrelated topic — TCW the invention of Islamophobia 2
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-invention-of-islamophobia-part-2/
Thanks for the link.
Could be interesting if the new prime minister wants us back in the EU, even if by stealth. Isn’t much of EU becoming right wing?
Depends on the definition of Right Wing.
We don’t want Mussolini style fascism.
Agree. Maybe the term is now meaningless.
“Right wing” just means “Conservative” in the dictionary….wanting to preserve the traditions, heritage, culture and ethnic identity of the indigenous inhabitants.
It does not mean, nor ever has meant, “fascist”.
Just like with the BUF, Mussonili wasn’t antisemitic. Both later became antisemitic, the tatter because of pressure from Hitler during the latter part of WW2.
It turns out that you are right.
“MUSSOLINI’S JEWISH LOVER WHO CRAFTED ITALIAN FASCISM”
“Margherita Sarfatti wasn’t just the dictator’s most erudite paramour; she was his secret adviser and ideologue.”
https://www.haaretz.com/life/books/2014-11-23/ty-article/mussolinis-lover-who-crafted-fascism/0000017f-ef00-d0f7-a9ff-efc51f0b0000
“THE JEWISH MOTHER OF FASCISM”
“Margherita Sarfatti was known in Italy as Benito Mussolini’s mistress, but she was much more than that. She was his ideological companion, planned the ‘March on Rome’ with him, wrote articles in his name, edited the Fascist Party organ and wrote his first official biography.”
https://www.haaretz.com/2006-07-06/ty-article/the-jewish-mother-of-fascism/0000017f-ebd9-d639-af7f-ebdfe9040000
“MUSSOLINI’S JEWISH LOVER WHO HELPED LAUNCH FASCISM”
“The aristocratic, intellectual and ambitious wife of wealthy Zionist lawyer Cesare Sarfatti, and mother of their three children, did not only share her bed with Il Duce. She also helped him forge and implement the fascist idea; she contributed advice — and Sullivan says, money — to help organize the 1922 March on Rome in which Mussolini seized power.
During those 20 years she was his eminence grise and unofficial ambassador, glorifying him in her 1925 biography that was translated into 18 languages.”
https://forward.com/life/209758/mussolini-s-jewish-lover-who-helped-launch-fasci/
Someone said if the EU moves anymore to the Right Nigel Farage will want to join back up.
The EU continues to be an Authoritarian Big State, and the people are starting to rebel because they yearn for Small State, market driven, patriotism.
And the result would be that Europe would become a collection of independent, sovereign states that trade with each other.
Yes! No “European Union” of any kind is necessary.
Just “Sovereign states that trade with each other”, as they did for centuries.
Now that the US Federal government has proven again and again that they are essentially hostile to the interests of the American people, each individual state in the USA should declare themselves to be independent nations trading with each other, greatly facilitated by their common language and culture. The US Federal government no longer serves any useful purpose.
Since the Globalists want to abolish all borders, nations, and ethnic identities, everyone in the world should do the opposite: more and more independent nations, WITHOUT any Supreme Court Kritocracy telling them what to do.
Surely this political strategist number is money for old rope.
Labour vote share in England stays the same.
The Conservative vote share plummets.
A brand new party with old Conservative policies and a charismatic leader takes all those votes the Conservatives lost.
So all the Conservatives have to do is to embrace the old Conservative policies and the charismatic leader and they are back; home and hosed…..
Keep It Simple, Stupid
KISS and make up……..
40.1% of the registered voters couldn’t be bothered about the outcome. That’s quite a bit more than backed Labour. This number does not include those who fail to register to vote. Meh. They didn’t even have to turn up – just ask for a postal vote.
Starmer’s words about treating ever person in the country with respect rang a lttle (very) hollow with the hecklers at Farage’s speech.
The real story. Thank God they managed to hoodwink a large % of the masses by bringing Farage into the game. Without him a voter turnout of less then half may have been on the cards – something that would have been impossible to ignore, and the first domino would wobble. An excellent move to make the unimportant think they’re still important. Well played.
You give them too much credit.
You sound like a nasty leftie
Nasty leftie? Bless you. Made me smile. Proof, as if it were needed, that there is no bottom to the idiocy barrel.
That’s rich coming from a person who wanted to be ‘fair’ to Harriet ‘The Harridan’ Harperson, a supporter of PIE because she ‘didn’t want to rock the boat’ of the MMM.org (MinoritiesMatterMore.org) aka the leftard civil liberties brigade.
Proving her craven urge to keep in with the Leftie in-crowd even in old age, she jumped off the old-hat Feminist bandwagon onto the very trendy Transophilia Girls’R’Us bandwagon full of ugly men in daft dresses sporting 5 o’clock shadows.
To hell with XX chromosomers, their rights will just have to give way to a REAL minority of XY ‘women’ – much smaller than 50% of the population!
Doubtless, a percentage of those ugly, badly-dressed men are paedos disguised as grandmas, so Harriet might get another great opportunity in ECHR to support a deserving minority, courtesy of Smarmer. Deserving of what, I won’t say.
FL, you’re right, there’s no bottom to the idiocy barrel as shown in the results of this General Election promoting a White-Brit-hating marxist rabble to power in majority White (for now) Britain.
Hmm, isn’t Rayner the one who wants to welcome in loads of immigrants across the country ( just so the ‘cultural enrichment’ can be fairly doled out so there’ll be no squabbles amongst the citizens ) but there’s not enough houses so she wants to build hundreds of thousands but we all know that’s not going to happen? Think that’s her… What Labour will do is what the NL and Germany have done: just create ‘container villages’. They’re slightly less unsightly than ‘tent cities’ but still look weird;
”Sir Keir Starmer has made Rachel Reeves Britain’s first female chancellor as he appoints his new cabinet to get on with the job quickly.
One of his easiest appointments for the new prime minister was Ms Reeves as his new chancellor.
She played a major role in the campaign and as a former Bank of England economist has helped bring economic credibility back to Labour from the wreckage of the Jeremy Corbyn years.
She is the first female to hold the second most important role in governent in 708 years of the office being in existance.
Earlier Angela Rayner has been handed her own department as secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities taking over from Michael Gove.
Ms Rayner, who will also be deputy prime minister, only the second woman to hold the role after Therese Coffey in Liz Truss’ 49-day government, will mirror the role of John Prescott who was Tony Blair’s deputy and also in charge of the department for local government and development.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-cabinet-keir-starmer-who-general-election-b2574493.html
Same office as Prescott, who knocked down 250,000 much-loved houses in Yorkshire and promised 500,000. The first 250,000 would go to those who were displaced. How many were built? Zero.
All Rayner knows about housing is how to get away with fraud and pocket £48,000 of taxpayer’s cash.
Thanks for the shocking information about Prescott!
I did not know that.
Prescott also went through Oldham’s 100 + years old terraced stock like a dose of salts. All those houses, thousands of them could have been renovated for £20 k or less. I know, my first house was a two up two down, self renovated.
Replacements – zilch.
I would say that with a mandate at the level of twenty percent it would be impossible to govern. And that is before they’ve even started to cock things up even more. He will be gone soon, his replacement worse, their replacement even worse and so on. There are limits to systems management. Like Frank Zappa said. the illusion of freedom will continue as long as it is profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre.
Good quote that.
Standing as an independent after being ousted from the Conservative Party, the courageous man of principle Andrew Bridgen also lost his seat – by a huge margin. We don’t deserve such men.
I wish Reform would welcome him into the fold, because together we are stronger than separated.
He has been chosen as the wartime leader for an escalation in offensive starting in August. It is thought that his voice will be more commanding when it comes to conscription. I strongly doubt it. There is something quite odious in boomers telling young people to fight their wars so that they can keep their wealth. I think the younguns have cottoned on to this.
You seem to have an odd name.
You are forgetting that the “Boomers” you so despise are the ones who protested against all the stupid foreign wars in the Middle East, and before that in Southeast Asia, and now in Ukraine, once they discovered how they had been deceived by Blair & Co., Zelensky & his secret friend Putin, and now China sabre-rattling for the Globalists.
This site is turning into the Daily Mail. Lots of strange fake names and nasty comments.
I like most of the comments on the Daily Mail articles, which reflect what the ordinary man-in-the-street thinks. And the Daily Mail doesn’t allow commenters to post interminable screeds on totally irrelevant topics beneath every article, or one person making at least 10 comments on every article, all day every day.
Jabby on here seems to be one of the 77th Brigade, just trying to wind everybody up.
Trust me in four weeks time you will all be gung-ho for war and Keir Starmer and conscription and all that comes with it. They know that you will feel that way in a few weeks time and they take advantage of it. Can you blame them. Just wait and see how pro-war you are in 4 weeks time. If you were to be approached or accosted in that moment you would be a raging mess saying ‘kill them all’. If you don’t believe me then just wait four weeks. They mess with you because you are easily messed with. Normal people leave easily messed with people alone but predators don’t.
Hello, 77th Brigade! Back again, are you?
I wish you were on the side of the angels.
Perhaps one day, you will be…
I’m not shedding blood for these Globalists, a civil war is another matter because democracy is dead and has been for a while.
Amidst the appalling queue of Kneeler’s Communist Chosen, traipsing toward their new ministerial offices, waving their hammers & sickles, there is one bright little ray of sunshine:
The Five Musketeers making history, “All for one, and one for all!”
Nigel Farage for Essex, Clacton-on-Sea
Richard Tice for Lincolnshire, Boston & Skegness
Lee Anderson for Nottinghamshire, Ashfield
Rupert Lowe for Norfolk, Great Yarmouth
James McMurdock for Essex, South Basildon & East Thurrock
As Nigel gleefully said to the youngest one, “Go on, my son!”
If only he had the stones to talk to tommy Robinson, I know Parliament would make hay out of it though, but he needs to unite the Right. Not the Tory Right they’re already dead.
Yes, I agree completely, because together we are stronger than the Globalists. He should gather all the patriots into the fold: all those Reform candidates who were forced to stand down, Tommy Robinson, Andrew Bridgen, Nick Griffin, Lawrence Fox, the English Defence League, the Football Lads Alliance, and stop acting like a Witchfinder General, hunting down anyone who ever opposed the Mass Invasion of the West by the Third World, or ever expressed any kind of loyalty to their own Ethnic European people, or ever wanted their own country back.
As someone said,
“I always stand for white folks first, because no one else will.”
I think by October the situation will be dark farce. W are used to winning every war under the sun because our weapons are generations above the opposition. You are making a mistake to think that it will just be more of this. I wish it would be but it isn’t. On every level we are defeated even on the level of tactical nuclear weapons. I hate to admit it but there comes a point when you have to admit the truth.
A good general doesn’t win every battle he fights, but he does fight every battle he can win.
The saddest news of the day was Andrew Bridgen losing his seat. One of the very, very few reputable, and completely honest, MP’s I’ve ever come across.
Seconded