With this in mind, we may understand Reform better through considering the political thought of the party’s court historian, Sir David Starkey, than we do by mocking Dame Andrea Jenkyns’ sequinned conference sing-along. As summarised by Nicholas Harris in the New Statesman: David Starkey at conference “lectured on the Blairite coup of 1997, which he compared to a ‘slow burn French Revolution’… condemning ‘the catastrophe of human rights’, the Supreme Court and the ECHR… while musing on historical analogies for the coming Reform takeover: the 1832 Reform Act, the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Restoration”. This is not conservatism as we have come to understand it, but counter-revolution: a swift and total toppling, through packing the Lords with sympathetic new peers, and a bonfire of Blairite legislation, of New Labour’s unloved and malignant constitutional order, the “theoretick dogmas” of our own revolutionary lawyers.
|
|||||
|
This has been the subject of some debate. Tommy Robinson says 3 million. The police say 150,000. That’s quite the discrepancy. Oddly enough, I am in a rather good position to judge. I was there. Did I count them all? No, I didn’t. What I did do, however, was skulk around the back. Oh, and do some maths. The plan was for everybody to assemble in Stamford St which, for those who don’t know, is a street in South London between Blackfriars and Waterloo Stations. Stamford St was packed and there was an overflow into Southwark Road, Blackfriars Road and Blackfriars Bridge. I was right at the back of the overflow into Southward Road. I would say that extended for – if I am being generous – 100m. (My apologies for using Nazi units but I can’t be arsed to do the conversion.) Whitehall is 700m long. Stamford St is about the same length. So with the overflows we get 1000m of march. Stamford St is maybe 30m wide. So we get the whole march – I didn’t see many late comers – in 30,000m². So how many people per metre? I understand the rule of thumb is 4. For comparison, Wembley manages to 90,000 people sat down in 90,000m². Four standing in the same space as one seated? Bit of a squeeze but possible. So, 30,000 times 4 gets us to 120,000. I’m with the police. Next question: does it matter?
September 16th, 2025 | 26 comments
 It has been interesting to see the predictably alarmed reactions to the huge march in London organised by Tommy Robinson et al. One remark I heard on a video was “The most alarming aspect of the event was just how normal the vast majority of the marchers were… the sort of people you’d meet in a country pub, or at a half-time queue for the loo or a concert.” At first, my reaction to hearing that was “surely the normality of the crowd should have made the march less alarming”… but then I realised the marchers not being stereotypical bovver boys makes plausibly labelling the demonstration as “far-right” vastly harder. Yes, I can see how that might alarm some people as the magic words racist, fascist, and far-right lose their power from years of overuse and the fact there were reggae bands and alarmingly black faces in the crowd. September 14th, 2025 | 16 comments
Reform’s ascent isn’t happenstance; it’s reckoning. Lib Dems dally, Greens posture, Your Party pricks, but Farage’s fortress stands. Starmer’s Midas-in-reverse transmutes promise to peril; Reform reclaims the realm. By-elections were harbingers; polls, the proclamation. Britain beckons sovereignty’s return. The unstoppable? It’s here: enjoy, embark. September 12th, 2025 | 24 comments
“Unfortunately, the current Labour government, like every unpopular administration before it, has reached for the oldest trick in the book, persecuting the law-abiding. Sunak did it with smoking bans and talk of national service, Starmer is doing it with the motorist. The plan includes mandatory eye tests for older drivers, stripping pensioners of their independence and dumping the cost onto the already-buckling adult social care system when Dad now needs a taxi just to get to the shops. It lowers the drink-drive limit from 35 to 22 micrograms, despite Britain already having the second-lowest drink-driving deaths in Europe. There is even talk of slashing the national speed limit in the countryside to 50 mph — a direct attack on rural life, where the car is not a luxury but a necessity.” One of the problems with certain types of new regulation is getting them enforced. If the cops are too busy going around pinching people for saying mean things on social media, how are they going to enforce some of this nonsense? Unfortunately, Sir Keir Starmer, who is not exactly loved in the rural parts of the UK, is still in thrall, as far as I can tell, to a form of the Precautionary Principle when it comes to risk and safety. And he may think that he might as well stick it to rural people who need to use a car as they will be very unlikely to vote for him. There may be a sort of “damn you bastards” reflex here. I recall that he was a fan of lockdowns, and while he remains in power, there is a risk that he’d impose them if international organisations demand it. The authoritarian itch is powerful in “Capt. Hindsight”. Less negatively, there may be a warped kind of mistaken desire to improve humanity going on here (shades of the old “nudge” issue I wrote about a few days ago, although we are now in open coercion territory.) According to this way of thinking, it is better to pile on costs and inconvenience to everyone if it saves a single life, whether that means cutting rural speed limits, making granddad check his eyes regularly (I have some sympathy for this, after all, pilots are regularly checked out) and reducing alcohol. There is a sort of cost-benefit analysis that can be done to figure out what the unintended consequences of certain measures are. Unfortunately, fatal/near-fatal car accidents make for horrible headlines (and they are horrible, period), while the increasing drudgery and cost of living in a heavily regulated country does not translate so well into news stories. That is a factor that explains the rise of Big Government more generally: the whole issue of “what is seen and what is unseen”, as Bastiat described it. All this heavy-handedness is is a reason, I think, why we need more of the pro-safety elements at work to come from insurance. If an elderly person does not get their eyes tested and they are involved in a crash, or they don’t have tyres with a minimum grip, or they haven’t had an MOT test, then that means an insurance policy does not pay out, etc. Let those who make a living out of correct risk assessment drive such things (pardon the pun) and not a political class that seems to crave this sort of micro-management of our waking hours. But then as long as we have “our NHS” socialist model of healthcare, it will always be argued, by those of a communitarian bent, that those who fail to minimise risks to others impose unwanted costs on innocent third parties, and to “save” the NHS, such regulations, however far-reaching, must be enforced. But this, in my view, is an argument against socialised medicine, not for increasing regulation. September 9th, 2025 | 20 comments
Labour bigwigs have spent so long portraying themselves as morally superior that they have come to believe their own hype. They really do seem to think they are, as a group, almost beyond reproach. That they are the good guys, the virtuous ones. What they lack in any substantial political vision for Britain, they make up for in skyscraping self-righteousness. Which blinds them to their own hypocrisy. September 7th, 2025 | 13 comments
Our now former Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Angela Rayner, had a long history of denouncing Conservative politicians for tax avoidance. Yesterday she had to resign for not paying enough Stamp Duty. This was not because she accidentally wrote the wrong figure on the cheque – showing my age, there – it was because she engaged in a complicated tax avoidance scheme uncovered by the Daily Telegraph:
There were some other financial shenanigans to do with a trust fund for her disabled son going on as well, but they are secondary to the main point. I am always saying “incentives matter”. All human history demonstrates that in the long run, they do. But all human history also demonstrates that in the short run, they frequently don’t. Angela Rayner was a left-wing Housing Minister whose public speeches often denounced other MPs for legally avoiding – let alone illegally evading – tax. One would have thought that she would have foreseen that unfriendly eyes were going to scrutinise her own payment of a property tax, and would have arranged her affairs accordingly. September 6th, 2025 | 41 comments
Yesterday the Green Party announced that Zack Polanski (who used to say he could enlarge women’s breasts by the power of his mind) had been elected as its new leader. The party also announced that “two high-profile local councillors had been elected as co-deputy leaders. One of these deputies is Mr Mothin Ali, formerly a local councillor in Leeds. If he is a dab hand at the mental embiggening of ladies’ boobs, he has not mentioned it, but he has said other things that might prove equally controversial. The video to which I link was posted by “Howli! Now” in May 2024, with the title “Leeds city council member Mothin Ali shares thoughts on events of October 7th” and the caption, “Mothin Ali is the Green Party councilor who shouted ‘Allahu Akbar!’ as he was elected to the Leeds city council. This is what he had to say on October 7th:” The video includes an automatically generated transcript. I “cleaned up” some obvious errors in that transcript to produce what follows:
Edit: I got so involved in doing the transcript that I forgot the whole point of the post. It is this: I support Mr Ali’s right to justify terrorism, not least because I want to know what people like him are saying. But given that Hamas was proscribed as a terrorist organisation in 2021, meaning that, in the words of the gov.uk website, “members of Hamas or those who invite support for the group could be jailed for up to 14 years”, when can we expect Mothin Ali to be treated as Graham Linehan was? Second edit: On a different tack, these lines from Mothin Ali’s speech jumped out at me this morning:
Leaving aside the question of whether Jews or Arabs have the better claim to be regarded as “the native population” of Israel, has it never occurred to Mothin Ali that the arguments he uses above to justify Palestinians violently attacking Israelis could also be used to justify White British people violently attacking British Muslims? September 3rd, 2025 | 16 comments
Five, apparently. That’s five armed police officers, of course. Heaven knows how many unarmed officers it would take to bring down a mighty warrior like Graham Linehan. September 2nd, 2025 | 48 comments
There are a lot of people out there who have it in for Nigel Farage. Most are on the left but a growing number are on the right. The thing is, as far as I am aware there is no great ideological difference between Farage and his right-wing critics. So, what’s going on? If we are looking for clues we could do a lot worse than look at some of his bust-ups. Rupert Lowe is a recent example. But you have also got Ben Habib, Douglas Carswell and – if you go back far enough – Alan Sked, the founder of the United Kingdom Independence Party. My theory is that Farage is incredibly jealous of his position. If he detects a threat to it – real or imagined – his instinct is to react with fury, to remove the threat as completely and as loudly as possible and damn the consequences. That is not to say that Farage is a one-man band. Clearly he has had a very effective working relationship with Richard Tice over the years. I suspect that Tice knows that he could not do what Farage does. And I suspect that Farage knows that he knows. I have some sympathy with Farage. The prospects for UKIP did not look great in the early 1990s. Or for a long time to come. But Farage stuck at it. It was a lonely existence. He suffered all that – well, a lot of what – the establishment could throw at him and in the Brexit referendum – with a bit of help – humiliated them. And now, he is on the cusp of becoming Prime Minister. And some people think that they can take it away from him when it is he, Farage, that’s done all the bloody work! There are consequences of Farage’s jealousy. The upside is that Reform does not have to worry about factional in-fighting. There is only one faction, only one opinion that matters: Farage’s. The downside is that it is Stalinist in nature. No one is allowed to disagree. Anyone who attracts the attention of the media or Hope Not Hate – the supposedly anti-racist pressure group – is out. In my local branch the chairman was recently removed for “something” – we were never quite sure what. And then he was brought back. And then fired again. And then brought back. What it means is that talent is being driven away. This could be really quite serious. Dominic Cummings – former advisor to Boris Johnson – and someone I think is well worth listening to has expressed his scepticism of the effectiveness of “one man and an iPhone” when dealing with an institution as vast and hostile as the British government. It may be the case that Farage has been listening to us and the plan is to close down vast parts of the British state: education, NHS, Ofcom, FCA. That would make the government more manageable. But I think that unlikely, in which case Farage will be able to do very little given that – due to the size of the task – he will have to delegate to people who have been promoted on account of loyalty rather than ability. It may be the case that we have to look to Farage’s successors on the right. The good news is that there will be plenty of them. August 31st, 2025 | 29 comments
Ray Sanders has produced solid evidence that suggests the Met Office is inventing temperature data that it is using for political Net Zero purposes. Claiming his thorough, well documented investigations are “vexatious” will no longer wash. It must reply with realistic explanations and evidence of its own to retain public trust in its work. I used to say “Other than weather reports, don’t believe anything the media says without looking at multiple sources”… well even the weather reports are deeply suspect now. August 29th, 2025 | 17 comments
|
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
