National conservatives versus anti-authoritarian populists
There's a new divide on the Right that will decide the future of conservatism
This week, I will be speaking at Britain’s first National Conservatism conference. Though classical liberals will disagree with postliberals, and seculars with theocons, all will be defending the idea of conserving the nation. In policy terms, many will endorse slowing the pace of immigration and pushing back against “woke” values in our institutions.
Yet while the majority of the British public endorses these aims, there is a noticeable split on the intellectual Right which is reflected in broader opinion. One group, the national conservatives, places the accent on defending traditions of nationhood and gender. They lean Right on immigration, Brexit and defending national heritage. Comparatively few believe in conspiracy theories. These voters are older than average, with a lower share of university graduates. They are motivated by security.
Like what you’re reading? Get the free UnHerd daily email
Already registered? Sign in
A second constituency, anti-authoritarian populists, prioritises freedom from authority, and takes anti-Government positions on lockdowns, green issues and the freedom to say anything, however offensive. They are much more likely than others, including national conservatives, to believe that the world is controlled by a secretive elite. These voters tend to be younger and overrepresented by men, and resemble national conservatives in containing a below-average share of degree holders. They value freedom above all else.
National conservatives are considerably more numerous than anti-authoritarian populists and, critically, there is only a small degree of overlap between the two groups. Barely one in seven national conservatives are also anti-authoritarian populists, while only a quarter of anti-authoritarian populists are national conservatives.
More importantly, a significant share of national conservatives actively oppose the views of anti-authoritarian populists. This helps to explain the limited success of Reform UK, which opposes lockdowns, Net Zero and Government spending, turning off many older national conservatives who supported UKIP, Brexit and the Brexit Party.
In electoral terms, it’s important to recognise that national conservative stances, though highly polarising, attract net positive support among the general public — with the exception of Brexit. Specifically, as this Policy Exchange survey from May 2022 finds, saying the monarchy is a good thing, desiring lower immigration and opposing teaching British pupils that their country is racist have far more enthusiasts than detractors. Support for defending J.K. Rowling, which unites free speech anti-authoritarians with national conservative gender-traditionalists, is likewise high across the board.
The least popular policies are opposing lockdowns, supporting Brexit and saying the Government spends too much time on the green agenda, all mainstays of Reform UK’s offer.
The second fascinating aspect of the two populisms is that national conservatism attracts security-minded older voters while anti-authoritarian populism appeals to a younger freedom-seeking group. The chart below shows that on the freedom to say anything (however offensive), and lockdowns, the young are more populist than the old. On the question of whether the Government spends too much time on green issues, there is no difference between Zoomers and Boomers. Rather, the big generational divide is instead over questions that touch on national, ethnic and gender traditions.
The split on the Right between national conservatives and anti-authoritarian populists will shape the future of conservative politics. While the Conservatives and Reform UK compete to attract both groups, too much emphasis on relatively unpopular anti-lockdown, anti-green and low-tax positions may turn off vital components of the national conservative electorate. On the flipside, over-emphasising hard Brexit policies may alienate younger male anti-authoritarian populists who perceive the EU as enabling freedom rather than constraining it.
The sweet spot is to move toward the centre on unpopular issues while leading with popular ones. Culture war questions like defending the speech rights of the likes of J.K. Rowling and preventing schools from indoctrinating pupils in radical race and gender ideas have the potential to bridge this coalition. Reducing immigration is another clear vote-winner.
The bottom line is that parties on the Right which hope to succeed need to focus on immigration and the defence of tradition, tacking to the centre on questions around Covid, green energy, Brexit and reducing the size of Government.
… and then there are simple, practical people who know that current levels of immigration are unsustainable and that net zero is unachievable, and who would like a government that was not in hock to globalist utopianism. What shall we call them?
Malthus and Ricardo of course said population growth was unsustainable in 1820s and were proved v wrong. So we don’t know the limits of sustainability. Population modelling indicates c73m by mid century. UK will be more crowded in some parts, and some things we cherish may be compromised but difficult to know if it’ll be anymore than adaptive.
Malthus and Ricardo weren’t writing in an era of socialised healthcare and benefits systems.
That is true, and hence we don’t know things now that those that follow us may become content with.
One wonders if a 21st Century Malthus would have adapted his theory to indicate the ability of a population to feed itself was more likely to become constrained by an unsustainable demographic of too many elderly/too few young. Would he have proposed a new Poor Law that required an increase in euthanasia if you can’t sustain yourself in old age, or an increase in immigration of young people as the solution. We’ll never know.
Malthus and Ricardo may have been proved wrong in the context of resources. But the issue here is that those who profit from immigration are not the ones who pay for it – and eventually the people who are paying for it with compressed wages, degraded public services and lack of adequate housing are, I suspect, going to wreak a terrible revenge on those who have profited so well at their expense.
You want to ‘tack to the centre’ when it comes to putting the country under house arrest and crashing the economy based on incompetence, vanity and the selective use of data?
I think I’ve just chosen a side.
To be fair I think he means centre as in, where he believe most people are.
Although I’ve come to expect that ‘the centre’ is not to be found anywhere on the current political spectrum.
It doesn’t matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.
The sad truth is the population loved the mandates – politicians can be blamed for doing what their polling told them – as opposed to the right thing. The only country that actually followed the science was Sweden. So the author is correct about this from a purely vote winning point of view.
Another case of Politics Professors trying to squeeze the population into a few boxes of their choosing.
National conservatives and anti-authoritarian populists? Maybe yes, maybe no, but perhaps another illustration of the inadequacy of the current political parties to satisfy anything like a majority of their supporters.
When you try to be all things to all people you end up being nothing much to anyone.
Yes – I identify strongly with both camps and don’t see a huge contradiction. You can love freedom and also understand we need law and order and the police have to enforce the law – fairly. The conceit is that the left are for freedom and conservatives are not – but I don’t think that was ever true – certainly not today. I think the author is also falling into modern binary thinking where you are 100% in one camp or the other. You can oppose abortion after 12 weeks – you can support trans women in sports except at the elite level – you can support a green energy transition but also take the position that it will take 50 years – you can believe in man made global warming – but accept that without China and India we can’t lower emissions – the optimal approach to most problems lies in the messy middle of compromise.
Reducing immigration is such an open goal for the Conservatives, it drives me mad that they ignore it. A sensible cap on numbers (say 150k pa.) would be popular with National Conservative types like me but – as part of a house-building, public service improvement, infrastructure renewal package of measures – could attract support from younger, more centrist voters (looks like 50% of the 35-44 bracket support lower immigration – no doubt they have worked out for themselves that mass immigration pushes up house prices).
Obviously you can’t have visa-control and not clamp down on illegal immigrants circumventing the system, so it is sensible to focus on the boats too. But really, it is time they made a pledge on an over-all net immigration cap.
I saw Grant Shapps on a clip over the weekend asked about the high numbers of net immigrants and the rumour the next set of figure will be higher and he seemed completely uninterested in the subject. I saw Rishi Sunak show a similar level of disregard for reducing numbers recently. Crazy!
The problem is MM they are worried abut the economic consequence, and also possibly about the message to certain countries with whom they want a trade deal (e.g India).
We can’t replace the skills we need quickly enough. We can’t financially crash lots of industries reliant on immigrants or on the fees immigrants pay. We can course-adjust over time, but that time should have started 13yrs ago and didn’t. In fact it went backwards with investment being reduced.
Undoubtedly, as we often discuss, they can do more to tackle illegal immigration, but they are silent on legal for a reason. And those wanting dramatic cap on legal aren’t being completely honest about consequences either.
It is easier to let in foreigners to do low-skilled jobs than it is to formulate a proper, joined -up policy to force, and train, benefit claimants to do them. That is unsustainable, however, and must be addressed.
I quite agree CW. Which is why the last 13yrs been such a waste.
The economic consequences? GDP per capita has been falling in the UK almost since the day the borders were opened by Tony Blair.
The supposedly beneficial ‘economic consequences’ of mass immigration are fools’ gold. They are enjoyed exclusively by one section of the population at the expense of another. It’s the largest upward transfer of wealth this country has witnessed since the time of the Enclosures.
There is certainly some truth in many privileged and wealthy being v content with immigration. Given we’ve had a Govt led by the v same for 13yrs hardly a surprise.
I’d dispute the GDP per capita point – the dip in late 00s related to the financial crash. It’s gradually increased since but at much slower rate than pre-crash. A number of reasons for that, but again you’ll note pretty much the same people in charge throughout that period.
Getting immigration down to 150k p.a. from current levels, and with the current legal and institutional framework, would be like trying to stop an express train with a fishing rod,
I don’t think so. When you look at the current figures you can see that of the 500k net immigration, 200k are “protection” cases – either from Ukraine, Hong Kong or Afghanistan (the scheme for Afghans with links to UK forces). Surely most people that can take advantage of these schemes have already done so.
So you are really only trying to go from 300k to 150k. I think that is eminently doable. You can always taper it off over couple of years.
In terms of legal frameworks, Australia, New Zealand and Canada all cap total numbers of immigrants each year. It is normal part of running a country (which we got out of the habit of doing when we were in the EU). I am trying to move a member of my team from Japan to Oz at the moment and it is a very long a drawn out process and we had to raise his (already considerable) salary to meet the minimum requirements.
So your solution to immigration is to say “sorry chaps, yes I know that you bravely and at great risk to your life helped us in Afghanistan but we’re full so fuxk off and go die by the hands of the Taliban”
21k Afghans were evacuated from the country as part of Operation PITTING and have been given leave to remain in the UK.
A fishing rod can be used to cut the cable, or as a lever to cause a derailing. Explosive mines are an alternative.
Japan proved that immigration control is possible in a democracy, no need to listen to the sabotage crew saying otherwise
The dissonance of achieving Net Zero while importing millions of people to drive economic growth.
Immigrants bring their own windmills.
Their windpower will certainly add to the UK’s methane output
It seems to me that anyone genuinely interested in achieving Net Zero should be opposed to all immigration. They should also be the biggest advocates of Buy British (you cannot affect agricultural or manufacturing policy if you rely mainly on foreign imports).
Read that we’d only ever produce sufficient food in the UK for a population of c20-30m were we to be entirely self sufficient. That sort of population reduction obviously would only occur post a nuclear winter, but I think it does demonstrate how locked into food supply chains we are of which a huge number will be across the channel.
And the other irony is we still rely on alot of seasonal labour that is not easily available without migrant workforce.
Finally whilst stuck in a cost of living crisis Buy British only going to resonant if cheaper or as cheap, and that’s not easy without dropping a heck of alot of standards and even then still a struggle. Some v complex problems for sure.
To be clear, I’m in favour of free trade and cheap food. But if I was a committed environmentalist, it would be logical to want high tariff barriers on food and manufactured goods and zero immigration. They explicitly want to reduce growth and reduce consumption.
As it happens, I’m not always convinced that those who profess their eco-credentials mean what they say. It would seem to me that rather than buying a Tesla X and putting solar panels on your second home in the Dordogne, you should sell your car, buy a pushbike, turn off your central heating and have one bath a week. And take your holidays at the seaside.
I do agree quite a bit of hypocrisy and just plain old new product marketing comes with the Environmental agenda. I think folks ‘get’ that largely but still feel we have to move in this direction for good reasons. For example, whether buying a Tesla going to make much difference to Global emissions v unlikely until China/India change, but people don’t want to seem uncaring and furthermore would prefer not to have so many car fumes outside the kids school etc etc. And that’s the dilemma for the anti-authoritarians outlined in the Article.
Healthy environments are usually complex environments. So clearing vast areas for monoculture cropping is not generally a good idea. Same for society – I think it’s better to have a mixed economy as it caters for for the different types of people in a community. A mixed economy, like a complex natural environment, isn’t as fragile as one based on simply your ‘natural advantage’.
I think we should have protected, or done something, to have preserved or fostered more economic diversity in Australia – we gave that up to be a free trader and exploit our advantage in exporting ore, coal and gas. Putting all your eggs in one basket – mining – isn’t wise.
net zero describes the IQ of 90 pc of nubritn hewkay voters…
Anti-authoritarian populism strikes me as a very minority position (Okay I could be wrong).
Covid Lockdown and Anti-Brexit are just hangovers from the last decade and will fade from mainstream political debate.
I wonder how much support for green energy is simply people saying the virtuous thing. I consider myself to be, probably more national conservative than most other things, but I recognise the green energy programme to be both an unattainable fantasy and the scam of the century. Support for it will decline as the bills come in (Wait ’till you have to walk to work my little greenies). I am confident that Net Zero will either destroy the current elite, or lead to the biggest u turn in my lifetime. Change comes when the time is ripe and not before.
As an aside, anyone interested in the fate of the current conservative party, should visit Conservative Home: Deluded people saying deluded things to each other. Heat pumps are the cheap option, mass immigration is popular and the government’s housing policy is a success.
To be fair, the comments section on Conservative Home has very few conservative voters in it.
Point taken, but it is the MPs I was referring to,
Yes they are a worry.
A small minority of Tories/Right Wingers dragged us all to a Hard Brexit, when I’d contend the core of the country was a ‘soft’ version. And as we now well know it didn’t make the slightest difference to immigration – it’s 3/4 times higher.
It’s v informative how so many Right Wing supporters are now evading responsibility and conjuring narratives ‘wasn’t me Guv’.
Still obsessing over Brexit and the wicked “Right”?
Political charts typically have two scales: left-right & authoritarian-libertarian. Mainstream politics likes to focus the debate on the left-right split, either economically or socially but, largely due to the pandemic, that focus has shifted to the other axis.
People are waking up to the fact that their opinion is no longer sought on anything that actually matters, and that a change of government to Starmer will be little more than a change of faces; the authoritarian technocratic juggernaut will carry on regardless.
I’ve never envied the US more. You’ve got the most exciting candidate in living memory in RFK Jr, and Republicans, whether Trump, DeSantis or Ramaswamy, that is very much alive to the WEF/WHO/UN agenda and the damage and division that ESG has wrought to US society. DeSantis banned CBDCs in Florida a couple of days ago. Can you imagine Starmer doing that? I don’t think so.
Calling people ‘conspiracy theorists’ these days is pretty meaningless; people recognise it now as a shaming term in an attempt to stigmatise people, and it can be tacked on to the usual list of ignorable words (‘transphobe’, ‘bigot’, ‘fascist etc). As has been observed by others, in the past most ‘conspiracy theorists’ would have been targeted by the corporate media as ‘loony lefties’, but now it has switched to ‘far right conspiracy theorists’, which with the rise of wokery is the more popular smear. In reality, it is about as effective as calling left-wing feminists ‘Nazis’.
So, the old national conservatives still exist, but the ‘anti-authoritarian populists’ as you put it are not creatures of the right but from across the political spectrum. Nobody represents them in this country. Few economically left-leaning liberals, such as myself, are ever going to vote for Reform or Reclaim. Now that so many of the conspiracy theories have turned out to be conspiracy facts, and a confidence in having been proven right has taken over, there is a purity spiral currently ripping through the ‘community’ and Reform UK have already been cast out. Beyond the anti-authoritarian ‘community’, Reform UK probably haven’t gone down that well with the public because they have seen too much of Richard Tice on Talk TV, and Nigel Farage he is not.
Good post – but you left out the most important bully word of all: denier.
Spot on comment,
“People are waking up to the fact that their opinion is no longer sought on anything that actually matters, and that a change of government to Starmer will be little more than a change of faces; the authoritarian technocratic juggernaut will carry on regardless.”
I too feel envious of the Americans
Pot holes! Surely that’s the great unifying topic?
I suspect that this may be unenlightening, if not misleading. If a week is a long time in politics, what use to us is a small sample survey carried out a year ago? The Conservative party just a few days ago suffered a fair drubbing in the local elections. Why? Because people up and down the country are furious about inflation, falling real wages, failing public services (including especially the NHS), rapidly rising interest rates and tax increases driven by the dire state of the public finances. Whilst many are also concerned about the effects of very high levels of immigration (rightly in my view), these are the “bread and butter” issues which will increasingly dominate public sentiment. So, I would just highlight two sets of government policies which are (or were) key drivers of the mess we are in: lock-downs and net-zero. The first was massively harmful to the economy, devastated public finances, disrupted supply chains, turned the NHS into a National Covid Service and sponsored an epidemic of WFH. Of course, we haven’t forgotten the other appalling effects of the lock-down, but I focus here on the enduring aftermath. The second relates in particular to the effects on energy costs of the experiment with large scale and hugely expensive renewables. Yes, we are repeatedly told that they are cheap (and on a marginal cost basis they no doubt are), but higher and higher levels of intermittency have huge cost implications for the rest of the grid including the cost of producing electricity with gas-fired plants. Whilst the war in Ukraine accelerated and exacerbated the energy crisis, making UK energy significantly more expensive than most of the rest of the world will make households poorer and businesses uncompetitive. And then there’s the ban on ICE cars and mandatory heat pumps and the attack on meat…. In sum, if those surveyed a year ago were supportive of lock-downs and net-zero at that time, I wonder what they think now and how they will think in the future.
You rightly highlight what people are furious about and that much of these are the result of the lockdowns and the drive to net zero. The problem is that while on both these policies Labour was and is consistently more extreme in their support for these damaging policies it is a hard sell for the Conservative Party to say to the electorate we have been eagerly pursuing damaging policies but Labour would have been even worse than we were.
My experience of attempting to become a Reform candidate, is a woeful reflection on them: I was promised a telephone call with the local man, who refused to give out his phone number, missed 6+ agreed phone call times, and then ignored e mails to try and move to process on.
My further investigation revealed that these local representatives are of the lowest calibre, ” got in” at the early stages of the Reform Party foundation, and are doing their level best to keep their own jobs and local ‘ power’ by excluding any new local/ parliamentary candidates who threaten their positions! … Plus ca change?!
There are two types of immigrants – those we invite and those we don’t. There is a 2023 government budget/plan for invitées, numbering about 250,000, to fill the jobs that our people don’t want to do. This will probably continue for ever.
The non-invitées are the ones we tend to argue about.
That is the problem. We cannot accommodate 250k new people a year without blowing up the housing market, public services and infrastructure. We don’t build 250k new housing units per year and haven’t since 1978.
We had c40-50k ‘uninvited’ last year, but it appears c1m ‘invited’ (i.e. legal). Invited is probably not the right phrase as implies welcomed but regardless the difference is massive. Which then begs question – why does Govt wants you to focus on the small boats? – Obvious isn’t it.
The National Conservatism conference is in full swing, and all the talk is of Lord Frost’s disclaiming his peerage to stand against Andrew Bridgen. As if there were any need. Brigden stands no chance of reelection, anyway. Perhaps at no General Election has anyone ever been returned against the Conservative Party and avowedly from its right. But note well that whatever it is that Bridgen represents, then National Conservatism defines itself as the opposite.
Jacob Rees-Mogg is right about voter identification, if not in quite the way that he thinks. It did indeed lead to a bad set of local election results for the Conservatives, and that is because the poor now split evenly between Labour and the Conservatives, but the rich are now more likely, according to the local circumstances, to vote Labour, Liberal Democrat or Green than they are to vote Conservative. The poor are more numerous than the rich, and here we are. It is no wonder that Labour is keeping quiet about this mass disenfranchisement. Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake. If the argument is that photographic identification to vote already exists in Northern Ireland, then the Government is expressing an existential fear of at least half the electorate, although it is quite wrong to have such a fear. The silent Opposition has every reason.
It may be cheap to say that Suella Braverman must wish that she were Home Secretary, but it is true. The money for this event comes from a republic founded in annually celebrated treason against Britain, and which had no restriction on immigration, rather than on naturalisation, until 1875, practically a century after that foundation. Until the forthcoming latest British figures, it retains its immemorial distinction of having the highest foreign-born proportion of any population on earth. For example, throughout his education, Yoram Hazony. The intellectual impetus for this event, you see, comes from a republic founded in daily celebrated terrorism against Britain, of exceptional viciousness and still just within living memory. That republic uses the purest form of Proportional Representation in the world, giving the lie to the suggestion that PR granted hegemony to the Left, and it aggressively encourages immigration, ostensibly of a particular type, but it is in practice prepared to be quite flexible. Fourth generation Israelis are either small children or Arabs, if not both.
Extinction Rebellion seems to have provided a high proportion of the attendees at the National Conservatism conference. It is anyone’s guess why they feel the need to protest against past and present members of this Net Zero Government. That is as baffling as Just Stop Oil’s demonstration against the King. As well as questioning Net Zero despite having been in the Cabinet when it was adopted, Jacob Rees-Mogg has today criticised voter ID. He is right. But he was there. Suella Braverman still is there, directly responsible for immigration. On the need to train our own people, then she, too, is right. She should take it up with the Home Secretary.
And Danny Kruger passed from the conventional Thatcherism of the Centre for Policy Studies, through being Chief Speechwriter to David Cameron, to being Political Secretary to Boris Johnson, who was the first of, so far, three Prime Ministers of Stonewall, of the lockdowns, of the Northern Ireland Protocol, and of the Net Zero that Johnson said that Britain had pioneered by destroying its coal industry. Are Kruger and Rees-Mogg now saying that the miners were right and Margaret Thatcher was wrong? If Kruger believed a word of his effusions about family life, then he would have to say that. He is never going to say it. Stay tuned for Michael Gove, who has been a Cabinet Minister almost continuously since 2010, and who is the father of the present state-funded education system in England.
Actually quite an insightful article, but conspicuously by its absence jumping out of the page is it’s cost of living crisis folks are most worried about right now. Access to timely healthcare probably not far behind that, albeit I think Author covers that in the national conservative reluctance to countenance major public spending reductions.
Public seem less fixated on immigration, albeit it’s still a significant issue. Probably because cost of living overtaken it and post Brexit folks know there wasn’t a simple panacea after all and less gullible about empty promises perhaps? Plus likely more awareness of where we have major workforce issues and skills shortages. But neither party can be behind the curve on this issue.
Reading Labour’s policy on Housing, it’s clearly been given alot of thought and at least is a Policy whereas current Govt doesn’t have one, but nonetheless the modelling on building 300k new units a year assumes immigration c100-150k in the detailed demographic calculus. Whilst good it has some transparent modelling, as the Tories have shown getting immigration down to that more challenging than many appreciate. And the reason is our economy remains reliant on significant immigration and can’t be altered quick enough without a further cost of living shock. That’s what they don’t want to tell us. So we’ve got a bit stuck and not going to be a quick way out of this whatever snake oil merchants might pronounce.
If Labour were to announce they intend to cap immigration at 150k p.a. to start to reduce the price of housing and get young families into a home of their own, I think they would romp home with a landslide.
Not only would it be incredibly popular, it would also put-paid to the ongoing concern that Labour want to take us back into the EU, as you cannot cap immigration while having EU Freedom of Movement. Also it leads in to loads of other popular policies about re-focusing education and skills on Shortage Occupation areas and about investment breaks for automation and AI in British industry.
And the Conservatives would only have themselves to blame.
Perhaps, but I suspect such a limit quite difficult to do instantly and before all the things we need to do to develop our own workforce solutions. Even building the houses probably has a skills shortage in the UK right now.
You mention freedom of movement – couldn’t help noticing Badenoch out in Switzerland this wk exploring how their businesses manage outside EU. Of course Swiss have to accept free movement as part of the deals they have with EU, but do follow all the other requirements that always existed – jobs advertised at home first etc, and also they have ID cards and strict rules on citizenship. I’m sure we aren’t heading a Swiss direction quickly but she’s not out there because they aren’t concerned about how they solve some of the current problems.
I think most people in the real world want competent government. This would include the provision of good public services, affordable housing in the places it’s needed, an economy that provides enough jobs at decent wages to support their families and communities, a tax system that supports work rather than assets. A feeling that those in power are trying to work for the greater good, rather than their own self interest.
For the last 13 years we had Austerity, which degraded the public realm, while giving obligation free tax cuts to corporations and those at the top, corporate welfare. A severe squeeze on wages and living standards for the majority, while bosses enjoyed double digit pay rises year on year.
Then we had Brexit that promised only sunlit uplands which has not been delivered, and the rule of Bad King Boris and Mad Queen Liz, and now Austerity 2.0.
The Author cites “War on Woke” and cutting immigration as key issues for the majority of people but without any evidence that these are what really motivates ordinary voters.
Immigration is certainly a concern, but only if you accept the narrative that it is the main factor in why public services are so degraded, why we haven’t got a high wage economy or why we haven’t got enough affordable housing, or why prices are high in the shops. Or believe that there is no trade off between economic growth and ‘low immigration’.
As for ‘woke’ it’s a minority obsession, at best.
Last week we had the Boris Johnson Fan Club Conference in Bournemouth and this week this US import that the Author is attending. The idea that either is going to do anything to solve the problems we face is delusional.
I tend to think a functional immigration policy, rather than posturing, a functional industrial strategy rather than rhetoric, and a governing class that starts to take responsibility rather than blaming anything that goes wrong on the woke, remoaners, snowflakes, the blob, the global elite, the liberal establishment, the BBC, Guardian readers, tofu-eaters etc. might be a better way forward.
I was with you until your last sentence. The governing class IS the the liberal establishment and having been thoroughly captured by remoaners, the blob and all the rest on your list is certainly not blaming them for anything that goes wrong.
Dear oh dear – we’ve had Eton and Winchester ex head boys run the country for most of the last 13yrs funded by their right wing supporters and media owners and somehow you see them all as part of a liberal blob.
They say that those who tend towards conspiracies to explain things just can’t get their head round the banality of how things really happen. People can just make mistakes and a hash of things, rather than some magic force in the background.
dip your shoulder chip in some ” breown sauce”…
Banality never better demonstrated.
Is ‘breown’ a posh form of pronunciation? I’m not quite on the inside here am I.
Join the discussion
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.Subscribe