Workfare Doesn’t Work—and the Evidence Is Clear

Wherever we are in the world, we are being forced to live a myth; a lie that for some can destroy us physically, profoundly harm our mental health, corrupt us socially, or leave us emotionally desolate. I am, of course, talking about work, the social and economic need to ‘earn a living’ and pay our way in the world. This isn’t to suggest some don’t thrive in the work environment, clearly there are examples of retirees who shrivel away without a job to go to each day; or those dedicated few who genuinely believe they get their identity from the job they do and savour the experience every day. But I would argue most people work for the salary they are paid each month.

By now many readers will be thinking, ‘Oh here goes, another lefty wanting to ‘smash the system’, but that is very far from my intention. I have nothing against earning a living, but what I hope to show is how our hard-earned taxes are being misspent to perpetuate a grossly unhealthy myth about the idea of work and it’s not even working.

But let me first talk about how having a job may be harmful.

How work messes with your mind

For years, psychology has been used to tell us work is good. In 2006, Waddell and Burton did some research commissioned by the UK Department of Work and Pensions and it unsurprisingly argued:

·       Work meets important psychosocial needs in societies where employment is the norm;

·       Work is central to individual identity, social roles and social status;

·        Employment and socio-economic status are the main drivers of social gradients in physical and mental health and mortality;

It sounds plausible, but there is also strong psychological evidence showing how our working conditions and a lousy workplace environment can affect our mental health, so it isn’t black and white. I mean, we know high job demands, low job control, high effort–reward imbalances, injustice in the workplace, role stress, bullying and a lack of support can create mental health problems – in other words, the kind of difficulties most of us face nearly every day.

Social effects of work may not be as good as we think

The negative social impact of work may seem obvious but let me spell it out. At its most basic level, research has shown work can degrade interpersonal relationships and create spillover impacts on families. Even worse, workplace dynamics such as exclusion or not being allowed into social or work groups can affect us badly, as can being deliberately ignored by our work colleagues

A more recent social effect has been the post-Covid trend towards remote, or lone working - while offering a lot of flexibility, it brings with it distinct isolation risks, which can significantly damage natural social functioning.

Negative spiritual effects of work

We often tend to ignore the spiritual effects, but they can have a profound effect on our well-being. Take for example times when we work in a toxic environment that lead us to feel a lack of purpose or identity. We see this when people are employed in, what they feel are pointless or unfulfilling jobs and this can undermine your sense of autonomy that can lead us to feeling hopeless, depressed, or maybe simply as though our careers have stagnated. Add a toxic management, or disrespectful colleagues and all this can disrupt your inner peace, making it difficult to maintain a contented or relaxed mindset.

So why do we work?

Well, here we come to the crux of the matter, because governments and employers want us to believe work is wholesome, character-building and gives us a sense of identity (and, of course, for some this is true), but the reality is far simpler – we work because we have to. It’s as simple as that. We work because if we don’t, we can’t pay our rent or mortgage, we can’t eat, drink, or stay warm, and all this ignores the wonderful toys our consumer society churns out every day that we convince ourselves we ‘need’ – after all, where would life be if we couldn’t buy the latest smart watch, a new electric car, the latest Apple phone, or a crazy foreign holidays,

So, we work primarily to survive and secure financial independence, it fulfils core human needs by providing routine, community and, for some, it gives a sense of purpose. For those lucky enough it can challenge us to grow, foster personal development, and give us a feeling we are contributing our unique skills to society – but here I would urge caution as this is unlikely to be the common view of work.

A few years ago, an ex-colleague of mine told me he had been working so hard on a project that he’d literally made himself unwell. He didn’t offer this as a health update, or to warn me about overexertion. It was, oddly enough, a boast. But why is work treated, strangely enough, as if it were next to godliness

In 1905, Max Weber gave us some answers when he suggested work is driven by a "Protestant work ethic," where labour is viewed as a divine "calling" and wealth accumulation a sign of spiritual salvation. What Weber could never anticipate was how society would move away from this “Protestant Ethic” and turn to abstract deities that would command our deep devotion; deities like the “free market” - the ultimate, supreme deity in a consumerist world, demanding constant economic growth and competition; or the” Brand” where entities like MacDonalds, Starbucks or Walmart/ Asda act like patron saints, offering worshippers a sense of belonging, status, and identity in exchange for their loyalty. Then there is the role of “the media”, the priesthood and messengers of the modern era. Where social media platforms like Instagram and Facebook broadcast what society should desire, setting the trends and making us feel our lives are inadequate without the latest products.

But what about the unemployed

For a society to work there must be conformity to maintain order, co-operation and social cohesion so, it follows, if the norm is for people to work and participate in a consumerist society, then those unable to do so must be encouraged or forced to do so. To achieve this many governments internationally run “Workfare”, or to use a more British term, “Welfare-to-Work programmes to help, or one could argue force unemployed people back into work. There is nothing new about this approach, policies compelling unemployed people back into work trace back to inter-war Britain, or even as far back as the 1880 Famine Codes in British India.

 More modern “Workfare” programmes are government-administered social policies requiring able-bodied welfare recipients to engage in community work, public-service jobs, or job training in exchange for receiving state income benefits. Its declared aim being to reduce poverty, prevent long-term dependency on government aid and help individuals build recent work experience. The covert goal is to reintegrate the unemployed back into a thriving consumerist society.

Unfortunately, the World Bank, amongst others argue workfare programmes have no lasting effects on total national employment or the full-time long-term employment of those who have been out of work for over 12-months. It simply doesn’t work.

Despite this, these programmes remain popular and involve billions of pounds/ dollars of government investment.

I was thinking recently about Viktor Frankl who developed an argument suggesting the purpose of life is to secure well-being. The corollary is, of course the creation of meaningless work is contrary to the creation of well-being, and forcing people into such work may even be harmful.

We know workfare or public works programmes (PWPs) work effectively as social safety nets to provide temporary income and food security, but as long-term tools for returning people to employment their success is mixed; research shows they often fail to create lasting infrastructure benefits and, more importantly their effectiveness depends heavily on their context (whether they are targeting long-term unemployed, young people, elderly etc ) as they are not a one-size-fits-all solution to poverty or unemployment.

The effectiveness of UK workfare/ welfare-to-work programmes – the Restart Scheme

The Restart Scheme was established to help long-term unemployed people return to work, offering training in employability skills, skills development and job placements. Since 2021, 1.2 million unemployed were referred to the scheme and the government set a target of achieving 310,000 successful outcomes during a five-year period (an outcome assumes an individual secures 16-hours of work per week for a period of 6-months), costing the taxpayer an estimated £2,429 per person. The scheme achieved only 280,000 successful outcomes (88|%). In their analysis of Restart, the Institute of Fiscal argued had absolutely nothing been done to help these people, 246,400 would have naturally returned to employment without any form of assistance.

One of the reasons UK workfare programmes are destined to fail is because they are contracted out to independent employability companies eager to maximise profitability and secure the full funding for each referral (they only receive 30% of funding when the person is referred and the remainder when they secure employment). As a result, most providers ‘cream’ (only accept referrals from those who can be found work quickly) or ‘park’ (spend as little time as possible on those with complex needs and difficult to find work) to distort statistics and suggest high success rates.

The effectiveness of US workfare/ welfare-to-work programmes

The main workfare/ employability programme running in the US is known as TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), a federally funded, state-administered programme providing short-term cash assistance and support services to low-income families with children. Often referred to as "welfare”, it aims to help parents achieve self-sufficiency through work-focused programmes helping them back into work. In order to achieve this, the government funds states a total of $16.6 billion each year (the overall federal budget for means-tested budget for welfare programmes is about $1.1 trillion), but unlike workfare programmes in the UK, recipients are usually required to find employment or participate in job-training programmes within two-years of receiving assistance.

What we do know when we look at workfare programmes critically, is that since 1997 the UK, much of Europe and parts of Asia have been eager to adopt welfare-to-work approaches based on extremely limited evidence of their ability to boost welfare recipients' earnings on a long-term basis

So too has the belief programmes prioritising moving people into work quickly are more effective than ones seeking to enhance human capital (skills training, assistance overcoming complex needs etc). Additionally, what is particularly disturbing is how both the US and UK governments have ignored the lack of evidence on how long the beneficial effects of programmes last after people leave them and their almost inevitable future return to unemployment and poverty within five or six years.

 

Political comment

Transparently, we need to rethink the whole concept of work, ranging the current work leisure balance where one-third of our day is spent in work, one-third asleep and up to one-sixth travelling to or preparing for work, leaving only four hours a day for leisure or personal study. But we also need to re-examine our entire ‘back-to-work’ approach because it quite simply isn’t working. In the UK we have 10 million people who are economically inactive and close to 6 million on out of work benefits and 49% of sick and disabled people without a job, In its response, the government is intending to invest £3.8 billion during this parliament alone on programmes supposedly geared to get them back into work; programmes that consistently fail to deliver.

Additionally, we know in the UK, 2.7m people are in work and claiming benefit largely because they have forced into part-time work and have not been able to obtain full-time employment.

Action must be taken if this is to change. In particular, we need to

·       Reappraise the nature of work and re-examine our work-leisure ratio

·       Help young people into training or education programmes by offering them proper skills

·       If unemployment levels vary regionally, offer financial incentives to move to ne areas

·       Offer employers significant incentives to take long-term unemployed

·       Provide greater support to families eg. provide greater financial support for childcare

·       Dramatically increase public works spending eg attack the homelessness crisis by funding a substantial programme to build far more social housing so workers can move to where jobs are at any given time

·       Substantially improve training programmes to respond to cyclical unemployment especially in high-growth industries

·       Lowering interest rates and use tax incentives to allow new and young businesses to expand rapidly.

There’s nothing new here – it’s what we’ve always known, but what we’ve always lacked is the real desire to bring about real and effective change. Handing out hundreds of billions of pounds or dollars to employability providers so they can mage huge profits from governmental ambivalence is not the answer. It is time to develop a cohesive and strategic plan – but the key question is whether we have the willingness.

 

A Pack of Distortions: Why the Tory Numbers Don’t Add Up

As most readers will know I am something of a stickler for honesty in politics. Politicians who lie shame themselves and the party they represent.

You will also have seen that broadly speaking I like to think myself as fair and non-partisan. I describe myself as politically disenfranchised and I rather like the freedom this brings.

So, yesterday, I started fact checking some of Kemi Badenoch's (the Opposition leader) recent pronouncements on how the Tories would resolve the £23bn  defence budget gap by cutting welfare spending. Sadly, the conclusion I came to was that it was fundamentally a pack of lies and distortions. 

I attach some of my reasoning, her exact words are in quotes.

1.  “A million more people are claiming Universal Credit since last year’s Budget.”

Caused by the "Move to Universal Credit" managed migration scheme, which transitioned claimants from older "legacy benefits" (such as Employment and Support Allowance) to the UC system.

2. “They [Labour] believe the way to end poverty is to give money to people in poverty until they are not in poverty anymore.

Not totally accurate, increases in welfare, tax credits, and targeted social security have not been exclusively funded by income tax rises. While income tax yields are substantial, these expansions are heavily funded through a combination of broader tax increases (such as Employer National Insurance Contributions), frozen personal tax thresholds (fiscal drag), and elevated government borrowing.

3.  "'Relative poverty' just tells you what proportion of households earn below 60 per cent of median income.

That is not a measure of poverty at all."

Actually, it is. The UK Median wagae is £39, 039 of which 60% amounts to £23,423. Assuming a 37.5 hour week this equates to £12.01 per hour. The National minimum wage is £12.71.

4. "In Hackney alone, 1,000 families on benefits with 5 or 6 children stand to gain £74 million from the lifting of the two-child benefit cap.

Equates to each family receiving benefit £74,000 assuming it was distributed evenly"

Clearly these statistics are wrong.

5. "Do you know how many people’s thresholds were frozen just to pay for those families in Hackney?

340,000 taxpayers."

In fact, the actual number of taxpayers in Hackney is closer to 148,000 BUT income tax was not the main funding source to finance lifting the two-child cap.

6. "Last year, we saw the fastest increase of children in workless households we’ve ever had."

Actually, the data reveals this was actually in 2023 – 2024 under a Conservative government when it surged by 160,000

7. "There are now more children in the UK growing up in households where no one works than the entire population of Estonia."

True but be should also recognise their population is only 1.35 million so hardly a reasonable statistic.

8. "For all that is going wrong now, and let’s be honest has gone wrong in the past nations can absorb shocks.

The financial crisis, Brexit, Covid."

All 3 were under Tory governments so I fail to see the point.

9. "Unemployment has risen every single month.inder Starmer."

While the overarching trend shows a rise in joblessness from historic lows, there are several instances in the Office for National Statistics (ONS) data where the number of unemployed people and the headline unemployment rate have recorded small dips or remained flat over rolling three-month periods.

10. “Quite simply, our sickness benefits system was not designed to handle the age of diagnosis we now live in. So, we are also going to review which conditions the state treats as disabilities when it comes to benefits.”

How will this work? Who will be affected and how will it be scrutinised? Bearing in mind chronic failings in the existing PIP assessment procedure that remain unresolved this proposal could lead to disturbing diagnostic conclusions

11. "But in an age in which one in four people now self-report as disabled, it’s clear that we are now going to have to draw a line on what health issues the state can support people with.”

In the UK, approximately 5.5 million working-age disabled people (aged 16–64) are in employment. This corresponds to an employment rate of 52.8%

Furthermore, the interim chair of the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA), Penny Young, has written to the Leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch, about a claim in the Conservatives’ Alternative King’s Speech that “for the first time ever, the total welfare bill is now higher than total receipts from income tax”.

In addition, welfare payments have been higher than income tax receipts for many years, and the position is expected to reverse this year.

The UK Statistics Authority also said it was worried that the Conservatives were giving the impression that “welfare” was mainly about sickness and out-of-work benefits, when “approximately 55% of social security expenditure is spent on pensioners”.

A Conservative spokesman has reportedly told the PA News Agency the party acknowledged their claims were inaccurate and planned to correct its document. This did not appear to have happened as of 4pm on (29 June).

How woke became broke and threatened democracy

As I look around, it’s becoming increasingly clear “wokeism” and political correctness have become one of the greatest political dangers of our time. You might think that sounds pretty outrageous, but let’s look at just one example to show you what I mean. It goes back to when I was an ankle-snapper growing up in a Welsh city still recovering from the Blitz. Every day, I would ride a small red trike along the pavement outside my house. In those days, parents didn’t worry about traffic because there weren’t many cars around, and as for the risk of paedophiles, perverts or white slave traders whisking me away? Well, It was easy - we had a sense of community and if my parents weren’t keeping an eye on me then, you could count a local neighbour would be, and besides, the local “bobby” (an affectionate name for a police officer) always seem to be patrolling the area and was quite happy to give me a ‘clip around my ear’ if I misbehaved.

One day as I rode up and down the street, I looked in shock as a tall, elegant gentleman walked towards me. “Mum,” I screamed, “there’s a big black man!” Instantly, my mother ran onto the street, telling me off for calling him a ‘black man.’ “He isn’t black, he’s a coloured gentleman,” she continued, taking care to apologise for my outburst. This was the mid- to late 1950s and my parents were passionate antiracists but this was the first time I, as a four-year-old, was to learn about prejudice. It was a lesson I took on board and throughout my life I’ve had a deep hatred of intolerance. It was because of this that, when a few years later, I went to Grammar school, I was somewhat shocked to learn it was no longer acceptable to use the phrase “coloured people” but instead the new antiracist term was “Black”.

Eager to be a good-hearted liberal, I happily went along with the change. A few years later, as my schooldays were coming to an end, the world seemed to turn upside down: students across Europe were rebelling and occupying universities, throughout Europe the name “Danny the Red” was on every young person’s lips, everyone seemed to be against the Vietnam war and, of course, the Beatles were causing a worldwide sensation. But, unlike the majority I hated them (sorry Beatle fans) because I adored a new style of music coming from Detroit. The new Tamla Motown record label introduced me to Smokey Robinson, Marvin Gaye, and the Supremes, Temptations, and Four Tops; all of whom transformed my world my world. In the terminology of the day, I fell in love with what we then called, Afro-Caribbean singers because terminologies like “black” or ‘coloured person’ were démodé, and replaced by a new, more exotic term, Afro-Caribbean – well, until some bright spark realised this was also the name for a Black hair style. 

In order to not offend, the liberal “grammar police” told us we must now call “Black” people, “African-Caribbean” while at the same time apologising profusely for their unfortunate error – even though most black people had no links with either the Caribbean or Africa – neither ‘George’ from Queens, a fifth generation American with ancestors who had served in the Civil War  or ‘Harry’ from Edinburgh, with several past members in his family who had fought in the Napoleonic wars, felt they had any kind of link to Africa. Unfortunately, liberal “political correctness” demanded they identify as African – even if they didn’t want to.

By the time we reached the late seventies/ early eighties, many Black people were also pointing out they had no connection to Africa or the Caribbean so, guess what? Yes, of course, the liberal grammar police found a new word to describe them, but they were tiring of finding new terms, so went back to the 1960s and rediscovered “black” For a while it seemed the perfect solution; liberals were happy, so were those defining themselves as black and the world appeared to be a happy place, but, of course, that wasn’t going to last.

As society became increasingly multicultural, lexical liberals realised the “Black” couldn’t be used to identify Asians, or Native Americans, so to solve this problem, they settled on People of Colour”, but don’t get too settled, because you can be sure of one thing – somewhere in a grubby little bedsit there are a group of opinionated Foucauldian lexical anarchists preparing for it all to change all over again.

The point of this trip through history is to show how we have spent the last 75 years trying to satisfy every ethnic group (whether they want it or not) and despite our best efforts, we’ve largely failed. But what we did do with all this ringing of hands and self-flagellation is open the door to “wokeism” and “political correctness”.

It is to this term “wokeism”, I wish now to refer, because it is a relatively vague term with multiple meanings, so it’s important to define it from the outset.

Essentially, “wokeism”, as defined by those who believe in it, is a term used to describe progressive attitudes and activism focused on social and political inequality, systemic injustice, and identity politics.

Brilliant, but has it done what it set out to achieve?

                                   Dr Ibram X Kensi

“Wokeism” holds how the U.S. and other Western nations were fundamentally compromised by a history of injustice toward “historically marginalized groups.” Gays, people of colour, women, ethnic minorities, transsexuals and disabled were oppressed by a dominant culture that subjugated them throughout history. The “Wokerati” (those governed by a wokeist agenda) treat this structural racism/ sexism/ homophobia/ transphobia (take your pick) as being almost ineradicable, and so, to combat these injustices, they then call for full recognition of all these ethnic, or gender and other identities and, in some cases, even demand reparations. As wokeist icon, Ibram X. Kendi put it, “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” These neo-liberal wokerati also push for extensive “antiracist/ anti-gender” indoctrination and—in many cases—suppression of what they see as bigoted speech. So, for example, in the case of gender identification, we’re left with not two genders, but LGBTIQQCAPGNGFNBA2SS+. (Please don’t ask me to explain each letter, it was bad enough typing them correctly.) – and the only way to counter earlier prejudices is to deny old, now obsolete pronouns like him/ her and replace them with neopronouns like Ze/ Zer/ Sirs or, Ey/ Em/ Ears, or Xe/ Xem/ Cyr …. the list is simply endless.

Now the worst of this is the wokerati argument of how, when I point out how ridiculous this has become, I am automatically anti-Black (or person of colour), transphobic, homophobic, disablist, or sexist. Well, let me be clear, I am none of these and take huge offence at any such suggestion. For most of my life, I’ve fought against racism and for gender equality. I’ve marched against the oppression of women and, I have no problem with whatever sexuality or gender you choose, but please do we have to carry it on our sleeves? If you want to be gay, trans, bi, or any one of the letters I wrote above, go do it, have a ball – be the person you are meant to be and be happy but, please, for the love of riley, does it really have to be in our face so much? Should an estimated 300,000 trans people in the UK, out of an overall population of 66 million be able to force an initial spend of at least £21m because they demanded changes in the design of toilets at general outpatient care in hospitals when the NHS deficit is running at about £1 bn? Putting this more simply, there are about the same number of trans people in the UK as there are Jews. There are over 1200 hospitals in UK, but only just over 100 provide kosher food. What would happen if Jews demanded every hospital provided kosher meals? Answer? I can guarantee, there would be outrage. So, once again, may I say quite categorically, if a one-legged, gay, blind, black dwarf, trans woman and her Asian sapiosexual  Deaf, depressive,  girlfriend both need treatment, require housing, need employment, or simply want a seat on a train then they should have exactly the same opportunity and courtesies as any other human being – nothing more, nothing less.

Why do I say this, because isn’t it obvious? Isn’t it? Apparently not.

Take the recent tragic case of Henry Nowak, a white 18-year-old student in the UK, who was on his way home when his assailant stabbed him multiple times leading to his death. When the police arrived, Nowak was on the ground and bleeding profusely, while his killer insisted he was racially attacked by the victim. Rather than providing emergency care and calling for an ambulance, Mr Nowak was handcuffed, while Diwa (the perpetrator) told a ‘story’ about how he was attacked. Nowak told police he couldn’t breathe, but despite this, he was offered no help and died in handcuffs. Later evidence suggested police did not act because they assumed a racial attack and prioritising this over the welfare of an ordinary civilian. Political correctness was prioritised over basic human decency, even while the victim’s blood was soaking into the pavement.

J.K. Rowling

There is an insidious side to wokeism because if you speak against it, then the immediate counter is to suggest the writer or speaker is a “fascist”, or “TERF”. Yet liberal wokerati demand the right to “speak their own truth” but deny opposing voices the same right to express their opinion – they are simply cancelled. The most well-known case being J.K Rowling who, for most of her adult life, has been a staunch advocate for women. When, as part of this advocacy she spoke in defence of Maya Forstater in December 2019, a British researcher who lost her job after tweeting people cannot change their biological sex, she was immediately condemned and called transphobic. Rowling then cemented her opposition to the wokerati in June 2020 for criticising an article for saying “people who menstruate” (distinguishing them from trans women who do not).

Now it’s not the purpose of this article to defend Rowling, this is about something far more serious – the right to say what you think or feel, without fear of censorship. Indeed, I would argue, the result of wokeism is how it has created a form of censorship where a person who has shared a controversial opinion, expressed an ‘inappropriate’ viewpoint, or whose actions are perceived as offensive, can be called out and then ‘cancelled’ for their errant behaviour. The end-product being how it denies a free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, and it is becoming more constricted daily.

Naturally, the wokerati argue cancel culture doesn’t threaten free speech and they go further; by implying it doesn’t exist in the first place. In their mind, just because some ideas or thoughts are discouraged for fear of other people not liking it, does not mean they are forbidden from saying it. But is this true? If speaking out can result in job loss, your career or your entire livelihood disappearing overnight, (as has happened) then I would argue censorship has denied our right to free expression.

JS Mill, one of the fathers of liberal thought, once claimed: “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

It would appear the wokerati are of a different mind.

In its original form, wokeism was based on an assumption positive discrimination would solve the problems in our society: people from diverse and minority groups would be able to obtain better, jobs, improve or have greater access to housing, health and social care and of course gain greater political representation which would allow these groups to have a louder voice in modern society. Unfortunately, something went wrong along the way. Instead of making things fairer, we created a world where a minority have authority over the majority;  a society where we tried to remove intolerance and division and replaced it with narrow-minded dogmatic principles like "cancel culture," public shaming, and ideological conformity resulting in increased polarization, where instead of uniting communities, we point accusatory fingers at those who deviate from an assumed norm.

…. and it’s not even worked.

In the UK, the latest Home Office statistics, published annually, show there were more than 18,000 hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation and over 3000 trans related hate crimes between March 2024 and March 2025. While in the USA, latest annual crime reports from the FBI highlight, once again, while overall violent crime in the U.S. continues to decline, hate crimes against the LGBTQ+ community remain alarmingly high. The FBI’s report noted there were 1,950 recorded incidents relating to an alleged victim’s sexual orientation in 2024 and 463 relating to an alleged victim’s gender identity. Race/ ethnicity motivated hate crimes remained the largest category, making up 51.8% of all hate crimes. Hate crimes based on religion were second, just ahead of sexual orientation.

It’s no better on the job front either. LGBTQ+ job opportunities still face significant challenges. Research shows up to 40% of LGBTQ+ employees hide their identity at work due to fears of discrimination, and a substantial pay gap and glass ceiling still limit career progression.

Political comment

Wokeism may have started with the best of intentions, a desire to improve the quality of life for those who have historically been oppressed. Fine words, but if it hasn’t fulfilled its objectives – and the hard data show it clearly hasn’t, then why are we keeping it?

The original notion behind “wokeism”, which used to mean “awareness of racial prejudice and discrimination”, was co-opted by pseudo-liberal political upstarts who’ve used it as an opportunity to grind their own axe as publicly as possible, and each one has an ostensibly bullying agenda designed to suck all our hard earned freedoms. Immediate cancellation is executed against those who dare disagree, and then they are sentenced to a social “Devil’s Island” where they are forcibly socially or politically isolated until they repent , and even then this may not be enough.

   

Piers Morgan

Lately, the writer, Piers Morgan suggested “woke is dead”, but I’m very far from sure. Certainly, it’s been weakened as it tried, and failed to usurp control from more and more eccentric theatres, but it still retains a stranglehold on much of modern political life. Don’t believe me? Try saying you don’t believe in “crazy pronouns”, or arguing J.K Rowling made some interesting points; or, announce you refuse to ‘bend the knee’ and question whether “Black Lives Matter” is the best way forward.

Wokeism has waged a silent war on our free speech and in doing so, it has eroded democracy. More worryingly, it did it openly, and we sat silently while it happened allowing wokeism to politically neuter us and smiling as it happened. Today, there are some who want to kick back, but history taught us one thing – every time society takes a wrong turn it has never been possible to go back precisely to point zero. So will have to accept there is no point closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. We may be able to pull back from some of the lunacy of wokeism but, because we closed our eyes, we will never be quite the same ever again,

Why Americans Need to Get Much Angrier About Donald Trump.

Over the months and years, I’ve watched America transition from a tolerant, bastion of free speech, to a divided nation where intolerance abounds and the only permitted political comments are those lauded towards their new Caesar, President Donald J. Trump. Looking back, it was an inevitable love affair. On the international scene, presidential indecision had, by 2017 left the US looking weaker than at any other time in history. America hasn’t won a major sustained war on its own since Word War 2, though there have been a few ‘successes’ if you include smaller interventions.

In 1983, the US swiftly invaded Grenada (with an estimated population, then 110,000) and overthrow the Marxist military government. Similarly, in 1990, in Operation Just Cause, they quickly ousted dictator Manuel Noriega and installed a democratically elected government. I do not include the Gulf War as this broadly successful conflict involved a 35-nation coalition, of which the US was only a part.

Prosperity on the Home Front

On the home front, US citizens were at their most affluent (if defined by how easily a single wage earner could buy a home, raise a family and buy a car) under Dwight  Eisenhower, while they were able to save the most under Nixon and Carter;

although, unemployment was high under Reagan and Ford, but healthcare arrangements were improved the most for the elderly and low-income populations under Lyndon B. Johnson, though I’m sure some readers would argue in providing cover to over 30 million Americans,  Obama’s Affordable Care Act deserves mention.

Against this, Trump has referred to his own presidency as a “very beautiful and romantic time”, and after his first term, “our country was thriving, we were just beating everyone,” but is this true?

International markers during both Trump eras show that, if we examine the Happy Planet Index (a tool created by the New Economic Foundation to measure national well-being, we see Costa Rica is top, the UK comes in at 34^th, while the US is way behind at 108^th. Equally, if we look at the Human Development Index, an UN-inspired economic tool to measure economic opportunity and capability, Norway is top, the US 13^th and the UK close behind at 14^th. Finally, using the OECDs Better Lives Index, a tool identifying 11 facets essential to well-being (housing, income, jobs, community, education, environment, civic engagement, health life satisfaction, safety and work-life balance), Norway, Finland and Denmark come top and the US is far behind in 15th place.

Similarly, if we explore the rate of inflation over the last twenty years, the U.S. has averaged roughly 2.5% to 3.0% annually, marked by a period of historic stability between 2006–2020, followed by a massive 40-year peak of 9.1% under Trump in 2022 due to pandemic-era factors, and more recently, we see a volatile run back up to 4.25% due to recent energy price shocks following the Iran war.

Given this why I fail to see anything beautiful or romantic about Trump’s two presidencies, especially when you remember unemployment went to its highest during his first term at 14.7%. Now you might accuse me of being unfair given this was during the Covid lockdown, but comparatively during the same era, Japan kept unemployment to between 2.8 and 3.3%, Germany averaged 3.8% and the UK averaged 4.9%. So clearly something went badly wrong with Trump’s economic policy.

Taking the honesty test

Although a very bitter pill to swallow, it might be possible to forgive him if he was honest, but what is widely known and has been proven beyond doubt is the level of his dishonesty resulting in a criminal grand jury indicting him on one count of making “false statements and representations”. This related  specifically to hiding subpoenaed classified documents from his attorney, who was trying to return them to the government. And let’s not forget his 34 felony counts for falsifying business records in the first degree.

By now, “true defenders” will argue Trump is frequently maligned and these prosecutions should never have happened because they were either errors or, at worst, business matters with no bearing on his political acumen or integrity.

These are by far from his only dishonest actions. There are plenty more – let’s look at just a few:

1.  “Already, I’ve secured a record-breaking $18 trillion of investment into the United States.” It would have been great if it were true, but it was false.

2.  “Our country was being invaded by an army of 25 million people.” Those numbers weren’t even close to being true.

3.  “I was elected in a landslide.” Untrue.

4.  “The price of a Thanksgiving turkey was down 33% compared to Biden last year.” It wasn’t true.

5.  Trump said the Republicans’ “One Big Beautiful Bill” passed this year included, among other things, “no tax on Social Security.” Sound nice, but it wasn’t actually part of the package.

6.  “When I took office, inflation was the worst in 48 years, and some would say in the history of our country.” Trump says this all the time, but as I showed above, it was demonstrably false.

7.  “I’ve … settled eight wars in 10 months.” I get the sense he’s convinced himself this happened, but it hasn’t, no matter how many times he repeats the line.

8.  “Gasoline is now under $2.50 a gallon into much of the country. In some states, it, by the way, just hit $1.99 a gallon.” This is a weird thing to lie about, since consumers know better, but for the record, this obviously was not true.

9.  “The price of eggs is down 82% since March, and everything else is falling rapidly.” Trump would have been even more popular if this were true, but it was a lie.

1.  “I negotiated directly with the drug companies and foreign nations, which were taking advantage of our country for many decades, to slash prices on drugs and pharmaceuticals by as much as 400%, 500% and even 600%.” This whopper came  close to the top spot because of the sheer absurdity of the lie.

1  “Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote.” (There is no evidence of illegal voting.).

1  “Take a look at the Pew reports (which show voter fraud.)” (The report never mentioned voter fraud.)

1  “After being forced to apologize for its bad and inaccurate coverage of me after winning the election, the FAKE NEWS @nytimes is still lost!” (It never apologized.)

.  “I saved a lot of money on those jets, didn't I? Did I do a good job? More than $725 million on them.” (Many of the cost cuts were planned before Trump.)

I could go on, but rather than bore you, I will move on, as many journalists now argue there may be as many as 20,000 – 30,000 other lies I could have included. I am no great follower of either TV, or TV personalities, but I believe there is one celebrity called Judge Judith Sheindlin, who once said a teenager is likely lying simply if "their mouth is moving". It seems this is also true of President Trump.

Trump on the international stage

But it is on foreign policy he has failed the most. During his two terms, he has consistently miscalculated the strength or weakness of other parties, as well as often making promises he was obviously incapable of achieving. Take his much-touted promise to solve the ongoing conflict in Ukraine within 24-hours; a promise that ultimately fell completely flat. This failure, combined with repeated wavering commitments to ⁠NATO has discredited the United States as a dependable security provider and forced many European allies to reconsider their own defence postures. This became apparent when Trump called on NATO countries to support his action in Iran, only to find they all pretty much refused point blank. Or his operation to oust Venezuela's elected (albeit in a highly contentious election) ex-President Nicolas Maduro; a unilateral action to remove a national leader without any discussion with his allies.

It is unlikely they would have disagreed with the operation, but the fact he chose to move without consultation created a lot of global uncertainty, leading experts and senior diplomats to warn this unpredictable approach damaged diplomatic relations and emboldened other competitors. Essentially, his rogue action created an uncertainty where it became unclear where, or how, Trump might act in the future. Could he attack Guatemala, Cambodia or Turkey simply because their leaders came to power in unfair elections? The Maduro kidnap occurred because the US accused him of “narco-terrorism”, but could the same happen to other leaders in Ecuador, Colombis, or Mexico? Outrageous perhaps, but Trump’s foreign policy has lacked finesse and forethought leading many countries to distance themselves.

As for the relationship between the US and Russia, far from easing tensions, it has become a strained dynamic, because while Trump previously sought a close, transactional friendship with Putin to resolve global conflicts, it has shifted to frustration as Moscow’s aggressive actions in Ukraine continue and peace becomes increasingly elusive.

Equally, and just as in Ukraine, the once warm relationship between Trump and Netanyahu has deteriorated into name-calling and anger, but unlike Zelensky, Benjamin Netanyahu has no fear of an American withdrawal and appears to almost welcome to ‘go alone’ and destroy Hezbollah on his own, if necessary.

The Iran Deal

The recent agreement between the Trump administration and Iran has ripped the mask off the so-called “Best Friends Forever” relationship between Trump and Netanyahu. If we explore his history, we can see how Trump tends to favour alliances with political strongmen, often siding with them over traditional friends and allies, but only so long as they serve his personal purpose. However, the moment they outlive their usefulness, or become a personal liability, the friendship evaporates instantly.

For Netanyahu, the writing is now on the wall, and Trump has decided to fly solo while ignoring Netanyahu and the needs of the Israeli people; any fealty to Trump has run its course. The Iran deal is so profoundly detrimental to Israel that what was once a political asset - the bond with Trump—has become a liability.

As for the rest of the world, the Wall Street Journal defined it perfectly in their editorial when they argued: “President Trump is touting his latest ceasefire deal with Iran as peace in our time,” the Journal writes, “but the world is more likely to see it as a strategic retreat short of achieving his war aim.”

In fact, I must ask did he ever have any war aims, beyond destroying their nuclear capability? Sure, he told the Iranian people “help is on its way”, but it never really happened and anyway, it was primarily the Israeli Air Force who attacked and killed Ayatollah Khamenei and eliminated much of the IRGC hierarchy, while US forces concentrated on military and nuclear bases.

Much to Trump’s surprise, Iran did not capitulate – they stood their ground and fired back resulting in a financial cost (according to the Pentagon) of approximately $29 billion, though Sen. Chris Murphy argues the cost may be much higher and could be as much as $60 billion, along with the lives of 13 US military personnel.

With Republicans in Congress increasingly unhappy about the war and mid-terms due in November, Trump panicked and as we saw from the “Agreement”, pretty much capitulated on everything. Even his declaration of the terms of the agreement was hysterical, with him refusing to announce its content until the actual day of signing, while Tehran took the upper hand and were so cock-a-hoop they announced the full contents a full week earlier AND claimed victory in the war.

As Melanie Phillips the political commentator so eloquently stated in her blog:

“He has surrendered America to Iran.

He himself admitted that he stopped the war because of the threat of economic catastrophe if it continued. That was because of the oil shock caused by Iran seizing control of the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump was therefore signalling that America was powerless to defeat the regime. At a stroke, he turned the United States into a paper tiger, seen to be unwilling to do what it takes to fight a war until victory.

He thus ensured that Tehran would have the upper hand in everything that now follows in the negotiations for a final “deal.” It will be able to run rings round the Americans over the proposed “online blending” of the enriched uranium Trump once pledged to destroy, the destruction of centrifuges, disarmament verification, or anything else.”

After several military disasters over the last few years, the US needed a victory in Iran and with Trump’s “Make America Great Again” banners flying high, he looked to be the man to do it. He had everything in his favour: a strong ally with a highly trained and experienced well-equipped military, a region eager to see Iranian influence shut down, on the home front a nation angry with the Ayatollahs and eager to see justice for the Iranian people, and a powerful US military dedicated to defending democracy and freedom.

Trump should have been unbeatable – but somehow, he managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Political Comment

Unquestionably, the United States is full of people who pride themselves on their courage and loyalty; a people who are ever eager to defend the oppressed; and, to their eternal credit, a people who, quite simply, don’t like bullies. I’m not American but I can understand their pride and their patriotism – they have fought hard for it. Occasionally, there are people who superficially say all the right things, sound strong and upright, but beneath the bustle and bravado there is weakness. We have seen it in the UK – in 1939, Neville Chamberlain sucked up to Hitler so heavily, it was frightening and had Lord Halifax become prime minister instead of Winston Churchill, this post would have been written in German.

Despite the bravado and unusual delivery (albeit joyously funny, after all, his presidency will be remembered for his ability to create several new words to the language, including ‘bigly’,’ braggadocios’, ’hamburrderers’, ‘panican’, and my favourite ‘confide’). But despite the humour, let me be clear, Trump is weak and collapses when the conflict is tough. The international media have a nickname for him, calling him “TACO” Trump, an acronym standing for “Trump Always Chickens Out”. Sadly, in the last three months it’s a title he has earned:

21^st March – Trump issued a 48-hour deadline then extended it.

31^st March – He told Iran to make a deal, or US would obliterate energy plants.

1^st April – “We will bomb Iran into the Stone Age.”

5^th April – “open the f****n’ Straits, you crazy b******s or you will be living in hell”.

7^th April – “An entire civilisation will die tonight.”

21^st April – “I expect to be bombing.”

4 – 5^th May - Operation Project Freedom designed to escort ships through the Straits but lasted no more than a day when Iran fired on US military forces.

11^th June – “The US will hit very hard tonight” but cancelled the attack only hours later.

Was it any wonder Iran didn’t believe a single threat Trump made and felt justified in assuming they could go into negotiations with an upper hand.

Make no mistake, despite the “agreement” this war is not over, because Iran believe they are winning and while Trump may be too weak to continue, we all know Israel will not back down and if the US does not finish the job, Israel will do it for them.

Why Farage and his Reform Party lost the Makerfield by-election

There is an excellent argument why Reform did not win the by-election at Makerfield on 18^th June and it’s not because I have an inherent passion to see Andy Burnham the next leader of the Labour party, or because I am a closet supporter of any of the other parties. I confess, if I were to be able to vote in that election, I would vote for Burnham, but only because I would hope it would keep Farage's Reform candidate, Robert Kenyon far away from the House of Commons.

Such a vote would grieve me greatly, especially after years of virulent antisemitism within the Labour Party – an issue, I would add that seems to still be present and where there appears to be little passion by its members to resolve it.

I think it would be fair to say the parliamentary candidates in this by-election are some of the most lack-lustre we have seen for some years. 

Burnham is a talented and experienced politician and, in terms of debate has shown himself to be leaps and bounds better than the others, but he wants voters to support a party that since being elected is on a path that will leave our defences in crisis, our housing stock reduced even more and illegal immigration largely unabated. The last being one of the biggest concerns amongst UK voters.

As for the rest of the candidates, well let’s look at them, and to make it simpler, I am going to eliminate those smaller parties and independents who will most certainly lose their deposits. As for the rest, we have:

Jake Austin (Liberal Democrat) – is an experienced local councillor from Wigan but with polls showing him running at only 1%, he is one of those likely to lose his deposit. He will be hoping this will improve by election day, but I remain doubtful.

Michael Winstanley (Conservative) – Another local councillor, who one would have expected to be polling at least double numbers, but with polls showing him only reaching 3%, the Conservatives must be asking what are they doing wrong. Sadly, voters keep telling them, but they are not listening.

Sarah Wakefield (Green) – A Manchester City Councillor who has shown herself to be a competent candidate and may, in the future, prove to have a career in national politics, but with a party leader eager to divest himself of his Jewish background and a propensity to offend anyone remotely appalled by antisemitism, she is unlikely to do well. However, current polls put her at 5% so she may, at least be able to keep her deposit.

Rebecca Shepherd (Restore) – Though highly unlikely to win, with polls averaging 7%, she may prove to be a major thorn in Reform’s side and enough to split the vote and give the seat to Andy Burnham. Her party leader, 

Rupert Lowe was once a member of Reform but he was thrown out when he made false allegations of violence against Reform’s party chairman, Zia Yusuf. One of his most well-known gaffs was saying, “I won’t have woke creeps telling is we’re racist.”. Against this, he has argued how Indians and Pakistanis are taking British jobs – is he racist? I leave that to you, but the evidence is stacked heavily against him.

Robert Kenyon (Reform) – A recently elected councillor on Wigan council and a plumber by trade (If elected maybe he could pair up with Green MP and fellow plumber, Hannah Spencer and start an in-house plumbing business in the Commons). Kenyon has a warehouse full of political gaffs (more on this later), but despite this is still managing to achieve 41% (5% behind Burnham) of the vote. He stood in 2024 as a candidate in Makerfield and came second.

By any stretch of the imagination this is a pretty shoddy selection of candidates and, quite honestly, I think the only reason there has been interest in this by-elections is because of Burnham’s stated intention to force a leadership contest within the Labour party if he is elected. 

So, let’s now look at the vulgarity of Reform, its leader and its candidates.

Nigel Farage

Recently I've been taking a look at some of Farage's speeches, press conferences and news reports and I've concluded he is a man with a highly questionable background, especially regarding his attitude towards Jews.

But first, let’s look at his financial dealings - in 2024, Farage personally received £5m from Christopher Harborne (Harborne, also known as Charit Sanskrit) is a British Thai billionaire technology investor and the largest financial backer of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party. He has provided them with over £22 million in donations, including a record-breaking single donation of £9 million in 2025) and add to that tens of thousands Farage received over the years for "travel expenses" and let's not forget the £1.4m house, according to Harborne, this was bought outright for him, though Farage and later Harborne both claimed he bought it from fees for appearing on I'm a Celebrity).

All this could be forgotten, (especially when considered against a number of other MPs who take advantage of their parliamentary work to make money outside) if he did his job while in the House but, using a more recent example (there are others), during April and May this year alone, he missed 77 parliamentary votes without explaining his absence to his electorate while taking a £98, 599 salary. I should also mention that detailed analysis of legislative records indicate he has registered other frequent absences for votes.

Then, of course there is his history of antisemitic comments when he was younger. You may recall how an investigation by the Guardian newspaper disclosed how over 30 former contemporaries and teachers at Dulwich College in south London alleged that the teenage Farage engaged in racist and antisemitic behaviour. He put this all down to childhood antics and therefore irrelevant, though interestingly he refused to apologise. Additionally, in his early political career, Farage faced a backlash for his interviews with far-right US media, where he discussed supposed globalist plots, the financier George Soros, and the Bilderberg group. He denied they were antisemitic, but nonetheless, UK Jewish groups condemned these as antisemitic "dog whistles".

Finally a scour through the Campaign Against Antisemitism archives revealed  how in 2017, Farage attempted to end a controversy over remarks he made when he told LBC Radio listeners how he believed American Jews exert disproportionate political power and even appeared to agree with a claim they have financial control over American politics.

As for his supposed pro-Israel position this was killed off when a caller on another LBC programme named only as Ahmed, told Farage he thought the pro-Israeli lobby in the United States was no less dangerous than alleged Russian hacking, Farage appeared to agree, and started talking about Jews: “Well the Israeli lobby, you know, that’s a reasonable point Ahmed, because there are about six million Jewish people living in America, so as a percentage it’s quite small, but in terms of influence it’s quite big.” When Ahmed said Israel has both the Republicans and Democrats “in their pockets”, Farage responded: “Well in terms of money and influence, yep, they are a very powerful lobby”. Summarising the call, Mr Farage once again made clear he believed a “Jewish lobby” is at work on behalf of a foreign Government, and adding: “ … that there are other very powerful foreign lobbies in the United States of America, and the Jewish lobby, with its links with the Israeli Government is one of those strong voices.”

Racism, sexism and intolerance amongst Reform party candidates and officials

Given the number of Reform members with known links to Britain First, BNP and in a couple of cases Patriotic Alternative it should come as no surprise how a significant number of candidates and officials have been shown to be sexist, racist or generally intolerant. Indeed, even a cursory look at past candidates reveals  questionable characters who, normally should never have seen sight of a ballot sheet eg Jonathan Kay, Mick Greenbough, Jack Denny, Stevie Bates, Lucian Fernando, Marc Burca, Augustine Obodo, David Prior, George Martin Parnell, or John Black - and this list is only a cursory glimpse through the database. If we dig deeper, it is no surprise Tice himself admitted some of Reform's own candidates are Muppets and morons.

Other recent candidates and officials who helped expose the true racist and sexist nature of the party have also included the candidate in the Gorton and Denton by-election, who was suspended over racist and antisemitic comments; the candidate for Hill End, who made a spate of shocking comments about Jewish people, black people, Muslims and Indians; the candidate for Bury, who said the Charedi Jewish population has created a “demonic social structure” and compared it to Al Qaeda and ISIS; and the chair of Brighton and Hove, who had to stand down after antisemitic posts on X were revealed

Now, let me be clear, though I am always astonished it needs saying, I do not believe Reform UK are National Socialists. Indeed, I am on record as saying elsewhere how I concur with Prof Cas Muddle they are a Radical Right political party and NOT even far-right. But even more, if we acknowledge populism is a (thin) ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, the pure people and the corrupt elite, and which argues politics should be an expression of the volante Générale (general will) of the people, then within this we can label Reform Party Ltd a populist Radical Right party, and in this regard, I find both Farage and his party dangerous.

Of course, all the Reformers out there will now be screaming 'but we suspended most of them' or ' that's old news', but my reply is simple and from something I learned while teaching - once is an accident, twice a coincidence and three times a pattern - so what's well over one hundred? The answer is simple - the party remains steeped in Radical Right politics but influenced by far-right fellow travellers who remain in the party.

Robert Kenyon 

But probably the best example of the true nature of Reform lies in their candidate in the Makerfield by-election, Robert Kenyon, a disturbingly sexist individual who, despite daily revelations of his deep-seated disdain for women’s equality, continues to be endorsed by them, 

Let’s look at some of his comments:

On an online rugby forum, he said: “… women can’t “ref, drive or give directions,” and on the subject of women presenting rugby games on TV said: “aren’t up to the job and only there to tick a box”, adding: “I’m sexist, sorry but I am.”

He also objectified European women’s bodies, saying English women “don’t care” and “just walk around with their fat bellies and odd shapes pushing a pram at 16 in their PJ’s”.

Now, in case you aren’t clear about his position yet, let me tell you about his 2019 comments on a rugby league forum claiming women who have abortions get them for “vanity purposes” and so they can “shag anyone they want”.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, he went on to pontificate about abortion, arguing it was: “a cowardly act of murdering a defenceless baby” and then went on to suggest women falsely claim to have been raped to terminate a pregnancy.

The LGBTQ community have also been recipients of his wrath, arguing gay people are “poofs” on a 2009 forum, and later, in 2010, describing them as “mincing about” on TV and in one post on “X” wrote: “You can’t call her ‘The Queen’ anymore because it offends the poofs.”

The next year, he wrote:  “People who want to make a stand for homosexuals need not combat the throwaway comments of a sportsman on twitter, but need to do something about the way homosexuals are perceived in the mainstream media, for instance … having Julian Clarey [sic], Graham Norton, 4 poofs and a piano and Paul O’Grady mincing about on TV does a lot more damage to the reputation of homosexuals and causes greater insult in my opinion.”

In, as late as 2020, he wrote: “If LGBT just want acceptance, then stop making a big song and dance about it, attention seeking and taking over other events because that’s turning people against you”. He also called Labour the “party for tyranny’s”.

Back on the subject of his sexism, Hope Not Hate revealed in 2021 Kenyon interacted with a social media message sent to the UK TV Countdown co-host, Carol Vorderman , which read: “Happy birthday Carol, my God I would love to smell and lick your arsehole.” And when she publicly demanded an apology, he replied, “… only saying what we’re all thinking,” along with a thumbs up and a laughing emoji.

More disturbingly, the campaign organisation, Searchlight which specialises in exposing far-right activists, discovered Kenyon was friends with Gary Raike, the neo-Nazi, Hitler-loving leader of the New British Union, a successor to the old Mosley British Union of Fascists.

Political Comment

It seems to me to be extraordinarily obvious Reform is extremely dangerous and contrary to all the values that have made the UK a great nation. Their hatred of immigrants, legal or otherwise, isn’t based on a desire to protect the culture and traditions of our country, but on a fierce racism steeped in neo-fascist ideology and supported by members who, in many cases, are themselves from a far-right or neo-fascist background. Rather than wishing to rebuild Britain, they want to destroy its democracy and build intolerance and division.

Their tools are lies and denial using propaganda as its cudgel. Writing in the book, “1984”, Orwell once said, “If all others accepted the lie which the Party [or its leader] imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth.” – never has this become more true than in the writings and speeches of both Farage or Reform party officials.

Currently, they are riding on the crest of a wave – a wave that will subjugate women and virtually every minority group; a wave preaching tolerance and division – and like an infected abscess it requires lancing and eradicated. 

Thankfully the electorate gave an overwhelming vote against Kenyon and Reform giving them less than one-third of the vote, while the victor, Andy Burnham polled roughly 54% of the total vote.

Tonight has been a wonderful night for common decency and democracy