Blog

Great Britain flag, known as Union Jack, painted on grunge wall background

<h2>David Starkey traces the problems to Blair's 1997 regime. He's not wrong!</h2>Comments and debate at the X account of <a data-mce-href="https://twitter.com/WoteUk" href="https://twitter.com/WoteUk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@</a><span data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); background-color: rgba(249,250,251,var(--tw-bg-opacity));" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); background-color: rgba(249,250,251,var(--tw-bg-opacity));"><a data-mce-href="https://twitter.com/WoteUk" href="https://twitter.com/WoteUk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wote.uk</a> please...<figure id="figure-cmq7s8m292lvu024wb" data-full-width="" class=""><iframe id="cmq7s8m292lvu024wb" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RVa27KpH--U" class="w-full bg-gray-100 rounded-sm md:rounded-md lg:rounded-lg" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" allowfullscreen="" data-url="https://youtu.be/RVa27KpH--U?si=5Rsm5rKRVSJteRZ7" data-corners="small" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RVa27KpH--U" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></iframe></figure>

David Starkey traces the UK's problems to 1997

The UK is sinking under the spread of intimidation. It is no one's interest to enable those who seek to divide and rule to drive wedges into the once tolerant heart of British society.One immediate effect of political and religious intimidation is to drive good people from the idea of public office. Chasing your ideological opponents away with threats will not end well. The British people are renowned for a sense of fair play, and it will not end well for those who bully and confront; so let’s consider what is involved in containing and removing the core of the problem and take all religious confrontation off the streets.Secular simply means non-religious - but it immediately gets complicated - so let’s consider a useful definition from Phil Zuckerman: <a data-mce-href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201407/what-does-secular-mean" href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201407/what-does-secular-mean" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“What Does "Secular" Mean? | Psychology Today”</a>It should not be up to a (democratic) state which is supposed (obliged!) to mediate with an even hand for all its citizens to take positions on religious interpretation, and thus guarantee a basis for immediate visceral conflict. It should create a society in which any and all religious beliefs can be pursued - as long as they do not interfere with rights of others.Let’s also introduce what was once held up as the example of how to evolve a state with a “rich heritage” of military conquest and conflict into a tolerant democratic society after centuries of intolerance and mischief … <a data-mce-href="https://www.refworld.org/legal/legislation/natlegbod/1982/en/17317" href="https://www.refworld.org/legal/legislation/natlegbod/1982/en/17317" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Constitution of the Republic of Turkey</a>It would not have happened without the leadership of <a data-mce-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kemal Atatürk</a> - but we are conspicuously short of leadership - worldwide, not just the UK…“He undertook sweeping progressive reforms, which modernized Turkey into a secular, industrializing nation.[3][4][5] Ideologically a secularist and nationalist, his policies and socio-political theories became known as Kemalism.[3] Comments and debate at the X account of <a data-mce-href="https://twitter.com/WoteUk" href="https://twitter.com/WoteUk" target="_blank" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">@wote.uk</a> please...

Secular or bust

The elephant in the room of UK politics appears to be the obvious lack of quality of choice for leader. Every party is suffering from a stark choice of mediocrity, and we are reminded that people who actively seek leadership of political parties should generally be disqualified for even seeking high political office. An aphorism that is a close relative of the Groucho Marx principle of club membership: "I wouldn't want to be a member of any club that would have me as a member". No one who might conform to the old-fashioned notion of "quality" individual wants to lead a political movement to take on a subversive civil service, a rogue judiciary aiding and abetting "lawfare" activism, a politicised police - now armed with increasingly sinister powers of intervention, the bottomless NHS pit, an irrelevant educational industry bent on perverse social engineering - and an array of massive multinational businesses that are too big to be controlled. All topped off by infiltrated international organisations with wildly subversive agendas, with zero democratic legitimacy or accountability.&nbsp; All of which has to deliver with a global population growing by ~200k daily additional mouths to feed - mostly in countries where malign religious influence poisons rational discussion.<figure id="figure-ftpz1jszg7lvsinibj" class=""><img id="ftpz1jszg7lvsinibj" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/fvxKkVVIF1p2Cs5ZPmTeC8WKHysGtpSMkxGsXjjwMlxmBMIWcjBH4Muva1S25FkF.jpg" alt="November 2020 – Le Monde (France) &amp; The New York Times (USA) – After the election report. Made with analog vintage lens, Leica APO Macro Elmarit-R 2.8 100mm (Year: 1993)" title="November 2020 – Le Monde (France) &amp; The New York Times (USA) – After the election report. Made with analog vintage lens, Leica APO Macro Elmarit-R 2.8 100mm (Year: 1993)" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 3/2; object-position: 50% 15%;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="3:2" data-caption="Real leadership does not do appeasement, and takes no prisoners. Get over it. " data-positionx="50%" data-positiony="15%" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/fvxKkVVIF1p2Cs5ZPmTeC8WKHysGtpSMkxGsXjjwMlxmBMIWcjBH4Muva1S25FkF.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 3/2; object-position: 50% 15%;"><figcaption class="body-normal text-gray-500 mt-2">Real leadership does not do appeasement, and takes no prisoners. Get over it.</figcaption></figure>Anyone with enough (?) money stashed away (gold bullion preferred) is advised to build a bunker and sit it out while the energy, food, water and population crises play out.And all this goes on &nbsp;against the background of authoritarian governments eroding and closing down freedom of speech and debate as they cannot cope with the transparency forced on them by barely managed social media that provides the bad actors with the means to disrupt and subvert.Elon Musk has taken on one helluva responsibility to maintain freedom of speech, and may just be our only hope to provide the platform and tools. But he is only going to achieve this with some fairly draconian and authoritarian rules to deal with the bad actors. Do we trust Elon more than we just governments? Do we have a choice?&nbsp;The big issue with commercial Media of all types is that it is dependent on advertising revenue. The BBC's wonderful legacy to operate without being beholden to advertisers (and their marketing agencies with social engineering agendas) has been squandered by intellectual subversion, and a culture that allowed the likes of Savile and other pervs to operate in plain sight.No-one can realistically expect to manage the exponentially increased numbers of bad actors using every trick in the book, now including AI. Governments respond slowly with massive overkill regulations that rarely do the job if self regulation cannot be made to work.All of which means we must be very suspicious of anybody that wants to take a leadership role - since they clearly do not know what they are up against. Comments and debate at the X account of <a data-mce-href="https://twitter.com/WoteUk" href="https://twitter.com/WoteUk" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@wote.uk</a> please...

The Leadership Challenge

I have adapted a <a data-mce-href="https://x.com/FUDdaily/status/1786772896527872491" href="https://x.com/FUDdaily/status/1786772896527872491" target="_blank" rel="noopener">twitter post by Peter North</a> as the basis for this a WOTE policy discussion document. As usual, it's already 95% "ideal for purpose" and requires just minor adjustment to accommodate the idea that the electors will be asked for their opinion and participation in the democratic process a good deal more frequently than just once every 5 years. Britain is sliding ever deeper into a dark age as freedoms have been rescinded, and a thought police appointed. Our democracy is being strangled by the globalist technocracy, and the very fabric of our nation is being compromised by mass immigration. We are increasingly vulnerable to growing threats from within and without. The Conservative Party is supposed to be the natural defender of national principles and ambition, but on every count it has capitulated. It conserves nothing. It won't even conserve itself. Consequently, it has been routed from the town halls, and soon from Westminster. And there are Conservative MPs and Ministers who still do not understand what they have allowed to happen.The right-leaning "inclination" in Britain has no voice; it is a silenced majority. Silenced by a relatively recent slew of poorly conceived and barely debated laws concerning hate speech and "online harm". God only knows what this will do to empower the rabid left as Starmageddon is delivered and enforced by subverted police and judiciary, with support from subverted public servants and an interfering ECHR. Millions of voters stayed at home, because they don't see an alternative, and are weary of trying to counter specious accusations of fascism and racism by the activists of the rabid left. There are notional alternatives on the ballot paper, but they're not offering what people want. Reform sees itself as the natural inheritor of these votes. But, if the local election results are any guide, the votes shed by the Tories are not going to Reform.Of the parties who offer anything approaching a fresh vision, the SDP have shown they have a good local game, and appear to be gradually building something. I wouldn't write them off as useless, but it looks to have a destiny as a niche concern rather than a movement for change. Looking at the disparate and fragmented components, there doesn't appear to be the basis of a new movement anywhere on the horizon.Much now depends on the severity of the Tory defeat in the general election and how it re-constitutes. There are rumblings on the right of the party that simply cannot exist with the liberal internationalists. It cannot continue as a schizophrenic party. It must decide once and for all what it stands for. If the party believes it feels more at home at their misconstrued notion of the political centre, it must be abandoned as a going concern.&nbsp;If, however, National Conservatism wins out, we should be even more cautious. It will make all the right noises, but will likely stop far short of the kind of policies we need to arrest the decline and reverse our fortunes. Moreover, the closer it gets to power, the more it will moderate its policies, and the greater the likelihood of a complete betrayal if it reaches power again. We cannot afford to trust them again.&nbsp;With that in mind, any upstart presenting as an alternative needs to be explicit in what it stands for, what needs to be done to turn things around, with an unwavering determination to get it done. It must be willing to take stances unpopular with the media and the political blob. It must not shrink from controversial policies. Its policies will be viewed as extreme by the establishment, because its policies will need to be proportionate to the scale of the problems. To that end, it must be firm in its belief that there is no alternative. In short, it needs to channel Margaret Thatcher at her peak.That party will recognise that any international convention or treaty that frustrates effective border control and economic renewal is intolerable. It should be prepared to junk the UN, the Paris Agreement, the ECHR, and the TCA if necessary. It must understand that National Democracy cannot coexist with the many dilutions of the "international rules based order". It's over. The direct national interest must come first. Similarly, the Climate Change Act and equalities legislation should be repealed.&nbsp;On immigration, it must recognise that this is no longer a matter of simply managing numbers. It must accept that multiculturalism has failed in its entirety, and that unfettered immigration has enabled them to merge into the extant ethnic and religious communities which have soaked public resources threaten to destabilise the country and plunge us into irretrievable civil disorder, where there are no longer the numbers of police or military required to ensure public order in our towns and cities. I will understand that robust action must be taken now to save Britain from Lebanonisation. It will realise what the Tory party catastrophically refuses to acknowledge; that the Rubicon has already been crossed. It must recognise the enemies within, and count those who frustrate corrective actions as aiding that enemy.&nbsp;In that regard, it will view the Tory party not as a more moderate version of itself, but part of the problem. Worse, in that it attempts to deny the scale and urgency of the problems and obstruct necessary change.&nbsp; I see no scenario where the Tory party can be trusted again. In either of its guises, it is a decoy.&nbsp;My thinking is that a redeveloped Reform party could be the basis of this movement, though if can't recalibrate to the task, a rebranded Ukip would be the best vehicle since it already has a decent ideological definition and policies in the right ballpark. I'd rather not have to start a movement from scratch. If that's what we have to do then so be it, but we need to debate the options first.However, the WOTE ethos of continual consultation with voters to determine and adjust policy between general elections, with MPs operating as a Federation of independents, will be the most likely practical way forward from here in the time available. DRAFT 01 05may24

Criminal Neglect

Grabbed from https://www.northernvariant.co.uk/p/what-does-effective-immigration-policyI’ve repeatedly outlined what I think should happen regarding the invasion of dinghy migrants. There has to be deterrence. Nobody who tries it on should profit from it. Stepping into a dinghy should mean that no more than four days later, you’re in a detention facility on West Falkland. Countries who won’t take them back should expect to see penalties ranging from trade tariffs, taxes on remittances and flight bans. It almost goes without saying that we must quit the ECHR and the Refugee Convention.But the dinghy crisis is something of a distraction. We need a more comprehensive immigration policy because it’s out of control.This is where the Reform Party is again deficient. They say we must first freeze non-essential immigration. This implies that some immigration is essential. If industry does not already have the skills pool it needs (on the basis of recent levels of immigration), then it doesn't exist at all, and they'll have to start training one. We need to examine and resolve all the reasons why we seem incapable of training our own doctors and engineers.To that end, immigration policy is closely linked with education and industrial policy. Universities must no longer run as visa mills, and most should be reverted to polytechnics to address the real world skills gap.Our immigration policy must be bolder than that, though. This is not just a matter of skills and managing numbers. There are direct threats to national security to consider. There are urgent concerns about future societal cohesion, and questions remain whether Britain can remain a viable, functioning democratic state when multiculturalism has eroded national unity.Immigration policy, consequently, must not only address the levels of immigration, but also take corrective action. Britain must be firm on what it will not tolerate.Over the last year or so, we’re seen some dark portents for the future, with rival immigrant groups fighting each other in the streets over political and tribal disputes in distant lands - which are nothing whatsoever to do with us.Is this&nbsp; London's future normal? This is what you get when you completely abandon any kind of selectivity in immigration policy. When you have a surplus of unemployable, low IQ males, you get anarchy.Unless we put a stop to it now, we're going to end up building internment camps because the alternative is low grade civil war between ethnic minorities while the rest of us are spectators - and full riot gear is standard patrol uniform for British police.Meanwhile, it should be recalled that we have a database of tens of thousands of potential terrorists. This is intolerable.So what’s to be done?It is clear from the handling of asylum that the Home Office is not fit for purpose. It must be broken up. We need a department dedicated to removals.The first order of business should be to tackle illegal immigration. It should develop local branches to gather intelligence on everything from Turkish barbers to car washes, and any other place of business likely to employ illegals. Business owners found to be employing illegals knowingly should face bankruptcy and a prison sentence. This surveillance should also extend to police and environmental health officers, who can detect overcrowded houses of multiple occupation.There are over a million illegal immigrants in the UK economy. Sufficient to keep a department of removals in full-time operation.Recently we’ve seen attempts by NGOs and activists to prevent removals. Steps should be taken to ensure no NGO is in receipt of public funds, opportunities to appeal are limited, and activists who interfere with removals must be slapped with a charge for obstruction, resulting in a five-year jail term.That alone, though, does not solve the problem. Britain is still left with the problem of unchecked rubbish immigration - those who will never contribute to the economic and social life of the country. To that end, we must remove all benefits from immigrants and remove any entitlement to housing. No benefit forms may be printed or submitted in any language but English.We must then make a fund available for those unable to support themselves to return to their country of origin. Modest cash incentives may be offered. Considering their drain on the NHS, it is still a net saving even if it’s up to £7,000 a head.Removal of benefits may result in tent cities. Regular removal patrols will ensure migrants are swiftly deported.We must also take robust steps to expedite integration&nbsp;There must be limits to freedom of religion. The philosophers who promoted the ideal of religious freedom did so with a view to ending sectarianism among Christians. They never envisaged having to incorporate Stone Age cultures and alien religions based on political and demographic conquest.To that end, we must ban the burka and the wearing of traditional ethnic clothing outside a place of worship. We then disallow gender segregation in mosques. If Britain stands for gender equality, then it must apply to all citizens. We will not stand for the endemic misogyny that goes with primitive tribal customs we’ve imported. Britain must be a hostile environment for the alien cultures who are at odds with our values. Mosques identified as preaching extreme Islam will be shuttered and demolished.Further, it is almost universally agreed that foreign criminals must be deported, but all immigrants must recognise their obligation to obey the law, and understand that criminal offences will also see their immediate families removed.An incoming government must set a target of reducing the population to more sustainable levels, with the emphasis on social cohesion; removing at least three million in the first five years.Immigration criteria must then be tightenedWe need a moratorium on immigration for a minimum of ten years, after which there will be extensive English fluency testing and skills validation. Immigration from culturally compatible countries will be expedited. Strict criteria will be applied to third world applicants. Success rates from the Third World will be minimal.We must also go beyond the traditional oath of allegiance. We must establish a system of provisional citizenship along with a contract of responsivities. A five-year interview will review citizenship applicants. Those found not in education or employment, without a demonstrably legitimate income, shall be removed. Any evidence of tax arrears shall also result in deportation.On a final note, we need a degree of voting reform.Non-citizens shall be prohibited from voting. The postal vote shall be restricted. Measures shall be taken to correct the democratic deficit where there is evidence of ethnic bloc voting.This is just a sketch of a policy I intend to expand on, but the theme is at least set. I would welcome additional suggestions <a data-mce-href="https://x.com/FUDdaily/status/1786437170716148195" href="https://x.com/FUDdaily/status/1786437170716148195">on the X/Twitter thread&nbsp;</a> Now then - why not <a href="http://buymeacoffee.com/turbulenttimes" data-mce-href="http://buymeacoffee.com/turbulenttimes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Buy me a coffee...?</a>

What does effective immigration policy look like?

male asia elephant in the dark with spotlight

<h3>Let's start to consider the range of challenges facing any UK government - and put them in perspective.</h3>Defence of the country and its people is the prime responsibility of government. So when you survey the armada of small boats landing unchallenged on our beaches, you will appreciate there is work to do.There is an argument that a matter such as defence is very much the speciality of the professional military. However, recent experience is that the "global military industrial complex" does not have the best interests of any one nation at heart, and generally seeks to maximize corporate revenue... The industry is somewhat awkwardly full of retired service generals, seeking out troughs into which to plunge eager snouts, with the homing instincts of pigs after truffles.The decision made at the death of the last Labour government to build two massive aircraft carriers in the constituency of prime minister Gordon Brown doesn't look so smart in the light of developments which should have been anticipated, such as cheap killer drones. Maybe a fleet of cheap channel patrol craft to scoop up the rubber dinghies and return them to France would have been a better use of £20+bnThe UK's professional armed forces have punched above their weight for centuries, Henry VIII founded the Royal Navy and set out to rule the waves - which laid the foundations for Queen Elizabeth 1st to encouraged British adventurers to explore the New World and establish foundations for a British Empire.&nbsp;Yes, there will be arguments about the exploitation and tactics that brought civilization and rule of law throughout the development of the industrial revolution.&nbsp;Yes, there was little concern for health, safety and welfare at the time. But context is everything - and Britain was toe to toe with France (especially) and other European nations in a battle for global domination - and thanks to the Royal Navy, Britain prevailed and ruled the waves. And create wealth that was &nbsp;channelled into worthy causes.More recently, James Bond (a naval commander) has usefully projected an image of competence that still delivers valuable "soft" influence (and product placement opportunities!)We emerged from WW2 as the leading innovator of military and civil jet aircraft technology - although our politicians and bean counters managed to lose out to the USA in several markets by failing to organise the funding of the industries that US entrepreneurs were ready and able to do, the UK aerospace industry still had a 17% market hare in 2020.Traditionally, British politicians have a very modest awareness of science or engineering - for most of the last century UK politicians simply did not understand the crucial role of fast evolving technology and innovation in modern industrial societies, and did far more harm than good with their clumsy interventions.The UK led nuclear research and development until our politicians once again failed our innovators, and the deployment ceased in the 1970s when North Sea gas was cheap and plentiful. Meanwhile, France has prospered from the deployment of nuclear power and is selling technology to the UK - UK political indecision has seen to it that the only UK developer is Rolls-Royce with small reactors designed for ships and subs.Clive Sinclair led innovation in the home computer industry in the 8Os with the ZX and Spectrum, but once again we let the US take over. The BBC micro funded by the licence payer promised much but failed the commercial reality test, although the core technology of the ARM processor is now ubiquitous in billions of high-tech, devices following the sale of the company to overseas investors. Amstrad owed its success to its all-in-one bundle approach including monitor, and a much lower failure rate which gave it retailer appeal. But Amstrad exited the computer industry before it melted down, and shifted into satellite TV - eventually selling out to Sky. No direct political involvement at all - purely commercial. Lord Sugar is worth £1bn and fronts the most popular reality TV show and UK TV.One area of technology in which we failed miserably to lead was telecoms. And here the UK managed to cling onto ownership until it became irrelevant!The UK telephone system was adequate, but built on low-tech and electromechanical, but as a "strategic" asset it was very much under the control of politicians, and a minister known quaintly as the "Postmaster General", somehow got the job of running the show- and also broadcasting. (Yes, the UK also once innovated and led the world in postal service development since 1517.)The cosy arrangements between the handful of companies providing the exchange and premises equipment amounted to a virtual monopoly. The result was typical of a nationalised industry - unimaginative and unambitious products, and lazy businesses that eschewed innovation. But from the 1960s, &nbsp;transistors were enabling migration from traditional mechanical to electronic circuit switching. GEC Marconi's proprietary system was wiped out quite suddenly by Cisco which adopted the new open standards of the internet protocols.The overall lesson to learn is that the go-getting story of the innovative Victorian Britain created the vast manufacturing industries that powered the British Empire had little to with political intervention and control.&nbsp;The ultimate takeaway remains that no one spends money more wisely than those that earned it in the first place.

The WOTE.uk Federation 2025

Blog: the Revolution starts here...

David Starkey traces the UK's problems to 1997

Secular or bust

The Leadership Challenge

Criminal Neglect

What does effective immigration policy look like?

The bigger pictures