Reform UK’s ballot box failure continues

Yesterday’s local by-elections offered further confirmation that Reform UK is not making any impact in real contests (as opposed to opinion polls and friendly promotion on GB News).

In Belgrave ward, Tamworth, RefUK’s Ian Cooper polled 40 votes (4.1%), finishing fourth of five candidates. The protest vote seems to have gone instead to an Independent candidate who finished a strong third with 25.8%. On a split vote, the Tory just about held on to the seat with 34.8%.

This is a ward that UKIP contested six times during 2014-2021, on three occasions polling over 20%. It has tended to be a Con-Lab marginal, and the intervention of an Independent cost Labour what would otherwise have been a probable gain in present circumstances.

Further evidence from our movement’s standpoint that there is a substantial public mood of “plague on both your houses”, and that unlike UKIP and the Brexit Party in their day, RefUK is failing to mobilise that mood.

Lichfield councillor Barry Gwilt (above left) with Reform UK leader Richard Tice following his defection to Tice’s party from the Tories.

In the Watling South division of Staffordshire, which includes Belgrave ward but is usually a safer Tory seat, RefUK’s Barry Gwilt polled 110 votes (6.0%), finishing 4th of 4. Gwilt is a borough councillor in Lichfield, elected as a Tory, who defected to RefUK last month, so you would expect him to be far better than the average RefUK candidate (his borough council ward is adjacent to this county division). Therefore, although his 6% is in line with national opinion poll scores for RefUK, it actually suggests that RefUK’s true nationwide position is considerably below 6%. (Again the Tory held on, with a sharply reduced majority over Labour.)

Meanwhile the strange case of the Mosleyite who became a Tory county councillor ended in a fairly respectable vote for ex-Cllr Andy Weatherhead in Hythe West, Kent. After being ‘exposed’ a few months ago as a former activist in New British Union (a party inspired by the legacy of Sir Oswald Mosley), Mr Weatherhead resigned from the council and contested this week’s by-election as an independent, which readers might consider either brave, principled or foolish since there was nothing to prevent him serving out his term until May 2025, even after the Tories had thrown him out.

Mr Weatherhead finished bottom of the poll, but was far from disgraced, polling 237 votes (6.6%). Voters were faced with a confusing ballot paper, because there was another Independent – a former UKIP candidate, Ian Meyers, who finished fourth with 306 votes (8.6%).

Andy Weatherhead, a former activist in New British Union (a party inspired by Sir Oswald Mosley) was elected as a Tory county councillor in Kent in 2021, but quit to fight a by-election this week as an independent.

It’s interesting that Meyers had not chosen to join RefUK or any of the other UKIP splinters but has ploughed a lone furrow, and that both he and Mr Weatherhead achieved votes that RefUK might envy. Again this suggests that the RefUK brand name doesn’t really add much to a dissident/populist campaign.

The big headline in Hythe was that the Greens gained the seat from the Tories, with a 12.5% swing. This has for some years been a Con-Green marginal – the Greens won it in 2017, only for Andy Weatherhead to take it back as a Tory in 2021 – so in present circumstances the result was no great surprise, though for the Green to win it by almost 500 votes was pretty impressive.

This is part of Michael Howard’s old constituency Folkestone & Hythe, presently held by technology minister Damian Collins, and it’s difficult to imagine it being anything other than Tory at the next general election. It’s surprising that the nationalist movement (racial or civic) hasn’t made more impact in these coastal areas, given the migrant crisis. Perhaps locals dislike ‘nationalist’ protesters arriving in their area from London, even more than they dislike immigrants?

Another Reform UK lost deposit: when will the Farage-Tice party achieve anything?

Within the past hour the result of yesterday’s parliamentary by-election in West Lancashire was declared.

Predictably it was an easy victory for Labour, and the swing between the two main parties was broadly in line with trends in other recent by-elections and national opinion polls, confirming that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his Conservative Party are on a path to defeat at the next General Election, which must be held within the next two years.

But for H&D readers a lot of attention will have focused on Reform UK, the rebranded version of Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party, led by Farage’s close ally Richard Tice.

A party in permament decline? Reform UK leader Richard Tice (above right) with his mentor Nigel Farage

Reform UK’s candidate Jonathan Kay polled 994 votes (4.4%): the party’s seventh successive lost deposit in parliamentary by-elections, despite months of hype from their allies at GB News and from academics such as Dr Matthew Goodwin, who continue to insist that the party’s brand of post-Thatcherite populism will achieve significant support from British voters.

On this occasion (unlike many of those earlier by-elections) Reform UK had no competition from any other candidate to the ‘right’ of the Tories. There was no candidate from UKIP or any of its many splinters, other than Reform UK.

This West Lancashire constituency is very divided socially, including some very poor areas in Skelmersdale but also some affluent and traditionally Tory-voting villages. In 2015 UKIP candidate Jack Sen (who became a very controversial figure within nationalism and has since disappeared from politics) polled 12.2% here (6,058 votes), despite having been expelled and denounced by his own party before polling day for ‘anti-semitism’!

Yet this week UKIP’s successor party Reform UK polled only 994 votes (4.4%), despite the Tory vote having collapsed to a record low for this area. Most of the previous Tory voters (and pro-Brexit voters) stayed at home rather than backing Reform UK, even at a by-election. This suggests that the party needs a fundamental rethink if it is to pose any significant challenge at the next general election.

Controversial Anglo-Indian candidate Jack Sen polled more than 6,000 votes for UKIP in West Lancashire less than eight years ago despite having been expelled for ‘anti-semitism’. UKIP’s successor Reform UK can only dream about such a result.

The truth is that Farage, Tice and Reform UK have little of any relevance or interest to offer to the voters of West Lancashire, or to other Britons (especially those in impoverished areas).

The Farage-Tice agenda of a US-style largely privatised economy, with ‘free markets’ (i.e. global capitalism) very much dominant, is a recipe for internationalism, mass immigration and continued impoverishment for the White British working class.

Farage and his fellow City spivs always intended Brexit to turn London into Singapore-on-Thames, with other British towns and cities as its satellites in a small-state, low tax, low spending, ultra-capitalist, Disunited Kingdom.

The only serious challenge to that vision will come when racial nationalists abandon their recent cranky obsessions and factionalism, and unite with a clear and credible vision for national and racial renaissance. There are some signs that such a renaissance will not be too long delayed, and H&D looks forward to reporting more positive news later this year.

A telling result in a historic Rotherham council ward

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, seen here with his billionaire wife, is struggling to achieve any credibility with British voters

There have been some doubts as to whether Labour’s revival under Sir Keir Starmer would extend into White working class areas of the North, and tonight’s by-election gain for Labour in a working-class Rotherham council ward hasn’t quite resolved those doubts.

It now seems pretty clear that Sunak’s Tories are in big trouble in the ‘red wall’ (formerly solid Labour areas where the party declined sharply in or before 2019). But neither Reform UK, nor any of its civic nationalist rivals, nor (needless to say) any racial nationalist party, has yet even laid the foundation for a serious electoral challenge any time soon.

Tonight Labour gained Keppel ward, Rotherham, from the rebranded local branch of UKIP, the Rotherham Democratic Party,

For our readers, this is a ward that will evoke poignant memories.

Marlene Guest fought excellent campaigns in Keppel ward from 2004-2007 for the now defunct BNP.

The late Marlene Guest fought Keppel ward three times for the BNP, polling 16.4% in 2004, then finishing a close second to Labour in 2006 and 2007 with 27.7% and 28.5%. A few years after the collapse of Griffin’s party, UKIP were the beneficiaries, gaining the ward in 2014 and 2015, and holding on to two of its three seats in the 2016 all-out election.

Following Rotherham council’s well publicised problems and reorganisation, Labour took two of the three seats in May 2021, but the third was retained by one of the surviving UKIP councillors now rebranded as a Rotherham Democrat.

This Rotherham Democrat was thrown out for non-attendance at the end of last year and his party didn’t even field a candidate in this week’s by-election.

Neither was there a candidate from any other civic nationalist party, though an ex-Labour councillor stood as an independent and the Yorkshire Party (regionalist populists) had a candidate who took 15%. The Brexit Party polled 17.2% in the Rotherham constituency in 2019, but its successor Reform UK again showed no interest in contesting a local by-election, even in such a promising area.

Labour ended up with a majority of 300 tonight, with an Asian Liberal Democrat in a surprisingly close second. The Tories also put up an Asian candidate and slipped to fourth place with a truly appalling vote, down from 24% to 5.8%.

Lab 36.1% (+4.6)
LD 21.6% (+14.7)
Ind 18.5%
YP 15.2% (+3.5)
Con 5.8% (-18.2)
Grn 2.9%

Sunak’s Tories start 2023 in deep trouble – but Reform UK’s challenge is weaker than it looks

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak needs all the prayers he can get, whether in his own Hindu faith or any other!

Five opinion polls have been taken since Christmas, and all show Rishi Sunak’s government in deep trouble with British voters. Traditionally the Tories might expect to benefit from industrial unrest: strikes famously helped Margaret Thatcher win her first general election in 1979 and weakened Labour in the run-up to her third victory in 1987. But Sunak seems to be failing in his main (political) task of restoring the Conservative Party’s reputation for economic competence.

From H&D readers’ point of view, the big question is whether a civic nationalist party is capable of making the sort of breakthrough that Nigel Farage’s parties achieved during the 2010s: first UKIP, and then the Brexit Party – making such an impact that the Tories were forced to allow British voters a referendum on EU membership in 2016, then forced to deliver Brexit against the wishes of most Tory grandees.

For reasons we have examined repeatedly in the magazine (and which we re-examine in the January-February 2023 edition that has just gone to press) Farage’s latest (and probably last) party, Reform UK, does not seem capable of achieving similar results.

Nigel Farage and Richard Tice of Reform UK are now TV entertainers rather than serious political leaders.

Reform UK (presently led by Farage’s right-hand man Richard Tice) has failed badly at six successive parliamentary by-elections (most recently polling 2.7% in Chester and 3.5% in Stretford & Urmston). None of these lost deposits suggest that its nationwide opinion poll scores (much hyped by some academics and by the GB News channel where Farage has a regular show) are anywhere near accurate.

The most recent polls differ widely in this respect: for example the new company People Polling (commissioned by GB News) gave Reform UK 8%, and showed Sunak’s Tories falling to just 19%, 26 points behind the Labour Party; while a rival firm Redfield Wilton gave Reform UK 5%, but again showed the Tories losing heavily, this time 20 points behind Labour. Three other polls taken during the first week of 2023 show Labour leads of 21% or 22%, with Reform UK scoring anywhere between 4% and 8%.

Part of the explanation for this disparity might be straightforward, involving: (a) prompting of voters with the name of Reform UK included in the initial question, rather than held back for a supplementary question; and (b) a different method of adjusting the raw figures, taking less account of previous voting preference. Most pollsters use this method in an attempt to tease out ‘shy Tories’; if People Polling do not, or use it less radically, it could account for their lower Tory and higher Reform and Green vote shares.

Whatever the technical reason, H&D would be very surprised to see Reform UK poll higher than 2% of the nationwide vote at a general election. For ideological and other reasons, Faragism is finished as a serious political force. If Farage himself stands, then he along with Tice and a handful of others might manage 10% or more and (most crucially) help push the Tories to defeat in a small number of marginal seats, but in most of the country Reform UK will remain an irrelevance.

Dr Jim Lewthwaite (far left), Chairman of the British Democrats, with some of his fellow speakers at the 2022 H&D meeting in Preston: Keith Axon, Peter Rushton, Isabel Peralta and Laura Towler.

Which leaves the big question – if not Farage and Reform UK, then who and what will present the badly needed challenge to the UK’s failing political mainstream.

Recent polls suggest that 20% or more of those who voted Conservative at the last general election three years ago are now answering “Don’t Know”. Even the People Polling survey that seems to exaggerate Reform UK’s strength suggests that it is taking 12% of that previous Conservative vote, and little or nothing from the other parties; while 17% of those Tory voters have switched to Labour.

Sunak might yet win back some of those ‘Don’t Knows’, but many of them ought to be persuadable by a credible racial nationalist party (if and when such a party gets off the ground).

The British Democrats presently seem to be the best organised and most realistic option for those seeking a racial nationalist challenge at the ballot box, but even they are only just getting started in most of the country. 2023 will be an important transitional year for our movement, as Faragism is finally buried and the Brit Dems gradually build up a nationwide branch structure. Meanwhile Patriotic Alternative is building a broader political challenge away from the electoral arena (PA is not yet a registered political party and shows no sign of becoming one); the British Movement continues to maintain the core ideology that exposes the roots of British and European decline since 1945; and the National Front keeps the flame alive for the first UK party to present a serious electoral challenge to multiracialism during the 1970s.

Whatever nationalist party or group you belong to, or if for the time being you are working independently for our cause, H&D wishes you an active and successful New Year!

Stretford & Urmston by-election: another episode in the slow death of Faragism

Reform UK leader Richard Tice (above right) with his party’s ill-fated by-election candidate Paul Swansborough, campaigning in Stretford & Urmston

The result of the Stretford & Urmston parliamentary by-election was declared a few minutes ago. Predictably it resulted in a massive majority for Labour, but for H&D readers the more interesting aspect was another shockingly poor result for Reform UK, the latest vehicle for the political ideas of Nigel Farage, who was once among Europe’s most successful populist leaders.

Farage was most famous for his decade as leader of UKIP. He had a year out of office from 2009-2010, but was otherwise leader from 2006 until the Brexit referendum victory of 2016. Having made a huge contribution to the UK voting to leave the EU, Farage returned to electoral politics from 2019-2021 as leader of the Brexit Party, so as to ensure that the political establishment was unable to frustrate the referendum result.

In 2021 the Brexit Party was rebranded as Reform UK and Farage retired in favour of his close political ally Richard Tice, but he has remained a powerful voice in support of the party and has hinted that he might return to the arena at the next general election.

The problem is that Reform UK (despite being hyped recently by academics and journalists) seems to have very little public support and little ideological coherence.

Would you-buy a second-hand ideology from these men? Former UKIP and Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage (above left) with his Reform UK successor Richard Tice.

At yesterday’s by-election in Stretford & Urmston (a socially and racially divided constituency west of Manchester), Reform UK’s candidate Paul Swansborough polled only 3.5% (650 votes), an equivalent percentage but far lower numerical vote than the Brexit Party achieved in the same constituency in 2019: 3.5% (1,768 votes).

At its peak in 2015, UKIP polled 5,068 votes (10.9%) here.

This is the sixth successive parliamentary by-election at which Reform UK have lost their deposit, despite in this instance spending lavishly on their campaign and busing in activists from elsewhere in the region.

What makes it far worse is that the Tory vote predictably collapsed at this by-election, but disillusioned Tories stayed at home, unpersuaded by Reform UK even as a protest vote option.

One insuperable problem is that UKIP and the Brexit Party had a clear message that attracted large numbers of otherwise politically diverse voters: i.e. leaving the European Union.

That battle has been won – not even the most diehard pro-European nor the most paranoid Brexiteer believes that the UK will re-enter the EU in the foreseeable future. The issue is now settled, and the issues on which Reform UK is choosing to fight are mostly ones that cannot possibly enthuse the White working class who delivered the Brexit victory.

Reform UK have failed to capitalise on the unpopularity of Rishi Sunak, seen here hosting a Diwali reception at Downing Street soon after his accession as Tory Party leader and Prime Minister.

Reform UK are essentially a post-Thatcherite, right-wing version of the Tories – tax cuts, shrink the state, free market capitalism, ‘Singapore on Thames’.

They talk a good fight about immigration, but their devotion to international capitalism means that at root their ideological commitment is to the very force that drives migration and ‘One Worldism’.

In short, they have nothing to offer to White working-class voters, and unlike the Brexit Party are unable to disguise that fact. Moreover many voters are waking up to the reality that Brexit is failing to deliver the changes that were once expected, especially regarding immigration.

Civic nationalism, Brexitism, Faragism – all these populist forces are now dead or dying. It remains to be seen whether racial nationalism, which unlike Faragism is a coherent programme for national renewal, can revive and unite behind a serious political party. The British Democrats are on the way to achieving that, just as Patriotic Alternative are on the way to creating a broader challenge outside electoral politics, but there is a very long way to go before we can say that racial nationalism in the UK is back on its feet.

Tory party’s ‘coronation’ of a Goldman Sachs Prime Minister

Rishi Sunak (above far right) with his wife and her billionaire parents

Less than three years after winning a landslide general election majority – gaining many previously safe Labour constituencies in the so-called ‘Red Wall’ of the post-industrial North and Midlands – the Conservative Party is engaged in a wholesale surrender to the globalist greed machine.

This will have dire consequences for the many White working class families who trusted the Tories, and who back in 2016 had voted for Brexit in the naive belief that this would lead to Britain being ruled by and in the interests of the British.

Former Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak, an alumnus of Goldman Sachs whose blatant ambition and plotting were primarily responsible for the fall of Boris Johnson earlier this year, is to be ‘crowned’ as Prime Minister in the manner of a Byzantine usurper, without even a vote of Conservative Party members, let alone any mandate from the broader UK electorate.

Rishi Sunak (above centre) with the Prime Minister he plotted to destroy (Boris Johnson) and his predecessor as Chancellor, Sajid Javid, son of Pakistani immigrants, who perhaps surprisingly was not included in Sunak’s new government this week.

Sunak – himself of Indian origin and now becoming the UK’s first non-White Prime Minister – is one of the wealthiest MPs in Parliament, married to the daughter of an Indian billionaire. Yet he will soon be lecturing Britons on the need to “tighten our belts”, and imposing cuts to basic services on which British families rely.

This Prime Minister is a man whose wife has “non-domiciled” status – avoiding around £20 million in UK taxes – and who himself for years held permanent resident status in the USA.

H&D readers have known for decades that our country was secretly ruled by alien interests – though as an article soon to be reprinted on this website will argue, these alien interests are not conscious individual minds, but the blind workings of an impersonal global greed machine.

The difference in 2022 is that even the front man for this global greed machine is visibly alien.

Unfit for office: not just Truss but the entire Tory Party

Going, going, gone: Liz Truss attempted to defy political reality for a few weeks but the Zombie Prime Minister was forced to quit this afternoon

This afternoon – to no one’s surprise – Liz Truss resigned as leader of the Conservative Party. Provided the Tories are able to organise a leadership election within a week (which is what has been promised but might not be delivered) we shall have a new Prime Minister by next Friday.

In our November edition H&D will report on the shambles that has overtaken the Disunited Kingdom and destroyed the Conservative (but no longer Unionist) Party.

What can be said today as an instant verdict on the Truss era?

The simple answer is that the Conservative Party now represents entirely the wrong sort of ‘right-wing’ ideology, and has long since ceased to be ‘conservative’.

Truss was the candidate of the super-rich; the “citizens of nowhere”, as her predecessor Theresa May once put it. While wrapping themselves in the flag and making bold statements about immigration, the truth is that today’s Tories worship only the global capitalist ‘free’ market. It is a supreme irony that Truss and her first choice as Chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, were destroyed by the very market forces that they venerate.

Kwasi Kwarteng and Liz Truss were the perfect leaders for a Conservative Party that is committed to colour-blind class warfare on behalf of the global rich. They betrayed White working class voters who had backed the Tories in 2019.

Truss’s Tories abandoned traditional conservative values of fiscal rectitude or ‘balancing the books’. Instead they tried to throw money at the already affluent, even at a time when (partly for reasons beyond the government’s control) working families are facing a winter of hardship.

Truss and Kwarteng comprehensively betrayed the White working class voters who backed Brexit in 2016 and elected Tory MPs even in many traditionally Labour ‘Red Wall’ seats in 2019. Truss sacrificed Kwarteng despite his having been her closest political ally, but no amount of dishonourable blame-shifting could save her premiership. Not only Truss but the Tory Party as a whole deserves electoral annihilation, and whoever is elected as her successor, nemesis surely awaits the party at the next general election.

Suella Braverman will seek to take on her fellow Indian Rishi Sunak in a battle for the soul of a dying Conservative Party, but her version of ‘right wing’ politics probably lacks sufficient support to get her onto the ballot.

A credible nationalist electoral alternative is badly needed, but H&D readers will understand that we are still some way from having such an alternative. The British Democratic Party is making steady progress, but even its leaders recognise that rebuilding British nationalism will be a slow process and we shall be nowhere near having a credible challenge from the Brit Dems or anyone else if there is a general election within the next few months.

The good news is that progress is being made towards nationalist unity. There is light at the end of the tunnel, and while the Tory implosion is almost certain to produce a Labour government in the near future, only racial nationalists have the answer to Britain’s long-term crisis. There is a long hard road ahead, but there is no reason for defeatism. Our people’s voice will be heard – as Chesterton put it: “we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet.”

Best of enemies: Boris Johnson (above right) seems likely to take on his former Chancellor Rishi Sunak, who led the plotting to undermine him earlier this year. H&D will back Team Boris. Now about that peerage: how does Lord Cotterill of Ribbleton sound?

Thursday night update: The Conservative Party has decided this time to impose a requirement of 100 nominations for any candidate even to get onto the first ballot among MPs next week. This has probably destroyed the chances of Suella Braverman and other hopefuls from the so-called Tory ‘right-wing’. If these ‘right-wingers’ are serious about preventing a Rishi Sunak premiership, they will probably have to rally behind former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who might be in line for a more rapid comeback than even he could have expected.

Tugendhat’s fundraising “blew rivals out of the water”: is he Britain’s next Foreign Secretary?

Tom Tugendhat – the “clean start” candidate?

In recent weeks H&D has been looking closely at Tom Tugendhat, who finished fifth in the contest for leadership of the Conservative Party but is now tipped to be Foreign Secretary or Defence Secretary when Liz Truss becomes Prime Minister next month.

At his new Real History blog, our assistant editor Peter Rushton published a detailed article about Tugendhat’s extraordinary family history.

And official records published this morning show that Tugendhat raised more than £123,000 in donations – vastly more than his leadership rivals. (These donations contributed to the rapid rise in his profile, meaning that a man who has never been even a junior minister is now in line for one of the top three posts in the next cabinet.)

Sir Mick Davis

Almost as soon as his campaign began, Tugendhat received £25,000 from a company controlled by Sir Mick Davis, a South African born Jewish businessman who for eight years chaired the Jewish Leadership Council, described as “responsible for the strategic imperatives of UK Jewry”. He was knighted in 2015 for “services to Holocaust commemoration and education”.

Together with a fellow tycoon, Sir Mick Davis paid the legal expenses of a Tory MP who made false allegations against the anti-Zionist former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Sir Christian Sweeting – a major donor to the Tugendhat campaign – has a prominent role in Vatican charities and investments: he is seen here with Lady Sweeting introducing their son to Pope Francis.

Another £42,000 donation came from a company jointly controlled by Sir Christian Sweeting, a property developer who was charged with a firearms offence in 2001. The firearms charge was later dropped with Mr Sweeting awarded costs, but his bad luck with unfounded suspicions continued later the same year when his premises were searched by Devon & Cornwall police fraud squad.

Ian Mukherjee

And hedge fund tycoon Ian Mukherjee (a generous donor to the pro-Remain campaign before the 2016 Brexit referendum) gave Tugendhat £50,000. Mukherjee was a partner and managing director of Goldman Sachs for fifteen years.

Tugendhat’s donations dwarfed those to rival campaigns. For example Rishi Sunak has so far declared only £3,195 in donations (in the form of free office space). Though admittedly Sunak’s personal and family wealth means that he scarcely needs donors.

It’s not yet clear why Tugendhat needed quite such a vast campaign war chest, bearing in mind that his campaign was in theory targeting only 357 fellow MPs, many of whom he would already know personally.

His reported £123,000 in donations worked out at almost £4,000 per vote, but if Britain ends up with its most pro-Zionist Foreign Secretary ever, some of the donors might think their money well spent.

Tugendhat seals Truss victory: will his reward be Defence or Foreign Office?

In this morning’s Times, former Tory leadership candidate Tom Tugendhat delivered the final killer blow to Rishi Sunak’s chances of becoming Prime Minister.

Tugendhat has endorsed Liz Truss – who was already favourite and now seems a virtual certainty to win the support of Conservative Party members. The winner will be announced on September 5th.

The question now being asked around Westminster is whether Truss has promised Tugendhat a top job in exchange for his support. Most educated guesses are that Ben Wallace (presently Defence Secretary) will be promoted to Foreign Secretary, and that Tugendhat (a former military intelligence officer) will succeed Wallace at the Ministry of Defence.

But there remains an outside chance that Tugendhat will be made Foreign Secretary. (This possibility is highlighted by Sky News – see video above.)

Either way, it’s extraordinary progress for a man whose grandfather – as H&D assistant editor Peter Rushton reveals in a detailed exposé at the Real History blog – was repeatedly investigated by MI5 and was a business partner of Israel’s first president and the founder of Israel’s nuclear weapons programme.

Tom Tugendhat served in Iraq and Afghanistan, but his grandfather was investigated for decades by MI5

Another defeat for London Holocaust Memorial plan – is it time to scrap the scheme?

The vast ‘Holocaust Memorial’ which has now been rejected three times by planning authorities and courts, but which the British Government still insists on promoting

Vastly expensive plans for a huge Holocaust memorial in London, next to the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey, have suffered another defeat after the Court of Appeal refused to hear the case.

In April this year the High Court blocked the plans, and this week an appeal by the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation fell at the first hurdle.

Former prime minister David Cameron launched the plan in 2014 by appointing a Holocaust Commission which reported the following year, recommending a prominent new memorial with attached “learning centre”. The plan soon acquired cross-party support and in July 2016 Victoria Tower Gardens – a park adjacent to Parliament – was chosen as the site.

Architects David Adjaye and Ron Arad were chosen for the project. Their initial budget of £50 million has since risen to a current estimate of £102.9 million.

In 2019 Westminster City Council’s planning authority rejected the proposal. The two leading politicians who co-chaired the project – Conservative Lord Pickles and Labour’s Ed Balls – wrote to the council complaining that planning officers were “giving excessive weight to the number of objections lodged on the planning portal”.

These objections lodged with the council included a detailed report by H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton (who now also writes the Real History Blog). His report to Westminster City Council was based on detailed research into the planning history of the original London Holocaust memorial in the 1980s – click here to read.

The late Richard Edmonds recorded a film with Lady Michèle Renouf on the site of the proposed memorial. Click here to view this film.

Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Carrington, who had won the Military Cross for his bravery during the Second World War, wrote of the original plans for a London Holocaust Memorial: “The whole idea is preposterous”.

Government ministers sought to override Westminster Council by appointing a Whitehall inspector who recommended acceptance of the plan. Housing minister Chris Pincher officially approved the scheme in July 2021. (Pincher has since been disgraced after a series of alcohol-fuelled sexual assaults on young men; his downfall led to the recent resignation of Prime Minister Boris Johnson.)

In April this year Mrs Justice Thornton in the High Court ruled that Pincher had acted unlawfully, because Victoria Tower Gardens is protected by a statute dating back to 1900 which specifically prevents it being used as anything other than a garden open to the public.

This week the Court of Appeal ruled that there was no realistic prospect of the High Court judgment being overturned, so it would not hear the case. “There is no real prospect of successfully arguing that the judge’s construction of the 1900 Act was wrong… On the contrary, it was plainly correct.”

The Appeal Court judges rebuked the Holocaust Memorial Foundation for arguing that objectors to the proposal should not have been allowed to raise one of their successful legal points: “It is extremely unattractive for the losing party to argue that his opponent should not have been allowed to introduce a legal argument that turned out to be correct.”

In a typically shameless and arrogant gesture, government minister Paul Scully and Holocaust Educational Trust chief executive Karen Pollock insisted this week that they still support the project, despite it now having been rejected three times – by city council planners, the High Court, and the Court of Appeal.

Lord Pickles, seen here with former Prime Minister Theresa May, is co-chairman of the Holocaust memorial project. He also advocates introducing a law to ban “Holocaust denial” in the UK.

H&D understands that the only realistic possibility of forcing through the project now would be for the government to introduce legislation (which would have to be passed by both Houses of Parliament) repealing the 1900 law and allowing Victoria Tower Gardens to be used for something other than a park.

If such a law is proposed, we shall use this as an opportunity for a long-overdue debate on the whole principle of whether London should be forced to have a vastly expensive Holocaust memorial. Such a debate must ask the central questions:
What was the ‘Holocaust’?
What did British intelligence and British ministers know (or think they knew) about the ‘Holocaust’ during the 1940s, and what was the factual basis for their knowledge?
What was the relationship between international Jewish organisations and the British war effort, including propaganda and subversive warfare organisations?

If the British taxpayer is expected to pay more than £100 million, and sacrifice a large chunk of the nation’s capital city, to memorialise the ‘Holocaust’, then we have a right to expect answers to these questions.

« Previous PageNext Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Follow us on Instagram

  • Exactitude – free our history from debate deniers