‘Post-fascist’ party wins Italian election

Liberal and leftist commentators around the world have been horrified this week by the victory of Fratelli d’Italia (‘Brothers of Italy’) in Italy’s parliamentary elections and the imminent elevation of Fratelli‘s leader Giorgia Meloni to become her country’s first female prime minister.

Fratelli polled 26% of the vote (up from 4.4% in 2018 – one of the most rapid electoral advances in European history), winning 119 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and 65 in the Senate.

Meloni will now form a government at the head of a ‘right-wing’ coalition that includes Matteo Salvini’s anti-immigration party Lega (formerly the regionalist Lega Nord) who polled 8.8%; Silvio Berlusconi’s right-wing conservative party Forza Italia who polled 8.1%; and the ‘Moderates’, an alliance of small conservative factions, who polled only 0.9% nationwide but won seven seats in constituencies.

(above left to right) Matteo Salvini, Silvio Berlusconi and Giorgia Meloni, leaders of the main three parties involved in the new governing coalition.

This is more than simply a pendulum swing between ‘right-wing’ and ‘left-wing’ coalitions. The true significance of the result is the changing balance of forces within the ‘right’ and the fact that the most ‘extreme’ of its four components is now by far the largest. At the 2018 election Salvini overtook Berlusconi to become leader of the ‘right’, but now Meloni has overtaken Salvini.

Fratelli was founded in 2012 as part of the restructuring of ‘right-wing’ politics in Italy, but its origins are in the ‘neo-fascist’ Movimento Sociale Italiano (MSI – Italian Social Movement), whose youth wing Meloni joined in 1992.

MSI in turn grew out of Mussolini’s fascist party and (as its name implied) out of the German-backed Italian Social Republic during the last days of the Second World War.

The extent to which Meloni’s politics still resembles racial nationalism, or is simply anti-immigration conservatism, is debatable. Undoubtedly she benefited from having distanced Fratelli from Russian dictator Vladimir Putin since his invasion of Ukraine. Salvini had been much closer to Putin and his credibility has been damaged by that association, to such an extent that his continued leadership of Lega is in question.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán visiting soon to be appointed Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni

Some H&D readers will undoubtedly regard Meloni as a traitor to our cause for having trimmed in the direction of mainstream conservatism. However her own and her party’s ideological roots mean that Fratelli‘s victory is potentially more significant than other European populist successes of recent years.

This is not (yet) a victory for racial nationalism, but it is a giant step in the right direction, in the process of freeing European minds from their post-1945 paralysis.

Historic victory for Swedish nationalist party

Jimmie Åkesson of the Sweden Democrats leads what is now his country’s second-largest party

After several days on a knife edge as votes were counted, the Swedish election has ended in victory for a coalition of ‘right-wing’ parties including the Sweden Democrats, a strongly anti-immigration party which has for years been ostracised as ‘racist’ and ‘nazi’ by the political mainstream.

Sweden’s left-wing Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson conceded defeat a few hours ago after it became clear that her coalition of socialist and green parties had won 173 seats, whereas the combined forces of the right-wing have 176 seats.

Most importantly, the largest party on the right is now the Sweden Democrats, who with almost all votes counted have 20.5% and 73 seats (up from 17.5% at the previous election), ahead of their allies the Moderate Party (roughly equivalent to the British Tories or US Republicans) on 19.1%.

Crucially – and unlike the USA or UK – Sweden’s liberal party, known as the Centre Party, is loosely allied to the right-wing coalition. They polled 6.7%.

The Moderate and Centre parties had tried to ‘borrow’ some of the Sweden Democrats’ anti-immigration policies, wrongly believing that voters would choose a milder version of such policies – whereas in fact more Swedes chose the real thing rather than a pale imitation!

The collapse of Sweden’s multiracial experiment has included race riots.

What this result truly demonstrates of course is the failure of multiracialism, even in a country where the political consensus had for decades been left-of-centre. In fact Sweden was frequently held up to the British left as a model of how socialists could become the “natural party of government”. What is often forgotten is that the Swedish left achieved hegemony in a White Sweden: its welfarist policies are simply unsustainable in a multiracial context.

Despite the Sweden Democrats’ success, their Moderate and Centre party ‘allies’ are likely to try to form a government that excludes Sweden Democrat ministers, while relying on parliamentary support from its MPs.

H&D readers might think this ‘undemocratic’, but in fact it would be a very good thing from the point of view of the Sweden Democrats and their leader Jimmie Åkesson. Racial nationalist parties of whatever variety are better off staying out of coalition governments unless they lead them. The effective exercise of power depends on putting racial nationalist principles into effect, not surrendering them for the perquisites of office.

It would be tempting to criticise Åkesson and his colleagues for ‘selling out’. Their party was founded in 1988, with roots in national socialism: among the party’s founders and senior officials was Gustaf Ekström who had first joined the Swedish national socialists in 1932 and volunteered for the Waffen-SS in 1941. Yet in recent years Åkesson’s party has purged ‘extremists’, renounced national socialism, and aligned itself with a conservative bloc in the European Parliament.

Gustav Ekström, bottom right, with national socialist comrades. He went on to be a co-founder of the Sweden Democrats and a leading official of the party before his death in 1995.

Nevertheless, there are reasons to believe that the Sweden Democrats are far more principled than most European populists. Crucially they are not a reactionary conservative party promoting ‘free’ markets and globalism. Their economic and welfare policies would place them on the left in US and even UK terms, with the important difference that they believe in a strong welfare state for Swedes, not for foreigners.

It seems inevitable that whatever ‘right-wing’ government takes office in Sweden this week will be short-lived, and there is likely to be another election soon, especially because the Centre Party will split rather than support any serious anti-immigration policy.

We hope that the Sweden Democrats will be true to their ideological roots and will reject the compromises demanded by globalists, reactionaries and ‘free market’ economic liberals. Tomorrow belongs to racial nationalism!

Pro-terrorist march halted

A gang of apologists for IRA terrorism was due to march through Glasgow today, commemorating the communist International Brigades, ending in a rally at the statue of arch-Stalinist Dolores Ibárurri.

A decade ago the same organisation attempted to march in Liverpool – readers with long memories might recall that H&D was involved in helping mobilising opposition to this Liverpool march. The outcome was that the pro-IRA marchers and their “anti-fascist” friends were literally smashed off the city’s streets. One anti-fascist online journal commented bitterly: “a gang of around two hundred fascists mobilised in the city centre, running amok, and forcing the Irish Republican Flute Band off the streets, before going on to hassle Occupy supporters on an anti-police brutality protest. This was a serious defeat for Liverpool activists, and it is vital that this is acknowledged, so that we can stop it happening again in the future.”

Loyalist demonstrators smashed a similar rally by the same organisers a decade ago

In Glasgow, local patriots had again mobilised to oppose today’s march, and the city’s police have decided they would in present circumstances be incapable of protecting the marchers: consequently they have banned the entire event under Section 12 of the Public Order Act.

Predictably “anti-fascists” and Fenians are whining about their “rights”. The video below shows police enforcing the ban today and protecting those Fenians who showed up.

Perhaps some of their Catholic friends might explain to this gang of terror apologists that the Spanish Republican forces backed by their International Brigade ‘heroes’ slaughtered nuns and priests?

But for today’s Sinn Fein / IRA and their backers, Catholic identity is merely a figleaf for their agenda of terrorist blackmail, which (in their dreams) would lead to Ulster’s surrender.

Loyalists in Glasgow as well as Ulster, and in towns and cities throughout the United Kingdom, will never allow this surrender agenda to succeed.

End of an era: Queen Elizabeth II 1926-2022

Queen Elizabeth II presents the World Cup to England captain Bobby Moore at Wembley Stadium on 30th July 1966.

H&D readers will have been saddened to learn this evening of the death of the UK’s longest-reigning monarch, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

Saddened not because there is anything tragic or shocking about a 96-year-old lady dying – but because for all of us she represented part of our heritage: one of the last reminders of a different nation.

Now is not the time for detailed political and constitutional discussion, nor for speculation as to whether the monarch could realistically have done anything to prevent some of the disastrous policy decisions made by governments of different parties during her reign.

But we can all wish King Charles III well, and hope that he presides over a very different, revitalised political scene in the years to come.

The Queen at Fulwood Barracks, near the H&D office in Preston, Lancashire, in 1979.

Tory Titanic changes captain but remains on course for iceberg

Liz Truss meeting the Queen at Balmoral today before taking office as Prime Minister

As expected throughout the pointless Conservative Party ‘leadership contest’ of the past month, Liz Truss has today succeeded Boris Johnson as Prime Minister and is engaged in forming her first Cabinet.

This evening she confirmed that the three great ‘offices of state’ below the premiership – Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary – will for the first time in our history all be held by non-Whites.

Kwasi Kwarteng – the son of Ghanaian immigrants – is to be Chancellor of the Exchequer with the task of repairing the UK’s battered post-pandemic finances, in the context of a new cost-of-living crisis partly produced by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He will be the fourth non-White Chancellor in succession, his predecessors being Iraqi Kurd Nadhim Zahawi, Indian Hindu Rishi Sunak, and Pakistani ex-Muslim Sajid Javid.

Heading for the Treasury – Liz Truss’s first appointment will be Kwasi Kwarteng, the UK’s fourth non-White Chancellor in succession

James Cleverly – son of a British father and an African mother from Sierra Leone – is to be Foreign Secretary; the first non-White to hold this post.

And Suella Braverman – a Buddhist born to Indians who immigrated to the UK in the 1960s from Kenya and Mauritius – will be Home Secretary, succeeding the Indian Hindu Priti Patel.

This – we remind readers – is the modern Conservative Party, not some woke-crazed gang of socialists.

Heading for the Foreign Office – James Cleverly is set to be the UK’s first non-White Foreign Secretary

H&D will report further during today and tomorrow on the composition of Truss’s new cabinet. In particular we are concerned by rumours that Tom Tugendhat – whose antecedents were discussed recently by our assistant editor – is about to be given a senior ministerial post overseeing the very same intelligence and security agencies that for decades reported on his grandfather’s alleged subversive activities and connections.

The new issue of the magazine takes a longer term view of the state of the Conservative Party, and the prospects for a racial nationalist revival across Europe. This edition is being printed today and will be advertised here very soon.

Tuesday night update: Among the departures from government, many H&D readers will be sorry to see the sacking of Johnny Mercer who had returned to the post of Minister for Veterans’ Affairs two months ago, having held similar responsibilities during 2019-21. Mercer was a loyal supporter of ex-servicemen who disgracefully faced politically motivated prosecutions for doing their duty in anti-terrorist operations. We hope that the new minister will be similarly determined to resist pro-Republican lobbyists and apologists for terrorism.

It is disappointing to hear that Penny Mordaunt turned down the post of Northern Ireland Secretary, which is arguably the most important job in Cabinet right now, at this most crucial point in the history of the Union. We hope that Chris Heaton-Harris who was eventually given the job will stand up to Dublin and Brussels: the ‘Northern Ireland Protocol’ must be ditched, or the Brexit that Heaton-Harris fought for will be seen as a disastrous loss of sovereignty rather than a reclaiming of sovereignty.

As Ms Truss said of President Macron: “the jury’s out”!

How Rudolf Hess tried to stop war – and why others wanted to kill him

Rudolf Hess in 1986, a year before his death

Thirty-five years ago today, the 93-year-old Rudolf Hess died at Spandau, where he had been the sole prisoner for more than twenty years. He had been incarcerated for almost half a century, since his crash landing in Scotland in May 1941.

Hess flew to Britain hoping that Germany and Britain could end their mutually-destructive war. He proposed that Britain should develop her Empire which was in no way threatened by Germany, who only required the return of her relatively modest colonies from the Kaiser’s era.

Under Hess’s proposals, Germany would be given a free hand in Europe, including dealing with Stalin’s Soviet Union.

After war had intensified during 1940, Hess perceived that Britain would not now easily agree a peace settlement without losing prestige, so he decided to take the risk of flying to Britain himself, “so that by his own presence in England, England would be enabled to consider an approach.” Hess hoped that he could provide some foundation on which peace talks could proceed.

Instead this martyr for peace found himself in one prison or another for the rest of his life.

Rudolf Hess believed he could convince British leaders of Adolf Hitler’s true intentions

To begin with Hess used cautious language about the Soviet Union, not wishing to give away too much in advance of what he hoped would be serious negotiations with the British. But by July 1941 when he wrote a memorandum titled “Germany – England from the viewpoint of war against the Soviet Union”, eventually handed to government minister and Daily Express owner Lord Beaverbrook, Hess was open (and prescient) about the overriding threat from Moscow that he believed an Anglo-German alliance should combat.

He believed that Germany was strong enough to defeat Russia, correctly pointing out that German morale was far higher in this war than it had been during the First World War:
“It will hardly be doubted that the spirit of the troops is magnificent. The elements which in the [first] world war eventually weakened the spirit of the German troops – the disruptive influences from home infected with Marxist communism, and hunger at home – are missing today.

“Thanks to the effects of national-socialism, the German armed forces are not only immune from Bolshevik propaganda, but fantastically anti-Bolshevik.”

Nevertheless, Hess asked influential Britons such as Beaverbrook to consider the consequences for the British Empire of a German defeat.

“Consequent on the Anglo-Bolshevik alliance, a victory for England would be a victory for the Bolsheviks.

“…Should England’s hopes of a German weakening be realised, the Soviet state, after the expansion of its armament capacity, would be the strongest military power in the world.

“Only a strong Germany as counter-balance, supported by all Europe, and in trustful relationship with England, could hinder this.

“I believe that Germany, destined by fate, was compelled at a given moment to draw aside the curtain covering the secret of the Bolshevik army, so that revelation of the danger might even yet make possible the defence of the civilised world.

“…England should further bear in mind the danger that would face certain parts of her Empire when the Bolshevik giant – which today is hardly conquerable by the biggest army in the world – has reached the military strength to be anticipated in the future.

“The danger will be still further increased by the attraction of Bolshevik ideas with the native-born populations with a low standard of living.

“…I am convinced that world domination awaits the Soviet Union in the future – if her power is not broken at the last minute – with the loss to Great Britain of her position as an Imperial power.”

Which of us in 2022 could say he was wrong?

The current issue of H&D includes an article by our assistant editor Peter Rushton giving the most likely explanation of Hess’s murder in 1987.

And way back in 1941, soon after Hess’s arrival in Britain, there was an abortive plot to kill him, involving exiled Polish troops and an officer of the Special Operations Executive – the ‘dirty tricks’ wing of the British war effort.

For a discussion of this and other aspects of today’s 35th anniversary of Hess’s murder, visit the new Real History blog by our assistant editor.

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.

Tories battle to captain sinking ship

Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss during ITV’s leadership debate – a disaster for the Conservative Party and for our Disunited Kingdom

Today the semi-comic, semi-tragic contest for leadership of the once mighty Conservative & Unionist Party was reduced to two candidates, who will make their pitch to Tory members during the coming weeks.

This is the party that has been in government for 47 of the 77 years since the Second World War, but viewers cringed at the poor quality of televised “debates” between the contenders – in an election that is only happening because the present Prime Minister Boris Johnson was forced to take responsibility for the sexual incontinence of his Deputy Chief Whip.

Party members must now choose between:
Rishi Sunak, son of wealthy Indian immigrants who left East Africa in the 1960s; entered politics after working for investment bank Goldman Sachs and a couple of “hedge funds”; married to the daughter of an Indian billionaire – Mrs Sunak has non-domiciled tax status allowing her to avoid around £20 million in UK taxes;
and
Liz Truss, a former president of Oxford University Liberal Democrats who saw that the Conservatives offered more chance of a parliamentary career; supported the ultra-woke Tory leader David Cameron who saved her career after a scandal in her private life; supported the “Remain” cause in the Brexit referendum, until Cameron was defeated and Truss reinvented herself as a Brexiteer and “right-winger”.

Sunak was Chancellor of the Exchequer until resigning this month to launch his campaign to replace Johnson. Truss has been Foreign Secretary since last September.

Liz Truss (above left) – now likely to be Britain’s next Prime Minister – with Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid after signing a UK-Israel deal on cyber technology, trade and defence.

Both Sunak and Truss are courting their former leadership rival Tom Tugendhat, who is likely to be offered a senior post in the next Cabinet, probably as Foreign Secretary or Defence Secretary.

Today H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton published an investigation of Tugendhat’s strange family history in an article for the Real History blog: his grandfather Dr Georg Tugendhat was investigated for decades by MI5. Georg Tugendhat had close connections to international financial criminals and suspected spies, and his business partners included the first President of Israel and the founder of Israel’s nuclear weapons programme.

One very odd aspect of the leadership election was that when Tugendhat was eliminated, his votes did not transfer wholesale to Penny Mordaunt, who on most issues was closer to Tugendhat than any of the other remaining contenders.

How the Daily Mail sank Penny Mordaunt’s leadership campaign

A clue as to why Tugendhat’s transfers split as they did – and why Mordaunt’s campaign was eventually derailed – is Monday’s Daily Mail front page, which dug up an old story that Mordaunt had dared to meet with representatives of the Muslim Council of Britain.

This meeting enraged the Zionist lobby. Tugendhat was the most pro-Israel of the leadership candidates, and Mordaunt’s MCB meeting implied that she was not a slavish follower of the Zionist agenda. So because of this one issue (and despite agreeing with Mordaunt on most other key issues) the Tugendhat vote mainly went elsewhere, guaranteeing a Truss v Sunak contest.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter

  • Follow us on Instagram

  • Exactitude – free our history from debate deniers