“There must be leadership, not pandering or appeasement,” said PM Sunak at the end of a speech on Friday in which he summed up his inability to lead by pandering to the Left and appeasing the forces of increased division.
The prime minister chose to speak following the election of George Galloway as member of parliament for Rochdale, a victory Sunak described as “beyond alarming.”
Galloway claimed to represent Palestine at the polls, at the expense of his former Labour Party colleagues who slowly withdrew support from Azhar Ali, their official candidate, after hearing a recording of his antisemitic comments. While ‘Gorgeous’—now renamed ‘Gaza’—George chased the Muslim vote successfully in Rochdale, it also expressed the wider electorate’s lack of belief in the Labour-Conservative duopoly.
In his speech, Sunak lamented that since the October 7th attack on Israeli citizens by Hamas terrorists, Britain has “seen a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality.” He said that the subsequent conflict has been used “to advance a divisive, hateful ideological agenda” in the UK, alluding to—while avoiding naming, until late into the speech—pro-Palestine protests.
Following months of MPs being threatened by Islamist extremists—prompting chaotic-looking changes to parliamentary procedure—in a shameful yet predictable untruth, the PM chose to equate Islamists “spreading a poison” with the “far-right,” in a bogus quest for balance.
“Which ‘far-right groups’?” asked writer Paul Embery, adding: “The British far-right has never been more impotent. What is he going on about?” Social Democratic Party leader William Clouston noted that Sunak would recognise the truth in Embery’s observations, but “doesn’t feel able to call out Islamist extremism alone without uttering a false equivalence with [the] ‘far right’” because he is “weak.”
Sunak knows this. The Shawcross review clarified it MI5 watch lists demonstrate it. The problem is he doesn’t feel able to call out Islamist extremism alone without uttering a false equivalence with ‘far right’. Weak. https://t.co/WcEsfneThE
— William Clouston SDP (@WilliamClouston) March 2, 2024
While reports may show increasing abusive behavior towards British Muslims—coinciding with the Hamas pogrom against Israel—it is clearly not the same as the spike in Jew-hatred/antisemitism, flowing in the opposite direction from Islamists.
Interestingly, when describing the “poison” extremist groups are spreading, Sunak discussed a number of techniques used by the radical Left, such as telling “our children that they cannot and will not succeed because of who they are” and that “Britain is a racist country.” But he—the nominal leader of Britain’s ‘conservative’ movement—didn’t once, in his 10-minute speech, mention corresponding ‘far-right’ techniques.
Sunak’s main failure, however, was surely not addressing the role played by two decades of unfettered mass immigration—kick-started by Labour but wilfully continued by the Conservatives, most recently by Sunak himself—as behind the increasing social division.
Certain commentators, key among them Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens, have argued for decades that ‘multicultural’ ideology and policy has, by its very nature, prevented integration from taking place. Moreover, refusal to control numbers defies what most voters have repeatedly requested.
The PM even insisted that “our Britain must not be a country in which we descend into polarised camps with some communities living parallel lives.” In many parts of the country, this is sadly already the case, exactly because of his actions and the actions of the Labour and Conservative ‘leaders’ who came before him.
Historian and broadcaster Rafe Heydel-Mankoo jibed that Sunak’s speech may sound tough to some in the mainstream media, but that is only because “they’re only just waking up to the horrific reality of mass immigration from incompatible cultures, and they remain painfully naive.”
Ben Harris-Quinney, chairman of the small-c conservative Bow Group think tank, added that the subtext of Sunak’s speech was:
I’ve presided over record levels of legal and illegal immigration … we are seeing the inevitable results … Rather than take responsibility, I’m going to use it as an excuse to increase state surveillance powers and curtail free speech.
This strikes at the only consequential point of Sunak’s speech; that it marks the impending introduction of new restrictions on freedom of expression. He said that no amount of disgust with Britain’s political system can justify “any kind of hatred,” the definition of which he avoided making. Adding, for example, that the government will now “demand that universities stop extremist activity on campus”—again without divulging what exactly this means—it looks like speech will be in government crosshairs, whereas voters would prefer a crackdown on violence, not least antisemitic intimidation.
After failing repeatedly to meet his own legal and illegal migration targets, the Conservative Party leader concluded that “we will also act to prevent people entering this country whose aim is to undermine its values.” But the rapid drop in the number of votes for establishment parties in recent by-elections might well suggest that by and large, the electorate doesn’t believe a word from either the Conservatives or Labour—especially when it comes to immigration.
Michael Curzon is a news writer for The European Conservative based in England’s Midlands. He is also Editor of Bournbrook Magazine, which he founded in 2019, and previously wrote for London’s Express Online. His Twitter handle is @MichaelCurzon_.
We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to personalize the content and advertisements that you see on our website. AcceptDeclinePrivacy policy
UK Prime Minister Delivers Weak Speech Equating Islamists with ‘Far Right’
Britain’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak makes a statement outside 10 Downing Street on March 1, 2024.
Photo by HENRY NICHOLLS / AFP
“There must be leadership, not pandering or appeasement,” said PM Sunak at the end of a speech on Friday in which he summed up his inability to lead by pandering to the Left and appeasing the forces of increased division.
The prime minister chose to speak following the election of George Galloway as member of parliament for Rochdale, a victory Sunak described as “beyond alarming.”
Galloway claimed to represent Palestine at the polls, at the expense of his former Labour Party colleagues who slowly withdrew support from Azhar Ali, their official candidate, after hearing a recording of his antisemitic comments. While ‘Gorgeous’—now renamed ‘Gaza’—George chased the Muslim vote successfully in Rochdale, it also expressed the wider electorate’s lack of belief in the Labour-Conservative duopoly.
In his speech, Sunak lamented that since the October 7th attack on Israeli citizens by Hamas terrorists, Britain has “seen a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality.” He said that the subsequent conflict has been used “to advance a divisive, hateful ideological agenda” in the UK, alluding to—while avoiding naming, until late into the speech—pro-Palestine protests.
Following months of MPs being threatened by Islamist extremists—prompting chaotic-looking changes to parliamentary procedure—in a shameful yet predictable untruth, the PM chose to equate Islamists “spreading a poison” with the “far-right,” in a bogus quest for balance.
“Which ‘far-right groups’?” asked writer Paul Embery, adding: “The British far-right has never been more impotent. What is he going on about?” Social Democratic Party leader William Clouston noted that Sunak would recognise the truth in Embery’s observations, but “doesn’t feel able to call out Islamist extremism alone without uttering a false equivalence with [the] ‘far right’” because he is “weak.”
While reports may show increasing abusive behavior towards British Muslims—coinciding with the Hamas pogrom against Israel—it is clearly not the same as the spike in Jew-hatred/antisemitism, flowing in the opposite direction from Islamists.
Interestingly, when describing the “poison” extremist groups are spreading, Sunak discussed a number of techniques used by the radical Left, such as telling “our children that they cannot and will not succeed because of who they are” and that “Britain is a racist country.” But he—the nominal leader of Britain’s ‘conservative’ movement—didn’t once, in his 10-minute speech, mention corresponding ‘far-right’ techniques.
Sunak’s main failure, however, was surely not addressing the role played by two decades of unfettered mass immigration—kick-started by Labour but wilfully continued by the Conservatives, most recently by Sunak himself—as behind the increasing social division.
Certain commentators, key among them Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens, have argued for decades that ‘multicultural’ ideology and policy has, by its very nature, prevented integration from taking place. Moreover, refusal to control numbers defies what most voters have repeatedly requested.
The PM even insisted that “our Britain must not be a country in which we descend into polarised camps with some communities living parallel lives.” In many parts of the country, this is sadly already the case, exactly because of his actions and the actions of the Labour and Conservative ‘leaders’ who came before him.
Historian and broadcaster Rafe Heydel-Mankoo jibed that Sunak’s speech may sound tough to some in the mainstream media, but that is only because “they’re only just waking up to the horrific reality of mass immigration from incompatible cultures, and they remain painfully naive.”
Ben Harris-Quinney, chairman of the small-c conservative Bow Group think tank, added that the subtext of Sunak’s speech was:
This strikes at the only consequential point of Sunak’s speech; that it marks the impending introduction of new restrictions on freedom of expression. He said that no amount of disgust with Britain’s political system can justify “any kind of hatred,” the definition of which he avoided making. Adding, for example, that the government will now “demand that universities stop extremist activity on campus”—again without divulging what exactly this means—it looks like speech will be in government crosshairs, whereas voters would prefer a crackdown on violence, not least antisemitic intimidation.
After failing repeatedly to meet his own legal and illegal migration targets, the Conservative Party leader concluded that “we will also act to prevent people entering this country whose aim is to undermine its values.” But the rapid drop in the number of votes for establishment parties in recent by-elections might well suggest that by and large, the electorate doesn’t believe a word from either the Conservatives or Labour—especially when it comes to immigration.
READ NEXT
Guarantee of Unhappiness
Are Net Zero’s Days Numbered?
Erdogan’s Hour of Triumph