North Stoke Life

Piddington Roars has performed superbly in attracting national media attention. Yet the nation remains sceptical and it is national opinion that ultimately gives political leaders permission to act. It's unfair to say that Piddington voted for this when only around 30% of the constituency supported the party responsible. Nonetheless, the public’s scepticism has a legitimate cause. Piddington Roars has made the serious risks of the asylum centre clear. But its campaign still rests on the claim that the asylum centre is in the wrong location and cannot operate safely or successfully there.  This may be true, but it avoids the deeper question. If the centre is wrong for Piddington because of the risks it presents, where would it be right? Why should another town or village be expected to accept those same risks? The hidden position appears to be that many campaigners are not merely against this particular location. They are latently opposed to the pro immigration and asylum policy tha...

Executive Summary The following is drawn from conversations with farmers in this constituency during the early stages of the campaign. I am trying to understand the political outlook of its deeply rural communities, which account for roughly half the electorate. These voters are not always treated as having interests equal to those of people in towns and cities. That needs to change. Their connection to farming, the land and inherited responsibilities often gives them a particularly strong concern for continuity: what they will pass on, whether their children can remain, and what condition the country will be in when they do. City and town electors do not tend to be as grounded as this and we can all learn from it.  Most of what follows is therefore field observation rather than my own opinion. It reflects what some members of the rural community have told me; it should not be taken as the unanimous view of that community. I conclude with my own analysis of a deeper national proble...

People often ask what to do about the many competing and imaginary existential threats. If left unattended, the neurosis embedded in the question itself tends to develop into a collective psychosis. Even a proud autonomous individual can be quickly sucked into victimhood if they are not constantly on guard and will remain blissfully unaware of it. The net effect will be to take sides in one tribe or another and become unable to exit. Smart people believe it is only mentally ill people, who are mentally ill.  Nothing. They are imaginary. My recommendation is for you to look in the mirror and observe how you are causing all the problems you complain about. If you can fix these things, you will have done well and need do no more.  But this is far too big an ask for the majority of people in each tribe. It would mean 'questioning your god' - the tribal narrative obedient people follow. And this would mean being sent into exile. So it's only for the hero.  These imaginary exis...

I'm interested in the high emotion in British politics of so called splitting the right wing vote between Reform and Restore Britain, thereby making it less likely for right wing politics to win. I disagree that there is a split to be made. Because it presupposes that both parties are fighting for the same voting space. My view is that Reform are yet another member of the so called uniparty. Restore Britain is different in that they want fundamental change and are immediately ready to make it whatever the specific policy. Whereas Reform are faking that promise to appease the establishment. So there is no vote to split. Think about it this way: eating into Reforms vote is splitting the establishment vote. And intensifying the vote for those who want to re-establish Britain. Here is some further analysis. My view aligns directly with a growing sentiment among disillusioned right-wing voters: that Reform UK has become an extension of the "uniparty" system , leaving Restore ...

Real people, in real need, are not getting access to assistance because of systemic fraud running across the public sector - criminal gangs in government, NGO's and charity, not to mention so called philanthropy. People talk a lot about nail bars and foreign barbers being a money laundering scam. This is probably true. But look at them, they are small businesses. Even if you multiply them by 10,000 iterations, though massive, it will still not be as massive as the systemic level of criminal activity within so called charity crime activity. Charity and NGO's are a far bigger scam by a very long way.  This isn't to say that all charity is a scam. It is to say that the charity industrial complex is anti Britain through its money laundering and tax evasion while never delivering for those in need. While true charity which does exist in the pockets and corners of Britain are losing because of it, not to mention those Britons truly in need who are now getting even less support th...