Month: September 2025

Patriotism is too often twisted into something ugly. Politicians, commentators, and agitators on both extremes of the spectrum are guilty of this. They try to weaponise love of country, turning it into a tool for division rather than a source of unity.

But real patriotism is not about fear. It is not about setting neighbour against neighbour or looking for enemies within. It is about pride, pride in who we are, pride in where we come from, and pride in the communities we build together.

Those on the far right wrap themselves in the flag to push exclusion. Those on the far left sneer at patriotism altogether, dismissing it as nothing more than nationalism in disguise. Both sides are wrong, and both sides are guilty of dividing us.

Patriotism is not about hate. It is not about hierarchy. It is about belonging. And anyone who tries to tell us otherwise is selling division, not unity.

Britain’s strength has always come from its people. From different backgrounds, different beliefs, and different walks of life, we come together as one. That’s the point of patriotism: not to splinter into tribes, but to recognise that we share something bigger than ourselves.

When we allow extremists, whether it be left-wing or far right—to hijack that, we all lose. We end up suspicious, defensive, and fractured. But when we reclaim patriotism as a positive force, we create pride, confidence, and unity.

It’s time to stop letting the loudest, angriest voices define what it means to love your country. Patriotism is not theirs to own or distort. It belongs to everyone who cares about Britain, who wants it to be fairer, stronger, and more united.

Reject those who peddle division, wherever they sit on the spectrum. Because we are all better than that.

Patriotism should bring us together—not tear us apart.

The Prime Minister is expected to trot out a familiar line on Friday: the St George’s Cross and the Union Flag are “for all of us”, symbols of unity. It sounds noble enough, but let’s be brutally honest. If politicians truly believed that, they wouldn’t have spent years allowing the flag to be smeared, distorted and deliberately tied to extremism.

Every time the ‘far right’ unfurls the national flag, the press falls over itself to declare it tainted. “Look!” they scream. “The flag has become a symbol of hate!” But that’s a lie by omission. The flag hasn’t changed meaning, the commentary around it has.

Let’s be really clear: people on the far right don’t believe they’re wielding a hate symbol. They believe they’re being patriotic. Agree with them or not, that is how they see it. But rather than acknowledging that, politicians and journalists twist the narrative. They pretend the fabric itself is dangerous, a shorthand for extremism.

Why? Because it’s easier to smear the symbol than to deal with the grievances of the people flying it.

A flag cannot hate. It cannot exclude. It cannot divide. It is politicians, the media and the left who load it with those meanings, because they want to make patriotism itself suspicious. If the Union Flag can be permanently associated with the “far right”, then anyone who dares fly it can be dismissed as a bigot. Job done. Debate over.

And it’s working, Ordinary people now hesitate to fly their own national flag for fear of being judged. St George’s Day passes in a whisper while other national days are loudly celebrated. Children grow up learning that showing pride in Britain is “dodgy”, unless it’s dressed up for a royal wedding or a football match.

That’s not accidental. it’s engineered. Politicians want the flag as a backdrop for photo ops, not as a rallying point for real communities. The media wants the flag as a prop for sensational headlines, not as a living emblem of belonging.

So here’s the real uncomfortable question: who gets to decide what the flag represents? The answer should be obvious, the people of Britain. But right now, the narrative is dictated by elites who are terrified of genuine patriotism, because patriotism demands they actually defend the country’s people, not just its symbols.

If we allow politicians and the media to keep smearing the flag, they will succeed in making patriotism itself a dirty word. And once that’s gone, so is any sense of shared belonging.

The Prime Minister can lecture all he likes about “unity”, but unless we call out this deliberate poisoning of national pride, the flag will remain a weapon used against us instead of a banner carried by all of us.

It’s time to take it back. Not for the far right. Not for the government. But for the people who actually live under it.

@newdaystarts

For years, figures like Nigel Farage, Reform UK and UKIP have sung the same tune: our problems are caused by outsiders. Immigration, Brussels, refugees—it’s always someone else to blame. But the uncomfortable truth is far closer to home.

The system has been rigged against ordinary people for decades. Wages have stagnated while living costs soar. Homes are harder to afford than ever. Schools are crumbling. The NHS is stretched to breaking point. Meanwhile, wealth and power have been hoarded at the very top, out of reach for the millions who keep this country running.

Britain’s Not Broken—Its Leadership Is

This is not a nation short of talent or hard work. Britain is full of graft, creativity, and resilience. What’s missing is leadership that believes in all of us. Politicians have been far too happy to pit neighbour against neighbour, stoking division and resentment, rather than tackling the real sources of inequality and injustice.

The real fight has never been between working-class communities in Burnley, Barking or Birmingham. It has always been between those starved of what they need. fair pay, safe streets, warm homes, decent healthcare—and those who profit from keeping things exactly as they are.

When politicians point the finger at “outsiders”, they are distracting us from the fact that they themselves have overseen this decline. They want us arguing over scraps instead of asking the obvious question: why, in one of the richest countries in the world, are so many of us left struggling?

Fair pay. Warm homes. Safe streets. Strong schools. A functioning NHS. These are not luxuries or utopian dreams. They are the basic standards every citizen should expect. That they now feel out of reach is a political choice, not an inevitability.

The challenge is simple: do we keep rewarding those who tear us apart with lies and scapegoats, or do we demand leaders who bring us together? Britain deserves better than endless culture wars and blame games. We deserve leaders with the courage to build a fairer, more united country, where the real enemy isn’t our neighbour, but a broken system that benefits the few at the expense of the many.

@newdaystarts

When “Unite the Kingdom”, Tommy Robinson’s massive rally on 13 September 2025, resulted in 25 arrests, the press nearly collapsed in outrage: “far-right thugs”, “extremists running wild”, “dangerous mobs”. But when the Notting Hill Carnival sees hundreds of arrests every year, violence, weapons incidents, even assaults on police, it is almost always portrayed as a “celebration of culture and community”. The difference in tone is glaring. Here are real examples.

Real Headlines, Real Spin

Unite the Kingdom Rally

• Sky News headline: “Up to 150,000 people join march organised by far-right activist Tommy Robinson” alongside mention of 25 arrests. The story emphasises far-right, anti-immigration, violent disorder. Sky News+2Al Jazeera+2
• Reuters: “Scuffles with police as 100,000 anti-immigration protesters march in London” emphasises “anti-immigration protesters” and “violent clashes”. Reuters+2ABC+2
• The Guardian: “Far-right London rally sees record crowds and violent clashes with police.” The framing here is strong: far-right rally “violent clashes”, “assaults on officers”, etc. The Guardian+1
• The Independent: reports “police say officers assaulted during mass London march organised by far-right activist Tommy Robinson”. Again, the adjectives far-right, assault, violence dominate. euronews+1

Notting Hill Carnival

• Evening Standard: “Notting Hill Carnival 2025: One million revellers party in west London as police make face-scanning arrests”. This headline puts the emphasis first on “one million revellers party”, “celebration”, “carnival”, and culture. The arrests are portrayed as part of proactive policing rather than moral panic. The Standard
• Coverage of the Carnival often uses words like celebration, community, culture, music, joy, with crime or arrests mentioned in subordinate clauses, or as expected “downsides” of big events. (I couldn’t find a headline in any major newspaper’s which leads with “Carnival thugs” or “violent mobs at Carnival” which is telling in itself.)

Why the Difference Matters

Here’s how the framing diverges:

Feature	Tommy Robinson Rally	Notting Hill Carnival
Language	Far-right, thugs, extremists, nationalists, assault, violent disorder	Celebration, culture, joy, community, party, colourful
What arrests mean	Proof of dangerous ideology; evidence that the whole event is illegitimate	Seen as disturbances or regrettable incidents in otherwise festive atmosphere
Who is culpable	The protestors are criticised heavily; the media largely treats the event as a threat	The media frames issues as policing challenges, or isolated bad apples, not as intrinsic to the community

This isn’t journalism, it’s narrative management. The media decides which story is dangerous and which is benign. When one event is painted as a threat and the other as a celebration. even when both have arrests and some violence, it reveals bias, intentional or not.

It suggests that some voices, especially those associated with certain communities or political ideologies, are presumed dangerous, while others are presumed innocent. That in itself is a form of signalling: you are other, we trust you less, we will treat your gathering as menacing by default.

If we want honesty, we need consistent standards. If violence is to be condemned at one event, it must be condemned at all. If arrests are headline news for one crowd, they should be for any crowd. If “culture” is celebrated in one situation, “culture” must be allowed to speak in others without being drowned out by accusations.

Pretending there’s no bias helps no one, And that is one of the surest ways to entrench division rather than heal it.

@newdaystarts

The Unite the Kingdom rally in London shocked many with its sheer size. Commentators rushed to say it was “all about Tommy Robinson” or “the far right on the march”. But that’s a cop-out. The thousands who turned up didn’t appear out of thin air. They are the product of years of politicians and the mainstream media sneering, finger-pointing, and branding anyone who dares to question the status quo as “racist” or “far right”.

Manufactured Division

Let’s be blunt. The establishment has created this problem. Whenever ordinary people raise concerns about immigration, cultural change, or fairness, they are not met with debate. They are met with contempt. Politicians throw around words like “bigot” to shut the conversation down. Journalists churn out smug think-pieces about “the rise of extremism” while refusing to ask why so many people feel ignored in the first place.

This is what happens when leaders stop listening and start lecturing. When national broadcasters repeat the same tired narratives about “migrant crises” or “community tensions”, they aren’t informing, they’re framing the public as the problem. Then, when the frustration boils over into mass demonstrations, those same outlets act shocked. Hypocrisy doesn’t even begin to cover it.

Who’s Really Driving Radicalisation?

We’re constantly told that rallies like Unite the Kingdom prove the far right is radicalising people. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: it isn’t Tommy Robinson who radicalises first, it’s the political class and the MSM. By silencing debate, labelling dissent, and demeaning those with genuine concerns, they funnel people straight into the arms of whoever will listen.

The cycle is obvious:

• Step one: Demonise people who ask difficult questions.
• Step two: Shut down every avenue for open debate.
• Step three: Feign outrage when those same people gather in huge numbers under banners you don’t approve of.

This is radicalisation by negligence, and it sits squarely at the feet of Westminster and the media.

Violence Is Never Justified

Yes, the violence at the rally was unacceptable. The Metropolitan Police confirmed 26 officers were injured, and that cannot be brushed aside. Violence discredits the very grievances that drove people to protest in the first place. But violence doesn’t appear in a vacuum. It grows out of years of pent-up frustration, ignored concerns, and an establishment that treats half the country like lepers for speaking their minds.

Time to Own the Mess

The Unite the Kingdom rally wasn’t a fluke. It was a warning shot. Politicians and the MSM can keep dismissing it as a far-right spectacle if they like, but the truth is simpler and more dangerous: they built it. Every time they silence debate, every time they weaponise labels, every time they play divide-and-rule politics, they drive more people into anger and alienation.

If Britain wants peace, it won’t come from censorship, condemnation, or denial. It will come from actually listening, engaging, and treating people like citizens rather than problems to be managed. Until that happens, don’t act surprised when the streets fill up again.

@newdaystarts

Democracy is built on debate, disagreement, and the free exchange of ideas. It requires passion, argument, and, above all, respect for one another’s right to be heard. Yet, time and again, we are reminded that even in societies that pride themselves on openness, those who step forward into public life risk not only criticism but violence and, tragically, sometimes their lives.

The murders of Jo Cox in 2016 and Sir David Amess in 2021 remain stark reminders here in the UK that public service can come with a terrible cost. Both were committed parliamentarians, motivated by a desire to make their communities better, yet both were targeted in moments that should have been the most ordinary, a constituency surgery, a meeting with the people they represented.

Across the world, the picture is no different. In the United States, figures such as Minnesota’s Melissa Hortman have faced threats simply for carrying out their democratic duties. And only yesterday, an attack on Charlie Kirk underlined again that political violence is not limited to one ideology, one nation, or one moment in time.

What unites all these incidents is the brutal attempt to silence voices through fear. But democracy cannot function when intimidation takes the place of dialogue. Violence is never the answer.

Disagreement is natural in politics, essential, even. But disagreement must never become dehumanisation. When we reduce those with different views to enemies rather than opponents, we create the conditions in which violence festers. If democracy is to survive and thrive, we must relearn the art of arguing without hatred, of criticising without cruelty, of holding strong convictions without wishing harm on those who disagree.

Nobody should be killed for participating in democracy. Nobody should be attacked for speaking, campaigning, or representing others. Whatever our politics, we must stand together on this: the ballot box, not the blade or the bullet, is the only legitimate path for change.

Only by rejecting violence, not only in action but also in language, in rhetoric, in the way we treat one another online and off, can we ensure that democracy endures as the safeguard of freedom it was always meant to be.

@Newdaystarts

Every time there’s a flashpoint of division in this country, the finger gets pointed straight at the so-called “far right”. Politicians line up to denounce “extremists”, social commentators blame online echo chambers, and the cycle of outrage spins on. But let’s stop pretending for a second. The real gateway to radicalisation for most people isn’t some obscure Telegram group, it’s the mainstream media (MSM).

Choudary and the MSM Circus.

Take 2009. Anjem Choudary and his crew from Al-Muhajiroun hijacked headlines when they heckled soldiers returning from Iraq. It was ugly, disrespectful and enraging. But here’s the point: until the MSM plastered Choudary’s face across every front page and news bulletin, hardly anyone knew who he was.

It was wall-to-wall coverage, Choudary wants to take over Britain, Choudary says Sharia is coming, Choudary vows Islam will dominate the West. Broadcasters ran endless documentaries about him. Newspapers treated him like Britain’s bogeyman-in-chief. Even extremists uploaded their own content to fan the flames, which the press eagerly pointed to.

The result? The EDL was born, thousands of people felt validated in their anger, and Choudary’s profile skyrocketed. The MSM built him up as a monster, and then acted shocked when the public responded.

Immigration: Today’s Choudary

Fast forward to today, and the script is identical—only the headline act has changed. Immigration has become the new Choudary.

Every day the BBC, Sky, the tabloids, you name it, pump out stories about “migrant crises”, “floods” of people, “Britain at breaking point”. Politicians pile in with soundbites that could have been lifted straight from the mouth of Enoch Powell. News channels lap it up, run it on repeat, and sell it as sober analysis.

Then, when ordinary people voice concerns, they’re instantly slapped with the label “far right”. No discussion, no listening, just condemnation. And guess what? Those same people then drift towards platforms and movements where they can speak without being silenced, even if those spaces are extreme. The MSM lights the fire, then blames everyone else when the blaze spreads.

Stop Hiding, Start Owning

Let’s cut through the hypocrisy. The MSM thrives on fear. Fear sells papers, drives clicks, and boosts ratings. Whether it’s Choudary in 2009 or small boats in 2025, the formula hasn’t changed: exaggerate the threat, repeat it endlessly, and then sit back while society tears itself apart.

This isn’t responsible journalism. It’s radicalisation by proxy. And the gall of it is staggering: the very institutions that have spent years stoking division now posture as guardians against extremism.

Enough Scaremongering

If we want to break the cycle, the MSM needs to be called out. They can’t keep laundering sensationalism as “public interest reporting” while shrugging off the consequences. It’s time for honesty: people aren’t radicalised in a vacuum, they are radicalised by the constant drumbeat of fear hammered out by the very outlets who claim to be protecting democracy.

The solution isn’t more finger-pointing or more censorship. It’s allowing real, honest debates without the instant stigma of labels. Because if the media keeps pumping poison into the bloodstream of the nation, then don’t be surprised when society gets sick.

And if we don’t change course soon, we’ll be leaving our children a country not defined by community and resilience, but by suspicion and division, all courtesy of the nightly news.

@Newdaystarts

In recent years, the word remigration has started to creep into political debate, particularly online. At first glance, it sounds like an ordinary description of people moving back to their country of origin. But in practice, the term carries a far more loaded meaning.

What Does “Remigration” Mean?

In mainstream usage, remigration could simply describe voluntary return migration—when people who have settled in a new country decide to move back home. Governments sometimes even fund such schemes, usually framed around economic migrants returning when work opportunities end.

However, when the term is used by certain political movements, it takes on a different character. In far-right and nationalist circles, “remigration” is promoted as a solution to what they describe as the “problems of mass immigration”. In this context, it is less about voluntary return and more about enforced removal. The idea is that large numbers of immigrants—sometimes even naturalised citizens or second-generation communities—should be pressured or compelled to leave Western countries and “return” elsewhere, regardless of whether they were born abroad or not.

Who Is Pushing the Narrative?

The push for remigration comes largely from the far-right across Europe, with echoes in the UK. Parties, movements and online influencers who subscribe to the “Great Replacement” theory—a conspiracy claiming native populations are being deliberately replaced by migrants—often use remigration as their proposed solution.

In Germany, the word has gained particular traction among the far-right AfD (Alternative für Deutschland). In France, figures associated with Éric Zemmour’s movement have also used it as a rallying cry. Online, the term has been adopted by networks of activists who frame remigration as a “peaceful” alternative to social collapse. In reality, it points towards mass expulsions, something that would be both socially divisive and legally impossible under current human rights frameworks.

In the UK, the concept appears in fringe nationalist circles and increasingly in online spaces where anti-immigration sentiment is amplified. While no mainstream political party openly advocates remigration, the language of “sending people back” or “reversing immigration” is sometimes hinted at in culture war debates, especially when immigration statistics are published.

Why It Matters

At its core, remigration is not a neutral policy idea but a narrative strategy. It reframes xenophobia in seemingly reasonable terms. Instead of calling for “deportations” or “expulsions, language that might sound too harsh, many supporters of remigration brand it as an orderly and necessary correction. The softer word masks a hard reality: the erosion of citizenship, belonging, and equality before the law.

For critics, this is why it must be challenged directly. Immigration policy is a legitimate area of political debate. But calls for remigration go beyond policy and into the territory of exclusion, targeting people not for what they do but for who they are.

The rise of the term is a reminder of how language can shift the Overton window of debate. By normalising words like “remigration”, extremist narratives inch closer to mainstream discussion. And that, perhaps, is precisely the point.

Scroll through social media for more than a few minutes and you’ll likely stumble upon dramatic claims that the UK is “on the brink of civil war”. The supposed trigger? Immigration.

It’s an attention-grabbing line, but is there truth in it or, is it simply scaremongering designed to inflame, divide and drive clicks?

To call what we are seeing “civil war” is, by any realistic measure, an exaggeration. Civil war implies organised armed conflict, rival factions, territory under dispute, and institutions breaking down. Britain is nowhere near that scenario. Whatever tensions exist, our political system, law enforcement, and institutions remain intact. The word “war” trivialises genuine conflicts elsewhere in the world, where people face daily violence and instability.

That said, dismissing the conversation entirely would be naïve. Immigration has become one of the most contentious political issues in Britain. It is shaping elections, fuelling heated debates, and dividing communities. Social media has a way of magnifying anger, giving fringe voices a platform that makes them seem louder and more representative than they actually are.

So what is the genuine worst-case scenario? Far more likely than “civil war” is mass civil disobedience. We could see large-scale protests, boycotts, and disruptive direct actions from both sides of the immigration debate. Such movements could cause tension, inconvenience and political instability, but they remain a far cry from armed conflict.

The challenge lies in keeping the conversation grounded. Politicians, media outlets, and influencers who throw around words like “civil war” risk fuelling fear, resentment and division. Sensationalism makes headlines, but it also corrodes trust and inflames social fractures.

Britain has weathered waves of social unrest before, from the miners’ strikes to anti-war demonstrations and more recent protest movements. The country is no stranger to dissent. Civil disobedience, disruptive as it may be, is still part of a functioning democracy, it shows that people believe change can be won through collective action rather than through violence.

The responsibility, then, is ours: to challenge alarmist rhetoric, to refuse easy scaremongering, and to address the real issues driving discontent, without surrendering to hysteria.

Civil war? No. Civil disobedience? Possibly. And that distinction really does matter.

@newdaystarts

Whether one agrees with the proscription or not, Palestine Action is a banned organisation. That is a legal fact, not a matter of personal opinion. Once a group is proscribed, the authorities treat open support for it in much the same way as they would with any other outlawed body.

This is why the sight of demonstrators holding placards and signs reading “I support Palestine Action” raises a simple question: what did they expect would happen?

The law around proscribed organisations is clear. Expressing support for them, displaying their symbols, or promoting them in public can lead to arrest and prosecution. Activists may argue that their cause is just, or that the ban is politically motivated. They may well see themselves as engaging in civil resistance. But legality and legitimacy are not the same thing. You can think an action is morally justified, yet still face the legal consequences of carrying it out.

It is also worth pointing out that Palestine Action has pursued a deliberately confrontational strategy—targeting companies linked to the arms trade and staging disruptive direct actions. Their intent has always been to provoke, to draw attention, and to force the issue onto the political agenda. With that approach comes the certainty of state pushback.

Those who take to the streets in support of them cannot be under any illusions. To carry a placard declaring support for a proscribed group is, in effect, to paint a target on your own back. Whether one believes the proscription is heavy-handed or entirely justified is a debate worth having. But the immediate reality is unavoidable: when the law says an organisation is banned, to openly support it is to invite arrest.

Ultimately, this is a clash between principle and pragmatism. On principle, some protesters will always choose defiance, seeing their arrests as part of the struggle. Pragmatically, though, no one should be surprised when the police act in line with the law.

@newdaystarts