Simon Partridge

@FUDdaily That's less than 100 people in a 43 acre Birmingham park. They don't look like rapists.

@SimonPartridge Evidence? Use your eyes!

That's before we really understood how toxic Islam is.

@FUDdaily As you might say, where is the hard evidence. On a practical point: you know quite well not every Muslim would leave, and some are English converts.

@SimonPartridge We weren't being colonised by rapey third worlders.

@TimPendry @TuckerClemens @MadelaineLucyH @MonkEmma @FUDdaily @adhib OK the word is problematic in England. In France I would call you "intellectuel public". Being partly French myself...

@SimonPartridge @TuckerClemens @MadelaineLucyH @MonkEmma @FUDdaily @adhib No, I am not an intellectual. I actually think.

My best friend is Muslim, and she has been fasting. I’m not a Muslim, and I don’t. We joke about it. She’s going to a white CoE funeral, and calls me to ask what the norms are and what to wear and say. This summer, I’ll be going to a family wedding with her and asking the same. Because that’s integration. That’s how you build a society that works. We don’t all have to be the same. We just need to have policies that allow for proper mixing and insight.

@AntonGainsbarre @TimPendry @Sargon_of_Akkad @Landeur @FUDdaily From the safe distance of Spain, apparently. Please stay there 🙏

@TimPendry @SimonPartridge @Sargon_of_Akkad @Landeur @FUDdaily “All my life I have had a certain idea of England."

The English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish are indigenous to the British Isles.

@TimPendry @TuckerClemens @MadelaineLucyH @MonkEmma @FUDdaily @adhib Come, come, Tim, you're an intellectual. You can be an intellectual without being a busybody.

@SimonPartridge @TuckerClemens @MadelaineLucyH @MonkEmma @FUDdaily @adhib I think the critique of multiculturalism that is reasonable is that it is not cultures living alongside one another but intellectuals enforcing it as an ideology. Withjout intellectuals everyone would be a lot happier and almost certainly more easy-going.

@adhib @TuckerClemens @MadelaineLucyH @MonkEmma @FUDdaily @TimPendry Leave aside what "informal meaning" means, how do you work that out. The English, Welsh & Scots are integrated yet still distinct. Stop peddling a simplistic binary.

@SimonPartridge @TuckerClemens @MadelaineLucyH @MonkEmma @FUDdaily @TimPendry That's the informal meaning it carries in the culture, hence the widespread warm fuzzies about it. In policy terms it means abandoning the ideal of integration, and managing the separate cultures as distinct client groups, with 'community leaders', and a lucrative industry.

@TuckerClemens @MadelaineLucyH @MonkEmma Not sure it's an "ism". Seems more like mutual respect following the good Brit tradition of live and let live. @FUDdaily @adhib @TimPendry

@MadelaineLucyH @MonkEmma The racists fear multiculturalism because it works.

@FUDdaily Good to know where you stand. We part company on this point.

@SimonPartridge Yes.

The presence of Islam is unacceptable.

@OBEhizele It mostly arrived via the colonial connection so was already to some extent Brittanicised. It probably needs to go further after debate. What is Anglicanism other than a English/Brit form of Xianity. We have some form in these matters.

The real question isn’t whether Islam can exist in Britain. It’s whether it can become "British". The complication is that it arrives post-colonially. So disentangling Islam from imported forms of civilisation isn't straightforward, especially into a society unsure of itself.

RE: Islam in Britain The core of a religious tradition may be stable, but its social expression, emphasis, and texture are shaped by the civilisation that receives it. 🧵

@RebornDoom @Tom_Rowsell @danielfoch @Landeur @TimPendry What is your view?

@SimonPartridge @Tom_Rowsell @danielfoch @Landeur @TimPendry So you had zero point to make.

Canada has observed the largest decline in happiness in the world (along with the UK)

@thomasforth They're mostly in the USA.

1/ Yes. 30M easily. 2/ In a world where Britain had properly joined Ireland as equals in 1800 and built a country together, Ireland and we would share that country which would have avoided famine, and we'd be 120 million today. Decent chance. . My favourite what if in history.

@RebornDoom @Tom_Rowsell @danielfoch Imo, No. The practical issue is that the Anglo settlers aren't going to leave. Just I think most of the recent settlers in the UK won't either. We are where we are. @Landeur @TimPendry

@SimonPartridge @Tom_Rowsell @danielfoch And would they be wrong?

@technopopulist I note the pun.

Good news for my followers: I’m now free to say exactly what I think. And there’s nothing more dangerous than someone with nothing left to lose.

@Tom_Rowsell @danielfoch The native Americans might say that is what the Anglos did to their societies?

@danielfoch The Anglosphere is being destroyed by third worlders

@adhib @TimPendry @technopopulist @FUDdaily Perhaps it took a UK state fortified by WW2 to bring the animal spirits of capital under some sort of control. Euro social dems rolled over when confronted by globalism. The SDP has a big task on its hands. Are Water Cos the first challenge? (will listen to Zack P on economics)

@TimPendry @SimonPartridge @technopopulist @FUDdaily Cheer up, old bean! Yes, we need a fit and energetic state under a government actively supported by a majority, devoted to the common wealth, acting in the national interest.

The biggest conflict in British politics right now, and for some time, is between re-territorialisation (right wing populism) and de-territorialisation (globalism). The process of de-territorialisation encompasses policies such as global trade, liberal immigration policy, supranational institutions, and political action through intergovernmental organisations. It is also driven by technological change that sits partly beyond the control of political elites, although those elites can shape and regulate how those changes play out. Re-territorialisation (right wing populism) is about taking back control and reasserting sovereignty over culture and the political economy. De-territorialisation pulls in the opposite direction. De-territorialisation really began to take hold in the 1990s. The Channel Tunnel was completed. The Maastricht Treaty was signed. The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 was introduced under John Major. New Labour took this framework and intensified it. They abolished the Primary Purpose Rule for family visas, experimented with points-based systems, and failed to impose transitional controls on new EU accession states. They also introduced the Human Rights Act 1998, which hollowed out the powers of immigration officers and turned them into intermediaries. They massively expanded higher education and outsourced international student visas to universities, which often issued them to fraudulent applicants. This happened under Beverley Hughes. Theresa May, to her credit, pushed back by capping non-EU work visas and tightening the rules on international students. The Brexit referendum was meant to resolve this conflict by giving a clear answer to the de-territorialisation (globalism) versus re-territorialisation (right wing populism) question. Brexit won. But the Brexiteers did the worst possible thing. They junked some of the only functional parts of globalism, such as frictionless trade and lower non-tariff barriers (Common Market), while embracing the most destabilising elements, high levels of Third World immigration, regulatory entanglement, and continued subjection to frameworks like the European Court of Human Rights. Today, we are living through the fallout.

@FUDdaily Are the SDP doing better? @adhib

One of the problems with the Slop Right’s fantasy bonfire of quangos policy is that Labour is already doing it. It’s just not making headlines. But as I’ve noted in previous articles, 90% of the funding goes on the top ten enterprises, while most other bodies are small advisory panels, niche committees and special purpose public-private vehicles with virtually no overheads. As such, the bonfire of quangos is just a tidying up exercise, clearing out some of the redundant and duplicate enterprises. The problem is, it doesn’t save much money. There will be some mergers in the near future, though. From 1 April 2026, the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) (the small executive agency that handles council tax and business rates valuations) is being fully integrated into HMRC. This is meant to increase ministerial oversight and save 5–10% on admin costs (a mere 2.7m) - but the HMRC is taking on an additional 5,000 compliance officers as part of a separate £1.5 billion tax-gap-closing drive. The question, then, is whether those compliance officers are necessary and whether they could be eliminated with a tax simplification policy as opposed to more top-down reorganisations. This is all part of a process that’s been going on since 2024. Ideas of fully merging the Environment Agency and Natural England were considered (and discussed in parliamentary sessions) but were explicitly rejected by officials as too disruptive and a potential distraction from delivery - and when you look at what they do, I can see their point. You could cut back on the Environment Agency by returning some of its functions to local authorities, but you would have to increase local authority staffing and ring-fence the money. Natural England could certainly use a purge of climate dogma, but again that’s a policy question rather than accountancy. The big one from this review process is Wes Streeting’s abolition of NHS England - merging it into the Department of Health and Social Care. Labour hopes to shed 21,000 jobs in total, shaving £1bn off the payroll bill annually, but it's expected to cost £860m in voluntary redundancies. Some internal estimates put the full bill at £1–1.3 billion. Whether or not this makes a meaningful difference remains to be seen. The emphasis for cuts usually lands on back office staff which has consequences of its own in terms of service delivery and a future government may be forced to restore some of the administrative capacity. The big one that the slop right usually fixates on is the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. DCMS sponsors 41 arm’s-length bodies (the official figure confirmed in the department’s own Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy 2026–2031, published December 2025). This is one of the largest portfolios in Whitehall and includes highly visible cultural, heritage, sport and media organisations (Arts Council England, Historic England, Sport England, British Library, national museums, Ofcom, Gambling Commission, VisitBritain, etc.). DCMS does seem to be the dumping ground for all the oddballs but they tend to be small and inconsequential. They tend to come into the crosshairs of the slop right because some are part of the left wing cultural establishment. There are savings to be made but it’s not going to be in the billions. The BBC is about half of the DCMS budget but the future of the BBC is a whole other policy conversation. £1.4bn in spending (19% of the budget) is National Lottery grants - which needs closer supervision, but it’s not tax payer’s money as such. That leaves you cutting Arts, Culture & Libraries. Good luck with that. By my reckoning at least seven British Prime Ministers (or those who became PM) have pledged or been directly associated with a “bonfire of the quangos” and it never happens. They each discover in turn that running an advanced, first world state is complicated and expensive, and the idea that there are hundreds of wasteful and useless quangos is a piece of right-wing mythology. I concede that there’s two or three billion to be shaved off the bill but if the plan is to save tens of billions then it’s not the place to look. There is certainly a political imperative to review the missions of these organisations and decontaminate their culture, and levels of political oversight, but that (again) is a different conversation. A bonfire of quangos is not going to free up billions for tax cuts. The place to look for major savings is welfare reform - but that’s not easy either - especially in these times. Our poverty problems are downstream of our energy problems, which is going to take at least a decade to fix. The danger for any party of the right banging on about a bonfire of quangos, is that it looks a lot like more Tory austerity, resulting in cuts to frontline services when they find the savings of cutting bureaucracy simply aren’t there. Labour is already having this problem in attempting to streamline the MoJ. The court backlog is one of the reasons they want to scrap jury trials. From a bureaucrat’s perspective they are horribly expensive and inefficient, and they can’t see where else to make the cuts. It’s also problematic for the right in that many of the problems they want to fix, particularly surrounding immigration, necessarily require a larger civil service headcount. As such, the proverbial “bonfire of quangos” trope is fast becoming the most reliable indicator of a slop merchant in action. It tells us that the Slop Right has a threadbare grasp of the British state and makes no real effort to find out what needs fixing or how. That’s why they do not deserve our attention, or our votes.