As 2025 draws to a close, the arrival of Alaa Abd el-Fattah in the United Kingdom serves as a stark reminder of a deeper malaise afflicting our national institutions. Released from Egyptian custody and granted passage to Britain through concerted diplomatic efforts by the Labour government, el-Fattah was heralded by Sir Keir Starmer as a “top priority” since assuming office. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper and Justice Secretary David Lammy echoed this sentiment, framing his reunion with family as a triumph of human rights advocacy. Yet, el-Fattah’s public pronouncements — deriding white people as “dogs and monkeys”; urging arson on Downing Street; inciting violence against the police; and calling for the killing of Zionists — reveal a figure profoundly antagonistic to British values, the nation’s ethnic majority, and Jewish security.
One might express surprise at such an enthusiastic reception. But in truth, why should we? This episode is not an aberration, but a symptom of a broader trend: Britain’s establishment, across politics, media, and civil society, increasingly appears to prioritise those who exhibit disdain for the country’s foundational ethos. This is a Britain where anti-British, anti-white, and antisemitic sentiments are not merely tolerated but, in some quarters, elevated, often under the guise of progressive universalism. The result is a paradoxical erosion of the very rights and securities that define our liberal democracy.
Consider the zeitgeist of the Starmer administration, a period marked by persistent controversies that underscore this shift, particularly among those wielding real authority — whether in government or symbolic roles. At the heart of the establishment, most figures in positions of power appear anti-British in their actions and rhetoric, celebrating or downplaying sentiments that undermine national cohesion. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer himself set the tone by personally welcoming el-Fattah as a “British citizen” deserving of reunion, despite the activist’s resurfaced tweets endorsing violence.
This should come as no surprise from the PM who, in the wake of the Southport massacre, dismissed native concerns as “far-right thuggery” while cooing to the Muslim community “I will take every step that’s necessary to keep you safe.”
Even after el-Fattah issued an apology for his “shocking and hurtful” posts — claiming some had been “completely twisted out of their meaning” — the government’s stance remained unmoved. How, one wonders, do you twist genuine incitement to murder out of its meaning? Lucy Connolly tried apologising her way out of incendiary tweets (several days, not 15 years later); fat lot of good it did her. But then, fortunately for el-Fattah, his calls merely demanded the murder of whites, Jews, and the Old Bill; had they been about illegal immigrants, he might have faced real consequences from the Starmer regime’s selective enforcement.
The Justice Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has so far resisted calls to revoke el-Fattah’s citizenship under laws allowing it if “conducive to the public good”, aligning with a pattern of prioritising globalist narratives over domestic security. David Lammy meanwhile, during his tenure as Foreign Secretary, oversaw the removal of a portrait of the late Queen Elizabeth II from the Foreign Office. He replaced Her Majesty with variations on the Pan-African flag — a gesture that speaks volumes as to the government’s disdain for Britain’s heritage, and where the current administration’s allegiance lies.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, instrumental in facilitating el-Fattah’s entry, has defended policies that critics argue invite threats through lax border controls. Her response to asylum-related crimes meanwhile, often frames opposition as xenophobic rather than protective of British interests. London’s Mayor Sadiq Khan has repeatedly downplayed antisemitism, asserting in October that the pro-Palestine chant “From the river to the sea” is not inherently antisemitic; a stance that implicitly endorses calls for Israel’s dissolution amid escalating crimes against Jews. In December, his administration’s attempt to prohibit a vigil in Parliament Square for victims of the Bondi stabbings, citing “public safety”, was decried by Jewish organisations as an overreach that alienated Jewish residents.
Britain’s symbolic authorities echo this malaise. In his Christmas broadcast just days ago, King Charles III extolled the virtues of “the great diversity of our communities” as a source of national strength, urging Britons to draw upon it amid division. This is a message that, in the context of unchecked mass immigration and rising cultural tensions, can only be read as tacitly pro-immigration and accommodating toward Islam. This places the King in direct opposition to the preservation of traditional British identity.
Even ostensibly disparate symbolic authorities converge on the same revisionist project: recasting Britain’s legacy as one of perpetual oppression while dangling absolution in exchange for vast reparations. The Archbishop of Canterbury continues to oversee the Church of England’s £100 million fund for “healing, repair, and justice” linked to historical slavery — a scheme that persists, despite renewed calls from MPs in December 2025 to abandon it as needless self-flagellation. Meanwhile, cultural figurehead Sir Lenny Henry amplified demands in October for £18–19 trillion in reparations, extending the claim not merely to Caribbean nations but to all black Britons — a sum so astronomical it borders on the theatrical. Like Welby, Henry reveals the same impulse to indict Britain’s past without nuance or proportion.
This litany reveals a troubling reality: in their insatiable quest for the multicultural Utopia, Britain’s political class risks irreparably undermining domestic cohesion. White Britons are cast as perennial oppressors, native loyalties are subordinated to globalist imperatives, and the Jewish community’s security is profoundly compromised. El-Fattah’s welcome exemplifies how specious virtue-signalling routinely trumps national interest.
The enemies of Britain now operate in plain sight, their hostility not quite overt yet still unmistakable. It strains credulity to imagine that those in authority remained ignorant of this man’s record. Yet even granting the assumption of oversight, one must ask the question: what, precisely, were they applauding in their ignorance? Neither negligence nor complicity reflects well on the nation’s guardians. My suspicion is that they knew full well whom they were dealing with; their discomfort stems from the realisation that the public, at last, knows it too.
The irony of the Starmer administration is profound: a government led by a former human rights lawyer now presides over policies that imperil its citizens’ rights. Universal human rights, divorced from reciprocity, become a one-way street.
As 2025 closes, the question is no longer whether the establishment despises the nation it governs, but whether the nation will finally refuse to tolerate it. Reclaiming Britain begins with recognising the fifth column within — and resolving, at last, to dismantle it.
Frank Haviland is the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West and The Frank Report, which you should probably subscribe to.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
(Photograph: Alaa Abd El-Fatah, CC BY-SA 2.5 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5>, via Wikimedia Commons)
But how can we dismantle it Mr. Haviland? Millions of us are not allowed a vote in May, and I’m positive that the GE will be “postponed”. The only person who can do it, is unfortunately smitten by “multicultural” beliefs, and his son seems to be the same.
Exactly. We hear endless cries demanding ‘a General Election NOW’, Starmer and his evil cabal must ‘go now’, and various iterations of the same sentiment. But how? We are impotent. Starmer et al can plainly get away with anything they like. Yes we want rid of them. But HOW? By the time the next GE rolls around, the country will be damaged beyond repair, and they will come up with a reason to indefinitely postpone it. What is it leading to? Is Starmer driving us towards civil war as his excuse to stop the Election? If so, what would that look like in today’s Britain?
(1) If not given the same trial and sentence as Lucy Connolly, explain why there is two tier justice in the UK?
(2) Why isn’t the same effort put into the rescue of UK citizens imprisoned abroad on trumped up charges? Obviously not the drug mules who deserve the hard justice they receive abroad.
Just a small point. We haven’t actually had an Archbishop of Canterbury for over a year as Wibbly had to take early retirement haha!!. As for Dame Sarah Doolally (Nursie-Nursie) if she does become ABC it will prove that she and the CofE couldn’t give a shit about safeguarding. Channel 4 did a two-part exposé of her just before Christmas, and I believe a legal challenge is being put forward to prevent her from becoming ABC because of her safeguarding record. However, she has said that she will support the £100 million reparations when/if she becomes ABC. So while country vicars are arranging coffee mornings to try to stop the leaks in the church roof, the residents of Bongawonga will be singing a gay Te Deum (thank you Noël Coward) for the CofE’s largesse.
An inconvenient truth exposed, no Archbishop of Canterbury is required – likewise no Head of State. Things function better without a Leader.
Great stuff Frank I have never detested a person so much as I do Starmer and his excuse for a government I would like to see them die in the most horrible of ways.