Political discourse is starting to turn rancid in the UK

In recent years, British public discourse has become more hostile and polarised. Politicians, journalists, academics, employers, public servants, and ordinary citizens report growing reluctance to express their views openly for fear of harassment, organised pressure campaigns, reputational damage, or professional consequences.

Many believe that Islamist extremism and an increasingly ideological form of Palestinianised activism, or ‛Palestinianism’ has contributed to this trend. Islamist movements challenge core democratic principles by promoting ideas that conflict with equality, freedom of expression, religious liberty, and parliamentary democracy, at one time respected and stable in the UK. At the same time, Palestinianist activism has, in some cases, moved beyond advocacy into attempts to influence institutions, public debate, and political decision-making through intimidation, disruption, and the silencing of opposing views.

This is not to say that the reverse hasn’t often been the case. For example, the Green Party in the UK seem not to mention much about their core founding principle and reason for existing, that is, protecting the environment. Their recently elected Member of Parliament, Hannah Spencer, failed to mention anything about the environment in her maiden speech to Parliament.

And it is not just confined to the Green Party. There are others, openly elected on their Gaza campaigning, leaving people to wonder whether they might make better use of their time transferring to Gaza and working on behalf of the people there that they care so passionately about, to the exclusion, it must be added, as they tend to do, for any other conflict in the world.

And I’m not for one minute denying the people of Gaza deserve compassion. But sadly, any local discourse there against the current regime can be fatal.

And no matter how vocal these people are in denying it, one of the root causes is antisemitism, which has been allowed to flourish since being, some might say, reintroduced by Jeremy Corbyn during his period as leader of the UK’s Labour Party in 2015. There is no doubt that Jeremy Corbyn has demonstrated himself to be one of the most principled politicians in living memory. It’s just that so many of his principles over the decades have been very reprehensible and do not reflect British values.

The spread of misinformation, inflammatory rhetoric, and false accusations has further damaged public discourse. Too often, debate is replaced by slogans, pressure, and personal attacks. Citizens increasingly feel that expressing alternative opinions carries significant personal risk.

Many people are also concerned that Britain is importing conflicts, grievances, and forms of political activism that are alien to the UK’s traditions of moderation, tolerance, and respectful disagreement. And furthermore, these have nothing to do with the Great British public, who are more interested in the cost of living, employment, finances and health. The result is growing social division, declining trust in institutions, and a culture in which fear can replace open discussion.

This is not an argument against legitimate support for Israel or the Palestinians, criticism of the Israeli Government, or democratic participation in the UK by British Muslims. It is an argument that Britain must resist all forms of extremism, sectarianism, and intimidation, something it is failing to do on an almost industrial basis.

It is just not helpful that a senior Secretary of State in the UK’s Government, Ed Miliband, not only Jewish himself, but heading the Department for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, was grandstanding (and telling many untruths to the bargain) about only Israel, while completely ignoring any other of the very serious conflicts throughout the world.

This was done, many cynics have said, in an attempt to shore up support for his Labour Party in the up-and-coming by-election for the seat former Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has stood down from, the Holborn and St Pancras constituency of inner London, taking place on 8th October 2026.

The UK Home Secretary is planning to order the police to ban face coverings and make better use of intelligence. Not against those who, during the past three years since October 7, have been screaming and screeching divisive, untrue and inciteful messages and slogans on British streets against not only Israel and America, but ultimately at British Jews. Many had their faces covered. But the order is against people protesting about being forced to have illegal migrants living, as it were, on their doorsteps. This cannot be described as anything other than a two-tier response.

The challenge facing Britain is whether its public life will continue to be shaped by democratic values and open debate, or increasingly influenced by movements that seek to advance their objectives through pressure, intimidation, and the suppression of dissent. The latter seems to be what is happening.

Protecting freedom of expression, democratic norms, and life without fear is essential if Britain is to preserve the way of life that has long defined it. However, that all seems to be disappearing, and those with the power to do something about it seem altogether far too content to let a minority, whose moral compass with regard to traditional British values seems all but completely broken, call the shots.