While some readers may feel that Matt Goodwin has already received enough of a kicking this week, across the media both mainstream and social, the truth is that he has not been kicked enough. In this article, I want to focus on a single claim he made in his disastrous (and now infamous)
Too many people forget that Goodwin started his career working with the Left and the liberal-Tory/neo-con think-tanks to stop the BNP. Having helped stop an authentically working class (with the almost sole exception of me) electoral insurgency, he pops up to fill the space he helped make vacant with slogans and vague promises.
Is it for the money, because it's what the people behind this safety valve demand, or because he and his ilk are inveterate snobs? Either way, anyone daft enough to trust him is going to be shafted - and really can't complain, because he's an obvious fake.
It was good that Goodwin was defeated by Hannah the Plumber rather than someone with a PPE degree! There was critical comment on her dress on her first day in the Commons but I think it was quite intentional and intended to say "I am not one of these dark-suited uniparty robots".
Hannah the Heat pump grifter is a dimwitted apparatchik,performing a similar function to Goodwin. As with Goodwin, she is a servant of zionist puppet masters.
She is a dimwitted stooge, not part of the governing bureaucracy. The UK is victim of the "divide & rule " strategy. Many jews & zionists welcomed& participated in mass muslim immigration as part of the bomb the world/invite the world strategy .
Heat pump Hannah's pimp, Zack Polansky is a zio jew.
From a longer historical view, this is the real tell. What is being defended as tradition is barely a generation old. The professional political class has only just taken hold, yet already speaks as if it guards a civilizational order, 1,000-year Reichs all around… Funny how this played out in Brexit: the “conservative” position was suddenly to preserve a 40-year arrangement, recency hardened into doctrine simply because it felt permanent. I could wrap my head around it for Brexit, but this is way over the line, lol
People like Matt have an interest in preserving the status quo because it's the only way he can survive, in a world of industry captains he's scrubbing the decks.
The bureaucracy of neo-lib containment will always try to contain. Goodwin and his ilk are opportunistic apparatchiks who can morph to fill any crevice which presents itself.
However,as the underlying political/economic ground begins to fracture and polarisation becomes more extreme, their role playing becomes more farcical and unconvincing. Goodwin's counterpart on "the left" , Zack Polansky is another example,although as a zionist jew, his shelf life is longer,as the UK is terraformed into a replacement colony for the soon to be defunct Israel.
There is a meaningful difference between critiquing a system and running one. Being a sharp commentator or academic doesn't translate automatically into executive competence.
Historical examples of populist governments — from various directions — show they often struggle with coalition management, institutional knowledge, and the grinding detail of policy implementation.
The specific figures you mentioned (Tomlinson, Downes) are media commentators, not politicians with tested records even at local level.
Goodwin’s argument is essentially that these people know how the machine works, so they should run it. But knowing how a broken machine works is not the same as being able to fix it. It might actually be the opposite. The people who’ve spent their careers navigating Westminster’s rhythms have a deep vocational interest in those rhythms continuing. Their expertise is inseparable from the system that produced it.
Parvini’s history lesson is useful but the Lowe alternative has the same blind spot from the other direction. “People who’ve built things” sounds right until you notice that building things in the private sector and governing a country are genuinely different skills, and that most businessmen who’ve entered politics have either been absorbed by the machine or bounced off it. Sugar didn’t last. Sinclair wasn’t in government. The ones Thatcher used effectively, Tebbit, Young, she used as attack dogs and operators, not as reformers of the system itself.
The actual question neither of them is asking is why the machine keeps producing the same outputs regardless of who’s feeding it. That’s the thing worth pulling on.
Don't really follow the Goodwin kicking contest. There should be enough in common here to look at the bigger picture and avoiding a far left dystopia. Having listened to the interview with Pete McCormack I thought it was reasonably good natured and informative. Pete in my view came across as an (understandably) angry libertarian but apart from slashing the state and wanting to reduce immigration had no policy ideas to offer. Matt came across as someone more pragmatic who wants to win an election and have a functioning government to work with. If that means bringing in some turncoat Tories to get there, so be it.
Didn’t see that. I thought he came across quite energized by years of Tory failure including the Boriswave. I have read most of his works and he comes across as consistent in his critique of the uniparty mindset - globalism, deindustrialization, controlled speech, mass immigration. Not sure what more we can ask for? And given that for over half the country he is beyond the pale as ‘far right’ that doesn’t leave much room except for the loony fringe. I was more intrigued by Pete McCormack’s teenage sulk over voting.
His past cannot be ignored. He didn't even sound sincere when he was talking about the Boriswave. At no point during the interview did I get the impression that there is any conviction behind what he was saying except, tellingly, when he became agitated about 'October 7'.
Not that I was about to rush out and buy Goodwin's book, the slating it is getting is exactly the reception I would expect regardless of how good or bad it actually is. Rather than tackle the content, the criticism appears to be based on writing style, whether or not he used AI to write it, and the exact kind of arse the man is.
My assessment is that Blair laid the foundation for a new caste system based on credentialism rather than accident of birth. Cameron built the superstructure. The result is the disaster we endure today.
Too many people forget that Goodwin started his career working with the Left and the liberal-Tory/neo-con think-tanks to stop the BNP. Having helped stop an authentically working class (with the almost sole exception of me) electoral insurgency, he pops up to fill the space he helped make vacant with slogans and vague promises.
Is it for the money, because it's what the people behind this safety valve demand, or because he and his ilk are inveterate snobs? Either way, anyone daft enough to trust him is going to be shafted - and really can't complain, because he's an obvious fake.
Brilliant thrashing of MattGPT, AA!
It was good that Goodwin was defeated by Hannah the Plumber rather than someone with a PPE degree! There was critical comment on her dress on her first day in the Commons but I think it was quite intentional and intended to say "I am not one of these dark-suited uniparty robots".
Hannah the Heat pump grifter is a dimwitted apparatchik,performing a similar function to Goodwin. As with Goodwin, she is a servant of zionist puppet masters.
And your evidence is that she has been filmed dancing with Muslim immigrants?
She is a dimwitted stooge, not part of the governing bureaucracy. The UK is victim of the "divide & rule " strategy. Many jews & zionists welcomed& participated in mass muslim immigration as part of the bomb the world/invite the world strategy .
Heat pump Hannah's pimp, Zack Polansky is a zio jew.
From a longer historical view, this is the real tell. What is being defended as tradition is barely a generation old. The professional political class has only just taken hold, yet already speaks as if it guards a civilizational order, 1,000-year Reichs all around… Funny how this played out in Brexit: the “conservative” position was suddenly to preserve a 40-year arrangement, recency hardened into doctrine simply because it felt permanent. I could wrap my head around it for Brexit, but this is way over the line, lol
People like Matt have an interest in preserving the status quo because it's the only way he can survive, in a world of industry captains he's scrubbing the decks.
The bureaucracy of neo-lib containment will always try to contain. Goodwin and his ilk are opportunistic apparatchiks who can morph to fill any crevice which presents itself.
However,as the underlying political/economic ground begins to fracture and polarisation becomes more extreme, their role playing becomes more farcical and unconvincing. Goodwin's counterpart on "the left" , Zack Polansky is another example,although as a zionist jew, his shelf life is longer,as the UK is terraformed into a replacement colony for the soon to be defunct Israel.
The case for scepticism:
There is a meaningful difference between critiquing a system and running one. Being a sharp commentator or academic doesn't translate automatically into executive competence.
Historical examples of populist governments — from various directions — show they often struggle with coalition management, institutional knowledge, and the grinding detail of policy implementation.
The specific figures you mentioned (Tomlinson, Downes) are media commentators, not politicians with tested records even at local level.
Goodwin’s argument is essentially that these people know how the machine works, so they should run it. But knowing how a broken machine works is not the same as being able to fix it. It might actually be the opposite. The people who’ve spent their careers navigating Westminster’s rhythms have a deep vocational interest in those rhythms continuing. Their expertise is inseparable from the system that produced it.
Parvini’s history lesson is useful but the Lowe alternative has the same blind spot from the other direction. “People who’ve built things” sounds right until you notice that building things in the private sector and governing a country are genuinely different skills, and that most businessmen who’ve entered politics have either been absorbed by the machine or bounced off it. Sugar didn’t last. Sinclair wasn’t in government. The ones Thatcher used effectively, Tebbit, Young, she used as attack dogs and operators, not as reformers of the system itself.
The actual question neither of them is asking is why the machine keeps producing the same outputs regardless of who’s feeding it. That’s the thing worth pulling on.
Waiting to hear a vid of your opinion about the Kanye vs Yookay situation. Seems a slam dunk as to who wants him banned.
Don't really follow the Goodwin kicking contest. There should be enough in common here to look at the bigger picture and avoiding a far left dystopia. Having listened to the interview with Pete McCormack I thought it was reasonably good natured and informative. Pete in my view came across as an (understandably) angry libertarian but apart from slashing the state and wanting to reduce immigration had no policy ideas to offer. Matt came across as someone more pragmatic who wants to win an election and have a functioning government to work with. If that means bringing in some turncoat Tories to get there, so be it.
Didn’t see that. I thought he came across quite energized by years of Tory failure including the Boriswave. I have read most of his works and he comes across as consistent in his critique of the uniparty mindset - globalism, deindustrialization, controlled speech, mass immigration. Not sure what more we can ask for? And given that for over half the country he is beyond the pale as ‘far right’ that doesn’t leave much room except for the loony fringe. I was more intrigued by Pete McCormack’s teenage sulk over voting.
His past cannot be ignored. He didn't even sound sincere when he was talking about the Boriswave. At no point during the interview did I get the impression that there is any conviction behind what he was saying except, tellingly, when he became agitated about 'October 7'.
You're correct, he hasn't had enough of a kicking.
Not that I was about to rush out and buy Goodwin's book, the slating it is getting is exactly the reception I would expect regardless of how good or bad it actually is. Rather than tackle the content, the criticism appears to be based on writing style, whether or not he used AI to write it, and the exact kind of arse the man is.
My assessment is that Blair laid the foundation for a new caste system based on credentialism rather than accident of birth. Cameron built the superstructure. The result is the disaster we endure today.
Excellent analysis. Thank you.
I expect that goes over the heads of most of the angry right who will burn the house down.
Was he mentioned here?