"Rigged Technofeudalism" - Political Polarisation, Culture Wars and The Failure of Political Parties to Build Consensus for Economic Change

This article discusses the growing political polarisation in the West, multiplying in tandem with the failure of UK and US political parties to build consensus over economic change. As voters become distracted by the culture war narrative, living standards fall, economic inequality spirals and assets become pooled under a super-rich elite. There is a parasitic and predatory class of billionaires and multi-millionaires controlling the media, funding the political parties and extracting the labour of the pitifully underpaid average worker through dividends and rent payments. Long gone is the fantasy of a meritocratic capitalist society; we are approaching the rigged techno-feudalism of a future that is destined for bloody revolution when populist neo-liberalism fails to deliver results.

The average adult living in a city, the most fruitful location for employment and opportunities, has a disposable income of £532 pcm (Finder.com 2025). With the difficulty of home ownership, landlords are able to amass assets and drive extortionate rental prices, further compounding the issue of unaffordable housing as saving becomes more and more difficult. Just for a 10% down payment as a first-time buyer, that would take around 5 years of extremely frugal living. And then to account for the remaining 90% equity through a mortgage, that would take a person on an average salary another lifetime to purchase a house. All of this toil is required just to avert the threats of eviction and uncertainty that come with rental. If they’re lucky enough, they may even get on the property ladder sooner via inheritance from the death of their parents. Whichever comes first. Crucially, the housing crisis is the central expense pinching the pockets of many. Yet no government seems seriously interested in advancing an ambitious programme of council house building to relieve the pressure of demand or offer practical solutions in terms of wealth redistribution. The situation is similar in the US, with homelessness recording new highs. But the best that political pundits such as Fox News Host Brian Kilmead have to offer is the suggestion of euthanasia of the homeless, "Involuntary lethal injection, or something. Just kill them”, he remarked brashly. A simple Twitter apology the next day kept him in his job, of course.

 Instead, the culture wars continue to blindfold the common man. Up to 150,000 marched in London under the fascist football-hooligan-turned-politician, Tommy Robinson. Many are simply disgruntled by growing illegal migration and the legal difficulty in deporting, spanning from the Rwanda plan to One In One Out. However, there have been clear instances of these ‘Patriotic’ protests platforming thuggish individuals. A recent video on social media emerged of a man being interviewed who merely complained that the protests were noisy. He was then heckled as a “paedo” before being surrounded by a mob of protestors swathed in England flags. They masquerade these flag politics with claims of patriotism, but in many instances, this is a dog whistle for anti-migration and, in some cases, even fascism! The worrying extremist radicalism on display during the protests was visible in Niko Omilana’s latest YouTube video entitled “I Exposed Racists in London”, which was littered with extremely racist individuals wishing serious harm upon migrants. Every lamppost in the country seems to be adorned with the St George’s flag. Many roads have become tacky and fanatical shrines to hooliganism and the uneducated feral mindset of the mob. In the London protests, videos also surfaced online of a South Asian woman being chased down the street, receiving unprovoked abuse, telling her to go back to where she came from. Some individuals held up banners alleging that migrants were going to sexually abuse their wives and children – a rather unconvincing line of argument for many thuggish and misogynistic individuals to run. The irony is further exemplified by the Metropolitan Police’s findings that two in five arrested for last summer’s UK riots had been reported for domestic abuse.  This also shows the dangers of extremist thuggery tarnishing the reputation of the anti-immigration movement, which further polarises the debate. Disappointingly, there seems to be much less policing over this than the recent 900 arrests of middle-class OAPs who were merely opposing genocide. With a number of Metropolitan Police officers recently dismissed for racist and chauvinistic views, it is not unwise to assume a right-wing tendency overcomes the bias of the police force. Maybe this is the reality of the “two-tier” policing that constantly occupies the titillating coverage of the right-wing press.

Social media has also become increasingly rife with uncensored fascism and even blatant lauding of Adolf Hitler. Let’s not forget Elon Musk’s Nazi salute, later parroted by the UKIP leader surrounded by jeering contrarian goofballs. This chronically online edge-lord fascism has permeated throughout Discord and 4-chan servers and now strongly appeals to the youth with popular far-right figures such as Nick Fuentes and Steven Crowder. Many assume that the youth vote is cemented to the left, and Starmer’s recent slashing of the voting age to 16 may have appeared on the surface a calculated political move. For example, in previous years, 67% of under-25s voted Labour in 2019 and young women still are a reliable voting bloc for the left. However, increasingly, the culture war rhetoric, particularly since the advent of Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson in 2016, has cemented a strong right-wing popularity built upon by Andrew Tate and other influencers. It’s important to recognise that in the 1930s, the largest voting bloc for the Nazi’s were also white male first-time voters. The economic self-interest of the youth vote has been increasingly flipped, with Reform UK now an attractive proposition to many young men who instead see themselves distracted by racial and masculinised politics. Studies by KCL found that 12.9% of young men voted for Reform in 2024 compared to just 5.9 per cent of women, a figure expected to rise substantially in the next election.

In times of economic depression, the far right offers a masculine, scapegoating and contrarian jargon that tastes like honey to a generation of disaffected young men. Further parallels with the 1930s can be made with the rise of gym culture and its ties to right-leaning politics, emulating the emphasis on physical prowess in 1930s Germany with the increasingly well-muscled propaganda imagery. There is nothing more emasculating than financial failure for young men, which is radicalising their views in the same way that the Great Depression ushered in vicious scapegoating and chauvinism as simplified, digestible solutions to complex economic problems. Extremist nationalism and misogyny have become commonplace pillars of these views. As a young man myself, I have seen the growing popularity first-hand through my algorithms and peers. In fact, I follow closely many of these right-wing influencers as I believe it is important not to be trapped in echo chambers on social media (although my white, young male demographic is targeted regardless, particularly with Musk’s clear attempts at radicalising social media).

One mistake the left has made is to ignore immigration. It is historically incorrect to establish the left as a pro-immigration movement, when the 19^th and 20^th century labour movements typically perceived it as a threat to wages, whilst, conversely, economically right-wing libertarianism has frequently advocated open borders. Frequently, the modern left alienates former voters, often through identity politics wedge issues such as transgender self-identification and affirmative action. But this is also supplemented by a dismissal of the potential issues of immigration. This particularly alienates working-class voters despite their overlapping interests with the economic agenda of the left. The contentious stalwart of principled Fabian socialism, Jeremy Corbyn, seemed to appeal to these popular economic demands. In fact, as a 2019 YouGov study reaffirmed, Corbyn’s Labour were extremely popular in economic policy. Perhaps this is a torch that the firebrand prodigy of the Green Party, Zack Polanski, can carry. Despite their popular economic policies, identity politics and a naively uncritical view of immigration are sabotaging the potential popularity of their movement – key wedge issues the media are keen to utilise on the orders of their billionaire press barons. 

Whilst economic overhaul is crucial, some of these income taxation policies in the 2019 Labour manifesto now seem outdated in light of the need to focus on taxing wealth inequality. There is a growing demand to levy taxes on the assets of billionaires, rather than on marginal income tax, which often disproportionately increases the burden on skilled middle-class professionals who are by no means inordinately wealthy. This is a move I am concerned Rachel Reeves will adopt in the November budget, as she is apprehensive about upsetting the poor suffering billionaires. As the in-form class politics agitator and economics commentator, Gary Stevenson, has hammered home with surging popularity, redistribution must target wealth and not income. In the UK, the top 1% in the UK own 21.3% of net personal wealth, which dwarves their 8.3% share of post-tax personal income (World Inequality Database, 2025). Shockingly, the top 10% have 57.3% of the wealth – symptomatic of predatory landlords and a housing crisis. With the lack of effective wealth taxation, capital gains and interest on assets insulate the richest minority from effective redistribution. It seems the only way to avert this existential threat of growing wealth inequality, which will ultimately drive down living standards as the housing market becomes more and more extortionate, is a wealth tax. Despite the fear-mongering of capital flight, conversely, this affects income taxation much more than wealth taxation. Many assets are immovable and physically tangible. Even if these are sold on - it will be to another wealthy billionaire who will still be subject to tax! This would also reduce offshoring as non-domicile individuals would be susceptible to wealth tax on assets. The area most sensitive to capital flight is in fact taxes on incomes, not assets. Tangible assets like property will always remain; they are easy to tax, unlike mobile resources like bank accounts and incomes, which require exit taxes to deter flight. This is the key area of unity that needs to be pursued for a brighter future in which home ownership does not continue to fall whilst the super-rich increase their stock.

There needs to be a clear and objective analysis of the impact of immigration on this country. Due to falling birth rates, we actually require immigration to sustain our economy, with population decrease averted in recent years as a result. The birth rate is below the replacement rate of over 2, at 1.41 in 2024. This is catastrophic over time as an ageing population results in a withering tax base and increasing care costs. However, it is important to note that such levels of immigration would not be necessary if it were not due to economic pressures deterring children, with the average child costing £165,872 to raise, according to The Child Poverty Action Group. Skilled migration is therefore economically essential currently; however, addressing the overall economic problems would increase incentives for children. Interestingly, despite the recent herds of protests, migration has fallen massively! This is indicative of an ignorant and malleable electorate who are easily manipulated by the media. Under Starmer, net migration has staggered to 431,000, reducing massively from the 906,000 in 2023. This may still seem a large amount, but it is economically essential to have migration of working-age individuals until we can increase the incentives for birthing children and resultingly, the replacement rate would be much closer to 2. This MUST be highlighted by the left and is something that Corbyn, Polanski, Sultana, Starmer, etc. have failed to even remotely achieve. Even my beloved Gary Stevenson has given a lack of sufficient empirical reasoning and objective insights on immigration, with his YouTube videos on the topic frustratingly unclear. Repeating the reality of the necessity for economic migration will encourage people to adopt a less tribal view and alleviate concerns about excessive cultural change, as it is economically beneficial. In fact, our NHS would be on its knees without it, and countless public services would be rocked by an ageing population distribution. Therefore, whilst immigration was too high, it is important to emphasise an empirical view in which hundreds of thousands are still required to plug gaps in the birth rate crisis until economic inequality improves.

The more difficult part of the immigration debate is illegal migration and border crossings, hence the tagline “Stop The Boats”. On the one hand, it is harder for these groups to be integrated, and they are often low-skilled in comparison to economic migrants. However, I believe the line of empathy is required. Not only has Britain been historically complicit in geo-political scandals that have created refugee crises, but it is a moral duty to accept desperate, innocent refugees. Without safe legal routes to many nations, such as Syria and Sudan, we are incentivising boat crossings with a lack of humanitarian visas or asylum application centres. However, the concerns of crime and multiculturalism among alienated and poorly integrated groups are understandable, given the PTSD of the public conscience following extremist Islamist terror attacks in recent years. Nevertheless, any cited links between migrants and crime are also reflective of a broader link between poverty and crime. In reality, there is little strong statistical evidence suggesting they pose threats to security. Improving the integration of these groups through educational schemes would also reduce any concerns of law and order. Adequate screening and international co-operation between European nations would also ensure that border crossings were regulated much more effectively. Greater powers to deport those who flag security concerns are necessary of course, as part of this screening process. Equally, greater co-operation between French and British authorities could also be used to crack down on smuggling gangs, whilst increased investment into the immigration department could help resolve the backlog, which leaves many stranded on the shores for years. However, in summary, with the short 21-mile proximity across the channel between Dover and Calais and myriad legal barriers, it is very difficult to formulate effective illegal migration policies. Nevertheless, the issue of illegal migration is vastly magnified. In the year ending June 2024, there were 38,784 detected irregular arrivals, 26% fewer than the previous year, with 81% of these arriving by small boats according to GOV.UK. Despite numbers falling, protests have grown massively, perhaps due to international agitation. In fact, the media are very skilled at making the super-rich appear invisible, whilst asylum seekers become visible targets: tarnished with unhelpful and inaccurate stigmas.

It is a gruelling irony that immigration is only essential due to a falling birth rate, symptomatic of growing wealth inequality driven by billionaires, yet these billionaires convince so-called “nationalists” that the asylum seekers are the problem. Elon Musk is no patriot! To those protesting immigration on the streets, he wants to replace your job with AI and cut taxes for the rich, whilst your rents and mortgages go up. Videos released unveiled a mob chanting “Elon! Elon! Elon!” as he made inflammatory cautions of violence over a video call to Tommy Robinson, high in his ivory tower, conspiring to profit from societal ruin. The richest man in the world is certainly no friend of the working classes. A patriot is someone who wants strong public services and even stronger opportunities for all, not a man who waves a flag. Ironically, that is virtue signalling. Elon Musk has done more promotion for Nazi salutes and recreational ketamine than he has for working-class interests.

In the country presently, there is a lot of anger and not a lot of thought. How can you be so easily swindled by these billionaires who blame your conditions on the needy and the vulnerable, whilst they pinch your pennies with spiralling debts? The strength of propaganda is epitomised by the sudden outrage at Starmer. Keir Starmer is about as straight-edge New Labour as they come. But as soon as he closed a few tax loopholes and at any suggestion of minor tax changes, the media barraged him. Compare the reaction and level of protests under the Tory regime, who harboured 900k in net migration and bred inequality with austerity cuts, with Starmer’s tenancy. A man who has, in fact, witnessed migration fall and although marginal in impact, has cut NHS waiting lists. Compare the public reaction between a simple accounting error from Angela Rayner over stamp duty on a second home with Jeremy Hunt’s avoidance of a £100,000 stamp duty after bulk buying 7 flats by abusing his government's legislative loophole (The Mirror 2018). I do not like the man, but the distinct loathing the public has for Starmer, above all other contemporary politicians, exhibits the agendas of an indoctrinated and critically inept population - keen to lap up the hypocritical, bigoted reports of muck-raking tabloids. I saw far less public outrage and protesting when Boris Johnson was giving contracts to tennis partners and throwing parties whilst remarking, “let the bodies pile high”. That government was mired in corruption and sleaze whilst we were barricaded inside. The left needs to promote a critical scepticism of the media or they will forever be doomed by biased reporting, something Polanski combatively underscores, to his credit. If they don’t, popular economic policies will continue to be ignored in favour of culture war distractions whipped up by billionaires.

The Israel-Palestine conflict further represented this media agenda. A recent report by the Centre for Media Monitoring investigated this bias, finding that despite 34 times more Palestinian deaths, Israeli fatalities received 33 times more coverage and, most shockingly, 38 guests were asked to condemn Hamas whilst 0 were asked to condemn Israeli actions. By no means would I support Hamas or their backwards views, but Israel has engaged in a dehumanising and disguised genocide across the Gaza belt, veiled by overwhelmingly positive reporting. Religious extremism has a tendency to breed violence and I am in no doubt that, with superior resources, Hamas may do the same. However, there is simply no justification for the cruel and gratuitous genocide that has turned homes to rubble and indiscriminately and indefatigably murdered Palestinians of all ages, far surpassing the right to self-defence. Alleged reports have also emerged of captives describing the sexual harassment, humiliation and torture of Greta Thunberg and her flotilla, who were detained whilst attempting to deliver aid to Gaza in early October 2025. If this is how Israel degrades and torments captured public figures under greater scrutiny, imagine how they may treat the silent voices of Palestinian captives. Israel has declared every person in the region a “terrorist” to justify their own draconian terrorism. Half of the 66,000 estimated deaths were women and children, disenfranchised and not able to signal support for Hamas even if they wanted to - although obviously, even endorsing Hamas does not merit a death sentence. Moreover, the elections were certainly not free and fair, and the dehumanising actions of Israel over many years have conditioned Palestinian support for Hamas, just as the British did in Ireland with the IRA. Whilst the beliefs of Hamas are backwards, being raised in such brutalising and degrading conditions would radicalise any person (if we employ the Rawlsian concept of the Veil of Ignorance in empathising with inherited contexts). Israel has no God-given right to annexe Palestine. Legitimacy is about democracy, not religious claims.

However, morality and the defence of human rights have been purchased by the Israel lobby, an entity few politicians attempt to defy. In the UK, 13 of Labour’s cabinet have received funding from Israel lobbyists (Declassified UK 2024). The UK, since 2015, have licensed at least half a billion pounds in military exports to Israel (Oxfam 08/25), whilst the US have provided at least $21.7 billion in military aid since October 2023. Whilst many in the British public vehemently opposed them long before, the government spinelessly awaited official investigations before they could call out the obvious abuses of the Israeli regime. With powerful Israeli lobbies puppeteering foreign policy, including the infamous AIPAC, which controls both major parties in the US, it is no surprise that Starmer and other international leaders awaited the UN’s protracted declaration of war crimes before having the bravery to condemn the violence and cease the sale of armaments in support.

Ironically, antisemitism has split the right over the issue. In fact, the EDL was formerly named the Jewish and English Defence League and many Zionists still exist on the right, such as Tommy Robinson and Ben Shapiro. Meanwhile, Nick Fuentes and Sneako are prominent far-right online commentators who frequently perpetuate antisemitic tropes, influencing an incensed and alienated youth who already see a disproportionate exposure to right-wing content. Notably, a Global Witness investigation found a 75% algorithmic sway for X and TikTok in Germany, with strong impressions of pro-AfD content to non-partisan German users and also strong right-wing influence during the Polish election’s social media coverage. Similarly, many studies have exposed right-leaning preferences in commentators across social media. Notably, a Media Matters For America analysis of supposedly nonpolitical spaces found that 9 out of the 10 top online shows are right-leaning. The financial interests and neo-liberal dogma of these influencers increasingly seep into the minds of impressionable audiences.

Unfortunately, despicable antisemitism is inherent in the far-right. The shared scepticism of the elite on the far wings of left and right reflects a horseshoe theory of the political spectrum. However, the failure of the right is a fundamental misdiagnosis of the intentions and rationale of the elite. Often these theories are correct in sniffing out a suspicious clandestine operation (e.g., the 9/11 attacks, the Epstein files, JFK assassination etc) but misdiagnose the issue as racial and ethnic criticism rather than through an economic, cultural or geo-political lens. Although unlikely, it is possible that the US had foreknowledge of 9/11 and omitted the intelligence from the public so they could use the event to justify terror - in fact the owner of the World Trade Centre, Larry Silverstein, took out a huge insurance scheme only months prior and he did not appear in work that day for the first time in years due to a dermatology appointment nor did his children, two of whom were employees. Similarly, the JFK assassination has been clouded in suspicion for years, with Lee Harvey Oswald shot by Jack Ruby before evidence could be given and newly declassified files revealing that agents were aware of Oswald’s intentions for months and chose not to act. This may reveal a tactic in which intelligence is obtained regarding assassinations and chosen not to proceed with if the assassination of the target would politically benefit the deep state. It is blatantly obvious that the Epstein files have not been released due to a cabal of elite celebrities who are implicated. It is so brutally obvious it may as well not be called a conspiracy. Donald Trump said in 2002, “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side”. Yes, this man is still president. Evidence also includes associations with high-ranking celebrities, existing hush money settlements, the fact that Trump’s secretary conveniently U-turned over the existence of the files as she entered power, the classification of files coinciding with the media noise of the Kirk shooting, most embarrassingly: the failure to expose any new information despite it being a key campaign pledge of Trump and the FBI directors complete 180-degree U-turn on the causes of Epstein’s death. Even the Trump assassination attempt, which went on to propel his electoral popularity as a resolute symbol of populist triumph, seems inauthentic with the bullet just skimming his ear. The assassination of Charlie Kirk was just after he began to criticise Israel and became increasingly concerned about the consequences, as his friend Candace Owens revealed through messages (YouTube, 2025). Furthermore, Benjamin Netanyahu, immediately following his death, began to pour tributes to Kirk out on social media in a strangely detailed and overcompensating tone and even addressed the conspiracy theories! It was almost reminiscent of Tony Soprano turning up at the funeral of a man he muffled with his own bloody hands.

These are all examples of conspiracies where suspicion is credible. The idea of a deep state which will engage in cover-ups and assassinations is not a fanciful notion. This is all speculation (some of the conspiracies are more far-fetched than others), and no one can claim anything with total certainty, but I think all such events should be investigated and the truth made public knowledge. Conspiracy theories will always be discredited as the state ultimately controls the apparatus of prosecution. As Antonio Gramsci famously argued, the state has a monopoly on violence. There is in fact a deep state. It is not just a fantasy restricted to the imagination of Paul Scheuring in Prison Break. The US has a long history of clandestine illegal operations, such as human experimentation in Project 112, Edgewood Arsenal and Project MKUltra and interfering in foreign elections, with the famous meme of former CIA director James Woolsey admitting to its ongoing nature with the suggestive answer “well … yumyumyumyum”. As Oliver Bullough memorably said, “All money corrupts and big money corrupts bigly”.

However, to imbue theories with antisemitism massively reduces their credibility and allows them to be easily dismissed even where it seems there was a cover-up. For example, far-fetched conspiracies, perpetuated by partially-amusing but insane figures such as Alex Jones or David Ike, issuing outlandish claims such as the existence of a Jewish elite who harvest adrenochrome from children, merely butcher the validity of any criticisms with racist sci-fi fantasies. Any critique of Israel should be cultural and political, based on careful analysis – not racial! The recent Manchester Attacks reflect how extreme and warped individuals can misconstrue political nuances to exact dangerous outcomes, with innocent Jewish civilians suffering amidst a growing discourse of antisemitism. The actions of Israel should not be associated with the Jewish community; many have even condemned and distanced themselves. Crucially, the prevalence of these right-wing racialised perceptions of state conspiracies reflects a fundamental underestimation of the importance of economic class. They scapegoat ethnicities instead of billionaires. Resultingly, radicalised demographics, spanning chronically online young adults to angry disenfranchised men, have allowed themselves to become distracted by race and culture wars. Racialised conspiracy theories reflect a modern iteration of the tragic ability of the Nazi Party to prey on economic discontent and scapegoat the Jewish race, rather than highlight the real economic causes of inequality and falling living standards.

However, crucially, the Israel-Palestine conflict has laid bare the agendas of both the media and the authorities, which continue to whip up social politics to distract from economic realities. This level of pro-Israeli authoritarianism has crept into the UK government in recent years. The lack of arrests of far-right protestors and those advocating openly for Israeli genocide, whilst middle-class old ladies and even blind men have been handcuffed and arrested for opposing genocide, shows this systematic bias, parroting the growing quasi-fascism of Trump, on thankfully a much lower frequency (for now). Just on October 4^th, 488 arrests were made, with the oldest being 89, for supporting Palestine Action. Whilst I only advocate peaceful protest, which Palestine Action forfeited, it is a concerning and hypocritical policing of freedom of speech when endorsement of an internationally recognised genocide is permissible. Yet again, Starmer’s obsession with fawning to conservative authoritarian sensibilities shines through; no doubt his tone-deaf advisers believe that it’s his best hope of capturing alienated nationalistic white working-class voters - as reflected in his “Island of Strangers” speech, which was followed by yet another embarrassing U-turn. It was even overshadowed by the more humiliating inclusion of Blairite mastermind and close Epstein associate, Peter Mandelson, reflecting the desperation to tread in New Labour footsteps. In fact, Shabana Mahmood has given new powers to put conditions on repeat protests, reflecting the conservative law and order posturing of New Labour.

Despite the right frequently positioning itself as an enemy of cancel culture, Trump’s second tenure has been an authoritarian exploration of fascism, and we are barely 20% through it! It has been punctuated by the brash demonisation of migrants, with deportations claiming record numbers of lives (Guardian 26/09/25) and often based on political beliefs, with Marco Rubio even boasting that many foreign students were deported for pro-Palestinian beliefs. Yet again, this reflects the genocidal complicity of the US. Israel reportedly spent $50 million on an ad deal with Google and X to deny famine in Gaza (business and HR.org), whilst AIPAC have donated $51 million in the 2024 cycle alone (Opensecrets.com). The censorship of the Epstein files and the recent attempted cancellation of numerous talk show hosts, such as Jimmy Kimmel, pressured by Trump’s tweets and threats, signify the increasingly authoritarian grip Trump is having. The scale of indoctrination is reflected by the MAGA cult of personality, which allowed him to, without evidence, cast doubt over the legitimacy of a US presidential election, including rallying support for the January 6^th Capitol attack. In fact, a Washington Post study diagnosed this cult of personality clearly, exemplified by the fact that approximately half of all Trump voters would not be fazed if Trump were to overtly endorse Adolf Hitler. Trump’s narcissism has even begun to drip down into his policy. He has always been half-amusing and half-terrifying in his delusion, convinced that he is the best of the best in every field. He has gone on record to say nobody knows more than him about construction, drones, taxes, campaign finance, technology, infrastructure and ISIS. But strangely, he omitted mention of the Epstein files. This is a man who is considering delegating taxpayers' money to an Arch de Donald Trump. Steve Bannon proudly claimed that Trump will break the Constitution and find a way to run for a third term. It's interesting to see a republican who states that he believes in “the land of the free” behaving like a despotic king. He has claimed that if “communist” Zohran Mamdani gains control of New York, he will take control. Alternatively, he endorses Andrew Cuomo - a man so unpopular that his debates read like a humiliation kink. Of course, as a man alleged to have committed 13 instances of sexual assault, Cuomo is much more up Trump’s street than Mamdani. Ultimately, the president is a spray-tanned Caligula in his final years of a power trip, carrying less dignity to his grave than Stephen Milligan, who was found asphyxiating with a lemon in his mouth and his pants at his ankles. People have mocked Starmer for his cuckolded awkwardness around Trump, but his fawning, light-footed treading-over-eggshells approach may have saved the UK millions in tariffs. In the US, there is a fermenting cauldron of racist vitriol, scapegoating immigrants for the failures of a neo-liberal economy. It strongly parallels the late 1920s and 1930s, with immigration and nationalism (as exemplified by geopolitical conflicts) serving as incredibly effective wedge issues to distract the working classes.

The economic realities of great inequality in America are starker than in the UK, as a more privatised and neo-liberal free market. As I explored in my dissertation, the American health insurance system is an extremely polarising and unfair arrangement. The financial incapacity of the lowest income groups to appeal, with an extremely low 0.5% average rate of appeals and a high incidence of claim denials, with 36% experiencing it (Stone 2025; Yaver 2022) reflects a highly unequal system. It's why many see Luigi Mangione as a hero. Whilst I will not mourn his victim for the American lives he has also cost, I do not condone political violence as it leads to a slippery slope, and the barrel of a gun should never replace the power of debate. Similarly to the UK, there is a crisis in the affordability of housing, with the average sale price of US houses in Q2 2025 at $512,800 (FRED Data, 2025). Half a million dollars just for a human right, financed by years of debt and financial uncertainty. Asset management companies like BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard have huge portfolios with a growing possession of hundreds of thousands of family homes. The Big Three own 438/500 of the S&P 500, spanning from retail to arms manufacturers to big pharma. The utter market dominance sounds like the resolution of a family Xmas Monopoly game when your Nana has Park Lane and three yellows, you have all the stations and the green properties, and your mum has the rest, whilst an unlucky fourth player is still skipping frantically around the board – left with a mortgaged Old Kent Road. These corporations can outbid American working-class buyers and charge extortionate rentals due to their monopolistic market power. Property should morally be accessible to all, not hoarded by investment companies to extract wealth from the already deteriorating middle and working classes.

Whilst economic inequality continues to spiral, the media has the views of the nation in a chokehold. The indoctrination is so strong that political assassinations and school shootings have become sickeningly mundane – the NRA and gun lobby somehow convince voters every year that more guns = more self-defence. In reality, this fallacy of “self-defence” veils the truth: it's about who shoots first. This idea that they exist to prevent government tyranny is both irrational (when the government aren’t going to be stopped by rogue individuals with AR-15s) and ironic (this government is increasingly authoritarian despite the number of guns dwarfing the actual population of America!). The US is a country poisoned by a corrupt political system with $21 billion in donations spent on the 2024 election alone (The Straits Times), which has ensnared a resentful and disaffected nation with obsessions over culture wars, whilst its economic conditions continue to worsen for many. The legality of stock trading inside Congress allows huge insider trading opportunities, with Nancy Pelosi infamously accused of such with her $164 million trade volume (www.quiverquant.com), Senator Burr’s selling of stock before receiving intelligence about Covid transmission in 2020, Trump’s clear conflict of interest with the $Trump meme coin cryptocurrency which netted his companies at least $350 million and even recent accusations that Baron Trump shorted Bitcoin prior to his father tweeting news about China’s tariffs and thus allegedly netting $200 million. In the US, corruption doesn’t exist and it isn’t investigated: it is simply legal. And most depressingly, we seek to parrot America. Musk attempts to intervene in our politics, whilst Farage is the more harmless and spineless populist homunculus of Trump. It seems that reality TV is a viable political marketing route in an age of political trivialisation.

It is the job of left-wing parties to fight the war on their terms instead of playing into the divisive identity politics of the right. Reform voters soon turn pale in the face when they realise Nigel Farage’s economic agenda. Zack Polanski recently released interviews with Clacton constituents, exposing the support of Nigel Farage for fire and rehire on lower wages and zero-hours contracts without guaranteed pay. Uncovering this left Farage’s Clacton constituents appalled and ashamed that they had voted for him (Facebook 09/09/2025). Unfortunately, it is frustratingly commonplace that the working classes seem to vote against their own economic interests from ignorance, with a media working overtime to peddle culture war narratives. Similarly, in the working-class formerly 80-year-democrat safe state of West Virginia, which has since been captured by Trump, a YouTube video by More Perfect Union (15/09/2025) revealed the efficacy of Bernie Sanders in appealing to the alienated ex-Trump voters. In fact, one woman, who claimed to be largely apolitical, confessed that she realised Sanders was not the communist crackpot that the press implied, but rather an honourable politician fighting for their economic interests. Notably, their rights to affordable healthcare have been curtailed in Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill in favour of tax breaks for the wealthiest, which is one of the points of contention in the latest government shutdown. There is some growing hope in America, and as the populist quasi-fascist charlatanism of Trump begins to yield little return, the working classes may begin to once again vote for their own economic interests. Zohran Mamdani advocates for a $30 minimum wage by 2030, fare-free city buses, affordable social housing and increasing income tax on those earning over $1 million annually to fund tuition-free education. Meanwhile, Sanders has been a stalwart of dignified democratic socialism for many years and continues to net huge followings. Although the Democratic Party is guilty of many neoliberal failures, it is a broad-church caucus that has fostered some progressive economic views by certain members in recent years.

As Thomas Piketty argues, we need a return in both the US and UK to the post-war consensus of the welfare state funded through higher levels of progressive wealth taxation that jointly corresponded with greater opportunity and living standards. However, crucially, the economic left must provide fair solutions such as taxing wealth, not work, and addressing the central issue of the housing crisis without allowing themselves to become ensnared by the divisive webs of identity politics. We must not patronise the left-behind voters for their misguided choices: seduced by right-wing populism at odds with their own economic interests. As tempting as it is to smugly clown their ignorance in this polarised climate of hate, we should pity their plight and understand how easy it is to be politically illiterate or apathetic in an age of misinformation, media manipulation and incompetence. People have busy lives working full-time and tending to their children, not analysing the nuances of the economy. We need to highlight digestible, authentic solutions to the economic problems they face.

Whilst being an egotistical free market quasi-fascist, Trump may be an unlikely source of hope in resolving the conflict by pressurising Hamas to accept a hostage deal in a similar vein to the Israel-Iran negotiations (Edit: Trump has since pressured for the first phase of a ceasefire between Hamas and the IDF). Despite this, there have already been cracks in the ceasefire, and Trump, in JD Vance’s words, will “obliterate Hamas” if they fail to comply. This is tough talk, but very concerning when you realise that this incentivises Israel to ensure the ceasefire does not continue, so they can resume with their indiscriminate devastation of Gaza with full American backing. After all, America isn’t going to turn on Israel, who line the pockets of nearly every major politician, except for outspoken critics such as Mamdani, AOC and Bernie Sanders.

Moreover, both Trump and Farage have frequently lauded Putin and support the Zionist cause, which is a worrying precedent for global affairs. I suspect that with Trump and Putin’s close relationship, the war of attrition in Ukraine will slowly reach an agreement that will see a “Golden Bridge of retreat” for Putin’s ego and acceptable terms for Ukraine. Maybe that is wishful thinking. A dying and nothing-to-lose Putin would be a dangerous force, but I believe that it will likely continue to be a protracted, evenly-contested war that is either resolved years down the line or with the West withdrawing support for Ukraine, fatigued from the economic commitments. The conflicted attitude of Trump and Farage indicates this potential for wavering support. The farcical US state visit of Vladimir Zelensky demonstrated this faltering Putin-sympathising distrust of Ukraine, culminating in JD Vance chastising Zelensky for not wearing a suit. More worryingly, these embarrassing hypocritical tantrums are so commonplace among the Trump administration that I almost forgot this happened. A 3-piece suit is certainly unconventional attire for a state leader when his country is under siege and relentless attack. I doubt they would’ve taken issue with Winston Churchill when he was clad in his khaki siren suit during his 1942 US state visit. However, despite wavering US support, the interests of NATO remain strong in Ukraine, which also ensures the possibility of a long deadlock resolved only following the death of Putin.

With Reform leading in the polls heavily, the left must capture former Reform voters and appeal to economic interests. I suspect that 2028 will yield a coalition involving any number of combinations of Labour, the Greens, Lib-Dem and SNP or a right-wing bloc between the Conservatives and Reform, with the election reflecting all the makings of multi-party politics. It is possible electoral pacts could also be made to stop Reform and the current polling of Reform at 32%, the Conservatives at 17%, Labour and Greens at 15% and Lib Dem 13% (Find Out Now, 13/10/25), in conjunction with the concentrated electors of Plaid Cymru, the NI parties and SNP, indicate a return to pluralist politics. Unfortunately, multi-party politics in an FPTP system frequently result in unfair results with dispersed voter concentration, which hopefully will come once again at the expense of Reform.

Although tactical voting will considerably affect people’s choices through pragmatism as an election dawns, a hung parliament is likely, but Reform still remains the favourite. I have been in that position of pragmatism, in fact prior to the last election I encouraged people to vote Starmer purely based off a lack of alternatives and the relative promise of this manifesto. Not long after that article, I began to renege my pragmatism after Starmer began to convince me that a Labour government would in fact be a dissatisfying miniscule improvement which was not worth the trade-off of huge national disappointment, incumbency curse and reputational damage. Although I recognise Starmer’s tempering of Trump and closure of tax loopholes have been positive, he has continued to push Tory economic logic, such as the cutting of the Winter Fuel Allowance, whilst obsequiously caving to big business in ensuring the “difficult decisions” only affect those in receipt of social welfare. Unless the November budget instigates serious economic reform with proper implementation, I cannot in good conscience vote for Labour, and even the realpolitik approach may not be convincing enough for me to vote for someone as uninspiring and sly as Keir Starmer. I actually last voted for the Social Democratic Party, one of the few 222 voters in the Macclesfield constituency, who I believed offered the most meaningful solution on economic reform that was not overly hindered by the distractions of identity politics. I think, unfortunately, there is little political optimism even still, but maybe the sprouting leaves of Green can inject new life into the political system.

If Nigel Farage gets in, expect a neo-liberal rollback of the state that will soon alienate his own voters. Remember Brexit, where £350m per week was promised for the NHS? This is a man who, nearly 10 years after claiming Brexit would ensure border control, appears on the scene once again to simplify complex legal problems with digestible platitudes of immigration scapegoating, pitched at the economically suffering native working class. Nigel Farage is a charlatan of the highest order. He appears on Russia Today constantly and endorses Putin, he was closely associated with the Welsh Reform Leader also found guilty of Russian bribery, he lied to the electorate and then re-emerged when he saw opportunity, he did shameless cameos to boost his profile including spouting “up the RA”, he has a history of schoolboy extremism, advocates extreme immigration policies which divide families contributing to the economy and has been a lifelong grifter with his project to whip up hatred among the working class, whilst backed by big donors to strip away their livelihoods.

The smug “I told you so” will be more depressing than comforting. Economic problems will continue to flare up. Accelerationists argue that things must compound to get worse. And if our electorate is so ignorant and the left is so incapable of flagging economic realities and deflecting culture war tactics, it might be that, bizarrely, a Nigel Farage tenure in the long term would be more beneficial than a centrist coalition. The incumbency curse will smite Farage, and demands for economic solutions will grow. The mask of finger-pointing populism will slip, and people will be reminded of the grifting, simplistic charlatan they voted for. However, the accelerationist argument for the long-term cost-benefit of a Reform government is dependent on what Farage actually achieves – he may well dismantle the UK beyond repair. He has hinted at extremist policies such as scrapping indefinite leave to remain: breaking up integrated families, economic contributors and valid citizens of our country! Farage’s closeted racist distinctions were seen in his blunder on LBC in distinguishing between European, Romanian and Middle Eastern migrants without the bravery to elaborate. Legal migration is economically essential whilst we have such a low fertility rate, and this rubbishes weak justifications that they are only preoccupied with illegal boat crossings. The rapacious anti-immigration narrative will stop at no bounds to distract from real economic issues. The foreign investors who own England, with 75% rail, 70% of water and 50% energy foreign-owned, are the real foreign enemy. They arrive on yachts, not dinghies. They privatise and fleece our public services and receive much less abuse than the legal migrants helping to run our NHS. In fact, since the 1990s, private shareholders of bus, train, mail, energy and water have taken £200 billion of taxpayers' money.

The real question is, is there hope in the UK political scene? In recent weeks, I have been enthused by Zack Polanski’s confrontational style and insistence that the greatest threat to the economic problems we face are billionaires, not migrants. His refreshing energetic volleys of attack have pinpointed the failures of New Labour, the Tories and Reform: calling out their complicity with Israeli genocide, privatisation of public services, the bias of the media and the refusal to adopt a wealth tax. This has seen the surging polls of the Greens to 15% and over 110,000 members (as of 17^th October), with record-breaking coverage for the Greens. Frustratingly, infighting killed the momentum of Your Party with Sultana accusing the leadership of being a “boy’s club”, which is an unconvincing claim given the party's views. Corbyn must unite with Polanski and the Greens under the youthful dynamism of a left-wing movement directed at addressing wealth inequality. If they do not concede an electoral pact at the very least, it is political suicide.

However, I fear that radical social identity politics inherent within the left currently will continue to alienate many and prevent consensus over an economically progressive future. The tabloids and neo-liberal press will be financially compelled to smear and highlight these subordinate issues and jeopardise the popularity of a movement seeking improvements in economic opportunity and inequality.

Notably, many people, such as myself, feel alienated by radical transgender views, and this has also instigated a factional divide on the left encompassing a largely female movement of Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) who perceive extreme transgender views as infringing upon women’s rights. Points of contention include access to women-only spaces, the use of hormonal drugs on children, participation of biological men in women’s sports, the desire for legal self-identification and legitimising gender dysphoria rather than treating it as a mental illness with scientific treatment. I think many reasonable individuals are of the view that every trans person has the right to live authentically and be free from discrimination – this debate does not endorse depriving trans people of these rights. Of course, there are a minority of individuals who are intersex and biologically do not fit in to the sex of male or female. However, I personally disagree with the idea that gender is purely a social construct. Biological differences between men and women are vast and cannot be ignored and social constructs are ultimately grounded in biological differences. Whilst on a personal level, I believe that biologically male or female individuals adopting non-binary pronouns is a concept divorced from reality and science, with ironically sexist and limited conceptions of what it means to be male or female, freedom of expression is vital in a healthy society and this is not something we should legislate against. Equally, to compel speech based upon a fringe ideology is a dangerous precedent and we should not force people to accept the transgender ideology. Personally, I would use someone’s pronouns out of politeness, but I would also expect to be able to critically engage with the transgender debate without being shouted down by repressive ideologues. Individuals should only be compelled to respect the rights of the opposition, much in the same way an atheist could disagree with a Christian who may even be their friend. Polanski also seems convinced that Graham Linehan was deserving of arrest, which will likely alienate many voters, as the “punching in the balls” jibe by Linehan was clearly ironic and has led to fury at the idea that someone can be arrested for a tweet. Fundamentally, nuance and context are crucial. Lucy Connolly’s advocacy of burning a migrant hotel was clearly inciting violence, unlike Linehan’s joke. Any speech that incites hateful targeted violence with a clear attempt to harm should be considered a threat of violence, which suspends the right to free speech. However, free speech is very difficult to legislate against due to the multitude of contextual nuances. A person should be allowed to clarify their intentions without intimidation - to ascertain whether it is a threat of violence/harm or merely an expression of free speech. Ultimately, free speech should be protected staunchly, or it will quickly fall into the hands of authoritarian regulation, with both the political left and right guilty of both.

Nuclear proliferation is another culturally left-wing view of the Greens that will alienate many. Many see international disarmament as a delusional process purely based on trust, which risks tipping the global scales of power for the worse. Moreover, the threat of MAD is essential for preventing larger-scale wars – as it has done successfully with no World War since 1945. However, there is certainly a conversation to be had around the overcompensating and unnecessary supplies of nuclear weapons some nations possess. Polanski’s idealism of opposing nuclear energy also severely hinders the reality of a green future. Unlike Mamdani (a US equivalent of Polanski as the populist left-wing figure of the moment), Polanski expresses a Fabian pacifism akin to Corbyn. This mistake severely limpened the full-blooded initial momentum of Corbyn’s Labour party, with his idealistic foreign policy alienating voters with shared values come election time. I frequently remember hearing “can’t vote Corbyn, he’ll get rid of our nukes” in 2017.

In principle, I agree with the idea of ending the predatory practice of monopoly landlordism – a toxic force for the country, extorting the high demand of the desperate, as the wealthiest people live off passive income and the increasing returns of compound interest. They contribute little in labour and are undeserving of such fortunes, especially when such conditions are often predicated upon luck or inheritance. However, this mustn't affect the middle classes and only the inordinately wealthy – a sentiment that Polanski’s “not plumbers or hairdressers” soundbite captures. Ideally, we would ensure there is an adequate provision of council housing for all and that ownership of multiple properties is regulated or taxed heavily.

The legalisation of all drugs approach, whilst I understand if informed by public health, does pose worrying potential threats in public disorder and challenges for our NHS. Decriminalisation allows the criminal underworld to continue to profit, whilst the alternative of state control risks organised crime jeopardising a political movement through threats and corruption. This approach lacks pragmatism and means the Greens would challenge on too many fronts. You don’t take on the criminal underworld, the rich, the media and the far-right all at once!

Polanski is also anti-NATO, which I understand in principle, but is once again a polarising policy that will wedge the electorate. NATO pressures countries to adopt targets like 5% GDP on defence, which manufactures aggression and has led to unsustainable financial pressure on many countries. The European Union averaged 1.7% of GDP defence spending in 2023 (World Bank Data, 2025). In fact, the only major country that spends over the proposed 5% of GDP is Russia, which has arguably contributed to economic stagnation and uneven development. However, for all its flaws and moral inconsistencies, leaving a cartel of ex-imperial countries like NATO would not go unpunished. Similarly, to the EU, whilst a flawed organisation, it is better to be on the inside than against it.

Many alienating far-left social politics issues will always hinder the growth of the Green Party. This will invite culture war chauvinists and Murdoch puppets like Piers Morgan to highlight these divisive wedge issues and sometimes appear half-reasonable when discussing it. I appreciate that Zack Polanski still relegates these issues below the key issue of wealth inequality, but the inclusion of such policies allows wedge issues to continue to distract from economic realities. Moreover, although Polanski is correct in establishing billionaires as the key target, not migrants, he dismisses immigration control as a valid concept too readily and further polarises the debate by labelling Nigel Farage, a populist grifter, as a “fascist” on BBC Question Time. This is a hyperbolic and cheap claim to level when Farage, for all his flaws, has not shown himself to possess authoritarian traits meriting ideological company with Mussolini and Hitler. I am open to the possibility that the term fascist could be revised in a modern context that reflects an age of Trumpian quasi-fascism, and having said that, Zia Yusuf has argued for the militarisation of immigration control by deploying the Royal Navy to ensure that no one reaches our shores. The logistical and financial cost of this is nonsensical and the moral implications of this approach are concerningly ambiguous. This could result in violence against those who desperately cross the channel under tumultuous, life-threatening conditions. However, despite this policy, Farage is far off the mark of the conventional definition of fascism and there is no evidence he holds eugenicist beliefs. Sometimes I almost cynically consider that the proponents of identity politics views are saboteurs of the left. Alas, that is an unfounded conspiracy. Equally, I would not be surprised by the logical possibility that there have been such operations deployed by the deep state/super-rich, particularly following the financial crisis, when discussions of economic inequality would have made their neck hairs stand rigid like Mary Antoinette in 1793.

My stance so far has been to overlook these flaws in identity politics and immigration out of the desperate pursuit for the focus on wealth taxation that Polanski proposes. However, I fear these issues will severely limit the popularity of the Green Party as they are unable to capture more socially centrist working-class voters who may otherwise have been seduced by invigorating promises of wealth taxation and affordable housing (with council house building crucial). I currently view Polanski as an excellent critic on many topics but a flawed solution - similar to my view of Karl Marx in many ways!

In reality, what we really need is a centrist, agreeable consensus over social issues so we can aggressively pursue the popular economic policies first. The priority is bills, housing, provision of public services and wages. The only man I am aware of in the mainstream who seems to show understanding of this is Gary Stevenson, but even he is a little too light-footed around the issue of immigration and fails to give a logical explanation of why it isn’t the issue. Unfortunately, although early into his tenure, Starmer has not delivered an efficient roll-out of his more positive policies, which I described in a previous article, such as nationalised GB energy. Even Tony Blair’s New Labour were capable of good with devolution, minimum wages, public sector investment and the Human Rights Act. This toothless Starmer diet Tory centrism is stifling the stimulating potential of a huge Labour majority. In one of the few positives of the UK political context, hopefully, the raging immigration debate is allowing many to open their eyes to the real issues: “radicalising” the public towards economic reform and taking agency over the billionaires who extort our great nation. The ability of the electorate to interpret the issues we face is veiled by media messaging, but many will not identify the cause of these economic conditions until it is staring them in their face. Whether it is in 2028 or 2032 or 2036, mass economic reform will become the agenda. This will be initiated either from the electorate (assuming rationality) or from politicians, as Edmund Burke advised, “changing policies to conserve power,” anticipating a vociferous flip in political tides that will oust them. The electorate has a misguided, lagging view of the economic realities, but we must inform, not patronise, them. Figures like Gary Stevenson are central to this, and it is an uphill battle against the culture war messaging of mainstream media.

Only one thing is for certain: for better or worse, change is coming. That is the beauty of democracy, despite all the flaws in voter rationality.