Last year a row broke out about the Churchill Fellowship, a charity which funds study & work placements overseas for poorer people, after it changed its name from the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust.
This thread is about truth, the culture war, & our broken news media.
In a typical culture war-fuelling diatribe, Boris Johnson accused the charity, set up in Winston Churchill's name, of "airbrushing" his achievements out of history - despite the wartime leader's grandson, Sir Nicholas Soames, dismissing the row as 'ridiculous'.
Using typically inflammatory language, Johnson said it was "absurd, misguided & wrong" that the Churchill Fellowship appeared to be distancing itself from the wartime PM.
Then Culture War Minister Oliver Dowden amplified the criticism, & lurid 'anti-woke' headlines followed.
The row started after the charity issued a statement noting not unreasonably that “aspects” of Winston Churchill's life were today controversial, a simple statement of fact at a time when people were focused on racism following the killing of George Floyd. independent.co.uk/news/uk/politi…
Oliver Dowden went on LBC to spout his divisive culture war rhetoric, demonising the charity as 'woke'. The Sun claimed that some of the foundation's volunteers had taken exception to the name change, arguing Churchill was being "erased from his own charity by the woke brigade!"
The Express joined in, with an unhinged rant from its 'Head of Comment', who in his article made numerous bizarre claims, including "all teenagers think they are the first people to discover sex" & that #ExtinctionRebellion are another "deeply annoying example of ignorant youth!"
The Right's contradictions were foregrounded: the Express said: "When you read about Churchill, or any figure in history ever, you SHOULD feel slightly OFFENDED & maybe a little HORRIFIED", yet the focus of anti-woke rhetoric is ALWAYS on "snowflakes" who are "slightly offended"!
Predictably, the Mail joined in the attack on the Charity & "left-wing activists", claiming that volunteers said it was 'rewriting history', with one supposedly saying "It beggars belief that the man who saved this nation in our darkest hour finds himself cancelled in this way!"
Inevitably, professional far-right liar & shit-stirrer Nigel Farage put on his best serious face to solemnly tell all five GB "News" viewers that we must "fight this", because the "demonisation" of Churchill "goes beyond cancel culture" & the charity wants to "erase" Churchill!
The story generated numerous 'anti-woke' headlines around the world, for several weeks.
So what's the truth about this attempt to "erase" Churchill?
Basically, the charity's website refresh had resulted in a short statement in light of the global #BlackLivesMatter protests.
"Many of his views on race are widely seen as unacceptable today, a view that we share. At the same time, he is internationally admired for his wartime leadership in saving Britain & the world from Nazism" - Churchill Fellowship statement.
Seems pretty nuanced & balanced, no?
"We acknowledge the many issues & complexities involved on all sides, but do not accept racism of any kind." Surely some nuance in our polarised world is a GOOD thing, right? And who DOES accept racism? Could it possibly be those whinging about the charity's reasonable statement?
Immediately after the criticism, the charity, founded on February 1, 1965, two days after Churchill's funeral, responded with a rebuttal featuring a large photograph of Churchill.
The Charity made their position crystal clear, so even the stupidest of critics would understand:
"Last month we simplified our name to 'the Churchill Fellowship'. We did so not because we are disowning Sir Winston, but because over many years we have found that, in a simple practical sense, the name was confusing to people & did not explain what we do."
But let's not take the Charity's word for it, let's listen to what Churchill's grandson, Sir Nicholas Winston Soames has to say about this high profile story.
For context, Soames served as a Tory MP from 1983 - 2019 & was Minister of State for the Armed Forces from 1994 to 1997.
Soames told The Times that claims the charity was trying to distance itself from Churchill were "ABSOLUTE BOLLOCKS!"
He said: "I just think this whole thing is so sad & so pathetic. Let me tell you that his family 100 per cent, unequivocally support the work of the fellowship."
Soames said that the claims were "so repulsive it makes one despair of our country, really. The Churchill family - I am genuinely speaking for all of them - we unreservedly, wholly admire & respect the astonishingly good work of the Winston Churchill Fellowship."
"It's very well run. We take a very close interest in it. It's testimony to how brilliant they are, to see the demand for the fellowships."
Asked about the website, he said: "I'm not involved in that. I don't know. I have seen the site. I think it looks absolutely excellent."
"Apparently anyone who modernises anything or does anything to remotely bring it up to date is 'woke'. It's absolute bollocks."
And I entirely agree.
As an ironic aside, it's interesting to note that the quote below is often misattributed to Churchill.
As a footnote, I'm not sure there is anyone in Britain who is so stupid &/or brainwashed to be actually incapable of recognising that Churchill was BOTH a great wartime leader who played a vital role in helping defeat the Nazis AND someone who held some utterly grotesque views.
Historians will always debate the nature & significance of his legacy, as they will about everyone's. Many UK scholars conclude that he was a great man despite his explicitly racist views, which although were more common during his lifetime, were certainly not universally shared.
Born in 1874, Churchill justified British imperialism as being for the good of the "primitive" & "subject races". He was a believer in eugenics, supported the segregation of "feeble-minded" people & warned that the breeding of "unfit" people posed a "terrible danger to the race".
Historians also point to the Churchill government's failure to ship food to India during the 1943 Bengal famine, arguing his actions were informed by his views on race & contributed to the death of up to 3 million people.
But Culture War warriors really aren't interested truth.
I've written several detailed #THREADS about how the Right misrepresent spurious non-stories in order to divide & mislead voters by waging their dangerous & divisive 'war on woke'. This one is about absurd claims of “racial segregation” in UK universities:
This #THREAD is about a ridiculous story manufactured out of nothing, which falsely claimed that a London park named after William Gladstone could be rebranded “Diane Abbott Park” by a @UKLabour council, “as part of a slavery review”:
And this #THREAD is about a profoundly misleading anti-@BBC story, which originated in The Critic magazine, which was co-founded by ERG 'Strategist' Christopher Montgomery, & funded by multi-millionaire Conservative & Reclaim Party donor, Jeremy Hosking:
Reform UK’s slick, stage-managed launch of a Christian Fellowship in St Michael’s Church is not some harmless Christmas-season publicity stunt. It is a clear and brazen step towards the Trumpification of UK politics, where religion is weaponised as a tool for cultural warfare and political mobilisation.
This is not organic Christian revival. It’s strategic political engineering.
Behind this development sit figures who have spent years trying to inject a US-style fusion of right-wing politics and religious identity into British political culture:
• Paul Marshall
A billionaire media financier with a clear ideological project: to build a hard-right cultural and religious counter-establishment. Through GB “News”, The |Spectator and UnHerd and other platforms he has amplified narratives about “woke attacks” on tradition, identity, and Christianity. The Islamophobic tweets he liked are disgusting. His network provides the media oxygen for precisely the kind of politicised Christianity on display at the Reform launch.
• James Orr
A Cambridge academic and prominent Anglican conservative intellectual, closely connected to the “post-liberal” movement and hard-right US conservative and Hungarian organisations. Orr openly promotes the idea of restoring Britain’s “Christian identity” through politics — a framing that sits uncomfortably close to the Christian-nationalist rhetoric of the US right. His advisory role to senior Reform figures is a clear sign of the ideological hardening underway.
• Danny Kruger
Long known for advocating a more “muscular” Christian politics, Kruger has repeatedly argued that the UK should explicitly root its laws and social policy in “Judeo-Christian values” - a dog whistle I explain in the next tweet.
This is the British echo of US culture-war evangelicalism: turning religion into a political badge, not a spiritual or moral tradition. His involvement in shaping Reform’s policy direction cements the party’s shift toward faith-infused populism.
• Calvin Robinson
Though no longer in the Church of England, disgraced former GBN presenter and political extremist Robinson remains one of the most prominent voices pushing an aggressive “anti-woke, anti-liberal” form of Christianity in the media — including endorsing narratives that paint inclusive or progressive churches as heretical. His alignment with Reform’s messaging shows how the party is deliberately courting polemical, grievance-driven Christian activism.
Together, these figures represent a new coalition: a British attempt to import the US religious-right model, with all its corrosive social consequences.
Using St Michael’s Cornhill — a church rooted in the conservative evangelical network — as the backdrop for this political spectacle is shocking in a UK context.
This is not merely a “religious event attended by politicians.” It was a political rally held in a church, wrapped in Anglican aesthetics.
The Church of England has historically avoided such political entanglement precisely because it knows how dangerous it is to let a religious institution become a vessel for partisan identity politics.
Britain is not America — but Reform UK wants to change that
What we are seeing is the deliberate construction of a political identity rooted in far-right themes lurching toward a contemporary form of Christofascism:
grievance Christianity
nostalgia for a mythic “Christian Britain”
hostility to minorities and multiculturalism
anti-LGBTQ+ theology rebranded as “family values”
anti-immigrant populism framed as moral duty
and a narrative of cultural siege identical to the US evangelical right
It is the Trump playbook, translated into British idiom.
This is disturbing, because once a political movement fuses religious identity with national identity, democratic debate changes: Opponents are no longer wrong — they are heretical. Policies are no longer argued — they are sanctified. Compromise becomes betrayal. And politics becomes a zero-sum culture war.
Britain has largely avoided this polarising poison. Reform UK is now trying to inject it directly into the bloodstream of national politics.
Reform UK’s “Christian Fellowship” is not about faith. It is the public unveiling of a British Christian-nationalist project — backed by wealthy ideologues, amplified by culture-war media, and borrowing heavily from the most divisive elements of the US right.
It is a serious warning sign of where Reform UK intends to take the country: toward a politics defined by religious grievance, cultural division, and the erosion of the pluralistic norms that have protected Britain from the worst excesses of American political extremism.
How have populist UK politicians and Britain’s right-wing press and broadcasters got away with repeating — day after day, year after year — the brazenly false and wildly misleading claim that we live in a “high-welfare, high-tax” country?
The claim that Britain is a “high-welfare, high-tax” country is a shameless lie—brazenly false—as OECD and OBR data consistently show: the UK's tax take is ~36% of GDP (mid-table globally, and well under the EU average of 40.5%).
The UK's total tax take of 36% is far under France's 45% or Denmark's 46%. Welfare benefits spending (including state pensions) is a modest ~11% of GDP—among the lowest in the OECD, well below the EU average of 17.5%, and just under half that of France (20.5%) and Italy (20%).
Not only has Nigel Farage shamelessly normalized far right discourse, but Reform UK have welcomed a new generation of young, radicalised, Andrew Tate fanboys who think it's acceptable to spread divisive bigoted lies and disinformation, and to make crass bigoted 'jokes'.
Joseph Boam is a radicalised 22-year-old Tate fanboy who started out as a Tory, running as a district councillor, then switching to Reform UK in 2024 and becoming a councillor in May 2025 representing the Whitwick division on Leicestershire County Council for the Reform UK party.
A former KFC worker, who has worked with his dad on sheds and property renovation, despite his total lack of any relevant experience or knowledge of the area, he was appointed Council deputy leader and cabinet member for adult social care—which ispatently absurd.
Across the West, figures such as Trump, JD Vance, Farage, Johnson, Tice, Kruger, and Lowe helped normalise far-right populist rhetoric within mainstream politics. Their appeal is anti-elite—yet they themselves embody the privilege they claim to challenge.
A multibillion-dollar scheme that exchanges cash from drug and gun sales in the UK for crypto—digital tokens hiding users’ identities—has enabling “sanctions evasions and the highest levels of organised crime, including providing money-laundering services to the Russian state”. theguardian.com/politics/2025/…
In 2023, the hedge fund co-founded by GB "News" owner Paul Marshall, who employs 60% of anti-Net Zero Reform UK's MPs, had £1.8 BILLION invested in fossil fuel firms.
Harborne (who has Thai citizenship under the name 'Chakrit Sakunkrit) also makes money from fossil fuels.
I and countless others are sick to death of the billionaire-funded Reform UK propaganda machine, GB “News”, and their decontextualised ‘facts’ that would make Goebbels blush.
Let’s examine the claim that “one quarter of foreign sex offenders come from just five countries”.
Yes, the raw data comes from a genuine Ministry of Justice (MoJ) prison census, but the way it’s being weaponised is deeply misleading.
The statistic sounds explosive, and deliberately so: a factoid engineered to sound like a revelation of hidden danger.
The right-wing information pipeline: a cherry-picked fragment of official data stripped of context, laundered through an opaquely funded “think tank” that isn't a think tank, amplified by billionaire-funded media, and weaponised by opportunistic politicians for electoral gain.