The Morris men stand, hankies aloft, in the same pose they’ve held for decades. The little girl tugs at her father’s sleeve.
“Who are they, daddy?”
Her father pauses for a moment, scratches his chin and ventures a guess.
“They’re Irish dancers.” He says, “I think.”
The girl looks confused.
“I mean, I don’t know why they’re wearing lederhosen.”
Puzzled, he contemplates the scene further. I walk on.
BEKONSCOT
In 1927 Roland Callingham’s wife, tiring of her husband’s toy railway, insisted that he take his trains outside. Callingham, a well-to-do city accountant, purchased four acres of land on the outskirts of the Buckinghamshire town of Beaconsfield and, with the assistance of his gardener, W.A. Berry, began work on a model village, complete with a high street, church and railway, each constructed at the scale of one inch to one foot. Callingham dubbed his creation ‘Bekonscot’.
Originally intended as a private diversion, Bekonscot opened to the public in 1929, and soon became a popular tourist attraction, incorporating, in time, seven model villages. Initially, Bekonscot kept pace with the changing architectural styles of the times. However, a reactionary purge in the 1990s saw most modern buildings removed and the villages returned to a thirties aesthetic. Thus, what was originally conceived as a chance to see the everyday world in miniature, is increasingly a museum of a bygone Britain. Notably, the villages’ high streets are devoid of the vape shops and Turkish barbers that lend colour to the contemporary streetscape. Today, concessions to modernity are confined to a handsome Art Deco tube station, a few authentically drab office buildings and some token Arts and Crafts houses.
‘THE BEAUTIFUL’
The week before I visited Bekonscot, the government, determined to accelerate the rate of housebuilding across Britain, announced plans to build 300,000 new homes annually. Earlier in the summer, Angela Rayner announced plans to drop a requirement that new houses be ‘beautiful’, dismissing the old rules as ‘ridiculous’. ‘Beautiful’ explained Rayner ‘means nothing, really.’
For our deputy prime minister; her mind addled, like most of her generation, by postmodernism; ‘beautiful’ is a concept too subtle to be reduced to simple language, and as such, is essentially meaningless. For the modern liberal, ‘beauty’ can be filed alongside ‘female’ and ‘nation’ as terms too slippery to contain meaning.
This does not mean that the Angela Rayners of the world fail to recognise beauty (or, for that matter, ugliness) when they see it. It is rather that they have taught themselves to disregard the evidence of their eyes and dismiss all aesthetic judgments as purely subjective. But how smart must one be to understand that the average street in Salisbury, say, or Stratford-upon-Avon, is more beautiful than its equivalent in Salford or South Croydon? This is a truth that I am sure even Angela Rayner would acknowledge, if pushed.
FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION
Why, among those less sophisticated than the average Labour cabinet minister, is ‘modern’ often a synonym for ‘ugly’? There is no reason why contemporary buildings should not be beautiful. Modern architects can do ‘spectacular’ well – witness London’s ‘objects’ – the statement buildings that litter the City and Docklands. But such edifices, no matter how impressive, do not belong to any regional or national tradition. The Gherkin would not look out of place in Los Angeles, say, or Lagos. Further, every ‘object’ is an experiment, and if it fails to pay off, a city must live in its shadow.
By contrast, tradition makes for attractive architecture. Ugliness is seldom worth repeating and does not endure. In aesthetics, as in politics, however, the liberal distrusts tradition, preferring theory. In our enlightened age, it is not enough for a building or artwork to be beautiful, rather it has to satisfy certain theoretical criteria. One only needs eyes to judge how a building looks. It requires an education to understand what a building means.
Only an architectural theorist of Le Corbusier’s brilliance could have built a city as inhuman as Chandigarh. By contrast, the numberless attractive villages that dot the British countryside were built, in the main, by unlettered craftsmen, men who would have found modern architectural theory incomprehensible. The vernacular architectural styles immortalised in Bekonscot evolved across centuries and were to inform the styles of suburban housing into the immediate post-war era.
The latter half of the twentieth century saw the defeat of tradition and the victory of theory, in politics, in art, and in architecture. Just as, for the political utopian, one solution (the common ownership of the means of production, for example, or the disappearance of the state and the triumph of the market) is sufficient to meet the needs of all human societies, so, for Le Corbusier, the principle of ‘form following function’ was a universal maxim. The great brutalist dreamed of a world remade in concrete and glass. Le Corbusier spoke of architecture when he maintained that ‘[In] Oslo, Moscow, Berlin, Paris, Algiers, Port Said, Rio or Buenos Aires, the solution is the same…’ but the sentiment is echoed throughout radical literature.
The Le Corbusiers of the post-war era have left Britain an uglier place. I am confident that, by the time Labour leaves office, many of Britain’s towns will be uglier still.
Britain needs new houses, of course. Would I feel the same sense of trepidation if acres of countryside were to disappear beneath dozens of (full-scale) Bekonscots? No. But, alas, the philistines hold power and are intent on despoiling our countryside with more of the soulless Legolands that litter the outskirts of our towns.
In Bekonscot, of course, it is forever 1933. Were things really better then? Life today is undoubtedly easier, but in many respects, Britain is a less pleasant place in which to live, with the cultural and economic revolutions of the post-war era having eroded social solidarity and trust. This decline finds a strange parallel in the quality of our built environment, as the reins of power passed to those less concerned with ensuring that England looked like England.
Tellingly, overseas visitors to Bekonscot seem to be having a great time. Perhaps Bekonscot looks more like the England they hoped to see than whatever they have found outside.
THE LAST DANCE
This is the future we have chosen, or at least, the future that was chosen for us. We could choose another. Conservatives should reject the mistaken idea that the cultural, social (and yes architectural) changes we are living through are inexorable and unalterable.
Which brings me back to the incident with the Morris dancers.
By the late nineteenth century, Morris was all but dead. A small band of Victorian enthusiasts recognised the tradition’s value and fought to ensure it did not die. Folk dance has never been fashionable, much less ‘useful’ (I should imagine that it would be difficult to convince Angela Rayner of its value) but England would be that little bit poorer if it were to disappear.
Likewise, the antique crafts required to build cottages and cathedrals were passed down across generations and are largely lost now. We are poorer for their being lost. But they could be revived. It only requires will.
Bekonscot’s brochure describes a ‘little piece of history that is forever England.’ There is no reason why the full-size England outside of Bekonscot’s walls should not remain forever England also. Traditions are only truly lost if we stop fighting for them
-
Forget The Greenbelt: YIMBYs Should Focus On Permitted Development
Britain needs housing. We all (aside from a tiny minority who don’t understand the concept of household formation) know this. And those of us who want that housing all know exactly who is to blame for the lack of supply: those dastardly NIMBYs and their unenlightened self interest in keeping property prices high.
Perhaps, though, that’s not the whole story. Almost everyone agrees that we need more homes, even if they don’t agree that those homes need to be near them. When you look at opposition to new housing, a pattern emerges – most opposition to housebuilding is opposition to concreting fields with deanoboxes, rather than an ideological opposition to adding any new homes at all. The only organised and large scale opposition in Britain appears to be over greenfield development. Sure, brownfield developments in city centres always get a few people holding signs outside them to oppose building a four storey tower block, but there is no Council for the Protection of Urban England pushing to keep brownfield land as brownfield. Brits like their green and pleasant land and wish to keep it; they aren’t usually so bothered by a couple of houses being built on a garden unless they live right next door and have a feud with their neighbour already.
And who can blame them? The costs of greenfield development, both aesthetically (loss of visual appeal replaced by boxes on concrete) and logistically (increased demand on infrastructure) fall on existing residents, whilst the benefits flow to the landowners and developers (who make the profit) and new residents (who now have a place to live). Compare this to the construction of a backyard rental cottage: the primary beneficiary of the development is the same person who bears most of the costs, so there is less incentive to oppose it, and the cottage is tucked away behind the existing house, where it does not alter the look of the area.
The government expanded permitted development quite a lot in 2020 with little pushback, enabling the owners of houses built between 1948 and 2018 to add additional storeys to their homes. Expanding permitted development rights therefore seems to be a politically feasible route to go down. More feasible at any rate than implementing a zoning scheme and zoning large swathes of greenbelt for new housing. Whilst the standard development pattern benefits landowners at the expense of homeowners, permitted development rights benefit homeowners. Certain options in particular would benefit homeowners with larger houses, who tend to be the voters that the government most wishes to keep onside.
There are a couple of changes that would be natural extensions to the existing policy. First, the right to add a mansard roof to any property not in a conservation area. At present, you are allowed under the permitted development rules to add an ugly dormer to most houses, regardless of their age, and to add a whole floor to many of them. Mansard roofs are more aesthetically pleasing than massive flat dormers, and are significantly cheaper to construct than a full additional storey. This would enable many presently small homes, that are amongst the cheapest of properties for those wishing to get on the property ladder, to be made more suitable for families.
Secondly, the right to add an annexe; or as they are usually called by urbanists and planners, an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). This is not as radical as it might seem – AFAIK there is nothing that stops one from renting a large ensuite bedroom with an external entrance and additional washbasin, that is totally not a studio flat (no oven, see! It’s not the landlords job to forbid fridges and hotplates and air fryers.) to a lodger, and the only difference between this and a studio flat is the presence of an oven. This would simply expand an existing right to include other extensions such as outbuildings.
The Cameron government introduced a rent a room scheme to try and take advantage of an oversupply of housing (in the sense of bedrooms per person; whilst dwellings per household have gone down, the number of rooms per person have increased since 1960). This is a good direction, but many people do not wish to share their homes with strangers. If part of the home can be carved out into an ADU and rented out, however, that would present a very different proposition that would hopefully see more uptake.
Adding accessory dwellings could have significant impact on rents. As many of the houses that would be suitable for this are owned by pensioners, this would provide an additional source of income – it is a common complaint from pensioners that they aren’t getting enough money. Here would be their chance to fix this. With an increasing supply of rental properties available, there would be reduced pressure on existing homes, which would return to the market for would-be homeowners to purchase. By making it easier and more predictable to add a flat or cottage for granny, the constraint of supply of smaller homes that prevents many people from downsizing would be done away with – those looking to become grandparents could either sell their home to help their children afford to buy, or let their children start families in the existing house.
Permitted development is not unrestricted development, and there’s no reason ADUs would necessarily mean permitting the construction of a large new house on the totality of the garden (existing rights do not allow more than half the curtilage to be taken up by outbuildings anyway). Reasonable restrictions may be: no more than fifty square metres, no more than two tenants (most households are one or two person), one ADU per dwelling, and perhaps councils having the power to require a single parking space.
The political will is not there to straight up abolish the Town And Country Planning Act, and doing so would most likely result in a deluge of poor quality homes and neighbourhoods to meet the pent-up demand. Seventy-five years of planning restrictions have warped housebuilding, it will take time for this to be fixed. But the political will is there to chip away at it within existing neighbourhoods. YIMBYs need to choose their battles carefully – forget the greenbelt for now, pick the fights where there is a hope of winning.
-
Bureaucracy and Fate
Among those who detest bureaucracy, there is a common criticism. Theodore Dalrymple indicts the British bureaucratic machine with these words:
“… Anthony Blair, with the cunning of the natural born swindler, seized his chance and created a loyal, corrupt, self-seeking nomenklatura class that remains extremely influential and easily able to outwit the blancmange-like David Cameron, who in any case so easily moulds himself to any shape going.”
The idea is simple enough. Bureaucracies represent the interests of the class from which they are drawn. Over time they ossify into a lobby for that class, at the expense of society at large. In Britain’s case, there’s a caste of people most attracted to Blairite ideology, who form the core of the public service. Their predominance explains why Britain is incapable of moving beyond a collection of stale centre-left notions, regardless of the stance of the government in power.
The analysis is a classic one. Aristotle (Politics, 4.1294a; 6.6.1320b18; 6.1.1316bb39-1317a10) and Polybius (Histories, 6.10.4-11; 6.12.4) both see the balancing of different social groups as vital for social justice. It’s not just that there are executive, judiciary and legislative branches of government. These must be staffed with the right combination of groups in order to properly represent the interests of society. If a single class monopolises an institution, the results are bad, regardless of other separations of powers.
But there’s a further perception which, I think, has escaped Dalrymple. Implicit in his criticism is the idea, conscious to him or not, that were British bureaucrats something other than a Blairite nomenklatura caste, that things would be better. That a bureaucracy can be balanced between social groups, just like a parliament, and all will be well.
The training of a bureaucrat necessarily excludes any political virtue. A bureaucrat is a cog in a political machine. His job is to maintain the state’s will despite any turmoil or emergency the country may face.
In this sense the bureaucrat isn’t dissimilar to a soldier. The conservative French philosopher Yves Simon analysed the nature of authority in 1962, sometimes using the army as a metaphor. Much of what he says can be translated over to bureaucracy. Any association of people has a common good and a common action which enables it. The common good of the army is defending the national interest against enemies, so its common action is armed campaign to defeat the enemy. To do this, it must have unanimity: every soldier must know what he’s supposed to do and how to do it.
Now, every soldier is a rational individual with his own opinions and ideas. In an ideal world, each soldier would immediately understand the why and wherefore of an order, and assent to it through reasoned argument. But the reality is that the circumstances of war are so confused, cloudy and ambiguous, that were the army to expect rational assent from every individual to every strategy, nothing would get done. There would always be a cause of doubt; always a valid motive for dissent from a plan. So, there must be a threshold where deliberation stops, and opinion becomes an order. At this point, the soldier substitutes the reasoning of a superior officer for his own. Not because he’s stupid or unable to reason, but because common action demands it.
In the military the stakes are very high: destruction, death, and annihilation. Therefore, the threshold where opinion becomes an order is low, in comparison to other organisations. In a government bureaucracy the stakes are high, if not quite so high: shortage of goods, mass hunger, economic paralysis. This is why, I contend, the bureaucrat isn’t that different from a soldier. The common action of bureaucracy is to keep the country running. Like with war, the task is loaded with ambiguity and unpredictability. So, the bureaucrat is required to frequently substitute the deliberations of superiors for his own.
But this means that an excess of bureaucracy in a country will have similar cultural effects to an excess of militarisation, but without any of the martial vigour. The training of a bureaucrat isn’t to think deeply; it’s to internalise the state’s ideology to keep the country running at all costs. A bureaucrat who thinks deeply is a liability because he’s someone who will constantly express doubts and interrupt the state’s ability to act or respond to problems. So, a society that’s dominated by bureaucrats at every level will be radically conformist, incapable of self-reflection, and unable to undertake serious reform.
The city of Sparta, because it was narrowly focused on warlike virtue, excluded all other virtues and went into decline (Aristotle, Politics, 2.1271b). Sparta made all citizens into soldiers, and so rendered them unable to act as independent rational agents in times of leisure. Once the battle was over, Spartans couldn’t think without orders to follow. Sparta stopped innovating and was outcompeted by her neighbours. Isn’t a bureaucratic state like Britain prey to a similar fate of death by ideological conformity? If the bureaucrat is the model citizen, and not the statesman, artist, philosopher, or craftsman, shall our society not also become a self-regulating idiocy?
-
Making Plans Without Nigel
Nigel Farage’s rise to prominence came in the wake of the utter implosion and failure of the BNP. After what seemed to be promising growth for this nationalist vehicle it effectively self-sabotaged to the point of complete unviability. Years of activism and goodwill pissed away. This is a subject deserving of attention in and of itself but will wait for another time. Enter UKIP, a party that although libertarian had the glimmer of nationalism in its eye with it’s main goal being leaving the EU. They had been rolling along in the background of British politics but were never really given any mainstream attention. The BNP was a eurosceptic party so the voter base could transfer over nicely to UKIP, although UKIP itself barred BNP members from joining for pragmatic optic reasons. Nigel essentially served as the frontman of the “fruitcakes and loonies” and his gift for public speaking and particularly his keeping alive of the immigration question attracted disenfranchised nationalists.
After this point, politics in the UK was overtaken by the Scottish independence debate as well as the question of Brexit. The latter obviously being achieved but poorly implemented. Glossing over this part of recent history to the meat of it; Nigel essentially forced the Tories to do something they were otherwise unwilling to do, leave the EU. Whether it was arrogance or fear that drove them to it we will never really know. What has transpired since then is a complete revelation to a great mass of people of the complete duplicitous nature of the Tory party. Nigel moved from UKIP to a new vehicle, the Brexit Party, in order to pressure the Tories into delivering a no-deal Brexit over accepting some Europe favouring deal. Post-Brexit the party has become Reform.
It was immediately clear that the Tories never wanted Brexit, indeed many of the things they publicly say they want or will do never come to fruition. It’s a party of saying one thing and doing the opposite. Nigel’s presence in British politics has been key in revealing this. When the last general election came up Reform made the decision to stand down in order to not split the vote and lose to Labour (who would have most certainly delivered a worse Brexit deal) ensuring another period of Conservative government. This is where the most recent criticism of Nigel begins in earnest.
Nigel is (dis)credited with “saving” the Tories. This is frankly preposterous. What has transpired over these last few years is a complete exposure of the true nature of this “conservative” institution. Reluctant Brexit deal, shambolic lockdown and further inability to reduce immigration. As we come toward the end of this 13+ year period of Tory rule what have they actually achieved for their voters? Nothing. Well not nothing, they’ve actually massively increased immigration.
If Reform had taken the decision to split the vote then potentially a Labour government would have been in charge of the exit deal and over lockdown. This would have given yet another excuse for Tory diehards, and the party itself, to say they would have behaved differently. Thankfully we don’t live in that reality, they’ve shown their true colours once again. Nigel has played the long game and come out of top. Are you really going to vote for a Conservative party that continue the same people that have been in power for 13 years?
As we are approaching what looks like a massive Labour win we have to remember what got us into this mess. Nigel has given the Tories enough rope to hang themselves with, the stool just needs a kick. Under a potential future Labour government we need to remember that, we can’t let the Conservatives sneak back in under the false bravado and empty talk the likes of which Suella Braverman has been deploying in recent weeks.
Rumours of Nigel as the next Conservative leader, after his appearance at the Tory conference, have been quashed by the man himself. He can’t envisage leading a party that stands for nothing and ultimately does nothing. I can only see his leadership happening if the party is completely gutted and that seems extremely unlikely at this point in time.
Nigel is not leading Reform at the moment, that task unfortunately falls on Richard Tice. A particularly boring man, a charisma vacuum, a damp rag to borrow a phrase from Nigel. If that party is to go anywhere it needs its old helmsman. I can’t think of a better place and time for Mr Farage to step back into a leadership position.
Where does that leave nationalists? Well firstly after being very kindly carried on Nigel’s back for over a decade it’s time for us to forge our own path. There is currently not a suitable vehicle for nationalism in the UK so it seems to be falling to independent candidates. I am currently only aware of one candidate that is stepping forward in the next election, Steve Laws, and would encourage every British nationalist to get behind him in this brave endeavour. The next decade is going to be critical for nationalism we simply have to get a party together, or commandeer one, and start winning seats locally and nationally. UKIP made an attempt to transform into a more nationalistic party, albeit in the vein of Tommy Robinson’s anti-Islam/counter Jihad. Although given what has happened recently, a staunchly Zionist party being the only vehicle for nationalism could have been a disaster. As I’ve said previously, we should exhibit caution when taking sides in the Israel-Hamas War. A fresh start waits on the horizon.
Mr Farage is not a gatekeeper, recently he said he believes a party will come along that makes him look quite tame. That’s us, we’re waiting in the wings but held back by our nature of being disparate and largely anonymous. Funding is also another great issue but there are plenty of content creators that surely, if they cared, could set aside some of their patron money towards the founding or funding of something tangible. Can funding be courted by actually engaging in active British politics? Potentially. The BNP had substantial membership and funds so there is certainly money out there to be had if only we could present ourselves more concretely to the British public. The Right in recent years has concerned itself with debate club topics of history and religion. These are naturally important but we can’t lose track of the ballot box if you genuinely feel that it is possible to gain ground electorally, which I do.
Nigel has expressed for years his desire to retire out of the political limelight, he was never masquerading as a saviour for our demographic woes, he just wanted Britain to leave the EU. That has been achieved, albeit imperfectly, so the future of Reform is uncertain but if it can pressure the Conservative party into genuine change then he will have done us another great service. The priority is stopping the endless tide of immigration into this country, finally carrying out the will of the British people after all these years.
As stated, the next decade will be incredibly important for nationalism in the UK, any advocacy for lowering, if not outright stopping immigration, should be pursued as our top priority. Find a vehicle that suits you and begin supporting it, either from the sidelines or involving yourself if you feel able to. The difficulty with our brand of nationalism, one that advocates for the native White British population, is that it will make you a persona non grata in many walks of life. That will change, but for now it is understandably a risk many cannot take. These issues will be hashed out in the coming years, as more speak out and as the imported problems of immigration can no longer be hidden or obfuscated the less taboo the subject will become. Indeed, given the current events in the middle east are reverberating back to our shores many are seeing the current & future demographic problem writ large.
Fundamentally, we are walking on a similar but distinct path from Nigel, we can no longer expect him to be something he isn’t. That is delusional for us and unfair, ultimately, on him. By doing that, we risk fostering resentment and poisoning what have ultimately been positive developments for nationalism when we otherwise would have been scattered and homeless. I doubt we’ll immediately separate fully from his political influence but now is our time to step into the limelight.
Nigel Farage’s significance to British nationalism today will not be forgotten, like Enoch Powell before him, it is foundational for many. Here’s to ARE Nige! Always and forever!
