[noemon]

Laurence Fox: ‘People need immunity from the virus of wokery’
The actor predicts that the culture wars will stoke more division than Brexit – and explains how his Reclaim party is planning to fight

Laurence Fox might be the leader of Britain’s newest political party but old habits die hard: the actor best known from ITV drama series Lewis has been offered the chance to play Hunter Biden in a new film.

It is Fox’s first serious acting offer since his calamitous/career-making* (*delete as appropriate) appearance on BBC One’s Question Time in January last year when he declared that Britain was one of the most tolerant countries in Europe and claimed that “to call me a white privileged male is to be racist”.

The offer to play the second son of US President Joe Biden in an independent movie came out of the blue, not least because his agent dropped him after the Question Time row.

“I’m debating whether I want to do it,” he tells me during a recording of my podcast, Chopper's Politics (you can listen to the interview using the audio player above). “At the moment I’m literally on seven o’clock in the morning till nine o’clock at night. I just don’t have any time.”

The film offer comes just as Fox’s political career is taking off in Westminster. After a donation of £5 million from former Conservative donor Jeremy Hosking got the ball rolling last summer, the Electoral Commission finally approved Reclaim as a political party last week.

“It’s a huge relief,” he says. “I thought it would be a very simple process to lob in a submission to the Electoral Commission; they check whether your party would be confused with any other party. And then they go ‘you’re good to go’. Apparently not.”

Fox has wasted no time since the registration, publishing a major piece of polling by Savanta/ComRes in the Sunday Telegraph at the weekend which he clearly hopes will provide hard evidence for why Britain needs a party like Reclaim. The study found that half of Britons believe they are less free to say what they think today than five years ago as ‘cancel culture’ has taken root.

Speaking on Chopper’s Politics podcast, he explained: “If 50 per cent of the country don’t feel like they’re free to speak, there’s a huge problem. I was pretty startled that it’s half of the population. But I also have to say that in another way, one part of me expected it.

“There is a lot wrong with being woke. There’s a lot wrong with people not being able to speak their minds freely. You cannot have the full and proper debate unless people are free to speak.”

Fox forecasts that the culture wars, which have seen debates rage over freedom of speech and rows break out over the UK’s colonial past, will be bigger than Brexit – itself a cause of split families and huge division in the UK.

“People do not want their history rewritten. This is a tolerant and loving country. It aspires to be and is what it is and it’s what it wants to continue to be.

“And these people who walk around telling us that we’re all massive racists all the time – we need a right to reply to them. That’s what my belief is. I think it’s in the interest of democracy that everyone speaks freely.”

He believes that social media has “supercharged these debates. But among the people I’ve polled, these people, they know there’s a problem. They’re aware of it.

“I exist to give them a remedy out of it, a way out of it and, you know, give them some immunity to the virus of what wokery is in your mind.

“It’s a sense that you’re superior. And somehow there is an answer. And it’s very anti-British. It’s very nation-hating. And I stand in direct opposition to it. And I will be for the rest of my days.”

Fox, 42, is well known as a member of the Fox acting dynasty (his father is James Fox, his cousins are Emilia Fox and Freddie Fox). But what is less apparent is that politics also runs in the family – his eldest brother Thomas Fox stood as a candidate for the Constitution and Reform Party at the 2019 general election.

And Fox has been showing signs of pragmatism; when he was waiting on the sign-off from the Electoral Commission, he briefly considered merging with an existing party like the Social Democratic Party. “I was worried that I’d end up sitting in a room full of people I didn’t know, telling me what I was meant to think,” he says.

Fox does not mind comparisons with Reform, the new political vehicle set up by the Brexit Party’s Nigel Farage and Richard Tice, and suggests the two parties will be co-operating in future. “I have a really good relationship with them, actually. It would be really interesting to see what happens,” he says.

In the interim, he is warming up his attack lines, accusing Boris Johnson’s government – which this week set out plans to tackle cancel culture on university campuses – of not doing enough to take on the woke warriors who are “in direct contravention to what Conservative values are all about”.

Fox likes to wind up the (apparently overwhelmingly) left of centre audience on Twitter, most recently last month when he was provocatively photographed with a Covid “mask exemption badge” that he bought on Amazon to avoid wearing a face covering.

He explains: “I fundamentally am about freedom of speech. I often think in abstract ways. My view on life was it should be easy to leave your house and not break the law.

“So I thought, if you can order a mask off Amazon and walk around with it, are you breaking the law? It was an interesting cultural point to make – that no one quite knows what the rules are.”

Fox is planning a policy manifesto and hints at a slate of candidates at May’s local elections that he hopes will damage the Conservatives’ core support.

This summer’s polls will be just the start, with Britain “absolutely nowhere near peak woke”, he says. “Peak woke will be lolling its way through for the next two or three years, and it will happen much the same way as it happened in America. It will become very powerful just before everyone goes to the ballot box.”

Out of the article, I want to stand on this particular:

Fox is planning a policy manifesto and hints at a slate of candidates at May’s local elections that he hopes will damage the Conservatives’ core support.

I think the Tories have found a winning system having a party a bit further to their right much like they had Farage to hand-hold them for the past 2 decades.

This system is quite ingenious because:

1) the party further to the right gets all the bad rap and all the focus.
2) the 2 parties increase the total share of the population pie between them and since they are affiliated they can strategise in common during elections for maximum results.

[Cartertonian]

What's needed in UK is a 'Left but not woke' party or, better still, for the woke to get a grip of themselves and stop forcing their agenda on everyone through mainstream and social media and courtesy of gullible politicians who will agree to anything to garner support.

I'm as pro-equality as it gets, but it seems obvious to me that what I understand by equality is not what the woke folk are after.

[wat0n]

What's needed in UK is a 'Left but not woke' party or, better still, for the woke to get a grip of themselves and stop forcing their agenda on everyone through mainstream and social media and courtesy of gullible politicians who will agree to anything to garner support.

I'm as pro-equality as it gets, but it seems obvious to me that what I understand by equality is not what the woke folk are after.

Interesting to see an arch-moderate like yourself writing something like this (not that I disagree with you, at all, and is extensible to the West as a whole).

[Prosthetic Conscience]

What's needed in UK is a 'Left but not woke' party or, better still, for the woke to get a grip of themselves and stop forcing their agenda on everyone through mainstream and social media and courtesy of gullible politicians who will agree to anything to garner support.

I'm as pro-equality as it gets, but it seems obvious to me that what I understand by equality is not what the woke folk are after.

In what way is Labour 'over-woke' - do you mean Keir Starmer and the current shadow cabinet? Or the Corbyn faction previously in charge? What did politicians agree to? Yes, there's a lot of talk on social media that can be called "woke". But there's a lot of talk of all kinds on it. That's the nature of social media - we can listen to more than we can possibly take in. Just because you've heard someone, that doesn't mean they have "forced their agenda" on you. It's up to each of us to use social media as helps us best.

[Cartertonian]

Interesting to see an arch-moderate like yourself writing something like this (not that I disagree with you, at all, and is extensible to the West as a whole).

Lots of discussion on essentially the same topic here, so no point reinventing the wheel.

For myself, as an 'arch-moderate', I see no contradiction in my position as someone who looks upon the inane and divisive 'left/right' spectrum and concludes, as Shakespeare might have done, 'a plague on both your houses!'

Although I've registered interest in the Reclaim party, that interest is tentative and cautious precisely because of where their funding is coming from (A Tory donor). Also, Fox himself is a bit of an enigma. However, if as things develop it becomes clear that the intent is to, 'break the back', of the simplistic and polarising traditional political spectrum and focus on ideas over ideologies, then it might have some promise.

It's early days. I'm searching for opportunities to look objectively, dispassionately and in a non-partisan way at how politics currently operates and work toward a better system that is more balanced and proportionate and which restores (Reclaims? ) some transparency and integrity to the system. If Reclaim are heading in that direction, I will follow with interest until such point as it becomes clear whether they offer those opportunities or turn out to be just another partisan outfit in different clothes.

[Potemkin]

Lots of discussion on essentially the same topic here, so no point reinventing the wheel.

For myself, as an 'arch-moderate', I see no contradiction in my position as someone who looks upon the inane and divisive 'left/right' spectrum and concludes, as Shakespeare might have done, 'a plague on both your houses!'

Although I've registered interest in the Reclaim party, that interest is tentative and cautious precisely because of where their funding is coming from (A Tory donor). Also, Fox himself is a bit of an enigma. However, if as things develop it becomes clear that the intent is to, 'break the back', of the simplistic and polarising traditional political spectrum and focus on ideas over ideologies, then it might have some promise.

It's early days. I'm searching for opportunities to look objectively, dispassionately and in a non-partisan way at how politics currently operates and work toward a better system that is more balanced and proportionate and which restores (Reclaims? ) some transparency and integrity to the system. If Reclaim are heading in that direction, I will follow with interest until such point as it becomes clear whether they offer those opportunities or turn out to be just another partisan outfit in different clothes.

[wat0n]

Lots of discussion on essentially the same topic here, so no point reinventing the wheel.

For myself, as an 'arch-moderate', I see no contradiction in my position as someone who looks upon the inane and divisive 'left/right' spectrum and concludes, as Shakespeare might have done, 'a plague on both your houses!'

Although I've registered interest in the Reclaim party, that interest is tentative and cautious precisely because of where their funding is coming from (A Tory donor). Also, Fox himself is a bit of an enigma. However, if as things develop it becomes clear that the intent is to, 'break the back', of the simplistic and polarising traditional political spectrum and focus on ideas over ideologies, then it might have some promise.

It's early days. I'm searching for opportunities to look objectively, dispassionately and in a non-partisan way at how politics currently operates and work toward a better system that is more balanced and proportionate and which restores (Reclaims? ) some transparency and integrity to the system. If Reclaim are heading in that direction, I will follow with interest until such point as it becomes clear whether they offer those opportunities or turn out to be just another partisan outfit in different clothes.

I can relate with your wishes, but I don't think we're about to reach that stage just yet. The fire of wokeness hasn't burnt itself, even if the fire of Trumpism might be reaching it in these times.

Now when will that happen? It's hard to tell, but the more internally inconsistent and impractical their demands become, and the more aggressive they get in pushing them, the sooner this will come. So it's a matter of time.

[Heisenberg]

Third rate actor and proud moron launches fringe far right party to whinge about the fact you can't yell "P*ki" in the street any more.

I think it's worth pointing out that the "woke nonsense" that originally so incensed our boy Lozza, and "inspired" him to launch this vanity project was... protests against the killings of black people by police. A true hero and man of principle.

[Cartertonian]

I think it's worth pointing out that the "woke nonsense" that originally so incensed our boy Lozza, and "inspired" him to launch this vanity project was... protests against the killings of black people by police. A true hero and man of principle.

I think you're right. Certainly about Fox. You're also right in principle in respect of 'woke', which is why I find it a difficult matter to contextualise, but as I posted earlier it's been done to death in the other thread I linked to so there's little scope to add anything.

With what little scope there is, however, I would observe that like so many other small 'p', spontaneous socio-political movements it's principles are sound, but their application in practice is doing more harm than good. It would be folly to cite examples, because as soon as an emotive topic is raised, it's emotive nature skews the thinking of contributors. Aside from matters for which there is empirical proof, in the complexity and chaos of human interaction and behaviour, there is no 'proof'. which is why those who study human interaction and behaviour have got no business drawing lines under anything or stating, 'there can be no debate.' It's that intellectual totalitarianism to which I object.

Notwithstanding Potemkin's humorous prophecy, my 'belief' is that there will be no meaningful progress made on any issue within the complexity and chaos of human interaction and behaviour, which is what politics really is, for so long as any group therein insists that their way is the only way. The answers will not be found in a little red book, or a little blue book, or a little orange book, or a little green book. They will only be found when we collectively take what's good from all those books, discard what's bad and work on society's problems in a cooperative and collegiate way, rather than insisting, 'it's our way or the highway'.

[Potemkin]

Notwithstanding Potemkin's humorous prophecy, my 'belief' is that there will be no meaningful progress made on any issue within the complexity and chaos of human interaction and behaviour, which is what politics really is, for so long as any group therein insists that their way is the only way. The answers will not be found in a little red book, or a little blue book, or a little orange book, or a little green book. They will only be found when we collectively take what's good from all those books, discard what's bad and work on society's problems in a cooperative and collegiate way, rather than insisting, 'it's our way or the highway'.

Inspiring words, @Cartertonian....

[Heisenberg]

With what little scope there is, however, I would observe that like so many other small 'p', spontaneous socio-political movements it's principles are sound, but their application in practice is doing more harm than good. It would be folly to cite examples, because as soon as an emotive topic is raised, it's emotive nature skews the thinking of contributors. Aside from matters for which there is empirical proof, in the complexity and chaos of human interaction and behaviour, there is no 'proof'. which is why those who study human interaction and behaviour have got no business drawing lines under anything or stating, 'there can be no debate.' It's that intellectual totalitarianism to which I object.

For what it's worth, I think this "intellectual totalitarianism" idea is vastly overstated and cynically used by right wing media to create a siege mentality. It's working very well at creating an impression that "both sides" are evil or crazy, but I don't think it reflects the real world in any meaningful way.

I also think this idea that "woke" people say "there can be no debate" is a strawman. Most of the time, it seems to me, they are saying "stop using slurs and dogwhistles," which is hardly a big ask. When it comes to actual issues, the idea seems to be "the debate on X issue has historically only taken into account a small number of perspectives, and that needs to change".

When most people in the UK have been raised blissfully ignorant of things like the history of the Empire, hearing those other perspectives - say, from Indians, Kenyans, Caribbean immigrants, or countless other people from the Commonwealth - can be a shock.

To give one prominent example from the last few years: what seems to a white British person to be an innocent statue of Cecil Rhodes, generous benefactor of Oriel College, takes on a different meaning when you're from a country that was ravaged beyond recognition by the British South Africa Company.

The problem is thst being called out when you fuck up is deeply unpleasant. I know this from first hand experience - I'm a white British guy in a long term relationship with an Indian woman, and I've made plenty of jokes that haven't landed, not picked up on subtle prejudices in social situations that she has been acutely aware of, etc etc.

The question is how you respond when this happens. Usually, a sincere apology and a bit of self-reflection is enough. Conservatives don't want to do that, though, because it sounds like work. It's much easier to play the victim and pretend they're being "silenced" or "cancelled" by a "mob".

It also seems like a surefire way to fame and fortune: as shown by the fact that Laurence Fox, a man with more or less no discernible talent, knowledge or charisma of any kind, is now being given hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of free publicity from TV and major newspapers by bitching about how he's being silenced.

[Robert Urbanek]

The inevitable synchronicity: How soon will Laurence Fox become a commentator for Fox News?