"Right or Left, I want No Part in Extremism" - Milli Hill

[WhereDidSummerGoAgain]

A thoughtful article by Milli Hill today.

https://millihill.substack.com/p/right-or-left-i-want-no-part-of-extremism

I can't help but find myself agreeing with her.

I know there's been a lot of debate on here about Kelly-Jay and whether she supports the far right.

Milli's article links to a Twitter post by Tommy Robinson showing an event and his inner circle. Kelly-Jay is there, dressed in a Union Jack.

This is pretty conclusive now, isn't it? You don't go and hang out with racists like Tommy Robinson and pals in times like these if you don't support them, surely?!

Milli's stood up for Kelly-Jay before, but this is a step too far for her, and for me too.

Just wondering what others think? This really doesn't look like a mistake this time.

Absolutely agree @JamieCannister, it's astonishing that anyone would come into here, a feminist forum and try and besmirch the name of someone who is trying to protect the women and girls of our country from the documented assault (and worse) of military aged male Islamists invading our shores.

But what if you do engage, honestly with their argument and the argument is a racist one, or an anti-muslim one, or even a far right one. I am not a politician but it is hard to engage with, for example, Elon Musk's or Peter Thiel's arguments without acknowledging that elephant in the room.

I think engaging with an argument is always the way to go if both sides are engaging in good faith and not misrepresenting the other side’s arguments. Sweeping statements of someone being far-right or mischaracterising their position is unlikely to convince anyone except for those who are already convinced by such name calling.

edit to add: if someone is genuinely a Nazi this will become apparent during your debate.

As far as anti-muslim rhetoric goes I think you can be supportive of muslim (or other religious women) having a need for single-sex space and still maintain a strong criticism (or even fear) of Islam. All women deserve single-sex spaces.

Another of Labour’s doomed policies is to conflate anti-muslim hatred with criticism of Islam. These things are entirely different and I really hope they will reconsider.

Excellent post. I wonder whether Danny Kruger’s move to Reform heralds a new phase for the new right - possibly moving to occupy the space once owned by non-libertarian Tories. That’s definitely the implication of Kruger’s recent book. If that is the case I think the challenge for any party will be to find a way to oppose Reform.

Of course he is extremely right wing!

Which of his beliefs are extremely right wing?

Reform are being very canny on defections. I hear that there are 18 sitting Tory MPs who they've turned down. I assume there are more they've accepted but are working on the timing. Since there are only 120 Tory MPs and at least half of them are functional Lib Dems, that tells you the scale of the crisis.

What they're saying is, we're not offering a life raft for an MP who has read the polls and wants to save their skin, we want people who bring some added value to the party. That's the point about Kruger. He's a serious intellectual, he's very highly respected, he brings knowledge of government but also creates a permission structure for other Tories to defect.

That's also why they would take a middle of the road guy like Jake Berry over right wingers who you'd think would be more ideologically aligned.

There's a common thing on the centre left where people dislike someone's politics - in this case Farage - and on that basis assume he's stupid. He's very far from that.

The thing is that the two historic regime parties have rotted from the inside and and are crumbling. But we could stagger on indefinitely with useless Labour and Tory governments who are unable to govern, if there's no realistic alternative. The challenge for anyone who wants to break the cartel is to be the realistic alternative.

There's also a big opportunity for the Lib Dems, if they have anyone smart enough to see it.

I must get to work, but just quickly. Yougov, 15th September 2025.

19% of the country believe that immigration to the uk has been "mostly good" in the last 10 years.

48% of the country believe that immigration to the uk has been "mostly good" or "good and bad".

44% of the country believe that immigration to the uk has been "mostly bad" in the last 10 years.

73% of the country believe that immigration to the uk has been "mostly bad" or "good and bad".

If anti-imigration sentiments are a guide half the country are hard right, and three quarters have at least some sympathy with the hard right. Or maybe "I don't support unlimited uncontrolled immigration" is not a hard right position (obviously, not least as "we want zero immigrants to protect the wages of native workers" is a perfectly coherent hard left position).

And one more thing... vid from 3 days ago on youtube... Shady Shae "Black British Woman SHATTERS MSM Narrative on Tommy Robinson"

Can you please explain how the interviewer and interviewee are wrong / racist / hard right?

Hang on - are we still talking about “uncontrolled immigration?” I was assured much earlier in this thread that no-one was, and everyone knows the recent sharp rise has been entirely in our control.

You’re suggesting that most people in this country so thoroughly misunderstand what is happening that they are taking in far-right “common sense” taking points that are based on a fundamentally untruth - that we don’t control our borders or the vast majority of the immigration we permit.

How can popular solutions work when they misstate the basic nature of the problem?

I could see a real opportunity for the LibDems in taking over the moderate-environmentalist space vacated by the Greens, and also stealing Blue Labour ideas. But it's hard to see who among them would be smart (and ruthless) enough to make that move.

What they have going for them locally is hard working councillors and nimbyism. There's nothing really wrong with that.

The problem is the national party. I don't like to be nasty about Ed Davey but he is kind of running the Monster Raving Loony Party writ large. If they could magic up a Charlie Kennedy figure they'd be doing really well.

I do think that Tory wets, your Tom Tugendhat types, defecting to the Lib Dems is just as likely as more defections to Reform.

You can be as clever as you wish, the issue is that people perceive immigration to be "too high" and "out of control" - it appears to them to be "uncontrolled". It is uncontrolled by reference to what they believe are more suitable numbers, irrespective of whether the Tory and Labour governments who have overseen mass immigration were doing so in a controlled or uncontrolled way.

Also, pretty much by definition, if we controlled our border we would not allow any rapists, paedophiles or terrorist sympathisizers to come here, and we do, so that is another argment to support that immigration is uncontrolled (or Labour and Tories chose to import rapists, paedophiles or terrorist sympathisizers which would be 100 times worse)

Yes, there's an obvious crossover between LibDems and the left of the Conservatives. But as we see at their national Conference, they struggle with a membership in love with social liberalism. (Actually the membership is a problem for all the traditional parties, almost as great a problem as the lack of political talent among MPs.)

Were you actually assured of this? You were called out (by me) for incorrectly stating that I had repeatedly used the phrase "uncontrolled immigration" when I hadn't used it at all. You also insinuated I was being dishonest. Another poster pointed out that it was someone else who was using the term. I'm not sure if you have put the record straight yet. If you did I missed that post.

In relation to the term "uncontrolled immigration" I think people maybe have a tendency to use it when they are talking about legal immigration when they feel that the numbers are too high because of the feeling of loss of control. I guess it would be more appropriate to call this controlled immigration and allow for a debate to be held about numbers / pros / cons etc. Definitions are important but you can't expect everyone to be consistent on terminology when they are discussing the issue. If you give people a chance it will become apparent what it is that is worrying them. There is obviously also an element of "uncontrolled" immigration. Nobody would say that individuals who travel to the UK in a dinghy or in the back of a lorry is a controlled way of entering the country. So there is still a discussion to be had in relation to that.

That's really not what they are saying.

The are saying that when the "left" political party, its MPs, staff, members, voters - say dismissive things about their concerns, accuse them of bad motives that are untrue, and especially say things that indicate they despise them as people - that loses votes. The posts on here are sometimes just a perfect example of that attitude.

Even worse that they behave as if somehow they are owed people's votes even though they clearly despise them and their concerns.

Perhaps that's an emotional response, but the fact is the party is actually ignoring their concerns, so even from that POV why would they vote for them.

But the fact is that if you act like you despise people, and call them racists, it's very difficult to convince them to vote for you, even if you change your policies. They will never trust you. You might get a vote as a least worst option but it is likely to be reluctant and temporary.

It's a bigger barrier than even corruption, imo. I don't know why Labour still fails to understand what a rod they have created for their backs, ever since Gordon Brown.

I think what people really mean with this is probably pretty close to what the poll asked - is migration as it is being seen good or bad for the country.

Even if it's following policy the government laid out, if people think it isn't working, that is what they care about.

Overall the view seems to be that illegal immigration is a problem not being dealt with correctly. But also that legal immigration is not being managed right, overwhelming communities, infrastructure, and housing, and suppressing wages, employment protections, and training support.

I agree with this. My current MP is a Lib. He'd make a great local councillor. He's very good at dealing with local issues and he's clearly a hard worker. But he's a totally unremarkable MP. That might just be another way of me saying I don't agree with him but I've written to him in relation to the SC decision and the digital ID and assisted suicide and his responses are so lame. He just repeats over and over how we must take the heat out of the debate whilst completely failing to address any of the points I have made. It's infuriating.

There's some interesting insights into TR and the UTK march in this podcast. Polling suggests that support for the march does not equate with support for TR.

Discussion starts at around 7.50

I simply can't listen to that. Emily Maitliss drives me crazy and the lies started almost immediately after I hit play at 7.50.

From what I saw watching vids of the UTK March is that the march was (mainly) about ordinary people who want a UK full of people who are proud to be British (irrespective of skin colour) and who want liberal democracy, increased border control, reduce islamic extremism and anti-free speech left wing authoritarian extremism. They want christian values and common sense policies. They want a united Britain not a divided one.

They want change broadly along the lines of some of the things Robinson says, but it's not like they worship Robinson (though some do, as an anti-establishment, anti-leftist, anti-Tory-incompetence figurehead)

Thank you for finally focussing on the salient points of my contribution.

That makes sense to me. But then if that were the case I think it would be a mistake to allow Tommy Robinson to be the "spokesperson" of the people you mentioned. The problem is, it's always easier (lazier) for people in politics to choose a "figurehead" or " community leader" to talk to to prove they are "listening to marginalised groups. And I think that usually goes wrong one way or another.

Lol, perhaps if you had addressed your comments about the use of the term "uncontrolled immigration" to the person who had used it rather than to me, you would have had a response to your contribution sooner. I am only guessing what that person meant so you are really none the wiser.

I was not the first on the thread to use the term, but I have used "uncontrolled immigration".

To Control - to order, limit, or rule something

Immigration which is uncontrolled is -

Disordered, chaotic (people arriving in boats, the chaos around migrant hotels)

Unlimited (literally) - do we have fixed maximums for legal immigrants (or in theory could we have 2m in a year if companies can justify 2m immigrant workers being needed)? Even if we do have a limit, do we really have a limit if we have asylum seeker and illegals on top of the legal limit?

Unlimited (not literally) - if you were someone who thinks that 50k or 100k immigrants per annum is a sensible number then 700k looks "unlimited" even if its capped by a strict limit.

Ruled - does the immigration system look like it is properly ruled by those in power? Or does it look like it is the people coming here who are in charge (eg getting to stay due to right to family life despite committing a heinous crime etc)?

Conclusion - I think it is entirely reasonable to say that we have uncontrolled immigration, though one might argue that it would be more accurate to say we have badly controlled immigration with the attempted controls being at levels which seem very high to many people.

Of course you don't buy that. Because you and others like you think that fascists are always dressed like extras from the Sound of Music and goose-stepping down the high street. I'm talking about the actual atmosphere in the country for members of my own family, dismissed as 'minorities', while a bunch of people get whipped up by Tommy fucking Robinson and Elon Musk, making out that the issues with the country aren't chronic underinvestment by successive right of centre economic governments beholden to capitalist interests, and championing people who think it's fine and dandy to call for burning down hotels if they think there are foreigners in them. Not to mention ignoring the many white male sex offenders and using every accused brown person as an excuse for more of the same. I won't be responding further to you or any of the other people who seem to think this is a debate, not a desperately dangerous moment when decent people need to pull their gullible family members back from the brink.

I think like AstonScrapingsNameChange.

Of course you don't buy that. Because you and others like you think that fascists are always dressed like extras from the Sound of Music and goose-stepping down the high street.

That is nonsense. I think fascists were a political party from Italy with Mussolini in charge, who were authoritarian, anti-free-speech, violent, warmongering nationalists who tended towards free-market capitalism but also undertook significant economic intervention more associated with the left.

"Fascist" is also lazy shorthand for hard right nationalist authoritarians. (I think "right-wing, patriotic, free speech advocate" is a more accurate description of Robinson)

I'm talking about the actual atmosphere in the country for members of my own family, dismissed as 'minorities', while a bunch of people get whipped up by Tommy fucking Robinson and Elon Musk, making out that the issues with the country aren't chronic underinvestment by successive right of centre economic governments beholden to capitalist interests, and championing people who think it's fine and dandy to call for burning down hotels if they think there are foreigners in them.

I firmly believe that chronic underinvestment by successive right of centre economic governments beholden to capitalist interests is one of the main issues. There are plenty of others. Many people also think that free speech matters, the culture of our country matters, preventing extremism is all forms but not least islamist matters. You don't get to tell everyone that economics is the only thing that matters to them when it doesn't.

Would you pleasae go on youtube and watch the vid on Shady Shae's channel "Black British Woman SHATTERS MSM Narrative on Tommy Robinson". Why do the interviewer and the woman being interviewed not feel like you and your family? What is the difference?

Not to mention ignoring the many white male sex offenders and using every accused brown person as an excuse for more of the same.

The point is that British sex offenders are a policing issue, just like British bank robbers, british pickpockets and British fraudsters. If however the criminal is an immigrant it is not just a policing issue, it's a "why did we let them in and how can we remove them?" issue as well.

I won't be responding further to you or any of the other people who seem to think this is a debate, not a desperately dangerous moment when decent people need to pull their gullible family members back from the brink.

Every time you call people who support Robinson racist or gullible they are going to double down. If you want to change minds then I would strongly suggest you listen to them, consider what they say, and work out a compassionate, understanding, intelligent response.

I genuinely believe (and it is depressing I have to say this) that one might group people as follows -

Ordinary people willing to have conversations with those they agree with and those they don't

Dangerous extremists not willing to debate the issues.

One more thing - a huge part of the UTK message is about two tier policing, and a big part of two tier policing is the way the police priortize hurty wordz on twitter, not difficult to solve sex crimes. Committed by all nationalities.