In the final days before the Makerfield by-election, Rupert Lowe appeared to have settled on a straightforward electoral strategy, denounce anything remotely objectionable as ‘woke.’

The leader of Restore Britain spent the past week launching attacks against the supposed forces of wokeness, deploying the term so liberally that it increasingly seems to mean little more than “something Rupert Lowe disapproves of.”

Speaking to the Telegraph, which, like the Mail on Sunday, was keen to report how Restore Britain is backed by neo-fascists, “the sorts of people how claim Hitler was “misunderstood,” as the newspaper described, Lowe said: “I’m not going to be put down by some woke creeps telling us we’re racist.”

And when asked about the prospect of Restore dividing the right-wing vote, Lowe retorted:

“To those who warn a divided Right could hand power to Andy Burnham, or a rainbow coalition of the increasingly radical Left,

“Get a life. I’m only interested in doing what I think is right for the country.”

And Lowe’s anti-woke offensive didn’t stop with his political rivals.

He also took aim at Britain’s universities while questioning public spending on research and development.

Speaking during a Public Accounts Committee hearing, Lowe expressed concern about taxpayer money “disappearing into a woke university abstract experiment.”

Ian Chapman, chief executive of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), hit back, reminding Lowe that the purpose of research funding is to achieve outcomes rather than to police the ideological composition of university departments.

Chapman explained that his role was not to “micromanage” universities, scrutinise individual hiring decisions or monitor staffing arrangements. Instead, he argued, public bodies should establish clear objectives for publicly funded research and hold institutions accountable for delivering results.

Yet, coming for the man who, a year ago, accused Reform UK itself of “going woke,” Lowe’s comments come as no surprise.

“I agree with JK Rowling,” Lowe said in an interview, “that it appears that Reform have gone woke… On a number of issues, they appear to have gone woke. Not just welfare payments but almost every aspect with what Nigel utters now appears to be in conflict with what he said in the past.”

At this rate, the only thing that isn’t woke is Rupert Lowe.

The post Woke-Bashing of the Week: Rupert Lowe’s war on woke turned up a notch days before the Makerfield byelection appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Pride Month is underway, but rather than recognising the annual global observance celebrating LGBTQ+ history, visibility and the ongoing struggle for equality, GB Newschose to celebrate the National Football League’s (NFL) apparent decision to distance itself from the event.

In a triumphant report, the broadcaster heralded what it described as the “latest corporate heel-turn on woke culture in America,” pointing to how the NFL’s official X and Instagram accounts, which collectively reach almost 70 million followers, did not publish dedicated Pride Month messages on June 1.

The article gloats that how, in previous years, the league had posted messages such as “Football is for everyone” and wished followers a “Happy Pride,” and how this year, nine of the NFL’s 32 teams also refrained from making Pride-related posts on the opening day of the month.

Yet moments later, the right-wing outlet acknowledges that the NFL’s official X account actively reposted Pride Month messages from several franchises, including the New York Giants, Seattle Seahawks, Los Angeles Chargers, San Francisco 49ers, Buffalo Bills, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Houston Texans and Carolina Panthers.

So, is the NFL actually distancing itself from Pride Month, or is GB News selectively presenting evidence to fit a preferred political narrative?

The article goes on to note that the NFL still maintains a Pride section on its official website, though it emphasises that the page appears not to have been updated for several years.

The channel is also forced to concede that other major American sports organisations have continued to mark Pride Month publicly. Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League all issued Pride-related messages on social media.

But even that is not where the story ends, as the report turns its attention to Donald Trump.

Readers are reminded that Trump has repeatedly called on sports teams to reverse changes made during the social and political upheavals of 2020, including urging the NFL’s Washington Commanders to restore their former name, the Redskins.

The franchise abandoned the name during the Black Lives Matter protests, initially rebranding as the Washington Football Team before adopting the Commanders identity in 2022.

The article notes Trump’s threat to block the team’s proposed stadium deal unless it reverted to its former name. What it doesn’t dwell on is the fact that the stadium agreement ultimately proceeded without any name change.

Nevertheless, Trump emerges as the unmistakable protagonist of the piece. The headline itself leaves little doubt about how readers are expected to interpret events: “NFL teams shun Pride Month as tide turns on woke under Donald Trump.”

The post Woke-bashing of the week: GB News can’t decide whether the NFL supports Pride Month, but still declares a Trump triumph appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

How dare a British exam board allow GCSE French students to use gender-neutral language, especially when, according to the outraged right-wing press, “the French don’t even use it themselves.”

The latest culture-war panic was triggered after it emerged staff at exam board Pearson Edexcel had been advised not to penalise students who use inclusive pronouns, nouns and adjectives in GCSE French, German and Spanish exams.

The story, first circulated by the Sunday Telegraph and eagerly recycled by GB News, the Spectator, and the usual anti-woke outrage machine, treated the issue as though civilisation itself were under threat. French students, readers were warned, may now use pronouns such as iel or ille in place of il and elle, and iels instead of ils and elles.

What particularly inflamed the anti-trans commentariat was the claim that France itself supposedly rejects such language entirely, because French grammar traditionally assigns masculine and feminine forms to nouns and adjectives.

As usual, the coverage also relied heavily on loaded language. GB News described iel and iels as “made-up neutral terms,” as though every word in every language was not, at some point, literally made up.

What the outrage ignores, of course, is how languages evolve constantly. French already contains recognised debates around inclusive language, and terms such as iel are not imaginary inventions dreamt up by British activists.

In 2021, Le Petit Robert, one of France’s most respected dictionaries, added iel to its dictionary, prompting outrage from traditionalists on what they called the latest incursion of US-inspired “wokeism.”

Pearson Edexcel’s guidance was reportedly developed with input from the LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall. The predictable parade of culture-war groups soon followed. Among them was Sex Matters, a campaign organisation routinely quoted by conservative newspapers whenever trans rights are discussed.

Its spokesperson warned about a “pro-trans agenda” and the “pernicious creep of gender ideology throughout the curriculum,” before taking a predictable swipe at toilets and changing rooms.

What goes almost entirely unmentioned in these stories is the broader reality of trans people’s lives. France, far from being some anti-woke fortress, allows legal gender recognition without requiring medical intervention. It’s among the few European countries that have prohibited conversion therapy practices targeting gender identity.

At the same time, trans people in France continue to face severe discrimination and violence. Reports suggest that around 80% of trans people in France have experienced discrimination or violence, with trans women of colour facing especially high levels of abuse. Yet the British right-wing press appears far more transfixed on the possibility of teenagers writing iel in a GCSE exam than by the actual conditions trans people live under.

The Spectator, attempting a more intellectual spin on the outrage in a piece entitled: ‘The irony of the woke war on GCSE French,’ argued that France has resisted “the excesses of wokery” because it views such ideas as an American cultural import.

The real irony is that the people most obsessed with policing language are often those accusing others of authoritarianism. No student is being forced to use gender-neutral French. Examiners are simply being told not to penalise pupils who do.

The post Woke-bashing of the week: Je suis outraged – the right’s GCSE French panic appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The much-loved weekly free run, jog and walk event parkrun is among ten sports organisations that have been sent letters threatening legal action over trans inclusive policies that allow participants to self-identify their gender.

The decision to target parkrun, one of the UK’s most successful grassroots public health initiatives, has sparked anger, not only because of its inclusive policies but because of what is at stake if they are undermined.

According to 2026 data, parkrun saves the NHS approximately £36.5 million annually, driven by improved health outcomes, including an estimated £13.8 million in reduced depression treatment costs, £13.5 million from avoided Type 2 diabetes care, and £9.2 million in lower GP and hospital usage.

Additionally, parkrun isn’t an elite sport. It’s a free, weekly, volunteer-led event built around accessibility, participation, and community wellbeing. People walk, jog, run, push prams, have their dog with them, and take part at their own pace. Times are recorded, but the whole ethos is explicitly non-competitive.

For these reasons, parkrun manages to reach people traditional sport excludes.

Its gender categorisation rules, outlined on its support pages, state that participants can register and take part according to their gender identity rather than biological sex.

Yet it is this same ethos of openness that has drawn legal threats. Parkrun is among ten sporting bodies to receive letters from the Women’s Sports Union, fronted by Baroness Sharron Davies, alongside ADF International, an organisation closely linked to Donald Trump which has played a major role in funding and exporting Christian nationalist ideology and conservative culture-war activism. ADF was co-founded by US Christian right leader Alan Sears, who co-authored a book attacking “the homosexual agenda.” The ADF was also instrumental in overturning Roe v Wade in 2022, a landmark ruling which made abortion legal across the US in 1973. 

The letter, which is posted on the ADF website, claims that allowing participants to self-identify their gender breaches the law and fails to protect women and girls.

In it, Olympic silver medallist Sharron Davies, said: “It is a true scandal that men are still allowed to compete against women in sport, a year after the For Women Scotland Supreme Court ruling.”

“Today, we put 10 sports bodies that fail to recognise biological reality on notice. If they don’t act to do the right thing, we will not hesitate to pursue all legal options,” she added.

But online users hit back, reminding how parkrun is a free and inclusive event: “Couple things here: First: Parkrun is a FUN run. It’s free. The place you end up in doesn’t matter to anyone EXCEPT YOURSELF,” one user wrote.

“Last time I checked parkrun is not a race. It’s a fun run held at weekends and run by volunteers. All genders run together. So why would it bother anyone if a transgender person like me joins it?” said another.

Others also challenged the framing of risk, with one comment stating: “There is ZERO risk to run next to someone who is trans. FFS.”

Other dismayed onlookers referenced the Supreme Court ruling, noting that while it addressed legal definitions of sex, it also stated that its judgment should not be used to discriminate against or vilify trans people.

“The fact they’re going after parkrun says a lot about them,” another commenter added.

Indeed.

The post Woke-bashing of the week: Anger builds as trans-inclusive parkrun targeted despite saving NHS £36.5m a year appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

“Woke fury,” thundered Murdoch’s Sun this week, claiming that phrases like “raining cats and dogs” and “the early bird catches the worm” are now considered offensive under a new diversity guide from Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

The paper cast the story as yet another example of equality and diversity spiralling out of control, complete with “fury,” “bans,” and the usual parade of indignant critics.

But strip away the outrage, and a different picture emerges.

The actual guidance does not “ban” phrases. It suggests that certain expressions, particularly those that may confuse non-native English speakers, might need explaining in a diverse workplace. In a health service where staff and patients come from a wide range of linguistic and cultural backgrounds, it’s a practical reminder that clear communication matters.

And guess who’s wheeled in for comment? Our old friend Toby Young, founder of the Free Speech Union, who warns of “witch hunts” and a creeping regime of linguistic control. According to Young, NHS staff risk being “cancelled” for everyday speech, part of a supposed effort to edge out older employees in favour of “pink-haired zealots.”

There is no evidence that NHS workers are being disciplined for using such phrases, nor that the guidance is designed to purge staff. Instead, a mild bureaucratic recommendation is inflated into a moral panic.

This is not a new tactic, for the Sun or Toby Young.

Earlier coverage in the Sun followed the same script: select a few debatable examples, strip them of context, and present them as proof of ideological takeover.

According to Young, Sutton Council’s language guide was an example of “woke” absurdity, with the newspaper gleefully reported that the council had banned the term “Christian name” because it might offend non-Christians, while also warning against calling people in their 30s “youngsters” or those over 65 “pensioners,” since these terms could be considered ageist.

This is the Toby Young who managed to secure a seat in the House of Lords from Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, despite having been forced to resign from the Office for Students in 2018 after a string of misogynistic and homophobic tweets, including one where he referred to George Clooney as “queer as a coot” and another joking about visiting a bar full of “hardcore dykes.”

But back to the smear on Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The Sun also highlights the trust’s spending on diversity staff and its financial deficit, a familiar attempt to frame inclusion as waste.

No mention that the NHS workforce is more diverse today than at any point in its 75-year history, and that brings a multitude of benefits for patients and taxpayers alike.

The post Woke-bashing of the week: The Sun’s latest NHS panic appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Another Easter weekend, another round of familiar outrage. This time, the target was Cadbury, accused of bowing to ‘woke’ pressure by supposedly scrubbing the word ‘Easter’ from its chocolate eggs. The claim spread rapidly across social media, fuelled by a predictable blend of indignation and nostalgia.

At the centre of the storm was a viral image. Stacks of chocolate eggs in a supermarket, their packaging seemingly devoid of any reference to Easter. The accompanying caption struck a deliberately emotive tone: Britain, it declared, had celebrated Easter for over 1,400 years, through wars, plagues and monarchs, so why had a cherished tradition suddenly become controversial?

It was, on the surface, a compelling narrative. But it was also entirely false.

Fact-checkers at Full Fact examined the claim and found no evidence that Cadbury had abandoned the word ‘Easter.’ Quite the opposite in fact. The word was still there, just not visible in the viral image.

On several of the products in question, including Twirl and Creme Eggs, ‘Easter’ appears clearly on the top of the box. The social media images, however, showed only the front-facing side, conveniently cropping out the relevant text. Product images for other items, such as the Buttons egg, even include the phrase ‘Happy Easter’ prominently displayed, but again, conveniently omitted from the circulating posts.

A spokesperson for Mondelēz International, the company that owns Cadbury, told Full Fact:

“Cadbury has used the word Easter in our marketing and communications for over 100 ​years and ​continue to ⁠do so with our new Easter product range. To claim anything ​otherwise is factually incorrect.”

A separate investigation by Reuters reached the same conclusion. Their own images of the same products confirmed that ‘Happy Easter’ was indeed printed on the packaging, just not from the angle chosen in the viral photo.

It’s a depressingly familiar pattern, a carefully framed image, paired with a provocative narrative, travels faster than the truth, especially when it taps into pre-existing grievances about so-called ‘wokeness.’

As Full Fact puts it, it’s worth asking whether what you’re seeing is genuine before sharing it. Because if a culture war can be ignited by the angle of a chocolate egg box, it’s not tradition that’s under threat, it’s perspective.

The post Woke-bashing of the week: The great Easter ‘outrage’ that wasn’t appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The so-called ‘woke’ Greens are once again under attack, this time over claims that they want to ban zoos and force dog owners to buy licences.

According to the right-wing tabloids, the proposals are nothing short of outrageous. The party is “barking mad,” the stories suggest, for wanting to shut down Britain’s zoos and put dog owners “on a very expensive lead.”

But a closer look at the policy reveals a more nuanced, and legitimate, position than the headlines suggest.

Despite the uproar, the party is not proposing to abolish zoos outright. Under the policy, zoo licences could still be granted to facilities that care for injured animals or breed endangered species for reintroduction into the wild.

The broader aim, according to the party’s official policy, is to oppose the “wholesale breeding, manipulation and destruction of those animals who are chosen as companions to the human race.”

In other words, the focus is on reducing unnecessary breeding and prioritising welfare and conservation.

But predictably, the announcement quickly ruffled feathers in the anti-woke media.

The Mail raged that “killjoy Greens want to abolish zoos and force every dog owner to have a licence.”

GB News thundered that the party “would force Britons to hold a licence to keep dogs as pets.”

The Express hollered: “Fury as Greens say they will force every UK dog owner to have one thing.”

Conservative figures joined the criticism. Shadow environment secretary Victoria Atkins said:

“The Greens are barking mad for wanting to put dog owners on a very expensive lead and shut the UK’s highly-respected zoos.

“Zoos inspire millions of children about wildlife and do vital conservation work for endangered species.

“The Green killjoys want to throw this all away, while making dog ownership unaffordable. It’s a dog’s dinner of a policy.”

Amid the outrage, one key discussion is largely absent, that is the real pros and cons of zoos.

Supporters argue that zoos play an important role in education, tourism and conservation. Millions of visitors each year encounter wildlife they might never otherwise see, and many zoos claim to support breeding programmes for endangered species.

Yet critics say the conservation case is often overstated.

Animal protection charity Freedom for Animals analysed recent “stock” records from more than 200 of the 300-plus licensed zoos across Great Britain. Their findings suggest most animals are not endangered, many suffer high mortality rates, and a negligible amount are ever released into the wild.

The data paints a picture of captivity that is ineffective for conservation and often harmful, or even fatal, for the animals themselves.

So, what about dog licences?

The proposal to licence dog owners has also been met with loud condemnation but, again, the debate is more complex than the headlines suggest.

Supporters of licensing schemes argue they can improve reunification rates for lost pets, reduce stray dog populations, and increase accountability for irresponsible ownership

Yet these potential benefits are absent from the outraged coverage.

Given that stories about people being seriously injured, or even killed, by dogs appear regularly in the news cycle, it’s striking that the discussion rarely turns to preventive measures such as better regulation of ownership.

The real questions, about the ethics and effectiveness of zoos, and about how best to ensure responsible dog ownership, are complex and worth debating.

Unfortunately, they’re drowned out by the noise of ‘woke’ and ‘barking mad’ Greens.

Still, why are we surprised? As Macbeth would have it, “it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.” Unfortunately, in this instance, what it does signify is the impossibility of having a serious grown-up national conversation yet again.

The post Woke bashing of the week: Banning zoos and licencing dog owners: ‘Barking mad’ or sensible debate? appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.