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.

From woke scones at the National Trust to the supposed menace of ‘woke’ Paddington Bear, Britain’s culture warriors have developed an extraordinary talent for turning almost anything into evidence of civilisational decline.

And this week, it was the Chelsea Flower Show’s turn.

In a lifestyle gardening piece headlined ‘How the Chelsea Flower Show lost the plot with its woke messaging,’ the Telegraph got excited about what it sees as the politicisation of one of Britain’s most beloved horticultural institutions. The article opens with artist Grayson Perry’s quip that Chelsea is “Glastonbury for people who wear linen,” a line obviously intended as affectionate satire, but repurposed as the prelude to a familiar conservative grievance narrative.

According to the Telegraph, traditional gardeners are becoming alienated by the Royal Horticultural Society’s embrace of “political messaging and youthful ideology.” The evidence offered is notably thin. Apparently, the most talked-about flower was the “David Beckham rose,” while the most debated exhibit was a “Tunnel of Love” installation sponsored by a sex toy company. The paper also seems to object to gardens carrying themes related to climate change, mental health, sexuality and even gynaecological health.

One example singled out is the award-winning On the Edge garden, inspired by neglected land between urban and rural spaces. Critics dismissed it as resembling “abandoned scrubland” rather than a proper garden. The article also complains that peat compost is now frowned upon, manicured lawns treated with suspicion, and “weeds and slugs rehabilitated as misunderstood ecological heroes.”

“For some younger designers and environmentalists, this represents important progress,” the Telegraph noted. “But for many amateur gardeners, it feels rather joyless – as though one of Britain’s loveliest institutions has become yet another venue in which to be lectured.”

To reinforce its point, the article quoted Jenny Grey, a 72-year-old amateur gardener who has attended Chelsea since the 1980s, who said the event now feels “like a trade fair mixed with a fashion show rather than a place where actual garden lovers can come to get tips and inspiration.”

Another commenter, sourced from Mumsnet, complained: “It’s a flower show, for crying out loud. I want to see flowers.”

Yet much of what is criticised as ‘woke’ reflects broader changes in gardening itself. Concerns about sustainability, biodiversity and climate resilience are now central to horticulture, just as gardening trends have always evolved alongside wider social and environmental changes.

The RHS itself reportedly stated that it doesn’t impose themes or ideological requirements on designers, with trends emerging naturally from submissions each year.

As we see week in and week out, institutions that adapt to changing environmental or social concerns are accused of becoming ‘woke,’ even where those changes reflect mainstream developments.

Chelsea Flower Show may look different from previous decades, but rather than being evidence of political capture, it simply reflects the fact that gardening, like every other part of culture, evolves over time, however uncomfortable that may be for those who believe the ideal flowerbed was perfected sometime around 1978.

Of course, Chelsea gardens can be criticised: what constitutes a great garden is a subjective judgement and one of the small eternal pleasures of show is to say, “I don’t like that.” But to try to paint it all in the tired old cliches of anti-wokery, come on, give it a rest.

The post Woke-bashing of the week: When even the Chelsea Flower Show becomes ‘woke’ appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

There is a long tradition on the British right of undermining the civil service.

Margaret Thatcher famously opened one meeting with civil servants and nationalised industry leaders by declaring: “If you were any good, you’d be working in the private sector.” Her governments sought to make the state function more like a business, fragmenting departments into semi-autonomous agencies in what officials at the time jokingly described as “Perestroika in the civil service.”

Several decades on, and the right’s instinct to remake, or simply disparage, Whitehall remains firmly intact. The targets may have changed, but the script is familiar. Where Thatcher-era critics warned of Trotskyists and bureaucratic inertia, today’s culture warriors’ rail against “woke snowflakes” and diversity workshops.

During Boris Johnson’s time in Downing Street, civil servants endured a sustained campaign of hostility from ministers, advisers and sympathetic newspapers. Dominic Cummings, in particular, made little secret of his contempt for Whitehall. He arrived promising to recruit a new breed of outsider to “shake up” the way Britain is governed, framing the existing civil service as complacent, obstructive and ideologically suspect.

This week, the Express revived the tradition with predictable enthusiasm. Splashing claims that civil servants are running a “growing list of woke workshops,” the paper pointed to Freedom of Information data showing that departments employ large numbers of internal communications staff. The Treasury alone, it reported, employs around 30 communications officials at a cost of £2.7 million a year.

The outrage was supplied by former civil servant Arthur Reynolds, who argued that many of these roles could now be performed by artificial intelligence.

“Whitehall is spending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ cash talking to itself,” he complained, claiming hundreds of officials exist merely to send emails, update intranets and post staff notices.

To make matters worse, for Reynolds, many of these employees work remotely, supposedly “defeating the entire rationale for their jobs.”

“How can you assist someone effectively if you’re not in the same place?” he asked, before blasting a civil service culture supposedly dominated by endless video calls and online meetings.

And then, inevitably, comes the real grievance – diversity and inclusion. Reynolds mocked workshops on “allyship for beginners,” “dignity at work,” and celebrations for “ever more niche events,” presenting them as evidence of a bureaucracy consumed by ‘woke’ liberalism rather than serious administration.

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but internal intranets are supposed to help organisations communicate, coordinate and cultivate functioning workplace cultures. And despite the fantasies of some commentators, most people would probably still prefer those systems to be run by human beings rather than algorithms generating automated emails.

Large organisations, especially those employing hundreds of thousands of people across multiple departments and regions, require internal communication systems. They require HR functions, staff coordination, training, safeguarding policies and mechanisms for resolving workplace disputes. Contrary to the tabloid fantasy, government cannot be run through a WhatsApp group and a handful of AI chatbots.

The fixation on “woke workshops” also serves a useful political purpose. It distracts from the actual causes of governmental dysfunction – chronic underinvestment, outsourcing failures and impossible workloads imposed after years of austerity.

Yes, it’s easier to blame “allyship training” than confront the consequences of hollowing out state capacity over the past decade.

The post Woke-bashing of the week: the right ramps up its never-ending war on the civil service 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.

One recent GB News headline stood out for its sheer bizarreness, even by its own standards.

It read: “‘We WILL get real!’ Author braces for ‘catastrophe’ to eliminate ‘woke left-wing political project’ in the US and UK.”

What kind of catastrophe, one wonders, and who’s the author predicting it?

The piece reveals that the figure in question is Lionel Shriver, described by the channel as a “leading American author.” Shriver was invited to discuss her latest novel, which centres on illegal migration in New York City and touches on what she characterises as “woke ideology.”

I must admit I hadn’t heard of Shriver before reading the article. But a quick search soon confirmed my suspicions. Shriver has long cultivated a reputation as a cultural contrarian, particularly on questions of identity politics, race and immigration.

Her first major public controversy, at least in the current culture-war cycle, came during the Brisbane Writers’ Festival in 2016, where she delivered a keynote speech criticising the concept of cultural appropriation. The speech sparked backlash, with the festival later distancing itself from her remarks.

She had already faced criticism for elements of her fiction. Her novel The Mandibles was criticised by some reviewers for its depiction of Latino and African American characters, criticisms that ranged from accusations of racial stereotyping to claims that it was politically misguided.

Shriver has positioned herself firmly as a critic of what she calls “woke” politics. In an interview with the Evening Standard in 2021, she argued that the main problem with the “woke” movement lies in its methods: “too often involving name-calling, silencing, vengefulness, and predation.”

Her views extend well beyond literary debates. Writing about migration in the UK, she once argued that Western societies accepting large-scale immigration amounted to the native-born “surrendering their territory without a shot fired is biologically perverse.”

It comes as no surprise that Shriver is supportive of Brexit, describing the European Union as “high-handed” and “dictatorial,” while expressing disappointment with how the British government ultimately implemented the policy.

Her commentary has also targeted debates around gender identity, with Shriver criticising what she calls a “deeply disturbing social obsession with transgenderism.” In 2025, two years after moving from the UK to Portugal, she even claimed she was nervous about travelling back to Britain, stating, “because I’m worried that, given what I have put into print, I could be arrested the next time I come to the UK.”

Back to the GB News’ article, the right-wing channel frames Shriver’s latest novel as part of a broader discussion about the future of “woke ideology.” In the interview, she suggested that some commentators prematurely declared the death of the political left following the election of Donald Trump, which some supporters interpreted as a triumph of “common sense.”

But the most striking claim comes when Shriver speculates about the durability of what she portrays as a coalition between progressive activists and socially conservative Muslim communities, an alliance she argues is united by a shared desire to “tear down Western civilisation.”

This reflects a familiar trope within culture war thinking, the idea that progressive politics is fundamentally self-destructive, propped up by unlikely ideological alliances that cannot last.

But Shriver’s conclusion is even more dramatic. She argues that “woke ideology” is now deeply embedded in Western institutions and may only be dislodged by some kind of crisis. Pressed on what she meant, she suggested the catastrophe might be financial, perhaps a debt crisis severe enough to force societies to abandon what she calls their “luxury beliefs.”

“If we have something horrible happen,” she said, “we will get real on the other side.”

Needless to say, Shriver’s comments aren’t analysed, challenged or contextualised in any meaningful way. Instead, they are packaged as another instalment in a familiar genre – culture-war commentary framed as urgent political insight.

Well, it is GB News, what did we expect?

The post Woke-bashing of the week: GB News turns culture-war punditry into ‘literally insight’ appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

If the anti-woke clan has a set of favourite villains, the so-called ‘eco zealots’ must rank near the top. When they are not delighting in the arrest of Greta Thunberg, detained in December after attending a protest linked to jailed members of Palestine Action, their attention often turns to other environmental campaigners. One frequent target is the veteran naturalist and broadcaster Chris Packham.

In a column for GB News, celebrity doctor and TV presenter Renee Hoenderkamp described Packham as a “vile man.” She reminded readers of a remark he once made suggesting that those who reject environmental action might as well stand in a bucket of oil and set fire to themselves, presenting the comment as literal incitement rather than what it almost certainly was, hyperbolic rhetoric.

Hoenderkamp’s central grievance, however, is Packham’s supposed hostility to farmers. According to her column, “Chris doesn’t care about” rural communities. From trail hunting to pig farming, she argued, his criticism is relentless, and his frequent media appearances make him appear to speak for the public.

Yet this portrayal sidesteps an awkward reality: public opinion is already far more critical of modern farming practices than the column suggests.

During the YouTube documentary Greenwashed, Packham floated the idea of putting shocking images of industrial farming on meat packaging, similar to the warning labels placed on cigarette packets. Critics dismissed the suggestion as extremist but the reaction overlooks a key point: many consumers already have serious concerns about how animals are treated.

Research supports this. A 2025 report by Bryant Research found that between 75% and 96% of the UK public oppose common animal farming practices. According to the report, every practice presented to respondents, from intensive confinement to other standard industry procedures, was judged unacceptable by a large majority.

In other words, Packham’s criticism isn’t not as far removed from public sentiment as his critics imply.

The debate becomes even more complex when investigations into farming conditions are considered. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has released footage from British farms, including facilities audited under the ‘Red Tractor’ label, that appears to show animals living in cramped, unsanitary environments and suffering injuries or untreated illnesses.

Campaigners argue that such scenes undermine the reassuring image often presented to consumers. Animals marketed as part of ‘ethical’ British farming are, critics claim, frequently kept in conditions far removed from what’s considered ideal.

Hoenderkamp’s column ultimately broadens into a wider critique of veganism, warning that plant-based diets can lead to deficiencies in nutrients such as vitamin B12, iron and calcium.

While nutritional concerns are legitimate, they are hardly unique to vegan diets. Dietitians regularly point out that well-planned vegan diets can meet nutritional needs, just as poorly planned omnivorous diets can also lead to deficiencies.

The portrayal of environmentalists as reckless “eco zealots” makes for an easy headline, yet it obscures the fact that figures like Chris Packham may use provocative language, but many of the issues they raise, animal welfare, transparency in farming, and the environmental impact of food production, reflect concerns shared by a significant chunk of the public.

Dismissing those concerns with caricatures may generate outrage and clicks on GB News. It does little, however, to address the underlying questions about how food is produced, how animals are treated, and what kind of agricultural system the public actually wants.

The post Woke bashing of the week – From Greta to Packham: How ‘eco zealots’ became the right-wing press’s favourite targets appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.