What is Britain? It is a whole way of living, built up over a very long time. It is the language and the everyday humour, the common law, the habit of fair play, the odd trust between people who will never meet and still somehow feel like one nation. That is the real wealth of the place, and almost none of it is written down anywhere. It is carried, in the people who were raised inside it and raise the next lot the same way. Which means the people and the shared life of the place are a single thing. You cannot keep the shared life while losing the people who carry it, and a people who let that shared life dissolve lose the ability to act as one. They come as a pair, and that pair is what we really mean when we say "the country." That pair is being hit from two sides at once. On one side we have lost confidence in the shared life, half stopped believing it is worth much, so we barely pass it on to our own children and we flinch from defending it. On the other side we have taken in more people, faster, than any country could fold into its common life, and gathered them in places where there was little settled common life left to fold into. The dangerous part is that the two feed each other. A country that has lost faith in itself has nothing confident to bring a newcomer into, so the newcomer stays apart, in his own world with his own rules. The more who stay apart, the less the place holds together as one society. And the less it holds together, the fewer people, long-settled or newly arrived, find any reason to believe in it or join it. Round it goes, each turn a little weaker than the one before. That is the loop we are actually in, and it is why arguing about numbers alone, or culture alone, never quite lands. So what turns the loop the other way? Two moves, and they are the same recovered confidence seen from two sides. Believe in the shared life again, enough to teach it without apology and to expect those who come to take it up. And slow the arrivals to a pace we can genuinely fold in, so the people who come are taken into the life of the place over time and become part of it, the way every wave that ever settled here was in the end, instead of left to set hard as a world apart. Do both together and the loop runs in our favour. A country sure enough of itself to teach and to welcome on its own terms folds its newcomers in, and folding them in keeps it the kind of country worth believing in. That is where we began, with something whole still here to hand on, if we choose to keep it.

Hey Cathy, there is quite a lot to unpick here. * English peoples, just like Icelanders, Japanese or anyone considered "indigenous" by the UN, are simply definable through ancestry - a direct single sex lineage. Which has been stable for about 3000 years in England. * A *minority* are "mongrels" as you put it, a mixed ethnicity. See above if they qualify as English. If not, then they still have a/multiple rich histories to tap into, inspire them and be proud of. * Being born somewhere is not what make you of that place. * Being culturally English does not make you English but it is an obvious, but not only, neccessity for integration. * The history of successful intergation has always been through marriage and children with the native "tribe", slow and steady. I'll leave aside Sonia's racism angle as although a valid concern against a small minority of people, it is being used to shut down a conversation that is too important to ignore. I trust you can tell from my response above that race is not a defining factor of Englishness. More of my thoughts about the symbiotic nature of a place and its peoples: xitter.cf/chrisboid/status/20642…

I welcome this philosophy - I've certainly been agitating for it - knowing that compromise is the skill of politics. I also read this as a philosophy, not an operational document - I am not expecting detail on 'how' at this stage (although it is very much needed). Restore rightly says: "Borders matter. Citizenship matters. Belonging matters. Enforcement matters. Democratic consent matters. National continuity matters. Demographic security matters." But *why* do these things matter? Every generation inherits a civilisation. A civilisation that we believe gives our people the best life, built over generations, for the current and future generations, via an accumulated substrate of family, faith, settled neighbourhood and custom. Every generation has a duty to hand it on and both the people and the place, are inseperable - they shape each other. Once Restore answer this most fundamental question - what is Britain for? - their policies can be maximally shaped and strongly argued from the most principled position there is. Other notable points: * Restore disambiguates Britons (ancestry) from citizens (legal). This is neccessary and powerful for future policies that prioritise the former. Although they add confusion back in by saying that "English identity can be shared more broadly" - I would recommend clarifying what they mean by "English identity" because to me that is intrinsically linked to ancestry anfd cannot be 'opted into' (just like a male can't become a female by simply them saying so, or worse, acting out sterotypes). * Citizenship is high-value, has a high bar and is rescindable. Crucially it is marriage that is the door. This is how to sustainably welcomed new blood, ensured the commitment is the highest it can be and manage the rate of absorption. * 'Equal before law, not identical in policy' is the first time I've seen this explained that avoids the accusation of creating second-class citizens. * Defence of Britain's Christian culture. Whether you are religious or not, Christianity has shaped Britain and we owe it much more than I have realised in my life. * Restore says "Having at least one British-born parent represents a tangible inter-generational connection to this country that a Restore Britain government will legitimately recognise in appropriate areas of national policy." I prefer a multi-generational lineage, else non-integrated ethnic blocks will persist. But with any scheme, the risks of abuse will need to be mitigated. I'm glad this is published, I'll be reading the feedback and I'm sure Restore will continue to do so too.

A demonstrably false claim. But they know they can claim it because there is *no* effective accountability mechanism. It is a gaslighting enemy of the people.

This is the perfect example of the duplicity of the Yookay government. It recognises the importance of inheritance through lineage for other nations but not for itself; culturally, community or legally. Why. Is. That. *No-one* voted for this. xitter.cf/chrisboid/status/20642…

I'll stop asking if this is willful ignorance, incompetence or deliberate on the part of Labour. Read some history for God's sake.

They never stop to ask why so many people require state assistance to house them. It is just accepted, wanted, needed. And that should give anyone pause for thought about what their goal is.

Let's treat the symptoms not the cause

Why do so many families need temporary accommodation or social housing Andy? Why Andy? Systemic root cause analysis is too much to ask.

"We'll force you from one crisis to the next, giving you just enough to survive each one. Your own survival will occupy your thoughts and make it easier for us to control you. There are no long term solutions, only an ever increasing state dependency."

I assume incompetence over malice. They'll destroy civilisation with their kindness (socialism). What happens when no one is left to build anything (and therefore no tax and welfare)? Also, net migration in the last decade was ~3.8 _million_ so 70k houses won't make a dent.

My political north star is 'to nurture the child'. Every generation inherits a civilisation and every generation has a duty to hand it on. Any policy would be oriented around that goal. Our civilisation is stalling and our children will suffer most. Sobering analysis below.

Nevermind the million year old universal success of stable coupling (codified in marriage), or the wellbeing impact on the child's adult life and society - all that matters is how 'easy it is to bring up kids'. She has an inheritance destroying ideology.

I've only been in the TERF/gender/reality wars for 6 years (thanks to JK Rowling) but I still chuckle when someone turns up out of the blue to tell us we are all losers.

To those with children getting their GCSE/A-Level results, does your school talk or celebrate *anything* other than further education for where these children are headed? I'd wager many are soley fixated on further education, infering they are a pipeline, not an education.

The more dependent on the state you are, the more you will vote for the party that keeps you dependant. More control for them, less power for you and a decreasing chance of you ever escaping.

The dangerously low standard of thinking of elected MP's demonstrated by Abbot here. Systemic thinking, risk mitigation and British loyalty merely bounce off her ideological shield. We get the leaders we deserve.

The UK welfare state since 1972: Population +24% People on a state benefit +131% The welfare bill +315%, adjusted for inflation Britain's welfare state is growing thirteen times faster than its population.

"challenge racism wherever it appears" of course, we know this does not apply to anti-white racism. We know this from her history, her words and the fact she thinks being an "anti-racist" (read 'anti-white') is a good thing. Sigh.