Rupert Lowe’s folly would disunite the right

I LISTENED INTENTLY to Rupert Lowe’s rant at Nigel Farage about how to unite the right. The message was: “Do as I say – no compromise”. I suggest that is not the way to win friends and influence people.

Many of us had sympathy for Rupert because of the way he was expelled from Reform and Zia Yusuf’s invective towards him, but there are ways to argue your case. The right can only be united by agreeing on a common denominator of values, while allowing latitude in how they are translated into pragmatic policies. If you agree with 80 per cent of proposed outcomes, and they are deliverable, you will have done exceedingly well.

Rupert professes Christian values but rejects Tories who have seen the light and can add experience of government to the cause. If anything, for fear of what the media might say, Reform has been too strict in rejecting people who did something stupid in the past, such as tweeting while intoxicated or having once supported the SNP or another delusional party. We may have been wrong to restrict defections to us after May 2026.

I lived through the time when the death penalty was abolished and heard all the arguments. Most of the public then were in support of others applying this sanction, but those who had to take responsibility for it, including MPs, could not live with the consequences of possible wrongful convictions. The countries which continue to impose this penalty are not places where I would feel safe. They are cruel and authoritarian.

retrospective legislation is bad legislation

It is all very well to propose the deportation of all illegal immigrants and foreigners “excess to requirements”, but it is grossly impractical. The barn door has been opened, and it is as unrealistic to turn the clock back as it would be to reverse the COVID folly that stole a year of schooling from young people who were never in danger.

We can reform or repeal the laws that allow people to stay in the UK because their child doesn’t like Albanian chicken nuggets, or because a lesbian couple cannot go back to their home country because, while homosexuality is legal there, some rural areas are homophobic. But retrospective legislation is bad legislation.

In the USA, ICE prioritises the most dangerous and culpable illegal immigrants. A zero-tolerance policy, used as a deterrent, can only be applied to deter illegal immigration from a declared point in time. It is too messy to apply retrospectively, even if it were morally acceptable.

I contribute to Interfaith Glasgow, a collection of people from all faiths and none that does marvellous work integrating people from various faith communities. At a person-to-person level, there need be no racial or religious friction, just a desire to understand one another and look for positive outcomes.

When I worked in nine Muslim countries, the same basic human values were shared. Everyone just wanted the best for their families. My agent in Libya during the Gaddafi period was clearly devout, as evidenced by the mark on his forehead from repeatedly bashing the ground during prayer. Although Islam rejects the Christian account of the Crucifixion — the Quran says, “They killed him not, nor did they crucify him” — he could still discuss religion respectfully with someone from a Christian background.

The most jarring thing Rupert said was that Britain is not as “white” as it used to be. How can he not see that this leads to accusations of being racist, just as Humza Yousaf’s “white, white, white” speech at Holyrood did? He talks of Britain being a Christian country, a claim which I believe is inflammatory to non-Christians – including me, as a humanist.

Yes, there are aspects of some forms of Islam that I would argue are incompatible with Enlightenment values, but turning the debate into a racial issue is unforgivable. In a previous article, I highlighted how Jews had contributed positively to Western culture and the same can be said of non-white people of various religious persuasions, including many Muslims who enthusiastically embrace what the UK has to offer.

I am proud of my Christian heritage. The book I am currently writing explores the fusion of Graeco-Roman and Jewish philosophies following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70, as expressed in the Christian New Testament. But I would not like to return to the secular impact of Christian ideology in the three decades after the Second World War, when churches were full.

A blind eye was turned to many Christian atrocities

Gay people were criminalised – my best man at my wedding was gay. In primary school, I was subjected to “spare the rod and spoil the child” beatings. Women were regarded as second-class citizens in many respects. Misogyny was par for the (golf) course as well as at cringeworthy rugby club dinners. 250,000 “sinful” unmarried British mothers had their babies taken from them, Magdalene institutions were equally cruel, and many priests who could not marry abused boys and girls.

A blind eye was turned to many Christian atrocities, just as it was more recently turned to the rape gangs due to a woke desire not to be branded anti-Pakistani. Moralising got in the way of pragmatism. Let’s take the best from the chequered mores of our past, go forward, and “judge not, that ye be not judged”.

Throughout those decades – and across Western Christendom – Jesus was portrayed as white. I played golf in a Celebrity/Am tournament in Manchester with Robert Powell just after he had played Jesus in a film. Another member of the fourball was the MD of the construction company which later bid lowest for the Scottish Parliament Building but was not chosen. But a highlight of my career was sitting next to Robert’s wife at dinner that evening, Babs of Pan’s People.

Now Rupert, if you were to propose that the BBC bring back Pan’s People rather than Songs of Praise, you would get my vote.