SDP Talks with Emma Webb

Emma and William discuss the fall of many of our institutions to progressive ideology, how this has happened, and why it has been permitted under both Conservative and Labour governments.

By: William Clouston

In this episode of SDP Talks, SDP leader William Clouston is joined by commentator, broadcaster, and associate fellow at Civitas, Emma Webb.

Emma and William discuss Emma’s new film, “Britain’s Silent Cultural Revolution“, which charts the fall of many of our institutions to progressive ideology. William and Emma explore how this has happened, and why it has been permitted under both Conservative and Labour governments.

Have your say...

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *


All Comments (7)

  • Of course, these ideologies have been around for a long time, but it seems that their advocates have exploited the weaknesses and preoccupations with COVID in the past year or so to accelerate them, and to to inculcate them into our institutions.

  • Hope you don’t mind a few disparate thoughts.

    This is one of the best things I have listened to in ages. I remember sitting through graduate papers at Oxford, where the scholar tried to apply Fouaoult to a straight forward historical and philosophical situation. Dreadful. But interestingly, some of the dons in the seminar who felt it was a ‘waste of a good paper’, failed to challenge and it was left up to other students. It wasn’t pretty.

    The point at the end on Burke was masterful and true. I had to read Burke at university and am so glad I did. Too

    One analytical philosopher who I knew in the States, Alvin Plantinga, never had a problem of critiquing these sorts of ideas nor in presenting viable intellectual alternatives. I regret he is much older now.

    I have never been a member of a political party until now. But having read your (our) constitution and policies, as a practicing Catholic who is very concerning about the family and and direction of travel in our communities and country’s politics, I had to join and don’t feel marginalised. I could never now be part of either labour, Tory or the liberal democrats (which seem to be neither). Thank you,

  • This was a fascinating discussion. It needs to be heard more widely.

    How do individuals combat these progressive ideas without compromising their position in the works place, on social media and in society? I am fortunate that as a retired person, I can express myself without fear of losing a job.

    Could you kindly compile a list of the books that you and Emma quoted in your discussion.

  • This is one of the best discussions of the current cultural crisis that I have come across. Will email to some of my friends. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

  • I watched the film, listened to the discussion and was heartened by the views expressed in both, like others I agree it deserves a wider audience.

    The academic establishment was discussed in detail but nothing of the populist establishment, TV. and the press. Just look at the current trend concerning the gender, race and ethnicity of presenters, pundits and competitors featured on TV programmes, just watch the adverts between programmes. It is far more than just an academic “deconstruction” of institutions there appears to be a positive movement to force a minority culture on the majority.

    There was a very small part in the discussion that made the very true comment how do you make your point if you disagree the much of BLM movement without being classed as a racist?

    The football supporters who booed the players as they took the knee are not racists, I would suggest they are reacting to promotion of anti racism messages (much of which is totally irrelevant), the “deconstruction” mentioned in the discussion and the fact that both have been promoted daily ad nausea for almost 2 years. (Is it any coincidence that it appears that poor White boys are the greatest academic under achievers?)

    It is clear what William feels on the subject, and in deed the SDP’s view as outlined in the “New Declaration”, I completely agree with both. However, I do feel on this like other issues without a simple message there is a danger of becoming just a source of Hi brow discussion and debate rather than a party pf appeal and change.

  • I think that Rene Girard’s interpretation of Christianity is very relevant here, especially to what Emma was saying about people looking in the wrong direction with regards totalitarianism. When people are so confident that they are ‘on the right side of history’, they are inevitably blinded to the violence in their own position(s), or at least believe that their violence is justified in purging society of perceived danger. The quasi-religious group-think unites people in ostracizing, and sometimes even murdering these ‘dangerous’ members of society. Precisely why Jesus’ prayer ‘forgive them, they know not what they do,’ makes complete sense. The mob that murdered him thought that they were serving justice, but in fact were caught in a psychological trap. Girard’s ideas complement Arendt’s ideas nicely in this way. This doesn’t help to answer the question though – how do we get more people to see the trap? Perhaps through greater attention to the humanities curriculum in schools, so people have greater understanding of the history and diversity of philosophical ideas? Of course that requires de-politicization of the curriculum, and of teachers, which is not the current direction of travel!

    Really enjoying these SDP podcasts having just stumbled upon them!

  • If the SDP does not take a strong stand against wokeism, it will show that SDP is not interested in liberal democracy, which is under threat.

    But if the SDP takes a strong stand, they will gain a lot of disaffected members from the other three parties, and in time replace the LDs.

Family, Community, Nation.