How low can you stoop? Who would have thought that, at the height of the Ukraine war, a British Prime Minister would wage psy-ops against his own side, spewing disinformation for the basest of electoral reasons, delighting and encouraging Russian trolls and bots?
Andy Burnham’s flirtation with one of the most toxic conspiracy theories of our time, the false claim that Vladimir Putin manipulated us into voting for Brexit and that our entire democratic settlement is thus an illegitimate sham, is an unforgivable scandal, proof that he will do anything for power, including resort to agitprop and concocted narratives to mobilise Leftist flat-earthers.
His timing was atrocious, coming in the midst of an unprecedented influence operation by totalitarian powers (including Russia, China, Iran and others) to discredit Western values and certainties, to manipulate us into self-hatred, to weaponise social media and fake news, to spread prejudice, racism and Jew-hatred, to fuel extremism and idiocy, to pit our citizens against liberalism, truth and decency.
Burnham’s dog-whistle conveyed to Rejoiner ultras that he is one of them, that the referendum isn’t morally binding, that Lib Dems, Green and SNP voters are safe with him.
The suggestion that Russia swung the Brexit vote was slapped down by MI5: yes, Russians tried to meddle, but they were comparatively unimpressive and no, they didn’t succeed in swaying the outcome. Sir Ken McCallum, MI5’s boss, added that he was “anxious that we don’t play into our adversaries’ hands by making these trolls look 10ft tall”, warning they would be delighted by the attention.
Many foreign powers, not least the EU and Barack Obama’s America, tried to bully British voters to back Remain; US banks funded Project Fear scare stories and the UK government endorsed hysterical nonsense about the consequences of leaving.
In the end, the public – and especially the working class, lower middle class and suburbanites – kept calm and took the right decision.
The irony is that, if any side in contemporary politics is susceptible to brainwashing, to propaganda, to emotional manipulation, it is the modern Progressive Left, and especially the ultra-urban, ultra-credentialled, ultra-tribal denizens of nowhere at the heart of Burnham’s coalition.
These are the people who still think Russia caused Brexit, who fall for every fad, every fashionable Leftist cause, every social contagion, who swallow every lie and every libel and every supposed plot as long as it fits a worldview that divides the world into oppressors (bad) to be destroyed and oppressed (good) to be saved.
They are the ones who have willingly become fanatical disciples of a shape-shifting omnicause.
They are uninterested in objectivity, argumentation and convincing the public, unlike the socialists of yore. Modern progressives are fixated with social revolution at home and abroad. They will tolerate no dissent: they are not merely vulnerable to brainwashing, but support its use. They see free speech as a form of violence, a manifestation of oppression and false consciousness. The ends justify the means, and every Orwellian technique is deployed to deliver victory. Indoctrination is the modus operandi.
Every one of their central beliefs is groundless and evidence-free. Their founding myth is that the NHS is the best in the world, and that the only alternative is the US healthcare system, a proposition that does not survive the slightest scrutiny. They deny biological sex differences, and cling to the most demented of woke nostrums. They assert that Brexit is the principal cause of the British economy’s poor growth, and that without it we would be booming (even though France, Germany and Italy are growing even more pathetically than Britain).
Allister Heath
They claim that climate change (a real challenge) will end the world unless the UK imposes net zero by 2050 (even though we account for 0.8 per cent of global emissions). They maintain that Britain’s history is uniquely bad, and tear down anybody who points out that Britain ended the transatlantic slave trade and pioneered individual rights.
They claim obsessively that Israel is committing a genocide, which is untrue, believe every hoax on social media, every deepfake, every video from a different conflict, are convinced that the Jewish state deliberately kills children (a modernised take on the blood libel) and attribute supranatural powers of global manipulation to Benjamin Netanyahu (a new version of the anti-Semitic trope), while denying influence or agency to any other country.
Why has the Left become so anti-intellectual, so conformist, so authoritarian, so prone to believing every conspiracy, every supposed machination?
Every side lies, and the woke Right is increasingly guilty of its own monstrosities, yet in Britain these remain the preserve of a stupid minority, rather than being the orthodoxy of an entire movement, as on the Progressive Left.
One problem is that schools and universities no longer teach how to think, but what to think, obliterating critical faculties. Narratives are promoted above facts, and the latter bent to fit the former.
This has been compounded by a Leftist putsch: our educational and cultural institutions have turned mono-ideological, with hardly any conservative teachers, researchers, charity workers or artists after a multi-decade purge. The result: non-stop conditioning, the corruption of literature and economics, endless Third Worldism, eco-catastrophism and the inculcation of a woke morality.
Our youth are ignorant of alternative worldviews; the decline of the family and traditional religions has compounded this lack of pluralism. Political movements have turned into secular faiths with tenets that cannot be scrutinised, the only communities many feel they can belong to.
The British used to trust the authorities; a series of scandals has put paid to such naivety. But if you believe that every official always lies, you end up trusting gossip and hearsay above traditional forms of knowledge; we have developed (and, in some cases, actually imported) the conspiratorial culture we used to criticise in the Middle East.
The rise of social media ushered in mob rule and nihilism. Technological shocks guarantee revolutions, and the internet/AI will have an even greater impact than the printing press.
Social posts may include words, but short messages are not books. Instant action replaces reflection. Our textual civilisation is being supplanted by a visual one; the absence of gatekeeping has upsides, but it means facts go unverified and “my truth” competes with “your truth”. Images, real or fake, trump all else; context no longer exists; emotions are everything; TikTok the fount of “knowledge”. A video becomes the “argument”, even if made by AI.
Down that road lies a cataclysmic implosion, yet our own Prime Minister seems determined to accelerate our ruination.
The statement that “the modern Left is built on conspiracy theories, brainwashing and lies” reflects a growing sense of political frustration and distrust in contemporary society. Across many Western countries, political divisions have become increasingly intense, with disagreements over immigration, climate change, economic inequality, gender identity, national sovereignty and freedom of expression. Critics of the modern political Left argue that some progressive movements rely on misleading information, ideological pressure and conspiracy-based narratives to influence public opinion. However, supporters of left-wing politics strongly reject this characterisation, arguing that their movement is based on equality, social justice, human rights and economic fairness. To understand this debate, it is necessary to examine the political strategies, communication methods and ideological disagreements that have shaped the modern Left.
Historically, the political Left has been associated with movements seeking greater economic equality, stronger workers’ rights and improved social protection. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, left-wing political organisations played important roles in establishing trade unions, improving working conditions, expanding public education and developing welfare systems. Many of these achievements were intended to reduce poverty and provide opportunities for disadvantaged groups. Social democratic parties also contributed to the development of modern healthcare systems, unemployment protection and public pension programmes.
However, the modern Left is considerably more diverse than traditional socialist and social democratic movements. Contemporary progressive politics includes environmental organisations, feminist movements, anti-racism campaigns, LGBTQ+ rights groups and activists supporting greater social and economic equality. Although these groups often share certain values, they do not necessarily agree on every political issue. Their different priorities can sometimes create internal disagreements over economic policy, cultural identity and the role of government.
One of the main criticisms directed at sections of the modern Left concerns the spread of conspiracy theories. Critics argue that some activists interpret political and economic events through narratives involving powerful hidden organisations, corporate interests or coordinated attempts to control society. Such explanations may gain popularity because they offer simple answers to complicated problems. When people experience economic insecurity, social instability or political disappointment, they may become attracted to explanations that identify a particular group as responsible for their difficulties.
Nevertheless, conspiracy theories are not exclusive to the political Left. They can also be found among right-wing movements, nationalist organisations and groups with no clear ideological identity. For example, conspiracy narratives about secret global elites, election manipulation and government control have appeared across different political communities. Therefore, the spread of misinformation should be examined as a wider problem affecting democratic societies rather than an issue belonging to only one political ideology.
Another controversial issue is the accusation that the modern Left uses brainwashing to influence younger generations. Critics frequently point to debates about education, universities, social media and popular culture. They argue that some educational institutions present particular political or cultural perspectives as unquestionable truths while discouraging students from challenging them. In their view, this can create an environment in which individuals feel pressured to accept specific ideological positions rather than develop independent opinions.
However, education and political awareness should not automatically be described as brainwashing. Schools and universities have a responsibility to encourage critical thinking, expose students to different perspectives and teach them how to evaluate evidence. Discussions about racism, inequality, historical injustice and discrimination are legitimate academic subjects. Problems arise when educational institutions discourage reasonable disagreement, present contested interpretations as established facts or fail to distinguish between evidence and personal opinion. These concerns should be assessed through specific examples rather than broad accusations against all progressive educators.
Social media has also transformed the way political ideas are communicated. Platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, YouTube and X allow political activists to reach millions of people without relying on traditional newspapers or television broadcasters. This has created opportunities for democratic participation, but it has also made the spread of misleading information considerably easier. Emotional messages, dramatic videos and simplified political claims often attract more attention than detailed explanations.
Some progressive activists have been accused of using emotionally charged language to influence public opinion. For instance, opponents may be described as intolerant, discriminatory or dangerous without sufficient consideration of their actual arguments. When political disagreements become moral battles between supposedly good and evil groups, constructive discussion becomes increasingly difficult. However, similar communication strategies are also used by conservative politicians and populist movements. The problem is therefore connected to the wider incentives of modern political communication.
The accusation that the modern Left is built on lies also raises important questions about political accountability. All political movements make claims about economic performance, social problems and government policies. These claims should be examined against reliable evidence rather than accepted simply because they support a preferred ideology. Politicians sometimes exaggerate statistics, make promises that cannot realistically be delivered or selectively present information to strengthen their arguments. Such behaviour damages public confidence and makes it harder for citizens to distinguish between genuine political debate and propaganda.
For example, discussions about climate change demonstrate how scientific evidence can become entangled with political ideology. Many progressive movements support ambitious environmental policies, arguing that governments must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit the consequences of global warming. These policies have scientific foundations, but disagreements remain over their economic costs, implementation and social consequences. Critics may question whether particular policies place excessive financial pressure on working families or businesses. Such criticism should not automatically be dismissed as opposition to science. Equally, political disagreement does not justify denying well-established scientific evidence.
Immigration is another issue that illustrates the divisions within modern politics. Left-wing movements frequently emphasise humanitarian responsibilities, refugee protection and the contributions migrants make to society. Their opponents may argue that immigration needs stronger controls to protect national security, public services and social cohesion. Both sets of concerns deserve serious examination. A healthy democratic discussion should allow governments to protect national borders while respecting the rights and dignity of people seeking international protection.
Economic inequality is perhaps the most traditional concern of the political Left. Progressive politicians often argue that wealthy individuals and large corporations should contribute more through taxation to finance public services and social programmes. They believe that governments have a responsibility to reduce poverty and provide equal opportunities. Critics, however, warn that excessive taxation and regulation may discourage investment, reduce business activity and weaken economic growth. These disagreements reflect different economic philosophies rather than necessarily proving that one side is deliberately misleading the public.
It is also important to recognise that the modern Left has achieved political and social changes that supporters consider valuable. Campaigns for equal rights, workplace protection, improved access to healthcare and stronger legal safeguards have contributed to significant developments in many democratic countries. Progressive organisations have also drawn attention to discrimination and inequalities that were previously ignored. These contributions should be considered alongside legitimate criticism of political extremism and misinformation.
The central problem emerges when political loyalty becomes more important than truth. In highly polarised environments, individuals may reject information simply because it comes from an opposing political group. They may accept unverified claims from politicians they support while demanding extremely high standards of evidence from their opponents. This creates an unhealthy political culture in which facts are judged according to ideological convenience. Such behaviour can affect both left-wing and right-wing communities.
To address this problem, democratic societies need stronger media literacy and greater commitment to independent thinking. Citizens should be encouraged to check the original sources of political claims, compare different accounts and distinguish between factual evidence and personal interpretation. Journalists should investigate misleading statements regardless of which political party makes them. Educational institutions should promote respectful disagreement and teach students to question arguments using evidence rather than political labels.
Political leaders also have a responsibility to improve the quality of public debate. They should avoid exaggerating threats, spreading unverified allegations and portraying entire groups of citizens as enemies. Instead, they should explain their policies clearly and acknowledge the limitations of their proposals. A political movement becomes more credible when it is willing to examine its mistakes and correct inaccurate claims.
Ultimately, the modern Left should not be judged entirely through the actions of its most controversial activists or political representatives. It contains a wide range of organisations, ideas and individuals, some of whom support moderate reform while others advocate more radical changes. The same diversity exists within the political Right. Treating either side as a single organisation built entirely on dishonesty prevents meaningful discussion about the actual strengths and weaknesses of different political ideas.
In conclusion, the claim that the modern Left is built on conspiracy theories, brainwashing and lies expresses genuine concerns about misinformation, ideological pressure and political manipulation. These problems should not be ignored, particularly when they threaten independent thinking and democratic debate. However, conspiracy theories and dishonest political communication are not exclusive to one side of the political spectrum. The most important principle is that every political movement should be judged according to the accuracy of its claims, the quality of its arguments and its willingness to respect democratic values. A healthy society does not require citizens to agree on every issue. It requires them to question authority, examine evidence, tolerate disagreement and defend the importance of truth, regardless of which political ideology is being challenged.