Getting behind a "Great Restoration" can unite the Right and save Britain. 

On March 22nd 2026, PopCon Director, Mark Littlewood, delivered a powerful keynote at the Margaret Thatcher Centre’s Freedom Festival. With British politics in chaos, Mark argues the old rules have been shredded, replaced by a once-in-a-century realignment. He explains how a "Great Restoration" is the best way to unite the Right, rein in the judiciary, bypass the "expert" quangos, and reclaim national sovereignty. And it is a plan all right of centre parties can get behind. 

You can watch his keynote on the PopCon YouTube Channel here. [18 Mins]

A transcript of his speech is laid out below. 

Mark Littlewood Key note address

"I am going to give you my plan to unite the right, but I want to rehearse and revisit some of the discussions that have been had at various panel discussions in this room and in the margins of conference about what's actually happened to divide the right. Why is that occurring? How is it occurring? What's behind it? So I think it isn't breaking news, is it, to say that party politics in Britain is in chaos. The two major parties of the last 100 years, which you might typically expect to poll 40% each, perhaps, in a general election, now fail to get 40% between them in the opinion polls.

No political party, possible exception of reform nearly there, are regularly polling at 30% or above. What on earth is going on? How might it end? And what might a new stable structure of party politics look like? Because the present multi-party confusing system, I think, is incredibly reminiscent of Italian politics in the 1980s or 90s.

I was delighted to follow Italian politics at the time, precisely because it was so absolutely mad. Dozens of different parties continually changing their names. Anybody getting more than 5% of the vote was likely to play a leading role in government. A complete fiasco.

That was back in the time when we could joke about how stable British politics was, in contrast. In fact, I can remember, some of you may know I'm a devout football fan, and I can remember an England-Italy football match in the early 1990s. It was an incredibly boring football match, as so many England-Italy encounters are.

And it was so boring that the camera just kept panning over to the sort of the royal box, the posh seats, the director's seats. And every five minutes or so, such little was happening on the pitch. And there was always John Major sitting there, and next to him some other dignitary.

And about the eighth or ninth time it had panned over, I asked my Italian friend, and I said, the chap sitting next to John Major, I presume that's the Italian prime minister, isn't it? He said, no, that can't possibly be the Italian prime minister. They would have changed at half time. And British politics now has rather that feel, doesn't it? We're the laughingstock politically, or at least we're chaotic.

And I think it's a legend, a myth, rather than a fact. But it's said that throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s, whenever any ambassador to Italy was reporting back home to the motherland, and was asked by Washington, or London, or Paris, what's the situation like in Italy, the reply would always come, the situation in Italy is, as it always is, disastrous, but not serious. And I kind of feel that the politics on the right of the UK are in a disastrous and potentially unserious state just at the moment.

An enormous realignment is happening in British politics. In fact, it's already happened in much of the rest of the Western democratic world. And a number of our speakers, I know Erica in the last panel, have touched on what is happening here.

And I think it's important to understand it, because only if you understand it can you work out what a plan to unite the right might look like.

Essentially, what we need to get our head around is that there are factors that split us into major political tribes. It's a little bit like J.K. Rowling's sorting hat at Hogwarts that works out whether you're Gryffindor, or Slytherin, or one of the others.

And the way the sorting hat now works in Britain to divide us into different houses or tribes is very, very different to what it was 20, 30, 40, 60, or 70 years ago. We are going through a once in 100 year event in which the paradigms and divisions of our party political system are going to completely change. We have not seen this since the collapse of the Liberal Party about 100 years ago.

THE ECONOMY AS THE DIVIDING LINE IN POLITICS

Because the old dividing lines were pretty clear, and they were almost entirely about economics. If you were a pro-market leaning thought capitalism was basically the correct way to structure our economic affairs, generally favoured low tax and an environment that was good for business, were somewhat sceptical about the state spending too much money, you would lean to Team Blue in the United Kingdom.

If you thought the biggest problem was that the distribution of resources in society was unfair, that the rich had too much, that the government had a comparative ability in running some key industries and public services, you would lean to Team Red. You'd be Labour.

And this happened not just in the UK but was the model for almost all Western politics. The Republicans versus the Democrats in the United States of America. The Christian Democrats versus the Social Democrats in Germany. The Gaullists versus the Socialists in France. Other topics mattered.

It wasn't that the economy was the only thing that was ever discussed. Other topics mattered. But the big dividing line, what would generally determine which tribe or team you were on was your approach to economics. Other factors were meaningful, but secondary.

Now, the economy still matters today. It matters enormously in the United Kingdom. Our fiscal position is unsustainable; our state is too large; regulation is out of control; and we have the highest tax burden in peacetime history, whilst also witnessing a government that is doing nothing to solve the debt issue.

But economics, I would argue (and I've reflected on this after my long period of time at the Institute of Economic Affairs) is no longer the determining factor which puts you into a particular tribe. It is a secondary factor.

IDENTITY AS THE DIVIDING LINE IN POLITICS

What now puts you in a particular tribe is your approach to identity.

You might call it culture, as Eric did. It's essentially, do you see yourself as a ‘Somewhere’ person, rooted in the community, national traditions of your country, or do you see yourself as an anywhere person, a globalist of some sort? The ‘Anywheres’ believe in universal human rights; that people and peoples of different countries are all broadly the same.

They think countries, to some degree, are just landmasses, and the more that we get uniformity and similarity across borders, the better. That would be their broad thrust, their broad approach.

The ‘Somewheres’ believe in exceptionalism, that different countries are different, celebrate those differences, and believe that traits and traditions must be preserved and often reinforced.

And I think the first time you see these two tribes, although not in a party political sense, beginning to emerge, is the Brexit referendum.

BREXIT – THE START OF THE GREAT RESTORATION

Whichever side you were on, you would have found yourself with some odd bedfellows, right? There are a wide number of issues in which Nigel Farage and George Galloway would be on the same team. Or similarly, on the other side of the ledger, at least in public, Jeremy Corbyn and David Cameron.

Brexit was not the cause of the realignment that is happening, Brexit was a symptom of it.

And in looking back at Brexit (and we can get into endless arguments about whether it really has been completed or there's more to be done) it was the first part of a wider and necessary national restoration  - that we wanted to take back control from Brussels, but not just to hand it to unelected mandarins and bureaucrats in Whitehall. It was a necessary precondition for a restoration of the United Kingdom, but by no means whatsoever was it the end of the story.

And I think it's a great restoration that can be the plan to unite the right, an intellectual framework for thinking about the repair of Britain.

Not about the economy anymore. I think Conor Burns can confirm this (I used to be told it was a myth, but I think it really is a true story) that when Margaret Thatcher was asked to sum up her greatest achievement in office, she actually said Tony Blair. Meaning that the Labour Party had adopted the economic paradigm that she had been putting forward.

But, and I can remember way back to the 1997 general election, as I'm fond of telling people, you'll probably all know I'm in my late 40s, well, my very, very late 40s. I'm 53. But I was old enough to vote in the 1997 general election. And I remember being rather relaxed about the outcome.

I voted for the Conservatives, but I wasn't having nightmares each night about how Blair was going to destroy the economy or nationalise the commanding heights of the economy. I was pretty comfortable that the Blairites had bought into a broadly pro-market agenda. And so I was relaxed about it.

But what Blair did and achieved wasn't so much about embedding a consensus on a market economy. It was to give away power from Parliament in three different directions.

One, internationally, principally the EU was the driving force of that, but not uniquely the EU. Look at the troubles we're running into with the European Court and Convention of Human Rights.

The second area was to give away vast amounts of power to independent expert bodies or quangos. Liz Truss tells me there's 444 such bodies in Britain. I always wish it was 666. That would be a more appropriate number. But vast, on any area of public and political life you care to name, there will be an independent expert body seeking to regulate it.

And thirdly, and possibly most perniciously of all, the politicisation of the judiciary. I would say, if you wish to affect immigration policy in the United Kingdom, do not become an MP or even the Home Secretary. Become a judge. That's where we're actually deciding the basis and the grounds of immigration.

So we've given away from a sovereign Parliament in three directions, internationally, to our independent quangos and our judiciary a great amount of power. We've clawed some back internationally by leaving the EU, but have yet to leave the ECHR.

 A PLAN TO UNITE THE RIGHT

I think a plan that can unite the right intellectually is that Britain needs a great democratic restoration. That things simply don't work here. And it's not a long shopping list of 2,000 completely discreet different elements that we need to fix.

It is because the system is broken.

Now, sceptics, particularly within the Conservative Party, those I would dub ‘the Wets’, tell me that I'm quite wrong about this because when you go out and knock on doors and ask people, might we be able to count on your vote this time round, virtually nobody has ever said to me, well, I'm thinking about it, but I'm a little bit worried about who's in control of the Treasury's economic modelling and whether it sufficiently takes account of second round of facts in a dynamic way before they produce the figures. Nobody has said that.

Nobody has said to me that they are deeply worried about the OBR's fiscal forecasts being inaccurate and therefore the amount of fiscal headroom being granted to the Chancellor being inaccurate with it. Of course, people talk in retail terms. They can't get a GP appointment. They're worried about their kids' school. Their salaries have not gone up.

But underlying it, my sense, I have no opinion poll evidence to back this up. This is my sense, is there is a widespread and deeply felt belief that Britain is indeed broken. That kind of nothing works as it should.

And I think the right needs to put together a plan to fix that.

I don't disagree with those on the last panel who said delivery is very important. You know, we've got to find ways of getting younger people into work or making the welfare state work better or the rest of it. Of course, that is true.

But our structure has made delivery nearly impossible. If you wish to reduce regulation, get spending under control and cut a tax in Britain, it can be done, but it is an exercise in pushing water uphill. The inbuilt ratchet effects are going to be for more regulation, more taxation, greater spending, and more empowerment for bureaucrats. I think we need to unwind that.

And I want to finish on a happy note or a slightly optimistic one.

Ideologically, I think the centre-right in Britain is beginning to coalesce.  The differences, we heard this in the last panel as well, and from Dan Hannan last night, the likely differences in the manifestos of Reform and the Conservatives and the manifold and growing range of other parties on the right of centre, I don't think are going to be particularly substantial.

If you look at the Conservatives, for example, moved away from carbon net zero, I'd say haven't moved away from it quite as dramatically or as quickly as I would have liked, but nevertheless have moved away from it. The Conservatives are committed to withdrawal from the ECHR. Again, I think it took them a bit of a long time to get there, but two big shifts.

And while there's some fracturing on the right and some smaller fringe parties that I think so far, we have to say, have had limited electoral impact, they do seem to have quite a lot, or at least both claim a large number of members and quite an online presence. But I think by and large are also coalescing around the idea that the entire system of government in Britain needs to be fixed and rewired.

I don't know exactly who to include in that coalition. Gawain rather cruelly pointed out in the last panel that Advance UK were indeed beaten by the Official Monster Raving Loony party in Gorton and Denton. But how many of you read the official Monster Raving Loony Party manifesto? Any of you? Do you know what their policy is on immigration? Absolutely brilliant. Their policy on immigration was to get rid of every single employee of border force and replace them with GPs receptionists. And that way no one would get in. So perhaps, perhaps these guys need to be part of the uniting of the right as well.

But I think that platform that we need a great restoration, that we are appealing to a coalition that isn't really specifically about economic policy, but is about a faith in what used to work in Britain but has been damaged and undermined from Blair onwards with the connivance of large parts of the Conservative Party over the 14 years in office, is a platform that would appeal. It isn't necessarily nebulous.

It does need a catchphrase and I'm not a catchphrase kind of person. We need to find the modern example of Saatchi and Saatchi to work out what the slogan is. But I think it is a small C conservative project that everybody on the right of centre can get behind.

And if you look at the slogans that have been successful in recent campaigns, they are definitionally conservative. They're about going back to something. I actually think had the Leave campaign's campaign slogan being take control, it wouldn't have had anything like the same impact as take back control. It was about recovering something that had been lost.

When you think of the Republican Party  - Donald Trump's movement in the Republican Party - everybody thinks of MAGA. But I think the most important word in that slogan is the last one, make America great again. It's about a return to greatness.

And I think if intellectually the right, whichever party you might be in, or if you're independent and still decided can get undecided, can get its head around producing a platform to reset Britain to where it used to be and to discover greatness again.

Once that plan is agreed as the unifying point of the right, I think the electoral vehicle will become very obvious.

Thanks very much for your time."