Tommy Robinson could eclipse Nigel Farage, warns Peter Hitchens; Trident debate and Fatbike trend noted

Peter Hitchens argues in a Daily Mail column that Tommy Robinson could become the dominant populist force in Britain, potentially eclipsing Nigel Farage. He describes Robinson as a troubling, crude leader whose large marches and appeal to otherwise decent voters signal a movement that could reshape the political landscape if mainstream conservatism continues to drift away from working-class concerns.

Hitchens contrasts Robinson with Danny Kruger, whom he portrays as emblematic of the perceived uselessness of official political conservatism. He notes Kruger’s past roles during the Cameron era and his later alignment with Boris Johnson, then his shift toward supporting Farage. In recounting a Manchester debate from years past, Hitchens recalls Kruger’s assertion that the Tory Party was “the vehicle of the people” and distinct from its generation, and he suggests Kruger’s trajectory tells a broader story about failed leadership and political recalibration. The column revisits an early warning that Britain could move toward a form of populism that substitutes loud, disruptive rhetoric for traditional conservatism, a phenomenon Hitchens described as dangerous and potentially destructive. He poses a provocative question: how large could such a movement become, and what are the implications if it elbowed aside more established figures? The piece frames these questions against a backdrop of rising economic strain, arguing that the public’s appetite for action could outpace the rule of law and long-standing freedoms.

Beyond personalities, the column treats a broader warning: as bills mount from economic policy, the pull of faux populism could grow stronger if the political class remains deaf to ordinary people’s concerns. Hitchens frames the risk as a potential British version of Trumpism—an abrasive, attention-grabbing current that could gain speed as wages stagnate and jobs feel precarious. He argues that this trajectory would be exacerbated if reformist voices fail to articulate credible alternatives or if conservative elites appear complacent or out of touch. The piece also notes that the public’s appetite for action matters as much as the policy content of any movement, and it questions where responsibility lies when the political class refuses to engage with popular worry.

In parallel, Hitchens turns to Britain’s defense posture to illuminate how fiscal and strategic pressures intersect with national dreams of global influence. He argues that Britain can no longer afford to sustain a superpower footprint under current conditions and that a sober reassessment of the Trident program is necessary. The column points to a future in which the navy’s aging Vanguard-class submarines are pressed to sea for longer patrols, a situation he ties to public warnings voiced by figures such as Admiral Sir Tony Radakin. He recounts that the fleet’s remaining submarines—each designed for continuous at-sea presence—are strained by age and the logistical realities of maintenance and replacement. He notes a scenario in which a single submarine could need to return home in distress because its replacement would not be ready for months, and the contemporaneous fleet would be held in reserve or kept at risk by the absence of a timely substitute. The piece cites prior reporting of a Vanguard boat returning crusted with barnacles after a record period at sea and argues that the four submarines that entered service in the late 20th century should by now have been retired. The author connects these technical details to a larger claim: maintaining a nuclear-deterrent posture could require unsustainable levels of expenditure, delaying other national needs if the country remains committed to high-end strategic capabilities.

The column also draws attention to the political implications of the defense calculus. It frames the question of Trident’s replacement not merely as a technical or fiscal issue but as a test of Britain’s strategic self-confidence and its willingness to recalibrate its role on the world stage. If the affordability argument prevails, Hitchens implies, Britain may have to rethink its long-standing commitment to continuous at-sea deterrence and, by extension, its posture as a major naval power. The column does not prescribe a particular plan, but it emphasizes the seriousness of the trade-offs involved and the political courage required to navigate them in a time of fiscal pressure and shifting global geopolitics.

Rounding out his survey of modern public life, Hitchens turns to urban mobility and street safety, noting a trend toward high-powered electric devices that defy speed limits and clutter urban space. He references the Dutch term for the problem—often described as “Fatbike”—to capture a phenomenon that is becoming increasingly visible in major cities. He uses the term to highlight a broader concern about risk and regulation in congested streets, suggesting that similar concerns may soon gain resonance in the United Kingdom if the issue continues to intensify. While the piece treats these transportation trends as a sociocultural aside, it also frames them as indicators of how fast-changing technologies and habits intersect with public policy and daily life.

Taken together, the column paints a sweeping portrait of a Britain at a crossroads: a political class perceived as out of touch with ordinary concerns, a defense establishment facing hard budgeting choices about whether to maintain its current strategic posture, and urban life reshaped by new mobility technologies that challenge existing norms. The author treats these threads as interconnected reflections of a broader unease about the country’s direction in a volatile world. The piece remains deliberately opinionated, but it seeks to ground its judgments in offered facts, historical context, and reported statements from public figures, while avoiding speculation about specific future outcomes.