Stop Project 2029

Not to be confused with the left-wing Project 2029 in America, Project 2029: A Plan to Reshape Britain is the UK’s version of an authoritarian playbook titled Project 2025 that appears to be informing policy ^[1] in The States at present. Project 2025 was crafted by The Heritage Foundation, a fundamentalist Christian think tank tied to a similarly fundamentalist legal advocacy group known as the Alliance Defending Freedom or ADF. After both organisations helped overturn ^[2] American abortion rights, their attempts to chip away at UK abortion rights ^[3] have apparently become emboldened.

Project 2029: A Plan to Reshape Britain seems to be the work of two UK think tanks, namely The Centre For A Better Britain and Policy Exchange. Incorporated in late 2024 as Resolute 1850, the now renamed Centre For A Better Britain is a think tank reported ^[4] to be modelled on The Heritage Foundation and have ties to the Reform party and the ADF. Policy Exchange is an established and influential think tank ^[5] that has faced scrutiny ^[6] for withholding funding information despite being a registered charity. More recently, the charity commission received a complaint ^[7] alleging that because Policy Exchange’s reports and opinion pieces ^[8] now repeatedly advocate for right-wing policies, they’re failing in their duty as an educational charity to remain uncontroversial. Policy Exchange launched Project 2029 around May 2026, although because numerous articles link the Centre For A Better Britain to Project 2029 ^[4], either directly or via their previous Resolute 1850 name, the authoritarian Project 2029 playbook looks to be a collaborative effort between both think tanks. Much as Project 2025 seems to be doing in America ^[1], it appears their intention is for Project 2029 to shape the policies of a future right-wing government here in the UK.

The Project 2029 webpage makes truth claims for which they do not provide sources nor specify names, and perhaps their most ironic claim is that stakeholders and quangos are influencing our country, then without substantiating their claims, they go on to ask questions about widespread legislative, judicial, and parliamentary reform. It always makes sense to be wary of those who make a claim, fail to provide sufficient evidence for it, and then ask questions not of their own truth claim, but of what should be done because of that claim instead. Their page cleverly groups questions under a few headings that echo voter concerns, but history tells us ^[9] that actions justified by a boogeyman seldom work out well for the masses, and given that rigorous evidence is required ^[10] to justify actions on a countrywide scale, wariness here seems more than appropriate.

Implications

The Conservatives, Reform and Restore have all pledged to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, and while it may be possible to amend the 1998 Human Rights Act, which enshrined the convention’s human rights into UK law, it appears more likely ^[11] that it will be repealed instead. This may impact abortion rights, as article 8 of the Human Rights Act has been used to uphold abortion rights in the past. Both Restore and Reform are committed to repealing the 2010 Equality Act entirely, while the Conservatives intend to remove the public sector equality duty section from it. As with the other sections that protect anyone from discrimination ^[12] based on their age, race, religion, sex, pregnancy or LGBT+ status, that section relates to discrimination in or from public services like police forces, schools, councils and the NHS.

It’s unclear whether a Bill of Rights or some other legislation ^[13] will ultimately replace either of them, at least in part, but even a partial removal of everyone’s rights and protections serves only to increase the power ^[14] of those who have taken them. This causes knock-on effects ^[15] in potentially all areas of public and private life, though perhaps most starkly when squeezing the populace for someone else’s financial gain.

Around the time Project 2029 was launched, the former Chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, along with the shadow minister for equalities and a former head of political strategy for No.10, went on stage to talk about Project 2029 and their plans for the UK. Whilst they will likely repeat their talking points in an attempt to normalise their aims, of particular note was the suggestion that decriminalising abortion was not sufficiently debated in parliament, which is used to suggest that parliament is no longer fit for purpose. Given Reform’s apparent stance on abortion ^[16], and that abortion rights are an iceberg that fundamentalist Christians intend to melt in the UK ^[3], it’s alarming to hear a shadow minister for equalities imply that the decriminalisation of abortion requires further debate.

Unlike the United States, overturning abortion rights in the UK will probably be framed more on humanitarian than religious grounds, although among some demographics Christian fundamentalism may be rising in the UK ^[17], and as some have noticed recently, those with influence can quickly polarise views ^[18]. Strict roles and gender stereotypes ^[19], womanhood defined by her body, and deconstructing the rainbow ^[20] are positions held by fundamentalist Christians, and now that the definition of man and woman has been ruled biological for purposes of equality law, the UK’s shift toward alignment with fundamentalist viewpoints does not appear insignificant.

Division as a Mechanism

Different demographics experience disadvantage, vulnerability and power in varying degrees across differing parts of life, and some perhaps feel that the increase in equality over recent decades has caused negative repercussions for their demographic. Through a certain lens, their assessment isn’t wholly wrong, and members of a demographic can be driven by a number of factors, but disinformation sometimes distorts complex issues, meaning there’s likely nuance to be had.

Men and boys might do what’s expected of them, though increasingly often and especially for those who are younger, this may result in not only unemployment ^[21], but also a lack of partner appeal ^[22], as women become more able to support themselves, and are less compelled to experience the behaviours they dislike. From their perspective, the problem perhaps isn’t socialisation instilling those behaviours, nor wealth inequality, instead it might be immigration or other people gaining rights. They feel adrift, left behind or lonely ^[23], and healthy expression is perhaps unlikely due to the repressive version of stoicism so glorified by our society, combined with further insight often locked behind a therapeutic paywall. Their suffering largely goes unnoticed, until they find the red or black pill communities of the Manosphere, where their pain is acknowledged enough to be exploited ^[23].

Women and girls frequently suffer the consequences of misogyny from an early age, and some now fear immigrants ^[24] and certain transgender people ^[25] to a greater degree as well. Messaging suggests that both groups are disproportionately predatory, and in the latter case, are accessing their safe spaces by pretending to be what they say. From their perspective, sometimes they need look no further than how transgender people react when asked about pronouns, or how unobliging they can be when they’re asked not to use cis. If they aren’t respected in a conversation, it’s understandable that some of them question if they’ll be respected elsewhere. Although perhaps what may get lost in translation, is why some transgender people are reactive, or the lack of prior incidents ^[26] when sharing those spaces in the past, and each side can fail to notice their similarities, up to and including their fears. Rather than addressing the various types of violence perpetrated by some members of other demographics, moral panic ^[25] tends to take centre stage instead.

Immigration is an issue for plenty of demographics, and though fraught with concerns over job competition and cultural cohesion, sometimes the nuance missed is that of chronic underinvestment of services that some claim immigrants have no right to stretch further. The same applies to housing, where chronic underinvestment and especially hereditary land ownership don’t always come up. Nor our past conduct abroad, or how the concept of religion itself ^[27] contributes to difficulties with integration, as it swells the number of differences between two people, and may compound this by making each party feel strongly about their views and practices.

Fabricating a zero-sum game

It’s easy to see how division is sowed, and how each demographic is misdirected toward blaming the other. In the red pill community of the Manosphere, where men are weighed by their wealth and physical prowess, misogyny and patriarchy are reinforced. Immigration may need to be controlled, but the nuances of hereditary land ownership, chronic systemic underinvestment in housing and services, and the possible impact of religion or our conduct abroad can get lost along the way. Due to unfavourable messaging about transgender people, some have participated in furthering a stereotype of what it means to be them, and an identity surrounding reproduction. Accusations of holding negative attitudes toward the rainbow are now deemed discrimination via stereotype, and part of that rainbow now face less social inclusion.

Those invisibly sowing our division have caused each demographic to focus less on addressing the cost of living, unemployment, underinvestment in public services, housing, misogyny and misandry, or wider wealth inequality. The blame is instead placed on each other, whilst those trying to keep you distracted, try their hardest to convince you that equality is a zero-sum game.

A pyramid of belief

Along with resisting the disinformation and misinformation now rife in much of the media, we can each attempt to repair division by engaging more constructively with one another. This is worth pursuing because when we’re less divided, we become more able to address wealth inequality and solidify everyone’s rights. When someone makes a statement like ‘I ate pizza last night’, the other person evaluates the believability of their truth claim using a number of already established beliefs, such as humans eat food, pizza is readily available, and many people eat pizza. This occurs alongside their understanding of the other person’s trustworthiness, the gravity of the claim they’re making, and any risks posed if they’re misled.

Concluding they likely ate pizza last night might be relatively simple, as the gravity of their claim is small, and the consequences of doing so are typically negligible. Although it can have implications on what else they believe, for example that the other person likes pizza, and if the type of pizza was specified, what their taste in pizza is and whether they consume animal products on pizza.

However, if the consequences of believing something to be true is much greater, a single belief can have a big impact on the reformulation of their other beliefs, which in turn can affect their actions based on those beliefs. If a person firmly but mistakenly believes that all cooked olives definitely make people very poorly, and they hear someone else state ‘I ate olive pizza last night’, they might be quick to believe the other person’s claim about eating olive pizza, and then focus on warning them about the dangers of cooked olives. Their belief about olive pizzas might be wrong, but because the consequences of eating them are great, they may tell numerous other people about the dangers of doing so. They might even lobby for shops to stop selling anything that contains cooked olives, and they can do all of this whilst believing their efforts are benefitting society.

A mistaken belief might become engrained over time, and this can make it more difficult to change. If they have made the belief known to many of the people around them, this often makes it even more difficult, as the social cost of changing their mind increases every time they mention it to the people around them. Because they’re not just admitting they were wrong about the dangers of cooked olives, they’re also admitting that the things they did because of that belief were incorrect as well. If they have found community in the ‘dangers of cooked olives’ movement, things get even trickier, as they also risk losing some of their social connections should the group realise they no longer believe that cooked olives are dangerous.

Despite furnishing them with the latest scientific evidence, they still might not be able to change their mind if it is too costly to do so. Especially if the ‘dangers of cooked olives’ community operates as an echo chamber, and they have preloaded answers that seem to disprove the science, or they’ve been warned that ‘big olive’ may lead them astray. When choosing to engage with a heavily invested person, the goal isn’t necessarily to change their mind, instead the outcome may be invisible to you, as it can occur indirectly among the lightly invested people who witness your exchange. Although making it as painless as possible for someone to change their mind is always worthwhile, both for their sake, and because they can become strong allies too.

Choosing to engage with lightly invested people can also help in less obvious ways. Because as more people become aware that the evidence supports eating cooked olives in moderation, it gradually raises the social cost of vocalising a differing belief. Even if the heavily invested person doesn’t change their mind about cooked olives, the increased social cost can help to reduce the spread of misinformation, as it typically makes them less inclined to vocalise their mistaken belief. While this might not be fun for the person who is heavily invested, their position is at odds with current scientific consensus, so they’re seeking to prevent other people from enjoying olive pizza without good reason.

This may not be easy

I’d like to believe that most of us only hold people fully accountable when they could have controlled their actions, and this distinction is significant because it has implications on empathy. While it’s important to hold people accountable for what they choose to do, I also think it’s crucial to keep in mind that which they didn’t choose nor have any control over. Attempting to foster empathy within those confines can lead to an improved understanding of why someone holds a belief, and why they behave in a certain way. This can make it easier to engage with them more constructively, whilst also reducing the magnitude of your own feelings towards them.

An example of something none of us chose, is a brain evolved to lean toward seeing danger in that which isn’t like us or isn’t well understood, combined with a society that often teaches us that we’re stronger when we repress feelings without understanding them. The person who’s not like you didn’t choose that either, nor how it can sometimes cause us to replace understanding with anger. People don’t get to choose their birthplace, body or brain, nor their family, caregivers, early education, indoctrination or socialisation, and sometimes they don’t pick their employment status, or the rabbit hole that social media nudges them down by repeatedly showing them the same kind of article either. They didn’t choose the inequality that oppresses most of us in society, or how it does so in differing ways, nor did they select the metrics that are used to pit us against each other.

When both the absence of choice and its consequences are more fully recognised, two people with differing views might engage using a logical, empathetic foundation of similarity and improved insight into why the other person holds their beliefs. This foundation makes it easier to inspect an argument instead of the person making it, especially when they treat their own thoughts and feelings less as inherent truth, and more as potentially rational and proportional data points, where anything falling short of that inspection is an opportunity instead of a failure. While irrational and disproportionate thoughts and feelings make everyone beautifully human, trying not to act on them before they’re reasonably inspected can make both yourself and society a great deal more beautiful.

Encountering viewpoints that differ from your own can often cause disbelief, dismay, invalidation or intimidation, and then it’s easy to get angry and direct that anger outward as hatred. When you catch it happening, I encourage you to silently direct it toward something invisible instead, be it far below you or way up above, or perhaps in the direction of an old bully or a bad teacher you used to have, even the thing you stubbed your toe on yesterday will do, just so long as it’s anywhere else.

All of this will likely take practice, and if you don’t manage to sometimes, that’s proof you’re wonderfully human, though if you’re able, please try to remember that next time you could achieve one of the best parts of what it is to be human; meeting someone else with empathy, understanding, curiosity and warmth. I know none of this sounds easy, though I beg you to persevere. Because if society remains divided, the people sowing our division will be least affected by lost rights and more wealth inequality. And what I imagine they’ll never tell you, is that not only does everyone deserve equality, but stood side by side we can demand it, because equality is far from a zero-sum game.

---

Sources

#olivesDidNothingWrong