Color Scheme

Liz Webster: OMG This is totally vile...

"😮 OMG This is totally vile. Reform councillors in Makerfield posing with a banner saying they’d “rather vote for Jimmy Savile than Labour”. This is gutter politics and shows the desperation. Makerfield voters deserve better than this toxicity. A strong result for @AndyBurnhamGM on Thursday is the antidote: serious, decent leadership focused on communities, high streets, and a proper British food & farming plan. #AndyForMakerfield #SaveBritishFarming"

Alex Wickham: NEW: How would Andy Burnham...

NEW: How would Andy Burnham govern? Labour’s big fear is he can’t live up to his promise of change and he ends up not much different to Keir Starmer. The levers available to him to go big on policy are limited. Binding himself to the manifesto and fiscal rules means he cannot significantly raise taxes, borrow or spend more. Only more incremental fiscal options are possible unless he changes his mind. He will pursue soft-left social justice policies: social care, a long-term investment plan, more public ‘control’ of industry, council houses, bus fares, some small tax rises on the wealthy. All good stuff for a Labour PM, but so far there’s not really a big idea there that can turn around Labour’s fortunes in three years. And there’s no detail yet. Like Starmer, Burnham has judged he needs to be tough on immigration to stop Labour’s traditional working class vote going to Reform. He wants more detention of asylum seekers, backs Shabana Mahmood’s policies and wants to try welfare cuts again. His language around the Henry Nowak case was fascinating: suggesting banning the kirpan and that Britain does have two-tier policing except in Manchester under its ‘no nonsense’ police chief. Soft-left social justice + tough on immigration… trying to appeal to both right and left to prevent votes bleeding both ways… within the confines of the fiscal rules and manifesto… sounds quite a lot like Starmer. There have been some red flags during his campaign. A lot of Starmer-esque u-turns. The Waspi gaffe. And loose talk, saying repeatedly he’ll “look at” various policies that would cost billions, like a pensioner tax cut, with no plan to pay for them. There are signs of tension among his supporters already. Some backers suggest his team has struggled to agree either on a policy platform or a political strategy for how they should approach the days after Makerfield. We have no idea who his chancellor will be. Or his No10 team. Or his top cabinet posts. His political operation is very limited: Louise Haigh, Ed Miliband, Miatta Fahnbulleh, Josh Simons. That’s a huge amount of uncertainty over someone who wants a coronation within weeks. Burnham will want to focus on domestic policy and not as much on foreign policy as Starmer. But that’s easier said than done. He’d be PM in Trump’s world and the Ukraine war endgame would happen on his watch. Foreign policy may well define a Burnham premiership whether he likes it or not - just like Starmer. No doubt Burnham is a better communicator. He seems at ease with working class voters and says all the right things. Maybe that’s enough reason to change. But with the constraints he faces, can he deliver the radical change he’s promising, or is he setting himself up to let voters down like so many PMs before him?

Liz Webster: Brexit energy trap: Britain’s energy...

🚨 Brexit energy trap: Britain’s energy costs are strangling growth. PwC warns we risk missing out on £250 billion in economic value over the next decade unless we fix chronically high electricity prices. This is the Brexit energy trap: lost EU market integration + our broken gas-marginal pricing system = some of the highest costs in the developed world, even when renewables are cheap. We need a proper integrated energy strategy, not more decline.

Liz Webster: Ten years on, the Brexit evidence overwhelming...

🔥 Ten years on, the Brexit evidence overwhelming. Brexit was not a temporary disruption on the road to prosperity. It was an act of economic self-harm. The promised gains, less red tape, booming global trade and lower immigration, have not materialised. Instead we have: 📉 Lower investment 📉 Weaker productivity 📉 More expensive trade 📉 Lower growth 📈 Higher net migration You can argue about the exact size of the damage, but you cannot honestly argue there has been no damage.

Liz Webster: 🔥 The great irony of the population...

🔥 The great irony of the population debate/Malthusianism is that for decades a generation of policymakers feared Britain had too many people and explored ways of reducing numbers. Half a century later, Britain 🇬🇧 faces a population crisis of not enough people. For decades so many citizens have struggled to afford to have the families they want. Now the large aging babyboom generation continues to resent immigration needed to keep the country going.

David Kurten: Starmer's U-16 social media ban is...

Starmer's U-16 social media ban is a Trojan horse for digital ID and totalitarian internet surveillance. It is laughable to think that the Starmer regime cares about children with the ongoing existence of grooming gangs, RSE in schools and the surge in migrant crime resulting from replacement migration. It's real goal is digital ID verification to use the internet and totalitarian internet surveillance for all.

Andrew Bridgen: The hypocrisy of the Government...

The hypocrisy of the Government. The UK Government's 'careful review' of the research found a small correlation between children's use of social media and wellbeing, but no evidence of a causal effect: Yet they decided to ban under 16’s from Social Media. However when shown the clear correlation between Covid ‘vaccination’ and deaths, injury and cancer the Government state that ‘correlation is not causation’ and keep on pushing the toxic shots. Hypocrisy ? https://gov.uk/government/publications/understand-the-impact-of-smartphones-and-social-media-on-children-and-young-people/understand-the-impact-of-smartphones-and-social-media-on-children-and-young-people-executive-summary
Read more