First of all, he is untainted with contact from the Labour Government. He has plausible deniability from all those disastrous decisions that Starmer, Reeves and the rest of them have made. This matters as the public will not judge HIM on all those things they judge the current regime. The board is being wiped clean and he can add to that feeling of a “new” Government when he replaces Starmer’s minions with his own. It looks like we will see many hard left women occupy senior roles and whilst that will end badly, it will be portrayed as Burnham “modernising” the “blokey”Starmer game. The mainstream media will lap this up. Watch Labour RISE in the pools and Reform fall. I’m not saying this is good, just that it will happen.

Next, Burnham is much further to the left of his party than Starmer ever was. Beneath that ever so reasonable exterior, lurks a raging Fabian. This will hold him in good stead with the majority on the Labour backbenches. This means Labour will be more stable going forward and that in itself is something the right needs to factor in.

Third, unlike Starmer, Burnham is media friendly. In the age of 24/7 social media that matters. He has already started doing little videos on his phone which whilst cringe, show he understand the power of media and he can do it in a way which will make a point. Farage has real competition now. Starmer was stilted and incapable of doing such comms.

Of course good vibes does not necessarily make a good Prime minister and the really interesting bit will be to see how much of this survives contact with reality. I suspect much won’t but it certainly changes the mood of the body politic.

Once the self styled “King of the North” gets into Downing Street next month, we will be in a new era of British politics.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Soon to be crowned Labour Leader and our next Prime Minister Andy Burnham is closely linked with the Fabian Society. So was Starmer. In fact Labour and Fabianism are inextricably linked and this helps explain WHY Labour Governments are so incredibly destructive. It is by design, by intent. None of this is accidental.

Fabianism has always struck me as one of the most insidious ideologies in modern British history. As we discussed previously, this Fabian movement was founded in 1884 and sold itself as gentle, reasonable socialism—slow, patient “permeation” of institutions instead of nasty bloody revolution. But it wanted the same endgame.

However in practice it became a smug vehicle for middle-class intellectuals to remake society without ever asking the permission of the people they claimed to help. The founders genuinely believed ordinary workers were too stupid to run their own lives. They preferred rule by “experts”—themselves, naturally.

This elitist contempt for democracy fed straight into the DNA of the Labour Party. You can see it as clearly today as in 1884. From the moment Labour took power, Fabian thinking dominated: nationalise everything, expand the bureaucracy, trust the state over the individual. This is a summary of what Burnham will bring us, but he will do it with a friendly Northern accent.

We know that eugenics stained Fabianism. These “progressives” who formed it were obsessed with breeding out the “unfit.” Sidney Webb fretted about the wrong sort of people multiplying. Bernard Shaw openly talked about lethal chambers for the inefficient. Many early Fabians supported sterilisation.

Their political judgment was equally rotten. The Webbs returned from Stalin’s Ukraine gushing about the Soviet experiment while millions starved. Bernard Shaw found kind words for Mussolini. This was not an error but the logical endgame of believing clever people should control our Nation.

Today the Labour Party remains marinated in Fabian habits: centralised control, identity politics as the new eugenics, and an unspoken disdain for working-class voters who dare to disagree with them. They hate Reform voters for that reason alone Every time another layer of regulation, tax, or “expert” quango is added, you can hear the ghosts of the Webbs applauding.

Fabianism didn’t just build the welfare state; it created a technocratic Britain that hates its own citizens. And we are about to get several more years of it from the King of the North.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Greenspan’s achievements are all tied to one of the most influential stretches in modern U.S. economic policy. He served as chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006, spanning five terms and four presidents. He became known for his ability to steady markets during crisis and steer policy through long periods of growth. He was the proverbial safe pair of hands.

One of his earliest major accomplishments was helping to lower inflation while he chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ford from 1974 to 1977. He then moved into the private sector, building a strong reputation as an economist before returning once again to public service. His appointment to the Federal Reserve in 1987 placed him at the centre of U.S. financial decision-making just before the stock market crash that year. Talk about timing!

Greenspan is credited with helping the economy through that ‘87 crash, the early 1990s recession, the Asian financial crisis, and the massive shock after the 9/11 attacks. His willingness to act quickly on interest rates and liquidity helped preserve confidence in the financial system. He also earned credit for presiding over the longest official economic expansion in U.S. history from 1991 to 2000.

His influence extended well beyond U.S. borders. In 1999, The Sunday Times called him one of the three most powerful people in the British Isles, and he later received the French Legion of Honour and an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II. In 2005, he was awarded the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom. He lived long enough to have his legacy acknowledged.

Greenspan was also a writer. After leaving the Fed in 2006, he wrote two books - The Age of Turbulence and later The Map and the Territory, extending his influence as a public thinker.

Of course no one is perfect. Greenspan’s support for deregulation and his failure to restrain risky mortgage finance may have contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. That may be true but he did one thing that makes him outstanding.

He never spoke to the media. He kept his counsel to himself.

In 2026, it’s unimaginable that a Fed Chairman would keep his mouth shut.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Ogbu is not what you might call a traditional Irish name. I can’t seem to find any record of the Ogbu’s of Galway! That’s not a surprise because of course Ogbu is a prominent Nigerian name. And yet, in 2026, Galway finds itself with Helen Ogbu as it’s Mayor!

How did this happen and what does it tell us about the changing face of Ireland?

Helen Ogbu became council mayor after only a relatively short period in elected politics, and her ascent seems to owe as much to political timing and council numbers as to any meaningful record of citywide leadership.

It is said that she arrived in Ireland in 2005-2006 as a “refugee”. I have checked the map and Ireland appears to be thousands of miles from Nigeria so not quite sure how it was the “nearest safe country” but since when did pesky details like that happen?

She was first elected to Galway City Council in 2024, representing the east ward for Labour, after a background in “community activism.” That background gave her visibility, but visibility is not the same as a mandate. Her breakthrough was in the 2026 Galway West by-election, where she finished third, but that fell well short of a winning parliamentary result. Was that really enough to justify the level of prominence her elevation suggests? Or was there a different agenda playing out?

You see her appointment depended on a cross-party arrangement at the council AGM, involving Labour, Independent, Sinn Féin, and Fianna Fáil support. So they all came together … to promote the Nigerian born migrant.

Ogbu’s election as the first African woman, and first person of migrant background, to serve as Mayor of Galway is historic. But beyond a racial identity virtue signal, what does it actually achieve? It seems to me that this is another identity nudge to the Irish to accept their gradual replacement in the coming decades and that makes it all the more sinister

Share

Subscribe now

President Trump has been rightfully scathing about Obama’s 2015 JCPOA deal with Iran. But the sublime irony is that he appears to be negotiating something that is much worse. This pivots around the claim made by JD Vance that Iran has agreed to allow nuclear inspectors back into the country with discussions with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) happening “as soon as today”.

So what? Where lies the significance of the IAEA going back in? Has it any? JD Vance thinks so but what is the evidence?

In the 2015 JCPOA case, the IAEA did provide some monitoring, more inspections, camera coverage, seals, and environmental sampling, It later confirmed Iranian “compliance” and some breaches. But that is evidence of verification, not proof that the agency changed Iran’s behaviour in a deep or lasting way. Iran still pursued its Uranium dreams but in a more clandestine manner. Had it not achieved them then Trump would not have needed to bomb the hell out of nuclear facilities in 2025 and then again this year. Right?

I think it fair to say that IAEA improves some visibility but not necessarily outcomes. Their reports showed Iran was complying whilst the deal held, and it documented when limits were breached later, but the only real restraint came from the political agreement and sanctions structure, not from the agency acting on its own. The agency itself says its job is to verify commitments and maintain assurance, which is narrower than preventing proliferation by force.

If we ask point blank the crunch question “did the IAEA stop Iran from pursuing nuclear capabilities?”, the answer is a solid no. It may have made cheating a bit harder to hide and it gave the U.S. and its partners better warning and some leverage. That matters, but it is a different thing from saying it solved the problem. h

In the current Trump/Vance arrangement, the IAEA’s role appears more limited because Iran has removed some monitoring equipment and reduced access, which the agency says harms its ability to give assurance about the program’s peaceful nature. That suggests the IAEA remains useful as a watchdog, but it is not the main driver of compliance in either case.

So JD Vance can big it up as a real achievement, just as Obama did, but if was all they claimed, he and Trump would not have needed to bomb those nuclear facilities in 2025 and 2026.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

It’s all about the Mid-Terms and trying to save GOP fortunes. It’s all about lowering the price of gas by mid Summer. Maybe it is but what is certain is that the Trump administration’s push for a deal with Iran is going to be at any price.

JD Vance’s rhetoric during the past few days suggests a White House more interested in forcing allies into line than in building any durable regional strategy, with Israel singled out and treated as an obstacle to manage rather than a partner to consult. Essentially Israel is painted as a potential enemy of peace whilst Iran is pandered to.

I find the willingness to use Israel’s security dependence as leverage quite sickening. Vance’s message was essentially that Israel should stop whining because the United States is its “only powerful ally” This tone sounds less like diplomacy and more like intimidation. It also risks turning a long-standing alliance into a transactional ultimatum: accept Trump’s deal, or face isolation and reduced support.

This is also happening on social media platforms like X where it seem the Trump Administration is putting pressure on to silence any criticism of the MOU. Hundreds of Iranian accounts critical of the MOU have suddenly vanished, suspended.

The deeper problem is that Trump appears drawn to deals for their optics, not necessarily their substance. A quick agreement with Iran gives him the image of a peacemaker and lets him claim he prevented a wider war, but it will do little to address the underlying Mullah threat. If the deal is weak or one-sided, then the administration is buying short-term benefit while undermining trust with Israel and other regional partners.

Vance’s role in this compounds that concern. Rather than calming tensions, he has amplified them by publicly scolding Israeli critics and presenting the issue as a test of obedience to Trump. That makes U.S. policy look erratic and personal, driven by loyalty to the president uber alles.

The result is a strategy that may satisfy Trump but at a cost: less credibility, more distrust, and a stronger impression that Washington is willing to pressurise allies while granting concessions to adversaries. Hardly something that Trump or JD Vance can be proud of doing.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

The Jury finally came in and the result is damning.

Former Democratic Unionist Party leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson has been found guilty of all 18 child sex abuse charges against him, including one count of rape. The former MP and Privy Councillor had denied the allegations, which related to claims that he sexually abused two women when they were children.

The court heard evidence over the course of the trial from the two complainants, identified as Complainant A and Complainant B to protect their anonymity. Sir Jeffrey gave evidence himself over two days before the jury delivered its verdicts. Following the outcome, the judge said he now faces a lengthy prison sentence and remanded him into custody.

Lady Eleanor Donaldson, his wife, had also faced five charges, including four counts connected to aiding and abetting. However, she cannot be convicted in these proceedings because she was declared unfit to stand a conventional trial and instead is subject to a trial of the facts. She did not take part in the trial. But the Jury determined she had acted as accused.

This marks a dramatic fall from grace for one of Northern Ireland’s most prominent political figures. Donaldson had led the DUP and served as an MP for many years, building a long public career before the allegations emerged. The sentencing hearing is expected to follow, where the court will consider the gravity of the offences, the impact on the victims, and Donaldson’s conduct throughout the proceedings.

The terrible crimes of which he has been convicted took place in the 1990’s. During that turbulent time, I was active on the local political scene and I can remember writing to Donaldson encouraging him to hold the line against rewarding the IRA. He wrote back and we have several correspondence. This was before email and I think I must have them in my files. He seemed so decent and plausible EVEN as he was carrying out the most sickening crimes against children, including his own daughter.

I hope he goes to prison for the rest of his life. I would add that when it comes to child rape, I would favour the death penalty.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Now that Sir Keir Starmer has finally fallen on his sword, let’s just focus on the bit that happens next!

Starmer’s departure creates the vacancy at the top, and so attention has turned to the formal leadership election timetable. Nominations for the new Labour leader will officially open on July 9th and close on July 16th setting the stage for what could be either a swift coronation or a competitive contest.

It’s clear to me that this will be a formal coronation of the self styled "King of the North” Andy Burnham and to underline this, the only other contender to thwart crown, little Wes Streeting, has already pledged fealty to Burnham. There is no serious other contender and Labour will want to show unity.

Assuming that Burnham secures the necessary nominations and remains unopposed by the July 16th deadline, he could well be confirmed as Labour leader and subsequently become Prime Minister as early as July 18th. That’s less than a month. This rapid timeline would allow him to assume office well before the summer recess, thus providing Prime Ministerial continuity and so enable immediate focus on domestic and international issues.

We can expect a brand new cabinet to be appointed, a new Chancellor (Bye Rachel) and a concerted effort to imprint Brand Burnham on the British people. It seems likely that he will enjoy at leas a short term honeymoon and this is where I see a real problem. If Labour get lifted up in the polls, and are still riding high by the end of March next year, then it seems possible that Burnham might call a snap General Election. This would establish his authority for the next FIVE years. This is a nightmare prospect particularly as Reform and Restore knock 7 bells out of each other. If Labour were able to secure a further term, I don’t think the UK as we know it could survive that.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Labour MP for Peckham Miatta Fahnbulleh is known to be a close economic adviser to he who will shortly become our next Prime Minister - Andy Burnham! So if we understand what she thinks that may give us a clue as to what he is thinking!

She has outlined an outlandish set of proposals that if enacted would dramatically expand the state’s role in the British economy. That’s the Fabian idyll! Whilst framed as solutions to “inequality” and “climate change”, many of her ideas would undermine all economic growth further whilst deterring any investment, and repeating all the mistakes of past nationalisation experiments.

Welcome to Andy’s world!

Central to her vision is a wealth tax combined with yet another windfall levy on oil and gas. Fahnbulleh also pushes for mass nationalisation of land, transport, and energy, alongside the nationalisation of banks and the creation of taxpayer-funded “green” banks. She would block private lending to high-emission businesses and penalise banks for carbon-intensive loans – measures that could ruin our energy security and innovation at a time when reliable power is already strained.

Naturally, tax changes feature heavily: extending National Insurance to investment income, scrapping the upper earnings limit, and hiking capital gains and dividend taxes to income tax rates. A cap on consumer credit charges is thrown in for good measure.

On housing, she suggests tripling the stamp duty surcharge to 9% for multiple homeowners and raising it for non-residents. Perhaps most striking is her call for a “minimum income guarantee” for everyone “except the rich”and the forced sale of existing businesses to employees.

All of her mad proposals betray a deep suspicion of private enterprise and markets. History proves large-scale nationalisation leads to inefficiency, higher costs for taxpayers, and declining service. Punitive taxes on capital and wealth are likely to encourage avoidance, capital flight, and reduced investment – hardly ideal when productivity growth here remains sluggish. Forcing companies to sell stakes to workers sounds is sheer communism and will deter entrepreneurs and complicate business operations.

While Fahnbulleh’s focus on inequality will chime with some on the left, her agenda appears totally detached from fiscal reality and the competitive pressures of a global economy.

Britain already faces high public debt and sluggish growth. Implementing such an expansive programme would likely require sharp spending cuts elsewhere or even higher borrowing, with ordinary workers ultimately bearing the cost through slower wage growth and fewer opportunities. In short, the markets will expose all of this economic insanity regardless of how good it makes Labour MPs feel!

In seeking to remodel our economy along these full on interventionist lines, Fahnbulleh’s ideas will cause more harm than good. When you stand back and look at it, this would be a return to 1970s-style economic planning. It will fail and so will Burnham IF he embraces any of it.

Whether he will or not remains to be seen, but the probability is that he will pivot towards this economic direction and that will make us look back on Rachel Reeves has almost a Thatcherite!

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

All the talk of him fighting for his position has vanished and he recognises that the Labour Parliamentary Party has lost confidence in him. No more G7’s for you, Keir.

Towards the end of the speech, his Dalek like voice faltered and a little humanity shown through.

If only he had shown the same humanity towards those people he has put in jail for saying things that he didn’t like. He can spare me his tears.

Listen, Keir Starmer has folded under the weight of pressure brought by one man, Andy Burnham. Believe me when I tell you that Burnham will be just as bad, but with a more human face. It’s the cold aloof Barrister look that did for Starmer. That and his total lack of judgement, his failure to deal with cross channel migration, his disastrous handing of the US relationship, the list is a long one.

But Starmer is a globalist. Burnham is a globalist with a Northern accent.

Labour will pivot LEFT and I will outline in which specific ways in a subsequent article, but the real danger is Burnham will enjoy a short honeymoon period. If he calls a snap General Election next May, that could be a real threat to us. As the right fights with itself, we need to be careful we do not end up with a further term of heard Labour.

As for Keir, well, the furniture removal fan will be arriving next month and he will recede into the background.

For small mercies we must be grateful.

Share

Leave a comment

By Andy Mac

I have this uncanny knack of always being out of the United Kingdom whenever something serious stirs on these shores. This time was no different. A sun-drenched Mediterranean scene greeted me on my first full morning in Sicily as I opened the shutters in my hotel room a couple of weeks ago. Ever keen to know what had been happening back in Blighty, I opened the GB News app on my phone to read of an anticipated public address to be given by Nigel Farage on the appalling death of young Henry Nowak in Southampton last year. A young white boy, targeted by yet another individual for whom the mark of Britishness extends to nothing more than a photograph on a UK passport, asphixiated in his own blood as the police handcuffed him following a mere accusation of racism from the assailant. When my mate awoke in a nearby bed, I informed him of Farage’s forthcoming address and expressed my conviction that that general media and political reaction to his lengthy list of truisms would be filled with more revulsion and rage than their original reaction of the death of young Henry. So it proved to be.

Barely had the symbiotic efforts between the government and the mainstream media to deflect public attention away from Henry Nowak and towards Nigel Farage begun to abate, when the cogs of propaganda production were again whirring into action a few days later. Sadly this time, both agents were unwittingly helped in their efforts by rioting crowds on the streets of inner city Belfast. A couple of nights prior to the wanton destruction, a migrant from Sudan (that enlightened country of philosophers, innovators and scientists) attempted to behead a forty-something Scotsman who’d been living in Belfast for a number of years. The initial reports – presumably penned by the same morons who assured us Axel Rudakubana was nothing more than a slightly tanned version of Victor Spinetti – suggested there had been a ‘stabbing on a street in Belfast’. It was only when amateur video footage captured the horrific primeval enormity of what actually happened, as well as the courageous efforts of neighbours who fought off the attacker, that people took to the streets. I need hardly restate the fact that the rioting was wrong, immoral and utterly counter-productive. That puts me in a different position to Northern Ireland’s First Minister, Michelle O’Neill, of Sinn Fein, who has a history of being somewhat selective in what violence to condemn. But it’s what she did afterwards that gives you a classic indication of how the political and media classes were going to handle the narrative delivery to the general public. Whilst Stephen Ogilvie lay in a coma in a Belfast hospital, with his face looking as if it had experienced an encounter with a master butcher, O’Neill was busily canoodling with representatives of the city’s burgeoning migrant community – assuring them that ‘diversity is our strength’. For that’s what it’ll always be going forward. It wouldn’t matter if every native Brit was raped, gutted, beheaded in the street, and then had his or her corpse spat upon by an invader. The cataclysmic, turbo-charged demographic changes unleashed on countries across the Western world are the primary cause of both violence and civil/political unrest. Governments have done this to us, nobody else. And they will go to lengths we can’t even imagine in order to avoid admitting culpability for the resulting cacotopian mess!

British and European leaders celebrate multiculturalism even as the sick ideologies shaping our respective nations grow both in size and in hostility to the civilisations that initially welcomed them. Thankfully with Sikhs (the murderer of Henry Nowak was a Sikh), the vast and overwhelming majority are peaceful and well-integrated. That being said, the death of Henry was every bit the consequence of a British state that contorts itself into Twister-like positions to excuse or justify every minority demand or grievance that raises its ugly head. The attack in Northern Ireland was more of a wake-up call. Currently, around 70 percent of the world’s ‘refugees’ are Muslims fleeing from Muslim states. Where do they head to? Why, the West of course! Here, they find countries ripe for the picking – eagerly teaching impressionable citizens about self-hatred, so-called white privilege, the evils of colonialism and slavery, and why nationhood is nothing more than a piece of land that anyone and everyone is entitled to squat on and abuse. Furthermore, why should we be surprised at yet another terror attack from a Muslim? At the end of the day, the Koran enjoins Muslims to to kill and attack non-Muslims. That’s why there have been over 40 major terror attacks in the name of, and on behalf of, Islam in modern times, starting with the Munich Olympics massacre all the way back in 1972.

It is precisely because governments across the West cannot ever admit to the societal damage they’ve caused that the tool of deflection reserved by a captured and compliant media must come into play. Not only must the lion’s share of any media attention concentrate on the reaction of a frightened, angry and disgusted public rather than the original perpetrator, but those responsible for bringing their attention to the horrors they now live adjacent to must take a greater share of blame and condemnation than the scumbags who triggered these chains of events in the first place! Cue the canons of opprobrium pointing in the direction of Nigel Farage, Elon Musk, Putin, Donald Trump, the Man in the Moon and anyone else they can aim at. We’re being endangered by monsters politicians have invited in, and now those same politicians are angry at the social media enablers for bringing those monsters and their crimes to our attention!

We live in a country where young white girls can be raped by Pakistani Muslim men to the point where their fallopian tubes become little more than scar tissue, and we know it will be hushed up for the sake of diversity. Additionally, we now discover a white boy can be stabbed multiple time, yet his life has a fraction of the worth of a murderous ogre because the latter played the race card; and that a British man can face a prospective beheading in a UK city, but the focus must be primarily on asinine rioters instead of the decisions that led to that situation in the first place. And they really do wonder why hatred for both media and politicos is at an all-time high?

Share

Leave a comment

It is likely he will announce his resignation as Leader of the Labour Party and as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the next few days. So I wanted to explore how did it all go wrong and so fast?

Less than a month after he came to power, three little girls were knifed to death in Southport by a 2nd generation Rwandan migrant called Axel Rudakubana. The outrage that followed this was met by Prime Ministerial anger at those protesting, whether on the streets or on social media. He seemed more focused on THAT than on understanding our outrage. This is when “the full weight of the law” reflex became apparent and people just didn’t like it. His personal likability ratings started to slide very quickly.

This was then compounded when to everyone’s surprise, his Government announced that they were going to cut the Winter Fuel Allowance for Pensioners, and at the same time taxes were being increased, contrary to the manifesto. Throw in the early release of prisoners, and by the Autumn his ratings were plummeting and they never recovered.

Then came the disability benefit cuts which were part of Labour’s 2025 welfare reform plan. In simple terms, the government wanted to make it harder for some people to qualify for extra disability-related support. This caused outrage on the Labour backbenches and the plans were ditched - but not without chaos and anger,

So by the time Starmer got to 2025, he has proving to be an unpopular figure.

Then along came Lord Peter Mandelson who Starmer delighted in appointing to the prestigious position of US Ambassador. Mandelson took up the role in February. Following revelations in the released Epstein Files, Mandelson left the role by September. Five months later, he left the House of Lords. Huge questions were asked about Starmer’s judgement and he seemed evasive, throwing everyone around him under the boss to save his own skin. By this point, the Prime Minister was incredibly unpopular.

In parallel to all of this, we had a series of Ministerial resignations where the pattern was that Starmer expressed his total confidence in them before they signed. The first of this was Louise Haigh, Transport Secretary. She admitted to a previous fraud. Starmer backed her but then accepted her resignation! Then we had his Anti Corruption Minister Tulip Siddique resigning due to…. corruption charges. Other high profile and very embarrassing resignations included the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner! The edifice around him was collapsing mired in scandal.

Bit by bit, it became apparent that his own backbenchers had become alienated from him. He wasn’t left wing enough for quite a few of them and he seemed tin eared to the Public. That swarmy Barrister image didn’t look good.

What probably finished him off was the May 2026 Elections. In Scotland, in Wales and in England, Labour were humiliated. The writing was on the wall. The country was sick of Labour and in particular sick of Starmer.

This month, Andy Burnham finally got a seat to stand for election, won it, and is headed for Westminster with the specific intention to replace Starmer.

Less than two years after winning the UK General Election, Sir Keir Starmer is about to leave Downing Street. He only has himself to blame. He is a poor communicator, lacks the common touch, has atrocious judgement and comes across as cold.

We will not miss him.

Share

Leave a comment

Now I can see attractions in all of these parties and what they say and do. The thing is that I am not an absolutist and I just want the thing done, I don’t care who actually does it. I have no particular horse in the race but I can see political reality and separate that from wishful thinking. So here is how I see things post Makerfield.

Labour remain a threat our national well being and under Burham that threat will increase, not retreat. I heard Mark Dolan on Talk asking “Should we give Andy Burnham a chance” to which I respond (Were I allowed on Talk which I am not) NO! Labour is Labour, a Fabian collective which revels in pulling our country apart. All Burnham will do is put a different face on the chaos and destruction.

If we look at the voting demographics of this country, it favours the Left. Our Education system resembles a conveyor belt for producing little marxists who either support the Greens or Labour. Not enough of them support right wing centrism. The Left also understand what when it counts, they will stand aside and vote tactically. This is not always explicit but it is implicit. They grasp that all that matters is victory. A principled loser remains that, out of power and unable to do all the noble things promised.

Meanwhile, the right stays divided. Ahead of an Election you may say that doesn’t particularly matter but when it comes to polling day, it does. Restore aims to replace Reform. Can this be achieved? I don’t know but I am certain that if Restore poll around 7% in the 2029 General Election, that will seriously impact Reform chances and cost many seats. These seats will fall mostly to the Left.

At the top, the egos are extreme. Kemi can’t stand Nigel. Nigel can’t stand Rupert. Rupert likes Kemi but not Nigel. This seems to be very problematical and the Bible tells us that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Consider Makerfield. The Right spend a lot of time attacking Reform. Labour won. Any sense of triumphalism here on the right side of politics is deluded. We are going to learn that unity is strength and division is weakness. The time will come when that lesson is too late and we are lost.

Share

Keir Starmer is unlikely to resign in the dramatic fashion many of his critics imagine. There will be no sudden departure, no emotional speech announcing that he is walking away from politics altogether.

Instead, if the pressure becomes too great, expect something much more calculated.

Starmer will present it as a responsible transition of power. He will speak about stability, continuity and the national interest. He will outline a timetable. He will frame it as putting the country before himself. He will insist that leadership is bigger than any one individual.

In other words, he will create the appearance of choosing succession rather than admitting failure.

We’ve seen this playbook before. When David Cameron stood outside Downing Street after the Brexit referendum, he didn’t simply say he was resigning. He argued that Britain needed fresh leadership for a new political reality. The language was carefully chosen. It wasn’t an admission that he had lost control; it was presented as a statesmanlike handover.

Starmer could follow the same route.

The tell-tale sign will be the moment he begins talking less about leading Britain and more about facilitating the next phase of Britain’s leadership. Once a Prime Minister starts speaking like a caretaker rather than a leader, the countdown has begun.

What makes this scenario particularly cynical is Westminster’s well-established revolving door between politics and big business.

The numbers are striking. Analysis of appointments approved by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments found that 217 former ministers, senior officials and advisers took up 604 private-sector roles between 2017 and 2022. Of those jobs, 177 had direct overlap with their previous policy responsibilities.

Former politicians moving into banking and finance is hardly unusual. George Osborne joined BlackRock after leaving government. Philip Hammond became an adviser to OakNorth Bank. Sajid Javid took a role with JP Morgan. Alistair Darling joined Morgan Stanley. David Cameron’s lobbying activities for Greensill became one of the biggest Westminster scandals in recent memory.

That is why many voters no longer see politics and corporate power as separate worlds. Too often, public office appears to be a stepping stone to a lucrative private-sector career.

If Starmer decides his time is up, don’t expect him to walk away empty-handed or disappear quietly into retirement. Expect a carefully managed departure, wrapped in the language of duty and national stability.

And if, a few months later, he surfaces in a highly paid advisory role at a major financial institution, plenty of people will conclude that the final chapter was written long before the resignation speech was delivered.

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

The latest by-election results may not have delivered a dramatic Reform UK victory, but they reinforced a growing reality in British politics: Nigel Farage’s party no longer needs to win an outright majority to wield enormous influence. In an increasingly fragmented political landscape, Reform UK could emerge from the next general election as the party that holds the balance of power.

For decades, British politics revolved around a straightforward contest between Labour and the Conservatives. Today, that era appears to be ending. The rise of Reform UK, alongside the continued presence of the Liberal Democrats and Greens, has transformed the electoral battlefield into a multi-party contest where relatively small shifts in support can have major consequences.

Recent polling has repeatedly suggested that no single party can take victory for granted. While Reform has demonstrated its ability to attract voters from across the political spectrum, its greatest impact may be in preventing either Labour or the Conservatives from securing a comfortable parliamentary majority.

Under Britain’s first-past-the-post system, winning elections is about seats rather than votes. Reform does not need to dominate the national vote to reshape Westminster. If the party wins dozens of constituencies while denying Labour and the Conservatives victories in key marginals, the result could be a House of Commons with no party reaching the 326 seats required for an overall majority.

Such an outcome would place Reform UK in a position of unprecedented influence. A hung parliament would force political leaders to negotiate support issue by issue, and the party with the numbers to sustain or collapse a government would suddenly become one of the most powerful forces in Westminster.

For Labour, the threat is clear. While the party remains competitive in many former industrial heartlands, Reform has succeeded in tapping into voter frustrations over immigration, economic stagnation and a perceived disconnect between Westminster and local communities. Every vote that shifts from Labour to Reform increases the risk of Labour falling short in closely contested seats.

The Conservatives face an equally serious challenge. Reform continues to attract voters who feel the Conservative Party failed to deliver on promises made during the Brexit years. In many southern and Midlands constituencies, Reform’s presence threatens to split the centre-right vote, potentially handing victories to Labour or the Liberal Democrats.

The significance of recent by-election results lies not simply in who won or lost, but in what they reveal about voter behaviour. Reform has established itself as a permanent feature of the political landscape rather than a temporary protest movement. Even where it fails to win, it is increasingly shaping outcomes.

This creates a scenario that would have seemed unlikely only a few years ago. The next general election may not produce a Labour landslide or a Conservative recovery. Instead, Britain could wake up to a parliament in which neither major party commands a majority and where Reform UK possesses the leverage to determine who governs and on what terms.

If that happens, the question on election night will not simply be who won. It will be whether Nigel Farage and Reform UK hold the numbers needed to decide the future direction of the country.

In the politics of the 2020s, power may no longer belong solely to the largest party. It may belong to the party that can make a majority possible.

Share

I have to admit that I was shocked and even a little horrified at US VP JD Vance’s outright hostility towards Israel in a series of press conferences he gave the day defending Trump’s toxic “deal” with the Mullahs in Tehran. He’s obviously been spending too much time listening to Tucker Carlson.

In fact I’m minded to call him Tucker Vance!

Speaking at the White House amid rising tensions over the controversial deal, Vance lashed out at Israeli officials critical of the agreement. He warned them not to “attack” President Trump—the supposed “only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel.”

This incredibly condescending tone reveals a profound misunderstanding—or worse, wilful ignorance—of Israel’s existential struggles. I knew Vance opposes US overseas adventurism but this overt hostility was a new revelation. His remarks, including the blunt assertion that Israel “can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem,” dismiss the hard realities of Israel facing genocidal threats from Hamas, Hezbollah, and an Iranian regime bent on nuclear armament and regional dominance.

Let’s remember that Israel has endured relentless rocket attacks, tunnel incursions, and October 7-style massacres. Its military operations are not reckless aggression but necessary measures for survival in a neighborhood where enemies vow its annihilation. How dare Vance misrepresent Israel’s position!

Vance’s invocation of U.S. aid—claiming two-thirds of defensive weapons protecting Israel come from American taxpayers—feels like a veiled threat rather than a real partnership. It distils down a historic and vital strategic alliance to mere transactional accounting, It also ignores Israel’s contributions: intelligence sharing that thwarts terrorism, technological innovations benefiting U.S. defence, and joint efforts against common enemies. By pressuring Israel to “give a little bit of credit” to the U.S. and let negotiations with Iran “play out,” Vance echoes failed appeasement policies that embolden adversaries. The Iran deal also risks legitimising a terror-sponsoring state while constraining Israel’s defensive options.

This rift deepens under the current administration’s apparent prioritisation of de-escalation with Iran over ironclad support for Israel. Vance urged Israeli leaders to “wake up and smell the reality” of their isolation, a statement dripping with condescension toward a sovereign democracy fighting for its life. Israel’s population of 9 million faces adversaries numbering in the hundreds of millions. Suggesting Israeli restraint in the face of existential danger callously ignores the history—from the Holocaust to repeated wars of annihilation—and moral clarity.

True allies stand firm; they do not lecture victims on proportionality when barbarism looms ever night from Hezbollah.

Vance’s comments risk eroding bipartisan U.S. support for Israel at this critical juncture. They also signal supine weakness to Iran and its proxies, potentially inviting further aggression.

Can’t Vance see that America benefits immensely from a strong Israel as a bulwark against radical Islamism? Undermining that vital partnership for a flawed Iran “deal” betrays shared democratic values and strategic interests.

I'm sure that Israel will not yield to Vance’s pressure. Its security decisions belong to its elected leaders and people, not Washington policymakers detached from daily threats. The way I see it, Vance’s rebuke is not tough love but a dangerous misstep placing diplomatic optics over moral duty. In doing so, he weakens the free world’s front line against tyranny. Israel’s resilience will endure, but America’s credibility as a reliable partner has been damaged, along with Vance’s chance of the 2028 Presidential nomination.

Leave a comment

I understand that Abortion is a sensitive and emotional topic. I wanted to update my audience here on something that happened in Ireland the other day which is truly shocking.

Basically, Ireland moved a step closer to removing the mandatory three-day waiting period before most abortions. The Irish Parliament voted 86 to 70 in favour of a Sinn Féin bill that would scrap the rule, which has been in place since the 2018 abortion referendum legislation. Before 2018, Abortion was pretty much banned in most circumstances in Ireland. Since then there have been around 50,000 abortions in Ireland

Under this current law, abortion is available on request up to 12 weeks of pregnancy, but only after a three-day gap between the first GP consultation and the procedure. Sinn Fein claim this short wait is an unnecessary barrier that delays care, especially for women living far from services or approaching the 12-week limit. They argue it is outdated and inconsistent with international health guidance.

However the three-day period was part of the deal sold to voters in 2018 and should not now be removed. There is evidence from health service figures suggesting thousands of women did not return after the initial consultation, as many as 10,000.

The bill is not quite law yet. It still has to go through committee scrutiny and further stages before any final change is made. If it passes, abortion access in Ireland will become more immediate, with no legally required “cooling off” period.

Here is how Sinn Fein “girl boss” politicians celebrating the passing of their call to end the three day cooling off period. They embrace the immediate killing of babies at 12 weeks.

And once they get THIS, they will then call for abortion up until birth.

They are demonic Moloch worshippers who celebrate the killing of Irish babies.

Share

Two election results on the same day have exposed a growing fault line in British politics. In Makerfield, the Green vote collapsed as progressive voters rallied behind Labour’s Andy Burnham to stop Reform UK. In Aberdeen South, the Conservatives achieved a dramatic victory over the SNP by campaigning aggressively in defence of North Sea oil and gas jobs and against what they portrayed as damaging net zero policies. Together, the results raise difficult questions for Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and for Labour’s wider climate strategy.

The Makerfield by-election was won convincingly by Andy Burnham, who secured more than half the vote and defeated Reform UK by over 9,000 votes. But beneath the headline result was a striking collapse in support for smaller progressive parties. The Greens, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives all saw their vote shares fall sharply as voters coalesced around Labour. Much of the Green decline appears to have been driven by tactical voting, with polling before the election showing that more than half of Green supporters were prepared to back Burnham in order to prevent a Reform victory. The Green Party itself ran a notably low-key campaign and diverted resources elsewhere.

For Labour, that tactical consolidation is both a strength and a warning. Burnham benefited from progressive voters lending their support in a unique contest dominated by the question of stopping Reform. However, it does not necessarily mean those voters are fully satisfied with Labour’s direction. Many Green voters remain uneasy about Labour’s retreat from some of its earlier environmental commitments, including the scaling back of green investment ambitions.

If Makerfield demonstrated how progressive voters can unite when faced with a perceived threat from the right, Aberdeen South demonstrated the potency of a different electoral coalition altogether. There, the Scottish Conservatives achieved a major upset by defeating the SNP with a campaign centred on the future of the North Sea. Conservative candidate Douglas Lumsden explicitly framed the election as a referendum on oil and gas, arguing that current energy policies were threatening jobs and investment across north-east Scotland.

The significance of Aberdeen South extends beyond Scotland. The result suggests that opposition to restrictions on domestic oil and gas production can be a winning electoral message in communities with strong ties to the energy industry. The Conservatives repeatedly attacked Labour’s approach to North Sea licensing and linked Ed Miliband’s net zero agenda to concerns about employment and economic decline. Campaign material emphasised protecting local jobs, increasing domestic production and resisting what critics describe as an overly rapid transition away from fossil fuels.

This creates a challenge for Ed Miliband. As the political figure most closely associated with Labour’s climate and energy agenda, he has become a focal point for criticism from opponents who argue that net zero policies are disconnected from the concerns of industrial and energy-producing communities. While national polling still shows broad public support for climate action, voters are often less enthusiastic when policies are perceived to threaten jobs, incomes or local industries. Recent research suggests Labour has retained voters who place climate change at the top of their priorities while losing support among voters for whom economic concerns dominate.

The North Sea debate sits at the centre of this tension. Labour argues that the future lies in clean energy investment and that the transition must be managed responsibly. Critics counter that restricting new drilling before viable alternatives are fully established risks damaging one of Britain’s most important industrial sectors. Aberdeen South suggests that, at least in some constituencies, promises of a green transition are less persuasive than promises to protect existing energy jobs.

The lesson from these two contests is not that voters have rejected climate action. Rather, they reveal an electorate increasingly divided between those who prioritise rapid decarbonisation and those who fear the economic consequences of the transition. In Makerfield, climate-minded voters were willing to set aside party loyalties to stop Reform UK. In Aberdeen South, voters backed a party promising to defend oil and gas against what it portrayed as ideological net zero policies.

For Labour, the challenge is clear. If it wishes to retain environmentally conscious voters while also winning in energy-producing regions, it must convince voters that net zero means economic opportunity rather than economic sacrifice. The Aberdeen South result suggests that many voters remain unconvinced. And unless Labour can bridge that gap, opponents will continue to use North Sea drilling and energy security as potent electoral weapons against Ed Miliband’s green agenda.

Share

To mutilate a phrase from Shakespeare, this is the weekend of Starmer’s discontent. The scale of the Burnham victory in Makerfield has killed off any hope he has of clinging on as Prime Minister.

It is no longer a question of IF he goes but when he goes.

Read more

Douglas Lumsden, a Conservative MSP, secured 14,308 votes (49.5%), handily defeating the SNP’s Richard Thomson (8,258 votes, 28.6%) with a majority of 6,050. Reform UK came a distant third with 8.6%, while Labour absolutely collapsed to fourth on just 5.4%. Turnout plummeted to around 35%.

This result represents a dramatic reversal from the 2024 general election, where SNP leader Stephen Flynn held the seat with a 3,758-vote majority. Flynn’s resignation—triggered by dual-mandate rules after his election to Holyrood—created the vacancy. Scottish Conservatives surged over 25% capitalising on widespread discontent with the SNP. Call it the Murrell factor!

Key to this outcome was the campaign’s focus on North Sea oil and gas. Aberdeen South, at the heart of Scotland’s energy sector, saw voters reject SNP and Labour policies hostile to new drilling and jobs. Lumsden framed his win as a clear message in support of the industry, resonating in a constituency long tied to energy employment.

Labour’s dire performance underscores the party’s broader struggles in Scotland. Dropping from second place in 2024, the result highlights voter disillusionment with Keir Starmer’s government amid economic pressures. The Liberal Democrats and Greens also underperformed, just like in Makerfield.

For the SNP, the loss really is a significant blow. Once dominant in the seat, the party’s support has fallen away due to internal scandals, governance failures, and of course shifting priorities away from independence toward day-to-day issues. The low turnout likely suppressed their base a bit.

Overall, the by-election signals a Conservative resurgence in targeted Scottish seats, driven by economic pragmatism over constitutional questions. However we need to be cautious as this result isn’t indicative of a nationwide trend—especially with the SNP holding Arbroath and Broughty Ferry. It does warns of vulnerability for nationalists in energy-dependent areas. Lumsden’s victory injects momentum into Scottish Tory ranks ahead of future contests, while reinforcing that local concerns can override traditional loyalties in by-elections.

Share