And the result of all this political nonsense was that Reform lost the Manchester vote quite badly. The spin coming from Reform’s spokesmen, claiming that their result was perfectly creditable, is insulting our intelligence. I have explained many times that as a scientist I value empirical facts, whatever they prove, and not fictitious fairy tales, however appealing they may be. So what are the FACTS about the Manchester mayoral election?

The turnout was 25.1% and here is the result of the first preference vote (remember that this election was conducted using the supplementary vote system):

Labour: 47.1%

Reform: 21%

Green: 12.2%

Restore: 8.7%

Tories: 7.7%

LibDem: 2.8%

Ind: 0.6%

The Greater Manchester region consists of 10 boroughs: in addition to Manchester itself there are also Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan. Just under three months ago, all these areas voted in the local elections – so how did the results then compare to now? The bad news is that Reform’s vote has fallen back very badly, while Labour’s has shot up. These are the totals the parties received in the Greater Manchester area on 7^th May:

Labour: 24%

Reform: 31%

Green: 19%

Tories: 10%

LibDem: 9%

[Restore did not stand]

So the changes in votes, shown as both percentage points (pp) and actual percentages were:

Labour: + 23 pp / + 96%

Reform: - 10 pp / - 32%

Green: - 6.8 pp / - 36%

Restore: + 8.7 pp [percentage does not apply as they hadn’t previously stood]

Tories: - 2.3 pp / - 23%

LibDem: - 6.2 pp / - 69%

For those who want a more detailed breakdown, here are the Reform, Restore and Conservative shares of the vote in each of the 10 boroughs in the mayoral election (together with Reform’s share of the local election vote in May). I have also added Labour’s vote share in (i) the mayoral vote, (ii) the 2026 local elections and (iii) the 2024 general election:

Manchester: Ref: 10.8% (17%); Res: 5.3%; Con: 2.7%. Lab: 54/31/53%

Bolton: Ref: 25.7% (33%); Res: 9.9%; Con: 10.4%. Lab: 40/20/39%

Bury: Ref: 22.7% (30%); Res: 8.9%; Con: 11.2%. Lab: 47/26/45%

Oldham: Ref: 29.4% (37%); Res: 12%; Con: 5.4%. Lab: 42/21/36%

Rochdale: Ref: 26.2% (35%); Res: 12.5%; Con: 7%. Lab: 41/26/37%

Salford: Ref: 21% (34%); Res: 9.2%; Con: 7.7%. Lab: 47/28/48%

Stockport: Ref: 17.7% (25%); Res: 7%; Con: 7.9%. Lab: 50/13/29%

Tameside: Ref: 27.6% (42%); Res: 13.5%; Con: 6.1%. Lab: 42/24/44%

Trafford: Ref: 13.9% (19%); Res: 5.1%; Con: 15%. Lab: 50/23/46%

Wigan: Ref: 30.2% (46%); Res: 10.1%; Con: 5.8%. Lab: 47/25/47%

The four key take-aways are:

1. Labour have taken a large chunk of the Green and LibDem vote and are back to where they were in the 2024 general election (and indeed slightly higher). Their biggest increase in vote share – in Stockport – came by almost exterminating the previously significant LibDem vote (down from 32% in the general election to just 6% now). Opinion polls show that the fall in the Green and LibDem votes is a national phenomenon; if this continues it means the left-wing vote will be much less split than it has been recently, which in turn means it will be much more difficult for the Right to win the next general election.

2. Reform’s vote has fallen significantly since the local elections. The fall is almost equal to the Restore vote. Although Restore’s national opinion poll rating is only around 3%, this seems to be due to the general public (who are not interested in politics) being unaware of them, and when they campaign their vote goes up significantly – and cannibalises the vote that Reform would otherwise get. The questions are therefore (i) how many seats will Restore contest at the general election (ii) how actively will they be able to campaign in all of these, and (iii) can Reform minimise Restore’s vote by framing the election as a straight, binary fight between Reform and Labour with a vote for Restore (or the Conservatives) being the same as voting for Labour?

3. The Conservative vote has collapsed and is now largely irrelevant in large areas of the country. Their best result in Greater Manchester came in Trafford, the wealthiest borough (with the ‘millionaire triangle’ of Bowdon, Hale and Altrincham). This is similar to their London results in the local elections. The only people who vote Conservative now are the rich, arrogant, snooty, sneering liberal tossers who look down on patriotic nationalists and will never vote for us. Reform should, however, go after the vestigial Tory vote in the rest of the country, by highlighting the fact that the Conservatives can’t win and are only splitting the vote. But Farage will need to wake up and start engaging in much more aggressive personal attacks against Kemi Badenoch, pointing out (as I have demonstrated in previous articles) what a pro-immigration, anti-Brexit, lying fraud the vomit-inducing bitch truly is!

4. Another interesting aspect of the Manchester election is the second preferences of those voting for the parties eliminated in the first round. When these votes were added to the top two candidates (Labour and Reform) to get an overall winner, the final result was:

Labour: 66.3%

Reform: 33.7%

The distribution of second preference votes is very revealing. We often hear appeals for right-wing parties to co-operate or unite, but consider this: in the second round Reform got only 52% of the combined number of Conservative and Restore voters (the figures for each individual party are not available, so we only have the combined total). Compare this to Labour who got 73% of the total number of Green and LibDem voters. [I am ignoring the irrelevant independent].

It is obvious that Reform have already mopped up the vast majority of those Tories who were sympathetic to the party. The Conservative party probably has a national floor of around 15% who are actually liberals and would rather vote Labour than Reform. So there is nothing to be gained from collaborating with them at parliamentary level because most of remaining Conservative voters are not ‘right-wing’ at all. But neither can Reform ‘kill off’ the Tories. They will hang around, like a bad smell, becoming the new LibDems: a small and increasingly irrelevant fringe party for a few fringe voters.

As for Restore, it is of course very sad that Rupert Lowe was expelled from Reform. This was completely unnecessary. The dispute between Lowe and Reform all arose from an interview in the Daily Mail which was completely misinterpreted! But now it is too late for the parties to merge, as there is no benefit in doing so for Lowe. On the other hand, there is no indication that he will win any seat other than his own. Perhaps Reform could offer him 3-5 seats, say, where Restore will be unopposed, in return for Lowe agreeing not to stand anywhere else. Such an arrangement would benefit both sides but I doubt it will happen.

Turnout

The low turnout – the lowest ever for a Manchester mayoral election - harmed Reform more than Labour. The muslim population in Greater Manchester is approximately 13% and they are told to vote Labour by their mosque – and obediently do so. White Britons, on the other hand, were clearly not motivated to vote. Why is this? Partly it’s electoral fatigue. You, dear reader, are not normal. Your interest in politics is far greater than that of the average person. Coming right after the local elections, and the Makerfield by-election, most people just couldn’t be arsed enough to get out and vote once again.

Reform’s success is largely built – and dependent – on motivating those who normally don’t vote. The party has done so in the past by portraying itself as exciting, different, and offering hope for all those who are unhappy with the way Britain is going. They have achieved this partly by having Nigel Farage front and centre in their campaigns, and partly by putting forward policies radically different to those of the failed old Tory-Labour Uniparty. But this was not what happened in Manchester and is increasingly not what is happening nationally.

As I pointed out above, because of the stupid and unnecessary Clacton by-election, Farage was not available to campaign in Manchester, and Reform’s messaging has becoming increasingly staid, moderate and mainstream. The people want radical populism and Reform is offering them dull consensus. If you think I’m being unfair to Reform then tell me what policies they have put forward that the Conservatives say are outrageously extreme and shocking. If Reform’s policies don’t send the filthy, left-wing Conservative party into a nervous breakdown then those policies are just “weak sauce”, to quote Elon Musk!

Burnham bounce

Yes, there is no doubt that there has been a ‘Burnham bounce’ – and this was inevitable. This almost always happens when there is a new prime minster. When Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair Labour got a 7% bump in the polls. In Burham’s case Labour have gone up from around 19% to 24% suggesting a similar effect. It has been achieved, as I pointed out above, by winning back ex-Labour voters who went Green, as well as LibDem. In fact, 67% of those who voted Labour in 2024 now say they would once again vote for the party, compared to 57% who were willing to do so when Keir Starmer was prime minister.

So Labour and Reform are now more or less tied on 24% each. BUT, given the way the votes are distributed and the vagaries of the first-past-the-post system, in a general election this would result in Labour having around 50 more seats than Reform. Nevertheless, Labour would still not have anywhere near a parliamentary majority, and would not be able to achieve this even with support from the LibDems and Greens put together. In fact, the current polls suggest a nightmare scenario with no stable government possible. It has oft been remarked that Burnham wants to take Britain back to the 1970s economically, but he is also currently on track to do so politically: remember that in 1974 we had to have TWO general elections – the first in February and then another in October – because our politics was in such a mess!

The question now is, of course, whether Burnham can retain, and indeed build on his current popularity. I doubt it. This is a honeymoon, with lots of new policies being announced, but I just don’t believe these will lead to any substantive improvements. Remember that Burnham left Manchester £1.34 billion in debt! He can only achieve popularity by spending money he doesn’t have. And Britain is already massively in debt with virtually no scope for extra borrowing. So we will inevitably see tax increases – and that’s when the jolly Burnham party will come to an end. Just wait until the next budget and see how popular he is then!

What now for Reform?

Before Farage impetuously and foolishly decided to stand down and call a by-election, Reform’s average poll rating stood at 27%. They then dropped to 24%, the level they are at now, and the lowest they have been for 15 months. This proves that Reform’s poll ratings have not dropped because of Andy Burnham, but because of Farage’s silly by-election stunt. Indeed, Farage’s personal poll ratings are also now the worst they have been since he returned as Reform’s leader just before the 2024 general election.

In my previous article I explained how Farage could turn the Clacton by-election farce into a triumph, by having regular rallies with announcements of new and exciting policies [SEE HERE: https://britishpatriot.substack.com/p/clacton-by-election-can-nigel-snatch ] He has, so far, failed to do so and that’s why Reform are struggling against Labour.

I have also previously pointed out that it is unacceptable for a party that wants to be taken seriously to not have spokesmen for two of the most important government departments: Health and Defence. Why the hell has Farage failed to appoint these men??? This is just complacent incompetence.

It’s not as if the ideal candidates don’t exist. They do.

For Health, the perfect candidate is Dr David Bull. An actual doctor, and the former chairman of Reform itself. He also wrote the health section of Reform’s 2024 election manifesto, with proposals that were highly commended by doctors themselves. I have no idea why Farage has not appointed him as the party’s shadow health minister. His failure to do so is both inexplicable and absurd.

For Defence, the perfect candidate is Rear Admiral Chris Parry. He is a senior and experienced military officer, a hero (mentioned in dispatches) of the Falklands War, and a military expert, historian, author and government adviser. And he is a member of Reform. Indeed, he was selected as their candidate for the mayoralty of the Hampshire and Solent Combined Authority (the election was due to be held this year but was one of those that was scrapped by Labour and postponed to 2028).

But then, guess what – Farage de-selected him! Why? This is, sadly, another tragic example of Farage stupidly falling out with his own supporters (and good patriots), and failing to defend the principle of free speech. The first dispute arose when Parry said that the then Foreign Secretary David Lammy should “go home to the Caribbean”. This was in response to Lammy himself saying that his roots were there (his parents hail from Guyana) and that the UK should pay ‘reparations’ to Black countries over slavery. His exact words were: “we have to discuss power and reckoning and repairing – and that to some extent is obviously financial, and involves endowments”. It is obvious that paying billions (or maybe even trillions) of pounds to foreign countries would harm the UK economically in order to benefit foreign countries.

So let’s be logical, analytical and clear: advocating a policy that harms your own country, in any way, in order to favour a foreign country, is TREASON. That cannot be disputed. So Lammy is not only a retard (just search the internet for his 2008 car-crash appearance on Celebrity Mastermind!) but he is also a traitor. So is it wrong to suggest that a Black traitor who is of no value to Britain should go back to where his roots are? Well, Nigel Farage thought that it was! He attacked the patriotic British war hero and sided with the filthy, treacherous, Black piece of shit! Unbelievable!

The second dispute arose when Parry made a jocular – but fundamentally accurate and reasonable – remark about volunteer Jewish ambulances, in order to explain (rightly) that these were not part of the NHS. Again Farage became upset about the wording Parry had used. Is Farage the only person in Reform allowed to be humorous? Is free speech not a principle he believes in? To his credit, Parry continues to support Reform, but Farage seems to have completely lost his mind and rejected this enormous asset. I believe that Nigel Farage should reset relations with Chris Parry and appoint him as Reform’s shadow defence minister.

Having spokesmen on Health and Defence who are masters of their field would make Reform much more credible – and would boost to their media profile. So stop wasting time Nigel and just get on with it for God’s sake.

Yes, it’s true that there are still three years to go before the next general election, but politics is about momentum – especially if you are a new party which people do not have a long history of voting for ingrained within them. If Reform start falling back in the polls patriots will give up on them, thinking that they ‘cannot win’ and a vote for Reform is therefore ‘a wasted vote’. This is a strong argument and is what the Tories are depending on.

All those who are sick of the way Britain is being destroyed want Labour out – and will vote for any party that is likely to achieve this. This means they will vote for whichever centre-right party is leading in the polls. So Reform need to up their game and win back the support they have let slip away.

Reform needs a more professional-looking structure, with shadow ministers for every department constantly commenting on the main issues of the day, and more radical, exciting and attention-grabbing policies. Reform need policies that will get people talking to their family and friends, at home, at work and in the pub. ‘Have you heard the latest Reform promise?‘, they need to be saying, ‘Amazing, isn’t it? Wouldn’t that be wonderful!‘

There used to be a buzz of excitement about Reform. Can you honestly say that is still true? There can be – and needs to be – again. Reform must get out of their ‘let’s-be-moderate-and-play-it-safe’ mode and start energising the public once again, by being more radical, and if they do I’m sure that they can win the next general election.

-----------

If you liked this article then please share it on Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to your family and friends.

Spread the word!!

And make sure you SUBSCRIBE to this blog – it’s FREE!

Thank you :-)

And so it came to pass, with the police leaking Farage’s bank details to the media, who then tried to pretend that there was some sort of ‘scandal’ or indeed ‘corruption’ attached to the gifts he had received. There is absolutely no proof of any such criminality but despite the lack of any prima facie evidence, the allegations have been relentless. And false. Just the other day (7 July), on Sky News, the LibDem leader Ed Davey said: “It’s clear he’s [Farage] been found breaking the rules”. But this is not true. NO finding of any kind has been made at this point. But of course the journalists failed to correct this clear slander.

So instead of just allowing himself to be a whipping boy Nigel Farage decided to go on the attack and called a by-election to prove his democratic legitimacy. But this is only half the story. The fact is that Reform’s support has been slipping for some time. A year ago they were getting over 30% in the polls, now they are often getting below 25%. Yes, they are still the most popular party, and yes, they are doing well in local elections, but it no longer looks like they would get an overall majority in parliament. I was the first to highlight this problem, and you can read my brilliantly insightful article here: https://britishpatriot.substack.com/p/is-reform-on-the-slide

It’s been reported that internal Reform advisers have woken up to this problem and have been telling Farage that he needs to do something to grab the agenda. And remember that he has a track record of using the summer, when all the other parties and politicians go on holiday, to take control of the media headlines. So it is probable that this by-election was Farage’s attempt to seize the initiative. But it then all turned to farce, as the Tories, Labour, the Greens and even the LibDems all announced they would boycott the by-election.

Surprisingly, given his knowledge of politics and history, this took Farage by surprise. As the Telegraph reported: “the Reform leader admitted he had been wrong-footed by the parties all refusing to challenge him. Asked whether he had considered the possibility of being the only serious candidate, Mr Farage told the Daily Mail: “No, of course not. Why would they [not contest]? It’s a real election.” But this was, in fact, completely predictable. In 2008 the Conservative MP Sir David Davis resigned from parliament and triggered a by-election in his Haltemprice and Howden seat, declaring he would stand again – always as a Conservative - in protest against the erosion of civil liberties. And what happened? The opposition parties (Labour and the LibDems) simply refused to stand. For Nigel Farage to have forgotten this was a serious tactical error.

The Uniparty and the media are now trying to mock Farage and are claiming that he will just be fighting against a bin, but this is also nonsense. Again, look what happened in 2008. Although none of the major opposition parties stood, a plethora of other candidates did, from a range of independents (including David Icke) to the National Front, from the Greens to the English Democrats, and even my personal favourite, the delectable Gemma Garrett, standing for the Miss Great Britain Party. She certainly had a couple of great arguments in her favour! And in Clacton there will also be a number of other parties standing, from the serious (such as the British Democrats) to the loonies (and I’m referring here to the ‘Rejoin the EU’ fanatics).

Incidentally, as an interesting aside, the Labour donor and left-wing eco-nutcase Dale Vince has said he will fund Binface. This will backfire as he will no longer be seen as just a comic character but the left-wing candidate, and Reform can (though I doubt they’ll have the nous to do so) highlight the fact that Vince donated some £6 million to Labour and his energy companies then received over £123 million in government subsidies. But obviously there’s no government or Labour ‘corruption’ here! And here’s a second interesting aside: in 2008 the Labour Culture Secretary criticised David Davis saying the by-election was a waste of public money and Davis should pay this himself. On this occasion Reform have offered to pay for the cost of the by-election but this has been refused by Labour. Oh, and who was the Labour Culture Secretary in 2008? None other than Andy Burnham!!

Clearly however Farage is now on the back foot and his gamble does not look as if it will pay off. His opponents are going to push two lines of attack: (i) the by-election is a farce and Farage looks ridiculous, and (ii) this is all an attempt to deflect attention from the real story, which is a ‘sleaze scandal’.

Reform – and the surprisingly feisty and effective media performer Robert Jenrick – are trying to turn the ridicule onto Labour and the Tories, saying they have “chickened out” of the election; it is obviously undeniable true that if these parties thought they could have beaten Farage then they would have stood. They didn’t stand because they didn’t want to be embarrassed and don’t respect the people of Clacton enough to offer them the opportunity to vote for them. Reform should make this their line of attack, adopting a very aggressive visual message, claiming that Badenoch and Burnham are ‘spitting in the face of the people of Clacton‘ and have no right to ever stand there again.

Given that there is every prospect of a second by-election in the not-too-distant-future, should the standards committee rule against Farage (as is likely, given that this is a kangaroo court) and then suspend him for at least 10 days (as they surely will). This would prompt a recall petition that could trigger a by-election if enough constituents signed it (which they probably would). So getting the message out that the Tories and Labour have forfeited the right to ever stand in Clacton again would be a very useful way for Reform to get on the front foot for the next campaign!

But this does not answer the central question: how can Nigel Farage turn this political farce into an event that will boost Reform’s support throughout the country?

And here’s the answer: turn the campaign into a series of big rallies with radical new policy announcements each time. Force the media – and the other parties – to discuss the policy proposals, thus burying the ‘sleaze’ and ‘Binface’ nonsense. To do this Farage will need a rally every two days – this being how long any new proposals will remain the big story. And the policy announcements must be populist and very controversial.

Let me give you a few examples so that you can better understand what I am suggesting.

Morning of Day 1: announce the legalisation of pepper spray for self-defence. Reform spokesmen then tour all the news studios defending this, pointing out that this is perfectly normal both in Europe and America, that pepper spray is non-lethal, that currently nobody can defend themselves from knife-wielding criminals, and that this policy will save lives. This is then the main story in all the papers on Day 2.

Morning of Day 3: announce an increase in the motorway speed limit to 80 mph. Reform spokesmen then tour all the news studios pointing out that this (130 kph) is the norm in most EU countries (like France and Italy) while other countries have even higher limits (140 kph in Poland) or no limit at all (some German motorways). Argue that British drivers should not be treated as inferior to European drivers. And also announce that all 20 mph zones will be abolished and 30 mph will be the minimum speed limit. This is then the main story in all the papers on Day 4.

Morning of Day 5: announce that a Reform government will not only sack the current Chief Constables of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary and the West Midlands Police, but also confiscate their pensions. Why these Chief Constables, you may ask. Because these are the areas where (i) the White youth Henry Nowak was arrested (and subsequently died) despite having been the victim of a stabbing by a coloured aggressor, and (ii) the White youth Cody Harper was arrested (and called a “dick” by the arresting WPC) despite having been the victim of an assault by two coloured aggressors. Both are egregious cases of police anti-White discrimination. Reform spokesmen then tour all the news stations saying that anti-White discrimination and two-tier policing is rife and Reform will end it. This is then the main story in all the papers on Day 6.

Morning of Day 7: announce that Reform will ban non-stun slaughter and the sale of any such imported meat. Reform spokesmen then tour all the news studios saying that this slaughter is cruel and barbaric, and cannot be tolerated in a civilised country of purported animal lovers. They also point out that Britain is being shamed by the many other countries around the world that ban non-stun slaughter, from Norway to New Zealand and from Sweden to Switzerland – and this policy is therefore perfectly reasonable and ‘respectable’. This is then the main story in all the papers on Day 8.

I could go on, but you probably get the idea. But have you noticed a few important threads that run through all these policy proposals? Let me explain.

Firstly, they are all FREE. They won’t cost the government anything. This is vitally important as Reform’s opponents (especially the Tories) keep trying to claim that Reform are not economically credible and their sums don’t add up and they would be too profligate. Well, none of those accusations could be made in relation to any of these proposals.

Secondly, while all these policies are controversial – and would therefore be guaranteed to capture the news agenda – they are also popular with the public. They would definitely boost Reform’s support throughout the country. These policies would certainly appeal to those disgruntled and disillusioned former Reform supporters who view Nigel Farage as “weak sauce” and who have switched to Restore.

And thirdly, these policies expand Reform’s policy agenda beyond just immigration control. Reform must not be seen as a one trick pony. They need to show that they have a wide range of popular policies.

So there you have it. This is the way for Nigel Farage to capture the news agenda and turn a fiasco into a political triumph. But will he do this? To be honest, I doubt it. He never listens to advice and cannot see that he needs to adopt new and imaginative policies, and that he needs less political caution and more controversy – but of the right, populist kind.

If you meet Nigel wondering the streets of Clacton, do pass this message on to him!

-----------

If you liked this article then please share it on Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to your family and friends.

Spread the word!!

And make sure you SUBSCRIBE to this blog – it’s FREE!

Thank you :-)

I am not going to waste your time with a detailed history of the last ten years – you all remember what happened perfectly well. How governments, MPs, the Speaker and the judges all conspired to undermine any attempt to allow Britain to break free from the EU shackles that held us prisoners. From the Benn ‘Treason’ Act, to the cowardice and surrender of Tory prime ministers Theresa ‘the Traitor’ May, Boris ‘the Buffoon’ Johnson and Rishi ‘the Retard’ Sunak. We have been stabbed in the back again and again. Brexit and Britain have been betrayed every step of the way.

Britain never really left the EU. Yes, technically we are no longer members, but just look at the reality. Northern Ireland is still ruled by the EU, which means that our country has been divided in two, and we now have to pass through a foreign-controlled border in order to travel in our own country and trade with our fellow countrymen. No other country on earth has suffered this sort of disaster or indignity outside of a wartime defeat. But May, Johnson and Sunak surrendered without any resistance whatsoever. We are told that this was necessary because of the Belfast Agreement (known by the IRA and its supporters as the ‘Good Friday Agreement’), but this is a complete LIE, as I explained at the time and in great detail in this brilliant analysis here: https://britishpatriot.substack.com/p/the-great-northern-ireland-protocol

[Incidentally, if you look at my ‘back catalogue’ of articles you will find lots more dealing with every issue - not just Brexit but also immigration, Net Zero, the Chagos Islands, crime, Reform and everything else! Read and Enjoy!]

May, Johnson and Sunak betrayed Britain at every turn, from the surrender of our fishing waters to the Boriswave of third-world invaders. And while we’re on the subject of Tory Traitors, I am really sick and tired of the easy ride that the media are giving to Kemi Badenoch. We are constantly being told how ‘right wing’ she is, how she is pro-Brexit and anti-mass immigration. This continual campaign to boost ‘brand Badenoch’ (in the hope that it will eventually rub off on the Conservative Party itself and raise their poll rating) has been allowed to go unopposed by Reform and Nigel Farage, who seem to be too stupid to understand the importance of exposing the dark truth.

In reality Badenoch is pro-mass immigration and anti-Brexit. And this can easily be proved by just looking at the facts. On 19^th December 2018, for instance, in response to moves by Sajid Javid (then the Home Secretary) which included allowing in more supposedly ‘skilled’ migrants, Badenoch, then a backbencher, stood up in the House of Commons and said: “As a first-generation immigrant, can I welcome the home secretary’s statement? I feel this immigration white paper is a move from the 20th century to a much better future immigration system. In particular I’d like to thank the home secretary for removing annual limits on work visas and also on international students, both of which I lobbied for”. So there you have it. In her own words, and on the record, she considers herself an immigrant and “lobbied for” fewer restrictions and controls on mass immigration.

And on the subject of the EU, her treason is even greater. One of the prime justifications for Brexit was to free ourselves from EU rules and regulations. To ‘Take Back Control’. It was widely recognised that EU rules were too restrictive and were holding our businesses back and not allowing us to compete with the booming economies of less constrained countries ranging from the US to Singapore. So in September 2022 Jacob Rees-Mogg, a genuine Brexiteer and the then Business Secretary, introduced The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which included a ‘Sunset Clause’ which meant that all EU regulations would automatically expire on 31^st December 2023 (unless ministers specifically chose to keep them). To give you an idea of the scale of the burden of EU regulations it was calculated that there were over 5,000 such rules controlling every aspect of our economy.

But when Kemi Badenoch took over as Business Secretary in February 2023 one of the first things she did was perform a complete U-turn, gutting the Bill and scrapping the Sunset Clause. While she maintains that she did remove hundreds of EU regulations, this was in reality just a tidying-up exercise, with most of these either trivial or already obsolete. The reality is that she allowed more than 4,000 EU laws, rules and regulations to remain on the books, keeping us handcuffed and trapped by the EU. And it is precisely because we remain so closely aligned to the EU’s rules that it is so easy for Keir Starmer to now slowly drag us back into the EU’s control.

This is why we must not allow Kemi Badenoch to portray herself as some kind of right-wing warrior, a patriot who can be relied upon to stand up for Britain. Her words are cheap lies: the facts prove that the opposite is true. And as for the pretence that she is opposed to the anti-white racism that is now so dominant, that is a sick joke. She was the Equalities Minister for four years and what did she do to help whites, or men, or the native British people? Nothing. We need to get the message out there: she is KEMI THE FRAUD. She is the enemy of Britain and of the British people. And if Reform and Farage are too stupid to do so then we must do this ourselves at every opportunity.

But back on topic. Brexit. Almost daily the media bombards us with absurd anti-Brexit stories, telling us that this has been responsible for cataclysmic economic decline and that it is inevitable that we will eventually have to return, like pitiful lost sheep, back into the EU fold. This is, of course, nonsense, but the left-wing media is relentless in trying to brainwash us into accepting this narrative. And no newspaper is more guilty in this respect than the Financial Times. Yes, you may be surprised by this, but the FT is even worse than the Guardian (which comes in a close second, mind you). And if you want a good laugh, just look at the online FT and the below-the-line comments of their subscribers, who are obsessed by Brexit and mention its supposed horrors every single day, under every single article, even if the story has nothing to do with Brexit at all! They are clinically insane and are suffering from obsessional derangement. Yes, Brexit has quite literally driven them mad. Frankie Howerd used to say “Ooh no, don’t mock the afflicted”, but you cannot help but titter at these FT retards.

We are told by various organisations that, because of Brexit, Britain’s GDP has fallen by 2%, or 4%, or 6%, or 8%, or any other number plucked out of the air at random and then doubled. There is, of course, absolutely no proof of this. No proof at all. How could there be? It is literally impossible to prove what would have occurred in some imaginary alternative universe. But this doesn’t stop the EU-worshipping fanatics from devising ever more fanciful and convoluted economic models to try and come up with the negative numbers they have decided they must obtain. And anything that points the other way is simply ignored. So when a manufacturer tells the FT that while, yes, he regrets the extra bureaucracy involved in exporting to the EU “the biggest immediate burden is not cross-border red tape but the UK’s prodigious energy costs”, this is ignored.

But maybe the FT will listen to the professional economist who tells them: “The UK’s strategy now should be to get energy costs down, to accelerate planning decisions, and to get more capital flowing. That’s how to create a UK services superpower as well as helping other sectors like manufacturing. The agenda must go well beyond rethinking relations with the EU.” Err, no, he is ignored too. For the FT (and the rest of the liberal media and establishment) is just as wedded to the mentally retarded Net Zero agenda as they are to the EU. The fact that there is no proof that man is affecting the climate, or that the UK could do anything that would make a material difference to world temperatures, does not in any way diminish their quasi-religious fanatical belief that we must immolate our economy and our lifestyles on the altar of their Net Zero God.

So, am I saying that Brexit was a success? No, but neither was it a failure. The problem is our stupid media and our stupid politicians, who don’t understand that this question – ‘was Brexit a success?’ - is itself very, very stupid. It’s a question that only a childish cretin would ask. Brexit was a tool. Like a hammer is a tool. If you hit your thumb with a hammer when you are trying to put a nail in the wall, was the hammer a failure? No, of course not. You were the failure because you failed to use the hammer properly. Brexit was a tool. It gave us freedom and independence. How we use that freedom and independence is up to us. Or rather, up to our politicians. So the proper question is: “Did our politicians make a success of Brexit?”. And the answer is NO. Because the fact is that, so far, they have used Brexit very badly indeed.

Why is this?

Well, let’s go back to that arch-enemy of Brexit, the FT. In a recent article bemoaning that fatal decision, in between the wailing, the gnashing of teeth and the rending of cloth, we read this very revealing quote: “It is very difficult to find anyone, however they voted, who says they are delighted with how Brexit turned out,” said Lord George Bridges, who served as a Brexit minister under Conservative premier Theresa May after the 2016 referendum. “But no one in a position of power in government since Brexit has answered the basic question of what kind of country do we want to be - flowing from that, what economy do we want to build?”

This is really the key problem, and considering that this man was a minister at the Department for Exiting the European Union, responsible for our Brexit policy, this is the ultimate confession of guilt. If we still had the death penalty for treason (as we should have!) even the famous gallows at Tyburn - with its ‘Triple Tree’ capable of hanging 24 people at a time - would be insufficient to execute all our guilty politicians.

In July 2017, Philip Hammond, the Remain-voting chancellor appointed by the Remain-voting Prime Minister Theresa May to oversee Brexit, said explicitly: “I often hear it said that the UK is considering participating in unfair competition [with the EU] in regulation and tax. That is neither our plan nor our vision for the future. I would expect us to remain a country with a social, economic and cultural model that is recognisably European.” So it was the intention all along to make no significant changes to our economy. So how was this meant to improve? How was this meant to take into account our new circumstances? It wasn’t. All the treasonous Tories wanted to do was continue as before. And therefore continue to fail, as before.

And more than that: in what world is changing our tax structure or our regulations in order to compete with the EU “unfair”??? This quote proves that the UK government never had the UK’s best interests at heart, only the interests of the EU. May and Hammond did not want to do anything that might harm the EU. This was also, by the way, the reason for the Northern Ireland Protocol, because May made it clear that Brexit should not cause any problems for Ireland. May and Hammond are TRAITORS to Britain who deserve the death penalty.

Not that Boris Johnson or Lord Frost are any better: the December 2020 Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) which they signed up to committed the UK to remain aligned with the EU on regulations relating to state aid, competition, the environment and employment. In what world is this ‘Brexit’, or Taking Back Control, or independence, or freedom??? It isn’t. It’s just capitulation and subservience to the EU. This is why Farage MUST repudiate the TCA. Will he do so? Maybe I missed it, but I’ve never heard him explicitly say so. This worries me a great deal.

We never had a government that saw Brexit as a chance to build a New Britain. All our governments ever sought to do was to minimise what they saw as the ‘problems’ and ‘harms’ of Brexit. May, Johnson, Sunak, and now Starmer: all their Brexit policies were, and are, ‘damage-limitation’ exercises, rather than opportunities to create a completely DIFFERENT – and better - country.

So instead of developing a completely new economic model, with completely new economic policies, rules and procedures, we mainly just carried on as before – even retaining most of the old, failed, EU regulations (thanks Badenoch, you useless traitor!). But the old economic model had been devised for our membership of the EU (indeed, much of it had been imposed on us by the EU itself), and makes no sense when we are an independent country. So of course it is easy for the media to highlight all the failings that being outside the EU have led to, when our economy is tailored for membership of the bloc.

Opponents of Brexit will whine that it is impossible for Britain to be economically successful outside the EU, but this is idiotic and defeatist nonsense. These people are the real ‘little Englanders’: they believe our country is too little and too weak to succeed on its own. These people despise Britain so much they refuse to accept the true potential of this great country, that gave the world the industrial revolution, more scientific and technological innovation than any other nation on earth and the greatest Empire the world has ever known!

Of course we could thrive, and rise to new heights, outside the EU – with the right policies.

So, what would those be? The thing you need to understand is that while our financial and services sector is thriving, our industrial sector is in grave decline, and our whole economy is suffering as a result. Britain was at its most successful back in the 19^th century when we were known as ‘the workshop of the world‘. When you make things you make money. If you have a trade deficit you have an economic deficit.

And that was one of the main economic problems we faced in the EU. Far from benefitting our economy it actually was destroying it. Because we were actually prohibited from boosting our manufacturing industry, while other countries were allowed to steal investment from us. Shocking, but true. And to prove my case let me give you a perfect example of the problem, and the incident that crystallised for me the economic need to vote Leave. In 2015 Jaguar Land Rover decided they needed to build a huge new mega-factory. It would cost over a billion pounds and employ almost 3,000 people directly, and many more indirectly. It would lead to huge export revenues and was exactly what Britain needed to boost not just our car manufacturing industry but our whole economy.

But other countries also saw the potential benefits and tried to lure JLR to build its factory in their country. In the end, Slovakia offered JLR around £110 million in state aid to encourage them to build the factory there. And what did the EU do? They said that was fine - but the UK was banned from matching this funding! So of course JLR went where the aid was and built their factory there. And Britain lost out. And all because of the EU’s anti-British discrimination.

This story not only illustrates the reason why we had to leave the EU, but also tells us what we needed to do once we were free. Because outside the EU we could start to offer companies those state aids that we were banned from offering them as EU members, thus enticing them to build their factories in Britain. And outside the EU we had plenty of money with which to do so: well over a billion pounds every month – because this was what we were previously forced to hand over to our EU overlords: approximately £13-16 billion a year (it varied according to annual GDP rates). What beautiful poetic justice: the money the EU previously stole from us could now be used to revive the economy the EU previously sought to destroy!

Now remember that JLR invested over a billion pounds in Slovakia after receiving around 10% of this in state aid. So imagine how much investment we could attract if we invested a billion pounds every month in luring new manufacturing, from motorcars to microchips, from steel to satellites, from batteries to battle ships, from aviation and robotics to pharmaceuticals and chemicals and nuclear power stations and everything in between. By offering massive state aids, combined with a bonfire of regulations, and a cheap energy policy (which means scrapping the net zero madness!), we would have created the most dynamic and fastest growing economy in the world.

That is the policy we could, and should, have adopted.

Of course this would have been incompatible with a free trade agreement with the EU, but who cares? Most Brexit supporters wanted a ‘No-deal Brexit’, meaning we would have had no obligation to follow any EU rules or offer them anything. This would have meant no EU fishing boats in UK waters, and no border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Trade would have taken place under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, and while this would have meant some tariffs these would have benefitted the UK.

The point is that given that we import so much more than we export to the EU, free trade in goods benefits them, not us. We would be much better off going for an import substitution economic model, where we make things here, in Britain, rather than importing them and giving our money and jobs to foreign countries. And with a booming economy we would be able to significantly cut corporation tax, which would more than make up for the tariffs that our exporters would have faced. The point is that our whole mindset is completely wrong as far as the EU is concerned. Our cowardly and treacherous politicians are still obsessed with the idea that we must cooperate with the EU, but the only way you can ever win – be it in sport or business or even in war – is to compete. Instead of wanting to work with the EU we should be trying to beat them.

And the other thing we should have done since Brexit was to combine this economic model I am proposing with a low immigration policy, where we only allow in people from first-world countries with genuinely important and valuable skills, such as scientists, surgeons, engineers and entrepreneurs – people who will benefit our economy and society not be parasites draining us for all they can get. Of course this would mean leaving the ECHR, and scrapping all asylum and all benefits to foreigners. And this would have led to even more financial savings. Foreign parasites currently cost this country approximately a billion pounds every month in benefit payments alone! Imagine how much better off we would all be if we could spend that money on British citizens rather than filthy foreign invaders.

Britain-hating traitors will reject these policies out of hand, without trying to actually analyse them scientifically, but the fact is that the performance of our financial services sector proves that my economic prescription is accurate. You see, while we have a trade agreement (the TCA) with the EU, that forces us to submit to many of their rules for our goods manufacturing sector, we have no similar agreement covering services. And guess what – while our manufacturing sector is in decline our financial sector is absolutely booming!

Before the referendum, the anti-Brexit scaremongering whores told us that leaving the EU would destroy the City of London, but the reality is that the opposite has happened. Since Brexit took effect in 2020 our export of financial and insurance services has increased by over 26%. Both the FT and the Guardian reluctantly accept that, as the latter admits, “the City has continued to boom” and “about 1.1 million people are still employed across the City today, where bosses have toasted regulators for tearing up the EU rulebook, scrapping banker bonus caps and loosening listing rules that could help revive the UK stock market”.

And in those new technology areas such as AI and fintech where the UK is ploughing an independent path to the EU, unrestrained by any agreement, we are smashing them by any metric you choose.

For instance, the latest 2025 figures show that total UK fintech investment was £8 billion, more than France, Germany, Belgium, all the Nordics and Ireland combined. Remain cretins mocked Leavers by saying we were proposing fictional unicorns, but in financial terms unicorns do really exist: they are defined as privately-owned start-ups worth over $1 billion. And someone needs to point out to those EU-worshipping cretins that the UK has produced nearly 50 real-life fintech unicorns since Brexit (no EU country has more than 15), with a combined value of over £185 billion, and with four out of Europe’s five largest fintech unicorns based in the UK.

As for Artificial Intelligence, the UK captured 41% of all European venture capital, raising £7.2 billion in Q1 2026 alone, and AI startups accounted for a staggering £5.2 billion (over 70%) of that total. The UK boasts over 1,800 active AI startups, which is more than France and Germany combined. London concentrates more AI talent, compute access, and tech investment than any EU city.

So as you can see, when it comes to our services sector, which is outside the UK-EU TCA, as Frank Sinatra would say, ‘the record shows, we took the blows, and did it our way‘ – and won. This is exactly what we should have done in the goods and manufacturing sector too.

So while it is obvious and beyond dispute that Britain has been betrayed by both the Tory and Labour scum, the question that needs answering is what is Reform’s vision of Brexit Britain? I haven’t heard any clear exposition of what policies they will adopt to use Brexit in a way that will make Britain rich and successful once again.

Will Reform completely tear up the Northern Ireland Protocol and the Windsor Framework?

Will Reform reverse the restrictions on state aids to industry imposed by the TCA?

Will Reform abolish all EU rules and regulations still in force?

Will Reform adopt a policy of import substitution?

Will Reform only award government contracts to UK manufacturers and suppliers?

Will Reform match any and all tariffs and restrictions imposed by the EU on UK exports?

Will Reform kick out all EU fishing boats from UK waters?

We need to know.

Does Reform itself know what it intends to do? As Labour (whether under Starmer or Burnham) moves Britain closer to the EU, accepts more EU rules, and agrees to more EU payments, Reform will need to have a clear long-term policy in order to respond intelligently and consistently. Ideally Reform would appoint a Shadow EU Minister who would be the go-to spokesman who would brief the media on Reform’s agenda. But as Nigel still hasn’t appointed a Defence Spokesman (despite how important this is currently), I suspect there is little hope that he will appoint an EU Spokesman.

Reform needs to up its game. It needs to promote a policy designed boost British manufacturing. The country desperately needs a government that will finally take advantage of the freedom and independence which Brexit has given us to pursue a Britain-first agenda. We’ve only been waiting ten years …

-----------

If you liked this article then please share it on Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to all your friends.

Spread the word!!

And SUBSCRIBE (it’s completely free!)!

Thank you :-)

Well, ‘end crime’ might be a tad optimistic, but certainly end crime as experienced by most people on a daily basis. Given that no party has been able to deliver this, you might think that it’s not truly possible, but that isn’t the case. It is quite easy actually, but it does require careful planning and joined up thinking. Just because it’s easy doesn’t mean that it’s simple.

Of course defeating crime requires a full range of solutions. There is no one single magic bullet. There are many different crimes and many different criminals, and so just as you wouldn’t play a round of golf, with all the different holes and types of shots needed, with just a single club, so you can’t tackle the wide-ranging problem of crime without a wide range of policies. So here they are:

1. Illegal immigrants

The first and most obvious thing you need to do is deport all the illegal immigrants, which includes those who arrived legally but overstayed their visa, as well as all the bogus asylum seekers (which means all asylum seekers, since the UK is not the nearest safe country to any of them and they are all bogus). Yes, I realise this may sound obvious, but no government has actually done this, have they?

All illegal immigrants are criminals (the clue is in the word “illegal”!), and in addition many engage in shoplifting and sexual assaults – and sometimes even murder. And as I’ve explained elsewhere (as I’ve said, do read all the old articles!) deporting immigrants (whether illegal or not, and including asylum seekers) is not difficult.

Once you remove all their legal protections (which Reform, to its credit, has said it will do), then the only immigrants you are left with are (i) those whose countries are reluctant to take back and (ii) those whose countries you do not know (because they threw away their passport and refuse to say). The first problem is solved by imposing severe financial sanctions against the offending countries: ban all visas, all foreign aid, all remittances (which are worth many times more than foreign aid but are ignored by all politicians, including those of Reform) and ban all money transfers by any bank (all of which have branches in the City and are therefore subject to UK laws) of any money into or out of that country (which will ruin whatever economy they may have in a week). Trump has shown that economic sanctions work in getting countries to take deportees.

As for those immigrants who refuse to reveal their country of origin, you simply put them all in a very austere and basic prison camp, with no support or amenities of any kind, until they own up and agree to return voluntarily to their home country – or simply to go and seek asylum elsewhere. The camp could be either in some remote part of Scotland (or even the Falkland Islands!), or in some dirt-poor African country (like South Sudan) happy to do the job very cheaply.

2. Immigrant criminals

Of course it’s not just the illegal immigrants who need to be deported, but all immigrants who commit crimes. Everyone knows that Blacks and Asians are the most dangerous, violent and criminal members of the population. Orientals are much less criminally inclined, and those who are generally restrict any such activities to within their own communities (and the Japanese are the most law-abiding race of all).

It is already the law that foreign-born criminals sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment or more should automatically be deported, but not only is this threshold too high (given that most criminals receive shorter sentences), not only do these criminals often avoid deportation by arguing that this would breach their ‘human rights’, not only does this not apply to refugees, not only are those who came as children or who have lived here for many years, or who have acquired British citizenship, exempt, but what is also happening is that left-wing judges are deliberately giving immigrant criminals – even those guilty of serious crimes – sentences just under 12 months, in order to sabotage the deportation process.

That is why I propose that all foreign-born criminals, guilty of any crime, whatever the sentence, should be deported - with no right of appeal of any kind. If they have acquired British citizenship this should be revoked. Foreign-born criminal scum are not welcome. Full stop.

But we need to go further. Because sadly, second-generation immigrants – those born here to parents who arrived from abroad – are often more arrogant, more entitled and more aggressive than their parents, and hence more likely to commit crimes. So we need to extend the automatic deportation rule to these immigrants too. If a second-generation immigrant is found guilty of a crime, any crime, they need to be deported to the land of their origin. Axel Rudakubana, the sub-human monster who killed those three little girls in Southport, is a second-generation immigrant who had a history of carrying knives and violent assault. If he had been deported years ago those poor girls would be alive today. It is true that Rudakubana was a child at the time of his earlier offences, and that is why, in such cases (where the offender is under the age of 17) I propose that the parents be deported together with their criminal child.

Of course these criminal second-generation immigrants would first need to be stripped of their British nationality, but that is not a problem. They can easily acquire their parents’ nationality (which would be much more difficult for third-generation immigrants to do and which is why I exclude them), and there is solid legal precedent for stripping UK citizens of their British passport. The most obvious example is Shamima Begum who went to Syria to join ISIS and who has been stripped of her British nationality and not allowed to return. And last year a former policeman, Mark Bullen, a law-abiding British citizen of good character, who is currently living peacefully with his Russian-born wife in St Petersburg, was suddenly stripped of his British passport with no reason given other than the statement that our disgusting Pakistani Home Secretary deemed it “conducive to the public good”! And he was told that if he tried to appeal “the trial will be closed and secret. We won’t show you the evidence. You won’t know what exactly you’re accused of”. This is utterly Kafkaesque and is far more authoritarian than anything I am suggesting!

3. Islamic terrorists

It has been revealed that MI5 is currently trying to monitor over 1,000 dangerous Islamic extremists considered “active” terrorist threats. There are also another 40,000 or so muslim threats not considered quite so urgent, and around 900 new cases of suspected dangerous Islamist extremism reported each year to Prevent. This workload is clearly too great for our security services to deal with (to say nothing of the cost involved!) and so therefore many potential terrorists are slipping through the net and going unwatched – such as Rudakubana who was referred to Prevent but was ignored.

I propose that any suspected Islamist extremist against whom there is any credible evidence (which would certainly include all 1,000 deemed to be active threats) should be deported. Nobody who cares about saving the lives of innocent British citizens can object.

I know what the far-left will say. They will try to muddy the waters and say ‘look over there – a squirrel!‘ pointing to the number of referrals to Prevent of people deemed ‘far-right extremists’. It’s a LIE. It’s done to show the muslim invaders that Prevent is ‘even-handed’. But you need to understand that any patriot can now be – and is - called ‘far-right’. And yes, I mean that literally, since the British Army actually lists “Describe themselves as ‘Patriots’” as one of the “extreme right wing indicators and warnings” that they “look out for”. Yes, seriously, the Army thinks that patriotism is a sign of being a right-wing extremist!

And Prevent themselves suggest that being concerned about the “erosion of British values” is an indicator of ‘far-right extremism’, together with watching, er, Yes Minister or The Dam Busters. I kid you not. No wonder that, as the Daily Mail reported: “A damning public report warned in 2023 that Prevent had been experiencing a ‘loss of focus’ as it had become distracted by far right cases, rather than concentrating on Islamists. In his long-awaited 188-page report, William Shawcross claimed too many resources were being focused on right-wing terrorism rather than its Islamist equivalent”.

There is NO genuine ‘far-right extremism’ in Britain. The only dangerous extremists are the muslim loonies, and we should be identifying and deporting them. All of them!

4. Minimum sentences

These measures will radically reduce the amount of imported crime, but let’s not kid ourselves – we need to really, really, stamp down on our home-grown criminals too. The thing you need to understand, however, is that the vast majority of crimes are committed by just a very small number of people. As a general rule, around 1% of adults commit 50% of all crimes. Lock them up and you halve crime overnight!

But the problem is that they are not locked up. On average, around 20,000 people a year are convicted of a crime but not incarcerated – despite having more than 25 previous convictions! The answer here is to introduce new sentencing rules. If you are convicted of murder you automatically receive a life sentence. The judge can, if he wants, impose a minimum period before the convict can apply for parole, but the point is that the life sentence is automatic. We need a similar system for other convictions too, with automatic minimum sentences that a judge cannot circumvent.

I’m not suggesting that all crimes would fall under this rule, but many of the more worrying ones should. So if you are convicted of burglary, or a crime of violence, or theft from the person (eg, phone snatching or pickpocketing or demanding money or expensive watches with menaces), or car theft, or even shoplifting (which should be viewed as a genuinely serious crime), for instance, you should ALWAYS go to prison. ALWAYS. And there should be NO parole. You serve the time you are sentenced to.

We can debate what the minimum sentences should be in each case, but there should be no possibility of a suspended sentence, or community order, or fine, or any other namby-pamby nonsense like that. And the minimum sentences should be become increasingly longer for repeat offenders. Let’s take burglary as an example. I would suggest a minimum of two years for a first offence, five years for a second offence, and 10 years for any subsequent offences.

Critics will say that we would need to spend billions for more prison capacity, but this is not true, since if my earlier proposals about deporting foreign criminals are implemented there will be more than enough space for our native criminals.

5. Left-wing judges

Despite the introduction of minimum sentences for many offences, it is inevitable that left-wing judges will try to subvert the legislation, and will impose weak sentences on their favoured groups (mainly immigrants), allowing these to avoid imprisonment and reoffend with impunity. Judges are LEFT-WING SCUM. Let’s be very clear about this. They protect immigrants and persecute Whites and patriots. That’s what they always do, and this is not going to change until they are sacked.

So that’s what needs to be done: the widespread sacking of scum judges.

There is a little-known method whereby this can be done now: by a motion passed by both the House of Commons and the Lords. But this never happens, because our politicians are also left-wing scum. And even if Reform won the next general election and had a majority in the Commons they would not have a majority in the Lords. So they have a choice: either change the law so that a motion to sack a judge only needs the approval of the Commons, or simply give this power to the Lord Chancellor.

Before that Britain-hating piece of shit Tony Blair eviscerated and undermined the powers of the British government through his Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Lord Chancellor was the head of the judiciary, appointing and disciplining judges, as well as sitting as senior judge in the House of Lords. But Blair stripped all these powers away from him, and created a hodgepodge mess, with different rules in Scotland and Northern Ireland, with all control over judges transferred to left-wing quangos, and with the creation of a US-style Supreme Court from which the Lord Chancellor is barred. It is a ghastly and anti-British subversion of our judicial system.

My preference would therefore be for the Lord Chancellor to once more be given control of our judiciary – full control. He should appoint and sack judges (and magistrates), and he should oversee any legal attempts to overturn or undermine government legislation.

The left-wing argument against this is that it undermines ‘judicial independence’, but this is nonsense. Firstly, it is nonsense because when the Left talks about ‘judicial independence’, all they are talking about is independence from the government. But what really matters is independence of thought. And this does not exist. All judges have the same left-wing beliefs, and allow these beliefs to corrupt their sentencing. Yes, judges are politically corrupt. And this needs to change. And the only way to change this is to sack them.

The second reason left-wing talk of ‘judicial independence’ is nonsense is because this is fundamentally undemocratic. In a democracy the people (the ‘demos’) must be in control. They exert that control by electing the politicians that put forward the policies that they support. The politicians then put those policies into law. But if those laws – and hence the policies that the people want – are blocked or subverted or undermined by unelected judges, that is clearly a complete negation of the wishes of the people and hence of democracy itself.

So to have a true democracy the judges must be under the control of the democratically-elected government. And that is therefore what I want to see happen.

6. Policing

Even the best laws, and a judiciary that enforces these, will achieve nothing unless the police do their job and arrest the criminals in the first place. Right now, the police are a sick joke. They prefer to promote homosexuality and multiculturalism, painting their cars in rainbow colours and dancing in the streets like retarded monkeys at Black or Pride festivals, rather than protect the law-abiding majority. This has to change.

The first thing you need to do is change the Chief Constables, in order to appoint men who understand that the police exist to enforce the law and protect decent British citizens – not to act as the enforcers of left-wing ideologies. If British citizens are protesting against immigrants in their locality, for instance, then the police should side with the British, not the filthy invaders.

And this mentality then needs to cascade all the way down to the bobbies on the streets. Of which there should be more. And as with the judges and Chief Constables, any policemen who do not fully support this new policy must be sacked and replaced. And let us have proper policeMEN, strong and authoritative, capable of tackling criminals. We need to return to traditional height and fitness standards, so that policemen can patrol the streets singly, rather than in pairs - which is obviously a less efficient use of manpower (as it halves the number of streets that can be patrolled) and only became the norm when women were sent out onto the streets, as these had to be accompanied by a male officer for their protection.

Once we have proper policemen, willing and able to enforce the law and protect the public, they then need to adopt a ‘Zero Tolerance’ model of policing. We need an intensive stop-and-search of Black youths throughout the country, and we need to arrest anyone who commits any crime of theft or violence. If you arrest (and imprison) those who commit crimes such as shoplifting, anti-social behaviour or fare evasion, for instance, then this has two highly positive results. Firstly, it takes these vermin out of circulation (and as we have seen, it’s a small number of criminals who commit the vast majority of offences), so this will quickly reduce the crime rate in the local area. And secondly, it sends a very strong signal to anyone else who might have been considering acting in a similar way that this is not a good idea.

The other thing the police should do is engage in entrapment. Instead of waiting for a crime to occur and then hoping that the criminal was dumb enough to leave enough evidence behind to identify them with, it’s much better to lay a trap so that you can catch them in the act. This is a perfectly legal and legitimate police tactic, in case you are wondering. So, for instance, leave some conspicuous and tempting packages outside front doors, smartphones on the pavement tables of cafes or pubs, or bicycles unattended and unlocked on busy streets – when thieves take the bait, the police take the thieves.

7. Self-defence

While all these policies will dramatically cut crime rates, the sad truth is that there is no way to guarantee that you will never be the victim of crime. The police cannot be everywhere, always there to protect you. So it is imperative that we be allowed to have the means to protect ourselves. When criminals carry knives, forcing the general public to go around unarmed and defenceless is effectively condemning them to be attacked, raped, robbed and murdered.

“When guns are outlawed only the outlaws have guns” is a well-known truism which highlights the stupidity of trying to disarm everyone. You just make the innocent more vulnerable and give more power to the criminals. It is so illogical that only the most stupid left-wing nutters support this policy. Unfortunately they are the ones in government. And our supposed ‘right-wing’ politicians are no better. I’ve never heard Nigel Farage, for instance, talk about giving people the ability to defend themselves.

Now I’m not suggesting that everyone be allowed to go around armed with a gun - even though there is evidence from the US to show that where the ‘concealed carry’ of guns is allowed (with permits to exclude those with a criminal record) murder rates and other violent crimes have fallen. This is probably a step too far politically here in Britain, given how brainwashed the British sheep have been by decades of left-wing propaganda. But I am suggesting that we all be allowed to carry pepper spray with us for self-defence purposes.

This is not a far-fetched idea at all. In fact, it is the law in other European countries. There, you can just go to a shop and buy a can of pepper spray over the counter. And there is no evidence to suggest that criminals use it. Why would they when they have knives? No, it is used for personal protection. If everyone else around the world can defend themselves with pepper spray - which is non-lethal and causes no long-term harm - then why can’t we? Why doesn’t Farage support this?

And think of the many other ways pepper spray could be used to fight crime and save lives: Shop staff would be able to tackle shoplifters; Tube and train staff could arrest fare dodgers; Teachers could protect the children in their care – imagine how those poor little girls in Southport could have been saved from that African monster if only their teachers had had some pepper spray.

8. Death penalty

I have left this to the end as it is probably the most controversial of my proposals, even though opinion polls show that a majority of the public support the restoration of the death penalty - especially for child murders and acts of terrorism. So why not begin with a law that imposes the death penalty on these criminals, and then see if there is any support for an extension at a later date?

There are many arguments in favour of the death penalty:

• There is the straightforward issue of democracy: if you really believe in democracy then you should allow the people to have what they want. Those who oppose the death penalty are marxist totalitarians who spit on the people and believe in their absolute right to ignore the public’s wishes while sneering at them with arrogant disdain.

• Then there is the deterrent effect. Now look, I completely accept that this may be limited, since terrorists such as suicide bombers are willing to die for their cause – but I wonder how many of their conspirators, who stay back while pushing their more extreme comrades to kill themselves for the cause, would be quite so willing to take part in this sort of crime if they knew that the death penalty would extend to all those involved? And child killers are not so happy to die, and would surely think twice if they knew that the rope awaited them. Even if only a handful of such evil crimes were deterred, it would be worthwhile.

• There are also the financial considerations. Category A prisoners such as terrorists and child killers cost over £60,000 a year to detain. Most will be held for 40-50 years, meaning they will each cost us some £3 million in total. What a complete and total waste of money. Why throw so much money away on people who are so vile, so dangerous, so irredeemable, so worthless? Think of all the far better uses to which that money could be put – whether it is to fund healthcare for our sick, our elderly or our little children, or on police to protect us and keep us safe. The point is that detaining and caring for the worst killers in the country is not a good use of money we so desperately need elsewhere.

• And finally there is the moral justification. The Bible tells us that we should be guided by the principle of Lex Talionis – ie. retribution in kind. Far from being harsh or cruel, it is the very opposite. It is designed to be restrained and fair, just and limited. It tells us not to be excessive in our punishment, but to simply respond to the crime that has been committed. The penalty should, in other words, be proportionate and equitable. So Exodus tells us that if someone commits any harm “you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe”. Yes, that’s right: “life for life”. And this is such an important message that it is repeated in Deuteronomy. So imposing the death penalty on someone who has himself taken another’s life is exactly what we are exhorted to do in the Bible. It is therefore the moral imperative.

So there you have it. The death penalty is right politically, democratically, logically, financially and morally. The only argument I ever hear against it is the horny old whine ‘what if you make a mistake?’ But that is very easily resolved: simply stipulate that this will only be enacted where the evidence is irrefutable – such as in the Southport case. Once you do this there is no valid objection any more. The death penalty should definitely be available for the most heinous murders. But not one political party is willing to put this forward. How disappointing.

.

So there you have it: my eight-point plan to defeat crime. The famous mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras believed that eight was a lucky number and represented victory and prosperity, and I have no doubt that the policies I have set out above will finally allow decent people to be victorious over the criminals who plague our society. What do YOU think? Have I missed anything out? Do let me know in the comments!

-----------

If you liked this article then please share it on Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to your friends.

Spread the word!!

And SUBSCRIBE (it’s free!)!

Thank you :-)

Why did the US attack Iran?

The problem is that the reasons for the US and Israeli attack on Iran have never been made clear. All we’ve had is a series of different and confused justifications. There are, of course, plenty of good reasons to want to keep the mad mullahs in Tehran under control. The death and destruction that Iran could wreak with long-range nuclear missiles is self-evidently something that needs to be prevented at all costs.

But why attack now? After all, Iran’s nuclear programme was dealt a crushing blow just a year ago, when, on 21 June 2025, the US launched Operation Midnight Hammer, which was the attack, using both bunker-buster bombs and Tomahawk missiles, against all three of Iran’s nuclear sites: Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan. President Trump said these sites had been “completely and totally obliterated“. Even if we strip away his usual bluster, the more sober analysis by the Pentagon’s military experts concluded that Iran’s nuclear programme had been set back “one to two years at least”; so even if not destroyed, certainly halted for the time being. And Israel had, simultaneously, bombed and killed not only several Iranian military chiefs but also civilian nuclear scientists, and agreed that Iran’s nuclear programme had indeed been destroyed. The Israel Atomic Energy Commission said that the strikes had set back Iran’s ability to build nuclear weapons “by many years.”

And remember that negotiations had also been taking place between the US and Iran to ensure that the latter did not acquire nuclear weapons. Just the day before Operation Epic Fury began, the Omani foreign minister (Badr bin Hamad al Busaidi), who was the principal mediator in the talks, announced that Iran had agreed to give up its enriched uranium. Yes, Tehran had agreed to ‘down-blend’ (ie. dilute) all of its highly enriched material to a neutral level, and be subject to “full and comprehensive verification” by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

So why attack now? At the start of the conflict US Secretary of State (ie. Foreign Secretary) Marco Rubio explained that Israel was determined to attack Iran and that would have triggered retaliatory Iranian attacks on US forces - so striking first was necessary to minimise American casualties (“If we didn’t pre-emptively go after them [Iran] before they [Israel] launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties”). And now, four weeks later, Trump has also finally confirmed that the war started as a pre-emptive strike on Iran because “they were getting ready to attack Israel”. Except, er … there is zero evidence for this! This is simply based on what Israel itself has claimed – without any corroborative evidence.

So there you have it: Operation Epic Fury was actually Operation Follow Israel. You may, of course, believe that starting a major Middle Eastern war to help Israel was absolutely the right thing to do. I would remind you, however, that with their Iron Dome protective shield and their air force they are actually more than capable of looking after themselves. And personally, given that Israel sold weapons to Argentina while the Falklands War was raging, so that they could murder British soldiers and sailors, I would have left them to sort out their own problems. But the real question we should ask at this point is: ‘Why did Israel want to attack Iran now‘? Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz described the attack as “pre-emptive“ and designed to “remove threats against the state of Israel“. But he did not identify any immediate Iranian threats and could not therefore explain why there was a need to take military action now.

If politicians won’t tell you something it’s because they’ve got something to hide. And in Israel’s case it isn’t hard to guess what that is. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is not only facing parliamentary elections this October, but is also – incredibly - on trial for bribery, fraud and breach of trust. Instead of stepping down and fighting to clear his name, as any normal politician would do, he has been dragging the trial on since 2020 and has begged the Israeli President to pre-emptively issue a pardon, thus making the case go away.

Is it too cynical to imagine that Netanyahu has launched a highly popular war against Iran (polls indicate 93% of Israeli Jews support this) in order to boost his political chances? Not really. You must remember that Netanyahu has publicly celebrated the notorious 1946 bombing by Jewish terrorists (known as Irgun) of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, in which 91 people were killed, including 28 British citizens. Not only that, but he did so together with surviving Irgun terrorists!

Irgun are the terrorist scum who also, you will recall, the following year captured and hanged two British soldiers, in what is known as the despicable ‘Sergeants Affair’. Irgun were condemned by all decent Jews, and David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founder and first prime minister, called them “the enemy of the Jewish people“. And yet these are the scum that Netanyahu has commemorated! He really is an evil piece of shit and would not baulk at starting a war purely for personal gain. Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli diplomat and adviser to four foreign ministers, has confirmed this, saying that Israel had led the US into the war on Iran: “This has been Netanyahu’s fantasy for a long time. He has political reasons and pretexts: changing the narrative of the 7 October catastrophe and deflecting attention from his trial and the upcoming election”. Indeed, the notion that Netanyahu has attacked Iran for political reasons is so widely accepted in Israel that, even though the war itself is overwhelmingly popular, Netanyahu’s personal ratings have not increased.

The final question is why on earth would the US allow him to do this, and thereby get dragged into a war not of their own choosing? Remember that one of Trump’s main election promises was that he would not get involved in any new wars. Israel is completely dependent on the US, both financially and militarily, so had the US ordered them to desist then they would have been forced to do so.

The answer to why Trump allowed himself to be led by the nose is very simple: Netanyahu and he are friends. Very close friends. Indeed, Netanyahu is the only foreign leader whom Trump is really friends with. They have known each other for decades – Netanyahu was even a friend of Trump’s father! Netanyahu was the very first foreign leader invited to the White House after Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, and has made a further six visits since then – far more than any other foreign leader. Oh, and remember the pardon that Netanyahu has begged for? Trump has publicly berated Israel’s President for not already having granted this!

What are Trump’s goals and is he achieving them?

So having now, at Netanyahu’s behest, started a war he had promised he would not do, what are Trump’s goals? He has set out a smorgasbord of declared ambitions, including regime change, ending Iran’s nuclear programme, destroying all their military, and ending their support of their proxies: Hamas (in Gaza), Hezbollah (in Lebanon) and the Houthis (in Yemen). These goals happen to be exactly the same as Israel’s. Trump has now added a further aim: enabling the free passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz and around the Persian Gulf – this last objective is basically going back to how things were before he launched the attack!

So how’s it going? Results so far are, I think it’s fair to say, mixed. Trump himself seems a tad confused, as according to him the US is either “getting very close to finishing” or indeed has “already won”; the US has achieved a “resounding military triumph”, or maybe still needs to “finish the job” or alternatively might “go further” - even though the Iranians have “already been defeated”. Hmm, yes, very helpful, Donald. I think it’s best if I take over here and examine each goal in turn.

Regime change: Yes, Iran’s ‘Supreme Leader’, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has been killed, together with dozens of other top political and military leaders. But the regime has not fallen. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) are now effectively in charge (despite many of their own leaders having been wiped out too) and named Ali Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, as his successor as ‘Supreme Leader’. So the regime has changed from Khamenei to … er, Khamenei. Well that’s good, isn’t it? But nobody has seen him alive since the conflict began and he may well be dead. Indeed, he may even have been dead when he was appointed! This is not as crazy as it may seem: what better way is there of protecting yourself from attack than having someone else as the main target? And who better as a target than someone who is already dead? Or maybe they’re just taking the piss. Who knows?

Dead or not, Mojtaba is just a figurehead – the IRGC are in control, and cutting a few heads off this hydra will not change this, as each local area is completely operationally independent, and for each leader killed more emerge. Trump encouraged Iranians to rise up and overthrow the guards: “to the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand…when we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take”. But this has not occurred and there is no evidence to suggest that regime change will result from this war. And even if it does, the result could be an even more extreme one, which I doubt was the original intention!

Ending Iran’s nuclear programme: Their nuclear programme had already been smashed – remember? So nothing here has changed. As for the longer term, Trump has previously publicly mused that bombing Iran would make them more malleable and willing to make concessions. While this could be true, so could the opposite: they might decide that the only way to end the constant attacks they are subject to from Israel and the US is to actually acquire a nuclear weapon with which to threaten these countries with if they are not left alone. History suggests that this would be the better approach for them. Kim Jong Un in North Korea has flaunted his nuclear weapons and is safe from US attack, whereas Gaddafi gave up his nuclear weapons programme and look what happened to him! If I was the Iranian leader I know what path I would take.

Destroying Iran’s military: Iran’s leaders were not completely retarded and could see that a major war was likely, and therefore prepared for this. They have sufficient drones and missiles to last for literally years of daily attacks against both Israel and their neighbouring Gulf states. But obviously the US and Israel are bombing all the known stocks, as well as their manufacturing plants, to prevent them making any more. I’ve no idea how good their intelligence is, or how much Iranian materiel has been destroyed or remains. I do know that both the US and Israel are rapidly getting through their own reserves of missiles, though they have an almost unlimited quantity of old-fashioned bombs.

For the moment Iran seems to have no shortage of drones and missiles, and are capable of striking any of the neighbouring countries. This is why the US won’t attack Iran’s vital infrastructure or their oil and gas sites: in order not to trigger retaliatory attacks - as happened when Israel hit Iran’s South Pars gas field, and Iran responded by immediately striking an energy complex in Qatar, together with some other energy targets in the area. These attacks led to a spike in global energy prices which caused panic in the markets. Trump quickly posted that he had not known about Israel’s attack in advance and had ordered them not to hit any more Iranian energy sites.

So we have daily tit for tat attacks taking place. Those of the US and Israel are far more intensive and accurate than those of Iran, but how much damage are they really causing? Nobody knows – not even Trump and his military advisers! We will just have to wait and see if the Iranians assaults start to peter out – but I don’t have high hopes on that score. Iran is huge: the same surface area as France, Spain, Sweden and Austria put together. Or, to put it in terms that Trump might better understand, the same as Texas, California, Montana and Illinois combined. It is easy to hide a lot of weapons in such a big area! Nevertheless, the US does have superb satellite surveillance technology and must surely be able to identify the location of Iran’s drones and missiles. And even if these weapons are in bomb-proof underground stores, it’s been reported that the US is now dropping landmines in the areas surrounding missile sites to impede the deployment of mobile launchers. I suspect this is going to be quite a long, drawn-out campaign, but given the US’s superior technology and munitions they should – eventually – prevail. But how long will it take???

Ending Iran’s support of their proxies: This is probably the easiest objective to achieve – in the short-term, at least. Iran is currently in no position to send military supplies to any of their proxy groups, and even if they could they need all the materiel they have to defend themselves. But once the war is over, unless Iran has been forced to surrender, they will probably want to start again. But Israel has virtually destroyed Hamas, and are in the process of attempting to do the same to Hezbollah. They will probably not obliterate them but will do sufficient to neutralise them for a good few years. The Houthis are a very different kettle of fish however, and I suspect they will remain a regional menace for the foreseeable future.

Indeed, they have just the other day launched a couple of missiles at Israel. While these were militarily insignificant, they do indicate that the Houthis are willing to join in the fun, and even though they are no threat to Israel they can seriously add to the world’s (and especially Europe’s) shipping and economic woes. Everybody has been talking about the Strait of Hormuz recently, but what about the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb? This is the southern opening to the Red Sea, and the route to the Suez Canal, and is used by 15% of the world’s maritime trade (by value) and especially by ships coming to Europe from both the Middle and the Far East. The Houthis can easily block this (as they have in the past) and while there is obviously an alternative route (around South Africa’s Cape of Good Hope) this is much longer and therefore adds to delays and costs – and pushes up inflation even more. So if the Houthis do get involved this will be seriously bad news for us here.

Open up the Strait of Hormuz: This is really the key to the whole war. And although Trump blusters that the US doesn’t care about these waters and doesn’t need them, since they have plenty of their own oil and gas, this is complete and utter rubbish. If Iran controls the Persian Gulf Iran will devastate the US economy. How? By ending the petrodollar. And this isn’t a fantasy – this is Iran’s explicit and stated intent. They want to force all their neighbours to sell their oil in Chinese Yuans. ‘Big deal’, you might sneer – but yes, this is a HUGE fucking deal!

Let me explain. In the October 1973 Yom Kippur War between Israel and Egypt/Syria the US helped Israel, as always, giving them massive amounts of equipment - which meant that they were able to trounce their enemies. This narked the Arab states who responded by imposing oil sanctions on the West. President Nixon was therefore forced to broker a peace and got Israel to pull back from captured territory. But in an act of pure genius, the US used this crisis to their advantage and as part of the deal persuaded Saudi Arabia, the biggest oil producer, to sign a 50-year pact to price and sell their oil in US Dollars, in return for American security guarantees – at which point all the neighbouring oil-producing countries (as members of the Gulf Cooperation Council) followed suit.

This is called the ‘petrodollar’, and this is what makes the US currency so powerful. Because all these oil-rich countries then have to invest all their surplus dollars into US goods and assets, and this principally means Treasury Securities (ie. government debt). And this, as any economics student will tell you, is what supports America’s enormous fiscal deficit – ie. allows the US government to borrow so much money ($39 TRILLION to date, and rising fast) at such low rates. And although the US-Saudi pact expired in 2024, the petrodollar has become the universally accepted norm and therefore continues, and thus allows America to continue to live way beyond its real means.

But without the petrodollar everything would change in a way – to paraphrase the famous quote from Emperor Hirohito after two atomic bombs had fallen on his country – ‘not necessarily to America’s advantage‘. Or to out it more bluntly: it would be an economic disaster. And not just economic, because without financial strength you can’t have military strength. In other words, the end of the petrodollar would see the end of America as a global superpower.

This wouldn’t happen overnight, and the US is a big oil and gas exporter in its own right and has now taken control of Venezuela’s oil production as well. So some trade in petrodollars would obviously continue, but this would enter an irreversible decline, and consequently lead to years of both recession and inflation – the dreaded ‘stagflation’ – as well as cuts in government spending and increases in taxes. Not a good scenario for the US at all!

And if Iran controls the strait of Hormuz and all the exports (not just oil and gas but also the huge export trade in fertilisers) and imports (especially of grain and other essential foods) that all the Arab states depend on, then what the hell is the point, they will ask, of all the American military bases there? ‘American security umbrella’? What ‘American security umbrella’?! And what’s the point of them buying hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American weapons? Unless it controls the Strait of Hormuz, America will lose the whole of the Middle East. So don’t tell me that the US doesn’t care about the Strait of Hormuz. That’s such a stupid and self-evident lie that it insults my intelligence. [And remember that while the US exports oil it also imports it (why do you think petrol prices have gone up in America?!) because the light oil that the US produces is not the right one for its refineries, which need heavier crude.]

The big problem is that unfortunately the Strait of Hormuz is where the US is failing the most. Oh dear. And this is why Trump is so upset that other countries, such as the UK, are not helping there. But what can he expect? He didn’t have the courtesy, or decency, or respect to involve us in the preparations for this operation, so how can we be expected to be involved in the execution of something that has not been properly planned? And his insults are so stupid and counter-productive. Has he never heard the proverb ‘you catch more flies with honey than vinegar‘? Oh, and don’t keep going on about NATO, Donald, as this is a defensive alliance to help countries that are attacked (not countries that engage in attacks!). And the only country that has ever asked for help after coming under attack was … er … the US, after the attack on the Twin Towers. And NATO did respond, and helped the US in Afghanistan, and none more so than Britain, and over 400 of our boys were killed. We still mourn them.

But back to Iran. The US has done a great job (even if it was a pretty easy one) in turning the whole of Iran’s surface navy into an underwater navy, as all their ships have been sunk and are now at the bottom of the ocean. But sadly this means nothing because unfortunately it is their real underwater navy that is the problem. You see, Iran has a fleet of dangerous mini-submarines patrolling – and controlling - the Persian Gulf. These are virtually undetectable and their crews have trained in those waters for years, so they know them intimately. The other main weapon that Iran has to control this waterway is drone speedboats loaded with explosives which they can crash into target vessels. And then, of course, there are all the mines – both floating and underwater.

So Iran is in full control of the Strait. The only vessels making it through are either their own Iranian tankers or cargoes moving with their permission, mostly headed for allies like China, Pakistan and India, with their oil and gas priced in Yuan and paying a ‘fee’ in order to be allowed through. If Trump can reverse this, he wins. If he can’t, he loses. It’s as simple as that. That’s what it all boils down to.

What are Trump’s options now?

So what can the US do to win this war? Naturally, they are trying to negotiate, but despite what Trump says, Iran is not really engaging. Yet. They might, sooner or later, become more amenable, and that would be the best way to end this war from America’s point of view. But Trump’s demands are extreme and humiliating. These may, of course, just be his opening gambit, and he might be willing to compromise. He has called for a complete end to Iran’s nuclear programme, and for the strictest restrictions on their missiles. Both these issues could be fudged. Trump does, after all, consider himself to be a dealmaker. And Iran had previously agreed to restrictions to its nuclear programme (though is suspected of having broken this agreement). Trump has demanded an end to their support for regional proxies, but Iran could again agree and then ignore this. And of course Trump wants the Strait of Hormuz to return to what it was before he started his attacks started: a free maritime corridor. This is not negotiable. But if the US agrees to lift all sanctions on Iran and help them rebuild their war-damaged facilities they may be willing to go back to the situation as it was before. An agreement is possible. If both sides want it.

But what if the IRGC are now so angry they want to continue to fight? What if no agreement is therefore possible? The US will then have no option but to escalate the war – and that means a land attack. And boots on the ground will inevitably mean coffins coming home. How many, remains to be seen. The American troops on their way to the Gulf are among their very best soldiers and are far superior to what Iran has to offer. And their equipment is so much better too. So I have no doubt that the US troops can win any ground battles that they are sent to fight. That’s not in question. The question is not military, it is political. The mid-term elections to the US Senate and House of Representatives will take place on 3 November. So how will the US electorate respond? That, of course, depends on what precisely they are being asked to respond to. And in simple terms that just means ‘how many casualties?’

The casualties will depend on the operation. So if a land attack is required, what are the options? We are certainly not talking about an all-out invasion! That is never, ever, going to happen. It is neither feasible nor necessary. Remember that we are only interested in opening up the Gulf, and especially the Strait, so it is only the coastline that matters. And not even all the coastline. In practice, it is around 300 miles of coast that needs to be cleared, from the island of Kish in the west to the port of Bandar e-Jask in the east. Yes, that’s still a lot, but remember that satellite imagery will help to identify the specific locations that need to be attacked: missile batteries, ports (for their submarines and attack boats), refuelling facilities, weapon stocks, radars, etc. These attacks will be conducted by US Marines (two ‘Marine Expeditionary Units’ are on their way right now: the 31^st and the 11^th , with a combined strength of just under 5,000 men) and Special Forces. They will land, attack, destroy and leave. But some will be killed, and it will take a long time. It can be done, but at what cost?

I’m sure America’s military are up to the job, but there will be casualties. Erik Prince, the former CEO of the Blackwater mercenary group has said: “I counselled as loud as possible against doing this in the first place ... You will see imagery of burning American warships in the next couple of weeks. And I don’t think people are really prepared for that.” It come to something when a mercenary thinks that a war is not a good idea!

And then there are a number of small islands that are critical. The largest is Qeshm which is a storage site for Iranian attack craft, drones and mines. Some have argued that, at around 550 sq. miles, the island is too large for the US to occupy. But as I’ve explained, that’s not what needs to be done. The marines just need to go in, obliterate their targets and then leave. They are perfectly capable of doing this. Most of the island’s military sites have already been attacked with missiles, with more than a dozen buildings at its IRGC navy base and a Basij militia base destroyed; now the marines need to go in and do some precision destruction. Another important island is nearby Larak, at the narrowest part of the Strait, which is used by the IRGC navy and port authority to control those vessels currently being allowed by Iran to transit.

There are also three very interesting islands: Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs. These were seized by the Shah of Iran in 1971 and are internationally considered as illegally occupied territory and still belonging to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The UAE is an important regional US ally but has made it abundantly clear that they are extremely unhappy with this conflict and want to remain neutral. If Trump were to capture these islands and return them to the UAE it would be an excellent way of placating them. Taking the islands also makes good sense militarily, as they are small enough to hold and all have airstrips, and so can be used as unsinkable forward air bases.

And finally there is the famous Kharg Island which has been spoken about so much of late. You must understand however that Kharg has nothing to do with the Strait of Hormuz. It is at the top of the Persian Gulf, 400 miles from the Strait, and therefore cannot be reached by sea if the Strait cannot be navigated. But it can, of course, be easily reached by air, and by happy coincidence the US has 3,000 paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division on their way to the region!

Kharg is militarily worthless, but economically priceless. Iran’s coastal waters are too shallow for large oil tankers, so Kharg Island is the location of Iran’s main oil export terminal. Take it, and Iran’s economy is crippled overnight. At just seven sq. miles it is small enough to easily capture and hold, and while the Iranians have fortified its defences (including with anti-aircraft weapons), the US has already bombed these military targets. Trump has stated that Kharg’s military assets have been ‘obliterated‘ but its oil infrastructure was spared.

American paratroopers are well-trained and can undoubtedly capture Kharg. But of course there will be casualties, and not just from the initial attack. Kharg is just 16 miles off the Iranian coast and the Iranians will certainly launch drone attacks at the US troops trying to hold the island. But how else will the Iranians respond? Will they attack vital infrastructure (oil facilities, water purification plants, power stations), so far spared, in neighbouring countries? And the fact is that taking Kharg does not in itself open up the Strait of Hormuz if Iran does not surrender.

And here’s a final option which may seem a bit counter-intuitive but would be an intriguing tactic: try to persuade Iran to let shipping through by not letting their own shipping though. This might seem far-fetched: block the Strait in order to open the Strait. A bit like shagging to promote virginity. But if the US stopped Iran’s oil tankers from leaving the Gulf this would end their exports and their income – just like capturing Kharg but without the risks!

Nobody can predict how Iran would respond to any of these scenarios. They could simply hunker down and continue their blockade. In war it’s not how much pain you can inflict that determines the outcome, but how much pain you can tolerate. And we are told that fanatical Islamic loonies are willing to accept a lot of pain!! Is this true? We shall see over the coming weeks.

What does this all mean for Britain?

In the short term the war is going to cause us significant economic woes. Fuel prices will obviously go up, as will food prices. There will also be shortages, from medicines to fertilisers. Ironically, government tax income will also rise, so that may actually help to avoid the tax increases that would otherwise have come our way. We’ll see. But in the longer term some good may come of this. The weakness of the Royal Navy has been glaringly exposed. Embarrassingly so. But this has finally woken people up. Until now defence spending has seemed like a luxury, not a necessity. The Tory Traitors cut spending on our forces so much that we have no operational ships or aircraft or infantry or munitions to spare. It’s all very well for them to criticise Labour – who are no better, that’s for sure, and have refused to confirm their defence expenditure plans – but we can all see that successive Conservative governments betrayed Britain.

But I suspect this will be a turning point, and that the British people will now want more investment in our military. We have a host of interesting and exciting new weapons (all types of drones, missiles, ships, planes and even lasers) waiting to be agreed and funded, and if these are developed then we can be a global fighting force to be reckoned with once more. But Labour will prevaricate and delay. Yes, they’ll agree to some spending, but it won’t be enough. We need a new, patriotic government that is proud of our military and proud of our country.

In the meantime, we are now preparing a mine-clearing operation for once a ceasefire has been agreed. The UK has a total of seven minesweepers, but four of these are unavailable! The other three are needed to protect UK waters and to ensure the passage of submarines in and out of the Faslane port in Scotland. For over 20 years we ran Operation Kipion, with a minehunter permanently patrolling the Gulf – most recently it was HMS Middleton. Labour scrapped this mission in January, bringing our last Gulf minesweeper home, just a month before the war began! Brilliant. Well done Starmer! Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, who captained British warships protecting oil tankers through the Strait during the Iran-Iraq war, said that the decision to bring back HMS Middleton “wasn’t terribly bright.”

Britain is historically pretty good at mine-sweeping and although we have run down our fleet, we have developed some cracking new autonomous drones to do the job. There is the cutting-edge Project Wilton, operated by the Mine and Threat Exploitation Group’s Zulu Squadron. This utilises a range of autonomous systems, including the Iver4 Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (a two-metre-long torpedo-shaped drone used to scan the seabed and map the location of potential mines at depths of nearly 1,000ft), uncrewed surface vessels which can act as motherships to control the submersibles remotely, and remotely operated vehicles such as the Defender, used for investigating potential threats. The final stage is neutralisation: a remotely operated underwater vehicle is sent to destroy confirmed mines using a small explosive charge, with operators at a safe distance throughout.

With HMS Middleton withdrawn we are now going to focus on using our new high-tech drones (which tests have shown have a 99% accuracy rate in detecting, identifying and destroying mines). The Royal Navy is currently fitting the transport ship RFA Lyme Bay with this equipment so that it can be used to help clear the Strait - but only after a ceasefire has been agreed. First Sea Lord, General Sir Gwyn Jenkins, declared: “RFA Lyme Bay preparing for a possible minehunting mothership role is a perfect example of how we are building a Hybrid Navy – one where crewed ships and cutting-edge uncrewed systems work together”. This will be the first real-world test of this concept. Let’s hope it works! It’s not much, but it will have to do for now. Let’s look forward to a better future under a better future government!

-----------

If you liked this article then please share it on Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to your friends.

Spread the word!!

And make sure you SUBSCRIBE to this blog – it’s FREE!

Thank you :-)

Of course we do. We all know this because all the papers have told us so.

Except, except … it isn’t true. It is, in fact, complete nonsense. It’s a fable, a myth. Or in good-old Anglo-Saxon plain-speak, it’s bollocks.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that there was absolutely no tactical voting of any kind, whatsoever, in any shape or form, by anyone at all. No. That would be a ridiculous claim to make. But what I am saying is that what tactical voting did take place was trivial and inconsequential and made no difference to the final result.

For the sort of large-scale tactical voting that changes election results you need to have a large number of voters who (i) do not think their preferred party has a chance of winning, (ii) really hate Reform, (iii) believe Reform has a chance of winning, and (iv) all believe that another party they hate less could beat Reform if they voted for it.

Is this what happened in both Caerphilly and Gorton & Denton? I think not.

I suggest you remember the wise advice of the brilliant 14^th Century English religious philosopher William of Ockham, who told us that the simplest solution – that is, the one that makes the fewest unnecessary and over-complicated assumptions - is usually the correct one. This is known as Ockham’s Razor.

So what happens if we apply this principle to these two by-election results? It tells us that Plaid Cymru and the Greens won these two elections simply because their candidates were the genuinely preferred first-choice of a plurality of the voters. Is this a reasonable assumption? Let’s see.

We’ll look first at Caerphilly (since this election occurred first) and just do some basic maths.

At the previous Senedd election in 2021 the result was:

Labour: 13,289 votes (46%)

Plaid Cymru: 8,211 votes (28%)

Tories: 5,013 votes (17%)

Reform: 495 votes (1.7%)

While at last October’s by-election the result was:

Plaid Cymru: 15,961 (47%)

Reform: 12,113 (36%)

Labour: 3,713 (11%)

Tories: 690 (2%)

The other parties (LibDems, Greens, etc, were too insignificant to bother with).

How can the changes in votes be explained? Well, we know that both Labour and the Conservatives are much less popular than they were in 2021. And their popularity is continuing to sink. An analysis by Cardiff University’s Wales Governance Centre found that:

(i) 41% of people who voted Labour in 2024 would now vote Plaid Cymru in a Senedd election;

(ii) 10% of 2024 Labour voters would now vote Reform UK;

(iii) 10% of 2024 Labour voters would now vote Green;

(iv) 41% of 2024 Conservative voters would now vote Reform UK.

Applying these voter movements (and yes, I know they relate to the 2024 election and I am looking at the 2021 election, but they are a good indication) we could have predicted that Plaid’s vote would increase to 13,660 and Reform’s to 3,879. So Plaid were the nailed-on favourites to win. Reform never stood a chance and actually wildly over-performed. How did they manage that? Firstly, look at the Tory vote. It was absolutely crushed: down over 86%. It’s pretty obvious that almost all went to Reform. And secondly, look at the turnout. Usually turnouts fall in by-elections, but in this case it shot UP – from 44.3% to 50.4%.

Most of the increased turnout clearly went to Reform, but some also went to Plaid because (and this has been criminally overlooked by all other political commentators) they put up a really good candidate (from their perspective). Their man, Lindsay Whittle, is really well known locally, with a long track record in Caerphilly politics. He has been the leader of the local borough council, a member of the Welsh Assembly and a member of the County borough council. He has also stood TEN TIMES (!) for Caerphilly in the Westminster parliamentary elections. Plaid chose the best-known local politician, by far. He was a shoo-in. Reform didn’t fail – they were astonishingly successful. If they are able to crush the Tory vote and attract a huge number of previous stay-at-homers in the elections in May then they stand a chance of being the largest single party – though realistically, Plaid must still be the firm favourites, as most disgruntled Labour voters will switch to them.

So where did the anti-Reform tactical voting narrative come from? It stems from a rogue poll by Survation, published before the by-election, which put Reform on 42%, with Plaid second on 38%. This was clearly nonsense. Prior to this one, no other poll in Wales had put Reform on over 30%. How could Survation have got this so wrong? Cretinous and unprecedented incompetence or a deliberate attempt to create unrealistic expectations in order to harm the party? I’ve no idea and no proof either way, so will just leave it to you to decide.

Whatever the reason, it allowed a Reform-hating media both to gloat and, more importantly, since they couldn’t possibly admit that they had been really, really stupid in writing about a likely Reform win (which was never actually possible), it forced them to create an explanation for the party’s ‘failure’. And thus the ridiculous ‘stop-Reform tactical voting’ story was born.

Now let’s fast forward to last month’s Gorton & Denton by-election. This was yet another no-hope seat for Reform. Don’t believe me? Do the maths. (I’m not trying to make this my catchphrase, but I’m a scientist and this is what we do). This was Reform’s 440^th target seat – way outside the list of probable or even possible wins. In the 2024 general election over 78% of the vote went to left-wing candidates: Labour 50.8%, Greens 13.2%, Galloway’s Workers Party 10.3% and the LibDems 3.8%. Reform won 14.1% and the Tories 7.9%.

When I say Reform stood no chance, you don’t need to take my word for it (although of course you should!). Professor Rob Ford is a highly respected political analyst and happens to live right next door to the constituency. He has studied it closely and written about it extensively. If anyone knows about it, he does! The constituency is called Gorton & Denton because it is made up of these two separate areas, and what you need to understand is quite how different they are. As Ford explained when the election was called: “These two chunks of the seat are not equally matched - the Manchester wards [Gorton] had 55,000 registered electors in them in the 2024 locals, while the Tameside wards [Denton] had just 26,000. So the balance of electoral power splits about 2:1 in favour of the more diverse [ie. Muslim invaders!], graduate and urban liberal heavy Manchester wards.“

Even in Denton, the more white, working class area, Reform were not very strong. In Rob Ford’s words: “Labour have dominated the Denton wards for decades. Although the demographics look somewhat Farage friendly, UKIP never won any of them, coming closest with a couple of second place finishes between 2014 and 2016. UKIP never appeared on the ballot in Denton after 2016, and neither the Brexit Party nor Reform have ever fielded local elections candidates there.”

So what were Reform’s prospects? “Though Reform have gained a lot of ground in the national polls, they may find Gorton and Denton, where they start 36 points behind Labour, a tough nut to crack. Reform poll poorly among young voters, university graduates, and ethnic minorities - all groups found in large numbers in this seat’s Manchester wards. The three Denton wards have a more Reform-friendly profile but Denton makes up just a third of the seat’s total electorate.”

His conclusion was clear. Reform “really have no business even being in the running in this seat, which is not at all favourable to them demographically or politically, so a strong second place ought to be a triumph”.

And that, of course, is exactly what happened. The by-election result was:

Greens: 40.6%

Reform: 28.7%

Labour: 25.4%

Tories: 1.9%

LibDems: 1.8%

Although I would hesitate to call second place a “triumph”, it was certainly a stunningly-good result for Reform. And chew on this: although the seat boundaries have been changed since the 2019 general election, professors Rallings and Thrasher – who are the undisputed experts – have calculated that had Gorton & Denton existed then, the Tories would have won 18.9% of the vote. The significance of this is that, in that election, the Tories went on to win an overall majority of 80 seats in parliament. So Reform winning 28.7% sets them up for a massive overall majority in the 2029 election – if they can replicate this result nationwide, obviously.

So, as for ‘anti-Reform tactical voting’, I say: “what anti-Reform tactical voting”? There was none. Reform achieved a vote-share equivalent to what they are getting in the national opinion polls, even though the demographics of Gorton & Denton are far worse than in most other seats, and Labour’s vote did not collapse as much as we have seen elsewhere.

If there was any tactical voting it was by Conservatives, for Reform. Just look how, once again, the Tory vote collapsed. Down to under 2% - their lowest ever vote share in a by-election! The Tory media have recently written a lot about the supposed ‘Kemi Badenoch bounce’. I say: “what Kemi Badenoch bounce?!” The Tories are polling at under 20% in the polls – that’s less than they got in 2024 general election, which was their disastrous, worst-ever, result. The Tories are bouncing down the gutter!

There is NO evidence of any anti-Reform tactical voting in Gorton & Denton. What there was was a massive anti-Labour and pro-Green vote by the huge Pakistani immigrant population. A recent YouGov survey has found that the Greens have become popular with Pakistani and Bangladeshi voters, with 58% of these feeling positive about the Greens, compared with 31% who say they feel positive about Labour. The Greens capitalised on this and went all-out for the vote of these foreign invaders, publishing leaflets in Urdu, and claiming that they were the only party that would stop ‘Islamophobia’ and offer a ‘strong voice’ for Muslims.

The Greens were supported in Gorton & Denton by the organisation ‘Muslim Vote’, who endorsed them before the election and took Muslims from the local Mosque to the polling stations, ensuring a high turnout of their voters. Incidentally, it was the endorsement of the Greens by Muslim Vote that led George Galloway to decide not to stand a candidate, even though his Workers Party of Britain had come 3^rd in the constituency at the general election and had a councillor there who would have made a good candidate for them. Had Galloway stood a candidate (as he had declared he would do) this would have split the immigrant vote and probably let Reform win. Reform might have been counting on him to put up a candidate, I don’t know, but his decision gave the seat to the Greens.

Prof Sir John Curtice, the well-known polling guru, put the Greens’ victory down to a combination of Muslims and young voters: “Now in part it’s a constituency that has large numbers of Muslim voters. We know from what happened in the 2024 election that the Greens tended to do well in such constituencies ... but we’re also talking about a party that according to most opinion polls is the most popular among young people and there are a fair chunk of younger people in the constituency.” No mention of tactical voting at all.

Recent polling also shows that tactical voting is not always as likely as the feverishly excited left-wing media believe. It’s the only straw they have to grasp at in their desperate desire to see Reform lose the next election, but it’s an illusion – so don’t be deceived. The media want voters to block Reform’s path to power and are trying to encourage the idea of tactical voting. But will this work?

Although left-wing voters are desperate to keep Reform out of government (as are, incredibly, 7% of Tories, who would even oppose a Tory-Reform coalition!), quite a few are rather picky about who they would, and would not, support to ‘Keep Reform Out’. Here are the figures: 19% of Labour voters would never vote Green, and 13% would never vote LibDem. 26% of LibDems would never vote Labour and 20% would never vote Green. 30% of Green voters would never vote Labour and 20% would never vote LibDem. In Wales, Plaid voters are equally picky, with 25% never voting Labour and 28% never voting LibDem, but SNP voters in Scotland are the most tribal, with 56% never willing to vote Labour, 44% never voting LibDem and 29% never voting Green.

As you see, while it is true a majority of the Left would indeed be willing to vote tactically against Reform (and also the Conservatives), this by no means applies to all of them. And there is a second, even bigger problem for the tactical voting fanatics: which party is best placed to defeat Reform? In Gorton & Denton Labour had an aggressive leafleting campaign declaring that they were best placed to beat Reform (even quoting a non-existent tactical voting organisation!). Given that they were the defending party, this was not so unbelievable, and if you are a Labour supporter you are likely to believe what the party tells you. I reckon this is the reason their vote actually held up as well as it did, and why there was no sign of any tactical voting in favour of the Greens.

And if the strongest alternative to Reform was not obvious in a by-election, when all the attention and analysis is focused on it, imagine how hard it will be to know who the ‘stop-Reform’ candidate is in any given constituency at the next general election. This is the main reason I am dismissive of the notion that there will be large-scale tactical voting against Reform at the general election. Yes, there are a few dedicated websites that try to offer advice, but these are as likely to be wrong as right, and in any case I doubt that more than 2-3% of the public is sufficiently politically-engaged to go to these lengths. You need to always remember that most people are NOT like you – they are just not that interested in politics.

The truth is that the Greens winning in Gorton & Denton will actually work in Reform’s favour in the long term. Why? Because voting Greens no longer seems a wasted vote and this therefore increases the party’s credibility and therefore the likelihood that hacked-off left-wing voters will vote for them rather than Labour – and the truth is that in the seats that Reform want, need, and can realistically win, it is Labour (or the Conservatives) that is their main opponent. So the Greens creaming off Labour votes will help Reform!

Not only that, now that the Greens have earned themselves more media attention it means their real face has been exposed. They are now more and more being recognised for what they are: the party that wants to legalise all drugs - including heroin, crack cocaine and the date rape drug ‘GHB’ - and that wants to allow an unlimited number of immigrants and other foreign criminals to flood into Britain and take over the country. That’s the Greens: the pro-mass immigration and date rape party; (that is the message that Reform should have put on every leaflet in Gorton & Denton!). Disgruntled working class voters with traditional conservative values are now much less likely to vote for them, and more likely to vote Reform.

No, the Greens are NOT a threat to Reform. They are, however, a major threat to Labour, and will definitely take seats off them, especially those with large numbers of foreign invaders and university students - exactly the voters that Labour have relied on most in recent years. What a laugh! The two far-left traitor parties knifing each other in the back. What a beautiful sight to behold!

So if the Greens are not a threat to Reform who, or what, is? There is a lot of talk online about Restore Britain, the party founded by Rupert Lowe, which claims to have over 113,000 members – more than the Conservative Party. Many Reform supporters will no doubt deride Restore as a noisy but insignificant online faction that has little support in the real world, and will point to the performance of Advance UK in Gorton & Denton as evidence that Reform is the only game in town.

It’s certainly true that Nick Buckley, Advance UK’s candidate, got a risible 154 votes – 5 fewer even than Sir Oink A-Lot of the Monster Raving Loony Party! On a personal level this was very unfair on Buckley himself as he is actually a really good guy who has done a huge amount of charity work (recognised by an MBE), is very sound politically and deserved better. But voters clearly looked at Reform’s candidate, the excellent Matt Goodwin, and decided that was what they wanted.

Restore supporters, on the other hand, will claim that their party is a very different – and more fearsome – beast than Ben Habib’s Advance UK. It’s certainly true that Lowe, being an MP, has a much higher media profile and greater credibility – burnished by the support he regularly gets on X from Elon Musk. Perhaps if Musk bunged him a few million pounds this might boost Restore’s election-fighting capabilities! The online Right should not be arrogantly dismissed, in the way that Alex Ferguson dismissed Manchester United’s local rivals, Manchester City, as “noisy neighbours” - that didn’t age well, did it?!

Online activity is important and influential – or else why would Nigel Farage always boast about how much more popular he is online than Labour and Conservative MPs? But neither is it the be-all-and-end-all. Online debate influences and leads real-life debate and can shift the agenda, but on its own it doesn’t win elections. And patriots who want to get rid of Labour will be afraid of splitting the vote. If Reform are more likely to be able to form a government, then even if they’re not perfect, voters will think that they are better than another Labour term of office. As the proverb says: ‘do not make the perfect the enemy of the good‘.

But there are still another three years until the next general election, so let’s see how the Reform-Restore battle develops. If Reform continues to be seen as the best chance of ousting Labour – and the local elections in May will be a crucial test here – then I suspect they will remain the Right’s main standard-bearers. But if Restore keep growing and become credible as a party that can genuinely win elections, then it’s a whole new ball game.

For the moment, the main threat to Reform is likely to be that Farage is going to be portrayed by his opponents as too close to both Trump and Putin. Farage isn’t stupid and understands this, so let’s see how he positions himself. He needs to make it clear that he opposes any Trump policy which damages Britain – such as the increased tariffs – and that, when it comes to foreign military action, Trump should consult more closely with Britain. But he can turn these issues into weapons against Starmer by saying that the reason Trump isn’t more closely engaged with Britain is because Starmer has made us insignificant as a global power. As for Putin and Ukraine, Farage should say that he supports Ukraine’s battle for freedom, but that the UK simply cannot afford to GIVE billions of pounds’ worth of weapons to them (especially when we need them to re-arm our own military!), but we should be willing to SELL them anything they want.

Reform definitely also needs some eye-catching and popular new policies that engage the public’s imagination. I have suggested a few which they should adopt here:

Do make sure you have read this! Indeed, read all my previous articles, they are dynamite!

Prof Sir John Curtice has said that the traditional two main parties have “never looked weaker” and that the future of British politics “is now even more uncertain than it was already”.

It is often claimed that “May you live in interesting times” is an ancient Chinese curse, with ‘interesting’ used as a euphemism for ‘unstable’. But this is just a myth – just like the ‘anti-Reform tactical voting’ narrative! What is true however is that we are living in a very interesting political time. We now have genuine multi-party politics, and the chance to kick out the traitors and scum who have ruined a once-great-and-beautiful country.

Britain was once the envy of the world. A country of history and modernity, beauty and peace, civilisation and adventure, culture and excitement, and most of all decency and friendliness. We were a great people living in a great country. And now we are an island of wary and hostile strangers, living in a dangerous and oppressive country, invaded and colonised by a foreign enemy of primitive, violent, criminal and parasitic scum. And it’s all the fault of the Conservative and Labour parties.

But now we have a chance to win our country back. I find that encouraging. I have hope for the future. Yes, these are interesting times indeed, but in a good way!

Let me know what YOU think!

-----------

If you liked this article then please share it on Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to your friends.

Spread the word!!

And make sure you SUBSCRIBE to this blog – it’s FREE!

Thank you :-)

If only there was a political party that was different.

If only there was a political party that put our interests first. If only there was a political party that wasn’t corrupt and that cared about the people. I’d vote for it – wouldn’t you?

This is what we all hoped Reform would be. But there is scant sign of it ... yet. There is time, of course. They have a lot of work to do both organisationally and in terms of policy setting, but how smart are they? If they have a functioning brain then they will pay attention because here are my personal ‘six of the best’ policies that are easy to implement, politically popular, morally right and cost nothing, nada, zilch.

1. Product labelling

Every poll shows that a majority of the public would like to buy British goods if they could – especially when it comes to food. British standards are higher than those of foreign countries (remember the donkey meat scandal when we were in the EU?!). Supporting British farmers is better for us, better for them, better for the economy and better for the environment. What’s not to like?

But how can you ‘Buy British’ if you don’t know where the goods on the supermarket shelf come from? Yes, it’s true that some supermarkets do label some fresh produce as ‘British onions’ or ‘British chicken’ or the like, but this is the exception, not the rule (and, by the way, proves that they know that doing so will increase their sales, precisely because people do want to Buy British). But most products are not labelled with the country of origin. I recently had the devil of a job trying to find British-made toothpaste as almost all of it is made in Eastern Europe; (in the end I discovered that Arm and Hammer is made here, so that’s what I recommend you buy). And if you are eating out then you are almost certainly eating some cheap foreign shit without knowing it!

So here’s the first policy Reform should adopt: a legal requirement that all products sold in Britain be clearly labelled with the country where they are made. For those goods that are assembled from parts originating from multiple foreign countries, the packaging should list each country which supplies parts worth more than 5% of the total.

Cost to the government? Zero. But very popular with the public and with the added benefit that it will tempt manufacturers to move production to the UK in order to benefit from increased sales.

2. Airport fees

There is a good reason why this country is known as ‘rip-off Britain’. We are constantly being fleeced by scum companies that rob us blind. They abuse us because they can. The government should protect us from them, but they don’t. One example is the fees that airports charge if you drop off or pick up passengers.

I have travelled extensively and in every other country in the world that I have been to you are allowed around 10 minutes to drop off your loved ones for free - in Italy, funnily enough, these areas are often labelled with the English expression ‘Kiss and Fly’! The same applies to picking up those that have arrived.

Most British airports used to have a similar system, but the (mainly foreign) Shylocks that run our airports have now introduced charges in almost every case. This is just petty nastiness and indicative of the contempt which international corporations have for ordinary British citizens. So it would be a real statement of intent for Reform to say that this will be banned and that airports will be forced to actually show some sympathy, for and friendliness towards, their customers.

As I said, airport fees are just one example to illustrate the way large companies now abuse their customers. But Reform don’t seem to care. The only example of Nigel Farage coming out against corporate bullying was when he complained about being debanked by Coutts. And when he was given an alternative bank account he suddenly forgot all about this. Why hasn’t he pledged to oblige banks to always offer bank accounts to everyone? Why hasn’t he pledged to abolish the ‘Politically Exposed Person’ regulations? These didn’t exist in the past and are just another example of excessive and oppressive government surveillance and control.

If Reform were to tackle this it would be the trigger for a recalibration of the relationship between companies and individuals, with the government effectively telling businesses that they either start voluntarily acting with old-fashioned decency or they will be forced to do so. Imagine how much more pleasant everyday life would become if this were to occur. And imagine the public’s reaction to a government that they perceived was actually on their side!

3. Consumer prices

But airport fees are just the appetiser – the main course is the reduction in the price of goods. We are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, with this and immigration being the two issues which the public tell pollsters are their main concerns. Some politicians try to blame the supermarkets for the fact that prices have risen so much, but the truth is that they are not the culprits and their profit margin is only around 2%. No, it’s the manufacturers who are the guilty men, increasing their prices by more than the rate of inflation.

And you don’t need to take my word for it; this was the official conclusion of the Competition & Markets Authority (CMA), the official body which should, in its own words, “promote competition and protect consumers”. If you want to know how bad the manufacturers’ profiteering is I suggest you watch this video, which will make your blood boil:

Not only are these manufacturers hiking their prices unreasonably, but they are acting like a Mafia extortion racket, preventing companies from shopping around internationally to find the lowest prices. Why doesn’t the government step in and fine them – or better still imprison their directors for price fixing and market manipulation fraud?

This is what Reform should make clear they will do as soon as they get into government. Prices would fall by 30%, 40%, or even more. This isn’t fantasy – this is what the same goods cost in other countries. Imagine how the public would react if Reform promised to do this. And imagine how much better off we would all be. A better way of life is possible – it just needs a government with the will to take the right decisions. It just needs a government that focuses on the needs of the people. Why doesn’t Reform make it clear that this is what they will be?

4. Motoring laws

How often do you hear motorists complain that they are being persecuted because they are an easy target? And they’re right – motorists are being victimised by left-wing, car-hating politicians and police who don’t want the bother and the risk of physical confrontation that comes with going after real criminals, so they go around fining middle-class motorists instead.

Reform should make it clear that they are the motorists’ friends and will put a stop to this. Take speed limits, for instance. The 70 mph motorway speed limit was introduced way back in December 1965 (before then there was no speed limit). But cars have improved immeasurably since then, especially their braking system. And don’t get me started on the more recent speed humps, Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, ULEZ and 20 mph nonsense introduced by some local councils. These marxist loonies won’t be satisfied until all cars are banned – or at least forced to have a man walking in front waving a red flag!

Reform needs to put an end to all this left-wing madness. Start by increasing motorway speeds to 80 mph, and then ban all the restrictions imposed by councils to restrict car use. Scrap speed cameras in any location where there hasn’t been an accident in the last two years and ban the police from engaging in random stops. Unless someone is driving dangerously (and filmed doing so on the police car’s dashcam) then they should not be stopped.

I accept that these policies – unlike the others so far - will be slightly controversial, but only among the left-wing chattering classes. Potential Reform voters will be delighted and more inclined to vote for the party. One of the weaknesses of Conservative governments, and the reason they never actually did anything, was that they were always afraid of what their Guardianista opponents would say. Reform must not go down the same road that is, in fact, a dead end. Reform needs to tell the Left to fuck off and die.

5. Pepper spray

Crime, and the fear of crime, is another issue that Reform should focus on. But the truth is that no matter how many more policemen you put on the beat (and yes, it should be policeMEN), you can never have enough officers to guarantee the safety of all the people on all the streets, all the time. So what you need is a way for people to be able to defend themselves.

The best way to do this is to legalise pepper spray.

Legalising pepper spray has only advantages – with no disadvantages at all. It is non-lethal and allows everyone – including women, the elderly and even the disabled – to defend themselves. It is cheap, simple, and can be used in any situation. It can be used by store staff to stop aggressive thieves; it can be used by women to stop sexual attacks; it can be used by the elderly to stop street muggings. It can be used against violent knife attackers and even aggressive, out-of-control dogs.

Pepper spray incapacitates temporarily but does not cause permanent harm. By allowing people to defend themselves pepper spray will save lives. If the teachers in Southport had had pepper spray those three little girls would still be alive today. Most European countries allow people to buy pepper spray over the counter and carry it without any licence or other restrictions. Why should the British people be denied the right to protect themselves from violent criminals? Why should we be forced to die?

I’ve heard mentally retarded left-wing scum say that if pepper spray were legalised then criminals would use it. What a moronic thing to say! Those criminals are now carrying knives which can kill you. If they were to switch to pepper spray then you would actually be a lot safer!!! Besides, there is no evidence whatsoever that criminals use pepper spray in those countries were this is legal.

If Reform came out in favour of the legalisation of pepper spray this would boost their support among the most vulnerable members of society: the elderly and, especially, women. Legalising pepper spray is the intelligent and moral thing to do – and as a bonus it would increase the party’s vote. You have to wonder why they are too stupid to understand this!

6. Non-stun slaughter

The final policy on my list of policies that are both popular and free is the banning of non-stun slaughter. OK, I accept that this one would be controversial, but only with those who oppose Reform anyway, so politically there is no real downside. 77% of Britons support a ban on this evil and barbaric practice. Given such an overwhelming level of support among the public, the fact that not one party supports this policy is proof of the failure of democratic politics in Britain. For many this issue is so important that it would swing their vote.

This is not a right-versus-left issue. Both the RSPCA and the British Veterinary Association support a ban. And nor would Britain be an international outcast if it imposed a requirement for all animals to be stunned prior to slaughter – this is already the policy in many other European countries, including Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Slovenia, Belgium and Denmark. And the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that banning non-stun slaughter is perfectly compatible with the Convention.

This is not inherently anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim. There are divided opinions in both those religions as to whether non-stun slaughter is really necessary. Many Jews and Muslims accept the use of stunning on the slaughter process. And in any case, there is no requirement (or indeed legal right) for either Jews or Muslims to eat meat at all, and many of them are vegetarians.

This is a moral issue. Non-stun slaughter is cruel, primitive, barbaric, savage and evil.

If Reform were to adopt a policy of banning non-stun slaughter this would not only be morally right but would also gain them a huge number of votes. And the cherry on the cake is that banning non-stun slaughter (and the import and sale of any meat produced this way) would encourage the fanatical religious extremists to leave voluntarily – making Britain a much nicer and safer country for the rest of us!

So there you are. My Super Six policies that are (i) easy to adopt and implement, (ii) cost nothing (very important considering the likely economic crisis the next government will inherit!) and (iii) will increase Reform’s support across the country. What do you think? Is there a policy that meets my three criteria and that you would like to add to this list? Let me know! And if you are a member of Reform then please give Nigel a nudge and wake him up!

-----------

If you liked this article then please share it on Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to your friends.

Spread the word!!

And make sure you SUBSCRIBE to this blog – it’s FREE!

Thank you :-)

So let’s jump in the DeLorean and go Back to the Future. As it happens, the DeLorean was manufactured here in Britain, and the future can, to a large extent, be created here too – if we play our cards right. But this won’t happen under Labour – or the Conservatives.

For years British politicians have drivelled on about the liberal ‘rules-based international order’ and how we had to obey ‘international law’. I have pointed out many times that this is a fallacy. There is no such thing as international law! There are international agreements (treaties, conventions, etc) which may then be incorporated into national law. Only then do they have any legal force. And a country can, of course, amend or scrap such agreements at any time, just by changing its domestic law.

Constantly whining about ‘international law’ is a sign of a pathetic country and a pathetic leader. Only the weak and powerless need to beg for ‘international law’ to protect them. Strong countries defend their own interests. And that, of course, is the problem. For decades Conservative and Labour politicians have cut defence spending and diverted it to subsidise parasites – both here and abroad – so that they could buy votes and smugly proclaim how morally superior they are.

After all, we don’t need to spend money on defence, do we? The US will do that for us. So we can get a free ride and, if there’s any trouble, hide behind their skirts. That was the policy of successive governments, both blue and red – because in reality they were exactly the same: the filthy, useless, cowardly, treacherous UNIPARTY.

But now, with Trump as US President, the world suddenly looks very different.

Speaking to the European parliament, the European Commission’s president, Ursula von der Leyen, said: “We now live in a world defined by raw power, whether economic or military, technological or geopolitical. In an increasingly lawless world, Europe needs its own levers of power.” You really have to give the EU first prize when it comes to hypocrisy and chutzpah. It was the EU, as of course you will recall, that tried to bully and blackmail Britain after Brexit!

And here is what Mark Carney, the Canadian prime minister, had to say when speaking at Davos: “great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons. Tariffs as leverage. Financial infrastructure as coercion. Supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.” He was talking about the US, but his words apply just as accurately to the EU and China. He went on: “It seems that every day we’re reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry. That the rules-based order is fading. That the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must.” And he admitted that “what we called the rules-based international order” was in reality a “fiction”.

Of course it was. And the truth is that everybody knew this, and tried to use it to their advantage - apart from Britain. We are the worst-led country in the world. We really are.

So when Barmy Carney whines that we now have “a system of intensifying great power rivalry where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as a weapon of coercion”, he is ignoring the fact that Canada refused to agree a free-trade deal with Britain (either bilateral or multi-lateral) in order to try (unsuccessfully) to bully us into accepting low-quality Canadian beef – until Trump imposed tariffs on Canada and then he suddenly realised that Canada needed the UK more than we needed them! So it’s doubly hilarious to hear Smarmy Carney complain that “middle powers criticise economic intimidation from one direction but stay silent when it comes from another”.

But putting aside the hypocrisy and crocodile tears, Carney was right in this analysis: “Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration. You cannot “live within the lie” of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination. And as a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions — that they must develop greater strategic autonomy: in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance and supply chains. This impulse is understandable. A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself.”

Quite so. And Trump, also speaking at Davos, explained exactly how a country should act. “We lowered our corporate tax rate from 35% all the way down to 21%”, he said. “We have undertaken the most extensively regulatory reduction ever conceived. … We are lifting self-imposed restrictions on energy production to provide affordable power to our citizens and businesses and to promote energy security”.

“We will defend our citizens and our borders. We are also securing our immigration system as a matter of both national and economic security”, he continued. “We must replace our current system of extended family chain migration with a merit-based system of admissions that selects new arrivals based on their ability to contribute to our economy, to support themselves financially, and to strengthen our country”.

I don’t know about you, but these sound like pretty good policies to me. He summed up his approach like this: “I believe in America. As president of the United States I will always put America first, just like the leaders of other countries should put their country first also”.

If only we did have a prime minister who believed in Britain and put Britain first! But how would this work in practice? Again, Trump explained: “as president of the United States, I will always protect the interests of our country, our companies, and our workers.” In other words, ‘it’s the economy, stupid’. Back to the Future, again! Of course you need a powerful military, but it’s only by being economically successful that you can afford to pay for it!

Trump’s economic strategy is the key to how he is ‘Making America Great Again’. So how could a British government ‘Make Britain Great Again’?

As it happens, The Times published an interesting article on this recently. They described Trump’s economics as a combination of what they called ‘state capitalism’ and good old-fashioned mercantilism.

‘State capitalism’, they explained, is “a strategy where the state - in this case the executive more than other branches of government - wants to act as an economic player and assert its power over the market and the private sector in pursuit of its goals. State capitalism is nothing new for most of the rest of the world” and Trump is doing this by “using the levers of the state to buy stakes in private companies, exploring ideas like a sovereign wealth fund to put taxpayer money into enterprise, and a general penchant for intimidation and threats to bend the private sector to the will of the White House.”

As for Trump’s mercantilism, this is “prioritisation of exports over imports, creating a positive trade balance through the hyper-competitive selling of goods abroad and deliberate under-consumption at home. Like state capitalism, there is nothing new about countries embracing mercantilism. In the postwar era, versions of neo-mercantilism have been the economic playbook for Japan, Germany and, since the 2000s, most obviously China.”

As I said at the start, the new world order is exactly the same as the old one, but whereas the US has learnt the lessons we taught them, the spastics in charge of Britain have either forgotten everything or deliberately, and treacherously, turned their back on the policies that made Britain so successful.

As The Times points out: “The heyday of mercantilism was the imperial age of the 17th to 19th centuries, when western nations — led by Britain — expanded their colonial reach driven by mercantilist fervour. As the emerging superpower of the age, Britain exploited its colonies as sources of cheap raw materials such as cotton, wool, sugar, tea, tobacco and gold. Colonies doubly served as “import sinks” for finished goods from Britain.”

“Albert Hirschman, a German political economist who fled Nazi Germany for the US, said trade between nations was invariably about power rather than just exchange of goods and services ... trading relationships were always prone to exploitation by the stronger party. We are back in Hirschman’s world.” Of course we are – and everyone is doing this, even the EU, despite all their high-faluting talk of being a rules-based organisation, and their criticism of Donald Trump.

In July 1990, Nicholas Ridley, then the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under Margaret Thatcher, described the European Community’s (as the EU was then known) Economic and Monetary Union as a “German racket designed to take over the whole of Europe“, claiming they were using economic means to achieve the same hegemony they had previously attempted through military force. He said he would rather have air-raid shelters and the chance to “fight back“ against a military invasion than be “taken over by economics“. The EU today is just continuing these policies, as China is doing, and now Trump has joined in.

So how do we “fight back” and avoid being “taken over by economics”?

Very simply, by untying the hands behind our back and adopting the very same policies as our adversaries!

The grand old sage of political and economic journalism, Andrew Neil, explained it in a nutshell: “Britain needs a step change in its energy, food and defence policies. The billions earmarked for net zero need to be diverted to rearming the nation. We need an energy policy that couples secure supplies with lower prices so that we can start to rebuild some of our heavy industry, essential to defence. And we need a farm policy that champions growing food once more rather than prioritising various fashionable environmental wheezes. None of this is likely to happen under the Starmer government. The PM has no vision or aptitude for such a strategy. His party is a prisoner to old 20th century ways of thinking, as is much of British politics on the left and right.”

It’s true: neither Labour nor the Tories will ever adopt the necessary policies, as they are wedded to the failed and treasonous liberal globalism and national surrender.

To be a wealthy country, able to afford a strong military, as well as the services that citizens in a civilised country expect (from good healthcare to modern transport to efficient utilities to a quality environment), you need to have successful companies that provide well-paid jobs and contribute to the national exchequer through their exports and taxes. So one of the main duties of any government is to protect not only its citizens but its businesses too.

And it is here that both Labour and the Tories have failed. Abysmally. And it wasn’t through incompetence: it was by design. Yes, they failed because they intended to fail. Because they believe that protecting and promoting British business is wrong. Because they are traitors.

Every other country in the world understands the need to protect and promote its domestic companies and industries. Labour have done the very opposite. You may find this incredible, but I promise it’s true: Labour have given a Turkish company a £100 million loan to finance a new glass factory in Belgium – instead of in Wales. This is a deliberate policy of national economic suicide.

Some years ago, when Danone, the French yogurt company was the target of an American rival, the French government stepped in to block this, claiming that this was a strategic industry. Here, on the other hand, we have allowed all our largest, our best and our most iconic chocolate companies - Cadbury, Rowntree and Terry’s - to be taken over, asset-stripped and ruined by filthy French, Swiss and American competitors.

If you shrug your shoulders at our wonderful chocolate-makers, what about the Royal Mail? Founded in 1516 by Henry VIII, it was originally only for royal use, but was opened to the public in 1635 by Charles I. It provides a vital public service, but now it is owned by Czech billionaire Daniel Kretinsky, who bought it last year in a very controversial and highly leveraged bid, saddling the company’s balance sheet with a £1.1billion medium-term facility, a bridging loan of a further £750million, another bridging credit of £500million and a multi-currency loan of £500million. Oh, and of course there is also the small matter of the £142 million of fees they will have to pay, too. With the resulting interest payments, as well as the dividends that Kretinsky will suck out of the Royal Mail, what will be left for investments in the service? The Royal Mail is a vital public service, and while people are posting far fewer letters than in the past, there is a huge and rapidly growing parcel delivery market it could benefit from. Royal Mail should never have been privatised. If it had remained a public service we would have saved over £2 billion which has been sucked out of it in dividend payments!

Every British company is being gobbled up by foreign rivals, from the oldest and most historic, like Royal Mail, to the newest - Deliveroo, which delivers our takeaways, was recently bought by DoorDash, based in San Francisco, for £2.9bn. Some are famous – like all our car manufacturers, from Rolls Royce to Bentley to Mini to Jaguar and Land Rover, all foreign-owned - to those behind-the-scenes companies like packaging giant DS Smith, which was acquired by US rival International Papaer for £5.8 billion.

This is not – as globalists would want you to believe – a question of supporting free-market economics as opposed to socialism, or being open to business and investment to grow the economy, this is just common sense protection of the national interest. So when, in 2006, P&O ports was sold to Dubai Ports World, the US – that most capitalist country - stepped in and ordered that US ports owned by P&O be excluded from the deal for security reasons.

No other country – regardless of their politics – is as stupid as we are, or is governed by such vile traitors. So virtually all our most important companies – including in vital sectors like AI, quantum computing, pharmaceuticals, electronics, and even defence – have been bought by foreign asset-strippers who are allowed to steal our economic jewels and rape our economy at will.

Companies like biotech pioneer Verona Pharma (sold for a whopping £7.4 billion to American giant Merck); Dechra Pharmaceuticals (snapped up by Swedish private equity firm EQT for £4.5 billion); the rump of British Steel (snaffled up by China’s Jingye in 2020 and now threatened with closure); DeepMind, probably the greatest AI company in the world (stolen by Google in 2014 for a measly £400 million); cyber-security experts Darktrace (sold to US private equity outfit Thoma Bravo); aerospace pioneers Cobham and submarine sonar group Ultra Electronics (both raped by another US private equity company, Advent); cutting-edge quantum computing experts Oxford Ionics (plundered for £800 million by the US company IonQ); chipmaking company Alphawave (swallowed up by US rival Qualcomm for £1.8 billion); precision and testing equipment specialist Spectris (bought by KKR, yet another US private equity giant, for £4.7 billion); industrial software champion Aveva (gobbled up by France’s Schneider for £9.9 billion); satellite firm Inmarsat (raped by US rival Viasat for £5.4 bilion); electric vehicle drivetrain specialist Dowlais (snapped up by American Axle & Manufacturing for £1,2 billion); world-beating chip designing company and AI pioneers Arm (bought in 2016 by Japanese company Softbank for £28 billion – and now worth over £100 billion!); specialist semiconductor innovator Graphcore (also bought by SoftBank – they can spot a good thing when they see one); Newport Wafer Fab, the UK’s largest semiconductor plant (bought by US firm Vishay Intertechnology); YASA, the manufacturer of the world’s most efficient electric motors (acquired by Mercedes-Benz for a song at less than £200 million); Pilkington, a world leader in glass (bought by the Japanese Nippon Sheet Glass despite this being a smaller glass producer).

I could go on, I really could: Smiths Aerospace was bought by America’s General Electric; Hanson, an aggregates company, by Heidelberg; concrete producer RMC by Mexico’s Cemex; Blue Circle, another cement producer, by France’s Lafarge; BPB, a plasterboard-maker, by the French Saint-Gobain; Britvic (which includes the iconic Robinsons squash) to Danish brewer Carlsberg. In 2024, British companies worth £74 billion were gobbled up by overseas buyers. This is a 21% increase from 2023 and represents 51% of all British companies taken over.

You get the picture by now: all our best technology companies are being lost. And the list grows longer almost by the week. Many more companies, even if not bought up by foreign competitors, are voluntarily leaving Britain – often for the US – because they just can’t get the necessary funding here. Companies with bleeding-edge technology like Cambridge Quantum Computing and Psiquantum, for instance, that are created in our universities, funded by the government, but then have to leave the country due to lack of support when they need to grow into multi-billion pound industries. These are the modern companies that will shape the future, but the government just doesn’t give a damn. And now the papers are reporting that Orbex, one of Britain’s only space rocket businesses (and which was planning to launch the UK’s first rocket), is on the brink of falling into foreign hands, in a fire-sale to their German rival The Exploration Company.

So there’s the problem. It’s not creating great businesses, it’s keeping them. The UK has no shortage of either genius or dynamism. In terms of Nobel prizes, Britain comes second only to the US, which has a population five times bigger. Cambridge alone has nurtured 124 Nobel laureates. If Cambridge was a country, it would outrank every other nation except the US and UK, and is responsible for world-changing discoveries ranging from DNA to penicillin.

We have world-class research universities, not only Cambridge, but also Oxford, Imperial, UCL, Kings and many others, all with world-beating science, medicine, technology, artificial intelligence and quantum research. These are our nation’s scientific crown jewels, equal to anything in the US and far superior to the whole of the EU put together. These are the nurseries of our future global champions and national economic success.

But it’s no good creating these brilliant, innovative, vital industries of the future if we allow foreign asset-stripping scum to come here and rape our economy. Technology brought to market by firms spun out of our great research universities is being plundered daily. We lose the patents, the technology, the manufacturing, the jobs and all the wealth. We end up poor while our global enemies grow rich at our expense.

But British governments – both Tory and Labour – are obsessive free-market extremists who believe that all you need is competition between companies and this will inevitably deliver the most efficient resource allocation. An industrial policy is therefore not just unnecessary, but wrong in principle. This laissez-faire approach is combined with a quasi-religious belief in the primacy of shareholder rights.

The government’s duty is to protect the public interest. There is no reason at all to expect the pursuit of shareholder value by corporations to coincide with the self-interest of the UK. So even if a foreign take-over is in the financial interests of the shareholders, it does not follow that it is in the country’s interest. The interest of the shareholders is in maximising their personal wealth. The job of the government is to maximise the national wealth.

Those who support the government’s open-door takeover regime claim that this is a strength, making Britain more attractive to inward investment. These people are morons who do not understand the true meaning of the word “investment”. Of course I want more foreign investment in Britain. But true foreign investment is when a foreign firm comes and opens up a new factory. One that did not exist before. One that increases the UK’s total production.

When a foreign company comes and buys an existing British company this not investment. It is the rape of our technology and industrial base. It does not increase Britain’s total production. It does not increase the corporation tax receipts of the government. It does not increase the net wealth of Britain and of the British people. It does not benefit Britain. It damages Britain.

Laissez-faire globalists say that protecting British firms from foreign takeover prevents inefficient or poor-performing firms from being acquired and improved. This is nonsense. Thay can be acquired and improved by other British companies.

Chancellor Rachel ‘Retard’ Reeves – the over-promoted tea girl - stated that takeovers by foreign firms were a “vote of confidence“ in the UK and show “the UK remains one of the best places in the world for business”. The cretin Theresa May said exactly the same thing when Softbank raped Arm. These politicians are brain-dead UNIPARTY traitors, robotically reading from the same moronic script.

Retard Reeves also recently said “Jaguar Land Rover is an iconic British company which employs tens of thousands of people – a jewel in the crown of our economy.” But JLR has paid out £835 million in dividends to its Indian parent company Tata in the last 18 months alone! This is money STOLEN from Britain, from the British economy and from the British people. TATA ARE SCUM.

Brexit was a fantastic opportunity to protect and promote British businesses. But this was never taken. Of course it wasn’t – we were ruled by Bozo Boris and his circus of Tory Traitors.

So what’s the answer? Actually, it’s very simple. It’s the policy of every other country in the world, and best exemplified by President Trump: first, protect your companies from being taken over by filthy foreign asset-stripping scum; second, create a pool of investment funds (both private and state) for our brilliant new companies to grow; and third, ensure that they receive the contracts and orders they need to become successful.

These are the policies we need to re-industrialise Britain. To grow our manufacturing industry and make Britain strong and rich again. Britain was once known as “the workshop of the world”. Given our size and population it is unrealistic to suppose we can ever achieve this title again, but there is absolutely no reason for our manufacturing sector to be smaller than those of France, Italy, Germany, South Korea or Japan.

Sadly, re-industrialisation is not on this government’s agenda. Nor is it part of Conservative party thinking. But there is a glimmer of hope: because it is the stated policy of Reform UK.

I don’t know what policies they plan to introduce to achieve this goal, but at least it is their objective. And that’s a start. I doubt they will go as far as I would like, and aim for strategic autarky, where Britain is self-sufficient in all those areas that are the most vital for national survival and for global strength and power, but ‘every journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step‘ – and Reform’s policy is a step in the right direction.

So what would I like to see?

Firstly, I want the government to invest in high-tech champions and take a shareholding, including a ‘golden share’. There is a precedent for this: the government has ‘golden shares’ in BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, allowing ministers to block undesirable takeovers. This should be widely expanded. Instead of cheering the takeover of Arm, for instance, Theresa May should have invested in it and acquired a golden share. This is a win-win policy, that helps companies that need funding to grow, and protects the UK’s national interest. As it happens, Rene Hass, Arm’s CEO, has complained that startups in the UK struggle to grow because of a dearth of investors willing to bet on British entrepreneurs.

By becoming a shareholder in the great companies of the future the government will also earn dividends, and thus make a long-term profit. In other words, what I want is a national wealth fund, that specifically invests in British companies. The government does, already, provide some investment in start-ups, through a body called Innovate UK, who actually do a great job, but its budget is a measly billion pounds a year. But we currently spend over a billion pounds every month just on welfare benefits to foreigners. How about using this money to invest in British companies and Britain’s future instead? Imagine what Innovate UK could do with a budget 12 times larger! And instead of giving grants to start-ups the government should take a strategic shareholding. Government and industry should work hand-in-hand, as partners for the benefit of Britain and the British people.

And government investment would also encourage private sector investment. Instead, Labour are doing the very opposite. Just look at their refusal to back a new £450 million vaccine plant on Merseyside by British pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca. Instead of seeding this investment with the £90 million of support which AstraZeneca had asked for, the government spat in their face. So AstraZeneca has publicly given up on Britain, scrapping planned R&D and manufacturing investment here, and is instead deciding to invest £11 billion in China and over £36 billion in the US. What an appalling own-goal by Labour.

One of Retard Reeves’ first decisions as Chancellor was to axe a project for a super-computer at Edinburgh University. This just shows the government have no genuine interest in promoting Britain’s vital industries of the future, such as robotics, AI, quantum computing, nuclear energy, semiconductors, batteries, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, aerospace, new materials and defence. They say they care but their actions prove otherwise. Germany, on the other hand, is setting aside €1 trillion over the next decade to invest in its defence industries, support its technology development and increase its energy independence.

If Reform are serious about re-industrialising Britain then there are plenty of industry experts they can call upon for advice. The Times, for instance, recently reported “the AI expert and venture capitalist Ian Hogarth” as saying that “ministers should concentrate on a select group of future British stars” in order to create British £100 billion-plus tech champions. He wants the same as I do: for the government to give contracts to British firms, not their foreign rivals. This is the next policy that Reform should adopt: the use of government contracts to boost British firms.

Ian Hogarth gives as one example the NHS: “If we made a national mission to figure out how to accelerate our best medical start-ups via procurement through the NHS, I think we would create something extraordinary. That requires state capacity, but it is a challenge a great government should set itself.” This should, frankly, be obvious – but sadly it isn’t. Take the increase in defence spending the government has announced. This would be the perfect opportunity to create a huge BRITISH defence industry, boosting our technology and our security by investing in BRITISH companies, but instead Retard Reeves has said she will not “pull up the drawbridge” to foreign manufacturers. So instead of ‘buying British’ we will be funding foreign countries that hate us instead! The government doesn’t even demand that all Royal Navy ships and submarines be made with British steel.

It wouldn’t cost a single penny to create loads of great, successful British companies. Take the photovoltaic industry, for instance. While I oppose solar panels being placed in fields which should be producing food, it makes perfect sense to put these on our roofs. Of course their output is limited to daylight hours, but this is also when we consume the most energy. So make it a legal requirement that every new house, office, factory, school, etc have solar panels, and stipulate that these must be made in Britain. At the moment we import virtually all the solar panels we install in Britain, but there is a great British company called Oxford PV, spun out of Oxford university (which means that British government money was spent supporting the development of their technology) and which makes the most efficient solar panels in the world. The only problem is that they make them in Germany! This is because Germany offers support to these high-tech companies whereas the UK doesn’t. But Oxford PV have said they would obviously be happy to manufacture in Britain if this made economic sense. And the way to do this cost-free is to create a huge market here, by making the use of British-made solar panels a legal obligation on all new-builds. Just as Trump has a “Made in America” policy we should have a “Made in Britain” one.

Another policy that is an absolute must is a law making it compulsory for all goods and food to be labelled with the country of origin. Polls show that a majority of Britons would like to ‘Buy British’, but generally can’t do so because it isn’t clear where things come from. In February 2024, when she was Business Secretary, Kemi Badenoch opposed plans for mandatory country-of-origin food labels because these might ‘cause tension with trade partners’!!! WHAT A FILTHY TRAITOR.

If we want a patriotic industrial policy we can’t vote either Labour or Conservative. Will we get this from Reform? Who knows. But at least they seem to realise the importance of this issue. I hope you do now too! This has always been a major concern of mine and I’m delighted that it now seems to be rising up the political agenda. Let’s see what develops!

-----------

If you liked this article then please share it on Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to your friends.

Spread the word!!

And make sure you SUBSCRIBE to this blog – it’s FREE!

Thank you :-)

Whether you agree or disagree with Nigel Farage’s leadership of Reform, in order to properly understand why he acts as he does you need to remember the truism: “all of us are shaped by our experiences and understanding of them”.

Some people approve of Reform recruiting defectors from other parties, whereas others do not - although generally this seems to be more based on their opinion of the defector rather than a rigid point of principle.

As the roll call of defectors grows longer, and the pace seems to quicken, many are beginning to push back, arguing that if Reform is to be a truly revolutionary party it cannot be filled with political retreads but should, instead, be composed purely of untainted insurgents. Those who are responsible for Britain’s problems cannot be trusted to solve them, they say. Political virgins are better than experienced failures, they claim.

This is a persuasive argument. And yet Nigel Farage has repeatedly maintained that Reform’s lack of experienced politicians is its weakness, and that it must people who know their way around the corridors of Westminster. So why is this? And is he right or wrong?

During the press conference introducing Robert Jenrick as a new Reform recruit, Nigel Farage briefly opened a window into his soul, allowing us to see the monster that gives him nightmares. No journalist picked up on this, so I am doing so for you.

Farage mentioned that when he was a UKIP MEP he got to know the Italian political party known as the 5 Star Movement (which was a member of the same group as UKIP in the European Parliament) and he did not want Reform to take the same path, and suffer the same fate, as they did. So let me tell you about them, as this is important.

There once was a second-rate Italian TV comic called Beppe Grillo. Think of him as an Italian Les Dennis or Noel Edmonds. He became increasingly politically engaged and contemptuous of the existing political establishment. So finally, in 2009, he launched his own political party – the 5 Star Movement – which achieved immediate electoral success. But the thing is this: because Grillo was so disgusted by the existing political parties and politicians he forbade any of them from joining. He insisted that only political neophytes could join – those he deemed clean, pure and untainted.

In the 2013 general election it got 25% of the vote, more than any other single party. But that was its problem: it was a single party, and all the other political parties were in coalitions – either on the Left or the Right. But Grillo prided himself on being independent (in fact, he hated normal politics so much he even refused to stand for election himself) and his manifesto was a hotchpotch of Left- and Right-wing policies. I’m not saying that it’s wrong to take the best policies from across the political spectrum, without being rigidly dogmatic, but you do need to have a unifying philosophy, and the 5 Star Movement did not have this.

So after the election, which left Italian politics with a hung parliament and a right mess, lengthy negotiations took place, but the 5 Star Movement could not agree to be involved in any government alliance, and ultimately was frozen out and, instead, a ragbag of left-wing parties joined together to govern the country. At that point the 5 Star Movement began to disintegrate, with several of its MPs leaving to join other parties, on both the Left and Right. The party survived however and with the failure of the left-wing government, and the public growing ever more unhappy with politics, it actually grew even stronger, and at the next general election (in 2018) it gained a third of the votes. This time it was too big to be left out of a government coalition and, indeed, it became the main party of government. But their lack of either ideological consistency or experience, and their gross political and administrative incompetence meant that their first alliance – with the right-wing League – was soon dissolved, and their next alliance – with the left-wing Democratic Party – also eventually failed. They were thus exposed as complete numpties and at that point the Italian people realised they were not the answer and so at the following election (in 2022) their vote collapsed. They have never been in government again (even though, like the LibDems here, they still retain a small but devoted following of deluded morons) and have moved ever more leftwards.

So that, dear reader, is the example that Nigel Farage is determined to avoid. A party that was so obsessed with rejecting anyone who had any political baggage that in the end it was unable to govern and was an ignominious failure.

So instead Farage has adopted what I call the ‘Gladiators’ strategy: recruit a varied collection of star fighters.

There are those who have raised a couple of objections to this. The first is that not everyone agrees on who qualifies as a ‘star fighter’, with Nadine Dorries and Nadhim Zahawi probably being the most criticised. Neither would feature in any cabinet that I would put together – but I don’t think they will feature in any Farage cabinet either. Dorries was recruited partly because at the time Farage was being criticised for not having enough women on board, but mainly because she has a regular weekly column in the Daily Mail. This is one of the most important papers for Reform (together with the Telegraph and the Sun) and so she is a great recruiting-sergeant for the party.

Zahawi was even more problematic to the party base. Whereas airhead Dorries was met with a rolling of the eyes, Zahawi provoked real anger, being the man who was put in charge of the Covid vaccine rollout. His supporters will say that he was just following scientific advice, and the orders of the prime minister, and that his ‘crime’ is that he was too good at the task he was given. His detractors on the other hand will say that he should have been more sceptical of an unproven technology (mRNA ‘vaccines’) and less dogmatic about injecting everyone without a proper evaluation of the risks and benefits. Personally, I side with the latter viewpoint. Farage himself has said: “I believe in vaccinations when they’re vaccinations. I don’t think what happened with Covid were vaccinations“, but clearly thinks this is all water under the bridge.

Nigel Farage clearly also underestimated the anger that many people still harbour for what happened during the Covid crisis. I suspect that his rationale for recruiting Zahawi was that he was a former Chancellor and that Reform needs more economic credibility, and also that Zahawi is a very well connected businessman and proven fundraiser. Indeed, twice during their press conference Farage commented directly to Zahawi that he expected him to help bring in funds, and although he said this with his customary chortle you can be sure that he was deadly serious. As to the future, I doubt that Zahawi will be a parliamentary candidate for Reform; it is much more likely that he will be elevated to that politicians’ rest home known as the House of Lords, where the party is desperate for some representation.

The second criticism of the Gladiators strategy is that there is some sort of dishonour in switching parties and that those who do so cannot be trusted. Really? Would you say this of those famous switchers Winston Churchill and Enoch Powell?

The most idiotic criticism of those who defect from one party to another is that they are ‘traitors’ who have ‘betrayed’ their party. This argument presupposes that one should have loyalty to a political party, something I absolutely reject. A political party is just a means of achieving an end. It is simply a vehicle for governing a country. And that’s the point: a politician’s loyalty should be to the country – not to his political party. Indeed, I would say that it is those politicians who are loyal to their party rather than the country who are the real traitors.

A political party is a tool, nothing more. Loyalty to a party which is not doing its job is like being ‘loyal’ to a hammer when you really need a screwdriver. It is utter nonsense. So not only are those who criticise defecting MPs wrong in their logic, they actually represent all that is wrong in politics itself. Fuck the party: think of the country.

And who can blame any genuinely patriotic politician who decides to leave the Conservative party? Not only are the Tories awash with lefties who would prevent the party from ever governing from the Right, but patriots are not only out-numbered – they are unwanted. Just listen to Kemi Badenoch’s response to Robert Jenrick leaving. She said: “I am cleaning out the rubbish from the Conservative Party”. This just shows what a nasty, spiteful, arrogant and deceitful woman she is. Jenrick was on her front bench (so she is saying she appoints “rubbish” as shadow ministers!) but was also the most popular shadow minister with the party rank and file – even more popular than Badenoch herself. What patriot would want to be in a party where they are considered “rubbish” by their own leader?

So where does Reform go now? Farage has said that 7th May is the cut-off date for those wishing to defect to Reform. This is very sensible. I have previously explained that one of the most important things Farage must do is appoint a shadow cabinet. People want to know who will be doing what, and shadow ministers must be free to speak and decide policy for their allocated responsibilities. It is important that this top team is appointed as soon as possible, so if any experienced MPs are to be accommodated in it then they must move soon, or it will be too late for them to be selected for a portfolio.

I am expecting a few more defections, both from Labour as well as the Tories, and both sitting MPs and former ones. We have been promised a former Labour MP this week, and as for Tories, I think Suella Braverman, Katie Lam, Esther McVey and Sir John Hayes are all possibilities.

Any of these would strengthen the Reform team, but is important for Reform’s image to be settled long before the next election, and while defecting MPs can be exciting they can also be unsettling. So let’s get all the defections over with and then we can see the team in action and get a feel for where the party is going. This is clearly Farage’s strategy for Reform. Let’s see where it takes them!

-----------

If you liked this article then please share it on Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to your friends.

Spread the word!!

And SUBSCRIBE NOW – it’s FREE!

Thank you :-)

Now let me be clear: If you’re a Reform supporter (even if only grudgingly, on the basis that they’re the best of a bad lot), there’s no need to panic. But it is reasonable to ask why this downturn has occurred and what can and needs to be done to arrest it and even reverse it.

Some people will say this has been caused by the Guardian campaign against Farage, making allegations about what he is supposed to have said when he was a schoolboy. I think not. Firstly, not a single reader of the Guardian would ever have voted Reform anyway, and while the accusations have been more widely reported in the media, these are only credible to those who already hated Farage. Why did all these accusers wait for decades before coming out of the woodwork? How could anyone possibly remember exactly what was said and by whom so long ago? Even if the accusations were true, should someone be attacked because of what they said when they were a child? How fair is it to judge someone based on today’s values, when the events took place so long ago and in a very different social and political climate? All these thoughts will swirl in people’s heads and if they are sympathetic to Farage and Reform they will dismiss the accusations as ‘old hat’ and irrelevant.

I suspect other accusations, such as Labour persistently claiming that Reform are anti-British ‘Putin’s puppets’, and the Tories attacking their performance in those councils which they now control, have had more impact. The story about Farage ‘admiring’ Putin has been rolling on ever since 2014 when he was asked by a journalist which world leader he most admired. He replied: “as an operator, but not as a human being, I would say Putin“. This was a silly answer to give, as it allowed deceitful political opponents to misleadingly allege that he admired Putin, without explaining the context or the qualification. But this claim has been going for so long that it had become a tired old cliché which no longer carried any weight – until the very unfortunate recent conviction of Nathan Gill (Reform’s former leader in Wales) for taking bribes in order to make speeches supporting pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine. This has turbo-charged Labour’s ‘pro-Putin’ accusations and lent them credence.

The criticism of Reform having failed to deliver their promises in the councils they control is also superficially credible, given that they will need to put up council tax rather than reduce it, as many of their voters had been hoping.

The honest truth is, however, that both the accusations are completely unfair. One bad apple does not a barrel make. Farage has repeatedly criticised Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and his deputy, Tice, has personally taken aid over there. And as for their councils, the fact is that almost all council spending is non-discretionary and cannot therefore be cut - and the current budgets were, in any case, set by the previous administrations before Reform took over in May.

There is, however, a genuine criticism that can be made against Farage – and which is the cause of Reform’s drop in support: Nigel is asleep at the wheel.

Let’s look back to how Reform took the lead, in order to see what lessons can be learnt. We can see from the graph above that after the election Reform grew steadily, overtaking the Conservatives in February of this year (2025). The country was angry with the Tories for their 14 years of failure and betrayal. They had been rejected at the general election and nobody wanted to hear from them. This created a vacuum that allowed Reform to seize the public’s attention. The more they heard from them the more they liked what they heard.

Having overtaken the Tories, Reform were suddenly a credible political force. The one weapon the Conservative party has always had to stymie and crush all right-wing opponents had gone: the “wasted vote” argument. You know the one: ‘don’t vote for them (even though you like them more) because they can’t win and will let Labour in, and Labour are even worse than us!’

Now it was the Tories who were the ‘vote splitters’. So at the local elections in May, Reform achieved a stunning success, gaining 677 councillors and taking control of 10 councils. This boosted their credibility even more, and their support rose further. Then, during the summer, when the other parties went on holiday, Reform had the good sense to keep working, and once again gained control of the media agenda, getting publicity day after day.

And this, you see, is key. You need to understand that you are not normal. Sorry, but you’re not. Most people, you see, are not interested in politics. They don’t follow the news closely. They don’t know what each party stands for, and what’s more they don’t care. The only time they think about politics is when an election rolls round, and since they don’t know who to vote for they generally stick to the party they’ve always voted for in the past. So for a new party to win their vote they have to work hard – really hard - to gain their attention.

Reform did this well. And their vote rose accordingly. But the situation has now changed.

Firstly, the Tories woke up. Kemi Badenoch had deliberately adopted a policy of ‘radio silence’, believing that nobody was willing to listen to the Tories so soon after their election defeat, and that this period should be spent developing a new set of policies which could be launched in 2026 or 2027. But she had not taken into account that this would allow Reform to step in and steal all her potential voters. The Tory grassroots saw the problem and were very annoyed. They looked at Robert Jenrick – who was active on social media and attracting a lot of attention – and believed that this was the way to go. Kemi suddenly realised she had royally screwed up and reversed her tactics, using the Conservative party conference to launch her stamp duty policy. Since then, she has been active in the media, gaining daily column inches and broadcast minutes.

At the same time, for some incomprehensible, imbecilic and asinine reason, Reform have done the complete opposite, and are barely making any effort to get involved in the daily political conversation. As a result, the right-leaning electorate is beginning to forget about Reform and is looking at the Tories once again.

Let me give you a couple of examples of what I mean, and of where Reform is going wrong.

Erasmus

Take Labour’s decision to rejoin the EU’s Erasmus programme. This is the programme which allows students of one participating country to spend a year in another participating country. In principle, this is actually quite a good idea. But in practice it’s a complete waste of time – and money. Britain’s money. Money which we could spend in much more profitable ways.

The problems with Erasmus are several. Firstly, far more EU students want to come to UK universities than UK students want to go to EU universities. This is for a variety of reasons, such as what the universities have to offer, as well as the language difficulties. Secondly, the programme has expanded through the usual megalomanic mission creep from one limited to higher-education students to a much more all-inclusive scheme, including cultural events, youth and sports organisations, teachers, other staff, school pupils, apprentices, trainees, and uncle Tom Cobley and all. And finally, the way each country’s financial contribution to the programme is calculated works against the UK, as it is based on Gross National Income and population, rather than the number of students who participate.

In other words, as far as the UK is concerned the cost of the programme is much too high and the benefits are much too little. This is why when we left the EU we rejected their entreaties to remain members of Erasmus (it does have other non-EU countries, such as Iceland, Norway, Serbia and Turkey), on the basis that it was not good value for money. Labour, however, are desperate to get the UK back into the EU as much as possible, so they ignored the practical objections and rejoined. In order to provide a fig-leaf, the EU offered a 30% ‘discount’ (but for the first year only!).

This may sound generous, but it really, really isn’t! Even with this ‘introductory discount’ the initial cost will be a whopping £570 million just for the first year (2027). And thereafter not only do we pay the extra 30%, but this also then increases in 2028 by more than an extra 50%. So what then will the cost be to the UK? A staggering £1.25 BILLION A YEAR. Yes, that’s billion with a B – not million!

And remember this: when we were in the EU the cost of the Erasmus programme to the UK was around £250 million a year. So we are now going to be paying some 5 TIMES MORE. Wow, what a great deal Labour have negotiated! Once again the UK has been completely screwed by the EU – with the active complicity of the treacherous British government. We are ruled by scum traitors who need to be HANGED.

As I said though, having a scheme which allows our top uni students to get a broader education is actually a good idea. So when we left the EU and decided not to stay in Erasmus the Conservative government set up a replacement scheme known as Turing. Great! But then they went and ruined it all by succumbing to the woke left-wing mind-virus and making this not about excellence, but about ‘inclusivity‘ and they deliberately twisted Turing so that it discriminated in favour of those deemed to be “disadvantaged” - although of course this then advantaged them, meaning they should then have been disqualified, but being Left-wing Tory Cretins they were unable to see the inherent madness of their own programme!

What we need is a British scheme which is targeted at the most able students, and is limited to sending these to foreign universities ranked in the Top 40 of the world. And only TWO of these are in the EU! For the record, of the top 40 universities in the world, 6 are in the UK, 2 in the EU (both in Germany), 2 in Switzerland, 2 in Singapore, 1 in Japan, 1 in Australia, 1 in Canada, 6 in China (including 1 in Honk Kong) and 19 in the US.

So what you might expect is that Reform would pledge that they will leave the Erasmus scheme and restore the Turing one – but at the same time both improve this (by limiting it to the world’s top 40 universities and focusing it on our top students), and also expand it (by increasing the budget from the current £78 million to, say, £200 million). Such an announcement would show that Reform have concrete policies, that they will reverse Labour’s treason, that they have sensible economic policies (my suggestion would save over a BILLION pounds a year!), and would win lots of press and broadcast media attention.

The Tories did indeed line up to criticise Labour’s Erasmus plans, but what did Reform’s education spokesman or EU spokesman have to say? NOTHING. This might, of course, be partly due to Reform not having any Education or EU spokesmen! But neither did Farage, or Tice, or any of their other MPs say anything. Complete silence. Pathetic.

Ajax

Or take the scandal of the Ajax military programme. In case you have not been following this, it is the latest in a long list of Ministry of Defence great procurement failures. It was meant to be Britain’s new fleet of armoured vehicles. The contract to design and build this was awarded in 2010 (yes, 15 years ago!) to the US company General Dynamics. This was the first betrayal, as the British company BAE already had an existing, successful, tried and tested vehicle, the CV90. So why did the government prefer to award the contract to a foreign company? It then took four years just to sign the contract, which was initially for £5.5 billion – but then, after the contract had been signed - went up to £6.3 billion!

The first vehicles were originally due in 2017, with a planned entry into service by 2019. They are still not ready. Testing has been plagued with problems, based on grossly excessive noise and vibrations. These are so bad that British servicemen using the prototype Ajax vehicles were hospitalised and permanently physically harmed. Despite this, the government went ahead and 165 vehicles have been built (out of a planned 589). But each time soldiers try to use them they are once again left permanently deafened and crippled with joint pains from the unbearable noise and vibrations. Yes, we are now paying an American company to produce military equipment that eliminates our own soldiers! You really couldn’t make this up.

But still the government, and the MoD, try to cover up this scandal and make it disappear. So on 6 November Luke Pollard, the minister for defence procurement, announced that Ajax was “a vehicle that is safe, effective and truly cutting-edge which will be recognised by allies and adversaries alike”. Err, no it wasn’t. Just a few days later it was revealed that after an exercise on Salisbury Plain 31 soldiers had to be taken to hospital because of injuries caused by excessive and intolerable noise and vibration. Our allies are despairing and our adversaries are laughing. Ajax is a complete disaster. Why haven’t the noise and vibration problems been fixed? Because, believe it or not, General Dynamics cannot even find out what is causing the problems in the first place! There is no prospect of a solution even remotely on the horizon.

So we have a programme that is already 15 years old, and nowhere near to delivering a fighting vehicle that can actually, err, fight. All we have is a record of delays, failure and lies. Yes, let’s be absolutely clear, when Pollard said that Ajax had “left its troubles behind” and was “demonstrably safe” he was LYING. And despite not having a working vehicle the government has already paid General Dynamics £5 BILLION. This is, of course, not just a Labour failure, but a Tory one too. Although the MoD paused payments to General Dynamics in December 2020 due to the safety concerns they resumed them in March 2023, despite the problems self-evidently NOT having been fixed!

So what has Reform’s response to this massive scandal been? NOTHING. Complete silence. Not a dickie bird. It might help if they had a defence spokesman, of course, but they don’t have. So important events happen, scandals unfold, and Reform have nothing to say about them. How utterly useless.

This was the genesis of the rupture between Reform and Rupert Lowe. He wanted the party to professionalise and appoint spokesmen for all the major offices of state. And he was right. But Farage and Zia Yusuf wanted to keep everything to themselves. So when there are major stories the sad fact is that Reform’s voice just isn’t heard. Reform are making themselves invisible, and are therefore becoming irrelevant and losing support.

And there’s more

Erasmus and Ajax are just two examples. I could give plenty more, such as the doctors’ strikes, the train stabbings, the Budget, the abolition of juries for many trials, the Ukraine war or the incursions by Russian spy ships and submarines into UK waters. On all these issues, what is Reform’s position? We don’t know. Because they can’t be bothered to tell us. Indeed, do they know themselves? Probably not!

Or take the latest scandal: the government lobbying for the release from prison in Egypt of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, and welcoming him to Britain. This man is a self-confessed White-hating racist and wannabe terrorist. This is a great opportunity to attack not just Labour but also the Tories, who were the ones who gave him British citizenship in 2021. And yes, it’s true that Farage has criticised both Labour and the Tories, and said that he has reported this ghastly man to the counter-terrorism police, but he has not promised to rescind his British citizenship and deport him. Indeed, Farage has set his face against rescind UK citizenship from undesirable scum, and this was another bone of contention between him and Rupert Lowe, who is a strong advocate of doing this.

No wonder Elon Musk has called Farage ‘weak sauce’! He needs to adopt a much more aggressive tone and policy, not just on immigration, but on other issues too. Badenoch hit the headlines for her very personal attack on Rachel Reeves, but all we got from Farage, and Tice, was silence. Lee Anderson’s ‘Rachel from accounts’ jibe was very successful, but this was long, long ago. We need more aggressive attacks against Labour – and also the Conservatives. Where is the fire in Reform’s belly? They seem to be snoozing when they should be raging.

The only opposition to the government comes from the Tories, and this is why their support has edged up, with Kemi Badenoch’s approval ratings having jumped from net +19 with 2024 Tories to net +46 and having even increased with 2024 Reform voters, from -24 to just -2.

It’s not as if Reform don’t have perfectly good potential spokesmen in the wings, just waiting to be given the opportunity to seize the agenda. Richard Tice is very good on economic issues. David Bull is a genuine doctor and could be their NHS spokesman. Rear Admiral Chris Parry is tailor-made to speak on all defence issues, and Sarah Pochin could be given Justice portfolio. But no. Nigel Farage and Zia Yusuf want to be the only ones to say anything. And usually they say nothing.

Reform only seem to be energised when an issue arises that affects them personally, such as Labour’s decision to cancel yet more local elections. Yes, this is scandalous, but it’s not what worries the public most. They are most concerned about the cost of living. This comes way ahead of the second most important issue, immigration (both legal and illegal), and the third issue on peoples’ minds is the NHS. And of these three issues Reform only have a popular story to tell on immigration. This just isn’t good enough.

Reform need to have policies on the issues that the general public care about most, rather than seeming obsessed with their own self-interest. I have previously said that they need to set up an advisory board of respected economists to give them credibility for their economic policies. They still haven’t done so. This is just arrogant, lazy and incompetent.

But there’s still hope

Reform are doing well in local elections, with their increasing membership giving them more foot soldiers, able to deliver more leaflets and knock on more doors, so that they are able to remind people that they exist. And as most people are angry with Labour and have not forgiven the Tories, Reform are taking seats from both these parties. And next year there will not only be local elections in England (where Reform should do very well), but there will also be the Senedd election in Wales and the election to the Scottish Parliament north of the border. In Wales Reform are likely to come either first or second (behind Plaid Cymru) and in Scotland they could also come second (behind the SNP). In both cases this will be seen as a great achievement and will enhance their credibility as the main alternative to Labour across the UK.

You also need to remember that Labour are intent on lowering the voting age to 16. They believe this will help them, but they are in for a shock. Both Reform and the Greens are very popular among this age group, and if Labour follow Australia’s example of banning under-18s from social media (as they are thinking of doing) this will be their death knell.

So Reform have the opportunity to increase their electoral credibility as a result of the local, Welsh and Scottish elections, and to grab a large slice of the new voters that will be on the electoral register come the 2019 general election. And they do still have time to wake up and start appointing spokesmen for all the major cabinet positions, so that they can be involved in the daily public debate. So as Corporal Jones used to say: “Don’t Panic!”

We shall have to wait and see how Reform react to their dip in the polls. Yes, there’s still a long way to go before the next general election, but as a new party Reform are the most vulnerable to the problem of lack of credibility and being seen as a wasted vote, splitting the opposition to Labour. The only way they can win is by being the front-runners. If they fall behind they won’t come back. So just like Avis, the rent a car company, they need to ‘try harder‘ than the Tories. Get the popcorn – this is going to get interesting!

-----------

If you liked this article then please share it on Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to your friends.

Spread the word!!

And SUBSCRIBE NOW – it’s FREE!

Thank you :-)

In April 2024 two men, Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, were accused under the Official Secrets Act 1911 of gathering and providing information prejudicial to the safety and interests of the UK, between December 2021 and February 2023. These two men (who both deny the accusations) met when they were both teaching English in China and became friends. Cash left China and became the director of the China Research Group, an organisation set up by Conservative MPs, as well as a parliamentary researcher for the Conservative MPs Tom Tugendhat and Alicia Kearns, while Berry remained in China where he became a “business consultant”, and the claim is that he was recruited as a spy by a Chinese agent known by the pseudonym of ‘Alex’.

The allegation is that Cash gave “politically sensitive information” about government policy to Berry who then wrote 34 reports which he passed to ‘Alex’ and which ended up going to Cai Qi, the fifth-ranking member of the Communist Party’s Politburo and a close ally of China’s president Xi Jinping. However, just before the case was due to go to trial last month, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced that it could “no longer proceed to trial” as the evidence “no longer met the test” that was required for there to be a realistic prospect of a conviction. The case was therefore dropped.

The prosecution

Matthew Collins, the civil servant who is one of three deputy national security advisers (make a note of that), wrote three witness statements which he gave to Stephen Parkinson, appointed by Rishi Sunak as the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and thus the head of the CPS, to provide the case for the prosecution. After initially refusing to publish these, the government has now been forced to do so. The first - the main one - was written in December 2023. The statement makes it clear that China is an aggressive threat to the UK: “The Chinese Intelligence Services … conduct large scale espionage operations against the UK … to advance the Chinese state’s interests and harm the interests and security of the UK”.

We are told that ‘Alex’ asked for specific information which Berry obtained from Cash and then passed on. We also read that Berry met “a senior CCP [Chinese Communist Party] leader” and when Cash learnt of this he responded “you’re in spy territory now”. Nevertheless, Cash continued to provide Berry with information. Saying this was “v v confidential (defo don’t share with your new employer)” seemed to show that he knew who Berry was working for. On other occasions, Cash said things like “Didn’t hear it from me” or “very off the record”, and then saying not to share the information with the Chinese - which made it clear that he knew this was what Berry was doing.

The information Cash and Berry were providing the Chinese was mainly personal details about senior members of the Conservative party – the then party of government. This was information that was not openly known and was what the Chinese wanted, to better gauge how to play the British government. But there was more commercially important information too, such as relating to the British government’s position on Huawei, or sanctions on products from Xinjiang, or the state of Taiwanese/UK relations.

Collins concludes by saying that these activities were “prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK”. This document seemed perfectly good enough to use in court, and the DPP confirmed this in writing, saying that he was “satisfied that the decision to charge this case in April 2024 was correct … on the basis of where the law stood at that time in relation to the requirements of the Official Secrets Act 1911”. Great. So where did it all go wrong?

Oh dear

In July 2024 the Court of Appeal considered a completely separate case of a group of Bulgarians accused of spying on behalf of Russia, and looked at how the Official Secrets Act 1911 should be interpreted. Now given that this law had been around for over a hundred years you might think this was pretty settled, but every lawyer thinks he’s Perry Mason and every judge wants to make his mark on legal precedent, so the criteria for prosecutions was reviewed and a new ruling made. And this upset the DPP, because he claimed that this meant that “further evidence” was needed to show that China was an “enemy”.

So Collins provided two more statements. The first, in February 2025 (even though the twit dated it 2024!), stated that China “presents the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security” and that its activities included hacking into “a wide range of UK government and commercial targets … with potentially destructive consequences”. So far so good, but for some reason Collins felt compelled to add: “It is important for me to emphasise, however, that the Government is committed to pursuing a positive economic relationship with China”.

Eh?? What?? Why on earth was it “important” for him to “emphasise” this??? Not only was this not relevant to the period during which the spying allegedly took place, but Collins’s first statement, in December 2023, had not finished with such a positive statement. It had, instead, described the “epoch-defining challenge [China] poses to the international order”, and had gone on to say: “We will increase our national security protections where Chinese State (CCP) actions pose a threat to our people, prosperity and security”. This sentence clearly references China’s “threat” to the UK’s “security”.

While it is true that in the December 2023 statement Collins also said that the UK wanted to “leave room for open, constructive and predictable relations”, he explained that “diplomacy is a normal part of state-to-state business, and supports the national interest”. This was therefore a bland statement of how governments work, and it was only the 2025 statement that referred to a “positive” relationship between the UK and China.

The DPP was not satisfied with this second statement and so a third was produced in August 2025. In this, Collins stated that “China’s espionage operations threaten the UK’s economic prosperity and resilience, and the integrity of our democratic institutions”. Because the espionage charges related to the years 2021 to 2023, Collins explained that during this period the (then Conservative) government had “publicly articulated a number of concerns about the long-term strategic challenge that China poses to the UK” and that the government had identified “China as a “systemic challenge” to the UK’s security, values, and interests”.

Once again, however, Collins for some unfathomable reason decided to conclude his statement with a paragraph stating: “It is important for me to emphasise, however, that the UK Government is committed to pursuing a positive relationship with China to strengthen understanding, cooperation and stability. The Government’s position is that we will co-operate where we can; compete where we need to; and challenge where we must, including on issues of national security”.

Why did Collins refer to a “positive” relationship with China in both his 2025 statements but not his 2023 one? What changed between those dates? Very simple: a change of government from Tories to Labour. And with this came a change of attitude. This is most clearly and starkly demonstrated by the fact that the last paragraph of the August 2025 statement is an outrageous copy-and-paste from the 2024 Labour manifesto, which said: “we will co-operate where we can, compete where we need to, and challenge where we must.” To which Collins simply added “including on issues of national security” at the end.

Question number 1

This leads us to the first question that needs to be answered: What pressure did the government put on Collins to influence his statements?

Starmer says that Collins wrote his statements without any government influence, but this is disingenuous. Remember earlier when I highlighted that he was a deputy national security adviser? He has a boss: Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser. And who appointed Jonathan Powell? Keir Starmer! And Powell isn’t just any old Labour appointee – he has a long and shameful history as a Labour loyalist and traitor to Britain. It was Powell who was appointed by Tony Blair (yes, that’s how far back his intimate association with Labour goes!) to surrender to the IRA and draft the Belfast Agreement. And it was Powell who, now working for Starmer, arranged the surrender of our vital military base in Diego Garcia and the rest of the Chagos Islands to the Chinese allies Mauritius.

So we know just how quick Powell is to sell out British interests. And when it comes to China, everyone knows that Labour is desperate to woo China and attract inward investment. In October 2024 David Lammy became only the second foreign secretary in six years to visit China. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, travelled there (and got humiliated!) just a month before Collins wrote his second statement, and Powell himself went there secretly in July – just weeks before Collins wrote his third statement. The trip was not announced by the British government and we only got to hear about it because the Chinese revealed that Powell had met their foreign minister Wang Yi. These pointless and mentally-retarded visits are continuing, with the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, Oliver Robbins, due to visit Peking next week and Starmer going next year. And note that Peter Kyle, the Business and Trade Secretary, flew to Peking in the second week of September for the first meeting of the UK-China Joint Economic and Trade Commission since 2018. If the trial had gone ahead it would most likely have led to that meeting being cancelled. Well fancy that - what a spot of good luck for the government then, eh?

As a political appointee, Mr Powell is banned under the stupid civil service rules (these really need to be swept away by Reform if they win the next election) from line-managing civil servants, and the prime minister keeps repeating that Powell therefore had nothing to do with what Collins wrote. But there is more than one way to skin a cat, and it would be impossible for Powell to run his department if he genuinely couldn’t give instructions to his staff! Besides which, Collins is a senior civil servant which means he is almost certainly a left-wing Labour arse-licker keen to toady his way into Powell’s and Starmer’s good books.

So Powell need only have stated that the government didn’t want to annoy Peking if at all possible, and Collins will have got the message. Why else would he have inserted into his statements the comments reflecting Labour’s position towards China? After all, as Starmer has said (correctly), Cash and Berry needed to be tried according to the political situation at the time of their alleged offences. This means that what matters is the relationship between the UK and China during that period and not now. So the inclusion of an extract from Labour’s manifesto was utterly irrelevant and pointless. Collins is far too smart to have made such a stupid mistake; he did this 100% in order to grovel to the Labour government.

Question number 2

But the bigger question is this: Why didn’t Stephen Parkinson (the DPP) take the case to court on the basis of the evidence that he had?

The Crown Prosecution Service dropped the charges against Cash and Berry saying the government had failed to provide a statement that “at the time of the offence China represented a threat to national security”. Parkinson explained that the trial could not proceed because although he had tried for “many months” to extract from the government evidence that China was a “threat to national security”, this evidence was “not forthcoming” from Mr Collins’s witness statements and therefore there was an “evidential failure” which meant he no longer had a “realistic prospect of conviction”.

The only problem with this is that Parkinson’s claim that the evidence was “5% less than the evidence threshold that was needed” is utter garbage. The grounds for taking this case to court were more than strong enough.

You will remember that I mentioned earlier how it was the case of the Bulgarians charged with spying for Russia that had thrown a spanner in the works. So we now need to look at precisely what was determined by the Court of Appeal. And this is where we scratch our heads and ask: ‘Is Parkinson a cretin or was he nobbled by the Chinese?‘ Because the Court of Appeal’s judgement did not in any way preclude the the prosecution of Cash and Berry.

In essence, you are in breach of the Official Secrets Act if you do something “for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State” and which is “useful to an enemy”. The DPP suddenly became worried about the definition of this word “enemy”. So let’s look at what the Appeal Court said about this.

Funnily enough, the court was actually quite dismissive of attempts to question the meaning of an “enemy”. They clearly say: “We do not think that this term raises a question of any particular complexity”. The courts had previously said that “enemy” included “a potential enemy with whom we might some day be at war” and the Appeals Court agreed this means “a country with whom the UK might some day be at war”. And that it was for the jury to decide this, based on the evidence. The Appeals Court concludes: “There is no reason in our view why the term “an enemy” should not include a country which represents a current threat to the national security of the UK”. And here is the key conclusion: “That formulation may well involve issues of fact and degree which the jury would be well-placed to assess, on evidence.”

So there you have it: it is for the jury to decide, based on the evidence, if they believe a foreign country is a “threat to the national security of the UK”. So the job of the prosecution is simply to put the evidence of what a country has done which threatens our national security before the jury and then let them decide. The key point – and I can’t stress this enough – is that what matters is the actions of the foreign country – NOT the interpretation put forward by the prosecution. So it makes absolutely ZERO difference if the prosecution refers to the foreign country as an “enemy” or not, or says they are a “threat” to our national security or not – because it will be the jury who will make the decision, based on that foreign country’s actions.

After all, Starmer doesn’t say that he likes to bum Ukrainian rent boys – but the evidence is there and we the public jury can come to our own conclusions. It’s not what is said that matters, but what the facts indicate. So when the Telegraph tells us “it was the omission of the word “national” when describing China as a threat to security that sank the prosecution”, I am left shaking my head in disbelief. I cannot find words strong enough to say how moronic this is. The fact that the witness statements did not use the specific words “enemy” or “national security” is utterly irrelevant. So when Parkinson says “notwithstanding the fact that further witness statements were provided, none of these stated that at the time of the offence China represented a threat to national security“ I have to tell you that this is mentally-retarded garbage.

What is really amusing is that while Parkinson’s comments are a direct criticism of the failure of the Labour government to provide the statements he wanted, Starmer is using exactly the same false and stupid arguments about how the previous government defined China in order to pin the blame on the Tories! So Sky News reported that “Sir Keir Starmer insisted the decision to brand China a threat would have to have been taken under the last Conservative administration. The prime minister said: “You can’t prosecute someone two years later in relation to a designation that wasn’t in place at the time.” The PM said: “What matters is what the designation [of China] was in 2023, because that’s when the offence was committed and that’s when the relevant period was”.”

Collins’s three statements did say that China’s hacking and espionage threatened the UK, and if the DPP wanted a stronger case it is this aspect – the hacking and espionage - that should have been gone into in greater depth, with additional information statements provided by the likes of MI5 and/or SO15.

Robert Peston, the ITV journalist, reported on the meeting between Parkinson and senior MPs. When he told them he wanted “5%” more evidence than Collins had provided they asked why he didn’t just go to another witness to get this. Here is Peston’s account: “The MPs … asked why Parkinson did not get a second expert witness, to fill in the small gap left by Collins. The DPP in essence said that is not the way the CPS operates. He was also pressed by the MPs about why he would not take the risk of putting the case to a jury. He claimed he did not believe a judge would let it get that far. The MPs were not convinced. One said: “he was just a bit wet about the whole thing. He should have taken the risk of prosecuting and have let a jury decide.””

Have you ever heard anything more retarded?? “That’s not the way the CPS operates”! It’s like saying ‘yeah, I saw the child drowning in the river but jumping in and saving him isn’t the way I operate, so I just walked on by and let him die‘! Since when has your usual way of doing things been more important than flexibility in order to be successful??? Parkinson is a cretin. And then he said that he didn’t just take the case forward and see if it was successful because “he did not believe a judge would let it get that far” - but how would he know unless he tried?? Parkinson is a cretin.

But is it really possible that Parkinson’s failure to prosecute this case was solely down to him being a complete mong? Or is there more to it? Could it have been partly due to a fear of the humiliating egg on face prospect of losing? After all, he is an extremely arrogant man. He sneers at any barrister who doesn’t have experience of prosecuting. He described Starmer, for instance, as “an average DPP”, saying: “He had no in-depth experience of prosecuting . . .he was a defence and human rights lawyer.” This may well be true, but it also suggests that maybe he didn’t want to risk losing in case it gave Starmer a chance to criticise him.

Or maybe he was nobbled by China? Or maybe he is just very supportive of China anyway and was only too happy to let the case fail, and then blame Starmer’s government by saying they failed to provide the necessary evidence. We know from the prosecutions of patriots protesting against the immigrant invasion and the muslim paedophiles and rapists that the CPS is an extremist left-wing and anti-British organisation, and that comes from the top. So maybe Parkinson is just a far-left, Britain-hating, piece of shit? You decide!

Question number 3

The third and final question is this: Given that Parkinson was so adamant that he wanted stronger evidence that China is a threat, why didn’t the government just give this to him?

Starmer has (after a lot of prodding!) admitted that he found out the case was collapsing two days before it did, but won’t say how he found out. However, we know that Parkinson informed the Attorney General Hermer of his intention to drop the prosecution, so this is one way (though there are others) this information could have got to the prime minister. But however he heard of this, why didn’t he step in to stop the case from being dropped? The prime minister’s spokesman said “it was not for him to intervene in the case”, adding“it is for the DPP or the CPS to make a decision on a criminal case.” So here once again we see that the defence is ‘that’s the procedure, guv, and I’m not going to change it, even if it means complete failure‘. We are ruled by absolute fucking imbeciles!

Dan Jarvis, the security minister, said Matthew Collins had been given “full freedom to provide evidence without interference”, and Starmer has said: “Under this government, no minister or special adviser played any role in the provision of evidence”. Well, why the hell not?? Why on earth was Collins given complete freedom to do and say whatever he wanted with zero supervision or government input?? Collins was, after all, giving the view and position of the government, so why shouldn’t the government help him with this? And if you say that he was referring to the position of the previous government (in office when the alleged offences were committed) then why couldn’t or shouldn’t he have consulted and been helped by the ministers of that period?

When he was asked if the government knew that he wanted some more, and more strongly-worded, evidence, Parkinson told the MPs: “Well, they must have known because we kept asking for it.” He also said that Matthew Collins had made it clear to the Crown Prosecution Service he was not going to provide the additional “5%”. So we are being asked to believe that Collins knew perfectly well that he was not providing the CPS with what they wanted in this high-profile spying case, and yet didn’t tell Powell, his boss, and was never asked about it. Sorry, but I find this literally unbelievable.

Jarvis told MPs that neither ministers nor Jonathan Powell were privy to the evidence that Collins had given in his witness statements to the CPS. And yet, and yet … In early September, before the CPS dropped the case, Powell convened a top secret meeting of senior Whitehall officials at which he discussed the potential diplomatic and security consequences of the trial. Most revealingly, however, he explained that Collins would only testify that China was a “challenge” and not an “enemy”. Although the prime minister’s office originally denied this a meeting took place, they have now been forced to admit that it did. One attempted cover-up after another! But here’s the real question: how did Powell know what Collins would say if – as Jarvis and Starmer maintain – he had no involvement in preparing for this case? Collins must have discussed this with Powell. It’s obvious that the government is lying to us, once again.

The simplest way to try and determine the truth would be to order Collins to appear before a parliamentary committee (either the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy or the Intelligence and Security Committee) and answer some questions. Civil servants are asked to appear before these committees all the time, so this is perfectly normal, but it seems our MPs are either too stupid or are complicit in hiding the truth. You might, of course, suspect that Collins would lie, so here’s an alternative that any decent journalist could adopt: ask Baron Barrow of Penrith in the County of Cumbria. Who he? That’s the ennobled name of Tim Barrow. If you are still none the wiser then I will tell you that Tim Barrow was Jonathan Powell’s predecessor, and the man who was Collins’s boss when he wrote the first statement. Baron Barrow is now a crossbench peer so is free to speak and has no reason to lie. Just ask him if Collins consulted him over the first statement. Come on you stupid journalists – do your bloody job!

An interesting clue as to why Powell might be so reluctant to attack China comes from the Daily Mail, which reports that Powell “is listed as a ‘fellow’ of the 48 Group on its website”. If you have not heard of this organisation you need to know that the ‘48 Group’ is one of the most prominent pro-China lobbying organisations in Britain. In addition, we are told that in 2011 Powell founded a ‘conflict resolution’ think-tank called Inter Mediate and has made several trips to China to meet with the ‘Grandview Institution’. Oh yes – the further down this rabbit hole we go, the murkier it gets! Because the ‘Grandview Institution’ is considered a front for China’s main foreign intelligence agency, the Ministry of State Security (MSS). Some of Grandview’s senior fellows either worked as MSS intelligence chiefs or were in the People’s Liberation Army.

According to the Sunday Times, Jonathan Powell collapsed the trial by saying that the government would not say in public that China was an “enemy” of the UK, in order to maintain good relations with China. And the Telegraph reports that the previous (Conservative) government had told the CPS that a senior civil servant would give evidence to establish that China was an enemy of Britain, and that intelligence officials would testify in a closed court to protect their identities. However, after Labour took office ministers told the CPS they were no longer willing to describe China as an enemy in court and the witness was withdrawn.

All the evidence points to Powell sabotaging this case by refusing to allow the use of information from our security services that China is a threat to the UK. This has been confirmed by The Times, which reports that former ministers have said that the security services had prepared “a dossier of evidence with “hundreds” of examples and case studies that proved China was a threat”. The document remains classified but is understood to have included “intelligence about Chinese digital and conventional espionage activities targeting Britain’s critical national infrastructure. This was in addition to “hundreds” of accounts of cyberattacks, theft of intellectual property, theft relating to critical infrastructure and secret police stations set up by Beijing to spy on Hong Kong dissidents in the UK”.

The shadow home secretary, Chris Philp, who was a Home Office minister before Labour took office, told the Times that the dossier included “multiple internal documents and reports” that showed the threat posed by China to national security. Starmer’s government “destroyed the prosecution by refusing to provide the evidence the CPS needed - evidence the government clearly has in its possession.” Even without access to this secret dossier we know that, in 2021, Sir Richard Moore, then head of MI6, described China as the biggest of the “big four” threats facing Britain, alongside Russia, Iran and international terrorism. In 2022, Sir Ken McCallum, the head of MI5, stated: “The activities of the Chinese Communist Party pose the most game-changing strategic challenge to the UK.” GCHQ has branded China a “highly sophisticated and capable” cyberthreat to the UK. And the National Cyber Security Centre said in its annual report that China continues to pose a major threat to a wide range of sectors and institutions in the UK and is using AI to increase the efficiency, effectiveness and frequency of attacks.

Or take Dominic Cummings, who has said that when he was working in Downing Street he was briefed about “vast amounts of data classified as extremely secret and extremely dangerous for any foreign entity to control was compromised” as a result of Chinese spying. He also told the Times that “the degree of penetration in espionage, in all kinds of operations, penetration of critical national infrastructure, theft of intellectual property, the whole range of things is absolutely extraordinary. A hundred times worse than it is in the public domain.”

Dirty fingerprints …

When it comes to government treachery you must always remember that it is too simplistic to just point the finger at one man and say it’s all his fault. Continuing today’s legal theme, government is what lawyers call a ‘joint enterprise’ – in other words it is a joint criminal activity where everyone has the same aim and everyone is guilty regardless of how big or small their role. And this is the case here.

So we have seen that Collins wrote weak statements and, as soon as Labour were elected, he started crawling up their arse and adding their policy stance even though it was utterly irrelevant and even counter-productive. We have seen that the DPP refused to take this case forward and allow a jury to decide, using false legal arguments. We have seen that Powell is a Sinophile and an Anglophobe and a treacherous piece of shit. We have seen that Starmer is a weak, disingenuous, traitor. We have seen that Jartvis is a filthy liar. And even more fingerprints can be found on this treasonous crime. We now read that the Treasury have joined in too, lobbying Powell and Lammy (when he was foreign secretary) to censore details about Chinese espionage in the Foreign Office’s China audit, in order not to damage Chinese trade and investment. As a result, Lammy refused to give any information about Chinese espionage to MPs. Oh yes, they are ALL guilty!

You know things are bad when you have former cabinet secretaries like Lord Sedwill and Lord Butler lining up to say that yes, of course China is a threat, and yes, of course the trial should have gone ahead. These were the most senior mandarins of their day, with the highest security vetting, and know exactly how government is supposed to work. Obviously they are not nationalists – they are the very definition of ‘the establishment’ – so if even they are attacking this Labour government then it’s clear that things are worse than they have ever been!

Britain is broken. The government is our enemy. We must all fight back. It’s now or never.

-----------

If you liked this article then please share it on Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to your friends.

Spread the word!!

And SUBSCRIBE NOW – it’s FREE!

Thank you :-)

—-

Links (for those who like to read the source material):

First statement:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68f0022ca8398380cb4ad140/Statement_1.pdf

Second statement:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68f0024082670806f9d5e131/Statement_2.pdf

Third statement:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68f002502adc28a81b4ad149/Statement_3.pdf

Katrin Ivanova & Ors v R:

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/crim/2024/808?query=%5B2024%5D+EWCA+Crim+808

“We will abolish the indefinite leave to remain status, which grants migrants the right to live, work and study in the UK permanently with full access to Britain’s health and benefits system. This threatens to bankrupt our bloated welfare state. We will rescind ILR statuses that have already been granted. We will also restore the treasured status of British citizenship.

Why is this so urgent? Starting from January 2026, if nothing is done to stop it, those 3.8 million migrants will become eligible for ILR. Let’s be clear, these migrants are not doctors, engineers or entrepreneurs. Many of those eligible for ILR never work and never will. Many are young and old dependants who followed family members here. They are now a burden on the welfare state …

Once we abolish ILR, foreign nationals who want to work here will have 180 days to apply for a tough, new five-year renewable visa. They will have no right to benefits or healthcare without insurance. And no right to bring dependants, unless they are high earners who can afford to keep them.”

Farage (and Yusuf, Reform's Head of Policy, who co-announced this at the press conference) made clear that these new renewable work visas, would have a qualifying salary “materially higher than it is today”, and people with criminal convictions would be banned. There would also be visas, called an “Acute Skills Shortage Visa”, for workers in critical occupations (such as care workers) , where there was no suitably-qualified UK candidate, but there would be a cap on the number allowed, and – and here is Reform's revolutionary policy idea - employers who bring in workers on such visas would have to pay into a fund to train British workers to do those jobs in the long-term.

So far, so very good. This will be an excellent policy going forward. BUT … Nigel Farage stressed multiple times at the press conference that announced this policy that the Boriswave – those migrants that came from January 2021 to June 2024 – was a fast-approaching economic cataclysm that had to be stopped. He was right about this (as we shall see later), but the tragedy is that Reform's policies will NOT avert the economic disaster that is about to engulf us.

Why not? Because by the time of the next election, in 2029, all of the Boriswave will not only have already received ILR but most will also have been able to apply for British citizenship. And Farage stated that Reform would “never, ever” take back citizenship from people already granted it! So despite Farage's promises, all of these parasites will, in reality, be allowed to stay and drive Britain into a financial black hole that will bankrupt the country and doom our children to a life of misery and poverty.

But surely I am exaggerating, you might think. After all, how much will these parasites really cost us?

According to Reform the total cost over the lifetime of the immigrants will be £234 billion. Or rather, according to the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) – because Reform have simply copied all their calculations from a paper that this think tank published back in February! Now, I completely understand why they did this blatant act of plagiarism. It wasn't laziness or stupidity, it was a political calculation that by using the calculations of a respected and independent think tank they would avoid the otherwise inevitable criticisms from both their political opponents and the media of having exaggerated, cooked the books, distorted the facts, etc. So using the CPS figures was a defensive act, a shield designed to demonstrate how moderate and reasonable they are.

OK, fair enough, except that the figures are a load of bollox.

Both Farage and Yusuf made it clear that they thought the true cost was probably much higher (which it is, as we shall see), but in that case they should have had the courage and intelligence to come up with their own figure! If they wanted to, they could have said that the figure is 'between X and Y', where X is the CPS figure and Y is their own, but don't just give a ridiculously-low number and then say, in effect, that it's probably wrong! That's just nonsense.

And the ultimate irony is that this tactic didn't work anyway. Why not? Because the CPS – a Conservative-supporting organisation – have deliberately tried to sabotage Reform by disowning the cost projection in their own report!!

So, what's the problem with the CPS figure?

To work out the economic contribution or cost of immigrants you need to know two things: how much people at different levels of earnings put in or take out of the economy, and how many immigrants fit into each earning profile. The first is relatively straightforward. The government knows the average cost of state school education, for instance, or the average cost of NHS care for people of different ages. And, of course, they know how much people pay in tax according to how much they earn. So this is easy.

The problem is knowing what immigrants actually earn. Throughout their paper the CPS complain about the lack of reliable data available, especially regarding migrant employment and earnings. They refer to the Office of Budget Responsibility's [OBR] “extremely optimistic assumptions about migrant earnings” and say “We believe there is a very strong case that the average salaries of this new migrant cohort are substantially lower than the OBR suggests” pointing out, for instance, that “the average salaries of various groups strongly represented in the post-2020 migration wave – such as Indian and Nigerian nationals – have absolutely cratered in the last few years” .

As for government estimates, these are worse than worthless. Take, for instance, the health and care visa. We are told that “The Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) estimated 6,000 migrants a year would make use of it. Other departments thought the number could be as high as 40,000. These were woeful underestimates. In 2023 alone, 348,000 migrants received a health and care visa – 58 times the DHSC projection”. 58 times!!! Just let that level of government prediction incompetence sink in. And not only that - “Overall, 647,000 migrants received health and care visas in the period we are studying – but 377,000 of those were dependants. That’s 1.4 dependants per worker.” Remember this average of 1.4 dependants – we will return to this later!

We were told by Boris Johnson that the points system introduced after Brexit would prioritise valuable high skilled, high-earning workers. But this was a lie. The CPS tell us that “Looking at skilled worker visas, we found that more than 50% were issued for what were essentially minimum wage jobs, often in social care.”

By the way, in case you are thinking that the CPS might be being unfair on the government for their lack of accurate data, just note what parliament's Public Accounts Committee had to say in their July 2025 report on skilled worker visas! Here are a few of their comments:

• “The Home Office made changes to the Skilled Worker visa route without a full assessment of the risks or potential impacts”

• “Nearly three times more people used the route in the first three years than the Home Office expected, but it has not evaluated whether the route was meeting its objectives”

• “the Home Office does not understand what happens to people when their visas come to an end”

• “there has been insufficient collaboration between the Home Office and other departments on the role of immigration in sectoral workforce strategies”

• “The Home Office has not had a full understanding of how immigration has helped to address skill shortages or the unintended consequences of the much higher than anticipated use of the Skilled Worker route”

• “the Home Office has not done enough to fulfil its responsibilities”

• “it does not understand whether those who have lost their sponsorship are taken on by other sponsors or what happens to people at the end of their visa, including whether they leave the United Kingdom after their visa expires or remain without a valid visa and work illegally.”

And if the data on those coming on worker visas is poor, there are no “profiles provided for migrants arriving on family or humanitarian visas”. And here again, it turns out that everything we've been told was a lie. Remember, for instance, those Hong Kong refugees that the pro-immigration fanatic Boris Johnson decided, with zero consultation, to allow to come here in unlimited numbers? We were told that these were high-earners who would boost the economy. Well, err, the reality is sadly very different: “we would instinctively expect those arriving on Hong Kong BN(O) visas to be among the most fiscally positive. Yet even so, studies have found that only 52% of those who arrived via this route are employed. Moreover, almost half (47%) of those who are working say they are doing so at a level below their skills and qualifications”. Oh dear ….

And what about spouses? Well, the CPS report explains that “Spouses coming over as dependants on work visas are more tricky to allocate fiscal profiles. As the Migration Observatory has noted, dependants on work visas face no salary thresholds on the work they can legally do. Given their much lower barriers to the labour market, we have almost no idea what they are earning as distinct from any other group – if indeed they are working at all.” And indeed, most are not working: “around 55% of these will probably never work”.

And yet, despite all this, the CPS report says that although “we would expect the average migrants arriving on non-work routes to have an even worse lifetime fiscal outcome than the ‘low-wage’ migrant worker in the OBR’s analysis. … we shall forbear from attempting to construct a fiscal profile, and instead treat these migrants as similar to the OBR’s ‘low-wage’ migrants – even though that will yet again leave us underestimating rather than overestimating the long-term fiscal costs”. This is madness and shows what an extreme underestimate the CPS final figure is!

But let's now turn to the OBR claims about the financial cost or benefit of migrants. It's a statement of the obvious that people on high wages contribute more than they take out, whereas those on low wages take out more than they put in. It's also obvious that children are a cost to the economy (due to NHS costs for their birth and early years and their education costs, together with the fact they aren't working), whereas highly-paid workers paying taxes are net contributors, and pensioners again become an overall burden due to their pensions and their greater healthcare needs.

So over their lifetime a migrant's economic value to the country can depend on many factors: at what age they arrive, how many years they work, whether they have any children, etc. The OBR gets around all these complications by simply assuming that migrants arrive at the age of 25 and have no dependants.

But hang on – we've already seen that migrants do bring dependants with them – 1.4 each. So that's wrong to start with. And what about the age they arrive here at? Well, “In theory the Home Office should hold data on the ages of all migrants issued with visas. But this is not something the department chooses to publish in its quarterly statistical updates”. That's right – they refuse to share this information! As the CPS say with a clear tone of exasperation: “in lieu of anything better, the OBR analysis is where we shall have to start”.

And the OBR calculation is that someone coming here at 25 and living the average lifespan (to the age of around 80), who is on low wages, will end up being a net drain to the British economy (ie. your taxes and mine) and cost around £600,000 over their lifetime. But remember that lifespans are increasing, and by the time these people reach old age this is likely to have increased. Which means they are likely to cost much more. Should they live just a few extra years, to 85, that cost rises to around £770,000.

Of course, if they are high earners they will cost less, or could even be net contributors, but how many will fall into that category? Nobody knows, since while the OBR has had a stab at “life-cycle analysis for ‘low-wage’, ‘average-wage’ and ‘high-wage’ migrant workers … this is produced using the Labour Force Survey, whose data is so unreliable that it is being shelved and overhauled. It is particularly unreliable, sadly, when it comes to migrant families and those on low earnings.”

Despite all of this, and despite explicitly stating “there are strong grounds for scepticism about the distribution of migrant earnings used in the OBR’s analysis”, the CPS admit that they took “the OBR figures as gospel – putting the most optimistic gloss possible on the fiscal contribution of these new arrivals … We have consistently erred on the side of caution: potentially significantly underestimating the costs of very old age; and the costs of very young age; the costs of migrants getting ILR via family and humanitarian visas. We have also, as outlined above, adopted what we strongly believe to be an overestimate of recent migrants’ earnings, for want of any more useful data”.

So that's how the CPS came to their final figure – which Reform UK have simply copied and accepted. As the CPS say: “using the OBR’s extremely optimistic assumptions about migrant earnings, the lifetime net fiscal cost to the state would be £234 billion … Under more pessimistic assumptions, the costs could be very significantly higher.” You bet they would be!! And not with “pessimistic assumptions” but realistic ones!

But possibly the most grievous fault in the CPS report and estimate is that they openly admit that they ignored “‘chain migration’, i.e. when 'individual members of a community migrate and then encourage or assist further movements of migration’, often through family connections. Each migrant who receives ILR will have the right to bring over spouses and children on family visas. Given the flaws and gaps in the official data, we have excluded this phenomenon from our analysis. And just to make things worse, the CPS also admits that “We are also implicitly ignoring the costs of any children born in the UK to recent migrants who then go on to get ILR.” Frankly, these two failures alone make their estimate a worthless load of garbage.

So what is a better forecast for the cost of the Boriswave?

Let's start with the basic number who are likely to get ILR. Of the 3.8 million who came in total, the CPS conclude that the total number who could qualify for ILR “is over 2 million”.

So how many will actually apply for ILR? The estimate the CPS uses is 801,000. This is what they base they final cost estimate on, but they admit the number is likely to be much higher. Their estimate is based on historical ILR application rates when most migrants came for the EU, but as the CPS point out: “Given that we are taking many more people from poorer countries – GDP per capita in India is $10,166, Nigeria $6,207, Pakistan $6,037, and Zimbabwe $3,820 – there is a strong case that they would be more motivated to stay in the UK than those arriving from wealthier countries under the old migration system, especially as there is now a significant existing diaspora from such countries to settle into”.

The CPS lick their finger, hold it in the air and take a pure guess at a possible 1.224 million who might in fact apply for ILR. But their cost estimate is not based on this. Frankly, I think even this is a ridiculously low number. The proper approach is to use human psychology and logic and to ask why any of these third-world migrants would want to go back to their poverty-stricken shithole countries. Would you, in their place? Of course not.

So a much more realistic estimate is to say that all two million will apply for ILR. And if anyone is tempted to argue this is too high I simply respond by saying that any overestimate here is more than compensated for by the 'chain migration' and subsequent children that are not included in this cost estimate. And also, I further add that this figure does not include all the rest of the 3.8 million who came and who will either claim asylum (5,000 students a year do so) or simply overstay their visa and go to ground. After 5 years they will pop up, with a family in tow, and claim the right to stay here on humanitarian and family grounds.

The next question is how many immigrants will work and what will be their level of earnings? Again, the CPS have gone for the most insanely optimistic figures in both cases. As they admit: “for the sake of simplicity, we have assumed in our model that all adult migrants on work visas will be working, rather than incorporating dependants who may have essentially zero lifetime earnings.” And as for their earnings, they complain that “the quality of data on recent migrant earnings in the UK is desperately poor”, and then just groundlessly and unjustifiably divide migrants arbitrarily as 25% high-earners, 50% average-earners and 25% low-earners. This is utterly delusional.

We have already seen that the majority of those with even skilled worker visas are, in fact, doing minimum-wage work, and we have seen that most dependents are not working at all. A much better estimate – and even this is probably much too generous! - is to assume they are all low-paid, minimum wage workers. And not to exaggerate the overall cost we'll stick with the OBR assumption (even though this is also never justified) that migrants arrive on average at 25. And we'll also stick with the current lifespan, rather than the more obvious conclusion that this will be extended and therefore migrants will cost us more.

So what's the actual cost of the Boriswave?

The calculation is now very straightforward: using the figures above we have two million migrants who will cost £600,000 each over their lifetimes.

So the total cost is £1,200,000,000,000 – yes, that's right: £1.2 TRILLION !!!

This is more than FIVE TIMES what the CPS and Reform claimed, and is, as it happens, about the same as the government's TOTAL annual spending! This is insane.

As I said before – this will bankrupt Britain. We are completely fucked. Your children will live a life of poverty and misery.

And Reform's policy will NOT prevent this, as they are not going to remove the UK citizenship to those who have obtained it already, as these parasites will have done by the time of the next election. It's a complete disaster.

There is, however, one way for Reform to square the circle and keep their promise to honour the UK citizenship while saving Britain from total economic ruin: let them keep their UK citizenship but BAN THEIR BENEFITS unless they were BORN in the UK.

Will Nigel make this face-saving – and Britain-saving – U-turn? I don't know, but if you are a member of Reform, or have any influence over the leadership, please make sure they see this article and act on it!

I want to finish with a couple of broader criticisms of this policy: Yusuf (who is actually responsible for this policy) wrote in the Daily Telegraph: “Britain is going broke. Last year, the British taxpayer spent £266bn on welfare. £52bn of that went on Universal Credit. Of that, almost £9bn went to foreign nationals. One in 6 people on Universal Credit are foreign nationals.” This is absolutely true – but why then is Reform's policy only targeted at the Boriswave, and not all immigrants receiving benefits??

At the press conference Farage was asked about this several times, but kept stressing that he only wanted to talk about the most recent migrants, refusing to answer the broader question. Was this tactical, wanting to get the media – and through them the public – to focus on Boris Johnson's wrongdoings (and by extension the Tory party)? Or is he just too weak to grasp the nettle and get rid of all the foreign parasites? I really don't know.

The same applies to EU citizens claiming benefits. Thanks to pressure from Rupert Lowe the government was recently forced to reveal that around 700,000 EU citizens living in the UK are receiving benefits – and this does not include Irish citizens, who are counted as if they were British! These should all be denied benefits, but Yusuf merely said that Reform would seek to discuss this with the EU. That's just not good enough.

And finally, Yusuf stated: “We will also increase the qualifying period to become a UK citizen to 7 years.” Eh?? You waht?? Apart from the fact that this is only one year longer than the current rules, so is a pretty insignificant change and hardly “restores the treasured status” of British citizenship, the real question you have to ask is what on earth is the point of claiming you are restricting ILR and benefits to foreigners if anyone can just get around this by claiming UK citizenship after 7 years and then get all the benefits anyway? This makes no sense whatsoever! Reform really need to clarify their thinking here and tighten up the rules as this is just bonkers.

If you have any more information, or any comments, do let me know below! I always love to hear from my readers.

-----------

If you liked this article then please share it on Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to your friends.

Spread the word!!

And SUBSCRIBE NOW – it's FREE!

Thank you :-)

Good companies use SWOT analyses not just out of curiosity, but as a tool for change. If you can identify a weakness, and if you can change this into a strength, then this is an opportunity. So let's see what happens if we use this tool to analyse Reform UK.

Just over a year ago, at the general election in July 2024, a lot of patriots were bemoaning the fact that despite winning 14.3% of the national vote, Reform only gained 5 MPs (0.8% of the total) – far fewer than the 72 MPs won by the LibDems, despite them getting fewer votes (12.2%). Nigel Farage railed against the capricious unfairness of the first-past-the-post electoral system, vowing to campaign against this. Just over a year later and he seems to be suffering from electoral system Alzheimer's, as you never hear him mention it anymore. And not surprisingly – now FPTP's arbitrary proclivity to favour the largest party hugely benefits Reform!

One recent opinion poll (their best yet) has Reform on 34% of the vote, followed by Labour on 19%, the Tories on 15%, and the LibDems and the Greens tied on 12% each. This would give Reform a parliamentary landslide, with a predicted 445 MPs, with all the other parties trailing far behind: Labour 71 MPs, LibDems 48 MPs, and the Tories with a pitiful 14 MPs – behind the SNP on 41 MPs. So here's an example of Reform turning a weakness into a strength: by having a distinctive message it has been able to use the vagaries of FPTP in its favour.

Another opinion poll, looking at the voting intentions of C2DE voters, has Reform on 38%, the Tories on 17%, Labour on 15%, the LibDems on 11% and the Greens on 9%. This is not as great a strength as it may at first seem, since this group is the least likely to vote – indeed, the least likely to even be on the electoral register - but it is an opportunity, if they can get them to turn out to the polling booth. But getting this demographic to vote has always been a huge challenge, so will Reform be able to do so? Maybe. My view is that these people don't vote because they feel there's no point: all politicians are the same and they don't care about them, so whoever wins, they will always lose. If however Reform can get across the message that (i) they do care about these people, and (ii) they can win, then this segment of the electorate might feel sufficiently motivated to vote. But from personal canvassing experience I can tell you that many of these people do not even know how to vote, so Reform branches will need to put a lot of effort into this.

Unity is strength - but so is division!

Another opportunity is the potential appearance of the Corbynista party we have been promised – if the hysterical feminist nutjob Sultana doesn't sink it before it even sets sail. It is a statement of the obvious to say that we are no longer in the world of two-party politics, but the country is fractured into two sides: the patriotic, pro-Brexit, pro-Britain, anti-immigration, right-wing voters and the left-wing, internationalist, pro-immigration, high-tax-and-spend, woke imbeciles. In order to win you need to maximise your vote among 'your' political side. Given that, as the Brexit referendum showed, the country is pretty evenly split between the two sides, the more your side is split, the less likely you are to win. We saw that in 2024, when although the combined Labour-Liberal Democrat popular vote was actually down, the right-wing bloc was split between the Conservatives, Reform and the disillusioned stay-at-homers, and Labour were therefore able to win a landslide 411 MPs with just 33.7%, and despite winning 560,000 fewer votes than Corbyn did in 2019.

So in order for Reform to win in 2029 they not only need to maximise their share of the right-wing bloc, but they must also hope that the left-wing bloc is as divided as possible. This dual need explains both their willingness to take Tory defectors, as well as their undoubted glee at the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn launching his own party (if he can overcome his currant Sultana problems!). Let's look at the former group first. As well as a whole slew of Tory councillors, they have brought in former Tory MPs Jake Berry, Andrea Jenkyns, David Jones, Adam Holloway, Anne Marie Morris, Marco Longhi, Aidan Burley, Ross Thomson, Maria Caulfield and Nadine Dorries, and most recently the sitting MP Danny Kruger. [There was also Alan Amos, but the least said about this confused individual the better, as he was a Tory MP from 1987 to 1992, but left the party after an unfortunate 'incident' on Hampstead Heath, became a Labour councillor, left them and became an Independent, re-joined the Tories and then finally (?) in 2025 switched to Reform and is now one of their councillors on Worcestershire County Council!].

There is a second very important reason why Reform are eager to take on board so many former Conservative MPs: the main reason given, by voters who are considering Reform, for not supporting the party is their lack of experience in government. This is holding back 38% of 'Reform considerers', and is far and away their main concern. Nigel Farage is well aware of this and has mentioned it openly a couple of times. So taking these former MPs is a way of showing that the party is not a bunch of complete novices. Danny Kruger's scalp is the most valuable yet in this regard.

At this point it is instructive to look at where Reform’s supporters have come from. The answer is that 39% of their current supporters are those who voted for them in 2024; 21% voted Conservative last year; 18% did not vote; 15% voted Labour; 3% LibDems; 2% Greens; 1% SNP; 1% Other. So it is clear that Reform recruits from both ex-Tories and ex-Labour, as well as those disillusioned with both parties who therefore previously felt disenfranchised - it is not simply the new Conservative party, and must not allow itself to be seen as such.

So while recruiting former MPs may be an opportunity to show that Reform is gaining people with parliamentary and governmental experience, the fact that so many are ex-Tories is in some ways a threat to Reform, as the party could come to be regarded as simply the Tories mark II, the party of recycled Tory rejects and failures. But Farage wants to attract as many Conservative voters as possible, to hoover up all the votes of the right-wing bloc, and also get people with experience of government. It's a tricky balancing act, but the opinion polls suggest he seems to be performing it successfully, ironically helped by the fact that so many of these ex-Tories are such nobodies in the public mind that I bet even you had forgotten they had joined Reform! When specifically asked whether “Reform UK is just a party for previous Conservatives”, 32% agreed but 43% did not and 25% were Don't Knows. So overall this doesn't seem a huge problem yet, but a couple of defections from Labour would certainly be very helpful.

But back to Citizen Corbyn's Tooting Popular Front. If he ever gets his arse in gear and his party off the ground, the polls suggest that he would most likely get around 6% of the national vote, attracting the support of 15% of Green voters, 9% of Labour voters, and 4% of LibDem voters. This is not a lot, but in a tight race could make all the difference. And he has the potential to win as much as 18% of the vote, taking 47% of Green voters, 32% of Labour voters and 29% of LibDems. But the most significant impact of a Corbyn party joining the field is that it will negate the threat that would otherwise be posed to Reform by Labour's plan to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds.

Labour thought this would be a wizard wheeze, which would win them a shedload of votes from impressionable children they had brainwashed in the thought-control institutions previously known as schools, and this would see off the threat of Reform. But oh dear, it looks like they overdid that left-wing indoctrination and have handed those children straight over to the Corbyn Pied Piper. Those who will be 16 or 17 in 2029 are now around 13 years old, and these children have not been polled. Besides, they are probably not yet politically engaged, with their interest in politics only likely to develop later. So the best proxy for this group is to look at those who are currently 16 and 17 years old (and who have been polled).

The kids are allright

Now as it happens, while Labour does lead among this demographic, Reform are not as far behind as you might imagine, with Nigel Farage something of a TikTok star with 1.3 million followers. So voting intentions are Labour 30%, Reform 23%, and the Tories, the LibDems and the Greens all tied on 14% each. But look what happens when you throw Red Jez into the mix: Labour's support falls to 24%, Reform remain at 23% (Corbyn holds no appeal for Reform voters), Jez himself gets 21%, the Tories drop marginally to 13%, the LibDems to 12% and the Greens suffer the greatest drop in vote share, falling to 6%. The important point though is that Labour and Reform are now neck-a-neck and Labour's advantage – and the threat that reducing the voting age had represented - has been extinguished.

Let's turn from the youth vote – an area of relative, though by no means fatal, weakness for Reform – to the bro vote, an area of relative strength and clear opportunity, and the petticoat vote, a demographic which is a clear weakness but if they can address this then this could become an opportunity too. 36% of men believe Reform represents people like them, as opposed to just 27% of women. But look at the 'don't knows' – in other words those who don't actively disapprove of Reform's position and can be converted into supporters. The figures are 8% and 15% respectively. As for the youth vote, 25% of 16 and 17-year-old boys support Reform, compared to 19% of girls. When broken down by sex we see that a whopping 40% of boys have a favourable view of Farage (with a further 27% as don't knows open to persuasion), but only 20% of girls have a favourable view of him - but with a full 40% as don't knows who could be won over.

So there is plenty of opportunity for Reform to improve support among both sexes to over 40%. And the way to do that is, as the saying goes, 'show, don't tell'. So they can extend their male-vote lead by highlighting the young men coming through, such as George Finch, who at the age of 19 has become Britain's youngest council leader, running Warwickshire County Council. Research shows that young white men, who have been discriminated against both at school and in the workplace and told that their 'toxic masculinity' needs to be stamped out, feel that only Reform is sympathetic to them. But Reform are working on the female-vote too, which is why they have welcomed and promoted Tory defectors like Nadine Dorries (who, whatever you might think of her, has a regular and influential column in the Daily Mail), Andrea Jenkyns (who they pushed forward to be Mayor of Lincolnshire) and of course their new MP, Sarah Pochin.

What of the Great Leader, Nigel Farage: is he a strength or a weakness for Reform? Well, he is viewed favourably by 32% of the public, a favourability rating that is higher than that of any of the other party leaders (including among 16 and 17-year-olds). And he is recognised by 96% of the public, the same as the prime minister and significantly more than either Badenoch or Davey. And when the public are asked which of Starmer and Farage would be the best prime minister, 29% say Farage (including, amazingly, 11% of Labour voters!) compared to 27% who prefer Starmer. In a similar head-to-head, Badenoch is trounced by Starmer, getting only 15% of the vote. And 41% agree with the statement that “Nigel Farage looks like a Prime Minister in waiting” (compared to just 25% saying the same for Badenoch). So yes, despite my own personal misgivings about him, the polls show that in the country at large Nigel Farage is a strength for Reform.

But what about their policies?

A fascinating poll was conducted recently, with people asked to “imagine Britain a year into a Reform government” - what did they expect would be the result? Reform's key policy is on immigration, and this has clearly driven their success, with 51% of total respondents saying the problem of immigration would get better – including 65% of Conservatives, 48% of Labour supporters and even 42% of wet LibDems! Here is the statistical proof of what a strength Reform's immigration policies are. This is hardly a great surprise, since 72% think the level of immigration is too high, and only 19% think it is either too low or just right. But what about the rest of the important policy issues which worry the public? What percentage of people think these will improve under a Reform government?

Here are Reform's ratings, in descending order of public confidence that a Reform government would make things better (and remember that in every case there were around 10% of Don't Knows, who are open to persuasion):

Crime: 39%

The cost of living: 36%

The NHS: 34%

Taxes: 33%

Welfare: 32%

Energy costs: 32%

Education: 31%

The environment: 28%

Crime is clearly a strength, as 39% is well above Reform's voting intention rating, and none of the others are significantly below the party's overall standing in the polls (with the possible exception of the environment – but more on this below), so these are not weaknesses. What they are, therefore are opportunities: if Reform can focus on these issues (one at a time – neither the media nor the public are capable of taking on board more than one message at a time!), offering more detailed policies and hammering home how they will improve things.

And Reform have some great messages that they can, and must, push on several of these issues. On taxation, for instance, Reform have pledged to increase the tax threshold to £20,000, which will also help people on the issue of the cost of living. On the NHS, it is clear that Labour's scaremongering that Reform want to privatise this and make everyone pay thousands of pounds for an operation is not cutting through. But maybe some people are concerned by this so if Reform keep repeating that they believe in an NHS free at the point of use, but better run so that waiting lists are shorter, then this will improve their rating further. Remember that Farage talks about adopting a French or German-style insurance model for the NHS (and not, as Labour lie, the US model), which most independent observers agree would be a good idea. Besides, the old chestnut that 'the NHS is the envy of the world' is no longer believed, and 42% support the statement: “The NHS model is broken and needs to be fundamentally changed” and an outright majority – 57% - believe that reforming the NHS is more important than pouring more money into it. Times and opinions have changed, and contrary to what Labour believe, Reform's position on the NHS is a strength, not a weakness.

Net zero? Net opportunity!

On energy costs, which are also a major factor in the cost of living, Reform can promise to radically cut these by dropping the huge and unnecessary costs of net zero. This should be very popular. After all, you and I know what a disaster net zero is. But I can hear some of you saying, 'yes, that's true, but isn't net zero actually very popular with the public?' So isn't this anti-net zero policy a weakness and a threat for Reform? I'm glad you asked, because this issue is not as straightforward as the eco-fascist nutjobs would have you believe. They are always eager to point out that if you just ask the question “How important, if at all, is it for the UK to achieve net zero emissions by 2050?”, YouGov found that 35% say very important and another 30% say fairly important. So do 65% of the public support net zero? Not really.

Another survey, By More In Common, found that while 60% will give the 'politically correct' answer expected of them when asked if they are “worried about climate change” (21% say very worried and 39% somewhat worried), only 46% actually support Britain's net zero target, (equally divided between those who 'strongly' support it and 'somewhat' support it - 23% each). And if you drill down and ask what the top three issues facing Britain are, only 15% include 'climate change' – and even among the most indoctrinated 16 and 17-year-olds this only rises to 19%. So while people have been sufficiently cowed into parroting the approved lines on climate change and net zero, they are clearly merely paying lip service to them. And the figures become even less favourable to the eco-fanatics depending on how you frame the question and the debate.

Because what is clear from all the polling is that the price of domestic energy is what matters most: 88% of Britons are concerned about this (58% very concerned and 30% fairly concerned). And it's the “actions of the UK government” that people blame the most for the high energy bills, with 30% saying the government is “almost entirely responsible” and 45% saying it's “somewhat responsible”. At the same time, there is a lot of distrust of energy companies, both those based on fossil fuels and renewable energy. 54% say it's either definitely, probably or possibly true that “big oil companies are secretly funding climate denial to protect their profits”, but an even greater 62% say it's either definitely, probably or possibly true that “renewable energy companies are pushing the climate agenda because they stand to make huge profits”.

What this shows us is that there is huge anger, confusion and distrust among the public, both of the government and the companies. In other words, there is all to play for. “The game”, as Sherlock Holmes would say, “is afoot!” In this scenario the prize goes to he who is most persuasive. And given that nobody trusts the government, and that the Tories have largely swung their guns against the 2050 net zero target, Nigel Farage and Reform have a very good opportunity of winning this debate if they focus on two things: firstly, don't get involved in the debate over whether global warming is taking place, but do keep hammering home that whatever the UK does it will have NO noticeable impact, and secondly, keep repeating that what matters is cutting energy bills, not the dogmatic pursuit of an arbitrary net zero target that will make no difference.

There is one important 'nigger in the woodpile' that I must address here: between 40% and 55% of the public believe that renewable energy like wind and solar is the cheapest. (Interestingly, the wide range of poll results suggests there is a great degree of uncertainty in the public's mind). This is not true, of course, (given that these forms of energy are intermittent and need back-up power supplies, thus doubling their cost) but most people have not thought about this in detail and have been persuaded by the eco-liars that because the sun and the wind are free, these are cheap ways of producing energy. If Reform want to win the battle of ideas they must, MUST, expose this lie. And given that more people trust Reform to tell the truth than Labour (by 32% to 26% with 42% Don't Knows) they can achieve this if they focus on it.

This is the secret to victory in this debate, as another polling company (Merlin Strategy) proved by asking two crucial questions. Firstly they asked: should the government prioritise reducing energy costs or improving the environment? Even though this question was clearly biased by falsely suggesting that net zero schemes 'improve the environment', 63% favoured prioritising reducing energy costs. And secondly they asked: should the government reverse or keep any climate decisions or schemes that have led to higher costs? And 58% favoured reversing schemes that have led to higher prices. So it is clear that 'it's the bills, stupid' that matter most. If Farage and Reform focus on the argument that net zero and renewable energy has pushed up bills, they will win the debate.

The last point I want to make on the net zero issue is this: the most effective form of persuasion is one that appears the most reasonable and the most willing to take on board the other person's concerns. So rather than just rail against net zero in a belligerent and confrontational fashion the best approach is to point out that the UK has already cut its emissions by over 50%, and this is more than any other country. So the argument to make is that it is unfair and unreasonable to expect us to continue going further than others when this is costing us so much, and is having so little effect on the global climate, and that it is only right and fair that we now pause this policy and focus on cutting our costs, until all the other countries in the world have made the same efforts as we have. The beauty of this approach is that it focuses on fairness – which the British people love – and cutting costs – which the people are desperate to do – while not picking a fight with those who have been brainwashed into buying into net zero in theory.

The credibility factor

But it's no use having the best policies in the world if people do not believe you will deliver them. And this is where we come to what I believe is Reform's greatest strength: their credibility. 22% agree with what Nigel Farage says and believe he will “deliver on it”. Another 18% agree with him but doubt that he can deliver. Now you may think that 22% is not great, but here are the ratings for the other leaders: Starmer: 11% and 18%; Kemi Badenoch: 10% and 20%; and, to complete the picture, the clown Ed Davey: 9% and 19%. As you can see, Farage's rating on this crucial measure is more than double that of Kemi Badenoch.

In fact, when you add up all those who believe Farage will deliver on his policies – including those who do not agree with them – Farage is on 31% and Starmer on 19% (with Badenoch on 18%). This is quite astonishing when you think about it: people think that Farage is far more willing and able to deliver what he says than the man who is actually running the country!

And here are the results from a different polling company, that focused on parties rather than individuals: their first finding was that 77% think that “things are getting worse”. So which party is most trusted to effect change? Labour, who are actually in government, or Reform? The answer is that 42% say Reform and only 26% Labour! And when asked which party was most trusted to “improve things for people like me” 35% said Reform and only 29% Labour, with 36% Don't Knows - another huge lead for Reform (with a further third of the country open to persuasion).

Confidence in their ability to deliver is, by the way, one of the Tory party's greatest weaknesses – which matters given that Reform and the Tories are going head-to-head for many of the same voters. At their party conference next month Kemi Badenoch will announce all the promises and policies she's been working on for the last year, but who cares? Nobody's listening. Nobody believes she will or can deliver on them! I can already see Farage airily waving his hand and dismissing all the Tory promises with a very justifiable 'we've heard this all before' and a derisive shrug of the shoulders. And the public will agree with him.

And when you add up all those who agree with Farage (whether they think he will deliver or not) the total comes to 40%, compared to just 29% for Starmer and 30% for Badenoch. Again, this is a significant lead and shows that Reform's support can go much higher. And to confirm this, here's one final statistic which shows that Reform's pool of potential supporters is much greater than the left-wing haters, who can only scream 'racist' and 'fascist', realise: when asked what word they most associated with the thought of a Reform government, 44% said either 'hopeful', 'excited' or 'optimistic', and a further 18% were not hostile but simply 'ambivalent', 'curious' or 'uncertain'.

Icebergs ahead?

So Reform has the potential to rise up the polls much more. But will it? Or are there any threats on the horizon? Yes, there are.

Are you sitting comfortably? Good, because the next poll finding is going to blow your mind: 22% of Conservatives, 25% of Labour supporters, 21% of LibDems and 22% of those who say they probably will not vote all say that “Nigel Farage is not tough enough on immigration”. Yes, that's how far the Overton Window has shifted! This isn't a major problem for Reform at the moment as there isn't any party with a more attractive proposition on the Right (and hence only 10% of non-Reform voters cite this as a main reason for not supporting the party), but it could become so if a new, more hardline right-wing party emerges.

At this point I don't need psychic abilities to know what you are thinking. You are thinking Rupert Lowe, Ben Habib, Advance UK, and probably Tommy Robinson too. The likes of Nigel Farage, Zia Yusuf and Lee Anderson pooh pooh the electoral threat these represent. 'Rupert Who?' is their standard response. But they should not be quite so quick to mock. Yes, 'only' 33% of the public have heard of Rupert Lowe , but this is in the same ballpark as those who've heard of Reform stalwarts like Richard Tice (37%) and Lee Anderson (36%), and a lot better than their new MP Sarah Pochin (19%). I can't find any stats on Ben Habib and Advance UK, but suspect these are probably around the same as Rupert Lowe, and if Elon Musk – who is clearly well-disposed to Habib – were to bung Advance UK a few million quid, then who knows what might happen?

The main problem that Habib and Advance UK have is the failure of Rupert Lowe to join them. He seems happier being an independent, very good and hard-working constituency MP, and has given no indication that he will join a new party challenging Reform on the Right. This failure to 'Unite the Right' means that, unless Reform get their opportunity to govern Britain and then are seen to fail, Advance UK is unlikely to become a significant electoral force. Incidentally, Rupert Lowe's unwillingness to participate in Advance UK does seem to suggest that, nice guy though he certainly is, with impeccable political views, he is not really suited to be in a party – which is the accusation that Reform have made of him. I suspend judgement however and wait to see what happens.

The final threat relates to the economy. I'm not talking about a Rachel Reeves wet-dream fantasy where the brainless bint manages to actually get things right – that's never going to happen! No, I'm referring to the fact that public confidence in Reform's ability to manage the economy is one of the party's main weaknesses. With 27% of the public trusting them on this it certainly isn't terrible, but it is one of their weakest issues. Media commentators – even those sympathetic to the party – mention this regularly, creating a climate of doubt in the public mind. And the Tories know this and have made it clear they intend to punch this bruise. So it's vital that Reform address this quickly and with some major, confidence-building announcements.

Ironically, the highly-respected economics journalist Liam Halligan claims that both Nigel Farage and Richard Tice are among the most economically-literate MPs there are. And given the Liz Truss fiasco I would have thought that public confidence in the Tories' ability in this field to be in rather short supply. Nevertheless, public and media perception is what it is, and Reform need to act. Fast.

If I was Farage I would immediately establish an 'economics advisory board', inviting economists such as, for instance, the aforementioned Liam Halligan (who is clearly, to say the least, sympathetic towards Reform), Roger Bootle, Allister Heath and even Patrick Minford to join. They don't have to become party members, or even openly support it. Indeed, a degree of independence and neutrality would enhance the credibility of the group, and would demonstrate that Reform were serious about acting responsibly. I believe doing something like this would turn this weakness and threat into an instant strength and opportunity – it would immediately boost the party's credibility and support, and would even encourage more major donors, who want to back a party that can govern well, to come forward and boost their funds.

Well, there is my detailed analysis of Reform's Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.

I hope you have found it interesting and useful. If you know anyone in Reform do forward it to them! And, of course, I will be very interested to hear YOUR views in the comments below!

-----------

If you liked this article then please share it on Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to your friends.

Spread the word!!

And SUBSCRIBE NOW – it's FREE!

Thank you :-)

There is a lot of media talk about the government looking at introducing a digital ID scheme, supposedly to tackle the problem of illegal immigration. Is it a good idea? Would it work? I'll answer those questions, but first it's instructive to look at the history of ID cards in Britain to see how they have worked in the past and whether there is anything we can learn from these experiences.

ID cards were first introduced in Britain in 1939 through the National Registration Act 1939, in order to mobilise for war – including for conscription, rationing and civil defence. The card had a unique number and included the person's name, address, and date of birth, and the police could demand to see it at any time.

This was therefore more intrusive than the National Registration Act 1915 introduced in WWI. This obliged every person in the UK aged 15 to 65 had to fill out a registration form, providing their name, age, address, occupation, marital status and dependents. This information was compiled into a national register and each person was issued with a registration certificate with a unique registration number. But people were not obliged to carry this certificate around with them and the police could not stop you and ask to see it, so it was not what we would understand as an ID card.

The ID cards issued in WWII continued to be used after the war, for rationing and administrative purposes. But they became increasingly unpopular and in 1950 a man refused to show his card to the police. This led to a landmark case - Willcock v Muckle - in which the court criticized the misuse of ID cards for petty policing. Shortly thereafter, in 1952, Winston Churchill abolished ID cards.

Nothing more was said or heard of ID cards in Britain until the despicably evil Tony Blair – probably our worst post-war prime minister – passed the Identity Cards Act 2006. As now, illegal immigration was cited as a justification, together with terrorism. The idea was to have both a National Identity Register and individual ID cards, which would hold biometric data (fingerprints and facial scans). A pilot scheme began rolling out in 2008, with the establishment of a National Identity Register, and then ID cards issued both to foreign nationals and volunteers in Manchester and Liverpool willing to pay the £30 cost. A total of some 15,000 cards were issued before the Conservative/LibDem coalition government scrapped the scheme by passing the Identity Documents Act 2010.

And that should have been that. But here we are again. Having previously – just a few weeks ago! - rejected the idea of ID cards, Two-Tier Keir now says that things have “moved on”, and that an ID scheme could play an "important part" in tackling illegal immigration. Make no mistake – this is coming. Official sources have confirmed that the Cabinet has discussed “options around digital ID”, and new Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has stated clearly "my long term personal political view has always been in favour of ID cards".

When asked about the possibility of a compulsory scheme, the prime minister’s official spokesman said: “We’re willing to look at what works when it comes to tackling illegal migration.” Yes, that is how the Britain-hating piece of shit intends to persuade us to accept it: by using the illegal immigration invasion that he himself is responsible for in order to justify oppressing us even more, with all British citizens – as well as foreign residents – subject to the new scheme.

In order to make the scheme seem less intrusive, instead of issuing plastic cards that we are forced to carry around, the government is proposing a digital scheme, with everything held on our mobile phones. Pat McFadden (since the reshuffle on 5 September the Work and Pensions Minister but at the time the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) recently visited Estonia to see how their digital ID system works. They have one of the world’s most comprehensive systems, which you even use to access your bank accounts, to vote and to pay your taxes.

So that is the history of ID cards, and the position of the government, but the question we now must ask ourselves is 'are these a good idea?'

The government claims that these will reduce illegal immigration by reducing the pull factor of illegal working. This is also what the French government has claimed; they say that the reason for the surge in small boat crossings is because Britain’s black economy attracts asylum seekers who know that although they are barred from working while their application is being considered, they can easily find employment in service industry jobs such as delivering takeaways. The same applies to those who remain, illegally, even when their application for asylum has been rejected, or who overstay their work, visitor or student visa and simply go underground. These people can easily obtain illegal black economy jobs and illegal rented accommodation.

But would ID cards – whether physical or digital – put an end to this illegal employment and accommodation? Probably not: the underground economy in France, where ID cards are mandatory, is not very different from that here in Britain! And remember that British employers and landlords are already currently required to check the immigration status of new employees or tenants, and face large fines if they employ or rent to people without the right to be in the UK. However, there is very little enforcement action: that is the problem. Employers and landlords know full well that they are breaking the law but they don't care as this is very profitable for them, and it's been reported that “a typical employer can expect that the Home Office will check their verification processes once every 150 years”! As is so often the case when it comes to immigration, the government passes laws but doesn't enforce them, and then, when the problems persist, it thinks the answer is to pass more laws. No – just enforce the existing laws!

But even if, by some unknown miraculous process, a national ID system did stop illegal working and accommodation, would this really put an end to the pull factors that lure the invading army of illegal migrants to the UK? Hardly! Illegal immigrants just have to say the magic word 'asylum' (absolutely no proof of their claims is required, as I've previously highlighted) and they get free accommodation – either in hotels or luxury privately-rented housing (including brand new £300,000 town houses complete with en-suite bathrooms, electric vehicle charging points and underfloor heating). They get free money each week, a mobile phone or SIM card, free medical and dental care, computer and internet facilities, public transport, clothing and a host of freebies that you would barely believe, including free football tickets, driving lessons, PlayStations and even DJ lessons! None of these luxuries will be withdrawn as a result of ID cards. So you tell me – do you think the problem of the 'pull factors' will change?

So if ID cards are not going to stop illegal immigration – and they're not – then what's the point of them? Of course it's true that if we had ID cards then you could think up lots of ways to use them, from electronic voting to registering for a GP, but these would all be a form of post-facto justification. In other words the government would be trying to justify ID cards after introducing them rather than before doing so. It's a bit like buying a shiny new toy on impulse and only afterwards trying to find ways to use it in order to justify the expense.

And what would the cost be? In May 2007, the Home Office estimated the ID card scheme would cost £5.75 billion in the first decade alone. An independent analysis by the London School of Economics however costed the scheme at between £12 and £18 billion in the first decade! Admittedly, these figures applied to a scheme that involved physical cards, and the government is now talking about a digital ID system that would be on your smartphone, so they would argue that the cost would be lower, but would it? Much of the cost was the management of the central database, and updating this whenever there were changes to be made. And not everyone has a smartphone, so how do you deal with those who don't? Clearly there would be a need for physical cards after all. And those cost estimates date back some 20 years, so the real cost now would be much greater!

And there's another thing: beware of mission creep! The more expensive and controversial the scheme, the more the government needs to justify it, and the only way to do so is to find more uses for it – which would have the added benefit, as far as the government is concerned, of monitoring and controlling the population, all justified in the name of security! So your government-issued ID would inevitably be required to open bank accounts, probably even to make withdrawals, to buy mobile phones or register with an internet service provider, to open a social media account, to buy goods online, to pay your taxes and probably much more besides.

The pro-Labour think tank 'Labour Together' has been pushing for a compulsory digital ID for every adult, claiming (deceitfully, as we have seen) that this would crack down on illegal migration, but also saying it would provide the public with a “one-stop shop” for government services such as passports or benefits. They tried to make this sound attractive by claiming it would avoid the need for further identity checks, and even gave the scheme an ever-so-patriotic sounding name: the 'BritCard'!

So is that the real reason for the sudden impetus for a digital ID scheme: to impose complete control over the population? Partly, yes. Partly also there is no doubt that Labour do believe the simplistic mantra that this will somehow crack down on illegal immigrants (and given the rise of Reform in the polls they are desperate to do anything that will persuade the public they are doing something about this), but partly too it is simply the international politics equivalent of 'keeping up with the Jones's'. Remember that visit to Estonia by Pat McFadden I mentioned earlier? He was so smitten and envious of their shiny, all-singing, all-dancing technology that he was desperate to get his own version and not be like the poor kid without the latest expensive toy, and told The Times that “the UK risked being left “behind the curve” in adopting such new technologies”, which, with monotonous predictability, he lied could “tackle the number of small boats crossing the Channel” and even “boost productivity”, though where that assertion came from only God only knows!

The fact is that an ID scheme will do nothing to stop the illegal immigrants flooding into Britain, it will cost billions, it will be used to control every aspect of our lives, and it will not achieve anything that cannot be done already by other means. Those are the realities, but what about the politics?

I'll grudgingly give the government credit for their devious deceitfulness and for banging the drum about this being a tool to stop the invasion of foreign criminals and parasites. That is a message that is very seductive and effective in fooling the public. A detailed opinion poll shows that, when asked, the immediate public response to the proposal is an overall 57% in favour, with support strongest among Conservative voters (74%) and the over 55s (66%). This, however, is before they are asked to consider the details of how the scheme would work, what its benefits would be, whether the government could be trusted to implement it effectively, what information would be stored (such as DNA and fingerprints) and so on. When they are forced to use their brains, support falls dramatically – to an overall level of 38% in favour, and with support falling most among Conservatives (down to 39%) and the over 55s (down to 31%). This just shows what moronic sheep these people are, that they instinctively support and believe the government liars until they are forced to actually use what little brains they have!

Although the public can be persuaded to oppose the scheme, I believe the government is now determined to force this through. The big questions that remain are exactly what personal details will be stored on the card (whether physical or online), how it will be used, and whether the police will have the right to demand to see this on the spot. In other words, how much of a police state are we heading towards. The omens are not good. The only hope is that Reform – who are most likely to form the next government – will promise to scrap the whole thing. Given that it will take at least 4 years to get this off the ground (taking into account the time needed for consultation, legislation, software development, the compilation of a national database, etc), this would mean the whole scheme would be stillborn and never adopted.

So what is the Reform position? If you have a Reform MP, or any influence in the party, please forward this article to them and try to persuade them to abort this abomination!

-----------

If you liked this article then please share it on Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to your friends.

Spread the word!!

And SUBSCRIBE NOW – it's FREE!

Thank you :-)

Politicians want to be popular. In the past they would seek to achieve this by governing the country effectively, giving us a healthy economy with rising living standards, a low crime rate, an increasing quality of life and all the other things that ordinary people expect from their government to make them happy. But nowadays politicians cannot deliver any of these things. They cannot control crime or immigration. The economy is flatlining. Living standards are falling.

So if they can't control the big things, politicians increasingly resort to trying to control the little things, and if they can't show that they are able administrators of the country, then they will resort to trying to play on your emotions. Thus politicians today increasingly engage in emotional blackmail, claiming to be morally virtuous and devoted to protecting you and your loved ones, especially your children.

After all, who doesn't want to protect children? How evil must you be to object to measures that keep children safe from harm and abuse? But the desire to protect children, and fear of being seen as someone who puts them in danger, is also the weapon used by oppressors who deceitfully pray-in-aid child safety when in reality they want to control you and remove your freedom. This is why the Simpsons meme “Won't somebody please think of the children” is so effective at highlighting the manipulative dishonesty of controlling and abusive people who hide behind their fake concern for children.

Politicians want to be in control. They don't trust you. Why, you might have the impertinence to not vote for them! You might even be one of those far-right extremists that thinks that the British government should, maybe, prioritise looking after the interests of the British people! No, this sort of 'wrong-think' needs to be stamped out. And the only way to do that is to crush all freedom of expression on the internet. Just like those wonderful Chinese, Iranians and North Koreans have done.

And thus was the Online Safety Act 2023 born. This was created, never forget, by the Tories: originally conceived by the emotionally incontinent feminist and religious fanatic Theresa May, then put before parliament as a Bill by Boris Johnson, the man who, despite pretending to be a libertarian, was actually the enemy of freedom (remember the lockdowns?), and finally passed into law by Sunak. You can never hate the deceitful Tory scum enough! Labour want to control you because they are socialists who think they are morally superior to you (you are probably racist, sexist, nationalist and who knows what else!) and you need a Stasi state to keep you decent, while Tories want to control you because they are patricians who think they are intellectually and emotionally superior to you, and you are just a child that needs a nanny state to tell you what to do.

But it is only now that the Act has come into force. And the result is that we are now all subject to more censorship and internet oppression than exists in any other democratic country in the world. There is no freedom of expression on the internet any more – either to say what you want or to see what others have said. We are now living in a dystopian nightmare where even music websites like Spotify are restricted, and valuable discussion forums that help families going through difficult times, like Dads With Kids, are forced to close down because the Act's compliance costs are just too onerous and costly for small organisations.

To give you an idea of how far-reaching the consequences are, you now need to verify your identity to access the Reddit forum on cider, and we have even lost – and no, this is not a joke – The Hamster Forum: “Home Of All Things Hamstery”! The owner of the website explained: “I would probably need a lawyer and team of experts to be able to fully comply with everything” and that he was quoted £2,400 a year to use an external age-verification service in compliance with the Act. So the forum has closed. Now if you are not a lover of cute little hamsters you may not think this is particularly important, but it is a straw in the wind, an indication of how restrictive and burdensome the new rules are. And that is not funny.

The government, however, is intransigent and will not back down. Peter Kyle, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, has said “verifying your age keeps a child safe” and has accused Nigel Farage – who has said he will repeal this appalling legislation if Reform win the next election – of being 'on the side' of paedophiles like Jimmy Savile! Peter Kyle is, of course lying. Adults having to prove their age when they visit a perfectly legal website does NOT keep children safe. Age verification will not present an obstacle to paedophiles, nor will it protect children. Oh, and by the way, if anyone is 'on the side' of Jimmy Savile then surely that's Keir Starmer, who was Director of Public Prosecutions when the Crown Prosecution Service decided NOT to bring charges against Savile!

The Online Safety Act has, in fact, got absolutely nothing to do with protecting children from paedophiles. This was not what it was designed for and was never its intention. So let's get that clear from the start. Child porn was of course already illegal and therefore on secret and unregulated websites and the Act does not prevent paedophiles from trying to contact and groom children. Talking about Jimmy Savile was a complete distraction and misdirection by the lying piece of shit Peter Kyle, who was trying to deceive the public and use emotional and moral blackmail to browbeat people into complying with their own oppression.

The government says that “The Act requires all companies to take robust action against illegal content and activity.” Yes, this is true, but it is a smokescreen. You do not need a new law to tackle things that are already illegal, as these are dealt with in the existing legislation that makes them illegal in the first place! If that legislation is not strong enough it is a simple matter to amend the existing law – you do not need a new law.

The main focus of the Act is on material that is completely legal, but which the government says might be harmful to some children – and even adults! One of the inspirations for this new law was the tragic suicide of 14-year-old Molly Russell. This poor girl was extremely depressed and spent most of her time online viewing thousands of pages of material and images concerning suicide and self-harm on Instagram and Pinterest. She also had a Twitter (as it was then known) account where she wrote about her feelings of being “unwanted” and “irrelevant” and said that her mind was “full of suicidal thoughts”. She even wrote “everyone is better off without me”. This is just so, so sad. No child should ever feel this way.

So of course I can understand that the government felt it should 'do something'. But just because the Online Safety Act is 'something' this doesn't mean that this is what should be done! The Act will not help future Mollys. One of the stated aims of the Act is to reduce the amount of material on the internet that children will see “that encourages, promotes, or provides instructions for either: self-harm, eating disorders or suicide”. The BBC report that “Peter Kyle said key to the rules was tackling the algorithms which decide what children get shown online. "The vast majority of kids do not go searching for this material, it just lands in their feeds," he told BBC Radio 5 Live.”

This just shows how unbelievably stupid Peter Kyle and the rest of Tory and Labour ministers are! YES – children (and adults) DO 'go searching for this material'! That's precisely how algorithms work: by offering you more of what you have shown you are interested in! Has material on suicide ever 'just landed' in YOUR feed? It hasn't in mine. Ever. Molly did go looking for this material, and that's why it was promoted to her. So yes, by all means get internet companies to change their algorithms if you want, but it won't make any real difference, because those attracted to this material will just go looking for more of it anyway.

And the same applies to (normal, legal) porn. Ofcom claim that 8% of children under 15 visited an online pornography site or app over a month-long period. In other words, they went searching for it. And enforcing age-verification won't stop this, as they will simply use a VPN. Besides, this is perfectly normal and a rite of passage for teenage boys – like passing round adult magazines at school in the old days. It's part of growing up and we shouldn't become hysterical Victorian prudes.

As for 'violent online content' Ofcom say: “Sharing videos of local school and street fights has also become normalised for many of the children. For some, this is because of a desire to build online status among their peers and followers.” So banning the sharing of these videos because they are “violent” will simply prevent children from seeing and being aware of what is happening in their area, and thus make them more vulnerable to attack because they won't be aware of the danger!

The internet is NOT the problem. And very few websites actually promote this self-harming behaviour. Most are there to provide help for people feeling this way. One of the main Twitter accounts that Molly followed actually promoted a helpline for those who are suicidal – it did not encourage suicide at all. But that is irrelevant if one feels this way. And truth is irrelevant to governments when what they really want is to censor things they don't approve of.

The internet is actually part of the solution. Child suicide is heartbreakingly sad, but the answer isn't to treat adults as children, or indeed treat all children the same way. Happily, the vast majority of children are not suicidal, and are therefore not at risk. So the answer is to focus on those children who are at risk. And the best – indeed, the only – people to do this are the children's parents. Now I accept that even good parents might not realise their child is depressed. Molly's didn't. But they would have realised if they had seen what she was looking at and what she was writing online! So there is the answer: make it easier for parents to monitor their children's online activities.

All children's phones and computers are bought for them by their parents, so, when buying these, it should be possible to require that they come with software that allows them to be monitored by another, specified, phone or computer. Parents need to take responsibility and, to coin a phrase, take back control! Children are children, not short adults, and they need care and guidance, love and instruction. They cannot and should not just be allowed to do what they want without their parents knowing what they are doing, or when or with whom they are doing it! Parents should not offload their responsibilities on others and ask the government or internet companies to do their work for them.

Sadly, the government are only too happy to usurp the role of parents, because this allows them to treat us all as children, and control us all. That's why the Online Safety Act extends to so much more than preventing children seeing material related to suicide and self-harm.

So the Act forces companies to take action on what the government decides is 'misinformation' or 'disinformation', or what the government considers “hate content including where such content is racist, antisemitic, homophobic, or misogynist”. The Act justifies this by declaring that internet companies have a “duty of care” and must therefore “protect” users from harm, where “harm” includes psychological harm. But this is absurd, because what might cause psychological harm to one person will have absolutely no effect on someone else. But if internet companies fail to comply they can be fined up to £18 million or 10% of their worldwide revenue, whichever is greater, and criminal action can be taken against senior managers.

These penalties are so severe that they have, and will, and are designed to, provoke a risk-averse response, resulting in anything and everything that might not meet the rules being restricted or outright banned. So X has now restricted access to footage of people being arrested in Leeds while protesting against asylum seekers’ hotels, and videos of a speech made in Parliament by Katie Lam MP detailing the horrors of the rape gangs have also been blocked. Just think about that: instead of tackling child abuse the government now bans the reporting of child abuse. The result of this is to protect child abusers, whose actions we will not now know about. Hey, Peter Kyle, who's the paedophiles' friend now, eh?

The government says that “Ofcom is now the regulator of online safety”, but that's a lie. It's the government that now has the power to decide what you can say or see. The Secretary of State can set Ofcom's strategic priorities and direct them to modify any code of practice, “for reasons of public policy”. The government can also issue guidance to Ofcom about how to exercise its duties, and require Ofcom to issue public statements that oblige a platform to take action in response to public health, public safety, or national security. Basically, the government has complete control over what Ofcom does, and Ofcom has complete control over what internet companies are allowed to do. Are you beginning to see the problem?

Well, the bad news is that things are going to get worse. Oh yes. Much worse. As reported in The Critic: “The Prime Minister himself has said he is considering strengthening the Online Safety Act in the wake of the 2024 summer demonstrations, and it is reported that the police have established new units to monitor online discussion which could provoke civil unrest. The ratchet is only turning in one direction, that of far greater monitoring of speech online, and the use of age-verification laws as a form of digital ID card by stealth”.

And what nobody is reporting is that on 25th February this year Starmer introduced the Crime and Policing Bill 2025 to the House of Commons; it's currently going through the House of Lords and is well on its way to receiving Royal Assent. The government say that the Bill aims to“crack down on crime and antisocial behaviour”, and one of the ways the Bill will achieve this is through the introduction of 'Respect Orders'. If you haven't heard of these yet then just you wait – you will!

Although the government claim that these Respect Orders are needed to keep the streets safe, there is no restriction in how or why they are used. As reported in Spiked, “These orders are potentially so draconian and wide-ranging that they could well end up being used for very different purposes – including silencing anyone who says anything online that the authorities disapprove of. Under the bill, police, local authorities and a number of other bodies will be empowered to ask courts for ‘respect orders’ that can either prohibit someone from doing or require them to do ‘anything described in the order’. You read that right – anything. The only condition that needs to be satisfied is that the court thinks, on a balance of probabilities, that the person ‘has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person’.”

So what if the police, or your local council, dislike something you posted online? Maybe you complained about illegal immigrants who had assaulted a child, or criticised the council over their bin collections. All they have to do is persuade a judge that this caused someone “distress”. And what could happen then? You could then be legally forced to delete your post, avoid discussing the topic or the person in future, stay off social media completely, or even hand over your phone and computer.

We saw after the atrocious triple child murder in Southport by the vile second-generation immigrant Axel Rudakubana how the government tried to crack down on free speech. Well the new Crime and Policing Bill will make such suppression and oppression of the British people so much easier, as the bar for conviction will be so much lower. Indeed, you won't be able to defend yourself at all, since there won’t even be a need to warn you before the trial. Yes, the court can issue an interim order without notice, and breaching it carries an unlimited fine or two years in prison. This new law will be the perfect tool for the state to censor speech.

In 1983 the band The Police sang: “I'll be watching you, every single day, and every word you say.” In 2025 it's the real police who will be saying this. Get a VPN. Only use anonymous accounts. Protect yourself. You are now living in a communist dictatorship. The government, the police and the courts are your enemies. You have been warned!

-----------

If you like this article then please share it on Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to your friends. Spread the word!!

And SUBSCRIBE NOW – it's FREE!

Thank you :-)

The history

In 1513 the Chagos Archipelago – consisting of some 60 islands, the largest of which is Diego Garcia – was discovered by Portuguese explorers, who named it. The islands were uninhabited and of no interest to anyone, so were promptly forgotten about until 27 April 1786 when Britain claimed them. We were the first to do so but did not, however, establish a colony there. France, which already controlled both Mauritius (which they called Isle de France and which they had taken in 1715 after the Dutch - who had first landed on the then uninhabited island in 1507 - had abandoned it in 1710), and the Seychelles (which was uninhabited when France seized them in 1756), decided that they rather fancied the islands too. France cheekily started issuing permits for coconut plantations there and in 1793 they established a colony on Diego Garcia and transported African and Malagasy slaves there. Both the Chagos Islands and the Seychelles were administered from their base in Mauritius.

During the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) France used their naval base in Mauritius to attack British shipping in the Indian Ocean. We got rather fed up of this impudence so decided to take the island. Our first attack in August 1810 was unsuccessful, and France was so elated at their victory that they commemorated it on the Arc de Triomphe. Britain's second attack a few months later was successful however, and Mauritius was formally surrendered to Britain on 3 December 1810. Oddly enough, there is no monument in Paris to commemorate this historic event! The Treaty of Paris, signed in May 1814 after Napoleon's defeat, abdication and exile to Elba, officially ceded Mauritius, the Seychelles and the Chagos Islands to Britain.

In 1835 Britain abolished slavery on the islands described by British hydrographer James Horsburgh as “one of the wonderful phenomena of this globe”, and all was well in this little corner of paradise. Until 1963. Then, concerned about the prospects of Soviet expansion in the Indian Ocean, the United States asked Britain's Labour government to find an uninhabited island where the US could establish a naval base. In return, the US offered to waive their research and development fees related to Britain’s Polaris missile programme, valued at $14 million – which is the equivalent of about £110 million today.

Initially the island of Aldabra (north of Madagascar) was selected, but this turned out to be a breeding ground for rare giant tortoises. This led to protests from the environmental lobby, supported in parliament by the MP Tam Dalyell, and this option was therefore abandoned. In 1966, Labour Defence Secretary Denis Healey observed: "As I understand it, the island of Aldabra is inhabited - like Her Majesty's Opposition Front bench - by giant turtles, frigate birds and boobies."

So Diego Garcia was chosen. Fortunately the Chagos Archipelago only had some 1,500 or so (nobody is clear about the precise number) Chagossian human beings living on it; these were considered far less important than turtles and were dismissed by one British diplomat as “some few Tarzans or Man Fridays” and by another as people with “little aptitude for anything other than growing coconuts” who were “unsophisticated and untrainable”. The US insisted that they wanted them all removed (not just the ones on the island of Diego Garcia), with American Admiral Elmo Zumwait making this very clear: “My own personal desire was to have no “indigenous” labourers on the island because I could foresee the kind of political complication that the Soviets always make when you have that kind of “indigenous” population. Therefore, I strongly advocate that there be none there when we take over and establish the base”. Note, by the way, the unambiguous statement that the US would “take over”!

This is when the Chagossian “population problem” (as the Foreign Office described it at the time) began - a long, tortuous and sad story that was all so unnecessary and that has created all the problems that we have today. [The story of the Chagossians is too long and complex to go into here, but they were shunted from pillar to post, had their pets killed and burned in front of them, and were rendered stateless, homeless and poverty stricken]. We should simply have told the US that while the population of Diego Garcia would be evacuated, those living on the other islands of the archipelago would be allowed to remain. Instead, the Labour government, under Harold Wilson, decided to force all the Chagossians to leave. Meanwhile, just to exacerbate the problem, there was a growing political movement for independence – and to claim as much from Britain as possible. Labour, then as now, were only too happy to divest Britain of its imperial legacy, and therefore went along with this.

As we have seen, there was no natural historical link between Mauritius and the Chagos Islands. Although the latter were administered by Britain from Mauritius, this was just for our administrative convenience. Indeed, so were the Seychelles, until 1903. There is no link between the people of the two islands, as neither were native and both were introduced by Europeans. Although most Chagossians were sent to Mauritius some also went to the Seychelles. Mauritius and the Chagos Islands are not even close – they are some 1,300 miles apart! Indeed, Chagos is closer to the Seychelles, the Maldives, Sri Lanka or even to India. Mauritius’s claim is obviously utterly spurious.

In 1965, the independence discussions, Mauritius actually wanted the Seychelles (which are not only larger and more valuable than the Chagos Islands but also much closer). Unfortunately, there was a separate, growing independence campaign in the Seychelles too, so this wasn't possible politically. Instead, Mauritius was promised the Chagos Islands, if and when we no longer needed them for defence purposes, as well as a sweetener of £3 million for agreeing to this arrangement – which they did. [Note that in 1972 we voluntarily paid Mauritius a further £650,000 and in 1982 yet another £4 million.]

Following agreement with Mauritius, and in order to prepare for the administrative split, Britain created the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), which consisted of the Chagos Islands as well as a few others (including Aldabra – the turtle island). [When the Seychelles were granted independence in 1976 these other islands were given to them, and BIOT was left with only the Chagos Islands.] In 1966 we leased Diego Garcia to the US for 50 years (extendable for a further 20 – which occurred in 2016) for the princely sum of $1 per year, on the basis that it would be made available to meet the defence needs of both governments, and in 1968 Mauritius was granted independence.

All sorted, then? Not a bit of it. By agreeing to eventually give Chagos to Mauritius, and paying them compensation for not receiving these islands right away, Labour had stupidly accepted and agreed that these territories were linked, and the UN General Assembly objected to the establishment of BIOT, claiming we should have immediately given the islands to Mauritius, stating that "Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations".

The General Assembly does not have any formal power, and the UK has a veto over any actual decisions, so we ignored this statement. In 2010 however Britain decided to create the Chagos Marine Protected Area (MPA) – a massive marine reserve (the 3rd-largest in the world) encompassing all the waters around the islands. Although purportedly this was done for environmental reasons, a leaked diplomatic cable between the US and UK revealed that the FCO asserted that restricting fishing in the MPA would be the "most effective long-term way to prevent any of the Chagos Islands' former inhabitants or their descendants from resettling."

The fact that this political motive was the real one was confirmed by the fact that, as the cable went on to say that "the terms of reference for the establishment of a marine park would clearly state that the BIOT, including Diego Garcia, was reserved for military uses” and that the British government sought “no constraints on military operations” (meaning this could cause environmental damage). Furthermore, while all fishing is supposedly banned, this does NOT apply to the US military on the base, who in 2010 (the only year figures were leaked) caught more than 28 tonnes of fish!

Instead of putting an end to our Chagos problems this actually made things much worse, as it triggered a complaint from Mauritius who initiated a legal challenge, leading to a 2015 decision by the Permanent Court of Arbitration that ruled that the MPA was illegal. This however only related to the marine reserve, not our sovereignty over the islands. The dispute got worse though when, in 2017, the United Nations General Assembly referred the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in order to clarify the legal status of the Chagos Islands. In 2019 the ICJ found that “that the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when that country acceded to independence and that the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible”. The ICJ did, however, repeatedly make clear that this was only an “advisory opinion”.

The ICJ has NO remit to adjudicate between Commonwealth countries (as both the UK and Mauritius are). The UK therefore initially ignored the judgement, but in November 2022, the Tory government inexplicably caved in and Foreign Secretary James Cleverly announced we would begin negotiations on sovereignty. True, Cleverly suspended the talks, but his successor, David Cameron, started them again! And this is what led directly to where we are now. It's no good the Tories whingeing about Starmer's capitulation: they were the ones who conceded the case in the first place. Everything has followed on from that. If only they had heeded Churchill’s words to Roosevelt and Stalin at the 1945 Yalta Conference: “I will have no suggestion that the British Empire is to be put in the dock and examined by everybody to see if it is up to their standard. Never. Never. Never… Every scrap of territory over which the British flag flies is immune.”

Starmer's Surrender

There endeth the history lesson. So what has Starmer now gone and done? To see the truth let's go straight to the actual text of the agreement:

(i) The preamble says that it is “mindful of the need to complete the process of decolonisation of Mauritius”. So there you have it – right at the start. This is all about Starmer's hatred of the British Empire. And do you remember where the reference to colonisation comes from? Yes, the ICJ verdict which was only advisory! So it is clear that Starmer has accepted this verdict even though there was no need to do so.

(ii) Article 6: “Mauritius is free to implement a programme of resettlement on the islands of the Chagos Archipelago other than Diego Garcia”. Incredible! After decades of saying it was impossible and unacceptable for the Chagossians to return to the islands, guess what? It turns out that this is perfectly possible after all! If the government had agreed this from the start NONE of these problems would have ever occurred. The whole problem is a self-inflicted wound. We didn't just shoot ourselves in the foot – we shot ourselves in the head! And the problem is that while we've said that Mauritius can resettle the Chagossians, Mauritius has an appalling record of discrimination against the Chagossians and has not said that it will do so.

(iii) Article 10: “suitably qualified Mauritian nationals shall be employed as contractors on the Base to the maximum extent practicable”. Note that Mauritius wanted their own nationals to receive preference and excluded the Chagossians! Even British companies that might want to tender for work will be discriminated against! And how secure is it to have Mauritians who support China working on a top secret military base?

(iv) Article 13 sets out the duration of the agreement: 99 years. It can then be extended by a further 40 years, and after that for another indeterminate period. But any extension after the 99 years can be rejected unilaterally by Mauritius. So this crucial defence facility is only secure for 99 years. Modern politicians have no concept of the long-term. But you never know what will be important in the future. After all, we took possession of Chagos 210 years ago, and now it's really important. We look back on the British rulers at the time very fondly. But what will future generations think of what our governments are doing today?

Labour's lies

No wonder Navin Ramgoolam, prime minister of Mauritius, said this was “a great victory” in a live broadcast. The UK is giving away an island it already has and will have to pay to lease it back for 99 years, after which we could lose it forever. In what world does that make any sense? In the world of left-wing liars such as Keir Starmer and Foreign Secretary David Lammy. Just look at what they said:

Starmer said: “If we do not agree this deal, the legal situation would mean that we would not be able to prevent China or any other nation setting up their own bases on the outer islands.” LIES! If we hadn't agreed the deal the whole archipelago would have remained ours and we would have simply repelled (no doubt with the help of the US) any country trying to set up a base.

Lammy said: “Diego Garcia faced the prospect of international court rulings that would have rendered the base inoperable. Even if Britain refused to comply with international rulings, our allies and partners would.” LIES! The only partner we have on Diego Garcia is the US, which does NOT recognise the ICJ. So WHY would the base have become “inoperable”? And WHO would have been able to stop us operating it?

Starmer said: If our sovereignty is challenged the electromagnetic spectrum (which allows satellite communications) at Diego Garcia could be restricted by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), “rendering it practically useless.” LIES! The ITU cannot engage in territorial disputes (it's not in their remit), and Labour was later forced to admit “The ITU cannot challenge the UK’s use of civilian or military spectrum.”

Lammy said: Without an agreement “Our land, air and sea operations would have been compromised. We would have been unable to safely berth nuclear-powered submarines”. LIES! This is drivel. WHY on earth would we have been unable to do this? WHO would have stopped us? This is all just mentally retarded garbage!

But maybe the biggest lie is over the cost of the deal.

OK, here's the costings:

£165m a year for the first 3 years (deliberately front-loading the costs).

£120m a year for years 4-13.

£120m plus inflation for years 14-99.

PLUS:

£45m a year for 25 years for development.

£40m one-off for Chagossian fund.

The government claim that, over the lifetime of the deal, the cost to the taxpayer would only amount to £3.4 billion after adjusting for inflation and economic growth. But at the same time they say the average annual cost will be £101 Million. But £101 million x 99 years is £9.999 billion! But just adding up the actual figures – and without factoring in inflation – the cost comes to £13.18 BILLION. Are they mad??? And bear in mind that they assume inflation will be 2%, whereas this is currently 3.5%! And what “economic growth” are they counting on? We are barely in positive territory!

If you do the calculation properly, and include inflation (and even assuming the 2% inflation target is permanently achieved!) the total cost is actually £30.3 BILLION. And with higher, more realistic inflation, this deal will cost a lot more!

But here's an interesting thing

Article 15 says that Mauritius can terminate the agreement if the UK does not make the payments agreed. But it is the Agreement itself, in Article 1, that concedes sovereignty of Chagos to Mauritius: “Mauritius is sovereign over the Chagos Archipelago in its entirety, including Diego Garcia”. So what happens if a future UK government – say a Reform government – simply stops paying Mauritius and they terminate the agreement? We revert to the status quo ante – ie. the position before the Agreement was signed, when the UK did NOT accept Mauritius's sovereignty over the Chagos Islands! So far from being a negative this is actually exactly what we should do!

The government keep saying that the US and other allies support the deal, but why wouldn't they? They're not paying for it – WE are! The US stay in charge and we pay. And the US is in charge - the US official military website states: “Great Britain maintains a presence on the Island”. Maintains a presence! That's it!

Who else is happy? Well, a certain lawyer called Philippe Sands KC. Who's he? Well, Starmer calls him a “friend” and he calls Starmer a “great friend”. He even helped Starmer when he ran for the Labour leadership in 2020. Yes, they've been close friends for over 20 years. And guess what? Philippe Sands just happens to be the legal counsel advising the Mauritian government on their bid to get control of Chagos. And he's even got Mauritian citizenship. And their highest award - the Grand Commander of the Order of the Star and Key of the Indian Ocean! Isn't that a fortunate coincidence – that Starmer's great mate is so happy with Starmer's unfathomable betrayal of Britain?!

So who isn't happy? Well, firstly, the Chagossians, who have been so cruelly and unfairly treated all these years. Mauritius has been awarded a £40 million fund to help them but who is to say how this money will be disbursed? Mauritius is a notoriously corrupt country. Pravind Jugnauth, the Mauritian prime minister who negotiated the deal with both the Tories and later Labour, has been arrested on money laundering charges! Yes, these are definitely people who can be trusted!

Government lawyers say the treaty is “clear” that Mauritius will “be able to implement a programme of resettlement on the islands of the Chagos archipelago”, but confirm that “it is necessarily uncertain to what extent and how Mauritius may take this up”, adding that the UK will have “no control” of the trust fund supporting the Chagossians and it “will be administered by Mauritius”. Well, that's all very encouraging, isn't it?

And of course the main victims of this fiasco are the British people. Our interests have been betrayed, once again. Richard Tice has said that Reform would want to reverse this deal. GOOD. I want to hear the party repeat that and put it in their manifesto.

The great fear, of course, is what will this treasonous government agree to in the current negotiations with Spain over Gibraltar, or in future negotiations with Argentina over the Falklands? Starmer and the Labour party are ABSOLUTE SCUM. I despise them. Roll on the next general election – we must make sure they are destroyed!

-----------

If you like this article then please share it on Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to your friends. Spread the word!!

Thank you :-)

Every single element of the 'deal' between the UK and the EU benefits the EU more, much more than it does us. Every. Single. One. This is not surprising, as the final agreed document was clearly written by the EU and makes clear at every stage that the EU is in charge. Indeed, it is called: “A renewed agenda for European Union – United Kingdom cooperation”; note how the “European Union” comes before the “United Kingdom”.

There was no need for any of these changes. We were doing fine, and had completely adapted to life outside the EU. The only reason for this complete capitulation and betrayal is that this is what Starmer wanted. The truth slipped out (but was largely unreported by our left-wing media) in 2023 when Starmer was addressing a conference in Montreal, Canada, where he said: “most of the conflict with the UK being outside of the EU arises in so far as the UK wants to diverge and do different things to the rest of our EU partners … you know actually we don't want to diverge”. So there you have it. Starmer always wanted the UK to be the EU's bitch.

If you read that quote again carefully, you'll see there are in fact three things wrong with it:

(i) Starmer believes that having different views to the EU, or wanting to do things differently, is “conflict”, and this is automatically bad. He does not, however suggest that the EU should follow Britain, oh no, it's always us who have to capitulate like good little slaves and follow the EU. The notion of Britain being an independent and self-confident nation that acts in its own best interests is simply unimaginable to Starmer. [Incidentally, as an aside, it is this mentality - the belief that prioritising British interests is an evil nationalistic thing that Labour must avoid at all costs - which is behind their desire to give away the Chagos islands – and pay billions in the process!]

(ii) He refers to the EU as being our “partners”. NO, they are NOT our partners! And the EU most certainly do NOT see us as their partners. The EU see us as rivals, as competitors, and as opponents who need to be crushed, dominated and vanquished. And this they have now succeeded in doing, thanks to their quisling, Starmer.

(iii) Starmer's vision was always one where the UK does not diverge and we do not do anything differently to the EU. So obviously it then makes sense to just let the EU make all the decisions and we'll follow along behind like the pathetic little poodles that he wants us to be. But then, what's the point of Brexit? Well, obviously there is no point. And that is why we are where we are now: with Brexit effectively overturned. This was always Starmer's objective. So it is not just the EU that got exactly what they wanted, but Starmer has got what he wanted too. The end of British independence.

So what exactly does Starmer's capitulation to the EU mean? Read on. Here is your best guide to the extent of Labour's betrayal of British interests. Make sure EVERYBODY you know sees this!

Fishing

This has caught all the headlines, so I will start here, even though this is not, incredibly, the very worst element of Starmer's surrender. The UK and EU fishing quotas in British waters were due to come up for renegotiation next year, when we would have been able to increase our quotas every year thereafter, thereby helping our fishing industry to rebuild and grow. The truth is, of course, that we should already have complete and unilateral control of our own fishing waters. This is how every independent country acts, but this was betrayed by Bozo the Buffoon. EU-quislings will say that Britain's fishing industry is a tiny part of our economy, but that's the whole point: it is not fulfilling its potential – that's why we should support and grow it!

We should say to the EU that we will let them take the same volume of fish from British waters as British fishermen take from EU waters. That is a fair and balanced and equal approach. Instead, we allow the EU to take SEVEN TIMES MORE fish from our waters than we take from theirs (by value). In money terms, this means that EU fishermen take around £500 million of fish each year from UK waters! No wonder this is so important to them.

So what has Starmer agreed? He has extended the current obscene EU quotas for a further 12 years – until 2038! This is much worse than anybody feared. And Starmer has the absolute gall to pretend this is a good deal by saying this will provide certainty and “stability” because there'll be “no increase in EU quotas in UK waters”! You have to wonder how stupid and gullible he thinks we are. There NEVER WAS going to be any increase in EU quotas – only CUTS. But any hope of that is now lost.

The most revealing moment was when Starmer notes that the current fishing agreement was set to end in 2026, after which there would have been yearly negotiations - Starmer says that would have meant “no stability for anyone”. Here Starmer is copying the words of European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, who talked about the need for “stability” for EU fishermen. And that's what Starmer means when he says “anyone” - he is focused on the needs of EU fishermen, not British ones. Because under the current arrangements British fishermen would have been able to get increased quotas – and while an increase is not 'stable' it is a GOOD THING. We don't want 'stability' if this is stability of poverty!! And in order to try to fob us off Starmer says that the government will invest £360 million in the fishing industry and coastal communities. But investing in coastal communities and the fishing industry was always the plan, and we certainly don't need an agreement with the EU in order to do this!!!

This surrender will be devastating to the fishing industry. Mike Cohen, chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, has said the deal is “very, very disappointing” and a “big blow” to Britain’s fishing industry. And Elspeth Macdonald, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, spoke for all Britain's fishermen when she said: “This deal is a horror show for Scottish fishermen, far worse than Boris Johnson’s botched Brexit agreement. … At the weekend, Sir Keir said the deal would be measured against how much it would improve job prospects and allow our communities to flourish. Giving away a national asset such as our rich and healthy fishing grounds for no discernible benefit not only fails both of these tests, but is a disgrace that will ensure the enmity of this proud industry for many years to come”.

The final ludicrous nonsense is when Starmer says this EU deal helps us sell more fish - but as we've seen, we will not be allowed to catch any more fish and you can’t sell what you’re not allowed to catch. The most important point to remember is that Britain is a net importer of fish - often buying our own catch back from the EU!

Food standards

Probably the biggest betrayal signed off by Keir Starmer is that the UK will now have to slavishly follow EU sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) rules – ie. standards on animals and plants.

Here is what the agreement says. It is very important to understand it:

What it says: “In terms of its material scope, the SPS Agreement should cover sanitary, phytosanitary, food safety and general consumer protection rules applicable to the production, distribution and consumption of agrifood products, the regulation of live animals and pesticides, the rules on organics as well as marketing standards applicable to certain sectors or products.”

What it means: By including the “production” of agrifood products this means we must now kill off our hugely promising gene edited food industry. The EU does not allow gene editing, because they are so scientifically retarded that they do not understand that this is completely different to genetic manipulation. It has the word 'gene' in it so it must be the same, they think! Fucking retarded mongs. Nobody has picked up on how devastating this is going to be. Gene editing allows the production of food that is healthier, that lasts longer, that can be grown more easily (with less water, fertiliser and insecticides), and that is cheaper. Britons are not as stupid as EU governments: a recent survey found that 69% of UK adults strongly support gene editing, with this increasing to a staggering 80% of Gen Zs who support the technology. Too bad, it's now been flushed down the EU toilet.

What it says: “Within the scope defined above, the SPS Agreement should ensure the application of the same rules at all times by providing for timely dynamic alignment of the rules applicable to and in the United Kingdom acting in respect of Great Britain with all the relevant European Union rules, giving due regard to the United Kingdom’s constitutional and parliamentary procedures; and where necessary to ensure the European Union’s level of food, sanitary, and phytosanitary safety, through the immediate application of the relevant European Union rules”

What it means: “dynamic alignment” means that the UK will have to meekly obey and slavishly copy whatever the EU decides to do at any time in the future. Forever.

What it says: “The United Kingdom should be able to take targeted action to protect its biosecurity and public health, in the same way as Member States under European Union law. In addition, the SPS Agreement should include a short list of limited exceptions to dynamic alignment. An exception could only be agreed if: (i) it does not lead to lower standards as compared to European Union rules, (ii) it does not negatively affect European Union animals and goods being placed on the market in the United Kingdom in respect of Great Britain, and (iii) it respects the principle that only animals and goods compliant with European Union rules move into the European Union.”

What it means: If we want to make any changes to our food rules these have to be agreed by the EU (we have no freedom to act independently) and – and here's the killer – we can't make any changes that “negatively affect European Union animals and goods being placed on the market in the United Kingdom”. So we can't have rules that are better or stricter than those of the EU. And here's the most important point that nobody is mentioning: this means we will have to allow EU food with insects and their larvae maggots to be sold in Britain. Yes, it's true.

In 2021 the EU approved mealworm (beetle maggots) as what they called a “novel food”. This is used as an ingredient of several foods found on EU supermarket shelves, such as bread, biscuits, cakes, etc. Since then, they have authorised an increasing number of other insects, such as locusts, house crickets and both lesser and yellow mealworms. This is obviously a trend that will continue, and we must now accept this in our foods too! Nigel Farage and Reform should be focusing on this – assuming they are even aware of it! Will someone please tell them? I'm pretty sure there is very little public support for eating maggots!

What it says: “The SPS Agreement should be subject to a dispute resolution mechanism with an independent arbitration panel that ensures the Court of Justice of the European Union is the ultimate authority for all questions of European Union law.”

What it means: The European Court of Justice now has control over the UK once again. We must obey whatever they say. We no longer have judicial freedom, sovereignty or independence. This independence from the ECJ was a key aspect of Brexit and now it's gone. And so Brexit is now over too. We are once again under the control of the EU. Brussels can now dictate to us, permanently and unilaterally.

What it says: “The SPS Agreement should provide for an appropriate financial contribution from the United Kingdom to support the relevant costs associated with the European Union’s work in this policy area.”

What it means: Britain is going to have to PAY THE EU in order to be ruled by them! This is like the Chinese government forcing the families of people who have been executed to pay for the bullets that killed their loved ones! How much will we have to pay? As much as the EU think they can screw out of us. This alignment is supposed to save us maney but we will end up paying instead. And the craxiest part is that the EU will benefit more than us (given that they export more to us than we do to them) - so they should be paying us!!

Starmer says that this will help ease UK food exports to the EU and cut prices in the UK. But what he is not telling you is that only a handful of British food exporters have any problems now – certainly not enough to justify this massive and costly change. Indeed, the only reason the official statistics show a fall in food exports to the EU is because of a statistical change in how the records are kept, as we no longer record the re-exports of imported food (like bananas, oranges and melons) as exports.

A small crumb of comfort is that it will reduce the checks on fresh food going from GB into Northern Ireland, bringing them back into the Union, although of course the best solution to that issue is to simply SCRAP THE WINDSOR AGREEMENT. Sadly, Nigel Farage never seems to mention this. Does he even care about Northern Ireland and the Union?

Overall, making the import and export of agrifoods easier benefits the EU much, much more than it does us: the UK is the EU's biggest market by far – we take 23% of all their exports! In 2023 (the most recent figures available) the UK exported agrifood products worth some £13 billion to the EU, but imported around £43 billion worth! Starmer says that supermarkets are happy because they will be able to import more from the EU and prices will come down, but that's because EU farmers are subsidised more than British ones. Indeed, the increase in food imports is NOT a good thing, even if it is a bit cheaper. In fact, our level of food self-sufficiency and security is at an all-time low.

We have never grown less of the food we need. The amount of food we consume that is grown in this country has fallen from 78% in 1984 to 62% in 2023. Take one of the most basic, everyday foods: chicken. We used to be self-sufficient in chicken. As recently as 2020, 96% of the chicken we ate came from the UK. That fell to 82% in 2023 and since then has fallen off a cliff. Richard Griffiths, chief executive of the British Poultry Council, said it was currently running at “60 to 65% … probably closer to 60 per cent at the moment”. Although most whole chickens sold by supermarkets are British, when it comes to packaged food, supermarkets and their suppliers are increasingly relying on imports. According to the NFU president, Tom Bradshaw: “The vast majority [of supermarkets] are being absolutely duplicitous and the moment they think that poultry becomes invisible — in ready meals or sandwiches — they are importing it from Poland, Brazil or Thailand”.

There are two problems. Firstly, foreign food is usually cheaper because standards are lower (including in the EU, by the way). But secondly, planning costs and restrictions make it almost impossible for British farmers to expand. One farmer, for instance, has complained that to install a couple of new chicken sheds the application process alone would cost between £30,000 and £40,000. And there is, of course, no guarantee that permission would be granted. Adam Couch, the chief executive of Cranswick, a large supplier of pork and poultry to supermarkets, explained that he wanted to build a farm in Norfolk large enough to house 700,000 chickens: “We’ve been in discussion with the local planning authority for coming up to four years”. But when Norfolk finally made a decision guess what? They rejected the application!

And it gets worse! When it comes to vegetables the amount we grow is only 53% of our needs. We’re not even self-sufficient in potatoes, for heaven's sake! This over-reliance on food imports is not only bad for our economy but very dangerous in terms of national security. What if there is another pandemic that disrupts global supplies? Or just a major incident that blocks the Suez Canal? Or simply some disruption at Dover or Felixstowe – the two UK ports we rely on for most of our food imports? The supermarket shelves will empty, there'll be panic buying and people will go hungry. You have been warned!

What we actually need is a government that is really serious about IMPORT SUBSTITUTION – relying on British production rather than on imports. I've never heard Nigel Farage or Reform say anything about this, which is extremely disappointing. The EU believe that neither a future Tory or Reform government would dare go back on any of Starmer's concessions, because they would then threaten to make food trade more difficult again, but we need a government that says 'fine, let's have less trade. Let's have import substitution instead'. And given that we import so much more than we export to the EU, the reduction in imports will allow British farmers to sell all their food to British supermarkets, meaning they will be no worse off at all – indeed, they'll probably be better off! Labour have claimed that being tied to the EU's food standards will boost exports of foods like salmon and shrimps, but the fact is that we import far more of these than we export to the EU, so import substitution can only be GOOD for these industries!

Linking the UK and EU carbon Emission Trading Systems

In another disastrous betrayal of Britain's interests, Starmer has agreed to a “European Union-United Kingdom agreement linking the United Kingdom Emission Trading Scheme (UK ETS) and the European Union Emission Trading System (EU ETS)” (Oh yes, the EU gets top billing, as always!).

What it says: “The United Kingdom cap and the United Kingdom reduction pathway will be guided by the United Kingdom’s Climate Change Act obligations and Nationally Determined Contributions. They should be at least as ambitious as the European Union cap and the European Union reduction pathway.”

What it means: Britain cannot have lower net zero targets or carbon taxes than the EU. In other words, we cannot have any commercial advantage, and we can’t bring energy bills down for either consumers or businesses. An independent energy consultancy, Watt-Logic, has calculated that net zero is costing us over £17 BILLION per year, and that since 2006 it has cost us around £220 BILLION. This is both madness and a complete tragedy. Just think of all the good we could have done with that money. All wasted …

What it says: “The agreement should provide for an appropriate financial contribution from the United Kingdom to support the relevant costs associated with the European Union’s work in this policy area.”

What it means: We are going to have to PAY to be part of this scheme. How much? Again, nobody knows! I can sense a nasty surprise coming!

What it says: “Within that scope, the agreement should ensure the dynamic alignment of the United Kingdom with the relevant European Union rules underpinning the functioning of the ETS link, giving due regard to the United Kingdom’s constitutional and parliamentary procedures.”

What it means: Look, it's that “dynamic alignment” again! Once again, it means that from now on the EU make all the decisions, and we have to follow and obey whatever they say, no matter how much it costs us. We have no freedom, no choice, no independence and no control. Brexit, what Brexit?

What it says: “The agreement should be subject to a dispute resolution mechanism with an independent arbitration panel that ensures the Court of Justice of the European Union is the ultimate authority for all questions of European Union law.”

What it means: Yes, you guessed it – we are once again under the thumb of the European Court of Justice! A country without control of its laws and the courts that impose those laws is NOT a free, independent and sovereign country.

Labour have told all sorts of lies about the implications of the UK joining the EU's Emissions Trading System. They say it “will help bring down energy bills in the future and enable businesses to avoid the £7 billion costs of the EU’s carbon border tax” - but hang on: net zero is pushing energy bills UP, not bringing them down, and the maximum saving British companies would make from being excluded from the EU carbon tax would have been some £800 million a year (NOT £7 billion!). And if the EU had put tariffs on UK companies we could simply have retaliated with tariffs on imports from the EU – and guess what? We import a lot, lot more than we export, so we would have been the clear winners in that sort of game!

What is NOT in the agreement

Those are all the things that have been agreed, but what about all the things that are NOT included in Starmer's surrender deal? The agreement leaves out more than it includes, merely listing the issues that need to be discussed further. This is a long and surprising list!

Security and Defence. Although the UK and EU did sign a security and defence agreement today (called the “Security And Defence Partnership Between The European Union And The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland – see how the EU is mentioned first, as always?) this does NOT, surprisingly, and contrary to what we were led to believe, mean an immediate UK entry into the EU’s €150 billion (£126 billion) defence fund to allow UK arms companies to bid for military equipment contracts.

The European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said that the defence and security agreement signed today was merely “the first step” towards British participation in a the scheme. And the UK will have to pay to take part (yet again!), but when Von der Leyen was asked at the press conference how much this would cost us she refused to answer!

I have previously written a very informative article on how the UK is getting screwed by the EU on defence equipment purchasing. If you haven't read it I highly recommend you do so.

Here it is: https://britishpatriot.substack.com/p/starmers-military-betrayal-of-britain

The reality is that the UK joining this scheme will not bring in a single extra penny to the UK. EU governments will continue to do what they have always done: actively and deliberately discriminate against UK companies. Anyone who fails to understand this is quite literally mentally retarded.

Indeed, it's being reported that the French are trying to limit UK firms to accessing just 15% of this fund. The final arrangement has yet to be agreed but we know that the EU has always discriminated against us, always – so how stupid, how moronic, do you have to be to think they will suddenly change now??? This is insanity of the highest order! On the contrary, it is the UK that will end up spending more money. We will have to pay BILLIONS to take part in this defence scheme (the EU is, of course, refusing to say exactly how much, but some estimates are around £10 BILLION), and pay to buy EU military equipment.

E-gates. Probably the most surprising omission is a final agreement on the ability of UK travellers to use the e-gates at EU airports. You have to laugh – this is such a big deal to the perpetual Remainer Remoaners, who keep lying that they have to queue at the passport control for hours when they travel to the EU. The truth is however that many EU airports ALREADY allow UK visitors to use the e-gates. So only a limited number of travellers will save any time. Furthermore, given that EU citizens make up the vast majority of travellers within the EU, often the queue for non-EU passengers is much shorter! So it is debatable how much time will be saved – and in any case we are only talking about a few minutes. Let's get this in proportion: it's about as trivial an issue as you can get!

Nevertheless, the poor little Remainers do keep crying about it, so this was a major issue in these negotiations. But all Starmer got was an agreement to continue talking about this. Actually, the statement in the final text of the agreement is very revealing. It says: “The United Kingdom and the European Commission will continue their exchanges on smooth border management for the benefit of their citizens, including the potential use of eGates where appropriate. They note that European Union citizens can use eGates in the United Kingdom and that there will be no legal barriers to eGate use for British Nationals traveling to and from European Union Member States after the introduction of the European Union Entry/Exit System.”

Did you notice the spelling there? It referred to “British Nationals traveling to and from European Union Member States”. Err, excuse me, but “traveling” is the AMERICAN spelling. In Britain we spell it “travelling”. This proves that this document was written by the EU and simply translated into English, probably using Google Translate.

Did you also notice that it said: “there will be no legal barriers to eGate use for British Nationals”. In other words, EU governments will be legally able to allow British visitors to use the e-gates, but nowhere does it say that they will have to do so. If they want to be awkward they can continue to prevent them from using these gates. Just as happens NOW. Even Labour's Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, who led negotiations with the EU, told BBC Radio 4’s World at One that “there is no legal barrier for the use of e-gates by UK citizens across member states, and it is about individual member states.” So the reality is that NOTHING is going to change any time soon!

And did you also notice that it says that British passport holders will be able to use EU e-gates “after the introduction of the European Union Entry/Exit System”. Yes, AFTER the new border scheme for registering visitors from outside the EU arriving in the bloc begins operating – expected to be in October.

The EU know how keen Starmer is to get this emblematic issue over the line, so are using access to E-gates as leverage in the talks on youth mobility. Catherine Barnard, a professor of European law at Cambridge University says the agreement between the UK and the EU only mentions the "potential use of e-gates where appropriate”. Her conclusion? “It's up to the member states to work out when they will introduce this - so don't hold your breath."

This notion that allowing UK travellers to use the e-gates is a huge 'concession' by the EU that we have to 'pay for' in some way is as grotesque an example of EU pettiness, racism, meanness and obnoxiousness as you could come up with. Just think about it: allowing visitors (from whatever country, not just the UK) to use the e-gates costs the EU NOTHING. It also proves just what a mean, nasty, petulant organisation the EU is. Why make life as difficult for visitors – instead of as easy - as possible? Is this how you greet visitors to your home? The UK, remember, continued, even after Brexit, to allow EU visitors to use our e-gates. Why didn't the EU reciprocate? Because, as I've always said, they are BRITAIN-HATING RACISTS. This, of course, is precisely why we had to leave.

Migrant returns deal. There is NO mention of a UK-EU migrant returns deal, or even the promise to discuss one in the future. It seems this was not even part of these talks. So no, there is ZERO chance of Starmer getting agreement to send all – or indeed any – of the illegal migrants invading Britain across the Channel back to France, which is the one thing the public would expect from a deal with the EU.

Youth mobility (covering activities, such as work, studies, au-pairing, volunteering, or simply travelling). The EU very much wants a youth mobility scheme so it can export its unemployed young people to Britain. Many people innocently imagine that a youth mobility deal would simply mean some sexy Swedish au-pairs, or frolicking French waitresses, coming here. The sad truth is that many of those that will come will actually be third-world invaders who got residency or asylum in an EU country but really want to come here. In Germany, for instance, people can get citizenship after just three years. And the scheme will be open to those up to the age of 30, so many will have families. Let's wait and see what is agreed, but I'm not too optimistic!

European Union Erasmus+ programme. There will be discussions on this student scheme, to allow EU students to come to British universities. Again, the EU is very keen on this, as our universities are so much better than theirs. This is not just some jingoistic boast, it's a fact: independent assessments say that of the world's top 10 universities, for instance, FOUR are British (Imperial, Oxford, Cambridge, UCL) and NONE in the EU.

Touring artists. Some British musicians – especially the perpetual whinger Elton John – have complained about the EU making it difficult for them to tour EU countries. Instead of complaining to the British government about this they should have protested to the EU, as they are the ones that have created the problems! But the EU is refusing to offer any concessions on this, it seems.

Mutual recognition of conformity assessment. What Starmer isn't telling you is that he asked Brussels for a “mutual recognition of conformity assessment” agreement, which would have allowed products certified in Britain to be accepted in the EU without unnecessary and costly duplicate testing. Instead of insisting that the UK's and EU's rules are identical we would have agreed to have different rules but accept that these are equally good. But guess what? Brussels rejected this out of hand. Why? Because this would have benefited the UK. Independent studies have estimated that a conformity assessment deal could deliver an average boost of around 10% to UK exports, with sectors such as industrial machinery and electronics seeing increases of close to 30%.

Yes, the EU’s reluctance to sign such a deal with the UK is PROOF of their ANTI-BRITISH HATRED AND RACISM. Because the truth is it already has these agreements with seven other countries: Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the USA, Israel and Switzerland. As the Financial Times reports: “John Springford, of the Centre for European Reform think-tank, said the decision was a question of “pure politics” rather than legal barriers, and that the potential benefits for both sides were significant. “It’s strange that the EU is willing to allow the US to judge the conformity of goods to EU standards, but not the UK, despite its continued alignment with EU rules in the goods sector,” he said.”

Gibraltar. A deal is currently being negotiated. Given Starmer's record when it comes to dealing with the EU, and the precedent he set with his surrender of the Chagos islands, one shudders to think what is coming here!

Recognition of professional qualifications. There is NO recognition by the EU of British professional qualifications. This would have benefited professionals like lawyers, architects, etc. Everyone knows that British exports of services are a major part of our economy, so getting the EU to accept our qualifications would have boosted this sector. Instead, we got NOTHING – except an agreement to TALK about this. Wow, great …

EU financial passports. The EU passporting system for banks and other financial services companies enables firms that are authorised in any EU or EEA state to trade freely in any other. When we left the EU they immediately tried to destroy the City by removing these passports from British financial institutions. The City thrived nevertheless, but a return of financial passports would be a GOOD THING. And that's precisely why the EU have refused. They did not even agree to talk about them. Yes, the EU really do HATE us. Always remember that!

So there you have it: the BEST analysis of this deal you will find anywhere. This is why you should SUBSCRIBE – and remember, it is FREE!

The only note of optimism that I can think of is the old adage: 'No government can bind its successor'. In other words, after the next election (in 2029) the next government can tell the EU to get stuffed – this agreement is no longer agreed. But will they do so? I certainly don't trust the treacherous Tories, that's for sure! But what about if Reform win the general election? I suppose that's our only hope, but let's see what promises Nigel Farage is willing to make. I have to say he seems to have had very little to say so far, and all I've heard him talk about is the fishing element of the deal - although in fairness it could just be that the media have been focusing on Starmer and Badenoch and have frozen him out. Let's see what happens over the next few days and weeks!

-----------

If you liked this article then please share it on Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to your friends. Spread the word!!

Thank you :-)

Here it is: https://britishpatriot.substack.com/p/defence-of-the-realm

(While you're at it, do look at the other 'back catalogue' of fascinating and informative articles on this website – you won't find anything as interesting anywhere else! And SUBSCRIBE – it is free, remember!)

A recent article in The Times reveals that the defence review is looking even worse than I had feared, with senior military sources calling it a “mess” and a “complete damp squib”, “without any numbers attached to it” and lacking any “specific detail”.

One of the problems is that the government want to tie this review to the closer ties they want with the EU. And when I say “closer ties”, I mean “subservience”. Kier Starmer is determined to be the EU's bitch. He is about to announce a UK-EU Security and Defence Partnership, and will pretend that this will open up huge opportunities for the UK's defence industries to benefit from EU investment. But it's a LIE. All the investment will go the other way: from the UK to the EU. We are, once again, about to be robbed blind.

Starmer is claiming that a security and defence partnership will enable UK companies to access the EU's new €150 billion rearmament fund – part of the ‘ReArm Europe’ plan, designed to help EU member states replenish and modernise their armed forces. However, it is now being reported that “amid the usual bureaucracy and infighting in Brussels, there are growing doubts over whether this military bonanza will ever materialise. Experts warn that European governments’ desires to boost their own domestic industries, placate voters and staunch their bleeding budgets could slow or even thwart efforts to strengthen the bloc’s defence. This means that even if Sir Keir secures a ticket to ride the European defence gravy train, it may never leave the station”.

We are going to keep hearing stupid claims, like that of Labour’s Liam Byrne, who chairs the business and trade committee, who said: “There’s an opportunity here for UK industry to play on a much bigger pitch”. Cretinous garbage and lies. As even Anand Menon, director of the think tank 'UK in a Changing Europe' (a pro-EU organisation!), admitted, the key problem is that “for Europe to be efficient and effective, governments would have to spend defence money on other people’s defence industries”. And that will NEVER happen. European countries are NEVER going to sacrifice any of their own defence industries or jobs by giving contracts to UK companies for the 'greater collective good'.

The problem with love-struck EU-worshippers like Starmer is that they don't understand that the EU only wants the UK in order to ABUSE us. The UK-EU relationship has always been an ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP, with European politicians making damned certain that the EU got all the benefits while the UK got all the bills. The only country that is willing to sacrifice its own defence industries, its own jobs, and its own military independence and security in order to promote European cooperation is the UK. Because we are the only country governed by traitors. This is not an opinion – it is a fact that is clearly visible and happening already – and that started under the treacherous Conservative quislings. There is zero difference between the Tories and Labour!

Due to repeated betrayals by both Tory and Labour governments and ministers, Britain is now – in military terms – increasingly becoming a vassal state of Germany. Yes, I'm afraid that is true. Just look at the facts. First, under the Tories, the British Army decided to buy the Boxer armoured vehicle, produced by a consortium consisting of the German company Rheinmetall (the main partners) and the Dutch company RBSL. In order to get the approval of the brain-dead British media they revealed a photo of the vehicle with a Union Jack painted on it! Yes, that's all it takes to deceive the simple-minded media.

The Boxer programme of 623 vehicles is costing Britain some £5 billion, but rather than invest this is a British company and a British design, which would make us independent and secure and could then be exported and even earn us money, the Tories chose to just give this to Germany. The government have got the fig-leaf of a British factory which assembles these vehicles under licence – meaning that we cannot export them and have to keep buying from Rheinmetall or they will close the factory. We are now hostages of Germany's Rheinmetall and need to keep paying them more and more.

And it gets worse. When we decided we needed a new mobile artillery unit what did we go and buy? A British one? NO. The RCH (Remote Controlled Howitzer) 155 – a wheeled self-propelled howitzer originally developed by the German company Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (which then changed its name to KNDS), and based on the Boxer platform. Procurement Minister James Cartlidge stated that the RCH 155 programme was “potentially worth upwards of £3 billion” and marked “a step change towards a deeper industrial and wider defence relationship between the UK and Germany”. What he means by “relationship” is the UK giving Germany all our money to buy their weapons instead of creating an independent British military capability. Not really a relationship, is it? It smacks more of servitude to me.

Again, we are being given the fig-leaf of being allowed to make some bits of the RCH155, but not the whole thing, and again, we do not get the benefit of making any exports. Indeed, we face the humiliation of having to wait to get our howitzers after Ukraine, who will receive these first. When Germany will allow us to have some is not yet known.

A precursor of the UK-EU Defence Pact was the Anglo-German 'Trinity House Agreement', signed last year in London on 23 October by Defence Secretary John Healey and his German opposite number, Boris Pistorius. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said the agreement “marks a fundamental shift in the UK’s relations with Germany and for European security”, and that, “This agreement between Europe’s two biggest defence spenders will strengthen national security and economic growth in the face of growing Russian aggression and increasing threats.” Err, NO. What it marked was the UK agreeing to give Germany billions of pounds to promote their companies, while getting nothing but crumbs in return.

And we even need to pay for the crumbs. For instance, one element of the deal is that Rheinmetall (yes, them again!) will establish a 120mm calibre barrel manufacturing facility in the UK. But this isn't an act of friendship – it's because we bought the Rheinmetall L55A1 120mm smoothbore gun for our Challenger 3 tanks as part of an £800m contract we gave them to upgrade 148 tanks. So we are now paying the Germans so that we can be allowed to make the barrels for our own tanks!

And it gets worse! The Rheinmetall L55A1 120mm smoothbore gun is significantly less lethal than the existing, British-designed and made, rifled L30A1 main gun, which these tanks currently have, because the German guns do not have the depleted-uranium (DU) ammunition capability which the British ones have. According to a UK Parliament note from 2001 on the use of depleted uranium in tank ammunition, the rounds have a 10-20% greater penetration than tungsten and are easier to manufacture.

Incredibly – and no, this is not a joke – we are told that one of the reasons for switching to non-DU ammunition is the “health risks” that can result “particularly for operators of tanks struck by DU rounds, which was established could lead to levels of DU in the kidney (4ppm) that exceed toxicity thresholds and result in a maximum whole body radiation dose (40-48mSv) outside the UK annual occupational radiation limit (20 mSv/year)”. So we are worried about the “health risks” to enemy tank operators that are hit by DU rounds! You really couldn't invent this madness!

In order to achieve the armour penetration levels reached by DU, tungsten-derived rounds have to travel at higher speeds than existing tank ammunition, so the MoD now wants to develop new armour-piercing tank ammunition called the Enhanced Kinetic Energy round. And guess who they are paying to do this work? Yes, of course, it's Rheinmetall again! We are now paying Rheinmetall to come up with a solution to the problem of the ineffective ammunition used by the guns which we have paid them for. You could not make up the stupidity and weakness of our government!

The other reason for opting for the Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore gun is that it will provide uniformity with other NATO countries. Here again, we see the fundamental weakness of British politicians: they are cowardly internationalists who do not want Britain to go it alone and be different and independent. We must do what other countries do. We must cooperate with other countries. We must sacrifice our interests for those of other countries. And that's another reason for the UK-EU defence pact: to align the UK with EU defence plans and efforts and to do joint defence projects with EU countries. And as we have seen, 'joint defence projects' means we give them all our money and they get all the benefits.

Britain’s defence budget is set for a significant increase, with the government committed to raising defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027: an annual increase of £13.4 billion. But what is the benefit to the UK if all this money goes to EU – and especially German – defence companies? This is the fundamental problem: the British government is not prioritising British interests, British companies, British jobs and the British economy.

The sad fact is that even Nigel Farage doesn't get it. Just like Labour and Tory politicians who are besotted with an unrequited, obsessional love for the EU, he is besotted with an unrequited, obsessional love for the US. So his complaint about Britain being sucked into this UK-EU Security and Defence Partnership is not that tens of billions of British pounds will be given to our EU rivals, making them stronger and richer and us weaker and poorer, but that a deal that involved military alignment and intelligence sharing with the EU could "fundamentally damage our relationship with NATO and America". Oh for fuck's sake man, give it a rest! Fuck NATO. Fuck America. Fuck one-sided “relationships” with other countries. What about BRITAIN???

What matters is that British money is spent here, in Britain, and ONLY here. We need to invest in British technology and British companies. We do have them, you know. Take Msubs, for instance, a company based in Plymouth that specialises in automated submersibles. They are currently developing an unmanned submarine, christened 'Excalibur', officially designated as an Extra-Large Uncrewed Underwater Vessel (it's 36 ft long and 6 ft wide), represents cutting-edge maritime technology, and is designed for both Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) duties as well as other tasks that can take advantage of its ability to house large, custom payloads.

So why, given that we have brilliant companies such as this one, did the MoD approach a German company, Helsing, to provide an underwater surveillance drone? The plan, codenamed Project Cabot, is actually a good one: to use a fleet of hundreds of underwater drones for maritime surveillance, monitoring the so-called GIUK (Greenland-Iceland-UK) gap, as well as most of the North Atlantic, listening out for ships and submarines, and using AI to identify them from their acoustic signature - the sound they make.

But why on earth are we funding a German company to do this instead of a British one? Once again, this demonstrates that Starmer and the Labour government simply do not care about Britain. And it gets worse. The acoustic signatures which Helsing will use to identify the ships and submarines are classified material that has been gathered by the Royal Navy’s sonar technicians. So not only are we giving the Germans all our money, we are giving them our military secrets too – which they will use to develop their technology and then sell it to the world.

We are the only country in the world run by politicians who so despise their own country and their own countrymen.

This is the line of attack that Reform should focus on. Not NATO or the US.

The Trinity House Agreement shows how Europe will suck the UK into its clutches, persuading British politicians to invest in EU companies instead of British ones, using the mantra of 'European cooperation' and the false spectre of “growing Russian aggression”. As I explained in my previous article (you have read it, right?), although Russia is hostile to the UK, it is not a country we need fear, as it is really very militarily weak (contrary to all the establishment propaganda we are constantly fed!), is using all its resources in Ukraine and is about as much danger to us as a blind chicken.

The EU needs us. We do not need them. The EU wants to use and abuse us. Labour will no doubt agree to this, but the good news is that in four years' time, at the next general election, Labour will be kicked out of office. No government can bind its successor, and Reform need to make very clear that they will tear up any agreements entered into by Labour and will insist that all British defence spending is directed at BRITISH companies. Will they do that? It would not just be right for Britain, it would be politically popular too. Let's see.

-----------

If you like this article then please share it on Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to your friends. Spread the word!!

And SUBSCRIBE (it's free!)!

Thank you :-)

Yes, Starmer has signed trade deals with India and the US, but it's easy to get an agreement when you simply surrender and give the other side everything they want. And that, I'm sad to say, is exactly what has happened. Starmer the Surrender Monkey has capitulated and rolled over, humiliating Britain and damaging British industry and British economic interests.

Let's examine both deals and I'll show you what I mean (and by the way: you will only get this level of detail and insight HERE, on the British Patriot blog, so make sure you SUBSCRIBE right away – for FREE!):

INDIA

You need to remember that one of the complaints that Brexiteers had was that the trade deals which the EU negotiated with third countries did not include services. The EU did this deliberately, in order not to advantage the UK, because they did not want us to be too successful economically, fearing that would give us too much power. The EU's trade and economic policies were therefore deliberately designed to damage our economic interests. So when we left and we renegotiated the trade deals we naturally sought to include services in these – which we generally were able to do. That was one of the 'Brexit benefits' which Remoaner traitors do not want you to know about.

So when we look at the trade deal with India, the first and possibly the most crucial point you need to understand is what this deal does NOT cover. It does NOT cover financial and legal services! This is madness. Or is it just deliberate treason? We all know that these services are our major exports. Whether you approve of this or not is irrelevant – it's the reality and we need to support these sectors if we want Britain to thrive. So the fact that Labour signed a deal which excluded by far the most important sector of our economy is just a complete and utter betrayal of British interests.

It is sad – but reflective of the appalling quality of our politicians (and I refer to all parties) that this issue has hardly been mentioned. Why haven't Reform (or the Conservatives) protested about this? We are told that ministers “hope” to agree a financial services agreement later. Hahaha – what absolute pie in the sky! India’s intransigent refusal to offer any concessions on financial services is what stopped the Tories from signing an agreement when they were in power. The idea that Labour will achieve success now – after they have given India what they want on every other issue – is fucking mental!

The issue that has received a lot of attention is NICs (National Insurance Contributions). Companies that have offices in Britain and India can now bring Indian workers over to the UK and both the employee and the employer will be exempt from paying NICs for three years. This will make these workers much cheaper to employ (around £7,000 per year), rather than British citizens. Two-Tier-Keir, the enemy of the British people, strikes again! The government has tried to dismiss these complaints, saying that this concession is just a 'standard' clause which already exists in many other trade deals. But this is nonsense. The Indian government has made clear just what a massive surrender this was by Britain, boasting that this concession was an “unprecedented achievement” that would “make Indian service providers significantly more competitive in the UK”.

And it's not just British workers - the British economy will suffer too. The government refuses to say what the cost will be in terms of lost tax receipts, but Treasury sources have confirmed that when the Conservatives were negotiating this deal they conducted an impact assessment which calculated that excluding Indian workers sent to Britain by their companies from national insurance payments for three years would result in tax revenues falling by around £200 million a year. And note that this figure was arrived at on the basis of the 20,000 Indian workers who currently come to Britain under through intra-company transfers each year – but this deliberately ignores the fact that waiving their NICs will make it more attractive for Indian multinational companies to send staff to the UK, resulting in far more Indian workers coming to Britain!

The Indian government not only boasts that this deal “eases mobility” of Indian workers to the UK, but also more than doubles the number of professions who can come to the UK from 15 to 33 – including musicians, yoga teachers and chefs in takeaway restaurants. Wow – that's really going to improve my life! And the government has the brass neck to pretend that the number of Indian immigrants to Britain will not increase! What filthy, lying SCUM. The government are desperately trying to play it down, but the significance of this exemption from NICs is obvious from the fact that it was a key Indian demand!

Another point that you probably haven't read anywhere is that no text of the agreement has been published! That's right – the government is boasting about this great deal but are too frightened to allow you to actually see what's in it! How exactly will British businesses benefit? We don't know. All we have are a few cherry-picked details, and even these are pretty discouraging – if you are British. The deal is great for India, as almost 100% of Indian exports to the UK (including textiles, footwear, toys, and jewellery) will pay zero tariffs and will see non-tariff barriers also removed. Yes, India is getting everything they wanted and will certainly be better off.

But Britain – do we get what we want too? Err, no. Of course there are some small gains – the government has to be able to point to something – but these are tiny crumbs which are frankly insulting. So we are told that the existing 100% tariffs on British cars will be cut – yes, but not completely: they will be reduced to a still significant 10%, and our exports will also be subject to a strictly limited quota. We are told that the 150% tariff on gin and whisky will be cut – yes, but to a still eye-watering 75%, with further reductions to a still huge 40%, taking another 10 years.

Yes, a few British exports, such as chocolate, salmon, biscuits and lamb, will not pay any tariffs, but

the insignificance of this deal can be seen by the admission of the government that it will add only £4.8bn to the UK economy, increasing our GDP by a fractional 0.1%, “in the long run” - ie. by 2040! Wow, I feel richer already – don't you?!

And if you want to understand how much Starmer rolled over you just have to note that India's tariff cuts on imports of British vehicles only initially applies to internal combustion engine cars, not the electric variants Starmer is so keen on! Much more importantly, India has obtained an exemption from the UK's upcoming Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (a tax on carbon-intensive imports which is due to be brought in on 1 January 2027) on the grounds that, as Indian trade minister Piyush Goyal argued, this tax would harm Indian manufacturing. I bet you haven't read this anywhere else – have you? What this means is that Indian manufacturers will have a huge competitive advantage over UK companies! So much for fighting 'climate change'! So much for a level playing field between the UK and foreign countries! Two-Tier-Keir is deliberately harming Britain's manufacturing industry and helping our foreign competitors. Again – why aren't Reform politicians shouting about this?

So, is this pathetic 'deal' really the best deal we could have got? One of my major complaints about British governments – and this applies equally to Labour and the Conservatives – is that they are so weak and timid when it comes to international relations and negotiations. UK exports to India were worth around £7 billion in 2024 - but India’s exports to the UK were worth £10 billion. This means that trade between us is more important to India than to us. So why didn't we leverage that advantage? Instead it was India that leveraged the fact that their tariffs on UK exports are so much higher than our tariffs on their exports. But why is this? Why do we allow other countries to impose higher tariffs on us than we impose on them? This is utterly pathetic. I despise the weakness of Britain's politicians. They are TREASONOUS SCUM.

Both the US and the EU are now negotiating their own trade deals with India. Starmer's hope is that by getting in first the UK will have a “first-mover” advantage (even though the agreement does not come into effect right away) and that British companies will therefore have a competitive edge in exporting to India. But if the US and EU strike better deals then the opposite will happen. Any sensible British government would have insisted on a clause which meant that the UK would have to be given terms no less favourable than those given to any other country. But of course no such clause was inserted in the deal. We are governed by retards and traitors.

THE UNITED STATES

The second trade deal is the one announced yesterday with the US. Once again, Britain got utterly screwed. A lot of British right-wingers like Trump, and if I was American I would like him very much too, for the simple reason that he is an American patriot and unapologetically puts American interests first. Fair enough, that's what he is elected to do. But this is not good news for us in Britain – at least in economic terms. Because the outcome of the trade deal between the UK and US leaves us much worse off.

The problems all began when Trump announced his global tariffs on 2 April. His justification was that the US was being discriminated against and therefore had a massive trade deficit which needed to be tackled. That is perfectly reasonable. But if Trump was being truthful then why did he propose tariffs on US imports from the UK, given that the US has a trade SURPLUS with us? His declaration of a base tariff of 10% on all imports from Britain, with heightened tariffs on steel and aluminium (25%) and cars (27.5%: the existing 2.5% tariff plus an extra 25%), was completely unjustified. So have these unreasonable and punitive tariffs now been scrapped? No, not really - except at the very margins.

The fact is that the general 10% tariff has NOT been removed. This is an appalling decision. As I have pointed out, it is spiteful, stupid, unreasonable, unjustifiable and just pure nastiness.

Yes, the 25% super-tariff on steel and aluminium has gone, but these exports were only worth about £650 million last year, so while it's not nothing, it's not a big deal either. And yes, the 27.5% tariff on cars has also been scrapped – but only for the first 100,000 cars. After that, this super-tariff will continue to apply. And when you realise that last year we sold around 102,000 vehicles to the US, you will see that Trump's tariffs are designed to put a choke-hold on British car exports, worth about £7 billion a year. And also take note that even for the first 100,000 cars the malicious 10% tariff still applies, so our car industry will definitely suffer because of Trump.

And that's about it as far as 'good' news goes – if it can even be classified as such. There is also a very weird agreement to allow British farmers to sell 13,000 tonnes of beef tariff-free in the US – and in return US farmers will be able to sell … 13,000 tonnes of beef tariff-free in the UK. Now, maybe I'm being a bit obtuse, but how on earth does this benefit either British or US beef farmers? Why don't they just sell the beef in their home markets, thus saving completely unnecessary transport costs? Sorry, but this just makes no sense to me at all!

There is also still confusion over pharmaceuticals, which is a huge industry for Britain. We sold £6.5 billion worth of pharmaceuticals to the US last year, making it one of our top exports. Trump has announced that he wants to impose tariffs on these, but not yet at what level they will be set, nor how they will operate. On the plus side, he has said that the UK will get “preferential treatment” when it comes to pharmaceuticals. If he is true to his word and we get lower tariffs than the EU (and especially Ireland, a major rival in this field) this could actually be a good thing for us. We'll see. But the fact that this issue was not resolved in these negotiations is not particularly encouraging. Why the delay?

On films, another British success story, Trump has suggested imposing a 100% tariff. Although it's not clear either how this would operate nor what precisely it would apply to, it is a serious worry and those involved in this sector have warned these tariffs could “wipe out the UK industry”. It's still early days, and we are told that the government is, unsurprisingly, in “active discussions” with US negotiators about these tariffs, but so far there has been no sign of any reprieve for Britain.

The point is that, however you look at the UK-US trade deal, it is, as the business paper CityAM says, “an exercise in mitigation. The universal tariff of 10% remains in place and the terms of trade between Britain and America remain worse than when President Trump came to office in January”.

The US is very clear that they have screwed us. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick proudly pointed out that tariffs on US trade to the UK have fallen to 1.8%, while those on UK trade to the US have risen to 10%. Given that, as I have previously pointed out, the US had a trade surplus to begin with, there is simply no justification for such a mean-spirited policy. However, if it helps people in Britain understand that the US is not our friend, but just another foreign country, that the so-called 'special relationship' is all one-sided, and that we need to invest in British industry and become more self-sufficient and independent, then it may be well worth it in the end.

Politically, I think that Nigel Farage needs to start putting some clear blue water between himself and Trump, and do so pretty damn quickly. Any association with a man who is damaging our economic interests is not going to go down well with British workers whose jobs are imperilled by US tariffs. As for these trade 'deals', they are really surrenders, and present an excellent opportunity to lambast Starmer and the Labour government, again and again, until the public have fully absorbed what cretins and traitors these people are. They have failed to protect British interests, British workers and the British economy. They have sold us down the river, and this message needs to be hammered home – like a nail in Labour's coffin.

-----------

If you like this article then please share it on Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to your friends.

Spread the word!!

And SUBSCRIBE!

Thank you :-)

Even the crumbs that the Tories and Labour did pick up are not all they seem. In Doncaster, Labour lost the council to Reform and only held on to the mayoralty by their fingertips (with 32.6% - compared to 43.3% in 2021 - just 1% ahead of Reform's 31.6%), thanks to the sitting Labour mayor having an unusually-good local record and running on an anti-Labour government platform! In the west of England, Labour again held on, but their share of the vote fell from 33.4% to 25%, and Reform came second with 22.1% beating the Greens, despite these being highly-fancied in this area and having a local MP (in Bristol). And in North Tyneside Labour squeaked in with 30.2% (compared to 53.4% in 2021), just ahead of Reform on 29.4%.

As for the The Tories, although they won the mayoralty of Cambridgeshire & Peterborough, their vote share fell from 40.5% in 2021 to just 28.4% this time round, and Reform, not Labour or the LibDems, were second (with 23.4%). No wonder Badenoch, the Tory leader, admitted the results were a “bloodbath”!

Just a year ago people were saying that Reform's problem was that they were spread too uniformly and thinly across the country. That's the reason they only won 5 MPs at the general election despite getting 4.1 million votes – more than the LibDems, who got 72 MPs with only 3.5 million votes. But now, while Reform's support is still spread across the country, they have reached a level of electoral popularity that means they can win almost everywhere. The reason for this is that while last year they only took votes form the Conservatives – who were hated because of their 14 years of failure and betrayal – they are now taking votes from Labour too – who are hated because of their failures and betrayals!

So Reform took the county of Doncaster from Labour, as well as Durham, where Labour were the largest party, and the counties of Kent, Derbyshire, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire and both North and West Northamptonshire from the Conservatives. They also ended up as the largest party in Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire and Cornwall, and the second-largest party in Northumberland, Shropshire, Gloucestershire, Devon and Cambridgeshire (where they are equal second with the Tories). Only in four councils – Wiltshire, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire – are Reform today not either the biggest or second-biggest party. Astonishing.

In addition, Reform won two mayoralties: Greater Lincolnshire, where former Tory minister Andrea Jenkyns got a massive 42% of the vote, and nearby Hull and East Yorkshire, where former Olympic gold medal boxer Luke Campbell got 35.8%. And, of course, Reform snatched the Westminster seat of Runcorn and Helsby from Labour. Yes, Reform only won by 6 votes, but a win's a win, and Reform achieved a huge swing of 17.4% to overturn a massive 14,700 Labour majority and take one of Labour's safest seats. A similar swing at the next general election would see 254 Labour MPs lose their seats (including 'Retard Reeves'!). Incredible.

The local election share of the vote was Reform 31%, the Conservatives 23%, the LibDems 17%, Labour 14% and the Greens 9%. But these councils were not, of course, typical of the entire country, so Sky News did some psephological calculations and estimated that, in a general election, Reform would get 32%, compared to 19% for Labour, 18% for the Tories and 16% for the Libdems, which would give Reform 405 MPs – giving them a stonking 160 majority in the House of Commons! Even the BBC, who did a similar exercise but with slightly different results, concluded that Reform would get 376 seats in parliament – a majority of 102. An alternative calculation, based on Reform's performance in Runcorn and Helsby, estimates they would have 420 MPs – a majority of 190. Amazing.

And you need to remember that Labour and the Tories conspired to cancel elections that were due in the counties of East Sussex, West Sussex, Essex, Thurrock, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Norfolk, Suffolk and Surrey. These elections will now be held next year instead. Most of these councils were predicted to be very strong Reform areas, so their real level of support is probably even higher than commentators are claiming!

So is Farage heading for Downing Street? 'Not so fast!', the cynics will say. They will compare Reform's current triumphs to the ultimately ephemeral victories of UKIP, or of the SDP in the 1980s. But there are crucial differences between those former parties that shone brightly before fizzling out and today's Reform. UKIP were a single-issue party that was never as successful as Reform in either Westminster or local elections, and which, in any case, lost its shine when Farage left and its raison-d'etre once Leave won the referendum. As for the SDP, their success was short-lived simply because they too became irrelevant once they persuaded Labour to move back to the centre ground. At that point there was no longer any reason to vote for the SDP, and it became irrelevant and merged with the Liberal party in 1988, creating today's LibDems.

If the Tories had elected Robert Jenrick as leader after the election they might have been able to put an end to Reform like Labour did to the SDP – by simply occupying their territory and using our first-past-the-post electoral system to crush them. But they didn't. They elected the no-policy-Nigerian Badenoch instead. History turns on such small details. Just as modern British history might have been completely different – with no Leave referendum and hence no Brexit – if Farage had died in his plane accident in 2010. Napoleon wanted lucky generals – he would have loved Farage!

Indeed, although Farage complained bitterly (and understandably so) about the local elections that were postponed, I suspect that even this will actually work out in his favour, as Reform will go into those elections with more momentum and more campaigning experience, and so are likely to do better than they would have done this year. It will also mean that Farage – who is the party's main electoral asset – will be able to spend more time campaigning in these areas, thus boosting the party's results even more. If ever a man had the luck of the devil, that man is Nigel Farage!

So celebrate, by all means, but not too much – because in many ways the real work starts now. You see the problem for Reform is this: they are no longer an opposition party that can just whinge about how bad everything is. They are now in office and must prove that they can do better. One of the Left's main criticisms of Farage and Reform is that they has no experience of governing and would be unable to actually deliver on their promises. The obvious riposte is to say: 'look around Birmingham and tell me how well politicians with 'experience' have done at managing the country!'

But the truth is that being in control of a council is a big challenge – especially when the council officers are all left-wingers who hate you and want to sabotage you. That is the position that Reform will find themselves in. The other parties do not need to have councillors of great intellect or ability, because the council officers are there to help them. But in Reform's case the officers will be trying to undermine them. I wonder if Reform's new councillors, who have no experience of dealing with these devious council snakes, are intelligent enough to understand this? If you know any Reform councillor you must warn them! Send this article to them and get them to subscribe – as you should! It is FREE, after all!

So what will Reform do now they are in office? Farage has already made it clear that they want to "reduce excessive expenditure" and will oppose diversity and net zero policies. “Reform-controlled councils will be where DEI goes to die”, the party has said. They will also try to stop the government "plonking scores of young men" in asylum hostels in their areas – although the problem here will be that these hostels have been booked on long legally-binding contracts. If Reform have any sense they will also look into the investments being made by the council pension funds. Many of these are targeted towards net zero projects rather than being focused on simply maximising returns. I haven't heard Reform mention this so, again, if you know one of these councillors do point this out to them!

Reform are now at a fork in the road. If they take the right path and make a success of the councils they control, and of their mayoralties, they will be virtually assured of victory at the next general election. If they screw up, they – and the country as a whole – will be fucked. It's a huge opportunity, but also a huge risk. It's win or lose with no middle way. Because here is the crucial fact that nobody has mentioned: these councils will come up for election again in four years' time – in May 2029. And that's when the next general election will be held. So peoples' perception of how competent Reform are, and whether they can be trusted to run the country, will depend entirely on how well they run these councils. EVERYTHING depends on this. The stakes could not be higher. Does Farage understand this?

So my advice to Reform is this: invest all your party's monies on a centralised pool of financial consultants, lawyers and management advisers, and use these to guide your councillors in how to run their local authorities. Reform needs to set up a hit team of advisers and consultants who will do nothing else except travel up and down the country, going to all Reform's councils, meeting with both councillors and officials, and making sure that the services are delivered in the most effective and efficient way possible. Get a reputation for good management and everything else will follow. On the other hand, get a reputation for failure and incompetence and … well, I think you probably can finish that sentence for yourselves.

This is the opportunity of a lifetime, guys. Don't waste it!

-----------

If you like this article then pass it on.

Share it on social media: Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to your friends.

Spread the word!!

And SUBSCRIBE!

Thank you :-)