Jeff Johanson

Bridget Phillipson is the worst Education Secretary the country has ever known. HALF A MILLION POUNDS!!! 🤯

@SarahForRuncorn @Nigel_Farage

Just a few years ago, the Tories had a majority of nearly 25,000 in Clacton. Today, they won’t even field a candidate against @Nigel_Farage. Wonder why?

A mob of trans-activists waving death threats at women isn't protest—it's criminal incitement. If the law isn’t enforced, we don’t have equality, we have two-tier justice. It’s time for Labour to stop being on the side of these extremists and start defending women.

Only the @Conservatives have a plan to fuel Britannia and get Britain working again.

Indeed, they will.

Anyone who has looked at Reform UK finances has always sensed there was something dodgy going on, but this level of subterfuge and double dealing is quite spectacular. As @carolecadwalla explains in her excellent new @thenerve_news piece this all thrived in post Brexit impunity

The Band "The Weight" Enjoy! ✌️😎 #RockOn 🎸🥁🎶🔥🔥

Labour promised to put children first but they snuck out a 22% cut to PE funding just weeks ago. They have left schools, parents and pupils paying the price for yet another botched policy and it will cost England future World Cup stars. Schools deserve certainty, not chaos. Children deserve opportunity, not disruption. Read my piece in the express 👇 express.co.uk/news/politics/…

The Doobie Brothers – “Listen to the Music” Classic 70s rock perfection. That catchy riff and joyful vibe never gets old!

Margaret Thatcher’s “genius” rebuilt Britain’s self-confidence, Kemi Badenoch has said. Her tribute comes after Andy Burnham attacked Thatcher’s legacy, saying the country had taken a “series of wrong turns in the 1980s” as “political power was centralised and economic power was privatised” 🔗: telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/…

#itwasaverygoodyear A different year of music every week. This week: 1973 Today’s song from 1973 stuck in my head David Bowie- Sorrow youtu.be/RmQ2OJgzkMg?is…

Kemi Badenoch The House of Lords is not an honours system. Peerages should only be awarded to people capable of bringing serious experience to a chamber which badly needs it. Kemi Badenoch Published 18 July 2026 1:34pm BST “Could we not have lifted up an amazing female voice?” That was the response of a former MP to my latest nominations to the House of Lords. It was a revealing question, reflecting widespread misunderstanding, even in Westminster, about what the House of Lords is for. Some people see a peerage as the highest form of public recognition, like an OBE or a knighthood but with exclusive membership of a club attached. On that view, appointments should be distributed among distinguished people from different professions and backgrounds, as though the Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition were arranging the most prestigious honours list in the country with a bit of demographic box-ticking on the side. Advertisement That is not the purpose of the House of Lords. We already have an honours system for recognising talent and achievement. A peerage is different. The Lords is a working legislative chamber. Its members are expected to examine bills, scrutinise ministers, consider amendments and improve legislation. That requires expertise and an understanding of politics and the consequences when Parliament gets things wrong. The House of Lords is a political space, not an apolitical one. I regularly hear from people who explain that, if they were placed in the Lords, they would then be able to do this or that useful thing. If they need a peerage to make a contribution, they are not the right people for the Lords. Those appointed should already have demonstrated that they have achieved things. They should have shown judgement, courage or practical ability before entering Parliament. That is the principle behind my three nominations: General Sir Patrick Sanders, David Ross and Professor Swaran Singh. They are very different people, but each has substantial experience of building, leading or understanding important institutions. Each brings knowledge which is directly relevant to the work of Parliament. General Sanders, formerly chief of the general staff, has served at the highest level of the British Army and has direct experience of the demands placed upon our Armed Forces. When the world is becoming more dangerous and Labour is putting our national security at risk, Parliament needs people with first-hand military knowledge. Legislation affecting defence, national security and the lives of those who serve should not be considered only by professional politicians and civil servants. David Ross, pictured with a sculpture of opera singer Bryn Terfel in his garden, built a successful British business Credit: John Lawrence📷 Mr Ross is an entrepreneur and philanthropist who has spent his career creating institutions. He co-founded Carphone Warehouse, built a major British business, and went on to sponsor and chair the David Ross Education Trust. He founded the Nevill Holt Festival and served as chairman of the National Portrait Gallery. Parliament has no shortage of people who can describe what they would like businesses and schools to do. It has very few who have actually built them. Prof Singh is professor of social and community psychiatry, a consultant psychiatrist in the NHS and a former Equality and Human Rights Commissioner. His career combines academic research, frontline medical practice and public service. For many years, I have been struck by cases in which people with known and serious mental health problems have gone on to commit horrific crimes. The Nottingham murders and the Southport killings are just two examples. Too often, bureaucratic systems become preoccupied with metrics and targets while apparently obvious dangers are not addressed. These bodies lose sight of their fundamental purpose, which is to protect the public and deal properly with those who are seriously unwell (or as we used to say, criminally insane). Prof Singh’s research helped me understand how parts of that system were going wrong. This is the kind of expertise the Lords needs: not simply people who can identify a problem and demand that government do more, but people who understand why systems fail and can devise practical solutions. These nominations build on the appointments I made previously. Amanda Spielman, Toby Young, Sharron Davies, Simon Heffer and Nigel Biggar have all demonstrated a willingness to defend Conservative principles and make Conservative arguments, often when doing so was unfashionable and personally costly. They join many brilliant men and women already on the Conservative benches. The political balance of the Lords is moving Leftwards. Labour’s appointments have drawn heavily from the third sector and the political class. The removal of hereditary peers has removed many who provided a different perspective. The House of Lords has too often been treated as a reward, a favour or a means of compensating someone for losing a seat in the Commons. This week provided a useful illustration. I decided that a Conservative peer, appointed after serving as a prime minister’s chief of staff, should not resume the party whip. This was presented as an ideological purge. It was nothing of the sort. I want diversity of thought on the Conservative benches, and neither disagreement nor internal debate troubles me. However, a political party cannot function when a member declines to co-operate with his whips, and makes only a modest contribution if any to the work of the House. Complaints about his conduct came from every part of the party. A peerage may confer independence of judgment, but it does not abolish basic standards of behaviour. There are already too many members of the Lords who do little work. The chamber should not become a comfortable resting place for former politicians or a collection of people to whom prime ministers feel indebted. The Lords is weakened when its composition is altered with no regard to its purpose. I am very clear about what the institution is for. It is there to scrutinise and revise legislation, to bring knowledge into Parliament which the Commons may lack, and to provide independence from the pressures of electoral politics. My appointments are made with those purposes in mind. Many who seek peerages should actually be trying to enter the House of Commons. The Commons needs great people. For those who wish to make the greatest political change, the Commons is usually the proper place. The Lords should not be seen as a more convenient route into politics for those who want to avoid the electorate. That is why our search for strong Conservative candidates in the Commons and our appointments to the Lords are part of the same task. We need people who are intelligent, competent, persuasive and prepared to work hard. We need conviction, but also the experience and judgement required to turn conviction into effective action. If this is you, please get in touch. Mr Ross, Gen Sanders and Prof Singh have already demonstrated their ability in business, education, culture, defence, medicine and public service. They will bring serious experience to a chamber which badly needs it. telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/1… Whether it is the Commons or the Lords, we need people who have the experience, capabilities and Conservative beliefs that will enable us to getting Britain working again. That is why I nominated them. ** Kemi Badenoch is leader of the Conservative Party

Marmalade 🎩🪄 Reflections of My Life (Live 1970) Dean Ford delivers one of the most memorable vocal performances of the era on this timeless classic. A great song from my childhood that still sounds as powerful today #Marmalade 💐

Watching Lucy Powell on Laura K, I'm reminded of the 'cut-up' writing method favoured by a young David Bowie; write down a load of words on bits of paper, put them in a bag, mix 'em up, throw 'em down and see what order you pick them up in!

The difference between the standards investigations into me and @Nigel_Farage: 1️⃣ I didn’t accept a personal ‘gift’ of £5m (in fact, I have never personally accepted a single penny from anyone). 2️⃣ I believe the rules should apply equally to everyone - if the Standards Committee rules against me, I won’t have a hissy fit.

Andy Burnham believes that prosperity can be achieved by re-organising local government, and then taking money from “the rich”. This is the politics of zero sum; it has a long history, all of it disastrous. He has the wrong diagnosis, the wrong priorities and the wrong solutions. My job now is to expose and challenge this at every turn. Mrs Thatcher’s genius was that she understood that national prosperity was in the hands of the people, not the State. She had a vision for the country that went beyond tax and spend; she rebuilt Britain’s self-confidence and oversaw the fastest rise in working people’s income by unlocking enterprise, ownership and personal responsibility, using less regulation and lower taxes. The choice is now clear. Andy Burnham's Labour Party offering state control and redistribution or my new Conservative Party offering enterprise, responsibility and growth just like Thatcher did.   Our offer is a vision in which prosperity comes from the people, not the State and where everyone, whether rich or poor has a brighter future.

Mr Burnham criticises selling UK utilities to foreign states and companies. I agree. I helped Margaret Thatcher put in Golden shares to prevent this. It was the Labour government after 1997 that wrongly cancelled these protections to please the EU.

You left the Conservatives at the beginning of June as we had to remove you from all the WhatsApp groups. Has it really taken this long for them to let you in?

🚨 Another Major Sunday Times investigation into Reform’s finances. George Cottrell opened an account with obscure Australian payments firm Oneify days before a mystery £500k donation to Reform UK. The money came via his mother Fiona whose ultimate source the NCA couldn’t trace. £1m first went to Richard Tice’s company, then half (£500k) to Reform. Fiona received large unexplained transfers shortly before. Cottrell has continued using Oneify. The firm has links to Montenegro crypto/gambling networks where he’s based. This is on top of the separate £500k from Fiona already under police investigation. Reform listed Tice’s company as the donor not Fiona directly. Questions mount over whether Cottrell was routing money to the party he was already secretly funding (staff, security, etc.). All as Farage’s Clacton by-election showdown with @CountBinface looms!

Apropos of nothing in particular, this is a Churchwarden from Potters Bar, John "Bill" Simpson, proxy director of an upmarket design company, almost certainly owned by Ghandehari, that laundered £200k to Reform.