Jon Hill

75 years of UK trade balance… Can anyone see where it all went horribly wrong? Do you think we should pay the EU £1bn a year to rejoin this?

A thought experiment. The UK's terror threat level has just been lifted to "severe". After yet another hideous terror attack on British Jews. Which leads me to ask: What would a nation that was serious about dealing with a “severe” terror threat do? Would it run a policy of open borders, allowing 200,000 unvetted illegal migrants to stream across its border at will? Would it allow this while KNOWING the migrants have included known terrorists, murderers, & rapists? Would it then put these young, unvetted, fighting-age Muslim men in the very heart of its communities - next to schools & synagogues? Would it refuse to ban the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the Muslim Brotherhood, or kick out Iranian officials who call for violence on its streets? Would it allow convicted Islamist terrorists - such as the would-be London Stock Exchange bomber from Bangladesh - to STAY in its country? Would it allow an army of left-wing activist lawyers to use the European Convention on Human Rights to keep foreign criminals and terror suspects in its country? Would it allow dozens of pro-Iran associations to flourish on its own university campuses? Would it allow terrorist sympathisers & anti-Semites to march on the streets of its own capital city week after week? Would it be led by a political class that is so cowardly it cannot even bring itself to say: “Islamism”? Would it insist on the myth that all threats are equal despite knowing that Islamism is responsible for 94% of terror-related deaths and three quarters of all police work linked to terrorism? Would it allow parallel Sharia courts, cousin marriage, and illegal ‘family voting’ to become a feature of its national life? Would it work to shut down any criticism of Islamism by imposing a definition of ‘anti-Muslim hostility’ on public institutions and calling for politicians who do voice these concerns to be ‘sacked’? And would it shut down any attempt to have a serious conversation about all this by denouncing those who raise it as ‘far right’, ‘hateful’, and insisting on platitudes like ‘diversity is our strength’? I wonder. Would a serious nation do all these things? Because that’s what the United Kingdom is currently doing.

@jordan_ross_8F Stack

The agency owners who fix their AI tech stack in the next 90 days are going to look like geniuses in 2027. The problem is every tool markets itself with the same words.. Agents Copilots. Memory. Automation Read about three and you can't tell which one to pick. So my team built a 105-page field manual that does the categorization for you. Inside: — The 8 software roles every modern agency stack collapses into (brand names change, roles don't) — The 5-question decision model that ends every "which tool should we buy" debate in under a minute — Specific picks by revenue band — what to run at $1M, $5M, $10M, and $20M+ — A task-to-tool matrix across marketing, sales, ops, fulfillment, reporting, and exec — 6 setup quickstarts including the $400/mo warehouse you can stand up in a weekend Comment STACK and I'll send it.

@jordan_ross_8F HERMES

The agency owners who figure out Hermes in the next 90 days are going to look like geniuses in 2027. The problem is most agency owners don't have time to figure out the install, where to start, or what to actually hand it first. So my team built an 83-page playbook that does it for you. Inside: — The 5 daily prompts that turn it into a second brain — Plain English setup for Mac, Linux, and Android — How to lock it down without torching client data — 8 copy-paste workflows across reporting, outreach, sales, and ops — The cron trick that drops token spend by 90% Your competitors are sleeping on this. Comment HERMES and I'll send it.

Southport: Never forget... He laid flowers. Said nothing to grieving families. Left after 19 seconds. Then went to a party in Downing Street. Keir Starmer is the most morally repugnant prime minister in history.

Dynamic alignment with the EU is not good for Britain. It is bad and the Government is creating fake or misleading economic reasons to justify it. Ultimately, this is about taking Britain back into the EU step by step. There is no way in which a country of our size and wealth would benefit from following regulations designed and set by Brussels. Everything a Minister briefs about trade barriers and market access is a distraction. Britain has a free trade agreement with the EU, tariff-free and quota-free. We have market access and the latest trade figures show a healthy trading relationship between Britain and Europe, with British services exports performing very well. Dynamic alignment means the entire British economy must follow EU rules, whether British businesses trade with the EU or not. Once again, the EU will be able to dictate the terms on which a British business trades with a British consumer. When it comes to SPS rules, this means that the EU will be able to inspect British farms to see if they meet EU standards, even if those farms sell to the British market and not into Europe. This is a form of economic subjugation that should be beneath any sort of sovereign, democratic nation. The EU Reset is a dead end for Britain, a road to nowhere. prosperity.com/media-publicat…

Remember, whilst Keir Starmer was smearing huge swathes of the public as “far right,” using 24/7 courts and locking people up for quickly deleted posts. He knew about Axel Rudakubana having ricin and an Isis manual. Gaslighting on another level and it won’t be forgotten, ever.

#Brexit 1. We voted to be sovereign on laws 2. Brexit has not caused an 8% GDP loss 3. Exports to the EU have increased 4. Ex EU exports have increased 5. We have trade deals with CPTPP 6. Trade deals with India/ AUS/ NZ/ 7. EU out-trades UK 3-1 on Agri 8. EU’s declining more 9. NetZero is killing us not Brexit 10. Socialism is killing us not Brexit 11. EU needs our £ in the billions 12. Germany needs the UK. * 13. Over time we’re diverting away from the EU which will ‘kill them’ economically. 14. We already have an FTA with the EU 15. The City is easily the best over Europe 16. UK leads on AI/ Gene-Editing 17. Agri alignment will cost £15Bn 18. Rejoining Customs Unions costs £40Bn The so called punishment beatings & narrative is political not economic, the longer it goes on the more the barriers push us away. * Germany needs our trade they’re losing it everywhere else… China/ USA/ Southern Europe.

@AlfieJCarter CODE

I put the entire Claude Code GTM Engineering Playbook into ONE Notion doc. 8 sections. No fluff. - How to get set up correctly from day one: Pro plan, terminal install across Mac, Linux, and Windows, GUI install via Antigravity or VS Code, and bypass permissions mode - What to put in your project brain file, what to leave out, and how to get Claude to update it automatically when it keeps making the same mistake - How to run plan mode step by step and when to skip it for simple tasks - How to build a skill file from scratch, fix one that keeps failing, and install 5 GTM skills worth building first: lead scraping, email labeling, proposal generation, outbound sequence writing, and client onboarding - MCP install process, token cost checks after every install, the best MCPs for GTM work, and how to cut token usage by 50 to 100x by converting MCPs into skills - Sub-agents and agent teams: the 3 cases where they earn their cost, reliability math for parallel runs, and how to enable parallel variant exploration - What is eating your context before you type anything, how to use /compact and /clear correctly, and model selection for parent vs sub-agents - Modal deployment: any skill as a live URL in under 2 minutes, form interface setup, and connection to n8n, Make, or Zapier This is the setup I would have KILLED for before spending months piecing together how to actually get productive in Claude Code from documentation, YouTube tutorials, and scattered GitHub threads. Like + comment "CODE" and I'll send it over (must be connected for priority access)

Hermer's Law: How a Non-Binding Opinion Became a £30 Billion Surrender The Chagos bill is dead. Not delayed, not paused, not pending resolution of a diplomatic disagreement with Washington. Dead. The government has run out of parliamentary time, lost American support, lost a domestic court ruling, and is now appealing against a judgment that grants the very people it claimed to be helping the right to return to their homeland. The deal Keir Starmer signed, the bill his ministers championed, and the legal reasoning Lord Hermer placed at the heart of Labour's foreign policy have together produced a comprehensive and entirely avoidable disaster. Begin with the legal foundation, because that is where the rot starts. The government's case for surrendering Chagos rested on a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. Not a binding ruling. An opinion. One that carries, in the Spectator's precise formulation, roughly the legal force of a politely worded email. Any government confident in its own sovereignty would have noted the opinion, acknowledged its non-binding status, and proceeded as before. Instead, Lord Hermer, as Attorney General, treated it as an obligation Britain had no realistic choice but to honour. International law was placed at the heart of Labour's foreign policy, and a non-binding advisory opinion became the justification for surrendering a strategic asset Britain has held for two centuries. The consequences were predictable and have duly arrived. The legal framework constructed to make surrender seem inevitable has since been turned against the deal itself. A domestic court ruled earlier this year that Chagossians expelled from their homeland have a right of abode. The government is now appealing against that judgment, deploying British courts to resist the rights of the people whose welfare the deal was ostensibly designed to protect. The legal reasoning that was supposed to close the argument has reopened every argument simultaneously. Then there is Trump. His final withdrawal of support came after Starmer refused to allow American aircraft to use British bases to strike Iran. The refusal was consistent with this government's broader posture: cautious, legally constrained, reluctant to act without multilateral cover. But the consequence was the loss of American backing for a deal that required American cooperation to implement. Britain had already committed £30 billion of public money. It had signed. It had staked its diplomatic credibility. And then, when the alliance was tested at the precise moment it mattered, the terms of British foreign policy prevented Britain from meeting the condition on which everything else depended. The geometry of this failure is worth stating plainly. Starmer signed a deal he could not implement without US consent. He then adopted a foreign policy posture that made US consent impossible to retain. He built his legal case on a non-binding opinion that has since generated binding domestic consequences he is now fighting in court. And he committed billions of public money to an agreement that cannot be ratified, to lease back a base Britain already owned, from a government it was paying to take it. Lord Hermer bears particular responsibility. The decision to treat the ICJ opinion as effectively binding, to frame sovereignty as a liability and legal compliance as a virtue, set the terms for everything that followed. A government that begins by conceding the argument rarely wins the negotiation. Britain conceded Chagos in principle before a single formal demand had been made, and has spent the years since discovering the price of that concession while failing to collect any of its promised benefits. The bill is dead. The deal is stranded. The base remains, for now, in British hands. That is not a vindication of the strategy. It is a verdict on it.

@felixhhaas Lovable

Ultimate AI Founder Playbook 🔥 Over the past few years I've invested in 30+ startups and worked inside one of the fastest growing AI companies in the world. I distilled everything I've learned about building something people love into one playbook. Here's what you'll get: 👉 My framework for building products people love 👉 What makes a great founder in the age of AI 👉 How to go from idea to working product in hours 👉 How to turn users into your best growth channel Super excited to be giving a lecture about this tomorrow at our Stockholm HQ. Come join us if you're in town! Can't make it in person? Comment "Lovable" and I’ll send you a link to the playbook! LFG 🚀

@ImtiazMadmood Summed up in this piece too

Why Socialism Doesn't Work, Explained for a 10-Year-Old. You're in a class of 30 students. One kid works like crazy and gets an 18 average. Another does nothing and gets a 4. The teacher decides it's unfair and gives everyone the class average: 11. The one who had 18 stops working. Why bother if it changes nothing? The one who had 4 keeps doing nothing. Why work if you're handed 11 for free? The next year the class average is 7. Then 5. Then 3. The teacher doesn't get it. He thinks the problem is that the students aren't supportive enough of each other. So he starts punishing those who don't put in enough effort. He monitors everyone. He decides who studies what. He bans switching classes. That's exactly what happened. Every time. In every country. No exceptions. USSR, China, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Cambodia, Ethiopia, East Germany. 40 attempts. Same result. Every time. Socialism punishes those who produce and rewards those who don't. Everyone ends up producing nothing. And when no one's producing anymore, the government uses force to make people work. It's not an accident. It's the design. - @brivael

Trump has now compared Starmer to Neville Chamberlain. Not Winston Churchill. Not a loser. Chamberlain. The man whose name has been synonymous with appeasement, miscalculation and the catastrophic misreading of a mortal threat for eighty years. The escalation of historical comparisons tells its own story. Each one has been worse than the last. Each one has been earned. The context makes it worse. Trump has issued Iran a final ultimatum. Open the Strait of Hormuz or face the destruction of every power plant and bridge in the country within four hours. The Strait has been closed for over a month. Oil is heading toward two hundred dollars a barrel. Britain's fiscal headroom is gone. Energy bills are rising. And according to the i newspaper, Starmer is preparing to refuse American use of British bases to strike Iranian bridges and power plants, on the grounds that such targets fall outside the narrow definition of defensive action that Lord Hermer's legal opinion permits. Lord Hermer again. The Attorney General who blocked Diego Garcia at the start of this crisis is now drawing the boundaries of what America can and cannot do from British soil at its most critical moment. He has not stood for election. He has not been held accountable by a single British voter. He was appointed. And he is determining the foreign policy of a country whose closest ally is issuing ultimatums while the world's most important shipping lane remains closed. The suspicion, and it is one that the evidence does nothing to dispel, is that international law is not the reason for these decisions. It is the cover for them. The reason is the same one it has always been: a governing coalition that cannot afford to be seen taking the American side. The pattern established at the very beginning of this crisis has never broken. Starmer and Hermer blocked Diego Garcia. A drone on his own runway forced the reversal. A ship in dry dock took a fortnight to reach a base that had already been hit. He consulted his team on minesweepers. He called for negotiations with the regime bombing his own personnel. He issued humanitarian statements about Lebanon that did not mention Hezbollah once. At every stage the response has been the same: find the legal opinion, follow the process, do the minimum the moment demands and nothing more. And now, as Trump prepares what may be the decisive strike of this conflict, Starmer is drawing up fresh legal reasons why British soil cannot be used to support it. Five weeks in, the pattern is unbroken. Churchill did not need a lawyer to tell him what the moment required. Thatcher assembled a task force within days of Argentina's invasion, acted with clarity and speed, and did not mistake the legal framework for a substitute for leadership. Starmer has never understood that distinction. Lord Hermer has made a career of not understanding it. Together they have produced a foreign policy that has managed to disappoint Washington, alarm Gulf allies, lose the confidence of Cyprus, cede moral leadership to France and earn the Chamberlain comparison from the President of the United States, all within five weeks. Trump's ultimatum may or may not end the crisis. Iran's rejection of the Pakistan-brokered ceasefire suggests the regime is still gambling that continued defiance costs less than surrender. That gamble may yet prove fatal. What is already certain is that Britain will have played no meaningful part in the resolution, having spent five weeks finding legal reasons to watch from the sidelines. Chamberlain famously returned from Munich believing he had secured peace in our time. He had secured nothing except the contempt of history. Starmer will not return from anywhere waving anything. He has simply been present while others acted. The Chamberlain comparison stings precisely because it is not about cowardice. It is about the catastrophic cost of mistaking process for leadership. Appeasement has a new face.

In case you haven't seen it. All the talk of the UK wanting to rejoin the EU, is based solely and exclusively on a false premise: that the terms of re-entry would be the same as those we had when we left. As soon as the reality is explained, the "majority" turns to dust.

Food prices since Brexit. Prices have been lower in Britain than in the EU. But Starmer and Reeves want "alignment" with EU food. Their EU Surrender Deal means your food bill will rise.

Lord Frost on the EU Reset: "The new bill will sideline democratic UK lawmakers by making a whole range of EU laws applicable in Britain without us getting any say in them" "That’s not alignment, it’s subordination" Anyone who supports this action, is anti-democratic.

@AIandTechh @anjum_ai COWORK

i made a 3-day Claude Cowork for Beginners course, and it's yours for free by the end, you'll have a personalized AI teammate on your computer that: • knows your style • connects to your tools • and produces finished work you can send immediately here's what you get: day 1: install cowork, set global instructions, and run your first real task (15 min) day 2: workflows that replaced hours of my week, including building landing pages from a description and running full competitive analyses in one prompt day 3: skills, plugins, and connectors so cowork actually knows how you work and can access your tools + copy-paste prompts so you can follow along as you read like + comment "COWORK" and i'll DM it to you Must be following to get the DM

Truth is now considered a right-wing conspiracy. That’s the chilling line from Melanie Phillips that stopped me in my tracks. She explains how we’ve reached a point where simply stating observable reality — whether it’s basic biology defining a woman or pushing back against blanket accusations that all white people are inherently bad — gets you branded as evil. Not wrong. Evil. Therefore you must be silenced, cancelled, or erased. No debate. No evidence allowed. She calls it cultural totalitarianism: a Manichean worldview where one ideology claims a monopoly on goodness, progress, and reason itself. Dissent isn’t argued with — it’s treated as a moral threat that has to be removed. The deepest irony? In an era that smugly ditched religion in the name of superior rationality, we’ve ended up rejecting reason, evidence, and open inquiry altogether. We’re so “rational” we’ve dispensed with the very tools of rationality. It doesn’t add up. Her take has me wondering how we got here — and how quickly disagreement turned into moral excommunication. Anyone else seeing this pattern play out in conversations lately? Where have you felt truth itself become off-limits?

@lukepierceops Blueprint

Automation consultants charge $15K for what Claude Code now does in 2 hours. I know because we're the ones who used to charge it. Here's the exact process: Step 1: Discovery (20 min) → Paste your org chart, tool stack, and top 3 bottlenecks → Claude interviews you with clarifying questions → Outputs a full process inventory ranked by time cost Step 2: Workflow Mapping (15 min) → Describe any department's daily operations in plain English → Claude builds a complete process map → Every manual handoff, redundant step, and automation trigger flagged Step 3: Opportunity Audit (10 min) → Feed it the workflow map output → Returns your top 10 automation opportunities → Ranked by ROI, complexity, and build time Step 4: Architecture Design (20 min) → Claude designs the full system architecture → Which tools connect where, what the data flow looks like → Agents for complex logic, linear flows for the repetitive stuff Step 5: Build (ongoing) → Claude writes the actual workflow JSON → Self-documents everything as it builds Step 6: The output. A live dashboard your whole team can work from. → Clickable process maps for every department → Automation opportunities ranked by ROI → Implementation progress by phase → KPIs updated in real time → One link you share with clients, freelancers, or your team to execute This is what we hand every client at the end of discovery. The .md file is what makes all of it possible. Without it, Claude guesses. With it, Claude builds like a $15K consultant. Like this post, RT and comment "BLUEPRINT" and I'll send you the full prompt stack and the .md file we use internally. (Must be following so I can DM you) 🎁 Bonus: The first 100 people get a real Precision AI Blueprint — an actual sample audit doc from a client engagement so you can see exactly what the output looks like.

It is only Tuesday, and this Government has already announced an official definition of Islamophobia, an Islamophobia tsar, and plans to push ahead today with restricting our ancient right to trial by jury — all of which will stifle free speech in this country. This is not governing in the national interest. What we are seeing is an attempt to reintroduce Britain’s blasphemy laws, 18 years after they were abolished by Parliament, and the biggest assault on English liberty — particularly free speech — in over 800 years. This Government is becoming increasingly authoritarian and more bullish in its open disdain for free speech. The fight for free speech has never been more important than it is today.