Karl

The Man Who Paid In & The Man Who Paid Nothing. Meet Frank, the man who paid in. Frank turned 80 last winter. He grafted 52 years as a builder in Manchester, his hands and back are broken from laying bricks in pouring rain. Every week he paid his National Insurance. Never claimed benefits. Never broke the law. He raised two kids on a council estate, paid his taxes and did his bit for the country he loves. Now he shuffles to the post office in the same coat he’s worn since 2018. His old Nokia phone barely holds the charge. His State Pension is £241.30 a week, just over £12,500 a year, but after gaps, Frank gets less. He counts every penny. Some weeks it’s heating or eating. Last winter around 2,500 people in England died from cold associated causes. Frank keeps the thermostat at 15 degrees and wears jumpers indoors. "I’m not living," he tells his neighbour. "I’m just existing." His wife, Margaret, has been in a care home for two years, dementia stealing her away. Frank struggles to keep their old car on the road for weekly visits. One more breakdown and those trips could end. Every pension day is the same. Frank walks past the bookies where young fighting age men fresh off small boats shout, laugh and slap down stacks of cash twice as thick as his weekly pension. He keeps his head down, clutching his wallet, praying nobody follows him home. His street no longer feels like his street. Fewer familiar faces. Foreign languages. The corner shop is now a Turkish barbers. He feels all alone in the city he once helped build. Meet Ahmed, the man who paid nothing. Ahmed arrived on a dinghy last summer, one of 41,472 Channel crossings in 2025, mostly young men from Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan and Sudan. He tossed his documents into the sea, then claimed asylum the moment the dinghy touched the beach. No passport. No papers. No contributions. The Home Office puts him in a hotel. Heating on full. Three meals a day. Security on the door.Ahmed strolls the streets in new clothes and the latest iPhone, using free bus shuttles twice a day, drinking and laughing with friends outside the same bookies Frank avoids. He broke immigration rules entering the country uninvited. Once granted asylum, the door opens to UK benefits and housing. Frank paid in all his life and obeyed every rule. He built the Britain that now houses Ahmed. Ahmed has paid nothing and doesn't obey the rules, he receives shelter, warmth, food, free transport and pocket money while Frank rations food, huddles under blankets to keep warm and constantly worries about money. Tonight as Ahmed relaxes in a warm hotel room with new Nike trainers by the bed, wondering what’s for dinner. Frank sits in his cold home wondering why a lifetime of hard work brings only deprivation. This story is repeating in towns and cities across the country. This isn’t fairness. This is a betrayal. #UKNews #UKPolitics #StopTheBoats

I don't care which political party you come from on this. I care that you care enough to stand up for what is right. Katie Lam's courage in consistently standing up in parliament and fighting for a fit for purpose National Inquiry is something to be admired. If only there was more like her.

@canadiancarol1 Nor me!

The poll that never asks me?

Domestic fertiliser production capacity would be a strategic asset right now. Unfortunately, thanks to @DMiliband’s Climate Change Act - later driven through by @Ed_Miliband in 2008 - the UK no longer has that capability. Britain has a cost-of-Miliband Crisis!

Miliband expected to block North Sea oil drilling-Keir Starmer needs to grow a backbone, overrule Ed Miliband and open up both Jackdaw and Rosebank immediately. It is mad that we are not exploiting our own resources in the middle of an energy crisis.” telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/…

You’d think this headline was satire. But it isn’t. I was sexually abused from the age of 5. The mass rape of little girls like me is NOT a “price worth paying”. We are not lambs to be sacrificed at the altar of migration. We are not sex slaves to be traded for political gain. This is pure evil. I was sexually abused from age 5. I still feel their hands on my skin. I still have nightmares. I still get scared sometimes walking around my hometown. Girls like me were traded for votes. Called slags, sluts, or troublemakers. Told that we were asking for it. And now, we are being told that the abuse we suffer is merely a “price worth paying” to allow hordes of violent rapists into the country to abuse MORE little girls like us. In towns like Rotherham, Rochdale, and Telford, little girls are being passed around like meat by gangs of Pakistani-Muslim men in taxis and takeaways while Labour councils, police and social workers turn a blind eye. Across the country, little girls are being kidnapped, molested, tortured, beaten, sodomised, assaulted, and killed by violent migrant men. These men come from countries that see women as subhuman. Where they can marry a 6 year old girl or take a Christian woman as a sex slave. Where they can flog and beat women for daring to show their face or hair in public. Where they can deny girls a basic education and use them as little more than broodmares. Where they can rape a little girl then invoke Sharia Law to force her to marry them. Then, they hop on a plane to England and try to replicate that evil culture on our shores. And those in power are allowing it. All to protect “community relations”. Saying “quasi-consensual” assaults on white women are just the cost of assimilation? That it’s beautiful? That it ends racism? That it leads to genuine relationships and marriage? They are literally describing Stockholm Syndrome. These cretins are seriously suggesting that women and girls are supposed to be raped by migrant men, then fall in love and build a ‘diverse’ home from a bedrock of abuse. What a disgusting proposal. The girls in Rotherham, Telford, Oldham, Rochdale et al were not “acceptable losses”. Our daughters are not sacrifices for your utopia. These people are evil. They want to import more of the same men who destroyed us, then call it progress. And offer women and girls up as sacrifices for the “greater good”. Absolutely not. Every single person who contributed to this article belongs in prison. Deport the rapists. Close the borders. Put our kids first.

If you remove pork from cafeterias, you’re not being respectful, you’re letting yourself be conquered. If you stop having or walking dogs, you’re not being respectful, you’re letting yourselves be conquered. If you let people block traffic and impact transit to pray, you’re not being respectful, you’re being conquered. When you let people new to your country break your laws, and you go light on them, you’re not being respectful, you’re being conquered. Respectful is acknowledging people’s right to eat the foods they want and practice the religion they choose and follow the traditions they want without hate or discrimination. Forcing every one else in your society to change to accommodate their demands? Thats being conquered. Our societies need to stop allowing themselves to be conquered. While they’re still able to stop it.

If Le Pen wins, the EU’s days are numbered. 👇 No wonder they want the friendly idiot Starmer to use British taxpayer money to fill the gap.

Ofcom has some serious questions to answer. As the media regulator stifles free speech through its draconian, overzealous enforcement of the Online Safety Act — both in the UK and the US — it is also handing out donations to its favoured news outlets. So much for impartiality. It has now been revealed that Ofcom provided £50,000 in funding to the Guardian Foundation last year. General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young of Acton, has said: “It’s genuinely odd that Ofcom has given £50,000 to The Guardian when, almost alone among UK newspapers, The Guardian eschews any regulation of its content. “If you’re misrepresented by The Guardian, your only recourse is to complain to its internal ombudsman – in other words, it marks its own homework. If only Ofcom granted the same latitude to GB News and Elon Musk.” Read more below 👇

The Head of the Grooming Gangs Inquiry says they will investigate public figures who were complicit in the scandal. Alright then. Let’s make it easier for them: 𝗞𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿 Called protestors of Pakistani-Muslim grooming gangs “far-Right bandwagon jumpers”, refused a national inquiry until he was forced to backtrack, oversaw the failure to prosecute offenders as head of the Crown Prosecution Service etc. 𝗝𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗣𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗽𝘀 Voted against a national inquiry, ignored council requests to meet, watered down the Gov’s “local enquiries” until they were scrapped altogether, accused victims of being far-Right, downplayed the severity and scale of abuse, repeatedly denied and shut out victims from speaking out 𝗦𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗾 𝗞𝗵𝗮𝗻 Repeatedly denied the existence of grooming gangs in London, claimed there were “no reported cases and also no indication”, voted down proposals for an inquiry into Pakistani-Muslim grooming gangs in London, took away 4.5 million in funding for the inquiry 𝗦𝗵𝗮𝘂𝗻 𝗗𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗠𝗣 Labour MP and former Leader of Telford and Wrekin Council, oversaw the fallout of the Telford scandal, downplayed the severity and scale of CSE in Telford, attempted to block an independent inquiry, voted against a national inquiry, protected Cabinet members who played an active role in the scandal (eg. Cabinet Member who said that girls’ claims were “made up on the back of a fag packet”) 𝗔𝗻𝗱𝘆 𝗕𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗵𝗮𝗺 Refused to launch an independent inquiry into grooming gangs in Greater Manchester, despite victims’ testimony and police whistleblowers confirming widespread cover-ups 𝗡𝗮𝘇 𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗵 Labour MP who told victims of grooming gangs to “shut their mouths for the good of diversity”, trivialising and silencing abuse survivors 𝗟𝘂𝗰𝘆 𝗣𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹 Called Pakistani-Muslim grooming gangs a “far-Right dog whistle” and a “trumpet” that is used to unfairly smear Labour, accused victims of being far-Right and exaggerating their abuse 𝗕𝗮𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗔𝘆𝗲𝘀𝗵𝗮 𝗛𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗸𝗶 Laughed about the mass rape of little girls by Pakistani-Muslim grooming gangs, joked that every Pakistani person is accused of being a groomer, claimed to instigate grooming gang conspiracies Oh, and every single councillor, police officer, social worker, sexual health clinic staff member, and other official who silenced, vilified or turned a blind eye to the systemic abuse of little British girls. Who else?

Three former soldiers will appear at Belfast magistrates court on April 20th. One is charged with a killing that took place in May 1972. He is not accused of acting outside his orders. He is accused of acting within them. The distinction no longer appears to matter. This is the reality behind Labour's Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, a piece of legislation dressed in the language of reconciliation that functions, in practice, as an engine of persecution. The state that sent these men to Northern Ireland, that gave them their orders, that relied on their judgment in circumstances no minister has ever faced, is now the state that funds the machinery pursuing them through the courts half a century later. That is not a technicality. It is the central fact. Taxpayer money flows to the lawyers challenging the actions of soldiers whose actions were sanctioned by the taxpayer. The government calls this justice. General Sir Peter Wall, who commanded the British Army for four years, calls it something without moral backbone. He is right. The operational consequences are already visible. Elite soldiers are leaving the SAS and SBS rather than face the prospect of prosecution decades hence for missions carried out under government orders. The crisis has become sufficiently acute that reservists are being brought into the regular SAS to fill roles vacated by those walking out. Britain's most capable fighting force is being quietly hollowed out by a bill whose architects appear indifferent to the result. Seven former SAS commanders have warned that the legislation is doing the enemy's work, that operational secrets exposed through inquiries give hostile states a narrative of lawless troops. Moscow, Tehran and Beijing do not need to discredit British special forces. Westminster is doing it for them. The asymmetry at the heart of this legislation is not incidental. It is structural. IRA members were released under the Good Friday Agreement. Many destroyed evidence, stayed silent, or received letters guaranteeing they would not be pursued. Soldiers kept records, gave statements, and remained traceable. Decades later, only one group remains available for scrutiny. Not because they are more culpable, but because they are more reachable. The Coagh ambush of June 1991 illustrates the logic perfectly. Three IRA men were stopped by the SAS on their way to murder someone. A coroner ruled the force used was justified. Years later a family challenged that ruling, arguing the soldier should have paused after each shot to consider whether to fire the next one. A judge described that argument as ludicrous and utterly divorced from reality. The challenge continues, funded by legal aid, heard at the Court of Appeal just days ago. No verdict ends the process. The process is the punishment. Keir Starmer has said publicly he is absolutely confident there will be no vexatious prosecutions. Three soldiers will be in a Belfast court in sixteen days. His confidence has not reached them. The government insists its bill provides robust protections for veterans. General Sir Nick Parker, who oversaw the final operations in Northern Ireland, says ministers do not understand the duty of the state to stand by those who serve it. The duty to stand by those who serve is contractual, not sentimental. A soldier who follows orders in a war the state authorised cannot later be offered up as payment for political convenience. What is being constructed here is not a legacy process. It is a permanent legal industry, sustained by public money, targeting the most traceable participants in a conflict the state itself waged. The soldiers kept their records. That is now their liability. A serious country does not behave this way. This one, apparently, does. "Keir Starmer has said publicly he is absolutely confident there will be no vexatious prosecutions. Three soldiers will be in a Belfast court in sixteen days. His confidence has not reached them."

This. 👇 The powerful remain lobby - notably those who tried to stop us leaving post referendum - has never stopped playing their project fear game. Not only have we outperformed the EU’s biggest economy - Germany 👇- but UK exports to the EU are up by nearly 70% - not far off double what the EU has achieved with non-EU countries. Whilst we have sustained a stable share of world trade since pre-Brexit, the EU’s share of global trade has fallen by 15%. The failures of our own economy are home grown. High taxes, high energy costs and overbearing regulation have stifled growth - but in the last decade we have still grown more than any of the 3 biggest EU economies (Germany, France and Italy). Starmer has form on lying. Project fear was wrong in 2016 and it’s wrong in 2026. Don’t fall for EU ideologues lies. Check the figures for yourself.

I am reaching out to the @X community for advice with the likely risk of sharing TMI. I have been sufficiently upset about the whole matter that I have lost sleep thinking about it and I am hoping that this post will enable me to get this matter off my chest. By way of background, I started a family office called TABLE about 15 years ago and hired a friend who had previously managed a family office, and years earlier, had been my personal accountant. She is someone that I trusted implicitly and consider to be a good person. The office started small, but over the last decade, the number of personnel and the cost of the office grew massively. The growth was entirely on the operational side as the investment team has remained tiny. While my investment portfolio grew substantially, the investments I had made were almost entirely passive and TABLE simply needed to account for them and meet capital calls as they came in. While TABLE purchased additional software and other systems that were supposed to improve productivity, the team kept increasing in size at a rapid rate, and the expenses continued to grow even faster. While I would periodically question the growing expenses and high staff turnover, I stayed uninvolved with the office other than a once-a-year meeting when I briefly reviewed the operations and the financials and determined bonus compensation for the President and the CFO. I spent no time with any of the other employees or the operations. The whole idea behind TABLE was that it would handle everything other than my day job so that I would have more time for my job and my family. Over the last six years, expenses ballooned even further, employee turnover accelerated, and I became concerned that all was not well at TABLE. It was time for me to take a look at what was going on. Nearly four years ago, I recruited my nephew who had recently graduated from Harvard and put him to work at Bremont, a British watchmaker, one of my only active personal investments to figure out the issues at the company and ultimately assist in executing a turnaround. He did a superb job. When he returned from the UK late last year after a few years at Bremont, I asked him to help me figure out what was going on with TABLE. When I explained to TABLE’s president what he would be doing, she became incredibly defensive, which naturally made me more concerned. My nephew went to work by first meeting with each employee to understand their roles at the company and to learn from them what ideas they had on how things could be improved. He got an earful. Our first step in helping to turn around TABLE was a reduction in force including the president and about a third of the team, retaining excellent talent that had been desperate for new leadership. Now here is where I need your advice. All but one of the employees who were terminated acted professionally and were gracious on the way out (excluding the president who had a notice period in her contract, is currently still being paid, and with whom I have not yet had a discussion). The highest compensated terminated employee other than the president, an in-house lawyer (let’s call her Ronda), told us that three months of severance was not enough and demanded two years’ severance despite having worked at the company for only two and one half years. When I learned of Ronda's request for severance, I offered to speak with her to understand what she was thinking, but she refused to do so. A few days ago, we received a threatening letter from a Silicon Valley law firm. In the letter, Ronda’s counsel suggests that her termination is part of longstanding issues of ‘harassment and gender discrimination’ – an interesting claim in light of the fact that Ronda was in charge of workplace compliance – and that her termination was due to: “unlawful, retaliatory, and harmful conduct directed towards her. Both [Ronda] and I [Ronda’s lawyer] have spoken with you about [Ronda’s] view of what a reasonable resolution would include given the circumstances. Thus far, TABLE has refused to provide any substantive response. This letter provides the last opportunity to reach a satisfactory agreement. If we cannot do so, [Ronda] will seek all appropriate relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.” The letter goes on to explain the basis for the “unsafe work environment” claim at TABLE: “In early 2026, Pershing Square’s founder Bill Ackman installed his nephew in an unidentified role at TABLE, Ackman’s family office. [His nephew]—whose only work experience had been for TABLE where he was seconded abroad for the last four years to a UK watch company held by Ackman—began appearing at TABLE’s offices and conducting interviews of employees without a clear explanation of his role or the purposes of these interviews. During this period, he made a series of inappropriate and genderbased [sic] comments to multiple employees that created an unsafe work environment. Among other things, [his nephew] made remarks about female employees’ ages (“Tell me you are nowhere near 40”), physical appearance (“Your body does not look like you have kids”), as well as intrusive questions about family planning and sexual orientation (“Who carried your son? Who will carry your next child?”). These incidents were reported to senior leadership at TABLE and Pershing Square. Rather than being addressed appropriately, the response from senior management reflected, at best, willful blindness to the inappropriateness of [his nephew]’s remarks and, at worst, tacit endorsement.” The above allegations about my nephew had previously been brought to my attention by TABLE’s president when they occurred. When I learned of them, I told the president that I would speak to him directly and encouraged her to arrange for him to get workplace sensitivity training. The president assured me that she would do so. When I spoke to my nephew, he explained what he actually had said and how his actual remarks had been received, not at all as alleged in the legal letter from Ronda’s counsel. I have also spoken to others at the lunch table who confirmed his description of the facts. In any case, he meant no harm, was simply trying to build rapport with other employees, and no one, as far as I understand, was offended. Ironically, Ronda claims in her legal letter that TABLE didn’t take HR compliance seriously, yet Ronda was in charge of HR compliance at TABLE and the person who gave my nephew his workplace sensitivity training after the alleged incidents. In any case, Ronda, as head of compliance, should have kept a record or raised an alarm if indeed there was pervasive harassment or other such problems at the company, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true. So why does Ronda believe she can get me to pay her nearly $2 million, i.e., two years of severance, nearly one year of severance for each of her years at the company? Well, here is where some more background would be helpful. Over the last two months, I have been consumed with a major family medical issue – one of my older daughters had a massive brain hemorrhage on February 5th and has since been making progress on her recovery – and I am in the midst of a major transaction for my company which I am executing from a hospital room office next to her . While the latter business matter is publicly known, the details of my daughter’s situation are only known to Ronda because of her role at our family office. Now, let’s get back to the subject at hand. Unfortunately, while New York and many other states have employment-at-will, there has emerged an industry of lawyers who make a living from bringing fake gender, race, LGBTQ and other discrimination employment claims in order to extract larger severance payments for terminated employees, and it needs to stop. The fake claim system succeeds because it costs little to have a lawyer send a threatening letter and nearly all of the lawyers in this field work on contingency so there is no or minimal cash cost to bring a claim. And inevitably, nearly 100% of these claims are settled because the public relations and legal costs of defending them exceed the dollar cost of the settlement. The claims are nearly always settled with a confidentiality agreement where the employee who asserts the fake claims remains anonymous and as a result, there is no reputational cost to bringing false claims. The consequences of this sleazy system (let’s call it ‘the System’) are the increased costs of doing business which is a tax on the economy and society. There are other more serious problems due to the System. Unfortunately, the existence of an industry of plaintiff firms and terminated employees willing to make these claims makes it riskier for companies to hire employees from a protected class, i.e., LGBTQ, seniors, women, people of color etc. because it is that much more reputationally damaging and expensive to be accused of racism, sexism, and/or intolerance for sexual diversity than for firing a white male as juries generally have less sympathy for white males. The System therefore increases the risk of discrimination rather than reducing it, and the people bringing these fake claims are thereby causing enormous harm to the other members of these protected classes. So what happened here? Ronda was vastly overpaid and overqualified for the job that she did at TABLE. She was paid $1.05 million plus benefits last year for her work which was largely comprised of filling out subscription agreements and overseeing an outside law firm on closing passive investments in funds and in private and venture stage companies, some compliance work, and managing the office move from one office to another. She had a very good gig as she was highly paid, only had to go into the office three days a week, and could work from anywhere during the summer. Once my nephew showed up and started to investigate what was going on, she likely concluded that there was a reasonable possibility she would be terminated, as her job was in the too-easy-and-to-good-to-be-true category. The problem was that she was not in a protected class due to her race, age or sexual identity so she had to construct the basis for a claim. While she is female and could in theory bring a gender-based discrimination claim, she reported to the president who is female and to whom she is very close, which makes it difficult for her to bring a harassment claim against her former boss. When my nephew complimented a TABLE employee at lunch about how young she looked – in response to saying she was going to her 40-year-old sister’s birthday party, he said ‘she must be your older sister’ – Ronda immediately reported it to our external HR lawyer. She thereby began building her case. The other problem for Ronda bringing a claim is that she was terminated alongside 30% of other TABLE employees as part of a restructuring so it is very difficult for her to say that she was targeted in her termination or was retaliated against. TABLE is now hiring an external fractional general counsel as that is all the company needs to process the relatively limited amount of legal work we do internally. In short, Ronda was eminently qualified and capable and did her job. She was just too much horsepower for what is largely an administrative legal role so she had to come up with something else to bring a claim. Now Ronda knew I was a good target and it was a good time to bring a claim against me. She also knew that I was under a lot of pressure because on March 4th when Ronda was terminated, my daughter had not yet emerged from consciousness, she was not yet breathing on her own, and my daughter and we were fighting for her life. I was and remain deeply engaged in her recovery while at the same time I was working on finishing the closing for the private placement round for my upcoming IPO. Ronda also knew that publicity about supposed gender discrimination and a “hostile and unsafe work environment” are not things that a CEO of a company about to go public wants to have released into the media. And she may have thought that the nearly $2 million she was asking for would be considered small in the context of the reputational damage a lawsuit could cause, regardless of the fact that two years of severance was an absurd amount for an employee who had only worked at TABLE for 30 months. She also likely considered that I wouldn’t want to embarrass my nephew by dragging him into the klieg lights when her claims emerged publicly. So, in summary, game theory would say that I would certainly settle this case, for why would I risk negative publicity at a time when I was preparing our company to go public and also risk embarrassing my nephew. Notably, she hired a Silicon Valley law firm, rather than a typical NY employment firm. This struck me as interesting as her husband works for one of the most prominent Silicon Valley venture firms whose CEO, I am sure, has no tolerance for these kinds of fake claims that sadly many venture-backed companies also have to deal with. I mention this as I suspect her husband likely has been working with her on the strategy for squeezing me as, in addition to being a computer scientist, he is a game theorist. My only advice for him is to understand more about your opponent before you launch your first move. All of the above said, gender, race, LGBTQ and other such discrimination is a real thing. Many people have been harmed and deserve compensation for this discrimination, and these companies and individuals should be punished for engaging in such behavior. Which brings me to the advice I am seeking from the X community. I am not planning to follow the typical path and settle this ‘claim.’ Rather, I am going to fight this nonsense to the end of the earth in the hope that it inspires other CEOs to do the same so we shut down this despicable behavior that is a large tax on society, employment, and the economy and contributes to workplace discrimination rather than reducing it. Do you agree or disagree that this is the right approach?

I can’t get my head around how destructive the Milibands are - seemingly with total unawareness of the results of their actions. Surely no one can be that stupid? But other than money (for David) and power (for Ed) how do they justify to themselves the devastation wreaked on economies, lives and the environment thanks to their obsession?

By supprting rejoining the EU, Zack Polanski and the Green Party support reintroducing the mandatory testing of cosmetics on animals - as required by EU law, and removed from UK law after Brexit. Doesn't sound very Green does it. Be careful which hypocrites you vote for.

🇮🇱🇮🇷 An American pilot with 25 years of experience, a veteran of three wars and hundreds of combat sorties, spoke about Israeli military pilots. He published a post that quickly went viral: “I’ve flown over Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. I thought I had seen everything. But when I saw what the Israeli Air Force is doing in Iran, I realized I’m still a student. Precision. Logistics. 200 aircraft in one night. 500 targets. 1,500 kilometers. No aerial refueling from American bases. All the fuel from home. All the weapons from home. It’s like flying from Miami to New York, bombing targets along the way, and returning— while 200 aircraft move simultaneously without a single collision. To the Israeli pilots: You are not just the best in the Middle East. You are the best in the world. And that’s the final word.”

@BenGrahamUK @AbstardJohnny Leftist lunacy with public money!

£48,174. That’s how much Hounslow Council spent on a single rainbow crossing, the most expensive in England. Meanwhile, councils claim they’re struggling to fund basic services. Is this a justified expense, or a complete waste of taxpayer money?

We’re relying more on LNG to set the price because we’re allowing domestic supplies to decline and depend more on imported LNG supplies. A matter of policy. A bizarre policy driven by net zero zealots. Even in a mature field like the North Sea there is still a lot more gas to get out. Ask the Norwegians. Increase that supply and UK NBP hub prices will come down. Tax revenues will rise. Balance of payments will improve. Sterling will strengthen. And more jobs will be saved/added. Simples.

Polling Expert Says Labour Heading For 'Total Bloodbath' In May's Elections huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/polling-…