Neil Ryding

Further to Blair. Literally every honest sensible person in all the main parties privately agrees with all these propositions: - welfare spending is too high and is throwing good people on the scrapheap - defence spending is too low - the triple lock is unsustainable - without cheap energy we cannot exploit the AI revolution - we should be investing in EVERY form of energy: renewables, nuclear and the North Sea - migration needs to be controlled to boost social cohesion and because the boats look like a huge failure of the state - any new relationship with the EU will be imposed on us until we are stronger and cannot involve the closeness some desire without freedom of movement - we are deeply embedded with America in ways which the public does not understand and cannot be told and however joyous it makes us feel to hate Trump, disengagement at the deep state level is not only wholly unrealistic but also undesirable - Whitehall needs a total overhaul so specific project expertise and political appointees can be brought in quickly Blair basically says all that. The one thing he doesn’t say and which the same group of people agree on is this and it’s something Blair left behind: - judges and quangos have too much power, are unaccountable and without redressing the balance in favour of parliament it is very difficult to do anything big fast - the bare minimum that needs to change in this regard is to reform judicial review and planning law so we can put building and economic growth ahead of newts and NIMBYs None of that above really ought to be up for discussion. It is all common sense but not one of our politicians will publicly say all of it Whatever you think of Blair, engage with what he’s saying not how he makes you feel. The bare minimum we should expect from any leader is that they have an analysis of the current situation and a plan to deal with it which is as coherent and realistic as his intervention. Pretty well every critique I’ve read so far has failed to meet this requirement. Over to Andy and Keir and Kemi and Nigel and Zack and all the others

The Great British net zero con-trick of Drax. The Labour government is trying to force through an extension that would give Drax an estimated £1.8bn in taxpayer funded subsidies on top of the £11bn it has already received. Drax has burned an amount of wood equivalent to 300 million trees. Burning wood creates 18% more CO2 emissions than coal. And here’s the con trick: Drax is a sneaky way of exporting our CO2 emissions. We pay billions of pounds to cut down ancient forests in the US and Canada, ship the wood across the Atlantic in diesel tankers, then burn it in a Yorkshire-based power station. And here’s the kicker - the CO2 emissions tally is not counted against the country that burns it, but the country that grows it. So Drax emissions are counted against the countries who grow and export the wood for Drax - like Canada and USA…not UK who burn it. So the UK can reduce CO2 figures by importing the burning wood grown elsewhere. A gigantic net zero con-trick.

British politics will reach a new reductio ad absurdum in the Makerfield by election: Vote Labour to destroy the sitting Labour Prime Minister. Support Labour PM Starmer but NOT voting Labour. We are having a by-election not because there’s any demand or need in the national interest but entirely to suit the convenience of the byzantine politics of the ruling party and the political pygmies in whose interest it is run. We are no longer a serious nation. No wonder the bond markets are squiffy.

Does Wes have anger management issues?

Starmer letter to Streeting: 'I am sorry you will no longer be sat at the Cabinet table.' Gawd. Just shoot me.

New blog: results from a deep research project on swing voter attitudes to KS, Kemi, Farage, immigration, NHS, net zero, benefits etc… Want to know what swing voters think? * They hate Westminster and both parties more than ever. 'It's like they hate us' is a common view. *The cost of living and immigration dominate discussion much more than SW1 realises. * Voters greatly UNDER-estimate the scale of immigration by ~5-30X, contrary to the conventional wisdom. They are already angry about the immigration farce of Tories and Labour before they are given the real numbers. So there is huge scope for *much greater hatred for the old parties* and much more support for *much tougher action*. Millions of LAB voters want much tougher action on immigration than Tories like Gawke and Barwell. *The fact that the millions are mainly legal not illegal is further terrible news for both old parties and makes voters hate them more. Voters want MUCH tougher rules on 'can they support themselves financially', use of NHS, and blocking/deporting of violent criminals. Dinghy farce stopped. * Voters are much more sceptical of Net Zero than 5 years ago. Showing them PRC emissions helps win the argument for a shift of policy they support. *Voters are much more sceptical that more money will help the NHS than in decades - maybe since the start of the NHS. They want to hear new ideas but hear nothing from the old system. *They HATE HATE HATE the utility companies - the hate is the same across CON/LAB/REF etc. This is an open goal for all political entrepreneurs. *Voters are much more angry about benefit scams than MPs of any party. This issue seems less polarised than immigration. *Voters were deeply hostile to Starmer BEFORE the Epstein debacle. There is zero prospect of this turning around given KS's skills and temperament. (The conventional wisdom from the likes of the Institute for Govt and FT was KS is ‘a serious person’ who will ‘bring stability’. The system is now disowning KS but he was their boy.) *Voters have few views on Kemi because they ignore the Tories because ‘they’re just not relevant any more’. They know nothing she's said or done. 'Useless but irrelevant'. * Voters want ‘a team and a plan’ from Farage but fear he won’t give them it and fear another bout of chaos making the cost of living nightmare even worse. *The aesthetics of right wing videos tend to be bad for persuasion. Aesthetics polarise emotionally even when people agree on facts/arguments re immigration etc. *A big chunk of the SW1 NPC class has radicalised so much on immigration they can’t see sense and will keep sabotaging themselves. E.g Sam Freedman says that it’s HARDER for Britain to stop the dinghies crossing the Channel than for America to control the 2,000 mile southern land border! 🤣🤡 The NPCs will generate any degree of nonsense necessary to avoid confronting reality on immigration. They have radicalised even more since 2016 when their delusions sank them in the referendum. *This should not surprise you — this network decided they understand managing tech companies better than the guy who built SpaceX and spent 3 years saying X was about to collapse before self-cancelling to Bluesky where they've driven themselves mental. *This is not a network that will update accurately in response to voters. Much of SW1 will continue radicalising Left and supporting the continuation of how SW1 works as the voters hate it, and them, more and more and more. *Like the Democrats doing things which gave Trump the White House, this NPC network is making it much easier for Farage to become PM, even though that is the thing they want to avoid most. *The left who think they should copy Mamdani will also self-sabotage. *The elite fragmentation, radicalisation, OODA-loop-as-denial-of-service attack, and pathological politics will continue. *Chances of financial crisis and blood on the streets go up every month. *What LAB MPs should do is pick the person with sensible priorities who is the best suited to controlling a pathological Whitehall and getting things done. They shd optimise for good government, a No10 which is NOT Media Entertainment Service. They shd not think first of polls and 'communication' (which the old parties can't do). The only path to partly averting the debacle of Starmer is to orient towards the voters and *change Whitehall to deliver those priorities*. But this won't happen! Labour like Tories *prefer to lose* than to have rows at dinner parties about firing officials and improving the management. More likely is the Trolley>Truss show -- meltdown then double meltdown with Miliband/Rayner. *Voters want 'a new team and a detailed plan' and a leader who can stick to core priorities particularly cost of living, immigration, and NHS. Neither LAB nor CON can do this. Farage says he will but will he? If Reform is essentially just NF + Tory dregs, then we're heading for either a Reform clownshow or a red-green-yellow-troon-loon-ScotNat-Hamas coalition clownshow... Or entrepreneurs create the thing voters want and take votes from everybody! *Everybody Reform is asking for money from shd ask: 'what's your recruitment plan for actual serious people who represent the best of the country and have a record of building things?' *If you want to get a sense of voters, rather than what the usually wrong ‘experts’ tell you about voters, check out the link in next tweet…

Britain has become ungovernable. The Blairite constitutional reforms cemented our status as a quangocracy with a politicised judicial system overseeing it. The next PM will discover this in short order just as the last few have.

He's not a good and decent man. Only someone corrupt or extremely stupid would preside over the sleaze that's taken place on his watch Neither is desirable in a Prime Minister To recap, under @Keir_Starmer... Two people with close links to pedophiles were promoted to high office His ex deputy is in hot water with HMRC One minister resigned because she turned out to be a literal criminal His anti corruption minister has been convicted overseas of corruption A homelessness minister had to resign over evicting tenants A heath minister resigned after hoping a constituent would die Another Labour MP resigned after punching a constituent in the face 6x A Labour MP was suspended after being arrested for sex offences The Business Secretary thought he was a solicitor when he wasn't His Chancellor seems extremely confused about her work history. She also failed to get a licence to rent her property Multiple ministers including the PM accepted gifts including clothes from donors despite earning more than double what most people earn The Attorney General has failed to act on conflicts of interest and supported baseless lawfare against British soldiers The Labour Welsh First Minister was forced to resign over so many allegations of corruption it's hard to know where to start typing them On top of all that there's the cronyism, firing officials without due process, and the Chinese spying case

Picture Ireland in 1987: unemployment at 17%, debt-to-GDP ratio pushing 120%, and young Irish workers fleeing to London and Boston faster than you could say "economic basket case." Finance Minister Ray MacSharry slashed government spending by 3% of GDP while dropping corporate tax rates to 10% for manufacturing (later extending it across sectors). Brussels bureaucrats screamed about "unfair competition," but MacSharry kept cutting. By 1994, something extraordinary happened. GDP growth hit 5.8% annually, then accelerated to over 10% by 1999 (try explaining that with Keynesian multipliers). Foreign direct investment poured in as companies like Intel, Microsoft, and Pfizer set up European headquarters in Dublin, creating actual productive jobs instead of government make-work programs. The Irish called it the Celtic Tiger, and suddenly emigration reversed into immigration. The formula was blindingly simple: slash bureaucracy, cut taxes, get out of entrepreneurs' way. Estonia used the same playbook after leaving the Soviet Union. Hong Kong became an economic powerhouse when it was still a British colony using the same principles. Yet today's politicians act like Ireland's transformation was some mystical accident rather than predictable market forces unleashed by government restraint. Of course, Ireland later screwed it up by joining the euro and letting banks leverage themselves into oblivion during the housing bubble (because politicians can never leave well enough alone). But for one glorious decade, they proved what happens when you stop trying to manage an economy and just let people create wealth.

@wesstreeting @Keir_Starmer YOU ARE NOT REDUCING @NHSEngland WAITING LISTS, YOU'RE FIDDLING THEM! * I've been removed from 2 x waiting lists - cardiology & orthopedics. * My wife has been removed from a cardiology programme. * Many relatives & friends likewise. YOU'RE CONNING US

A trans Indian migrant who arrived in the UK a few years ago and is not a citizen or permanent resident was elected to the Scottish parliament as a member of the woke Green Party. Scotland allows non-citizens to become elected to office. “Q Mannivannan” is set to earn over $100k USD despite not having the right to work full time on his temporary visa.

There is a myth, very widely held in Labour, that we achieved an huge popular victory in 2024 under Starmer. In fact we won 9.7 million votes, over 3 million fewer than in 2017 and half a million less than the 'disastrous' 2019 poll. We won because the Tories imploded in 2024.

Natural England is out of control. Nuclear is the most land dense clean energy using up to 3000 times LESS land than solar and wind. Nuclear is much better for habitats and the environment and yet our environment regs are blocking our ability to build it. Madness.

Our regime imports terrorists, gives them passports, calls them ‘British’, then says ‘oh he turned out to be a violent terrorist but he’s British so this has nothing to do with immigration, diversity is our strength, you’re racist if you disagree’. Most voters think this is mental but it’s been *cross party consensus* for 25 years like prioritising rights of foreign murderers over Britain’s safety in law. It will continue for years. If you get killed the MPs will babble ‘thoughts and prayers’ but leave the laws in place

Last night, Labour voted to continue with its disastrous Troubles Bill and take it forward into the next parliamentary session. I made my thoughts on this quite plain in the @HouseofCommons: it's unpatriotic, it's disingenuous, and it's dishonourable.

These 5 ex Armed Forces Labour MPs, couldn't be arsed to vote in the NI troubles bill, but all managed to turn out to save Keir Starmer's skin @AlistairCarns @helenadollimore @DanJarvisMBE @WStone4SN @FredThomasUK you couldn't be more disgusting if you tried.

Yesterday's edition of the Financial Times carried a lengthy interview with Lord Hermer KC, the present Attorney General of the United Kingdom. If you haven't seen it: oh, boy. The interview was part of the FT's fluffy "Lunch With" feature, a sympathetic profile format whose previous subjects have included most of the 'grown ups in the room' of the British establishment over the last 40 years. The Hermer instalment was, by the FT's own pitch, an opportunity for the Attorney General to "open up about the Keir Starmer people don't see," and to explain the merits of the Chagos deal. The piece appeared. The comments section opened. And in those comments, you could see a country on the precipice of major change. The Financial Times's readership is not, to put it as politely as the situation will allow, known for its raucous lower-class anger. It is the readership of senior partners at City firms, central bankers, retired civil servants, retired ambassadors, and the broader metropolitan managerial caste of Britain at the fatter end. It is, on almost every available political question, the most reliably establishment-tarian readership of any newspaper in the United Kingdom. The comments, before they were closed, were so brutal that readers were openly asking for the article to be withdrawn and threatening to cancel their subscriptions in numbers the FT had not seen before. When the FT readership turns on a Labour Attorney General, the Labour Attorney General has a problem. If you were wondering what caused such an outbreak of fury from the terribly polite class, here's a summary of the last three decades of Lord Hermer's career. Lord Hermer, before he became Attorney General, made his name and his living as a human-rights barrister whose principal practice, for a meaningful slice of the relevant period, was the prosecution of civil claims against the British state. Suing his own country. He got particular mileage out of pursuing claims against the British armed forces, on behalf of foreign nationals alleging mistreatment by British servicemen and women in the field. The most notorious of these matters is the Al-Sweady litigation. Lord Hermer was lead counsel for eight Iraqi claimants who alleged that British soldiers had murdered, mutilated, and tortured Iraqi prisoners after the Battle of Danny Boy in May 2004. The claims occupied the Ministry of Defence, the Royal Military Police, and a public inquiry for the better part of a decade. The inquiry, at its conclusion, found the claims to be "wholly without foundation," and the result of "deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility." On 22 April this year, the Daily Telegraph published more than 25,000 pages of contemporaneous emails and legal documents from Lord Hermer's chambers' handling of the Al-Sweady litigation. Among the documents was an internal communication in his own writing, advising on how to "get the big story out there" and noting the need for "wriggle room if the killings did not in fact happen." Today's edition of the same paper carries further documents from the same info dump showing Hermer privately criticising serving British soldiers, in correspondence with his legal team, while praising publicly the Iraqi lawyers whose own clients the inquiry had found to be lying. Hermer has, rightfully, been formally referred Lord Hermer to the Bar Standards Board for serious professional misconduct. Lord Glasman, a Labour peer who knows him personally, has called him "an arrogant...fool." Boris Johnson, the former Prime Minister, has said directly that Hermer "aided false war crimes claims against British troops." (Fancy losing a moral high-ground to Boris Johnson...) This is the Attorney General. He is the chief legal officer of the Crown. The man whose entire constitutional function is to ensure that the legal interests of the British state are properly defended in the highest forums is a man who, before assuming the post, made his career attacking the British state on behalf of liars, liars whose lies were specifically calibrated to destroy the reputations of British servicemen and women. There is a word for this kind of legal practice when it is done at scale and in a particular direction. The word is "lawfare." The deployment of judicial mechanisms as a substitute for politics by other means. The systematic use of human-rights frameworks, judicial review, and aggressive litigation to constrain the actions of one's own state, to attack one's own armed forces, and to advance a worldview that the elected institutions of one's country have repeatedly declined to advance through the ballot box. It is, at its outer edge, a form of treason that wears a wig. And Hermer, who practices it, is an enemy of our state.

Grateful to Times columnist Giles Coren for putting to the sword a local council pipsqueak for trying to put out of business a restaurant in the middle of nowhere where owner Ruth Hanson does all the kitchen prep herself, the washing up, the bookings, the till, payroll and then cooks it. The restaurant is called Hansom in Bedale, North Yorkshire. To give you an idea of its remoteness it’s 7 miles from Northallerton and 31 miles from York. So, on occasions, her husband Mark, who had a job of his own, gives up his evenings to chauffeur some guests to and from their homes. Coren points out when he reviewed the place last year ( he gave it a glowing recommendation) he had to hitchhike from Northallerton station. No Bedale train, no metro, no Uber hanging around at the corner. Enter Chris Doyle, licensing enforcement officer for N Yorkshire council, who has written to Ruth saying in his view Mark was operating a taxi service and that would require a raft of expensive and time consuming licences. Ruth responded that Mark was her husband, he was unpaid and there was no separate charge for the journey. Doyle said he didn’t care as there was deemed to be a commercial benefit and warned without a licence the council may take legal action. Coren has a great last paragraph; “ Yeah, you sue her, you absolute local heroes. “ You teach Ruth and Mark a lesson for being great at their jobs, for treasuring their customers, for trying to create a little joy and make ends meet in a collapsing world.” PS Thought you’d like to see what a Ruth menus looks like. This is called the Sunday Sharing Feast. Starters. Smoked Leek and Pickled Croque Monsieur Whitby Crab Crumpet Pickled cucumber, Garden herbs. Heritage beetroot, whipped goat’s Curd, Wild Garlic emulsion. Main Course Wensleydale chicken, Apricot and sage Wellington. Honey and mustard mash, buttered spring , cider sauce. Dessert Yorkshire rhubarb and ginger trifle. Cost; £55. With publicity thanks to Coren’s column and this tweet I suspect the queue will be out the door and Mark can have his evenings off again.

Well said, my 2nd cousin Andrew...

“Many of our policy makers and much of civil society, inspired by the success in Northern Ireland, believe that all wars and terrorism can be stopped by clever conflict-resolution discussion and compromise, forgetting that violent actors such as the IRA only come to the talking table when their paramilitary capability is rendered ineffective by the actions of a military that is trained to fight and die for its citizens.” “So much of the current criticism of the SAS’s actions of the past stems from this mistaken belief that peace and security can be achieved and maintained without fighting and sacrifice, and that those, like the SAS, that do the fighting, killing and dying on behalf of society are somehow out-of-date, illegal dinosaurs. And this is the most dangerous fiction of all.” telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/2…