James 🇬🇧🇪🇺🇺🇦

The 2024 general election has proven, yet again, that first past the post is not fit for purpose. We need proportional representation to make every vote count so that we get a government that we vote for. @MakeVotesMatter actionnetwork.org/forms/this-sho…

Immigration makes Britain brilliant.

"if you think AOC... is somehow less progressive, less moral, less worthy of your support than MTG; if you as a leftist think she is better than AOC in any way, then I think you need help." My deep dive on AOC vs MTG, especially their records on Gaza & Israel. I bring receipts:

🚨 BREAKING: The Makerfield by-election will take place on Thursday 18 June

NEW: Andy Burnham has been granted permission by Labour’s ruling national executive committee to stand in candidate selection process for Makerfield byelection.

@British_4Ever @PolitlcsUK It’ll be even funnier if Reform loses despite being the clear favourites.

@PolitlcsUK It’ll be funny if Andy Burnham loses. Reform is projected to win this seat and reform won all council seats in Wigan this year.

‼️POLL | Net favourability in North West: 🔴 Burnham +26 --- 🟠 Davey -9 🟢 Polanski -16 ➡️ Farage -22 🔵 Badenoch -24 🔴 Starmer -42 Source: @Ipsos, March – May 2026

I hope this isn’t true. There are times when it’s more important to put country before party. This is one of them. Burnham’s longstanding commitment to a fairer voting system could transform our democracy & counter dire threat of a Reform UK government theguardian.com/politics/2026/…

NEW: Kamala Harris calls on Democrats to discuss abolishing the Electoral College, packing the Supreme Court, & making Puerto Rico & D.C. states.

Angela Rayner was dragged through every front page for weeks... HMRC's verdict: NOT deliberate. NOT even careless. Farage pockets £5 million and chooses not to declare it So where's the wall-to-wall coverage? Tell me this isn't a rigged game.

🚨BREAKING: The Senate just failed to end the Iran war. 49-50. The one vote that blocked it: John Fetterman. A Democrat.

🚨 NEW: Labour members voting intention: Starmer vs Streeting: Starmer: 53% Streeting: 23% Starmer vs Burnham: Burnham: 61% Starmer: 28% Starmer vs Miliband: Miliband: 46% Starmer: 39% Starmer vs Rayner: Rayner: 45% Starmer: 41% Via @LabourList, 1214 members

I can confirm that I will be requesting the permission of the NEC to stand in the Makerfield by-election. I grew up in this area and have lived here for 25 years. I care deeply about it and its people. I know they have been let down by national politics. Ten years ago, I decided to leave Westminster. Why? Because, after 16 years, I came to the conclusion that our national political system does not work for areas like ours. I learnt this fighting its failure to invest in the Wigan borough, for justice for the Hillsborough families and against its treatment of Greater Manchester during the pandemic. Over the last decade, I have been challenging this failure from the outside and building a new and better way of doing politics. We have built Greater Manchester into the fastest-growing city-region in the UK and put buses back under public control, introducing a £2 fare cap to help people with cost-of-living pressures. However, there is only so much that can be done from Greater Manchester. Much bigger change is needed at a national level if everyday life is to be made more affordable again. This is why I now seek people’s support to return to Parliament: to bring the change we have brought to Greater Manchester to the whole of the UK and make politics work properly for people. Millions are struggling and they need the Labour Government to succeed. It has already made changes to make life better for them in its first two years. After this week, we owe it to people to come back together as a Labour movement, giving the Prime Minister and the Government the space and stability they need as the by-election takes place. I want to recognise the difficult decision taken by Josh Simons and the sacrifice he and his family are making. I have worked closely with him as Mayor on issues like flooding and illegal waste dumping and have seen first-hand how effective he has been. He has put the communities of Makerfield first, made a real difference for them and should take great pride in that. Finally, I truly do not take a single vote for granted and will work hard to regain the trust of people in the Makerfield constituency, many of whom have long supported our party but lost faith in recent times. We will change Labour for the better and make it a party you can believe in again. ENDS

The one million bombs Hitler dropped on London might have indicated something, though.

🚨 BREAKING: Nigel Farage is now being investigated by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner for not declaring the £5m gift he received from billionaire Christopher Harborne

MARCO RUBIO: “The goal of the war in Iran is now to return it to how it was before Trump started the war.” Unreal.

Westminster may finally be about to have the argument it has spent 40 years avoiding. If Andy Burnham returns to Parliament, the political class will know how to cover it. A leadership drama. Who is up, who is down, whether Keir Starmer can survive, whether Labour is once again turning inward. The familiar machinery of Westminster psychodrama will whirr into life. That framing misses the larger point. Burnham’s possible return matters not because of what it says about Labour’s leadership, but because of what it reveals about the British state: what it can still do, what it has forgotten how to do, and what kind of country it must become if it is serious about resilience. Britain is finally having a more serious conversation about national security. The Strategic Defence Review, the pivot back towards Europe, the recognition that hybrid warfare turns citizens, infrastructure and civic institutions into part of the front line: all of it marks a real shift in how the state thinks about its own survival. But at the centre of that conversation lies a question that the defence establishment, and most of Westminster, still does not want to answer. What kind of society do you need to be before resilience is possible? Finland is now the model everyone cites. Comprehensive security. Whole-of-society defence. Civilian preparedness woven into military planning. British strategists admire the Finnish system and ask how it might be copied. But the admiration stops short of the uncomfortable question: why does it work there? The answer is not geography or history or some mysterious quality of Finnish national character. It is structural. Nearly 80% of Finns say they would defend their country if attacked. In Britain, the figure is closer to 33%. That gap is not an accident. It exists because Finland has spent decades building a society in which people have a genuine stake in what they are being asked to defend. Energy is affordable. Housing is available. Public services function. Institutions command trust. The Nordic welfare state is not a sentimental add-on to Finnish security policy. It is the foundation of it. You cannot ask people to defend a country that does not work for them. Britain has spent 40 years building the opposite. The privatisation of essentials – energy, water, transport, housing – transferred wealth upwards from households to shareholders while making the basics of everyday life more expensive. The state, stripped of the tools to control costs at source, has been reduced to compensating after the fact. Out of every pound the Government spends on housing, 88p goes to subsidising private rents. Just 12p goes to building homes. When energy prices spiked in 2022, the Government spent £40bn in a single winter cushioning the blow, not because it had a resilient energy system but because it lacked one. Debt interest now consumes more than £100bn a year. Britain has the highest debt servicing costs in the G7: the compounding price of financing failure rather than eliminating it at source. This is what bond market dependency actually looks like. It is not an abstract fiscal condition. It is the consequence of a state that has been stripped of the supply-side tools that would let it cure the problems it now pays, indefinitely, to manage. And here is the paradox the Treasury refuses to confront. The countries that borrow most cheaply are often those that have retained the public investment model Britain abandoned. The spread between UK and Dutch borrowing costs has widened sharply not because markets fear public investment, but because they have lost confidence in a model that borrows to subsidise private failure while never addressing its causes. This is the connection Britain’s defence debate is missing. The familiar framing, that social spending is what must be sacrificed to meet the NATO target, is not merely politically toxic. It is strategically illiterate. Cutting the foundations of social cohesion to fund the hardware of national defence is self-defeating. You end up with planes and no pilots, submarines and no crew, an army that cannot recruit because the society it is meant to protect has stopped believing in itself. I think Burnham understands this. That is why his programme is more interesting than the leadership gossip suggests. What he has been building in Greater Manchester – public control of transport, expanded social housing, investment in the productive foundations of the city economy – is not a nostalgic rerun of postwar nationalisation. It is a proof of concept for a different kind of state. The Bee Network is the most visible example, but the argument behind it travels. A state that can shape markets is not condemned to subsidise their failures. A state that produces affordable energy through public generation does not need to spend tens of billions cushioning every price shock. A state with a serious public housebuilding programme does not need housing benefit to rise endlessly in line with private rents. A state that builds institutions people can see, use and trust begins to restore the civic confidence on which resilience depends. The real constraint on Britain is not money. It is capacity: the workers, institutions, supply chains and public purpose needed to turn national will into national renewal. Britain’s tragedy is not that it has run out of money. It is that after 40 years of hollowing out the state, it has made itself less able to act. Burnham’s critics will reach for the familiar warning. Borrow more, spend more, spook the gilt markets, repeat the Truss disaster. But this misunderstands both the problem and the opportunity. Bond markets do not have ideological preferences. They have functional ones. They prefer clarity, credible revenue streams, productive investment, and a state with a plan. What they punish is not public ambition but incoherence. A properly designed productive state programme would not be a leap into fiscal fantasy. It would be an attempt to end the much costlier fantasy that Britain can keep borrowing to compensate for broken markets while refusing to repair them. The defence conversation and the economic conversation need to become the same conversation. Finland did not build national resilience by choosing between welfare and security. It built resilience by understanding that they are inseparable: that a country in which the basics work, where people trust one another and the institutions around them, is one that can face danger with something more than anxiety. That is the deeper argument Burnham represents. Westminster will be tempted to treat him as a leadership story. It should resist the temptation. The question is not whether Burnham can return to parliament. It is whether Britain can return to the idea that the state should make life work. Because a country that cannot command the confidence of its people cannot truly defend itself.

This paint job—if you can call it that—is costing you $7 million, America, because Trump gave a no-bid contract to a pal This would have been Exhibit A of the sort of shit DOGE was actually *supposed* to be looking for when it was instead cutting lifesaving scientific research

🚨 NEW: Over 100 former Labour councillors and candidates have written to Keir Starmer calling for him to resign

As I said on @bbcquestiontime - Farage’s £5m bung from some crypto tycoon in Thailand absolutely stinks. And Yusuf’s evasion here makes it stink even more. If Starmer or Badenoch had been caught doing this without declaring it, Farage & Yusuf would demand they resign.

He’s very rattled about this and rightly so. It’s a scandal.