Steve Clarke

@GoodwinMJ 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣 🤡

The persecution of Nigel Farage re a £5 million personal donation is outrageous. Had the British state provided adequate PROTECTION he'd not need to personally fund highly complex security. It speaks volumes - even after 2 MPs assassinated - Farage had to go it alone.

@Nigel_Farage Popcorn at the ready! My gut feeling says no apology will be forthcoming, so we'll see if you actually have the courage of your convictions. Or, more likely, this is just more of your bluff and bluster.🍿

My lawyers have formally written to Ben Habib. They demanded an immediate apology and public retraction for the baseless allegations he made today. I do not take legal action often. But I will not accept slander & politically motivated smears after winning a national election.

@dailybritainonx @TinkSimCor This is straight out of the playbook imported from a country 3,000 miles to our West.

He won't answer questions about his £5m gift. He walked away from Sky News. He dismissed a reporter at his own Havering victory press conference. He refused Newsnight, Politics Live and Kuenssberg in the same week. Now he's alleging his private records were hacked and he's considering legal action. He may also need to fight a by-election in Clacton. The story that won't go away. 👇

@danbarker @labourlewis @harphat And your alternative is?

Loosely your argument is: Andy Burnham is good because he has done things like brought buses back under regional control, and people in Finland say they would fight for their country? Nothing in your argument properly links those two, and the Finland comparison is fundamentally flawed: - Finland has a population of less than 6 million, smaller than London let alone the UK - Finland's unemployment rate is double the UK's - Finland's GDP is 'just' a few hundred billion, vs the UK's trillions - Finland's high proportion of people willing to fight for the country is similar to Ukraine's - for the obvious reason they have a very large regional security threat Your post reads a little like AI - I don't think that's because it *is* AI, but because it follows that same pattern of saying things very well grammatically, but that just don't make sense if you unpick the logical arguments within.

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.

@IsabelOakeshott Please do us all a favour and give some EVIDENCE of ANY lie in this video

This is just a LIE. This is what desperation looks like. Genuinely embarrassing.

@policylaila Didn't hear a single word of "manipulation". I heard the truth. Would you care to enlighten me as to how my hearing is defective?

If Rayner walked into my child’s class and lied to their face, I would be livid! That is shameless scaremongering targeting children. This is not politics, it’s child manipulation and it’s disgusting.

@OrdainedInfidel @justfara Well done. You worked hard on that little missive, making sure it was grammatically correct. It's still factually, well off the mark, but you gain credit for effort.

@stevece @justfara You’re just a little gay Brit, your world is falling apart, your liberal green utopia is turning into a big shit. You’re just a fag that will one day get your ass raped by Mohammad and friends. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

But ​​I have MAD respect for him. Think about it: The dude comes over here under the guises of 'repairing or strengthening' the relationship between the US and UK. HIS REAL AGENDA? Going in front of Congress and telling them to get their heads out of their asses and start doing something about the Toddler in Chief. CHUCK GOT GAME. He's a legend.

@OrdainedInfidel @justfara Your typing becomes more furious and with it, the grammatical errors increase. It clearly demonstrates your lack of ability /intellect. Maybe it's not me that requires help? 🤡

@stevece @justfara is your gay liberal lifestyle making you happy, if you need help, go to a mosque around the corner.

@OrdainedInfidel @justfara OK, I retract my statement about this being a Bot account. It is in fact, one that belongs to a keyboard warrior, an incel, stuck in his mother's basement, shouting obscenities to the world, just to be noticed. How sad for you.

@stevece @justfara Why do retarded liberals always bring up stupid things like a sentence as though anyone cares. Liberals are the most retarded species on earth

@vanitawinkler Back from where? Did you lose it somewhere? (By the way, I still have MY country, the United Kingdom, still firmly within my grasp) So the question is, how have you ascertained that somehow, you have lost your country somewhere?

I am voting Reform because I want my country back.

@reformparty_uk This is the wrong platform for you to be posting this nonsense on: you're looking for a gullible audience and you won't find one here.

Nigel Farage is now the most trusted leader when it comes to defending the nation. 🇬🇧 express.co.uk/news/politics/…

@OrdainedInfidel @justfara And you can't write a proper sentence. Therefore, I believe you are the loser.

@stevece @justfara You’re just another liberal disgusting Brit watching Muslims rape your little girls. Your fucking disgusting piece of shit!

@sophielouisecc @benhabib6 It's not TOO late TO add TWO "O's" where they are needed. Good luck with writing a legal brief with that level of articulation.

I am really grateful to @benhabib6 for donating to my legal action against DEI internship schemes. He has shown me so much support in ending this nonsense. To many politicians tweet about it but take no action. It’s time for action. It’s time for fairness

@susie_dent I'd like a word to describe the thingamajig you use to extract the whatsitsname from the ujamaflip.

A question: what are the things you wish there was a word for? And have you come up with your own word to fill that gap?

@ampedspring @OrdainedInfidel @justfara Oh, good spot! My sincere apologies. Note to self: look carefully at the evidence being handed to you on a plate by an ally.

@stevece @OrdainedInfidel @justfara Steve I’m pointing out an account based in the Phillipines is claiming to speak on behalf of all Americans.

@ampedspring @OrdainedInfidel @justfara So the keepers bought a tick. Still a BOT account. Unless you want to disprove that claim with actual written responses.

@stevece @OrdainedInfidel @justfara Lol

@RobertJenrick @nadhimzahawi Nice cricket "White's" you're wearing there. Is that an indication of your underlying racism perchance? 🤡

Village cricket is part of the essence of England 🏏 Broken planning laws and risk averse councils are closing cherished pitches. A Reform government will protect them.

@OrdainedInfidel @justfara Warning: This is a BOT account

@justfara The USA doesn’t give a shit about what he says. If you like the king so much go to England and live in the fast becoming Islamic 3rd world shit hole.

@gigih1720 @CyranoUSA @justfara 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦

@Melnyiam_ @justfara Imagine taking any notice of this very obvious BOT ACCOUNT.

@justfara Imagine still believing the UK and Europe is still important on the world stage.