Blog

Pete North continues his quest for salvation&nbsp;I've had quite an interesting (and concerning) morning. I attended an academic conference at the Leeds Library entitled "Reflecting on the Riots: Racism, Islamophobia and Community Resistance". I went out of curiosity. It was hosted by activist academic Dr Waqas Tufail. It largely conformed to my my expectations. Basically a social sciences love-in but with a particular Islamic slant.As such, the audience composition could very well have been straight out of a Harry Enfield sketch - right down to the obese disabled black woman wheezing in the corner. I expected it to have at least some veneer of academic inquiry, but it didn't take twenty minutes for them to start ranting about genocide in Gaza, and the oppressions they face in campus because of the university's "Zionist affiliations". I figured that was coming when they opened up their university branded laptops plastered with "free Palestine" stickers.&nbsp;It was was hugely ironic that these people had set themselves up to talk about countering the "far right" when the kind of rhetoric I heard from them was pretty much exactly the same as "anti Zionist" far right only peppered with woke terminology about decolonisation.&nbsp;What it was, though, was thinly veiled Islamism (political Islam) masquerading as a civil rights endeavour, wearing academia as a skinsuit. We have often discussed "suicidal empathy", but what we see here is the "suicidal gullibility" of our institutions who will gladly give houseroom to these creatures in the name of diversity. The same ilk who describe grooming gangs as a "moral panic". They sit there dressed in Islamic cultural garb like butter wouldn't melt in their mouths. One of the lead speakers, Professor Salman Sayyid even had the audacity to complain that while universities maintain a secular stance, they still close for Christmas.&nbsp;His basic complaint, as I understood it, is that anyone with Muslim traits ("Muslimness") faces systemic discrimination, and that a de facto white supremacy exists, that enforces an invisible "apartheid". They spoke about the flag of Palestine being a unifying symbol of the struggle they face against Islamophobia in the West. They're basically romanticising Hamas's jihad as resistance, which pretty much tracks given how the flag has been adopted wholesale by political Islam in Britain.They then spoke of the rising threat of ethno-nationalism as basically an ethnic revanchism, as the tides of history turn towards repatriation - implying that repatriation as a policy has now become mainstream. You will not be surprised to learn that Islamophobic oppression umbrella applies also to "refugees" - and Refugee Action was in attendance. Basically, the open borders academic blob with a side order of Islamo-leftist resistance. They see ethno-nationalism as the primary threat and something that must be deconstructed. The notion of Britain as a white, culturally Christian country is something to be overcome in their eyes - to establish Islam on an "equal" footing.&nbsp;I had hoped to stay longer, perhaps making a discreet exit by lunchtime (because all academic conferences are tedious), but I thought I might venture a question after the first session. Since the discussion was around the riots last year, which they have diagnosed as Islamophobic, I wanted to venture the point that the riots took on a life of their own after British voters had voted to end mass immigration and what they got instead was an explosion of legal and illegal immigration. There was clucking from the room as I was formulating my question and I was not permitted to finish, so I walked out in disgust. I'd already had enough of the thinly-veiled antisemitism.&nbsp;Not that it mattered. Their answer wasn't important. I got the measure of them. This is the same school of thought behind the push for the adsorption of de facto blasphemy laws. The Islamist threat has learned how to camouflage inside the institutions, adopting the garb of anti-racism.Here you can see why the average academic is so badly out of touch. They look at rooms like that and they genuinely believe the ethno-religious makeup (peppered with middle class female social sciences academics) is a true reflection of modern multicultural Britain and cannot envisage, even for a nanosecond, why anyone might object to having their country reconfigured for the benefit of foreigners. Still, it's nice that they declare their malevolent intent so openly. It seems that ethno-nationalism is our best defence against it. Find Pete at <a data-mce-href="northernvariant.co.uk" href="northernvariant.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">northernvariant.co.uk</a> and on twitter at <a data-mce-href="https://x.com/FUDdaily" href="https://x.com/FUDdaily" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Northern variant (@FUDdaily) / X </a>

The enemy within

<h3>No Representation without Taxation! Solving the government’s benefit deficit</h3>31jul25 V0.1&nbsp; &nbsp;Studio discussion: <a title="An AI studio discussion of this post" href="http://veo.uk/Beyond_Grants__Unpacking_WOTE.m4a" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-href="http://veo.uk/Beyond_Grants__Unpacking_WOTE.m4a">An AI studio discussion of this post</a> Summary: Make ALL benefits loans, not grants.31This proposal is not without precedent. Student grants were replaced by loans in 1990.&nbsp; Second, by making all benefits loans, recipients are now incentivised to make choices based on price, like everyone else in our society. Third, the benefit loans remain as assets on the government balance sheet Like student loans, there will need to be mechanisms to ensure recipients are not precluded from work. Support for children should also be loans, which are repayable by them, should their parents not repay them. This will ensure that adults do not abuse the system for their own benefit.&nbsp; If your government account is in deficit you should be excluded from voting.There will be howls of indignation, of course, so let's have alternative proposals? &nbsp;&nbsp; Overview The "No Representation without Taxation" proposal aims to address government benefit deficits by transforming all welfare benefits into repayable loans, aligning incentives for fiscal responsibility, and tying voting rights to financial accountability. This concept draws inspiration from the shift from student grants to loans in 1990, aiming to create a sustainable welfare system while encouraging personal responsibility.Key Components 1. Conversion of Benefits to Loans Precedent: The transition from student grants to loans in 1990 demonstrates that converting benefits into repayable loans is feasible. This precedent shows that recipients can adapt to systems requiring eventual repayment without undermining access to essential support. Implementation: All government benefits (e.g., unemployment, housing, disability, child support) are restructured as interest-free or low-interest loans. Recipients sign agreements outlining repayment terms based on future income or financial stability. Rationale: By treating benefits as loans, recipients are incentivised to make cost-conscious decisions, mirroring the behaviour of individuals in market-driven systems. This reduces dependency and discourages over-reliance on benefits. 2. Incentivizing Price-Based Decision-Making Behavioural Shift: Recipients, aware of future repayment obligations, are motivated to seek cost-effective solutions (e.g., pursuing employment, minimizing unnecessary claims). This aligns their choices with broader societal economic principles. Safeguards: To prevent exclusion from work or essential services Repayment schedules are income-contingent, similar to student loan models (e.g., repayments begin only when income exceeds a threshold). Deferment or forgiveness options for cases of extreme hardship, disability, or other verified inability to repay. Support programs to help recipients transition to employment without losing access to benefits prematurely. 3. Government Balance Sheet Benefits Asset Creation: Benefit loans are recorded as assets on the government’s balance sheet, improving fiscal optics and potentially reducing deficits over time as repayments are collected. Long-Term Sustainability: Loan repayments create a revolving fund, enabling the government to sustain welfare programs without continuous increases in taxation or borrowing. Accounting Mechanism: A dedicated agency manages loan issuance, tracking, and repayment, ensuring transparency and efficiency. 4. Child Support as Loans Structure: Child-related benefits (e.g., child tax credits, allowances) are issued as loans to parents, repayable by parents or, if unpaid, by the child upon reaching adulthood and earning income. Safeguards Against Abuse: This structure discourages parents from exploiting child benefits for personal gain, as the debt transfers to the child only if unpaid. Repayment terms for children are income-contingent and capped to avoid undue burden. Incentive for Responsibility: Parents are incentivized to manage benefits wisely, knowing that unpaid loans could affect their children’s financial future. 5. Voting Rights Tied to Fiscal Responsibility Policy: Individuals with outstanding benefit loan deficits (i.e., unpaid loans exceeding a defined threshold) are temporarily excluded from voting in national or local elections until their account is balanced or under a repayment plan. Rationale: This reinforces the principle of "No Representation without Taxation," linking civic participation to financial accountability. It encourages repayment and discourages abuse of the system. Exemptions and Fairness Exemptions for those unable to repay due to disability, unemployment, or other verified hardships. Clear pathways to restore voting rights through repayment plans or debt forgiveness programs. Transparent communication to ensure recipients understand the link between fiscal responsibility and voting eligibility. Potential Benefits Fiscal Sustainability: Reduces government deficits by creating a repayable benefit system. Behavioral Incentives: Encourages recipients to prioritize employment and cost-effective decisions. Equity: Aligns welfare recipients’ incentives with those of taxpayers, fostering a sense of shared responsibility. Asset Growth: Strengthens government balance sheets by treating benefits as recoverable assets. Challenges and Mitigations Risk of Exclusion: Strict repayment or voting restrictions could disproportionately affect low-income individuals. Mitigation: Flexible repayment plans, hardship exemptions, and clear communication about terms. Administrative Complexity: Managing a loan-based welfare system requires robust infrastructure. Mitigation: Leverage existing student loan systems and technology for tracking and repayment. Public Resistance: The policy may face opposition due to perceived harshness. Mitigation: Public education campaigns emphasizing fairness, sustainability, and safeguards, alongside pilot programs to test the concept. Implementation Roadmap Legislative Framework: Draft laws to convert benefits to loans, defining repayment terms, exemptions, and voting eligibility criteria. Pilot Program: Test the model with a specific benefit (e.g., unemployment benefits) in a limited region to assess feasibility and public response. Infrastructure Development: Build or adapt systems for loan tracking, repayment, and voter eligibility checks. Public Engagement: Launch campaigns to explain the policy’s benefits and safeguards, addressing concerns about fairness. Full Rollout: Gradually expand to all benefits, incorporating lessons from the pilot phase. <figure id="figure-r9uwdrh3emdril0s2"><img id="r9uwdrh3emdril0s2" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/eo43BqFF8Iuf8K15uJFzBeaoI0NBDSBxYj0VjfWvmAFQVYTCwTxb4UzKEjnmuO92.jpg" alt="Voters in booths" title="Voters in booths" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: undefined undefined;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="No Representation without Taxation!" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/eo43BqFF8Iuf8K15uJFzBeaoI0NBDSBxYj0VjfWvmAFQVYTCwTxb4UzKEjnmuO92.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: undefined undefined;"><figcaption class="body-normal text-gray-500 mt-2">No Representation without Taxation!</figcaption></figure>Conclusion The "No Representation without Taxation" proposal reimagines welfare as a system of loans rather than grants, incentivizing fiscal responsibility while maintaining support for those in need. By drawing on the precedent of student loans, incorporating safeguards, and linking voting rights to repayment, this approach aims to create a sustainable, equitable, and accountable welfare system.

Make ALL benefits loans, not grants.

It is time to collect the royalties for the use of the English Language&nbsp; Here's a studio discussion iof this post... <a data-mce-href="https://veo.uk/english-licence.mp3" href="https://veo.uk/english-licence.mp3" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://veo.uk/english-licence.mp3</a> In keeping with Donald Trump's commendible approach to defending the interests of United States Intellectual property in the ephermeral world of art, and performance, I propose the English do the same and charge a royalty for the use of the English language, based on $1 per head of population (per annum) over the age of 18.&nbsp;&nbsp; Let's call the royalty a tariff on the fundamentral intellectual property that has enabled the United States (and other countries) that make use of the Kings English, to devise and express Intellectual Property - using the most efficient yet granular form of written and verbal communication.&nbsp; We could go on for ever extolling the benefits and virtues of the adoption of the English language - but let's first establish the basis of a legal agreement for its use use that reflects the UK's investment in over 2000 years of culture, development and practise. &nbsp; So starting with the United States back in 1776 at the point of the Revolution, which came about because the US decided it did not intend to continue pay dues and taxes to the UK Crown. To sweeten the deal, we propose this licence will also include loyalty-free access to the BBC and all its archives, and all UK museums and national parks for US citizens. A complete "heritage package". So I asked GROK to calculate the amount due in the first invoice to the United States including the backdated period from 1776. And please indicate the amount with and without compound interest at a reasonable rate since that time. Grok thought for 207 seconds, and came up with...The proposed royalty is $1 per year per U.S. resident over the age of 18, assessed annually starting in 1776 and continuing through 2025 (a total of 250 years). To calculate the total amount due, historical U.S. population data was interpolated linearly between known decennial figures (primarily from U.S. Census and historical estimates). The percentage of the population over 18 was similarly interpolated based on historical age distribution data, starting at approximately 46% in the 1770s and rising to 78% by 2025 due to demographic shifts (e.g., increasing life expectancy and declining birth rates). The number of adults for each year was then computed as (interpolated population) × (interpolated % over 18). The annual fee for each year is equal to the number of adults in that year.The total without interest is the simple sum of the annual fees from 1776 to 2025.For the total with compound interest, a reasonable annual rate of 5% was applied (reflecting a conservative estimate of long-term average interest rates over the period, such as those on government bonds or savings). Interest is compounded annually on each year's fee from the end of that year up to 2025. Thus, for year y y y, the compounded amount is (annual fee for y y y) × (1+0.05)2025−y (1 + 0.05)^{2025 - y} (1+0.05)2025−y. The total with interest is the sum of these compounded amounts across all years.Amount due without compound interest: $19,060,960,211 -&nbsp; nineteen billion, sixty million, nine hundred sixty thousand, two hundred eleven dollars.Amount due with compound interest at 5%: $12,332,219,447,282 - twelve trillion, three hundred thirty-two billion, two hundred nineteen million, four hundred forty-seven thousand, two hundred eighty-two dollarsAnd this brings up one of the fascinations of the language, since $12,332,219,447,282 (short scale: $ 12.33 trillion) would be described as approximately&nbsp; $12.33 billion in long-scale terms (since 10^12 is a billion in the long scale). The UK national debt is around $ 3.591 trillion and change - U.S. federal debt was approximately $36.56 trillion as of March. U.S. Government Deficit for Fiscal Year 2025 - Before Adding Backdated Language Royalties:The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects the U.S. federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2025 to be $1.9 trillion.cbo.gov This figure is adjusted to exclude timing shifts in certain payments and represents 6.2% of GDP.cbo.gov After Adding Backdated Language Royalties:The proposed backdated language royalty is $12.332 trillion (with compound interest at 5% from 1776 to 2025, as calculated previously). Adding this to the 2025 deficit: $1.9 trillion (baseline deficit) + $12.332 trillion (royalties) = $14.232 trillion.UK Government Deficit for Fiscal Year 2024/25 Before Receiving Backdated Language Royalties:According to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the UK public sector net borrowing (deficit) for the financial year 2024/25 is estimated at £151.9 billion ($202.1 billion, using an exchange rate of approximately $1.33/£1 based on recent data).reuters.com This figure is equivalent to approximately 4.8% of GDP, based on earlier 2023/24 data and projections for 2024/25.commonslibrary.parliament.uk After Receiving Backdated Language Royalties:The proposed backdated language royalty from the U.S. is $12.332 trillion (with 5% compound interest from 1776 to 2025). Converting to GBP at $1.33/£1, this is approximately £9.272 trillion. When the UK government receives this amount in 2024/25, it will be treated as a one-time revenue windfall, not an annual addition to receipts. The deficit is calculated as government spending minus revenue. Adding £9.272 trillion to revenue would eliminate the deficit and create a surplus:Baseline deficit: £151.9 billion (spending exceeds revenue by this amount). New revenue from royalties: £9.272 trillion. New fiscal balance: £151.9 billion (deficit) - £9.272 trillion (revenue) = £9.120 trillion surplus.So all those who rebellious colonials that thought WW2 had been cleverly managed by the US to divest the UK of its empire, and draw the teeth and claws of the proud imperial lion with its advanced aerospace industry - and hobble its brilliant inventors in case it got its leg over the US competition. Remember we pioneered jets, radar, TV and much else. And now we are awash with talented engineers, scientists, doctores and professors from the channel armada. &nbsp;😃 So while Donald is in the country, let's deliver&nbsp; the bill.... It's a shame this was not perpared in time for Starmet to hand over on the steps of Turnberry. He might have offfered a discount for cash and no VAT... Invoice for English Language Royalties To:&nbsp; The Honorable Donald J. Trump President of the United States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20500 United States of America From: The Exchequer of His Majesty’s Treasury HM Treasury 1 Horse Guards Road London, SW1A 2HQ United KingdomDate: July 28, 2025 Invoice Number: HMTR-1776-001 Due Date: Upon ReceiptSubject: Invoice for Backdated Royalties for the Use of the English Language (1776–2025)Dear President Trump,In the spirit of fostering the enduring kinship between our great nations, and with profound respect for the shared heritage that binds us, His Majesty’s Government hereby presents this humble invoice for the royalties accrued from the use of the English language by the citizens of the United States, commencing from the year of your nation’s founding in 1776 and extending to the present day of 2025. This venerable tongue, crafted through centuries of British ingenuity, has served as the cornerstone of your nation’s discourse, commerce, and governance, and we are delighted to formalize its contribution with this modest assessment.As a gesture of our magnanimous goodwill, this royalty includes complimentary access to the boundless treasures of the British Broadcasting Corporation’s archives and unfettered entry to the United Kingdom’s illustrious museums, wherein the cultural riches of our shared history await.&nbsp;<figure id="figure-mmk6y0ouy7mdnb61th"><img id="mmk6y0ouy7mdnb61th" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/38Khk1CnYEmL7s9D2xcdKgCiz8Bv8k7MXAT1nFWD7jGXY8U6DPWUFaHU2jQmdWhm.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/38Khk1CnYEmL7s9D2xcdKgCiz8Bv8k7MXAT1nFWD7jGXY8U6DPWUFaHU2jQmdWhm.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>Invoice Details Description of Services: Royalty for the use of the English language by U.S. residents aged 18 and over, calculated at $1 per annum per person, from 1776 to 2025 (250 years), with compound interest at a rate of 5% per annum, compounded annually.Calculation Summary:Base Amount (without interest): $19,060,960,211 Amount with Compound Interest (5% per annum): $12,332,219,447,282 Total Amount Due: $12,332,219,447,282 (Twelve trillion, three hundred thirty-two billion, two hundred nineteen million, four hundred forty-seven thousand, two hundred eighty-two United States dollars)Payment Terms:Payment is due upon receipt. Please remit funds to: Bank: Bank of England Account Name: HM Treasury – English Language Royalty Fund Sort Code: 10-00-00 Account Number: 1776-2025-001 SWIFT Code: BOENGB2L Kindly include the invoice number (HMTR-1776-001) in the payment reference. Additional Benefits Included:Perpetual access to the British Broadcasting Corporation’s archives, encompassing a wealth of programmes, documentaries, and cultural masterpieces. Complimentary admission to all United Kingdom museums, including but not limited to the British Museum, the Victoria and Albert Museum, and the National Gallery, for all U.S. citizens. Notes: We trust that this invoice reflects the immense value of the English language, a gift from the British Isles to the world, which has flourished under your nation’s stewardship. Should you have any queries or wish to discuss the terms, please contact the Chancellor of the Exchequer at your earliest convenience. We look forward to continued collaboration and the strengthening of the special relationship between our nations.With utmost respect and cordial regards,The Rt Hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer On behalf of His Majesty’s Government HM Treasury, LondoNOW... to show we are a fair nation, I asked: "Next up let's think of a generous offer to France for those parts of the French Language that the Eenglish have adopted use on a day to day basis and voluntarily offer to pay them as a good will gesture."&nbsp; And got this straight back...<figure id="figure-jlu6t45qumdnasfn7"><img id="jlu6t45qumdnasfn7" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/3btMXpU2WTUbTVYl7E50OIIlEKTUMmhKWUhzphwSkPt2YbBXf42euevLqV9dDcp3.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 1/1; object-position: 50% 30%;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="1:1" data-caption="" data-positionx="50%" data-positiony="30%" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/3btMXpU2WTUbTVYl7E50OIIlEKTUMmhKWUhzphwSkPt2YbBXf42euevLqV9dDcp3.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 1/1; object-position: 50% 30%;"></figure>Goodwill Offer for French Language Contributions to English To: The President of the French Republic Élysée Palace 55 Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré 75008 Paris FranceFrom: The Rt Hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer HM Treasury 1 Horse Guards Road London, SW1A 2HQ United KingdomDate: July 28, 2025 Reference: HMTR-FR-1066-001Dear Mr. President,In the spirit of the enduring entente cordiale between our nations, His Majesty’s Government extends a heartfelt gesture of goodwill to acknowledge the profound and cherished influence of the French language upon the English tongue. Since the Norman Conquest of 1066, the lexicon of England has been enriched with a tapestry of French words—menu, restaurant, government, art, and fashion, to name but a few—woven seamlessly into the daily discourse of our people. These linguistic treasures have elevated our culture, cuisine, and governance, and it is with gratitude and magnanimity that we propose a voluntary royalty payment to honour this legacy.As a symbol of our deep respect for France’s cultural contributions, we offer a one-time payment calculated on behalf of the United Kingdom’s adult population, reflecting the daily use of French-derived words over the past 959 years. This gesture is accompanied by an invitation to partake in the cultural riches of the United Kingdom, fostering an even closer bond between our peoples.Offer Details Description of Goodwill Payment: Voluntary royalty for the use of French-derived words in the English language by UK residents aged 18 and over, calculated at £0.50 per person per annum from 1066 to 2025 (959 years).Calculation Summary:UK Adult Population (2025): Approximately 52.26 million (78% of 67 million total population). Annual Royalty: £0.50 × 52.26 million = £26.13 million per year. Total for 959 Years: £26.13 million × 959 = £25,058,670,000 (~£25.06 billion). Converted to Euros (at €1.20/£1): £25.06 billion × 1.20 = €30,070,404,000 (~€30.07 billion). Total Amount Offered: €30,070,404,000 (Thirty billion, seventy million, four hundred four thousand euros)Payment Terms:This one-time payment will be remitted upon agreement, to an account designated by the French Republic. Proposed recipient: Bank: Banque de France Account Name: French Republic – Cultural Goodwill Fund SWIFT Code: BDFEFR2T Please confirm the account details and reference HMTR-FR-1066-001 in correspondence. Cultural Benefits Included: As a reciprocal gesture, we extend to all French citizens:Complimentary access to the archives of the British Broadcasting Corporation, a repository of cultural and intellectual wealth. Free admission to all United Kingdom museums, including the British Museum, the National Gallery, and the Victoria and Albert Museum, to deepen our shared cultural appreciation. Notes: This offer is a testament to the United Kingdom’s admiration for France’s linguistic and cultural heritage, which has enriched the English language immeasurably. We propose this payment as a voluntary act of goodwill, not as an obligation, but as a celebration of our shared history. Should you wish to discuss this offer or explore further avenues of cultural collaboration, His Majesty’s Government stands ready to engage with your esteemed administration.With warmest regards and in the spirit of enduring friendship,The Rt Hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer On behalf of His Majesty’s Government HM Treasury, London#### https://wote.uk/blog/dear-don--here-s-the-charge-for-the-tariff-on-the-use-the-english-language

Dear Don: Here's the charge for the tariff on the use the English Language.

START 16July25 V0.1&nbsp; Continuously evolvingUpdate 18JUL25 0.21 -&nbsp; <a data-mce-href="https://veo.uk/Politicians_%20The%20Case%20for%20Criminal%20Negligence.mp3" href="https://veo.uk/Politicians_%20The%20Case%20for%20Criminal%20Negligence.mp3" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">Studio discussion here</a> There is currently no specific offence for a politician acting like an irresponsible clown, so what can we do to put this government out of our misery in the meanrime? I have been prodding this idea along for a year now, and got reactions along the lines "you can't possibly do that, it's just not the done thing". in many variants.&nbsp; But recent advances in AI have sharpend the claws of transparency and seem to update the language models in almost real time - so let's dive back in.All politicians hate the idea of being held to account, and most immediately close ranks to dismiss any idea that they should be held to account for their broken promises and lies, and have visions of "There but for the grace of God go we all" -&nbsp; let's hope so. Well, given that we - the electorate - have suffered many years of practise of the "done thing" and parliamentary decorum, but look where it's got us; it is time to think outside the straitjacket of political convention and feel some collars.&nbsp; Getting these alleged criminals into a court where they can be cross-examined under oath and challenged with evidence would be a great advance on the present conspiracy of silence and super injunctions.&nbsp; So the question of criminal negligence is interesting, since it exists in a quite straightforward definitions in most countries ... To establish criminal negligence in the UK, the prosecution must prove: Duty of Care: The defendant owed a legal duty to the victim.&nbsp; Breach of Duty: That duty was breached through a negligent act or omission. Causation: The breach directly caused injury or loss that was avoidable&nbsp; Grossness: The negligence was so extreme that it warrants criminal punishmentMore specifically, Elements of Misconduct in Public Office (as per Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 2003) [2004] EWCA Crim 868): The defendant is a public officer (e.g., Ministers or MPs). The defendant wilfully neglected to perform their duty or wilfully misconducted themselves to a degree that amounts to an abuse of public trust. The misconduct was serious, not trivial, and without reasonable excuse or justification. The misconduct caused, or risked causing, serious harm to the public or a section of it. I will add that numerous warnings of the consequences of Labour policues have been issued from many sources&nbsp; - Reeves cannot claim she did not know that taxing employment would result in less employment.&nbsp; Application to Economic Policy Lies:"Obvious Lies": GROK says "You’d need to prove that Labour Ministers or MPs knowingly made false statements about economic policies (e.g., denying that policies would raise inflation or crash the economy) with intent to deceive the public, and that these lies directly led to serious harm."&nbsp;&nbsp; Causation: You must demonstrate a clear causal link between the alleged lies and specific economic harm (e.g., inflation spikes or economic downturn). This is challenging, as economic outcomes are influenced by multiple factors, including global markets, Bank of England policies, and unforeseen events. Serious Harm: The harm must be significant, such as widespread economic damage affecting the public, not just political or reputational damage to the government. That's a good starting review, so then, let's get on with private direct prosecutions of MPs for criminal negligence; and if the courts decline to pursue - then those uncooperative and obstructive court officers might as well be prosecuted as accessories as well. Remember that it was Starmer that almost gleefully defined the two-tier justice and lawfare designed to suppress free speech - reminding us of his role as DPP, distancing himself from the grotesque and chilling example made of the Lucy Connelly - but hey, never mind Jimmy Savile or the child abuse scandals, eh?Sir Kier, after just one year, most of us (85% according to polls) now know you are a very special piece of work, and your comeuppance will be ugly and massive. Also, let's consider the grounds for removal of a knighthood include:&nbsp; Criminal Conviction: Especially if sentenced to more than three months in prison Professional Misconduct: Being struck off or censured by a regulatory body for actions relevant to the honour Sexual Offences: Convictions under the Sexual Offences Acts or findings in a ‘trial of the facts’ (Has anyone googled Miranda and Sir Tony Blair lately?)&nbsp; Breach of Court Orders: Such as contempt or failure to comply with legal rulings. Which reminds me, we really must push for that "<a data-mce-href="https://wote.uk/blog/contempt-for-the-people---exposing-the-liars" href="https://wote.uk/blog/contempt-for-the-people---exposing-the-liars" target="_blank" rel="noopener">contempt of the people</a>" law for politicians, judiciary and media.Bringing the Honours System into Disrepute: This is a broad category that includes unethical behaviour, abuse of position, or actions that undermine public trust - well then, here's a rich vein to mine! GROK suggests... &nbsp;"To pursue a private prosecution, you’d need to gather concrete evidence of deliberate falsehoods by specific Labour Ministers or MPs, prove they ignored clear warnings, and demonstrate direct economic harm. The process starts with applying to a magistrates’ court, but parliamentary privilege, evidential challenges, and CPS oversight make success unlikely. Alternatives like complaints to the Parliamentary Commissioner or public advocacy may be more feasible. If you have specific evidence (e.g., documents proving deliberate lies), consult a solicitor to assess its viability. Without such evidence, the case would likely be dismissed as speculative or politically motivated.If you can provide specific statements, warnings, or economic data, I can refine this analysis further. Would you like me to search for additional information on X or the web to identify potential evidence of Labour’s economic policy statements since July 24, 2024?" Go on then folks, what can we rummage together? I will open the batting with <a data-mce-href="https://wote.uk/blog/wes-streeting---man-of-dishonour" href="https://wote.uk/blog/wes-streeting---man-of-dishonour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Wes Streeting's pledge to the WASPI women</a>. Off you go... let's build up and dam the flood of dissatisfaction and indignation - until it bursts and washes the government out of Whitehall<figure id="figure-oeu0fdkkv6md69ntz5"><img id="oeu0fdkkv6md69ntz5" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1dvAgHbrGKumzcTTgRO1KZW0PAncSyEctY6qItVJguPo6PxdNSs2JmR0Z4q7ZQHA.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="null" data-positiony="null" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/1dvAgHbrGKumzcTTgRO1KZW0PAncSyEctY6qItVJguPo6PxdNSs2JmR0Z4q7ZQHA.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>Labour Statements on WASPI Keir Starmer: Several posts reference Starmer’s past support for WASPI women. In 2022, he reportedly told a BBC Merseyside caller that the pension age change was a “real injustice” and that “we need to do something about it.” This contrasts with his December 2024 statement in Parliament, where he cited the £10.5 billion cost and claimed 90% of affected women knew about the changes, suggesting taxpayers couldn’t afford compensation. Posts on X highlight this shift, with some users accusing him of backtracking after gaining power. Angela Rayner: As shadow minister in 2019, Rayner stated on BBC News that the government “stole” WASPI women’s pensions and promised Labour would “right that injustice” within five years. This pledge, echoed in Labour’s 2019 manifesto offering up to £31,300 per woman, is frequently cited on X as evidence of broken promises following the December 2024 decision to reject compensation. Liz Kendall: Before becoming Work and Pensions Secretary, Kendall supported WASPI women, attending a 2019 campaign event and stating the injustice “can’t go on.” Her December 2024 announcement rejecting the £1,000–£2,950 compensation recommended by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) has sparked backlash on X, with users pointing to her earlier stance as hypocritical. Emily Thornberry: In March 2024, as shadow minister, Thornberry expressed pleasure that WASPI women were “vindicated” by the PHSO report and urged the Tory government to respond. However, when pressed on Labour’s plans if elected, she refused to commit, a hesitation noted in X posts as foreshadowing the current government’s stance. John McDonnell: As shadow chancellor in 2019, McDonnell promised a £58 billion compensation scheme, calling it a “debt of honour.” His July 2025 X post criticized the government’s refusal to act on the Ombudsman’s report, aligning with WASPI demands and adding to the narrative of Labour’s pre-election commitments. WASPI-Related Evidence PHSO Report and Government Response: X posts frequently mention the March 2024 PHSO report finding “maladministration” due to a 28-month delay in notifying women of pension age changes, recommending £1,000–£2,950 compensation. The government’s December 2024 rejection, citing a £10.5 billion cost and a claim that 90% of women knew of the changes (based on a survey of 203 women), is contested on X. Campaigners argue this figure is misleading, as it doesn’t reflect personal impact awareness.Public Sentiment: Posts show strong support for WASPI, with claims of 74%–84% of the public favouring compensation. Users highlight financial hardship (e.g., 6%–15% in poverty, 84% worried about energy bills), though specific evidence of harm tied to Labour’s decision is anecdotal rather than quantified. Legal Action: WASPI’s February 2025 “letter before action” threatening a High Court judicial review is widely discussed, with some posts suggesting Labour’s refusal could be challenged as a breach of duty. The government’s costs-capping order acceptance in 2025 is seen as a step forward, but no court ruling has occurred yet. Broken Promises: X users point to Labour’s 2017 and 2019 manifestos and Starmer’s 2022 pledge sign as evidence of intentional misrepresentation. The omission of WASPI compensation from the 2024 manifesto is cited as a deliberate shift, fuelling accusations of wilful deceit. Relevance to the prosecution: The contrast between Labour figures’ pre-election promises (e.g., Rayner’s “stolen pensions,” McDonnell’s £58 billion) and their post-election rejection could be framed as wilful misconduct. However, proving intent to deceive requires internal documents (e.g., Labour strategy papers) or whistleblower testimony, which aren’t available on X. The PHSO’s maladministration finding supports a duty of care breach, but causation (direct harm from Labour’s U-turn) remains weak due to the Ombudsman’s note of “no direct financial loss” and the multi-factorial nature of economic impacts.Public Advocacy: The flood of indignation on X (e.g., WASPI’s “enough of promises not delivered”) aligns with your goal to “dam the flood” and push for accountability. Highlighting Starmer’s, Rayner’s, and Kendall’s past statements could amplify pressure, especially with the judicial review looming. Limitations: X posts lack verifiable evidence (e.g., exact letters or meeting minutes) to meet the criminal negligence or misconduct in public office threshold. Claims of hardship or betrayal are strong on sentiment but not legally actionable without data linking Labour’s decision to specific losses since July 24, 2024. Parliamentary privilege protects statements made in Parliament (e.g., Starmer’s PMQs), limiting their use in court. And it just goes on:GROK has conducted an additional search on X for more specific Labour statements and WASPI-related evidence, focusing on posts since July 24, 2024, to align with our earlier timeframe of interest. The search was performed up to 08:30 PM BST on July 16, 2025. Below is a summary of new findings, treating the information as inconclusive sentiment rather than verified evidence, given the nature of social media. I’ve also cross-referenced this with the broader context from recent web information to refine the analysis.New Labour Statements on WASPI from X Keir Starmer: Posts on X mention a July 2025 statement where Starmer reiterated that the government cannot afford the £10.5 billion compensation cost, citing a 2006 survey suggesting 90% of affected women knew of the pension age change. This contrasts with his 2022 BBC Merseyside comment calling it a “real injustice,” fueling accusations of broken promises. Liz Kendall: Several X users highlight Kendall’s December 2024 Commons statement rejecting compensation, where she apologized for the 28-month communication delay but argued that earlier letters wouldn’t have changed outcomes for most women. This is contrasted with her pre-election support, including a 2019 campaign event photo with WASPI signs. Angela Rayner: X posts reference Rayner’s 2022 speech at Tolpuddle, where she acknowledged the “shocking plight” of WASPI women, promising action if Labour won. Her silence on the issue post-election is cited as a betrayal, especially after the December 2024 decision. Rachel Reeves: Some posts point to Reeves’ October 2024 Budget silence on WASPI compensation, despite her earlier Labour manifesto support. A July 2025 X comment attributes her stance to fiscal constraints, linking it to means-testing winter fuel payments, which has drawn ire from pensioner groups. Additional WASPI-Related Evidence from X Public Reaction: Posts show growing anger, with claims that 74%–85% of the public supports compensation, based on recent polls. Users describe financial hardship (e.g., delayed retirement, poverty rates), though specific data tying this to Labour’s decision since July 24, 2024, is absent. Legal Developments: X mentions the ongoing judicial review, with WASPI’s June 2025 High Court costs-capping order (£60,000 cap) seen as a victory. Campaigners vow to proceed, with some posts estimating 150 Labour MPs at risk of losing seats over this issue. Broken Promises: Users frequently cite Labour’s 2019 manifesto (£31,300 per woman) and Starmer’s 2022 pledge sign as evidence of pre-election deceit, noting its absence in the 2024 manifesto. The PHSO’s March 2024 maladministration finding is repeatedly referenced as justification for compensation. MP Actions: Posts note cross-party support in a July 3, 2025, parliamentary debate, with some MPs (e.g., John McDonnell) criticizing the government’s refusal to act on the Ombudsman’s report. The SNP’s blocked compensation bill on July 4, 2025, is highlighted as evidence of Labour’s shift. Analysis and Relevance Private Prosecution Potential: The discrepancy between pre- and post-election statements (e.g., Rayner’s 2022 pledge vs. her current silence, Kendall’s 2019 support vs. 2024 rejection) could suggest willful misrepresentation. However, no X posts provide internal Labour documents or direct evidence of intent to deceive. The PHSO’s maladministration finding supports a duty breach, but the lack of “direct financial loss” (per Kendall’s claim) and the 90% awareness argument weaken causation. Parliamentary privilege further limits actionable statements made in debates. Public Advocacy: The sentiment on X aligns with your goal to “dam the flood” of dissatisfaction. Highlighting Starmer’s, Kendall’s, and Rayner’s shifts, alongside the judicial review progress, could amplify pressure. The image of a government official submerged in a flood could resonate with this outrage. Evidence Gaps: X lacks specific letters, meeting notes, or economic data linking Labour’s decision to quantifiable harm since July 24, 2024. Claims of hardship are anecdotal, and the 90% awareness statistic (disputed by WASPI as unrepresentative) complicates the narrative. Critical Examination The establishment narrative (e.g., government’s £10.5 billion cost argument, 90% awareness claim) may downplay the communication failure’s impact, as WASPI argues only 25% recall receiving letters. The PHSO’s focus on “lost autonomy” rather than direct loss supports the government’s stance but ignores long-term planning disruptions. Labour’s fiscal constraint excuse could be a convenient shield for abandoning a costly promise, especially given their selective compensation for other groups (e.g., Post Office scandal, LGBT veterans). This suggests political pragmatism over principle.Next Steps Further Evidence: I can search X for more recent posts (e.g., post-July 10, 2025) or focus on specific MPs (e.g., Wes Streeting’s WASPI statements). Alternatively, I can explore web archives for Labour correspondence or DWP data via FOI suggestions. Would you like me to proceed with either? Actionable Use: Use the X sentiment to bolster your post, pairing it with the edited image to symbolize the “flood” washing out Labour. Tag #WASPI, @UKLabour, and key MPs to maximize reach. Legal Consultation: The judicial review’s progress suggests aligning with WASPI’s legal team could strengthen your case, though private prosecution remains a long shot without new evidence.Bottom line:&nbsp; OK - it's a long shot at this point without more legwork to gather smoking guns, tie up legal documents with red tibbons. But it should cause extreme discomfort and leave an indellible impression on the characters of all those involved.&nbsp; It all goes to show that AI is making it more diffidcult for politicans to lie - if we call on it in situations like this, maybe we can just wear them down until the strain of telling the truth gets to be too onerous, and they resign?

Ongoing Criminal Negligence

Stemming the tide. (09jul25 v.1)Pete North sees no alternative to realism. we are being taken for suckers by the French. Again.As regards to Channel migrants, I think we're all being a little naive. I've read just about every permutation of proposed solutions and I think they are all flawed, including my own. I do favour the removal of incentives and offshore detention, but in the long run, I don't think even that is going to work as a disincentive. We're all assuming the migrants themselves have a level of sophisticated reasoning ability - when they actually don't. Many assume they're coming for the benefits or to game the asylum system, when in fact many (possibly most) have no knowledge of the asylum system or benefits&nbsp; until their first contact with NGOs in Calais - and what they know is through word of mouth. The opportunity to live in Britain is a pull factor in its own right. They don't know what they will do when they get here. They only know it's better than wherever they came from.&nbsp; We can remove benefits and housing entitlements etc, and that is instrumental to a remigration strategy, but it's not going to stop migrants graviating to northern France. Even if we have long term detention, they are still going to try their luck. This problem isn't going to go away, and in fact, as soon as EU states start cracking down on illegal immigration, it's going to get worse.&nbsp; Presently, I see no scenario where pushback tactics will work for as long as we're seeking to do it in a humane and legal way, and for the moment, the public would prefer we keep it humane and legal, and will not tolerate pratting around that will in any way put our own people in danger.&nbsp; &nbsp; The arithmetic changes, however, according to scale. I don't recall who it was who put it to me, but they used the example of the kitten cuteness scale. Nobody but a monster would ever consider harming a kitten. And even if you suddenly had fifty kittens dropped on you, you would still do your best to re-home them. But if you suddenly had ten thousand kittens in your house, you'd be shovelling them into a tree shredder. Empathy doesn't scale up. The same is true of migrants.&nbsp; Eventually, a crisis point will come when all of our reception machinery is saturated. At that point, there will be no talk of pushbacks. We're simply going to have to deploy Archer class boats with a mounted fifty cal, and we will have to fire live rounds. It will become a defence issue, to the extent that even the French won't tolerate it.&nbsp; Essentially, there is no reason to expect that catastrophically low IQ African migrants will respond to measures born of our motivational reasoning calculations. We are still going to have to cancel benefits and implement hostile environment measures, but these measures are only likely to work on visa overstayers, who will eventually hand themselves in for repatriation. Nothing short of force is going to stop the flow of migrants.&nbsp; I am dimly aware that Dominic Cummings has proposed the use of special forces. I don't know his exact thinking on this, but it's likely that wouldn't be enough. In all probability we're going to have to set up clandestine bases in North Africa, and set up a drone wall, with a view to intercepting migrant flows across the Sahara. Mass immigration in the future will become an existential issue. It's us or them, and we're going to have to purge our squeamishness about killing. In the interim, though, we must prepare for the eventuality that within ten years, at least one major EU state will close its borders and begin expelling migrants on a scale unseen for a hundred years. The diplomatic tensions over immigration will bring Europe close to war.&nbsp; From there, we will see unprecedented numbers of migrant boats, and we'll have no choice but to sink them. There are ugly choices ahead, but we're going to have to decide whether it's them or us.<figure id="figure-jucvphgtp6mcw1zumv"><img id="jucvphgtp6mcw1zumv" src="https://cdn.durable.co/covers/8W84yX8A9kKivDr9aISajzCWPD4Mkps0XxhuqQ9tUuR7wM1GwRZgbDK2rMAnEa8o.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 3/2; object-position: 50% 15%;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="3:2" data-caption="" data-positionX="50%" data-positionY="15%" data-fullWidth="false"/></figure>

Keir Canute: no gangs smashed here

Borrowed from Pete's Substack:- Pete North from Northern Variant &lt;petenorth@substack.com&gt;&nbsp; In the light of the struggle to see Reform getting its act properly together, several of the more thoughtful commentators are getting used to the idea that a Conservative Party revival may yet be possible, given the widespread acceptance that Labour has cynically lied its socks off without a trace of shame ...and that another Labour government could scarcely be any worse.&nbsp;&nbsp; The reappearance of Rishi Sunak in the HoC - after a long absence earlier today (26JUN25) may have set a few hares off prematurely, but we shall see. He spoke briefly, and seems to have worn rather better than Starmer in the past 12 months. <figure id="figure-7vmxhqe3ymmcdlqfdx" class=""><img id="7vmxhqe3ymmcdlqfdx" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/0ewiMLD69WUDIPs6FQNzAOKdtQqdwvuTX962ZazilHtpvjNC1xcaT2YtO13FEhpb.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: undefined undefined;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/0ewiMLD69WUDIPs6FQNzAOKdtQqdwvuTX962ZazilHtpvjNC1xcaT2YtO13FEhpb.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: undefined undefined;"></figure>Nobody reads manifestos and nobody cares about policy. That’s what people tell me. Politics is all about vibes, they say. To say such things, though, is to miss the point. Confidence is a vibe, and confidence is not something that can be faked. Bravado and bluster is not the same thing.&nbsp;<h3>Real confidence comes from knowing what you’re doing and why.</h3>I’ve known this in my professional career. I’ve never been more powerful in a role than when I know what is required, have a firm idea how to do it, and the desire to do it well. You can try to fake it, but eventually you get found out. It only takes a little bit of expert scrutiny to expose you as a fraud.&nbsp;We know this to be true of politics too. The politicians you sit up and take notice of are the ones who’ve put the work in and mastered their brief. I may not like Wes Streeting all that much, but I can respect he is a man who takes his job seriously&nbsp; (...and we have not forgotten Streeting of Shame and his pledge to the <a data-mce-href="https://wote.uk/blog/wes-streeting---man-of-dishonour" href="https://wote.uk/blog/wes-streeting---man-of-dishonour" title="Streeting of Shame" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WASPI women </a>)This is literally the only reason anyone is paying attention to Robert Jenrick. He’s not dazzlingly charismatic. He’s not a showman. He’s just someone who has a bit of personal direction, and as such, is getting results.&nbsp;He hasn’t done this alone, though. His platform has some serious people behind it, and what gives him the edge is the policy research behind him, and the fact he’s bothered to learn it. It gives him his own authority.&nbsp;In recent weeks we’ve seen similar energy from Kemi Badenoch. She’s behind the curve, but she is showing signs of getting up to speed. She has put her best people to work to figure out a resolution to the ECHR question. It’s given her a new-found confidence. This is essential. A party cannot have confidence if its leader doesn’t.The lesson, then, is not that policy is for public consumption. It’s part of it, for sure, but it’s so that you yourself know what you are doing and why. It means on any given issue of the day, you can say what is really going wrong, and what needs to be fixed. That’s what gives you the authentic “vibe” of authority.&nbsp;Contrast this with Reform, which has yet to produce a single subject expert, even on the subject of immigration. On the issue of migrant dinghies, the policy approach varies according to which Reform MP you speak to. The consequence of this long-standing incoherence is that nobody serious thinks Reform is up to the job. Reform is polling well as a protest party, but very few people see it as a viable prospective government. We’re just at a point where exasperation and cynicism run so deep that people don’t believe they could be worse than the rest.&nbsp;On that basis, this is the Tory party’s last window of opportunity. We can safely say that Reform will not commit to serious policy. Populist parties never do. They prefer the agility that comes from keeping it vague. Populism is to policy as oil is to water. You see the occasional Spectator article claiming that insiders are working on policy for the party, but every time Reform makes an announcement, we are served up more of the same simplistic populist slop. I’m sure they think they are working on policy, but I don’t think they know what policy actually is.&nbsp;The opportunity for the Tories, then, is to simply outclass them. This is entirely possible. There are some hardworking, credible conservative MPs, not least Nick Timothy and Chris Philp.&nbsp; Chris Philp is pressing on the Deliveroo/Just Eat dimension to illegal immigration. Something this blog has highlighted in some depth. Knowledge driven campaigning gets results. Contrast that with Reform MPs. Goodness knows what they actually do with their time.Much of this will turn on what Kemi Badenoch turns up with in September. It will be politically difficult for her if she concludes that leaving the ECHR is more trouble that it’s worth. The tabloids and the Telegraph have distilled our deportation woes down to the ECHR when in fact the problem lies with British judges and British law.&nbsp;In that eventuality she will have her work cut out, but it is an arguable case. No government wants the distraction of multilateral talks over Northern Ireland in order to deal with dinghies in Dover, especially if there’s the chance it won’t even work. Whatever Badenoch concludes is less important than showing that she knows what she is doing.&nbsp;My central assertion is that credibility matters. If you can turn the heads of opinion influencers, and make people give you a second look, you are in with a chance. There are many reasons why the Tories are not seen as credible, not least their woeful record in office, and the suspicion that the party is overrun with wet blanket liberals, but if a leader can slam a manifesto on the table with real confidence and say “This is what we’re doing” they can break with the past and put their troublemakers on notice. They will fall into line if their jobs depend on it. None of them wants to have to get a real job.Some of you ask why I’m even slightly invested in this. Why even care about the fate of the Tory party? Why not let it die? Those are good questions. I think it’s because I’ve reluctantly concluded the obvious. There is no new force in politics on the horizon. There is no Ukip revival. If a Rupert Lowe party pops up it will flop, and any nationalist party will be consumed by its antisemitism.&nbsp;As such, right-leaning voters have two choices. Either to attempt a Tory resurrection, or back a slopulist party that wouldn’t have the first idea how to fix anything, and would create as many problems as it solves (if any).&nbsp;Were it that Reform was remotely serious, nobody would be giving the Tories a second look, least of all me, but ultimately you have to work with what you’ve got. There is the suggestion that the party would fare well under new leadership. I understand that. But regardless, Kemi Badenoch is the leader for now, like it or lump it.&nbsp;The polls are not looking good for the Tories. While polls this far out from an election aren’t much of a useful predictor, Badenoch surely realises that, for members, they are an indicator of her performance. She does not have long to get results. She is replaceable, and for once, there is an obvious replacement. If then, she is going to turn things around, she has to build self-confidence, confidence in her abilities, and confidence in her party. Policy is key to that.&nbsp;Policy ultimately lets us know whether they’re serious or not. It lets us know whether they’ve understood the issues. It lets us know if they have listened. It lets us know if they have a clue. As we edge closer to an election fair-minded voters will contrast the showbiz glam of Reform with the Tory party. If, in the Tories, they see quiet competence, strong local candidates, and a newfound confidence in their abilities, they will save themselves from oblivion.&nbsp;By neglecting policy, Reform have left the goals wide open for a Tory comeback. Where Reform offers gimmicks and slogans, Badenoch can offer solutions. In some respects, it has never been easier for the Tories to come back from the brink. The right is primarily concerned with immigration and are desperate for coherent immigration policies. Bizarrely, Reform has moderated its line on immigration, leaving hardliners wondering what the point of it is. Badenoch can easily position her party to the right of Reform and she doesn’t even have to go overboard to do it.&nbsp;What I’ve found in my study of immigration issues is that much can be repaired with careful, targeted interventions, not least fixing Indefinite Leave to Remain, but also with proper enforcement of existing laws, not least HMO inspections. Drastic gestures like leaving the ECHR are less important than reforming the judiciary and overhauling the asylum system. Voluntary remigration policies can be implemented just by enhancing and promoting existing schemes.&nbsp;The biggest results will come through the cumulative effect of a comprehensive policy programme, consisting of largely uncontroversial and sensible measures that only open borders lunatics would oppose. This will be an exercise in policy engineering, not vacuous populist slogans. If Badenoch is the engineer she claims to be, she shouldn’t find this difficult.&nbsp;Interesting times... PN

The WOTE.uk Federation 2025

Blog: the Revolution starts here...

The enemy within

Make ALL benefits loans, not grants.

Dear Don: Here's the charge for the tariff on the use the...

Ongoing Criminal Negligence

Keir Canute: no gangs smashed here

How Badenoch can save her party from extinction