Forum Topics

Performative government

Performative government can be defined as government in which ministers seek  plaudits from fellow ideologues rather than pursue goals determined by a dispassionate analysis of costs and benefits. There are several examples of performative policies followed by the current Labour administration.The most damaging example is probably the  push to net zero. This policy, which has won approval from environmentalists, has meant that British consumers and British industries  face some of the highest electricity costs  in Europe. The justification for the haste to achieve net zero is to create jobs and save the planet, but in fact it does neither. Thousands of jobs have been lost in the North Sea. As for saving the planet, the UK is responsible for around 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, so any action in this country would has little effect. And the notion that the UK might be a beacon of light to other countries is laughable. In fact the less oil extracted from the North Sea, the more oil has to be imported from abroad, which simply exports the pollution.Another example is the Chagos deal, pursued by the government in slavish compliance  with a non- binding decision of jurists of the ICJ obsessed with anti-colonialism, even though the deal undermines the rights of the native Chagossians and jeopardises British national security.Yet another is the decision to impose VAT on independent schools. The supposed aim of this legislation is to create 6000 extra teachers for the state system. But its effect has been to force the closure of several schools, create extra demand on the state system, disrupt children’s education and place an unfair burden on parents. It’s obvious that the government is motivated by a wish to please the class warriors  in the party, determined to attack the privileges of the rich, even though many of of them earn far more than some of the parents who have to scrimp and save to pay for a decent school for their children.In short, Labour put ideology ahead of common sense.

Steven Rose ● 29d43 Comments ● 23d

Israel - our ally

Extract from Spectator online - "Will no one acknowledge how Mossad helps Britain?"Jake Wallis Simons21 November 2025, 11:24am'Let’s imagine that an international jihadi network, with cells in London and Europe, had just been busted, with dramatic arrests in Britain, Germany and Austria. Let’s imagine that the group had been planning a string of atrocities, with a weapons cache discovered in Vienna.Let’s imagine that security services had unearthed ‘tens of thousands of Euros in cash, numerous data storage devices and mobile phones, gas pistols, firearms, ammunition, knives, and related literature’. You’d have expected such a story to make the news, right?Wrong. On Monday, the Israeli prime minister’s office announced that this precise scenario had unfolded, with Mossad handing intelligence to MI5 and European agencies that enabled them to bring the jihadis to justice and foil their murderous ambitions. The name of the gang? Here’s a clue: it coordinated with leaders in Qatar and Turkey. You guessed it.In a statement that would chill the heart of any Briton or European were they to have heard it reported, Benjamin Netanyahu’s office warned: ‘Since the October 7 massacre, the Hamas terrorist organisation has been working with renewed vigour to build infrastructure and recruit terrorist cells in Europe and other arenas, similar to the Iranian regime and its proxies.’When people talk of Iranian ‘proxies’, they are referring to groups such as Hezbollah, the Houthis and less well-known terrorist gangs in Syria and Iraq. Over the decades, Tehran built these up into a ‘ring of fire’ around Israel, which was only dismantled after the Mossad pager operation last year, followed by Israel’s airborne humiliation of the Iranian regime during those fateful 12 days in June.That is what the Israelis are saying that we are starting to face here. A network of proxies. A nascent ring of fire, preparations for a 7 October of our own, awaiting activation.'Why does our MSM not report this ?Why don't we wake up and smell the coffee (Turkish ?) and be forearmed as well as forewarned.

John Hawkes ● 119d28 Comments ● 25d

Journalists in 2026: we're shocked that the Labour right smears people

"The prime minister has ordered the Cabinet Office to investigate claims about Labour Together after the group was accused of commissioning a report that investigated the background of a journalist.Labour Together, which helped Sir Keir Starmer get elected as Labour leader, paid APCO Worldwide at least £30,000 to "investigate the sourcing, funding and origins" of a Sunday Times story about undeclared donations at the think tank before the 2024 general election.Sir Keir said he "didn't know anything" about APCO Worldwide's investigation adding: "It absolutely needs to be looked into."Tory chairman Kevin Hollinrake said Labour Together's behaviour "shows a worrying contempt for the free press".He added: "With its close and widely known links to the heart of government, serious questions must be answered about who was aware of these actions, including whether senior figures around the prime minister knew."The party said Labour should suspend its links with Labour Together until the allegations had been independently investigated.It is understood the government's propriety and ethics team will be responsible for the Cabinet Office investigation.The SNP's Westminster deputy leader Pete Wishart said a Cabinet Office investigation amounted to "the Labour government trying to mark its own homework" and called for a cross-party parliamentary inquiry.The party has also called on the prime minister to sack Cabinet Office minister Josh Simons, who commissioned the report, named "Operation Cannon", when he was head of Labour Together."https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0q3wx2j3x1oGosh, who'd believe that about "Labour Together", a major force behind Starmer's victory?

David Ainsworth ● 33d0 Comments ● 33d

Assisted Dying Bill

Lord Falconer, who introduced the Assisted Dying Bill to the Lords, has accused objectors in the House of filibustering. He has even threatened to invoke the Parliament Act and force the Lords to accept the Commons Bill unamended. In fact he has no power to do this. It is not a government measure but a private member's bill. The government cannot force the measure through without breaking its declared neutrality and adopting the Bill as Labour policy, which it has no mandate to do.Charles Moore in today's 'Telegraph' lists some of the objections to the Bill which have been raised by peers:how to judge the mental capacity of each candidate for assisted suicide, including people with learning difficulties, Down's syndrome and autismhow to detect coercion by greedy relatives or over-zealous doctors;how the doctors deciding on the panel, who would not be familiar with the candidates, could judge their state of mind;who should sit on any review panels (at present the proposal is to include a KC, so Keir could have a go):the uncertainty of a prognosis and sometimes even the diagnosis of a terminal disease leading to death within six months;the cost to the NHS of finding the professionals to deal with an expected number of at least 6000 applications each year;the question of whether a pregnant woman should be allowed to apply;the problem of language and literacy difficulties with certain candidates.I think peers are right to raise these issues and they should not be accused of filibustering.

Steven Rose ● 49d13 Comments ● 44d

Cuts to ODA budget

As a Borgen Project Ambassador and Putney constituent, I am writing to express my concern and repulsion at Labour’s announcement to slash the ODA’s foreign aid budget nearly in half (from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3%). The latest round of cuts threatens to strip an estimated £150 million from programmes fighting tuberculosis, AIDS, and malaria—diseases that continue to kill millions and disproportionately affect the world’s poorest communities. These abhorrent cuts follow the dark path set out by Boris Johnson and Donald Trump, who’s governments slashed the ODA and USAID budgets, also resulting in massive global deaths from disease and hunger. I think it’s important to clear up a few common misconceptions around foreign aid spending. Surveys show that Britons routinely overestimate how much we spend on foreign aid, with many believing it accounts for 10% of national spending when, even at 0.7% (now 0.3%), it was less than a penny in the pound. In addition, there’s often a notion that foreign aid is a leftwing or progressive concept, in truth, both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher strengthened development efforts, recognizing that stability abroad furthers security and prosperity at home. Wandsworth is proudly “the Brighter Borough” and “the Borough of Culture,” these slogans reflect our shared values of compassion, openness, and outward-looking values. Standing up for foreign aid means standing up for who we are. I’d like to commend my local MP, Fleur Anderson, for upholding these values through her work opposing these cuts and championing effective, life-saving development assistance. I encourage her to continue and urge her colleges to join in her courageous efforts.The Borgen Project works to ensure communities like ours speak up for smart, humane foreign policy. Wandsworth should continue to lead that effort.Oliver Lefferts

Oliver Lefferts ● 57d10 Comments ● 50d

It is now 85 seconds to midnight 2026: Doomsday Clock Statement

"A year ago, we warned that the world was perilously close to global disaster and that any delay in reversing course increased the probability of catastrophe. Rather than heed this warning, Russia, China, the United States, and other major countries have instead become increasingly aggressive, adversarial, and nationalistic. Hard-won global understandings are collapsing, accelerating a winner-takes-all great power competition and undermining the international cooperation critical to reducing the risks of nuclear war, climate change, the misuse of biotechnology, the potential threat of artificial intelligence, and other apocalyptic dangers. Far too many leaders have grown complacent and indifferent, in many cases adopting rhetoric and policies that accelerate rather than mitigate these existential risks. Because of this failure of leadership, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board today sets the Doomsday Clock at 85 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been to catastrophe.Last year started with a glimmer of hope in regard to nuclear risks, as incoming US President Donald Trump made efforts to halt the Russia-Ukraine war and even suggested that major powers pursue “denuclearization.” Over the course of 2025, however, negative trends—old and new—intensified, with three regional conflicts involving nuclear powers all threatening to escalate. The Russia–Ukraine war has featured novel and potentially destabilizing military tactics and Russian allusions to nuclear weapons use. Conflict between India and Pakistan erupted in May, leading to cross-border drone and missile attacks amid nuclear brinkmanship. In June, Israel and the United States launched aerial attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities suspected of supporting the country’s nuclear weapons ambitions. It remains unclear whether the attacks constrained those efforts—or if they instead persuaded the country to pursue nuclear weapons covertly.Meanwhile, competition among major powers has become a full-blown arms race, as evidenced by increasing numbers of nuclear warheads and platforms in China, and the modernization of nuclear delivery systems in the United States, Russia, and China. The United States plans to deploy a new, multilayered missile defense system, Golden Dome, that will include space-based interceptors, increasing the probability of conflict in space and likely fueling a new space-based arms race. As these worrying trends continued, countries with nuclear weapons failed to talk about strategic stability or arms control, much less nuclear disarmament, and questions about US extended deterrence commitments to traditional allies in Europe and Asia led some countries without nuclear weapons to consider acquiring them. As we publish this statement, the last major agreement limiting the numbers of strategic nuclear weapons deployed by the United States and Russia, New START, is set to expire, ending nearly 60 years of efforts to constrain nuclear competition between the world’s two largest nuclear countries. In addition, the US administration may be considering the resumption of explosive nuclear testing, further accelerating a renewed nuclear arms race.An array of adverse trends also dominated the climate change outlook in the past year. The level of atmospheric carbon dioxide—the greenhouse gas most responsible for human-caused climate change—reached a new high, rising to 150 percent of preindustrial levels. Global average temperature in 2024 was the warmest in the 175-year record, and temperatures in 2025 were similar. With the addition of freshwater from melting glaciers and thermal expansion, global average sea level reached a record high. Energized by warm temperatures, the hydrologic cycle became more erratic, with deluges and droughts hopscotching around the globe. Large swaths of Peru, the Amazon, southern Africa, and northwest Africa experienced droughts. For the third time in the last four years Europe experienced more than 60,000 heat-related deaths. Floods in the Congo River Basin displaced 350,000 people, and record rainfall in southeast Brazil displaced over half a million."https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/2026-statement/

David Ainsworth ● 53d6 Comments ● 52d

Chagos ~ Another U-turn On The Way?

Pressure grows on Starmer to ditch 'terrible' plan to hand Chagos Islands to Mauritius as Labour MPs say it should be an axed.Pressure mounted on Sir Keir Starmer to ditch his ‘terrible’ plan of surrendering the Chagos Islands amid mounting opposition from his own LabourMPs.The Prime Minister faced calls to heed the concerns of Donald Trump and scrap the plan entirely – not just pause it.Senior Labour backbench MP Dan Carden said: ‘This is not about obeying Trump - it's about using common sense and doing the right thing for the country.’The plea came after the surprise news on Friday that Sir Keir was pulling the next stage of legislation needed to ratify the controversial territory – which includes a giant joint UK/US military base – to Mauritius.The Bill was due to be discussed in the House of Lords on Monday but the draft law was withdrawn just days after the US president came out strongly against the handover.It also came after Tory peers demanded to know if the agreement complied with international law, with the Tories warned it would break a UN treaty between the UK and US in 1966 which stated: 'The territory shall remain under UK sovereignty.'But the Government insist that the deal – which critics say could eventually cost the UK £35 billion in payments to Mauritius, more than 10 times the Government’s estimate - will still go ahead.A Government spokesman said: ‘The Government remains fully committed to the deal to secure the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia, which is vital for our national security.’This is irresponsible and reckless behaviour by peers, whose roles is to check legislation, not interfere with our national security priorities.’https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15494287/Pressure-Starmer-plan-Chagos-Islands-Mauritius-Labour-

Sue Hammond ● 56d5 Comments ● 55d