Rishi Sunak & his supporters claim he has a 'mandate' to be PM because he's 'promised to deliver the original 2019 @Conservatives' manifesto'. This is obviously a profoundly misleading & antidemocratic lie: he has absolutely no intention of delivering the 2019 manifesto.
"Hospitals" are mentioned 19 times in their 2019 manifesto: it explicitly promises "40 new hospitals" THREE times, "ON TOP OF the 20 hospital upgrades".
This was always lie, & they certainly WILL NOT deliver "40 new hospitals" - Thus, they will NOT "deliver" the 2019 manifesto.
And now Sunak looks likely to abandon the “triple lock” protection for the state pension.
To legitimate ignoring two of their most important promises to the British people - while simultaneously claiming he has a 'mandate' to be PM - they simply say 'circumstances have changed'.
Circumstances CONTINUALLY change! They want to have their cake & eat it: promise the earth to gullible voters, then once elected, disregard the promises they had no intention of keeping & replace the PM TWICE - with both PMs having ZERO intention of delivering the 2019 manifesto.
At his first #PMQs Sunak said 'There are over 15,000 new police officers on our streets', yet since 2010, the number of officers fell by about 20,000, & in the year to March 2022, more than 8,000 police officers left forces in England & Wales, a 35% increase on the previous year.
Responding to the point that a nurse would have to work for *20,000 YEARS* to gain as much wealth as Sunak, he claimed that 'as chancellor, we introduced actually very strong pay increases [for nurses]'.
In the real world, the paltry increase was actually a real terms pay CUT.
Sadly, it's blindingly obvious that Rishi Sunak is just another liar, willing to lie in Parliament, lie to the British people, & lie to himself.
His promise to bring ‘integrity’ to No 10 is simply absurd - especially given that he reappointed Braverman.
Britain may already be an #Oligarchy: #Shell paid ZERO windfall tax in the UK, despite making record global profits of nearly £26BILLION (so far) this year after exploiting a tax break brought in by our latest unelected PM, ex-hedge-funder Rishi Sunak.
A coordinated political project is reshaping Britain in the image of Trump’s MAGA movement.
Reform UK—fuelled by wealthy donors, ideologically aligned think tanks, and a network of right-wing media—has ambitions unlike anything in modern UK politics.
The goal is clear: install Farage as PM, backed by policies and rhetoric that mirror America’s populist right.
Recent events, including JD Vance’s high-profile visit, reveal a deliberate and potentially transformational transatlantic political strategy.
Politicians, right-wing news media and far-right extremists opportunistically exploit public concern over asylum seekers in hotels, inciting protests and potential violence.
How did we get here? And why the gulf between public perception and reality?
The government spent nearly a third less on hotels to house asylum seekers between April 2024 and March 2025.
The Home Office's annual accounts show £2.1bn was spent on hotel accommodation - an average of about £5.77m per day, down from £3bn or £8.3m per day, the previous year.
GB "News", which employs 75% of Reform UK MPs, is not a news channel - it's Reform's propaganda wing, co-funded by billionaire Paul Marshall and Dubai-based investment firm Legatum, who see it as an investment opportunity to help protect their wealth and interests.
@Ofcom
In the UK, since 1990, 'due impartiality' and 'due accuracy' have been fundamental components of broadcasting - especially for news and current affairs - and imho are essential for a well-informed citizenry and a fair-minded functional democracy.
GB "News" appears to disagree.
The first broadcasting standards in the UK emerged with the BBC in 1922.
Formal standards took shape with the Royal Charter in 1927, which mandated that the BBC provide information, education, and entertainment while maintaining impartiality and serving the public interest.
Voters need to know how right-wing populist nationalist politicians and radical/far-right nativist extremists construct their divisive discourse and rhetoric to exploit the anti-elite climate and fuel violence and division - and what to do about it.
So what can be done to counter divisive narratives and framing and to help Britain to become a more open, inclusive, fairer, less polarised and better multicultural society?
I make several suggestions in the above article, but make more below,
Countering the extreme right’s narrative of feeling "attacked" and needing to "defend" national identity requires a strategic, multi-faceted approach that challenges their framing while addressing underlying concerns and emotions.
The shameless lie that "Britain is lawless" is categorically false, as it contradicts empirical data on crime trends, rule of law metrics, and the functioning of UK institutions. Reform UK often use fearmongering exaggeration and selective framing to create a sense of crisis.
Official data from the ONS and Home Office indicate that overall crime rates in England and Wales have fluctuated but do not support the notion of a "lawless" state. The ONS reported a 7% decrease in total recorded crime (excluding fraud) from 2023 to 24.
#OnThisDay, 21 July, 1969, the Chicago Daily News published: The ‘love it or leave it’ nonsense, by Sydney J. Harris.
It began: One of the most ignorant and hateful statements that a person can make is “If you don’t like it here, why don’t you leave?”
I reproduce it, below.
Harris was born in London in 1917, moving to the US in 1922. A formidable journalist who established a distinct voice integrating incisive social commentary with wit and humour, his weekday column, ‘Strictly Personal’, was syndicated in 200 US newspapers.
The ‘love it or leave it’ nonsense, by Sydney J. Harris.
One of the most ignorant and hateful statements that a person can make is “If you don’t like it here, why don’t you leave?”
That attitude is the main reason America was founded, in all its hope and energy and goodness.