A refreshingly candid political analysis. But who is it by?
"The destructive legacy of Thatcherism is typically analysed through an economic lens, namely that free-market dogmatism rewarded corporate greed at the expense of our public services."
"Less focus is paid to another kind of war she had to wage to win this economic battle; by curtailing the rights of trade unionists, disempowering local governments and handing over public resources to unaccountable private companies, Thatcher was waging a war on democracy."
"40 years later, the Conservative government’s anti-democratic assault rages on. The Minimum Service Levels Bill overrides our fundamental right to strike."
"The Public Order Bill curtails our right to protest. And new voter ID laws will effectively deny millions of people the ability to exercise their right to vote. Across the board, our democracy is under attack."
"However, if the government’s recent theft of our democratic rights is cause for concern, so too is recent behaviour of the @UKLabour leadership, which casts serious doubt over their willingness to win these rights back."
(Last week, @UKLabour’s National Executive Committee passed a motion – proposed by Keir Starmer – to bar Jeremy Corbyn from standing as a Labour candidate in Islington North).
"This was a flagrant denial of natural justice, and a shameful attack on the democratic rights of Islington North @UKLabour Party members. It is up to them – not party leaders – to decide who their candidate should be."
"At a time when the government is attacking our rights to strike, protest and vote, the @UKLabour leadership should be defending democracy. Instead, it is debasing it."
"Ultimately, only a democratic movement rooted in its local communities can generate the bold solutions needed to tackle the crises facing us all. It is no coincidence that the NEC’s anti-democratic motion took aim at our political campaign between 2015 and 2019."
Blocking Corbyn's candidacy is "an insult to the millions of people who voted for our Party in 2017 & 2019, & to all those who voted for his leadership on the basis that he would “defend [the] radical values” we put forward."
FYI @UKLabour achieved 40% of the vote share in 2019.
"Keir Starmer has abandoned his pledges to defend trade unions, bring key industries into public ownership, reverse #NHS privatisation, raise corporation tax, protect free movement & abolish tuition fees."
"#Solidarity is now saved for CEOs, not striking workers. Trust is placed in corporate interests, not party members. Human rights issues are cherry picked at the expense of a consistently ethical foreign policy."
"And empathy for desperate refugees is eschewed to appease the right-wing press.
As the government plunges millions into hardship, Keir Starmer has decided to attack the democratic foundations of his own party and the principles he once proclaimed to support."
"There is huge demand for a more hopeful alternative: decent pay rises, democratic public ownership, housing for all, a wealth tax to save our #NHS, and a humane immigration system grounded in dignity, empathy and care."
"Those who continue to campaign for these transformative policies – and against the NEC’s assault on democracy – show great courage. Indeed, they have sent a message to all those who have been hesitant to fight back."
"Ultimately, if the @UKLabour leadership is happy to denigrate its own party’s internal democracy, how will it treat democracy more broadly if it is given the chance to govern?"
"One thing’s for sure: the @UKLabour leadership will not be able to defend democracy in society if it cannot even respect it in its own movement."
So I'm assuming you've already guessed the author of this candid political polemic...
Regardless of what you think of Starmer or Corbyn, almost everyone now wants an end Tory misrule, but given our antiquated FPTP electoral system, the ONLY REALISTIC way of achieving this is through most people voting @UKLabour at the next general election. islingtontribune.co.uk/article/jeremy…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A multibillion-dollar scheme that exchanges cash from drug and gun sales in the UK for crypto—digital tokens hiding users’ identities—has enabling “sanctions evasions and the highest levels of organised crime, including providing money-laundering services to the Russian state”. theguardian.com/politics/2025/…
In 2023, the hedge fund co-founded by GB "News" owner Paul Marshall, who employs 60% of anti-Net Zero Reform UK's MPs, had £1.8 BILLION invested in fossil fuel firms.
Harborne (who has Thai citizenship under the name 'Chakrit Sakunkrit) also makes money from fossil fuels.
I and countless others are sick to death of the billionaire-funded Reform UK propaganda machine, GB “News”, and their decontextualised ‘facts’ that would make Goebbels blush.
Let’s examine the claim that “one quarter of foreign sex offenders come from just five countries”.
Yes, the raw data comes from a genuine Ministry of Justice (MoJ) prison census, but the way it’s being weaponised is deeply misleading.
The statistic sounds explosive, and deliberately so: a factoid engineered to sound like a revelation of hidden danger.
The right-wing information pipeline: a cherry-picked fragment of official data stripped of context, laundered through an opaquely funded “think tank” that isn't a think tank, amplified by billionaire-funded media, and weaponised by opportunistic politicians for electoral gain.
In the September 2025 @SkyNews Immigration Debate, chaired by Trevor “Muslims are not like us” Phillips, Reform UK’s head of policy Zia Yusuf made a series of inaccurate and highly misleading claims about migration, and more recently, on @BBCNewsnight, about social housing.
These assertions are easily disproved with publicly available data, but often go largely unchallenged on air, despite being about some of the most sensitive and polarised issues in politics.
Yusuf started by claiming that UK net migration “last year” was “about a million.”
When a newspaper repeatedly publishes misleading, distorted, or outright inaccurate stories, the public expects independent regulators to step in.
What if I told you the editor responsible for these stories is now in charge of writing the very rules that govern press ethics?
Privately educated Chris Evans, editor of The Daily Telegraph since 2014, has—since January 2024—simultaneously served as Chair of the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice Committee, the body that drafts, reviews, and rewrites the ethical rulebook that the UK press is meant to follow.
Evans holds this regulatory role at a time when his own paper is producing more factual corrections and clarifications than almost any other major UK outlet — with an overwhelming concentration in politically weaponised right-wing themes.
The BBC isn’t perfect — but it’s ours. As coordinated attacks on its independence intensify, I warn that if we don’t defend it now, we may lose more than a broadcaster — we may lose a cornerstone of British democracy...
As a long-time critic of the @BBC, let me spell it out: what we’re seeing right now isn’t organic outrage — it’s a sophisticated coordinated campaign by ideological enemies and commercial competitors to undermine the BBC’s independence and funding.
If you can’t see that, you’re being played — and that’s exactly the point.
Let’s start with Michael Prescott, author of the dodgy dossier leaked exclusively to The Telegraph, who is a PR man and former political editor at Murdoch’s Sunday Times.
Growing numbers of people are angry and disillusioned with the political establishment.
Desperate voters are easy prey for manipulative populists—as they were in Germany in the 1930s.
But the problem isn't immigrants or religious minorities. It's always wealth distribution.
The story of wealth in Britain over the past eight decades since WWII is not one of ‘the invisible hand’, but of deliberate policy choices—choices that once built one of the most equal society in modern history, but now sustain one of the most unequal in the developed world.
Data tracking wealth distribution from 1945 to 2025 reveal a striking U-shaped curve: a rapid reduction in wealth inequality after World War II, making Britain one of the most equal countries on earth by the mid 1970s, followed by an unbroken rise.