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
To spell out why, we need to unpack both the underlying implication of Andrew Doyle's argument and the reasons why it fails to adequately account for contemporary political dangers.
Andrew Doyle asserts that the term "fascism" is misused to the point of recklessness, echoing George Orwell’s 1944 observation that the word had been rendered meaningless. Doyle’s concern is not uncommon—but imho, it’s ultimately misplaced, especially in today’s context.
While it’s true that “fascism” is sometimes deployed rhetorically or hyperbolically (eg by Trump), Doyle’s framing dangerously downplays the genuine resurgence of fascist-adjacent movements across the Western world and undermines the analytical clarity necessary to confront them.
Boris Johnson appears to have had a secret meeting with billionaire Peter Thiel - perhaps the most fanatical of the libertarian Oligarchs and co-founder of the controversial US data firm Palantir, the year before it was given a role at the heart of the UK’s pandemic response.
The hour-long afternoon meeting on 28 August 2019 was marked “private” in a log of Johnson’s activities that day and was not subsequently disclosed on the government’s public log of meetings.
Elon Musk has been amplifying far-right accounts again, including Tommy Robinson, Rupert Lowe, and numerous anonynmous known #disinformation superspreader accounts like 'End Wokeness'.
Let's examine the context for yesterday's march in Richard Tice's constituency, #Skegness.
After decades of neglect, Skegness (pop 20K), stands out on key socio-economic markers on national averages: residents are older; whiter; lower full-time employment; higher rates of few/no qualifications; and concentrated deprivation - it's far-more deprived than most of England.
History repeatedly teaches us that burdening already struggling communities is a recipe for disaster.
These communities have been crying out for help for DECADES, but successive UK Govts have largely ignored their pleas, and continued to increase inequality, which harms us all.
🧵 @Rylan Asylum seekers coming here aren’t technically "illegal." International law (the 1951 Refugee Convention) allows people to seek asylum in any country regardless of how they arrive or how many countries they pass through, as long as they're fleeing persecution or danger.
Allow me to explain why asylum seekers aren’t “illegal”, and how misinformation and nasty demonising and scapegoating rhetoric by certain politicians and media, including news media, has made some British people less welcoming of asylum seeekers.
@Rylan
People fleeing war, torture, or persecution have the legal right to seek asylum.
The 1951 Refugee Convention, which the UK helped write, says anyone escaping danger can apply for asylum in another country no matter how they arrive: claiming asylum isn't a crime.
Farage's illiberal, immoral, & unworkable authoritarian plan involves ripping up human rights laws forged after WWII, which protect British people, & wasting £billions of UK taxpayers' money, giving some of it to corrupt misogynistic totalitarian regimes. theguardian.com/politics/2025/…
Leaving the #ECHR, repealing the Human Rights Act and disapplying international conventions
The UK would be an outlier among European democracies, in the company of only Russia and Belarus, if it were to leave the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Opting out of treaties such as the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, the UN Convention against torture and the Council of Europe Anti-Trafficking Convention would also be likely to do serious harm to the UK’s international reputation.
It could also undermine current return deals, including with France, and other cooperation agreements on people-smuggling with European nations such as Germany.
The Society of Labour Lawyers said the plan would “in all likelihood preclude further cooperation and law enforcement in dealing with small boats coming from the continent and so increase, rather than reduce, the numbers reaching our shores”.
Farage said he would legislate to remove the “Hardial Singh” safeguards – a reference to a legal precedent that sets limits on the Home Office’s immigration detention powers – to allow indefinite detention for immigration purposes. This would be highly vulnerable to legal challenge.
Many of the rights protected by the ECHR and the Human Rights Act are rooted in British case law, so judges would still be able to prevent deportations, even without international conventions.
Reform UK’s grotesque far-right mass deportation plan is not just economically and socially illiterate (Britain an ageing population and low birth rate) rely on striking “returns agreements” with countries including Afghanistan, Iran, Eritrea and Sudan, offering financial incentives to secure these deals, alongside visa restrictions and potential sanctions on countries that refuse.
These are countries where the Home Office’s risk reports warn of widespread torture and persecution.
It would risk the scenario of making payments to countries such as Iran, whose regime the UK government has accused of plotting terror attacks on British soil.
The Liberal Democrats called the payments “a Taliban tax”, saying the plan would entail sending billions “to an oppressive regime that British soldiers fought and died to defeat”. They said: “Not a penny of taxpayers’ money should go to a group so closely linked to terrorist organisations proscribed by the UK.”
A reminder of the one, viewed 310,000 times, for which she was jailed, which urged people to burn down asylum seeker hotels after the #Southport attack - which had nothing to do with asylum seekers.
While all these tweets of Connolly's were made before her incendiary post, they don't say which year they were posted.
They can be accessed here, via The Wayback Machine, which has archived more than 916 billion web pages.
Connolly's tweet (top right) was in response to the tweet on the left, which criticised Laurence Fox for posting an upskirt photograph of Narinder Kaur.
The next one (right centre) was Connolly asking Kaur if she had 'flashed her gash'.