I think we can all agree that the proverbial shit has hit the fan in a big way in the United States today, and the splatter will most certainly not be contained in the country that will now soon again be run by someone who is increasingly orange, senile, unhinged and surrounded by a few exceptionally dodgy characters.
Now, for me personally, when the faeces has exploded, the first thing I do is put on my strategist’s* hat (it’s really nice, it has sequins, but still looks serious).
So, with that in mind, let’s all put a plan together. Let’s identify the risks we’re facing now, the actions we can take, and how it may just help our communities not just cope but build resilience over the next four years.
1. Keep Your Sanity by Choosing the Right News 🗞️
Risk: Misinformation and endless chaos can have you second-guessing your morning coffee.
Plan of Action: Stick to high-factuality sources and take headlines with a pinch of salt (or a whole bag, really). Think Byline Times, Full Fact and other trusted news sources.
Why It Helps: You stay informed without feeling like you’re living in an alternative reality. Plus, you’ll have the facts handy when Aunt Margery shares “news” that reads like it was ghostwritten by a feverish badger.
2. Become an Ally (Without the Halo) 👥
Risk: Trumpian rhetoric has a habit of spilling across borders, emboldening certain groups here to act like empathy is some kind of personal failing.
Plan of Action: Show up for vulnerable communities and support the groups on the front lines. Whether it’s Liberty, Stonewall, or Women’s Aid, these groups need our help - and a lot less of our “thoughts and prayers.”
Why It Helps: Empathy builds resilience. Just make sure to avoid the self-congratulatory halo - always remember that protest is about support, not photo-ops.
3. Put Your Keyboard to Good Use 🔍
Risk: Trumpian spin can travel faster than a dodgy headline on Facebook.
Plan of Action: If you see something that stinks of exaggeration, have a polite, fact-based word. Share reputable fact-checks or stats. (And no, “my cousin’s friend” is not a valid source).
Why It Helps: Stopping misinformation in its tracks is like whacking a mole with a hefty fact-check hammer. It doesn’t solve everything, but it stops the spread of some of the worst nonsense, even if it sometimes feels like farting against thunder.
4. Engage in Real Conversation – Yes, Really 🤝
Risk: Trumpian chaos thrives on everyone shouting over each other.
Plan of Action: Whether it’s on Twitter or at the dinner table, try an approach that’s equal parts empathy and questioning. And if you can’t talk, just listen (and pour yourself a very big glass of something very strong while trying to not fall out of your chair from rolling your eyes so hard).
Why It Helps: Constructive discussion can feel rare, but it’s one of the few things that unpicks divisive rhetoric. Plus, fewer people will think you’re just an “anti-Trumper” with an agenda if you show a real interest in their views.
5. Support Local Activism (Even if You Hate Crowds) 📝
Risk: The Trumpian era doesn’t just export policies, it normalises an “every man for himself” approach.
Plan of Action: Support or join local groups that reflect your values. Even if it’s just a few pounds a month to a good cause, your support counts. If crowds aren’t your thing, fundraisers and online petitions work wonders too.
Why It Helps: The fight for decency often happens on a hyper-local level. It’s less about grand gestures, more about consistency.
6. Take “Me Time” Seriously (No Really, Don’t Skimp) 🌱
Risk: Trumpian chaos and 24/7 crisis news can make you feel like you’re living in a warped season of Black Mirror.
Plan of Action: Schedule breaks, mute your doom-scrolling apps now and then, and spend time with your loved ones (including your plants).
Why It Helps: Self-care isn’t self-indulgence; it’s survival. A calm mind is a resilient mind, and nobody fights the good fight well when they’re on their 8th espresso (unless you've reached the point where your body is 40% caffeine).
7. Find Laughter Where You Can (Even if it Feels a Bit Grim) 😜
Risk: The next four years could make the “dark humour” section of your mind overbooked.
Plan of Action: Find moments of humour, however small. Memes, an incisive Twitter comeback, a GIF that nails it - whatever brings a smile and keeps you sane.
Why It Helps: The situation is serious, but our collective sanity doesn’t need to crumble. Humour is like a salve for tough times. Please, let's remember to have a laugh, even though it might not feel like it's appropriate today.
What we need to acknowledge as a community is that the coming years are set to be exceptionally turbulent, and Trumpian politics loves nothing more than a good chaos-fest.
But there's something we have to keep in mind (and I am very much speaking to myself here):
No, we don’t need to absorb every blow or react to every headline.
Instead, we can engage in thoughtful actions, support each other, and - let’s face it - build a little resistance muscle along the way.
We’ll face plenty of fire, but our task is to focus on the things that endure: community, compassion, and (of course) fact-checking like our lives depend on it (which, at times, it may).
Let’s make our way through the noise, support each other, and remember that even Trumpianism, for all its chaos, is a moment in time.
Decency and democracy, if we stay vigilant, are built to last.
*And yes, this was pre-written weeks ago, because I wouldn't be a good strategist if I didn't consider the worst case scenario, would I?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A quick roundup of what’s happened this week - from cats running psychological warfare campaigns, to Reform UK’s empty pyrotechnics, to why the word racist still sends parts of Britain into meltdown.
🧵
How “Racist” Became the Dirtiest Word in Britain
Call someone a racist and suddenly you’re the problem. A look at how the word has been twisted, softened, weaponised - and why naming racism for what it is still matters.
Reform’s Big Immigration Reveal: All Pyrotechnics, No Policy
Lots of shouting, no substance. I went through Reform’s big “immigration plan” so you don’t have to - and found fireworks, distractions, and barely a whiff of actual policy.
Abortion has not been “legalised” up to birth in the UK - it’s been decriminalised.
This is an important distinction, especially when so many are deliberately blurring the lines for outrage clicks.
Here’s what actually happened:
What MPs voted for today was to remove criminal penalties for women who end their own pregnancies outside of the existing legal framework - usually in crisis, often alone.
This follows harrowing cases like Carla Foster and others who faced prosecution under a 160-year-old law. In some cases, women were criminalised after experiencing miscarriage or stillbirth.
That’s what’s changed.
❌ It does not mean abortion is now available “up to birth” on demand.
🛑 Medical professionals are still bound by the Abortion Act 1967, which sets the gestational limit at 24 weeks (with very limited exceptions beyond that, e.g. grave risk to life or severe fetal abnormality).
🛑 Women cannot access late-stage abortion legally without meeting those exceptions.
🛑 Doctors can still be prosecuted if they act outside those laws.
In other words, abortion remains regulated – but women are no longer treated as criminals for making desperate decisions about their own bodies.
This change was backed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the BMA, BPAS, and nearly every major health body involved in reproductive care. It brings us closer in line with public health best practice and human rights.
Decriminalisation means treating abortion as a healthcare matter, not a criminal one.
That’s it.
That’s the story.
So if someone tells you that MPs just legalised abortion “up to birth,” they’re either misinformed or misleading you.
Either way, it’s not true.
Doctors do still matter.
The amendment decriminalises women - not clinical procedures.
Providers and unlicensed suppliers remain regulated and prosecutable. The aim is to stop jailing vulnerable women in crisis, not to erase safe care.
Decriminalisation removes criminal penalties - it doesn’t establish a free-for-all and medical providers are still subject to regulation and professional standards.
No one is “slaughtering babies at nine months”; that language is inflammatory and detached from clinical reality.
So, you may have noticed that I’ve been online a fair bit the last few days - and you’d be right. I’ve had five glorious days of annual leave to burn through before they disappeared into the NHS ether. Naturally, I’ve used them productively: tweeting relentlessly and yelling into the void of our flaming planet.
The topic du jour?
Tariffs.
Sexy, I know.
Now, I’ve shared a fair few thoughts on this - because it’s a genuinely fascinating subject. But in the process, I’ve also had a few people have a pop at me, questioning why someone “who isn’t an economist” is talking about economic policy.
And they’re absolutely right.
I’m not an economist.
I don’t have a degree in it.
I don’t work in financial markets.
I don’t sit on trade commissions or advise governments on macroeconomic levers.
But here’s what I do have: a curiosity-led brain and a very structured method I’ve used for years to get my head around complex topics. So today, allow me to take you on a little tour through the twisted, very strange circuitry of my brain using my very own adaptation of the 5WH framework.
A thread 🧵
Step 1: What
Start with the most basic question:
What even is this thing?
For tariffs, this meant understanding the basic definition. A tariff is a tax on imports or exports between sovereign states. It’s not a punishment (though it can be used that way). It’s not a silver bullet. It’s not inherently good or bad. It’s a tool - like a hammer or a toothbrush. And like any tool, it’s all about how you use it.
So I kept asking “What?”
- What are tariffs meant to achieve?
- What industries are impacted most?
- What does it mean for domestic consumers?
- What happens when tariffs are retaliated?
This is where the fun begins, because once you understand what something is, you start to separate the real arguments from the performative shouting.
Step 2: Why
Now I get to channel my inner 5-year-old: Why does this exist? Why now? Why this way?
- Why are these tariffs being introduced now?
- Why are certain countries or industries being targeted?
- Why are some people defending them while others are foaming at the mouth?
The “why” helps you dig into intent, motivation, and potential manipulation. Sometimes the answer is economic protection. Sometimes it’s nationalism in a cheap suit. Sometimes it’s just election season cosplay.
Here’s your problem, Mark: you don’t know how death certification works in the UK - but you speak like you do.
Attached here is an actual Medical Certificate of Cause of Death (also known as an MCCD) which is completed by a qualified doctor who has assessed the person who has passed away.
As you’ll note, it asks for the disease or condition leading directly to death, as well as any other contributing conditions, in sequence. COVID-19 only appears here if a doctor believes it directly caused or materially contributed to death.
If someone dies in a car crash but happens to test positive for Covid post-mortem? That’s not going in box 1a, b, c or d. It’s likely not being listed at all, unless it played a role - and even then, it’d be listed under part II, which is not counted as the primary cause of death.
So no - people didn’t die “with” Covid and get magically counted as Covid deaths. The death certification process is evidence-based, standardised, and legally binding. Your myth relies on a complete ignorance of how this system works, and it’s a disservice to the professionals who spend their days navigating it with care.
Next time you want to argue about how deaths are counted, at least have the decency to learn how the most basic steps and processes of the procedure works.
You leapt into a thread discussing COVID death certification in the UK, offered a vague anecdote about a post-mortem COVID test being wrongly attributed to a car crash, and then - when corrected using UK documentation - got huffy because nobody psychically inferred your story happened in Florida?
Then, in a desperate attempt to recover, you flung your mother’s death certificate into the conversation as if one vague disagreement over medical opinion justifies global conspiracy theories about how death is recorded?
Now, there are a few things wrong here, so bear with me:
1. You didn’t specify Florida. You live in the UK. The conversation was about the UK. Your deflection is transparent.
2. “Frailty of old age” is a medical cause of death, especially when comorbidities or decline make other causes unclear. Morphine given for palliative comfort does not automatically override that unless administered in error or malice - and unless you’re levelling that accusation, sit down.
3. The Florida death certification guidance - which I’ve attached for your convenience - explicitly states that clinicians should record causes based on best medical opinion and clinical judgement, not conspiracies whipped up after the fact by grieving relatives with no medical background.
You’re not a pathologist.
You’re not a coroner.
You’re a bloke on the internet who’s angry that your half-baked anecdote didn’t win the internet, and quite frankly, no amount of personal bluster or amateur forensic armchairing is going to change the fact that you wandered into this thread with bravado and left with your own argument in shreds.
Now jog on.
Mark, I understand you’ve run out of arguments, but “go fuck yourself” isn’t quite the intellectual smackdown you think it is - especially not when you’re defending a man who told the whole of there’s “no such thing as COVID.”
You asked who I think I am. I’m a healthcare strategist who worked every single day throughout the pandemic, alongside some of the best infectious disease doctors and virologists in the world. I worked on the ground while people like Neil Oliver played YouTube prophet from the comfort of their living rooms.
So forgive me if I’m not moved by another armchair expert parroting conspiracy cosplay and mistaking volume for validity.
If you’ve got something factual to contribute, by all means, step up - but if all you’ve got is schoolyard bluster and rage at being corrected, don’t let me keep you from shouting into the void.
Your reminder that having a trade deficit does not mean that you are “subsidising” a country, it means that you buy more from that country than it buys from you and indicates spectacular ignorance of how trade works.
No.
That’s not how trade deficits work. A trade deficit simply means one country buys more goods and services from another than it sells in return. It doesn’t mean one side is getting “poorer” while the other “gets richer” - trade is not a zero-sum game.
A country running a trade deficit is still receiving valuable goods and services in exchange for money, which can be reinvested into its economy. The US, for example, runs a persistent trade deficit but remains one of the wealthiest nations on Earth because it has strong domestic consumption, a service-based economy, and foreign investment flowing in.
If trade deficits made countries poorer, the US would have collapsed long ago, and countries with trade surpluses - like Germany or China - would have all the wealth, which isn’t how global economics works.
Except I do understand that a trade deficit isn’t subsidising a country, and clearly Trump doesn’t.
You do realise that these “hand-wringing” Europeans have spent the last 70 years turning up to fight America’s wars, right?
Let me take you on a little trip down memory lane - one littered with the wreckage of “American diplomacy” - since your grasp of history seems shakier than Orangina’s grip on a ramp.
Korea? Over 60,000 British troops deployed alongside U.S. forces, along with 5,000 Turks, plus French, Dutch, and Greek contingents. Europeans bled and died on the same battlefields as Americans.
The Gulf War? The UK sent 35,000 troops. France deployed 18,000. Italy, the Netherlands, and others contributed. Europeans stood shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.
Afghanistan? The NATO mission - led at various points by “hand-wringing” European commanders like General Sir David Richards (🇬🇧), General Egon Ramms (🇩🇪), and General Jean-Louis Py (🇫🇷) - saw thousands of British, Dutch, Danish, Polish, and other European troops deployed year after year. Britain alone sent 150,000 troops. A European-led force fought in a war the U.S. started… and then, of course, abandoned, leaving the Taliban to waltz back in.
Iraq? The UK sent 46,000 troops. Poland commanded a whole multinational division with 2,500 of its own. Italy contributed 3,200, Denmark 500. These weren’t token gestures; these were boots on the ground in a war built on lies your government peddled.
So tell me, Lindsey, at what point did “hand-wringing” Europeans stop pulling their weight?
When exactly did they become too weak to “defend their own continent,” given that they’ve spent the last 70 years showing up every time America blundered into another conflict?
Was it when thousands of British, French, Dutch, and Polish troops fought in Helmand, Kandahar, and Kabul?
Or was it when European soldiers were deployed in Iraq to clean up the mess from an invasion the U.S. justified with fabricated intelligence?
Or maybe it was when European nations actually upheld their NATO commitments while Trump had an adolescent tantrum about them and Republicans fell over themselves to kiss Putin’s ring?
It takes a special kind of ignorance to pretend Europe hasn’t fought alongside the U.S. time and time again. But then again, considering how the Republican Party now prefers surrendering to Russia over standing with its allies, maybe this historical amnesia isn’t so surprising after all.