Color Scheme
David Icke
25, June #BrokenSystem

David Icke: True, George, but what is the network...

True, George, but what is the network mechanism that is making all this happen? A few steps further into the shadows and the real controllers of Britain will become clear. The Prime Minister is not the 'kingpin' - he's a gofer - and the monarch has far more unspoken influence than you claim. Also, Starmer won only a third of the vote yet secured a massive majority to become Prime Minister. That was a farce and no-vote Burnham is just the next stage. Democracy, anyone?
#BrokenSystem
June Slater
25, June #BrokenSystem

June Slater: Andy Burnham MP, spouting about...

Andy Burnham MP, spouting about re industrialising Britain . Is he another one reliant on the fact the public don't understand politics. Well it's not happening on this page! Andy doesn’t understand that the Tories locked us into EU public procurement (especially on defence which is under different rules). Those Brexit messiahs Boris and Frost made a deal with the EU which specifically prevents the UK from prioritising its own industry in public procurement. Do they think we're stupid?
#BrokenSystem
Pouria Zeraati
25, June #WarSpillover

Pouria Zeraati: Another document proving that the...

Another document proving that the regime's narrative about collecting Strait of Hormuz tolls is purely for domestic consumption by the head-banging zealots: Oman's statement at today's Gulf Cooperation Council meeting: 'Oman, as one of the coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz, has a special responsibility to support international efforts to ensure the security of maritime navigation; within the framework of its responsibilities and commitments based on international law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Any future arrangements regarding the Strait of Hormuz will not include the collection of any tolls or transit fees.' Rubio said at this meeting that it doesn't matter if the regime wants to call it "tolls" or "service fees"; no money will be paid.
#WarSpillover
Deborah Haynes
24, June #StarmerCrisis

Deborah Haynes: Sir Keir Starmer's determination to...

🚨Sir Keir Starmer's determination to release a long-delayed defence investment plan ahead of a NATO summit next month risks doing more harm than good as officials scramble to meet what has become a political deadline. The UK's allies are increasingly concerned at a failure by the government to rearm at pace, despite the prime minister declaring "hard power is the currency of the age". Publishing the defence funding blueprint before Sir Keir meets with Donald Trump and other NATO leaders in Turkey on 7 and 8 July was meant to be a way of allaying such fears. But, rather than reassuring allies, such a move risks having the reverse effect if Britain fails to set out a credible plan to transform the armed forces from hollowed out to fighting ready. In a worrying sign, officials at the Ministry of Defence are scrambling to rush through tweaks to the defence investment plan after John Healey and Al Carns resigned a fortnight ago as defence secretary and armed forces minister respectively. The pair quit in protest at a failure by Sir Keir and his chancellor to fund the original plan properly. Mr Carns also criticised its content for not focusing on the right kit, with too much emphasis on large, expensive, legacy programmes such as fast jets, warships and submarines instead of cheap, disposable drones that have transformed the battlefield in Ukraine. Dan Jarvis, the new defence secretary, has said he is now working hard to secure the "right" deal for the military and to release the defence investment plan before the Ankara summit. However, this politically dictated timeline could result in a poor outcome for the armed forces, especially if any announcement is ultimately yet more decline dressed up as reprioritised investment, with choices dictated by fiscal constraint rather than what is needed. The fact Sir Keir himself is only going to be in office for a few more weeks only adds to the lack of credibility and seriousness about what should be the top priority for any government. None of this will impress fellow member states in NATO. Most importantly, when it comes to the alliance, the headline metric that countries are judged on - as faulty and fudged as it can be - is defence spending as a proportion of GDP. Allies, with the exception of Spain, committed last year to lifting this ratio to 3.5% of GDP by 2035 - an unambitious timeline advocated by the prime minister and Rachel Reeves even though countries such as the Baltic states wanted to go much faster, and are already doing so. Underlying the incoherency of this distant timeframe is the fact that much of NATO, including Britain, is saying the alliance needs to be ready for possible war with Russia by 2030 - five years before they agreed to hit the new defence spending baseline. This mismatch between threat and investment is why Mr Healey, the previous defence secretary, could no longer support the prime minister's plan for the UK's armed forces as it would only raise the defence budget to 2.68% of GDP by 2030 from around 2.3% now. He had instead been pushing to increase the level to 3% of GDP within four years followed by a clear path to move on to 3.5% by 2035 (or sooner). This would unlock tens of billions of pounds of additional money for the military at the speed of relevance. But the Treasury baulked and the rest is history. What NATO really needs to see from the UK - a country that prides itself as being a leading member of the alliance - is a credible trajectory for when it will actually hit the new spending targets and be ready to fight a war. And that is no longer in Sir Keir's gift.
#StarmerCrisis
Read more