Imix calls itself a charity, but read its own material and it sounds indistinguishable from a political PR agency: “a team of professional communications experts” who want to “change the conversation” and “develop new narratives” so Britain embraces more migration. It boasts of spending millions (much of it from left‑leaning foundations) on “media interventions” that place favourable migrant stories and reframe coverage across major outlets – including partnership campaigns that have already appeared on BBC and ITV. Now we learn that the same outfit hand‑picked, rehearsed and sat in the BBC Question Time audience, watching their own talking points read out in primetime by people they’d prepped – while the BBC tried to sell that as a spontaneous expression of public opinion. This is not “civil society” speaking truth to power; it’s an organised lobby using charitable status as a fig leaf for professionalised political messaging, back‑door influence over editorial decisions and access to national broadcasters. When a group that exists to shift public attitudes on a live policy controversy is placing and coaching contributors on a flagship BBC political show, you can stop pretending the line between charity and campaigning has merely blurred – it’s been erased. And the scandal is not just Imix doing its job. It’s the BBC inviting them in, giving them the keys to audience selection and then daring to talk about “impartiality” with a straight face.

If Vladimir Putin changed the voting system days before an election to stop his opponents winning, every British journalist would call it what it is: rigging the rules. Tonight, Labour rammed through a last‑minute switch in the Lords so that if Andy Burnham wins Makerfield and quits as Greater Manchester Mayor, his replacement won’t be chosen on a simple first‑past‑the‑post ballot, but on the supplementary vote system instead. Why now? Because Labour knows the race to replace Burnham would be a straight two‑horse fight with Reform UK – and under FPTP, the candidate with the most votes wins, no second chances, no back‑room redistributions, no “stop Reform” stitch‑ups. Under SV, Labour gets a second bite of the cherry: if their candidate can limp into the top two, they can hoover up second preferences from every other party and magic a “majority” on the second count, even if Reform tops the poll on first preferences. This isn’t “modernising democracy”. It’s the governing party using its Commons majority and the unelected Lords to hurriedly doctor the rules of one specific contest because it’s terrified the voters might choose someone else. When the establishment preached to the world about “rules‑based order”, they forgot to mention one thing: in Britain, the rules are “based” on whether Labour thinks it might lose.

Why don't you give your real name to social media companies? What are you scared of? The govt has your name & address for the electoral roll, energy companies know your name, so does any company you order from online.

If banning social media for U16s means linking a profile to an ID to verify age then I think that's all the more reason to do it. If you are worried about legal repercussions of what you are saying on SM then that's a pretty good hint that you probably shouldn't be saying it.

Sharing this sort of overt racism is now horrifically common on this site, but worth calling out that Hannan is a member of the House of Lords, appointed by the Conservatives.

This is a great video. Will Hodson was a true believer in renewables, but has come to see the true costs and the damage the current system of implementation is doing to the country. Set 17 minutes aside and please watch.

Ironic yet somehow perfectly apt that Starmer's big legacy measure - the under-16 social media ban - is something he didn't actually believe in and resisted pretty forcefully.

My daughter doesn’t have a phone Tracy, but she does like watching YouTube. Everything she watches is monitored via parental controls. Are you ok? You seem angry.

It shouldn’t be controversial to put Brits first in line for tax cuts. That’s what a Reform UK Treasury will do. Cathy Newman disagreed…