If you, like us, want to follow live the results of the "Swiss Brexit" vote, then you can see them being updated live on the following website. swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-polit…

I take it the Government would prefer this sort of thing didn’t get spread across social media. These aggressive hoons were employed by Harrow council, specifically in a public facing role Lord save us.

3 Bradford Council byelections on Thursday in Idle & Thackley ward postponed from 7th May due to the death of LibDem Cllr 🧐 #BritainWantsReform 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧

Content aside, I think Farage publishing this sort of lengthy essay (with an 80 long bibliography!) is a good thing in hopefully raising the standard of our national political dialogue. Together with the detailed papers Danny Kruger is putting out on the government machinery I don’t think anyone can claim that Reform are not giving the commentariat and voters plenty to sink their teeth into

The unmediated Word : Farage arrives on substack. comment.press/faragesubstack

86% of County Durham is rural? 🚜🌾 230,000 of our residents live in rural areas, which brings its own challenges. Proud to represent Durham County Council at Cereals 2026 at Diddly Squat Farm! Huge thanks to @JeremyClarkson for hosting this event!

Seems like a waste of canvassing time to me, but hey,let them.

A poll by Labour’s pollster says….

The BBC Has Ruled. Brexit Damaged The Economy. No Further Debate Required. The BBC's editorial complaints unit has decided that the negative economic impact of Brexit is now a settled fact. Not a contested judgement. Not one side of a live debate. A fact, in the same category as man-made climate change, requiring no balancing view. The ruling followed a Radio 4 Today programme segment featuring Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, alongside Liam Byrne and Sir John Gieve, both long-standing advocates of closer EU alignment. All three agreed Brexit had damaged growth. The presenter, Katya Adler, did not challenge the premise or introduce a dissenting voice. A complaint followed. The ECU's response is the revealing part. It acknowledged the segment failed to "acknowledge the alternative case" for pursuing opportunities outside the EU rather than realignment with it. That part of the complaint was upheld. But the central complaint, that three pro-EU voices agreeing with each other on air is not balance, was dismissed. The reasoning given was that this reflected "the consensus among economists" and there was no "significant body of economic opinion" on the other side. This is worth pausing on. The BBC is not claiming it found balance. It is claiming balance was unnecessary because one side of the argument does not meaningfully exist. The institution that is legally required to be impartial has ruled itself the arbiter of which questions are still open and which are closed, and Brexit has just been moved into the closed file. The economics itself does not support the certainty on display. The headline figure driving much of this narrative, an 8 per cent hit to GDP since 2016, comes from an NBER paper built on a "synthetic control" model that constructs a hypothetical non-Brexit Britain from a basket of comparator countries. The largest weighting in that basket, over 60 per cent, is the United States, a country currently riding an AI investment boom and a separate fiscal stimulus. The model also weights Estonia and Greece more heavily than France or Germany. On a straightforward per capita basis against France and Germany, the actual comparators, Britain's performance since 2016 sits roughly in line with both. An 8 per cent gap simply isn't visible. This is a model producing a number that then gets reported as "the consensus," which the BBC then cites as the reason no alternative view is required. That loop, model produces number, number becomes consensus, consensus becomes fact, fact requires no balance, is the mechanism. It does not require a conspiracy. It requires an institution that has decided which conclusions are respectable and which are not, and which then treats its own prior decision as evidence. The same posture has been on display all week. A government department can decide its diversity targets are lawful without seeking legal advice to check. A police force can decide a book about dismantling "inner white supremacy" is leadership training. A broadcaster can decide an economic question is closed and that deciding so does not breach its own impartiality rules. In each case, the institution marks its own homework, and the mark is always a pass. None of this requires Brexit to have been a triumph. Britain's economy has genuine problems, most of them unrelated to single market membership. But a state broadcaster, funded by compulsory licence fee under threat of prosecution, has now formally placed one of the most consequential political decisions in modern British history beyond the reach of its own impartiality obligations. Reform's Lee Anderson called it being "blinkered by groupthink." The more precise description is an institution that has stopped being able to tell the difference between its own assumptions and the facts. "The BBC is not claiming it found balance. It is claiming balance was unnecessary because one side of the argument does not meaningfully exist."

We have been governed so badly in the past 20 years.

Westminster journalist spends one day in Wigan then lectures locals on what to call our places...

There are lots of people on here who should be apologising.

Interesting bit in The Economist on the composition of some of our EU immigration.

All students of history know this.

America is building rockets that can go to Mars and is taking AI to new levels. Meanwhile, in Britain, our Government is banning underfloor heating and wants to regulate our use of towel rails. I despair for our future under these student socialist imbeciles.