The next war won't be won by armies, navies or air forces alone. It'll be won by the country whose 19 year olds can code, whose factories can build drones in weeks not years, and whose grid stays on when someone tries to switch it off. Industry. Society. Economy. That's the fight now. We're not ready. And we're not being honest about what getting ready will cost.

Faced with a choice between a Defence Secretary who wanted to spend more on our armed forces, a Chancellor who wouldn’t, and an Attorney General who enjoys suing them, the Prime Minister decided he could do without … the Defence Secretary.

'It's the end of days for this Labour government.' Andrew Marr calls for 'more senior resignations' after Defence Secretary John Healey's 'damning' comments about Keir Starmer.

Agenda 2030 Or The Defence Of The Realm. Starmer Has Made His Choice. John Healey Has Resigned Over It. This morning Britain woke up without a Defence Secretary. By lunchtime it knew why. The numbers tell the story precisely. The Ministry of Defence faces a £28 billion funding shortfall over four years. Healey wanted £18 billion. He was offered £13.5 billion of which defence chiefs regarded only £10 billion as real money. The remaining £3.5 billion was, in the words of the Telegraph, invented through magical accounting tricks. The Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Richard Knighton, took the unusual step of writing directly to Starmer to warn that the money was not enough. The head of the British armed forces writing directly to the Prime Minister is not a routine communication. It is a signal of desperation. Starmer told NATO last week that it is our intelligence assessment that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030. Those are his words. His government's assessment. Shared with our allies. Four years away. And his Treasury offered the man responsible for defending against that threat an accounting trick and a two page summary instead of a funded plan. Why. Because the money was needed elsewhere. In 2015 every United Nations member state including Britain signed the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Its 17 goals and 169 targets commit signatory nations to facilitating migration, eliminating inequality, achieving net zero and embedding inclusive institutions. No British parliament voted on it. No British public was consulted. It was adopted at a UN summit and has been implemented ever since through regulatory frameworks, public sector guidance and institutional capture rather than democratic mandate. It is not a conspiracy. It is a publicly available document on the UN website. And its priorities, net zero, welfare, migration, DEI, are precisely the budgets this government has protected while offering the defence of the realm an accounting trick. Ed Miliband refused to cut his net zero budget to fund defence. The Labour Party refused to cut welfare spending that would have freed up billions. The £10 billion in asylum accommodation contracts continues. The DEI infrastructure embedded across British policing, the NHS, the civil service and the education system continues to be funded. Every one of these is a commitment that takes precedence over the defence of the realm in this government's spending decisions. The hierarchy of priorities is now visible. A government that has spent two years embedding progressive transformation across British institutions, protecting the net zero agenda from cuts and managing mass migration has discovered that it cannot simultaneously do all of that and defend the country. When the moment of decision arrived the progressive agenda was protected and the armed forces were handed a two page summary and told to make do. Lord Robertson, the former Labour Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary General, warned in April that Britain was underprepared, underinsured and under attack. He said there was a corrosive complacency in Britain's political leadership. The army has been reduced to its smallest size in 200 years. Seven warships have been axed. The Defence Investment Plan was due last autumn, delayed through winter, missed its spring deadline and has now produced the resignation of the Defence Secretary on the day it was finally meant to be published. Healey's letter says without a plan that meets the moment he is being forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our forces, increase the risk to personnel on operations and could make the country less safe. He had no other option but to resign. In the most dangerous security environment since the Cold War a Labour government has chosen the globalist agenda over the defence of the realm. That choice has now cost it its Defence Secretary. The question is what it will cost the country.

I have a question regarding the Manchester Airport case... If the British justice system fails to quickly and effectively put on trial and sentence those who beat up armed security at a British airport, where only one of the two perpetrators was found guilty even though the evidence makes it abundantly clear that both were guilty, and the trial was repeatedly delayed and prolonged, then what does that mean for British airport security going forward? In a country where the threat of terrorism, more specifically Islamic terrorism, is an ongoing and very real concern, how can airport security staff adequately fulfil their roles if they know there is a possibility that simply doing their job may result in an unjust court case which, at least partially, puts them in the wrong? Put yourself in the position of an airport security staff member. Would you now feel confident carrying out your job if even an altercation not linked to terrorism creates such a prolonged mess in determining who was really in the wrong, when to you it seems blatantly obvious? Because if those tasked with protecting one of the country’s most sensitive and high risk environments cannot trust that the justice system will back them when they act to maintain order and public safety, then that sends a deeply damaging message, not just to airport security staff, but to anyone responsible for protecting the public.

Exactly right. Reginald Sorensen had represented Leyton since 1929 (with a short break in the early 1930s). He was beloved by his constituents. He had just doubled his majority to nearly 8,000 votes in the 1964 general election. Harold Wilson pressured him into accepting a life peerage to make way for Patrick Gordon Walker, the seatless Foreign Secretary who had lost Smethwick in a racially charged campaign. Sorensen went to the Lords reluctantly, with Wilson's assurance it was for the good of the party. The voters of Leyton had a different view. Gordon Walker lost by 205 votes. He resigned as Foreign Secretary the following day. Time magazine called it the Leyton Affair and described the debacle as the most astonishing election result since the war. The voters resented, as one account put it, the callous imposition of an outsider in place of their beloved Reg. The parallels with Makerfield are uncomfortable for Burnham's campaign. Sorensen had served Leyton for decades. Simons had served Makerfield for less than two years before being persuaded to stand aside. Gordon Walker was a seatless minister being handed what everyone assumed was a safe seat. Burnham is a mayoralty-ending politician being handed what everyone assumes is a winnable by-election. Leyton had returned Labour for thirty two years. Makerfield has returned Labour since 1983. And Reform won every single ward in the constituency at the local elections with fifty percent of the vote. Gordon Walker chose Leyton because it was close to the heart of political power. The voters chose differently. The Makerfield by-election is on June 18. History does not repeat but it has a habit of rhyming. "The parallels with Makerfield are uncomfortable for Burnham's campaign."

I submitted my tax return to HMRC one day late. I was fined £100. And I didn't even owe them any tax! Angela Rayner tried to avoid paying £40,000 stamp duty for nearly a year and could have been fined £8,000 by the HMRC after she recently coughed up the money, (shortly after being gifted £50,000 from a refrigeration company for 'Office Expenses'). She wasn't fined a single penny. No fine. No penalty. No comeback whatsoever. Is it any wonder that us little folk are getting so pissed off with these freeloading, opportunistic, money grabbing, holier than thou, two faced charlatans?

Credit where it’s due… @KemiBadenoch slayed today…🔥 💅

This is what communism looks like in the 21st century. I have just been denied entry to the UK in order to speak at the largest patriotic event in Europe. Starmer will be sued by me. Not the government, not the Home Office but Starmer personally. Once you lose the next election, communist, we’ll meet in court! Tommy @TRobinsonNewEra , this communist cannot silence millions, nor can he take away their right to vote! UNITE THE KINGDOM!

“Tone deaf and downright insulting” This is a remarkable and pitch perfect critique of Keir Starmer’s disastrous relaunch speech. All the more remarkable because it’s a Labour MP - Jonathan Hinder - who is saying it. I think he should join Reform. @Iromg @ZiaYusufUK

Keir Starmer, 6th May 2022: “This is a big turning point for us. We’ve sent a message to the PM. Britain deserves better.” So when the Tories lost 485 council seats and 11 councils, Boris should resign. When Labour lose 1,493 council seats and 38 councils, Starmer won’t. 🥴