Very good explainer as to why today's raid, whilst welcome, is smoke and mirrors. It will make little to no difference to Russian coffers. It was, as Owen says, political theatre. The reality is that Russia still makes a small fortune from LNG sales to Europe, and sadly we are still part of that process even when we don't buy direct. @owenmatth @spectator spectator.com/article/starme…

Implying that Healey would have got more money for Defence if he stayed is wrong: Ed Miliband and Rachel Reeves wouldn’t allow it.

Working in central London, I see this every single day: streets and pavements effectively handed over to anonymous e‑bike couriers while the state pretends it’s all “green transport”. I watch riders doing 25–30mph in 20mph zones, blasting through cycle lanes and straight onto narrow pavements, often one‑handed on their phones – exactly what The Telegraph just filmed in Battersea. These aren’t “cyclists”, they’re unregulated last‑mile logistics for multibillion‑pound apps whose business model depends on riders breaking the rules and a political class that looks the other way. You and I get ticketed to death; balaclava‑clad riders with no plates and no visible ID fly past prams and pensioners with total impunity.

This post encapsulates every junior startup in Australia. In Western Australia, we have a plethora of start-ups known as junior exploration companies. These companies discover almost all the mineral assets that major mines extract, which power the Australian economy. Typically, management leaves their high-paying jobs with the aspiration of building something significant. They take a risk to create something meaningful. Due to limited funds, they entice staff with equity incentives. These companies are funded by retail investors who dream of striking it rich with their after-tax dollars. They spend the money drilling holes, assaying samples, analysing results and building up mineral deposits. If they strike it rich, they spend more money, employ more people and bring in other parts of the industry, continuing the cycle. Ultimately, they either build a mine or a major takes them over, and shareholders pay their share of CGT to the government. Now, if we remove this incentive at the outset, none of this happens. Without an incentive to make it, why take the risk? Australia will never have a SpaceX under the new CGT laws. Everyone is happy to pay their way! No one is suggesting paying zero CGT. What we’re saying is don’t mess with a system that’s working perfectly for startups like exploration companies. This isn’t about creating housing for first-home buyers; it’s about a tax grab to fuel incessant out-of-control spending.

This is just political showmanship from Keir Starmer. The Government is celebrating stopping one tanker in the Channel, yet Britain still allows Russian gas to enter our country if it's refined in a third country. If we're still indirectly funding Russia's war machine, what exactly does stopping a single ship achieve?

174,000 houses have been built in Australia in the last 12 months. AND 439,000 MIGRANTS HAVE ARRIVED IN AUSTRALIA FOR THE SAME PERIOD TONY BURKE SAY THE HOYSES v IMMIGRATION IS SLIGHTLY OUT OF SYNC. SERIOUSLY? Another LABOR LIE!

Ed Miliband unveils his vision of the future washing machine for all British households:-

Try @JeremyClarkson

Liberal Canada rarely takes your rights away in one clean motion. That would be too obvious. First, the language changes. Speech becomes “expression.” Limits become “reasonable.” Censorship becomes “safety.” Government control becomes “protection.” Disagreement becomes “misinformation.” And once the words change, the public is expected to accept the new rules as if nothing serious happened. That is how a free society gets managed into silence. Not by banning liberty outright. By redefining it until people forget what it used to mean.

A Prime Minister who constantly called for previous ones to stand down, says he won't stand down as he's been given a duty to serve. This isn't just any old hypocrisy. This is Labour hypocrisy.

Orwell nailed the permanent hypocrisy of the status socialist. They preach equality, but they still want status. They sneer at old class privilege, then build a new version of it out of credentials, correct opinions, approved language, activist causes, and moral vanity. They don’t want a classless society. They want a society where their class is in charge and gets to call its own privileges compassion. You see the same thing today in Canada. The people who lecture working people about sacrifice are rarely the ones paying the real price. They love “equity” until it touches their neighbourhood, their job, their school, their retirement plan, or their social standing. Orwell understood the type perfectly: people who claim to love the common man, but quietly despise his habits, his speech, his politics, and his independence.

My article in The Weekend Australian. The super performance test has forced more than 150 underperforming super products to cut fees, improve performance, merge or close. Now parts of the industry are lobbying to weaken it. If a fund wants to charge higher fees and invest in more complex assets, it should be able to demonstrate that those decisions improve member outcomes. Lowering the accountability bar risks turning compulsory retirement savings into a vehicle for pursuing political and ideological objectives rather than maximising retirement outcomes. Compulsory super should exist for one purpose - to maximise retirement outcomes for members… not as an off balance sheet funding source for governments, or a vehicle for advancing the agendas of special interest groups.

How much CGT will you pay on $10k profit? - Full time Maccas Employee- $3000 - High income earner - $4700 - Jim Chalmers via his Superfund - $1000-$1500 Thats how the carve out works

Korean man tunes into a Zoom meeting while on a roller coaster. There's no way they didn't know 😂

Labor's wanton, woke, waste of money.....

Je vais partir du principe que tu es de bonne foi, parce que ton raisonnement est intuitif et que 90% des gens le partagent. Mais il repose sur trois erreurs factuelles, et ça vaut le coup de les regarder calmement. Erreur 1 : la fortune d'Elon n'est pas un tas d'argent. C'est de la propriété d'usines, de fusées et de satellites. "Prendre la moitié de sa tune", concrètement, ça veut dire forcer la vente de la moitié de SpaceX et Tesla. L'argent ne sort pas d'un coffre, il sort des entreprises elles-mêmes, qui passent sous contrôle de fonds étrangers ou d'États. Tu ne redistribues pas du cash, tu démantèles un outil de production. C'est la différence entre récolter des pommes et découper le pommier. Erreur 2 : "ça résout énormément de problèmes dans le monde". Cette expérience a déjà été tentée, en vrai. En 2021, le directeur du Programme Alimentaire Mondial de l'ONU a affirmé que 6 milliards de Musk pouvaient "résoudre la faim dans le monde". Réponse d'Elon : décrivez-moi exactement comment, comptabilité publique à l'appui, et je vends mes actions Tesla immédiatement. Le PAM a publié son plan. Verdict : ce n'était pas "résoudre la faim", c'était nourrir 42 millions de personnes pendant un an. Un an. Puis il faut re-payer, pour toujours. Le PAM avait d'ailleurs levé 8,4 milliards l'année précédente, et la faim était toujours là. Les ONG traitent les symptômes en boucle, jamais les causes, parce que leur financement dépend de l'existence du problème. Erreur 3, la plus importante : tu cherches ce qui sort vraiment les gens de la pauvreté. Bonne nouvelle, on a la réponse, et elle est massive. En 1990, 36% de l'humanité vivait dans l'extrême pauvreté. Aujourd'hui, moins de 9%. Plus d'un milliard de personnes sorties de la misère en 30 ans. Par quoi ? Pas par la charité ni par l'aide internationale (plus de 1 000 milliards versés à l'Afrique en 60 ans pour un résultat à peu près nul). Par l'ouverture des marchés, l'industrialisation, le commerce. La Chine seule a sorti 800 millions de personnes de la pauvreté en abandonnant le collectivisme, pas en taxant ses entrepreneurs. Donc fais le calcul complet. Option A : tu confisques 500 milliards, tu finances quelques années de programmes, l'argent est consommé, et tu as détruit la machine qui produisait les fusées, les voitures électriques et l'internet des zones rurales. Option B : tu laisses le meilleur allocateur de capital de sa génération réinvestir 100% de sa fortune dans des industries qui baissent les coûts pour tout le monde et emploient des centaines de milliers de personnes. L'option A soulage ta morale pendant 18 mois. L'option B sort des populations entières de la pauvreté pour toujours. La pauvreté ne se redistribue pas. Elle se résout par la création. C'est contre-intuitif, c'est frustrant, mais c'est ce que disent 200 ans de données.

This is beyond desperate. Keir Starmer has brought back a man he sacked for wrecking his government. Then Boris Johnson days never got this bad. The government is literally a joke that’s gone on for too long.

Angus Reid shows Carney has started his downhill slide to reach the Opposition benches. Carney's approval has fallen 8% from its high of 63% in March to a low of 55% in June. His disapproval rating has risen from a low of 31% in March to 39% in June. In March his net favorably was 32%. To-day it is 14%. The Carney Liberal ship has begun to tilt. The conman's conning of Canadians is coming to an end.

Pierre rocks. He’s an articulate well spoken man. From FB ⬇️⬇️🙌 LAST NIGHT: Obby Khan attacked Pierre Poilievre — and received a response he probably never expected. Obby Khan thought he could easily score public points by criticizing Pierre Poilievre over his views on leadership, public policy, accountability, and the direction of Canada’s future. But this time, many believe he chose the wrong target. Known as one of Canada’s most recognizable political leaders, Pierre Poilievre didn’t simply react — he delivered a thoughtful message about responsibility, respect, opportunity, and the importance of bringing people together. “Obby Khan says my views are contributing to division,” Poilievre began, his tone calm but unwavering. “But what truly divides people is the belief that only one perspective deserves to be heard while everyone else should remain silent.” And he didn’t stop there. “You know what concerns me even more?” Poilievre continued. “When influential people use their platform to dismiss ordinary Canadians simply because they don’t agree with a different vision for the future.” Then Pierre Poilievre went further, speaking from years of public service, leadership, and countless conversations with people across the country. “It’s not disagreement that weakens a society,” Poilievre said. “What weakens a society is intolerance, fear, and teaching people to see each other as enemies because of political differences.” At that point, what began as political criticism had become something much larger — a conversation about respect, responsibility, and the future of public discourse. Rather than turning the exchange into a personal feud, Poilievre shifted the focus toward the values he believes should guide leadership. “I’m not a perfect man,” Poilievre admitted. “I’ve made my share of mistakes. But I will always believe that a strong Canada is one where people can speak freely, disagree honestly, and still treat one another with dignity and respect.” Then came the line that many supporters said resonated the most: “Canada was never built on fear or resentment between neighbours. It was built on opportunity, courage, hard work, and the belief that people with different opinions could still work together for something greater than themselves. So the real question is this — who is actually trying to bring Canadians together?” What started as criticism from a high-profile political opponent quickly evolved into a broader conversation about unity, responsibility, and the future of the country. And for many watching, Pierre Poilievre’s response became less about winning an argument and more about defending the principles of respect, opportunity, and understanding in an increasingly divided society.

Everything this guy was elected to do he hasn't, as a matter of fact he's made everything far far worse.