Jeremy's Den: Making Plans For Nigel

We're only making plans for Nigel, we only want what's best for him

We're only making plans for Nigel, Nigel just needs that helping hand

(Colin Moulding, Making Plans For Nigel, 1979)

We're only making plans for Nigel, he has his future in a British steel

We're only making plans for Nigel, Nigel's whole future is as good as sealed

(Colin Moulding, Making Plans For Nigel, 1979)

A more light-hearted soundtrack this time, with XTC's Drums And Wires, one of the gems of English post-punk pop of the late 1970s, with the contemporary non-album singles in the middle, where the gap between the two sides of the original wax cylinder would have been. It is also a perfect fit for today's Britain, as the opening track pretty much sums up the game the British mediatariat and punditariat are playing, paving the way for the self-fulfilling prophecy of a totally unfit freak ascending to power. I honestly don't remember the BBC's political coverage being so outrageously biased, and shamelessly unapologetic about it, as it is now, adding insult to injury by making up the lamest excuses to justify it. Even in their days of flamboyant Borismania, it wasn't as bad. And Boris was just a fucking clown, not a fascist sold to two hostile foreign powers and working for the benefit of their oligarchs. By contrast, BBC Scotland's coverage of the SNP sounds refreshingly candid. So it is the perfect moment to open with a poll YouGov conducted last month, on behalf of the censorious, inefficient and GB-News-cuddling Ofcom, about the people's perception of our mediatariat. There is one thing the Great British Public agree on, regardless of demographics and politics. Broadcasters should be regulated for impartiality in news and current affairs programmes.

This being unequivocally stipulated, let's move on. The issue of proper regulation is even more important now than when Ofcom commissioned that poll, after Tim Davie and Deborah Turness were hounded down into resignation by the same far-right Trumpist mob they were trying to cuddle and appease. Of course, Panorama editing the Orange Baboon's fifty minutes of deranged rant into one soundbite was a bit awkward. But they did not propagate fake news, Trump did incite rioting and violence, and attempt a coup against the democratic will of the American people. It was totally true and the edited video only showed it more vividly, so the whole thing should never have gone beyond a meek apology, which did happen afterwards anyway, and a slap on the wrist. And it was very odd, again, to see Ed Davey alone standing up for the BBC against the Orange Baboon's extravagant lawsuit, while Keir Starmer stuck to oven-ready platitudes to avoid saying anything that might hurt the Orange Snowflake's feelings. The massive irony here is that broadcasters are considered the most trustworthy in their treatment of the news by the Great British Public, and good old BBC is the most trusted of all.

So you can only wonder what we really expect from our broadcasters and the other new and fashionable sources of information, that makes them different from the atrocious cesspool social media have become, or openly partisan outfits like GB News or the countless podcasts that nobody listens to. Another YouGov poll has revealed that 90% of Brits get their news from the broadcasters, 42% from news websites, 28% from social media, 22% from the bloke at the pub and 14% from newspapers in print. Which adds up to more than 100% because we all have multiple sources, haven't we? This diversity of sources also means that we have a pretty good idea of what the aims of regulation should be. And that is that we don't want the rules to be relaxed to allow broadcasters to be more politically opinionated, or biased in proper English.

There is a rather clear message in all this. That the broadcasters are like an island of sanity and trustworthiness amidst the chaos of post-truth, deepfakes and fake news. No matter how flawed our "legacy" broadcasters may be, we don't want them to change. Especially if change would make them similar to GB News or Elton Muck's idolised "citizen journalism", which everybody with a brain has understood to be just a cover for the uncontrolled spreading of fake news. Now there is another side to this vision, and a flip side to that coin. The BBC is biased, and has become even more so over the last decade. We know it because YouGov told us, or just because we watch it. But people tend to overlook it because the bias swirls from one side to the other, from systemic promotion of the transcultist lobby to overplatforming Benito Farage, so the general picture does appear balanced to the average Brit because both extreme sides are appeased and outraged alternatively. Which is not what fair and balanced actually means, but is probably the best, or least bad, a divided society is ready to accept.

Nigel is not outspoken but he likes to speak and loves to be spoken to

And if young Nigel says he's happy, he must be happy, Nigel is happy in his world

(Colin Moulding, Making Plans For Nigel, 1979)

Here we are, trapped in the amber of the moment. There is no why. And so it goes...

(Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five, 1969)

But the British people's undying love for the BBC is not without ambiguity and criticism, as we can see in a new bespoke poll conducted by Find Out Now. The obvious caveat is that this new poll was conducted after the British Union of Fascists and their cocksuckers in the Rump Conservative Party went into a hissy mantrum about Panorama summing up the Orange Baboon's true nature, albeit by taking some liberties with the exact succession of events. But it can't be stressed enough that every word spoken in the clip had actually been said by Trump, there were no overdubs or deepfakes involved. Something you can't say about the way Benito Farage communicates, always full of falsifications, fabrications and fake news. It is really shameful that the establishment caved in to the turbo-charged fascists and never threw their own manipulations back at them. The best defense is always attack, not whining in a corner like a scared puppy. That unhinged assault by the performative far-right was sadly enough to significantly alter the public's perception of the BBC.

It is quite significant that Labour and LibDem voters are now pretty much in the same state of mind as the average Brit was before all the fabricated outrage, when they were much more supportive than average in polls conducted before the whole panto. This is sadly not surprising, as the mediatariat have been acting as Benito Farage's press office since the last election, and have thusly accustomed us to abandon all critical thinking about the endless flow of fucking bullshit spread by Benito and his minions. The UK government and the Labour Party are clearly to blame too, as they are so obsessively fixated on not hurting anyone's feelings that they can only offer tepid platitudes that amount to conceding without a fight that the BBC was guilty as charged, and the root of all evil. Because they are evil lefties with a bias, something the Great British Public don't really buy.

It is again significant that the commonest opinion is that we fucking don't know if the BBC have a bias towards any side. The political crosstabs are enlightening, as all they show is that everybody considers the BBC biased in favour of the side they are not on. You can't say more clearly that the public itself is biased, and that their perception of bias is thusly hugely biased. Which does not mean that the BBC is not biased. We Scots know only too well that it is, against Scottish Independence and the SNP, with some extreme ridiculous moments of demeaning the whole nation to boost Unionism. But the perception of a left-wing bias has probably more to do with the evolution of public opinion, and the gradual shift of the proverbial Overton Window to the right, than with actual changes in the BBC's treatment of the news. Unless the public have reasons to find fault with the way the BBC covered sensitive and controversial issues, four of which have been selected by Find Out Now to prove just that.

The dominant feeling is that the BBC did not do a good job covering these four issues, and there is a lot to unpack here, as the replies to all four are obviously determined by the public's own bias. Which does not mean that we cannot see the obvious, like the BBC being totally possessed by the translobby's bourgeois luxury beliefs and overplatforming anything "trans". But their attitude to Israel and Gaza has generated accusations of both pro-Israel bias and pro-Hamas bias, with conclusive evidence of both in different programmes. Which does not mean the end result was fair and balanced. Then the negative assessment of their coverage of Trump is pretty much irrelevant for now, as it is the obvious Pavlovian response to the far-right's campaign of smear, who want everyone to see the Orange Baboon as the saviour of the free world. There are also good reasons to criticise the BBC's coverage of immigration issues. as they have clearly overplatformed Reform UK and let them spew nonsense and fabrications unchallenged. It proves that we have to rethink what truly constitutes a fair and balanced attitude. Cuddling both extremes equally is definitely not the answer.

Any communication process, once initiated and maintained, leads to the genesis of social structure, whether or not such structure is anticipated or deemed desirable.

(Klaus Krippendorf)

Free speech was written for hard truths, not polite fictions. Calling something fascist isn’t violence, it’s vigilance.

(Adam Kinzinger)

Nevertheless, Ofcom's official policy is still to rely on ancestral guidelines of impartiality, which they totally fail to enforce on newly-created broadcasters while weaponising them against the "legacy" broadcasters. But it does not really work and the YouGov poll put its finger on it. They first asked whether we think the broadcasters are doing well or badly with compliance with the impartiality guidelines generally, and then how well or badly their are scrutinising the policies of our political parties. You will not be surprised by the verdict, that our broadcasters are generally doing pretty badly. Don't jump to the wrong conclusions, though. These results do not mean that we think the broadcasters are mistreating the politicariat. It is the exact opposite, actually, they are doing their job badly because they are cuddling the politicians too much.

In the olden days, Andrew Neil was brutalising the politicians, even his friends in the Conservative Party, with his proverbially aggressive style of grilling. He was actually more impartial than the current generation of bland talk show hosts as he manhandled everybody equally, while those we have today abide by the cretinous unwritten rule that complacency is impartiality, and that never questioning any politician on any of the bullshit they spew is fair and balanced. This blatant dereliction of integrity and professionalism should have consequences, but is doesn't as Ofcom seem content with a spineless, gutless and bawless mediatariat that never ruffles anyone's feathers. There is some interesting information too in the crosstabs of the question about how well the broadcasters abide by Ofcom's fuzzy impartiality guidelines. Conservative voters are happier bunnies here than the average Brit, but Reform voters are definitely buying the narrative about a biased BBC. Against them, of course.

These are really intriguing results, and more evidence of the public's own bias, when BBC One is regularly under fire over the political bias of some of its frontline staff like Laura Kuenssberg or Fiona Bruce. Not to mention the systemic bias shown by BBC Reporting Scotland. But the majority of the British public want to live in the comfortable belief that the broadcasters do not need to up their game, and offer alternative views to those of the politicos they platform. We don't want to challenge the status quo, which doesn't make much sense when everyone is endlessly grumbling about a broken system, the people being betrayed and whatnot. Or are we feart that shaking the tree may have unintended consequences, that the permanent winter of our discontent may not be made glorious summer after all? But the status quo could also be challenged in a more direct and brutal way, allowing all broadcasters to hire politicos as presenters and current affairs shows hosts. Alas, that too we think should not be allowed to happen, even though it has already happened.

It is quite remarkable that the only broadcaster who routinely employs sitting MPs or just-retired politicians is GB News, the flagship of the far-right infection and anti-BBC propaganda. And that Ofcom's only reaction has been a conspicuous absence of reaction. The last time Ofcom sent a warning to GB News was two years ago, and it had nothing to do with them employing Jacob Rees-Mogg, Lee Anderson or Benito Farage. GB News has also never been fined for any of their multiple instances of deliberate disinformation or fabrication of fake news. That raises the perennial question, who shall scrutinise the scrutinisers and guard us from the guardians? It has to be asked because of Ofcom's blatant dishonesty and inefficiency. They will fire a warning shot about "misgendering", an imaginary offence fabricated by the woke trans lobby, that does not exist anywhere in UK law, but take no action against a broadcaster becoming a hub of fascist, Trumpist and Putinist propaganda. Where has all the impartiality gone, mates?

The truth has no defence against a fool determined to believe a lie.

(Mark Twain)

When stupidity is considered patriotism, it is unsafe to be intelligent.

(Isaac Asimov)

Before the BBC capitulated to the Orange Baboon's demands for a purge, they were involved in another controversy, that Ofcom and YouGov deemed meaningful enough to devote it its own sur mesure separate poll. You are probably old enough to remember it was about which rules should apply to allocate quotas of airtime to political parties, when the BBC generally, and BBC One's current affairs shows specifically, were caught platforming the New Model British Union of Fascists more often than all other "small parties" combined, including the LibDems who have fourteen times the number of MPs. A debate started because the fascists are snowflakes indulging in victimisation, whining that they are the most oppressed and marginalised minority in Commons. Which is of course total bullshit. Under Commons rules, the party in government and Not-My-King's Loyal Opposition have a special status, and the Third Party gets some preferential treatment too, which has always been based on the number of seats at the last general. Then all other parties are treated the same way, no matter what they stand for, be it Scottish Independence or Trumpist Christo-fascism. But YouGov found that the whining fascist snowflakes have enough influence to make the British public support totally different criteria for media presence.

The last item on the right shows an appallingly asinine view, rewarding the party that will say the most obscenely outrageous bullshit just to stay in the spotlight. Which is, in case you haven't noticed, exactly what the British Union of Fascists 2.0 does, and what the British mediatariat does to reward them for being obnoxious bullies who generate punchy headlines. Look no further than Sarah Pochin MP and her infamous diatribe about TV ads for a textbook case. It got a life of its own even if nobody actually watches TV ads because they are so shite. Actually, if there was any logic to Pochin's racism, she should celebrate that there are no white people involved in such deliberately awful stuff. Then the media totally let Reform UK hijack what should have been solely a debate about the party's inbuilt racism and turn it into a controversy about DEI and representation of minorities, which highlighted that "legitimate concerns" has now become a byword for "far-right dogwhistle". It does not get better with the follow-up question, where the respondents were asked to rank the five options.

So prioritising the wanker who shouts bullshit the loudest is not just a legitimate option, it is also the public's most-mentioned first choice. I can't stress enough how abysmally cretinous this kind of attitude is. It's like rewarding the schoolyard bully for putting up a fun show by torturing the teacher's pet. Or giving a medal to the bloke who shat on the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday because it made a fucking good photo on the frontpage. There is no way that kind of stupidity can be ignored, overlooked or forgiven. Because it is the foundation on which the mediatariat build their self-fulfilling prophecy of the unavoidable descent into fascism and offers them the means to keep it alive without ever mentioning Reform's atrocious incompetence and abject submission the the interests of hostile foreign powers. Shame on them, one and all. Then YouGov pitted the LibDems against the fascist snowflakes, in two different ways reeking of crass hypocrisy.

First we have an "objective" phrasing that fooled no one, as anybody with a functioning brain instantly knew the convoluted wording was referring exclusively to Reform and the LibDems. Then YouGov dropped all pretense of honest neutral polling and named the two parties, and got pretty much the same results, only strengthened for both sides as the number of cowards sitting on the fence playing both-sidesism went significantly down. Quite remarkably, LibDem voters are far more honest than Reform voters, as a majority concede equal airtime, while Benito's supporters massively want to be awarded an unfair and unjustified advantage. The dishonesty of that poll is nevertheless useful in an odd way. Usually, the British public avoid answering to pollsters in a way that proves they are fucking idiots, but this time they totally did. Has the far-right normalised itself to the point that we fail to see the massive irony in granting them an undeserved preferential treatment in the very public media they want to destroy to appease the Orange Baboon?

May we never grow so somber or self-important that we fail to appreciate the humour in our lives.

(Lyndon B. Johnson)

Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, he that is not with me is against me.

(George Orwell, Pacifism And The War, 1942)

Have we reached another turning point for the war in Ukraine and for European rearmament, after years of delusion about the end of history and the dividends of peace? It is tempting to think so after the massive weapons deal between France and Ukraine, which is actually not a deal yet, but just a Letter Of Intent. The delivery of 100 Rafale planes to Ukraine, which are better than the American F-35 and anything the Russian Reich has got, would indeed be a momentous event and a genuine game-changer for the postwar period. It is also a very welcome success for Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is under fire again after a massive corruption scheme was discovered within his own government and first circle. France also surely intended the shock announcement as a message to the rest of Europe that they must up their game and stop procrastinating about the levels of aid to Ukraine and their commitment to a stronger defence against the existential threat posed by Russia's revanchist imperialism. Quite opportunely, YouGov have recently updated their pan-European polling about defence, and it shows that the people of Europe have no illusions about Russia.

All countries surveyed by YouGov agree that Russia is a threat, no matter what the Putinist propaganda from the far-left and the far-right says. We know that because Putin himself told us so, most recently with his infamous claim that wherever a Russian solider has once set foot is Russian forever. If we still needed evidence of Russia's policy of aggression, the sabotage of a strategic railway section in Poland should be enough, as the Russian special forces obviously did it, no matter how loudly the Kremlin's Nosferatu denies it. Being aware that the genocidal Russian Reich is the main threat to freedom, democracy and security in Europe means that Europeans also have to agree on which kind of arrangement they want to counter it. In the absence of a real European Defence Alliance for the foreseeable future, which would risk excluding the UK, the only available option is NATO. YouGov found that Europeans generally have a favourable view of NATO.

Attacking NATO and accusing it of being the root of all evil in the galaxy is a staple of the loopy far-let's repertoire. It is amazing how the older generation of faux pacifists, the Corbyn Generation, have totally wiped out from their memory the basic historical truth, that the only military alliance that ever invaded a country to quash its democracy was the Warsaw Pact. Twice, twelve years apart, in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. It is also quite remarkable that those who were subsidised agents of the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s have so easily transitioned into Putin's useful idiots now. But it is not as surprising as it seems, as the core motivation is rabid hatred of everything American, and idolisation of Russia as the beacon of anti-colonialism. Which was and is fucking cretinous when you consider the true nature of Soviet expansionism then and Russian neo-colonialism now, especially in Africa. But public opinions are not that gullible, as all of them support their country's membership of NATO, despite massive Russian-paid propaganda.

The interesting part is that support for NATO membership is higher than the favourable view of NATO in every country that YouGov polled, without exception. So, despite all of NATO's flaws, the biggest being that key decisions are ultimately made at the White House or remote-controlled by it, Europeans still value it, most probably because they do not have any alternative. Historically, the first step towards a credible alternative was the European Defence Community, 73 years ago, that was stopped in its tracks by France. It included all that Europe needs right now. A unified defence funded by a single common budget, standardised equipment and joint procurement. But it had a major flaw, NATO's SACEUR remaining in charge of operational capabilities, which justified France's decision to kill it. There is a lesson in that, remove NATO from the equation and you could have a true Common European Defence, under complete political and operational control of the European Union. This is surely the way the EU should proceed, now that they have been warned about the Orange Baboon's total disregard for European security, unless he can reframe the arrangements as profitable transactional business deals.

Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you.

(Benjamin Franklin)

You construct a world and you choose which expectations to defy and thwart, which ones to confirm, which ones to reimport from the past. You construct a little universe, and then you can see how it works.

(Brian Eno, New York Times, 23 July 1978)

Europe's quasi Stockholm Syndrome-ish attachment to NATO raises more questions about their actual vision for European defence. This a legitimate ongoing debate, most prominently since the Orange Baboon has sent credible signals of his intent to sabotage NATO from the inside if the other members do not capitulate to his whims. Which revolve exclusively around "Pay, Baby, Pay!", as he is obsessively fixated on extorting big money from Europe, without committing to offer them anything substantial in return. YouGov asked their panels if they consider NATO important for their country's defence, but just the Europeans, not the Brits. And they think it is, all of them except the French. They have summat of a point here, as France is the only NATO member that ever withdrew from NATO's integrated command. They were out of it for 43 years, from 1966 to 2009, and no harm ever came their way. France has another advantage they fucking love to brag about, a nuclear deterrent that is totally independent from the United States, unlike ours. And that totally validates and affirms their strongly-held belief that NATO is not that important after all.

Now, if you believe NATO is important for the defence of your country, you must be ready to pay more for it. YouGov again asked Europeans only if they would support or oppose an increase of their country's financial contribution to NATO, and the replies are not really stellar. Surely all Europeans know by know that the Orange Baboon has constantly lied about the USA's contribution to NATO. The USA do not fund 80% of NATO, it's just 15%, on a par with Germany. Trump distorts the truth by using global military spending figures, that are irrelevant in this case as the USA devote only a small fraction of it specifically to Europe's defence. Now, just ask yourself when was the last time the US Navy deployed forces in the Mediterranean to come to Europe's rescue. That was in 1945, and NATO didn't even exist then. Today, the Sixth Fleet's core mission is not to defend Europe against Russian aggression, it is to protect American interests in the Middle East and Africa. And that's just one of many reasons European have to be reluctant to pay more to get less.

Now, if you don't want to pay the USA for a semblance of protection that could be removed by the Orange Baboon on a whim, then you should be hugely supportive of increasing your own defence spending. But European public opinions are just like ours, never missing an opportunity to deliver contradictory messages back to back. Only four out of seven countries surveyed by YouGov think that the European Union collectively does not spend enough on defence, with the other three opining it spends too much. Which is of course fucking bullshit, as even NATO's official target of 5% of GDP, which is actually only 3.5% on real military stuff, is probably not enough to counter the Russian threat within the next five years. That's so fucking ironic as Russia is no match for Europe technologically, despite Nosferatu endlessly bragging about his new state-of-the art weapons, that are actually five to ten years old and built around 1990s technology. Then even a fucking crossbow salvaged from the Agincourt battlefield can still kill you, can't it? But the truth is that the Russian Reich's military industry would be nothing without Chinese support, and Europe as a whole, including us, has to wake up to that and up their game even if that means a 3p hike on all income tax bands and corporate tax. Mark my words, Rachel Reeves.

The cost of a proper defence is also a major issue in the UK. Because there is a centuries-old English tradition of crass incompetence in managing defence projects, resulting in both massive overheads and massive delays that increase the overheads. Each and every defence project has been plagued by this for generations, no matter who was in government. The reconstruction of HMS Victorious and the lengthy procrastination about the design of the County-class destroyers set the tone in the late 1950s, and it's rearing its ugly head again today. Hugely higher costs and lengthy delays to the RAF's US-built F-35s, that pack less punch than was intended, is just one more example of why slipping tens of extra billions to the MoD will be another waste of money without a deep-reaching and ruthless reform of the management of defence procurement. For a start, it's more than time to slam the brakes on burning more precious resources on the F-35s, as we can get better planes at a lower cost from either France or Sweden, just as Ukraine is doing. Is Zelenskyy really that much smarter than Starmer? And don't even get me started on the totally farcical Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, that were literally built around the F-35, instead of around our real needs for power projection, which would have led to a real carrier fitted for and with French Rafale planes.

Defence procurement is a black hole where suppliers charge higher prices for late deliveries of inadequate equipment and throwing good money after bad will weaken, not strengthen, Britain.

(Kevin Maguire, The Mirror, 3 November 2025)

Those who see giants are still looking at the world through the eyes of a child.

(Anaïs Nin)

Another key issue is what Europeans expect from the United States. The context has changed dramatically since the Orange Baboon came back in power, after a Kremlin-aligned multi-billionaire bough the election for him, and switched American involvement in the security of Europe from a matter of principle and strategy to basic transactional business deals. This has been exemplified again a few days ago by Trump's new "peace plan", another obvious betrayal of Ukraine, written by Russia to pave the way for the full delivery of their imperialist master plan. Volodymyr Zelenskyy's reply, in a solemn address to the people of Ukraine, deserves to be heard and read in full. A man of duty and responsibility faced with an impossible choice imposed on him by two dangerous fascist psychopaths. This is happening because Vlad The Butcher, in true KGB fashion, knows how to play the Orange Baboon like a sock puppet. Rely on his galaxy-sized ego, his self-infatuation and his insatiable greed, It always works. Now just go back to the full text of the 28 points and scroll down to the 14th. $200bn, half of it good European money, thrown away to the billionaire MAGAligarchs with a guaranteed 50% share of the profits. Blood money if we ever saw any, and that is not even the worst part.

Scroll back up to the 7th, 8th and 9th points and you see it. The Orange Baboon is giving the Russian Reich decision-making powers on what NATO and the Europeans can and cannot do. This is the biggest betrayal of Europe since a dying Roosevelt submitted to Stalin's demands at Yalta. Roosevelt was impaired by the cardiovascular disease that eventually killed him, Trump has dementia. Same root causes, same results. Even before this abject capitulation, YouGov had found that Europeans are split and in doubt about the basic post-1945 principle, that the USA have a responsibility for the defence of Europe against Russian aggression. Only two countries still really believe in it, while four have definitely given up on it, obviously because of Trump's unpredictability and complicity with fascist Russia. This is in fact a positive result, as it shows that Europeans are more and more aware that the comfortable illusion of unwavering American support is gone, and that they must now count only on themselves.

Another interesting development happened a few day ago, with the Russian Reich staging yet another provocation against the security of Europe. This time by sending the spy ship Yantar into British waters and ordering her to shine lasers at British pilots who had been sent to shadow her and investigate her actions. This is an obvious premeditated act of aggression to test our resolve. The ship's purpose in not just spying, it is also to locate precisely underwater cables, so other Russian vessels can engage in a terrorist action to damage or cut them. They have done it before in the Baltic, so why wouldn't they attempt it in the North Sea too? This definitely deserves a blunter reaction that just whining about how unkind the vatniks are. YouGov of course speed-polled it, and found that we are ready for radical action in this situation. Only the quockerwodgers living off Russian blood money could oppose that. YouGov did not define precisely what kind of "military action" they meant here, but it has to be decisive. I suggest boarding and seizing the ship or, if all else fails, sink her. Which can be achieved without loss of life by trained Black Ops personnel, and then we wait and see how the Russian Reich reacts to a basic act of self-defence against blatant aggression.

Now that we have established that our European friends and allies are aware of the existential threat posed by the fascist genocidal Russian Reich, and that we are ready to strike hard if Vlad The Butcher pokes us again, I must say that I was totally appalled by an asinine column published recently by The Scottish Pravda. Just the usual cretinous gobbledygook about "the precipice of war" and being Trump's puppets if we decide to stand up to the Kremlin's Nosferatu. You get the same feeling from Patrick Harvie's predictably irresponsible reaction to the proposed conversion of the Grangemouth refinery into a weapons production site, which is urgently needed to boost our defence. Just the usual Russia-dictated bullshit from the loopy defeatist woke far-left, accusing us of escalation when we just take steps to resist mass-murdering imperialism. There is no pacifism, socialism or progressivism in this kind of inanely abject ramblings. It's capitulationism, a criminally cretinous ideology of permanent capitulation, propagated by fuckwits whose moral high horse is a Trojan horse painted the colours of the Russian flag. Or Pete Hegseth's tie. It comes from the same putrid corners of the political spectrum as those who told our ancestors that they should trust Hitler and be kind to him, because he would stop after the Anschluss, Sudetenland, Böhmen und Mähren... Worked really well, didn't it?

I am not interested in pacifism as a "moral phenomenon". If Mr Savage and others imagine that one can somehow "overcome’"the German army by lying on one’s back, let them go on imagining it, but let them also wonder occasionally whether this is not an illusion due to security, too much money and a simple ignorance of the way in which things actually happen.

(George Orwell, Pacifism And The War, 1942)

One idiot is one idiot. Two idiots are two idiots. Ten thousand idiots are a political party.

(Franz Kafka)

There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear. The English punditariat and mediatariat are usually quick to look for evidence abroad, to support their self-fulfilling prophecy that we are certain to get Nigel Farage as our next PM, so I wonder what they will make of the Dutch general election, that supports the exact opposite prediction. Or what Shitweasel will make of that, and his obsessive fixation on proving that only the Putin-appeasing Greens can defeat Putin-funded fascism, when their local counterparts lost seats in the Netherlands and the clear winner was a strongly Europhile social-liberal party. Of course, Shitweasel will now bore us to death with his deep thoughts about his new crush Zoran Mamdani being elected Mayor of New York City, but that's fucking irrelevant. Stop importing self-serving groupthink from Trumpistan, and look at what is happening two doors down. Something is happening here but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones? More importantly, will the British electorate pay attention to The Curious Incident Of The Liberals In Den Haag, even if the mediatariat sweep that under the rug for contradicting their pet theory of inevitable doom, and be influenced by it? I certainly can only hope so, if it makes the sight of voting intentions trendlines less depressing.

It would be very unwise for Shitweasel and the Greens to try and transpose the context of Zohran Mamdani's victory to the British situation. First of all, Mamdani read the room and carefully avoided any mention of identity politics and gender ideology in his mayoral campaign, while these remain at the core of the British loopy woke left's groupthink. Secondly, Mamdani was labelled a "socialist" only because political lingo has a vastly different meaning in American. All of what Mamdani actually campaigned on, regardless of his earlier statements, could be endorsed by the SNP and Plaid Cymru, and nobody would call either of them "socialists" by any definition in proper English. Notwithstanding, the one most likely to try and rebrand himself as Mamdani's British copycat is obviously former Liberal Democrat Zack Polanski. His only problem is that most of the Great British Public have no fucking clue who he is, as shown by YouGov's latest favourability poll. And, among those who actually have an opinion of him, his most likely support comes from the Londoner middle-class TikTok generation. Not what I call the most convincing launching pad for a Prime Ministerial campaign.

Now we must also dispel the myth that Benito Farage is the most popular politician in the UK, because he fucking isn't and never was. The last evidence for this is the October instalment of YouGov's monthly favourability poll, and Nigel does pretty badly in this one. It is actually his worst performance in YouGov's tracker since April and his second worst this year. Nigel is the second least popular party leader after Keir Starmer, and even the absolute trainwreck Kemi Badenoch is more popular than him, which certainly says a fucking lot. And, before you ask, the most popular party leader is still Ed Davey. Zack Polanski may be propelled by the media hype he benefited from after his election as Lider Maximo of the formerly-Green Party of England and Wales, but he still can't beat Mister Ed's charisma. But the key point here is that only Reform voters really like Nigel. Conservative voters, who should be attracted to him and his stunts, are split right down the middle, and other parties' voters genuinely totally fucking hate him. Which naturally leads to the inconvenient truth the mediatariat don't want you to see, Nigel-haters outnumber Nigel-lovers five-to-one in the general population at large.

But now is also that time of year when some MPs have thought it wise to restart the debate about an official government-penned definition of Islamophobia. Which is a fucking bad idea. First because official definitions have a distinct North Korean flavour that goes against the basics of democracy, and definitely reek of coerced groupthink. Second because Islam is a religion and, while freely practising the religion of your choice is a basic human right, so is the right to ridicule and even insult religions, all of them without preferential treatment. Religions are not persons, have therefore no rights or hurt feelings, and are not entitled to any legal protection. Third because the ulterior motive is obvious, and actually not that ulterior, as it was plainly said publicly in Commons. Bringing back blasphemy laws for the benefit of one religion, and then all others will demand it for themselves too. Which would bring us back to before Enlightenment, when saying that religions are fairy tales for old cat ladies got you burned, drawn and quartered in allegedly civilised countries. If the goal is to protect people against racism and hate speech, we already have laws for that, and it's embedded in the Equality Act 2010. The state and the law do not have a duty, or even the right, to protect abstract concepts and ideological constructs, they just have a duty to protect people, all people. End of. And don't even get me started on what Benito Farage and Restore Britain's Adolf Lowe would make of that. Hasn't anyone ever told Diane Abbott and Dawn Butler that you should never feed fascists, or wet them after midnight?

We learn from history that we do not learn from history.

(Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel)

Reform UK in Kent is the laughing stock of the country. The longer this goes on, the longer Kent's reputation will be dragged through the dirt.

(Richard Streatfeild, Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader at Kent County Council)

Councils are not immovable objects. Their composition changes over time, even in the absence of any irresistible force. With defections, resignations, by-elections and whatnot, it changes bit by bit, though we don't usually see the magnitude of it until the end of the term. As the saying goes in the country of my birth, c'est à la fin de la foire qu'on compte les bouses, you have to wait until the end of the fair to count the cowpats. But it didn't work quite that way this year, as even the best laid plans made for Nigel often go awry. It's been six months since the last English locals, and already the Turquoise Wall has crack'd from side to side. 23 Councils were up for election in May. Reform UK bagged a majority of seats in ten, and went on to form minority administrations in another three. And that's when the shit hit the fan, as they had their first defections and resignations even before any Council had convened. In the Councils that they "rule", the Bargain Bin Fascists have already lost more seats in half a year than any party usually does in the full four or five years of a term.

Reform can only blame themselves for the extent of the damage, as they have lost only three seats through the natural process of elimination, by-elections. One to the Liberal Democrats in County Durham, one to the Liberal Democrats in Worcestershire and one to the Conservatives in Staffordshire, triggered by the instant resignation of Reform Councillors who hadn't even formally taken their seats. Now they are 15 seats down in "their" Councils, with two thirds of that in Kent. One Councillor defected to UKIP, which might be the stupidest move of the year, and another nine were kicked out in a succession of highly-publicised purges, that turned Reform's Crown Jewel into a fucking civil war circus. But the shitshow is not limited to Councils where the local people already regret having put Reform in charge, it has spread like Wi-Fi even where they are the opposition. It is hard to keep track of all the losses, as the shit keeps hitting the fan every week, but last time I checked, through Wokopedia and Council websites, it was twenty-nine.

The epidemic has struck really everywhere. Five seats down in the North, eight in the Midlands, and a massive sixteen in the South thanks to the repeated shenanigans of Kent County Council. Like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children, as the saying goes. And Benito Farage's Turquoise Revolution is no exception. It is obviously the result of a massively overhyped party cruising to massive successes they didn't even expect themselves, and are totally incapable of managing smartly, as their preexisting base was 99% incompetent amateurs who don't even know how Councils work, what their responsibilities are, and what were their own Council's policies under the previous administration. It will be interesting to see how the massive shitshow will influence voters at the English locals next year, held on the same day as the Holyrood and Senedd elections that will very likely result in devastating blows for Labour. A lot of attention will focus on London, where all 32 Borough Councils are up, and how the Bargain Bin Fascists turn these elections into a referendum on Sadiq Khan. It will be quite interesting to watch how the fight between Reform's racist obsessive fixation on a Muslim Mayor and Khan's obsessive fixation on performative virtue-signalling wokeism will unfold. Can't wait to see what kind of totally fabricated narrative the mediatariat and punditariat extract from that one.

The leadership of Kent County Council is toxic to the decent Reform backbenchers, toxic to the opposition, and toxic ultimately to the party's reputation.

(Bill Barrett, Kent County Councillor expelled from Reform UK)

We are a nation of sheep, and someone else owns the grass.

(George Carlin)

Life begins at the top. Life begins at the Loch. Whatever. Now, mates, this time I am not going to reveal the full body count at once, but unveil it bit by bit. Just don't bother with the additions, though, you will get the full picture right at the bottom. Just after I tell you who the next MP for Land's End will be. Before you ask, the next MP for Orkney and Shetland, right here at the top, will be Alistair Carmichael for an eightieth... oops, sorry... eighth term, unless he chooses to retire. Then it's decided by mud wrestling between Liam McArthur and Jimmy Perez... er... wait... naw... Beatrice Wishart. Quite opportunely, we have a very shocking Survation poll, conducted on behalf of the Diffley Partnership, telling us both would hold their MSP seats, for the islands at the top of the top, at the quickly incoming Scottish Parliament election. Survation did not poll Westminster voting intentions, but we already have a pretty clear picture of these from other pollsters, and Holyrood is what matters most right now, innit? Anyway, poll after poll confirms the now familiar trendlines.

But heading in the same general direction does not mean pollsters predict the same outcome. In fact, they have made it a habit not to, which must be quite disorientating for politicians who base their strategy on what they think polls are saying, and then find out they're saying something totally different. Which is what Survation does, compared to the Find Out Now poll I mentioned last time. This time, we don't have a seat prediction from John Curtice, but one from Mark Diffley, who obviously made it all by himself unlike The Scottish Pravda's overhyped faux guru. The Scottish mediatariat may choose to tell you the rosy story, in which this poll is a success for the SNP because they are 12% ahead of the nearest opposition, without mentioning it also means they have lost 14% on their 2021 vote. But I can also tell you the darker story of how eighteen years of SNP government have resulted in an English supremacist Europhobic party, with no grassroots base in Scotland except opportunistic deserters from the Rump Tories, now predicted to become "our" second party. With a constituency seat in fucking Falkirk, of all fucking places, because the poll's crosstabs predict they would significantly over-perform in Central Scotland.

The campaign is already fucking hilarious before it has even begun, with the Scottish Greenies witch-hunting each other for an MSP seat in the North East. While The Scottish Pravda thinks it is good journalism to grill Anas Sarwar about a by-election in Wales, instead of grilling Reform UK about their links to the Russian Reich. There has been another interesting, and more meaningful, development, when our next First Minister Stephen Flynn threw all caution to the river and took a shot at Zarah Sultana's predictable faux pacifist rant. Read between the lines, mates, and figure out the consequences. Strong support for Ukraine and calling Russia a fascist dictatorship, which it of course is, makes any deal with the Putin-apologists and Putin-appeasers impossible. That's the Greens and the Alba Party ruled out, and also Your Party, if some Scots are dumb enough to help them bag a seat. That was Flynn's "let's burn that bridge before we come to it" moment. And it leaves just one possible coalition partner for The Day After. Labour. Mark my words and, when the time comes, remember I said that all along.

We hang petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.

(Aesop, circa 600 BC)

Unless the lion learns to write, every story will glorify the hunter.

(African proverb)

On the heels of the Survation poll, we have had another one from YouGov. the October update of the Scoop Monitor they conduct on behalf of Scottish Election Study. You will never see their polls ever mentioned in The Scottish Pravda, which I find totally fucking hilarious. Because Scottish Election Study has been around since the last Holyrood election, and the first Scoop poll was conducted in December 2021. It has been nearly four years and allegedly "professional" journalists, supposedly on the prowl for everything that might help understand Scotland's mood, have managed to totally miss it. While an amateur like me has been aware of it for more than two years. Told you, mates, that's fucking hilarious. Interestingly, Ballot Box Scotland, who have a strong pro-SNP bias, also totally ignore the Scoop polls in their "Democracy In Detail" polling hub. At least they are not performatively boycotting them and justifying it with some lame ex post facto arguments, as they did a couple of years ago with Redfield & Wilton. For now, let's just see what YouGov's findings predict for the next Scottish Parliament, and that's again not that good for the SNP.

Oddly, my model for once suggests a better outcome for the SNP than other predictors. But that does not change the general feeling and conclusion. Common sense says that John Swinney's successor at Bute House will want to avoid a dreadful "fool me once, fool me twice" scenario, and thusly reject any suggestion of another deal with the Scottish Greers. Which is not a typo. So Anas Sarwar's successor, as I can't see how he could survive such a drubbing, will surely get the proverbial offer he can't refuse, for a full coalition deal. By the way, YouGov predicts no constituency seats for Reform, but two for the Greens (Lorna Slater in Edinburgh North Eastern and Leith, Patrick Harvie in Glasgow Kelvin and Maryhill) with Edinburgh Central very close to being their third. There is another interesting side to the YouGov poll. The kind of transfers they predict in comparison to the 2021 Holyrood votes, the last time the SNP got more than a third of our votes, and the 2024 general election, when we tactically switched to Labour to be part of the general tectonic shift to oust the Tories. First, what they see for the 2026 constituency vote.

You can see here how the SNP can lose almost a third of their 2021 vote and still suffer only minor bruises. And that's not because tactical Labour voters of 2024 massively return to their previous home, so just forget about that. It was too convenient an explanation, and YouGov's numbers reveal the very inconvenient truth that will make Anas Sarwar's position ultimately untenable. Under his leadership, or lack thereof, a quarter of Labour voters are now switching to Reform UK, and fewer than half remain faithful to Team Red. There are quite similar patterns in the transfers from past votes to next year's list votes, with one added feature, though. YouGov's findings confirm that the SNP are the main purveyors of Green list votes, far ahead of Labour. Of course, we have always known that, but it is still useful to hammer that point home, as some found it smart to cast some doubts on that obvious pattern recently. Aye, John Curtice, this one's for you.

Furthermore, these patterns of transfers shed some light on the true nature of the Reform UK vote in Scotland. You can't argue it is a protest vote of the socially conservative white working class, as may be the case in the North of England, when the majority of their votes come from the Conservative electorate. I see it more as another variation of the Unionist vote coalescing around one party that appears as the best true Defender Of The Faith. The Conservatives had their day, and then crumbled into obsolescent irrelevance after Ruth Davidson quit, and was succeeded by beige non-entities. Labour could have had their day, but never fully fit the profile, as lots of their voters had a positive view of Scottish Independence. So now it's Reform's turn, as the true torch-bearers of the most intransigent English nationalist variant of Unionism. In a way, the SNP should be happy that Reform has fragmented the Unionist vote, thusly saving them from a painful crash-landing next year, and are offering the most fanatical version of Unionism, which can only switch doubters and undecideds to the side of Independence.

Politics sits downstream of culture. The stories we tell ourselves and each other are how we develop and share our feelings about this world, and other possible worlds.

(Brian Eno, The Guardian, 17 September 2025)

If one were interested in political change, one would not enter political life, one would go into music.

(Robert Fripp, Musician, December 1980)

The most recent polls do show that voting intentions for Independence have indeed progressed over the last few months. It is obviously no coincidence that it parallels the rise of Reform in Westminster and Holyrood polls. It is obviously not a certainty that Independence would win a hypothetical second referendum if it was held next week, but the trendlines now show Yes leading for the first time since early 2023. If we single out the Independence polls conducted in September and October, we now have 46% Yes to 43% No, or 51.5% Yes to 48.5% No without undecideds. A very wee lead that pretty much dictates what the strategy should be from now on. Don't focus on those who are already convinced that we should be an independent nation. Don't waste time and energy on switching Unionists either. Undecideds will decide the outcome, so we need to be smart enough to find the right arguments that will overcome their doubts. What have we got to lose, especially if the self-fulfilling prophecies of doom come true, and Benito Farage enters Number Ten?

But progressing towards Independence means that the SNP and the Scottish Government, which is likely to be an SNP-led government for the foreseeable future, must read the room and respond properly to the Scottish people's main concerns and expectations. Survation asked their panelists to rank the importance of some select issues on an eleven-step scale from 0 meaning "I don't give a frying duck" to 10 meaning "this is the mostest extremeliest importantest issue of the millennium", which I transposed into an easier to read five-step pentahued chart. And the poll's findings are clear and unquestionable enough to offer some sort of a blueprint for a roadmap to the Scottish Government.

Admittedly, most of what we see here was predictable enough and we did not really need a poll to get the point. Our government just has to avoid the obvious trap, considering that everything is important and must be done at once. Instead, focus on the three main priorities. The NHS, better jobs and the cost of living. Then add education, not as an end in itself, but as a means to an end, like offering everyone more opportunities for better jobs. Then count on the ripple effect on reducing poverty and improving the standards of living, which would reduce the strain on the NHS if people feel more secure and less depressed about what the future has to offer. This would require quite an effort, as Survation also found that we are not really confident about what the next Scottish government could achieve.

This snapshot is actually not totally bleak, as you get more of a sense of doubt than of doom and despair. On the most important issues, the proportion of people who think that Yes, We Can, is already pretty high. So there is a foundation upon which the next government can build. But it also means we will have to do more with less, as we are constrained by the limitations of devolution and the UK government is more willing than ever to prioritise the needs of England over those of the devolved Nations. Restoring hope in the future, pride of who we are and faith in what we can achieve, was never going to be an easy task, and it will surely get even more challenging over the next few years. But, if our government proves that it can make us a stronger Nation within the shackles of the Union, which I think is still the SNP's favourite slogan, then it will also prove that we would have an even brighter future as an independent Nation. Don't give up and just do it, mates.

It’s not the despair. I can take the despair. It’s the hope I can’t handle.

(Michael Frayn)

I remember only too well the sense of helplessness Chancellors feel over OBR forecasts in the run-up to Budgets. Your entire Budget hangs on the verdict of steely and rather unresponsive bureaucrats.

(Jeremy Hunt, The Times, 28 October 2025)

Rejoice, mates, it is happening. The government is no longer listening to the banking sector's blackmail and prophecies of doom, and a windfall tax on the banks' extravagant profits will be at the heart of the next Budget. Err... wait a minute... checks notes... Oops, sorry, mates, that's not happening in the UK. It's happening in Italy under Giorgia Meloni's far-right government, to fund a mix of tax cuts and spending hikes meant to improve the middle class' financial situation. We don't have that kind of profound debate about the goals of taxation here, because the media are fixated on the mundanely irrelevant issue of whether or not Rachel Reeves will break a manifesto pledge if she raises taxes. It is irrelevant because tax hikes are inevitable so long as she sticks to two other commitments, avoiding massive across-the-board spending cuts and not resorting to out-of-control borrowing to plug the black holes. The media should now cut Reeves some slack, and grill Benito Farage about his tax policy, now that Reform UK has also given up on massive tax cuts they promised a month ago. A recent YouGov poll proves that the Great British Public have fuck all illusion about what would happen to our taxes if Benito came to power.

A massive majority opine that a Reform government would increase taxes, a third even believe that they would increase taxation a lot. After all, we have had a warning, Kent County Council breaking down into Reform Civil War after the new management increased the Council tax they had promised to lower. It's the Macmillan Syndrome striking again. Events, dear boy, events. But, once we have stipulated the inevitability of tax hikes to meet all our commitments, from improving the NHS to doubling defence spending, what should Reeves do? Opinium thought of that and polled an array of options, asking their panel if these select taxes are too high or too low. That leaves quite a number of ways Reeves could break a manifesto pledge with popular approval. Increase the top rate of income tax, taxes on oil companies and banks, a also consider the corporation tax. That would surely not be enough to totally plug the holes, but that would be a start.

YouGov, always ready to poll everything with a pulse, couldn't let go of the "Labour breaking promises" narrative, so they also polled that. Just to find that pretty much anything Reeves can do would be considered breaking promises, even doing stuff that was not mentioned in the manifesto. Even increasing taxes that we collectively consider too low. I guess this gives Reeves all the motivation shed needs to stop giving a frying duck about whatever past promises, and do what she thinks will work best to plug the holes left by the Conservatives, while overturning the ill-advised decisions she made last year about benefits. Another question in Opinium's most recent fortnightly poll for The Observer shows that 77% of the British public expect taxes to go up, and only 3% have lived in a cave long enough to expect them to go down. So Reeves should just make the best of an appallingly bad situation, and just do it. There never is a good moment to raise taxes, but this one is the least bad, and also probably the last she has left before the next general election campaign starts and damage control becomes the most pressing priority.

But the biggest stain on Rachel Reeves' street cred is not reneging on Labour's "read my lips" endorsement of taxphobia, or even her estate agents inadvertently not applying for a £925 rental licence from Southwark Council, less than 2.5% of Nigel Farage's premeditated stamp duty fraud on a Russia-funded second house. It has to be greenlighting HMRC's massive crackdown on the vastly overhyped benefit fraud, a favourite of far-right moaning, without properly checking that the system was foolproof and would not deprive people of benefits because of its reliance on phony data. The use of which also happens to have been a breach of privacy laws, that also counts as a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights, Benito Farage's obsessive pet hate. Of course, Liz Kendall and Pat McFadden should also take part of the blame, as Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions, as they have done jack shit to make the DWP bureaucracy more humane and less obsessively fixated on forms and procedures than it was under the Tories.

This is new responsible Nigel. And in order to prove that he’s ready to be in government, he’s just U-turned on everything he’s ever promised, which means he’s now fit to govern.

(Ian Hislop, Have I Got News For You, 7 November 2025)

The whole world isn’t going down the right-wing plug hole and Starmer, if he opened his eyes, would find inspiration to confront and beat Farage’s divisive, fear-based politics with fairness and decency in Britain.

(Kevin Maguire, The Mirror, 3 November 2025)

There is a pretty standard way to measure the "tax burden", as only those loaded enough to not benefit from redistribution through taxation call it, and that's which percentage of GDP it represents. You would think it is pretty straightforward, as the values of both the numerator and denominator are well known. That's dividend and divisor in Latin English. Alas, it ain't so, Joe, as there seems to be some not-just-academic debate about how to calculate both. So we have the OECD saying it's 35%, the Institute for Fiscal Studies saying 37% and the House of Commons Library not really knowing, but saying it must be "around 39-40%". The most reliable figure I found is 39.4%, which is actually quite low compared to other OECD countries. So there is indeed a real margin for select and targeted tax hikes. But, if we forget rampant taxphobia and broken promises, what are we really ready to accept when it comes to taxation? And the answer is "quite a lot" according to a recent Lord Ashcroft poll.

There is one item in that part of the poll's laundry list the government should be very careful with, the idea of merging the income tax and National Insurance. There is a historic reason the two exist side by side, identifying which resources go to social security, and which go to the general budget. There are more than just philosophical reasons why this was enforced that way by the Liberals in 1911, and expanded by Labour in 1946. Ringfencing the resources allocated to the welfare system, and protecting them from becoming the adjustment variable in the general budget. So this must definitely be handled with care, as a merger would potentially be quite regressive in its effects. We already have examples of that with the NHS, which is jointly funded from both National Insurance and general taxation. Otherwise, it is quite reassuring to see the British public supporting the most progressive options offered by the poll, and remaining cautious about the opportunistic ones. This is broadly confirmed by the second half of the poll's items.

The overall picture is quite enlightening as it proves that British public opinion is not taxphobic, contrary to the narrative spread by the mediatariat and the Conservatives. We reject the most regressive measures, like the flat tax or capping the top rate of income tax, and approve increased taxation of the wealthiest, who also happen to be systemic tax-evaders thanks to the myriad of loopholes in our current tax laws. What more evidence do we need that there remains a strong progressive and egalitarian component in the British psyche? Clearly, the British public don't buy all the fearmongering horror stories peddled by neo-liberal influencers, and that's fucking good. But it doesn't always work that way, sadly. Now, another recurring debate has been revived, about the two-child benefit cap. This one has been quite a thorn in the arse for Rachel Reeves since the last election, so YouGov had to speed-poll us about its abolition. With an unexpectedly upsetting, or upsettingly unexpected, result.

Aye, you read it right, a majority want the two-child benefit cap to stay, despite all the arguments against it that we have heard over the last year. Even left-leaning voters and Scots support it, and only the TikTok generation want it gone, albeit by a thin margin. Official statistics, as published by the ONS, offer a clear explanation for this. 42% of British families have no dependent children living at home, and 15% have only adult children, who are ineligible for child benefits. At the other end of the spectrum, only 6% of families have three children or more, and are thusly directly hurt by the two-child cap. And there goes our sense of fairness and solidarity. We are not directly concerned, so we don't give a fucking shit. Especially when the media tell us that abolishing the cap would cost summat like £3bn, which would have to be funded by a wee smitch more taxation. And this time, it wouldn't be taxing the owners of 25-room country mansions who are packing up to Dubai, it would be taxing all of us. And that is a red line.

That the UK, unlike most other G7 wealthy nations, does not already have a settling-up charge on assets illustrates how, for far too long, we’ve operated a wealthfare state, feather-bedding multi-millionaires and billionaires.

(Kevin Maguire, The Mirror, 3 November 2025)

What could be more patriotic than well-shod members of a loaded elite paying their fair share before migrating to Dubai or another tax haven to watch Sky Sports while eating Marmite on toast in Union Jack underpants.

(Kevin Maguire, The Mirror, 3 November 2025)

YouGov, always keen on enlightening us on long-term trends, have been tracking our attitudes to taxation for many years. Six years, actually, as their array of trackers all start the month before Theresa May's resignation, for whatever reason. We know that part of the usual narrative about budgets and taxes is that Labour will always spend money they don't have, and then tax us into the abyss to make up for it. While the Conservatives are the responsible and reasonable lot who will take care of the national budget just as sensibly as they take care of their own household budget. Which is the absolute Mother Of All False Analogies and complete economic nonsense, as any real expert will tell you. YouGov have tested that, not as a matter of belief in the narrative, but how the British public feel about the actual actions of both parties in government. With some funny results.

It starts quite well for the Conservatives under Theresa May and well into Boris Johnson's Premiership, as only a minority blame them for taxing and spending too much. But it not complete bliss, as the dominant opinion was, in those days, that they did not tax and spend enough. Which can be easily explained by the dismal state of public services, that was already quite obvious under Johnson. Oddly, some sort of balance was reached under Rishi Sunak, with the two opposite options getting similar levels of support. Then it swerved sharply into taxphobic territory as soon as Labour was put in charge again, in a really pre-scripted Pavlovian way, as the swing started even before Rachel Reeves had a chance to get her first Budget debated. A clear example of anti-Labour prejudice. But YouGov's other tax tracker is more interesting, revealing how we feel about the amount the wealthiest Brits contribute to the community, and that is pretty constant no matter which party is in charge of the UK government.

A majority do think the amount of taxes paid by the wealthiest fringe is too low, and by a conclusive margin that has not varied much over time. This is a reassuring sign that we collectively don't fall for all the myths embedded at the core of neo-liberal voodoo economics, the Laffer Curve, trickle-down economics and all the fearmongering fairy tales about brain drain and tax exile, that were never substantiated by any hard facts. There are obvious reasons why the Rump Tories and the British Union of Fascists 2.0 want us to fall for that. In a nutshell, it serves the interests of their donors. But why the fucking fuck does the Labour government act as if all these fabrications were real? Rachel Reeves' future is obviously hanging in the balance now, as she will probably not stay at Number Eleven for very long after the atrocious pig's breakfast she made of the incoming Budget. She still has a choice, though. Fall to the right, and be forever cursed for working for the few. Or fall to the left, missed for at last caring for the many. Her latest announcements have done nothing to clarify the situation, but are surely not her last, as she still has a few days left to fuck it up even more. Then she will probably fall from grace for no other reason that it has to be done to protect Starmer. Which it won't, actually.

Surrender to the bleating rich hoarding obscene loot in mansions and Rachel Reeves will be moving back into the rented out South London family home.

(Kevin Maguire, The Mirror, 3 November 2025)

I supported Margaret Thatcher’s modernisation and reforms of the economy. It was painful for some people, but it had to happen.

(Nigel Farage)

Of course, exploring which kind of extra taxation we are ready to accept has become summat of a moot point, now that Rachel Reeves has caved in and ruled out an income tax hike. Without actually ruling it out, as freezing the band thresholds for two more years is a tax hike. It's even a 100% hike for the people who did not pay it until this year, but will now. YouGov of course speed-polled Reeves' decision and found that we think it was the right thing to do, but a sign of weakness. Which sounds a wee smitch oxymoronic from where I'm sat, but never mind. The SW1 grapevine say that Reeves came to that decision because the Office for Budget Responsibility, never missing an opportunity to contradict themselves and totally discredit their own forecasts, suddenly found out that the proverbial budget black hole, had miraculously plugged itself. It is allegedly down to £20bn, which would be totally filled by a wealth tax, that is estimated to levy £24bn a year, and has massive support from the British public according to a pre-budget poll from Ipsos.

Then we have the Tories proposing to totally abolish Stamp Duty. Since the latest changes, that happened in April this year, you are exempt if the house's value is less that £125k, and pay only a token 2% for the part between £125k and £250k. First-time buyers, which are the ones any sensible government would want to help, are exempt up to £300k. The most recent statistics say that the average house in the UK costs £271k, or an average £3k per square metre. Which means the effective tax rate for the average home would be 0% on a first home, 1.3% on a next home, and 6.3% on a second home. Which is definitely not excessive when you factor in that, due to the amount of sales, the Treasury gets about £14bn a year from it, so scrapping it entirely would definitely not be a good idea. Especially when just a casual look at the terms and conditions, bands and rates shows that the main beneficiaries would be foreign millionaires buying a very expensive second home. The Tories and Reform are totally OK with that variant of immigration, as it would benefit their foreign donors first. Remarkably, Ipsos has found that we are a lot less enthusiastic about that than about the wealth tax, despite heavy-handed propaganda from the estate agents lobby.

Then, because we are all experts on the economic impact of taxation, Ipsos asked their panel to assess the consequences of both options, sometimes with astounding results that only prove we definitely are not experts on the economic impact of taxation. Then how do you explain that the British public simultaneously opine that increasing tax revenue by £24bn would be bad for the national debt, but losing £14bn would be good for the national debt? Or the belief that a wealth tax would be bad for the UK's attractiveness, which is a standard Pavlovian argument for the billionaire-cuddling taxphobes, when real life experience in countries that do have a wealth tax proves that it is total bullshit? There is a lot to say about the taxphobes endlessly ranting about the "acceptability of taxation", when what they actually mean is the "acceptability of contributing a fair share for faux-patriots and greedy billionaires who have done jack shit all their lives to serve the best interests of the country". But that's another story for another day.

It is interesting that Ipsos included the national debt as the final item here. Or the National Debt, capitalised, as it has acquired some mythicality, if that's a word, through massive media insistence that we should be really worried about it. While we actually fucking shouldn't, for one very simple reason. The fucking debt will never ever be repaid, not next year, not in a trillion years, just fucking never. Because that's not the way it works, and it isn't the way the international banking lobby wants it to work. Forget the fake analogies with your household budget, it's nothing like a loan from your bank, that you have a sacred obligation to fully repay at a fixed date. It's more like an eternal revolving credit with no upper limit. We will never repay the debt because all we ever pay are the interests on the debt, financed by short-term loans. The banks have a vested interest, pun intended, in keeping it that way because it is a Stone of Sisyphus system, where we never see the end and pay and pay massive interests to the banks, while they keep the Sword of Damocles of the overhyped ginormous debt hanging over our heads. Fully knowing we will never repay it because they will never let us, or they would lose their safest source of income. So, just fucking forget about it, mates, and tell Sisyphus to get that fucking stone rolling.

Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made.

(John Godfrey Saxe, 1869)

The Conservative Party is over. Over as a national party. Over as the principal opposition to the left.

(Danny Kruger MP, 15 September 2025)

Was the main event of the last few weeks the suspenseful run-up to the Budget? Or Shabana Mahmood announcing harsher legislation on immigration and asylum, which was not inspired by Benito Farage even if it fucking looks like it, but by the social-democratic government of Denmark? Or maybe the attempted coup against Keir Starmer, that may never have been a coup as it was never actually attempted, except in Morgan McSweeney's secret briefings? Now The Hipstershire Gazette is trying to convince its readers, who may be gullible enough to actually believe it, that Keir Starmer was never meant to be Prime Minister, and that it was all a honest mistake. Which would be credible if we hadn't had the Corbyn precedent, a real Labour Leader by mistake if you look back at the very peculiar circumstances of his accession. Events, dear boy, events. Or a pseudo-Machiavellian stunt engineered by people who thought themselves smarter than they actually were, and backfired quite spectacularly. Thank Dog for making sure that Corbyn never became PM, as I just can't fathom how deep in shit we would be right now. Deeper than a fathom, for sure. Just like Labour are in voting intentions trends and predicted votes all across the nations and regions of Realm. Turquoise shit and green algae.

But what will happen to the Liberal Democrats now, after they have decided to follow common-sensical scientific reality and abide by the now-famous Supreme Court ruling? Will the transfanatics now desert them like they deserted the SNP in 2020 because they supported the "sex not gender" amendment to the Forensic Medical Services Bill proposed by Johann Lamont? We know that the transfanatics are just like Trump and Putin, they tolerate nothing but absolute submission and abject surrender. But now they have their safe space within the formerly-Green Party of England and Wales, haven't they? The LibDems are nevertheless still not doing too badly, all things considered, in this week's seat projection, from one end of the Realm to the other. Not only is the MP for Orkney and Shetland predicted to be a Liberal Democrat, but so are the predicted MP for John O'Groats, Jamie Stone, and the predicted MP for Land's End, Andrew George. Team Orange are still resisting better than the Ghost Of Labour Past and the Rump Tories, but even them are struggling against the turquoise infection across England's once Leafy South. Then Labour is doing as badly as can be imagined everywhere, even in their stronghold and Sly Keir's back garden in the Imperial Capital.

I told you I would reveal the full headcount of predicted seats right at the bottom, didn't I? You should know by now that I always keep my promises, unlike the Reform UK Councillors in Kent, especially when not keeping them would involve massive cut/paste to rearrange the paragraphs all across the article. So here we are. It is again not a pretty sight, with the British Union Of Fascists 2.0 still in a position to form the next government, as the loopy woke Greens totally undermine Labour's efforts towards an electoral recovery. The same cannot be said of Your Party, who are falling out and apart under our eyes and spending more time daleking each other than talking politics, in true Trotskyite fashion. And it seems all that mess is Zarah Sultana's fault. Another classic. When in doubt, always blame the woman. Today's snapshot is based on the last five polls, conducted between 13 and 21 November by Lord Ashcroft, More In Common, YouGov, Find Out Now and Opinium, with a super-sample of 14,138. Roughly the full load displacement in long tons of an Italian Zara-class cruiser of the 1930s.

Whichever way you look at it, it's pretty bleak and Electoral Calculus' prediction algorithm makes it even bleaker. But maybe I should not worry too much, as they got the recent Dutch general election totally wrong, just one day before it happened, by over-estimating the far-right. Fucking hilarious, and not even close. What can we wish for now, to restore a semblance of sanity in British politics? Starting a thorough investigation into Reform UK's finances, and the personal finances of all their MPs and Councillors would be a good place to start, I think, now that we have evidence that Benito Farage is in cahoots with a bitcoin scam to launder Russian blood money and fund Nosferatu's genocidal war in Ukraine. After all, Reform's former branch office manager in Wales, the one they can't even remember having ever met, has just been nicked for 126 months for offences that would have got him hanged, drawn and quartered, and his head on a pike above the gate of Caernarfon Castle, under Henry VIII. If Nathan Gill and oor very own David Coburn were recruited to spread Russian propaganda, should we be daft enough to believe Benito Farage's claim that Gill was just one "bad apple"? Fuck no, obviously. After all, the Cambridge Five were just the Cambridge Two at first, and then there were five. Let the whole truth be revealed, and the only plan for Nigel will be political oblivion, and it could even revive the brain-dead Tories.

Badenoch’s dismal failure as leader, to make relevant a marginalised Tory Party outflanked by Reform, leaves Kemikaze vulnerable because Tory rules now permit MPs to swap her for another dud.

(Kevin Maguire, The Mirror, 3 November 2025)

Слава Україні! Героям слава!

Jeremy's Den

23/11/2025

Making Plans For Nigel

No comments:

Post a Comment

Making Plans For Nigel