A Pack of Distortions: Why the Tory Numbers Don’t Add Up

As most readers will know I am something of a stickler for honesty in politics. Politicians who lie shame themselves and the party they represent.

You will also have seen that broadly speaking I like to think myself as fair and non-partisan. I describe myself as politically disenfranchised and I rather like the freedom this brings.

So, yesterday, I started fact checking some of Kemi Badenoch's (the Opposition leader) recent pronouncements on how the Tories would resolve the £23bn  defence budget gap by cutting welfare spending. Sadly, the conclusion I came to was that it was fundamentally a pack of lies and distortions. 

I attach some of my reasoning, her exact words are in quotes.

1.  “A million more people are claiming Universal Credit since last year’s Budget.”

Caused by the "Move to Universal Credit" managed migration scheme, which transitioned claimants from older "legacy benefits" (such as Employment and Support Allowance) to the UC system.

2. “They [Labour] believe the way to end poverty is to give money to people in poverty until they are not in poverty anymore.

Not totally accurate, increases in welfare, tax credits, and targeted social security have not been exclusively funded by income tax rises. While income tax yields are substantial, these expansions are heavily funded through a combination of broader tax increases (such as Employer National Insurance Contributions), frozen personal tax thresholds (fiscal drag), and elevated government borrowing.

3.  "'Relative poverty' just tells you what proportion of households earn below 60 per cent of median income.

That is not a measure of poverty at all."

Actually, it is. The UK Median wagae is £39, 039 of which 60% amounts to £23,423. Assuming a 37.5 hour week this equates to £12.01 per hour. The National minimum wage is £12.71.

4. "In Hackney alone, 1,000 families on benefits with 5 or 6 children stand to gain £74 million from the lifting of the two-child benefit cap.

Equates to each family receiving benefit £74,000 assuming it was distributed evenly"

Clearly these statistics are wrong.

5. "Do you know how many people’s thresholds were frozen just to pay for those families in Hackney?

340,000 taxpayers."

In fact, the actual number of taxpayers in Hackney is closer to 148,000 BUT income tax was not the main funding source to finance lifting the two-child cap.

6. "Last year, we saw the fastest increase of children in workless households we’ve ever had."

Actually, the data reveals this was actually in 2023 – 2024 under a Conservative government when it surged by 160,000

7. "There are now more children in the UK growing up in households where no one works than the entire population of Estonia."

True but be should also recognise their population is only 1.35 million so hardly a reasonable statistic.

8. "For all that is going wrong now, and let’s be honest has gone wrong in the past nations can absorb shocks.

The financial crisis, Brexit, Covid."

All 3 were under Tory governments so I fail to see the point.

9. "Unemployment has risen every single month.inder Starmer."

While the overarching trend shows a rise in joblessness from historic lows, there are several instances in the Office for National Statistics (ONS) data where the number of unemployed people and the headline unemployment rate have recorded small dips or remained flat over rolling three-month periods.

10. “Quite simply, our sickness benefits system was not designed to handle the age of diagnosis we now live in. So, we are also going to review which conditions the state treats as disabilities when it comes to benefits.”

How will this work? Who will be affected and how will it be scrutinised? Bearing in mind chronic failings in the existing PIP assessment procedure that remain unresolved this proposal could lead to disturbing diagnostic conclusions

11. "But in an age in which one in four people now self-report as disabled, it’s clear that we are now going to have to draw a line on what health issues the state can support people with.”

In the UK, approximately 5.5 million working-age disabled people (aged 16–64) are in employment. This corresponds to an employment rate of 52.8%

Furthermore, the interim chair of the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA), Penny Young, has written to the Leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch, about a claim in the Conservatives’ Alternative King’s Speech that “for the first time ever, the total welfare bill is now higher than total receipts from income tax”.

In addition, welfare payments have been higher than income tax receipts for many years, and the position is expected to reverse this year.

The UK Statistics Authority also said it was worried that the Conservatives were giving the impression that “welfare” was mainly about sickness and out-of-work benefits, when “approximately 55% of social security expenditure is spent on pensioners”.

A Conservative spokesman has reportedly told the PA News Agency the party acknowledged their claims were inaccurate and planned to correct its document. This did not appear to have happened as of 4pm on (29 June).

How woke became broke and threatened democracy

As I look around, it’s becoming increasingly clear “wokeism” and political correctness have become one of the greatest political dangers of our time. You might think that sounds pretty outrageous, but let’s look at just one example to show you what I mean. It goes back to when I was an ankle-snapper growing up in a Welsh city still recovering from the Blitz. Every day, I would ride a small red trike along the pavement outside my house. In those days, parents didn’t worry about traffic because there weren’t many cars around, and as for the risk of paedophiles, perverts or white slave traders whisking me away? Well, It was easy - we had a sense of community and if my parents weren’t keeping an eye on me then, you could count a local neighbour would be, and besides, the local “bobby” (an affectionate name for a police officer) always seem to be patrolling the area and was quite happy to give me a ‘clip around my ear’ if I misbehaved.

One day as I rode up and down the street, I looked in shock as a tall, elegant gentleman walked towards me. “Mum,” I screamed, “there’s a big black man!” Instantly, my mother ran onto the street, telling me off for calling him a ‘black man.’ “He isn’t black, he’s a coloured gentleman,” she continued, taking care to apologise for my outburst. This was the mid- to late 1950s and my parents were passionate antiracists but this was the first time I, as a four-year-old, was to learn about prejudice. It was a lesson I took on board and throughout my life I’ve had a deep hatred of intolerance. It was because of this that, when a few years later, I went to Grammar school, I was somewhat shocked to learn it was no longer acceptable to use the phrase “coloured people” but instead the new antiracist term was “Black”.

Eager to be a good-hearted liberal, I happily went along with the change. A few years later, as my schooldays were coming to an end, the world seemed to turn upside down: students across Europe were rebelling and occupying universities, throughout Europe the name “Danny the Red” was on every young person’s lips, everyone seemed to be against the Vietnam war and, of course, the Beatles were causing a worldwide sensation. But, unlike the majority I hated them (sorry Beatle fans) because I adored a new style of music coming from Detroit. The new Tamla Motown record label introduced me to Smokey Robinson, Marvin Gaye, and the Supremes, Temptations, and Four Tops; all of whom transformed my world my world. In the terminology of the day, I fell in love with what we then called, Afro-Caribbean singers because terminologies like “black” or ‘coloured person’ were démodé, and replaced by a new, more exotic term, Afro-Caribbean – well, until some bright spark realised this was also the name for a Black hair style. 

In order to not offend, the liberal “grammar police” told us we must now call “Black” people, “African-Caribbean” while at the same time apologising profusely for their unfortunate error – even though most black people had no links with either the Caribbean or Africa – neither ‘George’ from Queens, a fifth generation American with ancestors who had served in the Civil War  or ‘Harry’ from Edinburgh, with several past members in his family who had fought in the Napoleonic wars, felt they had any kind of link to Africa. Unfortunately, liberal “political correctness” demanded they identify as African – even if they didn’t want to.

By the time we reached the late seventies/ early eighties, many Black people were also pointing out they had no connection to Africa or the Caribbean so, guess what? Yes, of course, the liberal grammar police found a new word to describe them, but they were tiring of finding new terms, so went back to the 1960s and rediscovered “black” For a while it seemed the perfect solution; liberals were happy, so were those defining themselves as black and the world appeared to be a happy place, but, of course, that wasn’t going to last.

As society became increasingly multicultural, lexical liberals realised the “Black” couldn’t be used to identify Asians, or Native Americans, so to solve this problem, they settled on People of Colour”, but don’t get too settled, because you can be sure of one thing – somewhere in a grubby little bedsit there are a group of opinionated Foucauldian lexical anarchists preparing for it all to change all over again.

The point of this trip through history is to show how we have spent the last 75 years trying to satisfy every ethnic group (whether they want it or not) and despite our best efforts, we’ve largely failed. But what we did do with all this ringing of hands and self-flagellation is open the door to “wokeism” and “political correctness”.

It is to this term “wokeism”, I wish now to refer, because it is a relatively vague term with multiple meanings, so it’s important to define it from the outset.

Essentially, “wokeism”, as defined by those who believe in it, is a term used to describe progressive attitudes and activism focused on social and political inequality, systemic injustice, and identity politics.

Brilliant, but has it done what it set out to achieve?

                                   Dr Ibram X Kensi

“Wokeism” holds how the U.S. and other Western nations were fundamentally compromised by a history of injustice toward “historically marginalized groups.” Gays, people of colour, women, ethnic minorities, transsexuals and disabled were oppressed by a dominant culture that subjugated them throughout history. The “Wokerati” (those governed by a wokeist agenda) treat this structural racism/ sexism/ homophobia/ transphobia (take your pick) as being almost ineradicable, and so, to combat these injustices, they then call for full recognition of all these ethnic, or gender and other identities and, in some cases, even demand reparations. As wokeist icon, Ibram X. Kendi put it, “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” These neo-liberal wokerati also push for extensive “antiracist/ anti-gender” indoctrination and—in many cases—suppression of what they see as bigoted speech. So, for example, in the case of gender identification, we’re left with not two genders, but LGBTIQQCAPGNGFNBA2SS+. (Please don’t ask me to explain each letter, it was bad enough typing them correctly.) – and the only way to counter earlier prejudices is to deny old, now obsolete pronouns like him/ her and replace them with neopronouns like Ze/ Zer/ Sirs or, Ey/ Em/ Ears, or Xe/ Xem/ Cyr …. the list is simply endless.

Now the worst of this is the wokerati argument of how, when I point out how ridiculous this has become, I am automatically anti-Black (or person of colour), transphobic, homophobic, disablist, or sexist. Well, let me be clear, I am none of these and take huge offence at any such suggestion. For most of my life, I’ve fought against racism and for gender equality. I’ve marched against the oppression of women and, I have no problem with whatever sexuality or gender you choose, but please do we have to carry it on our sleeves? If you want to be gay, trans, bi, or any one of the letters I wrote above, go do it, have a ball – be the person you are meant to be and be happy but, please, for the love of riley, does it really have to be in our face so much? Should an estimated 300,000 trans people in the UK, out of an overall population of 66 million be able to force an initial spend of at least £21m because they demanded changes in the design of toilets at general outpatient care in hospitals when the NHS deficit is running at about £1 bn? Putting this more simply, there are about the same number of trans people in the UK as there are Jews. There are over 1200 hospitals in UK, but only just over 100 provide kosher food. What would happen if Jews demanded every hospital provided kosher meals? Answer? I can guarantee, there would be outrage. So, once again, may I say quite categorically, if a one-legged, gay, blind, black dwarf, trans woman and her Asian sapiosexual  Deaf, depressive,  girlfriend both need treatment, require housing, need employment, or simply want a seat on a train then they should have exactly the same opportunity and courtesies as any other human being – nothing more, nothing less.

Why do I say this, because isn’t it obvious? Isn’t it? Apparently not.

Take the recent tragic case of Henry Nowak, a white 18-year-old student in the UK, who was on his way home when his assailant stabbed him multiple times leading to his death. When the police arrived, Nowak was on the ground and bleeding profusely, while his killer insisted he was racially attacked by the victim. Rather than providing emergency care and calling for an ambulance, Mr Nowak was handcuffed, while Diwa (the perpetrator) told a ‘story’ about how he was attacked. Nowak told police he couldn’t breathe, but despite this, he was offered no help and died in handcuffs. Later evidence suggested police did not act because they assumed a racial attack and prioritising this over the welfare of an ordinary civilian. Political correctness was prioritised over basic human decency, even while the victim’s blood was soaking into the pavement.

J.K. Rowling

There is an insidious side to wokeism because if you speak against it, then the immediate counter is to suggest the writer or speaker is a “fascist”, or “TERF”. Yet liberal wokerati demand the right to “speak their own truth” but deny opposing voices the same right to express their opinion – they are simply cancelled. The most well-known case being J.K Rowling who, for most of her adult life, has been a staunch advocate for women. When, as part of this advocacy she spoke in defence of Maya Forstater in December 2019, a British researcher who lost her job after tweeting people cannot change their biological sex, she was immediately condemned and called transphobic. Rowling then cemented her opposition to the wokerati in June 2020 for criticising an article for saying “people who menstruate” (distinguishing them from trans women who do not).

Now it’s not the purpose of this article to defend Rowling, this is about something far more serious – the right to say what you think or feel, without fear of censorship. Indeed, I would argue, the result of wokeism is how it has created a form of censorship where a person who has shared a controversial opinion, expressed an ‘inappropriate’ viewpoint, or whose actions are perceived as offensive, can be called out and then ‘cancelled’ for their errant behaviour. The end-product being how it denies a free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, and it is becoming more constricted daily.

Naturally, the wokerati argue cancel culture doesn’t threaten free speech and they go further; by implying it doesn’t exist in the first place. In their mind, just because some ideas or thoughts are discouraged for fear of other people not liking it, does not mean they are forbidden from saying it. But is this true? If speaking out can result in job loss, your career or your entire livelihood disappearing overnight, (as has happened) then I would argue censorship has denied our right to free expression.

JS Mill, one of the fathers of liberal thought, once claimed: “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

It would appear the wokerati are of a different mind.

In its original form, wokeism was based on an assumption positive discrimination would solve the problems in our society: people from diverse and minority groups would be able to obtain better, jobs, improve or have greater access to housing, health and social care and of course gain greater political representation which would allow these groups to have a louder voice in modern society. Unfortunately, something went wrong along the way. Instead of making things fairer, we created a world where a minority have authority over the majority;  a society where we tried to remove intolerance and division and replaced it with narrow-minded dogmatic principles like "cancel culture," public shaming, and ideological conformity resulting in increased polarization, where instead of uniting communities, we point accusatory fingers at those who deviate from an assumed norm.

…. and it’s not even worked.

In the UK, the latest Home Office statistics, published annually, show there were more than 18,000 hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation and over 3000 trans related hate crimes between March 2024 and March 2025. While in the USA, latest annual crime reports from the FBI highlight, once again, while overall violent crime in the U.S. continues to decline, hate crimes against the LGBTQ+ community remain alarmingly high. The FBI’s report noted there were 1,950 recorded incidents relating to an alleged victim’s sexual orientation in 2024 and 463 relating to an alleged victim’s gender identity. Race/ ethnicity motivated hate crimes remained the largest category, making up 51.8% of all hate crimes. Hate crimes based on religion were second, just ahead of sexual orientation.

It’s no better on the job front either. LGBTQ+ job opportunities still face significant challenges. Research shows up to 40% of LGBTQ+ employees hide their identity at work due to fears of discrimination, and a substantial pay gap and glass ceiling still limit career progression.

Political comment

Wokeism may have started with the best of intentions, a desire to improve the quality of life for those who have historically been oppressed. Fine words, but if it hasn’t fulfilled its objectives – and the hard data show it clearly hasn’t, then why are we keeping it?

The original notion behind “wokeism”, which used to mean “awareness of racial prejudice and discrimination”, was co-opted by pseudo-liberal political upstarts who’ve used it as an opportunity to grind their own axe as publicly as possible, and each one has an ostensibly bullying agenda designed to suck all our hard earned freedoms. Immediate cancellation is executed against those who dare disagree, and then they are sentenced to a social “Devil’s Island” where they are forcibly socially or politically isolated until they repent , and even then this may not be enough.

   

Piers Morgan

Lately, the writer, Piers Morgan suggested “woke is dead”, but I’m very far from sure. Certainly, it’s been weakened as it tried, and failed to usurp control from more and more eccentric theatres, but it still retains a stranglehold on much of modern political life. Don’t believe me? Try saying you don’t believe in “crazy pronouns”, or arguing J.K Rowling made some interesting points; or, announce you refuse to ‘bend the knee’ and question whether “Black Lives Matter” is the best way forward.

Wokeism has waged a silent war on our free speech and in doing so, it has eroded democracy. More worryingly, it did it openly, and we sat silently while it happened allowing wokeism to politically neuter us and smiling as it happened. Today, there are some who want to kick back, but history taught us one thing – every time society takes a wrong turn it has never been possible to go back precisely to point zero. So will have to accept there is no point closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. We may be able to pull back from some of the lunacy of wokeism but, because we closed our eyes, we will never be quite the same ever again,

Why Americans Need to Get Much Angrier About Donald Trump.

Over the months and years, I’ve watched America transition from a tolerant, bastion of free speech, to a divided nation where intolerance abounds and the only permitted political comments are those lauded towards their new Caesar, President Donald J. Trump. Looking back, it was an inevitable love affair. On the international scene, presidential indecision had, by 2017 left the US looking weaker than at any other time in history. America hasn’t won a major sustained war on its own since Word War 2, though there have been a few ‘successes’ if you include smaller interventions.

In 1983, the US swiftly invaded Grenada (with an estimated population, then 110,000) and overthrow the Marxist military government. Similarly, in 1990, in Operation Just Cause, they quickly ousted dictator Manuel Noriega and installed a democratically elected government. I do not include the Gulf War as this broadly successful conflict involved a 35-nation coalition, of which the US was only a part.

Prosperity on the Home Front

On the home front, US citizens were at their most affluent (if defined by how easily a single wage earner could buy a home, raise a family and buy a car) under Dwight  Eisenhower, while they were able to save the most under Nixon and Carter;

although, unemployment was high under Reagan and Ford, but healthcare arrangements were improved the most for the elderly and low-income populations under Lyndon B. Johnson, though I’m sure some readers would argue in providing cover to over 30 million Americans,  Obama’s Affordable Care Act deserves mention.

Against this, Trump has referred to his own presidency as a “very beautiful and romantic time”, and after his first term, “our country was thriving, we were just beating everyone,” but is this true?

International markers during both Trump eras show that, if we examine the Happy Planet Index (a tool created by the New Economic Foundation to measure national well-being, we see Costa Rica is top, the UK comes in at 34^th, while the US is way behind at 108^th. Equally, if we look at the Human Development Index, an UN-inspired economic tool to measure economic opportunity and capability, Norway is top, the US 13^th and the UK close behind at 14^th. Finally, using the OECDs Better Lives Index, a tool identifying 11 facets essential to well-being (housing, income, jobs, community, education, environment, civic engagement, health life satisfaction, safety and work-life balance), Norway, Finland and Denmark come top and the US is far behind in 15th place.

Similarly, if we explore the rate of inflation over the last twenty years, the U.S. has averaged roughly 2.5% to 3.0% annually, marked by a period of historic stability between 2006–2020, followed by a massive 40-year peak of 9.1% under Trump in 2022 due to pandemic-era factors, and more recently, we see a volatile run back up to 4.25% due to recent energy price shocks following the Iran war.

Given this why I fail to see anything beautiful or romantic about Trump’s two presidencies, especially when you remember unemployment went to its highest during his first term at 14.7%. Now you might accuse me of being unfair given this was during the Covid lockdown, but comparatively during the same era, Japan kept unemployment to between 2.8 and 3.3%, Germany averaged 3.8% and the UK averaged 4.9%. So clearly something went badly wrong with Trump’s economic policy.

Taking the honesty test

Although a very bitter pill to swallow, it might be possible to forgive him if he was honest, but what is widely known and has been proven beyond doubt is the level of his dishonesty resulting in a criminal grand jury indicting him on one count of making “false statements and representations”. This related  specifically to hiding subpoenaed classified documents from his attorney, who was trying to return them to the government. And let’s not forget his 34 felony counts for falsifying business records in the first degree.

By now, “true defenders” will argue Trump is frequently maligned and these prosecutions should never have happened because they were either errors or, at worst, business matters with no bearing on his political acumen or integrity.

These are by far from his only dishonest actions. There are plenty more – let’s look at just a few:

1.  “Already, I’ve secured a record-breaking $18 trillion of investment into the United States.” It would have been great if it were true, but it was false.

2.  “Our country was being invaded by an army of 25 million people.” Those numbers weren’t even close to being true.

3.  “I was elected in a landslide.” Untrue.

4.  “The price of a Thanksgiving turkey was down 33% compared to Biden last year.” It wasn’t true.

5.  Trump said the Republicans’ “One Big Beautiful Bill” passed this year included, among other things, “no tax on Social Security.” Sound nice, but it wasn’t actually part of the package.

6.  “When I took office, inflation was the worst in 48 years, and some would say in the history of our country.” Trump says this all the time, but as I showed above, it was demonstrably false.

7.  “I’ve … settled eight wars in 10 months.” I get the sense he’s convinced himself this happened, but it hasn’t, no matter how many times he repeats the line.

8.  “Gasoline is now under $2.50 a gallon into much of the country. In some states, it, by the way, just hit $1.99 a gallon.” This is a weird thing to lie about, since consumers know better, but for the record, this obviously was not true.

9.  “The price of eggs is down 82% since March, and everything else is falling rapidly.” Trump would have been even more popular if this were true, but it was a lie.

1.  “I negotiated directly with the drug companies and foreign nations, which were taking advantage of our country for many decades, to slash prices on drugs and pharmaceuticals by as much as 400%, 500% and even 600%.” This whopper came  close to the top spot because of the sheer absurdity of the lie.

1  “Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote.” (There is no evidence of illegal voting.).

1  “Take a look at the Pew reports (which show voter fraud.)” (The report never mentioned voter fraud.)

1  “After being forced to apologize for its bad and inaccurate coverage of me after winning the election, the FAKE NEWS @nytimes is still lost!” (It never apologized.)

.  “I saved a lot of money on those jets, didn't I? Did I do a good job? More than $725 million on them.” (Many of the cost cuts were planned before Trump.)

I could go on, but rather than bore you, I will move on, as many journalists now argue there may be as many as 20,000 – 30,000 other lies I could have included. I am no great follower of either TV, or TV personalities, but I believe there is one celebrity called Judge Judith Sheindlin, who once said a teenager is likely lying simply if "their mouth is moving". It seems this is also true of President Trump.

Trump on the international stage

But it is on foreign policy he has failed the most. During his two terms, he has consistently miscalculated the strength or weakness of other parties, as well as often making promises he was obviously incapable of achieving. Take his much-touted promise to solve the ongoing conflict in Ukraine within 24-hours; a promise that ultimately fell completely flat. This failure, combined with repeated wavering commitments to ⁠NATO has discredited the United States as a dependable security provider and forced many European allies to reconsider their own defence postures. This became apparent when Trump called on NATO countries to support his action in Iran, only to find they all pretty much refused point blank. Or his operation to oust Venezuela's elected (albeit in a highly contentious election) ex-President Nicolas Maduro; a unilateral action to remove a national leader without any discussion with his allies.

It is unlikely they would have disagreed with the operation, but the fact he chose to move without consultation created a lot of global uncertainty, leading experts and senior diplomats to warn this unpredictable approach damaged diplomatic relations and emboldened other competitors. Essentially, his rogue action created an uncertainty where it became unclear where, or how, Trump might act in the future. Could he attack Guatemala, Cambodia or Turkey simply because their leaders came to power in unfair elections? The Maduro kidnap occurred because the US accused him of “narco-terrorism”, but could the same happen to other leaders in Ecuador, Colombis, or Mexico? Outrageous perhaps, but Trump’s foreign policy has lacked finesse and forethought leading many countries to distance themselves.

As for the relationship between the US and Russia, far from easing tensions, it has become a strained dynamic, because while Trump previously sought a close, transactional friendship with Putin to resolve global conflicts, it has shifted to frustration as Moscow’s aggressive actions in Ukraine continue and peace becomes increasingly elusive.

Equally, and just as in Ukraine, the once warm relationship between Trump and Netanyahu has deteriorated into name-calling and anger, but unlike Zelensky, Benjamin Netanyahu has no fear of an American withdrawal and appears to almost welcome to ‘go alone’ and destroy Hezbollah on his own, if necessary.

The Iran Deal

The recent agreement between the Trump administration and Iran has ripped the mask off the so-called “Best Friends Forever” relationship between Trump and Netanyahu. If we explore his history, we can see how Trump tends to favour alliances with political strongmen, often siding with them over traditional friends and allies, but only so long as they serve his personal purpose. However, the moment they outlive their usefulness, or become a personal liability, the friendship evaporates instantly.

For Netanyahu, the writing is now on the wall, and Trump has decided to fly solo while ignoring Netanyahu and the needs of the Israeli people; any fealty to Trump has run its course. The Iran deal is so profoundly detrimental to Israel that what was once a political asset - the bond with Trump—has become a liability.

As for the rest of the world, the Wall Street Journal defined it perfectly in their editorial when they argued: “President Trump is touting his latest ceasefire deal with Iran as peace in our time,” the Journal writes, “but the world is more likely to see it as a strategic retreat short of achieving his war aim.”

In fact, I must ask did he ever have any war aims, beyond destroying their nuclear capability? Sure, he told the Iranian people “help is on its way”, but it never really happened and anyway, it was primarily the Israeli Air Force who attacked and killed Ayatollah Khamenei and eliminated much of the IRGC hierarchy, while US forces concentrated on military and nuclear bases.

Much to Trump’s surprise, Iran did not capitulate – they stood their ground and fired back resulting in a financial cost (according to the Pentagon) of approximately $29 billion, though Sen. Chris Murphy argues the cost may be much higher and could be as much as $60 billion, along with the lives of 13 US military personnel.

With Republicans in Congress increasingly unhappy about the war and mid-terms due in November, Trump panicked and as we saw from the “Agreement”, pretty much capitulated on everything. Even his declaration of the terms of the agreement was hysterical, with him refusing to announce its content until the actual day of signing, while Tehran took the upper hand and were so cock-a-hoop they announced the full contents a full week earlier AND claimed victory in the war.

As Melanie Phillips the political commentator so eloquently stated in her blog:

“He has surrendered America to Iran.

He himself admitted that he stopped the war because of the threat of economic catastrophe if it continued. That was because of the oil shock caused by Iran seizing control of the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump was therefore signalling that America was powerless to defeat the regime. At a stroke, he turned the United States into a paper tiger, seen to be unwilling to do what it takes to fight a war until victory.

He thus ensured that Tehran would have the upper hand in everything that now follows in the negotiations for a final “deal.” It will be able to run rings round the Americans over the proposed “online blending” of the enriched uranium Trump once pledged to destroy, the destruction of centrifuges, disarmament verification, or anything else.”

After several military disasters over the last few years, the US needed a victory in Iran and with Trump’s “Make America Great Again” banners flying high, he looked to be the man to do it. He had everything in his favour: a strong ally with a highly trained and experienced well-equipped military, a region eager to see Iranian influence shut down, on the home front a nation angry with the Ayatollahs and eager to see justice for the Iranian people, and a powerful US military dedicated to defending democracy and freedom.

Trump should have been unbeatable – but somehow, he managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Political Comment

Unquestionably, the United States is full of people who pride themselves on their courage and loyalty; a people who are ever eager to defend the oppressed; and, to their eternal credit, a people who, quite simply, don’t like bullies. I’m not American but I can understand their pride and their patriotism – they have fought hard for it. Occasionally, there are people who superficially say all the right things, sound strong and upright, but beneath the bustle and bravado there is weakness. We have seen it in the UK – in 1939, Neville Chamberlain sucked up to Hitler so heavily, it was frightening and had Lord Halifax become prime minister instead of Winston Churchill, this post would have been written in German.

Despite the bravado and unusual delivery (albeit joyously funny, after all, his presidency will be remembered for his ability to create several new words to the language, including ‘bigly’,’ braggadocios’, ’hamburrderers’, ‘panican’, and my favourite ‘confide’). But despite the humour, let me be clear, Trump is weak and collapses when the conflict is tough. The international media have a nickname for him, calling him “TACO” Trump, an acronym standing for “Trump Always Chickens Out”. Sadly, in the last three months it’s a title he has earned:

21^st March – Trump issued a 48-hour deadline then extended it.

31^st March – He told Iran to make a deal, or US would obliterate energy plants.

1^st April – “We will bomb Iran into the Stone Age.”

5^th April – “open the f****n’ Straits, you crazy b******s or you will be living in hell”.

7^th April – “An entire civilisation will die tonight.”

21^st April – “I expect to be bombing.”

4 – 5^th May - Operation Project Freedom designed to escort ships through the Straits but lasted no more than a day when Iran fired on US military forces.

11^th June – “The US will hit very hard tonight” but cancelled the attack only hours later.

Was it any wonder Iran didn’t believe a single threat Trump made and felt justified in assuming they could go into negotiations with an upper hand.

Make no mistake, despite the “agreement” this war is not over, because Iran believe they are winning and while Trump may be too weak to continue, we all know Israel will not back down and if the US does not finish the job, Israel will do it for them.

Why Farage and his Reform Party lost the Makerfield by-election

There is an excellent argument why Reform did not win the by-election at Makerfield on 18^th June and it’s not because I have an inherent passion to see Andy Burnham the next leader of the Labour party, or because I am a closet supporter of any of the other parties. I confess, if I were to be able to vote in that election, I would vote for Burnham, but only because I would hope it would keep Farage's Reform candidate, Robert Kenyon far away from the House of Commons.

Such a vote would grieve me greatly, especially after years of virulent antisemitism within the Labour Party – an issue, I would add that seems to still be present and where there appears to be little passion by its members to resolve it.

I think it would be fair to say the parliamentary candidates in this by-election are some of the most lack-lustre we have seen for some years. 

Burnham is a talented and experienced politician and, in terms of debate has shown himself to be leaps and bounds better than the others, but he wants voters to support a party that since being elected is on a path that will leave our defences in crisis, our housing stock reduced even more and illegal immigration largely unabated. The last being one of the biggest concerns amongst UK voters.

As for the rest of the candidates, well let’s look at them, and to make it simpler, I am going to eliminate those smaller parties and independents who will most certainly lose their deposits. As for the rest, we have:

Jake Austin (Liberal Democrat) – is an experienced local councillor from Wigan but with polls showing him running at only 1%, he is one of those likely to lose his deposit. He will be hoping this will improve by election day, but I remain doubtful.

Michael Winstanley (Conservative) – Another local councillor, who one would have expected to be polling at least double numbers, but with polls showing him only reaching 3%, the Conservatives must be asking what are they doing wrong. Sadly, voters keep telling them, but they are not listening.

Sarah Wakefield (Green) – A Manchester City Councillor who has shown herself to be a competent candidate and may, in the future, prove to have a career in national politics, but with a party leader eager to divest himself of his Jewish background and a propensity to offend anyone remotely appalled by antisemitism, she is unlikely to do well. However, current polls put her at 5% so she may, at least be able to keep her deposit.

Rebecca Shepherd (Restore) – Though highly unlikely to win, with polls averaging 7%, she may prove to be a major thorn in Reform’s side and enough to split the vote and give the seat to Andy Burnham. Her party leader, 

Rupert Lowe was once a member of Reform but he was thrown out when he made false allegations of violence against Reform’s party chairman, Zia Yusuf. One of his most well-known gaffs was saying, “I won’t have woke creeps telling is we’re racist.”. Against this, he has argued how Indians and Pakistanis are taking British jobs – is he racist? I leave that to you, but the evidence is stacked heavily against him.

Robert Kenyon (Reform) – A recently elected councillor on Wigan council and a plumber by trade (If elected maybe he could pair up with Green MP and fellow plumber, Hannah Spencer and start an in-house plumbing business in the Commons). Kenyon has a warehouse full of political gaffs (more on this later), but despite this is still managing to achieve 41% (5% behind Burnham) of the vote. He stood in 2024 as a candidate in Makerfield and came second.

By any stretch of the imagination this is a pretty shoddy selection of candidates and, quite honestly, I think the only reason there has been interest in this by-elections is because of Burnham’s stated intention to force a leadership contest within the Labour party if he is elected. 

So, let’s now look at the vulgarity of Reform, its leader and its candidates.

Nigel Farage

Recently I've been taking a look at some of Farage's speeches, press conferences and news reports and I've concluded he is a man with a highly questionable background, especially regarding his attitude towards Jews.

But first, let’s look at his financial dealings - in 2024, Farage personally received £5m from Christopher Harborne (Harborne, also known as Charit Sanskrit) is a British Thai billionaire technology investor and the largest financial backer of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party. He has provided them with over £22 million in donations, including a record-breaking single donation of £9 million in 2025) and add to that tens of thousands Farage received over the years for "travel expenses" and let's not forget the £1.4m house, according to Harborne, this was bought outright for him, though Farage and later Harborne both claimed he bought it from fees for appearing on I'm a Celebrity).

All this could be forgotten, (especially when considered against a number of other MPs who take advantage of their parliamentary work to make money outside) if he did his job while in the House but, using a more recent example (there are others), during April and May this year alone, he missed 77 parliamentary votes without explaining his absence to his electorate while taking a £98, 599 salary. I should also mention that detailed analysis of legislative records indicate he has registered other frequent absences for votes.

Then, of course there is his history of antisemitic comments when he was younger. You may recall how an investigation by the Guardian newspaper disclosed how over 30 former contemporaries and teachers at Dulwich College in south London alleged that the teenage Farage engaged in racist and antisemitic behaviour. He put this all down to childhood antics and therefore irrelevant, though interestingly he refused to apologise. Additionally, in his early political career, Farage faced a backlash for his interviews with far-right US media, where he discussed supposed globalist plots, the financier George Soros, and the Bilderberg group. He denied they were antisemitic, but nonetheless, UK Jewish groups condemned these as antisemitic "dog whistles".

Finally a scour through the Campaign Against Antisemitism archives revealed  how in 2017, Farage attempted to end a controversy over remarks he made when he told LBC Radio listeners how he believed American Jews exert disproportionate political power and even appeared to agree with a claim they have financial control over American politics.

As for his supposed pro-Israel position this was killed off when a caller on another LBC programme named only as Ahmed, told Farage he thought the pro-Israeli lobby in the United States was no less dangerous than alleged Russian hacking, Farage appeared to agree, and started talking about Jews: “Well the Israeli lobby, you know, that’s a reasonable point Ahmed, because there are about six million Jewish people living in America, so as a percentage it’s quite small, but in terms of influence it’s quite big.” When Ahmed said Israel has both the Republicans and Democrats “in their pockets”, Farage responded: “Well in terms of money and influence, yep, they are a very powerful lobby”. Summarising the call, Mr Farage once again made clear he believed a “Jewish lobby” is at work on behalf of a foreign Government, and adding: “ … that there are other very powerful foreign lobbies in the United States of America, and the Jewish lobby, with its links with the Israeli Government is one of those strong voices.”

Racism, sexism and intolerance amongst Reform party candidates and officials

Given the number of Reform members with known links to Britain First, BNP and in a couple of cases Patriotic Alternative it should come as no surprise how a significant number of candidates and officials have been shown to be sexist, racist or generally intolerant. Indeed, even a cursory look at past candidates reveals  questionable characters who, normally should never have seen sight of a ballot sheet eg Jonathan Kay, Mick Greenbough, Jack Denny, Stevie Bates, Lucian Fernando, Marc Burca, Augustine Obodo, David Prior, George Martin Parnell, or John Black - and this list is only a cursory glimpse through the database. If we dig deeper, it is no surprise Tice himself admitted some of Reform's own candidates are Muppets and morons.

Other recent candidates and officials who helped expose the true racist and sexist nature of the party have also included the candidate in the Gorton and Denton by-election, who was suspended over racist and antisemitic comments; the candidate for Hill End, who made a spate of shocking comments about Jewish people, black people, Muslims and Indians; the candidate for Bury, who said the Charedi Jewish population has created a “demonic social structure” and compared it to Al Qaeda and ISIS; and the chair of Brighton and Hove, who had to stand down after antisemitic posts on X were revealed

Now, let me be clear, though I am always astonished it needs saying, I do not believe Reform UK are National Socialists. Indeed, I am on record as saying elsewhere how I concur with Prof Cas Muddle they are a Radical Right political party and NOT even far-right. But even more, if we acknowledge populism is a (thin) ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, the pure people and the corrupt elite, and which argues politics should be an expression of the volante Générale (general will) of the people, then within this we can label Reform Party Ltd a populist Radical Right party, and in this regard, I find both Farage and his party dangerous.

Of course, all the Reformers out there will now be screaming 'but we suspended most of them' or ' that's old news', but my reply is simple and from something I learned while teaching - once is an accident, twice a coincidence and three times a pattern - so what's well over one hundred? The answer is simple - the party remains steeped in Radical Right politics but influenced by far-right fellow travellers who remain in the party.

Robert Kenyon 

But probably the best example of the true nature of Reform lies in their candidate in the Makerfield by-election, Robert Kenyon, a disturbingly sexist individual who, despite daily revelations of his deep-seated disdain for women’s equality, continues to be endorsed by them, 

Let’s look at some of his comments:

On an online rugby forum, he said: “… women can’t “ref, drive or give directions,” and on the subject of women presenting rugby games on TV said: “aren’t up to the job and only there to tick a box”, adding: “I’m sexist, sorry but I am.”

He also objectified European women’s bodies, saying English women “don’t care” and “just walk around with their fat bellies and odd shapes pushing a pram at 16 in their PJ’s”.

Now, in case you aren’t clear about his position yet, let me tell you about his 2019 comments on a rugby league forum claiming women who have abortions get them for “vanity purposes” and so they can “shag anyone they want”.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, he went on to pontificate about abortion, arguing it was: “a cowardly act of murdering a defenceless baby” and then went on to suggest women falsely claim to have been raped to terminate a pregnancy.

The LGBTQ community have also been recipients of his wrath, arguing gay people are “poofs” on a 2009 forum, and later, in 2010, describing them as “mincing about” on TV and in one post on “X” wrote: “You can’t call her ‘The Queen’ anymore because it offends the poofs.”

The next year, he wrote:  “People who want to make a stand for homosexuals need not combat the throwaway comments of a sportsman on twitter, but need to do something about the way homosexuals are perceived in the mainstream media, for instance … having Julian Clarey [sic], Graham Norton, 4 poofs and a piano and Paul O’Grady mincing about on TV does a lot more damage to the reputation of homosexuals and causes greater insult in my opinion.”

In, as late as 2020, he wrote: “If LGBT just want acceptance, then stop making a big song and dance about it, attention seeking and taking over other events because that’s turning people against you”. He also called Labour the “party for tyranny’s”.

Back on the subject of his sexism, Hope Not Hate revealed in 2021 Kenyon interacted with a social media message sent to the UK TV Countdown co-host, Carol Vorderman , which read: “Happy birthday Carol, my God I would love to smell and lick your arsehole.” And when she publicly demanded an apology, he replied, “… only saying what we’re all thinking,” along with a thumbs up and a laughing emoji.

More disturbingly, the campaign organisation, Searchlight which specialises in exposing far-right activists, discovered Kenyon was friends with Gary Raike, the neo-Nazi, Hitler-loving leader of the New British Union, a successor to the old Mosley British Union of Fascists.

Political Comment

It seems to me to be extraordinarily obvious Reform is extremely dangerous and contrary to all the values that have made the UK a great nation. Their hatred of immigrants, legal or otherwise, isn’t based on a desire to protect the culture and traditions of our country, but on a fierce racism steeped in neo-fascist ideology and supported by members who, in many cases, are themselves from a far-right or neo-fascist background. Rather than wishing to rebuild Britain, they want to destroy its democracy and build intolerance and division.

Their tools are lies and denial using propaganda as its cudgel. Writing in the book, “1984”, Orwell once said, “If all others accepted the lie which the Party [or its leader] imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth.” – never has this become more true than in the writings and speeches of both Farage or Reform party officials.

Currently, they are riding on the crest of a wave – a wave that will subjugate women and virtually every minority group; a wave preaching tolerance and division – and like an infected abscess it requires lancing and eradicated. 

Thankfully the electorate gave an overwhelming vote against Kenyon and Reform giving them less than one-third of the vote, while the victor, Andy Burnham polled roughly 54% of the total vote.

Tonight has been a wonderful night for common decency and democracy

Has Ageism become the new respectable slur?

As the years go by, I am starting to realise that the older I get, the grumpier I become. So, when somebody, trying to be endearing describes me as being seventy-three years young, there is an above average chance I might rip their head off, reach in and grab their spleen and feed it to my neighbour’s Pomeranian dog. A little dramatic you might think and reluctantly, I would have to agree. However, you need to see this in context, because most people nowadays would say I am old. It’s not an unreasonable assumption. I have all the regulatory signs: I have wrinkles; there are parts of my body nowadays that ache without me doing anything; I groan and sigh just from standing up or sitting down; and, I don’t have as much hair as I did when I was in my twenties. Let’s face it, I am now what the young call a ‘boomer’ – and herein lies the problem.

For many years being a ‘boomer’ was simply an identifier to show roughly when a person was born; in other words, someone reared in the immediate post-war (and I mean the Second one, not Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq) era and probably experienced some form of rationing, rode bikes or scooters on empty streets, played “war” using a broken stick as a sten gun (we didn’t have toy guns in those days, or if we did, they barely lasted longer than a week before breaking), and when we misbehaved in school, we were caned, or had the dreaded “slipper”. For those too young to know this malicious instrument of torture (what we call today a plimsoll or a sneaker) could create such pain that when manipulated by an expert could inflict such pain on our extremities that it would sting and burn with a ferocity that it was sufficient to griddle enough burgers to supply MacDonalds for an entire day.

Unfortunately, the term ‘boomer’ has now become a term of ridicule or contempt; a means to dismiss the opinion of those who are older because, after all, we ‘oldies’ couldn’t possibly have a clue about computers, politics, living in the modern age, handling budgets, driving cars, international travel, raising kids, coping with debt, moving house, problems at work – the list is simply endless. Terms like ‘boomer’ or ‘old’ have become a part of a new respectable slur – ageism.

Of course, through the past centuries we can see how ageism has always been a thorn in our society, so there’s nothing new here. After all, it was Aristotle who said of the elderly, “… they are small-minded, because they have been humbled by life,” while an even more harsh perspective of growing old came from Juvena, who argued: “… their heads without hair, their noses drivelling. Their bread poor wretches, has to be munched by toothless gums”.

But, speaking personally, I’m a bit sick of it. I’m a bit tired of the snide jokes on social media about my age; I’m tired of being seen as an irrelevance; and I’m fed up, to the back teeth of being made to feel older people don’t count.

And you know what makes it worse? Some of those who today refer to themselves as generation Z or millennials know they are doing it, but dismiss its importance. This was typified to me in an article written in 2020 by Emma McDermott entitled ‘When did it become OK to be ageist’. Now, of course, like any politically correct writer, she emphasised how bad it was to dehumanise older people, but not before offering her readership a little titbit of her true feelings.

"I want to clarify that I am in no way trying to equate the usage of ageist slang, like ‘boomer,’ to the continued usage of racial slurs, specifically those directed toward African Americans and Black Americans, or homophobic rhetoric. To do this would be a gross underrepresentation of the environment that racist, anti-LGBTQ+, xenophobic, ableist, antisemitic, and other dehumanizing language has created for the marginalized groups on the receiving end."

Cool, but put simply, she is arguing ageism isn’t very nice, but we really shouldn’t see it in any way as offensive as all the other ‘isms’. After all being refused a job because you are ‘too old isn’t as bad as being refused it because you are a person of colour, a woman, gay or trans. Being beaten for being gay is far worse than elder abuse. I guess I must be missing something, because I always thought they were all as bad as the other.

In fairness, I think there are many who think the same way as her and see racism, sexism and homophobia as the real evils while ageism is little more than a ‘bit of a problem’ in modern society, ignoring the ageist epidemic in our language, or how estimates suggest between 500,000 and 2.7 million older adults in the UK are affected by elder abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation annually,  including an estimated 375,000 older victims of domestic abuse in England and Wales alone; or how in the United States, an estimated 1 in 8 older adults experience some form of physical abuse each year. We also know over half (52%) of job seekers over 50 feel their age puts them at a significant disadvantage when applying for jobs and this figure only gets worse as you look at older job-seekers who, despite legislation to prevent older applicants being refused interviews for work. Indeed, we know older applicants are routinely rejected at the pre-interview stage in favour of identically qualified, but obviously less experienced younger candidates.

So we come to the heart of the problem – ageism has always been  an acceptable “ism”, but with social media and the internet a dominant part of everyday life, it has become the new respectable slur where  terms like "aged" and "ageing" have become socially acceptable insults frequently delivered by middle-class liberals (although other classes and political groups are often as culpable) who would never dream of using equivalent language about other protected groups. Instead, they protect a societal double standard where ageist language and behaviour isn’t treated with the same social and professional consequences as sexist or racist language. Indeed, in our speech and writing, whether we be Americans or British, we see how it has become so riddled with prejudice that even  the most basic of phrases like "ageing institution" are frequently used as pejoratives to imply irrelevance or decline.

 

Commentary

Growing older is an inevitability for us all. We know this and though we all try to ignore its ineluctability, it will happen, as will the certainty that in all of our futures it will be preceded by years of being  dismissed, patronised, overlooked, infantilised, and ignored. We know this, the evidence abounds, yet in the last thousand years we have done nothing to address it. Indeed, if I didn’t know better I would almost believe there’s no desire to bring about change. We simply close our eyes and pretend it doesn’t exist, until the prejudice and contempt lands in our own laps – and then, when it does, we have reached an age when we don’t complain because we already feel we are a burden on our family, on medical services, or on our carers. So, we do nothing; we don’t rock the boat just in case we are seen to be a burden or a nuisance.

As for responding to those who call us ‘boomers’, ‘past it’, ‘ancient’ or out of date, again we say nothing, Why?  Because eventually we start believing it ourselves, until finally reaching a point where we don’t stand up for ourselves, we don’t argue, we just sit back, stay silent and conform to what society wants of us. We become manageable. Since the late 1970s psychologists have known about this process and refer to it as the illusory truth effect – a process where you actually accept the lies being told to you by others; you start believing your way of raising kids was wrong because the ‘new way’ is seen as better (ignoring the reality that in a further ten years that way will also be condemned). At the end of the day, it is a mechanism to emotionally, physically and intellectually strait-jacket older people to say nothing, until we eventually are so subdued  that we conform to a system that takes away everything from us , including our very identity

But we have a choice. We can resist. In 1970, Maggie Kuhn created a militant group called the Grey Panthers that fought openly against ageism in all its forms, and acted as an advocacy group fighting against elder abuse. Sadly, Ms Kuhn and her Panthers died in 1995 with her death and since then there has been no significant advocacy group internationally to fight ageism. Now, admittedly there was a lot wrong with the Panthers and, in some part, that was their failure. But, it did show older people that we may be retired, but we haven’t automatically lost our voice, unless we choose to be silent. We do not have to sit there ever day and be patronised and dismissed by a younger generation, some of whom seem to have absolutely no care about our emotional health.

The Panthers are long gone and anyway, society has changed, but that doesn’t stop us from developing our own personal manifesto for growing older. A set of rules to live by that guide me in how I want to be treated and tell those I encounter that in their dealings with me there is a line in the sand.  I have mine and it may not work for you and that’s great, but create your own to make sure that as well as looking after your physical health as you grow older, you also protect your emotional health. Do not accept the new respectable slur. Of course, sometimes I get it wrong, because I’m human .. and that’s fine, but at least it means I don’t live my life under the thumb of a despicable slur.

 

My Personal Manifesto for Growing Older.

•       Do not call me ‘honey’ or ‘sweetie’, unless I give permission – I have a name
•       Do not assume because I am old you can use my first name. Ask first;
•       I am not a ‘boomer’, I am a human being;
•       My opinions count. You do not have to agree but I expect you to listen;
•       In my life I have learned many things. I have studied very hard. I had a highly   successful career. Show respect for that learning and career;
•       Being older does not mean I am incapable;
•       Respect me and I will respect you;
•       I am more than the sum of my years – reduce me to just ‘being old’ and I will probably tear you apart.