Graham Stuart MP

Conservative Member of Parliament for Beverley and Holderness 2005-
UK Minster of Energy 2022-2024
Promoted by Graham Stuart of 9 Cross St, Beverley HU17 9AX

[David Reed MP @DavidReedMP]

Labour tells the British public to stock up on tinned food and wind-up radios to prepare for cyberattacks.

Yet after the devastating attack on JLR, estimated to have cost up to £2.1 BILLION, the Government still hasn’t publicly named those responsible.

How can Britain deter hostile states if we won’t name those attacking us?

The British public deserve answers.

https://t.co/YBpTbG7Fih

[Andrew Griffith MP @griffitha]

I predicted the Chancellor's Budget would try to use loopholes in his fiscal rules to spend even more taxpayers money.

We are walking along a fiscal cliff edge. Sooner or later a Chancellor has to get a grip on the public finances.

Doesn't sound like it's going to be this one.
🧵(see below)

[Liam Halligan @LiamHalligan]

The UK government has, since April, spent no less than £61 billion - that’s £61,000,000,000 - on debt interest payments.

That’s equivalent to our entire annual defence budget - on just half a year’s worth of debt service costs, not paying back a penny of our national debt.

For £61bn you could build 40 state-of-the-art hospitals.

Or employ 100,000 nurses for a decade

Or fund free-at-the-point-of-use social care, across the entire UK, for three years.

Watch this short “When The Facts Change” video for more on the UK’s soaring debt interest bill - the biggest national scandal our mainstream media continues to ignore.

[Dr Caroline Johnson MP @drcarolinej]

I'm hosting a Solar Action Summit with @grahamstuart on Monday 26 October in Parliament.

[Andrew Bowie MP @AndrewBowie_MP]

Every barrel of oil the UK exports to Europe is one less barrel they would buy from Russia.

Revenue. Security. Common sense. Approve Rosebank now.

[Matt Vickers MP @Matt_VickersMP]

🚨 Labour claimed teachers’ pay rises were “fully funded”.

Now headteachers warn they could have to cut SEND support staff to foot the bill.

Children with special educational needs should NEVER pay the price for Labour’s broken promises.

[Andrew Bowie MP @AndrewBowie_MP]

Today's announcement to approve Jackdaw didn't just happen.

It followed huge pressure from the @Conservatives and the public to get Britain drilling.

And we're only just getting started.

[Kevin Hollinrake MP @kevinhollinrake]

Increased vote share in all 3! 💙💙💙

[Tom Tugendhat @TomTugendhat]

President Putin is a murderer.
His soldiers use rape as a weapon.
He has launched wars costing thousands of lives.
His agents have stolen children and destroyed families.
Russia today is what President Reagan correctly called it: the evil empire.

[Victoria Atkins @VictoriaAtkins]

Thanks @SophyRidgeSky for getting your viewers’ take on this important issue – it seems it’s common sense!

If you agree that prime agricultural land should be protected from solar factories, please show your support by signing here 👉 https://t.co/UP2gqxQ6Gp

[Victoria Atkins @VictoriaAtkins]

If you agree farmers who want to grow food shouldn’t be forced to install solar panels on prime farmland, please sign the link below to back my bill in Parliament 👇

✅ https://t.co/UP2gqxQ6Gp

[Liam Halligan @LiamHalligan]

Official figures out this morning report that last month, the UK government borrowed £24.5 billion.

But the fineprint shows that almost £11 billion of that extra borrowing went on debt interest payments.

That's more than £400 per household on debt service costs, in September alone.

So far during this financial year, from April to September, the government's debt interest payments amount to £61 billion.

Now, this number will barely feature in UK newspapers and across our airwaves. It may be mentioned in passing in out-of-the-way business sections, or on the odd business bulletin.

But this huge debt interest bill won't register with the vast majority of our political and media class, or impact the national debate.

Let me explain why that's so wrong and so dangerous ...

£61 billion is a massive amount of money.

It's equivalent to the UK's entire annual defence budget – the money we're paying, increasingly to foreign creditors, simply to service our national debt for six months, not to pay any of it back.

£61 billion is equivalent to the money you'd raise over a year from adding a whopping 7 pence to the basic rate of income tax.

For £61 billion, you could build around 40 large, state-of-the-art hospitals, or employ more than 100 thousand extra nurses for ten years.

£61 billion would pay for free-at-the-point of use social care for everyone who needs it in the UK, for an entire year – three times over.

Again, this is the debt interest bill on Britain's spiralling national debt – now more than 3 trillion pounds – over the last six months alone.

The UK's public finances are close to meltdown – yet so many MPs and journalists continue blithely to view ever more public spending and borrowing as the answer to every problem.

Those who highlight the dangers post by our hugely precarious national accounts are dismissed as cranks, ideologues or worse.

But basic arithmetic has no ideology.

And there is nothing "progressive" or "kind" or "right-on" about driving the UK ever closer to the fiscal cliff edge, provoking a crisis that will make the "austerity" years of the 2010s feel like a picnic, a crisis in which poorer households will suffer the most.

Yes, Britain's national debt is lower than that of France. But because our borrowing has been rising so sharply, and because we're so prone to inflation, our debt service costs are much higher.

The UK is spending a disgraceful 3.6pc of GDP on public debt interest, while France spends less than 2.5pc.

Endless airtime and column inches are devoted to spurious conversations about a billion or two of additional "fiscal headroom" we may or may not have in three years' time.

And, of course, any "extra headroom" is immediately pledged in new spending – which means yet more borrowing.

These conversations are a waste of time – and, in fact, are deeply counterproductive. Three-year fiscal forecasts, even one- and two-year forecasts, routinely turn out to be askew by tens of billions of pounds.

I'm not saying we don't need fiscal rules - we do, but we need more immediate rules, which actually bite, acting as a meaningful constraint on out-of-control borrowing and spending.

Instead, political and media sages present the nation with spuriously precise discussions about fictional fiscal outcomes way into the future – using rules which are deliberately designed to kick arithmetic realities into the long grass ....

An increasingly expensive, over-bearing, out of control state is not the answer to Britain problems.

But unless we change course, it will certainly be our downfall.

Please like/share if you think what I'm saying is important – and if fiscal realities should feature more prominently in our national debate.

And for more sharp, plain-speaking economic analysis subscribe to:

"When The Facts Change - economic and politics in a fast-moving world, with Liam Halligan"

[Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch]

Finally. Labour spent 2 years faffing about to make a decision which Conservatives had already approved 2 years ago.

If they’d done this in the summer we’d have had that gas heating British homes this Christmas.

An unnecessary waste of time and money by a party that puts its own interest above the country’s.

[Rep. Mike Levin @RepMikeLevin]

We suspected this was the reason Ukraine’s access to Starshield was restricted. But to see it from senior officials in this reporting is still utterly unconscionable.

Let’s be absolutely clear about what this means. The Trump Administration deliberately restricted technology Ukraine relies on to intercept Russian drones and ballistic missiles. It made it harder for Ukraine to defend itself and easier for Russia to carry out its deadly attacks against Ukrainian civilians.

They knew exactly what was at stake. They knew that more Russian drones and missiles would get through, allowing Russia to kill even more Ukrainians. And yet they went ahead anyway.

This is a deliberate weaking of Ukraine’s defenses that only Russia will benefit from. It is a betrayal of our ally that this Administration cannot wash its hands of.

The American people deserve to know who made this decision, why they made it, and how they can possibly justify putting more innocent Ukrainian lives in the crosshairs of Putin’s war machine.
https://t.co/y0iYN9QNPP

[Andrew Griffith MP @griffitha]

🚨 Labour are determined to destroy the millions of family businesses across the UK.

Most are small businesses that, like farms, are already being crushed.

As Chancellor, I would back our family businesses.

We Conservatives will scrap Labour’s Family Business Death Tax.

[Nicholas Shakespeare @dolphinsands]

Max Hastings on fire. "The US has fallen into the hands of the most dishonest and venal leader in its history."
https://t.co/DpUt7UzItz

[Graham Stuart MP @grahamstuart]

Trump is eroding the basic principles of a free society.

[Barack Obama @BarackObama]

It is a basic principle of American democracy that the government can’t selectively target individuals simply because of their political beliefs or what they say. But that’s exactly what the Trump Administration is doing to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.

To understand why this is so appalling, it’s important to know the facts. Congresswoman Omar came to this country with her father when she was 12 years old. Five years later, her father became a naturalized citizen. If Ilhan had been 18 at the time, she would have had to apply for citizenship separately. But because she was 17, she became a naturalized citizen automatically.

Congresswoman Omar went on to graduate from college, work as a community organizer, become the first Somali-American legislator elected to public office in the U.S., and win a seat in Congress. There, she has been one of the Trump Administration’s fiercest critics, which has led the president to repeatedly single her out as someone who he believes does not belong in this country.

Now the Administration is actively trying to deport Congresswoman Omar, seemingly based solely on the unsubstantiated theory that she was actually 18 when her father was naturalized, and therefore is not a citizen. Federal agents have raided her home, confiscated personal records, and seized her phone — all to try and uncover a nonexistent smoking gun from 20 years ago that will somehow make their case.

Think about that. The full weight of the federal government is being brought down on a law-abiding elected official because she has dared to criticize the president. And it’s not the first time this has happened. Under President Trump, the Justice Department has repeatedly gone after those he considers his political enemies — from the Attorney General of New York, to the former head of the FBI, to members of the Federal Reserve.

In those cases, the prosecutions either stalled or were dismissed for having no basis in law, and the same is likely to happen in this case. But not before Congresswoman Omar’s life has been turned upside down, her legal bills have piled up, and she’s been forced to spend time fighting unsubstantiated charges instead of serving the people of Minnesota.

The fact that any president, or any administration, is willing to engage in such transparent efforts to intimidate someone should outrage all Americans, regardless of how they feel about Congresswoman Omar’s political views. Because if this becomes the new normal, there’s no reason to believe it will stop with her — or that future presidents, in either party, won’t do the same.

[Daniel Hannan @DanielJHannan]

“There is no longer any point in discussing Trump’s motives. Is he still sore about the Hunter Biden laptop business? Is he mesmerized by Putin, as by so many autocrats? Does the Kremlin, as conspiracy theorists allege, have kompromat on him? Who cares? Whether or not he is a Russian asset, he is plainly an asset to Russia.”
https://t.co/30q7VZbZnX

[Aubrey Allegretti @breeallegretti]

Much punchier accusations from Sir Malcolm Rifkind - a former defence and foreign secretary:

"I choose my words very carefully. I think this week Donald Trump has shown himself as a person to be repulsive; as a President of the United States to be a disgrace to his own people as well as to his international responsibilities.

"We all know his actual reasons for this are a grubby attempt to win a few more votes in the midterms by trying to get oil prices down.

"In order to achieve that, he has not only betrayed Ukraine in the middle of a war, fighting for its very existence, but he is also directly - not indirectly - directly responsible for the deaths of many Ukrainians who will not now be protected by the attempts that have been successfully made using intelligence provided indirectly by the United States."

https://t.co/AxaE8imd6A

[Denys Shtilierman @DenShtilierman]

The Daily Mail has published an article by Boris Johnson entitled ‘Putin has a plan for Ukraine – a hideous and genocidal one. We’re all disgusted at Trump’s betrayal, but what is Europe’s plan to end this terrible war?’. And it very accurately raises the question not only of yet another blow dealt by the Trump administration to Ukraine, but also of the fact that Europe has still not formulated its own plan to end the war. This is a very telling article, given that Johnson once supported Trump and sincerely believed that he would be on the side of good.

Johnson begins with the story of Starshield. According to him, during yet another Russian attack, Ukrainian interceptor drones suddenly lost the ability to function properly due to restrictions imposed on the military version of Starlink. The decision to impose these technical restrictions was taken in the US without warning Ukraine.

“The Ukrainians had indeed been betrayed. It was the White House that had ordered a technical change to the operation of the Starshield system, a military version of Elon Musk’s Starlink, so that the interceptor drones became suddenly useless.”

“We feel a sense of dizziness, as though the team captain of the free world has suddenly been caught playing for the other side.”

The US effectively interfered with Ukraine’s defence efforts at a time when Russia was continuing to strike at Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

“Someone acting in the service of the President of the USA decided wilfully to sabotage the defences of a free, democratic and blameless people.”

Johnson links the reason to the diesel controversy. The US started a war with Iran, the Strait of Hormuz was blocked, oil prices soared, and the Trump administration decided to shift the blame onto Ukraine for the strikes on Russian oil refineries.

“So his brilliant diversionary strategy is to find a new culprit for the diesel price spike. He blames the Ukrainians, for attacking Putin’s oil refineries. Which is utterly ridiculous.”

Johnson points out that the Ukrainian campaign against Russian oil refining has been successful and has indeed made it more difficult for Russia to export fuel. However, the sharp rise in global prices was caused not by Ukrainian strikes, but by the US war with Iran.

“It wasn’t Zelenskyy whose rash and ill-thought-out military action led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.”

On the contrary, Ukraine is doing exactly what the West has been demanding for the past four years: cutting into Russia’s energy revenues and striking at one of the main sources of funding for the war.

Separately, Johnson refers to the Lindsey Graham Sanctions Act, which grants Trump vast powers to put pressure on buyers of Russian energy resources.

“If he were actually to use this Bill as intended, and cut off Putin’s main source of income, then he could help to bring the Russian tyrant swiftly to the table and get the war over.”

But Trump has done the opposite:

“So as things stand, the US government is not only willing to sabotage Ukraine’s defences, it is actually proposing to fund the Russian bombs.”

“Why it is that this US President is so bewilderingly weak towards Putin”

Johnson mentions possible compromising information and potential future business deals between Trump’s inner circle and Russia, but admits he has no answer. For him, something else is more important: Ukraine is critically dependent on American communications, intelligence and technology, and therefore Europe must urgently compensate for the risks created by Washington.

But the main problem is not Trump, but Europe itself. According to Johnson’s conclusion, the West has still not done enough to put pressure on Putin: Russian assets have not been confiscated, Russian gas continues to be purchased, and, most importantly, the US, the UK, France and Germany have still not defined what the end of the war should look like.

“We haven’t done enough to put pressure on Putin; we haven’t unfrozen his assets; Europeans still buy large quantities of Russian gas.”

“Neither side of the Atlantic – no one in Washington, London, Paris or Berlin – has been remotely clear enough about the terms on which Ukraine needs to finish the war.”

“The Ukrainians have fought heroically and they are winning. Putin’s losses are unsustainable – 50,000 last month. He cannot recruit replacements fast enough.”

But Putin, according to Johnson, will continue the war until he receives an absolutely unequivocal signal from the West that the subjugation of Ukraine is impossible.

“Ukraine must and will be free, and that Ukrainian freedom will be guaranteed within the western security architecture, and that means NATO.”

Johnson poses a very simple question:

“Putin hasn’t heard that message, or not for years – not even from this country. Why not? What are we afraid of?”

His proposal is also simple: to transfer Russia’s frozen assets to Ukraine, to provide all the necessary technology, and to finally define Ukraine’s place within the Western security system.

“The greatest thing we can give – the thing that will actually bring peace – is clarity about their future.”

“I can understand the hysteria and disgust about the Trump-Putin deal. But disgust is not a plan.”

“Putin has a plan for Ukraine, a hideous and genocidal plan. What is the western plan?”