Kate.Pardoe 🇪🇺🇬🇧🇵🇹

#StillEuropean [email protected]

[Kate.Pardoe 🇪🇺🇬🇧🇵🇹 @KatePardoe]

“We will need to believe in something bigger than ourselves and our little island. It is inevitable. It may not happen quickly but I am deeply hopeful that we will.” https://t.co/T3gkba5HUO

[Chris Murphy 🟧 @ChrisMurphyCT]

If this deal with Iran is real, I will welcome it because every day this insane war goes on, America gets weaker. The priority is to end the war - now.

But make no mistake: these are Iran’s terms. Our nation emerges humiliated.

1/ A 🧵 on what we know about the deal right now.

[Led By Donkeys @ByDonkeys]

Nobody has done more to undermine British values than Nigel Farage.

[NEXTA @nexta_tv]

⚡️ BREAKING: US halts Ukraine peace talks

“We were the only ones both Russians and Ukrainians were willing to talk to. So we got involved. Unfortunately, it didn’t yield results. That’s the point,” — said Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Rubio added that Washington will return to negotiations only if the dynamics change, and noted: “If someone else wants to take this on — please, be my guest.”

[Ben Judah @b_judah]

No let’s keep looking at the evidence @afneil.

▶️ This OBR graphic shows by the quarter 🇬🇧 GDP growth rate relative to our G7 peers over time. What we see is a decline of the 🇬🇧 from towards the upper bound of the G7 closer to the 🇺🇸 to the bottom of the pack.

▶️ What did this translate to? The 🇬🇧 was fastest growing G7 economy in 2014 and second fastest in 2015 after 🇺🇸. By 2023 and 2024 we had slumped to sixth and fourth place respectively. Brexit pushed us downwards to 🇫🇷🇩🇪 growth rates.

▶️ What’s behind this? Labour orthodoxy often misses the immediate pre-2016 growth rate: though there was much wrong with austerity post-recession Cameron and Osborne had set the 🇬🇧 on a strong, closer to 1990s level growth, that what came afterwards. This was of course well documented in @spectator at the time.

▶️ Why is Brexit a core reason for 🇬🇧 decline to bottom of the pack? Let’s go back to @GoldmanSachs and @nberpubs on the damage by 2025 for the key points.

1️⃣ “Investment was reduced by between 12% and 18%”

2️⃣ “Employment by 3% to 4% and productivity by 3% to 4%”

3️⃣ “UK goods trade has underperformed other advanced economies by around 15% since the Leave vote”

We can keep dig deeper — this matters.

[Peter Frankopan @peterfrankopan]

I've written about it on another platform - free to read here
https://t.co/19E647TH0a

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

Robert, what you are presenting is not fact, it is a narrative constructed from selective briefings and your own interpretation, and it risks misleading people about where the real balance of opinion lies.

You omit a crucial point from the outset. Andy Burnham is not assured of winning that seat. In fact, it is far more fragile than is being suggested. This is not a safe Labour constituency by any stretch. It sits in an area that delivered some of the strongest support for Brexit in the country, and where recent local elections showed significant momentum for Reform. Opening that seat for a by election is not a routine decision, it is a high risk political gamble.

Reform will target it aggressively, and the Greens will also see an opportunity. This would not be a contained Labour exercise, it would become a multi front contest in a constituency already shifting away from the party. Nigel Farage and his organisation will not miss the opportunity to frame it as a defining moment, and if that seat is lost, they will present it as proof that they, not Labour, understand those voters.

There is also the question of the sitting MP. There is no compelling reason for that seat to be vacated beyond facilitating a leadership manoeuvre. Voters will see that for what it is, and many will resent being treated as a staging ground for internal ambition. They will not take kindly to being used as guinea pigs in a Westminster exercise designed to promote an individual.

At the same time, you fail to address the most important factor of all. If any leadership contest were to take place, it is decided by the members of the Labour Party. Not by commentators, not by briefings, and not by the Westminster echo chamber. And those members are not passive observers. Across the country, they are deeply frustrated, in many cases livid, at the conduct of parliamentarians in this episode. The constant positioning, the public undermining, and the sense of a party turning in on itself rather than delivering on its mandate has not gone unnoticed.

Nor is this confined to members. The wider electorate who voted Labour are watching this closely, and many are saying quite openly that if Starmer is forced out, they will not vote Labour again. That is not an isolated murmur, it is becoming a visible and growing warning. If the party ignores it, the consequences could be severe. No matter who replaces him, Labour risks following the same road as the Conservatives, declining from a party of government into a diminished force in British politics.

There is no groundswell of support among members for Andy Burnham in the way your piece implies. Members know his record. They remember previous leadership contests and the outcomes of those campaigns. There is caution, even scepticism, about presenting him as the inevitable successor, and from what can be seen on the ground, support for him is far from assured. He may well find that the backing being assumed in commentary does not translate into votes when it comes to it.

You also overlook the broader reality. There is no settled consensus around alternative leadership. Different names carry different liabilities, and none are guaranteed to command either party unity or public support. The idea of a smooth transition is far more uncertain than your column suggests.

Under the party’s rules, Keir Starmer remains leader with a clear mandate. The influence of other actors is not what it once was, and to present his departure as inevitable is to move from reporting into assumption.

What is being described as a foregone conclusion is anything but. The reality is more complex, far less certain, and far more dangerous than your analysis suggests. If this course continues, it will not simply damage Starmer. It will damage Labour itself, fracture its support, and open the door to Reform in a way that may prove catastrophic for the country.

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

Robert, what you are presenting is not fact, it is a narrative constructed from selective briefings and your own interpretation, and it risks misleading people about where the real balance of opinion lies.

You omit a crucial point from the outset. Andy Burnham is not assured of winning that seat. In fact, it is far more fragile than is being suggested. This is not a safe Labour constituency by any stretch. It sits in an area that delivered some of the strongest support for Brexit in the country, and where recent local elections showed significant momentum for Reform. Opening that seat for a by election is not a routine decision, it is a high risk political gamble.

Reform will target it aggressively, and the Greens will also see an opportunity. This would not be a contained Labour exercise, it would become a multi front contest in a constituency already shifting away from the party. Nigel Farage and his organisation will not miss the opportunity to frame it as a defining moment, and if that seat is lost, they will present it as proof that they, not Labour, understand those voters.

There is also the question of the sitting MP. There is no compelling reason for that seat to be vacated beyond facilitating a leadership manoeuvre. Voters will see that for what it is, and many will resent being treated as a staging ground for internal ambition. They will not take kindly to being used as guinea pigs in a Westminster exercise designed to promote an individual.

At the same time, you fail to address the most important factor of all. If any leadership contest were to take place, it is decided by the members of the Labour Party. Not by commentators, not by briefings, and not by the Westminster echo chamber. And those members are not passive observers. Across the country, they are deeply frustrated, in many cases livid, at the conduct of parliamentarians in this episode. The constant positioning, the public undermining, and the sense of a party turning in on itself rather than delivering on its mandate has not gone unnoticed.

Nor is this confined to members. The wider electorate who voted Labour are watching this closely, and many are saying quite openly that if Starmer is forced out, they will not vote Labour again. That is not an isolated murmur, it is becoming a visible and growing warning. If the party ignores it, the consequences could be severe. No matter who replaces him, Labour risks following the same road as the Conservatives, declining from a party of government into a diminished force in British politics.

There is no groundswell of support among members for Andy Burnham in the way your piece implies. Members know his record. They remember previous leadership contests and the outcomes of those campaigns. There is caution, even scepticism, about presenting him as the inevitable successor, and from what can be seen on the ground, support for him is far from assured. He may well find that the backing being assumed in commentary does not translate into votes when it comes to it.

You also overlook the broader reality. There is no settled consensus around alternative leadership. Different names carry different liabilities, and none are guaranteed to command either party unity or public support. The idea of a smooth transition is far more uncertain than your column suggests.

Under the party’s rules, Keir Starmer remains leader with a clear mandate. The influence of other actors is not what it once was, and to present his departure as inevitable is to move from reporting into assumption.

What is being described as a foregone conclusion is anything but. The reality is more complex, far less certain, and far more dangerous than your analysis suggests. If this course continues, it will not simply damage Starmer. It will damage Labour itself, fracture its support, and open the door to Reform in a way that may prove catastrophic for the country.

[ALASTAIR CAMPBELL @campbellclaret]

Whatever complaints MPs have about Keir Starmer, they are now descending into the kind of headless chickenry that - whatever and whoever the outcome - will make the situation even worse for Labour. If there is a grand plan starring Catherine West and a few PPSs, then it doesn’t feel terribly thought through. A period of calm would do none of them any harm. The general election is a fair way off. The next legislative programme is about to be unveiled. There are better ways to reach such an important decision and better times too. You are MPs not commentators who exist to feed a frenzy.

[Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez @AOC]

This statement changes nothing.

The President has threatened a genocide against the Iranian people, and is continuing to leverage that threat.

He has launched a massive war of enormous risk and of catastrophic consequence without reason, rationale, nor Congressional authorization - which is as clear a violation of the Constitution as any. Each day this goes on, the risk and criminality of these actions escalate for our nation and the world.

Moreover, this administration’s self enrichment, insider trading, and pure corruption off this chaos - from crypto currencies to predictive trading markets to bribe “settlements” - has placed the Trump administration’s pursuit of personal wealth squarely against the wellbeing of our nation and its people.

All of these incidents, and plenty more, have clearly driven our country past the threshold for impeachment or invocation of the 25th amendment.

We cannot risk the world nor the wellbeing of our nation any longer. None of these considerations should be partisan, but shared in good faith by Americans of all backgrounds who care for the safety and stability of the United States.

Whether by his Cabinet or Congress, the President must be removed from office. We are playing with the brink.

[Jvnior @Jvnior]

🚨🇵🇸 Journalists in northern Gaza address the world directly: “The israeli law to hang Palestinians to their death is worse than Nazis.”

If you see this video, please repost for awareness.

[Carrie Coon @carriecoon]

Anne Applebaum nails it:

[Jennifer Stewart @JenniferJS_]

Without a doubt this is Keir Starmer's finest hour, and I'm sure there'll be many more.

Who cares about his critics? Their empty narratives, bereft of any truth, have become old, tired and boring.

[Dave Keating @DaveKeating]

New data shows #Brexit has lowered UK GDP by 6-8% over the past decade. Investment down 12-18%, employment down 3-4%.

It's even worse than economists had predicted pre-referendum, because they thought there would be a bounce-back long term.

"Economists were roughly right on the magnitude of the impact, but wrong on the timing. The consensus pre‑referendum forecast of a 4% long‑run GDP loss turned out to be close to the actual loss after five years, but too optimistic about the longer run."
https://t.co/nFR2VlYJFq

[CNN Portugal @cnnportugal]

Miguel Sousa Tavares afirma também que André Ventura "falhou na tentativa de desmobilizar os eleitores e adiar as eleições" e diz que os portugueses transformaram um "dia cinzento num dia claro".

Veja aqui.

#eleições #presidenciais2026 #AntónioJoséSeguro #AndréVentura

[Francisco Pereira Coutinho @fpcoutinho78]

The populist wave failed to become a tsunami but, paradoxically, ushered in the election of a socialist president at the Portuguese left’s lowest point. It’s hard not to expect political turmoil ahead.

[Niall Stanage @NiallStanage]

British TV anchor @KamaliMelbourne of Sky News with a moving, personal response to Trump’s posting of the racist clip of the Obamas.

I know Kamali just a little. I’m proud of him for saying this — and sad we’re in a moment when he has to.

[POLITICOEurope @POLITICOEurope]

To stop the explosive growth of the ultranationalist Chega party, Portugal’s leading conservatives are doing the previously unthinkable: Endorsing the center-left candidate for president.
https://t.co/7odiMJ1mR4

[Luke Charters MP @lukejcr]

Reform have no answers.

Ask them how they’ll rebuild the NHS.
Ask them how they’ll lower bills.
Ask them how they’ll build homes.

You’ll only hear slogans, blame, and outrage, because they have nothing else. They are simply:

Turquoise Tories.

[Tax Foundation @TaxFoundation]

President Trump’s tariffs amount to an average tax increase per US household of $1,300 in 2026.

[Jessica Simor KC @JMPSimor]

Looks like the U.S. is now panicking that Trump’s antics on Greenland have jeopardised the EU:US trade agreement!

The EU is much stronger than we think & would be even stronger with the U.K. For our own & the global good we must rejoin urgently.

@Keir_Starmer @YvetteCooperMP