Lucinda Newte

Fighting Motor Neurone Disease. Follower of US and European Pro golf Banking background #we stand with John Barrowman Loves dogs

[Lucinda Newte @LucindaNewte]

@rory_fans Oh, I do hope he wins, that would really cheer me up after a difficult 3 weeks 😁🤞❤️

[Lucinda Newte @LucindaNewte]

@rory_fans I’ll try and get used to them, but I prefer tighter trousers on most men 😁

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

The Leftist-Islamist Alliance United by Its Hostility to Israel

In 1975, the United Nations passed one of its more notorious resolutions, declaring that "Zionism is a form of racism". Sixteen years later it revoked it. Britain's Green Party has now dragged the slogan back from history and made it policy. By 1,022 votes to 813, members declared their party anti-Zionist, endorsed a single state throughout "historic Palestine", the right of return and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel. A British political party has adopted in 2026 a formulation the UN abandoned in 1991.

Something deeper is happening here than another argument about Gaza. We are watching the increasingly open convergence between the radical Left and Islamist politics, movements that disagree profoundly about the society they ultimately want but have found common ground in the language they use about Israel. The Left supplies colonialism, oppression, apartheid and resistance. Political Islam supplies its long hostility to Zionism and the Jewish state. Israel provides the enemy around which the two can meet.

The Green vote demonstrates where that logic leads. Criticising Netanyahu is legitimate. Condemning particular Israeli military actions is legitimate. Supporting Palestinian statehood is legitimate. But the motion goes much further. Israel is no longer merely a country whose government or policies are condemned. The political movement supporting Jewish national self-determination is branded racist, while the party advocates replacing the existing two-state framework with a single state throughout historic Palestine. Even senior Green figures opposed the motion, yet the membership passed it. The party leadership now insists it will defend both Palestinian and Jewish rights.

Then consider Ayoub Khan. When a Flydubai aircraft bound for Tel Aviv suddenly plunged 16,000 feet after its co-pilot attacked the captain, Khan's instinct was suspicion of Israel. "I think I smell a rat," he wrote, before conceding when challenged that he did not actually know what he was alleging. Since then, the United Arab Emirates prosecutor general has described what happened as a terrorist attack: the co-pilot attacked the captain with a crash axe and attempted to seize control of an aircraft carrying more than 170 people. Australian counterterrorism agencies are now investigating the suspect's links to Australia. His motive and possible affiliations remain under investigation.

That sequence matters because it reveals the method. When Israel is involved, the normal burden of proof can become inverted. Israel's guilt is suspected before the evidence arrives, while violence directed towards Israelis is filtered through an ideological vocabulary of oppression, resistance and liberation. Certainty comes first. Facts are invited along afterwards.

That is the common thread running through what I call the Leftist-Islamist alliance. I am not suggesting a headquarters, membership card or secret pact. It is an ideological convergence in which two very different political traditions have discovered that they can march beneath the same banners, repeat the same slogans and identify the same enemy.

And notice where the process ends. Zionism becomes racism. Israel becomes a colonial aberration. Its continued existence becomes negotiable. Palestinian violence acquires the language of resistance, while claims made by Israelis about violence against them are treated with reflexive suspicion.

Britain can defend innocent Palestinian civilians without excusing Hamas or surrendering Israel's right to exist. It should also be able to recognise the right of Jews to national self-determination without branding them racists for believing it.

The radical Left and political Islam may disagree about almost everything else. On Israel, they have increasingly found a common language. Britain should pay very close attention to where that language is leading.

[Lucinda Newte @LucindaNewte]

@ShefferSusanne @kevlondon4 I’m afraid her year of birth is wrong. It’s 1947 and she would have been 79 years today.

[David Shaw @David90shaw]

🚨 HERE IS WHAT LABOUR DID TO GREAT BRITAIN IN JUST ONE SINGLE WEEK

Take a look at the trail of absolute destruction Andy Burnham and his ministers inflicted on this country over the last seven days.

*Freed 700 convicted criminals onto British streets early, including violent domestic abusers and foreign offenders released into local communities on immigration bail.

*Andy Burnham confirmed on television that he could campaign to drag Britain back into the European Union, after his own aides admitted he ad libbed one third of his conference speech.

*Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy backed plans to force every household to pay a compulsory BBC levy on broadband and council tax bills, even if you do not own a television set.

*Financial Secretary James Murray imploded on live radio, unable to answer four times in a row how much his own Treasury energy policy will cost the taxpayer.

*Nature Minister Jenny Riddell Carpenter branded traditional British pubs, pints of ale, and pet black labradors a dangerous far right fantasy that never existed.

*Official figures revealed Shabana Mahmood is rubber stamping 1,100 permanent settlement applications every single working day, adding 200,000 people to welfare access in a single year.

Labour ministers do not have a clue how to run a sovereign nation.

They only know how to raise your taxes, police your online speech, empty the prisons, and surrender British borders to the rest of the world.

Retweet this immediately to make sure every voter in Britain sees the absolute carnage Labour caused in just seven days.

[Lucinda Newte @LucindaNewte]

@rory_fans Thanks, I enjoyed that

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

.@andyburnham, you say you want to be upfront with people. Then be upfront about what you have actually announced.

You have not announced a funded National Care Service ready to be introduced. You have announced an aspiration for the next Parliament, after the next General Election, with much of the detail still to be determined by Louise Casey.

Your own government says the National Care Service will be established in the next Parliament and that Baroness Casey will recommend "how and when" it is built up. The change to the triple lock that is supposed to help fund it does not even begin until April 2030.

That matters because you repeatedly link the two policies. Pensioners are being told that accepting slower growth in their state pension will enable the government to provide free personal care and build a National Care Service.

But the Institute for Fiscal Studies has already challenged that arithmetic. It says reforming the triple lock may produce substantial long-term savings, but it will not provide enough money to fund universal social care. In other words, changing the pension formula does not answer the central question: where is the rest of the money coming from?

And the sums are not trivial. The Health Foundation estimates that even a Scottish-style system of free personal care for over-65s would cost about £6.5 billion extra a year at today's prices, rising to around £7.5 billion by 2035-36. An NHS-style comprehensive universal care system would cost considerably more.

There is another distinction buried beneath the rhetoric. You talk about pensioners no longer fearing that care will wipe out everything they have worked for, and your post ends by offering them "no care charges". But what you actually promise is free personal care. Those are not the same thing.

Under the Scottish model, personal care such as washing, dressing and eating is covered, but other services can still be means-tested and people in residential care can still have to pay accommodation and living costs. The Health Foundation specifically warns that people with severe and prolonged needs can therefore still face high bills.

So what exactly does your promise mean? Will the National Care Service cover the entire cost of somebody's residential care, including accommodation? If not, what costs will remain with the individual? What will the eligibility threshold be? Will there be a cap on what anyone can pay? How much will the whole system cost when fully operational? And, above all, where will the money come from?

These are not hostile questions. They are the elementary questions that should be answered before a government announces what you describe as a reform comparable in significance to the creation of the NHS.

Labour is in government now. You say the social care system is broken now. You say it is helping to break the NHS now. Yet the flagship solution is promised for the Parliament after 2029, its precise design remains unfinished, its timetable remains dependent on a review and its stated funding mechanism does not cover the bill. Calling that a "new settlement" does not fill in the missing numbers.

By all means reform social care. By all means make the case for changing the triple lock. But first tell taxpayers and pensioners what the National Care Service will actually provide, what it will cost and how every pound of it will be paid for. Until then, you have announced the promise before producing the policy.

[Lucinda Newte @LucindaNewte]

@DaveyMac1967 @bagshaw2112 Oh yes, thanks

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

Shabana Mahmood stood before Labour conference and announced that Britain will reopen the UK Resettlement Scheme, with around a quarter of referrals expected to be Afghan women and girls and Palestinian refugees. Numbers will begin in the hundreds, then rise into the low thousands as illegal migration falls. Those admitted through the new safe routes will be placed on a five-year path towards permanent settlement.

Read that again. Labour's answer to falling illegal migration is not necessarily lower migration. The Government intends to use the space created by reducing one form of migration to expand another. The valve closes on one pipe and opens on another.

There is a humanitarian case for refugee resettlement. But Britain has spent years absorbing historically exceptional levels of migration. Net migration peaked at 944,000 in the year to March 2023. It has since fallen sharply to 171,000, which is welcome, but that does not undo the cumulative population increase or suddenly create spare homes, school places, GP appointments or council capacity.

At the end of June, 93,293 people were still receiving asylum support, including 16,021 in hotels. Both figures are falling, but the total receiving support remains more than twice the 42,651 recorded a decade ago. Against that background, why should progress in reducing pressure become the trigger for admitting more people through another route?

Then there is the question Mahmood cannot afford to duck: security. Only yesterday it was reported that a former bodyguard to Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh had been granted asylum, permanent residence and eventually British citizenship. He was arrested in London last November and now faces extradition to Germany over allegations that he helped transport weapons for a Hamas plot targeting Jewish and Israeli interests in Europe. The allegations have not been proved, but the case raises an obvious question about how effective Britain's refugee vetting has been.

That question is particularly acute for Britain's Jewish community. CST recorded 1,926 antisemitic incidents in the first six months of this year, almost twice the monthly rate immediately before Hamas's October 7 massacre. Physical assaults reached a record six-month high. The Government's own Lord Mann review has called the level of anti-Jewish racism in Britain a "national emergency".

None of that makes Palestinian refugees collectively responsible for Hamas. But a government proposing to bring refugees from territory ruled by Hamas for nearly two decades owes the British public, and British Jews in particular, clear answers about background checks, extremist affiliations and security screening. Compassion cannot require ministers to suspend caution.

Mahmood says the new system represents control. Control means more than deciding which door people use. It means deciding how many Britain can absorb, how quickly, and whether those admitted have been screened as thoroughly as national security demands.

Britain does not have to turn every fall in illegal immigration into room for more legal immigration. Ministers could bank the reduction and let the pressure fall. That is the question Labour still refuses to confront. Why must success in reducing one immigration stream become the excuse for expanding another?

Until ministers answer it, reopening one route while promising to close another does not solve Britain's immigration problem. It rearranges it.

"A former bodyguard to Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh faces extradition to Germany over allegations that he helped transport weapons for a Hamas plot targeting Jewish and Israeli interests in Europe."

[Flower Pot @FlowerP79667758]

I think we are becoming very aware of the deceit, or many of us are. It is almost blatant unless they are truly completely and utterly incompetent. You have Burnham who is weak and only interested in being one of the lads as opposed to a leader. Wes Streeting who loves the sound of his own voice, but actually does nothing. Ed Miliband is dangerous and quite possibly insane. Angela Raynor is like the disruptive kid in the classroom that no one can control. Healey has had so many jobs he starts reminiscing about 1930’s socialism and coal mines. The Home Secretary looks tough, sounds tough but capitulates to all back benchers AKA representatives the voluntary sector. All in all a complete shambles, no ideas, no strategy, no plan just ideas out of the little red book.

[Lucinda Newte @LucindaNewte]

@WilliamShatner Oh, Pooh! I live in Reading, Berkshire, England 😥

[RORY FANS @rory_fans]

Back to back.

2027 🔜watch this space

[Lucinda Newte @LucindaNewte]

@JustinRose99 @BMWPGA @JJSpaun I love that course so much, and always look forward to seeing all you top guys every year. Sadly, my legs let me down, and I couldn’t get there for the first time in many years. Glad you enjoyed it, and congrats to JJ Spaun. Hope it helped him forget about the Presidents Cup👏👏

[Lucinda Newte @LucindaNewte]

@rory_fans So disappointing, would have won easily with just 4 more putts going in

[Lucinda Newte @LucindaNewte]

@rory_fans Needs another eagle

[Lucinda Newte @LucindaNewte]

@rory_fans Elvira still has a lot of holes to play

[Lucinda Newte @LucindaNewte]

@rory_fans He could still do this 🙏

[Lucinda Newte @LucindaNewte]

@rory_fans No!!!!

[Lucinda Newte @LucindaNewte]

@rory_fans 🙏🙏🙏🤞🤞🤞

[Lucinda Newte @LucindaNewte]

@rory_fans Thank you too