Rjm

[Count Binface @CountBinface]

Under a Binface government, anyone who doesn’t accept human-made climate change as fact will be sent back to school, from Year 1 right the way to A Levels, to see if anything goes in the second time round. #VoteBinface

[Rjm @RichMcCulloch]

@Marielsosao_ 🏴‍☠️🤑

[Rjm @RichMcCulloch]

@RmSalih I agree! I think the UK should take Ireland as well, seeing as it’s so close

[Rjm @RichMcCulloch]

We need to get the spider cam more involved in the game #ENGARG

[Rjm @RichMcCulloch]

@dai_alectic Yey, 1 point for the British empire 🇬🇧

[Rjm @RichMcCulloch]

@ELFrancoDeLFuT Glad to see he got over it #engarg #argeng

[Rjm @RichMcCulloch]

@TheEllarhk @RobHarris I reckon @CountBinface would have had it rescinded #NORENG

[Count Binface @CountBinface]

Labour, Tories, Lib Dems and Greens: I demand you stand down in Clacton. I will be a unity candidate and pledge to build at least one affordable house.

Nigel Farage says he wants The People versus the Establishment. So be it.

Leave him to me.

[Oscar Patel, Apparently @HendrickD82]

He still doesn't get that it wasn't about Balogun.

Nobody cares about Balogun. He's bang average.

It was about the sport. A sport that this world cup has already tarnished with "Powerade hydration breaks" and will continue to tarnish with a pedophile presenting the trophy.

It was about the rules of the game. Things crafted over decades. Being thrown away because the aforementioned pedophile threatened the President of FIFA and forced them to

A) Make a completely unprecedented decision.

B) Lie to cover it up.

C) Force the rest of the world to listen to and read the dumbest takes imaginable. As well as laughable bullshit about section 27, VAR not being applied properly, "bang bang plays" and all manner of stupidity from a bunch of people who won't watch another game until 2030, or in some cases until we are all unfortunate enough to have to suffer through another World Cup held in America.

[Rjm @RichMcCulloch]

Can you spot the summer of 1976?

[Sam @SamCKx]

I think it's fair to say that immigration is an issue across the political spectrum, but one that is less comfortable to admit for those who see themselves as centrist, left leaning, liberal. But most people simply don't understand the mechanics of the UK's immigration issue and why a country like the UK can't simply deport people, despite the claims of parties like Restore and Reform.

Before Brexit, immigration to the UK was a mix of returning Brits, EU and non-EU. Non-EU was broadly students, those with work visas, those with family in the UK and investors & entrepreneurs.

The small boat migrants that everyone protests today were almost non-existent. There was no motivation for them to travel to the UK due to the EU Dublin Regulation, which would've meant they would be immediately sent back to whichever EU country they travelled from, so most likely France, rather than processed as asylum seekers under International Law.

Post-Brexit, we are not part of the EU Dublin Regulation. We cannot legally send someone back to France or another EU nation if that's where they travelled from on their last leg to the UK. No one thought that through when they were promising the UK a post-Brexit utopia.

Smallboat migration went from around 300 a year, to as high as 46,000 a year. 100% because of Brexit. This is irrefutable for the naysayers, so don't even bother.

Now the UK has a very difficult problem to solve. People have been convinced that small boat migration is the most harmful thing to the British way of life. Incredible levels of hate and division have been created; protests, riots, accusing sitting PMs of being responsible for r*pists, murderers & p**dophiles whilst the politicians and their backers who caused all this are now saying they are the only ones who can solve it.

Under the United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951 and the European Convention on Human Rights (which the UK remains a part of), we have no choice but to process migrants claiming aslyum, as of the day we left the EU. This is a lengthily process, which carries cost for each applicant. The costs aren't as high as many say, and it is a drop in the ocean compared to how much the UK economy has lost due to Brexit, which is the most ironic part of it all.

I do think Britain should have a right to decide who can live here. I think it's sensible to expect people to work, to have clean criminal records, expect them to speak English - although that's a double standard when you consider how many Brits go abroad and never make the same effort.

But blaming a government, a PM, for an issue created by the very party who attack them; an issue that is fundamentally incredibly difficult to solve due to international law, is disingenous.

The solutions are tough:

1) We rejoin the EU
2) We convince the EU, no doubt at great cost, to have a returns policy for asylum seakers
3) We remove ourselves from international human rights agreements we were central in establishing and have honoured for decades - but even then we would need somewhere to either retain or send certain categories of people, many of whom are genuinely in need, do not have ID etc - this could become incredibly long-winded, costly, almost impossible to administer. You can't simply send an undocumented migrant to a random country.

These solutions have not been thought through, much like Brexit itself. We need adults in the room to work together on solutions.

Less misinformation, less division, sensible, thought through negotiations and policy.

[Alex Taylor @AlexTaylorNews]

What on 𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒉 is Trump talking about ?

Brexit quadrupled UK immigration. Starmer cut it from 944 K in March 23 to 171 K - an 𝟖𝟐% 𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐩

And as for "drill baby, drill" the UK will be hotter than ever this week

STOP LYING TO PEOPLE AND SORT OUT THE WAR YOU JUST LOST

[Ben 🇬🇧 @BenInRushcliffe]

All this in two years. @Keir_Starmer.

Feel free to share.

[Jay 🐺 @jay_wwfc07]

Let's be incredible clear here, the entire reason that Starmer is resigning is because people like Farage, Lowe, Robinson and co have convinced the lesser minded of the country that he was doing an awful job.

Anyone who can research can see he really wasn't...

[Sam @SamCKx]

The replies to this post have put absolutely beyond doubt that the hatred for Keir Starmer is 99% based on misinformation. Just read through them, people spouting the same misinformation they have been repeatedly fed over the last year or so, disproven countless times, but still believed and amplified by so many. This is how easy it is to brainwash millions of people if you have the resources. This is how societies are destroyed.

[Sam @SamCKx]

The first major wave of online misinformation resulted in Brexit, a decision that the majority of economists regard as the most damaging economic choice Britain has made in modern times, making millions of working families poorer.

Now it appears a second wave may succeed in forcing out a democratically elected Prime Minister who in a short timeframe has a track record of delivering policy designed to help millions of working families. Not a perfect man, but certainly one of the better PMs of the last 30 years or so.

A wave of gross & obvious misinformation, spread and amplified by foreign-owned social media platforms, in a deliberate campaign designed to indoctrinate UK citizens, may have toppled a British Prime Minister.

We are going down a very dark path here.

[Sam @SamCKx]

A democratically elected British Prime Minister has been driven from office by a relentless campaign of propaganda and misinformation; funded, amplified and perpetuated by foreign billionaires and elites whose interests bear zero resemblance to those of ordinary working people.

A noble gesture from an emotional Keir Starmer, entirely consistent with his conduct in office.

A truly sad day for British democracy.

His full resignation speech:

[Sam @SamCKx]

If Keir Starmer does resign, history will look back on his reign and scratch its head as to why the hell he was so hated.

On paper, he's probably delivered more to working British people in such a short time than any PM for decades.

After inheriting an absolute mess: NHS waiting lists fallen. Worker's rights improved. Rail operators nationalised. Improved relations with EU and improved UK's global reputation. Removed non-dom tax status. Halved childcare costs. Boosted state pensions. Lowest homicide rate in 50 years. Lifted 550k children out of poverty. Immigration vastly reduced.

We are in the age of billionaire funded misinformation, whose sole purpose is to topple democratically elected leaders, and insert leadership that favours the wealthy elites over the working people. Looks like the game plan is working...

[Sam @SamCKx]

The issue isn't Starmer, per se, it's the fact that we all now know, whoever is PM, unless it's some far right leader with friendly tax policies for the ultra wealthy, they will be met by a barage of misinformation and relentless online attacks: accusations they support p**dophiles & r*pists, that they jail 12,000 innocent people every year for tweeting; and all the usual misleading, manipulative BS designed to exploit people's emotions.

This won't stop until they have installed the party they want. A party that will be focussed purely on optimising the affairs of its wealthy backers, and not on the working people and families of Britain.

[Damian Low @DamianLow3]

Seeing some of the embarrassingly hateful reactions to Starmer's resignation today, I thought it was worth resharing this.

The level of personal hostility directed at Keir Starmer deserves scrutiny in its own right. Not because he should be immune from criticism, but because the tone and intensity of the attacks tell us something unhealthy about the state of democratic politics.

Starmer is a conventional political figure. Cautious, legalistic, incremental. He frustrates people precisely because he is managerial rather than messianic. Yet the reaction to him often goes far beyond disagreement, tipping into visceral hatred more commonly reserved for authoritarians or demagogues.

Much of this hostility is disconnected from concrete policy. It is not about specific votes, proposals or outcomes, but about projection. A belief that Starmer embodies betrayal, bad faith or hidden malice. That kind of politics runs on suspicion rather than evidence.

This matters because democracy depends on the assumption of good faith among opponents. You can think a leader is wrong, timid, or misguided without believing they are fundamentally illegitimate. Once politics becomes moralised to the point of demonisation, compromise is reframed as treachery and pluralism as weakness.

The pattern is familiar. In fragmented, polarised systems, anger concentrates not on extremists, whose intentions are clear, but on moderates, who disappoint maximalists on all sides. The centre becomes the lightning rod precisely because it resists totalising narratives.

There is also a media and online dynamic at work. Incentives reward outrage, not proportionality. Algorithms favour contempt over analysis. Over time, this creates a political culture in which relentless personal attack feels normal, even virtuous, rather than disgusting.

None of this is a defence of Starmer’s decisions, instincts or record. Those should be argued over robustly as you do in a democracy. The problem is the substitution of critique with hostility and the quiet erosion of democratic norms that follows when political opponents are treated as enemies rather than rivals.

A democracy cannot function if every election is framed as an existential struggle against internal evil. At some point, the target may change, but the damage to trust, restraint and culture remains.