Tall

[Andrew Lawrence @andrewlawrence]

Liberal Democrats in Oxfordshire want to give you a two year prison sentence for raising the English flag. Doesn't seem very liberal or democratic to me.

[Kelvin MacKenzie @kelvmackenzie]

I presume the record 700 migrants who arrived the other day were whisked straight off to the Question Time studio.
BBC are making thousands of redundant and should include QT chair Fiona Bruce and production staff who quite wrongly secretly organised the planting of asylum seekers in the audience.

[Steven Barrett @SBarrettBar]

This is vote rigging.

[Skipster @FarRightSkip]

They want to ban the flag that is draped over the coffins of the fallen soldiers who died defending their freedom.

I couldn't despise Oxfordshire Council more if I tried. I also don't care who is offended by our flags. Don't like them? Then leave.

[Ramon Agusta @ramonagusta]

Good idea... this will free off tens of thousands of properties in big cities... but they need to watch for impact upon private sector rentals which will see demand rise and £ go up. Need to start with the ones being deported first i.e. the ones not fiscally positive to prevent this happening.

@reformparty_uk

[Chris Rose @ArchRose90]

A lot of Greens and LibDems will be voting tactically for Andy Burnham.

The right should be smart and vote for Rob Kenyon.

The only candidate who can stop PM Andy Burnham and Chancellor Ed Miliband.

Vote Reform.

[Camilla Tominey @CamillaTominey]

Revealed: the Green plot against Zack Polanski. And, surprise, surprise - it allegedly involves Mothin Ali lobbying for the party to be... wait for it... less Zionist. Wake up, people. https://t.co/dziDrmsWzh

[Jen k 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @Jenny_1884]

Is anyone else feeling like this isn’t the same country you grew up in & loved?

Everything has changed & it’s not the same anymore.

It’s so sad to see this country gradually being eroded by the very people who grew up in it themselves.

God save the UK 🇬🇧

[Jen k 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @Jenny_1884]

The fact Boris Johnson was easily removed because of apparently eating a piece of cake & Keir Starmer is still PM just shows that politics is just one long theatre show & none of it’s real.

We are the audience watching a bunch of amateurs pretending they run this country when actually they haven’t got a clue.

They are being paid extortionate amounts of money for actually doing nothing.

The Uni-Party has destroyed this country from within.

[Mark N @Cold8957]

Holy fucking crap!
How many times can one person blink in thirty seconds when they are lying on national television?

[John Longworth @john4brexit]

Liberal anti democrats are a threat to national security. What people in their right minds would prefer to give up self determination & subjugate themselves- unless you are bankrupt of ideas & incapable of leadership

[Martin Knight @MartinKnight_]

Why is Ursula Van de Layden at the G7? She is not a country leader.

[Gareth Roberts @OldRoberts953]

But the BBC has always taken such care to assure that the audience are a fair representation of public opinion, ranging all the way from Maoist to Maoist

https://t.co/R78i6eTXVv

[Concerned Citizen @BGatesIsaPyscho]

“Where is Keir, where is Keir”

“We’ll just start without him”

The UK PM remains completely and utterly irrelevant at the G7.

[John Longworth @john4brexit]

There we are then

[Suffragent @Suffragent_]

Keir Starmer vows to ‘carry on with what he was elected to do’ - except NOBODY voted for mass surveillance and online censorship. 🇬🇧

[John Longworth @john4brexit]

I voted Remain in 2016. The last 10 years have made me a convinced Brexiteer -
Remainers’ frothing inarticulacy and failed doomsday predictions have pushed me towards the Leave camp https://t.co/4RxM24EOvL

[Stuey Beef 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @stuey_beef]

Listen carefully to the choreography: the EU proposes an “innocent” youth mobility agreement; Labour ministers brief they’re “open” to closer ties; then leaks emerge that Brussels is making everything else – agrifood access, SPS, even defence – conditional on the numbers the UK will allow in.

That is textbook leverage: lock in EU citizens’ rights to live, work and study in Britain first, then haggle over what – if anything – the UK gets later.

Yet the same government that can’t articulate clear EU priorities, hasn’t set benchmarks, and has made almost no tangible progress beyond Erasmus is now poised to sign what could become de facto, long‑term preferential migration routes for EU nationals.

If Starmer had a strong mandate, a coherent strategy and a record of hard‑nosed negotiation, that might be defensible; instead we have a PM battered by local losses, warned by analysts his EU policy is peripheral and vague, trying to buy a “success story” abroad to distract from failure at home.

[Anglo Futurism Capital LP 🇬🇧🐿️ @RollingHedge]

Liz Kendall is another classic example of the career politician conveyor belt that dominates modern UK politics.

- Born 1971
- School
- History at Cambridge (ok, not PPE this is the best of her CV in my view)
- Think tank / policy roles (IPPR on health/early years/child development, researcher at King’s Fund)
- Special adviser (to Harriet Harman at Social Security, then Patricia Hewitt at Trade & Industry and Health)
- Charity / sector roles (Director of Maternity Alliance, Ambulance Services Network) because around half Labour MPs have to come from public advocacy positions - because, reasons
- MP for Leicester West (2010–present)
- Shadow ministerial roles (Health/Care under Miliband - lol, later Social Care and Work & Pensions under Starmer)
- 2015 Labour leadership candidate (Blairite lane, came DEAD LAST with ~4.5%)
- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2024–2025)
- Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (2025–present)

She has spent her entire adult life in the public sector, think tanks, charities, special adviser gigs, and politics with zero experience in the private sector, technology companies, engineering, computer science, startups, scaling businesses, or anything resembling building or commercialising actual technology/innovation. That she is now the government appointed minister for technology is absolutely mental but also entirely predictable.

Her background is overwhelmingly in health policy, social care, maternity, welfare reform, and early years - perfectly respectable areas I guess - but entirely unrelated to leading on AI, emerging tech, digital infrastructure, R&D strategy, or innovation policy for a G7 economy. Probably the last type of person you’d want as minister for technology at this crucial time as we pivot into the AI/automation age.

She has openly described herself as “a historian” rather than an engineer or computer scientist, and admitted she does not use AI in her professional work as the minister responsible for it (only personally for minor tasks). She’s doesn’t even use the tech! It’s just all so stupid.

This is precisely why critics argue she is (and many like her are) unfit for the role.

The Science, Innovation and Technology brief demands domain understanding of fast-moving, high-stakes technical fields critical to national security, productivity, and growth. Instead, we get another generalist reshuffled through the Fabian/public-policy/NGO carousel - floating between departments with 1-3 years per brief before being moved on, selected for political loyalty and ideological alignment over proven competence or real-world results in the sector they oversee.

The UK’s chronic productivity stagnation, brain drain, and struggles in tech/innovation aren’t mysterious to me or anyone with functioning grey matter. When the system systematically promotes people with no skin in the game of markets, risk, or delivery in the actual economy - and insulates them from feedback loops that punish failure - this is the predictable outcome. Liz Kendall’s career path is textbook evidence of the problem.

See many others - including my best mate Dan Tomlinson in HMT 🤣

[Stuey Beef 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @stuey_beef]

The most revealing line isn’t in the BBC’s statement; it’s in Imix’s own debrief.

They say the Dover Question Time was a chance to “test some of our messaging directly” and that the contributors they supplied “helped shape the framing of the entire programme”.

Think about what that means: a supposedly neutral public broadcaster allowing a self‑described “narrative change” organisation to run experiments on its audience – live – measuring how far they can push the Overton window on small‑boats migration.

Imix’s CEO even wrote proudly that this was “a win on three levels”: getting their chosen voices on air, testing lines about the “real impact” of reducing migration, and shaping how the programme framed the whole issue.

At no point were viewers told that what they were watching was not just debate but the output of a deliberate messaging strategy designed, funded and executed by activists who openly oppose tougher border controls.

The BBC insists it merely invited “people with lived experience”. It forgot to mention that those people were being carefully selected, briefed and supported by a lobby group treating Question Time like a focus group with cameras.

Once a broadcaster lets campaign strategists use its flagship political programme as an A/B testing ground for talking points, it stops being a platform for public scrutiny and becomes part of the campaign.