Zoe Farrow

No DMs please

[South Area - Bromley MPS @MPSBromley]

#MISSING | Have you seen Frankie, 15? Last seen in Bromley on 27/07/2026. Last seen wearing grey tracksuit bottoms, pink sliders and a grey top, carrying a black Nike rucksack. If you see her, please call 101, quoting 4297/27JUL

[Sedd @SeddSezz]

Air Miles Andy is picking up speed.

Just days after taking a 38-minute flight to No10 North in Manchester, he’s only gone and used a jet for a 37-minute trip back to London to meet Zelensky.

No10 North is a joke!

How many air miles will the cretin rack up by the end of his tenure?

[Anne @Anniepop2027]

Errr just watching @BBCPanorama Burnham is absolutely awful. Honestly @LBC @bbclaurak and that was Laura K softballing it

[Heather @HeatherJLpals]

#newsnight - Re apprenticeships, this is exactly what Keir Starmer was planning to do. He has long been saying apprenticeships are valuable, so why is @AndyBurnham trying to take the credit for this.

[Hugh 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 @HughEdw31897368]

What a bore Burnham is, totally uninspiring. Kuenssberg is going through the motions but she doesn’t want to push too hard otherwise she’ll lose access. It’s got all the hallmarks of her cosy relationship with Johnson.

#panorama

[Tulip Siddiq @TulipSiddiq]

It’s been extremely frustrating to see so many competent people unceremoniously sacked from government. This latest list showing sacked PPS’ makes me despair in particular because PPS-ing is not a glamorous job and so many of these MPs just got on with it, put in the hours and would have been an asset to any Labour government. Not to mention that the first black woman ever to be PPS to a Prime Minister was removed. (Happy to be corrected if she wasn’t the first but my point stands either way)

[Imogen @Imogenlemon02]

The Labour Party seems to think that I resigned my membership due to policy reasons. Well that’s what they claim in an email to me.

For the record, I left due to the lack of scrutiny of Burnham and lack of party democracy.

Stratospheric level of denial @UKLabour @andyburnham

[Zoe Farrow @zozofarrow]

@Imogenlemon02 @UKLabour @andyburnham How long did intake to get a reply? I resigned my membership weeks ago and I still haven't had confirmation that it's been done......maybe they are particularly busy right now. 🤔

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

Yet you chose not to trust the views of the grassroots or the wider Labour Party membership. Instead, the decision rested solely with the Parliamentary Labour Party.

The PLP has put itself in this position and must therefore accept the consequences. If the Party is not united, it should come as no surprise. Around 400 Labour MPs do not, by themselves, represent the Labour Party. The Party is made up of hundreds of thousands of members whose voices deserve to be heard, particularly when it comes to choosing their leader.

This Prime Minister has not been elected by Labour MPs, nor by the Labour Party membership, nor by the British electorate in a general election.

[Graham Lambert 💙 @100glitterstars]

I'm actually embarrassed on behalf of all those Labour MP's who were treated with respect by Starmer, who were trusted to do the right thing for the country, and who were enabled to make decisions, now having to grin sheepishly at Burnhams jokes, be a bit silly and mumble 'hope'.

[Jennifer Stewart @JenniferJS_]

Some profile images of a handful of serious leaders in the world today and yes, I still count @Keir_Starmer as one of them.

Then there's the one who uses a cartoon to represent himself. Freudian, I'd say.

[TallyCat 🇬🇧 🐈‍⬛ *Never Burnham* @TallyCat8]

@dantomlinsonmp How long had No10 North been in the planning? Some really bad stories starting to come out. It just makes Labour look worse and worse. As for making the Queen of the Coup Deputy PM, words fail me.
Labour has gone to the dogs.
How gutting for members and ex members.

[Binky @TheOnlyGuru]

May be me being awful, but I’m sick of the sight of him.

Self-congratulatory prat.

[Ted Smith 🇪🇺 @TedUrchin]

The anger towards @andyburnham seems to increasing rather than abating.
I think his ‘blitzkreig’ on various social media platforms is backfiring rather.
What do you think?
Overkill?

[Jacqui Pritchard 🇺🇦 Rejoin EU, SM&CU. #FBPE 💙 @jacquip537]

@wesstreeting @andyburnham @AndyBurnham is a joke!We have, thanks to you and the likes of @JohnHealey_MP harmed this country beyond belief. @UKLabour has made the biggest mistake in modern British history, apart from Brexit! Burnham can't even string two "um" sentences together!He is out of his depth!

[Deuxvingarian @deuxvingarian]

"Loves Manchester" but lives in Cheshire. Many such cases!

[Darren of Plymouth @DarrenPlymouth]

Andy Burnham must be the least self aware leader the UK has ever had.

He is obscenely self entitled, a liar, and will become the most hated leader of all.

Not a single vote.

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

Healey Must Now Answer the Question He Once Asked

John Healey now finds himself in a position where words are no longer enough.

Before becoming Chancellor, he was one of the strongest voices arguing that the United Kingdom needed a firm commitment to increasing defence spending. He made the case that Britain should commit to 3% of GDP, with the longer term objective of meeting NATO's agreed ambition of 3.5% of GDP by 2035.

Today, he controls the nation's finances.

That means he is no longer simply advocating policy. He is responsible for funding it.

The issue has become even more significant following Defence Secretary Wes Streeting's latest appearance on BBC Breakfast.

For the second time in the space of a week, Wes Streeting was asked directly whether the Government remained committed to increasing defence spending, and for the second time he failed to give a clear answer.

Instead of confirming the Government's position, he chose to avoid the question.

That should concern everyone.

Britain's Armed Forces cannot plan on political ambiguity. Our defence industry cannot invest on political ambiguity. Our NATO allies cannot rely upon political ambiguity.

They need certainty.

If John Healey believed that 3% of GDP was essential before entering the Treasury, followed by the NATO ambition of 3.5% by 2035, then there should be no difficulty in reaffirming those commitments today.

Instead, we have now witnessed two interviews in one week in which the Government has declined to provide that reassurance.

That naturally raises an obvious question.

Has Government policy changed?

If it has, ministers should explain why.

If it has not, why are they repeatedly refusing to confirm it?

John Healey's intervention during Labour's leadership crisis carried enormous political weight. He argued that Britain's defence could not wait and that stronger commitments were essential.

Now he occupies one of the highest offices of State.

The responsibility is no longer someone else's.

It is his.

The Chancellor must now tell the country whether he still stands by the commitments he previously demanded, and the Defence Secretary should stop avoiding a straightforward question.

This is not about political point scoring.

It is about national security.

The Armed Forces deserve certainty.

Defence manufacturers deserve certainty.

Britain's allies deserve certainty.

And the British public deserve ministers who answer direct questions with direct answers.

After two opportunities in a week, Wes Streeting has failed to do so.

It is now time for John Healey to make the Government's position absolutely clear.

[Gordon Fielden @GordonFielden]

No. 10 North: New Evidence Raises Further Questions

Further information has now emerged that raises an entirely new set of questions about the creation of No. 10 North.

The most significant concerns the accommodation itself.

It has now been suggested that No. 10 North is not occupying the existing office space used by GCHQ within Heron House, but a completely separate suite that had previously been available for commercial occupation. If that proves to be correct, the implications are considerably different from those first understood.

A separate office suite is not simply opened by unlocking the door. Occupation would ordinarily require legal agreements, security assessments, secure communications, IT infrastructure, furniture, access control systems, branding, staffing and operational planning. Each of those stages creates an administrative trail.

That naturally leads to a further question.

When did that work actually begin?

We also now know that Andy Burnham publicly announced his intention to establish No. 10 North on 29 June 2026, more than three weeks before entering Downing Street.

There is nothing unusual about a political leader setting out proposals before taking office.

The important distinction is between a political proposal and an authorised government project.

At what point did officials receive instructions to begin preparing the premises?

Who authorised those instructions?

Which department accepted responsibility for implementing them?

If the office required a new lease or occupation agreement, when was that negotiated?

If secure communications had to be installed, when was that work commissioned?

If furniture, branding, access systems and staffing had to be arranged, when were those decisions taken?

These are not political questions.

They are administrative questions, and each should have a documentary answer.

Some responses to our original article have gone further, suggesting that the circumstances could amount to a breach of the Ministerial Code.

We are not making that allegation.

Whether the Ministerial Code is engaged depends upon facts that are not presently in the public domain. Until those facts are established, it would be wrong to draw that conclusion.

However, the fact that such questions are now being asked demonstrates precisely why greater transparency is required.

This investigation is no longer simply about a building in Manchester.

It is about the machinery of government itself.

If officials began preparing No. 10 North before 20 July, under whose authority did they do so?

If they began only after 20 July, how was such a complex project delivered in just four days?

Either explanation should be supported by documents.

The Government could resolve these questions immediately by publishing the administrative chronology.

Not political statements.

Not carefully crafted press releases.

The paperwork.

The lease.

The instructions.

The approvals.

The expenditure.

The implementation timetable.

Public confidence is strengthened by openness, not diminished by it.

The documentary record exists.

If the Government has nothing to hide, it should have nothing to fear from publishing it.

Only then can the facts speak for themselves.

[Anne @Anniepop2027]

I’m sorry but this is ridiculous by Wes Streeting on @lewis_goodall @LBC

“He’s entered with optimism and positivity”

Yes because Starmer handed him a good inheritance unlike what Starmer inherited from the Tories.

Honestly the naivety and Lewis’s failure to ask is shocking