Pope Leo urged Putin to allow a ceasefire in Oleshky so aid could reach civilians. Putin agreed to cooperate on aid, but didn’t confirm a truce. Witkoff later called him a “humanitarian”. Now the White House says Melania Trump, the President’s wife, brokered a local ceasefire. The US Foreign Service has 14,152 employees—so what was her role? And given how difficult her public remarks can be to follow, how did she negotiate something this delicate? Meanwhile, Russian attacks across 12 Ukrainian regions killed eight people and injured 67 in the past 24 hours. “Humanitarian” hardly describes a leader whose forces keep bombing the rest of Ukraine.

Beth Rigby, "All of the people in the Makerfield focus group voted to Leave the EU. When Burnham said it at conference I thought: Brexit betrayal. Those Leave voting parts of the country won't like this." "But you ask those people and they don't seem to mind (closer ties with the EU" Brexiter 1, "I voted to leave.. Much younger then.. Didn't understand it.. Dad told me to vote for Leave.. It's harder now.. Maybe it would be better if we went back" Brexiter 2, "Everything seemed better when we were in Europe, it just did" Brexiter 3, "I think we were over-promised things.. I think we would be much better as part of an EU.. Than on our own" Brexiter 4 says she would vote the same way because she thinks we would have to adopt the Euro - currently six EU countries do not use the Euro My view: The Makerfield focus group tells you how much the Brexit argument has changed. These were all Leave voters. Now one says she didn’t understand what she was voting for; others say life in the EU felt better, that they were promised too much, and that Britain might be better off as a member again. That doesn’t mean every one of them would vote to rejoin. It does show that the old assumption—that Leave voters would always reject closer ties with Europe—is wearing thin. Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage helped persuade people that Brexit would deliver easy gains, without being honest about the trade-offs or what leaving would mean in practice. The euro objection shows how those scare stories still shape the debate. - Six EU countries currently don’t use the euro and the UK had an opt-out when it was a member. What this shows is the need for clear information, not deception, half-truths and outright lies, shaping the conversation. Because when people are given clear accurate facts, the majority of them do not buy into populist rhetoric, so much of which is based on hate and division.

2021: Boris Johnson, "The old concept of fighting big tank battles on European land mass, are over" 2026: Sky News, "Tank barrels will be produced in the UK for the first time in 20 years.. The return of large calibre weapons manufacturing comes at a time of growing security concerns to this country" My view: Boris-let-the-bodies-pile-high-Johnson didn’t just get the future of warfare wrong. He dismissed and laughed off a serious warning from Tobias Ellwood who warned about tank warfare in Europe. Russia had already used tanks in its 2014 invasion of Ukraine and the fighting in Donbas. By November 2021, as Russian forces threatened Ukraine again, Johnson was telling Parliament that “the old concepts of fighting big tank battles on the European landmass” were over. Three months later, Russian tanks crossed the border in a full-scale invasion. Now Britain is rebuilding its ability to make large-calibre gun barrels after a 20-year gap, as security fears grow. Johnson’s arrogance was breathtaking; his judgment was wrong. When an MP warned that Britain needed to take conventional war seriously, the Prime Minister brushed him off and pointed instead to cyber and future combat aircraft. Ukraine showed that modern warfare can involve drones and cyber attacks and tanks, artillery and huge battles of attrition. The lesson is not that every future war will look the same. It is that leaders should not confuse a changing battlefield with the disappearance of old threats. Boris Johnson, the disgraced former Prime Minister, cut the UK's tank fleet by 35%. Britain is now paying to rebuild capabilities his government allowed to wither.

Left: Keir Starmer campaigned with WASPI women, and then rejected the recommendation to compensate them when PM Right: Andy Burnham campaigned to end fossil fuels, but then opened up Jackdraw for gas extraction when he became PM What is is about Labour Prime Ministers who say one thing in opposition, and do the opposite when in government? When Conservative Prime Ministers did this, Labour voters would call them out. But when Labour Prime Ministers are doing this, the same Labour supporters find excuses not to call them out. - Surely integrity means we apply the same standard to whoever is in office? After 14 years of Conservative chaos, is it too much to hope for a bit more integrity from Labour?

Hi @andyburnham even Irvine Welsh is calling out Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper's policy which has now seen over 3,600 arrested for non violent protest Like Baron Hain I've never supported the group, and like @IrvineWelsh I had only really heard of them when your predecessors decided to proscribe them. "They've broadened the definition of terrorism to the extent that it's absolute nonsense.. It's made young people feel: this country, what is it actually about" "1% of their activities involved breaking into places where people manufacture weapons of mass destruction" "You've got trespass and criminal damage, you don't need to proscribe them as terrorists, it's crazy" "They're not terrorists. Terrorists are people that bomb people and blow people up, they're not people who break into missle manufacturers to stop people bombing people and blowing people up" Andy Burnham, this is a moment for leadership. You have the power to challenge a policy that has led to thousands of arrests for peaceful protest. If you stay silent and let it continue, you won’t just inherit this record, it will become part of your legacy, as it's Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper's legacy. Will you act, or leave others to defend the civil liberties Labour once stood for?

BBC News report that "President Trump must give evidence in an interview under oath by the end of the year, as part of his $10 billion defamation case against the BBC" My view: Donald Trump is used to demanding answers from others. Now a judge has ordered him to answer questions himself, under oath, in the $10 billion lawsuit he brought against the BBC. Trump must sit for a deposition by 11 December. It is a formal questioning by the BBC’s lawyers, not a public interview. He had already cancelled an agreed date, and the judge warned that failing to comply could lead to sanctions, including dismissal of his case. The case concerns a Panorama edit of Trump’s 6 January 2021 speech. The BBC has admitted the edit was wrong and apologised, but that does not automatically prove defamation or justify the $10 billion Trump is seeking. The court has not decided the case. Trump chose to sue. Now he must provide evidence for his claims and explain under oath what harm he says he suffered.

On #BBCQT Wes Streeting lists all the ways that Russia is a threat to the UK, except social media, where they interefered in the Brexit referendum, and continue to stoke division on Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and elsewhere. A Defence Secretary who talks about national resilience should understand that our democracy and social cohesion are targets too. You cannot warn Britain about Russian threats while ignoring the online platforms where those threats reach millions of people. Streeting needs to explain how the Government intends to confront that part of the threat, not just list the hardware and hostile activity that are easier to point to.

Gent in blue asks if our defence spending will go to 'lining Donald Trump's pocket by buying American kit' and aiding and abetting his illegal war in Iran" Gent in pink, "With Trump becoming increasingly unreliable, hostile, should we be looking for another special relationship?" My view: We should not be asking British taxpayers to fund another war, or let a defence spending increase become a blank cheque for American arms companies while Donald Trump drags the US into an illegal war in Iran. And we have to be honest about what kind of partner the US under Trump has become. Ukraine relied on Starlink to communicate and defend itself. Its access was restricted amid pressure from Washington, with serious consequences on the battlefield. If an ally can place another ally’s essential communications at risk for political leverage, why should Britain assume it would never do the same to us? The “special relationship” cannot survive on nostalgia. With Trump increasingly hostile and unreliable, Britain should deepen its defence ties with Europe and Canada, and build the capacity to protect our own interests. The question is no longer whether the US is an important ally. It is whether we can keep treating it as our only dependable defence partner. We may need the EU and Canada more than we have been willing to admit.

Lady in maroon, "Wouldn't it be better joining Europe again, and having a joint defence with Europe?" My view: Closer defence ties with Europe make sense because our security is tied to the security of the continent we live on. Britain should be working with its neighbours on shared threats, joint procurement, intelligence, military readiness and the ability to act together when danger arises. The US will remain an important ally, but Trump has shown how quickly Washington can turn cooperation into uncertainty and pressure. Britain cannot build its security strategy around the assumption that every future American president will be reliable. A stronger European defence partnership would give us more capacity, more options and a greater say over our own security. It means making sure Britain and Europe can defend themselves together if the US chooses not to stand with us; just as the US shut down access to Starlink for our ally Ukraine. The “special relationship” should never be a substitute for dependable partnerships with our closest neighbours.

Fiona Bruce, "You're not keen on Trump or NATO in the Greens" Ellie Chowns, "No, the Green Party's policy is to work as part of NATO" "The nuclear bit should be separated off, we shouldn't have nuclear weapons, in the same way we outlaw biological and chemical weapons" "But co-operating with our allies, especially our closest European neighbours should be a key part of facing the threats" "We face threats from Russia" "And we also face threats that have increased by the really unstable actions of Donald Trump, launching another illegal war in the middle east" "We see it in fuel prices and energy prices" My view: Ellie Chowns makes the case for a more serious, broader idea of defence: working with allies through NATO, deepening cooperation with our closest European neighbours, and protecting the country from threats that reach beyond the battlefield. Russia is a clear security threat. So is the instability created when Donald Trump launches an illegal war in the Middle East, with the consequences felt in fuel and energy prices. Britain needs allies it can rely on, and Europe is central to that. Chowns also makes an important point about resilience. Covid showed how a health emergency can disrupt the whole country; climate change threatens infrastructure, food supplies and energy security. Preparing for those risks is part of protecting the nation too. Her view on nuclear weapons will be contested. But the wider argument is hard to dismiss: defence means cooperating with allies and making Britain more resilient—not simply spending more on weapons.

Stephanie Flanders, "This entire global economic landscape that we have taken for granted over the last few years is just being picked apart" "Businesses could organise elaborate supply chains that we could take advantage of. The internet could develop and we never thought about the undersea cables. Gov could reduce defence spending and spend more on health" "All of these things are having to be rethought" "Green Party's Ellie Chowns is right, this isn't just about raising defence spending, it's about all of us facing a more expensive world" "Businesses needing an alternative to the Hormuz strait" "Britain needing an alternative to the US as an ally" Well said @MyStephanomics My view: The cheap, frictionless world we got used to depended on a remarkable amount of stability, and on risks staying out of sight. Now those risks are arriving as higher prices, disrupted trade and uncertainty over who we can rely on. Resilience will cost money. That means difficult choices about energy, infrastructure, defence and public services. But the cost of having no backup can be far greater when a vital route closes or a supposedly dependable partner changes course. Britain needs more options: stronger links with Europe and Canada, more secure energy and supply chains, and the ability to protect critical infrastructure. The goal should be to make shocks less able to hold the country to ransom.

Lady with red hair accuses Wes Streeting of scare-mongering and pushing people to panic buy at shops As Wes Streeting outlines the need to stockpile three days of food, water, energy My view: Wes Streeting’s record as health secretary was a disaster. He promised to fix a broken NHS, but when he left office, millions were still waiting for treatment and the service had missed important targets for A&E, cancer care and ambulance response. One target improved, but that doesn’t make the wider record a success. - That record is fair game for criticism. But advising people to keep a few essentials at home is practical common sense, not a reason to panic. The guidance is for a three-day supply in case services are disrupted: food, water, essential medicines, a torch, a radio and a way to charge a phone. Nobody is being told to clear the shelves or build a bunker. Buy what you need gradually, follow the advice calmly, and leave supplies available for everyone else. In our age of uncertainty being a little prepared isn't such a bad idea.

Gent in classes has a proper rant against Andy Burnham's Labour's decision to approve Jackdraw saying, "I think it climate vandalism, a surrender to t he fossil fuel giants" He then slams Jim Ratcliffe who closed down factories in the UK and has invested instead in drilling in the Gulf of Mexico He then slams the argument that it will help with our energy security pointing out that renewables are the way to protect our nation's energy security My view: That is the contradiction at the heart of Burnham’s decision: asking Britain to accept more fossil fuel extraction in the name of security, while the country remains exposed to global gas prices and the climate damage that comes with burning it. Jackdaw is no shield against another international price shock. Even at peak output, it is expected to supply only around 4% of Britain’s daily gas demand, and it will not bring household bills down. It gives the fossil fuel industry another project; it does not give Britain control over the price of gas. And when Jim Ratcliffe is closing British factories while investing in offshore drilling, we should ask whose interests this model of “energy security” really serves. The durable answer is to reduce our exposure to fossil fuels: build renewables, storage and grid capacity here at home. The sun and wind do not have to pass through a strait, depend on a foreign government, or arrive with a global price tag.

Ellie Chowns addresses domestic gas e.g. from Jackdraw vs imported gas #BBCQT "Jackdraw has created more gas circulating in the world's economy that will be burned, so it will increase climate change" "On the emissions of British gas being lower, that's not true" "Norwegian gas produces lower emissions because they don't do flaring" "And if you take into account emissions created by the burning of this stuff, even American produced gas is basically the same environmental damage as we produce" My view: The question is not whether one source of gas is marginally less polluting than another. It is whether expanding fossil fuel production is compatible with cutting emissions. If we want lasting energy security, we need to reduce our dependence on gas by building renewables, storage and the grid—not keep approving new fields and calling them green.

Lady in dungarees raises the important question about why we haven't created a solution for the energy created by wind turbines, which have to switched off because we don't have the capacity to store the energy produced. My view: The latest full-year figures from Britain’s grid operator show that 13% of the wind power that could have been generated in 2024/25 was stopped because we could not store it. That is an extraordinary waste when households are paying for energy and the government says we need more supply. Storage could help capture surplus wind and release it when demand is higher, reducing the need to rely on gas. But batteries and pumped storage need to be built alongside stronger transmission lines, so electricity can also get from windy parts of the country to where it is needed. The answer to a shortage is not simply to drill for more gas. It is to stop wasting clean electricity: expand storage, upgrade the grid and make renewables work harder for us.

Gent wonders why the UK isn't doing what Norway did with putting energy profits into a sovereign wealth fund. Who's going to tell him that we've nearly exhausted all of the oil and gas in the North Sea, and that politicians preferred to extract profits rather than invest them for our national security. That is the real failure: politicians treated a finite national resource like ordinary income. Now they point to the small amount left as a reason to keep drilling, when the lesson should be to invest what remains and build lasting wealth through clean energy, industry and infrastructure.

2026: David Frost criticises Labour for believing the 'propaganda' that Brexit has shrunk GDP 4-8% 2015: David Frost says being in the EU has raised GDP 5-8% My view: David Frost is a striking example of ideology being put ahead of reality—and of how that can pay off in politics. His hard-Brexit stance helped propel him into the role of chief Brexit negotiator and, ultimately, a seat in the House of Lords. In 2015, Frost argued that EU membership had lifted UK GDP by “five, six, seven, eight per cent” through the single market. Now he dismisses as “propaganda” the claim that Brexit has cost the UK 4–8% of GDP. The estimates aren’t identical: one concerns the benefit of single-market membership, the other the cost of leaving. But the contradiction is hard to miss. Frost once used a large GDP estimate to make the case for the EU; now, when estimates point to Brexit’s economic damage, he waves them away as propaganda. That isn’t a serious engagement with the evidence. It’s an ideological position being defended at any cost. And Frost is hardly alone. Too many politicians and public figures have chosen the career advantage of repeating a convenient line over the harder duty of telling the truth about what is best for the country. When people are rewarded for helping to damage the nation they serve, that is a profound failure of democratic accountability.