Nanu Nanu

This is government gaslighting to a high degree. 1. It’s not a new announcement. The Norfolk East and West offshore wind projects were announced earlier this year as part of the AR7 round of contracts. 2. No way does it bring down prices. Those behind it, energy giant RWE + global investors KKR, were guaranteed an above-market strike price of £91.20/MWh based on 2024 prices — indexed linked for 20 years. That guarantee is already worth £97/MWh in 2026. This is v expensive energy. 3. What is new is that the costs of developing offshore wind have soared. So the government has now had to chip in £1 billion of the £12 billion investment needed from the National Wealth [Destruction] Fund. So more state subsidy on top of the massive subsidies for two foreign companies implicit in the price guarantees embedded in AR7. 4. Far from cheaper electricity this embeds high-cost electricity in the system for 20 years. 5. So much for the Chancellor’s Budget pledge to ‘only build new projects when they lower prices’. This does the opposite — and at enormous expense to the taxpayer and electricity user. Gaslighting indeed.

This video bears watching in its entirety. It is chilling. A Reform member of the Welsh parliament has been banned from speaking in the chamber until he apologises for a previous contribution in which he raised concerns about the pace and scale of demographic change taking place in the country.

Our government is bonkers.

Brussels Wants a Say Over Who Britain Can Deport. Why Is It Even Up for Discussion? Andy Burnham is preparing to travel to Brussels promising growth, cheaper trade and closer ties with the European Union. Yet leaked papers reveal what Brussels wants in return. More British money, greater regulatory alignment and restrictions on Britain's ability to deport European criminals. Before the Prime Minister signs anything, the public deserves to know what he might concede. The deportation demand is troubling. According to Sky News, EU governments object to Britain's new arrangements allowing foreign offenders to be removed immediately after sentencing. They want more warning and information before those offenders are returned. That sounds like an administrative matter. But procedural requirements can easily become obstacles to action. What constitutes reasonable notice? Seven days? Thirty? Six months? Who decides whether sufficient information has been supplied? What happens when a receiving country demands further documents, challenges the arrangements or refuses to accept that the conditions have been met? Without clear deadlines and enforceable obligations, reasonable notice could become an indefinite delay. Britain could retain the legal power to deport offenders while finding that exercising it had become increasingly difficult. There are legitimate questions about how offenders are transferred between countries, particularly when sentences have not been served. Those questions require practical arrangements, not open-ended restrictions. The British government must retain the ability to enforce its own criminal and immigration laws without allowing foreign governments to frustrate removals through repeated procedural objections. A British government source says Burnham will reject the EU's demand. Good. But the public should see that refusal reflected in the final agreement, rather than discover later that a supposedly reasonable compromise has created another obstacle to deportation. Then comes the money. Brussels wants Britain to contribute towards reducing economic and social disparities between EU regions as part of an electricity trading agreement. Britain was a net contributor to the European budget throughout its membership, apart from 1975. Now, six years after leaving, we are being asked to consider financing EU regional development again. What would taxpayers receive in return, and why should electricity trading require payments towards spending programmes elsewhere in Europe? The same questions arise over regulatory alignment. British businesses that never export to the EU could find themselves subject to future European rules over which Britain has no formal vote. Burnham argues that removing trade barriers will boost growth. There are genuine economic benefits to easier trade, but those benefits must be weighed against the financial costs and loss of regulatory freedom. Meanwhile, the EU's leaked draft reportedly offers little more than further dialogue over industrial trade tensions. Britain is being asked to consider concrete obligations while some benefits remain promises to negotiate. Burnham cites a Treasury estimate that the proposed agreements could increase GDP by 0.4 per cent. That is a forecast, dependent on the eventual terms, rather than a guaranteed return. It cannot settle questions about democratic accountability, public expenditure or control over deportations. Britain should trade and cooperate with its European neighbours. But Parliament must see the full price of any agreement before it is signed. That means published financial commitments, clear limits on regulatory alignment and a guarantee that EU governments cannot use procedural demands to obstruct the removal of convicted offenders. The Prime Minister says the public will be the boss. He should start by telling them exactly what Brussels is asking them to accept.

"I do believe Britain's future lies in the EU." Based on her hopeless policies and wilful damage of the UK economy this statement by useless Rachel Reeves provides another powerful argument why we should never rejoin. Never trust the Labour liars who promised to respect Brexit.