Labour and green climate change supporter.
London
Joined August 2011
- Tweets11K
- Following3.4K
- Followers1.5K
- Likes8.3K
Allison Roche retweeted
Britain is increasingly handing taxpayers' money to US firms, namely BCG and Palantir, who have been directly involved in war crimes and genocide.
BCG's staff put a price on removing Palestinians from their own homeland: $9,000 a head, for 500,000 people in Gaza. Their model worked out that every Palestinian who was forcibly expelled would be $23,000 cheaper than one who stayed. That firm is now working on Andy Burnham's 10-year plan.
In that model, a Palestinian staying in their own home, on their own land, is a cost to be cut, and a Palestinian gone for good is a saving. It assumed three in four of those who left were "unlikely ever to return".
Paying people to leave a land Israel had bombed to rubble and starved is called ethnic cleansing. And BCG's staff costed it.
BCG in Gaza:
- BCG put its own money into setting up the GHF. Its letter to MPs calls it "a pro bono project supported by BCG funding".
- Safe Reach Solutions, the firm that ran the GHF's sites, signed a contract with BCG worth over $1m for eight weeks' work, the Financial Times reported. Its founder had been a BCG senior adviser for eight years.
- A BCG team did the financial modelling for the GREAT Trust, a post-war plan circulating in Trump's administration that offered every Palestinian $5,000 to leave and set out a "Gaza Trump Riviera & Islands".
- By 31 July 2025 the UN had counted 859 Palestinians killed at and around the GHF's sites, most of them by the IOF, but also by BCG-hired mercenaries.
- BCG blames two partners it has fired. It told MPs it will not publish the findings of its own investigation.
Now in Britain, where BCG has been paid more than £30m:
- More than £20m under Conservative governments for Brexit planning and the Cop26 summit.
- About £10m for 40 consultants for four months on Covid Test and Trace, at up to £6,250 a day.
- Almost £2m under Keir Starmer for at least two months evaluating HS2.
- Hundreds of pounds an hour in Greater Manchester while Burnham was mayor.
- Burnham's 10-year plan: not disclosed.
Labour promised to halve spending on consultants and save £1.2bn by 2026. Burnham's government repeated that promise in the same statement that defended bringing in BCG, and has not said what BCG is being paid or how it was chosen.
Starmer had Palantir. Burnham has BCG.
A firm whose staff priced the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland at $9,000 a head should not get a penny of British public money, let alone help write Britain's next ten years.
Our full investigation, with BCG's own letter and every source: newscord.org/editorials/burn…
Allison Roche retweeted
Israel dropped 2,000-pound bombs, each with a lethal radius of 3.3 football fields, on refugee camps packed with displaced Palestinians, including on the "safe zone" it forced them to flee to.
Blinken and the Biden administration sent at least 14,000 MK-84 2,000-pound bombs to Israel between Oct. 7, 2023 and late June 2024.
The former Secretary of State today said “Israelis didn’t intend to harm Palestinian civilians.”
Allison Roche retweeted
Your health insurer shouldn’t own your doctor’s office, pharmacy, and the middleman who decides which prescriptions are covered and how much they cost.
That gives one corporation at least 4 ways to squeeze every penny out of you when you get sick.
Let's break up Big Medicine.
Allison Roche retweeted
It’s hard to grasp the BBC’s systematic attempt to launder Israeli propaganda until you see the sheer scale of it. Here's a compilation of them doing it at 2x speed.
The latest was on Newsnight on 4 November. When Bernie Sanders called Israel’s government extremist, Victoria Derbyshire answered for it: “And the Israeli government would deny that they are extremists.”
As this video shows, BBC presenters repeatedly do this as guests describe Israel’s crimes: “Israel would say.” “Israel would deny.” “They would reject that.”
We counted 70 of these denials and justifications in 52 aired interviews. The BBC calls this impartiality. But in not one of those 52 did a presenter raise any of these words from Israel’s own leaders:
- “We are fighting human animals.” Yoav Gallant, 9 October 2023
- “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible.” Isaac Herzog, 12 October 2023
- “They will not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world.” Israel Katz, 13 October 2023
- “Remember what Amalek did to you.” Benjamin Netanyahu, 3 November 2023
- Starving two million people in Gaza until the hostages came back might be “justified and moral”. Bezalel Smotrich, 5 August 2024
On 10 October 2023, Tahani Mustafa told the BBC that Israeli forces were not distinguishing civilians from fighters. The presenter replied: “They would reject that.” Mustafa then had to bring up Gallant’s “human animals” herself. The BBC supplied the denial. The guest had to supply Israel’s own words.
That is cherry-picking. The Royal Charter requires the BBC to be impartial, and the public pays for it through the licence fee. In these interviews, it handed its audience Israel’s denials and left out its leaders’ own words, during a genocide streamed live to the world.
We have archived the BBC’s coverage for three years, and we are now counting all of it: 50,000 video clips and many more written excerpts.
We are calling this first part: "BBC: The Would Say Files".
Handing Israel its denials is only one of the ways the BBC launders Israeli propaganda, so we will count every other technique too. Over the next few weeks, we will announce each milestone as we complete the report.
These are the first results, with every clip, quote and source: newscord.org/editorials/bbc-…
Allison Roche retweeted
I am in a long line of antizionist Jews who political opponents try to make people hate.
But I wont be quiet, not on criticism of Israel, nor on tackling the extreme wealth and poverty pay that both the Tories and now Labour have overseen in office.
🇬🇧 “Is it now the Labour position that a genocide is not racist?”
Green Party leader Zack Polanski confronted Conservative and Labour politicians at the London Assembly on Thursday after Conservative Susan Hall introduced a motion condemning the Greens’ decision to define Zionism as racism.
Hall called the Green Party’s position “abhorrent” and argued it threatened Jewish Londoners.
Polanski, who is Jewish, accused Hall of weaponizing antisemitism and challenged Labour members over their government’s continued military support for Israel amid the genocide in Gaza.
The Assembly passed Hall’s motion 19–3, with just the three Green members voting against it.
Allison Roche retweeted
I've been in politics for a quarter century. It's hard to express how staggering it is to see a conversation like this on corporate US media. The Morning Joe panel gobsmacked by the directness of @AbdulElSayed's points.
(clip via @DropSiteNews)
Allison Roche retweeted
The man below standing with indicted ICC fugitive Netanyahu and holding a Barak sniper rifle to be sent to IOF genocidaires is the man UNSG Antonio Guterres has just appointed as the new head of the UN World Food Programme. He is Luke Lindberg, a former Trump administration official and vocal Israel regime supporter who publicly praised Netanyahu in the middle of the genocide in Palestine (wishing him “godspeed”), and who is the son-in-law of Israel lobby darling US Sen. John Thune. In the meantime, WFP has announced it is cutting food aid to half a million genocide survivors in Gaza, as winter approaches and their situation grows ever more dire. This is the UN on its knees before the US empire. It will find the courage to stand up, or it will fade into permanent irrelevance. #Shame
Allison Roche retweeted
Bills are spiralling. Rivers are filling with sewage. Households are desperate.
Without a transfer of ownership, these proposals are just more bureaucratic adjustments.
It's time for Andy Burnham to make a decision on our water.
Is he going to continue continue the privatisation rip-off, or finally bring it into public hands?
bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8wy…
Allison Roche retweeted
🚨 NEW: Andy Burnham has announced employers will be legally required to publish salaries on job adverts
"You should know what a job pays before spending your time and effort applying for it"
Allison Roche retweeted
🚨 Palantir entered the NHS for £1 during Covid.
Then it became a £23.5mn contract.
Then a £330mn contract.
Now ministers admit it is so deeply embedded that removing it would be too disruptive.
Whatever the original intention, this is textbook vendor lock-in: the customer becomes dependent upon the supplier, and dependency becomes the supplier’s greatest protection.
The proposed two-year extension must therefore be treated as an emergency extraction period, not another comfortable renewal.
During that time, the government must require:
• complete data portability and open standards;
• independent access to the system architecture;
• transfer of knowledge and skills to the NHS;
• a tested migration plan with firm deadlines;
• government step-in rights; and
• a procurement process that is not designed around Palantir’s existing product.
Palantir must not be allowed to shape the problem, define the requirements and then win again because only Palantir can satisfy them.
And calling the replacement “British” is meaningless unless Britain controls its intellectual property, technology and future development.
A £1 foothold has become national dependency.
That is not sovereignty and it is precisely why sovereignty is now necessary.
Allison Roche retweeted
U.S Minimum Wage in 2009: $7.25/hr
U.S minimum Wage in 2026: $7.25/hr
U.S. Billionaire Wealth in 2009: $1.27 trillion
U.S Billionaire Wealth in 2026: $9.15 trillion
Our job: Pass a billionaire wealth tax & raise the minimum wage to at least $20 an hour.
No more excuses.
Allison Roche retweeted
The richest 10% of Americans own 87% of all US stocks held by households.
Share of US household stock ownership by wealth, per Goldman Sachs using Federal Reserve data:
Top 1%: 47%
Next 9% (top 2–10%): 40%
Next 40% (10–50%): 12%
Bottom 50%: 1%
Half of America owns just 1% of the stock market.
Allison Roche retweeted
The Bank of England has raised interest rates to 4%, supposedly to tackle inflation.
There is just one problem with this decision. The Bank knows that much of the inflation we are suffering is being driven by rising oil and energy prices, largely resulting from conflict in the Middle East.
It also knows that raising interest rates cannot reduce those prices.
So why is it doing this?
The answer is that the Bank believes it must suppress demand elsewhere in the economy to compensate for rising energy costs.
In other words, it is deliberately making mortgages more expensive, increasing business borrowing costs, discouraging investment and reducing household spending power.
And all this when people are already struggling with higher energy bills. That is problem number one.
There is, however, another problem. Higher interest rates increase costs for businesses, which can then feed through into higher prices. They can, in that case, add to inflation rather than reduce it.
The Bank is imposing economic pain to address a problem its chosen policy cannot directly solve.
That is not sound economic management. It is the consequence of an economic dogma that refuses to recognise the difference between inflation caused by excessive demand and inflation caused by supply shocks.
When will we learn?
Allison Roche retweeted
השינויים בקונגרס - עובדות, ואז תוכנית
--
הדמוקרטים לקחו הלילה את שני הבתים. מה זה אומר? זה אומר שיש צורך דחוף במנהיגות ותוכנית עבודה במקום פאניקה של פוליטיקאים. הכי קל לצעוק ש"אמריקה אבודה", כי אם היא אבודה לא צריך לעבוד. זה רק לא נכון. ממש לא.
את בית הנבחרים יוביל חכים ג'פריס. את הסנאט ינהל צ'אק שומר. שניהם ידידים שלי, שניהם הצביעו השנה עם ישראל גם כשרוב הסיעה שלהם הצביע אחרת. הם בדיוק סוג המנהיגים שישראל אמורה לדעת לעבוד איתם, גם אם לא נסכים על כל דבר.
אין שאלה שהגרעין האנטי-ישראלי בבית הנבחרים גדל. יהיו שם קולות קיצוניים יותר, אבל גם אחרי הבחירות מדובר בכעשרים וחמישה חברי קונגרס מתוך 435.
גם בסנאט נוספו כמה קולות מאוד עוינים לישראל אבל גם אחרי הלילה האחרון הגרעין הקשה והקיצוני שפועל נגדנו לא מגיע ל-10% מחברי הסנאט.
הבעיה האמיתית היא לא הקיצונים.
לפני שנתיים 11 סנטורים הצביעו להגביל את משלוחי הנשק לישראל. לפני שנה המספר עלה ל-27, באפריל היו כבר 40. זה נורא, אבל רובם לא באמת שונאים אותנו. חלק מהם ישבו כאן בחורף של 2023 עם סרט צהוב על הדש. ישראל חשובה להם, והם מבינים את החשיבות האסטרטגית שלנו. פגשתי כמעט את כולם ואני אומר לכם, אפשר לדבר איתם, אפשר להסביר, אפשר לשנות את המגמה.
האנשים האלה לא נגד ישראל. הם נגד שרים קיצוניים שאומרים דברים מטורפים. הם נגד אלימות מתנחלים, הם נגד ממשלה שהם לא מבינים, הם בעיקר נגד נתניהו, מבחינתם כל דבר שקשור אליו הוא רעיל.
אז מה עושים?
חוזרים לכלל שעבד בשבילנו שבעים שנה ונשבר ב-2015, כשנתניהו נסע לנאום בקונגרס נגד אובמה. אמרתי את זה אז, אני אומר את זה היום: ישראל לא בוחרת צד באמריקה. עובדים עם כולם.
יש אתגרים גדולים. יש כוחות חזקים שרוצים שניכשל. יש הרבה כסף קטארי ואיראני שמממן את הקמפיין נגדנו. אבל כמו שאנחנו מטפלים באתגרים ביטחוניים, אנחנו צריכים לטפל גם באתגרים מדיניים.
הביקור הראשון בוושינגטון של נציגי הממשלה הבאה חייב להיות גם בבית הלבן, אבל גם בקונגרס, אצל שתי המפלגות. לא רק לנאום אלא גם להקשיב, לדבר, לספוג בקורת, להסביר את העובדות, לבנות אמון מחדש.
אחרי וושינגטון צריך לצאת למסע בארה"ב, לדבר עם מושלים, נציגים מקומיים, תקשורת בכל רחבי היבשת. להגיע לאמריקה שמעבר לפוליטיקה. לדבר עם קהילות יהודיות, הן רעבות לזה, אבל לא רק איתן.
גם עם מנהיגים היספנים, עם כנסיות של אפרו-אמריקניות, עם האוונגליסטים הצעירים שנטשו אותנו. הם צריכים להכיר ישראל אחרת, לא של נתניהו ובן גביר.
את החברים שעדיין יש לנו צריך לחזק. את הגרעין הקשה צריך לבודד. כדי לבודד עשרה צריך מאה שיהיו בצד שלנו. את המאה האלה איבדנו. אותם אנחנו צריכים להחזיר.
להחזיר אותם לא מביא לנו רק אהדה. זה גם נשק לצה"ל, שיתוף פעולה מודיעיני, חיזוק הביטחון הלאומי שלנו (ולא, לא הרמנו ידיים לגבי הסכם הסיוע הבא).
עשינו את זה כבר בעבר.
ב-2022 חתמתי עם הנשיא ביידן על "הצהרת ירושלים" בלי לאבד רפובליקני אחד. זה לא קסם, זו עבודה. אמריקה לא אבדה ולא אבודה. היא מחכה שמישהו יחזור לדבר איתה.
Allison Roche retweeted
Pope Leo XIV met with American singer-songwriter Bob Dylan in a private audience on Wednesday, November 4.
Allison Roche retweeted
One of the things the data analysts on our side obsessed over was "composition"—whether the electorate looked close enough to 2024 for Republicans to win. And despite polls that showed a Democrat blowout, the data kept on telling us the same story: in some states turnout was merely OK, in other states it was downright amazing, and in no state was it catastrophic. There was a genuine sense of optimism on our team: our people were showing up.
So, I asked the smartest data guy I know, does that mean we're going to shock the world? "No," he told me. "We might do better than the polls suggest. But the data is telling us that a lot of Trump/Vance 2024 voters are pissed and planning to vote for the other guys. Our voters are turning out, but they may not vote for us."
Well, that looks prophetic now. Our voters did show up. In Florida, for example, the electorate was 9 points more Republican than Democrat, just a couple points worse than 2024. Undoubtedly there were places we could have done better on turnout. But the main problem is not turnout. The main problem is that many people who voted for Trump/Vance in 2024 voted for Democrats in 2026.
There will be a lot of infighting and arguing over what happened and why that is. One of the pollsters I really respect told me that our economic messaging wasn’t sharp enough down the stretch. I’m sure that’s true.
But the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone.
Another pollster—one of the smartest people I know in politics, told me yesterday we’d lose the generic ballot by 13 points. I felt negative going into Tuesday, but even I was shocked by this. In his polling, he saw that a lot of Trump 2024 voters were angry and planning to vote for Democrats. He asked those voters who had abandoned us what would cause them to come back on our team. The top four answers, accounting for nearly all of the responses were:
1) End the war
2) Focus on cost of living/inflation
3) Put America First
4) Change our relationship to Israel
Our voters showed up. And the above four reasons are why many of them voted for Democrats. This is according to a pollster who nailed the results. While many spent Monday attacking Rachel Campos Duffy for calling for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, it turns out her political advice was sound. (She’s also a great person.)
In the next few months, there's going to be a lot of gaslighting. Expect to hear any number of establishment politicians say the solution to our woes is amnesty. I'm open to the idea that we should change enforcement—by focusing more on businesses that hire illegal labor, for instance. But anyone pushing amnesty is lying to you.
The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night.
If you'd like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that's at least honest.
But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.
I remain hopeful about our country. To the people who are pissed off and want to say, “I told you so”: you’re right, you did tell us so. Take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview. To the people who are just pissed at the results, you should be. Let’s take that anger and get back to the work of saving our country.
Allison Roche retweeted
When Irish and Italian voters flipped to the GOP in the 1970s and 1980s, the GOP didn't immediately turn around and start arresting them en masse in the streets and demanding to see their papers.
There's a lesson there, for those with eyes to see it.
Hispanic voters are the story of 2026
The progress the GOP made with Hispanic voters over the past decade is mostly gone, and whatever is left is on probation. After shifting more than 20 points toward Republicans in 2024, they swung 27 to the left last night. It was the largest shift of any demographic group. Nationally the GOP kept some of what it gained. D+27 is still 10 points better than 2016 or 2018. In Texas, Republicans are back in the wilderness.
What happened
There was some erosion among Republicans. One in eight Hispanics who voted for Trump in 2024 voted Democratic this time, while Democrats held 97 percent of Harris's voters.
The rest can be explained by turnout differences. Democratic Hispanic voters showed up to vote at presidential-year rates and brought new voters with them. Meanwhile, many of Trump's stayed home or voted at midterm numbers. Hispanics who sat out 2024 broke 75-18 for Democrats last night.
Why
Prices first, then immigration enforcement — and in many homes the two are one and the same.
On the economy: Hispanics are more inflation-sensitive than any other group because our households tend to be bigger and younger.
On enforcement: Hispanic voters want border security, but have serious problems with how enforcement is being carried out. These two are not mutually excluded, and the problem is compounded by a communications failure.
The GOP's largest Hispanic gains came from voters who get their news from English-language sources, and the national GOP's talking points on immigration are careless. When Hispanics hear "criminal illegals" or "illegal immigrants," they picture gang members or people who crossed in the dead of night evading the Border Patrol. But the vast majority of immigrants without legal status did not swim the Rio Grande. Conflating people who sneak in with asylum applicants and visa overstayers working through a labyrinthine system is turning off Hispanics.
Right-wing echo chambers may not grasp these distinctions. But your average Hispanic voter, including many who voted for Trump, understands it intuitively, because it describes people they know. That is how you get presidential-level turnout during a midterm.
The math
When you add the ordinary midterm erosion with white voters, who went just 51-48 Republican (the closest Democrats have come in a midterm in recent memory), a bad year became a historically bad one.
Next
A serious course correction is overdue. You cannot message your way out of this. It's going to require substantive policy adjustments. Rationalizing these numbers into whatever policy outcome you already preferred will only make it worse.
