I will look forward to this speech. We all know the accusations of double standards and his role in the coup. Many Labour members will have little faith in Healey, given his past actions alongside Burnham. But the real test will be whether he explains how all these commitments Burnham is now making will actually be paid for, particularly where detailed costings have yet to be provided. The one measure that would help almost everyone is raising the income tax thresholds, allowing working people and pensioners to keep more of their own money rather than being dragged into paying more tax simply because wages and pensions have risen. Many members will also want him to explain his own treatment of Starmer and why they should now place their trust in him. Of course, we will listen to what he actually says, analyse the speech for ourselves afterwards and report back!

I remember the hustings we hosted at the Labour Party Conference in Manchester for you and the other Labour candidates seeking selection to stand for Mayor of London. From the London Region of the FBU, we had faith in you, and you delivered for London. In my view, no other mayor anywhere in the UK has delivered in the way you have, including Andy Burnham. And on Europe, I believe you are absolutely right. Britain cannot continue pretending that putting barriers between ourselves and our largest neighbouring market has come without an economic cost. The economic evidence matters. The OBR continues to estimate that the post Brexit trading relationship will leave UK productivity around 4% lower in the long term than if we had remained in the EU. For me, that is why this debate now has to be about economic reality, not reopening old arguments about the referendum. Britain needs stronger trade, greater investment and better access to the European market. I believe the long term answer is for the UK to rejoin the European Union. We cannot change what happened in 2016, but we can decide what sort of economic future we want for the next generation.

BURNHAM’S PROMISES ARE GETTING BIGGER. WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM? We are barely into Andy Burnham’s premiership and already the promises are coming thick and fast. Yesterday we had a new government backed scheme for first time buyers. Today Burnham has announced his ambition for social care to become free at the point of use. All of this sounds wonderful when announced from the television studio or the Labour conference platform, but there is one rather enormous question that nobody seems particularly keen to answer. Where is the money coming from? That question is becoming more important by the day because Burnham has inherited an economy in which there is precious little room for another spending spree. Government borrowing is already exceeding forecasts, the bond markets are making British borrowing increasingly expensive, energy costs are rising again and the Bank of England is warning that inflation could rise above 4 per cent early next year. Yet Burnham appears determined to continue announcing increasingly ambitious programmes before his Chancellor has even delivered his first Budget. Yesterday the Government announced its new Your First Home scheme. Under the proposals, qualifying first time buyers purchasing a new build property could provide a deposit of just 2.5 per cent, with a government backed equity loan worth 20 per cent of the property's value. There may well be a perfectly legitimate argument for helping younger people onto the housing ladder. Indeed, the inability of younger generations to afford their first home has become one of Britain's great social and economic problems. But the Government has announced the scheme without yet telling us what it will cost. Those details are apparently coming in the Budget. Today Burnham went considerably further. He now wants social care in England to operate on NHS principles, universally available and free at the point of use. He has said that everyone would contribute towards paying for it and that nothing is off the table when it comes to taxation. Again, the ambition sounds attractive. Nobody disputes that Britain's social care system needs fundamental reform. Families across the country have watched elderly relatives lose enormous amounts of their savings and sometimes their homes to pay for care. But free social care is not free. Somebody pays for it. One estimate being discussed puts the additional cost of providing universal free social care in England at around £18 billion every year. Burnham disputes that figure, and the detailed proposal has not yet been produced, so we should not pretend £18 billion is an established cost. But whatever the final figure, nobody seriously believes a universal national care service can be created without substantial additional expenditure. Burnham says he intends to put the proposal before the country at the next general election. Fine. Then between now and that election he needs to explain precisely what it will cost and precisely who is going to pay for it. Because Britain's present economic circumstances cannot simply be ignored. Government borrowing reached £18.3 billion in August alone, higher than economists expected. Borrowing across the financial year is already running above the Office for Budget Responsibility's forecast. At the same time, the Government is having to borrow in a bond market demanding substantially higher returns for lending money to Britain. Every increase in borrowing costs takes money away from somewhere else. That means less money available for hospitals, schools, defence, pensions, housing and social care itself. Then there is the approaching energy crisis. Businesses are already struggling with energy costs and those costs are going to rise. They cannot simply absorb increases indefinitely. Eventually they have to put their prices up simply to maintain margins and, in some cases, merely to break even. Those costs then move through the economy. The haulier paying more for diesel charges more to make the delivery. The manufacturer paying more for electricity charges more for the product. The shop paying more for heating, refrigeration, transport and stock has to recover those costs from its customers. Ultimately the consumer carries the weight. That is precisely how another inflationary cycle can begin, and the Bank of England is already warning about the danger. Its latest forecasts have inflation rising to somewhat above 4 per cent early next year as higher energy and food costs work their way through the economy. So where exactly is Burnham finding the financial room for all these promises? This is the problem I have with the politics surrounding his arrival in Downing Street. We were told that removing Keir Starmer would herald a new beginning. Burnham and those who helped bring Starmer down presented themselves as offering something fundamentally different. Yet changing the person occupying Number 10 does not change the balance sheet of the United Kingdom. The debt did not disappear when Starmer left Downing Street. The cost of borrowing did not disappear. The pressure on public services did not disappear. The enormous demands on defence did not disappear. The problems facing businesses did not disappear. And the inflationary consequences of the conflict involving Iran and rising global energy prices certainly did not disappear. What has changed is the rhetoric. Burnham is promising more, speaking more loudly about change and presenting an increasingly ambitious vision of what government should provide. But political ambition without a credible means of financing it is simply a promise being handed to somebody else to pay. And eventually that somebody is the taxpayer. We also need to remember who many of those taxpayers are. Millions of pensioners who worked throughout their lives and paid into the system are already being dragged into income tax because thresholds remain frozen while the State Pension rises. Businesses are struggling with energy, wages, National Insurance, transport and borrowing costs. Working families are dealing with food, mortgages, rent and energy bills. How much more can government realistically extract? If Burnham intends to increase taxation to fund universal social care, he should say which taxes. If he intends to borrow the money, he should explain how much and at what cost. If he intends to cut expenditure elsewhere, he should tell us what will be cut. And if economic growth is supposed to pay for everything, then he needs to explain where that growth is going to come from and when it is expected to arrive. Those are not unreasonable questions. They are the basic questions that any government proposing tens of billions of pounds of potential long term commitments should be capable of answering. The first time buyer scheme demonstrates exactly the same problem on a smaller scale. The Government announced it before publishing its cost. We are told the figures will come later in the Budget. That appears to be becoming the Burnham approach: announce the attractive policy today and explain the bill tomorrow. Britain cannot run its economy like that. The Chancellor faces the Budget on 28 October with borrowing already above forecast, bond markets demanding higher returns, energy costs feeding back into inflation and enormous pressure already sitting on departmental budgets. Burnham can promise free social care. He can promise help for first time buyers. He can promise a different Britain. But eventually somebody has to open the Treasury books. And when they do, the numbers still have to add up. At the moment Burnham increasingly looks like a Prime Minister with an ever growing list of promises and nowhere near enough money to pay for them. That may produce applause at Labour conference. It is not yet an economic plan.

Lucy, you will always be remembered as one of the coup leaders who brought Starmer down. Whether history ultimately judges that decision to have been right or wrong, that is the political tag that will stick with you, whatever you go on to do from here.

BURNHAM’S FIRST LABOUR CONFERENCE: THE RHETORIC IS ABOUT TO MEET ECONOMIC REALITY As Labour gathers in Liverpool for Andy Burnham’s first conference as Prime Minister, the celebrations surrounding the removal of Keir Starmer are over. Burnham now owns the Government, its promises and its problems. The question Labour members should be asking this week is brutally simple: after all the turmoil of removing Starmer, what has actually changed? Britain heads towards winter with borrowing above forecast, energy prices rising, businesses facing another squeeze and the cost of servicing government debt increasing. Burnham has made plenty of promises, but his Chancellor still has to explain how they will be paid for. Reform has extraordinary financial backing but has failed to turn that money into political dominance, while the Conservatives have gained little momentum from Labour’s turmoil and remain largely stagnant. Meanwhile, the Labour membership must decide whether replacing Starmer was really worth the upheaval if the underlying direction of government remains much the same. This conference therefore matters for reasons far beyond the speeches in Liverpool. The political theatre is finished. Burnham has Number 10. Now comes the difficult bit: governing. The manner in which the transition occurred still matters. Labour members are not merely foot soldiers who can be expected to knock on doors, deliver leaflets and defend decisions made above their heads. They are members of a democratic political party and are entitled to question how their party arrived at this position and what the change of leadership has actually achieved.

The State pension is not a benefit.

Has the Royal Navy become ashamed of flying the White Ensign? HMS Dragon (D35) alongside in Malta today, yet not an ensign in sight. For centuries, the White Ensign has been the proud symbol of a commissioned Royal Navy warship. Whatever the reason, it is a very strange sight indeed.

Bristol North West is home to some brilliant high streets - including Gloucester Road, with the longest stretch of independent shops in Europe. But too many communities have watched their high streets decline, with local services replaced by businesses that don’t always serve the needs of the community. The Government is putting power back in the hands of local people, backing local businesses and giving communities a real say over the future of their high streets.

There is a quite remarkable irony in what is now happening in Wandsworth. During Margaret Thatcher’s premiership, Wandsworth Council became one of the Conservative Party’s great showcases for low local taxation. Thatcher herself famously declared in 1982, “Where Wandsworth has led, let other Conservative councils follow.” The borough drove its rates down to extraordinarily low levels and, during the poll tax era, famously reached the point where it levied no local charge at all. It was held up by Conservatives as an example of what could be achieved by controlling expenditure, generating income elsewhere and running local government efficiently. Now look at what Thatcher’s flagship Conservative council has become. The present Conservative administration is proposing to increase Wandsworth’s own council tax by an astonishing 94 per cent in a single year. Its Band D charge would rise from £509.84 to £1,468, before the Greater London Authority precept is added. The council argues that changes to the Government’s funding arrangements will eventually leave it £84 million a year worse off. There is undoubtedly a legitimate argument to be had about the Government’s funding formula and whether Wandsworth is being treated fairly. But no amount of political manoeuvring can disguise the fact that a 94 per cent council tax increase is being proposed by a Conservative administration. Indeed, Wandsworth’s Labour opposition argues that an increase of such magnitude is unnecessary and says that it would keep any rise below 5 per cent. Then we come to Kemi Badenoch, who says that the Conservative Party has instructed lawyers to examine whether the Government’s funding settlement can be challenged. She describes the situation as “outrageous”, while defending a Conservative council that proposes to impose an almost unprecedented increase upon its residents. For a party that has spent generations presenting itself as the party of low taxation, the spectacle is extraordinary. Wandsworth was once a symbol of Thatcherism and of a Conservative philosophy that believed local government should live within its means and keep taxation as low as reasonably possible. Today, its Conservative administration proposes a 94 per cent increase in council tax, while the leader of the Conservative Party reaches for the lawyers in an attempt to place responsibility elsewhere. The contrast could scarcely be more profound. The council that Margaret Thatcher once held aloft as an example for Conservatives across the country is now proposing a tax increase of almost 100 per cent in a single year. That, perhaps more eloquently than any political speech, tells the story of just how far the Conservative Party has travelled.

How much longer is the world expected to endure the consequences of Donald Trump’s war with Iran? This is no longer simply an American domestic issue. The economic consequences are being felt across the world. Energy prices have risen sharply, vital shipping routes have been disrupted, businesses face higher costs and renewed inflationary pressure threatens households and economies far beyond the United States. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the war had already cost the United States $38 billion by August, with the cost projected to rise by around $3 billion every month. The disruption to Gulf oil supplies is having consequences for the entire global economy. Donald Trump campaigned as a president who would bring wars to an end. During his 2024 campaign he repeatedly spoke of “no more wars”, and after winning the election he declared: “I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.” Yet it was the United States and Israel that launched the strikes against Iran which began the present conflict. Nearly seven months later, the conflict continues. On 15 September, the House of Representatives voted 220 to 204 for a War Powers resolution seeking to halt US military operations in Iran without congressional authorisation, with every Democrat and seven Republicans supporting it. The Trump administration, meanwhile, maintains that its actions are necessary to protect American personnel and interests and to counter the threat posed by Iran. Whatever one's politics, the consequences do not stop at America's borders. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most important energy arteries, and disruption there feeds directly into oil prices, transport costs, inflation and ultimately the prices paid by ordinary people thousands of miles away. Brent crude has again moved above $100 a barrel, while the International Energy Agency warns that continued disruption in the Gulf is placing increasing strain on global energy supplies. Who governs the United States is, quite rightly, a decision for the American people. But those decisions have consequences for the rest of us. America remains a remarkable country and an enormously important ally, but its foreign policy decisions can affect economic stability, international trade and the security of countries across the world. The rest of the world therefore has every right to question the consequences of this war, its continuing escalation and, above all, how and when it is supposed to end. bbc.co.uk/news/live/cq804g52…

I completely reject the way the BBC has framed this argument, and particularly the suggestion that the triple lock is somehow becoming unsustainable because pensioners’ living standards have improved more quickly than those of working people. That is an extraordinarily narrow way of looking at what has actually happened. There is a rather important part of this story that is being conveniently overlooked. Successive Conservative governments froze the personal tax allowance, and the present Labour Government has continued that policy. The consequence for pensioners is particularly stark. Their State Pension rises, as it should, yet the amount they are permitted to receive before paying income tax remains frozen. They are therefore being steadily dragged into the tax system through fiscal drag, with an increasing proportion of their pension becoming taxable. Indeed, we are now reaching the absurd position where the full new State Pension itself is likely to exceed the personal tax allowance. The Government will increase the pension under the triple lock and then, because it refuses to raise the tax threshold, begin taking part of that increase back in taxation. If we are going to talk about a “ratchet effect”, perhaps that is the ratchet effect we ought to be discussing. Nor are these payments some unexpected act of generosity bestowed upon pensioners by the state. These are people who have worked and paid National Insurance contributions throughout their lives on the understanding that, when they reached retirement, the State Pension would form part of their income. For millions of people, that was part of the social contract between the individual and the state. We should also remember how that contract has already changed. When many of today’s pensioners began their working lives, the State Pension age was 65 for men and 60 for women. Those ages have since been increased. People have already been required to work longer and wait longer before receiving the pension towards which they spent decades contributing. Against that background, to portray a State Pension of around £250 a week as evidence that pensioners are somehow becoming too prosperous is frankly absurd. Nobody could seriously describe that sum, from which people must meet the ordinary costs of living, as an extravagant retirement income. The triple lock was introduced for a reason. The value of the British State Pension had been allowed to fall behind earnings over many years, while pensioner poverty became a serious national problem. It was designed to prevent that happening again and to ensure that pensioners shared, at least to some reasonable extent, in the rising prosperity of the country rather than being progressively left behind. So the question should not be whether Britain can afford to honour the triple lock. The more pertinent question is why governments believe it acceptable to increase the State Pension while deliberately freezing the tax threshold until that pension itself becomes taxable. After a lifetime of work and contributions, pensioners are not asking for charity. They are asking for the settlement they spent their working lives paying towards to be honoured. That distinction matters.

Should We Be Genuinely Worried About What Is Happening to British Democracy? Perhaps it is time that we asked ourselves a serious and uncomfortable question. Should we be genuinely worried about what is happening to British democracy? Not because people hold political opinions with which we disagree, for that is the very essence of democracy, but because political power must ultimately remain in the hands of the British people, rather than becoming increasingly influenced by a small number of multi billionaires whose immense personal fortunes afford them a degree of political influence beyond anything we have previously witnessed in this country. Within approximately forty eight hours, two cryptocurrency multi billionaires have provided £72 million to Nigel Farage's Reform UK. To place that extraordinary figure into some sort of perspective, Reform spent approximately £5.5 million nationally at the 2024 General Election, while Labour spent around £30 million and the Conservatives approximately £24 million. Two individuals have therefore provided Reform with more money than Labour and the Conservatives spent nationally at that election combined. Whatever one's political persuasion, that is political funding on a scale which ought to command the attention of Parliament. There are, of course, statutory restrictions upon expenditure during regulated election periods, but political parties are not built during the few weeks of a General Election campaign. They are built over years. Money pays for researchers, advisers, professional campaigners, offices, technology, polling, advertising, data and constituency organisations. £72 million gives a relatively young political party the means to establish a formidable national organisation long before the country is next asked to vote. There is consequently an obvious question which deserves to be asked. Why would anybody give £36 million to a political party? Both donors appear to possess sufficient personal wealth to provide the money themselves, and there is presently no evidence establishing that somebody else secretly supplied or reimbursed them. It would therefore be wrong to present suspicion as fact. Nevertheless, contributions of this magnitude surely demand scrutiny commensurate with their size. The public is entitled to know the provenance of the funds, what due diligence was undertaken, what access these donors have to Reform's leadership, and what discussions, if any, have taken place concerning matters in which they possess substantial commercial interests. The cryptocurrency connection makes those questions particularly pertinent. Ben Delo made his considerable fortune through BitMEX, while Christopher Harborne has substantial cryptocurrency interests, including a reported major interest in Tether. Reform has advocated policies favourable towards cryptocurrency. None of this proves corruption, nor does it establish that any policy has been purchased. It does, however, make it entirely reasonable to expect the greatest possible transparency when £72 million is provided by two individuals whose fortunes are substantially connected with the same broad industry. What is equally concerning is the extent to which Britain's established political parties have been distracted by their own difficulties. The Conservative Party remains severely weakened, while Labour spent months consumed by the challenge to Keir Starmer's leadership, the manoeuvring surrounding Andy Burnham, and ultimately a change of Prime Minister. While Westminster concentrated upon itself, the threats facing Europe continued to grow, uncertainty surrounding America's political direction increased, and Reform continued quietly building its political organisation. That is also why Andy Burnham's comment in Parliament last Wednesday, that national security ‘cannot come at the expense of social security’, deserves examination. A civilised country plainly has responsibilities towards its most vulnerable citizens, and nobody should pretend otherwise. Nevertheless, the first responsibility of any British Government must be the defence and security of the United Kingdom and its people. Without national security there can ultimately be no social security, for the welfare state, the National Health Service, our economy and our democratic institutions all depend upon the stability and freedom which national defence exists to preserve. We should also pay careful attention to events across the Atlantic. Donald Trump's presidency has demonstrated how rapidly established political conventions and institutions can be placed under considerable strain, which is why the forthcoming American midterm elections are of such consequence. At the same time, extraordinary private wealth from technology, cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence and other immensely profitable sectors is flowing into American politics. Britain would be dangerously complacent if it assumed that the growing political influence of multi billionaires was an exclusively American phenomenon. None of this requires us to construct some elaborate conspiracy. There is no evidence that these wealthy individuals belong to a secret organisation directing Western politics, and it would be irresponsible to suggest that they do. The reality is both simpler and, perhaps, more troubling. There now exists an international class of multi billionaires whose financial resources enable them to exert political influence on a scale that would have been difficult to contemplate only a generation ago. They do not need to conspire with one another. Their political, financial and commercial interests need only coincide. Nor should this be dismissed as an attack upon Reform UK. Nigel Farage has every right to seek election, Reform has every right to present its case to the country, and British citizens have every right to vote for it. If two multi billionaires were to provide £72 million to Labour or the Conservatives tomorrow, precisely the same questions should be asked. The fundamental problem is not simply which political party receives the money, but that our political funding system permits such an extraordinary concentration of private financial power in the first place. Successive Labour and Conservative governments have allowed this situation to develop. Britain now requires a meaningful statutory limit upon individual political donations, rigorous examination of the source and beneficial ownership of exceptionally large contributions, and proper transparency concerning the access afforded to major donors by senior politicians. Those requirements must apply equally and without favour to every political party. The timing makes the present situation particularly troubling. The Conservative Party is weakened, Labour has only recently emerged from a damaging leadership struggle, Europe faces profound security challenges, and America is approaching midterm elections which may have consequences far beyond its own shores. Into this uncertain political environment comes £72 million from two individuals to a party which spent only approximately £5.5 million nationally at the previous General Election. Surely that ought to be sufficient to make Parliament sit up and take notice. We do not need conspiracy theories, extravagant accusations or claims which cannot be substantiated. The established facts are remarkable enough. What Britain needs are answers, transparency, and political funding laws capable of dealing with private fortunes on a scale which those who originally framed our electoral rules could scarcely have imagined. Ultimately, the political future of the United Kingdom should be determined by the strength of competing ideas and the judgement of its electorate. Wealth has always brought influence, and it would be naive to pretend otherwise, but there must surely come a point at which the sheer scale of private money entering politics raises a question which Parliament can no longer afford to avoid: how much influence should any one individual be permitted to purchase, however lawfully, over the political future of an entire country?

I’ve never heard such rubbish in my life. The way she has framed this is appalling because she is applying an outdated definition of class to modern Britain. The traditional idea of the working class really came from the industrial Britain of the 1960s and 1970s and before. Think of the North East, Yorkshire, Manchester and other great industrial areas, where entire communities grew up around coal mines, mills, factories, steelworks and heavy industry. These were predominantly blue collar communities. Some workers earned very good money and others didn’t, but collectively they were regarded as working class because of the type of work they did and the communities they came from. Then we had what we called the middle classes: broadly those in professional, managerial, administrative and similar occupations. And above that, in very simplistic terms, were the wealthy. Modern Britain simply doesn’t divide that neatly anymore. Someone can have what was traditionally considered a middle class job and still be struggling with their mortgage, energy bills, food costs and taxation. Pensioners are being squeezed, while people on modest incomes are being dragged further into the tax system because governments, including this Labour Government, have failed to properly address frozen personal tax allowances. Class today cannot sensibly be determined by whether you wear overalls or a suit to work. Millions of people work for a living, pay their taxes and are finding their standard of living under increasing pressure. That is the reality of modern Britain, and trying to force everybody back into outdated boxes marked “working class” and “middle class” completely misses what has happened to this country. bbc.co.uk/news/videos/crer57…

When a former Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, goes before the international media and says that the United Kingdom is right to act, perhaps those attacking Britain should stop and listen. Olmert has described what is happening in the occupied West Bank as a violent and criminal effort to ethnically cleanse Palestinian communities. He has gone further, accusing elements of the Israeli authorities of failing to stop settler violence and, in some cases, actively assisting it. So we will take no lectures from politicians in the United States, particularly Republicans who believe that Britain and other European democracies should simply look the other way and refuse to impose sanctions. Here is the truth. This is not an attack on Israel or its people. It is action against illegal settlements, extremist violence and those who finance, facilitate or encourage it. Britain is perfectly entitled to make its own foreign policy and to uphold international law. We are an independent sovereign country, not a subordinate of Washington, and our allies in Europe and elsewhere are equally entitled to reach their own conclusions. When prominent Israelis themselves, including a former Israeli Prime Minister, are warning the world about what is happening, dismissing every criticism of the Netanyahu government as hostility towards Israel simply will not wash. A democratic ally does not demonstrate friendship by remaining silent when it believes another government is acting unlawfully. Sometimes friendship means being prepared to say: enough.

It certainly has absolutely nothing to do with you, that’s for sure.

This is exactly why I believe this unelected leader of the Labour Party should never have become Prime Minister. The first and most fundamental duty of any government is the defence of the country and its people. At a time when the international situation is increasingly fragile and the threats facing Britain are growing, there can be no ambiguity about that responsibility. National security is not something to be traded against other priorities. Without the ability to defend the country, everything else becomes secondary. I am frankly appalled that a Labour Prime Minister would say that national security “can’t come at the expense of social security”. It gives a very clear indication of why so many within the Labour Party had serious doubts about Andy Burnham. To me, this sounds like populism rather than leadership and shows a failure to understand the fundamental responsibility of the office he now holds. And if the Chancellor stands alongside Burnham on this, particularly after what I regard as his treachery towards Keir Starmer, then I am afraid the pair of them deserve to be seen for what they are: political charlatans. What makes this worse is that they risk undoing much of what Keir Starmer and the previous government had been trying to establish on defence and Britain's national security. I never thought I would hear a Labour Prime Minister frame the defence of our country in these terms. I am thoroughly disgusted.

Pure and utter rubbish from the US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. Why should the United States threaten Britain with economic consequences because the British Government has decided that we should not import goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank? This is a matter of British foreign and trade policy. The United Kingdom is a sovereign country and has every right to decide whether British consumers and businesses should be supporting settlements built on occupied Palestinian territory. Threatening British businesses with retaliation because our Government takes a different position from Washington is hardly the behaviour we should expect between longstanding allies. The United Kingdom has stood alongside Israel when it has been attacked by foreign states and terrorist organisations. Israel has the right to exist and the right to defend its citizens. But that does not mean Britain has to give unconditional support to every action of the Israeli Government. What has happened in Gaza, and what continues to happen across the occupied Palestinian territories in the West Bank, cannot simply be ignored. The mass killing and suffering of non combatants, the displacement of Palestinian communities, settler violence and the continued expansion of illegal settlements raise the gravest possible questions under international law. There are also senior figures in the Israeli Government facing allegations of serious violations of international law. Those allegations must be dealt with by the appropriate international courts and legal processes. Political alliances cannot be allowed to determine who is subject to international law and who is exempt from it. International law must apply equally to our friends and our adversaries. If Western democracies demand accountability from Russia, Iran and other states accused of breaking international law, we cannot suddenly decide that those principles no longer matter when allegations concern an ally. Justice will ultimately have to take its course. One of the fundamental principles established through the Nuremberg Trials was that individuals can be held personally accountable for serious violations of international law. Political office or military rank does not automatically place somebody beyond the reach of justice. And the United States should think very carefully about where this increasingly confrontational approach towards its traditional allies leads. Britain has stood alongside America for generations. So have many other democratic nations. Threatening those allies with economic retaliation simply because they refuse to follow Washington's position on Israel is extraordinarily short sighted. If the United States continues down a road where unquestioning support for the Israeli Government becomes a test of friendship with America, it risks alienating the very allies it has relied upon for decades. Eventually, America may find that Israel is one of the very few allies it has left. Britain should not be intimidated. We should uphold international law, stand by our own democratic decisions and apply the same standards to everyone, without fear or favour.

Pure and utter rubbish from the US Ambassador. The conduct of the Israeli Government in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories in the West Bank, backed politically and militarily by the Trump administration, raises the gravest possible questions under international humanitarian law. Allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide must be investigated and determined through the proper international legal processes. No government should be above international law. The United Kingdom was right to support Israel when it was attacked by foreign states and by terrorist organisations. Israel has a right to defend its citizens, but that right is not unlimited and it does not remove its obligations under international law. The mass killing and suffering of non combatants in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories in the West Bank, together with the continuing violence, displacement and expansion of illegal settlements, cannot simply be tolerated or excused by democratic governments. Supporting Israel’s right to exist and defend itself does not require us to support every action of its government. International law must apply equally to allies and adversaries alike. If we abandon that principle when it becomes politically inconvenient, then international law ceases to mean very much at all. Justice will prevail in the end. You only have to look back at the principles established by the Nuremberg Trials, where those responsible for war crimes were ultimately held personally accountable for their actions. Political office, military rank or simply claiming to have followed orders cannot provide immunity from justice. That principle must apply to everyone, without fear or favour.

The Foundations Are Crumbling Around Trump as the Midterms Loom As America approaches the November midterm elections, something significant appears to be happening around Donald Trump. Not one catastrophic event. Not one scandal. Not one disastrous opinion poll. Rather, the foundations that have sustained his extraordinary political power are beginning to show cracks. Trump's approval rating has fallen to just 33 per cent in the latest Reuters/Ipsos polling. More troubling for Republicans, 46 per cent of Democrats say they are highly enthusiastic about voting in November compared with only 31 per cent of Republicans. The Democrats now have a significant advantage in congressional voting intentions. Those are deeply uncomfortable figures for a governing party defending narrow congressional majorities. The House is in serious danger of changing hands and even the Senate, considerably more difficult for Democrats to capture, can no longer be regarded as entirely safe. But Trump's vulnerability extends far beyond opinion polls. He returned to office promising to end wars. Instead, America is now embroiled in a prolonged and deeply unpopular conflict with Iran. The United States remains overwhelmingly the greater military power, but Iran has demonstrated that a weaker adversary does not have to defeat America conventionally to impose enormous costs upon it. American stocks of sophisticated munitions have been heavily depleted, while ships, aircraft and service personnel have endured months of sustained operational pressure. And despite this prolonged conflict, Congress has never declared war on Iran. If Democrats capture Congress, questions surrounding the authority for this war, its cost, its objectives and the decisions that led to it will not disappear. They are likely to become the subjects of congressional hearings and investigations. Then there is Ukraine. Trump repeatedly treated Ukraine as though its dependence upon America meant it would ultimately have little alternative but to accept whatever settlement Washington imposed. That calculation has not worked. As direct American support diminished, the United Kingdom, Canada, Ukraine's European allies and other supporting NATO nations stepped forward. European allies and Canada now finance the overwhelming majority of security assistance to Ukraine. Ukraine itself has also changed. It has developed one of the world's most innovative military drone industries and demonstrated an increasing ability to strike strategically important targets deep inside Russia. Those attacks are having serious consequences. By late August, Russian petrol production had fallen to approximately 70 per cent of domestic demand following repeated attacks upon refineries. Russia has experienced shortages, restricted fuel exports and increased imports of refined products. Moscow has also cut its forecast for crude oil production to its lowest annual level in seventeen years, while the wider economy is struggling under the enormous cost of the war. Russia remains a formidable nuclear and military power. But Putin is no longer negotiating from the position of overwhelming strength he once appeared to possess. Russia invaded Ukraine. It failed to conquer it. Four and a half years later, Ukraine remains sovereign, increasingly capable of producing its own weapons and supported financially and militarily by Britain, Canada, Europe and other NATO partners. Putin continues making demands as though Russia has won. It has not. That raises an obvious question about Trump's diplomacy: Why should Ukraine surrender at the negotiating table what Russia has been unable to take on the battlefield? It also exposes something larger about Trump's foreign policy. Ukraine did not collapse when Washington stepped back. America's allies did not abandon it. Putin did not deliver Trump's promised peace. Instead, Britain, Canada and Europe stepped forward and Ukraine became more self reliant. Trump may therefore have demonstrated America's ability to act without its allies while inadvertently teaching those allies how to act without America. That matters enormously. For generations, American power depended upon considerably more than nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers and money. It depended upon trust. Once America's allies begin preparing for a world in which Washington might not be there when required, they become more self reliant. And a more self reliant ally is inevitably a less dependent ally. Against this international background are persistent questions about Trump's own judgement and behaviour. It would be irresponsible to diagnose cognitive impairment from television appearances. Falling asleep, confused remarks and apparent lapses are not themselves medical diagnoses. But voters do not require a medical degree to ask whether a President continues to demonstrate the judgement, consistency and capacity expected of the Commander in Chief. Ultimately, they will begin answering that question on 3 November. The Foundations Are Crumbling Trump's extraordinary political strength has always rested upon more than votes. It has rested upon Republican loyalty, the devotion of his political base, the reluctance of Republican politicians to challenge him, the enormous powers of the presidency and, perhaps most importantly, the belief that Donald Trump somehow always survives. That structure remains standing. But its foundations no longer look so secure. His approval is at 33 per cent. Democrats are considerably more enthusiastic about November. Republicans could lose the House and the Senate is increasingly competitive. His war with Iran is deeply unpopular and has consumed substantial American military resources. His promised peace in Ukraine has not materialised. Ukraine has become more self reliant rather than capitulating. Russia is increasingly paying an economic price for the invasion it launched. Britain, Canada, European countries and other NATO allies have stepped forward. And America's traditional allies are learning that complete dependence upon Washington may itself represent a strategic vulnerability. None of these things individually brings down a president. Together they form a pattern. And that is why 3 November could become considerably more important than an ordinary midterm election. If Democrats capture the House, Trump faces hostile congressional committees with the power to investigate, hold hearings, demand documents and call witnesses. If Democrats unexpectedly capture the Senate as well, the political shock to the Republican Party could be profound. A Democratic majority could not simply remove Trump. Conviction following impeachment requires two thirds of the Senate. But that may eventually miss the point. Trump cannot constitutionally seek another presidential term. After November, Republican senators, governors, donors and potential presidential candidates will increasingly be thinking about 2028. If Republicans suffer a devastating defeat, they may begin asking a question that would once have been almost unthinkable: Is protecting Donald Trump still the same thing as protecting the Republican Party? That is where circumstances could change remarkably quickly. Richard Nixon did not leave office simply because Democrats opposed him. He left when Republicans concluded that continuing to protect him was no longer sustainable. Trump is not Nixon, and there is no basis today for predicting that Trump will be removed in January 2027. But history demonstrates how quickly presidential authority can disappear once members of the President's own party conclude that their survival requires it. If November produces a Republican rout, and subsequent congressional investigations uncover serious evidence of wrongdoing, Trump's greatest threat may therefore cease to be the Democrats. It could become the Republicans themselves. At that point previously improbable possibilities could enter serious discussion: impeachment, resignation, negotiations surrounding his departure and eventually questions about his legal position after leaving office. Some might even contemplate a federal pardon as the price of permanently removing Trump from political power, echoing Gerald Ford's decision following Richard Nixon's resignation. Others would argue that no President should escape accountability merely because prosecution would be politically difficult. We are not there. Perhaps we never will be. But walls that appear impregnable seldom collapse because somebody removes a stone from the top. They collapse because the foundations beneath them move. The polls are moving. America's international relationships are moving. The cost of Iran is mounting. Ukraine has proved more resilient than Trump anticipated. Putin has proved less capable of dictating events than Trump appeared to assume. And Republican anxiety about November is growing. There may indeed be change ahead. The midterms will tell us how much. The foundations beneath Donald Trump are finally beginning to give way. The winds of change may be fast approaching and, if they are, much of the world may well breathe a collective sigh of relief.

I will be really honest: I don't think this article tells us much that wasn't already out there. The far more interesting question is what happens next. Křetínský is moving to around 46% and becoming West Ham's largest shareholder. The Gold transaction has also effectively established a valuation for the club of around £600 million. But none of that necessarily tells us whether Křetínský actually intends to take control. For me, all eyes are now on Amanda Staveley. If Staveley and her backers are prepared to put somewhere in the region of £250–£300 million on the table for Sullivan's shares, that could force the issue. If Sullivan accepts an offer, the existing pre-emption arrangements could potentially come into play again, leaving Křetínský with another major decision: find the money and exercise his rights, or allow Staveley to acquire a substantial stake in West Ham. That is where this becomes really interesting. Křetínský may not necessarily be planning an immediate takeover of West Ham, but Staveley's continued interest could effectively force his hand. She has already triggered one major reshaping of the ownership by going after the Gold shares. If she now goes after Sullivan's holding seriously, we may finally discover whether Křetínský's 46% is simply an investment or the staging point for taking control of West Ham. For me, that is the question that still hasn't been answered.