This is the Piece Hall in Halifax, Yorkshire. It survives comparison with Piazza San Marco in Venice.
It should be one of England’s, indeed Europe's, most famous buildings. That it is not tells us much about the need for a politics of PLACE as @andyburnham rightly says.
If ou should go.
It should be one of England’s, indeed Europe's, most famous buildings. That it is not tells us much about the need for a politics of PLACE as @andyburnham rightly says.
If ou should go.
65
109
1,206
510,573
@createstreets @andyburnham I live in Halifax. I have one thing to say....Sssshhhhhhh. Don't tell everyone! On a serious note, everyone should come see it, it's awesome and the perfect gig venue during the summer.
0
0
6
3,385
Our message is simple. If you defraud the American people, we will find you and we will bring you to justice. Kimble preyed on the elderly for years, costing taxpayers over a billion dollars. The FBI catching Kimble is a direct result of the task force’s partnership with the FBI to create the Most Wanted Fraudsters list. Authorities had sought Kimble for months with no action. But just four days after we published our list, the Philippines government helped us track him down. Catching fraudsters is a priority of this Administration, and thanks to our task force’s hard work, one of the country’s most wanted fraudsters will now have to answer for his crimes.
In just over two weeks, this is the second Most Wanted Fraudster arrested on the FBI’s list led by Vice President Vance and the White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud.
Herbert Leon Kimbel was apprehended in the Philippines and is now back in the United States, on the run egedly orchestrated a $1.2 billion healthcare fraud conspiracy that targeted the Medicare system – particularly elderly victims – from 2014-2019.
Thank you to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and our Justice Department partners for their assistance in the returning Kimble to the U.S. to face justice.
President Trump set a mandate to end the abuse of hardworking taxpayer money and each and every day this team will be committed to delivering.
3,643
7,673
38,672
1,112,806
Me retweeted
Westminster may finally be about to have the argument it has spent 40 years avoiding.
If Andy Burnham returns to Parliament, the political class will know how to cover it. A leadership drama. Who is up, who is down, whether Keir Starmer can survive, whether Labour is once again turning inward. The familiar machinery of Westminster psychodrama will whirr into life.
That framing misses the larger point. Burnham’s possible return matters not because of what it says about Labour’s leadership, but because of what it reveals about the British state: what it can still do, what it has forgotten how to do, and what kind of country it must become if it is serious about resilience.
Britain is finally having a more serious conversation about national security. The Strategic Defence Review, the pivot back towards Europe, the recognition that hybrid warfare turns citizens, infrastructure and civic institutions into part of the front line: all of it marks a real shift in how the state thinks about its own survival.
But at the centre of that conversation lies a question that the defence establishment, and most of Westminster, still does not want to answer. What kind of society do you need to be before resilience is possible?
Finland is now the model everyone cites. Comprehensive security. Whole-of-society defence. Civilian preparedness woven into military planning. British strategists admire the Finnish system and ask how it might be copied. But the admiration stops short of the uncomfortable question: why does it work there?
The answer is not geography or history or some mysterious quality of Finnish national character. It is structural. Nearly 80% of Finns say they would defend their country if attacked. In Britain, the figure is closer to 33%. That gap is not an accident. It exists because Finland has spent decades building a society in which people have a genuine stake in what they are being asked to defend. Energy is affordable. Housing is available. Public services function. Institutions command trust. The Nordic welfare state is not a sentimental add-on to Finnish security policy. It is the foundation of it. You cannot ask people to defend a country that does not work for them.
Britain has spent 40 years building the opposite. The privatisation of essentials – energy, water, transport, housing – transferred wealth upwards from households to shareholders while making the basics of everyday life more expensive. The state, stripped of the tools to control costs at source, has been reduced to compensating after the fact.
Out of every pound the Government spends on housing, 88p goes to subsidising private rents. Just 12p goes to building homes. When energy prices spiked in 2022, the Government spent £40bn in a single winter cushioning the blow, not because it had a resilient energy system but because it lacked one. Debt interest now consumes more than £100bn a year. Britain has the highest debt servicing costs in the G7: the compounding price of financing failure rather than eliminating it at source.
This is what bond market dependency actually looks like. It is not an abstract fiscal condition. It is the consequence of a state that has been stripped of the supply-side tools that would let it cure the problems it now pays, indefinitely, to manage. And here is the paradox the Treasury refuses to confront. The countries that borrow most cheaply are often those that have retained the public investment model Britain abandoned. The spread between UK and Dutch borrowing costs has widened sharply not because markets fear public investment, but because they have lost confidence in a model that borrows to subsidise private failure while never addressing its causes.
This is the connection Britain’s defence debate is missing. The familiar framing, that social spending is what must be sacrificed to meet the NATO target, is not merely politically toxic. It is strategically illiterate. Cutting the foundations of social cohesion to fund the hardware of national defence is self-defeating. You end up with planes and no pilots, submarines and no crew, an army that cannot recruit because the society it is meant to protect has stopped believing in itself.
I think Burnham understands this. That is why his programme is more interesting than the leadership gossip suggests. What he has been building in Greater Manchester – public control of transport, expanded social housing, investment in the productive foundations of the city economy – is not a nostalgic rerun of postwar nationalisation. It is a proof of concept for a different kind of state.
The Bee Network is the most visible example, but the argument behind it travels. A state that can shape markets is not condemned to subsidise their failures. A state that produces affordable energy through public generation does not need to spend tens of billions cushioning every price shock. A state with a serious public housebuilding programme does not need housing benefit to rise endlessly in line with private rents. A state that builds institutions people can see, use and trust begins to restore the civic confidence on which resilience depends.
The real constraint on Britain is not money. It is capacity: the workers, institutions, supply chains and public purpose needed to turn national will into national renewal. Britain’s tragedy is not that it has run out of money. It is that after 40 years of hollowing out the state, it has made itself less able to act.
Burnham’s critics will reach for the familiar warning. Borrow more, spend more, spook the gilt markets, repeat the Truss disaster. But this misunderstands both the problem and the opportunity.
Bond markets do not have ideological preferences. They have functional ones. They prefer clarity, credible revenue streams, productive investment, and a state with a plan. What they punish is not public ambition but incoherence. A properly designed productive state programme would not be a leap into fiscal fantasy. It would be an attempt to end the much costlier fantasy that Britain can keep borrowing to compensate for broken markets while refusing to repair them.
The defence conversation and the economic conversation need to become the same conversation. Finland did not build national resilience by choosing between welfare and security. It built resilience by understanding that they are inseparable: that a country in which the basics work, where people trust one another and the institutions around them, is one that can face danger with something more than anxiety.
That is the deeper argument Burnham represents. Westminster will be tempted to treat him as a leadership story. It should resist the temptation. The question is not whether Burnham can return to parliament. It is whether Britain can return to the idea that the state should make life work. Because a country that cannot command the confidence of its people cannot truly defend itself.
If Andy Burnham returns to Parliament, the political class will know how to cover it. A leadership drama. Who is up, who is down, whether Keir Starmer can survive, whether Labour is once again turning inward. The familiar machinery of Westminster psychodrama will whirr into life.
That framing misses the larger point. Burnham’s possible return matters not because of what it says about Labour’s leadership, but because of what it reveals about the British state: what it can still do, what it has forgotten how to do, and what kind of country it must become if it is serious about resilience.
Britain is finally having a more serious conversation about national security. The Strategic Defence Review, the pivot back towards Europe, the recognition that hybrid warfare turns citizens, infrastructure and civic institutions into part of the front line: all of it marks a real shift in how the state thinks about its own survival.
But at the centre of that conversation lies a question that the defence establishment, and most of Westminster, still does not want to answer. What kind of society do you need to be before resilience is possible?
Finland is now the model everyone cites. Comprehensive security. Whole-of-society defence. Civilian preparedness woven into military planning. British strategists admire the Finnish system and ask how it might be copied. But the admiration stops short of the uncomfortable question: why does it work there?
The answer is not geography or history or some mysterious quality of Finnish national character. It is structural. Nearly 80% of Finns say they would defend their country if attacked. In Britain, the figure is closer to 33%. That gap is not an accident. It exists because Finland has spent decades building a society in which people have a genuine stake in what they are being asked to defend. Energy is affordable. Housing is available. Public services function. Institutions command trust. The Nordic welfare state is not a sentimental add-on to Finnish security policy. It is the foundation of it. You cannot ask people to defend a country that does not work for them.
Britain has spent 40 years building the opposite. The privatisation of essentials – energy, water, transport, housing – transferred wealth upwards from households to shareholders while making the basics of everyday life more expensive. The state, stripped of the tools to control costs at source, has been reduced to compensating after the fact.
Out of every pound the Government spends on housing, 88p goes to subsidising private rents. Just 12p goes to building homes. When energy prices spiked in 2022, the Government spent £40bn in a single winter cushioning the blow, not because it had a resilient energy system but because it lacked one. Debt interest now consumes more than £100bn a year. Britain has the highest debt servicing costs in the G7: the compounding price of financing failure rather than eliminating it at source.
This is what bond market dependency actually looks like. It is not an abstract fiscal condition. It is the consequence of a state that has been stripped of the supply-side tools that would let it cure the problems it now pays, indefinitely, to manage. And here is the paradox the Treasury refuses to confront. The countries that borrow most cheaply are often those that have retained the public investment model Britain abandoned. The spread between UK and Dutch borrowing costs has widened sharply not because markets fear public investment, but because they have lost confidence in a model that borrows to subsidise private failure while never addressing its causes.
This is the connection Britain’s defence debate is missing. The familiar framing, that social spending is what must be sacrificed to meet the NATO target, is not merely politically toxic. It is strategically illiterate. Cutting the foundations of social cohesion to fund the hardware of national defence is self-defeating. You end up with planes and no pilots, submarines and no crew, an army that cannot recruit because the society it is meant to protect has stopped believing in itself.
I think Burnham understands this. That is why his programme is more interesting than the leadership gossip suggests. What he has been building in Greater Manchester – public control of transport, expanded social housing, investment in the productive foundations of the city economy – is not a nostalgic rerun of postwar nationalisation. It is a proof of concept for a different kind of state.
The Bee Network is the most visible example, but the argument behind it travels. A state that can shape markets is not condemned to subsidise their failures. A state that produces affordable energy through public generation does not need to spend tens of billions cushioning every price shock. A state with a serious public housebuilding programme does not need housing benefit to rise endlessly in line with private rents. A state that builds institutions people can see, use and trust begins to restore the civic confidence on which resilience depends.
The real constraint on Britain is not money. It is capacity: the workers, institutions, supply chains and public purpose needed to turn national will into national renewal. Britain’s tragedy is not that it has run out of money. It is that after 40 years of hollowing out the state, it has made itself less able to act.
Burnham’s critics will reach for the familiar warning. Borrow more, spend more, spook the gilt markets, repeat the Truss disaster. But this misunderstands both the problem and the opportunity.
Bond markets do not have ideological preferences. They have functional ones. They prefer clarity, credible revenue streams, productive investment, and a state with a plan. What they punish is not public ambition but incoherence. A properly designed productive state programme would not be a leap into fiscal fantasy. It would be an attempt to end the much costlier fantasy that Britain can keep borrowing to compensate for broken markets while refusing to repair them.
The defence conversation and the economic conversation need to become the same conversation. Finland did not build national resilience by choosing between welfare and security. It built resilience by understanding that they are inseparable: that a country in which the basics work, where people trust one another and the institutions around them, is one that can face danger with something more than anxiety.
That is the deeper argument Burnham represents. Westminster will be tempted to treat him as a leadership story. It should resist the temptation. The question is not whether Burnham can return to parliament. It is whether Britain can return to the idea that the state should make life work. Because a country that cannot command the confidence of its people cannot truly defend itself.
534
799
3,541
790,131
Me retweeted
Now there's a shock.... not. 🙄
The media's conduct over this last week or so with Polanski has been nothing short of disgraceful.
The media's conduct over this last week or so with Polanski has been nothing short of disgraceful.
This deserves to be circulated.
A former Red Cross staff member got in touch.
She testifies about @ZackPolanski's role.
For transparency: her name is Brea Thibodeau.
The whole thing is a desperate smear.
3
76
256
9,595
Donald Trump's picture will soon appear in US passports.
There are few modern precedents anywhere in the world, let alone in a democracy, of sitting leaders' pictures appearing in passports, with most countries preferring to depict historical imagery or nature
X
There are few modern precedents anywhere in the world, let alone in a democracy, of sitting leaders' pictures appearing in passports, with most countries preferring to depict historical imagery or nature
X
20
36
44
14,860
Me retweeted
STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED
9,081
8,704
57,699
1,427,686
Me retweeted
We boycotted apartheid South Africa — now we must do the same to Israel youtu.be/0fq051jFFTY?si…
17
63
129
6,846
🚨| Niels Wittich: Michael Masi a “scapegoat” who “didn’t do much wrong” at Abu Dhabi 2021:
— Niels Wittich defended Michael Masi's decisions during the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, emphasizing that Masi acted within his authority. Speaking to media, Wittich remarked:
“From my didn’t do that much wrong. The regulations didn’t strictly define everything. What he did was within his authority. He had a certain level of discretion in how to deploy the safety car.”
“One key factor was that teams, FIA, and Formula 1 had all agreed – over many meetings – that races should, if possible, finish under green flag conditions. Nobody wanted a race ending behind the safety car.”
“Then came the lapped cars question. Initially, he said they wouldn’t unlap themselves, then he allowed it – but modified the usual procedure by not waiting an extra lap. That was within his authority under the regulations at the time.”
— Wittich acknowledged the controversy surrounding late safety car interventions:
“A late safety car is always controversial. Fans don’t like it if it decides the race – but that applies everywhere. Whether it’s lap one or the final laps, someone gains, someone loses. That’s part of the sport.”
— He criticized the lack of support from the FIA for Masi following the incident:
“What was really disappointing – for me and many colleagues – was the lack of support from the FIA for Michael. That’s something that needs to be clearly criticised. Everyone knew that in extreme situations, you’d be left on your own.”
— Wittich reflected on the broader implications of the incident and the need for consistency in decision-making:
“People later said, ‘You could have red-flagged it, you could have done this or that.’ Yes, you could – but those would have been inconsistent decisions compared to earlier races. And consistency is key.”
“A championship isn’t decided in one race alone. Points lost earlier in the season matter just as much. Both Hamilton and Verstappen had chances to secure the title earlier.”
#maxverstappen 🇳🇱 #redbullracing 🇦🇹
VIA: [motorsport]
— Niels Wittich defended Michael Masi's decisions during the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, emphasizing that Masi acted within his authority. Speaking to media, Wittich remarked:
“From my didn’t do that much wrong. The regulations didn’t strictly define everything. What he did was within his authority. He had a certain level of discretion in how to deploy the safety car.”
“One key factor was that teams, FIA, and Formula 1 had all agreed – over many meetings – that races should, if possible, finish under green flag conditions. Nobody wanted a race ending behind the safety car.”
“Then came the lapped cars question. Initially, he said they wouldn’t unlap themselves, then he allowed it – but modified the usual procedure by not waiting an extra lap. That was within his authority under the regulations at the time.”
— Wittich acknowledged the controversy surrounding late safety car interventions:
“A late safety car is always controversial. Fans don’t like it if it decides the race – but that applies everywhere. Whether it’s lap one or the final laps, someone gains, someone loses. That’s part of the sport.”
— He criticized the lack of support from the FIA for Masi following the incident:
“What was really disappointing – for me and many colleagues – was the lack of support from the FIA for Michael. That’s something that needs to be clearly criticised. Everyone knew that in extreme situations, you’d be left on your own.”
— Wittich reflected on the broader implications of the incident and the need for consistency in decision-making:
“People later said, ‘You could have red-flagged it, you could have done this or that.’ Yes, you could – but those would have been inconsistent decisions compared to earlier races. And consistency is key.”
“A championship isn’t decided in one race alone. Points lost earlier in the season matter just as much. Both Hamilton and Verstappen had chances to secure the title earlier.”
#maxverstappen 🇳🇱 #redbullracing 🇦🇹
VIA: [motorsport]
1
0
10
913
Here's an Excalidraw canvas with the thumbnails and links of all the videos I've published over the years.
link.excalidraw.com/readonly/pOUiQ…
link.excalidraw.com/readonly/pOUiQ…
3
3
19
1,029
🚨 FIRST LOOK: The Donald J. Trump Presidential Library is officially here.
Over the past six months, I have poured my heart and soul into this project with my incredible team at @Trump.
This landmark on the water in Miami, Florida will stand as a lasting testament to an developer, and the greatest President our Nation has ever known. 🇺🇸
These images have never been seen by the public — until today. Enjoy!
trumplibrary.org
Over the past six months, I have poured my heart and soul into this project with my incredible team at @Trump.
This landmark on the water in Miami, Florida will stand as a lasting testament to an developer, and the greatest President our Nation has ever known. 🇺🇸
These images have never been seen by the public — until today. Enjoy!
trumplibrary.org
19,410
27,446
138,773
8,552,492
@AppleTVNewsHub I never watched for all making, is this series a spinoff?
2
0
2
440
@c23super @AppleTVNewsHub It runs parallel. for all mankind is the American telling. star City is from the russian perspective. For All Mankind is incredible, you should really try to watch it!
0
0
1
57
Our wonderful Prue has decided to step away from judging Bake Off.
From joyful judging to colourful fits to accidental innuendoes, you are simply the best and will be so missed. Please join us in wishing Prue the very best and thanking her for nine brilliant years in the Tent ❤️
From joyful judging to colourful fits to accidental innuendoes, you are simply the best and will be so missed. Please join us in wishing Prue the very best and thanking her for nine brilliant years in the Tent ❤️
594
626
21,449
1,707,771
@BritishBakeOff Love Prue ❤️ She will be missed and will be hard to replace!
0
0
3
238
The Dark Side of The Moon by Pink Floyd is one of the greatest albums of all time
192
277
2,601
51,846
@historyrock_ Sold well certainly, not very good though.
2
0
2
380
@CelticV43415 @historyrock_ MAGA. Says it all. Full retard mode enabled clearly.
1
0
1
27
Absolutely insane headline
BREAKING:
The UAE announces it will cuts funds for citizens who want to study in the UK out of fear of Emirati students being radicalized by Muslim Brotherhood Islamists on British campuses.
An Arab state now views a European state as a dangerous Islamist radicalization hotspot
4,883
29,835
237,062
10,809,760
Peter Frampton released Frampton Comes Alive!, January 6, 1976. Favorite track?
Introduction / Something's Happening
Doobie Wah
Show Me the Way
It's a Plain Shame
All I Want to Be (Is by Your Side)
Wind of Change
Baby, I Love Your Way
I Wanna Go to the Sun
Penny for ve You) Money
Shine On
Jumping Jack Flash (The Rolling Stones cover)
Lines on My Face
Do You Feel Like We Do
Introduction / Something's Happening
Doobie Wah
Show Me the Way
It's a Plain Shame
All I Want to Be (Is by Your Side)
Wind of Change
Baby, I Love Your Way
I Wanna Go to the Sun
Penny for ve You) Money
Shine On
Jumping Jack Flash (The Rolling Stones cover)
Lines on My Face
Do You Feel Like We Do
8
13
87
6,860
I actually discussed it with Mikel (our frontend mastermind) again. And he confirmed that there's unfortunately quite some work involved to support it.
We basically need to implement a new player which we hand off to and handle all of our customisations that we do.
Very different to AirPlay where it just comes ootb with iOS.
But as I said, we still want to implement it, but it's currently not the highest on our list :-/
We basically need to implement a new player which we hand off to and handle all of our customisations that we do.
Very different to AirPlay where it just comes ootb with iOS.
But as I said, we still want to implement it, but it's currently not the highest on our list :-/
1
0
1
18
@KevinBenSmith @snipd_app Understood. Thanks for investigating and taking the time to reply. One day, hopefully 🤞😉🙏
0
0
0
6
@N1njazNutz @snipd_app I get that. The thing is that iOS just supports it on a system level. So we never actually implemented anything for it.
But I’ll share your feedback with the team!
(What does DGMW mean?)
But I’ll share your feedback with the team!
(What does DGMW mean?)
1
0
0
19
@KevinBenSmith @snipd_app Thank you Kevin. Don't Get Me Wrong, I appreciate you 😊
1
0
0
9