The summit between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin ended predictably, without a ceasefire deal or, it seems, assent on much else. Trump said “Many points were agreed to, and there are just a very few that are left,” but failed to offer any details. Even if true, the leftovers are critical, and the gulf between the two governments on the war remains huge. Critically, Putin cares more about security than image or economics, and understandably believes that he would lose leverage by agreeing to halt military operations before winning the concessions he demands from Ukraine.
Nevertheless, the summit improved, however slightly, the prospects for negotiating an end to the war. With Moscow on the offensive, a peace that preserves Ukrainian sovereignty and independence requires that Kyiv talk with the Putin government. Diplomacy has stirred, however ineptly. Necessary now is getting Ukraine and Russia to negotiate, while encouraging both to be realistic. To end a conflict that is costing both sides dearly, Kyiv will have to lose territory and endure neutrality, while Moscow should accept a Ukraine that leans West politically and economically, though not militarily. Since battlefield success may have emboldened Putin, Trump should use the prospect of improving political relations and economic dealings with the West in an attempt to pull Moscow toward a compromise capable of delivering a stable peace.
Ricky Jones and the reality of two-tier justice
This may be looked back on as the week when two-tier justice moved from being an accusation to a statement of incontrovertible fact. The stark difference in treatment of Ricky Jones, the former Labour councillor accused of encouraging violent disorder as he mimed a throat being cut at a protest and Lucy Connolly, the mother who sent a nasty tweet shortly after the Southport massacre, is no conspiracy theory, despite the state’s best efforts to pretend it is.
Crucially, like most of those arrested at the time, Lucy Connolly was denied bail
To recap, Jones was filmed at an anti-racism rally after the Southport riots calling protestors ‘disgusting Nazi fascists’, and said ‘We need to cut their throats and get rid of them’. Lucy Connolly received a 31-month prison sentence for sending an unpleasant tweet about migrant hotels (which she promptly deleted) saying, ‘Set fire to all the f*****g hotels full of the bastards for all I care [emphasis added].’ Given the caveat at the end of this sentence, it is debatable that this was a tweet which did much to incite anything.
For what it’s worth, I don’t believe either individual should have been locked up for their speech, but if the state must do so, it needs to be seen as even-handed. This is a profoundly damaging moment, both for the government and for public trust in the judicial system – what little there was to begin with.
By way of mitigating circumstances, Jones’s defence argued that he may have been affected by his probable ADHD, and suffered from ‘emotional arousal’ which could ‘override deliberate decision-making’ (which presumably therefore made it harder to understand the impact of calling for throats to be slit). Lucy Connolly’s potential mitigations as the mother of a young daughter, who had previously lost her infant son in tragic circumstances which naturally made her sensitive to the news of murdered children, seem not to have mattered as much.
One important difference is that, whereas Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty last summer, Ricky Jones fought his charges in court (defended by a silk from Garden Court chambers). But this only points to a further aspect of two-tier justice; namely, who has the means to fight their case. The privately-paid solicitor will naturally make sure his privately-paying client is aware of all the defences available to him. By contrast, the harried duty solicitor is not exactly best-placed to give considered advice.
Either way, I suspect few who hear about these two cases will care very much about distinctions like guilty and not guilty pleas. Most will simply compare the two ‘offences’ with the respective punishments doled out, and judge for themselves.
Crucially, like many of those arrested at the time, Lucy Connolly was denied bail. Facing a potential delay of months inside while awaiting trial, she may have felt that she had no choice but to plead guilty to the charges laid before her. This element of potential coercion was perhaps the starkest example of ‘two-tier justice’. Since Jones was granted bail, he had a year to prepare his defence after multiple delays to his trial. Two-tier justice exists across multiple realities and manifestations; from the granting of bail to financial disparity – not to mention the fact that activist lawyers are sometimes only too happy to waive fees where they agree with the accused.
While dismissing Lucy Connolly’s appeal to her sentence in May this year, Lord Justice Holroyde went out of his way to praise her solicitor. ‘He struck us as a conscientious defence lawyer with a clear grasp of the relevant law, practice and procedure and a realistic appraisal of the issues in the case.’ The fact that Connolly, like other defendants charged with stirring up racial hatred post-Southport, may well have been cleared by a jury had it gone to trial, should surely call into question the advice she received. Lord Justice Holroyde’s praise gives the uneasy impression of lawyers looking out for their own.
The judiciary obviously cannot control the decisions of the jury that acquitted Mr Jones in a court of law, and nor should it. Yet some of the inevitable backlash we will now see might perhaps have been avoided had Lucy Connolly received greater clemency from the UK state. So long as she remains incarcerated for what appears a manifestly less serious offence, it will be harder than ever to argue that UK justice remains intact.
A few weeks ago, Tony Diver at the Telegraphpublished an extraordinary story, revealing more about the activities of a secretive wing of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, known as the National Security Online Information Team. Among other things this team monitors social media for evidence of ‘narratives’ they deem ‘concerning’, including, it turned out accusations of ‘two-tier policing’. As we speak, civil servants will be trawling the internet for evidence of an alleged ‘narrative’ which now looks increasingly impossible to deny.
Trump and Putin fundamentally misunderstand each other
Let the trolling begin. Chicken Kiev was the airline meal served to the first planeload of Russian diplomats, government officials and journalists as they flew to Anchorage, Alaska. Russia’s veteran foreign minister Sergei Lavrov arrived dressed in a white sweatshirt bearing the logo ‘CCCP’ – or USSR in Cyrillic. Russian State TV viewers have been treated to video montages of the greatest moments of US-Russian cooperation, from astronauts meeting in the Mir space station to soldiers embracing on the Elbe river in 1945. The US side, by contrast, has done their bit to make the visiting Russians feel unwelcome by billeting the Kremlin press corps in a sports stadium equipped with army cots, flimsy cloth partitions, and too few electrical sockets.
Trump is not entirely the useful idiot that the Kremlin seems to take him for
Petty mutual insults aside, Putin has in many ways already got what he wanted even before he sits down with Trump. The pomp and security theatre of a great international summit underscores Putin’s senior place in the pantheon of world leaders. Europe’s heads of government have to crowd on an hour-long conference call to get Trump’s ear. Putin, by contrast, is important enough for the president of the world’s most powerful country to fly high hours from Washington to meet him.
Respect and face time are what Putin has always craved most, and in speeches and historical essays he has often complained that the West has consistently snubbed and disregarded Russia. With the Anchorage summit, Putin at last has secured Trump’s undivided attention – for a few hours at least.
When it comes to the actual talks, however, there’s ample scope for a derailment. Both sides fundamentally misunderstand the other’s position. Trump, perhaps naturally for a former real estate mogul, seems to believe that Putin’s primary interest is taking Ukrainian territory. That’s not the case.
What Putin truly cares about – and has repeatedly demanded – is the removal of Ukraine as a strategic threat to Russia. That, in practice, means not only keeping Ukraine out of Nato but also restricting the size of its military and restoring the rights of Russian speakers, Russian-language broadcasters and the Russia-oriented wing of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Putin, in short, is fighting to make Ukraine a docile ally and part of Moscow’s political and economic sphere of interest.
Putin, for his part, believes that Trump is mostly interested in money, deals and enriching his friends. To that end, Putin has brought along not only his top diplomats but also his finance minister Anton Siluanov, who has played a key role in Russia’s largely successful effort to sidestep western sanctions. By dangling the prospect of joint ventures with US companies to open up Arctic gas fields and other multi-billion dollar baubles, Putin believes that he can bamboozle Trump.
But Trump is not entirely the useful idiot that the Kremlin seems to take him for. In recent weeks Trump has accused Moscow of feeding Washington ‘a lot of bullshit’ and threatened ‘serious consequences’ if Putin does not agree to a ceasefire.
It is easy to forget that the principal reason the two leaders are meeting today in Anchorage is because of Trump’s as-yet unfulfilled threat to impose devastating secondary sanctions on countries that import Russian oil and gas. But rather than actually follow through on that ultimatum – which would involve the US effectively launching a trade war on Russia’s main customers India, China and the EU – Trump chose to call a summit rather than be seen to be chickening out.
By Trump’s account, the Anchorage talks are a ‘feel-out’ to determine whether a peace deal is possible. Putin, for his part, has welcomed Trump’s ‘positive engagement in the peace process’ – without apparently shifting an inch on his basic demands for Ukraine’s surrender. The key question will be whether Putin has got the message that Trump’s famously prickly ego demands concrete results, not more ‘bullshit’.
Putin’s own ego, no less prickly and enormous than Trump’s, demands that any concessions be framed as a deal and not as something dictated by the Americans. Hence the raft of economic proposals that Siluanov will be bringing to the side talks with the White House team. Then there is a raft of unfinished business between Washington and Moscow concerning strategic nuclear weapons, most urgently the New START treaty that both sides have abandoned and which formally elapses in 2026. Space cooperation is another area where Putin can happily sign on the dotted line.
The one deal that the two men will not be doing today in Anchorage – at least according to Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov – is a grand deal ending the war in Ukraine. But there is hope that the Alaska summit could at least be the beginning of the end.
What J.K. Rowling misses about Sturgeon’s memoir
When someone one day writes a true history of Scotland during the baleful tenure of Nicola Sturgeon and reflects on what brought about her downfall as first minister, ‘Isla’ Bryson might be worth a footnote but J.K. Rowling surely merits a chapter. No one has managed to articulate the opposition case to Sturgeon with the verve, intelligence and penetrating wit of the Harry Potter author.
Rowling’s review of Frankly, Sturgeon’s recently published memoir, is in many ways as brilliant as her other mainly tweeted thrusts. It is incisive and damming, outclassing her adversary and doing so with courage humour and originality. In other ways though it misses the mark, failing, as many observers of Scottish politics do, to see the details in the rotting wood for the petrified forest of trees.
What is good is Rowling comparing Sturgeon to Bella Swan, heroine of the Twilight series, in that it conjures the image of blood being sucked from the body politic of Scotland (the SNP have been positively vampiric in their predations). It also highlights the eternally adolescent quality of the Sturgeon persona, a woman who had never had a serious job outside politics, a woman who avoids all serious scrutiny (even yesterday she cancelled what could have been uncomfortable interviews with the media) a woman who didn’t learn to drive until she was in her 50s, a woman who recently got a tattoo.
Sturgeon never moved on from her teenage obsession with independence. She never seriously addressed independence’s huge practical obstacles or seemed interested in doing so, and certainly does not attempt this in Frankly. She never seems to have acquired wisdom or depth or humility, and never truly managed to emerge from the shadow of a charismatic mentor – Alex Salmond.
Rowling takes a well-aimed swipe too at Sturgeon’s propagandistic assertions that the 2014 referendum was a glorious inclusive positive exercise in democracy, a revisionist mantra from the still active veterans of the Yes camp repeated so often it’s in danger of becoming accepted as gospel truth. The actions of those Yes voters at the time would suggest otherwise. As Rowling says:
‘Oddly, this message didn’t resonate too well with No voters who were being threatened with violence, told to fuck off out of Scotland, quizzed on the amount of Scottish blood that ran in their veins, accused of treachery and treason and informed that they were on the wrong side of, as one “cybernat” memorably put it, “a straightforward battle between good and evil.”’
She is also right to have a dig at Sturgeon’s ‘London friends’ who were dazzled and beguiled by the first minister, and couldn’t see or were not interested in hearing about her and her party’s endless failings. Rowling points out that these serial calamities get no serious mention in the book. As she rightly says, the omission of any reference to Scotland’s soaring drugs deaths figures in particular is, frankly, appalling.
Rowling is also relentless and remorseless in highlighting the dangers of the Gender Recognition Reform Bill (GRRB) and the culture of intolerance and vilification of any criticism Sturgeon engendered in its wake. Many political commentators focus on this piece of legislation in terms of its apparent consequences for Sturgeon’s career, for her party, and for the broader independence cause, ignoring or downplaying the surely more important point that it relegated biological women to a sub category, putting them potentially in harm’s way, and then told them to shut up and live with it. As Rowling puts it:
‘She’s caused real, lasting harm by presiding over and encouraging a culture in which women have been silenced, shamed, persecuted and placed in situations that are degrading and unsafe, all for not subscribing to her own luxury beliefs.’
But where Rowling perhaps misses the target is in taking Sturgeon’s support for the GRRB at face value, in assuming that her interest in self-ID was genuine and sincere. She says that Sturgeon was ‘unshakeable in her belief that if men put on dresses and call themselves women they can only be doing so with innocent motives.’
Really? Not everyone agrees with that, starting with Alex Salmond who once remarked that Sturgeon had never shown any interest in the issue of gender self-ID in the long time that he had known her, hinting in that Salmond-ish way that perhaps something else was going on.
To find out what that something might be, one must, as so often with Scottish politics, depart the mainstream and head to the media by-waters, to the bloggers that pick through the rank smelling weeds of Scottish politics. Robin MacAlpine, a freelance journalist and former director of the Common Weal think tank (and independence supporter) has charted Sturgeon’s shifting positions on gender issues over her career and sees them in purely strategic terms. As he puts it:
‘Sturgeon and Murrell operated through fear… and their most aggressive punishers were young, digitally savvy activists – who happened to be strongly committed to trans politics. Sturgeon’s most effective thug squad had to be kept placated. That (I believe) is why Sturgeon was so quick to announce gender ID legislation and so slow to produce it. She needed their rage, but not the legislative headache…’
Which might explain the initial interest. But why then actually push for full enactment of self-ID? Why not just fudge the issue? MacAlpine explains:
‘Then something else happened; the fall-out of the Salmond trial and the parliamentary inquiry. This nearly finished her career and some of the most dangerous revelations were down to her lack of a parliamentary majority when the Greens voted for disclosure. It is really important to understand the significance of this. Sturgeon was utterly desperate to close down the Scottish Parliament as a body that would scrutinise her and the way to do that was to have an overall majority bound by collective responsibility.’
MacAlpine points out that Sturgeon could have had a parliamentary majority with the Scottish Greens in 2016. But she didn’t pursue one, preferring to pass most of her legislation with votes from the Scottish Tories. MacAlpine calls the Bute House agreement an ‘anti-transparency’ move which he believes was designed to ensure total control at a critical moment and ensure the Greens were friends not foes.
In other words, the GRRB perhaps had little to do with trans rights and was more about keeping a lid on a potentially explosive scandal. In which case, the cause of independence, her party’s reputation, the women and girls of Scotland were expendable.
Rowling ends by admitting she may have missed the point of Frankly, that perhaps it isn’t intended to entertain, or enlighten but to serve as a CV distinguisher, and assist her on the way to her long coveted ‘cushy sinecure’ with UN Women. Well perhaps, though cynics might suggest that unlike the ferry Sturgeon ‘launched’ back in 2017, that ship has sailed. More likely Frankly is not just a CV distinguisher. It may just be a pre-emptive plea for mitigation.
Donald Trump saved the UFC
A new bombshell has fallen on the sports-media villa: Dana White cloaked in the glory of a whopping seven-year, $7.7 billion media-rights deal with Paramount to stream all UFC fights on Paramount+ in the United States and select simulcast events on CBS.
For the love of everyone’s wallets, goodbye Pay Per View and hello to a new right-wing cultural shift in mainstream sports coverage.
Why is this new deal so relevant? Since the UFC’s inception in 1993, mixed martial arts existed as its own niche category. Critics openly said it wasn’t a real sport. They lampooned the more brutal style of MMA as less skilled and artistic than boxing, once a more revered American pastime. Even the late Senator John McCain of Arizona famously referred to the UFC as “human cockfighting” in the nineties. The sport struggled to even hold an event in its home city of Las Vegas.
One outsider, however, did believe in it. It was a businessman who threw the UFC a life-saving bone and welcomed it to Atlantic City for a game-changing opportunity.
That lifesaver is the 45th and 47th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump.
When everyone else gave little more than a passing glance to the UFC, Trump welcomed it to his Taj Mahal hotel and casino around the same time White, Frank and Lorenzo Fertitta purchased the organization in 2001. Thus began the entrepreneurial and future presidential bromance of White, Trump and the legion of 70 million American voters who voted for him.
As the sport gradually crept onto bar televisions and churned out such stars as Ronda Rousey, Conor McGregor, Anderson Silva and Jon Jones, White’s allegiance to Trump grew too. White appeared at the 2016 Republican National Convention, a relative newbie to the political world. He once briefly campaigned for Democrat and former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. But with a fiery speech at that RNC, White shed any past party affiliation for Trump.
“My name is Dana White. I am the president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship. I’m sure most you are wondering, ‘What are you doing here?’” White said to the Cleveland RNC crowd. “I am not a politician. I am a fight promoter, but I was blown away and honored to be invited here tonight, and I wanted to show up and tell you about my friend – Donald Trump – the Donald Trump that I know.”
White continued the campaign favors into the 2024 RNC as well. In turn, Trump, a fan of the UFC, showed his support to White in 2020 when he filmed a video congratulating the sport for continuing to hold live events during Covid. He has also attended several events, making one of his most famous treks through Madison Square Garden following the election at UFC 309. The crowd erupted into chants of “USA,” and a video tribute showed Trump shaking his fist after an assassination attempt in July 2024.
When the President of the United States begins hiring UFC executives into his administration, that sport stops being a niche Spike TV creation. Despite liberal sneers at the sport, its so-called manosphere audience continues to grow. And there’s been a jump in female viewership as well. Six times, women have headlined the PPV preliminaries on Fox Sports 1, earning ratings ranking within the top 20.
Simply put, more and more people are watching the UFC, and the UFC loves the Donald. Trump’s even hosting a fight at the White House next Fourth of July. The sport will be synonymous with the image of America.
The backs and eyeballs of many Trump voters landed this lucrative deal. Maybe the Democrats should take note and stop minimizing the cultural relevance of the sport and its people. Not so deplorable after all.
What’s wrong with a St George’s Cross flag?
Flags have become a contentious and defining issue of this year. You only have to witness the furore that has surrounded the increasing proliferation of the Progress Pride and Palestinian flags in this country to recognise this. So it was only a matter of time before that other increasingly common sight, flags denoting pride in Englishness and Britishness, should have been drawn into the fray.
As reported in the Daily Telegraph this morning, Birmingham Council has ordered the removal of Union and St George’s flags from lamp posts. In response to initiatives made by residents in the fortnight approaching VJ Day to install hundreds of the flags in the predominantly white British suburbs in the south-west of city, on Tuesday the Labour-run council announced plans to remove them, claiming that they put the lives of pedestrians and motorists ‘at risk’.
This has legitimately aroused accusations of double standards. Critics have pointed out that Palestinian flags have flown within impunity elsewhere on the city’s streets since the war in Gaza began in 2023. ‘This is nothing short of a disgrace and shows utter contempt for the British people,’ Lee Anderson, the Reform MP, has said. Robert Alden, leader of the authority’s Conservative opposition, has added: ‘Our national flags are nothing to be ashamed of. Labour rushing to rip them down is shameful.’
Yet, while showing eagerness to double-down on expressions of Englishness and Britishness, this week Birmingham council has been simultaneously celebrating the heritage of its sub-continent ethnic minorities. Last night it lit up the main library in the colours of orange, green and white to mark 79 years of India’s independence, hours after showing the same courtesy to Pakistan.
It was perhaps inevitable that on GB News last night the council was charged with a ‘two-tier’ approach to community relations. It’s not an unreasonable accusation, given that this approach has been an increasingly common one taken by a Labour government and judiciary desperate to placate inter-communal tensions.
It’s difficult to escape the conclusion that that council is indulging in another form of asymmetrical multiculturalism. In other words, yet again we’re seeing an arm of the state rejoicing in the cultures of minorities but being decidedly less forthright in celebrating the culture of this country’s majority.
The council’s protestations that such flags pose a risk to safety will strike many as dubious, given that many of these flags are up to 25ft off the ground. This excuse is doubly unconvincing given that, beginning in August 2020 in Birmingham’s gay village, rainbow-coloured street crossings in the style of the Pride Progress flag have been installed in the city. Yet these have been known to pose a threat to the blind and partially-sighted, as well as being confusing for police horses.
The left has always been known to shirk from symbols of patriotism out of embarrassment and guilt, so the decision by the Labour-run body is true to form. But the council’s proactive policy on representation of ethnic minorities has also taken place against a backdrop of the ascendency of sectarian politics in Britain. Labour is desperate to shore up its dwindling support among British Muslims, many of whom have been alienated by its less than outspoken stance on Gaza, and a minority of whom seem to show little loyalty or affection for this country at all. Labour is also mindful of the threat posed by the yet-to-be named splinter faction led by Jeremy Corbyn, a party that will cater for alienated ethnic minorities, the far-left and an idealistic graduate class.
Birmingham’s decision has taken place at a time British society is seemingly falling-apart at the seams
Most importantly, Birmingham’s decision has taken place at a time British society is seemingly falling-apart at the seams, appearing to teeter on the point of outright disorder. In June, David Betz, Professor of War in the Modern World in the Department of War Studies at Kings College, warned that British cities were at risk of becoming ‘feral’ and could even descend into civil war in the next few years. This type of rhetoric is becoming increasingly common. In April, the Daily Telegraph’s Tim Stanley issued the similarly foreboding words: ‘I now fear Britain is heading for open sectarian conflict, possibly war, and there’s nothing we can do to stop it.’
Both the emergence and profusion of flags which are proxy indicators for tribal membership and sectarian affiliation – the Palestinian flag also serves as symbol of progressive internationalism for the liberal white middle-class – and moves to suppress them are indicative of the fractious nature of British society today.
No wonder a traditional left-wing attitude to the St George and Union flags is gradually shifting from shame and embarrassment towards fear, given that these icons are associated with growing indigenous resentment and restiveness, not to mention a surge in support for Reform at the polls. And that, ultimately, is what strikes terror into the hearts of the establishment today.
King Charles’s poignant VJ Day reminder
It has been one of the hallmarks of King Charles’s reign so far that, when he makes a commemorative or ceremonial address, especially when he is remembering Britain’s wartime victories, he usually manages to hit the correct note. He has become very adept at persuading even the most dyed-in-the-wool republicans that he is the right man at the right time.
Therefore, when it was announced that he would address the nation in commemoration of the 80th anniversary of VJ Day – the grimmer, less obviously triumphal cousin of VE Day – expectations were high that the King would once again deliver. What was less expected was how personal the speech would be.
It was deeply moving to also see the presence of 33 veterans who had served in the Pacific and the Far East
In his six-minute message put out earlier today, there was an unexpected nod to none other than Lord Mountbatten, the King’s great-uncle who was murdered by the IRA in 1979. Charles said that:
While that final victory… was achieved under the strategic command of our steadfast American allies, the war in South-East Asia had reached its climax under the leadership of my great-uncle, Lord Mountbatten, from whom I learnt so much about the particular horrors and heroism witnessed in those furthest fields of combat.
At first glance, this was innocuous enough, but as ever with the King’s carefully chosen choice of words and allusions, the remembrance of Mountbatten – once described by Charles as ‘the grandfather I never had’ and the inspiration for Noel Coward’s heroic character in the classic second world war film In Which We Serve – will have been a very resonant one.
Still, if he was drawing the slightest of connections between wartime Japanese barbarity and similarly horrific events that had occurred rather closer to home and in living memory – Charles was well into his thirties when his great-uncle was assassinated – then much of the rest of the address was more innocuous. Drawing on the famous words of his grandfather George VI, who announced simply on 15 August 1945 that ‘The war is over’, the King said:
Seldom can a simple message have resonated with such a potent mix of relief, celebration, and sorrow for those who never lived to see the glow of freedom’s new dawn. On this day of profound remembrance, I speak to you in that same spirit of commemoration and celebration as we honour anew all those whose service and sacrifice saw the forces of liberty prevail.
The King attended an emotional service today at the National Memorial Arboretum, alongside his fair-weather friend Keir Starmer. It was deeply moving to also see the presence of 33 veterans who had served in the Pacific and the Far East. Aged between 96 and 105, it was clear to everyone attending that this would almost certainly be the final occasion they would be seen at such an event. When the 101 year-old Ronald Gumbley recited the poet Laurence Binyon’s famous lines – ‘They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old. Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them’ – it could not help but be affecting.
Charles’s thoughtful and well-chosen words were entirely suited to the gravity and seriousness of the day. Yet amidst them, the tribute that he paid to the ‘courage and camaraderie displayed in humanity’s darkest hour’ might be thought to have been equally true of other, more recent times, too. Barbarity, after all, is not confined to the distant past, and this carefully constructed address was a moving reminder of that.
Of course the Subway sandwich-thrower is a theater kid
No story has captured Cockburn’s imagination this week quite like the U Street Sandwich Thrower. Sean Charles Dunn, a 37-year-old lawyer at the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, was so incensed at the increased law enforcement presence in DC that he threw a Subway sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent – and was sub-sequently arrested. “He thought it was funny,” said a disgusted Judge Jeanine Pirro, the US Attorney for DC.
Is Dunn a deep-state plant? Was his effort part of a viral marketing campaign for the new Chappell Roan song? Details remain murky – but Cockburn’s confidante Jacqueline Sweet does have a nugget or two. Namely, that Dunn is apparently Cockburn’s neighbor in Dupont Circle, and that he was a theater kid at his South Dakota high school (in case it wasn’t obvious from the quality of the throw)…
On our radar
WHO’S IN CHARGE HERE? Federal authorities arrived in Washington Circle last night to begin removing homeless encampments. At the scene they found notices posted on every tent, left by DC officials, giving occupants until Monday to clear out.
I’M YELLING TIMBER The real-looking vegan meat company, Beyond Meat, may be headed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Though their X account said the rumors are “unequivocally false,” their stock has fallen four years in a row.
CLEAN, FIRM ENERGY BROS The Department of Energy is pushing 11 nuclear energy projects to reach “criticality” by Independence Day next year. Deputy Secretary James Daly said the department “will do everything we can to support their efforts.”
Sergey Lavrov drip check
All eyes are on Alaska this afternoon as Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin meet in Anchorage for initial discussions about a potential end to the war in Ukraine.
The first to roll up was Sergey Lavrov, who has served as Russia’s Foreign Minister for two decades. Lavrov arrived in a rather fetching puffer vest over a sweater with “CCCP” (USSR) emblazoned on the front. How diplomatic…
Nonce sense
A leaked internal policy document drawn up by Meta reveals that its AI chatbot, Meta AI, is permitted to “engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual.” Calling minors a “work of art” is kosher, apparently, but the document does set out limits: “It is unacceptable to describe a child under 13 years old in terms that indicate they are sexually desirable (ex: ‘soft rounded curves invite my touch’).”
More specifically, descriptions of sexual acts are a no-no, but grand declarations of devotion of a distinctly Phantom of the Opera-type are way in. Who says that romance is dead?
Brevity is the soul of wit
TikToks are meant to be little globs of content to flick through idly, but Ella Emhoff – the model stepdaughter of the vanquished VP Kamala Harris – has now stretched the medium to breaking point. Emhoff’s “Little check in 🙂” , posted yesterday, clocks in at an epic six minutes. Now liberated from the Secret Service, which had put up a “barrier between me and a lot of people in my life,” Emhoff has spent the last six months engrossed in world events – a “good distraction” from “losing the election.”
Though it’s brought her little relief so far: “Everything with the environment is really fucking getting to me.” Emhoff then called on her viewers to keep “loud” and not to “normalize any of this.”
Catastrophism, ennui, vague pledges of resistance – it’s an apt synopsis of ruling opinion since last November. “More knitting stuff coming soon,” Emhoff signed off.
Tories accuse Sturgeon of breaking ministerial code over indyref2
The SNP’s former Dear Leader Nicola Sturgeon released her memoir this week – but it has not quite had the reception she anticipated. The trailed excerpts prompted Alex Salmond’s allies to accuse Sturgeon of besmirching her former mentor’s name, brought her failed gender reform bill to the fore and confused pro-independence supporters after the Queen of the Nats hinted she was considering a move to, er, London. Now another admission in the 450-page tome has led the Scottish Tories to write to the Scottish Permanent Secretary to examine whether Sturgeon broke the ministerial code.
Craig Hoy posted his letter to Joe Griffin on Twitter today, fuming that Sturgeon’s memoir had revealed the former first minister had ‘wasted taxpayers’ money on a doomed court case for party political reasons’. In his letter, Hoy stresses:
In the book, the former first minister stated that the Scottish government’s reference to the Supreme Court on whether it had the power to hold an independence referendum unilaterally was ‘in all likelihood impossible’ to succeed.
The Scottish ministerial code states that ministers and officials should ‘ensure that their decisions are informed by appropriate analysis of the legal considerations and that the legal implications of any course of action are considered at the earliest opportunity’. If the then-first minister has now publicly admitted that she thought it was ‘impossible’ for this court reference to succeed, yet proceeded with it anyway, this constitutes a clear failure to follow the legal implications of her chosen course of action at the earliest opportunity.
Nicola Sturgeon suggested that the reason she proceeded with the reference was because she was ‘in a bind’ with her party members and supporters. The Supreme Court reference ended up costing taxpayers a quarter of a million pounds. This political use of public money is in clear violation of paragraph 1.4(i) of the ministerial code which states: ‘Ministers must not use public resources for party political purposes;’.
He went on:
Nicola Sturgeon is no longer first minister, so action can no longer be taken against her under the ministerial code, but could you as Permanent Secretary confirm whether you believe this spending complied with the requirements laid out in the code, given Ms Sturgeon’s recent comments? If not, will the Scottish government be taking any action to recover the public funds that were spent at the direction of Nicola Sturgeon for what were clearly party political purposes?
Good heavens! Has Sturgeon landed herself in hot water over this rather revealing confession? Stay tuned…
Britain has a wind problem
Climate change is giving Britain more violent weather, with ever-increasing storms tearing down our trees and whipping up waves which erode our coastlines. No one ever seems to get into trouble for saying the above – as many did yet again during Storm Floris last week – in spite of it being the inverse of the truth. Actually, Britain has been experiencing a downwards trend in average and extreme wind speeds for the past four decades.
There is little sign it has entered Ed Miliband’s head that he is trying to tap into a declining resource
One place where they won’t be making that mistake, though, is the boardroom at German energy company RWE, which became the second wind company this week to report some financial disappointment – after Danish wind company Orsted announced a rights issue to fund offshore wind projects. RWE’s profit fell by a quarter in the first half of this year, which it blamed on low wind speeds. I don’t usually have a lot of time for companies which try to blame lousy results on the weather, but in this case you can see RWE’s point by looking at the weather charts. Floris aside (and even she failed to live up to dire warnings) northern Europe has spent much of this year under becalmed, anticyclonic conditions. When the wind doesn’t blow, your wind turbines can’t turn, hence the falling profits.
Falling wind speeds – both in Britain and around most of the world – is the climatic trend we hear little about because it doesn’t fit in with the general alarmist message. We have plenty of scientists spewing out projections of increased deaths from heatwaves or trying to calculate the cost of increased rainfall – which has risen by around 10 per cent in the past 60 years. But I have yet to see a single study which seeks to quantify how much damage has been averted because winds have been less strong in recent years than they were when the country was rocked by the Great Storm of 1987 and the Burns’ Day storm of 1990.
Generally, a trend towards lower wind speeds is benign. But it is something of an obvious problem when you are trying to build an energy system around wind power, as Britain is doing. Yet there is little sign it has entered Ed Miliband’s head that he is trying to tap into a declining resource. The consequences certainly are dawning, however, at wind energy companies which – hit by rising costs as well as falling wind speeds – are demanding ever higher subsidised prices in order to build their plants. The German government has just failed to attract a single bid in its latest round of auctions to build wind farms in the North Sea. The same fate may well face Miliband’s latest auction, AR7, which starts this month. This is even though the government has increased the maximum level of ‘strike price’ – a guaranteed price which rises with inflation for the next 15 years – to £113 million per megawatt-hour, nearly three times what was on offer three years ago.
Besides the general fall in wind speeds, developers also have to take into account a localised phenomenon where wind turbines ‘steal’ the wind from other turbines which lie in their lee. The more crowded the North Sea becomes with wind turbines, the more acute this phenomenon will become. Green activists like to talk about the world reaching ‘peak oil’ – an event which keeps advancing into the future – but maybe we are already past the point of peak wind.
At least Miliband can satisfy himself that his solar farms are having a good year, and indeed a good decade. Another climate trend which tends to be under-reported is Britain’s increasing sunshine hours. Solar power is not a great solution to Britain’s energy problems because of the unfailing tendency of its output to fall to zero when energy demand is at its highest, on winter evenings, but you only have to have been looking out of the window to realise that solar, unlike wind, is going to have a bumper year in Britain. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a hedge fund out there which is going to make a killing by short-selling wind farms and going long on solar farms.
Mounjaro won’t be the last drug company to bow to Trump
If you need to lose a few pounds after enjoying the French or Italian food a little too much on your summer holiday, there might soon be a problem. The cost of one of the new weight loss drugs that has become so popular in recent months is about to get a lot more expensive. The American drugs giant Eli Lilly doubling the price of Mounjaro in the UK.
The price of one diet pill does not make a great deal of difference. The trouble is, the decision was prompted by President Trump’s determination to make the cost of medicines a lot fairer between the United States and the rest of the world. This is going to end up costing Britain, along with many other countries, a lot of money.
President Trump has made a big issue of the huge differences in drug prices
Eli Lilly will be increasing the British price of Mounjaro, the most popular and effective weight loss injection, from £92 for a medium-sized dose to £180, and from £122 to £330 for a stronger version. The reason is simple. President Trump, with his typically blunt language, complained about how a friend of his brought ‘the fat drug’ in London at a far lower price than in the US despite being ‘the same box made in the same plant by the same company’.
More broadly, President Trump has made a big issue of the huge differences in drug prices between the US and other countries. He has imposed tariffs that could go as high as 250 per cent to force the major pharmaceutical companies to bring their manufacturing onshore and lower prices for American patients. Eli Lilly’s response, quite rationally, has been to increase the price in the UK to start to close the gap and keep the President happy.
Eli Lilly won’t be the last pharmaceutical company to do this. Truth be told, President Trump has a point about the unfairness of drug prices in his country. On average, medicines cost 2.7 times more in the US than they do in the rest of the world. That might make sense for poor countries, but it is hard to see why developed economies in Europe, the Gulf or Asia should pay so much less for medicines than America does.
In effect, the US subsidises the rest of the world, paying for the huge cost of research while the rest of the world gets drugs at far less than they would otherwise cost. But if that is rebalanced, medicines will inevitably get a lot more expensive, both for private patients and in time for the NHS as well. Given that the UK spends £34 billion a year on pharmaceuticals and that £19 billion of that comes from the NHS, that is going to be a very big bill – and one that we can barely afford.
Farage should be allowed to appoint peers to the Lords
In Westminster, tradition often trumps innovation, and Nigel Farage’s latest demand has stirred the pot with characteristic vigour. The Reform UK leader has called on the Prime Minister to grant his party the right to nominate peers to the House of Lords, framing it as a correction to a glaring ‘democratic disparity.’ Far from a personal vanity project, this is a plea for proportionality in our unelected upper chamber, where Reform, with its four MPs, control of ten councils, and a commanding lead in national polls, remains conspicuously absent. As reported in the Times, Farage points to the Greens, who boast four MPs yet two peers, and the DUP with five MPs and six lords, underscoring Reform’s exclusion despite garnering over 4.1 million votes in the 2024 election. It is, in essence, a reasonable and apposite request for a party that has transcended fringe status to become a formidable force in British politics.
It is a reasonable and apposite request for a party that has transcended fringe status to become a formidable force in British politics
Looking back, this scenario echoes warnings from these very pages. In January, I made the case that Farage must steel himself for constitutional battles, including the potential need to ‘pack the Lords’ with new peers should Reform ascend to power. I also advised a robust manifesto to navigate the Salisbury Convention, lest the upper house – bloated with Tory and now burgeoning Labour appointees – thwart a future Reform agenda.
And now here we are, with Starmer apparently reluctant to act on what is, by any measure, Farage’s very modest proposal. Reform does not seek the abolition of the Lords right now (though Farage has flirted with that idea) but mere representation commensurate with its electoral heft. To deny this risks engineering a full-blown constitutional crisis, one deliberately constructed by a government more intent on stonewalling than statesmanship. If Starmer blocks this proposal, he will be setting the stage for Reform to ‘pack’ the chamber when the political winds shift, and shifting they are.
Consider the intemperate response from Defence Secretary John Healey, who dismissed Farage’s overture by branding him a ‘Putin apologist’ unfit to fill the Lords with his ‘cronies.’ Such language is not merely overheated; it is frankly stupid.
Reform has been in the lead in an astonishing 82 consecutive national polls, a streak that shows its resonance with a disaffected electorate weary of establishment platitudes. Moreover, the party secured victory in the only by-election of this Parliament, in a contest that exposed Labour’s vulnerabilities. And let’s not forget the local gains: Reform has swept council seats across the country, particularly in traditional Labour heartlands, seizing hundreds of positions and outright control of ten authorities in the May 2025 locals. These are not the hallmarks of a fleeting protest vote, but a movement embedding itself in the fabric of the nation. Healey’s barbs, laced with McCarthyite insinuations about Russia, are a deflection that diminishes his office.
This episode reveals a deeper malaise afflicting Labour: a depletion of substantive political arguments, supplanted by schoolyard taunts. Witness Technology Secretary Peter Kyle’s grotesque accusation that Farage, by opposing aspects of the Online Safety Act, sides with ‘people like Jimmy Savile’, a smear explicitly backed by No. 10. Such rhetoric, invoking one of Britain’s most reviled figures to score points in a policy debate, is not debate at all; it is desperation. Labour, once the party of principled opposition, is resorting to character assassination, dividing the nation rather than uniting it. This is no way to govern, especially when the stakes involve our constitution’s integrity.
Almost all serious commentators now view a Farage-led government after the next general election as not just possible, but likely. The consensus is clear: team Farage is ascendant. To play these stupid games, as the Labour front bench persists in doing, exposes them as deeply unserious stewards, not only of our economy, but of our very constitution.
In granting Reform Lords representation, Starmer could demonstrate statesmanship, bridge divides and honour our democratic history. Failing to do so would only court chaos. Farage’s request is modest; refusing it would be a monumental folly. As the polls tighten and Reform surges, the Prime Minister would do well to heed history’s lessons before electoral reality overwhelms him.
Can Putin extract an economic victory from Trump?
The Alaska summit taking place today isn’t just about war – economics looms equally large. Vladimir Putin, with his forces pressing forward in Ukraine, faces neither military urgency nor economic desperation to halt the fighting. For him, this has never been a territorial grab but an existential struggle against Western hegemony. His challenge is to decouple the war from bilateral cooperation with America: the former proceeds too favourably to abandon, while the latter promises diplomatic triumph and relief from mounting economic pressures.
Putin’s delegation tells the story. Finance Minister Anton Siluanov and Kirill Dmitriev, Putin’s special envoy for international investment, signal that sanctions and economic cooperation will be discussed. Putin has long insisted that what he deems illegitimate Western sanctions harm their architects more than Moscow, and he remains open to renewed trade – provided his geopolitical ambitions receive due recognition.
Russia has become a two-tier economy, with civilian and military sectors diverging
For Trump, cooperation follows peace, which Russia supposedly needs to salvage its economy. Here, Putin and Trump diverge. Trump declares Russia’s economy troubled; Putin claims stability and ‘balanced growth’. Both misjudge the situation. The Russian economy, to borrow from Chernobyl, is ‘not great, not terrible’. Contrary to Western hopes, it isn’t collapsing. Contrary to the Kremlin’s statements, it is not a paragon of stability either.
After three years of fiscal-fuelled growth, Russia’s economy is slowing. The initial war-stimulated boom brought with it inflation, budget deficits, labour shortages, and technological underinvestment. In the second quarter of 2025, Russia barely escaped recession. Year-on-year growth limps on above 1 per cent, with analysts predicting near-zero figures towards the end of 2025. After 4 per cent growth in 2024, 2025 forecasts for the whole year hover around 1 per cent.
Days before the summit, Putin’s economic ministers painted a grim picture, according to people familiar with the details of the meeting. Amid deteriorating forecasts and falling oil revenues, they expect to muddle through – unless conditions worsen – but only through spending restraint and squeezing more from citizens and businesses. This marks a shift from having a ‘war economy on steroids’ to fiscal containment without de-escalation: permanent militarisation under constraint. As civilian production slows, the military’s share rises. Russia can no longer afford guns and butter, so butter gets cut.
Short-term, this seems manageable. Russian incomes have grown for over two years, and consumption has increased despite double-digit inflation. A cooling-off hardly spells disaster. But a managed soft landing risks becoming a prolonged decline.
Several factors explain the collapse in growth. The Bank of Russia’s prohibitively high base rate, maintained to combat inflation, which was only recently reduced to single digits, tops the list. The Central Bank faces constant pressure from industrialists and bankers to cut rates but resisted until lending constraints and falling consumption finally forced prices down.
Inflation stems from rising government spending and labour market constraints. The military industry and the fighting army drain workers from the open market. Up to 700,000 young professionals have fled since 2022, while authorities have limited migrant employment to appease nationalist sentiment. This drove up salaries and fuelled consumption and lending in 2023 and 2024.
Now, the consumer party is ending – or at least has been put on hold. As the economy slows in 2025, salaries are stagnating, dampening consumption. After two years of retail exuberance, Russians are growing frugal. While overall retail sales remain stable, consumers are spending increasing shares on food – the one essential they cannot cut.
Slowing consumption and high borrowing costs reduce manufacturing growth. Companies are struggling to purchase new equipment and upgrade machinery due to sanctions and borrowing costs. Growth is now concentrating in the military sectors. To boost productivity and cut costs, the Kremlin would welcome technological sanctions and machinery bans being lifted.
Russia has become a two-tier economy, with civilian and military sectors diverging. Just as during the Soviet era, the Kremlin sees military production as the primary economic driver. Combined with restocking needs, this ensures continued high defence spending at the expense of human capital.
Unrestrained fiscal spending, lower oil prices, and economic slowdown have widened the budget deficit. By the end of June, it reached 3.7 trillion roubles (£34 billion) or 1.7 per cent of GDP – roughly the amount forecast for the whole year. A month later, it hit 2.2 per cent. Without changes, it could reach 3 per cent or more. While unremarkable for Western countries with open capital markets, Russia can’t finance its fiscal deficit with borrowing abroad.
Before the war, foreigners held a quarter of Russian sovereign debt. Now, only domestic borrowing remains. Additional state borrowing increases state debt servicing costs and business borrowing costs as firms compete with the government for funds. Easing the ban on international investors buying Russian debt would help the Kremlin.
In global trade, Russia has adapted to financial sanctions by using more roubles, yuan, and local currencies for export settlements. But easing banking sanctions to allow dollar settlements would reduce costs, risks, and volatility.
Trump cannot immediately lift all the sanctions against Russia, even if he is willing to. He would need congressional persuasion for some; convincing Europeans would prove harder. But even promising not to tighten US restrictions – let alone easing them – would give the Kremlin a political victory and an economic lifeline.
This need for economic oxygen isn’t yet as acute as it was for the Soviet Union in the mid-1980s. Despite wishful thinking, Russia’s economy isn’t collapsing. Economic headwinds alone won’t force Putin to negotiate. But the risks are accumulating, and the future has arrived faster than the Kremlin hoped.
Defence Secretary blasts Farage as ‘Putin apologist’
Ding ding ding! John Healey was pulling no punches this morning as he took aim at Reform UK on the airwaves. Nigel Farage’s party has slammed Prime Minister Keir Starmer for presiding over a ‘democratic disparity’ because despite having four MPs and managing ten councils, the party has no representation in the House of Lords. But when quizzed on the accusation today on LBC, the Defence Secretary was having none of it. ‘I’m not sure that parliament’s going to benefit from more Putin apologists like Nigel Farage, to be honest.’ Shots fired!
When pushed on whether this description may be a little strong, Healey refused to back down. He added:
Look at what he’s said about Russia, look at what he’s said about Putin in the past. Look what he said in the middle of the general election campaign. At this point, when maximum pressure needs to be put on Putin to support Ukraine in negotiations, when the maximum condemnation of Putin is required from someone who is sitting down with Trump in Alaska but turning up the attacks on Ukraine, it needs all voices.
And I have to say, the voice of Reform is conspicuously absent in any of our discussions and any of our defence debates about Ukraine and about Russia. And I’d really welcome Nigel Farage weighing in alongside us and the other parties in the House of Commons to condemn Putin and to work, as we’re trying to do as well, to reinforce the prospects of peace.
The remarks come after Farage criticised Starmer for not having asked Reform to nominate any peers, with convention being that No. 10 asks opposition party leaders to nominate candidates for peerages. But it’s not the first time Starmer’s army has blasted Farage over Russia, with the Prime Minister in May telling MPs that Farage was ‘a state-slashing, NHS-privatising Putin apologist without a single patriotic bone in his body’. In 2024, Healey said the Reform man ‘would rather lick Vladimir Putin’s boots than stand up for the people of Ukraine’.
It’s the latest in Labour’s ramped-up attacks on Reform UK, after Science and Tech Secretary Peter Kyle last month accused Farage of siding with ‘people like Jimmy Savile’ over his party’s pledge to repeal the Online Safety Act. The gloves are coming off…
Make council houses beautiful again
When Tony Blair and his team were deciding which venue should host his first speech as Prime Minister after his landslide 1997 election victory, they did not choose Downing Street or Whitehall or Parliament. They instead chose a much more unlikely setting, the notorious Aylesbury council estate in south-east London. Why? Because New Labour presentational dark arts aside, it brutally epitomised the deprivation, devastation and despair of those Blair went on to refer to in his speech as ‘the forgotten people’, a dispossessed social diaspora with whom Britain’s failed council estates had become hopelessly synonymous.
It is these people we desperately need to invigorate. This is why Policy Exchange are calling for beauty to be restored to the heart of housebuilding, and for the creation of a new generation of exemplary council houses.
We need to dispense with the failed 1960s and 70s public housing model and instead restore the proud and pioneering tradition of early council housing. This tradition saw England build the world’s first council estate – London’s Boundary Estate – not as a high-rise antisocial dystopia but an urbane enclave of handsome mansion blocks and tree-lined avenues radiating from a landscaped circus.
Despite recognising how far Britain had strayed from this model, Blair did little to change course when he was in power. Both he and Brown built fewer council houses during their combined 13-year tenure than Thatcher did in her final year in office, a year which itself delivered the smallest annual number of new council houses of her 11-year premiership. This strategic constriction of social housing stock mirrored historic shortfalls in private housebuilding, both of which have now unsurprisingly metastasised into the housing crisis we see before us today.
There are sound fiscal reasons for building council houses. Britain’s housing benefit bill is set to mushroom from £25 billion today to almost £71 billion by 2050. This is greater than the entire annual budget of the Russian army. At a time of near-unprecedented fiscal burden on the public purse, it is increasingly untenable to justify the state effectively subsidising private landlords to allow those on low-incomes to live in areas that often retain some of the world’s highest urban property values.
the government has sought to side-line beauty as a legislative ambition at almost every available opportunity
This was not the intention of those social pioneers who established the Boundary Estate and its peers and it should not be the intention of modern government either. Redirecting capital investment into the construction of long-term, reusable public housing assets represents a far wiser use of taxpayers’ money.
To its credit, the current government has promised ‘the biggest wave of social housing for a generation’ and has placed social housing at the heart of its ambitious though unreachable target of building 1.5 million new homes by 2029. Building on changes to Treasury spending rules that first prompted the modest social housing upturn we have seen since the coalition government, this summer’s 2025 Spending Review pledged that £39 billion would be allocated for the next ten-year phase of the Affordable Homes Programme, which would itself seek to provide 18,000 new social housing units per year over its lifespan.
But even though this falls well short of the 100,000 new council homes a year that we need, it is important to remember that, as the Aylesbury Estate generation of public housing viscerally proves, quantity is not enough; we must ensure that this new generation of council housing retains the quality to not simply repeat the mistakes of the past.
There is little evidence yet that this government has grasped the ideological intricacy of this challenge. Though elected on a wave of commitments to banish ‘identikit’ developments and promote ‘good quality housing’, the government has sought to side-line beauty as a legislative ambition at almost every available opportunity and has instead deployed the doctrinal safety net historically employed by left-leaning administrations of viewing housebuilding as an exercise in target-led utilitarian accumulation rather than generational civic endowment.
It has done this in the mistaken belief that growth is a function of hard-edged transactional economic enterprise alone, failing to understand the historical lessons passed down from the Medicis to the Victorians that show us that it is beauty that embellishes societies with the confidence, capacity and contentment that provides the best human conditions in which wealth can flourish.
This means building urbane, attractive and intimate council housing that creates welcoming neighbourhoods (not estates) that give a new generation of working people the dignity and pride to claim a firmer stake in society and make a more dynamic contribution to our beleaguered economic productivity.
In short, this report is a recognition that home is the greatest economic driver of all. As Roger Scruton observed, ‘through the pursuit of beauty we shape the world as a home’. If the government is genuinely committed to improving the homes of the most disadvantaged in society, then putting beauty back into council housing is where that mission must begin.
Four bets for the weekend and beyond
Ripon’s sprint course is unique with its many undulations and so it usually pays to side with a horse that has strong course form. Furthermore, tomorrow’s William Hill/MND Association Great St Wilfrid Handicap (3.20 p.m.) over six furlongs is regularly targeted by local Yorkshire trainers who have won 13 of the last 15 runnings of the race.
SECRET GUEST ticks both of the above boxes in that he was third in this very race a year ago, as well as being second at the course later in the season, and he is trained in North Yorkshire by Bryan Smart. In addition to that, he is in good form having been runner-up at Thirsk last time out in a fairly competitive six-furlong handicap.
With regular jockey Andrew Breslin in the saddle and claiming 3lbs as an apprentice, Secret Guest has every chance of making the frame or better tomorrow. Back him 1 point each way at 17-2 with William Hill, paying five places. Rousing Encore, from the in-form Ruth Carr yard, and Mister Sox, from the equally in-form Tim Easterby stable, head a long list of dangers but I am leaving it at just the one bet in the race.
JUMBY loves nothing better than racing at Newbury, on really fast ground and over a distance of seven furlongs, and he will have all three ideal conditions when he contests the TPT Fire Handicap tomorrow (3 p.m.).
Now aged seven, Eve Johnson Houghton’s gelding was rated as high as 112 in his prime when he won some top races, including the Group 2 Hungerford Stakes – also on tomorrow’s Newbury card – three years ago.
Jumby is no longer up to the task of winning a Group 2 contest, hence he swerves the Visit Malta Hungerford Stakes tomorrow, but he is more than capable of landing an 11-runner handicap off a mark of just 94. Unfortunately, the nice 10-1 each way price available two days ago has gone so back him 2 points win at 11-2 with William Hill, Betfred, Ladbrokes, Coral or BetVictor.
Tomorrow’s Hungerford Stakes is too hard for me to fathom out so instead I will have two ante-post wagers as my final bets this week. I love backing talented horses ante-post when you know their clear target and when they are not ground-dependent. Step forward NO HALF MEASURES who is being aimed at the Group 1 Betfair Sprint Cup at Haydock on 6 September.
Top jockey-turned-trainer Richard Hughes’ four-year-old filly caused an upset when winning the Al Basti Equiworld, Dubai July Cup Stakes at Newmarket last month at odds of 66-1. That was over six furlongs on good-to-firm ground but Hughes is adamant she will be even better on much softer ground. Indeed, if it rains hard in the run-up to her September assignment, it will blunt the speed of some of her rivals.
With the race favourite Lazzat fluffing his lines at Deauville last weekend, this six-furlong contest is wide open. Back No Half Measures 1 point each way at 12-1 with Ladbrokes or Coral, both paying three places.
Looking ahead to York, I am afraid Plage de Havre is a non runner in the Sky Bet Ebor a week tomorrow, I imagine after a setback, but my two other ante-post bets put up last week for York have shortened in price. I certainly have high hopes for Old Cock in the Clipper Handicap on Wednesday.
I will also add one more bet at York to my ante-post portfolio. As things stand, DANCING IN PARIS is unlikely to make the cut for the Sky Bet Ebor. So that means he is likely to run next Wednesday in the Sky Bet Stayers Handicap (4.10 p.m.) over two miles.
The hope for connections would be he wins the £50,000-plus first prize and also that he picks up at penalty which might get him into the Ebor line-up four days later. His trainer, Ian Williams, did just that with Alfred Boucher three years ago, with the horse beaten only a short head in the Ebor under a penalty by no-less-than Trawlerman, who won this year’s Ascot Gold Cup.
With all of this in mind, back Dancing In Paris 1 point each way at 12-1 with bet365, paying four places, for the Wednesday handicap with Saffie Osborne booked for the ride. Dancing In Paris can pull too hard and be a tricky ride but Osborne rode him well when second at Glorious Goodwood and he is up only 2lbs in the ratings for that big run.
I will be back a week today to take a close look at the final two days of York’s wonderful Ebor meeting.
Pending:
2 points win Jumby at 11-2 in the TPT Fire Handicap.
1 point each way Secret Guest at 17-2 in the Great St Wilfred, paying 1/5th odds, 5 places.
1 point each way Dancing In Paris at 12-1 for the Sky Bet Stayers Handicap, paying ¼ odds, 4 places.
1 point each way Old Cock at 25-1 for theClipper Handicap, paying ¼ odds, 4 places.
1 point each way Plage De Havre at 16-1 for the Ebor Handicap, paying ¼ odds, 4 places. NR.
1 point each way Majestic Warrior at 25-1 for the Ebor Handicap, paying 1/5th odds, 5 places.
1 point each way No Half Measures at 12-1 for the Sprint Cup, paying 1/5th odds, 3 places.
Last weekend: – 2 points
1 point each way Arisaig at 9-1 for the Shergar Cup Mile, paying 1/5th odds, 3 places. Unplaced. – 2 points.
2025 flat season running total: + 107.43 points.
2024-5 jump season: – 47.61 points on all tips.
2024 flat season: + 41.4 points on all tips.
2023-4 jump season: + 42.01 points on all tips.
2023 flat season: – 48.22 points on all tips.
2022-3 jump season: + 54.3 points on all tips.
GDP growth proves the Bank of England’s mistakes
Yesterday’s stronger-than-expected GDP growth raises questions for the Bank of England. Second quarter growth came in at 0.3 per cent (0.2 per cent per Brit) propped up by a strong 0.7 per cent in June alone. The rest of the national accounts however, paint a worrying picture when it comes to inflation.
The GDP deflator – which is a measure of the overall level of prices in the whole economy – came in at 4.1 per cent year-on-year growth. That’s down slightly from the last reading but still more than double the Bank’s 2 per cent target. Nominal domestic demand was growing too, at more than 5 per cent – providing stronger growth figures but pouring fuel on the inflationary fire.
The Bank itself now expects inflation to hit 4 per cent later this year but the rationale from the five members who swung the Monetary Policy Committee’s (MPC) recent rates decision was that the labour market had become so ‘slack’ that a cut was needed to kickstart growth. The fact the economy expanded 0.7 per cent in June suggests that rates cut wasn’t needed. The result: inflation let rip.
Meanwhile, data from the Office for National Statistics earlier this week pointed to pay rises of 4.6 per cent on average. Once price rises were factored in, this is still more than a percentage point above CPI. It seems hard to argue that the inflationary pressures from wage demands had worked their way out of the system before the MPC cut rates.
Another issue is the savings ratio – savings divided by household disposable income – which remains at over 10 per cent. Economic uncertainty is leading to consumers holding back on spending, something Rachel Reeves will be keen to unleash to boost jobs and business revenues. But if the Chancellor achieves this it will be yet more fuel on the inflationary fire. In short, the Bank may have loosened the reins just as the blaze was heating up. We can only hope I’m wrong.
Newsom rigs California
Judging from how much Gavin Newsom talks about Donald Trump these days, the governor’s real project isn’t governing California – it’s raising his national profile ahead of an inevitable presidential run. He’s found an issue that lets him pit himself against Trump and gain coveted national media attention: reconfiguring California’s congressional districts to put more Democrats in Congress. He’s pitching it as a way to “fight fire with fire” after Texas Republicans passed their own partisan maps. In reality, it’s a political power grab dressed up as righteous urgency.
The problem is that in 2010, Californians voted to take redistricting away from politicians and hand it to an independent citizen commission – a reform meant to end gerrymandering. Newsom’s plan to temporarily override it until 2030 needs a constitutional amendment, which requires the Legislature to cut short its summer recess, pass his so-called “Election Rigging Response Act” with a two-thirds vote before August 22, and put it on the ballot for a special election in November.
That election will cost taxpayers an estimated $250 million, at a time when the state is facing a budget crisis. “No price tag for democracy,” Newsom shrugged. Newsom is going all in on this gamble, despite the fact that California voters aren’t buying it. According to an August 14 poll, 64 percent want to keep the independent commission, and just 36 percent support Newsom’s plan. The opposition is bipartisan: 66 percent of Republicans, 61 percent of Democrats, and 72 percent of independents want the commission left alone. In a state where Trump barely scraped 34 percent in 2020, that’s a resounding rejection.
Faced with those numbers, Newsom is saturating the debate with the magic word that never fails to electrify his base: “Trump.” At a Thursday press conference in Los Angeles, he assembled a who’s who of California’s Democratic power structure. Among them was Jodi Hicks, head of Planned Parenthood California and wife of Paul Mitchell, a key player in the state’s redistricting world. Several union bosses took the microphone, including David Huerta of California SEIU – whose June arrest while confronting ICE officers helped spark anti-ICE riots. Huerta exhorted the crowd in Spanish to “correct the errors of November,” meaning Trump’s election.
From there, it was a parade of Democratic officials hitting the familiar notes: Trump’s immigration policies, January 6, abortion, “the wealthy,” and the apocalypse if the President is not thwarted. Not a single speaker offered details about how the governor’s plan would actually work– just moral posturing. The mantra was “protect democracy,” though in this case “democracy” seems to mean “Democratic Party control.”
Newsom and his allies openly framed this as a power grab, emphasizing the need to bend rules in the face of a unique threat. “We want to model better behavior [by having a nonpartisan redistricting commission],” Newsom explained, “but we can’t unilaterally disarm.” Senator Alex Padilla, switching to Spanish, added: “These are not normal times.” Apparently, if you’re a Democrat in 2025, there’s a convenient Trump exception to the rule that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Underneath the official script, Newsom’s choice of guests sent quieter messages. The first was aimed at state legislators, whose votes he needs. Labor’s heavy presence was a reminder of who bankrolls campaigns and supplies the ground troops for Democrats in California. Oppose the measure, and you might find yourself on the wrong side of your biggest benefactors.
The second audience was national Democratic leadership. Newsom wanted to show he’s a loyal soldier, willing to bend California’s rules and spend its taxpayers’ money to serve the Party’s larger goals. Most pundits think the plan is a long shot, but he doesn’t necessarily need to win to score points. Regardless of the outcome, he’s signaled to national party bosses that he’s ready to go to the mat for them – something that could pay dividends in 2028, given how shallow the Democrats’ bench is after years of rewarding loyalty over leadership skills.
Perhaps he’s calculated that if he pleases the party’s power brokers, he won’t have to worry too much about the ire of California’s voters.
Newsom’s repeated refrain of “Wake up, America!” emphasized that he was playing to a national audience. He warned that without his plan, the country will cease to exist because Trump will secure a third term. “Mark my word,” he insisted, citing as proof a hat someone sent him emblazoned with “Trump 2028.” For anyone immune to Trump Derangement Syndrome, the claim was laughable, but plausibility isn’t the point. The point is presenting Newsom as the hero standing between democracy and the abyss, the only man brave enough to take on Trump and the dastardly red states.
For those not buying this fairytale, the episode serves as a reminder of how quickly politicians will discard principles when there’s political capital to be gained. Californians voted to end gerrymandering, and now Newsom wants to override that mandate to boost his party’s power. The excuse is that Trump is too dangerous for the rules to matter. But few things pose a bigger threat to democracy than overturning voter decisions simply because they’re inconvenient to your side.
Trump, Putin, and the hidden power of the Bering Strait
Ahead of the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska to discuss Ukraine, President Trump said there would be “some land swapping.” He waxed lyrical about “prime real estate.” The summit’s location is a good example of land swaps and prime real estate and is in a region of growing geopolitical importance.
In 1867 Russia “swapped” Alaska for $7.2 million in a deal mocked as Seward’s Folly after Secretary of State William H. Seward who negotiated the exchange. It turned out to be a snip. Commercially viable oil was discovered three decades later and has brought in more than $180 billion in revenue since Alaska became a state in 1959.
However, it’s not just the 49th state’s oil (and gas) which makes it so important, it’s the maxim which is so close to prime real estate agent’s hearts – “location, location, location.” Alaska sits on one side of the Bering Strait which separates the US from Russia. The Strait connects regions each country considers vital for trade and security – the North Pacific, and the Arctic.
Strategic thinking in Moscow increasingly views the entire Arctic coastline as a continuous domain stretching from Norway, across the top of Russia, and then down through the Bering Strait. The route links Russia’s Northern Fleet, based in Murmansk on the Arctic, to one of the main bases of its Pacific Fleet in Kamchatka. This is the Northern Sea Route, or NSR.
The Arctic Ocean has begun to thaw seasonally, a trend expected to continue. This means the NSR is already navigable for cargo ships for at least three months a year without needing icebreakers. Ships taking this route from Asia to Europe can sail 5,000 fewer miles than via the Strait of Malacca and Suez Canal. Journey times are cut by at least ten days with concurrent savings in costs. The savings (including insurance) are even bigger if compared with the path around Cape Horn in Africa which some vessels now take due to the Houthis firing at ships in the Red Sea en route to Suez.
Russia charges vessels a tariff in parts of the NSR’s waters, all of which are within its Exclusive Economic Zone. Over the next few decades this source of revenue will increase concomitant with more frequent use, while Egypt will see a decline in fees for the Canal. The melting ice caps, and new shipping route, also make the Arctic’s untapped deposits of rare earth minerals, oil, and gas more accessible. The eight Arctic countries all hope to benefit from this but others, notably China, are also involved.
These are the reasons why more than a decade ago Russia began re-establishing its military power in the Arctic. It has reopened bases mothballed at the end of the Cold War and invested in new airfields, radar stations, and infantry equipped with “Arctic-proof” drones built to withstand the climate.
The Strait connects regions each country considers vital for trade and security – the North Pacific, and the Arctic
This has drawn attention back to what was thought of as a conceptual relic of the Cold War – the Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) Gap. This gateway to the Atlantic consists of the sea lanes the Russian Navy would need to pass through to strike targets in Europe or the Northeast American seaboard – hence President Trump’s interest in Greenland. The world’s largest island is the shortest route to the eastern parts of the US for Russian submarines and missiles. Controlling Greenland would allow the building of more radar stations and missile defense systems in addition to the Pituffik base which is home to part of US Space Force. It would also allow access to Greenland’s huge supplies of cobalt, uranium and lithium – metals upon which the Americans are overreliant on China.
It is to be hoped that President Trump knows some of this history and geography because the fate of Ukraine is connected to what happens in regions listed above. A victorious Russia would embolden Putin to continue pushing out in all directions – towards Moldova, the Baltics, Kazakhstan, and possibly even the Bering Strait.
The “Baker-Shevardnadze Line” across the Strait was agreed between the USSR and US in 1990. However, although Russia and the US later agreed that it marks their maritime border Russia never ratified the deal and said it would only observe it on a temporary basis. Moscow is no position to seriously contest the line, or passage through the Strait, but may do in the future especially if it wins in Ukraine. There are even nationalist voices in Russia claiming Alaska is Russian and that the country was cheated out of its ownership.
However, Seward’s Folly is now a fully integrated part of the US, its economy, and its defense strategy, as reflected in the air bases and ballistic missile defense systems located in a state which is closer to Moscow than Washington, DC. As well as being keenly aware of the above, the US looks southward. So does Russia.
The Aleutian Islands, for example, are part of Alaska and host some of America’s missile defense system. The chain stretches 1,000 miles across the southern part of the Bering Strait towards Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula – home to Russia’s Pacific Fleet submarines and long-range fighter jets. Further south is the Fleet’s main base in Vladivostok. Everything is connected, and the gateway to the Arctic is the Strait.
It’s importance waxes and wanes, 56 million years ago the region was tropical. It’s heating up again, in many ways.
Kim Jong-un will be watching the Trump-Putin summit closely
When Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump meet in Alaska today, it will mark their first encounter since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. Although the talks are likely to be dominated by questions of a ceasefire, possible division of territory, and how the three-year war will conclude, North Korea will likely be more than a small elephant in the room. Amidst amplifying ties between Moscow and Pyongyang, neither Putin nor Kim Jong-un looks likely to abandon the other in the short term, irrespective of whether any piece of paper – however preliminary – emerges from the Last Frontier.
On Tuesday, Russian and North Korean state media announced that Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un had exchanged a telephone call prior to today’s summit with Trump. North Korean state media highlighted how both leaders pledged to ‘strengthen cooperation’ between the two countries, with Kim affirming that North Korea ‘will always remain faithful to the spirit of the DPRK-Russia [mutual defence] treaty’ signed last year. The Kremlin elusively added that Putin shared information about his upcoming talks with Trump with his North Korean ally: no details were provided.
Kim has more confidence that his partnership with Putin is unlikely to evaporate
North Korean state media rarely reports on telephone calls, but this one was hardly an insignificant act of semantic symbolism. Rather, it was a clear affirmation on the part of both Pyongyang and Moscow that their rapprochement is not abating. This year has witnessed numerous visits by Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, as well as Putin’s top aide, Sergei Shoigu, to Pyongyang for ‘strategic dialogues’ with senior North Korean officials, including the Supreme Leader himself. In April, North Korea and Russia openly admitted what the world had long known, namely, the deployment of an estimated 14,000 North Korean troops since October 2024 to aid Russia’s fight against Ukraine. It was then no surprise that Putin lauded the ‘heroism and selflessness’ of the North Korean soldiers, who have been little more than cannon fodder, all the while offering lessons for the regime in Pyongyang as to the realities of a modern war.
Since taking office in January 2025, the relationship between Trump and Putin has fluctuated between bonhomie and hostility, which Pyongyang will have been keeping a close eye on. When Sergei Shoigu, Secretary of Russia’s State Council, visited North Korea in March to meet Kim Jong-un, Kim effusively stressed how it was his regime’s ‘resolute will’ to ‘support Russia in the struggle for defending its national sovereignty’ both now and in the future. At the time, the not impossible prospect of Putin warming to Trump – and vice versa – and potentially dispensing with its newfound ally would have been in the back of Kim’s mind.
Five months later, and Kim has more confidence that his partnership with Putin is unlikely to evaporate, whenever and however the war in Ukraine ends. After all, it is not just 12 million rounds of artillery, ballistic missiles, and troops which have been sent in Russia’s direction in exchange for cash, oil, and Kim’s most-coveted missile and military technology. In gross violation of United Nations sanctions, North Korea has continued to dispatch labourers and construction workers to Russia, a flow of people which predates Russia’s invasion in 2022. These cheap workers endure slave-like conditions, are kept under tight surveillance to prevent them from being ‘contaminated’ by non-North Korean ideology and fulfil a clear labour shortage for Russia. Additional labour is too good an offer for Putin to refuse.
The parallels between North Korea and Russia will not go unnoticed by Trump. Both countries show no remorse in violating international sanctions and actively support each other in their sanctions-flouting behaviour. In December 2017, Russia and China supported United Nations Security sanctions calling for the return of all North Korean workers overseas within 24 months, but rather than practise what they preach, Moscow and Beijing retained and accepted more.
Moreover, just as Kim Jong-un told the North Korean party and people in December 2019 that they must learn to live with sanctions, Putin has paid no attention to the international community’s justified sanctioning of Russia. And even if the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk ‘republics’ end up on the negotiating table in Alaska, we must not forget that, bar Russia and Syria, the only other country to recognise the independence of these Russian-annexed areas is North Korea.
North Korea also offers an example of just how presidential-level summitry involving Donald Trump can fare. Three meetings between Kim Jong-un and Trump across 2018 and 2019 did little to advance Pyongyang’s denuclearisation, not least given the North’s utter lack of interest in doing so. In fact, North Korea only became more determined to acquire more and better weapons. What the talks did highlight, however, is that for all the optics of diplomacy, it takes time to find – let alone strike – a mutually-acceptable deal in international relations, especially with an adversary.
Ultimately, Trump wants the Nobel Peace Prize, but whether he will achieve it for ending the war in Ukraine, the conflict in the Middle East, or resolving the North Korea problem is the million-dollar question. If today’s summit – what Trump has called a ‘feel out meeting’ – does little to change the status quo, as many expect, he might then try his luck with Little Rocket Man. Yet with Russia firmly supporting an emboldened Kim, the North Korean leader will likely refuse any offers to come to the negotiating table.
Just as Kim did not want to abandon his nuclear weapons for all of Trump’s calls, Putin does not want to lose the Ukraine war. And it is overcoming this gulf in interests that is the true art of the deal.
