Dan Richardson retweeted
Pretty funny to see everyone blame this (rightly condemned, to be clear) on whatever their political bogeyman is: I've just seen people say that this is because of, take your pick, "communism," "Islamism," "third worldism," "Russia," and "China".
As if France needed any outside help to riot... Maybe some people need to brush up on our history, or read Victor Hugo's "Les Misérables"...
This isn't to romanticize the rioters in the least. A reminder that in Les Misérables there's the figure of Thénardier, a horrendous scoundrel who exploits the chaos around him, robbing corpses and fleecing anyone he can.
Every chaotic moment in French history has its share of Thénardiers, and this one is no exception.
It's just too easy, and actually useful to those in power, to blame this on outside forces. At the end of the day, this anger was made in France, is happening in France, and can only be solved in France.
And, as painful as it is to hear, if one studies history, this is pretty much exactly what's expected at the stage France is at.
People have studied this. Whether you take Ray Dalio’s six-stage cycle theory, Peter Turchin’s "elite overproduction" thesis or the Chinese dynastic cycle framework, they all come to the same conclusion: when debt piles up, public services crumble and those in power become incapable, the streets eventually explode.
In fact it's almost eerie how France ticks almost every box of most cycle theories:
- Fiscal distress (debt is 119% of GDP and we now pay more to borrow than Italy or Greece),
- Crumbling public services: a reminder that these protests (now turning into riots) started with high school students protesting over the state of education
- Political paralysis and a legitimacy crisis (Macron has an insane 82% disapproval rate, he's definitely lost the Mandate of Heaven...)
- Popular immiseration with a record poverty rate at 15.4% and a median wage at only €2,190 net per month for a full-time private sector employee (you can't even afford to rent a decent flat in any major French city with this)
"Third worldism" or "Islamism" isn't the cause of any of this: French governments didn't borrow like there's no tomorrow (the last balanced budget dates back to 1974!) because the "Muslim Brotherhood" told them to, and it wasn’t Putin or Xi who left French classrooms without teachers...
Sadly the reactions - scapegoating - are ALSO typical of this stage of the cycle: Dalio lists among the classic markers of Stage 5 the emergence of "scapegoat classes who are commonly believed to be the source of the problems" (linkedin.com/pulse/delving-s…), alongside a "loss of truth in the public domain," with people more interested in hunting for culprits than looking for solutions.
So what is the solution? Well, the way the Chinese dealt with it was basically a reset - regime-changing themselves with a new dynasty claiming the Mandate of Heaven, usually after decades of rebellion and war. Not exactly a hopeful prospect...
There is also the exception where a dynasty managed what the Chinese call a 中兴 (zhōngxīng, "restoration"): profound reform from within before the whole house came down. It succeeded a few times (e.g. the Tongzhi restoration during the Qing dynasty) but usually could only buy a few more decades, rarely more.
In 1945, the writer Huang Yanpei famously asked Mao how to break free of the cycle (cn.vlex.com/vid/constitution…), framing it in those terms: "People are careful and hard-working at first, for bold measures are the only possible ways to break through difficult conditions. But when things gradually get better, people begin slacking off: laziness may spread through a long history and is impossible to be corrected when it becomes a common practice. Gradually expanded territory requires corresponding increases in talent, but when the latter is insufficient, the central control will become weak. In a word, no one can escape the 'vicious cycle' of dynastic rise and collapse."
Mao replied that democracy was the answer, because "as long as the people can supervise the government, the government dare not slacken." And Xi later added a "second answer" (chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/…): a system capable of "resolute self-reform".
The jury is still out on whether China has broken the cycle, but if France has any hope of escaping it, it will need both answers at once: a government that truly answers to its people, and very resolute self-reform.
One thing the answer definitely isn’t: turning on each other. In all these cycle theories, division and scapegoating appear on the way down, never on the way back up.
⚠️🔴 À REGARDER JUSQU'À LA FIN
JE NE PEUX PAS DÉCRIRE CE QUE JE VIENS DE VIVRE À MARSEILLE.
#17octobre
Dan Richardson retweeted
Brexiter, "The politicians that delivered Brexit, did not deliver Brexit"
My view: This is not the Brexit I voted for latest.
There was never a clear definition of what “Leave” meant.
That was part of the problem from the start: voters were offered a binary choice, but no agreed plan for what would replace EU membership.
Some promised frictionless trade and close cooperation; others wanted a much cleaner break.
Those were different versions of Brexit, and the campaign never settled which one the country was choosing.
So when someone says politicians “didn’t deliver Brexit”, the obvious question is: which Brexit?
The UK left the EU, the single market and the customs union, and ended free movement.
But geography and practical realities did not disappear: Britain still needs trade, cooperation and workable arrangements with its closest neighbours. Northern Ireland made that especially clear.
“Half in, half out” is a slogan, not a plan. A more complete break would mean spelling out the costs — more barriers to trade, less cooperation and difficult choices over Northern Ireland.
Brexit’s failure was not simply that politicians failed to deliver an undefined promise.
It was that the promise was never honest or specific enough for voters to judge what they were actually being asked to choose.
Dan Richardson retweeted
Left: Conservative Mims Davies claims we got the covid vaccine because we left the EU
Right: Dr June Raine says UK vaccine program ran while the UK was still legally within the EU and under EU law
My view: Every time a Brexit politician claims Britain got the Covid vaccine first because we left the EU, they run into the same inconvenient fact: we were still bound by EU law when the vaccine was approved.
The UK authorised the Pfizer vaccine on 2 December 2020. The first vaccinations followed on 8 December.
The Brexit transition period did not end until 31 December, so EU law still applied.
And MHRA chief executive Dr June Raine said the approval used Regulation 174, a provision under European law that remained available until 1 January.
The UK had left the EU politically in January, but that did not mean it had escaped EU rules by December. The early approval came through a regulatory route available under those rules.
Brexit politicians are taking credit for a decision made while those rules still governed us, and the regulator was explaining exactly that.
That is what makes this claim so shameless.
They take a genuine achievement by scientists, regulators and the NHS, erase the legal timeline, and sell it as proof Brexit delivered something it did not.
It wasn’t Brexit that made the vaccine possible.
The official responsible for authorising it said the legal basis was European law.
Dan Richardson retweeted
So this is obviously the official pushback to the line on Russian interference & it’s the same nonsense that Boris Johnson spouted: ‘no successful interference’ is utterly meaningless. There’s never been any investigation & no definition of what ‘success’ means.
Dan Richardson retweeted
This is the bit of Right to Buy discourse that really gets on my tits, because I know loads of people who did it. My grandparents bought their council house after living there for decades. My mum did it at one point. Of course they did. If the state says, “Do you want to buy the house you already live in at a massive discount and actually own something?”, most working-class people are going to say yes. Why the fuck wouldn’t they?
And that is why Right to Buy was such brilliant politics. It was genuinely empowering for the people who benefited from it. You went from being a council tenant to owning an asset, having something to leave your kids, being less dependent on the state. I completely understand why that appealed.
It also fits Thatcher almost perfectly. I don’t think her philosophy was simply “fuck everyone, you’re on your own”, which is how “there’s no such thing as society” often gets remembered. It was more this belief that responsibility starts with the individual and the family, then the neighbours, the church, the voluntary group, the local community. Her father was exactly that kind of civic-minded greengrocer who got involved in everything, and I sometimes wonder how much of Thatcherism boils down to WHY CAN’T EVERYBODY JUST BE LIKE MY DAD?
And, well, because they fucking aren’t.
HERE COMES THE GOBLIN.
What happens when Derek doesn’t help his neighbour?
What happens when Derek is skint?
What happens when Derek is 84?
What happens when Derek has three kids, two jobs and absolutely no fucking time?
What happens when Derek assumes Sandra will do it, Sandra assumes the church will do it, the church assumes the charity will do it, and the charity has lost its funding?
You have rediscovered WHY INSTITUTIONS EXIST.
“People should step up” is a perfectly decent moral sentiment.
IT IS NOT A FUCKING DELIVERY MECHANISM.
You cannot organise healthcare, housing, education, social care and poverty relief around SOME DECENT BLOKE WILL PROBABLY SORT IT OUT.
That is literally why we build systems. Human beings are inconsistent. Some people are incredibly generous. Some are selfish. Most have their own shit going on. A functioning society cannot make essential things depend on whether an unusually conscientious greengrocer happens to live three doors down.
And Right to Buy is almost the perfect example.
For one family, fantastic. You buy your council house. You pay it off. You have security. Your children inherit something. Brilliant.
Then another family does it.
Then another.
Then another.
House 100,000: sold.
House 500,000: sold.
House 1,000,000: sold.
At some point some 25-year-old cleaner turns up and asks:
“LOVELY. WHERE’S MINE?”
And suddenly everybody gets very interested in personal responsibility.
That is the bit that annoys me about using someone’s mum buying her council house as proof that Right to Buy worked. OF COURSE IT WORKED FOR YOUR MUM. THAT IS THE FUCKING POINT.
The question is whether it worked as a housing system over generations.
Because if Brenda the cleaner could buy her council house in 1987, but Chloe the cleaner in 2026 is now paying private rent on Brenda’s old council house and needs two incomes, a massive deposit and preferably some conveniently deceased grandparents before she can buy anything herself, then you solved Brenda’s housing problem.
YOU DID NOT CRACK HOUSING.
You sold the chair and then told the next generation they should have got there sooner.
Dear @andyburnham
My mum died of dementia a few months ago. She was a cleaner.
She bought our council house. We were very working class.
She would hate the way you are wrecking our country and its future.
You don’t understand what working class is.
Dan Richardson retweeted
Hirst (Northumberland) Council By-Election Result:
🌹 LAB: 50.1% (+7.0)
➡️ RFM: 30.0% (-20.0)
◼️ RES: 10.3% (New)
🌳 CON: 4.1% (-2.8)
🔶 LDM: 3.9% (New)
🙋 Ind: 1.6% (New)
Labour GAIN from Reform UK.
Changes w/ 2025.
Dan Richardson retweeted
You are wrong. @GBNEWS , is owned in part by All perspectives ltd. One of their stakeholders is Nigel Farage. @grok Are my statements about @Nigel_Farage holding interest in GBnews correct?
Dan Richardson retweeted
Thanks to this young farmer who came all the way from near Bergerac to help us; a 5-hour drive.
A united France, that's the France I love.
It might not seem like much, but there were several fires that broke out in this area during the day despite our efforts with our small hoses and makeshift pumps.
A spreader is still incredibly effective.
Dan Richardson retweeted
Grays Town (Thurrock) Council By-Election Result:
🌹 LAB: 37.0% (+5.3)
➡️ RFM: 27.0% (-7.8)
🙋 Ind: 13.0% (New)
🌳 CON: 12.3% (+1.3)
🌍 GRN: 8.8% (-7.3)
🔶 LDM: 1.9% (-4.5)
Labour GAIN from Reform UK.
Changes w/ 2026.
Dan Richardson retweeted
The motives remain speculative and unproven, and the investigation is ongoing, but the fact that counter-terrorism police are now leading the investigation into the death of Ann Widdecombe after “new information and evidence has come to light”, appears to be a significant development.
Widdecombe’s body was found with “serious injuries” by the ambulance service at her home in Haytor, Devon, at 11.40am on Thursday, Devon and Cornwall police said.
The force initially said that based on the the available evidence, counter-terrorism partners had reviewed the case and had ruled out a terrorist motive.
But on Monday counter-terrorism policing (CTP) confirmed it was now leading the investigation into the death of the former minister.
A 28-year-old white British man from Rotherham, South Yorkshire, was arrested on suspicion of murder on Saturday.
A statement from CTP said “new information and evidence has come to light during what has been a dynamic and complex investigation and as a result, counter-terrorism policing south east is now leading the investigation”.
The man in custody has since been rearrested on suspicion of commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
The head of national counter-terrorism policing, Laurence Taylor, said: “Building on the progress made by our colleagues in Devon and Cornwall police, we now have new information and evidence that means counter-terrorism policing is now leading the investigation.
“We are pursuing multiple lines of enquiry to establish the motivation for this attack.
“Our priority is progressing this investigation quickly, with all the capabilities we have available to us. If anyone has any information, please share it with the police.”
theguardian.com/uk-news/2026…
Dan Richardson retweeted
🚨🇬🇧 ANALYSIS: The police did not fail Henry Nowak because of "anti-white woke training." They failed him because they walked into a crime scene that had already been rewritten for them.
Before officers arrived, Vickrum Digwa's brother had already made the call. And on that call, he built the false reality that the police were about to enter. He told them Henry was the aggressor: drunk, racist, violent. He said Henry had knocked Digwa's turban off and hurled racial slurs. He gave them a tidy story: Henry had climbed the fence by the bins, fallen onto the bonnet of a car, and was now on the ground behind it with facial injuries. He said they were detaining him. On the same call, you can hear him tell a relative: "Don't try to reason with him - the police are coming."
That was the scene the police were sent to. Not the real scene. The scene a lie built.
The operator asked the obvious critical questions. Were there weapons? More than once, the brother said no. What condition was Henry in? The brother admitted he didn't look in good shape, so the operator said he would send an ambulance. The brother thanked him. So picture what officers were dispatched to: a drunk, racist troublemaker who had attacked a Sikh man, knocked his turban off, climbed a fence, fallen, and was now lying on the floor with facial injuries - with no weapon present, confirmed again and again by the caller.
That is why Henry saying "I've been stabbed" was met with: "I don't think you have." They had been told, on the record, that there was nothing to stab him with. If the wounds were not immediately obvious in the dark, at midnight, in December, the lie had already done its work.
Now look at the part people are trying to turn into "woke policing": the fact that officers took the racism allegation seriously. Of course they did. Racially aggravated offences are routine police business. Race is the largest category of hate crime in England and Wales by a distance. The duty to record and act on racially aggravated allegations is not some new ideological fad from a training slide. It comes from the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the post-Stephen Lawrence reforms - a legal framework older than many serving officers.
An officer taking that allegation seriously was not obeying "anti-white training." He was doing routine policing under a law that has existed for more than 25 years.
But here is the point Tommy Robinson and the far right need you to miss: race was part of the false story, but it was not the whole mechanism. The police were not simply given a race allegation. They were given an entire crime scene. They were told who the aggressor was. They were told why Henry was injured. They were told there was no weapon. They were told Henry had fallen. They were told Henry was being detained. They arrived to find a man on the ground, in the dark, with visible facial injuries, after the caller had already explained those injuries as the result of a fall.
The far-right version depends on stripping the story down to two racial identities and deleting almost every operational fact: white man says he was stabbed, non-white man says he was attacked, police automatically side with the non-white man. But that is not the sequence. The sequence was: first caller controls the frame, denies the knife, explains the injuries, presents Henry as the threat, and gives police a ready-made interpretation of the scene. Then, when Henry tells the truth, the truth arrives inside a scene already poisoned by the lie.
Strip race out of it entirely and the same lie still works. A self-presenting "victim". A visible prop that appears to support the story. A fabricated fall. A hidden knife. A 999 call denying any weapon existed. A white caller telling police the same story - drunk attacker, no weapon, fall injuries, we're detaining him - could have produced the same failure. The structure of the deception is what did the work.
Race may have given the allegation extra charge. The lie did not need it to work. No diversity policy is required to explain what happened. No grand theory of "anti-white policing" is needed. The caller gave the police a false map, and the officers followed it.
Robinson's claim is bigger than Henry. He tells the world the police are now conditioned to always believe the non-white person, or too frightened of being called racist to ever disbelieve them. That is a claim about the whole system, and it makes a prediction you can test: if it were true, ethnic minorities would be the people who come off best in police encounters.
They do not. They are stopped and searched more, arrested more, and have force used on them more. The Race Action Plan everyone is quoting exists because minorities are over-policed and under-protected - and the barrister who chaired the board that wrote it says the people handcuffed while injured and vulnerable, against the guidelines, are disproportionately people of colour. The exact failure that Henry experienced happens most often to the people Robinson says are being favoured.
A theory that predicts minorities are protected has to ignore a record showing they are treated worst at every measured stage. It survives only by deleting that record - the same way it survives by deleting the 999 call.
None of this clears the officers of what came next. Handcuffing a man who said he couldn't breathe, and the delay in treating him, are real failures - and they are exactly what the inquest will examine. The failure was not that officers were trained to hate white victims. The failure was that they accepted the first story, then failed to properly re-evaluate it when the dying man told them the truth.
That is the honest sequence: the police were lied to, then they failed Henry at the basics.
"Anti-white training made them do it" was never part of the story. That is a political fiction attached onto a tragedy after the fact. It only works if you delete the 999 call, the false fall story, the hidden knife, the repeated denial of weapons, and the caller's control of the narrative.
Henry told them the truth. He had been stabbed. He couldn't breathe. The knife was hidden by the killer's mother. His family helped build the story that made Henry look like the threat. And the police believed them.
Dan Richardson retweeted
People were rightfully angry with the Police then, and they're rightfully angry with the Police now, but everyone can clearly see what he's doing.
Dan Richardson retweeted
If we don’t explain science to the public, others will fill the gap with nonsense.
Dan Richardson retweeted
Every day, we're trapped in the paradox of the "Schrödinger’s immigrant", a mythical outsider who exists simultaneously as a lazy welfare dependent & an unstoppable machine taking all the jobs(both skilled & unskilled).
The immigrant remains a highly convenient shape shifting scapegoat designed to explain away ALL complex, systemic domestic failures.
Keeping this paradox alive ensures politicians never have to answer for a decade of chronic underinvestment, flatlining productivity, & broken infrastructure.
Dan Richardson retweeted
Murton (Durham) Council By-Election Result:
🌹 LAB: 50.6% (+17.6)
➡️ RFM: 39.6% (-4.5)
🌍 GRN: 4.8% (New)
🌳 CON: 3.1% (-2.0)
🔶 LDM: 1.9% (-2.3)
No Ind (-13.6) as previous.
Labour GAIN from Reform.
Changes w/ 2025.
Dan Richardson retweeted
On days like today, it’s important to remember the words of Jonathan Miller when challenging the dog-whistling of snake-oil salesmen trying to divide us for political/personal gain & Billionaires hoarding wealth offshore to avoid UK tax while claiming to be patriotic. #newsnight
Dan Richardson retweeted
The level of personal hostility directed at Keir Starmer over the last week deserves scrutiny in its own right. Not because he should be immune from criticism, but because the tone and intensity of the attacks tell us something unhealthy about the state of democratic politics.
1. Starmer is a conventional political figure. Cautious, legalistic, incremental. He frustrates people precisely because he is managerial rather than messianic. Yet the reaction to him often goes far beyond disagreement, tipping into visceral hatred more commonly reserved for authoritarians or demagogues.
2. Much of this hostility is disconnected from concrete policy. It is not about specific votes, proposals or outcomes, but about projection. A belief that Starmer embodies betrayal, bad faith or hidden malice. That kind of politics runs on suspicion rather than evidence.
3. This matters because democracy depends on the assumption of good faith among opponents. You can think a leader is wrong, timid, or misguided without believing they are fundamentally illegitimate. Once politics becomes moralised to the point of demonisation, compromise is reframed as treachery and pluralism as weakness.
4. The pattern is familiar. In fragmented, polarised systems, anger concentrates not on extremists, whose intentions are clear, but on moderates, who disappoint maximalists on all sides. The centre becomes the lightning rod precisely because it resists totalising narratives.
5. There is also a media and online dynamic at work. Incentives reward outrage, not proportionality. Algorithms favour contempt over analysis. Over time, this creates a political culture in which relentless personal attack feels normal, even virtuous, rather than disgusting.
6. None of this is a defence of Starmer’s decisions, instincts or record. Those should be argued over robustly as you do in a democracy. The problem is the substitution of critique with hostility and the quiet erosion of democratic norms that follows when political opponents are treated as enemies rather than rivals.
7. A democracy cannot function if every election is framed as an existential struggle against internal evil. At some point, the target may change, but the damage to trust, restraint and culture remains.
Dan Richardson retweeted
Farage has run for political office SIX times and been an MEP for FIFTEEN yrs - he's as establishment as they come. #leadersdebate
Dan Richardson retweeted
Replying to @afneil @MenCount2
A @NASA "climate spiral" video showing monthly global temperature changes between 1880 and 2021

























