Sir Nigel Gresley

One man is running the Tory op against me. Even the Daily Mail is scared to write his actual name. He’s a full blown psychopath with kompromat on all Tories because he used to run sex parties/orgies. He’s the man who introduced Kemi to her husband Hamish. They call him “Dr No.” Because he’s a real life Bond villain. He likes to be called “The Wolf.” His real name? Dougie Smith.

WHY NAZI GERMANY WAS NOT A CAPITALIST BUT A SOCIALIST STATE "The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises." "When one remembers that the word “Nazi” was an abbreviation for “der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — Mises’s identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with “socialist” in its name to be but socialism?" "Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed." "The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands." "What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in NAME only under the Nazis and that the ACTUAL SUBSTANCE OF OWNERSHIP of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the NOMINAL private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners." "DE FACTO government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental COLLECTIVIST principles embraced by the Nazis as that the COMMON GOOD comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a MEANS to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State." 'But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936..." — @GGReisman MORE in comments.

What Israel did in Gaza may well go down in history as the most humane and precise urban warfare environment the world has ever known—the very opposite of genocide. The entire purpose of a genocide is to push civilians into the killing zone. Think about what happened in the Holocaust, where children in line at Auschwitz were given bars of soap, where inside of the gas chambers there were fake shower heads. What was the point? It was to trick and induce civilians to get in to the killing zone so that you could kill more of them more efficiently over time. Israel has done the very opposite—warning civilians and then manning humanitarian corridors with its own soldiers, risking its own sons’ and daughters’ lives to ensure that civilians get out of the killing zone. We see two remarkable things in Gaza. First, according to preeminent urban warfare scholars like John Spencer, Richard Kemp, and Andrew Fox, Israel has the lowest militant-to-civilian kill ratio in the history of urban warfare. Genocides have extreme civilian-to-militant kill ratios. Hundred, thousand, ten thousand-to-one. That’s the point of a genocide. Here we have a militant-to-civilian kill ratio of may be two-to-one—not consistent not just with law of war violations—but much less with genocide. Second, and more importantly, all genocidal regimes get better over time at killing civilians. Again, think about the Holocaust. The Nazis started with firing squads killing 20, 30, 50 people at a time and realized that was too inefficient. Then they got these vans and filled them with exhaust pipes, and they would kill more people. And they said, “We’re never going to get to six million killing them this way.” That led them to construct these massive gas chambers and crematoria—the architecture of true genocide—to kill thousands and thousands of people cheaply and efficiently a day. Israel has done the opposite. Even if you believe Hamas’ numbers, the scale of civilian death in Gaza went down over time. Israel got better and better and spent hundreds of millions of shekels learning how to become more efficient at preserving innocent Palestinians’ lives. Again, the very opposite of genocide.

Why I'm optimistic 👇 For twelve years I've been banging on about this and now people are finally seeing it, evolving communism, cultural Marxism or whatever label you choose, it's all the same. The EU was never just about trade. It's a communist style structure. Centralised control. Unelected people at the top telling elected people at the bottom what they can do. You vote one way, they ignore you, and carry on anyway. How many times have we seen that? People ask how did we get here? It didn't happen overnight. It's generational. Go back to the sixties. You had all those left wing students demonstrating. CND, sit-ins, banners, shouting down anyone who disagreed. At the time we thought it was just students being students. Those indoctrinated students? They became the professors. They became the teachers, the lecturers, the BBC producers, the civil servants, the judges, the Archbishops, the people running the charities. The EU commission, NATO bosses, NGOs, UN officials etc And they taught the next generation. And that generation taught the next one. That's three generations now. There is a famous saying from the German student leader Rudi Dutschke. He talked about t The Long March through the institutions. And that's exactly what happened. You don't need to attack a public building with violence . That's too obvious. You just need to attack all the things within it. You attack the family - tell people the family is outdated, that mothers shouldn't be at home, that children belong to the state. You create such a costly environment, where buying bricks and mortar is impossible, a family today can't but a house with two wages, that keeps the mother at work, the child in third party hands for 8 hours a day in formative years. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, who's rocking your cradle. You attack the church - tell people faith is bigotry, close the churches, laugh at Christians while protecting religions with very like-minded controlling doctrines. You attack the schools - stop teaching history properly, stop teaching right from wrong, teach children to be ashamed of their own country. Encourage people not to work, to be dependent on the state. If the state controls you're income, it controls what you spend it on . You can never get out, or grow. You attack law and borders - tell people that a country that controls its border is racist. By the time you have done all that, you still have the same buildings - Parliament, the courts, the schools, the churches - but they mean something completely different. They have been hollowed out from the inside. That is what the EU is. It's the perfect vehicle for it. Laws made far away, that you can't vote out, that overrule your own courts and your own Parliament. It's control by committee. That's not democracy. That's communism by another name. Even worse quangos that control the news you see, the products you buy, the food you eat. Additives that benefit a few fed to the whole Nation despite health issues I voted Brexit because I saw it. A lot of us did. Some places voted 70% for less immigration and for control back, and we were told we were wrong. But now with AI we can look it up ourselves. We don't have to take their word for it anymore. We can follow the money, see who funds what, who sits on what board, and we can share it with each other. They can't hide it anymore, Musk opened The Twitter Files and showed the world what's really going on, we've information is power we have direct access to it and have grown in strength. Their Long March has been uninterrupted for decades, be patient, keep talking , keep sharing, they'll never reach the finish line. That's why I'm optimistic ❤️ .

So the full documentary is out. Whatever your view of ITV's investigation into Reform, and whatever you think of what it revealed, I think we need to recognise that this represents a significant escalation in the use of undercover journalism against a political party. I've spoken to people in broadcasting in recent days, about the precedents for this kind of investigation. They highlight that, in 2005, Channel 4's Dispatches infiltrated Labour's press office during the general election campaign. But that investigation was part of a wider but focused examination of the rise of "political spin," critically, with undercover reporters placed in all three major parties. A 2012 Sunday Times story also gets mentioned. Then, journalists secretly filmed Conservative Party treasurer Peter Cruddas in the cash-for-access scandal. Again, there, they were pursuing a very specific allegation of wrongdoing. What appears to be happening with Reform is something rather different. We've seen undercover filming of canvassers handing out leaflets, activists in pubs, councillors in their homes, parliamentary candidates in local meeting, junior press officers at their desks, senior officials at the Christmas party, and now even the party leader himself in the party office. Across successive general elections and by-elections, Channel 4 and now ITV have dedicated an extraordinary amount of time and resources to covertly recording people associated with one political movement, at almost every level. Rather than investigating a specific allegation of wrongdoing, the approach now appears to be to put people under sustained clandestine surveillance and wait for something newsworthy to emerge. Whatever that might be. That's a very different proposition, and one I struggle to reconcile with the investigative journalism I was taught. Undercover methods were supposed to be exceptional. You had a specific lead, a serious matter of public interest to investigate, and good reasons why the information couldn't be obtained through conventional reporting. Here, that principle seems to have been turned on its head. To be clear, some of the comments made by Reform councillors and activists are genuinely appalling. I can see a legitimate public interest argument for broadcasting them. But I'm still struggling to understand what justified secretly filming the conversations inside Reform HQ and at their Christmas party, particularly those involving junior staff and what appeared to be an entirely legitimate internal discussion involving Nigel Farage. There's another problem I've discussed with journalists who have worked on undercover investigations. Once a broadcaster has committed months of work, substantial resources and considerable editorial effort to an investigation, there is inevitably pressure to produce something worth broadcasting. What happens when the undercover operation doesn't uncover the scandal you might have hoped for? I worry that the threshold for what constitutes a story starts to fall. Conversations that would ordinarily be considered unremarkable become national news simply because they were secretly recorded. And the presence of a party leader in the footage doesn't automatically make the conversation newsworthy, let alone justify the methods used to obtain it. The wider implications concern me even more. I cannot overstate the anxiety this kind of journalism will create among people working in politics, particularly younger staff. If taking a job in a political press office now means accepting that a colleague might be an undercover reporter, secretly recording your conversations for months, what does that do to the working environment? What does it do to trust? To the willingness of talented young people to enter politics? Or to the ability of political staff and journalists to engage with one another in good faith? And there is an obvious question about impartiality. The intensity of undercover scrutiny directed at Reform in recent years is striking. That doesn't mean Reform should be exempt from scrutiny. Quite the opposite. But it is reasonable to ask whether the same investigative methods and editorial thresholds are being applied across politics. Otherwise, people who support Reform, or simply want to work for the party, will understandably feel uniquely under attack and isolated from the "mainstream media" and "the establishment" I really worry about what that means for this political tribe (my political tribe), as well as the relationship between politics and the media, and ultimately for our democratic process. None of this excuses the disgraceful things some Reform-liked people have said. Nor does it mean undercover journalism cannot expose wrongdoing of genuine public interest. What we're witnessing appears to be a shift from investigating specific allegations of wrongdoing towards relentless covert scrutiny of an entire political movement, in the hope of discovering something worth broadcasting. Whatever your politics, I think we should be concerned about where this takes us. I hope I'm wrong about the consequences. But I suspect we're entering a new era in the relationship between journalists and political parties, and nobody really knows where it ends.

Мелани Филипс очень доходчиво объясняет удивительное превращение левых либералов в бесчеловечную фашистоидную дрянь. Все предельно просто и закономерно.

STATEMENT I am aware that ITV infiltrated the Portsmouth Reform UK branch for their undercover report. I am featured in their documentary. Not in a bad way, in my opinion, but still featured. I’ll get to that in a minute…. What I am more shocked and disgusted in is that I now know who the two reporters were whom infiltrated us. These two men campaigned with us in March/April in Portsmouth and it leads me to wonder whether their interference in an election is a potential criminal offence. We have no way to know whether they posted flyers they were meant to. Or whether they gave us correct door knocking information. They campaigned in four seats specifically where, in 3, we lost by a small number of votes. Their involvement would have had an impact on the result. By default ITV could have literally paid reporters to ruin an election result for Reform UK candidates. That has to be criminal. On a personal level I allowed these men in my home. I made them drinks. They met my dogs. It’s an entirely disgusting invasion of personal privacy. I have photos of these men and know who they are - I will not disclose them at this stage but may in the future once I’ve gotten advice In relation to my involvement with the documentary I remain firm in everything I personally said. I was never a member of the Portsmouth Patriots, as the documentary states, but I have supported their movement over the years from the sidelines. The executive team who run them are good people. Yes outside third parties have come in and done some abhorrent things. Those people should be condemned. But the local group themselves are decent, passionate, local residents who care deeply about their community. I’m appalled by ITV and hope they are held to account for their potential criminal behaviour and election interference. The two reporters involved in infiltrating Portsmouth I hope are held to account for their personal actions in the outcome of elections. The money, resources and time spent by companies and individuals to damage Reform UK are unprecedented in our political system - you have to ask yourself why?

Gaza is the most lied about war in history. There was no genocide, no famine, no intentional targeting of children. These are modern-day blood libels. We need to expose all the Islamo-left lowlifes who spread these lethal falsehoods, says Brendan O’Neill buff.ly/v0hJX0j

Le 7 octobre c'est aussi cela. Une foule de civils gazaouis hystérique autour du cadavre d'une Israélienne kidnappée et dénudée. Des images qui nous hantent nuit et jour.

At first, Jean-Pierre did not understand. He watched the evening news, paid his taxes, voted responsibly and believed what respectable people told him. 1. France needed immigration because the economy needed workers. 2. Diversity was an opportunity. 3. Public services were under pressure because they lacked funding. 4. Disorder at school was caused by inequality. 5. Crime statistics required context. 6. Anyone who connected these things too quickly was probably an extremist. Then his children started coming home from school saying they could barely hear the teacher. Half the lesson was spent restoring order. Teachers changed constantly. Some simply disappeared for weeks. Jean-Pierre complained once, politely. The administration explained that the situation was “challenging” and that the school was developing an “inclusive pedagogical response.” Jean-Pierre went home reassured. There were professionals dealing with it. His neighbourhood changed too. Shops closed. Others appeared. Groups of men occupied the same corners every evening. His wife stopped taking one street after dark. Jean-Pierre noticed all of this, but he had also learned that noticing patterns was dangerous. So every event remained an isolated event. One closed shop meant nothing. One assault meant nothing. Ten incidents meant ten unrelated incidents. Only a racist would connect dots. Then his daughter was sexually assaulted by a man who had recently arrived in France. Jean-Pierre was devastated. But almost immediately he began policing his own thoughts. The attacker was an individual. Of course. One must never generalise. The television explained that exploiting such crimes politically was irresponsible. A minister warned against “stigmatisation.” Jean-Pierre found himself nodding through tears. What had happened to his daughter was monstrous, but the truly frightening possibility, apparently, was that somebody somewhere might vote for the wrong party because of it. Nothing changed. His son’s school became worse. His daughter stopped going out alone. His wife wanted to move. The police were exhausted. The teachers were exhausted. The hospitals were exhausted. Jean-Pierre was exhausted. Yet every explanation he had been given required him to believe that each deterioration was temporary, accidental, exaggerated or caused by something entirely unrelated to the deterioration immediately beside it. And whenever somebody proposed that perhaps the country had made serious mistakes — about migration, authority, education, policing, integration, punishment or borders — Jean-Pierre knew the correct answer. “Careful. That sounds like the far right.” So he remained reasonable. He remained moderate. He remained informed. He remained completely incapable of drawing a conclusion from his own life. So at first, Jean-Pierre did not understand. And he still does not understand.

Dear @RestoreBritain goons. We are not negotiating with you. @reformparty_uk supporters do not want your votes, do not need your permission, and are not interested in the version of events you keep selling about yourselves. You are not a neglected constituency waiting to be courted. You are a splinter that decided the rest of the right was not pure enough, then spent the time since explaining why everyone else is the problem. That story is finished. The offers to work together are not serious. They arrive only when you notice that a divided right hands Labour another term, and they come with conditions so the larger party does the work while you keep the veto. That is not cooperation. It is a demand that Reform shrink to fit your grievance. We will not do it. If a split right means Labour stays in, that is the outcome you chose when your faction mattered more than the result. You do not get to attack the only vehicle that can displace them, then turn up afterwards asking to share the credit for a loss you helped engineer. 
Demographic change is the issue you treat as existential, and on that the next five years of Labour are not neutral. The pace of the policies you claim to hate does not slow because a smaller party on the right refused to consolidate. It continues. Settlements, asylum rules, family routes, housing pressure, the courts, the civil service culture that treats objection as suspicion none of those pause while you argue about who owns the brand of opposition. If that trajectory is as vexing as you say, every month on purity tests is a month you gave away. The people who live with the consequences are disproportionately those who already feel the change in their towns, schools, and waiting lists. A comfortable professional who can move, or whose postcode still looks like it did twenty years ago, can afford a lost election. Many of the voters you claim to speak for cannot. 
So the damage lands on you, not on us. Reform does not cease to exist if a cycle is wasted. The country you say you are trying to preserve does not get a replay. Another Labour term entrenches the administrative state, the legal frameworks, and the demographic facts you insist cannot be reversed later. You can call that scaremongering. You can call the people pointing it out traitors to the cause. What you cannot do is pretend the calendar stops while you finish the argument about who is allowed to lead. Five more years is not an abstract penalty on Reform. It is the period in which the trends you describe as replacement keep compounding, and the institutions that manage them grow more confident that no electoral threat is organised enough to matter. 
We are not obliged to soothe that. We are not obliged to pretend your departure was a tragic misunderstanding rather than a choice. If the right loses because it could not stop eating itself, the loss belongs to those who preferred a smaller stage to a larger one. My life, and the lives of many people who vote Reform without a manifesto written in the language of siege, will continue. Jobs, families, mortgages, the ordinary business of getting through a week those do not collapse because a faction online declares the country already gone. What does get worse, on your own account, is the thing you say keeps you up at night. That is the trade you are making. You are not punishing Reform. You are accepting a longer Labour government for the satisfaction of saying you never bent. 
When that bargain comes due, do not expect sympathy from the people you spent the campaign calling sellouts. You were told the split had a price. You decided the price was acceptable so long as someone else was blamed for it. If the country you claim to care about is harder to recognise in five years than it is now, that will not be a mystery, and it will not be a joke someone else played on you. It will be the result you risked because being right in a smaller room mattered more than being effective in a larger one. 😏

Our latest Westminster voting intention poll (27-28 September 2026) continues to show a close heat between Labour and Reform UK Reform UK: 25% (+4 from 20-21 Sep) Labour: 24% (+1) Conservatives: 19% (-2) Lib Dems: 12% (=) Greens: 11% (-3) Restore Britain: 3% (-1) SNP: 2% (=) Plaid Cymru: 1% (=)

Our latest Westminster voting intention poll (27-28 September 2026) has most parties within the margin of error of our previous poll, but shows Reform UK up four points on last week, while the Greens are on their joint lowest shared recorded in our tracker this year

Respected pollster John Curtice highlights the decline in Labour support since 2024. He also says that Reform would be the largest party in any election.

From Grok: Sir John Curtice’s most recent comments on this (mid-September 2026, in an interview with The Independent) were not that Reform will win the next election. He said Reform could still become the largest party if Andy Burnham called an early general election. The context: Burnham is now prime minister after replacing Keir Starmer. Labour has had a modest “Burnham bounce,” and Reform’s national poll lead has shrunk after scandals and a funding row. A YouGov poll around that time had Labour and Reform both on 23% and the Conservatives on 20%. Curtice’s points: The polls still suggested Labour would lose its majority. One of two large “mega-poll” MRP models after Burnham took over actually gave Reform more seats than Labour. Reform’s vote is geographically even. That hurt them when they finished third in 2024; it can help them if they finish first, even by a narrow margin, because they waste fewer votes in safe seats. Calling an election now would mean “risking three years to gain two. It’s a bad deal.” He has also said Labour’s “dirty secret” on Reform is that they need the Conservatives to take some votes off Farage—so the right-wing vote is split in a way that helps Labour in seats—rather than Labour beating Reform head-on everywhere. In short: Curtice is not forecasting a Reform victory. He is saying the first-past-the-post map still makes a Reform plurality of seats possible if Burnham goes to the country while the race is this tight.

Page 14, if you are interested in telling the actual truth. committees.parliament.uk/pub…

Page 14, if you are interested in telling the actual truth. committees.parliament.uk/pub…

Respected pollster John Curtice highlights the decline in Labour support since 2024. He also says that Reform would be the largest party in any election.