Bern

Jeff Banks is SPOT ON here, and somebody had to say it 👏🇬🇧 The climate has never stopped changing since the Earth began 4.6 BILLION years ago, Jeff says, and we're actually living through record LOW temperatures compared with most of the Earth's history. Why ban CO₂ when it's what makes plants grow? He says it's been falling for 150 million years, and if it ever dropped to 130 parts per million, plant life would die out. 500 million years of history against 170 years of thermometers. Jeff says CO₂ doesn't cause global warming. Then there's Andy Burnham 🙄 He knows NOTHING about climate change, yet he's off at COP31 promising net zero by 2050 and giving away BILLIONS of our money. And who pays for it? Hard-working families, through higher bills and higher taxes. With climate change it's ALWAYS about the money. And people need to use some common sense about the rubbish they hear. Keep on saying it, Jeff. It's much appreciated 🙌🇬🇧👏💪🙏

Lord Foulkes says I'm a bad historian for saying the Saxons are indigenous🤦‍♂️ Maori are accepted as indigenous to NZ. They arrived in 1300s Saxons arrived in the 600s! England is named after the Angles! The Celts & Saxons are indigenous due to 1,300+ yrs habitation with no major changes to demography The Normans conquered Britain but, like the Romans, they only changed the demography by around 1%. It wasn't until the 1950s that the population began to fundamentally change. Even then the change was minimal. None of this is to attack or criticize early immigration in the 20th century. As late as 1991, 94% of England was ethnically White British. Most people were able to trace their ancestry back to Iron Age Britons or Saxons The rate of immigration, where the indigenous remain above 90%, seems fair and reasonable. Why Lord Foulkes thinks I'm indigenous, I have no idea. I'm not indigenous to this island, even though, via my mother, I descend from both King Harold (the last Saxon king) and William the Conqueror. The Heydels, coincidentally, are of Saxon origin (OG German rather than Anglo). But let me just say why both Foulkes and Mensch are completely deluded: Britain had had more immigration in the past 20 years than the past 2000 years. Between 1991 and today, the white British population has declined from 94% to 73%. That is a dangerous and unprecedented rate of change. 20% of people in Britain are foreign born. 40% of people living in London are foreign born. Only 33% of Londoners are white British. London is a template for what will happen to Britain. The character of a city and a country are shaped by the culture, habits, customs, attitudes, etiquette, and collective memory of their inhabitants. Most people in London today have never heard of the Blitz or Christopher Wren. They have no loyalty to the city, no interest in its culture, history and way of life. This is the fate of England and Britain if action is not taken. Yet in the video debate below, I'm up against not only a Labour Lord but a supposedly right-wing commentator such as Mrs. Mensch, who told me that the fact that 73% of Britain is still White British means there's nothing to worry about. Excuse me? The White British population declined 20%+ in 30 years. The British and English will become an ethnic minority in the next few decades. That is nothing to worry about? How can we expect foreigners to integrate and buy into the culture and society of a country where the indigenous population are themselves an ethnic minority? What will the common culture, music, sport, humour television, film be? This is madness. And it must be called out. Me on @GBNews:

Good morning fellow travellers. So you’ve noticed the immigration problem - despite the promises of multiple election results and one huge referendum result to halt it - just isn’t going away? They tell you YoY numbers are down but that’s only because they went so insanely parabolic previously. And they singularly fail to mention that just this year, so far, we allowed a Portsmouth sized amount of non EEA migrants to come here - hat tip @charliecolecc who is doing excellent work on this. Many people ask the entirely reasonable and correct question: “But, if we the British people voted against it, then why does this happen at all?” The answer is simple. The modern globalist model runs on labour arbitrage. Import cheap labour, legal and otherwise, and wages stay flat. Flat wages keep inflation contained, which matters more in Britain than almost anywhere else: roughly a quarter of our gilts are index-linked, so every point of CPI goes straight onto the interest bill on £3 trillion of debt. Contained inflation keeps rates down, cheap money keeps asset prices up, and high asset prices keep the donor class happy. It's a closed loop, and everyone outside it pays to keep it running. The AI age will change this. Once the immutable data on what these migrants do is widely distributed and interrogated and understood so the population understands in unequivocal terms that 99% of them add nothing but take as much as they can from taxpayer funded initiatives the mood music will change. I suggest taking the approach Denmark has with the excellent @jonatanpallesen in this respect. Pure data that proves the anecdotal experience. But, and here is the kicker, automation will be hugely long term deflationary. It will also mean that our own high trust and educated people - especially in white collar jobs - will, for a period, experience a displacement of job opportunities where they lose employment altogether or rehire lower down the income distribution; an Engel’s pause basically whilst the new labour paradigm shifts into gear, certain jobs are wage and status privileged for a period (eg the build out) and eventually new white collar (and other) jobs are created. There will then - given the numbers - be too many people per job. As we will have to absorb the displaced or lost jobs of our own people at scale, the cost of the welfare to subsidise foreign workers low pay, let alone foreign indolents free lifestyles - ON TOP - will not be affordable in this transition. Which means the umbilical cord of state sponsored welfare will be cut. Which means these people will have no incentive to stay. Which means they will start to leave. Of their own accord. You can, of course, also create a hostile environment to encourage them to leave peacefully if their own accord or even pay them to leave (cheaper than paying them to stay which is what we effectively do now). This is the most moderate option on the table based on historic precedent where such periods of dislocation and social unrest lead to ugly inhumane mass civil conflict. So you limit what access to state services they can get. There are a host of other humane and reasonable options too that I leave others more attuned to the culture war to opine on; I am purely interested in the socio economic vector, and what it costs. Currently it is clear to me that only @RestoreBritain and @SDPhq understand this, or, have the minerals to state it publicly and offer viable humane solutions. I am currently finishing off an article on this very topic - which I see as being the greatest existential threat to Britain that exists. As @trevgoes4th has (so often) presciently stated “AI = the white walkers and everything else is downstream noise”. This piece is complex and has taken weeks to write - but it will set out a grand plan for Britain to become truly sovereign again. Busy weekend just started, so will publish Tuesday next week. Hope you’re all having a good one! Best wishes, AFC

I've met Russell Brand twice (I think): Once when I hosted a Guardian Live event about his book in 2014. Another time I interviewed him for The Big Issue when I was guest editing in 2015. He also gave my publishers an endorsement for my book The Establishment, which I was mortified about at the time mostly because I thought it was so OTT it would obviously invite ridicule (which it did). At the time I saw him as a crude means to reach disillusioned younger people with left-wing politics - the sort of people who wouldn't be reached by conventional left-wing journalists and politicians. As a result I was willing to overlook, or just not look into, his history of problematic behaviour / statements, including sexism. I convinced myself that he was on some sort of journey and that was a good thing. That was an obvious misjudgement. I did think he was a bit of a chancer / had a messianic complex, but overlooked that too as a necessary evil in reaching disengaged people. But that was clearly his main driving force and he clearly ended up concluding that right-wing politics was a better vehicle to satisfy it. It's an important lesson in not stupidly engaging clearly problematic figures, however charismatic or however much mass appeal they have, in the service of a cause. What I would say is that right now we should be centring the survivors of a rapist and sexual predator. I personally don't really think those trying to point score have his survivors' interests at heart. I would also argue that those with the big questions to answer are the right-wing figures who continue to stand by him and spread conspiratorial nonsense in his defence. Finally, let's hope that other possible survivors of Russell Brand feel able to come forward.

Hungarian football fans gathered in front of the Duomo di Milano in Milan, Italy, displaying a banner that read "We have to defend Europe."