I loved this juxtaposition of two headlines in an FT newsletter last night:
Does that mean the UK is about to investigate Trump's interference in UK politics?
I think not, somehow, even though that might be where the most significant problem now is.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Hmmm………….Putin’s interference or Trumps……..from what I have read about Putin’s support of Trump, all the facts are known and it has not changed a thing. You cannot separate the two. Even foreign countries were warning the U.S. government about what Russia has been up to. Even Boris Johnson seems to have links with Russia and what about Farage?
At the end of the inquiry into Cambridge Analytica, the select committee I believe made it quite clear that Britain’s electoral system lacked any real robustness and safeguards against outside interference. And what did they do with the lessons learnt after BREXIT: Nothing. Poor old Carole Cadwalldr knows about the cost of telling the truth though.
And what about party political funding?
As you seem to say, this is window dressing.
Russophobia does run deep in British society, doesn’t it ? But no mention of the very obvious outside interference in British politics by Israel and its agents who (if they had been Russian) would be described as being ‘deeply embedded in British society’.
I think the investigation is linked to anger at the attack on David Lammy by Reform:-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/dec/16/richard-tice-refuses-to-condemn-reform-uk-mayoral-candidate-chris-parry-comments-david-lammy
Perhaps a more general question is worth posing: investing the actions of lobby groups of any sort which represent non-UK interests in the UK including those supported by embassies in the UK and orgs which UK MPs are part of. Notice how carefully I have had to phrase this question.
When I gave evidence to a UK HoC select committee (on power networks etc) it was all videoed and is public. If that is good enough for issues/problems of pertinence to UK citizens then arguably any & all contact between gov/MPs and lobby groups of any sort (including “catch up” meeting between BoE & Goldman Sachs) have to be either in public or recorded or both. Obvs meetings between e.g. ambassadors and the F.O might need to be private. But the assumption for the rest should be public. Failure to make the record public – a criminal offense.
Agreed
The BBC must stand firm and not cave in. Via it’s lawyers keep up the mantra we will see you in court, especially the deposition stage where you have to give statements under oath.
There will be a lot of bluster from Trump. The likely outcome? A Trump face saving “settlement”.
There is a surfeit of material, available and already published, relating to the very significant and damaging interference by the state of Israel in British politics, going back many years.
But whether any serious “independent” investigation will take place is another matter, as the interference by the state of Israel is so successful, that it would be very difficult to get such an investigation of the ground. Anyone taking the initiative tends to be crushed very quickly with the full weight of the UK state and its various institutions both overtly and covertly.
Ask former Conservative FO Minister Alan Duncan, ask Jeremy Corbyn, ask journalist Peter Oborne, and many others. Ask Al Jazeera, Channel 4, and staff at the BBC. Check out the lengthy videos already on public record about how it works.
Even calling for such an investigation would result in defamatory accusations of antisemitism, as does any criticism of the actions of the state of Israel.
But I believe there should be such an investigation. I won’t hold my breath.
I saw an article in passing ( can’t recall where) which suggested Trump might accept an out of court settlement for $10 million over the Panorama program.
The costs of contesting the case could be higher, so I wouldn’t be surprised if Starmer agreed to something like that. I just hope he doesn’t.
I note that the US has suspended a $40 billion technology deal with the UK. They don’t like Europe’s regulations. But could this also be part of Trump’s bully boy tactics?
We should defend the case on principle.
Who knows? It might encourage more Americans to defend their constitution.
The suspension mkes a mockery of the supposed “deal” done.
The law suit makes a mockery of Starmer.
How much humiliation can he take?
He’s allowed himself to be caught between a rock and a hard place. He should be pushing to rejoin the EU so that he can replace lost trade and consequently the UK can be less worried about trade with the United States. I’m sure the EU member states are in a mood to be strengthened by the UK’s return given the United States appearing indifferent to what happens in Europe.
Apparently it’s an ‘urgent’ Inquiry by Philip Rycroft – which no doubt will mean too ‘hasty’ to look at all the corrupt ‘donations’ by lobbyists, for big business , Israel, US, Russia, China – the buying up of political parties (so that they no longer need members and their subscriptions), 2nd ‘jobs’, bribery for honours etc etc