Nearly two-thirds of voters think Starmer doesn’t respect them – new poll

Spread the love
Simon Dawson/Number 10/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Marc Stears, UCL

Exhausted from a long campaign but buoyed by an extraordinary victory, Keir Starmer stood on the steps of Downing Street just over one year ago to deliver his victory speech. “Your government,” the new prime minister said, “should treat every single person in this country with respect.”

This message of respect resonated strongly in the year leading up to the campaign, coming as close as anything to providing a central argument to Labour’s case for government. And, according to polling and focus groups that my team at UCL Policy Lab designed along with polling company More in Common, it seemed to work.

As our research at the time showed, voters felt that “respecting ordinary people” was the most important attribute that any politician could have, more important than having ideas for the future, managing effectively or having real experience. And they thought Starmer was the leader who displayed that respect most.

A year later, the picture looks quite different. In new polling, we asked a representative sample of over 7,000 people to evaluate the government one year on. On respect, the judgement has not been good.


Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.


During the general election campaign, 41% of the electorate said that they believed that Starmer “respected people like them”. One year on, that stands at only 24%. At the same time, the number who say that he does not respect them has risen from 32% to 63%. Starmer is now outstripped on that question by Nigel Farage – 33% say the Reform UK leader respects people like them.

Losing support

This view has had crucial political consequences. Of those who voted for Labour in the general election, only 60% of our respondents say they would vote for the party in an election held tomorrow.

And that is not because some other political party is suddenly swooping in for their supporters. Labour’s voters are defecting in a host of different directions: 11% say they would vote Reform; 8% would vote Liberal Democrat; 4% would vote Green and 4% would vote Conservative. A further one in ten say they simply don’t know how they would vote.

Labour’s losses have been most dramatic among their first-time voters. Of those who voted for Labour in 2024 but not in any other general election since 2010, barely a third still support the party, while a fifth would vote for Reform UK.

These political failures, our report contends, are directly related to the declining sense of respect. The top reason voters gave for turning away from Labour are the broken promises and U-turns made by Labour in government, followed by the party’s failure to reduce the cost of living and changes to the winter fuel payment.

The idea of “respect” being key to the public’s sense of whether a government is on their side or not has been growing for many years now, both in academia and in politics itself. Since at least the 2007/8 financial crisis there has been a sense that large swathes of the public feel neglected, overlooked and even disdained by those who govern them.

When people talk about wanting to see “change” in Britain, this is often what they mean. It was a theme I touched on recently in two books, Out of the Ordinary and, with my co-author Tom Baldwin, England.

A smiling Keir Starmer delivers his victory speech, with a crowd of supporters behind him
Just over a year ago, a happier Starmer delivers his victory speech. Shutterstock

But respect is not just an abstract idea. People appear to judge whether they are respected by those who govern them or not primarily on the basis of whether the government stands up for them against powerful vested interests.

Our earlier research demonstrated that there is a widespread sense among the British public that certain groups have had it too easy for too long. This is either because they have been able to intimidate the government, or because government ministers and advisers have themselves been recruited from among these groups.

In our new report, therefore, we see that the new government’s most popular act was their willingness to raise the minimum wage by £1,400 in April, against the objections of some in business who suggested that such a move was too burdensome on them.

Changes to the winter fuel allowance and proposed changes to the disability benefits system, on the other hand, registered poorly. They suggest that the interests of ordinary and vulnerable people count for too little in decision-making.

These judgements currently shape the mood of the country and probably top the list of issues that the government now needs to address. There is still time for the government to rebuild its appeal, of course. Indeed, our respondents who said they would vote for Labour said they would do so because the party needs more time to fix the problems they inherited.

But as it seeks to do so, voters will want to know who this government stands for. Whose interests does it put first? What kind of people does it respect?

Much of the electorate thought they knew the answer to these questions one year ago. Now they’re not so sure.

Marc Stears, Director of UCL Policy Lab and Professor of Political Science, UCL

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Keir Starmer says that the Labour Party under his leadership all feel a small part of Scunthorpe.
Keir Starmer says that the Labour Party under his leadership all feel a small part of Scunthorpe.
Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone obect to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza's hospitals and universities,mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.
Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone obect to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities,mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.
Keir Starmer chases Nigel Farage's racist bigot vote.
Keir Starmer chases Nigel Farage’s racist bigot vote.

Continue ReadingNearly two-thirds of voters think Starmer doesn’t respect them – new poll

Warren, ‘Every Single American Needs to Know’ Trump’s GOP Is to Blame

Spread the love

Original article by Jake Johnson republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

A healthcare worker turns on an operating light in the emergency operation room in the labor and delivery unit at the medical complex in Hondo, Texas on February 26, 2025. (Photo: Kaylee Greenlee for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

“When thousands more people die from not getting care, we know who to blame,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Monday that the American public “needs to know” that the blame will lie squarely at the feet of President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers if and when hospitals across the country are forced to shut their doors due to the unprecedented Medicaid cuts included in the new budget law.

“Every single American needs to know what Donald Trump and Republicans did in the ‘Big Beautiful Bill,'” Warren (D-Mass.) wrote on social media, referring to the budget reconciliation package that the president signed late last week.

“When hospitals close their doors, we know who to blame,” Warren continued. “When thousands more people die from not getting care, we know who to blame. When kids go hungry, we know who to blame.”

The nation’s rural hospitals, which rely heavily on Medicaid reimbursements, are expected to bear the brunt of the pain from the Republican law, which includes more than $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts as well as destructive changes to federal nutrition assistance and other programs. Nursing homes, community health centers, Planned Parenthood clinics, and other facilities are also at risk, and states are now scrambling to prevent catastrophe.

An analysis published by the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform prior to passage of the GOP legislation estimated that more than 700 rural hospitals across the U.S. are at risk of closing due to “serious financial problems.”

“Republicans will try to ignore the devastation their disastrous reconciliation bill will cause. We won’t.”

The health policy organization KFF notes that federal Medicaid spending in rural areas is projected to fall by $155 billion under the GOP law over the next decade—an amount that far exceeds the $50 billion that Republicans allocated to a “Rural Health Transformation Program” over the next five years.

Alan Morgan, CEO of the National Rural Health Association, warned in a statement following the Senate’s passage of the legislation earlier this month that the bill would “limit access to care for all rural patients by ending healthcare coverage for rural residents nationwide and putting financial strain on rural facilities who care for them.”

Already, as Common Dreams reported last week, a healthcare clinic in rural Nebraska has announced it is shutting its doors in part due to the expected impacts of the GOP Medicaid cuts. The closure is predicted to be the first of many.

A recent analysis by the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill warned that more than 330 rural hospitals are at risk of closing or reducing services due to the Trump-GOP assault on Medicaid.

Over the weekend, Trump administration officials defended the budget law in talk show appearances by attempting to downplay its impact on Medicaid and other healthcare programs.

Kevin Hassett, director of the White House National Economic Council, said Sunday that he believes “nobody is gonna lose their insurance”—a claim that dramatically conflicts with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that around 17 million people will lose health coverage under the Trump-GOP law.

“He is only off by 17,000,000,” quipped Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) in response to Hassett’s comments.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote over the weekend that “Republicans will try to ignore the devastation their disastrous reconciliation bill will cause.”

“We won’t,” Sanders added. “We’re going to make them explain what happens when 16 million lose their healthcare and nursing homes and hospitals are forced to shut down or limit services.”

Original article by Jake Johnson republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Power-mad orange gasbag Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Power-mad climate science denying Neo-Fascist orange gasbag Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Continue ReadingWarren, ‘Every Single American Needs to Know’ Trump’s GOP Is to Blame

2% Wealth Tax on Just 3,000 Billionaires Could Raise $250 Billion a Year: Nobel Economists

Spread the love

Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Protesters hold placards, including one featuring French businessman and CEO of LVMH Bernard Arnault (C), during a protest in front of the Senate in Paris on June 12, 2025. (Photo: Emma da Silva/AFP via Getty Images

“Not only is it necessary to impose a stronger burden of justice on billionaires, but more importantly, it is possible.”

Seven Nobel laureates on Monday published an op-ed advocating for “a minimum tax for the ultrarich, expressed as a percentage of their wealth,” in the French newspaper Le Monde.

“They have never been so wealthy and yet contribute very little to the public coffers: From Bernard Arnault to Elon Musk, billionaires have significantly lower tax rates than the average taxpayer,” wrote Daron Acemoglu, George Akerlof, Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, Simon Johnson, Paul Krugman, and Joseph Stiglitz.

Citing pioneering research from the E.U. Tax Observatory, the renowned economists noted that “ultrawealthy individuals pay around 0% to 0.6% of their wealth in income tax. In a country like the United States, their effective tax rate is around 0.6%, while in a country like France, it is closer to 0.1%.”

Although the “ultrawealthy can easily structure their wealth to avoid income tax, which is supposed to be the cornerstone of tax justice,” the strategies for doing so differ by region, the experts detailed. Europeans often use family holding companies that are banned in the United States, “which explains why the wealthy are more heavily taxed there than in Europe—though some have still managed to find workarounds.”

The good news is that “there is no inevitability here. Not only is it necessary to impose a stronger burden of justice on billionaires, but more importantly, it is possible,” argued the economists, who say that taxing the overall wealth of the ultrarich, not just income, is the key.

The wealth tax approach, they wrote, “is effective because it targets all forms of tax optimization, whatever their nature. It is targeted, as it applies only to the wealthiest taxpayers, and only to those among them who engage in tax avoidance.”

💡 "One of the most promising avenues is to introduce a minimum tax for the ultra-rich, expressed as a percentage of their wealth."Seven Nobel laureates in economics advocate for the Zucman tax in their latest op-ed.Read the full @lemonde.fr article 👇www.lemonde.fr/idees/articl…

EU Tax Observatory (@taxobservatory.bsky.social) 2025-07-07T12:05:20.611Z

The anticipated impact would be significant. As the op-ed highlights: “Globally, a 2% minimum tax on billionaire wealth would generate about $250 billion in tax revenue—from just 3,000 individuals. In Europe, around $50 billion could be raised. And by extending this minimum rate to individuals with wealth over $100 million, these sums would increase significantly.”

That’s according to a June 2024 report that French economist and E.U. Tax Observatory director Gabriel Zucman prepared for the Group of 20’s Brazilian presidency—which was followed by G20 leaders’ November commitment to taxing the rich and last month’s related proposal from the governments of Brazil, South Africa, and Spain.

“The international movement is underway,” the economists declared Monday, also pointing to recent developments on the “Zucman tax” in France. The French National Assembly voted in favor of a 2% minimum tax on wealth exceeding €100 million, or $117 million, in February—but the Senate rejected the measure last month.

The economists urged the European country to keep working at it, writing that “at a time of ballooning public deficits and exploding extreme wealth, the French government must seize the initiative approved by the National Assembly. There is no reason to wait for an international agreement to be finalized—on the contrary, France should lead by example, as it has done in the past,” when it was the first country to introduce a value-added tax (VAT).

“As for the risk of tax exile, the bill passed by the National Assembly provides that taxpayers would remain subject to the minimum tax for five years after leaving the country,” they wrote. “The government could go further and propose extending this period to 10 years, which would likely reduce the risk of expatriation even more.”

Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an insane, xenophobic Fascist.
Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an insane, xenophobic Fascist.
Donald Trump warns against following the Onaquietday.org blog, says that he's heard that she's a witch with a black cat and a dangerous kitchen.
Donald Trump warns against following the Onaquietday.org blog, says that he’s heard that she’s a witch with a black cat and a dangerous kitchen.

Continue Reading2% Wealth Tax on Just 3,000 Billionaires Could Raise $250 Billion a Year: Nobel Economists

🩻 Climate Reality: The Diagnosis We Can’t Escape

Spread the love

Original article by Roger Hallam republished from https://rogerhallam.com/. I don’t have permission to republish this article, hopefully he doesn’t mind.

The climate crisis is no longer a future threat — it’s a terminal diagnosis, and the only moral response now is to act like everything depends on us, because it does.

🩻 Climate Reality: The Diagnosis We Can’t Escape
Francisco Goya – The Third of May 1808 (1814), A scream against institutional violence and helplessness.

There comes a point in your life when the facts won’t let you look away. You feel it before you know it: something is terribly wrong, and we are running out of time.

So let’s begin with something simple. How do you know something is true?

Take the example of cancer. If you feel a lump or have symptoms, you don’t just ask your mate what they think. You go to a doctor. And not just any doctor — you want a specialist. Someone who’s legally obliged to tell you the truth, however hard it is to hear. You want the tests, the scan, the data. And above all, you want a number: “What’s the likelihood I have it?” Because that number changes everything.

You don’t want vague reassurances. You want the truth. If the doctor says there’s a 50% chance, your life changes in that moment. You go into action. You start making decisions — fast. Because the alternative is death. And no one can run from that.

It’s this same clarity, this same objectivity, that we need to bring to the climate crisis. Because the truth is — and I mean this literally — the planet has cancer. It is spreading. It is terminal. And it is going to kill us if we don’t act, immediately.

This isn’t ideology. It’s not politics. It’s not “just your opinion.” It is physical reality. And just like cancer, it doesn’t care what you believe.

In 1989, NASA scientist James Hansen warned the UN that if we didn’t slash emissions, society would collapse. That was 35 years ago. In 2025, global temperatures have now risen to 1.6°C above pre-industrial levels. And the rate of warming is accelerating. For most of the 20th century, the rise was around 0.18°C per decade. In the last ten years, it’s more than doubled to 0.37°C per decade. We’re now on course to hit 2°C around 2035 — and that’s being optimistic.

But what does that number mean?

A landmark peer-reviewed paper, “The Future of the Human Niche,” published by Tim Lenton and colleagues, makes it brutally clear: at 2°C of warming, around 1 billion people will no longer be able to live where they currently do. That’s 25% of the Earth’s surface becoming uninhabitable. One billion refugees — in just a few years.

To put that into context: there were 50 million refugees after the Second World War. That was the worst war in human history. What’s coming is twenty times worse.

And that figure — one billion — only covers the effects of extreme heat. It doesn’t include what happens when rising sea levels drown coastal cities, when droughts kill crops, when wildfires consume whole regions, when freshwater disappears. The truth is, climate collapse is not just an environmental issue. It is a full-system breakdown. It affects food, health, housing, energy, migration, and war — all at the same time.

Still think this is just about polar bears?

If you’re still not convinced, don’t take it from me. Take it from the insurance industry. In 2024, the British actuarial society — a group of people whose job it is to measure risk for a living — released a report projecting that at 2°C of warming, we’ll see 2 billion deaths. At 3°C? 4 billion. That’s half the population of the Earth.

And this is not worst-case modelling. This is their baseline. This is what the people who insure your life, your business, your pension, believe is most likely to happen if we stay on our current course.

It gets worse. Because climate breakdown isn’t a one-off crisis — it triggers runaway feedback loops. Ice melts and reduces the planet’s ability to reflect sunlight, which makes it heat up faster. Permafrost thaws and releases methane, a greenhouse gas 80 times more potent than CO₂. Forests burn and release carbon. Soils lose their ability to absorb emissions. Everything begins to feed on itself. Even if we stopped all human emissions tomorrow, these systems may continue warming the planet — potentially beyond the point of recovery.

Most tipping points are estimated to be triggered between 1°C and 2°C. We are already at 1.6°C. We are now in the danger zone. There is no longer a buffer. There is no margin of error. This is happening in real time.

So what do we do?

Well, the answer is no different from the cancer patient. Two things: stop making it worse, and start trying to repair the damage. That means ending fossil fuel emissions as fast as humanly possible. That means scaling up emergency carbon removal. That means mobilising everything we’ve got.

Will it work? We don’t know. But what we do know is this: if we do nothing, billions will die. And not in some abstract future. In our lifetimes. In the lifetimes of our children.

This is not a problem for “someone else to solve.” This is your responsibility, your emergency, your world.

Edward Burtynsky – Manufactured Landscapes, a pyre waiting to burn.

And if you think you still have a choice — let me be blunt: you don’t. If your actions or inactions contribute to this collapse, you don’t just destroy your own future. You destroy the lives of everyone around you. You condemn entire generations to hell on Earth because you couldn’t face the truth.

It’s not just foolish. It’s not just selfish. It’s evil.

Let me speak personally for a moment. I’ve met hundreds of people who, after hearing this reality, decided to act. Ordinary people. Teachers, nurses, students, grandparents. They quit their jobs. They faced arrest. Some went to prison. Not because they were heroes. But because they understood this one, simple thing: if we don’t fight, we die. If we don’t rise up, we burn.

You can’t half-commit to this. You can’t give a little donation, feel a bit guilty, and move on. Once you’ve heard the truth, you are accountable. And the only question left is what you’re going to do about it.

So this is your moment. This is the turning point. If you’ve read this far, you already know. You know what’s coming. You know the scale of the crisis. You know the failure of our leaders.

You also know this: we are not powerless. There are millions of us waking up. Rising up. Organising. We are building the resistance that history will remember.

Join us.

Because history is watching.
And your children will ask what you did.
And one day, in the final hours of your life, you will ask yourself the same question.

Don’t wait for the flood. Don’t wait for the fire.
We have no choice but to act. And act we will.

Support the Revolution


This was meant to be Roger Hallam’s climate briefing for the Rev21 Convention.
But prison authorities blocked it.
They’ve now banned him from posting on social media altogether.

To keep up with Roger’s work and the revolutionary movement he helped build, follow Rev21 across platforms:

📺 YouTube: youtube.com/@Revolution21c
📸 Instagram: instagram.com/revolution.21c
✖️ X / Twitter: x.com/revolution_21c
📘 Facebook: facebook.com/profile.php?id=61575178389798
📢 Telegram: t.me/revolution_21C
🧵 Threads: threads.net/revolution.21c
🔵 Bluesky: bsky.app/profile/revolution21c.bsky.social
🎵 TikTok: tiktok.com/revolution.21c
👥 Reddit: reddit.com/r/Rev21


Update on Roger’s Imprisonment

Roger’s release has once again been delayed — originally expected in March, then May, and now postponed indefinitely. First, his designated home was deemed “unsuitable” for rehabilitation because someone associated with Just Stop Oil was present. Then, following press coverage that included the name of his probation officer (quoted directly in the piece), Roger was placed on a high-risk list — supposedly due to the psychological impact on staff. That probation officer has since been replaced, but the new officer has refused to respond to legal communications from Roger’s team.

It now appears that prison staff are refusing to meet with Roger directly, citing the “risk” he poses to them. His lawyers have written to the prison, but there is no legal requirement for them to respond within a set timeframe, leaving him in a state of limbo.

At the same time, Roger’s ability to contribute to public work has been severely restricted. Prison authorities have blocked over 20,000 words of his writing, and his input into the Convention and our social media efforts has been censored. Despite this, Roger continues to engage with projects through prison phone and email, where possible. He remains deeply committed to the cause and continues to support our work with unwavering clarity and determination.

Original article by Roger Hallam republished from https://rogerhallam.com/. I don’t have permission to republish this article, hopefully he doesn’t mind.

Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him. He says that Reform UK has received millions and millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him. He says that Reform UK has received millions and millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an insane, xenophobic Fascist.
Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an insane, xenophobic Fascist.

Continue Reading🩻 Climate Reality: The Diagnosis We Can’t Escape

Report Shows How Deadly Texas Floods Were Driven by Human-Induced Climate Crisis

Spread the love

Original article by Brad Reed republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Vehicles sit submerged as a search and rescue worker looks through debris for any survivors or remains of people swept up in the flash flooding on July 6, 2025 in Hunt, Texas. (Photo: Jim Vondruska/Getty Images)

“Very exceptional meteorological conditions” preceded the Texas floods, climate scientists have found.

A new report from a trio of prominent climate researchers has concluded that the devastating floods that hit central Texas over the last three days were made significantly worse due to the impacts of human-induced climate change.

A study published on Monday by ClimaMeter found that the floods in Texas were caused by “very exceptional meteorological conditions” that cannot be explained merely by natural variability.

The authors—Davide Faranda of the Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace in France, Mireia Ginesta of the University of Oxford in the U.K., and Tommaso Alberti of the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia in Italy—contend that the meteorological conditions present at the start of the Texas floods on July 4 “were characterized by slightly negative surface pressure anomalies over Central Texas, with values ranging up to –2 hPa, indicating the presence of a weak low-pressure system over the region.” They also found that “temperatures were significantly below the climatological average for this time of year, with anomalies reaching –5°C across much of the area affected by the flooding.”

The researchers then compared how extreme weather events that occurred under meteorological conditions similar to those present during this week’s floods would have manifested had they occurred in the years from 1950 until 1986, a three-decade period during where human-induced climate change had yet to cause a global surface temperature spike. They concluded that the meteorological conditions ahead of the deadly Texas floods this year were up to 7% wetter than those that had proceeded past floods in the region.

The ClimaMeter study adds heft to statements made by climate scientists over the weekend who argued that there was no question that human-induced climate change—which is driven largely by the extraction and burning of fossil fuels—had tipped the floods into historic disaster territory.

“The tragic events in Texas are exactly what we would expect in our hotter, climate-changed, world,” said Bill McGuire, professor emeritus of geophysics and climate hazards at University College London. “There has been an explosion in extreme weather in recent years, including more devastating flash floods caused by slow-moving, wetter, storms, that dump exceptional amounts of rain over small areas across a short time.”

As of this writing, at least 80 people have been confirmed dead as a result of the Texas floods while dozens more people have been reported as missing. The Washington Post reports that data from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Integrated Public Alert and Warning System shows that Kerr County, Texas didn’t send out an Amber Alert-style push message to local residents until Sunday, two days after the floods overwhelmed the area’s rivers and creeks.

Original article by Brad Reed republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him. He says that Reform UK has received millions and millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him. He says that Reform UK has received millions and millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
Power-mad orange gasbag Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Power-mad climate science denying Neo-Fascist orange gasbag Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.

Continue ReadingReport Shows How Deadly Texas Floods Were Driven by Human-Induced Climate Crisis