Andy Burnham (like most lefty politicians) has consistently argued that the UK’s current taxation system is unfair because it overtaxes labour while undertaxing wealth and assets, highlighting the lower tax rate on share dividends compared to standard income as a key inequality.
So, we all know what will happen if the ‘King of the North’ becomes our next prime minister.
The first illogical part of the Northern King’s claim is that he somehow forgets to consider the fact that many people who buy shares do so using income which has already been taxed. So, by having to pay tax on their share dividends, they are being taxed twice. And, of course, were they to eventually die while still owning those shares, they will be taxed a third time.
Moreover, if the Burnhamesque economic geniuses believe that taxes on labour (people who can ne bothered to work) are too high compared to other taxes, maybe they should lower income taxes for those who actually work by cutting over-generous benefits for those who can’t be arsed to work? But this idea never seems to occur to them.
Oh, and I just noticed after I wrote this blog that “if you receive social security benefits such as Personal Independence Payment, Carer’s Allowance, or New-Style ESA, your payments will rise by 3.8%”. However, the thresholds at which you pay tax on income or bank interest are still frozen. So, under Britain’s greatest ever female chancellor, those who work are falling further behind those who can’t be arsed to get a job. Is that ‘fair‘?
But there’s a deeper problem with the great economist Burnham’s claim, namely: what is ‘fair’.
Is it fair that those who can be bothered to go out to work have to pay extortionate rates of tax to subsidise the idle lifestyles of the ever-increasing millions who can’t be bothered to get off their fat arses and so prefer to sit at home watching Netflix and Homes Under The Hammer on their widescreen TVs?
Is it fair that around 6 million who do go out to work earn less than many millions of skivers and shirkers who live off our ludicrously over-generous benefits system?
Is it fair that often uneducated, often unemployable, often criminal, often rape-obsessed illegal migrants have a better lifestyle than many millions of British workers who pay taxes to support the invading, West-hating, parasitic Third-worlders?
Is it fair that British workers are suffocated by ever-increasing taxes so that our useless governments can squander billions pouring our money into the offshore bank accounts of utterly corrupt Third-world kleptocrats?
The victim mentality?
When (IMHO) economically-illiterate fools and liars like Andrew ‘f**k-the-bond-markets’ Burnham make these ridiculous statements about what is fair, our journalists never ask any of the above questions. We have become a society in which anyone who tries hard to better themselves and provide a good life for their families is assumed to be an ‘oppressor’ who should be taxed and taxed and taxed in order to pay for the useless, the lazy, the skivers, the shirkers, the parasitic, the worthless, the corrupt, the criminal and all other similar the burdens on society.
Such a society is destined to collapse into despair and bankruptcy.
By the way, have you seen Andrew ‘I’m just a northern working class lad‘ Burnham’s house?
It looks pretty impressive with nice high gates to keep out the working-class riff-raff who paid for the Burnham mansion with their taxes. Is it ‘fair’ that a lifelong public-sector grifter like the Manchester Messiah can afford to live in a mansion at our expense while millions of young people can’t afford to buy their homes? What do you say, Mr Burnham?
Amelia is angry
Having made a few satirical political videos myself, I’m amazed at how quickly British Patriots can make their videos:
I’m afraid it’s a bit of a long one today. But I have a feeling that her dodgy-dossier CV isn’t the only troubling issue around the past of Britain’s greatest ever female Chancellor.
Reeves’s place at New College Oxford University – was Reeves admitted at New College due to her academic achievements or was she helped by her Labour activism, in particular her friendship with Labour Chancellor Gordon Brown? In an interview Rachel Reeves recounted: ‘In my first year at university my college friends bought me a framed picture of Gordon Brown and put it on my desk’. Rachel Reeves’s tutor at Oxford University was Chris Allsopp. Possibly her tutor would have been involved in the initial decision to offer Reeves a place at Oxford. Gordon Brown seems to have had some form of relationship with Chris Allsopp as in 2000 Gordon Brown appointed Chris Allsopp to the BoE Monetary Policy Committee (MPC). At the time this appointment was criticised by the press, the Treasury Select Committee and even fellow Labour MPs. Labour MP Brian Sedgemore for example, remarked: ‘Replacing Charles Goodhart with Mr Allsopp was like substituting a player from Arsenal or Manchester United with one from the Vauxhall league, maybe Kidderminster’. The Treasury Select Committee called for Brown to ‘;think again about his appointment of Mr Christopher Allsopp’. Brown’s response, via the Treasury, was: ‘The appointments to the MPC are a matter for the Chancellor’.
Reeves’s BoE job – did Rachel Reeves get her very hard-to-achieve graduate job at the BoE on her own merit? Or did her political connections, in particular her links with Chancellor Gordon Brown help her land the highly sought-after BoE job? The BoE employs students from a wide variety of disciplines. But to follow the economist track at the BoE usually requires a degree in intellectually-challenging subjects like pure economics or mathematics rather than the much less academically-rigorous PPE which Reeves (and so many other aspiring politicians) took. Though after her Oxford PPE, Reeves did a Masters in Economics at the LSE (London School of Economics). The LSE is well-known for being rabidly left-wing/socialist. The LSE was founded in 1895 by members of the Fabian Society—specifically Sidney and Beatrice Webb—who advocated for advancing socialist causes and social reform. So, a cynic might wonder if Reeves actually learnt anything about real economics there or was it all about mouth-frothing, Marxist, Lenin-adoring, Stalin-glorifying, tax-the-rich anti-capitalist politics?
Reeves campaigning in 2005 – Rachel Reeves seems to have had a bit of a charmed life at the BoE. About 16 months after returning from Washington, she was apparently given time off to campaign to become the Labour MP for Bromley in the 2005 general election. An important backer who campaigned with her was the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Rachel Reeves may have been quite close to the Straw family as Jack Straw’s son, Will Straw, studied PPE at New College Oxford at the same time as Reeves even though he was caught trying to deal cannabis just a year before going up to Oxford. Despite Straw’s support, Reeves lost in this strongly Conservative constituency:
Reasons for leaving the BoE – when interviewed about Reeves’s progression to becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer, her former tutor at Oxford described her as ‘a good student; in a good year, probably the best’. But if Reeves was such an economics superstar, why would the BoE have allowed such a valuable employee to leave? And why would such a talented economist want to leave the BoE to take up an administrative position at a retail bank’s regional office, rather far from the centre of the economics action? Very curious?
Reeves’s HBOS job – How did Rachel Reeves get her job at HBOS? Was it because HBOS felt that an economist from the BoE was the perfect person to fill an administrative position at their Leeds office? Or was it because a prominent figure in the Labour movement, who had previously been Chair of Labour Party Students which Reeves had joined around 1995, was a director at HBOS and got Reeves her job? Did Reeves later return the favour by appointing this person as a Director at the Treasury in July 2014?
Leaving HBOS – a person who has put a post on Twitter, which (I believe) has since been removed, wrote that they had been a manager at HBOS several levels above Reeves. This person claimed that there had been several problems with Reeves’s contribution to the bank. One was the claim that a few managers including Reeves had been caught signing off each others’ expenses inappropriately. Another claim was that Reeves took an unusual amount of time off for supposed dentist and doctors’ appointments, that she was followed to one of these and it was found that she was actually engaged in Labour Party activities. Are these claims true? Or are they just spiteful inventions? Why did Reeves leave her job at HBOS? Was it to pursue opportunities elsewhere? Was it because she was asked to resign due to her unprofessional behaviour? Or was it because she was one of the many thousands of staff made redundant following the HBOS collapse as her employers felt that her particular talents would not be necessary for the bank’s future?
Economic illiteracy – Reeves declined to serve in the cabinet when Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader, bravely declaring that his and shadow chancellor John McDonnell’s policies were ‘economically illiterate’. In January 2025 Chancellor Rachel Reeves was given a stern warning by ex Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell not to impose big welfare cuts to head off the economic crisis. Leading Left wing MP Mr McDonnell said such a move would be ‘politically suicidal’ and would result in a backlash from hard-up voters and trigger a recession, Is McDonnell ‘economically illiterate’ as Reeves claimed? Or is it Reeves who is ‘economically illiterate’? Or, as Britain collapses into a recessionary doom loop due to Reeves’s tax-tax-tax budget from h*ll, could it be both of them?
I suspect Makerfiled is going be a stitch-up by a ‘progressive’ alliance
Much huffing and puffing by commentators, ‘experts’ (real or self-styled), psephologists, journalists and others of their ilk about whether the King of the North – Andrew ‘f***-the-bond-markets’ Burnham – can win the by-election in some dump most people have never heard of. I suspect we’re going to see in Makerfield what we’ll see in the next General Election – a ‘stop Farage’, ‘stop Reform’ coalition of the ludicrously-misnamed ‘progressives’ – the UK-hating, open-borders-loving, EU-adoring, tax-tax-tax, Net-Zero-obsessed, free-speech-crushing Labour/LibDem/Green/Islamo-fascist parties.
As for the useless Tories, they’re so arrogant and so anti-British that they’ll probably try to sabotage Reform’s chances in Makerfield by putting up a Tory candidate.
Meanwhile Britain continues (as I explain below using simple arithmetic) to sink into depression and recession.
Rachel Reeves is (IMHO) a liar
I saw the economically-illiterate Reeves being interviewed a day or two ago. The BBC’s in-house rag, The Guardian, tells us:
“Over the first three months of 2026, GDP rose 0.6%, up sharply from growth of 0.1% in the final three months of last year and making the UK the fastest growing economy in the G7. Reeves said the figures demonstrated the government was on the right track in its attempts to significantly grow the economy. “We shouldn’t put that at risk by plunging the country into chaos at a time when there is conflict in the world, but also at a time when our plan to grow the economy is starting to bear fruit,” she told the BBC”.
Let me bore you with a little simple arithmetic:
In the financial year March 2025-2026, the British Labour government borrowed £132 billion
In the same financial year, the UK Labour government paid £111.2 billion in interest on government borrowing
This meant that around 84% of the money borrowed in 2025-2026 went on paying the interest on our national debt
As the government borrowed £132 billion and used £111.2 billion to pay off interest on government debt, this left a rather modest £20.8 billion to be spent on stuff in the UK
The UK’s GDP in 2025-2026 was about £3.03 trillion. That’s £3,030 billion
So the extra £20.8 billion the government had left from its borrowing after paying off the £111.2 billion in interest was equivalent to about 0.67% of GDP.
I imagine you can all see where this is going. Reeves claims that GDP growth of 0.6% represents a healthy booming economy. This is nonsense. Just the little bit of borrowing the government had left (£20.8 billion) from its £132 billion borrowing after paying off interest of £111.2 billion was worth 0.67% of GDP. So, all the supposed ‘economic growth’ was actually just money the government borrowed and spaffed away on the public sector and benefits scroungers. There was no economic growth. In fact the economy has declined over the last few quarters. In fact, if it wasn’t for government borrowing it would be clear that we are in a recession caused by Downing Street.
I believe this makes the (IMHO) waste-of-skin Reeves either monumentally stupid or a monumental liar.
You’ll all have seen the story about three girls/women drowning off Brighton Beach.
Britain’s beaches seem to have become a favourite place for our multi-cultural-enriching friends to find willing and unwilling ladies to give them sexual release. Here, from the BBC (so I don’t get accused of being a far-right, racist, bigoted, fascist, Hitler-loving extremist) is just a recent Brighton Beach ‘incident:
The Brighton Beach Rape
“Three men have been found guilty of raping a woman on Brighton beach in a “cynical, predatory and callous attack”.
“Iranian national Abdulla Ahmadi, 26, and Egyptian national Ibrahim Alshafe, 25, had denied repeatedly raping the woman in the early hours of 4 October. Karin Al-Danasurt, 20 and also from Egypt, had denied filming her ordeal. He was also found guilty of rape as a secondary party. The three men – who are asylum seekers – were convicted at Hove Crown Court on Thursday. Jurors heard during the trial the victim was left “too scared to go out” following the rape.”
“The men were living at a Home Office hotel near Horsham at the time of the offence. Prosecutors have claimed that Al-Danasurt was convicted of murder in Egypt before he crossed the Channel into the UK on a small boat, although his defence barrister has disputed this. He had also been given a caution in the UK for criminal damage in April last year, prosecutors said. The court heard they targeted the woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, after she became separated from her friends on a night out.”
“She was “highly intoxicated” to the extent that she was on her hands and knees vomiting into a toilet and could not stand unaided. The woman said to police the men laughed as they kicked her and grabbed her throat during the rape – leaving her with bruises. Al-Danasurt was accused of spitting in the woman’s face while recording the attack.”
The Brighton Beach drownings
What we know so far is:
Police have said they are exploring a “number of hypotheses” after three women’s bodies were found in the sea at Brighton beach. Local reports suggested the women, aged between 18 and their early 20s, were fully clothed when they were discovered shortly after sunrise on Wednesday. Emergency services attended after being alerted to someone in the water near Madeira Drive at around 5.45am, when the sea temperature was 12C. On Thursday, Sussex Police said its officers believed they had identified all three women and had informed their next of kin pending formal identification.
Chief Superintendent Adam Hays said the investigation “includes a number of hypotheses” and emphasised that it was “not appropriate to speculate” while evidence was still being gathered.
Some people might find the warning that it was “not appropriate to speculate” about the cause of the drownings slightly troubling. Some might even suspect that the police have evidence or even suspicions that some of our recently-arrived multi-culturally-enriching friends may be involved in the incident. We’re frequently told not to speculate when this is the case.
I am not for a moment suggesting that any wrongdoing was the cause of the drownings. Nor am I suggesting that any enrichers were involved. Moreover, we have been ‘reliably’ informed by the plods that the three women were “fully clothed“. I think we can all guess why the police have emphasised this fact.
But the whole event could be seen to throw up a rather thorny question: If the three girls/women had been gang raped and then drowned by our multi-culturally enriching friends, this would be a complete disaster for the ruling political, academic, bureaucratic. police and media elites who keep telling us that “diversity is our strength” and that only narrow-minded bigots, racists, Nazis, fascists etc etc oppose open-borders Third-world invasion of our country. There would be uncontrollable public fury and probably riots much worse than those which broke out after the adorable Welsh choir-boy’s slaughter of innocents in Southport. The public rage would be such that our useless, UK-hating, race-replacement-pushing politicians, bureaucrats, Border Farce and police would be finally forced kicking and screaming against public pressure to stop the boats.
So, let me be clear (as the useless Starmer repeatedly says) I am not suggesting for a moment that the three drowned girls/women were gang-raped and drowned. In fact, the evidence so far indicates that this is absolutely not the case. All I’m trying to do here is wonder aloud:
‘had the three women been gang-raped and drowned by some recently-arrived enrichers, would the plods and our ruling elites ever tell us the truth?’
I think we can guess the answer to that question.
Keir is listening:
To cheer us up in these grim times, here’s another (IMHO) brilliant satirical YouTube video
Nothing could beat the entertainment we’re all getting from Labour’s current Muppet puppet show. So here’s a (IMHO) brilliant YouTube video which seems to sum it all up:
I really don’t understand the shenanigans going on in Labour. It’s clear that most MPs want the useless widely-despised Starmer gone. But they don’t want Wes ‘son of Mandelson’ Streeting either.
Wes ‘son of Mandelson’ Streeting must be as tone deaf as the man he wants to replace if he thinks the whole nation will joyously bring out the bunting were he to become prime minister.
Labour is going left. Far left. The son of Mandelson is the Blairite past and is thus loathed by most Labour MPs.
My totally pointless and uninformed prediction – the son of Mandelson will lose, Starmer will hang on for about a year and then be replaced by Burnham, Rayner or, horror of horrors, Miliband.
Whichever of these UK-hating, economy-destroying, illegal-migrant-hugging, open-borders-adoring, Net-Zero-loving lunatics replaces the useless Starmer, Britain is fecked.
Much blethering and waffle has been imposed upon us by self-appointed ‘experts’ about how the ‘King of the North’, Andrew ‘f*ck-the-bond-market’ Burnham needs to become an MP to become Labour’s next disastrous, economy-destroying, UK-hating, illegal-migrant-hugging prime minister. But is this true?
From my extensive research (about 1 minute on Google), I have a feeling that it is actually theoretically possible for someone who is not an MP to become PM.
The Institute for Government (I’ve no idea who they are) tells us:
“The Conservative Party constitution says that the leader of the party “shall be drawn from those elected to Parliament”. Clause VII of the Labour Rule Book also says its leader “shall be elected from among Commons members of the PLP [Parliamentary Labour Party].” .
But these are just rules and rules can be changed. If the Ginger Growler and her socialist chums want the wonderful KIng of the North to replace the catastrophically-incompetent and widely-loathed Davos man Starmer, they just need to change the rules.
Moreover the Institute for Government goes on to inform us:
“The process of appointing the prime minister assumes that he or she will sit in the Commons, but there is nothing that says what happens if they cease to be an MP. The prime minister is the King’s minister. Precedent suggests that a prime minister should be an MP, but there is no suggestion that they must immediately resign if they lost their seat”.
The Cabinet Manual (whatever that is) states that the prime minister “always sits in the House of Commons.” However, this mostly relates to the question of whether they should sit in the Commons rather than the House the Lords. So, from the embarrassingly little I understand, I get the feeling that it might be possible for Labour to shoe in the King of the North as our next prime minister by shoving him into the Lords.
Of course, both methods for annointing the King of the North as our next prime minister would most likely be met with outrage by much of the electorate. I only include them here because I’m surprised that none of the mainstream media ‘experts’ have thought it worth mentioning them.
I’m afraid I didn’t watch more than 5 seconds of our great leader’s supposed ‘reset’ speech yesterday. I just can’t stand the man because I know he’s just a vacuous, lying, self-serving PoS. I did see three of the questions put to him by our mainstream media before I switched that off too.
But I got the impression that all we were watching was a kind of ‘danse macabre’ in which Starmer and the media played a well-practised game where Starmer pretended to answer the concerns of voters and the media pretended to hold him to account. But neither Starmer nor the media actually mentioned the issues people were concerned about.
According to the Office for National Statistics, these are the main concerns of the public:
the cost of living (88%)
the NHS (86%)
the economy (71%)
immigration (60%)
crime (58%)
housing (55%)
From what I understand Starmer waffled on about delivering the changes people elected Labour to deliver. And Starmer’s main solution to these concerns was “putting Britain back at the heart of Europe”. Starmer made no mention of:
Cost of Living (88%) – Sir Keir the Noble made no mention of scrapping Mad Ed Miliband’s crazed Net Zero crusade which is the main reason the cost of living is so high as Miliband is asphyxiating businesses and households with the highest energy prices in the developed world. And no ‘journalist’ questioning Starmer made any mention of Miliband’s economically-suicidal Net Zero
NHS (86%) – Sir Keir the Great didn’t tell us what he was going to practically do to change the dismal performance of our collapsing NHS which was partly to do with the fact that almost a million people – mainly Third-worlders, many with greater medical needs than the average Brit – have arrived into Britain each year for at least the last ten years. And no ‘journalist’ questioning Starmer made any mention of the catastrophic pressure put on the NHS by about 10 million Third-worlders invading Britain over the last decade
The Economy (71%) – Sir Keir the Wise avoided explaining how it was his new taxes on jobs (NI increases), minimum wage increases, workers’ rights legislation and crushingly-high energy prices which were destroying businesses, increasing unemployment and pushing Britain into recession. And no ‘journalist’ questioning Starmer made any mention Labour’s growth-asphyxiating policies
Immigration (60%) – Davos man Starmer seems to have forgotten his promises to “smash the evil people-smuggling gangs” and “stop the boats“. And no ‘journalist’ questioning Starmer asked when Labour would be stopping the boats and smashing the evil people-smuggling gangs
Crime (58%) – I’m not sure Starmer made any mention of how Labour was going to reduce crime. In fact, under Labour criminals have been let out of jail early, jail has been scrapped for any offences meriting less than one year and shoplifting has been effectively decriminalised. And no ‘journalist’ questioning Starmer made any mention of Britain’s rapidly rising levels of crime and the Labour Government’s failure to do anything about this
Housing (55%) – I’m not sure Starmer gave any time to discussing why Labour was failing to deliver its promise to build 300,000 new homes a year – one and half million over the course of this parliament – and what he was going to do to correct this failure. And no ‘journalist’ questioning Starmer made any mention of Labour’s failure to deliver the housing it promised. And, of course, no ‘journalist’ asked how much of the new housing would go to British citizens and how much to migrants (legal and illegal)
There seems to me to be a tacit agreement between our politicians and mainstream media to avoid discussion of any of the thorny issues which actually concern British voters. Instead we get this absurd, almost ritualist ‘danse macabre’ where politicians pretend to deliver what the public wants while actually completely ignoring voters’ concerns and mainstream media ‘journalists’ pretend to hold politicians to account while actually avoiding asking ‘difficult’ or ‘uncomfortable’ questions.
A most curious situation has emerged in the South Coast holiday town of Bournemouth. If I remember the details correctly, a 40-year-old woman was raped on Bournemouth beach a couple of days ago.
Bournemouth’s ultra-effective police have made the usual appeals for help from the public. But, Bournemouth’s much-admired police have refused to issue any details about the suspect.
This seems odd to me. I have never raped anyone. Nor, fortunately, have I ever been raped. But from the little I understand about the act of rape, the person raped – the rapee – would have been in fairly close contact with the rapist. Therefore the rapee would surely have some knowledge of the rapist’s height, weight, hair colour, any facial hair and, of course, skin colour and thus possible ethnicity. Yet the world-famous Bournemouth police – whose duty it is to protect the law-abiding community – have asked for the public’s help to catch the rapist, but have refused to give any details about the rapist which might help the public identify the perpetrator.
I obviously don’t follow every story about rapes. But I do vaguely recall some concern expressed by the good citizens of Bournemouth when over 600 illegal migrants were put into hotels near Bournemouth beach where there been several rapes recently.
Now, of course, there may be no connection at all between the apparent increase in rapes in Bournemouth, the number of illegal migrants from Third-world, women-hating, excrement-covered hell-holes of corruption and misery and the apparent reluctance of Bournemouth’s universally-respected plods to give any details about the skin colour and ethnicity of the rapist. But being a nasty, cynical person, I would be far from surprised were we to eventually learn that the rapist happens to be a recent arrival from somewhere like Afghanistan, Syria or Iraq.
By the way, the BBC has provided a tool by which you can find out how many ‘rapists’ – sorry, of course I meant how many ‘illegal migrants’ – sorry again, what I really meant was, of course, Starmer’s ‘adorable’ and future Labour-voting multi-cultural enrichers’ – are being put up in hotels and other accommodation near where you live.
Some people have been bleating about how Rachel Reeves’s brilliant tax rises are hastening the demise of British pubs. We’re told that around two pubs a day are closing. This seems to be an accelerating trend as ‘only’ 336 British pubs closed their doors forever in 2025. There are currently still around 46,000 operating pubs in Britain.
Our glorious Labour government doesn’t really like pubs. After all, they could be places where disgruntled mainly White British people meet and rage against our useless, oppressive, free-speech-crushing, treacherous, anti-British government. Moreover, for obvious reasons, our government’s favourite demographic – the demographic which is taking over our country – is unlikely to frequent their local boozer.
But I have an idea. As Britain increasingly turns into the Islamic Caliphate of Britanistan, we’re not going to need too many pubs any more. But what we definitely will need are more mosques.
Iran has a population of around 90 million and an estimated 50,000 mosques. The population of Britain is officially about 69.9 million. But I think we all know it’s actually much higher than that. Moreover, with the ‘welcome the Third World’ open borders policies of the current Labour government and of the ‘keep Farage out‘ Labour/LibDem/Green/Gaza alliance which is likely to be our next government, the UK’s population will soon be heading up towards the 90 million too.
But we only have around 2,100 mosques. That won’t be sufficient for when Britain becomes an Islamic Caliphate. But there is an obvious solution – turn thousands of Britain’s increasingly bankrupt pubs into mosques. This will make good use of the buildings. And conveniently, if most of Britain’s rapidly closing pubs are turned into mosques, we’d soon have about the same number of mosques as in Iran. What’s not to like about that?
Of course, there are some horrible cynical, nasty, politically-incorrect people, such as those who made the video below, who are critical of the Islamification of our country. But we open-minded, progressive, liberal, illegal-migrant-hugging people know we should just ignore these bigoted, narrow-minded, hopeless-loser doom-mongers.
By the way, if you watch the video below on YouTube you’ll see some classic viewers’ comments.
David Craig, on May 22nd, 2026
