Pea Sea Tea

Libertarian. Identifies as a bird (pronouns: birdy/bwark)

[Andrew Lawrence @andrewlawrence]

The main mistake Burnham has made is not realising that no-one outside of Manchester gives the slightest fuck about Manchester.

[Angela Rayner @AngelaRayner]

I agree with the @DailyMirror

#GeneralElectionNow

[Andy Burnham @andyburnham]

I think this hashtag needs to be trending tonight, don’t you?

#GeneralElectionNow

[Pea Sea Tea @PeaSeaTea]

@ihateprintersok @Micha850762 @jeremycorbyn Nah, it’s Robert Smith from The Cure

[Tom Quiggin @TomTSEC]

@ThierryBreton Is this you? Cancelling elections because you did not like the outcome?

[Liz Truss @trussliz]

Repeating lies is not going to fix the economy @Keir_Starmer.

Gilt rates are now higher than when I was in office.

Britain is headed for a real economic crisis - not the confected crisis that the establishment used to sabotage my policies.

[Liz Truss @trussliz]

I said all this in 2022.

That raising taxes was the wrong approach.

That we needed to frack and bring energy prices down.

That welfare should be cut.

We sought to implement this starting with the Mini-Budget.

Many "conservatives" rather than backing this, carped, and even opposed, siding with the economic orthodoxy.

That is why we are where we are, which very few now advocating change seem to acknowledge.

Change is not going to be achieved by "consensus".

The establishment that has managed decline in this country for decades needs to be taken on.

https://t.co/BbmqUjEZI2

[Concerned Citizen @BGatesIsaPyscho]

Whenever you meet your real boss you always wear a suit.

[Rupert Lowe MP @RupertLowe10]

@BBCWorld When we win the next election, we are going to defund the BBC and you can spew this crap on your own money.

It will be a glorious day.

[Alex Armstrong @Alexarmstrong]

Oh the irony.

The pure unabashed irony.

[Robert Jenrick @RobertJenrick]

The Prime Minister’s statement today raised more questions than it answered.

If Starmer withheld information from the public because he was concerned about prejudicing the case, why did Angela Rayner take to the media on 31st July and say the suggestion the Southport attack was terror-related was ‘fake news’ and a ‘conspiracy theory’?

The standard response in that situation would be to say ‘I can’t comment on an ongoing investigation’ but Rayner and others deliberately chose to guide the public away from this. By the Prime Minister’s own standard, these comments risked prejudicing a jury.

Of course, Rudakubana later plead guilty to two terror-related offences. It was Rayner’s comments that turned out to be ‘fake news’.

Having publicly intervened in this way, there was no correction from the Government despite the developments Starmer has admitted being informed of very early on.

Understandably people wanted to know as much as possible about the appalling massacre of children. Experts advised being as straight as possible with the public to prevent the perception spreading that information was being withheld. That was not heeded.

Many will be wondering why it would have prejudiced the trial to reveal information – such as Rudakubana’s possession of the Al Qaeda manual and Ricin - that was released anyway when he was charged. There may be a reasonable answer to this question, but Starmer proved incapable of providing it earlier.

No wonder the public suspect a cover-up.

Until Starmer provides full answers to these questions, confidence in the criminal justice system will remain damaged. There are already serious concerns arising from his handling of the Grooming Gang scandal that cultural sensitivities are preventing them from speaking the truth.

As the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has said: ‘institutions will not continue to enjoy the trust that they have had to date if there is any general sense that things are being hidden’.

Regrettably that’s exactly the position we now find ourselves in.

[Liz Truss @trussliz]

Labour, the @bankofengland and the media establishment smeared my budget and forced a reversal.

Now, they've plunged the country into economic crisis.

[Winston Marshall @MrWinMarshall]

If it’s acceptable for British politicians to kneel for George Floyd, why is it not acceptable for American citizens to tweet about the victims of British rape gangs?

If it’s acceptable for Labour to send 100 staff to the US to campaign for Kamala, why is it not acceptable for American citizens to opine on British politics?

If it’s acceptable for Labour’s leading politicians such as Lammy and Kahn to slander Trump as racist, why is it not acceptable for Americans to criticise British politicians for the systemic betrayal of British children?

If it’s acceptable for Westminster elites to praise Biden/Kamala, why is it unacceptable for American elites to praise Farage?

[Zia Yusuf @ZiaYusufUK]

Britain has the most expensive electricity in the world, yet has enough economically recoverable shale reserves to power the whole country for a century.

British people should be among the richest per capita in the world.

Yet we’re 27th - and falling - due to inept politicians.

[Lembit Öpik @lembitopik]

The moment Kier Starmer flies his family abroad “for a few days” over new year, as The Guardian reports, he ends the climate emergency and any moral authority for Starmer, Miliband & Labour to stop any British citizen flying, or emitting CO2. Starmer, flying tonight?

[Max @banthebbc]

@HukAleksandra Government has been allowed to get too big and is unable to fund itself from modest taxation on actual production. The state has already exhausted inflation and debt and it finally must resort to plundering citizen's assets to fund the largesse.

[Dai 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🇬🇧 @daibach23]

Good point 🤔

[James Melville 🚜 @JamesMelville]

He posted this in August 2022.
It hasn’t aged well.

[Andrew T64 @Bootneck286]

Rich people and big companies deserve tax breaks.

Read this -

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.　
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).　
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.　

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.　

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!　

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[Pea Sea Tea @PeaSeaTea]

@BBCWorld This is virtue signalling on the cheap. She is giving away €25 million from an estate of €4.2 *billion*. In relative terms, her giveaway is hardly meaningful.