Tim Wyeth

[Tim Wyeth @timwyeth114]

Every day Burnham is staggering from crisis to crisis.
The Man City scandal will roll on and on, and he is damaged beyond salvation. Even if the deals were straight, his NAIVETY is staggering.
Now he is using the EU as an "all or nothing" policy.
It will FAIL. Like every policy.

[John Cleese @JohnCleese]

Labour can't risk losing the votes

[John Cleese @JohnCleese]

Labour can't risk losing the votes

[ChilternBear @chilternbear11]

After the Lord Ali scandals of bungs for favours we have more noses in the troughs under Burnham. Lucy Powell is a repeat offender …

[Tim Wyeth @timwyeth114]

YES

[The English Crusader @andrewc44104127]

Do you think Andy Burnham should RESIGN over the Manchester city scandal?

[The English Crusader @andrewc44104127]

Do you think Andy Burnham should RESIGN over the Manchester city scandal?

[Raja Miah @recusant_raja]

“One of the things that we must make sure is that false narrative doesn't catch air. Because when that catches air, it runs round all communities and it causes division.”
Ayoub Khan MP

I have more on Ayoub Khan MP. By the time I am done, I suspect he will wish he had never started.

Look out for my latest over on Red Wall and the Rabble.

https://t.co/mZBZnScays

You'll see why so many Pakistanis are so desperate to smear and silence me.

Raja Miah MBE

[Liza Rosen @LizaRosen0000]

John Spencer nailed it. The brilliant urban warfare expert and Chair of Urban Warfare Studies studies how cities are fought in, not from a campus or TikTok tutorials.

While the anti-Zionist outrage industry fills the streets, universities, and airwaves over Hamas victim images, he points to Sudan:

“The silence is deafening. Civilian men, women, and children are being slaughtered in Sudan. Estimates of over 150,000 killed and 14 million displaced since April 2023. Considered the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. No mass protests. No daily political statements or demands. No college campus encampments.”

He is absolutely right. They don’t care about human lives when jihadists massacre people across the region. They only care when they can weaponize the dead against Israel.

That’s not humanitarianism. That’s a selective propaganda machine. If you see it, share it.

[Tim Wyeth @timwyeth114]

Please remember that LABOUR went to WAR over CAKE.
WHILE BENT LABOUR POLITICIANS WERE LENDING PUBLIC MONEY TO JERSEY PROPERTY COMPANIES THE
LABOUR MACHINE CREATED HYSTERIA AND MAYHEM OVER CAKE DURING COVID.
THE TERRACES WILL GO TO WAR
AGAINST LABOUR.
WATCH OUT, BURNHAM AND CO

[Adam Brooks AKA EssexPR 🇬🇧 @EssexPR]

PARTY OF COMPLETE HYPOCRITES

[Adam Brooks AKA EssexPR 🇬🇧 @EssexPR]

PARTY OF COMPLETE HYPOCRITES

[Transfer News @TransferNews]

Rui Pinto, the hacker who exposed information about Manchester City, claims he is ready to cooperate with UK authorities in exchange for protection.

Pinto says he has further knowledge of the documents, individuals and companies involved, and believes additional evidence may have been overlooked during the Premier League’s investigation.

[Tim Wyeth @timwyeth114]

The whole concept of welfare, has been distorted and the IFS should be ashamed of itself. The costs are UNSUSTAINABLE. THEY KNOW IT, WE KNOW IT AND INVESTORS KNOW IT.
The TPA has provided physical evidence that PUBLIC SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL. The IFS has just
confirmed it.

[TaxPayers' Alliance @the_tpa]

The @TheIFS approached us late last night about our new benefits bill tool.

They took exception to us saying benefits had increased. Our Benefits Bill majors on current spending, not the change (because the UC migration complicates it; see our FAQs on our site), but the fact is that spending has massively increased.

We don’t hide that - we just include the % change.

Their first point was that we should have excluded Universal Credit, because of the migration. Given UC is the biggest benefit for working people, that's deluded. As the IFS have already admitted, UC migration issues don't impact our numbers for current UC spending - in fact, they even admitted our overall local spending totals are accurate and that disability benefit spending has surged. So you can rest assured these local totals are as shocking as they are correct.

Next, they complained that we should have used real-terms numbers to compare changes with the increase in the median wage...which is a nominal number. This is obviously silly, not least as nominal figures are a legitimate and transparent way of presenting underlying cash expenditure. Furthermore, the Benefits Bill is not intended (nor does it claim) to measure changes in the real purchasing power of that spending. It tells you the amount the DWP is spending, from their own data.

They also questioned why we selected the benefits we did. This is simple: we focus on the six major DWP-tracked benefit streams consistently available at local authority level (UC, PIP, Housing Benefit, DLA, Attendance Allowance, and Carer's Allowance) to give taxpayers the clearest possible picture of what is spent in their area.

Furthermore, the IFS told us we should have included legacy benefits like Jobseekers Allowance and income support. These would make very little difference - the change in Jobseekers Allowance is only £50m across England and Wales

And they mention tax credits (because they've moved over to UC). Those aren't in the DWP Stat-Xplore database and - surprise, surprise - the numbers are for the whole tax year, not the point-in-time data we have for UC. IFS sent us a worked example for Birmingham - and the figures are wrong, because they seem to use the 2023-24 tax year vs the 2 year period for UC. When numbers are changing rapidly due to the final stages of migration, you can't just put together mismatched timeframes. So we stuck with the Stat-Xplore data.

Crucially, even if you accept the IFS's own recalculated figures for Birmingham including tax credits, local spending STILL grew by 15.1% in cash terms over just two years. In what world is a 15% cash surge over 24 months something to celebrate?

The fact of the matter is this: other benefits have migrated onto UC, so the UC increases will be inflated. But when trying to say anything about benefits in Britain, that caveat comes with the territory, which is why we included it transparently in our FAQs and didn’t focus on the % change. All the spending totals you get when you punch in your postcode are (sadly) both correct and shocking.

Like many in the Westminster establishment, the IFS can't see the wood for the trees. Benefits spending has gone up, is too high and needs to come down. Not just for the sake of taxpayers and the public finances, but for those who need targeted support to get back into work.

Saying this upsets a lot of people, but taxpayers need someone to fight this fight, so TPA will, and we won’t apologise for doing so. This tool is designed to take DWP data no one sees and put it in a handy tool anyone can use. That’s why it matters for the public debate.

Check out our latest benefits bill tool by clicking the link below

https://t.co/PRCUuOGEvK

[TaxPayers' Alliance @the_tpa]

The @TheIFS approached us late last night about our new benefits bill tool.

They took exception to us saying benefits had increased. Our Benefits Bill majors on current spending, not the change (because the UC migration complicates it; see our FAQs on our site), but the fact is that spending has massively increased.

We don’t hide that - we just include the % change.

Their first point was that we should have excluded Universal Credit, because of the migration. Given UC is the biggest benefit for working people, that's deluded. As the IFS have already admitted, UC migration issues don't impact our numbers for current UC spending - in fact, they even admitted our overall local spending totals are accurate and that disability benefit spending has surged. So you can rest assured these local totals are as shocking as they are correct.

Next, they complained that we should have used real-terms numbers to compare changes with the increase in the median wage...which is a nominal number. This is obviously silly, not least as nominal figures are a legitimate and transparent way of presenting underlying cash expenditure. Furthermore, the Benefits Bill is not intended (nor does it claim) to measure changes in the real purchasing power of that spending. It tells you the amount the DWP is spending, from their own data.

They also questioned why we selected the benefits we did. This is simple: we focus on the six major DWP-tracked benefit streams consistently available at local authority level (UC, PIP, Housing Benefit, DLA, Attendance Allowance, and Carer's Allowance) to give taxpayers the clearest possible picture of what is spent in their area.

Furthermore, the IFS told us we should have included legacy benefits like Jobseekers Allowance and income support. These would make very little difference - the change in Jobseekers Allowance is only £50m across England and Wales

And they mention tax credits (because they've moved over to UC). Those aren't in the DWP Stat-Xplore database and - surprise, surprise - the numbers are for the whole tax year, not the point-in-time data we have for UC. IFS sent us a worked example for Birmingham - and the figures are wrong, because they seem to use the 2023-24 tax year vs the 2 year period for UC. When numbers are changing rapidly due to the final stages of migration, you can't just put together mismatched timeframes. So we stuck with the Stat-Xplore data.

Crucially, even if you accept the IFS's own recalculated figures for Birmingham including tax credits, local spending STILL grew by 15.1% in cash terms over just two years. In what world is a 15% cash surge over 24 months something to celebrate?

The fact of the matter is this: other benefits have migrated onto UC, so the UC increases will be inflated. But when trying to say anything about benefits in Britain, that caveat comes with the territory, which is why we included it transparently in our FAQs and didn’t focus on the % change. All the spending totals you get when you punch in your postcode are (sadly) both correct and shocking.

Like many in the Westminster establishment, the IFS can't see the wood for the trees. Benefits spending has gone up, is too high and needs to come down. Not just for the sake of taxpayers and the public finances, but for those who need targeted support to get back into work.

Saying this upsets a lot of people, but taxpayers need someone to fight this fight, so TPA will, and we won’t apologise for doing so. This tool is designed to take DWP data no one sees and put it in a handy tool anyone can use. That’s why it matters for the public debate.

Check out our latest benefits bill tool by clicking the link below

https://t.co/PRCUuOGEvK

[Tim Wyeth @timwyeth114]

Labour have no idea of the "shit storm" heading their way.
Nor do 90% of "political" commentators. Burnham is running scared, hence the EU nonsense, the focus group are scrambling to divert attention from the misdeeds, if not
downright corruption in Manchester.
10% in the polls.

[The Sun Football ⚽ @TheSunFootball]

EXCLUSIVE: Fury as Labour MPs blag nearly £300k worth of freebies including flights & footie tickets from UAE & under-fire Man City

https://t.co/v1zgRExY2z

[The Sun Football ⚽ @TheSunFootball]

EXCLUSIVE: Fury as Labour MPs blag nearly £300k worth of freebies including flights & footie tickets from UAE & under-fire Man City

https://t.co/v1zgRExY2z

[Raja Miah @recusant_raja]

There’s an Andy Burnham story I feel some people are desperate to keep out of the headlines. It centres on the Mayor's relationship with the luxury property developer Renaker.

- Public loans since 2016:
£800,000,000.

- On-site affordable homes in the flagship GMCA backed towers:
ZERO

- And that headline £114m “affordable elsewhere” promise?
Deferred on viability. Meaning it can be pushed back or whittled down to nothing.

Have a read of this if you can access it. There is so much more going on here. Including, how, as Manchester Mayor in May 2024 he launched a plan to build 10,000 council houses in his area. So far he’s managed to start work on 10. Yes 10.

https://t.co/8vtkm70adU

My understanding was that more was meant to be released overnight. I can only assume the lawyers have got involved.

[Kate Hoey @CatharineHoey]

I agree 100 per cent. This is an obscene way to treat animals and should be banned

[Nick Timothy MP @NJ_Timothy]

Rahmeh Aladwan is a doctor in Britain.

She wants people who blaspheme against Islam to be killed.

People with beliefs like this do not belong in our country.

I’ve written to the General Medical Council calling for her to be struck off.

[Tim Wyeth @timwyeth114]

Labour ARE INCOMPETENT .
TOTALLY.

[Andrew Bridgen @ABridgen]

Oh dear !
Looks like the Labour Candidate in Holborn and St Pancras by election was ineligible to stand.
Makes Labour look incompetent !

[Tim Wyeth @timwyeth114]

Hyper inflation no.
Leave that to Iran with the Ryal coming at 3 MILLION to the green back, give or take. Need a big wheel barrow for the weekly shop !!!
But here in Cloud Cuckoo Land I think
folk should plan for double figure inflation. Next year. Unless they call the IMF...!!

[Shaun Richards @notayesmansecon]

I was asked by my daughter last night if we are about to enter a period of hyper inflation. I said unlikely unless the BoE ( or other central banks) go on another money printing spree. Was my answer too simplistic and too dismissive of the possibility?

[Tim Wyeth @timwyeth114]

The funds were routed via Jersey.
Why ?
Why would any PUBLIC MONEY. GRANTED TO MANCHESTER FOR HOUSING, be lent to developers via
Jersey "Brass plates". ?
The community in Manchester could
reasonably expect that the funds they were granted could be used for the
LOCAL ECONOMY.

[BRITAIN IS BROKEN 🇬🇧 @BROKENBRITAIN0]

🚨NEW: It has been revealed that Andy Burnham DIRECTLY chaired meetings where funds were APPROVED for Manchester City owner, Sheikh Mansour's companies 🇬🇧

It seems the former Manchester mayor turned prime minister is up to his NECK in corruption surrounding Manchester city...