Lorri ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ฌ๐ง๐ฆ๐ retweeted
๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ฌ๐ง Britain sent warships into a friendly country's harbours. ๐ฅ
And burned its ships at anchor. โ
That country was Brazil ๐ง๐ท
More enslaved Africans were taken to Brazil than to any other country on earth. โ๏ธ
Not America ๐บ๐ธ Brazil ๐ง๐ท
Nearly half of everyone shipped across the Atlantic went there. Ten times more than the United States. ๐
In 1826 Britain made Brazil sign a treaty. The trade would end by 1830. ๐
Brazil signed. Then ignored it. They even had a phrase for laws like that: "para inglรชs ver". For the English to see. ๐
Tens of thousands of people kept arriving every year. ๐
So Britain changed the law. Brazilian slave ships could now be tried in British courts as pirates. โ๏ธ
In 1850 the Royal Navy sailed into Brazil's ports, under the guns of the forts. They cut out the slave ships and burned them. ๐ข
Emperor Pedro II's government had a choice. War with Britain. Or end the trade. โ๏ธ
That September, Brazil banned it. Within two years the trade was dead. ๐๏ธ
Yet today only one country is asked to feel ashamed. ๐ค
The one that stopped it. ๐ฌ๐ง
Be part of us. ๐ฌ๐ง
Be Proud Of Us. ๐๐ฌ๐ง
Lorri ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ฌ๐ง๐ฆ๐ retweeted
Britain Owes No Apology for the Sins of Two Centuries Ago
There is something profoundly troubling about a British Prime Minister contemplating an apology on behalf of his country for events that took place two centuries ago. Andy Burnham says he is open to formally apologising for Britain's involvement in the transatlantic slave trade. He also acknowledges that today's British people bear no responsibility for those historical wrongs. Then why is he considering apologising in their name?
Slavery was a barbaric institution. Britain participated in it, profited from it and eventually helped bring it to an end. Those facts belong together. Yet Labour seems increasingly comfortable discussing Britain's historical shame while showing far less enthusiasm for defending its achievements. A nation cannot understand its history by examining only the chapters that make it uncomfortable.
Slavery existed thousands of years before Britain entered the transatlantic trade. African rulers and merchants supplied captives to European traders. Slavery flourished across the Middle East, North Africa and Asia. Some forms of slavery remain with us today. Yet Britain, which became one of the foremost powers in suppressing the international trade, now finds itself under renewed pressure to apologise.
In 1807, Parliament abolished the British slave trade. In 1833, it legislated to abolish slavery across most of the Empire, with full emancipation following in 1838. The Royal Navy subsequently spent decades intercepting slave ships, liberating captives and confronting traders along the African coast. British sailors risked their lives enforcing a principle that much of the world had yet to accept.
Abolition also came at an enormous financial cost. Parliament authorised ยฃ20 million to compensate slave owners, a vast sum at the time. The formerly enslaved received nothing, an injustice that deserves acknowledgement. Debt associated with that settlement was subsequently consolidated into government borrowing arrangements, with the relevant gilt finally redeemed in 2015. Britain's abolitionist history deserves to be remembered alongside its involvement in slavery.
But Burnham's proposed apology raises another question. What exactly would it achieve? Caribbean campaigners have already declared that an apology alone would be insufficient. Their demands extend to debt relief, development funding and other forms of compensation. Burnham rejects reparations while proposing more favourable debt arrangements for poorer Commonwealth countries. He must explain where ordinary development policy ends and historical compensation begins.
This is part of a wider failure of confidence in Britain's political leadership. Labour ministers appear more comfortable revisiting the country's historical failings than defending its inheritance. National pride is too often treated as something requiring explanation, qualification or apology. Meanwhile, the country faces mounting pressures on public services, living standards, housing and national security.
The British people alive today neither owned the plantations nor authorised the slave ships. They inherited a country whose history contains cruelty and courage, exploitation and reform. They have every reason to learn that history honestly, without being expected to assume personal guilt for the conduct of distant generations.
Burnham says today's Britons cannot be held liable for historical wrongs. He should stand by that principle and explain why a formal apology is necessary. Britain's past requires honesty, perspective and moral seriousness. It does not require an endless procession of national apologies.
A Prime Minister's duty is to represent the British people of today, not burden them with the guilt of centuries past.
Lorri ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ฌ๐ง๐ฆ๐ retweeted
As a former member of the progressive tribe, this post explains why I left.
Where are the progressive celebrities now? Letโs hear what theyโve got to say about this. Is this gay man transphobic? Will that be the accusation?
People need to understand the progressive process. If we all accepted gender ideology without question, threw womenโs sex-based rights under the bus and celebrated young women undergoing mastectomies because theyโd become convinced by some charismatic but mentally ill โinfluencerโ theyโd seen on TikTok that they were somehow โborn in the wrong bodyโ, it wouldnโt end there.
Before long, the very people demanding our unquestioning allegiance today would themselves be denounced as bigots by the next progressive movement. God knows what that would be, but I dread to think.
This is what people need to understand.
There was a progressive battle for gay rights. And it had been more or less won. Then the T was bolted onto LGB, and it came to mean far more than grown adults deciding to undergo sex reassignment.
Suddenly, anyone could identify as whatever they wanted. Men could become women, women could become men, and people could declare themselves non-binary. Sex-based safeguards? Out of the window. Child safeguarding? Apparently an inconvenience. Children could be whatever they declared themselves to be, and parents who questioned it risked being branded bigots. Now we have a draft Conversion Practices Bill that could criminalise parentsโ who challenge these ideas.
People need to wake up. The modern progressive movement has lost its collective mind.
It has embraced a vision of society that, had somebody written it into a dystopian novel 30 years ago, would have seemed too far-fetched to be believable.
And look at The Celebrity Traitors. Apparently, itโs no longer enough to give money to a refugee charity. It has to be a charity for โqueerโ refugees.
And what does queer even mean? It was once a slur, subsequently reclaimed and transformed into something approaching a political identity. Yet there are plenty of gay people who want absolutely nothing to do with queer politics. Theyโre simply gay. Why should that entail subscribing to an entire ideological programme?
Thatโs the extraordinary thing about modern progressivism. Yesterdayโs hard-won victories are never enough. There must always be another cause, another orthodoxy, another group of supposed heretics to denounce.
Sooner or later, I believe this madness will lift. But what wreckage will it leave behind?
Women whose careers and reputations have been destroyed for defending their sex-based rights. Young people left dealing with the irreversible consequences of medical decisions they were encouraged to make before they were old enough to appreciate what those decisions meant. Families torn apart. Institutions whose credibility has been shredded.
Iโll never stop being astonished by how thoroughly this ideology captured people I had previously regarded as intelligent, thoughtful and capable of independent judgement.
I used to think progressivism was about challenging orthodoxies, questioning authority and standing up for the vulnerable.
Now, far too often, it seems to be about enforcing orthodoxies, silencing dissent and sacrificing the vulnerable on the altar of ideological purity.
How did we get here?
As a gay man, I'll say what a lot of us are thinking.
We fought to be left alone. To marry the man we love, keep our jobs, and live a quiet life.
We won.
Then woke activists took our letters, stapled on a dozen causes we never signed up for, and started calling us bigots for saying sex is real.
That isn't our movement anymore.
Lorri ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ฌ๐ง๐ฆ๐ retweeted
๐ฅWebsite Update๐ฅ
Every seat now has its own page: who to back, how the right's vote splits there, and the seats around it.
Find yours and send it to three people who live near you. Close seats are won that way.
unitetherightuk.com/seat/aldโฆ
Lorri ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ฌ๐ง๐ฆ๐ retweeted
Oh, October. Maybe I do love you after all. ๐
Relax for a few seconds and enjoy October in the Peak District through my lens.
๐ Peak District, England
Lorri ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ฌ๐ง๐ฆ๐ retweeted
St James, Dudley. Labour won by 2 votes yesterday.
The right had 59%.
Somewhere in that ward were people who'd have switched if someone had just told them.
Be that someone and send this to four people.
unitetherightuk.com/#signup
Lorri ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ฌ๐ง๐ฆ๐ retweeted
Where is the outrage from the media and the City?
Why is Burnham not being hounded out of office with โlettuceโ comparisons?
Lorri ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ฌ๐ง๐ฆ๐ retweeted
Low income pensioners face 53.33% tax! The new Pension Tax Allowance (it's a refund not an allowance) means an extra ยฃ10 of income between ยฃ13,037 and ยฃ13,319 has ยฃ2 income tax taken and loses ยฃ3.33 PTA which is withdrawn ยฃ1 for ยฃ3 above ยฃ13,037, leaving just ยฃ4.67 of that ยฃ10.
Lorri ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ฌ๐ง๐ฆ๐ retweeted
Update:
In the 27 months since Labour came to power, we've seen;
โข Employer National Insurance increased from 13.8% to 15%.
โข The employer NI threshold cut from ยฃ9,100 to ยฃ5,000.
โข The freeze on Income Tax and National Insurance thresholds extended to 2031.
โข Capital Gains Tax increased from 10% and 20% to 18% and 24%.
โข Business Asset Disposal Relief increased from 10% to 14%, then 18% โ and now its lifetime limit halved to ยฃ500,000.
โข Investorsโ Relief raised to 18% and its lifetime limit cut from ยฃ10 million to ยฃ1 million.
โข CGT relief on sales to Employee Ownership Trusts halved.
โข Carried interest taxation increased and moved into the Income Tax regime.
โข Dividend tax rates increased by two percentage points.
โข Savings-income tax rates increased by four percentage points.
โข Property-income tax rates increased by four percentage points.
โข VCT income tax relief cut from 30% to 20%.
โข Most unused pension funds brought into the Inheritance Tax net.
โข Agricultural and Business Property Relief capped.
โข Inheritance Tax thresholds frozen until 2031.
โข The non-dom regime replaced with a tougher residence-based system.
โข VAT imposed on private school fees.
โข Business-rates relief removed from private schools.
โข The Stamp Duty surcharge on second homes and buy-to-let raised from 3% to 5%.
โข The Furnished Holiday Lettings regime abolished.
โข A new annual surcharge on homes worth ยฃ2 million or more.
โข Pension salary-sacrifice NI relief capped at ยฃ2,000 a year.
โข The bank surcharge doubled.
โข Capital allowances for plant and machinery cut twice.
โข Online gaming duty almost doubled.
โข The Energy Profits Levy increased and extended, and its investment allowance scrapped.
โข Vaping Products Duty brought in and tobacco duties increased above inflation.
โข Vehicle Excise Duty increased for many new cars, with electric vehicles brought in.
โข A pay-per-mile tax on electric and plug-in hybrid cars legislated for 2028.
โข Air Passenger Duty increased.
โข Making Tax Digital extended to more landlords and self-employed people.
Together they represent one of the biggest transfers of wealth from households and businesses to the Treasury in decades โ with little to show for it in public services.
Whether you're a business owner employing staff, a parent paying school fees, a farmer planning succession, an entrepreneur building wealth or simply someone trying to save for your familyโs future...
- You keep less of what you earn.
- You keep less of what you invest.
- You leave less for your family.
Death by a thousand cuts.
Lorri ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ฌ๐ง๐ฆ๐ retweeted
The OBR now expects NO growth in real earnings for British people next year.
Or the year after.
Real wages have barely grown for 20 years.
All because Tory and Labour governments made Britain a food bank for the world and punished hard workers.
Reform will reverse this.
We will cut taxes, end all welfare for foreign nationals and put BRITISH people first. ๐ฌ๐ง
Lorri ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ฌ๐ง๐ฆ๐ retweeted
These are the stats John Healey doesnโt want you to read:
- By 2031 weโll be spending ยฃ160bn/year on debt interest alone โ up ยฃ36bn/year.
- Borrowing forecasts for the next 5 years have risen ยฃ65bn since March.
- Unemployment will rise to above 5% until 2027. The Employment Rights Act will โweigh on the labour marketโ
- Government revenue will rise to 43% of GDP by 2031, driven by a record tax burden.
- Households will be worse off in every single year of the five year forecast than they were in March.
- Itโll take until 2029 to get back to 2019 levels of prosperity.
- Growth will be anodyne. GDP per capita grows less than 1% in 2027. Itโll peak at less than 2% per year, despite the AI revolution.
- The national debt will stay above 95% of GDP.
We will be on a fiscal knife-edge. Britain is Broke. Britain needs Reform.
Lorri ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ฌ๐ง๐ฆ๐ retweeted
๐ฌ๐ง The OBR just dropped 200 pages on Healey's first Budget.
I read it so you don't have to.
Tax is at a record 37.9% of GDP by 2027-28, past the old high of 37.2%.
Then it climbs every single year to 38.6%.
Frozen thresholds are doing way too much to workers since they get a pay rise, hand more of it over.
1.8x the national minimum wage now classes you as a higher tax rate payer - what the fuck?
Borrowing @ ยฃ133bn this year. In March they said ยฃ115bn. Seven months later it's ยฃ18bn worse. And it's higher than March in every year of the forecast because neither the OBR nor treasury has a clue what theyโre doing.
Debt interest at ยฃ39bn in 2019-20.
ยฃ109bn last year ๐ฉ
ยฃ160bn by 2031-32 ๐ฉ๐ฉยฃ15bn of this year's bill is extra bc inflation's pushing up index linked gilts, and we know the uk has a structural inflation problem, partly due to the relationship between treasury and BoE.
Headroom is ยฃ14.5bn, down from ยฃ21.7bn at the last Budget.
Keep the fuel duty freeze going and it's ยฃ10.2bn.
The OBR gives Healey a 56% chance of hitting his OWN FUCKING rule.
Debt will peak at 97.3% of GDP, still 95.6% in 2031-32. Five years and it barely moves which is completely against his fiscal demands.
How it affects you?
Growth 1% next year with gdp per capita basically the same as it has been since 2019
Inflation 3.4% when March said 2%.
Zero real pay growth in 2027.
Living standards in 2030-31?
Just 2% above pre-pandemic.
But don't worry. You're getting a ยฃ100 council tax rebate.
Jesus Christ.
Beautiful autumn day ๐ค๏ธ๐๐ Wortley Hall #Sheffield
Lorri ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ฌ๐ง๐ฆ๐ retweeted
Labour manifesto, 2024. Couldn't have been clearer.
Lorri ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ฌ๐ง๐ฆ๐ retweeted
FYI, talking about Brexit yesterday, Angela Rayner claimed that...
โThe evidence is really clear in terms of 20% down in exports to the EU, 16,000 businesses no longer exporting to the EU, it has been the red tape on the EU deal we got, has been damaging to the economyโ.
But if this is indeed the evidence, it really is not clear!
Let's unpick it... ๐งต
Lorri ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ฌ๐ง๐ฆ๐ retweeted
The UK government has, since April, spent no less than ยฃ61 billion - thatโs ยฃ61,000,000,000 - on debt interest payments.
Thatโs equivalent to our entire annual defence budget - on just half a yearโs worth of debt service costs, not paying back a penny of our national debt.
For ยฃ61bn you could build 40 state-of-the-art hospitals.
Or employ 100,000 nurses for a decade
Or fund free-at-the-point-of-use social care, across the entire UK, for three years.
Watch this short โWhen The Facts Changeโ video for more on the UKโs soaring debt interest bill - the biggest national scandal our mainstream media continues to ignore.
Lorri ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ฌ๐ง๐ฆ๐ retweeted
๐ANNOUNCEMENT๐
Every candidate we backed yesterday finished top on the right.
Four won, three of them gains.
Six more next Thursday.
Sign up and get the pick for your area:
unitetherightuk.com/#signup
Lorri ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ฌ๐ง๐ฆ๐ retweeted
๐จSneaked out by OFGEM this morning, a warning for the first time EVER they cannot guarantee that demand will be met on a peak day in winter.
Letโs be clear what that means. They cannot guarantee that homes will be warm, lights come on or industry function on a peak day this winter.
And why? Because of an accelerated decline in domestic gas supply from the North Sea.
So what is the solution? For British bill payers to pay more, to IMPORT more from Europe (specifically Belgium) to keep the lights on in Britain.
Britain. A country with vast supplies of gas, untapped, deliberately due to Labour policy now going cap in hand to Europe and paying vast sums to import foreign gas.
It is utterly outrageous. You couldnโt make it up.
ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/fโฆ
Lorri ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ฅ๓ ฎ๓ ง๓ ฟ๐ฌ๐ง๐ฆ๐ retweeted
Official figures out this morning report that last month, the UK government borrowed ยฃ24.5 billion.
But the fineprint shows that almost ยฃ11 billion of that extra borrowing went on debt interest payments.
That's more than ยฃ400 per household on debt service costs, in September alone.
So far during this financial year, from April to September, the government's debt interest payments amount to ยฃ61 billion.
Now, this number will barely feature in UK newspapers and across our airwaves. It may be mentioned in passing in out-of-the-way business sections, or on the odd business bulletin.
But this huge debt interest bill won't register with the vast majority of our political and media class, or impact the national debate.
Let me explain why that's so wrong and so dangerous ...
ยฃ61 billion is a massive amount of money.
It's equivalent to the UK's entire annual defence budget โ the money we're paying, increasingly to foreign creditors, simply to service our national debt for six months, not to pay any of it back.
ยฃ61 billion is equivalent to the money you'd raise over a year from adding a whopping 7 pence to the basic rate of income tax.
For ยฃ61 billion, you could build around 40 large, state-of-the-art hospitals, or employ more than 100 thousand extra nurses for ten years.
ยฃ61 billion would pay for free-at-the-point of use social care for everyone who needs it in the UK, for an entire year โย three times over.
Again, this is the debt interest bill on Britain's spiralling national debt โย now more than 3 trillion pounds โย over the last six months alone.
The UK's public finances are close to meltdown โ yet so many MPs and journalists continue blithely to view ever more public spending and borrowing as the answer to every problem.
Those who highlight the dangers post by our hugely precarious national accounts are dismissed as cranks, ideologues or worse.
But basic arithmetic has no ideology.
And there is nothing "progressive" or "kind" or "right-on" about driving the UK ever closer to the fiscal cliff edge, provoking a crisis that will make the "austerity" years of the 2010s feel like a picnic, a crisis in which poorer households will suffer the most.
Yes, Britain's national debt is lower than that of France. But because our borrowing has been rising so sharply, and because we're so prone to inflation, our debt service costs are much higher.
The UK is spending a disgraceful 3.6pc of GDP on public debt interest, while France spends less than 2.5pc.
Endless airtime and column inches are devoted to spurious conversations about a billion or two of additional "fiscal headroom" we may or may not have in three years' time.
And, of course, any "extra headroom" is immediately pledged in new spending โ which means yet more borrowing.
These conversations are a waste of time โย and, in fact, are deeply counterproductive. Three-year fiscal forecasts, even one- and two-year forecasts, routinely turn out to be askew by tens of billions of pounds.
I'm not saying we don't need fiscal rules - we do, but we need more immediate rules, which actually bite, acting as a meaningful constraint on out-of-control borrowing and spending.
Instead, political and media sages present the nation with spuriously precise discussions about fictional fiscal outcomes way into the future โ using rules which are deliberately designed to kick arithmetic realities into the long grass ....
An increasingly expensive, over-bearing, out of control state is not the answer to Britain problems.
But unless we change course, it will certainly be our downfall.
Please like/share if you think what I'm saying is important โ and if fiscal realities should feature more prominently in our national debate.
And for more sharp, plain-speaking economic analysis subscribe to:
"When The Facts Change - economic and politics in a fast-moving world, with Liam Halligan"




























