Sir Ralph

Whilst she, for example, voted against certain proposed LGBT… legislation that doesn’t make somebody a homophobe. How do you square off the fact that she was friends with a number of gay celebrities as outlined above who have come out in support of her? You can disagree with something and not be racist, homophobic, etc. it’s how you treat the individual - you should read @trousers copy and paste above it nails it You did label me a child killer because I disagreed with the removal of the two child welfare cap. so if that’s the standard for calling someone that, you are too easily offended by people that you don’t agree with

Whilst she, for example, voted against certain proposed LGBT… legislation that doesn’t make somebody a homophobe. How do you square off the fact that she was friends with a number of gay celebrities as outlined above who have come out in support of her? You literally labelled me a child killer because I disagreed with the removal of the two child welfare cap so your standard for offence generally is a very low bar

Th bizarre thing about this is why were the police so keen to push this idea that the attack wasn’t politically motivated? The bloke drove 4 hours from Rotherham than morning. Not exactly a speculative burglary. Doesn’t add up.

Same happened after Charlie Kirk unfortunately

Politics are intrinsically linked to ethics and morales. Not a good post. You might disagree with her but she was a leading voice in the Conservative Party for many years. You may not agree with some her views but she was hardly seen as an extremist in normal society (the echo chamber here is not a good sample test). The bbc let her on strictly for goodness sake.

It shouldn’t need an explanation - in tragedy in particular, you either have respect for people regardless of politics or you don’t. Ironic that you have tried to teach others lessons in empathy in the past.

Absolutely embarrassing and classless. Just a reminder he has said that about a nearly 80 year old women beaten to death in her own home. Lovely

Good we agree. What I didn’t like about his post was that it read that having an “extreme” view (subjective) means that somebody attacking that person could be understandable. I think the Green Party are extreme (probably stupid more than anything) but I would not go close to understanding why a nutter would harm one of them.

Correct

He insinuated that Widdecombe forced her beliefs on others because she is religious. My point was that the negative aspects of wokeism, which widdecombe stood against, actually does that instead. That wasn’t the main point of my post which was that someone’s political views, which are contrary to yours, doesn’t mean that it’s understandable as to why somebody would attack them- do you agree?

What a load of tosh. She had different political views to some other people. If that winds up other people with different political views (who are by their very nature intolerant of other peoples views) they should understand the meaning of the word “democracy” and grow a thicker skin. If people don’t like it go and live in Iran or North Korea. We live in a world where the religion of woke forces its opinion on everybody.

Ah, yes of European countries. Fair enough - our predicted growth is marginally above the Eurozone, but above it nonetheless. Is that because of Brexit (not that I voted for it)?😂

Its not the highest predicted growth from what I've read. We are predicted a 1% growth, up 0.2% from the 0.8% growth previously predicted for 2026 is what I read. Genuinely interested - do you have a link to this confirming we have the highest predicted G7 growth for '26 and '27?

Where are we identified as having the highest predicted G7 growth please - genuine question....

Mental.

SDLT and IHT already fall more heavily on high value property which is mainly in the south. From what I’ve read Burnham will shifts greater tax burden on land and property so there will be an even greater impact on the south which I don’t believe is fair

You’ve gone from denying such a policy wouldn’t impact the southerners to now changing the subject to income tax. Im regularly reminded that there are too many people in this country that want others to pay for them and the politics of envy is rife. Sad state of affairs as aspiration is unfortunately being trodden on.

Im certain I understand more about the policies he supports and will likely bring in and the demographic of people it will impact. I recommend reading more on it before accusing people that are better informed than you. I’ll give you the simple conclusion from chat gpt. He talked about land tax and inheritance tax changes in the early 2010 and also earlier this year when he was campaigning. Read a bit more then pop back again If Burnham were in a position to shape national tax policy, the broad direction appears to be: less reliance on taxing earned income; more reliance on taxing accumulated wealth, land and property; reforming rather than simply increasing inheritance taxation. The people most exposed would generally be: owners of high-value homes, landlords, those with large estates, people with substantial capital assets. Since high-value property is disproportionately located in southern England, the financial impact would likely fall more heavily on the South overall, though there would be exceptions and the exact distribution would depend on the final design of any reforms.

You will be surprised to hear he hasn’t said “southerners will be taxed more than northerners”. Politically that would be very stupid. However if you intend to apply what could be a 0.5% annual levy on property it will disproportionately impact the south (unless you want to argue that property values in the south are lower). Inheritance tax will also be revised which again will catch those with higher property prices (in the south).

Oh the lefties are getting abusive again. How so? Have you actually read any of the articles - do you know what Burnhams anticipated policies are and his history of comments on the policies referred to in these articles?

I agree not announced as policy yet. However these policies are said to be central to his strategy. If they aren’t put into place great but based on what I’ve read, they will be

There are multiple sources https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/andy-burnham-london-south-paying-north-england-5HjdcDp_2/ https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/andy-burnham-south-paying-price-for-norths-economic-failure-x3mmmv58s https://www.ft.com/content/08039dd6-0863-4836-806a-921151e398a1?syn-25a6b1a6=1

I understand your point and I’ve no objection to the principle of increased investment in the north. However Burnham is proposing a change to individual’s contribution in the south to achieve this objective and reducing northerners tax bill to achieve this.

But it doesn’t work like that. If I buy your house I have to get a mortgage and work hard to pay down that extra £700k mortgage. The vast majority of people haven’t magically accrued that additional value, they have had to pay for it and will now be taxed more for it.