The Burnham Years - Can the new(ish) broom sweep clean?

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

Well, some of the British public don't. Others seem to.

He's just a modern day gypsy, go where the laws don't apply to him.

The irony is that I've had my move to Canada approved, so as soon as some family issues have sorted themselves I become another fake statistic from a right wing think tank.

Conveniently you have both taken the single case in isolation. The articles identify that higher numbers of billionaires and millionaires are leaving, alongside this guy. It’s a clear trend not an isolated case.
 

What we also were talking about is lost tax revenue from these people which would actually improve the public services and infrastructure. It appears the government would prefer to shift that lost tax revenue liability to those left.

Edited yesterday at 08:12 by Sir Ralph

[Holmes_and_Watson]

2 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Then the Greek political music will change and he’ll up sticks and move somewhere else.

The British public do not want to be like the Red states in America where the bridges fall to bits and kill people, the police forces are terrible and DNA tests take 12-18 months and there’s no affordable healthcare. 

Greek golden passports have been around for over a decade. Incredibly desperate for any kind of investment. And not at all fussed about who they are or the source of the funds.

I'd guess with his funds, he won't be relying on the systems the regular citizens depend on. Although he may need to use a private helicopter if the bridges collapse.

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

Well, some of the British public don't. Others seem to.

He's just a modern day gypsy, go where the laws don't apply to him.

The irony is that I've had my move to Canada approved, so as soon as some family issues have sorted themselves I become another fake statistic from a right wing think tank.

Just to wish your sheep sculptures all the best in their upcoming move to be closer to @Hamilton Saint.

[iansums]

English schools have gone up in the international rankings due to policies introduced by Tory government, let’s hope this government doesn’t undo all the good work. Scottish schools have dropped down the table.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

Just now, iansums said:

English schools have gone up in the international rankings due to policies introduced by Tory government, let’s hope this government doesn’t undo all the good work. Scottish schools have dropped down the table.

I saw a beeb headline saying they were getting in primary school teachers to teach the secondary school children basic reading skills. Although, if they bring in the same primary teachers who didn't help them read in the first place...

[Sir Ralph]

Welfare before national security - embarrassing. The Russians are coming but as long as Fat Mo can buy her fags, thats what matters. The Tories are no better either - hypocrites.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yw3223w1vo

Edited 22 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

9 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Welfare before national security - embarrassing. The Russians are coming but as long as Fat Mo can buy her fags, thats what matters. The Tories are no better either - hypocrites.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yw3223w1vo

Err, no : "Burnham said he would fund defence and get the welfare bill down,....."

[egg]

10 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Welfare before national security - embarrassing. The Russians are coming but as long as Fat Mo can buy her fags, thats what matters. The Tories are no better either - hypocrites.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yw3223w1vo

And as long as Doris can keep her triple locked pension, regardless of whatever else she has. 

Ditch the triple lock, but keep a welfare top up for pensioners who need more. 

Means test all disability related benefits, for adults and kids.

Sift the needy from the greedy. 

We can't scrimp on security but people maxing out their ISA allowance and their kids junior ISA allowance with welfare benefits. 

So fundamentally I agree with you, but with different targets. 

[whelk]

24 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

The Russians are coming

Getting irrationally scared again. Man up you big girl

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

Getting irrationally scared again. Man up you big girl

I just dont want to fight them with a pitchfork and some hot water because the money that would have been for my rifle and helmet was spent on fat Mo's cigarettes.

[Sir Ralph]

22 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Err, no : "Burnham said he would fund defence and get the welfare bill down,....."

Apparently so. Why did he make the comment that defence spending wont be at the cost of social security. That to me seems like he isnt going to cut it. Using defence spending needs outlined by NATO would be a great justification for most other people to explain why they need to cut welfare, if thats what they really intended on doing. "Really sorry I need to cut your allowances but NATO says the Russians are invading so I need to spend more on planes and tanks to protect you and your family" - great excuse. So why did Burnham make that specific statement? He said he will get the wefare bill down in the 'Labour Way', which I imagine means increasing it!

Edited 22 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

8 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

Conveniently you have both taken the single case in isolation. The articles identify that higher numbers of billionaires and millionaires are leaving, alongside this guy. It’s a clear trend not an isolated case.

How many have left in the last year? I assume you have data for all this.

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

I just dont want to fight them with a pitchfork and some hot water because the money that would have been for my rifle and helmet was spent on fat Mo's cigarettes.

It will be drones so don’t worry your rifle won’t be much more help than you pitchfork. Although might be useful being able to jab well with a very long handled one. 
 

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

Apparently so. Why did he make the comment that defence spending wont be at the cost of social security. That to me seems like he isnt going to cut it. Using defence spending needs outlined by NATO would be a great justification for most other people to explain why they need to cut welfare, if thats what they really intended on doing. "Really sorry I need to cut your allowances but NATO says the Russians are invading so I need to spend more on planes and tanks to protect you and your family" - great excuse. So why did Burnham make that specific statement? He said he will get the wefare bill down in the 'Labour Way', which I imagine means increasing it!

He said he would increase training and job opportunities to get young people out of the welfare system, thereby saving money on the welfare bill. It's all in the BBC report you linked.

"The Labour Way" is to get people off welfare, not to simply cut the budget, ( apparently ).

Edited 21 hours ago by badgerx16

[egg]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

I just dont want to fight them with a pitchfork and some hot water because the money that would have been for my rifle and helmet was spent on fat Mo's cigarettes.

Wtf makes you think there's a Russian invasion in the offing?! Sure, they may have a pop at a Baltic state to see what NATO do, but they're not having a crack at us. Blimey. 

[iansums]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Err, no : "Burnham said he would fund defence and get the welfare bill down,....."

Eeerm yes, his words implied welfare spending took priority over defence spending. 

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, iansums said:

Eeerm yes, his words implied welfare spending took priority over defence spending. 

One is to stop people dying, the other is to stop the chance of people dying.

[aintforever]

3 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

I just dont want to fight them with a pitchfork and some hot water because the money that would have been for my rifle and helmet was spent on fat Mo's cigarettes.

You won’t even need a pitchfork or hot water if their showing against Ukraine is anything to go by.

Edited 19 hours ago by aintforever

[Sir Ralph]

15 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

How many have left in the last year? I assume you have data for all this.

The article I provided shows the number of UK millionaires is estimated to have fallen by 7% in a year, to its lowest level since the financial crisis. This includes people who have fallen below the £1m threshold but clearly states a significant portion is because of an anti wealth environment. Equally to support your claim, there are no official figures showing that fewer millionaires are leaving. Where is your evidence to support that claim?

[tdmickey3]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

The article I provided shows the number of UK millionaires is estimated to have fallen by 7% in a year, to its lowest level since the financial crisis. This includes people who have fallen below the £1m threshold but clearly states a significant portion is because of an anti wealth environment. Equally to support your claim, there are no official figures showing that fewer millionaires are leaving. Where is your evidence to support that claim?

So you don`t have any data, no surprise there.

This is why you are ridiculed because you just post nonsense and others highlight it regularly you cant handle it... absolute clown  

[Sir Ralph]

11 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

So you don`t have any data, no surprise there.

This is why you are ridiculed because you just post nonsense and others highlight it regularly you cant handle it... absolute clown  

You really are evidence that the education system in this country has failed.

What do you mean I don’t have the data? The article is an evidenced based document which states that millionaires have estimated to be reduced to 442k, a reduction of 7% in a year. This is a modelled estimate as (weirdly) the government doesn’t produce figures to support either sides argument. However, in the absence of exact figures from the government it forms an informed evidence base of what is happening (I appreciate this might be difficult for you to understand).

My personal experience is that a lot of people have left hence why this started. I was challenged that this was not the case and few people had left. Where is the evidence for their statement that fewer people have left? 

Edited 5 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[tdmickey3]

7 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

You really are evidence that the education system in this country has failed.

What do you mean I don’t have the data? The article is an evidenced based document which states that millionaires have estimated to be reduced to 442k, a reduction of 7% in a year. This is a modelled estimate as (weirdly) the government doesn’t produce figures to support either sides argument. However, in the absence of exact figures from the government it forms an informed evidence base of what is happening (I appreciate this might be difficult for you to understand).

My personal experience is that a lot of people have left hence why this started. I was challenged that this was not the case and few people had left. Where is the evidence for their statement that fewer people have left? 

The myth-buster’s guide to the “millionaire exodus” scare story - Tax Justice Network

[Sir Ralph]

13 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

You really are evidence that the education system in this country has failed.

What do you mean I don’t have the data? The article is an evidenced based document which states that millionaires have estimated to be reduced to 442k, a reduction of 7% in a year. This is a modelled estimate as (weirdly) the government doesn’t produce figures to support either sides argument. However, in the absence of exact figures from the government it forms an informed evidence base of what is happening (I appreciate this might be difficult for you to understand).

My personal experience is that a lot of people have left hence why this started. I was challenged that this was not the case and few people had left. Where is the evidence for their statement that fewer people have left? 

Ok the Tax Justice Network - very balanced. Anyway that article is from July 2025 only one year after Labour got into power likely using information from less than one year in power. This is out of date. The Adam Smith Institute and the recent Wealth Club survey are more up to date evidence which have a more appropriate period in which to really assess the impacts. For example some people I know that left had just left or were getting ready to leave last summer so wouldn’t have been picked up at the time of your article. 

[Farmer Saint]

3 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

The article I provided shows the number of UK millionaires is estimated to have fallen by 7% in a year, to its lowest level since the financial crisis. This includes people who have fallen below the £1m threshold but clearly states a significant portion is because of an anti wealth environment. Equally to support your claim, there are no official figures showing that fewer millionaires are leaving. Where is your evidence to support that claim?

I never said that fewer were leaving. Literally never said that. I didn't see what you posted, but my bet is it's a right wing think tank. An estimate is not fact, especially when supplied by a company funded by millionaires, for millionaires.

FT and HMRC data show it's not happening at anything like the rate that the "estimates" are showing, and that where it is happening is not down to tax rules or Government, more millionaire mobility post COVID:

https://www.ft.com/content/655a05ff-ec45-492d-a70e-4f8ba8dc141f?syn-25a6b1a6=1

Unless you are offering zero or next to zero tax, people are leaving. Nonsensical to think a proper society can fund that.

Edited 2 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Gloucester Saint]

Kemi needs to ask George Osborne and Vince Cable what happened about the Bedroom Tax during the Coalition (Osborne still regrets it today). Our politicians never learn from history https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9xznl0yvzo