Mark

🚨 This footage of Andy Burnham being absolutely hounded by furious families at a public meeting should be required viewing for every voter in Britain — because this is the man quietly being lined up as Keir Starmer’s replacement. Watch the raw anger. Mothers and fathers screaming from the public gallery, demanding answers about the systematic rape of hundreds of vulnerable British girls in Oldham and Greater Manchester. Burnham — the so-called “King of the North” — stonewalls them, shuts down calls for a proper public inquiry, and prioritises “community relations” over the broken bodies and shattered lives of working-class white girls targeted by grooming gangs. Greater Manchester Police failed these victims catastrophically. Files ignored. Girls dismissed as “troubled” or “consenting.” Fathers arrested for trying to rescue their own daughters while the predators — overwhelmingly Pakistani-heritage men — operated with impunity for years. Burnham didn’t just turn a blind eye. He actively blocked full accountability. His toothless “Assurance Review” was a whitewash designed to bury the truth rather than expose it. He spent years defending it, denying a cover-up, only conceding the obvious when the scandal went national and international. This isn’t ancient history. This is the same Andy Burnham who, as Mayor, refused to discipline senior officers who looked the other way. The same man who watched grooming gangs destroy lives and chose political correctness and bloc votes over the safety of our children. The same Labour careerist now being floated as the next Prime Minister — the antidote to Starmer’s collapsing regime. Let that sink in. In two-tier Britain, the feelings and electoral clout of certain communities matter more than the innocence of British girls. From Rotherham to Rochdale to Oldham to Manchester — the pattern is identical, and the cover-up machine is still running under Labour. Burnham isn’t the solution. He’s the continuation of the same rotten project that sacrificed our daughters for “diversity” optics and cheap votes. The silent majority has had enough. We demand: ✅ A full, fearless national inquiry into grooming gangs with no limits, no sacred cows, and real criminal consequences for every police chief, councillor, social worker and politician who looked the other way. ✅ Life sentences that actually mean life for the rapists — no more soft-touch sentencing. ✅ Burnham held to account publicly and barred from ever holding high office again. No “King of the North.” No return to Westminster. No path to No. 10. ✅ An end to the two-tier protection racket that puts imported communities above native British children. Patrick Christys is right to keep showing this. The British people remember every girl failed. Every father arrested. Every inquiry blocked. And we will not let the grooming-gang apologists rewrite history or slither into power. This is why Reform is rising. This is why the silent majority is awake. Protect our children. Demand real justice. No more cover-ups. No more Burnham.

@Anna_Soubry Yes -a lot down to people sadly like you who were determined to stop the will of the people being implemented and helped waste months on supporting Keir Starmer wanting another referendum. Trust in politicians promises was trashed !

@ColinRicha53474 @wizwoz2 @v_j_freeman @AllisonPearson I have never heard of any such accusations, can you suggest what to search for?

@wizwoz2 @v_j_freeman @AllisonPearson I utterly despise Burnham but Maggie Oliver is the most bent and corrupt woman i have ever come across

Everything rests on who Reform select for Makerfield. If they go for a Goodwin style candidate they may as well not bother. A salt of the earth local woman with a history of standing up for women & girls would be Burnham’s Achilles heel.

@A1an_M It'll be interesting to see how much the Labour Party through in to this fight. Who controls the purse strings for a local campaign, NEC? Can't see Kier campaigning in this up coming campaign.

If Starmer was really Machiavellian, he'd govern really badly in the run-up to the by-election so that there's a huge anti-Labour protest vote and Burnham loses and can't become leader, leaving Starmer in charge.

@NfPreGame @PaulCoxComedy If Reform runs Maggie Oliver they will win, Andy won't become an MP, the plot to remove Kier will have failed. Wes doesn't have the numbers, Ed won't instigate a run. Kier's best chance of staying is a Reform win.

@Markrubrix @PaulCoxComedy Yes thats correct cant be a police and crimes commissioner aswell as an MP. I dont think it matters either way as the NEC will probably block him from standing just like they did in gorton and Denton. Starmer will do everything he can to stop Andy from running

Things to consider about the Makerfield constituency: -Voted 65% to leave the EU -It’s culturally right wing (concerns about immigration) -Ethnically 97% white -68% Christian, 30% atheist, 1% Muslim -Not especially deprived or poor and evenly balanced between working and middle class demographic -Makerfield is in the Wigan District and Reform UK won every single seat that was up for grabs last week Andy Burnham will have to say he is anti-establishment, which he clearly isn’t and distance himself from the labour party which is impossible. Andy Burnham is popular in the Greater Manchester area, but he’s on the left of a party which has taken a drubbing for being on the left of the people of Manchester.

@NfPreGame @PaulCoxComedy Raynor gave a speech saying she strongly disagreed with the NEC blocking him last time,I think they will allow him this time, it is reported Kier won't block him. I think this is Kier's best chance of staying, let him run and loose. It would strengthen Kier's position.

@NfPreGame @PaulCoxComedy But surely you agree his reputation as King of the North would be over and his political career would be ... nearly/ mostly over?

@NfPreGame @PaulCoxComedy You're correct, I assumed he would have to step down first but I've just heard he can stay on up until he's an MP. Something to do with not being allowed to be a Police&crime commissioner and an MP at the same time.

@PaulCoxComedy Steal a load of Reform's talking points, it's his only chance.

@PaulCoxComedy Burnham will know all this and will also know his political career will be over if he loses. Either he's deluded or perhaps he will play the "anti-establishment" card, that's why he left Westminster politics, went north and will lead a new Labour Party after listening to voters?

@Maks_NAFO_FELLA Needs some tracers added surely.

🇺🇦 How a gunner of a mobile air defense fire group sees enemy "Shaheds" in a thermal imager, and how shots are fired in advance.

@Iromg Great speech, she maybe a conservative, but there are far too many in her party that aren't, they can't be trusted.

This is top class…

@BillMelugin_ I remember listening to Senator Cruz's podcast, he was on the Intelligence Committee in early 2020, he said all this then. I believe the narrative is set, folks' minds are set, no one will change their views no matter what 'facts' are revealed sadly.

BREAKING: Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) tells me that the COVID-19 whistleblower who will testify publicly & in person before his committee tomorrow morning is an active CIA employee who will testify that the intelligence community has covered up the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic for years. "I think this whistleblower will help to confirm that this was known, has been known for a long time, and that when the scientists at the CIA looked at this, they discovered or they concluded that the virus had come from the lab," Sen. Paul tells me. "What we're going to find is that the cover up is a real thing, that there are members of the community, the intelligence community, that still don't want the truth to come out. I've said the government was involved not only in funding this research, but then in trying to obscure the truth. And the truth is the US government funded research in Wuhan, China, and that research led to a virus that escaped, escaped the lab, in all likelihood accidentally." I asked Senator Paul for any more details on who this CIA whistleblower is ahead of tomorrow's hearing? "This is a brave person who's spent a career in the CIA," Sen. Paul said. "I don't know how much can be revealed, but is actually famous within the community for being someone who, behind the scenes, has really helped our country." I will be in the room & covering the hearing for @FoxNews tomorrow morning.

@MaajidNawaz Good to see you on GB news, you are discombobulating the Labour guy with your Libdem, Green, Reform and Remain voting history, you're right, the fact he can't understand it IS Labour's problem.

Prime Minister Starmer is Doomed x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

@SaarNil72 I like hearing Truth but I've heard him say Malcolm Offord is a Scottish separatist before, I googled this, this is not true according to Grok.

@ALkhammas2 His visit to China will be influencing the timing. He'll want Xi to put pressure on the Regime but he will also not want to look weak.

Trump is weighing two options: restarting "Project Freedom," which was paused last week, or launching a bombing campaign to target 25% of identified military targets that have not yet been struck.

@ArcherNightfall You are interrogating the British guy ... it is all explainable if you understood our civil service and media, especially the BBC. It has been totally taken over by a left wing pro Palestinian ideology. Eg, our diplomats partied with the Regime in London after the Jan protests.

IRAN REJECTS US PROPOSAL: NO MENTION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS - HOSTILITIES MUST RESTART x.com/i/spaces/1vKpP…

@likethiscontent @labourlewis I disagree, our media will show that story the same coverage as the Nick Brown story.

@labourlewis Only one thing will happen if Burnham returns. The media will decide it is time to investigate his role in covering up for the rape gangs. He is toxic.

Westminster may finally be about to have the argument it has spent 40 years avoiding. If Andy Burnham returns to Parliament, the political class will know how to cover it. A leadership drama. Who is up, who is down, whether Keir Starmer can survive, whether Labour is once again turning inward. The familiar machinery of Westminster psychodrama will whirr into life. That framing misses the larger point. Burnham’s possible return matters not because of what it says about Labour’s leadership, but because of what it reveals about the British state: what it can still do, what it has forgotten how to do, and what kind of country it must become if it is serious about resilience. Britain is finally having a more serious conversation about national security. The Strategic Defence Review, the pivot back towards Europe, the recognition that hybrid warfare turns citizens, infrastructure and civic institutions into part of the front line: all of it marks a real shift in how the state thinks about its own survival. But at the centre of that conversation lies a question that the defence establishment, and most of Westminster, still does not want to answer. What kind of society do you need to be before resilience is possible? Finland is now the model everyone cites. Comprehensive security. Whole-of-society defence. Civilian preparedness woven into military planning. British strategists admire the Finnish system and ask how it might be copied. But the admiration stops short of the uncomfortable question: why does it work there? The answer is not geography or history or some mysterious quality of Finnish national character. It is structural. Nearly 80% of Finns say they would defend their country if attacked. In Britain, the figure is closer to 33%. That gap is not an accident. It exists because Finland has spent decades building a society in which people have a genuine stake in what they are being asked to defend. Energy is affordable. Housing is available. Public services function. Institutions command trust. The Nordic welfare state is not a sentimental add-on to Finnish security policy. It is the foundation of it. You cannot ask people to defend a country that does not work for them. Britain has spent 40 years building the opposite. The privatisation of essentials – energy, water, transport, housing – transferred wealth upwards from households to shareholders while making the basics of everyday life more expensive. The state, stripped of the tools to control costs at source, has been reduced to compensating after the fact. Out of every pound the Government spends on housing, 88p goes to subsidising private rents. Just 12p goes to building homes. When energy prices spiked in 2022, the Government spent £40bn in a single winter cushioning the blow, not because it had a resilient energy system but because it lacked one. Debt interest now consumes more than £100bn a year. Britain has the highest debt servicing costs in the G7: the compounding price of financing failure rather than eliminating it at source. This is what bond market dependency actually looks like. It is not an abstract fiscal condition. It is the consequence of a state that has been stripped of the supply-side tools that would let it cure the problems it now pays, indefinitely, to manage. And here is the paradox the Treasury refuses to confront. The countries that borrow most cheaply are often those that have retained the public investment model Britain abandoned. The spread between UK and Dutch borrowing costs has widened sharply not because markets fear public investment, but because they have lost confidence in a model that borrows to subsidise private failure while never addressing its causes. This is the connection Britain’s defence debate is missing. The familiar framing, that social spending is what must be sacrificed to meet the NATO target, is not merely politically toxic. It is strategically illiterate. Cutting the foundations of social cohesion to fund the hardware of national defence is self-defeating. You end up with planes and no pilots, submarines and no crew, an army that cannot recruit because the society it is meant to protect has stopped believing in itself. I think Burnham understands this. That is why his programme is more interesting than the leadership gossip suggests. What he has been building in Greater Manchester – public control of transport, expanded social housing, investment in the productive foundations of the city economy – is not a nostalgic rerun of postwar nationalisation. It is a proof of concept for a different kind of state. The Bee Network is the most visible example, but the argument behind it travels. A state that can shape markets is not condemned to subsidise their failures. A state that produces affordable energy through public generation does not need to spend tens of billions cushioning every price shock. A state with a serious public housebuilding programme does not need housing benefit to rise endlessly in line with private rents. A state that builds institutions people can see, use and trust begins to restore the civic confidence on which resilience depends. The real constraint on Britain is not money. It is capacity: the workers, institutions, supply chains and public purpose needed to turn national will into national renewal. Britain’s tragedy is not that it has run out of money. It is that after 40 years of hollowing out the state, it has made itself less able to act. Burnham’s critics will reach for the familiar warning. Borrow more, spend more, spook the gilt markets, repeat the Truss disaster. But this misunderstands both the problem and the opportunity. Bond markets do not have ideological preferences. They have functional ones. They prefer clarity, credible revenue streams, productive investment, and a state with a plan. What they punish is not public ambition but incoherence. A properly designed productive state programme would not be a leap into fiscal fantasy. It would be an attempt to end the much costlier fantasy that Britain can keep borrowing to compensate for broken markets while refusing to repair them. The defence conversation and the economic conversation need to become the same conversation. Finland did not build national resilience by choosing between welfare and security. It built resilience by understanding that they are inseparable: that a country in which the basics work, where people trust one another and the institutions around them, is one that can face danger with something more than anxiety. That is the deeper argument Burnham represents. Westminster will be tempted to treat him as a leadership story. It should resist the temptation. The question is not whether Burnham can return to parliament. It is whether Britain can return to the idea that the state should make life work. Because a country that cannot command the confidence of its people cannot truly defend itself.

@ArcherNightfall I've listening for a while, good space, but please, this personal attack stuff, stop it.

@MrBlack27073911 @ArcherNightfall No one has ever claimed Iran has a nuke, the fear is of them getting one, which they themselves have said they are trying to get.

@ArcherNightfall This space is propaganda. Iran has no nuclear weapon and never had one. Im hearing speakers cite Fox News..... 🤦🏿‍♂️