Jimmy B

The British Empire at its 1900 peak, governing roughly a quarter of the world’s population and landmass, was administered by a Colonial Service of about 1,000 officers and an Indian Civil Service of around 1,200 covenanted officers running a subcontinent of 300 million, on total UK state spending of roughly 12-14% of GDP. The state that built the railways, the sewers, the telegraph network, and the Royal Navy that policed global trade was a fraction of the size of the current one, which spends 44% and cannot deliver a passport queue, a functioning army, or a high street that isn’t boarded up. The correlation between state size and state competence in the British case is inverse, not weak. I’m not arguing for libertarianism, I’m arguing for the Singapore model: a lean, highly competent, high-capacity state that does a small number of things extremely well rather than a sprawling one that does everything badly. Singapore runs total government expenditure at around 15.5% of GDP and delivers better health, housing, transport, and security outcomes than the UK at roughly a third of the spend. The serious question isn’t whether the state can be much smaller, it’s which slice of current UK activity is producing negative marginal returns, and the honest line-by-line answer across DWP, NHS administration, the quango layer, devolved duplication, and debt interest is “quite a lot of it.” Calling that batshit libertarianism is really an admission that you’ve taken the post-1945 settlement as the natural baseline rather than what it is, a historically anomalous expansion that has tracked precisely the period of British decline.

A lover of Thatcher will never be a friend of Wales. They shall never break the Welsh working class 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

Thatcher's reforms i.e privatization, deregulation, tax cuts, breaking union power, delivered the best economic growth Britain had seen in decades. The UK outpaced France, Germany, and Italy from 1980-2000s. And Britain hates her for it. Because growth isn't comfortable. Reform means disruption. Closing inefficient state-owned industries. Ending subsidies. Forcing competition. People lose jobs in dying sectors before new opportunities emerge. Thatcher chose long-term prosperity over short-term popularity. The economy boomed. But voters remembered the pain, not the gain The chart shows it clearly, UK growth collapsed after 2000 as the country drifted back toward the European model of high taxes, heavy regulation, and expanding welfare.

The largest supermarket in Britain, that operates on razor-thin margins, is about to be crushed for the crime of paying different jobs different salaries, while our legislature shrugs. How dare they suggest that “so-called market rates” can exist in Soviet Britain.

Restore Britain's Energy Philosophy. Restore Britain’s forthcoming energy paper sets out the steps for ensuring cheap and abundant energy at home. This project is three months in the making and consistent with our track record of producing well-researched, in-depth papers for the good British public to scrutinise. As for our imminent energy policy document, we present a short teaser below... At Restore Britain, we believe that energy is the lifeblood of any developed first-world economy. First and foremost, then, it should be cheap, reliable, and scalable. If that means investment in fossil fuels, as right now it does, then so be it. Affordable energy makes nations rich and rich nations are better equipped than poor nations to tackle any environmental challenges. Overall, energy should be valued as strategic national infrastructure, not treated as an environmental compliance problem. We also believe that it must serve our security needs. In the modern world, national sovereignty means nothing if it is not backed by energy independence. The future we envision is one of self-confident nuclear expansion, full exploitation of our offshore oil and gas reserves, onshore shale development where feasible, and some limited role for renewables – albeit without subsidies, competing on their own merits – as part of a balanced grid mix. These should meet our energy demands at a rate affordable to British households and British businesses. On its own, though, this is not enough to make energy cheap, plentiful, and thus restore Britain to prosperity. We will also need to embark upon a mass removal of our binding Net Zero commitments, the vast majority of which are smothering our economy to no worthwhile end. Even if we were to opt for a ‘full steam ahead’ strategy on oil, gas, and nuclear right away, energy prices would not come down unless we first took aim at the structural issues caused by the Net Zero cult. We would repeal the lot. The debate now raging about energy bills shows that the British people are struggling. Ultimately, though, what we need is more a long-term vision for national flourishing than eye-catching measures aimed at temporary relief. The ability to build is also vital. A nation may possess a capable population, plentiful resources, and cutting-edge technological know-how, but if it cannot turn these inputs into power plants, transmission lines, factories, housing, ports, railways, and data centres, then that nation’s economic potential remains unrealised. Our practical approach proceeds from two major principles. First, strategic infrastructure must be treated as a matter of national capability rather than ordinary planning disputes. We would work to ensure that approval timelines are measured in months, not years. Second, regulatory frameworks must be cut back and simplified. An alarming number of delays arise not from environmental or health and safety protection itself, but from overlapping layers of approval, consultation, and litigation that cause projects to stall for indefinite periods on end. OIL & GAS Unless we reverse course, Britain will soon be the only country in Europe with a windfall tax on oil and gas profits still in force, scaring off investment and undermining our energy needs. Instead, we would impose no more than the standard 25% corporation tax, not the effective 78% grabbed by the Treasury at present. Right now, the incentives around even the small amount of drilling that is permitted are extremely forbidding. In the year ending July 2024, the average rate of return for offshore operators stood at a pitiful net -1%. Our aim, by contrast, is to foster a predictable environment that rewards risk-taking investors, creates proper jobs, and deepens valuable skill-pools. We intend to preserve Aberdeen in particular as a crucial node in the oil and gas sector. On current trends, the local economy of North East Scotland and the national economy of Britain as a whole is threatened by Ed Miliband’s lunatic, ideologically driven pursuit of Net Zero at all costs. But we would also level with the British public. There are no overnight solutions to the way in which we have been so woefully misgoverned in recent decades, including on matters related to energy. We would not hesitate to build new coal-fired power plants as part of an interim strategy to transition to more reliable long-term sources. The major advantage of such plants is that, as well as being dispatchable, they can be up and running within a shorter timeframe (roughly three to four years) than new gas turbines. As both China and Germany have shown, modern techniques also make coal far less of a pollutant than it used to be. Last of all, there is plenty of it – particularly the cleanest and densest anthracite and bituminous varieties – across the British Isles. NUCLEAR We would turn our efforts, too, towards a nationwide nuclear renaissance, in particular building an extensive fleet of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). Cutting-edge SMR designs boast a range of virtues. They are powerful enough to meet the needs of a small- to medium-sized town, but nimble enough to do so without much notice. The Rolls-Royce SMRs, for instance, require an overall site footprint of fewer than 10 acres. Contrary to larger projects like Sizewell C and Hinkley Point C, they are also easier to finance privately and with minimal, if any, state funds. The major problem for all nuclear power projects, however, remains burdensome overregulation. We shall therefore expand on the work of the regulatory taskforce already commissioned by the Labour government. The brief of our taskforce would be to eliminate all forms of duplication across every level of our existing regulatory framework, from environmental impact assessments to planning hurdles. As part of an interim strategy between where we find ourselves today and the ultimate goal of simplifying our regulatory system along the lines of foreign success stories like France and South Korea, we would not hesitate to overrule the regulator by automatic repeal of any laws or regulations that it cites to block standardised designs safely in operation elsewhere in the developed world. OFFSHORE WIND Offshore wind turbines are remote enough to be non-despoiling to natural beauty, to require no land competition, and though intermittent by nature, can work hand in glove with natural gas as a more reliable substitute whenever the wind fails to blow. Our ultimate aim is to be energy independent, but since that cannot occur instantly and we are already committed to buy whatever our windfarms generate, we may as well make the most of it. Between now and where we aspire to take Britain, we are bound to find ourselves in a position where, while longer term forms of dispatchable power are built, we shall need some wind. FRACKING In the same way that lifting the ban on North Sea oil and gas exploration would be a priority under a Restore Britain government, so too would re-examining the opportunities presented by shale gas. The obstacles in our case are state-imposed constraints on new well developments, a moratorium on fracking reimposed by Rishi Sunak in October 2022, and onerous taxes on oil and gas companies. The irony is that fracking, though demonised for causing tremors, is far less seismically disruptive than the geothermal wells in Cornwall so often lauded by the very activists who despise shale exploration. Once the ban is lifted, the regulations would be rewritten to establish a level playing field between the fracking sector and the geothermal sector, which for arbitrary, unjust, and counter-productive reasons is less burdened. CAUSE FOR HOPE We note with excitement the fact that Britain possesses substantial domestic energy resources and the technical capacity to develop them. What has been lacking is the political will to prioritise cheap, abundant, and reliable energy over costly, ideologically driven climate targets. Removing the self-destructive Net Zero system, reforming planning and regulation to enable timely construction, and restoring a pragmatic balance between oil and gas, nuclear, hydrocarbons, and unsubsidised renewables would allow markets and private investment to deliver the abundance required for affordable energy and national restoration. Victorian Britain relied on cheap power and clean water to drive the Industrial Revolution. Nothing fundamental has changed. We have an abundance of both. A self-confident drive for increased energy production at home would boost government revenue from corporation and employment taxes, while reducing our exposure to global shocks and our reliance on foreign imports. Restoring Britain’s energy security will not be without transitional challenges, but the alternative is continued adherence to policies that have produced some of Europe’s highest energy prices. A patriotic energy policy must place the interests of the British people first. Our full paper will be published very soon indeed.

Ashton Hall reveals he never trains abs despite having an insane six pack “I don’t do core. I didn’t do core for like 10 years. We all have a six pack, you just might not see it because of your diet. That’s why I do no carbs, the diet is for the core” “If you want a smaller waist, you don’t train core at all, you just make sure you’re in a caloric deficit so you can lose the fat over it”

Imagine how popular "powerlifting" would have been if they had chosen 3 lifts that actually make you look good The guy who chose squat, deadlift, bench not only made millions of people into grotesque fat freaks with wide hips, but also cursed it to complete commercial failure

Wayne Rooney is working class and he’s a millionaire, SFL doesn’t know how the British class system works.