Quaid Price

Might be the hardest bastard there is💪🏼

@labourlewis If Andy Burnham is the best you can muster up then you really are fucked 😂 he’s a raging queer.

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.

@basedandbougie It’s called pattern recognition and they’ve been abhorrent for centuries.

What is this obsession with the Jews? We have a whole country to save and people are worried about petty things like who is Jewish, who had a meetings with the Jewish, who is being paid by the Jewish, who wore a Jewish t shirt, whose ancestry is Jewish?? Can we actually get serious!!? … Britain is literally on the brink of destruction. I’m honestly astonished by how people are more obsessed with proving “the joos c0nTr0lL tH3 w0rLd” … rather than obsessing over how we are going to collectively save Britain.

@ryxnlfc_ @townerbcfc @BasilTheGreat I wish we was because every traitor thats allowed the flood gates to stay opened so the indigenous are being ruled by foreigners would be hung for treason.

@Quaidp14 @townerbcfc @BasilTheGreat A patriotic party won’t get elected. Do you think we are living in the 1800s-1950s?

🤦‍♂️😂🤣 Is he a Welshman? Farage: “yeah, he’s been here 5-10 years”

@ActionBrexit Disagree the children of immigrants who are born here should be ineligible also we shouldn’t fund the world just because your da came to work for deliveroo

THERE SHOULD BE NO BENEFITS FOR FOREIGN BORN IMMIGRANTS UNLESS THEY HAVE WORKED FOR 10 YEARS CONSECUTIVELY AND PAID TAX FOR THE SAME PERIOD. DO YOU AGREE?

@I_Warned_You_68 @FraserMacLeod5 @JohnCleese My hero.

@FraserMacLeod5 @JohnCleese No I support Restore, Reform are weak. Like you.

Farage is a crook, and will lead Britain in the direction of American politics, where money is the only thing that matters

@alphabravo63508 @Landeur 5th most wealthy country in the world apparently we can afford it once we kick the 3rd world scroungers out (including the ones born here)..

@Quaidp14 @Landeur 10 generations might be hard to prove without dna testing I think do in phases (like they did it to us) Do obvious deports and hostile environment Then back to 1997 Then back to 1948 Then we will be a super majority and can vote on how far back to go without foreigners

Deport every single asylum seeker and anyone granted asylum for the last 20 years. That’s barely even stage 1.

@RupertLowe10 By foreigners that includes the ones born here. The child of two Eritreans born in an NHS hospital is still Eritrean and will never be British.

@RupertLowe10 Unless you address this Saskia nonsense and tell us what you think a “British” person is I can only see us going on the slide, we’ve had enough of the blairite orthodoxy we want an England for the English, abolish the equalities act and stop foreigners from being able to vote.

Odds for the most seats at the next general election - Restore Britain is very much in this fight.

@MaryJasper2 @GoodwinMJ There is 15 million people here legally that need to be denaturalised and deported.

@GoodwinMJ Illegal immigration. The distinction needs to be made between people coming in legally and illegally.

You know what’s interesting about Angela Rayner’s statement? She does not mention - not once - the number one reason why 3.8 million people just voted Reform. Including why 18 of 19 seats in Rayner’s own seat just went Reform. Immigration.

@ScotNational Neither one is Scottish and should be able to vote or work in government.

The Scottish Greens have hit back and stood by the country’s first two transgender MSPs, who have faced transphobic and racist abuse since the moment they were elected The party has issued a statement exclusively to The National 👇

@MarkHeath45 Fiat currency and quantative easing.

What is the biggest fake, con, the world has ever seen?? Here’s a few to think about, but please tell me your own. Convid? Twin towers, moon landing?

@townerbcfc @BasilTheGreat 0.3% too many then so they’re not a patriotic party.

@BasilTheGreat About 0.3 percent of Reform councillors are what you would call non British. Get a fcking grip and stop playing in to the lefts hands you thick cnt.

@MartinDochert12 @JimQuirkesq @Wingerlar @Paul_Bambury Mate you’re an old fart that the country will be glad to see the back of.

@JimQuirkesq @Wingerlar @Paul_Bambury Of course I'm left wing, same as anyone else with a social conscience, and a modicum of common sense. Now tell me you're a right wing halfwit without telling me you're a right wing halfwit. Keep tweeting pumpkin, you might get some likes eventually 😜.

Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling's solution to the global financial crisis saved the world from an absolute catastrophe you utter fuckwit.

@Daisy_Dook @Saskiateague She was right to make it public you can’t just start letting everything slide out of blind loyalty.

Please read. Today, I was supposed to speak at the Restore Britain youth wing launch in York. I was asked two weeks ago and jumped at the opportunity because like of all us I want to get behind something real. However, I received a message this morning to say that because of what I tweeted last night that those higher up would rather me not speak at today’s event. The tweet in question: A picture of the newly elected Restore councillors with the caption, “Exactly what British politics should look like. White. British. Proud.” To say I was taken aback doesn’t even describe it. I fully understand that a new party must be strategic and bring people along gradually. That’s why I immediately asked whether the issue was solely this tweet. The answer was yes. Given what Restore, Rupert, and other senior figures have openly said in the past, this decision has left me at a complete loss. While preparing our speeches we were also told we could not use the word “remigration”. Of course, this didn’t sit well with me, but like I say, I’m wise enough to understand that an emerging party needs to be strategic and bring people along gradually. Regardless, I do feel we are at the stage where this is a widely accepted term across Europe and the UK should follow suit. I want to be clear, this isn’t just about me personally. It’s about the broader direction. While I support the need for careful messaging to win wider support, these two incidents together have left me feeling blindsided and concerned. To those who have followed me since 2020, you know where I stand. I have always put England and the United Kingdom first. I left a previous organisation last year for the very same reason. I will not compromise on core principles. I remain unashamedly Britain First, and I will continue to speak and act with honesty and conviction. I have decided to share this information because if this was Reform, for example, the public would want to know and rightfully so. I believe in transparency and holding everyone to the same standard, especially those who present themselves as an alternative to the failed status quo. This isn’t a tweet to turn everybody against Restore. I hope and pray these are just teething errors. However, whoever these people are that are “higher up” (as it always is), they need to decide exactly what Restore stands for. You cannot champion British identity in public speeches and interviews, only to quietly punish those who carry the same message. Clarity and consistency matter, especially the times we now live in. The British public are vulnerable. Today I would’ve spent eight hours travelling, four hours to get to York and hours back. I was still allowed to attend the event but in all honesty I just feel completely flat. I poured my heart and soul into my speech and really wanted to share it with everyone and help Restore attract more keen young voters. I tweeted this last night, so why a decision wasn’t made then is beyond me. Not to mention, my stance on the UK and immigration was public information when I was invited to speak. Poor organisation and a complete lack of communication. Not to mention I feel completely disheartened and once again questioning who is really pulling the strings. I want to reiterate that this is not an attempt to try and ‘destroy’ Restore. All the efforts that went into Great Yarmouth recently was truly a sight to behold. It made me emotional to see so many people campaign and travel from all over to make a difference. This is the Britain I want to see. I will leave this here. I just think the British public are owed full transparency. After everything we’ve been through it’s the least we deserve. I will continue to speak the truth and always put Britain first. Thank you for the continued support. I appreciate you all. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧

@mikegardner_wb @MardyGov You forgot “accelerate”

@MardyGov Very true. They all do: all the politicians.

Let’s get our word bingo cards ready for Starmer’s 43rd relaunch speech tomorrow. Mine has these: Toolmaker Change Renewal Fixing the foundations 14 years £22 billion black hole Far right Division Reform Farage Not our war Brexit Breakfast clubs Lifting children out of poverty

@fiercepatricks It gets on my nerves if you’re gay it means you’re attracted to the same sex as you it’s not an excuse for a 30+ year old man to act like a little girl and talk with a fake voice act like a degenerate and dress like a 15 year old girl.

Without bringing YOUR religion into it, how do gay people directly affect you?

@blaiklockBP £20 at my local and it’s spot on for joints. This is the one thing I have no issue with I’d just prefer it if the fella selling me it was actually English..

Normal legal price: £46.35 Illegal price: £5.00 They even took a bank card.

@GLNatashaxo All this whilst we’re the actual ethnic minority and make up 8% of the world’s population..

It’s okay for every other group to be proud of their heritage… except whites. Why is that? Meanwhile in Britain, Muslim independents just carved out 200 council seats speaking languages locals don’t even understand, and we’re all supposed to celebrate “diversity” while any hint of white pride gets you branded a Nazi. The double standard is blinding.