Host of The Peter McCormack Show, Chairman of @realbedford, retired rapper, grifter, budget Ryan Reynolds.

Bedford, England
Joined August 2017
Dear @southport_fc, I was a little disappointed to see the "mutual termination" of Mark Duffy because his political opinions were discovered on Facebook. A man has now lost his livelihood. I have not seen Mark's posts, I don't need to. But the ones referenced in the Southport news mention him calling Keir Starmer vile and sharing a post from "Far-right" Advance. I mean he is right about Keir Starmer, hence why football fans were been singing he is a wanker all summer, and calling Advance far-right is babyish at best. Though it appears that these days if you believe in Conservatism and Freedom you are now far-right. Laughable really. Perhaps you could clarify something. Is holding conservative views now incompatible with managing your football club? Or is it simply a question of which political opinions are considered acceptable? Conservatism is a perfectly legitimate political position in a democratic country. People are entitled to disagree with it, of course. That's the point of democracy. Football was built by working-class communities. These are people who have watched their towns decimated, their opportunities disappear and their living standards sacrificed for an ever expanding state. They are entitled to be angry. They are entitled to question their government. And, believe it or not, they are entitled to hold political opinions that might offend the sneering middle-class. I appreciate that defending someone's right to express an unpopular opinion can be uncomfortable. It requires a backbone, particularly when people are demanding consequences. But that is precisely when the principle matters. Free speech is not a commitment to protecting opinions we agree with. Anyone can do that. It is a commitment to tolerating opinions we dislike, even those we find offensive. Of course, it is your business, you are a private organisation and can do as you want. But I am sure there are fans of your team who would share Mark's beliefs. Personally, I struggle to understand why political disagreement should become a question of someone's livelihood. We live in a country where people can defend almost any progressive opinion, however controversial, and expect these opinions to be treated as a legitimate contribution to public debate. Yet express the wrong conservative opinion and suddenly your employment becomes a matter of public interest. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but I thought football was one of the few remaining places where people from different backgrounds and political persuasions could come together, call the PM a wanker then have a pint. Or do you propose sanctions for anyone now calling Andy Burnham a wanker (he is by the way), or supporting right-wing parties? Our country was built on the shoulders of giants and will be destroyed sliding down the backbones of cowards.
Club Statement: Southport Football Club can confirm that Mark Duffy has left his position as First Team Manager following the mutual termination of his contract. The club would like to thank Mark for his efforts and wish him all the best for the future. #ONEPORT
16
44
2
526
26,288
Tough one for @PeterSchiff
Last month, we demonstrated high-rate alchemy: turning mercury into real, stable gold, beating CERNโ€™s record by a factor of 10. Last week, we enriched isotopes in the worldโ€™s most powerful plasma centrifuge, beating the Soviet record that stood for 40 years. Now, weโ€™re building a fusion reactor in San Francisco to achieve record power density.
35
33
2
467
26,552
Stop voting yourself poor.
๐Ÿšจ BREAKING: Inflation rose to 3.5% in September, up from 3.1% in August
18
14
412
16,772
Every expanding government debt should have us all on the streets protesting. They are stealing from all of us. IT IS THEM V US.
28
50
1
707
17,279
Nuts - we borrowed ยฃ11bn for debt interest. 1. This is how we go bankrupt 2. We are stealing from our kids future
Official figures out this morning report that last month, the UK government borrowed ยฃ24.5 billion. But the fineprint shows that almost ยฃ11 billion of that extra borrowing went on debt interest payments. That's more than ยฃ400 per household on debt service costs, in September alone. So far during this financial year, from April to September, the government's debt interest payments amount to ยฃ61 billion. Now, this number will barely feature in UK newspapers and across our airwaves. It may be mentioned in passing in out-of-the-way business sections, or on the odd business bulletin. But this huge debt interest bill won't register with the vast majority of our political and media class, or impact the national debate. Let me explain why that's so wrong and so dangerous ... ยฃ61 billion is a massive amount of money. It's equivalent to the UK's entire annual defence budget โ€“ the money we're paying, increasingly to foreign creditors, simply to service our national debt for six months, not to pay any of it back. ยฃ61 billion is equivalent to the money you'd raise over a year from adding a whopping 7 pence to the basic rate of income tax. For ยฃ61 billion, you could build around 40 large, state-of-the-art hospitals, or employ more than 100 thousand extra nurses for ten years. ยฃ61 billion would pay for free-at-the-point of use social care for everyone who needs it in the UK, for an entire year โ€“ย three times over. Again, this is the debt interest bill on Britain's spiralling national debt โ€“ย now more than 3 trillion pounds โ€“ย over the last six months alone. The UK's public finances are close to meltdown โ€“ yet so many MPs and journalists continue blithely to view ever more public spending and borrowing as the answer to every problem. Those who highlight the dangers post by our hugely precarious national accounts are dismissed as cranks, ideologues or worse. But basic arithmetic has no ideology. And there is nothing "progressive" or "kind" or "right-on" about driving the UK ever closer to the fiscal cliff edge, provoking a crisis that will make the "austerity" years of the 2010s feel like a picnic, a crisis in which poorer households will suffer the most. Yes, Britain's national debt is lower than that of France. But because our borrowing has been rising so sharply, and because we're so prone to inflation, our debt service costs are much higher. The UK is spending a disgraceful 3.6pc of GDP on public debt interest, while France spends less than 2.5pc. Endless airtime and column inches are devoted to spurious conversations about a billion or two of additional "fiscal headroom" we may or may not have in three years' time. And, of course, any "extra headroom" is immediately pledged in new spending โ€“ which means yet more borrowing. These conversations are a waste of time โ€“ย and, in fact, are deeply counterproductive. Three-year fiscal forecasts, even one- and two-year forecasts, routinely turn out to be askew by tens of billions of pounds. I'm not saying we don't need fiscal rules - we do, but we need more immediate rules, which actually bite, acting as a meaningful constraint on out-of-control borrowing and spending. Instead, political and media sages present the nation with spuriously precise discussions about fictional fiscal outcomes way into the future โ€“ using rules which are deliberately designed to kick arithmetic realities into the long grass .... An increasingly expensive, over-bearing, out of control state is not the answer to Britain problems. But unless we change course, it will certainly be our downfall. Please like/share if you think what I'm saying is important โ€“ and if fiscal realities should feature more prominently in our national debate. And for more sharp, plain-speaking economic analysis subscribe to: "When The Facts Change - economic and politics in a fast-moving world, with Liam Halligan"
31
60
2
472
15,651
Boomers, if you want to live at the expense of young people - stand up!
๐Ÿšจ WATCH: Robert Jenrick asks Reform UK's audience to stand up if they work
24
23
1
292
21,574
When do big state numptys accept they are wrong, read a book, study history and realise that this is all predictable. Study economics, understand money, accept incentives and trade-offs are real and abolish this class of useless politician.
22
27
4
380
14,632
They are coming for everything
๐Ÿšจ NEW: John Healey is considering introducing income tax on parents who pass their business down to their children in the Budget [@Telegraph]
52
115
2
1,402
32,408
Peter McCormack ๐Ÿดโ€โ˜ ๏ธ๐Ÿ‡ฌ๐Ÿ‡ง๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ช retweeted
This is why I call us a generation of cowards. Weโ€™ve basically said: we want stuff now. Sorry kids, youโ€™re going to have to pay for it with your future. Go fuck yourselves.
56
32
11
411
40,449
The Big One - 1st v 2nd tomorrow night at The Ledger Stadium. Kick-off is 7.45pm, get yourself a ticket and come down and support the lads. Tickets - realbedford.com/tickets/e/m-โ€ฆ
7
3
41
8,544
Layne Staley
If you could go back in time and save one musician we lost too soon, who would you save?
23
2
87
17,260
Which way Western man?
87%Abolish government
13%More elections
899 votes โ€ข Final results
55
7
3
45
18,264
Nobody wants to face the government spend problem as it requires universal cuts or massive tax rises. Overspending is THE problem - entrenched benefits, inflation, dependent class, corruption.
France has spent more than it has taken in for the past 52 years. The problem is not lack of spending.
30
34
2
555
19,607
We need a reset of the governing order. The state broke everything.
43
35
3
769
19,961
The Italians will not take this shit.
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡น Italian patriots take to the streets of Milan to defend Italy from migrant looters and rioters... The police and the army should be the ones doing this Writer: Samuel
41
91
2
1,590
77,146
This is why I call us a generation of cowards. Weโ€™ve basically said: we want stuff now. Sorry kids, youโ€™re going to have to pay for it with your future. Go fuck yourselves.
56
32
11
411
40,449
Not particularly subtle coordination. Nobody engages in the argument, it is just a character assassination. Why? Because the argument can't be won. I am sure Faiza Shaheen is a lovely person and caring for the poor is noble, but an economics certificate does not mean your ideas are good economics. Too many of her arguments seem to come from the "this sounds good" school of economics. Winston is right that the best way to help the poor is to create wealth and prosperity. The creation of wealth and prosperity is why people no longer die of starvation in this country, why we get to piss inside our houses and why everyone has a mobile phone. Creating wealth requires the freedom to build businesses, take risks and innovate. Growing prosperity requires productivity gains. Yet the state continues to expand - tax, regulation and welfare spending - as though taking more resources away from productive people has no economic trade-offs. Good intentions are not economics. Every pound the state spends must first be taxed, borrowed or created, and every decision has consequences. If you genuinely care about the poor, you have to care about how wealth is created, not just how it is redistributed. The latter is easy, the former requires hard work and the society we live in is build on the shoulders of generations of hard-working people.
35
65
3
495
17,505
They will destroy everything beautiful.
Wow. There it goes. The tower roof of the 143-year-old Limoges Town Hall collapses.
79
177
8
2,512
57,373