Andy Burnham

I haven’t corrupted a song for ages and the bug us in me again now.

Labour look set to choose the schoolboy orator, Andy Burnham, with his schoolyard politics, as the next captain of their sinking ship. He seems to think that we’ll believe Labour is now the party of homeowners, when he has pushed legislation further and further into controlling private property in the past.

If you own a pub or other business, you own it, right? It’s yours. Your little corner of the globe where you decide what can and cannot be done. Right?

Try smoking in it or letting someone else smoke in it. You do not have ownership of any more of your property than the government allows you to own. Wales, and soon Scotland, have extended the smoking ban into private cars. Next on the list is private houses.

So you don’t smoke? So it won’t affect you? Look past the immediate and see the principle being established here.

The government can dictate what you can and cannot do in your own property and arrest you for non-compliance. It has nothing to do with smoking. That’s just the way in. Once the principle is established, the government can declare anything at all to be either banned or compulsory in your home. Anything at all. And there is not a damn thing you can do about it.

So sure, Labour will let you pay for your house – but you’ll never own it. You will have no more say over it than a tenant has over a rented property. You’re just saving them the cost of maintaining the property you bought for them. Let it fall into disrepair and they’ll prosecute.

In ten years you’ll be funding the BBC even if you don’t own a TV. Ah but you will own one. You will be required to buy one. The government will tell you where in the living room it must go and which channels to watch and when. Non-compliance will be punishable with fines and imprisonment.

If you support the ever-extending bans on smoking, don’t complain about this horrible future. You’re making it happen.

Never forget who was intrumental in pushing it all forward and who now plans to con you into thinking you own your home when you’ve aleady voted it away.

I’ll end with a song. A first corrupted song for Labour’s likely next leadership disaster. If he does get it, there’ll be more.

You will note that I hardly had to change the second half of the song at all. A prescient songwriter, that Bowie chap.

Andy Burnham

Labour take your house of bricks
Say it’s yours for evermore
But their words are empty blow
The mortgage will outlast you all

Take a peep inside their brains
Pay the tax and watch them go
They’re changing leader rapidly
To one that’s cunning, sly and low

Andy Burnham makes me gag
Hang him by his balls
Andy Burnham, plastic bag
Can’t tell them apart at all

Andy talking, Andy tired
Andy take a little snooze
Tie him up when he’s fast asleep
Send him on a pleasant cruise

When he wakes up on the sea
Be sure to think of me and you
He’ll think about tax,
how he’ll take it from you
What a normal Labour thing to do

Andy Burnham makes me scream
Hang him by his balls
Andy Burnham, Labour’s team
Can’t tell them apart at all


For those younglings who don’t know this one, here’s the original –



11 thoughts on “Andy Burnham

  1. Burnham is a complete wanker. Dickheads like Burnham still think that people want to be nannied from cradle to grave. If he gets the nod I can see the Tories safe for at least another 5 year term.

    In fact none of the 4 candidates have got anything about them which shows what an absolute mess Labour are in at the moment.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Don’t be too hard on the young whipper-snapper, Leggy.

    All politicians are hypocrites, promising the earth to attract your vote; then, sh1tting on you once they have the power.

    The sooner they give the ASA power over politicians’ personal & party manifestos, the better. Until that is, those politicians castrate the ASA.

    Liked by 1 person

    • An Invitation to Treat? Except pols think it’s an invitation to treat themselves to public-funded expenses (flipping homes etc.)?



    Burnham’s a hard line ID card advocate.

    Also proposed a 10% death tax on ALL estates to fund care in old age.

    Contrary to popular belief, he doesn’t wear mascara.

    His wife seems to wear the trousers, and he’s a tax avoider. More..

    Liked by 1 person

  4. If you wish to register a car and get a number plate you have to hand over the car’s birth certificate, the manufacturer’s certificate of origin. Called different things like that in all countries. This is why the Government and DVLA refer to you as the registered keeper. In the UK you do not own your car you keep it for the Government and pay taxes and MOTs etc for the pleasure. This is why they think they can crush it for various reasons. It’s theirs.
    Neat trick.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Grey area..

      I think the right to seize and crush a vehicles applies if it/you have transgressed Public Highway legislation. Having various licenses is akin to giving consent to be penalised under those stautes on the open road. The late Capt Ranty (Colin Grainger RIP) used to cover this kind of stuff, whereby some claim lawful rebellion and refuse to enter into statute law contracts. With varying degrees of success…

      I guess you can more or less do what you want on your private land, e.g sitting in it with kids on your driveway whilst smoking a cig.

      Not sure about being pissed in a car on private property, regardless of whether you’re driving, about to/just have or not. It might mean that nicking a potential drunk driver in a pub car park is not entirely lawful. I believe that sleeping whist pissed in a car on the PH and having access to the keys is a definite no no.

      Liked by 1 person

      • That last one would be ‘drunk in charge of a motor vehicle’ which can be stretched to apply if you have the keys in your pocket and are walking home. If you have the keys, you are technically in charge of the vehicle.

        Although it would be a right jobsworth who’d nick you for it.


  5. Actually, Leggy, I think you’ll find that in law you never own your own home, even if you took out a mortgage for the “freehold” and have now paid it off and don’t have to pay any more for it. So who does it belong to, I hear you ask? Well, believe it or not, all the property in the land is owned by HM the Queen. In conversation we might say to each other that we “own” our own property, but in truth we don’t; we “own” the freehold, which is basically a permission granted to us (usually, these days, indirectly) by Her Maj to live in, use, keep, sell or hand on the property just as if we did own it but without actually doing so. A freehold property is, in many ways, no different from a leasehold one, apart from the fact that you “hold” the property from the Crown rather than from another individual/company and it’s got no end-date. It’s one of the reasons why the law applies in one’s home as much as it does out in public (e.g. you can’t murder someone in your home and then claim that you were allowed to do it because it’s “your” property, because it isn’t). It’s also the reason why, if one dies intestate, the State (who administer the law on behalf of Her Maj), are allowed to grab the lion’s share of it, and indeed why they grab a fair chunk of it even before your beneficiaries get their hands on it even if you have a made a Will.

    It’s one of the best arguments I know for keeping the monarchy, because if Her Maj loses her job then who’s going to “own” all that property then? You can bet your bottom dollar they wouldn’t allow freeholders to become genuine “owners.” Nope – your property would then essentially, be ultimately owned by the State, i.e. the Government of the day. And whereas the chances of Her Maj suddenly deciding that she wants all that property back and buying everyone out of their freeholds (which, rich as she is, she couldn’t afford to do), the chances of a bunch of swivel-eyed, grasping politicians deciding that they want it back (probably because of some idealised view of the “wrongness” of exclusive use of any of “their” land) it would be well within their powers to pass all sorts of convoluted laws and rules and regulations which would, eventually, ensure that freeholding became a thing of the past for anyone who wasn’t a relative or crony of theirs, and the rest of us would all be reduced to nothing more than State tenants. I certainly wouldn’t put it past any of our current control-crazy bunch of crooks.


First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s