Liberal Democrat Manifesto

This is the first of the run throughs of manifestos that I am collating for the average Joe. As always I will do so by giving as much background information as possible without being clunky. I want to give you guys a fair chance at making your own minds up. Also I will rate the manifesto, this is marked out of a few points. Fresh original ideas, practicality and realistic pledges, being financially viable and finally whether they make sense! I’ll try not to be too boring and overbearing.

In the interest of being neutral and as impartial as possible (I will try but I will call out bullshit) I decided to start with the Lib Dems manifesto. What I expect is some good social policies, maybe unrealistic and non economically sound proposals and lots of ‘progressive’ policies for the virtue signaling brigade. That being said we shall see what they have in store.

First up is the obvious. STOP BREXIT. It does exactly what it says on the tin. Whilst at least they have the bollocks to be openly Remain and actually have a stand point (just look at the shambles from Labour flip flopping trying to gain Leave and Remain voters); they’re going against the biggest democratic mandate in this country’s history. If they were to get in (unlikely) then it would be a big kick in the dick for democracy and ordinary voters up and down the country. It would cause a big disaffection with politics and is uncertain what lengths the public would go to, to reassert themselves over the ‘ruling class’. This will win them the most votes but at the very heart of it, is a minority stand point and will more than likely just split the Labour vote. They say they will use the £50bn to go into public services and tackling inequality. Big blanket term and doesn’t actually explain how they will tackle it and how they will funnel the resources to fight this inequality. So not only financially vague but wholly irresponsible. Bad shout. Also I have a hard time believing this, when I still remember Nick Clegg being one of the only leaders wanting the referendum in the first place. As usual Lib Dems willing to whore themselves out to get any semblance of power/votes.

Now we got Brexit out of the way we can get onto the economy, as i’m sure you’re sick of hearing about Brexit! Especially as it’s other key policies that shape a government and who actually gets things done.

Equal opportunities between cities.

The good points: They promise to continue with the Northern Powerhouse and the Midlands Engine, so funding to these areas will continue, which I think is brilliant. For us to continue to grow as a country, we can’t just rely on the financial centre in the South East. Whilst it’s a great economic hub and creates enormous wealth for the country, I think that it’s only fair we use that wealth to pull up our brethren in the north. Investment into some big northern cities would be advantageous to us all, eventually I believe we’ll start to see ‘clean cities’ completely run on renewable energy. Slick, clean, classy modern cities is what we should expect from the future. Not that it will happen but we can dream, eh?

The bad point: You can’t please everyone. If you were to invest in Manchester and Birmingham, then Leeds and Newcastle would get jealous and possibly feel left behind. It’s a balancing act but a step in the right direction.

They plan to incorporate the British Business Bank more into the economy to help with small and medium sized businesses. Good point: They say they’ll work with normal banks to help as well. Encouraging small businesses is great as they make up a large part of the sector and creates aspirations for the normal person to one day own their own business.

Bad point: No one can trust the banks, they’re in it for themselves and will surely be out to make lots of money out of people. The only issue with pushing for lots of small and medium sized businesses is you can over saturate the market. Not only this but you can see irresponsible lending from the banks to people they know can’t pay it back. It could be businesses built on good ideas but not a solid enough business plan, leading to failure and loss of money. Yet again it’s trying to find a balance between responsible lending and pushing for a thriving small business ethos.

Upgrading the tourism sector and creating a new department in government to reflect this is a bad point, no good points. It’s using up money to create another level of bureaucracy we don’t need but will ultimately end up paying for. Whilst it’s good they’re trying to support areas that depend on tourism for their income, we would end up paying more for someone (Minister for Tourism) that doesn’t need to be there and all their staff and expenses, than actually trying to help out the tourism sector! Think i’ll pass.

House building targets are yet again a necessary evil that will never be met. I understand all major parties have to put it in there but we all know that there’s not much that can be done to get these houses built. We shouldn’t have to give up green belt land. This country is too densely populated as it is and we shouldn’t ruin the beauty of this country to try and prop up an unsustainable population. If you’re lucky enough to live in the countryside then you shouldn’t have to be concreted over. It’s the only irony of these parties that scream about the ‘climate emergency’ but want to wipe out nice green areas to accommodate a rising population. Let’s try to steer away from who is encompassed in that term population for now, otherwise I will turn wildly off topic as usual!

Investment in public transport – Good point: Public transport has been slightly neglected and it would be good to see any increase in spending for this sector. They have also said they want to make all trains ultra low emissions by 2035 (electric or hydrogen) which is commendable.

Bad point: They want to continue with HS2. Which was a good idea but is impractical, impossible to implement and is rising in costs by the day. Needs chopping. Also whilst I think it’s great to make the trains electric or hydrogen by 2035, it doesn’t say how much this will cost or how they will pay for it! My thoughts are, it will be a huge cost and would more than likely come out of an excessive borrowing budget, fiscally unsound.

Rolling out fibre optic broadband across the UK is unrealistic and costly. If you want it then pay for it, I have to and so should you. I understand they want to connect rural areas but BT are already rolling out superfast broadband across the UK already and it only effects their customers not the taxpayer. Yes they’re doing it in stages and it seems like an eternity (I had to wait 5 years for it to come to my area, suffering with excruciatingly slow broadband in the meantime) but we just have to be patient. We want too much given to us on a plate nowadays. I won’t mince my words, the internet is not a basic human right. I hate using the term but there are places around the world without the internet or even worse censored internet and surveilled upon. There are more important things to focus our energy and money on. Next.

Taxation – Good points: None.

Bad points: Yet again they plan to go after the giant corporations. This plan will not work. They will simply relocate out of the country which we don’t want. Could you imagine a mass exodus of all the big companies to our main competitors in Europe, absolute disasterclass. They want to increase corporation tax to 20% which was lowered (to 17%) by the Tories to encourage business and create wealth, because hey money doesn’t grow on trees! They also want HMRC to employ more staff to go after the big businesses but when the big businesses leave, they will turn onto the normal taxpayer to fund all these policies and they will have a bigger workforce to chase normal people down. Not a good time for PAYE workers who do their own tax returns or small business owners, the people they’re trying to ‘help out’.

Promoting wellbeing – Good points: This is a subject close to my heart so I back this. Although the way in which they’re going about it is typically political. Enter stage left, the new Minister for Wellbeing. Another unnecessary post created for the pure purpose of presenting to parliament every year on main measures of wellbeing and how government policies effect them. They could have done without this, however this post could be used as the new head of Mental Health services, not likely though so would be under bad points but i’ll keep it in good for now as it is very important. They also want to increase “access to high-quality mental health and other health services” which is good but they don’t explain how they will pay for it again.

Bad points: “Introduce wellbeing impact assessments for all government policies.” Says it all really. We won’t make the big decisions for the country that need to happen because they may negatively impact Dawn from Doncaster. When you make decisions at the top level there are always going to be winners and losers, you can’t please everybody.

I now move onto Education and skills.

Free childcare for 2-4 year olds and 9 month-2 year old 35 hours a week, 48 weeks a year free. Good points: Childcare is a huge issue in this country and this does take good steps towards addressing it. Me and my wife are going through this right now, as she’s just about getting ready to go back to work and it’s almost not worth her going back due to the astronomical costs. More help is needed from the government and they should be doing more to help families. There are areas that need serious shake ups, this is one of them.

Bad points: Yet again, giving away free things without accounting for the cost of it. That will cost a hell of a lot of money and there is only so much you can tax people to pay for things. The other side of the coin are the type of people that don’t have kids who i’ve heard before saying things like ‘if you can’t afford kids don’t have them’ or ‘I don’t want to pay for somebody else’s kids’. I feel these statements are unhelpful, as you do need to replenish the population so that we can grow the economy in the future and it saves you having to import labour and dilute the native population, which is unneeded and easily combatted by encouraging our own people to have children. This being said, people have the right to not want to pay for other’s children, if they’ve made the choice not to have them and their right should be protected.

Reverse cuts to school funding, allowing schools to employ an extra 20,000 teachers and reduce class sizes, restoring them to 2015 levels per pupil with an emergency cash injection. Good points: More teachers addresses the major problems we have in the teaching profession at present. I have put on here previously about the dwindling numbers of teaching staff, mainly down to the fact they can get paid better elsewhere for a less demanding job. Reducing class sizes increases the quality of learning for children and lessens the burden on teachers who have to usually contend with teaching a class of 30-35 children. It will also help especially in under funded inner city schools who need the cash injection to help with social mobility.

Bad point: It’s becoming boring but it’s not costed, however I will let this one slide as i’m sure everyone would be happier paying a tiny bit extra tax to fund this, as it is at crisis point and we can’t let down the next generation. I’m in agreement with this policy.

Introduce a ‘curriculum for life’, in all state-funded schools. This will include Personal, Social and Health Education, financial literacy, environmental awareness, first aid and emergency lifesaving skills, mental health education, citizenship and age-appropriate Relationships and Sex Education (RSE). Teaching about sexual consent, LGBT+ relationships, and issues surrounding explicit images and content will be included in RSE. Good points: Introducing financial literacy to the curriculum is a good step as it’s one thing that you actually need in life and are never taught! First aid and emergency life saving skills is also a nice touch, as it is a good thing to have skills wise and could spark an interest in caring for people or even lead to joining the NHS which we should encourage; as we shouldn’t have to rely on foreign workers to prop it up post Brexit. We will need to find the workers from somewhere, so recruiting from our own stock is the sensible option. Mental health education is a good step in making people aware of the issues we all face at some point in our lives. It can also help young people recognise the signs before they take hold which could potentially save lives.

Bad points: Environmental awareness is a tough one. If it is educational then great. If they try to push an agenda which you fear that the liberal leaning teaching profession would, then this could become one of those terrible ways of pushing unbalanced views on our children and they should be able to make their own mind up about this subject. Not have a certain version rammed down their throats. Age appropriate relationships and Sex education is another one i’m weary of under a Liberal administration. You fear they will push a weird progressive agenda onto impressionable kids and mess them up. It’s all age relative, if you’re teaching them when they’re say 15 years old about what to expect and what to watch out for (e.g older partners, grooming, etc…) then fine. If they’re 12 years old and they’re pushing to tell them having sex with one of these pansexual self identifying nutjobs then it’s wrong. You could warp the perceptions of an innocent child and potentially wreck their entire sexual life based on shaky foundations fed by a progressive fad of indecisive attention seekers. Which leads nicely onto LGBT+ relationships. The fact they added the + onto the end tells me it’s wrong, all wrong. There’s nothing wrong with being gay, that should be touched upon in the standard sex education, obviously not in excessive detail. But to push across these views of Trans people to younger people is yet again dangerous. A lot of Trans people are mentally unstable and suffering from mental health issues that are not properly diagnosed and the fact it’s been thrust into the limelight and you hear these horror stories of parents pushing their own kids to transition into the opposite sex is abhorrent, it’s child abuse, pure and simple. If you accept this is normal and condone these actions, then you can’t be trusted to teach this subject to kids. End of.

Oppose any future expansion of grammar schools and devolve all capital funding for new school spaces to local authorities. Good points: They probably see it as ‘the same education’ for all, which is a nice idea to have but is unrealistic. By mixing all abilities you risk dumbing down the ultra clever ones, why sacrifice ones at a higher level for the benefit of a few slightly slower children? It’s the same reason you get put into ‘sets’ when it becomes serious (e.g GCSE’s).

Bad points: Opposing grammar schools has never made sense to me, ever since I learnt what they were. They increase the opportunities of kids that might not usually have the opportunity to have access to such a quality education. It increases social mobility exponentially and makes them aspire to be better than they normally would be. It also rewards being the best, the smartest and getting there by yourself. The only thing that could be changed, should be the stress surrounding the SATs test to prove you can get into these grammar schools. Kids shouldn’t be pushed by their parents to get in, the tests should be changed and there should be no indication the test is coming, also the normal grades should be taken into account of admission to grammar schools, as some children don’t perform well in one off situations.

Raise the starting salary for teachers to £30,000 and increase all teachers’ pay by at least three per cent per year throughout the parliament. Good point: I bought it up earlier, this would solve the issue of teachers leaving for better paid jobs, keeping good people with the skills needed to do the job. I’m behind giving teachers more.

Bad points: None really. Public services have needed a wage increase for a while.

Challenge gender stereotyping and early sexualisation, working with schools to promote positive body image and break down outdated perceptions of gender appropriateness of particular academic subjects. Good points: Positive body image is important to push, so many issues with self esteem are embedded in body image from an early age, kids can be mean and damaging to each other. In pushing this, you can free the child’s mind and push them to reach their potential unhindered by poor self esteem and confidence issues.

Bad points: Stop. You need help. Gender appropriation is a myth. Men and women can do anything they want today. We’ve had two female Prime Ministers now (no need to point out they’re both Tories, but I will, just for balance.) there is no ceiling, that is the very top. The only issue now is paying them the same amount as blokes for the same job. The only time I would disagree, is if they’re not as competent and vice versa, a woman should get paid more in bonuses if she’s outperforming her male colleague and is more effective in her role. New age feminists are pushing it too far, this is a fact not an opinion.

Reinstate maintenance grants for the poorest students, ensuring that living costs are not a barrier to disadvantaged young people studying at university. Good points: I received EMA when I was in sixth form, it was good and not too much money (think it was £30 a week) it really helped paying for public transport and things I needed for sixth form. As long as they don’t go silly and give them loads of money when they’re fiscally irresponsible, then i’m all for it.

Bad points: Can’t think of one.

I will move onto Health & Social care now.

Raise £7 billion a year additional revenue which will be ring-fenced to be spent only on NHS and social care services. This revenue will be generated from a 1p rise on the basic, higher and additional rates of Income Tax (this revenue will be neither levied nor spent in Scotland.) Good points: I think we can all agree this is okay and needed, from any party.

Bad points: None. They’ve actually costed a policy, hurrah. I jest.

Introduce a statutory independent budget monitoring body for health and care, similar to the Office for Budget Responsibility. This would report every three years on how much money the system needs to deliver safe and sustainable treatment and care, and how much is needed to meet the costs of projected increases in demand and any new initiatives – to ensure any changes in services are properly costed and affordable. Good points: None.

Bad points: Paying more people to tell you we need more money is counter productive and lazy. The government should have fiscal responsibility of the NHS and that shouldn’t change. You’re never going to have enough money to properly run the NHS, this does not help. Ridiculous policy.

Support the creation of a new Professional Body for Care Workers, to promote clear career pathways with ongoing training and development, and improved pay structures. Good points: Improving pay should encourage more workers, which we desperately need. Giving them the training they need to perform their duties is a good step to ensuring the right people are in the right role. Totally onboard.

Bad points: None.

There is a lot of noise but no real cutting edge policies concerning the NHS so I have skipped a fair amount, mainly for your benefit! Now onto Freedom, Rights and Equality.

Introduce an ‘X’ gender option on passports and extend equality law to cover gender identity and expression. Good points: None as proved in court not long ago.

Bad points: I think this matter is more to do with tracing people in and out of the country and becomes a matter more of national security, which should be paramount over what some perceive as their personal right. It is a sensible step by the government to fight this as it has gone on far enough. This movement are just trying to create more issues and is trying to frustrate the normal procedures in place that are there to safeguard us. I can’t take anymore of this attention seeking madness. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile, there’s no escaping your past. You were born a man/woman, if you decide you want to change then good for you but you can’t change the fact you were born a specific way and by extension try to rewrite history by projecting your fantasy onto others; It could also be used as a way for someone to go off the radar, there would be untold issues of trying to track people whose identity suddenly stops as they change not only their gender but their name. They could leave the country as Mark Johnson, have a sex change, come back and then apply for a passport as Mary Johnson without anyone knowing. What if he’d committed a crime, he gets off scott free. Although I expect nothing less from the Liberal Democrats so i’ll move on.

Increase statutory paternity leave from the current two weeks up to six weeks and ensure that parental leave is a day-one right, and address continuing inequalities faced by same-sex couples. Good points: Two weeks just isn’t enough, I know from experience. Couldn’t agree more, yet again more has to be done to sort out the system and how the roles (of fathers especially) have changed. I also think it should be staggered so that you can enjoy different stages of your babies development.

Bad points: None as it doesn’t need to be costed, due to it being paid for by the employer and god knows we all deserve more from them!

Provide safe and legal routes to sanctuary in the UK by resettling 10,000 vulnerable refugees each year and a further 10,000 unaccompanied refugee children from elsewhere in Europe over the next ten years, and expanding family reunion rights. Good points: None.

Bad points: There are many. Let’s start with the numbers. It’s excessive, it should all be done on a case by case basis. Refugee is a dirty word now, as it has been abused and distorted from it’s true definition. A real refugee now would be say for example, British passport holders in Hong Kong. They’re quite literally being beaten and locked up by the Chinese imposed regime. They’re political refugees that we have technically signed up to protect just over 20 years ago (1997). I don’t buy the whole refugee from the middle east thing anymore. They quite literally have to pass through dozens of safe countries to get here and try to gain asylum. That isn’t a refugee, that is an economic migrant. We have enough of those, get in line and fill out the necessary paperwork like EVERYBODY ELSE. We need to focus on migrants from all over the world and make it a fair playing field. Get the very best and brightest, it’s a privilege to come to this country, not a right. A refugee is someone fleeing war and is displaced and can no longer return due to fear of their safety. Why not go next door to Saudi Arabia, a very wealthy country and not too far from your home, meaning when you repatriate (which all refugees should) it isn’t a huge journey for you. Or go north to Russia one of the top three richest countries in the world. No that’s right, you’ll travel to gullible European countries trying to do the right thing to show they’re caring, as they’re too scared to be called racist. Sick of it.

Stop Brexit and save EU freedom of movement. This is getting comical now. Good points: None.

Bad points: You will still be able to freely travel throughout Europe. You just have to produce your passport at the border, much like everyone used to before the EU. Personally looking forward to getting lots of stamps in my passport to show where i’ve visited. How do you think American or Australian backpackers travel Europe? By law you are allowed 90 days free travel throughout the Schengen area and we will be entitled to the same rights. 90 days. Nearly three months. If you’re going to travel for more than three months, then you might need visas but if you’re planning a trip of that magnitude, then applying for visas is probably not going to be much different from planning a trip to the US or Asia? People are just lazy, there I said it. All this information is readily available. Please don’t buy into these scare stories, this is just another ploy from people with vested interests trying to make you believe things are changing and people don’t like change, so it must be bad right? For the love of god, just do some research.

Give 16- and 17-year olds the right to vote in elections and referendums. Good points: Yet again none.

Bad points: I do really wonder if they were on drugs when making some of these policies. I’ll break it down like this. We don’t trust people to legally drink until they’re 18 as they can’t be trusted. But they’re willing to let them have a say in changing the country based on people offering them free things. They’re literally deluded. You can’t even go to prison until you’re 18, you’re not even legally an adult. That’s where the line must be drawn. Just because you can change something, doesn’t mean you should. It’s another example of being patient, we expect instant gratification due to the advancement of technology and we want everything right here right now. This can’t be applied to voting, a certain degree of responsibility and thought is needed when making a choice that will effect the entire country for the next five years. Also by extension referendums! Jesus, don’t even get me started.

Extend the right to full participation in civic life, including the ability to stand for office or vote in UK referendums, Local Elections and General Elections, to all EU citizens who have lived in the UK for five years or more. Good points: None.

Bad points: This is irresponsible and unnecessary. You should only be allowed to stand for office and vote if you were born here. Before you think this is biased and ‘narrow minded’, my wife is an EU citizen and she agrees. She can still vote in Sweden and that is the way it should be. She’s a Swedish citizen and reserves the right to influence change in her own native land. The same should apply here. They’re basically trying to import votes, which is undemocratic and it stinks.

This last section is called Better Politics. I’m trying my hardest to stay focussed and unbiased but it’s oh so very hard.

Reform the House of Lords with a proper democratic mandate. Good points: The House of Lords is long overdue a reformation. They have proved this in the frustration of Brexit. There is no longer a reason they shouldn’t be an elected body. I think it should be split into industries, those that have served at the very top of their professions for a long time and are honoured by the Queen, should then be put forward for the public vote. Say for example you have top scientists honoured. You had a top physicist, chemist, biologist etc… They would be in the category of science, there would be a certain amount of seats reserved for this industry. You would then vote on the ones put forward. Same would apply for business, technology, sport, education, economy, etc…a broad range. We would then have actual law makers who have incredible experience in their field. I also think they should limit the amount of ex-politicians allowed in the chamber, as they usually get put in the Lords after being law makers for a certain amount of time or serving in a government. Due to the Commons having far greater powers and being able to push certain legislation thorough the Lords without scrutiny, why should they then be able to effect laws in the Lords? It should be decided on the number of votes in the general election and share of the vote. So for example, if the Brexit party got 8% of the vote but no seats, they’d be entitled to a set amount of Lords to be appointed to the chamber. Same would apply for the Greens who consistently get about 3-4% of the public vote and only ever one or none MPs. I think if the leader loses the election which they technically do most of the time, then that leader would be the one put forward to the Lords. Meaning they’re not put to waste and would push the losing parties to be more competitive and advance their younger members, meaning fresh young talent gets through quicker rather than parliament being a stuffy old person’s game as it is now. It would also be representative, as it would mean the Lords would have high end political figures who commanded a fair amount of votes to be made party leader, would then be able to represent the views of the party in the other chamber. The ruling party would get a fair share too due to their share of the vote, which doesn’t always equate to huge amounts of seats. Only difference is their leader would obviously be Prime Minister, so wouldn’t be able to sit in the Lords. So maybe the longest serving member who loses their seat in that election would be the highest ranking for the ruling party? There are many avenues to go down but this would be the most fair I think.

Ensure that a new Prime Minister, and their programme for government, must win a confidence vote of MPs. Just had to go through this without good or bad points as I think this is lazy. I think they miss the exact point of a general election here. In fact, this very election was called because it was no longer a majority government, minority governments can’t rule as nothing gets done (as we’ve seen recently).

Legislate to allow all-BAME and all-LGBT+ shortlists. Good points: Still on drugs I see.

Bad points: Shortlists are a very bad idea. Nothing is more demeaning to the people on these lists as they know they’re only there due to the colour of their skin or their sexuality. If you want a free and fair society like they say they want, you will let them all get there on their own merit, not a quota set to involve them. Just look at the Tories, they have a Home Secretary and Chancellor who are BAME. You don’t need to belittle these people to try and give them a voice, if they’re not good enough to get there in the first place, then they shouldn’t be there. Just look at Diane Abbott and David Lammy. Look at them. Listen to some of the ridiculous stuff that comes out of their mouths. Proof that just because you are from a different ethnicity, doesn’t mean you should be allowed near a position of power.

Expect the BBC both to provide impartial news and information, and to take a leading role in increasing media literacy and educating all generations in tackling the impact of fake news. Good points: They’ve got to be having a laugh.

Bad points: Everyone knows the BBC are so biased it hurts. They can’t hide it and haven’t been able to for years. Perfect example was last night’s Have I Got News For You. Was laughing a lot more than usual, you know why? Because during election season (the duration of an election campaign) they can’t be seen to be influencing the result so have to ridicule and satire everyone equally. I wish I was joking. There was the most amount of Corbyn and Labour bashing I’ve seen in ages. There was still the tired old Brexit jokes but at least the observational humour wasn’t entirely directed at Tories and Trump for once. Whilst it was enjoyable, it was actually quite sad to think that they only did it because they’re made too and not because it’s funny. That would be true impartiality. In regards to the fake news, yet again looking at people like Andrew Marr, Fiona Bruce and Emily Maitlis you can see their bias in everything they do. The only true unbiased broadcaster is of course Andrew Neil, who goes after everyone equally as hard. The saddest thing about the abuse he gets is people actually try to paint him as biased, yet the one person in a bit of controversy is Boris as he’s ducking the interview. Surely then if Andrew was a ‘closet Tory’ as I’ve seen him labelled, why would a Tory PM be scared to do an interview with him? You watch all of his interviews and he gives everyone a hard time. Closest thing we have to Paxman. He was also the person who should have taken over Question Time. I don’t watch it anymore because it has descended in stature under Fiona’s stewardship. Unlike Dimmbleby who fairly put them in their place if they stepped out of line, she just squawks over them.

There is a section about Defence in which they commit to 2% of GDP under NATO rules and accept they need a nuclear deterrent. I didn’t feel the need to go into much detail as this has droned on for long enough!

There were a fair amount of good policies which slightly surprised me (maybe i’m going soft in my old age) but as usual the progressive dross shone through and they proved they’re still the Lib Dems!

Fresh original ideas: 3.5/5

Practicality and realistic pledges: 2/5

Financially viability: 1/5

Responsible and sensible pledges: 3/5

Total: 9.5 out of 20

It was ‘half good’. Unfortunately, that’s not good enough to win you an election. Considering they have approached the platform to try and win a ‘majority Liberal government’ (Jo Swinson’s own words), there isn’t enough in there to create the sing great enough to get a majority of seats. I do believe that taking the Remain stand point will garner a large section of Labour seats and a large share of their vote, as the only true Remain ‘voice’ it will probably only equate to about 30-35 seats in reality; due to our outdated First-past-the-post electoral system. It’s a massively improved effort and there are some genuinely good ideas in there. They should use this election as a spring board to continue growth, maybe introduce some slightly more conservative policies and edge towards the centre to garner support from Conservative swing voters. That’s where their strongest position has been (I believe they won around 50 seats when they last did this). The lasting thing this manifesto has imprinted on me was it’s length. It was awfully long and drawn out and would probably turn off your average voter who is not normally interested in politics. I had to condense a huge chunk of the manifesto down and only just managed to keep this entire post down to less than 6000 words. If you decide to do your own research (which I encourage) you will see what I mean and will fall asleep before finishing it.

I hope you found this helpful, interesting and insightful. Next up on the run throughs is Labour. Make a coffee and get comfy, i’m sure things will get a bit off topic! Thank you for reading but yet again I would like to push for you to read the manifestos or at least the summaries before casting your vote. The political landscape HAS changed and it does mean that you might not necessarily be aligned with a party as you once were. Especially if you’re a Labour voter. I’ll say no more!

 

Global Rundown

There is a lot to get through as 1. I haven’t written in so long and 2. There’s been so much going on. Let’s start with the news of peace on the Korean peninsula. Believe what you want but anyone thinking this has nothing to do with Trump is out of their mind. If you study politics closely (like me) then you will understand what all of the political posturing is about. It’s all mind games and statesmanship. Showing an iron resolve when most of the world’s media were going mad thinking the US and North Korea, were on the brink of nuclear war. Some think of it as bullying tactics but North Korea did threaten to nuke Guam, so the President returned in kind by offering swift action in retaliation. Things of this magnitude aren’t taken lightly on the world stage. Neither looking to climb down from their position, but if you put it into context it’s what Trump has been doing his whole life in business. It’s dick measuring on the biggest scale. Who will blink first? Playing hardball. Rightly or wrongly, Trump is treating the entire USA as a business, as it’s all he knows.

As far as I can see, the key decisions, he’s done alright. I cut through all the bullshit and the edgy comments because he’s an egomaniac and they feel they have to be heard, so will quite literally say anything. It’s all a front. Behind closed doors, I reckon the Donald is cold and calculated and probably a whole lot more intelligent than most think. It’s why he fits in so well in politics, there’s so many levels. In politics and business, you need to be savvy to a degree in people manipulation, to get people to do what you want. To curry favour. You’ve got to be ruthless, which he’s shown in countless dismissals of staff. It all adds to this overall grandiose character. Trump has called for nuclear de-escalation from North Korea since he got into power. Because of the mounted tensions between the US and North Korea, he got into a position where he could call them to the negotiating table almost as a last resort but I think it was his plan all along. All of the ‘i’ll destroy the little rocket man with my powerful nuclear button’ was more posturing. Putting Kim in his place, so that when it came round to it, Trump said we’ll keep all of the sanctions going because we can, unless you can offer something. They hadn’t tested weapons for months and promised to continue throughout the entirety of the talks. They made massive steps with the South and agreed that nuclear disarmament was the way forward. Now, tell me that would have happened without the situation between Donald and Kim. Even the left’s lord and saviour, Obama couldn’t get them to the table and there was me thinking you all thought he was the best President of all time!

Quick history lesson, the Koreans have been split along the 38 degree parallel since 1953. No one has even come close to help re-conciliate their differences in that entire time. I’ll concede that one of the stumbling blocks were the former leaders Kim Il-Sung (senior and junior) who held an iron grip on the country from 1948 through until 2011. Yet it still took 7 years to get this guy to the table. I also agree that giving Trump a Nobel peace prize might be going a little bit far, although it gives context to the sheer scale of this event in the chronology of history. This is their Berlin Wall moment, should it all work out. We just can’t see it yet, as we don’t have the ability to look back on this momentous occasion. He should at least be given credit for his use of soft and hard power on the international stage, the fact that people aren’t giving him any credit is outrageous. They’re so blinded by this hate of his personality, that they can’t accept he’s helped towards something good and actually doing his job that he was elected to do. Give it a break for one day and give the Donald a pat on the back. Before he comes out and says something crazy tomorrow!

Still related but moving on. There is a supposed protest to Trump’s visit to the UK. Yet again, utterly abhorrent behaviour from all involved. Need I remind you all that just because you don’t like someone doesn’t mean you have to protest. He’s a democratically elected head of state for our closest ally. He deserves respect. You may disagree with most, if not all of his policies but the American people chose him to represent them and their views on the world stage. Stop being so pig headed and accept his position. Imagine if Theresa May got booed and there was a protest if she visited the US. There’d be absolute uproar, and half of the people involved in this protest don’t even like her either! You can’t claim to champion living in a democracy if you can’t accept the outcome of our political system. Maybe you should go and talk to some people that have lived under a dictator with no choice when it came to elections. It really is first world problems. Let’s be honest, Trump was the best of a bad bunch. Hillary is a cluster fuck of a human being and would have been awful for the American people. Yet if she would have won, I would have accepted it and wouldn’t protest her visit to this country. We have got to the point where we don’t have anything left to fight, so the left is fighting it’s own people.

This brings me onto freedom of speech. Count Dakula to be precise. When I first read about this case I literally couldn’t believe what I was reading. A guy jokingly taught his pug to Nazi salute and posted it onto Youtube. Why have we suddenly had a sense of humour failure in this country? We have had some of the greatest comics in this country and they have always been funny by pushing the boundaries of what is funny and acceptable. My favourites are a lot of the jokes that end in ‘too soon?’. I’ll tell you where we have gone wrong and I shall use Have I Got News For You as an example. Now, I have watched and loved this programme since I was an early teen, so about 15 years ago. I’ll set the scene, leftie luvvie Tony Blair was in power, he couldn’t do any wrong, then he goes to war in Iraq. They absolutely ripped him and even though they weren’t in power, they ripped the Tories too for good measure. Fast forward to now. Theresa May is in power and everything is Brexit this and Brexit that. Being the BBC obviously there is a massive bias and a lot of the jokes have Brexit at the butt of them. I get it, I know it gets tiresome but you know what you get if you watch something on BBC 1. However, the thing I have noticed is that any joke about Corbyn or Labour, if made at all goes down like a lead balloon. I’m wetting myself at home on the sofa but the audience has a few titters but it’s like someone has died. The double standards are ridiculous, in my eyes everyone is fair game. If you’re in public service or in the public eye than you run the risk of being satirised, that is how it has always worked. But it’s become almost like the BBC is protecting the Labour party from scrutiny and won’t have a bad word said about them. It’s a sad day in the history of TV, in a supposed free country where censorship is creeping in the back door. It sets a dangerous precedent, creating a pedastool where certain people are beyond criticism or ridicule because of their political leanings. Now I can accept i’m probably to the right of centre, not far right but what is now days probably classed as ‘alt-right’ not that iam, that’s just the newest label that anyone not on the left is given, along with racist, fascist, white supremacist, personally I can’t keep up as it changes weekly or as often as they choose to change their gender, ooh right in the bollocks, if they have them left that is!

But for someone like me that enjoys satire but isn’t on that side of the political spectrum can see there aren’t many ‘right wing’ comics left. Almost like they’ve been weeded out by the humour police. There’s a massive gap in the market but no platform to do so, channel 4 won’t allow it because they’re fucking bedwetters and too busy pushing through gay agendas and focusing on minorites. It only leaves ITV (terrestrial) who couldn’t risk losing viewers, the whole system seems pretty wrapped up. It was refreshing that Roseanne has been brought back in America and I think something similar over here would be a huge hit. Could you imagine, a conservative minded white male as a lead character?! Can’t allow that now though can we? It might upset and offend ethnic minorites because there’s no diversity, liberals because they can’t accept facts or anything apart from their own opinion, gays because there’s no gay character involved as there always has to be in everything single programme even though they account for less than 5% of the population, yeah that’s realistic. It’s just constant and ongoing, i’d like to see a programme like this just to spite these offended cunts. Offence is good, it creates differing view points, debate, dialogue (although the left don’t seem capable as they can’t be constructive and look at both sides of an argument and resort to shouting racist as soon as they’re presented with facts but hey ho).

 

The whole idea of free speech is to say anything freely no matter how wrong or different as long as you don’t incite hatred, right? Using harsh language doesn’t constitute hatred. Maybe people are confusing offence with hatred? If enough people are offended does that deem someone to be hateful? No is the answer. Maybe we should concentrate on teaching the English language to our children so that they can differentiate between the meaning of offence and hatred, because quite clearly the lines are being blurred in the current climate. Whilst we’re at it, teach them how to debate and the powers of dialogue. I don’t think we’ve been further apart in my lifetime, the left and the right. We have no common interest or shared mutual goals. No one left to defeat. All of the parties are the same now and have been for years. I’d like to see them all wiped out, Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems. We need something new. Maybe we will see it post-brexit? Who knows? One thing is for sure, sensitivity needs to be stripped back. We used to be made of stiffer stuff. You might be offended but it doesn’t mean you need to cry about it, make a joke back. Dialogue is the key. Offence is so one sided and i’m sick of it. Also here’s a link to an old post about the real definitions of racist and fascist explained, as I have seen no improvement on these words so easily thrown about, lessening their meaning and skewing the perception of what a real racist or fascist is.

https://wordpress.com/post/gunnerlukey.wordpress.com/664

To end, i’d like to remind all of you cheerleaders for Labour and the socialist movement, that Nazi actually stands for National SOCIALIST German Workers’ Party. How’s that for changing the perception and definition of a word. Good day to you.

Conservative Manifesto Run Through

This is the first of 3 Manifesto Run Throughs that I will be penning before the election, as ever I will endeavour to stay unbiased as to give a representative and balanced view of each Manifesto, to give credit where credit is due and to pinpoint inaccuracies in them. I shall begin with the Tories as they’re the governing party at this moment in time.

Their first main point is Strong and Stable leadership, as I’m sure you’ll have heard this slogan by now. This has received plenty of negative press so I shall give a balanced outlook, what I think they’re trying to get across is that in this massive transitional period for our country, we need stability and certainty, this would only be achieved (in their eyes) by keeping the status quo and re-electing the Conservatives, so that the negotiating team in place can get to work as soon as possible in securing an amicable split from the European Union.

The next points they make are the big challenges that face them. The first being a strong economy, which to be fair the Conservatives have done a fairly good job at creating. Unemployment figures are down, economic forecasts are positive and investment post Brexit looks to boom. This is not to say that massive cuts have had to occur and hit some demographics hard and increased the need for food banks, but on balance the public spending of Labour was unsustainable and needed cutting as the Tories were left in a ridiculous amount of debt.

Their second point is about Brexit and the need for a smooth and orderly exit from the union. Also to try and create a deep and strong rooted relationship with the remaining EU nations, which personally I think there has been a massive irreparable rift caused, this spawning from our own interests and the jealousy of the other nations who secretly crave self determination. They also make a good point of stating we need to stay strong and united, aimed at the United Kingdom as a whole, in contrast to the Republican views of Corbyn who would like to see the split of the UK. Now is definitely the time to stay together and I like to see this message staged in this point.

The third point they make is to fight enduring social divisions. This is mainly made out to be about social mobility and making sure people aren’t held back by where they come from or where they’re born. I think it’s also aimed at second generation immigrant votes, the Tories try to include them as historically they don’t pick up those votes. I also think it’s aimed at people who will be here post Brexit and saying that as long as you work hard you have a place here. Even though they haven’t given a guarantee on it yet, I think this will be one of the easiest bargaining chips we have in the negotiations.

The fourth point acknowledges the ageing population and people with long term health conditions, expressing the need to find a solution and accepting the reality of it.

The final big point is looking at innovative technology and being at the forefront of the technological wave. I think this is wise as there’s a lot of wealth to be created from this industry and is still in its infancy (relatively) in the grand scale of things. It points out the need to staying safe and secure in regards to privacy, which is quite contradictory, being that civil liberties and privacy in regards to technology have slowly eroded under the Tories and so much privacy has been lost online. This was overseen by the Tories and it’s a slight slap in the face to include that.

The Manifesto then goes onto separate sub headings outlining viewpoints and the direction of the party and what they expect to achieve. They start by stating they want to govern from the mainstream, they believe they can be the central party and govern on behalf of the majority of the electorate, by making decisions in the interests of everybody, which in itself gives off a conflicted viewpoint. You can’t please everybody and not everyone will agree on things, I understand we live in a divided nation currently and maybe this is their way of trying to combat this but by contradicting yourself is not a good start. They believe they can bridge the gap between left and right, which is a risky statement as you can end up alienating your core supporters, whilst losing the undecided voters by sounding wishy-washy. They say they’ll reduce and control immigration, which yet again is a risky pledge considering Cameron made the same one and failed on a monumental scale. They want to defend our nation from terrorist threats which is a double edged sword, as on the one hand yes I fully believe them but on the other, funding has steadily been cut to our police over the period of Tory rule. Yet they were cuts that needed to be made, I return to my earlier point of labour’s massive budget of public spending (and borrowing) and having no way of paying it back. Whilst I understand the police forces of this country are stretched, you can only spread out the funding you have. Yes they could free up extra capital by scrapping the foreign aid budget but lefties won’t accept that or the notion that in order to pay for something you have to take money away from something else. Our budget is finite. Unless you borrow money like Labour and then you get stuck in the cycle all over again.

They wish to protect workers rights and develop industrial strategy to work better in favour of the economy. Finally in this section they state that they won’t drift to the right and make decisions based on what works, which is refreshingly realistic.

Their next point is the age old adage of governing in the interests of ordinary, hard working families which has become a catchphrase for all political parties as trying to project an air of caring for Joe bloggs and his family, and aiming themselves at a majority of the electorate. Boring, NEXT! The next passage just rearranges and reiterates all of the previous points to try and drum it into the reader, which is understandable if you want to learn what they actually stand for as most people you ask on the street wouldn’t be able to tell you the differences of what the major parties even stand for anymore.

The next section is entitled Our Principles, where they try and rebrand what it means to be a Tory, which is a massive turn off for people with traditional conservative views. They establish a notion that people owe a debt to the community and society which I’m at odds with, whilst I understand they’re trying to convey an expectation of a strong work ethic, I don’t think we’re born into debt with our nation. We’re born free.

They then set out how they’re going to achieve these goals in greater detail which I have no desire to deconstruct as I’m currently on my honeymoon, so I shall simply bulletpoint these with a brief explanation and whether it’s a pro or con for voting.

Keeping taxes as low as possible – freezing VAT (pro – goods and products won’t increase in price for consumers), increase personal allowance to £12500 (pro – relieving £2500 taxable income for lower earners), local residents can opt out of high increases of Council Tax via a referendum (con – too vague, if they slowly increase it, it won’t be classed as high increase so no basis for referendum), Corporation Tax to fall to 17% (pro – actively seeking inward investment from overseas post Brexit is a good think ahead however, Con – Labour have applied pressure to big corporations and called them out for not paying their fair share, so won’t sit well with low earners or students who don’t understand basic economics).

Increasing Trade – Lodging new schedules for the UK with WTO (pro – looking ahead post Brexit we’re going to need trade schedules in place to ensure a smooth exit and to strike free trade deals around the world and become a stronger trading nation BIG PRO), Creating a network of 9 trade commissioners to promote trade abroad and increase trade between the members of the UK (pro – self explanatory), push forward with UK export finance (pro – ensuring that no viable UK export fails due to lack of finance or insurance).

Wages – Increasing the National Living Wage to 60% of median earnings by 2020 (Con – this will back fire massively, as wages increase so will the number of redundancies as companies can’t afford to employ as many people, which in turn increases workload for workers, unsustainable).

Modern Business Strategy – Freeing up funds for research and development in fields of future technology e.g batteries for electric cars (pro – this will keep people on side who believe in renewable energy, Con – we don’t know where these funds will come from, most likely through Green levies or taxing the current motorist more. Which I can’t get behind!), A modern technical education for everyone (pro – any education made available can create social mobility, Con – being traditional I’d prefer that people are still taught in the old school way, as we can’t be reliant on technology for everything).

National Productivity Investment Fund – £23bn set aside to enhance certain infrastructures, £740m on digital infrastructure, big increase in spending on railways (no figure attached provably because of HS2) £1.1bn on local transport and £250m on productivity skills enhancement (pro – I believe that the money is well spent in this venture as the Tories are trying to keep with the times, you can guarantee part of the digital infrastructure includes rolling out super fast broadband everywhere in the UK).

Future Britain Fund – holding investments of the British people to go towards future funding of infrastructure and the economy, made up of profits of shale gas extraction, dormant assets and the sale of some public assets (Pro – if they can research shale gas and it doesn’t harm the environment then good, Con – selling off public assets automatically makes you think of parts of the NHS like buildings and equipment).

Support for industy – After Sir John Parker’s review of shipbuilding there will be a push for modernising and revitalising the shipbuilding industry (massive pro – we used to be world leaders in shipbuilding, creation of jobs all over the country E.g Clyde, Barrow, Portsmouth).

Support for Farming Industry – Grow more, sell more and export more post Brexit (Pro – on the face of it the notion is great as I live in the countryside and support our farmers, Con – yet they expect more but state they’ll give the same amount of cash to aid development, you can’t expect more for the same amount of investment, it’s unrealistic).

A Free Vote on Fox Hunting (Pro and Con).

Clearly setting out to leave the Common Fisheries Policy and exercise our control of our sovereign waters (Biggest Pro on here! No legal uncertainty will be made during negotiations, this is not up for debate! Preserving and increasing the fish stock which has been overfished under the EU’s common fishing policy, which introduced quotas and have depleted our fish stock, massively looking forward to our thriving fishing industry in the future).

Completely ruling out a divisive Scottish referendum and pointing out that regardless of the devolved powers given to Scotland, they’ve squandered growth potential and have lagged behind (Pro – nothing else needs to be added!).

As part of infrastructure investment, bringing Welsh railways up to speed (Pro – massively overdue, Con – Plaid Cymru will say money better spent on Welsh NHS, which is a fair observation).

Look to re-brokering a power sharing deal in Northern Ireland as soon as possible (Pro).

UK Shared Prosperity Fund – Replaces the funding sent from EU (which was our money in the first place) and redistributes it accordingly with consultation between Westminster and other devolved powers (Big Pro – shuts up all the Remainers moaning about ‘lost EU money’).

The Great Repeal Bill – EU law will be enshrined into UK law, so no rights are lost overnight, yet it gives parliament the right to amend, repeal or improve any piece of these laws. It also gets rid of the ball ache of sorting out 41 years worth of laws, we can slowly over time strip all the unsavoury laws out of our law. (Pro – get overall power of our legislature back and Human Rights Act will be reconstructed after formally leaving the EU, Cons – it’s a time consuming exercise, we’d still be signed up to ECHR for the next parliament, which I oppose massively but it’ll be reviewed in 2022).

In conjunction with our Overseas Territories, create a Blue Belt and aid conservation by creating the largest marine sanctuaries in the world (Pro for anyone in the world).

Continue commitment of 2% of GDP to defense as part of NATO obligations (Pro – normal humans like to be safe, Con – if you’re a Stop The War supporter or pacifist), (lol).

£178bn spread over a decade on strengthening our depleted Royal Navy, by building new vessels in conjunction with rejuvenated shipyards up and down the country (Pro – Brittania rules the waves).

An introduction of no payment of employers contributions of National Insurance for a year, if they take on an Ex-serviceman/woman (Pro – finally beginning to look after our serviceman upon leaving the forces, Con – too little too late).

Reducing the number of MPs to 600 (Pro – the chamber is far too crowded, Con – this lends itself more to the FPTP ‘first past the post’ system).

They promise to retain FPTP (Con – Proportional Representation is a more realistic and representative system and ensures as many people’s views are heard, it would also end the monopoly of the two party system, which is why the Tories and Labour will never back it, as it’s not in their interests).

The reintroduction of Grammar Schools (Pro – increases social mobility immensely so that kids from disadvantaged backgrounds get a better education based on their skills and attainment, Con – funding for the education system is already poor so it begs the question where is the money coming from, it also leaves behind the children in state schools of mixed abilities, where they won’t mix with smarter children who boost attainment figures of state schools, meaning a drop in ofsted standards nationwide).

Cutting student loan repayments for teachers in their first year to encourage them to stay in the profession (Pro – it’s a start, however looking at the research, teachers in general can find easier jobs for more money elsewhere so aren’t incentivised to stay anyway).

Centralising all teaching jobs to a single jobs portal much like NHS jobs (Pro – it increases the effectiveness of getting current teachers into vacancies, Con – there is already a teacher shortage and I reiterate my previous point about teachers finding jobs elsewhere).

Cutting of free school lunches to most children in the first three years of primary school (Pro – they will receive free breakfast instead and low income students still receive free lunches, Con – very reminiscent of the ‘milk snatcher’ Thatcher!).

Introduction of T-levels, a technical qualification equivalent to A-levels will most likely replace BTEC, which includes three month work placement as part of the course (Pro).

Breaking down barriers to public sector jobs based on attainment E.g teaching assistants can become teachers through an apprenticeship degree, healthcare professionals can do the same to become nurses (Pro – it eliviates the shortage of teachers and nurses, Con – have you ever had to live off apprentice wages?).

Reintroduction of pledge to decrease immigration to tens of thousands (Pro – After Brexit we should have full control of immigration and should for once be achievable, Con – Cameron made this pledge and failed massively with net migration ballooning, troublesome waters for Tories).

Further cultural integration through schools (Pro – forcing schools with one predominant race, culture or religion to teach basic British values regardless, to ease social cohesion, Con – too little too late, why hasn’t this been the pre existing building block to interracial cohesion for the last 60 years, since mass immigration started?).

There is a section regarding combating Islamic extremism which doesn’t outline how to root out and defeat it (Con).

Audit of gender and racial pay gaps in the workplace (Pro/Con – can lead to disharmony in the workplace and start on down the slippery slope of quotas rather than merit based advancement, which doesn’t help anyone).

Over the next parliament extend funding to mental health by an extra £1bn (Pro/Con – throwing money at things doesn’t automatically fix them, they need to improve diagnosis and speed of people being seen and treated, too many people suffer in silence in fear of not being believed, I have seen this first hand).

Ban letting agents fees (Pro).

Increase in NHS spending by £8bn over next 5 years (Pro).

In negotiations with EU try and ensure the 140,000 NHS workers from the EU can stay post Brexit to continue their essential work (Pro).

Government building new homes on its own property as part of its plan to build 1 million homes by 2020 (Pro/Con – it’s good they’re addressing the issue but it could include building on NHS land, the sooner they can address the real root cause which is immigration, the better).

30 hours of free childcare for every 3 and 4 year old (Pro – it’s a start, Con – we’re so behind other nations in this aspect, looking forward at the ageing population and the eventual need to replenish the population, the government need to be making childcare almost free until school age, we need to reward the people adding to our society by making having children affordable, they wonder why birth rates are so low!).

By the end of the year, 19 out of 20 premises will have access to super fast broadband in conjunction with their detailed digital plan (Pro – I’m still waiting at home for this, one of the last areas on the list I’m guessing!).

Introduction of comprehensive relationship and sex education to primary and secondary school students to include cyber bullying and online grooming (Pro – a realistic and important step in protecting our children online and in the real world, Con – weirdly still a hotly contested subject, some parents still don’t feel comfortable with their primary school age children learning about sex and needing to protect their innocence, maybe a minimum age should be introduced maybe 8 or 9?).

A random one but one with great potential, the digital amalgamation of HM Land Registry, Ordnance Survey, Valuation Office Agency, Hydrographic Office and Geological Survey to provide the most comprehensive map of the UK (Pro – can be used for more efficient planning of housing and creating digital maps of our land, this also creates an innovative tool for video games developers in making real world UK games, GTA London remake anyone?! Big Pro).

Overall I rate this Manifesto a very modest 8 out of 10. Very comprehensive and set out a detailed plan for governing our country. I felt it could have been shorter than 88 pages, as on more than one occasion it felt like they were repeating the same points. I also felt that on balance their Cons were easily avoidable but like I said, you can’t please everybody!

I hope this cuts through media bias and gives you the basic outline of what the Tories wish to achieve, parallel to this I will now write up the run through for the Labour party. Thank you for reading!

 

Looking Forward

It’s the end of the year. I’ve luckily got some time off and have had some time to reflect on this year and everything that has happened. I feel a good place to start is clearing some nonsense up before we take in the new year.

Fascism- An authoritarian and nationalistic right wing system of government and social organisation.

Racist- A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

These are the exact definitions in the Oxford Dictionary. I want to put these automatic shutdowns to bed. It disgusts me that these words are thrown about with no thought of the meanings on an almost daily occurrence by a jilted demographic of the population. I’m also going to flip to the other side of the coin and do what you can’t, get offended by something and rationally think about it and how best to go about the outcome. So I have decided to take these ‘slurs’ and use them to defeat the argument in it’s entirety. I hate that this country is divided and it doesn’t help that the recovering defeated are taking stabs in the dark and banding about words because they’re hurting. There is nothing more child like in nature. Grow up. Take it on the chin and move on.

I’d like to address the first slur, Fascist/Fascism. Take a look at the second word of the definition. Authoritarian. Where in this country do you see support or even utterings of the need or desire of an authoritarian government. You are getting the notion of self governance and a military dictatorship completely muddled up. The reason you’re berating people with these slurs is because they took part in a massive democratic exercise, something not usually found in a Fascist society. So therefore your slur is incorrect and invalid. Can it not be that there is a place on the right wing of politics for normal people who hold nationalistic views and NOT want to murder people of different ethnicities? Much like there’s room for modern liberals on the left wing of politics who’re more biased to economic and ‘compassionate’ views, that doesn’t automatically make them Communists! There’s a difference between satirising political figures in this fashion for comedic purposes and attacking someone’s character for their political beliefs. This is supposed to be a free and open society, where freedoms are supposed to be championed. Instead, this shutdown culture of the left is very dangerous and must be stopped. I’ll tell you why. If you don’t let these views be aired and engage in the time old tradition of debate and discussion, then you will force them underground and THAT is where the REAL Fascism starts. When you debate you can reach a level ground of at least understanding a viewpoint and begin to grasp why this opposition have come to their conclusion. Take heed to my warning, we saw this on a monumental scale in the US when Trump supporters were shutdown instantaneously in every situation. Forcing them to keep quiet and not air their views, it was easy to see to those of us that pay attention to the political world. But you all saw the ‘landslide’ effect. Anyway, enough of the US this is about our country!

That brings me to the other definition. I’ll put it simply first then elaborate after. You can’t be racist to your own race. We are Europeans, are we not? So us leaving a union of states, not that actual CONTINENT is not racist. We aren’t discriminating towards them, in actual fact you can’t call yourself a true believer of equality unless you back Brexit. As giving preferential treatment to European migrants over migrants from everywhere else might be seen as discriminating based purely on where someone is from and not their skill set. I jest. You already know my views on immigration, we are too densely populated and i’m still yet to receive an answer to the question ‘how many is too many?’ from either side. As for supremacy, I think everyone inside the EU is equally fucked so why would we pass up on a chance to enhance and better ourselves. Once we’ve actually left and done something with this country then yes, supremacy could be your argument, apart from the fact that we’re the same race…?

As for the Islamophobia aspect which I haven’t given any airtime to because it’s a pathetic argument which doesn’t warrant a response, yet i’m here writing this to clear things up. It’s a separate entity to racism as Islam isn’t a race, it’s a faith/religion. In the definition it states dislike politically, which isn’t possible as it’s a religion not a government, unless you’re basing it on the Islamic State? In which case then you should dislike it…also I think the definition has been skewed. Originally, putting phobia on the end of a word would be seen as having a fear or irrational fear of something, or scares/frightens you. Which Islam shouldn’t, all religions are outdated and we shouldn’t fear any of them. Society as a whole would benefit from the abolition of religion, however that goes against everything we stand for. I think that people look backwardly at Islam, in fact yet again I think they’re muddling Islam the religion and the culture associated with the religion. I’ll explain, say a Christian was to move to a Muslim country, they’d be expected to integrate and any other religion is publicly shunned in any Muslim countries. Yet when Muslims come to this country they aren’t asked to respect and integrate into our culture. The problem stems from Islam not having a proper reformation like the Christian faith has. That’s why they’re still stuck in the Dark ages with stoning of gays, etc… and we’ve got a liberal democracy based on Christian values that incorporates both genders, all races and religions. The argument i’ve seen against this is, the reforms are there but it doesn’t suit Muslims because of social and psychological needs. So basically they’re saying because it wouldn’t be acceptable to their peers and it goes against what their mind is telling them, so it’s fine not to reform. Which is where the problem lies. We can’t have thought police. Which brings us back around to one of my first points, don’t push them underground, we need to tackle them head on. It’s all part of the divide in this country.

We’ll see much more change in the coming year. Some good changes though, depending on which way you look at it. I think that Le Pen winning the French Presidency is the best thing that can happen to that poor country. Hollande is a wet lettuce, he showed just as much when he announced that he wouldn’t even bother trying to stand for re-election. There have been too many wishy washy leaders over the past 10-15 years in pretty much all European countries. The reason stems from the continent being divided, the leaders don’t stand for anything in particular. They care about trying to please as many people as possible and in doing so have helped create two sides. The one thing that was created to stop wars in Europe is brewing one up. The EU, came out publicly with their plans of a European Army, a very scary thought. If their argument is so that all the little states can all come together under one banner then that is as retarded as it is scary. What could they possibly need an army for? Nato is there for a reason. I can just see it all ending horribly when all of this posturing turns into an actual war. You can just tell the Russians won’t think twice about steamrollering a European Army and you know what, i’d be behind them. Europe needs to go back to being Europe. The EU isn’t a policing state. If it was created to stop war in Europe then it failed as the Balkans war in the 90s was handled by Nato and Ukraine recently was handled by no one. That’s what I envisage, Europe has become too soft and lovey dovey, none of the Ukrainians fought back and just let Russia invade. That’s why people feel endeared to strong leadership and leaders that stand for something or usually against something. Hollande stood and watched France get ravaged by Islamic extremism, which is all Germany’s fault for their shameful immigration policy and the mess that is the Schengen area. Watch me get called racist in 3-5 years time when the fighting has stopped and I say these ‘refugees’ should go back to their home country. I’ve gone over the definitions of refugees and migrants before no need to delve into it again.

I’d also like to take this chance upon looking back to say I told you so about all of the scaremongering about Brexit, as the country has already benefited in so many different ways, with increased investment and a strong economy in place. Even the previous Governor of The Bank of England, Lord King has stated that we would be in a good position without any kind of customs union (Hard Brexit) should we need to go down that route.

So many good things to look forward to in the coming year. My message for the coming year would be to better yourselves and do your bit in bridging the gap between the masses, as we need to be a strong unit as one so we can take on anything thrown at us in the tail end of this decade. When things get hard during negotiations with the EU, just remember the end goal and what it’ll mean to the future generations. We get too wrapped up in the present, that we sometimes forget what we do now echoes through time. We’re forever being judged for our actions, by ourselves in the future. Happy new year!

Refugee Crisis: The Blind Leading The Blind (Warning Graphic Content)

I have waited for a long time to write this article. Many reasons account for this, the main one being that I have learned from previous experience it’s best not to voice opinions on a fresh subject. It’s better to wait for it to fully unfold and you can give a more thorough and formed opinion on the state of events. Another one being the picture of little ‘Aylan’ washed up on the beach. Any article written opposed to the migration across Europe of Refugees was surely designed to fall on deaf ears if released at that time. Liberals were screaming left, right and centre about ‘how can we let this continue?!’ when in fact they were being blinded by a largely opinionated left wing press who had carved out an elaborate story of ‘the poor refugees’. As always there are two sides to every story, yet the other side has not been viewed to the public almost as if it has been censored.

I shall start with the tragedy of little Aylan. Now let’s start with the ‘left’ side of the story of a brave little boy trying to escape the clutches of a war torn country and doing everything he can to get to ‘safety’. That all sounds fine. But let’s switch the onus onto his father. Let’s say for example I took my little boy on a rubber dinghy and tried to sail across the Irish Sea to Dublin as I was trying to escape the disgusting corrupt government and countless paedophile rings in high society and needed to cross into the safety of Ireland as my reason? (Not too bad of a reason!) What would the ‘left’ side of the story be for that? I can see the headlines now “FATHER ENDANGERS CHILD’S LIFE IN DINGHY NIGHTMARE” I would have my child taken away from me as he is clearly not safe under my supervision and I would have completely put his life in jeopardy, in doing so I would probably be tried and convicted of gross negligence for my actions. I’m not saying what happened isn’t bad, what i’m saying is if the father really cared about his son, he would have thought a bit more about his life and taken a different route, maybe across land through Turkey? I understand the desperation and what it does to people but your kids come first and you have a responsibility for that child. Not at one point should you put them in danger just to get to your ‘end goal’.

Next I would just like to brush on the subject of who is actually trying to claim asylum. Now checking on the latest figures for % of refugees that are men, it says that 49.5% are male of that 29% are aged 18-59. Bearing in mind that these figures are for the registered refugees, which as we’ve seen a large share of them haven’t been properly documented and registered. Stories of ripped up passports and faking passports are rife as refugees pass on the word that Syrians are getting treated differently. Going by these statistics it’s astonishing that whenever I see any footage on any of the major networks, the majority of refugees I see are men. The ones always causing trouble, men. The ones breaking police lines and rioting, men. The ones pouring away water and throwing away food kindly given to them, men. The ones travelling all the way to Denmark & Calais trying to get into England and Sweden, men. It’s a slightly alarming trend. It’s also a trend that will come back to bite the liberals in the arse when the next up to date statistics are released. We are lucky in the UK having the opt-out clause for the relocation quota set by Brussels. I’m slightly concerned that these aren’t genuine refugees at all, they’re just opportunists. I’ve got a question that will anger and ensnare the lefties, if these men are willing to go to such lengths and to fight all of the forces across Europe like in Hungary & Denmark, why are they not fighting ISIS and trying to gain control of their country back?

If you go by the UN’s figures there are currently 3.8 million Syrian refugees, predicted to rise to 4.2 million by the end of this year. Roughly 1/4 of these are men, that means almost 1 million. You’re telling me that 1 million men couldn’t join up to defeat ISIS? They are weak minded cowards. That’s what sets us apart, they expect everything on a plate and to take priority in the world as they’ve been effected. No strength of character, no fight. The only thing I see is intelligence, they have identified the EU as an easy picking. Good healthcare and benefit systems and a ‘safety net’ because of the EU’s left leaning. Also because of the left leaning there is no integration plans or lessons to refugees as we can’t tell them what to do, which is disgraceful in my eyes. All these people know is war, uncivilised society, raping and pilaging, if that’s all they’ve seen and are angered about it, who are they going to take it out on if they haven’t stayed to fight ISIS? It will be the nice appeasing west who try and be nice and give them a life. There is no structure in place to explain they need to live by our rules now they are here, any uncivilised action will not be tolerated and they should be taught how to live as we do and how to properly integrate. Instead all you will see is more and more crime in the built up refugee areas, a higher % of rapes in these areas (already seen in large numbers in Sweden) more violence between them and the native population. Now as I say this i’m not tarring them all with the same brush, a lot of this doesn’t represent about half of the refugee population, the nice law abiding women and children most likely. The problem with this being they get away with it as there is a fear among the EU states that they will be seen as racist if they act accordingly.

Here’s a quick history lesson for you nice folk reading this, the EU was designed at the fall of the Second World War to be the end of all wars in Europe between France and Germany as they had fought relentlessly for the past few centuries back and forth. An ‘ever closer union’ was envisaged. It was only created to work for about 8 states, not the 28/29 that we have now. In an age where the EU is no longer called for and has been seen to be failing and crumbling for last few decades, it is not designed to be a Union of States that can cope with such an influx of immigration from an ever expanding Asian, Arabic & African populations. If it wasn’t working before then why are we even beginning to think it’s possible to deal with this crisis while the very same infrastructure is at breaking point? The whole time people are saying ‘why can’t we help them?’, what about us? Surely we should be concentrating on fixing our own broken system first before taking these people in. This very same point has infuriated me for many years, take Libya for example. The public were saying we need to do something to help these poor people under Gadaffi’s tyranny. We take action and take the fucker out, then the public blame the government saying we shouldn’t have intervened and it’s our fault all these refugee’s are displaced. I call it the two-headed monster of Liberalism. To be fair we have seen it coming for a while, being a supporter of UKIP I have expressed my concern of our open borders policy before any of this started.

Then you look at the open arm policy of Germany & Merkel, failing to take into consideration the massive overwhelming number of refugees that would actually turn up. The only problem with this being that once they have come to Germany and find out there is no room for them as they’re full up (which has happened now) they’re then stuck in the EU with no place to go. Merkel has politically shrugged her shoulders and gone well they’re here now, my solution is to offload the burden onto the other member states who never asked for it through a refugee quota that is soon to be enshrined in EU law. I will literally have no sympathy for Germany if there are any terrorist attacks inside their borders from now on, in my eyes they have brought that on themselves. They haven’t properly checked and registered all of these refugees flooding through their borders and haven’t got a fucking clue who is now in their country. I’ve seen lots of different figures so far but the average is about 420,000 already in Germany with Merkel citing that they should expect up to 800,000 by the end of the year. I think yet again she’s highly underestimated the number of people being displaced, and with her publicly saying they are all welcome she doesn’t have any idea how many hopeless refugees this will attract. The number I quoted of 3.8 million from Syria is for now. It is thought that half of Syria’s 22 million population will be refugees by the end of next year. Meaning that the figure of 4.2 million by the end of this year will be more than doubled by the end of next year. So I ask Mrs Merkel, where are we going to put the other 6-7 million next year? The fact is she hasn’t even looked that far ahead, she is in reactive mode not a proactive mode. She’s giving a temporary solution to a permanent problem.

The only bit of good that has come from this is the Egyptian(?) billionaire i’ve heard is willing to buy an island in Greece to home the refugees until the conflict has finished. He’s even planning on calling it Aylan Island, what a nice touch. But for me this begs an even bigger question, what have Saudi Arabia done? The richest of the OPEC states, which is roughly 150km from the Syrian border and a lot closer than the EU! It is also a muslim country so no integration needed. When the conflict finishes, if it ever does then it isn’t far for the refugees to relocate back to. Also having all that oil money means they could facilitate all of these refugees, in fact i’ve seen stories of the tents that millions are using for their annual pilgrimage to Mecca. Why can’t they house the refugees there? They have the money and resources to do so, why is the pressure on us to look after them. We are not a neighbouring country, we are not muslim states, we don’t have the money or facilities, we are already overpopulated and definitely don’t have the space. Whereas Saudi Arabia has all of this plus endless desert to create new towns to accommodate these refugees? Before anyone tries to shoot that down saying ‘how can you house them in the desert?’ Look at a fucking map, it’s almost identical to Syria’s landscape and climate so it’s not unreasonable. It’s not like it’s not ‘safe’ either considering it’s spending on defence is through the roof, buying up US jets and weapons. People citing their poor human rights record as a reason are the same people standing up for ‘Islam the religion of peace’, surely then they would open up their arms for their muslim brothers and not lay a finger on them? Islam is flawed and outdated, and in the wrong hands/eyes is a dangerous ideology. Maybe what happened in Mecca the other day was vicious karma for Saudi Arabia’s short comings and failures? Make your own conclusions from what happened, that’s just my cynical view of it.

This moves me onto alternative routes of migration. Until this quota came out Finland, Spain & Portugal have received hardly any asylum applications. This points directly to my earlier sentiment that they are literally just going to Sweden, Germany and the UK for the healthy benefits packages. If you’re prepared to go all the way to Sweden which is possibly the furthest away nation in the EU to travel to from Syria (apart from Norway) then why can’t you make the distance to Spain or Portugal? Or even closer Finland? Simple answer they have nothing to offer. Maybe they weren’t brought up with the saying ‘beggars can’t be choosers’. Which is one thing I hope they begin to learn from us! I’m sorry but if you are ‘fleeing’ to safety then you shouldn’t get a choice as long as you get to safety. They are abusing the laws in place for refugees that give them free passage. To me it’s outrageous as the whole point of free movement between EU states is that you are from a EU native state. Yet these people from outside the EU are getting the same rights making it void. Also due to the number of them, passport checks are few and far between and also not very well documented, so anyone could get through potentially even from other countries like Afghanistan or Pakistan.

The only EU leader that is speaking any sense is the Hungarian PM Viktor Orban, he’s the only one who has stood up against Germany in what he calls their ‘moral imperialism’. Which draws an interesting parallel, if you think about it Germany has in effect taken over Europe without a single shot being fired. They impose their ideas on the smaller member states that don’t have any clout and Germany has the biggest voice so it drowns out all opposition to it’s ‘solution’. The Eastern European members of the EU are mainly not in favour of the relocation program but are having it imposed on them as they are finally realising the downside to the ‘ever closer union’. The EU is on it’s knees in so many ways and I for one am watching closely for it’s downfall and i’m hoping this is the catalyst. Luckily, the UK is in a unique position where we already have a referendum coming on the exit of the EU and it wouldn’t rock the boat as much as a full member leaving. I’m disappointed that Greece hasn’t left the EU yet, same as Spain or Italy as it will kick start the domino effect. It’s better to be on the outside than inside, especially at a time like this. It perfectly highlights the constraints of being inside the EU, I want us to take back control of this country and fight for what is right! Then we take back the small things like control of our seas where the EU has been over-fishing and depleted fish populations and destroying underwater eco systems.

It doesn’t matter where you sit in this whole debate, only time will tell who is right and I hope for all your sake’s it’s me who is right. Mainly because if we carry on blindly behind Germany there will be nothing left to fight over. There is no one safeguarding our countries, institutions, traditions & cultures. We are at risk of losing all of this through overpopulating and excessive integration. Use your head and at least go into this with your eyes open and understand the severity of the situation that faces ALL of us. We have a right to be cautious and shouldn’t accept everyone willingly at the drop of a hat because some fat old woman in Germany says we should do so. We make our own choices and decisions and we think for ourselves. It doesn’t all add up and that should scare the absolute hell out of you, if it doesn’t then you’re already lost to their cause.