Labour Manifesto Run Through

By now I’m guessing you’ve read the Tory version of this, so you know what to expect, if you haven’t and are just reading this because it’s got the word Labour in it, then this is already lost on you. I’m not here to change minds, just give a clear view of what is on offer. Let’s begin.

I glossed over Corbyn’s foreword as I’m sure much like the Tories, it will be repeated later on. They start by making a pledge of not raising Income Tax for earners below £80,000, not raising National Insurance Contributions or VAT (Pro – a good strong start, Con – I feel as this is ‘fully costed’ they could have left themselves an option for raising capital by maybe omitting National Insurance contributions, so they could change it at a later stage to generate funds for the economy).

They say that Corporation Tax is the lowest in the developed world and that they will ask them to pay a bit more, whilst maintaining we will still be one of the lowest (Pro – generate a fair amount of income for HMRC, Con – if this is true then expect a hike of corporations tax by up to 6%, the average is about 25% with the exceptions of Denmark, Finland and Ireland, what’s to stop these corporations from leaving the financial centre in London? We have already seen it with Google in Ireland whose Corporation tax rate is only 12.5%).

They pledge to eliminate the deficit within 5 years (Con – highly unrealistic and they will be savaged by it in years to come if they get elected, very risky pledge to make).

Creation of the National Transformation Fund, investing £250bn over 10 years to enhance our economy (Con – considering they said this was fully costed the only explanation they give for where this money is coming from is ‘record low interest rates’, doesn’t seem plausible but we’ll carry on and see).

Completion of HS2 (Pro/Con – much like the Tories it’s not costed because the price keeps rising, it will benefit the country to complete this project though and any incumbent government will complete it anyway).

Build a new Brighton main line for the South East (Pro/Con – it’s good to see distribution of wealth in small regions like this, yet I can’t think of what the strategic importance of Brighton is? Surely the money is better spent connecting bigger cities with more to offer?).

They make the same promise as the Tories to roll out super fast broadband and increase 4G coverage across the land (Pro).

Setting out to make 60% of the UK’s energy come from zero carbon or renewable energy sources by 2030 (Pro – this will keep environmentalists on side and is a step towards a cleaner country, Con – yet again probably paid for by more green taxes or levies).

Committing to spending 3% of GDP on Industrial research and development in regards to manufacturing (Pro).

Moving towards a 20:1 gap between highest and lowest paid at boardroom level (Pro).

Creation of a Digital Ambassador to liase and encourage investment and to accommodate easy start ups, to put Britain on the front foot for the future (Pro).

Creation of the National Investment Bank with the lending power of £250bn, bridging the gap where small businesses and projects wouldn’t usually get investment from other banks (Pro – great for the little guy, Con – there’s usually a reason behind people not getting accepted, as the loan is considered too much of a risk and if too many default on their payments then the government will spend even more in trying to recoup the costs).

Re-nationalisation of Royal Mail, Water Companies, Railways and Energy firms (Pro – it would decrease overall spending of the consumer by a large margin, Con – the initial outlay will be immense and a couple of these Royal Mail and Railways won’t be up for sale for a long time).

Energy wise, Homeowners will be given interest free loans to improve their property E.g installing solar panels, double glazing, etc…(Pro).

Ban Fracking (Con – until research is thoroughly conducted as to whether it damages the environment, you shouldn’t rule out a massive untapped market, bad move economically).

Negotiating Brexit – Scrap Conservative White paper and establish new bill that sets out guarantees to workers rights, staying in customs union and Single Market (Big Con – now this is me being unbiased, they quite clearly stated that they respect the decision of the referendum but in the very next sentence set out an aim of basically staying inside the EU? Also a poor negotiating stance, letting the opposition know what you’re going to be negotiating towards, as they won’t let you have it).

Rules out a ‘no deal’ (Big Con – if you can’t get a good deal out of the EU then you have done badly but haven’t failed, a no deal is the last stab in the heart for the EU, as it is more advantageous for us as they buy more from us then we buy from them, levying a 10% tariff on goods through WTO rules is the last thing on the EU’s mind, rest assured they will cave or face the consequences).

They make the same pledges to making sure regions don’t lose our on ‘EU money’ (which was ours anyway) and want to broker peace in Northern Ireland ASAP (Pro).

No ‘hard border’ between Northern and Republic of Ireland post Brexit (Pro – worth mentioning that even though it’s not mentioned in Tory Manifesto this is the broad view of all political parties as it would destabilise the region and create tension unnecessarily).

Giving Parliament the final say on Brexit deal (Con – they can’t be trusted not to derail the process).

Stating Freedom of Movement will end with Brexit (Big Pro).

Put a stop to Overseas only recruitment (Pro).

Committing to taking our fair share of refugees (Big Con – it’s just another way around immigration numbers, also not stating a clear amount).

Commits to rejoining World Trade Organisation rules post Brexit (Pro).

Creation of the National Education Service, free at the point of use ‘from cradle to grave’ (Pro – it’s nice they want to recreate what Clement Attlee did with the health service and do the same with education, Con – however purely because of what Attlee did this isn’t productive or sustainable money wise, look at the NHS budget over the years, there isn’t enough money for it meaning there isn’t enough money for this before it has even started, a great notion and attempt at a long lasting legacy, yet not to be).

Restructuring the support for early years childcare, extend what the Tories offer to 3 and 4 year olds down to 2 year olds as well, making sure affordable childcare is available to everyone, also making some childcare available for 1 year olds and increasing maternity pay to cover 12 months (Biggest Pro on here! Its a big left hook to the Tories chin as I mentioned in the previous Tory Run Through, our childcare system lags far behind others and this is a massive positive step in the right direction, Con – only a slight Con – my optimism is met by my niggling pessimism yet again asking how will you ever pay for it but I’ll let Labour have this one as it’s their best policy I can get behind!).

Reversing cuts in funding to schools and balancing out of redistribution of funds to historically worse off schools (Pro – schools are massively underfunded which has a profound effect on how much they can pay teachers which is why we have a shortage, Con – I’m hoping this fully costed Manifesto has a breakdown of the numbers somewhere near the end, as this is one of many points that I’m yet to see a figure on!).

Reduction in class sizes to less than 30 for five, six and seven year olds (Pro).

Free school meals for all primary school children paid for by removing VAT exemption on private school fees (Pro – finally something costed! It’s a good idea yet, Con – charging some kids for the sake of others doesn’t bode well for someone who claims to be all for equality,  the famous saying ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’, this could create a rift in the class system as private school kids look down on others as they’re paying for them, which gives them an air of superiority in some regards, messy business but I agree with it).

Improving children’s mental health by extending school based counselling at a cost of £90m a year (Pro – mental health issues don’t form overnight when you hit your teens, this could have a profound effect on combating mental health issues later in life).

Restoring EMA to lower and medium income teens (Pro).

Abolishing tuition fees for university (Pro – fully support this as no student should be buried in debt upon leaving uni, Con – not costed, sorry I know I’m trying to be unbiased but they shouldn’t have made such a stupid promise of being fully costed, plus if it’s funded by the taxpayer then students will take a lot of heat for basically having uni paid for, so they can go out and get pissed it’s what it used to be like even when it was at £3k!).

Ban zero hours contracts (Con – they work for the people that want them on a flexible basis E.g mums and students, Pro – they’re poor if this the only kind of work you can get).

Ban companies from undercutting British workers by getting foreign workers (Pro – finally a mainstream party eluding to wage compression due to foreign workers/ immigrants!).

Raise minimum wage to £10 ph by 2020 (Pro/Con – made the same point about the Tories and how it creates redundancies).

Banning unpaid internships (Pro – wholly unfair to the intern, Con – position may be outsourced and offered to foreign workers instead).

Double paid paternity leave for new fathers to four weeks (Big Pro).

Scrap the Bedroom Tax (Pro and Con).

Reinstating housing benefit to under 21s (Pro).

Creation of Ministry for Housing which is aimed at dealing with the housing crisis (Con – another waste of resources and another meaningless ministry).

Aim to build 100,000 council and housing association homes in the next parliament (Pro – heed caution every government fails to meet targets of house building, Tories included).

Inflation cap on private renting (Pro).

Free parking in hospitals paid for by increasing the tax of private medical insurance premiums (Pro).

Scrap NHS pay cap and have it run by an independent pay review body (Pro – healthcare professionals need a well earned pay rise for such a demanding job, Con – more needs to be done to cut out bureaucracy and middle managers as they will be the ones to profit from pay increases, which isn’t fair on nurses who deserve it more).

Reintroduction of bursaries for nursing degrees (Pro – however not costed).

An extra £30bn in funding for NHS paid for by taxing the top 5% of earners, increasing tax on private insurance and halving the fees to management consultants (Pro – may not be as clear cut as that, top 5 % of earners may bugger off to Switzerland and take their money with them, then you’d have a massive black hole in your NHS budget, be careful using the NHS as a political football!).

Introduction of a National Care Service with an increase to social care spending to the tune of £8bn over the next parliament (Con – it’s a nice idea, but realistically they say it’s budget will be pooled within the overall NHS budget which is unpredictable and technically uncosted, hate to say as I’m trying to give Labour a fair review here but they’re letting themselves down).

Labour want to increase police officer numbers by 10,000 (Con – I have to bring up that shameful Diane Abbott interview in which she couldn’t come up with a number of how much it will cost so not likely to happen!).

500 more Border Force operatives (Con – uncosted, this is getting boring now!).

3000 more firefighters (Con – yep you guessed it uncosted, this is hard to stay unbiased as Labour are shooting themselves in the foot, why spout rhetoric of a fully costed Manifesto and then not expect people to read it!).

Wish to retain Human Rights Act (Con – would much prefer to scrap it and introduce a Bill of Rights with the main parts of Human Rights E.g right to a fair trial etc…enshrined into it, but to make it easier to deport criminals to free up our overcrowded and underfunded prison system).

3000 more prison guards (Con – After stating that prisons are overcrowded and staffing levels are too low, they yet again haven’t costed this).

There is a section on transport and Railways but going back to my previous point of them not being able to do anything until they have bought it back, makes it an irrelevant point at the moment and I won’t include it as to stay impartial.

Striving for a transport network with zero deaths and reintroducing Road safety targets (Big Con – setting themselves a completely unrealistic and unachievable target is narrow minded and in doing so bringing back Road safety targets, which promotes use of speed cameras and lowering of speed limits which I definitely can’t back!).

They try and take a dig at the Tories about not having a clue about farming and fishing policy, yet I have quite clearly made the point in my previous run through, unsound, unnecessary and flawed rhetoric. (Con).

They make the same point of creating a Blue Belt but only state around the UK and not inclusive of our Overseas Territories (Pro/Con – pipped to it by the Tories).

Banning pesticides that kill bees as soon as we’re out of EU same as Tories (Pro).

Maintain Ban on foxhunting (Pro/Con).

There is a section about Creativity and the Arts and lots of promises about funds, yet no costs so I’m not going to entertain the idea of sifting through these policies as they have holes in them, so in the interest of being balanced I shall move on.

They come out in support of the BBC which is a big turn off for voters, it’s quite apparent that the TV licence will be cut or scrapped altogether in the not too distant future, which I fully support as the continuing left bias of the BBC is frustrating considering we pay for it. Maybe they should have advertising of only British products to promote our industries? Who knows! Plus they covered up Saville, hey ho moving on.

In the next section they admit a desire for a more federalistic state, which I knew they’d cram in somewhere with Corbyn being a massive Republican (Big Con).

Reduce the number in the House of Lords and make them elected (Pro/Con – too many Lords don’t do their job and turn up just to get paid an allowance which is a total abuse of the system, plus it’s an unrepresentative cross section who get picked. Though constitutional reform on this scale will be met with a backlash, as the actual Lords that have got there for being an expert in their field and have an valuable insight into their field will be lost).

Lower the voting age to 16 (Big Con – politics isn’t even taught in schools at this point and is dangerous to add this demographic to the voting register, regardless of your counter argument it’s irresponsible).

They don’t support a second Scottish referendum (Pro).

However, they go on to say they will increase funds to them which deletes the point of having the Barnet formula and I also agree with the Tories that given the devolved powers over taxation, they’re lagging behind and don’t warrant that much funding. (Con).

There’s a lot of waffle in this Manifesto, more so than the Tories, which I didn’t think was possible yet there’s 128 pages in this compared to the 88 of the Tories, although every 3-4 pages there’s a picture or blank page.

Next they take a stab at the Tories for rolling back gender equality for women, bit of a retarded statement from a party that’s never had a female leader, yet the Tories have had two female Prime Ministers, your point is imvalid and redundant. (Big Con).

They go on a big about LGBT and racism, stating they’re against antisemitism, yet Ken Livingstone has only been suspended for antisemitic remarks not permanently suspended, one rule for you, one rule for others? Contradictory (Con).

In a section named diplomacy they quite clearly state they’re opposed to the current US administration and that the special relationship is only based on shared values, which is unreasonable and unstatesman like. As PM he says he will exhaust all diplomatic services with nations, yet isn’t willing to get along with our closest ally for the good of our countries, even Theresa May got on with him for fuck sake. (Big Con – unnecessary).

They support a two state system in Israel for Palestine which is yet again unrealistic, however we’re uniquely involved as we caused this problem in the first place, however taking into account what happened in WW2 and the persecution of the Jews, they deserve a state of their own so that they don’t have to run or escape persecution ever again. Yet again I will side with our Israeli allies anytime (Con).

They believe that diplomatic dialogue with North Korea is needed to diffuse the situation in the peninsula (Pro/Con – could go either way).

Committed to spending 2% of GDP on defense as part of NATO obligations (Pro).

Now Corbyn’s biggest weak point, even though in the Manifesto it states they commit to renewing Trident after his calamitous answers to the audience in the leaders debate, no one can actually believe anything he says about Trident as he wouldn’t actually ever use it (Biggest Con – like I said weakest point, you couldn’t feel safe under Corbyn).

A good point on defense, he’d commit to procuring British Steel and using it in the manufacturing of defense equipment (Pro).

Finally they commit 0.7% of GDP to ‘international development’ which is a fancy way of saying foreign aid (Con – money better used elsewhere like on all of the uncosted pledges that I have picked out!).

I will give this Manifesto a 6.5 out of 10, you might be puzzled by this as I found so much wrong with it, yet on balance they had some strong ideas that I agree with, there are only three major sticking points for me. Obviously the notion that this was fully costed, if they didn’t shout about it so much this would have been on par with or just behind the Tories. Secondly, the unnecessary swipe at Trump which had nothing to with the election in general dented his credentials as a world leader. Finally, it has to be the weak stance on Trident, it really was the nail in the coffin for Labour, especially after the Diane Abbott debacles!

All I have to say is that I wrote these as a helpful guide for people, if you disagree with my unbiased view then the actual Manifesto is readily available and you can see it for yourself. I have nothing to gain by not stating facts, bear in mind I support neither of these parties! I hope this was…educational. As ever, 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.

Image result for marine le pen

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.

And finally to end on a good note, Merkel’s administration is coming to an end in 2017. 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!

The Movement

I write this piece as I feel it was touched upon recently but not properly aired to the masses. As you can tell by now i’m firmly against being a member of the EU and wish for us to withdraw. Same old stuff you hear from most ‘right wingers’ like myself right? The age old come back of “immigration makes this country” springs to mind in defence of my voiced opinions. However, I feel I have half created a solution to this problem to keep all sides happy. Thanks to Mr Farage, who in his hard fought interview with Evan Davis came out with the notion that he’d “prefer migrants from India and Australia.” While there is nothing wrong with this in my eyes, there has been massive backlash over it as the left wing media has shouted out that he hates Eastern Europeans which is completely untrue. I completely understand what Mr Farage was trying to get across though.

I think as a possible/viable option if we leave the EU, we could introduce a new free movement of people. The people i’m referring to though are a bit different to what you might expect. I think we should extend an olive branch to the 16 remaining nations across the globe that still share our Queen. They have decided against joining the anti-royal brigade and stuck with her, in doing so sticking with us. As Head of State of all our nations I can’t see why free movement and easier trade between our nations couldn’t be easily sorted out, if we needed migrants to prop up our economy if it did ‘shrink’ after we left the EU, rather than sourcing our migrant labour force from a pool of 500 million EU citizens and open the flood gates screaming ‘our economy is dying without you’, we should open the door to the other nations that we actually share a history and an institution with? That’s what Mr Farage was trying to get at, we actually have things in common and uphold some sort of common values and principles. Also the overall combined populations of these nations comes to about 75 million of which i’m sure about just over half are of working age or with skills actually needed in this country. I’d rather open the invitation to them as I feel there would be easier social cohesion and integration.

I understand the argument would arise that why are we leaving out the other colonial nations e.g India, USA, etc… and that it’s having double standards and having a selective and discriminating outlook on immigration. That is why I worded it in the manner I did, those that still share the Monarchy would be welcome, these other nations gained independence from the UK and the Queen and that is why the invitation would not be open to them. Plus taking into account that India has a population of 1 billion people and the USA is an immigrant nation I don’t think opening the borders to them would be advantageous for either countries.

I feel at least the idea should be floated in the public domain, even if it is totally lambasted and scrutinised to within an inch of it’s life by the liberal establishment, like everything else these days. At least the idea would be out there to gather momentum or even lead to other ideas. Everyone has their own views on things, if anything it would create discussion and dialogue, which is healthy to have. Especially on the touchy subject of immigration, which I feel is yet again being manipulated by the media in their favour, as they always seem to try and use it as a tool to suppress the voice and opinions of the right, who in a democratic society have just as much right to air their opinions even if the liberals disagree with it. For that exact reason it should definitely be put out there as you need a balance, there’s too much of a nanny culture and political correctness. It squeezes the life out of any rational debate on most subjects, as frequently “you can’t say that”. We can’t give in and just say “okay you’re right”. We have the right to stand up to these people as quite rightly we are all ‘equal’ as they often remind us. If we are equal then why is their opinion better than mine? Mine is equally as important. It’s like they’re saying they are MORE equal than us. Now that sounds horrendously like the slave trade, when they used to be classed 2/3 of a person. One set of people can’t be more equal than another. I read an interesting quote recently by Huey Long (often misquoted as by Churchill) he said “When Fascism comes to America, it will (be in the name of/come under the guise of/be called) anti-Fascism!“. It all starts to sound a bit of a coincidence. I understand obviously we aren’t in America, yet the same thing could apply to England right now. I’ve encountered it many times whilst trying to speak out in favour of traditional sentiments and conservative ways of looking at the world and any time you put it across you are shouted down as a ‘racist/fascist’. So now I put this idea across of free movement between us and these 16 remaining sovereign nations and finally show that in the right format I’m actually FOR immigration. Obviously this all hinges on us leaving the EU though. I would very much like to hear what other British people think of this idea? As ever, thank you for reading!

The 16 remaining sovereign nations:

Canada

Australia

New Zealand

Papua New Guinea

Antigua & Barbuda

The Bahamas

Barbados

Belize

Grenada

Jamaica

St Kitts & Nevis

Saint Lucia

Saint Vincent & The Grenadines

Solomon Islands

Tuvalu