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!

 

 

Advertisements

In the Heart of the Beast

I’ve been doing some reading this week as I’ve been off with the flu. With the biggest talking point being the triggering of Article 50 and the final days before Brexit officially starts, I decided to read about the origins of this hideous institution. I came at it from the angle of the Remainers who cling so dearly to this ideology of ‘freedom’. I’ve already been down the road of attacking the EU as a system and for having poor democratic value. I’ve attacked the individuals in charge, the fear-mongering, the poor displacement of funds, the links with Goldman-Sachs and the Schengen Area. So I’ve decided to go back to the very beginning and attack the root core of this whole thing.

I start with a name unknown to me until now but after reading most of what I can about him, it is obvious he was the mastermind behind the EU all the way back in the 1920s. I’ve talked about Robert Schuman before who I thought was one of the ‘founding fathers’ of the EU, which he was. However, the real mastermind that i’m talking about was Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi (from now I shall refer to him as RVCK). He was the original driving force behind European integration, the failed project we see today. His name might be recognised by those of you that enjoy conspiracy theories, as he was a member of the Freemasons and also had links with the Rothschild Family.

A short summary is that he was the opposite of Hitler but had the same end goal. Mein Kampf was released in 1925, as was Kampf um Paneuropa (RVCK’s vision of a unionised Europe). It’s well known of Hitler and his fear of the Russian Bear which is why throughout the 30s, anti-Russia rhetoric was at it’s most volatile and eventually why Nazi Germany expanded East in it’s search for Lebensraum. However, RVCK played on the same fear-mongering (much like the EU is now) warning of a Russian invasion if they didn’t come together and create a European defensive alliance. This, I feel is the last obstacle for the EU. You only have to look back a matter of months in the aftermath of Brexit when there was talk of a European Army. He also states the other two reasons behind a European Union.

“The danger of European war of extermination can only be averted by a pan-European agreement to arbitrate; the risk of Russian rule can only be averted by a pan-European defensive alliance; the risk of economic
ruin can only be averted by a pan-European Customs Union.”

He was right in a sense. Little did he know that inside 20 years, a war of extermination did break out, but it was his opposite number Hitler who was the aggressor. But rather than an extermination of Europeans, Hitler targeted Jews, Gays, Gypsys etc… The last point ignites the humorous and cynical side of me, ‘the risk of economic ruin can only be averted by a pan-European Customs Union’, if he was alive today i’d like him to visit Greece or Spain and tell me how it works so well for them. I know the Euro has a lot to do with it as well but it seems so ironic. Hitler knew of RVCK and famously branded him a ‘bastard’.

One of my favourite parts that i’d like to share with the Remainers is this passage.

“Russia and England are Paneuropa neighbors. These two empires are viable even without Europe – while the remaining States of the Hemisphere are connected by their geographic location common destiny; condemned, either jointly basis to go – or resurrected together.”

There is my case for our self determination. We were never in the plans for the EU from day one, they recognised us as a self sustaining nation.

“From many sides, the inclusion of England is required in the future Pan. This claim fails because of the construction of the British Federal Empire. Never the Dominions would tolerate that England swing to another state system into closer relationship as to them; so that is the connection of the English kingdom of Pan-Europa obsolete. The connection of the British Empire Federal Pan-Europa to lapses by the impossibility to transform Canada into a European state. The consequence of this challenge
in America would be the connection of Canada in the Pan American Union and the disintegration of the British Empire.”

It was only after the fall of the Empire and Ted Heath tricking the public into thinking it was in our common interest for us to join. Plus he raised a good point that members of the commonwealth wouldn’t have accepted our involvement, which in relation to one of my previous posts ( https://gunnerlukey.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/the-movement/ ) should lead to us building a good healthy relationship with the remaining commonwealth nations, that the Queen is still a Head of State of. Once we finally leave of course.

There’s a few more things i’d like to brush upon. The most revealing point in my eyes is his affection for world domination and trying to create a Europe that vies for power as a 5th world power. No matter under what banner, whether it be for peace or freedom, if the writer is pushing for more than that then he’s just power hungry, much like Hitler. The similarities between RVCK’s description of Europe and Hitler’s of Germany after the Treaty of Versailles are close. They both felt that they were wounded and weak and both feel the desire to convey prosperity through unified work. Albeit on two different ends of the scale under different banners, yet still so remarkably the same. The only difference is RVCK is asking for it, Hitler wants to take it aggressively with power. Hitler did what he does best and banned the PanEuropa Movement when he came into power, thus eliminating any opposition to his plans. I can’t help but feel if the shoe was on the other foot and PanEuropa gained momentum earlier like Nazism that we’d still be looking back at a catastrophic war. You know what they say though, once a massive evil is banished it only leaves behind a vacuum.

“The old Europe had world domination. Outwardly sure it could afford the luxury of internal wars without danger to life. In the twentieth century that European world domination collapsed. Asia awoke under Japanese leadership. America outperformed all European states, Russia has been solved by the introduction of the Sovietism of Europe, England has come from a major European power to head an intercontinental world power whose focus is in the Indian Ocean. This growing organization of the non-European world into mighty empires is the growing disorganization of the European World over. Here the fragmentation has made further progress by the war. In Central Europe, two Great Powers fell to a number of smaller states to make room. So Europe is forced out of the center of the world, once the subject of world politics – it has become their object: weakened, wounded, destitute, torn. A recovery of European world domination is impossible; but it is possible, by combining the European
States to unite this continent, as a fifth world power and save the peace, freedom and prosperity of Europeans”

RVCK played the long game. His movement started to gain real momentum after the war when his idea was given lip service by notable people, Einstein and Churchill to name a couple. Yet again though, Churchill never saw the UK as part of that in his Zurich speech but conceded that we needed to have good relations and work together. It seems to me after reading the whole thing, that it’s rather anti-british, almost like he’s jealous of what we had and if you carefully look back through the history of the EU/EEC (which I have), from De Gaulle through until now with Juncker. There’s this overwhelming feeling of disdain and lack of respect for the UK coming from the EU. I’m not surprised after reading what I just have, if the mastermind behind the whole project had negative feelings towards the UK, then it has transcended throughout the generations of EU luvvies.

I think it’s entrenched in the mindset of all that hold it dear. Even in another one of his points “No Europeans will be able to dodge this decision. Before making that decision neutrality is treason. Who is not Pan-European – is anti-European!” the notion that if you’re not with them you aren’t European. It’s a phrase I hear a lot of Remainers using in the wake of Brexit and it bugs me because the EU and Europe are two different things. Something that I think a lot of people have lost sight of, yet they will soon realise their mistake.

I also want to pull out this extract from the PanEuropa propaganda: “For this struggle for Europe, I call on all, in the possibility and the necessity of the United States of Europe, believe; but a program – for the Pan-Europa is no utopia; not a dream – but a demand! Against this great goal disappear the contrasts of the nation, religion and party: first must be a house built before the dispute over the wallpaper begins!”

This was his attempt at creating a nationless entity easily controlled without politics or religion. He wanted to create a slave race. Without party politics or allegiances you have no direction or power and nothing to stand for. With no specific religion to guide your principles, you’re nothing but a pawn. That’s the most important thing we should take from this. Our years in the wilderness have passed and on the other side of Brexit we need to reclaim our identity. The EU starves nations of identity and cultural heritage. They have slowly eaten away at our history because they’re scared of what we would or could become. They have eroded the powers of the nation states because they can’t be trusted. If you read that and thought that’s a good thing because historically Europeans just start wars with each other, then I ask you, does that make the EU a policing state? If so, then why is it okay? We have the right to self determination, we make the rules not them. We all grew up thinking of 1984 as a dystopian nightmare, well we’re living in one massive policing state. It’s not just going to stop when we leave.

*I want to take time out here to explain that i’m not a massive loon and not a Nazi sympathiser or anything untoward. I have just tried to awaken people to the world we live in and the danger the EU poses to EVERY single European country, not just our own. I have tried numerous different ways like I stated at the beginning. Now bear with me whilst I go on one of my almost conspiracy theories (I don’t believe most of them!) and then conclude my article, I promise there is a message in there for all of us somewhere!*

The reason it won’t stop is because (deep breath please don’t think i’m crazy) we’re part of the biggest experiment known to man. Multiculturalism has never been experimented with on this scale anywhere in the world EVER. You’ve read my articles before about demographics and how densely populated the UK is, have you ever wondered why we’re the most watched country in the world (cctv wise)? Why our security services go through absolutely everything (GCHQ) and rival that of the US and Russia? It’s the notion that we can’t be trusted again. It’s because we’re unpredictable because we don’t have a national psyche anymore. You go anywhere else in the world and pretty much you know what a country is going to be like because of their culture. There may be subtle differences in different regions (Texas isn’t the same as New York) but they all bleed the same blood and share the same core values. We don’t. That’s why there is a divide among our people. Culturally, the UK doesn’t know where it stands.

I’ve noticed it more and more recently and i’m controversially going to come out and say it, they don’t want white europeans to procreate anymore. (That’s it this guy is off his rocker) It’s not just white people either, it’s aimed more at young people in general. It’s being drummed into us now that ‘it’s fine for women to have careers and not children’ or ‘having kids in your forties is fine’ no and no. Women create life full stop. That is what they’re put here to do, I don’t mean that in a condescending way but to ensure survival of our species (the human race) we procreate, all lifeforms for that matter are the same. Plus having kids in your forties presents all kinds of risks and problems. I’ll explain what I mean about the first bit now if you’re still reading.

Have you noticed people are only having 1 or 2 kids nowdays? No, okay. A sweeping general statement I know but I shall continue. They make it so that we can’t afford to have anymore than that, then over time you see that birth rates are declining. Rather than fixing the problem and promoting the idea of having kids and giving parents help or make it easier for them, they’d rather just bring people in from outside to mix the gene pool up. That’s what has happened with the massive influx in Germany.

They want us to mix and they call it cultural enrichment, the mixing of cultures. Which is fine in small doses, what is slowly happening is cultural replacement where droves of different cultures and religions come into the country in unrestricted and unlimited numbers and they’re encouraged to ‘integrate’. Like I say on a small scale this would be fine, anyone can be with whoever they want these days and that’s fine. But in such high numbers it has fractured our culture. I’ll put it in a way it can relate with everyone, there’s nothing wrong with a Jack Daniels and Coke, what we’re ending up with is a dirty pint and we’re getting fucked! Say for example we have a Nigerian and a Korean immigrant come here and have a child, now if you ask that child what does it feel like is it going to say ‘British’? More than likely yes, but what British influence do they have in their lives? I’m not saying they have to go morris dancing or go to the pub and this is the exact problem, we don’t have a national identity to buy into anymore. This brings me back around to RVCK, as in another publication he wrote he stated this: “The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals. Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit. This happened at the moment when Europe’s feudal aristocracy became dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation.”

It’s been a big masterplan from the beginning and that is why we need to come together now in the face of Brexit. I want to extend my hand out to the Remainers as from now on, we’re leaving whether you like it or not. But we need each other so that we can create a true British identity for when we rejoin the global stage as a REAL nation. We can’t do that when we’re divided and arguing. So I will take the first step in saying, even though i’m still enjoying the win of the referendum and will hold it dear for many years to come, i’m moving on. The next win is more important, I will enjoy beating the EU more than my fellow compatriots with getting a one off deal. If we pull that off then all of this will seem distant and irrelevant in comparison. The end goal is to tear down the EU, as for me they pose the same threat that the Nazis did to our country all those years ago. Only difference is, the EU has had some control of our country, something the Nazis never even got close too. It’s a financial & judicial war they wage, not one of a militaristic nature. The only problem being, when we eventually crush the heart of the beast, as always there will be a vacuum and we ALL need to be start thinking of what’s coming next.

*If you’ve made it here I commend you, thank you so much for reading my inner ramblings!

The Next Big Movement

People who have read my articles in the past know that I don’t support our outdated voting system. Now is probably the best time to bring this up again. After the result of the American Presidential election and the anger and outrage at the electoral college and their outdated voting system, it’s time we have a look at our own. My main reason for taking interest in this issue originally was in the last General Election I voted for UKIP, perceived by most as a ‘protest vote’. The party overall made massive inroads on the overall vote, collecting 3.8 million votes. To put that into context we got nearly three times the amount of votes than the SNP who collected 1.4 million votes, yet they gained 56 seats in our parliament and we got 1 seat. From what I see in this divided country at the moment I would expect mass outrage from our ‘liberal’ friends who are busy trying to delay brexit. Yet not a whisper has been heard. They tried to champion proportional representation in a white paper motion which I fully commend the Greens for doing, I even wrote to my MP Sir Paul Beresford and asked him to get behind the motion which was a fools errand, as I was told in no uncertain terms that he whole heartedly opposed it and that was the end of that. It fell on deaf ears. I understand why, the people in power aren’t going to give away more of their power and damage their own party and interests.

Also it didn’t have the full blooded support that it really needed to get off the ground. I don’t think however that this is the best course of action or indeed the right cause to be supporting. When going for complete change you have a harder time persuading people and changing their minds. So I move onto the next stage. I had a massive brainwave (or so I thought) about 2 months ago of a brilliant new system that I devised in my head that supported both the current way of voting and a form of proportional representation, a hybrid if you will. Which would be easier to sell to the public and parliament alike, rather than cutting numbers of MPs or anything drastic of that nature. Yet to my disbelief after looking it up online, a form of my ‘vision’ already exists. Before I tell you which system it is I shall explain it and try to sell it to you.

Quite simply the numbers and areas that hold the power in parliament aren’t proportionate, so why not tip the balance of power. There are a huge amount of seats in London and Scotland which don’t reflect the views of the overall country. So by changing constituency boundaries of places like London and Scotland you could essentially free up a huge amount of seats and put them to use. By creating a regional MP as well as a constituency MP, so that say for example a party gained a huge amount of votes but came second in all of the constituencies they would still get some MPs who would be the voice for the people who didn’t vote for the constituency MP. Otherwise you get what we have now, with swathes of UKIP support but no one to give us a voice in parliament, including might I add the House of Lords (that’s for another time!). So it would give more of a balanced debate in the House and actually reflect the views of the country, there would also be no more ‘shock’ results like Brexit as people would actually be heard and their opinions transmitted onto a higher platform.

Now the downside to this is that where it’s already used, the regional MP is looked upon as a lesser MP and someone who couldn’t win a seat. So to combat that I thought of a different way to approach it, instead of being picked from a party list system the MP who wins the largest majority in a region is ‘promoted’ to regional MP and a candidate of a party who won the most amount of votes but came second would take his/her place as constituency MP, thus taking away the stigma of regional MP because the regional MP will have resounding support from the electorate. This is of course is the Additional Member System which is currently used in the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament, but with a few tweaks. Imagine my excitement and then withering disappointment all in the space of about 5 minutes when I devised it and then the realisation it already existed in some form! So there goes my dream of being a pioneer or revolutionary of electoral reform. I’ll just stick to fighting it out with Liberals and shouting down Political Correctness shall I…?

There is a huge disconnect between the London Elite and the rest of the country, this is why it needs to change and why in this form of voting the number of MPs from London would be more evenly distributed. There is no doubt that this country is divided, especially when it comes to politics. This form of voting system would be easier to use in persuading the masses as it isn’t too far different from the current system and from what i’ve seen after Brexit, change angers privileged millenials and the upper classes alike. Yet if we’re actually to move forward as a country after Brexit has actually taken place then we definitely need to drag this archaic system into the 21st century and really give the power back to the people. This legal farce that is taking place isn’t ‘giving the power to the people’ it is creating a bigger divide still. Gina Miller has single-handedly disenfranchised 17 million voters. Quite frankly, the abuse she receives is duly deserved apart from the death threats as I don’t believe people should be killed or threatened for their views. She actually believes she is the ‘champion of the people’ and believes in parliamentary sovereignty, then please explain why she is taking court action against the government and their plans on Brexit. The DEMOCRATICALLY elected government who have a mandate to govern the country from the electorate. Yes the referendum was advisory, yet the government would take the advice and implement the decision. It is as clear cut as it can get. Yet this rich women who thinks she speaks for normal ordinary people is trying to bypass the system by throwing money at it. She’s also cast doubt over the judiciary in this country by dragging it through the courts, as the verdict was poorly devised by the three judges in charge. The people voted to Leave why delay it, if it’s a matter of Royal prerogative then why hasn’t anyone talked to the Queen? I understand that she has to stay impartial as a constitutional monarchy and can’t show any political leaning, yet the decision rests with her and surely if the people she rules over have spoken then it should be implemented. The question was asked and you got the answer, stop being a sore loser and get on with your life. Trying to throw the country into further turmoil should be seen as a treacherous act, the end.

This movement is where the next big burst of political pressure should come from. Maybe in the new year and before Article 50 is triggered, UKIP especially should get behind this as they have the most to gain from it. But also it should be considered by normal voters as regardless of whatever political allegiances we have, this move is in the interest of the nation. Scotland and London won’t see it in this way, but then again what they think doesn’t reflect the views of the nation as a whole and it would benefit us to go down this road. It would also help to bridge the divide in the country and hopefully give hope to the electorate that eventually everyone will get a say in how their country is run.

If you enjoyed this please share!

Future Landscape

I’m going to start with the statement from the Remain campaign that the Brexiters don’t know what’s going to happen if we Leave the EU. “Don’t take the risk”. Okay then, please tell me what’s going to happen if we STAY in the EU then…? The simple answer is no one can tell what the future holds, the future isn’t written. The same applies with the EU, no one knows what’s going to happen.

Let’s talk certainties then, if we Leave the Economy will shrink, I can admit that but only in the short term, the markets/investors don’t like uncertainty but once we’ve actually left and the dust has settled everyone will know where they’re at and it will spike back up when there is less doubt. Next, Trade won’t stop immediately after we Leave. For the next two years whilst we’re negotiating trade deals, everything will stay the same as it is now. DO NOT expect change overnight! Anyone thinking they’ll wake up on the 24th of June and we’ll immediately be free from the shackles of the EU is deluded. There won’t be a massive wave of immigrants running to Calais thinking they’re going to get blocked from coming in, that will most likely happen nearer the end of the two years when we will be stemming the flow and we rescind the Freedom of Movement. Everyone inside football will be kicking off (excuse the pun!) about how players from the EU will now be subject to work permits and Visas, which is no different from any player from outside the EU, might I add. All that’s happening will be a levelling of the playing field, in more ways than one. We’ll also watch the Eurozone crumble and burn without our money.

Let’s talk about the certainties of the Remain side, to start we won’t get another chance to vote on this for about 20 years (minimum), no matter how hard we try. So watch everything unfold like we’ve warned and then be like “we want to leave now” but can’t. Continued waves of immigration (sorry to go on about it, but it’s a contributing factor) unrestricted and higher than before. Expect your local services and infrastructure to be flat out, much like it is already, but worse. House prices will go up as there will be more demand for them, less school places for your child and larger class sizes. There will be a massive shortage on teachers (this is certain to happen if we Leave too) as they are already leaving in large numbers and it’s not being addressed by the government, however it will get to the point where it’s all over the news. More countries WILL join the EU including Turkey(!), thus diluting our voice (which is pretty quiet in EU terms) even more. Our EU contributions will go up as they will “punish” us for even having the referendum and making them pay money to scaremonger the British public into remaining, plus if we take on another member state then contributions will go up anyway.

The one thing that has bugged me though, is that David Cameron hasn’t actually said that if we Leave, when he will activate the article in the Lisbon Treaty. Expect some floundering about and political posturing immediately after the votes are counted. He’ll be making speeches about his party and how they should move on together blablabla basically saying “you’re not going to overthrow me” but everyone knows if Leave wins (and we hope it does!) then it’s only a matter of time before he’s fighting for his job. They’ll give him a vote of no confidence and he SHALL be overthrown, then ensues the massive Tory Party civil war between George Osborne and Boris Johnson. Which Boris will win as George Osborne is in the Remain camp, yet Boris will have to keep him onside as he has his own support inside the party. Much like Blair and Brown.

As far as future landscapes go, I think it has to get worse before it can get better. That’s a realistic view of proceedings. But it’s worth it on so many levels. We will have to endure 2 years of non stop negotiations, changes and losses. After that we will have FULL control of our country again. Everyone’s life will be improved in terms of quality of life, especially thinking of the fisherman who will have their waters back. Admittedly we won’t start to see the major benefits for about 5-10 years, e.g demand for school places, hospital waiting times. Also not in an offensive way but in about 20-30 years time when the baby boomers start to ermmm “reduce in numbers” the strain on the NHS will be a hell of a lot less, as years of tougher immigration restrictions keeping numbers down and the larger, older generation start to leave us, we will start to have a manageable and sustainable population.

Yet another one of the questions no one can answer in the remain camp, how many is too many? We’re so densely populated on this tiny little island, where do we draw the line on our population? England (Not the entire UK) has the 6th largest population density in the world, of countries that has a population over 10 million. These are numbers taken in 2011, which in the last 5 years i’d say we’ve taken in a few people…with Net Migration (Immigrants coming in – Brits leaving, for those of you that don’t know) at about 300,000 a year that number is only going up. Where are we going to put these people? We already have a housing shortage, plus the houses that are available are too expensive due to excessive demand. This will impact yours (if you’re my age) and your children’s lives. It means larger families putting their children in smaller and cramped conditions, lowering quality of life. These are the type of things that no one is saying or putting across in the arguments because as soon as you start talking about immigration people start to clam up and feel embarrassed or offended. Don’t be. You could tell this to someone who’s a Remain person and give them those facts and the type of response you’d get is “What’s wrong with immigrants? Why don’t you like immigrants?” They completely miss the point and automatically assume you don’t like immigrants, which is what we’re up against. People saying we should be outward looking and not inward looking, you’re right. I’m looking out at the problems in the world and realise we have just as many problems inside our own borders. Let’s put it this way, say you’ve got loads of problems at home, like your boiler is broken, you’ve got tiles falling off the roof and some little bastard has smashed your windows in, you’re not going to go and give a couple hundred quid to the homeless guy on the street are you? Sort your own problems out first, then if there’s anything left over then do your best to help others. You can’t give what you don’t have.

I’m not going to go with the slogan of Put The Great In, Great Britain, I think this country is still pretty great and we have good lives on the most part. But it’s currently being held back and could be so much better. If we Leave I want to change the name of Great Britain to Amazing Britain… I joke I joke. But seriously, why stop with what we have when we can Improve and Innovate. If we all came together and worked for the future of our nation like we used too, the possibilities are literally endless. If we Leave we can inspire the next generation to be more creative and lead the world like we once did. We led the way in exploration of the world, our children could lead the way to exploring outside of this world. (How’s that for outward looking?) We should be looking forward to how the future make up of the world will look and should be helping to steer it, not be in the back seat. If you stare at the ceiling you will only believe that’s the highest you can go, there’s a big beautiful sky above that. The Leave side is looking out the window at the sky and hoping whilst the Remain side are still looking at the ceiling and wanting to STAY where they are. This is our Berlin Wall moment, it’s time to rip it down and join the rest of the world again, hoping that others will follow suit. We can lead Europe as a whole out of the Dark Ages if we Leave the EU and show it CAN be done. We can give hope to countries like Greece, Spain and even France who are showing distaste with the EU. Spread Hope, Not Hate.

Have a serious think about what you want your future to look like, especially if you’re an undecided voter. I know I can’t tell people to Vote Leave, I want you to come to that conclusion on your own. Think about what’s right and wrong. Be sure when you go into the voting booth, you know where you’re putting that X.

Thanks for reading and please share!

 

A Warning

I start by apologising for not posting in a while but I feel I can’t wait any longer for this to all unfold without warning people of what’s to come. I shall start with responding to people losing their heads over David Cameron calling refugees ‘a bunch of migrants’. Which isn’t actually too far from the truth. I have looked up the separate meanings for refugees, migrants and asylum seekers, and in actual fact the ones at Calais fall under the category of asylum seekers because in England a refugee status is only given to an asylum seeker once they’re granted asylum, which none of them have been. So don’t be so outraged at a slight slip of the tongue when you don’t even understand the meaning of the term refugee yourself. None of them have applied for asylum so technically they are just economic migrants, hence the slang term ‘migrants’ and why they aren’t being allowed to enter the country.

Thank god we cleared that up. The actual reason for this post is to warn people of the EU referendum vote. Now while i’m sure you all know my position on this, this is a different message. In the coming months (depending on the actual date of the referendum) the media will be saturated with the in and out campaigns. Unlimited amounts of EU money being thrown at trying to scaremonger the British public into staying. What I wanted to say is that at the heart of both the in and out campaigns will be politicians, I want to remind you to listen to NEITHER of the campaigns. Politicians have no place or say in this referendum as it is for the PUBLIC. So all I want you to do is turn off your TVs and the news and research the EU for yourself. All the information is readily available, if you choose that you think the EU is great and will save you then good for you i’m not going to argue with you. Don’t give in and listen to biased corporations like the BBC and the government who already sound like they are leaning towards an IN vote.

The only reason I feel the need to warn you is because I fear that with politicians at the heart of it, the referendum will lose meaning and power and be run by the people that held off on giving us the vote in the first place and are trying to manipulate the outcome by holding all their cards close to their chest.  Why do you think none of the top ministers have come out in support of either campaign yet? Other than the fact that they have been gagged by Cameron until the ‘renegotiation’ has concluded, and when it does conclude expect a snap referendum. So the actual date and narrative is already being skewed as Cameron leans towards ‘renegotiating a better deal and staying within a reformed EU’. In which case he has already omitted that he wants to stay, giving it a one sided undertone. What he doesn’t understand is that normal voters who don’t pay attention to politics or current affairs will hear a tiny bit and go ‘ohh I don’t understand all this EU malarky, that Cameron bloke is in power, he should know what’s right and he thinks we should leave.’

The problem with this being, that this is our only chance for a whole generation of getting out of the EU. If we fail and lose the vote to our own scaremongering about freedom of movement and immigrants, then we won’t get another chance to vote for another 20-30 years. Back in the first referendum (1975) the electorate were tricked into the EU in the first place by the wording of the question and haven’t been given the option to re-vote until now. What does that say about the people in power? 41 years of being stuck in this hell hole with no way out. Now I know peoples feelings about UKIP but you have them to thank for the massive pressure put on the government and the momentum and movement that has carried us to where we are today. Without them we wouldn’t have the vote, which is our democratic right. Something which the EU isn’t massive on as most of the highest positions in the EU and the European commission are held by unelected people. So the people running a Union of democratically elected MEPs from the member states aren’t elected, that makes no sense. Have you ever stopped to wonder who are these people, what are their intentions?

Similarily, big companies that operate in the UK are putting pressure on the government to stay inside the EU so that they aren’t hit with tariffs for importing or exporting goods. The In campaign is funded by companies like Goldman Sachs. I’ll tell you why because they have interests and connections in Portugal, Greece and Italy. For the last 10 years Goldman Sachs were responsible for hiding the trouble the Greek economy was in and almost caused it’s collapse. The former Italian Prime minister is an ‘international adviser’ for Goldman Sachs, the head of The European Central Bank is former managing director for Goldman Sachs International and the current Portuguese Secretary of State for the Prime Minister runs his own agency that controls structural reforms for the Portuguese government agreed by the European Commission, European Central Bank and the IMF. It all smells to high heaven, why is an American Investment bank meddling in the running of three EU nations? Because there is money to be had from the EU. Who pays the most into the EU through contributions I wonder…that would be the UK! Without us the EU will crumble as the monetary strain will be left at Germany & France’s doorstep. It’s no coincidence that the 3 nations I mentioned are all on the brink of collapse, and if we leave it will cause the domino effect of either, other EU nations economies collapsing or others leaving with us. As such the EU will never be the same again. Unelected people in the echelons of the EU and outsiders meddling in monetary affairs is just the tip of the iceberg with the EU and you wonder why I want to leave? All of these details will be glossed over and left out of any campaign or coverage I can assure you. That is why i’m warning you of what’s to come if we are to STAY in the EU.

The other side of the argument, that will come out from the SNP is that if we as a whole leave the EU then they will call for another Scottish referendum, putting unnecessary pressure on the UK to stay in due to their ulterior motives of angling for another referendum. Don’t get dragged in by it, they weren’t getting another referendum for a long time and now they are trying to hijack this opportunity for us to vote. They had their referendum now let us have ours without interference. Together we stand a chance of winning this referendum, don’t be divided by vicious separatists like the SNP. Scotland voted to stick with us, now we need you to stick by us so that we can get through this together. Even if you want Scotland to be independent, do you really want it independent but IN the EU? You will become a faceless state like the small eastern European states with no say and you will be dictated to by the EU with no choice in the matter. All you have to do is look how eastern Europe has been treated during the ‘refugee crisis’? Germany has stamped it’s authority all over Europe and pushed it’s own agendas without being opposed. You will be a part of that too. Stand with us and we can take this horrible organisation down, then once the EU is completely finished with if you still really wanted to go it alone then I wouldn’t stand in your way. Even though you would see what is possible when we work together.

That is why I think we should cut loose, why should we plough our money into the corrupt organisation when we can stand against all that is wrong in the world? I believe in democracy and I don’t think we ever signed up to being told what to do by people that aren’t democratically elected. Yes there will be fallout, that is to be expected but will it be as big as they will make out? More than likely not. Even if we were to leave, we activate a clause in the Lisbon Treaty that gives a schedule of around 2 full years before we can leave so that we can negotiate our own trade deals and make sure there is no sudden ‘jumping ship’ causing an economic downturn throughout the world. People saying you can’t negotiate trade deals in 2 years as a reason not to leave need their heads examining. If as a whole nation you can’t pool your resources and negotiate a whole host of trade deals with the outside world then I wonder what the government is even there for? The EU is pissed off that it won’t be getting a big chunk of the pie and that it will probably go to places like Brazil and China who are booming at the moment and are 2 of the biggest economic outputs in the world. Fear not we will still trade with the EU and everything will still be the same, we should take the old trade agreements that were in place before we joined the EEC back in 1975 and update the paperwork. That would save a whole lot of time by revising an already tried and tested agreement, rather than re-negotiating a whole new deal.

Lastly, I would just like to point out to the people saying the NHS will be destroyed without the freedom of movement between the EU states, it won’t. If we were to only let in ‘skilled migrants’ this would include doctors and nurses? As it is a skilled profession and if that’s what we were in need of then we would approve visas instantly? That is how a visa system works. We would just stem the flow of unskilled EU workers.

I implore you to see sense and research the EU before being brainwashed by the flood of In and Out campaigns saying we think this and we think that. We need to cut them out of this and make it about the people and the simple fact that the EU isn’t run properly and we shouldn’t be a part of it. If all the lefties that believe in democracy don’t join us on the right who feel the same, then we let them win and we’re stuck in this mess for the foreseeable future. If it’s one thing the British are good at, it’s standing up and defeating a common enemy.

Please share and spread the word.

Deja Vu

I write this new post after i’ve watched on the news that the US have decided to arm the rebels in Syria. I mean I can completely understand where they are coming from, wanting to protect these people from Assad’s chemical attacks, however the opposition are just the lesser of two evils and we should not be messing with this conflict. The US should learn from their mistakes, something they don’t do too well. Much like arming Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war back in the 80’s, 10 years later they ended up invading Iraq in the first Gulf War after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Now i’m not for one minute suggesting should the opposition gain power and overthrow Assad, that they will go invading other countries, but instead we will be handing over money and arms to radical islamists, the people that we are trying to fight in the ‘war on terror’?

The region is in mass turmoil at the moment and this is just the next step to ‘pour petrol on the fire’. To the north, Turkey is on the brink of a civil war. Should Assad actually beat the opposition then tensions between Syria and Israel may escalate, which would drag Russia into the situation which is never good, as Russia seems to always side with the Middle-eastern arab states over western backed states. I have also read that Russia are putting their forces (as part of the UN peacekeeping troops) in the border area between Israel and Syria. Also if Assad does win, with the support of Hezbollah yet another factor in the tensions with Israel and could almost emit a preemptive strike from the Israeli’s on strategic targets and Hezbollah strongholds in Syria, as they have done in recent months already.

The point i’m trying to make is that we should not get involved, we should only move to strike if Assad wipes out the rebels and is still attacking his own people, then definitely send in the NATO forces and dislodge him from power the proper way. Sure it may mean more Syrians die, but there are no good outcomes from this situation. Either way lots of Syrians will die, whether we arm the rebels or not, so why waste money we don’t have on a war that doesn’t involve/concern us, until things completely spiral out of control and call for intervention. Let another country deal with it for once, why not ask France? We seem to follow everything they are doing at the moment ( see my article on gay marriage!) we might as well take something good from them like them banning the burkha! No don’t fancy it? okay then. Might I add that France has one of the most effective and powerful forces at it’s disposal (French Foreign Legion) yet all of the decisions and military responses always come from the US and the UK, what’s up with that? Let the French pull their weight for once, after all we did come save you back in ’45, just saying.