For the last week, Labour, the Tories and the media, have again clubbed together (Always a sign something is up) to try and claim, that a video shot more than two years ago, proves that UKIP are going to privatise the NHS. Lets just address that before we go any further. As Nigel Farage has said many times now, UKIP is a democratic political party, which has internal debates on policy, before they're formed. This word debate, whilst new to many in the Labour and Tory parties, basically means that differing opinions are put forward and people discuss those opinions, hopefully, coming to a conclusion, an agreement amongst all, or at the very least, a consensus. Furthermore, if we are to accept the point that Labour and the Tories are putting forward, that something Nigel said 2 years ago is secretly UKIP policy, then surely we must also assume, that Tory policy is to NOT under ANY circumstances offer a referendum and in fact order a 3 line whip against it and it is Labour party policy that immigration is absolutely fine and to say otherwise, is WACIST!
Now then, what Nigel said in the video, which was a Q&A session I might add, not a speech, not a policy proposal, simply a Q&A where theories and ideas get batted around, was this "I think we're going to have to think about healthcare, very, very differently. I think we are going to have to move, to an insurance based system of healthcare." So I'd like to have a go at suggesting what that might look like, from my perspective. It's worth stating, just because the media don't believe in free thought these days, that this is my opinion and not UKIP policy.
An insurance based system, doesn't necessarily mean that the health service itself is privatised, it could simply mean that everyone has to have insurance. Now the first thing people tend to do when the idea of insurance comes up is rail against it and protest that the USA system is insurance based and is screwed. With that I'd agree too, the American system is dire for the poorest people in the country and can even lead to well off people ending up in a medical bankruptcy. It isn't good and we shouldn't do anything like it.
Fact is though, if the insurance was provided by the state and various other, regulated, approved insurance providers, with the NHS itself retained in public hands, things could work out very well for everyone concerned. At the moment in the UK, if you want to go private, you can do so, but in most cases, you'll need to go through the NHS first, in order to get a referral, before the private companies like Bupa will even consider treating you. Also, the private companies have the right to refuse end of life care, to treat anything life threatening and they can refuse to do operations that may harm their statistics when things go wrong. This is not good, this essentially means that you have to go to the NHS first, who might cure or kill you before you can get referred to your private provider for one thing, but also, it wastes NHS time, money and resources. It also means, that if you're dying, say you contract cancer and it's incurable, your private company won't cover you at all and will simply send you on your way, back to the NHS!
Personally, as someone who might be able to afford private health care, if I thought it was actually going to be useful to me, I'd love the opportunity to die in a private room, with a 42" Samsung on the wall, Nurses who aren't over-run, under-staffed, under-paid and treated like shit, looking after me. But as things stand at the moment, that wouldn't happen. I'd end up on a mixed NHS ward in Doncaster Royal Infirmary, which stinks of human waste, looks like it's going to fall apart and costs me £20 an hour to use the crappy little television above my bed, where the headphones are missing their muffs and the screen has a huge crack in it from the angry geriatric Dementia patient who died in the bed 20 minutes before I occupied it.
It seems to me, that the thing which drives quality and customer service, is choice. If I have a choice of being treated by a hospital where the staff are shattered, the hospital is falling apart and the car park costs so much my visitors won't visit me, or a hospital with a marble floor, plate glass windows, big screen TVs on the walls, well dressed, happy looking Nurses who are paid appropriately and aren't over worked, I'm pretty much positive I know which one I'm going to pick. Now here's the trick, having an insurance based system, means that companies will actually want to start hospitals, in order to make money (Evil I know). If someone wants to make money out of a hospital, it's going to need to look good, sound good, feel good, smell good and most of all, have a very good success rate with patient care, in all aspects, as well as specialist subjects. Otherwise, in a world where there's choice, no one will choose them!
So if private companies start building hospitals, to compete with the NHS hospitals, then the NHS hospitals will have to step up their game, in all aspects. They will have to start paying the nurses more, employing more of them, keeping up the building to a decent standard, keeping the wards clean and everything else you would expect from a quality establishment. The way to keep this simple, is to legislate carefully, the way in which these private hospitals can do business. Ensuring that they cannot turn away terminal patients, they cannot refuse to do certain operations in favour of others, they must accept insurance as presented and they must do accident and emergency care, regardless of patient status etc. This puts them in the same position as the NHS hospitals, except the only way they can make profit, is to actually make patients WANT to use their hospital, over the NHS one, or any other local private hospitals.
Now, what about the insurance companies, who has to buy insurance? What do we do to keep the premiums down low enough? Well, simply put, we put a salary range in place. For arguments sake, without doing any hefty sums that would be required in reality to put this into practice, let's say anyone earning more than £60k per year, or has a household income of £80k per year for couples and families, will have to seek their own insurance. Anyone below that, including pensioners, children (Even children of those who have £80k per year coming in, these are CHILDREN!), unemployed etc. will have automatic state insurance, which will cover all eventualities, EXCEPT elective surgery, such as face lifts, breast implants, etc. Regulating the industry properly should see the insurance companies keeping the premiums low, as insurance companies will tend to prefer cheaper treatments and therefore will prefer NHS hospitals, so the private hospitals will have to keep their pricing at around the same levels, so that the insurance companies don't refuse to pay out the private hospitals, in favour of NHS ones.
The National Insurance system, will of course equally prefer cheaper bills, but would not be allowed to insist that it's customers (Anyone not in the income bracket I mentioned earlier) only use NHS hospitals, it could however, as a way of forcing private hospitals to keep their prices low, put caps on the cost of treatment it is prepared to pay for. NHS hospitals will obviously price accordingly and therefore, in order to attract customers from the NHS the private hospitals will also have to keep their prices in line. It almost becomes self regulating.
Whilst my proposal isn't fully thought through, it isn't costed and no doubt medical professionals can point at various bits that also would need to be addressed, in general, doesn't this sound like a better way to go forward with the NHS? Is it really right, that we should defend what is currently the UKs largest mass murderer, just because the Labour party says so? Or because we're afraid that a govt is actually going to dare to make it cost us money? Someone who is flat broke, can choose where they get treated, at no extra cost. Someone who's well off, can also choose where they want to get treated. Jobs are created, standards are improved, the financial burden is lessened on the govt. Seems like a fantastic idea to me, at the very least it's worth discussing, considering and investigating, but no doubt a bunch of frothing lefties will have not even read this far and will now be claiming that it's UKIP policy, because I wrote it on a blog.....
The simple fact we must face today, is that the NHS is broke, not just monetarily either, it is physically broken. It doesn't work all that well, it's going to take billions of extra funding in the decade to come and regardless of how much activists might jump up and down to shout "SAVE OUR NHS" they too are going to have to face the fact, that in order to save it, we have to change it. It might not be my proposal, it might be something entirely different, but one way or another, it has to change and if you want it to change positively, rather than at the hands of a couple of pompous nitwits who slag each other off once a week face to face and spend every other day engineering ways to do it through the media, then you'd better stop jumping up and down and start debating!
Wednesday 19 November 2014
Should we send home immigrants who don't meet our requirements?
Aside from the provocative title, this article is actually pretty tame. I'm neither a BNP activist, nor a racist, not a xenophobe, nor an idiot, but I wanted your attention.
Mark Reckless is a candidate in tomorrows Rochester & Strood by-election and he answered a question a little bit poorly yesterday, during a hustings organised by ITV and 38 Degrees. He was asked, "what would happen to, the Polish plumber who lives in Rochester? Would he be able to stay, would he have to go back?" and his response was "Well I think in the near term, that we'd have to have a transitional period, and I think we should probably allow, people who are currently here, to have a work permit, at least for a fixed period".
Now the fact is, when you break this down, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with this. He's not talking about repatriating anyone as the left claims and as the media have been spouting all day, with this, he's talking about following the procedures laid out by UKIP immigration policy, which is taken from immigration policies that similar nations have, such as the USA, Canada, NZ, Australia, etc. Anyone who is not a citizen, is either a resident with a visa, a visitor on a work permit, or a visitor on a visitors permit. Either way, unless you're a resident of a citizen, you have no indefinite right to remain, you have a fixed period of time, where you are allowed to remain and if you have a work permit, you are allowed to work, during that time period. Once that time period is up, you re-apply, or you apply for residency, or if you've been in the country long enough (In most countries it's 5 years) you apply for citizenship. This is how it works and it's how it works for our immigrants from places other than the EU.
The questioner then decided to rephrase, with a ruffled brow and a lot more hand gesturing, just to make his point seem even more important, he says "Forgive me, if there's a plumber who's got a house, got a family, got kids at a local school, are you gunna deport him? And his family?" Now the problem Mark encountered here, is that he didn't respond to this question properly. What he said was "I think people who've been here a long time and integrated in that way, I think we'd want to look sympathetically at" and then tried to move on from the question to address the policy for new people coming in. What he should have done, is reacted in disgust at the questioner and pointed out, that should an existing Indian, Chinese, or Pakistani immigrants time limited visa or permit run out and they re-apply, we look at their situation and decide whether or not to renew that visa or permit, so why should this be any different for a Polish plumber?
Whichever way you try to spin it, Mark did not, under any circumstances say that people would be deported, the questioner said that and he implied that Mark had said it, even though Marks answer to the original question, was that we'd give them a visa or a permit for a limited time, which to me, considering they currently will have an EU passport and the current govt has no plans to make them all British citizens, is a fair response. At no point did he say, "And at the end of that time, we're going to deport him" he didn't even say "At the end of that time we'll consider whether to deport him or not", he never used the word deport, not even once, the questioner did.
As usual, this has been blown WAY out of proportion, but this time, they're all in on it. When the Guardian and the Daily Mail and the Mirror and Guido and the Telegraph are ALL running the same spin, on the same story, you can pretty much tell instantly, that it's a) anti-UKIP and b) it's bullshit.
You can watch a video of the small exchange here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30111694 It's the second video down.
Mark Reckless is a candidate in tomorrows Rochester & Strood by-election and he answered a question a little bit poorly yesterday, during a hustings organised by ITV and 38 Degrees. He was asked, "what would happen to, the Polish plumber who lives in Rochester? Would he be able to stay, would he have to go back?" and his response was "Well I think in the near term, that we'd have to have a transitional period, and I think we should probably allow, people who are currently here, to have a work permit, at least for a fixed period".
Now the fact is, when you break this down, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with this. He's not talking about repatriating anyone as the left claims and as the media have been spouting all day, with this, he's talking about following the procedures laid out by UKIP immigration policy, which is taken from immigration policies that similar nations have, such as the USA, Canada, NZ, Australia, etc. Anyone who is not a citizen, is either a resident with a visa, a visitor on a work permit, or a visitor on a visitors permit. Either way, unless you're a resident of a citizen, you have no indefinite right to remain, you have a fixed period of time, where you are allowed to remain and if you have a work permit, you are allowed to work, during that time period. Once that time period is up, you re-apply, or you apply for residency, or if you've been in the country long enough (In most countries it's 5 years) you apply for citizenship. This is how it works and it's how it works for our immigrants from places other than the EU.
The questioner then decided to rephrase, with a ruffled brow and a lot more hand gesturing, just to make his point seem even more important, he says "Forgive me, if there's a plumber who's got a house, got a family, got kids at a local school, are you gunna deport him? And his family?" Now the problem Mark encountered here, is that he didn't respond to this question properly. What he said was "I think people who've been here a long time and integrated in that way, I think we'd want to look sympathetically at" and then tried to move on from the question to address the policy for new people coming in. What he should have done, is reacted in disgust at the questioner and pointed out, that should an existing Indian, Chinese, or Pakistani immigrants time limited visa or permit run out and they re-apply, we look at their situation and decide whether or not to renew that visa or permit, so why should this be any different for a Polish plumber?
Whichever way you try to spin it, Mark did not, under any circumstances say that people would be deported, the questioner said that and he implied that Mark had said it, even though Marks answer to the original question, was that we'd give them a visa or a permit for a limited time, which to me, considering they currently will have an EU passport and the current govt has no plans to make them all British citizens, is a fair response. At no point did he say, "And at the end of that time, we're going to deport him" he didn't even say "At the end of that time we'll consider whether to deport him or not", he never used the word deport, not even once, the questioner did.
As usual, this has been blown WAY out of proportion, but this time, they're all in on it. When the Guardian and the Daily Mail and the Mirror and Guido and the Telegraph are ALL running the same spin, on the same story, you can pretty much tell instantly, that it's a) anti-UKIP and b) it's bullshit.
You can watch a video of the small exchange here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30111694 It's the second video down.
Tuesday 4 November 2014
Response to The Rant Mistress blog
This post is a response to another blog item by The Rant Mistress: http://therantmistress.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/ukip-and-man-behind-green-door.html?spref=tw
If you haven't read the above blog first, this post won't make sense.
First and foremost I'd like to be upfront, I'm a UKIP member and at election time, I put the same poster in my window. I'm 31, married with children, white, British, with 3 siblings who share the same father as me, but their mother is an Indian lady he met before my mother. I'm only educated to GCSE level, but have industry qualifications I took as an adult and was once upon a time a Tory voter, but never a member and had literally no idea what their policies were.
Next up I'd like to address your assumption that you being an "Immigrant we like" means that "you're white, English speaking and not wearing a Hijab". Not only is that insanely judgemental (Something you appear to realise you are, from your own realisation that you judged him on the poster and then his family on the state of his house), but it's also wrong. As someone who has been an immigrant myself, I can tell you that most countries around the world have something called an 'immigration system', this system deals with all requests to live and work in the country that it's responsible for. In most cases, the system has requirements that need to be met and in most cases, those requirements are not that you need to be white, or that you need to be of a specific religion.
What the system does usually require however, is skills, experience, health and the ability to support yourself. Degrees, or industry qualifications help to prove to some degree at least, that you can do something useful. In many cases, the system will change from time to time, to reflect the skills shortages that the country is facing, so for one 6 month period of time, the country might be short of Doctors and so it looks for Medical Doctors in it's immigration requests and allows some of the best ones in. For another 6 month period though, they might be short of graphic designers and so those with a BA in Graphic Design get pushed to the front of the queue and so on.
This is not abnormal and in fact, is the sensible, responsible thing to do. This incidentally, is what we as a country currently do, with immigrants from everywhere in the world, except the EU, where we have no such requirements, no background checks, no health checks, etc. This, is what UKIP is against. Whilst you've clearly picked up your knowledge of UKIP from the media, who seem to believe UKIP are against immigrants, no matter what, the truth is we're not at all, many of us either are immigrants, have been immigrants, work with immigrants, or in my case, have siblings who are of an immigrant mother, one of whom is married to another immigrant.
Perhaps you might find yourself less judgemental, if you paid attention to the things you see, properly. For example, do you think a 91 year old man, who's of Polish origin and is voting UKIP is just deranged, or stupid? Or do you make the assumption, than an immigrant voting for UKIP is not in fact a Turkey voting for Christmas, but rather he knows something you don't? My first instinct when a Czech chef I met, told me he was voting for UKIP, was to not only ask him questions with an open mind, rather than throwing things at him to prove he was wrong, but also to then go and do my own research. By research, I don't mean reading the papers, or watching the news, or visiting biased news sources on the internet, I mean by going to the horses mouth.
Now had you asked him your ridiculous question, about having come here and needing to have health insurance, you need health insurance to be properly covered in SPAIN! A friend of my mothers has just returned from holiday there with her mother, after her mother had a brain haemorrhage whilst out there and she's had to pay for ALL of her mothers medical treatment. Further more, the girl who fell out of the hotel window a few months back, remember her? There were radio stations and charities here in the UK, crowd funding her treatment! The little boy whose parents were falsely arrested with an EAW a couple of months back, he's not getting his treatment for free, it's being paid for by the NHS! This rubbish certain people spout about us being able to get free health care within the EU, is just that, RUBBISH!
Simply put, you seem like an intelligent person, but someone who is not only judgemental, but someone who is concerned about genuine issues like the NHS. UKIP doesn't have a particularly strong policy on the NHS, other than to keep it free at the point of use, whatever that takes. Now for me, the NHS is not the shining beacon some make it out to be, but I do believe it should be. That said, for now, there are more important issues a foot, do you realise what will happen to the NHS if we surrender our health policy to the EU? It'll disappear completely, that's what! We're fast moving towards an EU super-state, there are already laws we can't pass for ourselves, because there are contradictory or preventative laws from the EU we must obey, there are already regulations that are forcing our companies out of business through sheer EU self-interest, like Tate & Lyle who are fast going out of business, because they can only buy sugar from the EU!
The further down the line we get with the EU, the more we'll hand over and eventually, Westminster will be nothing more than a regional council, for London. If that thought concerns you at all, do some research, stop bashing UKIP and vote for them, at least for now, once we're out of the EU and have genuine control of our own country again, we might be able to start addressing issues with the NHS!
If you haven't read the above blog first, this post won't make sense.
First and foremost I'd like to be upfront, I'm a UKIP member and at election time, I put the same poster in my window. I'm 31, married with children, white, British, with 3 siblings who share the same father as me, but their mother is an Indian lady he met before my mother. I'm only educated to GCSE level, but have industry qualifications I took as an adult and was once upon a time a Tory voter, but never a member and had literally no idea what their policies were.
Next up I'd like to address your assumption that you being an "Immigrant we like" means that "you're white, English speaking and not wearing a Hijab". Not only is that insanely judgemental (Something you appear to realise you are, from your own realisation that you judged him on the poster and then his family on the state of his house), but it's also wrong. As someone who has been an immigrant myself, I can tell you that most countries around the world have something called an 'immigration system', this system deals with all requests to live and work in the country that it's responsible for. In most cases, the system has requirements that need to be met and in most cases, those requirements are not that you need to be white, or that you need to be of a specific religion.
What the system does usually require however, is skills, experience, health and the ability to support yourself. Degrees, or industry qualifications help to prove to some degree at least, that you can do something useful. In many cases, the system will change from time to time, to reflect the skills shortages that the country is facing, so for one 6 month period of time, the country might be short of Doctors and so it looks for Medical Doctors in it's immigration requests and allows some of the best ones in. For another 6 month period though, they might be short of graphic designers and so those with a BA in Graphic Design get pushed to the front of the queue and so on.
This is not abnormal and in fact, is the sensible, responsible thing to do. This incidentally, is what we as a country currently do, with immigrants from everywhere in the world, except the EU, where we have no such requirements, no background checks, no health checks, etc. This, is what UKIP is against. Whilst you've clearly picked up your knowledge of UKIP from the media, who seem to believe UKIP are against immigrants, no matter what, the truth is we're not at all, many of us either are immigrants, have been immigrants, work with immigrants, or in my case, have siblings who are of an immigrant mother, one of whom is married to another immigrant.
Perhaps you might find yourself less judgemental, if you paid attention to the things you see, properly. For example, do you think a 91 year old man, who's of Polish origin and is voting UKIP is just deranged, or stupid? Or do you make the assumption, than an immigrant voting for UKIP is not in fact a Turkey voting for Christmas, but rather he knows something you don't? My first instinct when a Czech chef I met, told me he was voting for UKIP, was to not only ask him questions with an open mind, rather than throwing things at him to prove he was wrong, but also to then go and do my own research. By research, I don't mean reading the papers, or watching the news, or visiting biased news sources on the internet, I mean by going to the horses mouth.
Now had you asked him your ridiculous question, about having come here and needing to have health insurance, you need health insurance to be properly covered in SPAIN! A friend of my mothers has just returned from holiday there with her mother, after her mother had a brain haemorrhage whilst out there and she's had to pay for ALL of her mothers medical treatment. Further more, the girl who fell out of the hotel window a few months back, remember her? There were radio stations and charities here in the UK, crowd funding her treatment! The little boy whose parents were falsely arrested with an EAW a couple of months back, he's not getting his treatment for free, it's being paid for by the NHS! This rubbish certain people spout about us being able to get free health care within the EU, is just that, RUBBISH!
Simply put, you seem like an intelligent person, but someone who is not only judgemental, but someone who is concerned about genuine issues like the NHS. UKIP doesn't have a particularly strong policy on the NHS, other than to keep it free at the point of use, whatever that takes. Now for me, the NHS is not the shining beacon some make it out to be, but I do believe it should be. That said, for now, there are more important issues a foot, do you realise what will happen to the NHS if we surrender our health policy to the EU? It'll disappear completely, that's what! We're fast moving towards an EU super-state, there are already laws we can't pass for ourselves, because there are contradictory or preventative laws from the EU we must obey, there are already regulations that are forcing our companies out of business through sheer EU self-interest, like Tate & Lyle who are fast going out of business, because they can only buy sugar from the EU!
The further down the line we get with the EU, the more we'll hand over and eventually, Westminster will be nothing more than a regional council, for London. If that thought concerns you at all, do some research, stop bashing UKIP and vote for them, at least for now, once we're out of the EU and have genuine control of our own country again, we might be able to start addressing issues with the NHS!
Saturday 1 November 2014
All this guff about left and right, is guff
So just recently a comic had a bit of a rant on Facebook, about the easy and cheap shots that repeatedly get taken against UKIP, Eurosceptics and people who are generally concerned about this country and its future. This has sparked a little bit of a discussion regarding left and right wing comedians, how there are supposedly so many left wing ones and very few right wing ones.
This has brought the whole left/right thing to the forefront again and I thought I'd have a rant about it here. I personally consider myself somewhat of an anomaly politically, but given the choice, I will place myself slightly to the right of centre. Now that's completely aside from the fact that I think the spectrum itself is bollocks! Apparently to be right wing, is to be racist, homophobic, Islamophobic and to hate disabled people and the welfare state. This of course, is rubbish. Politics does not involve race, sexuality, religion, or physical ability, politics is all to do with ideas.
Besides anything else, if being right wing means being racist, homophobic and Islamophobic, then I've got a problem. As someone who has Muslim friends, black friends, half-Indian siblings, gay friends, gay family members and in general, is an ordinary person surrounded by friends, family and work colleagues from every race, country, religious background, sexuality and range of physical abilities, I resent the automatic assumption, that because I lean to the right in my politics, I automatically want those people in my life to die, or to be hard done by, or forced down, simply put, because I don't.
For me, Nigel Farage sums up UKIP just perfectly when he says "It isn't about right or left, it's about common sense" and this applies to more than just UKIP for me, it is what politics SHOULD be. It shouldn't be about right or left, it should be about what's best, about common sense. To me, it makes perfect sense to have an NHS, which is paid for through taxation, free at the point of use for every citizen and resident of this country. It also makes perfect sense to me, that the state should 'prop up' someone who falls down, the 'safety net' that is intended by our benefit system, makes perfect sense to me. I don't see either of these things as 'left wing' or 'socialist' as some people will insist, I see them as common sense. If someone can only pay taxes and provide a function in society when they are well and able, it makes perfect sense to have a health system that endeavours to make sure that person is well and able, surely? If people living on the street contribute nothing to society, they don't pay taxes, they don't fill a functional role, it makes sense not to let people end up on the street, just because they've had a little blip and ended up out of work, right?
This all might seem straight forward to the reader, but sadly, in this day and age it would appear that in fact, this is all very complex. If you support the NHS, the welfare state, the disabilities act etc. then you're inherently left wing in the eyes of many. Whilst if you also support free markets, privatisation of certain services, getting value for money out of everything you possibly can, you're evil and right wing. So if you support all of the above, what does that make you? Centrist? The simple fact is, most of us in 2014 support the NHS existing in some form or another, most of us support the safety net that is the welfare state, in some form or another, but equally, most of us support going to work and being entitled to pay rises if we work hard, put in the hours and show loyalty to the companies we work for. Most of us support being able to go and buy a 50" LED TV if we've worked hard enough to earn the money to afford one. Pretty much everybody in the country supports the ability to go out and buy an iPhone, or a Samsung Galaxy S, or something of similar calibre. You'd be hard pushed to find anyone on Twitter or Facebook, who doesn't support the ability to use the internet!
Assuming then that most of us are 'centrist', because we believe in the welfare state, the NHS, companies existing to give us jobs, companies existing to flog us TVs and Mobile Phones, why is there this left/right divide? Well, contrary to the belief that the right are evil and the left are lovely, it seems to me that things are in fact the other way around. Those on the right of the spectrum these days, believe in giving everyone who needs it, a helping hand, but equally giving everyone the freedom and opportunity to succeed at their own pace and in their own way. This seems like a pretty 'nice' angle to take on things I feel, because what could be nicer, than helping you when you're down, but equally giving you the freedom to fly when and where you're able? The left on the other hand, to me is the politics of hate. We should hate corporations, we should hate rich people, we should hate anyone who has more than us, EVERYTHING should be run by the state and no one should have more than anyone else. This they say, is in the name of 'fairness'.
So can this be broken down into a simple analogy, to really analyse what is fair and what isn't? Let's turn the whole thing into a running race and see. I'm a fat guy, I'm not very fit and I've never been able to run particularly fast. If I were to enter a running race against someone the same age, but who's fit and able, can run 100 meters in 10 seconds and weighs about 8 stone less than me, I'm going to lose, right? Let's take a look at the way in which the two ends of the spectrum in politics could help me compete in the race.
The right wing way to help me compete in this race, would be to offer me some physical training before the race, help me lose some pounds and teach me how to use my body in the most effective way to compete against my opponent. This means I'm fitter by the time I enter the race, I weigh less and I've got some chance of winning, because whilst I still must run the same distance, I'm better prepared. I actually stand a chance here, of getting to the level of my opponent, even if I don't beat him just yet, I won't be completely humiliated.
Now the left wing way to help me compete in this race, is completely different. They would give my opponent a heavy rucksack to wear during the race, which would bring his total weight, up to my bodyweight. Then, they'd extend his race track by 20 meters or so, untie his shoe laces and make him stop to let me catch up every now and again. The fact is, I'm not getting up to his level here, he's being dragged down to mine. In this race, where he is the person who has the ability, the advantage and in my eyes, every right to win this race, he is either going to lose, or he's barely going to win at all, whilst having broken himself in the process. I on the other hand, as the fat guy with no running ability whatsoever, am not going to be any fitter, lighter or given a fair chance of beating him, I'm not going to be any better off at the end of it, he's just going to be worse off and just isn't going to beat me by as much as he should.
Now this is a very simple analogy I grant you and it ignores lots of other factors, but it does take the methods of the left and the right and simplify them down to something understandable. Everyone has their own gifts and abilities and for me the right way for the human race to proceed through life, is to let everyone use their gifts and abilities to succeed, helping them where needed, picking them up where they fall and encouraging them along the way. For some reason, this huge movement called 'the left' would have us discourage self-improvement, discourage the use of ones skills and abilities to succeed and encourage the crippling of your opponent, in order to have everyone at the same 'fair' level of success. Telling me I'm just not good enough and can never be good enough to beat the other guy, just seems like a bad way to go. Judge for yourself which you think is right, but if the spectrum must be used at all to gauge a persons ideas and beliefs, then I'm very much on the right hand side of it.
This has brought the whole left/right thing to the forefront again and I thought I'd have a rant about it here. I personally consider myself somewhat of an anomaly politically, but given the choice, I will place myself slightly to the right of centre. Now that's completely aside from the fact that I think the spectrum itself is bollocks! Apparently to be right wing, is to be racist, homophobic, Islamophobic and to hate disabled people and the welfare state. This of course, is rubbish. Politics does not involve race, sexuality, religion, or physical ability, politics is all to do with ideas.
Besides anything else, if being right wing means being racist, homophobic and Islamophobic, then I've got a problem. As someone who has Muslim friends, black friends, half-Indian siblings, gay friends, gay family members and in general, is an ordinary person surrounded by friends, family and work colleagues from every race, country, religious background, sexuality and range of physical abilities, I resent the automatic assumption, that because I lean to the right in my politics, I automatically want those people in my life to die, or to be hard done by, or forced down, simply put, because I don't.
For me, Nigel Farage sums up UKIP just perfectly when he says "It isn't about right or left, it's about common sense" and this applies to more than just UKIP for me, it is what politics SHOULD be. It shouldn't be about right or left, it should be about what's best, about common sense. To me, it makes perfect sense to have an NHS, which is paid for through taxation, free at the point of use for every citizen and resident of this country. It also makes perfect sense to me, that the state should 'prop up' someone who falls down, the 'safety net' that is intended by our benefit system, makes perfect sense to me. I don't see either of these things as 'left wing' or 'socialist' as some people will insist, I see them as common sense. If someone can only pay taxes and provide a function in society when they are well and able, it makes perfect sense to have a health system that endeavours to make sure that person is well and able, surely? If people living on the street contribute nothing to society, they don't pay taxes, they don't fill a functional role, it makes sense not to let people end up on the street, just because they've had a little blip and ended up out of work, right?
This all might seem straight forward to the reader, but sadly, in this day and age it would appear that in fact, this is all very complex. If you support the NHS, the welfare state, the disabilities act etc. then you're inherently left wing in the eyes of many. Whilst if you also support free markets, privatisation of certain services, getting value for money out of everything you possibly can, you're evil and right wing. So if you support all of the above, what does that make you? Centrist? The simple fact is, most of us in 2014 support the NHS existing in some form or another, most of us support the safety net that is the welfare state, in some form or another, but equally, most of us support going to work and being entitled to pay rises if we work hard, put in the hours and show loyalty to the companies we work for. Most of us support being able to go and buy a 50" LED TV if we've worked hard enough to earn the money to afford one. Pretty much everybody in the country supports the ability to go out and buy an iPhone, or a Samsung Galaxy S, or something of similar calibre. You'd be hard pushed to find anyone on Twitter or Facebook, who doesn't support the ability to use the internet!
Assuming then that most of us are 'centrist', because we believe in the welfare state, the NHS, companies existing to give us jobs, companies existing to flog us TVs and Mobile Phones, why is there this left/right divide? Well, contrary to the belief that the right are evil and the left are lovely, it seems to me that things are in fact the other way around. Those on the right of the spectrum these days, believe in giving everyone who needs it, a helping hand, but equally giving everyone the freedom and opportunity to succeed at their own pace and in their own way. This seems like a pretty 'nice' angle to take on things I feel, because what could be nicer, than helping you when you're down, but equally giving you the freedom to fly when and where you're able? The left on the other hand, to me is the politics of hate. We should hate corporations, we should hate rich people, we should hate anyone who has more than us, EVERYTHING should be run by the state and no one should have more than anyone else. This they say, is in the name of 'fairness'.
So can this be broken down into a simple analogy, to really analyse what is fair and what isn't? Let's turn the whole thing into a running race and see. I'm a fat guy, I'm not very fit and I've never been able to run particularly fast. If I were to enter a running race against someone the same age, but who's fit and able, can run 100 meters in 10 seconds and weighs about 8 stone less than me, I'm going to lose, right? Let's take a look at the way in which the two ends of the spectrum in politics could help me compete in the race.
The right wing way to help me compete in this race, would be to offer me some physical training before the race, help me lose some pounds and teach me how to use my body in the most effective way to compete against my opponent. This means I'm fitter by the time I enter the race, I weigh less and I've got some chance of winning, because whilst I still must run the same distance, I'm better prepared. I actually stand a chance here, of getting to the level of my opponent, even if I don't beat him just yet, I won't be completely humiliated.
Now the left wing way to help me compete in this race, is completely different. They would give my opponent a heavy rucksack to wear during the race, which would bring his total weight, up to my bodyweight. Then, they'd extend his race track by 20 meters or so, untie his shoe laces and make him stop to let me catch up every now and again. The fact is, I'm not getting up to his level here, he's being dragged down to mine. In this race, where he is the person who has the ability, the advantage and in my eyes, every right to win this race, he is either going to lose, or he's barely going to win at all, whilst having broken himself in the process. I on the other hand, as the fat guy with no running ability whatsoever, am not going to be any fitter, lighter or given a fair chance of beating him, I'm not going to be any better off at the end of it, he's just going to be worse off and just isn't going to beat me by as much as he should.
Now this is a very simple analogy I grant you and it ignores lots of other factors, but it does take the methods of the left and the right and simplify them down to something understandable. Everyone has their own gifts and abilities and for me the right way for the human race to proceed through life, is to let everyone use their gifts and abilities to succeed, helping them where needed, picking them up where they fall and encouraging them along the way. For some reason, this huge movement called 'the left' would have us discourage self-improvement, discourage the use of ones skills and abilities to succeed and encourage the crippling of your opponent, in order to have everyone at the same 'fair' level of success. Telling me I'm just not good enough and can never be good enough to beat the other guy, just seems like a bad way to go. Judge for yourself which you think is right, but if the spectrum must be used at all to gauge a persons ideas and beliefs, then I'm very much on the right hand side of it.
Tuesday 28 October 2014
Surreal experience leafleting for UKIP today
I was asked by my local branch to deliver some leaflets for the upcoming PCC election in South Yorkshire. Being a moderately overweight man in his 30s, who finds it somewhat difficult to find time or motivation for exercise these days, I jumped at the chance to have a big long walk. I figured it would make up for my lack of Golfing this year, if nothing else.
As I began walking my first street, I was, I'm not afraid to say, a little worried. I was concerned that I may get told to F*** off by someone, or get a full on lecture, on how I'm a homophobic, bigoted, racist. Now obviously I have this fear when blogging, or tweeting as well, but in person, that kind of abuse, is a whole different ball game.
What actually happened, was pretty surreal and couldn't have been further from my expectations. As I walked down the return side of the street, there were people smiling at me from the side I had just walked down, people waving and saying hello, then one man, really blew me away. An old gentleman, with liver spots and looking a little frail, made his way slowly to his gate, to summon me over. At first, I thought "Here we go, here's some abuse coming", but that couldn't have been more of an incorrect judgement.
"Are you a UKIP supporter?" The man shouted to me. "Yes, yes sir I am", I replied confidently. "I wonder if you would mind posting this for me", he said with a smile on his face. "It's my postal vote for UKIP and I find it a little hard to get out and about these days." Well, suddenly my day changed completely, it turns out the gentleman was an ex-union shop steward of 20 years, a man who had always voted Labour for as long as he could remember and a man who considers himself very much Left Wing in his principles.
His opinion of the leaders of the current parties, was far from complimentary. His opinion, is that whilst he's not all that sure about Farage and he's a little concerned that the media make UKIP out to be very Right wing (They're not, but the media and other parties want you to believe they are), he genuinely believes that UKIP are the only people who will take us out of Europe, he believes Farage is the man who will change politics and what kind of party leaders we get going forward and he believes that things just cannot continue the way they are and that UKIP and Farage, are what is going to change the countries direction for the better.
As we parted ways, he said one last thing, with a big smile on his face. "The tories are a busted flush up here in Yorkshire and the Labour party have lost the plot, fingers crossed we can make a difference". Needless to say I'm off back out again in a minute to deliver some more leaflets.
As I began walking my first street, I was, I'm not afraid to say, a little worried. I was concerned that I may get told to F*** off by someone, or get a full on lecture, on how I'm a homophobic, bigoted, racist. Now obviously I have this fear when blogging, or tweeting as well, but in person, that kind of abuse, is a whole different ball game.
What actually happened, was pretty surreal and couldn't have been further from my expectations. As I walked down the return side of the street, there were people smiling at me from the side I had just walked down, people waving and saying hello, then one man, really blew me away. An old gentleman, with liver spots and looking a little frail, made his way slowly to his gate, to summon me over. At first, I thought "Here we go, here's some abuse coming", but that couldn't have been more of an incorrect judgement.
"Are you a UKIP supporter?" The man shouted to me. "Yes, yes sir I am", I replied confidently. "I wonder if you would mind posting this for me", he said with a smile on his face. "It's my postal vote for UKIP and I find it a little hard to get out and about these days." Well, suddenly my day changed completely, it turns out the gentleman was an ex-union shop steward of 20 years, a man who had always voted Labour for as long as he could remember and a man who considers himself very much Left Wing in his principles.
His opinion of the leaders of the current parties, was far from complimentary. His opinion, is that whilst he's not all that sure about Farage and he's a little concerned that the media make UKIP out to be very Right wing (They're not, but the media and other parties want you to believe they are), he genuinely believes that UKIP are the only people who will take us out of Europe, he believes Farage is the man who will change politics and what kind of party leaders we get going forward and he believes that things just cannot continue the way they are and that UKIP and Farage, are what is going to change the countries direction for the better.
As we parted ways, he said one last thing, with a big smile on his face. "The tories are a busted flush up here in Yorkshire and the Labour party have lost the plot, fingers crossed we can make a difference". Needless to say I'm off back out again in a minute to deliver some more leaflets.
Friday 24 October 2014
I have a deal for you, I think you'll find it very difficult to turn down
I have a deal to propose, one I think you'll find incredibly hard to turn down.
The deal works like this, you pay me £17 for 12 months membership of my club, you can pay by direct debit if you like, that's not a problem. For your £17, I will give you £8 back across the year, for you to use on projects, purchasing things, paying for services, etc. but ONLY, if you can also stump up 50% of each project, item or service you intend to buy, out of your own pocket. Now, the deal doesn't quite end there, I'm also going to make strong recommendations as to how you'll spend this money, where you'll spend it, with what retailers and service providers. In addition to this, I'm also going to make you abide by a strict set of rules, which I'm not going to lie to you, you won't like very much, but you HAVE to stick to them, or I won't give you the money you want. If you break the rules I set out, I'll take you to court and sue you for about 60p, plus the cost of the court proceedings.
So, how does this all sound? Sounds like a great deal right? At this point I imagine you're screaming at your screen, NO! Well now I'm going to let you into a little secret, it's not really a secret, because it's all written down, in the public domain, even reported on in the media, sort of, but it's been so obfuscated and so fragmented in it's documentation and reporting, that the majority of people haven't a clue that it's true.
If you take my little money making scheme above and add the letters (bn) to the end of each amount of money, or in the case of the 60p, change the p to an m and realise that bn means billion and m means million, what I've described, is our relationship with the EU. This is how we pay our membership, what we get back monetarily speaking, what the terms are for getting that money back and what happens if we break the rules of the Union (Ignore the smoking ban for example, or allow a bank to pay it's top staff whatever bonuses they want to, or refuse to give prisoners the vote). Believe it or not, we pay in £17 billion pounds per year and on average, we get around £8 billion back, that's a little less than half.
The way we get that £8 billion back is not straight forward, they don't just give it to us. We have to request it via 'grants' and 'subsidies' for specific projects and we also have to raise half (It's not always half, but it's easier here to say it is than explain the even more complicated bits) the cost of that project ourselves again, in order to qualify for the 'grant' or 'subsidy'. Now as if that deal doesn't suck enough, we also have to take recommendations on what 'grants' and 'subsidies' to apply for, we then have to take direction on how we will spend the 'grant' or 'subsidy' within the project and we have to abide by a very strict set of rules (regulations and directives) whilst carrying out the project.
By far the most astonishing thing about all of this, is that some people, do seem to support it! There are people who tell us this is a GOOD THING! To me, paying someone else £17 billion per year, to give me some of that money I gave them in the first place back, but only if I can raise half of it myself and meet the requirements they've laid out, whilst also having to stick to their rules whilst I do what they've suggested I do and if I slip up at all they'll sue me for even more money, sounds like a protection racket!!!!
The deal works like this, you pay me £17 for 12 months membership of my club, you can pay by direct debit if you like, that's not a problem. For your £17, I will give you £8 back across the year, for you to use on projects, purchasing things, paying for services, etc. but ONLY, if you can also stump up 50% of each project, item or service you intend to buy, out of your own pocket. Now, the deal doesn't quite end there, I'm also going to make strong recommendations as to how you'll spend this money, where you'll spend it, with what retailers and service providers. In addition to this, I'm also going to make you abide by a strict set of rules, which I'm not going to lie to you, you won't like very much, but you HAVE to stick to them, or I won't give you the money you want. If you break the rules I set out, I'll take you to court and sue you for about 60p, plus the cost of the court proceedings.
So, how does this all sound? Sounds like a great deal right? At this point I imagine you're screaming at your screen, NO! Well now I'm going to let you into a little secret, it's not really a secret, because it's all written down, in the public domain, even reported on in the media, sort of, but it's been so obfuscated and so fragmented in it's documentation and reporting, that the majority of people haven't a clue that it's true.
If you take my little money making scheme above and add the letters (bn) to the end of each amount of money, or in the case of the 60p, change the p to an m and realise that bn means billion and m means million, what I've described, is our relationship with the EU. This is how we pay our membership, what we get back monetarily speaking, what the terms are for getting that money back and what happens if we break the rules of the Union (Ignore the smoking ban for example, or allow a bank to pay it's top staff whatever bonuses they want to, or refuse to give prisoners the vote). Believe it or not, we pay in £17 billion pounds per year and on average, we get around £8 billion back, that's a little less than half.
The way we get that £8 billion back is not straight forward, they don't just give it to us. We have to request it via 'grants' and 'subsidies' for specific projects and we also have to raise half (It's not always half, but it's easier here to say it is than explain the even more complicated bits) the cost of that project ourselves again, in order to qualify for the 'grant' or 'subsidy'. Now as if that deal doesn't suck enough, we also have to take recommendations on what 'grants' and 'subsidies' to apply for, we then have to take direction on how we will spend the 'grant' or 'subsidy' within the project and we have to abide by a very strict set of rules (regulations and directives) whilst carrying out the project.
By far the most astonishing thing about all of this, is that some people, do seem to support it! There are people who tell us this is a GOOD THING! To me, paying someone else £17 billion per year, to give me some of that money I gave them in the first place back, but only if I can raise half of it myself and meet the requirements they've laid out, whilst also having to stick to their rules whilst I do what they've suggested I do and if I slip up at all they'll sue me for even more money, sounds like a protection racket!!!!
Thursday 23 October 2014
The headlines claiming EU support is at it's highest ever, are utter tosh!
You will have seen over the last few days, several newspapers and lots of Europhiles jumping around claiming that whilst UKIP support is surging, support for remaining in the EU is at an all time high. This of course, as you might expect, is utter tosh.
As we can see from the attached image, support for a federalist EU with closer political ties has actually increased by 1% since May, from 13% to 14%, but support for staying as we are, has dropped considerably back to 2012 levels of 29% from 32% back in May.
Now the next item on the graph, is where the journos and Europhiles are trying to claim victory. Support for "Britain returning to be a part of the European Economic Community, WITHOUT political links" has increased from 30% to 34% since May. So, the journos and Europhiles would have you believe this shows an increase in support for the EU, but does it? Considering first and foremost, no one and I do mean no one is offering that as an option, it seems a bit of a silly question to ask, but secondly, when you look at the question a little deeper, what it's saying is that 34% of people want to trade with the EU, they believe in co-operation with the EU, but they do not want political ties with the EU.
Now let's have a look at one of UKIPs and Nigel Farages most commonly said phrases shall we. "We want to trade with Europe, co-operate with Europe and be friends with Europe, but we don't want to be ruled by Europe. Sounds an awful lot like that third question doesn't it? The one with 34% support.
In short, this is just an attempt by the Mainstream media and most likely with involvement from the Tories and Labour, to make it LOOK as though support for the EU has increased, when in fact it hasn't, what has actually happened, is more and more people have switched on to the idea that UKIP has been suggesting for quite some time. Let's get out of political union, but trade, co-operate and be friends with our neighbours.
As we can see from the attached image, support for a federalist EU with closer political ties has actually increased by 1% since May, from 13% to 14%, but support for staying as we are, has dropped considerably back to 2012 levels of 29% from 32% back in May.
Now the next item on the graph, is where the journos and Europhiles are trying to claim victory. Support for "Britain returning to be a part of the European Economic Community, WITHOUT political links" has increased from 30% to 34% since May. So, the journos and Europhiles would have you believe this shows an increase in support for the EU, but does it? Considering first and foremost, no one and I do mean no one is offering that as an option, it seems a bit of a silly question to ask, but secondly, when you look at the question a little deeper, what it's saying is that 34% of people want to trade with the EU, they believe in co-operation with the EU, but they do not want political ties with the EU.
Now let's have a look at one of UKIPs and Nigel Farages most commonly said phrases shall we. "We want to trade with Europe, co-operate with Europe and be friends with Europe, but we don't want to be ruled by Europe. Sounds an awful lot like that third question doesn't it? The one with 34% support.
In short, this is just an attempt by the Mainstream media and most likely with involvement from the Tories and Labour, to make it LOOK as though support for the EU has increased, when in fact it hasn't, what has actually happened, is more and more people have switched on to the idea that UKIP has been suggesting for quite some time. Let's get out of political union, but trade, co-operate and be friends with our neighbours.
The upshot of the results of this poll are simple, 51% of people do not want even the current level of political ties that we have with the EU and a staggering 80% of people do not want any further political union, i.e. a United States of Europe. When you look at the figures that way, they paint a very different picture to what's being bandied around in the press, don't you think?
Wednesday 22 October 2014
Conservative and Labour Eurosceptics obviously have no sense of urgency when it comes to Brexit
We're now living in the most Eurosceptic time I can remember, with Eurosceptics genuinely in Labour, Tories and of course, UKIP. The problem, is that they are not united and those who are seeking unity among us, are going about it entirely the wrong way, with absolutely no sense of urgency at all.
UKIP are now a political force, there is simply no denying it. A 60% electoral victory for Douglas Carswell and a mere 617 vote shortfall by John Bickley in Heywood and Middleton a few weeks ago have proved that, if nothing else, but the party are also now commanding 25% of the vote according to any pollster that bothers to prompt the party in it's questions. Yet still the Eurosceptic Tories and Labour members, cling to their party like it's the last life raft available on the Titanic.
The Conservative party itself, does not wish to leave the EU, the leader doesn't want to leave, the Chairman doesn't want to leave, most of the cabinet do not want to leave and a vast proportion of the overall party, does not want to leave the EU and the exact same applies to the Labour party. Simply put, any hope of turning the Conservative party into THE Europsceptic party, is folly and nothing more and as for the Labour party, you'd have to be on LSD to believe they were going to change to a generally Eurosceptic party. Dan Hannan and various other Eurosceptic Tories have now admitted, that they do not believe David Cameron will actually lead an 'Out' vote in an EU referendum and that Douglas Carswell was completely correct when he said upon leaving the Tories that, "they intend to secure just enough change, that they will convince people to stay in" or something to that effect. Yet they remain within the Tory party and are not in any way, challenging the leadership. The Labour leadership and most of it's party members have categorically ruled out any negotiation on leaving the EU, or any referendum resulting from it.
If we truly want to leave the EU, then the Eurosceptics need to drop this ridiculous idea, that they're somehow going to turn around their own behemoth parties to their own ideas and instead, join the party that is already shouting that it wants to get out of the EU, is already gathering strength to get out of the EU and is doing everything it can, to get out of the EU. Perhaps some perspective can be offered to these people from us, the voters. I for example, can categorically declare, that until we are out of the EU, there is absolutely ZERO chance of me voting for ANY party, other than UKIP. I want out of the EU first, before ANYTHING ELSE and therefore, I cannot bring myself to vote Tory, as I simply do not believe the leadership and therefore, cannot legitimately believe the MPs and MEPs when they say they're genuine about wishing to leave, but cling to their old parties so desperately. This I believe is why Carswell jumped ship, he too has absolutely zero faith in turning the Tory party around and he wants OUT of the EU, first and foremost, the rest, can be dealt with later.
It's time for political reform, it's time for political change and it's time this country made itself great again, by picking itself up off the floor, dusting itself off and going into battle (I don't literally mean a war, I'm not that keen on those) against whatever challenges are thrown at us. There is simply no way to do that, when the party you support has such divided opinion within it. So, Eurosceptics of the Tory and Labour parties, realise this, you will not win back my vote, you will not win back many votes at all from those who've switched over to UKIP, as contrary to what the commentariat, your leaders and your europhile colleagues believe, it is not a protest vote, we're not swing voters, it is a means to an end and we intend to follow it through!
UKIP are now a political force, there is simply no denying it. A 60% electoral victory for Douglas Carswell and a mere 617 vote shortfall by John Bickley in Heywood and Middleton a few weeks ago have proved that, if nothing else, but the party are also now commanding 25% of the vote according to any pollster that bothers to prompt the party in it's questions. Yet still the Eurosceptic Tories and Labour members, cling to their party like it's the last life raft available on the Titanic.
The Conservative party itself, does not wish to leave the EU, the leader doesn't want to leave, the Chairman doesn't want to leave, most of the cabinet do not want to leave and a vast proportion of the overall party, does not want to leave the EU and the exact same applies to the Labour party. Simply put, any hope of turning the Conservative party into THE Europsceptic party, is folly and nothing more and as for the Labour party, you'd have to be on LSD to believe they were going to change to a generally Eurosceptic party. Dan Hannan and various other Eurosceptic Tories have now admitted, that they do not believe David Cameron will actually lead an 'Out' vote in an EU referendum and that Douglas Carswell was completely correct when he said upon leaving the Tories that, "they intend to secure just enough change, that they will convince people to stay in" or something to that effect. Yet they remain within the Tory party and are not in any way, challenging the leadership. The Labour leadership and most of it's party members have categorically ruled out any negotiation on leaving the EU, or any referendum resulting from it.
If we truly want to leave the EU, then the Eurosceptics need to drop this ridiculous idea, that they're somehow going to turn around their own behemoth parties to their own ideas and instead, join the party that is already shouting that it wants to get out of the EU, is already gathering strength to get out of the EU and is doing everything it can, to get out of the EU. Perhaps some perspective can be offered to these people from us, the voters. I for example, can categorically declare, that until we are out of the EU, there is absolutely ZERO chance of me voting for ANY party, other than UKIP. I want out of the EU first, before ANYTHING ELSE and therefore, I cannot bring myself to vote Tory, as I simply do not believe the leadership and therefore, cannot legitimately believe the MPs and MEPs when they say they're genuine about wishing to leave, but cling to their old parties so desperately. This I believe is why Carswell jumped ship, he too has absolutely zero faith in turning the Tory party around and he wants OUT of the EU, first and foremost, the rest, can be dealt with later.
It's time for political reform, it's time for political change and it's time this country made itself great again, by picking itself up off the floor, dusting itself off and going into battle (I don't literally mean a war, I'm not that keen on those) against whatever challenges are thrown at us. There is simply no way to do that, when the party you support has such divided opinion within it. So, Eurosceptics of the Tory and Labour parties, realise this, you will not win back my vote, you will not win back many votes at all from those who've switched over to UKIP, as contrary to what the commentariat, your leaders and your europhile colleagues believe, it is not a protest vote, we're not swing voters, it is a means to an end and we intend to follow it through!
The problem with the EU isn't just immigration, which is why I'm voting UKIP
Unfortunately, the issue of immigration is one that is forefront in the minds of many and because of this, UKIP has been somewhat forced into taking up that issue as its 'lead argument' by the press, who never ask anything but questions about immigration. Whilst the issue of open door immigration is a valid one and is certainly one of many reasons, that I'll be voting UKIP, to me, it isn't actually the biggest reason to vote for them.
Our national sovereignty is being given away, piece by piece to the EU. You hear this all the time, but it doesn't seem to have any impact with voters for some reason and I can't quite figure out why. My assumption, is that the word sovereignty perhaps rings bells with people, as meaning the Queen, or royalty and thus people either think that they (The Royals) will always be there, or perhaps are anti-royal and so don't care. The fact is though, sovereignty in this day and age has really bugger all to do with the Queen in real terms, it's to do with who makes our laws, who directs our country, who establishes things like our foreign policy, defence policy, energy policy. Put simply, sovereignty is our right to self determination, it's our countries ability, to distinguish itself from other countries and make its way in the world, to make our laws, to decide what steps we're going to take, if any, to avoid 'global warming', it's our right to decide who we allow to run businesses, how they run them and who pays what taxes here. Without sovereignty, we are but slaves to whoever dictates that we must do things.
No doubt you've heard that the EU is full of 'unelected bureaucrats' and some of you may look at the MEPs and think, no it isn't, we elect MEPs. But, the fact is those MEPs have no power. Let's compare the EU Parliament to our own for a minute, to get some perspective. In the House of Commons, we have two sets of benches, those of government and those of opposition. With 650 MP seats available in the House of Commons and a party needing a clear majority of those seats in order to form a govt, it's an almost certainty that new laws the govt wants to introduce, will pass the vote. This is how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work, the party who won the Electoral vote has the larger number of votes in the House of Commons and therefore, shy of anything MPs may seriously disagree with, they can create and pass new laws, with relative ease. The fact is though, if MPs do seriously disagree with something, or their constituents have organised a petition, or written to them in large numbers, they can 'rebel' and stand against the govt if they so choose. Something Mark Reckless and Douglas Carswell did rather a lot before defecting to UKIP.
The EU parliament however, doesn't work this way, it can't work this way, because of the disproportionate number of MEPs who sit there, from all of the member states. There is no govt side of the house with an opposition side of the house to argue with, there is just a big mess of MEPs sat together, voting with nearly no solidarity whatsoever (other than party solidarity, or group solidarity in some cases), on the laws that the commission put forward. Now this is where the differences begin, but it's not where they end. The MEPs cannot propose new laws, nor amend them, nor debate them, nor can they reject new laws, even with a majority vote. WHAT? I hear you cry, but if the MEPs can't propose, amend, debate, or reject new laws, all they can do is pass them surely? Correct, MEPs can pass laws, or they can 'temporarily' take them off the table if the vote doesn't go the 'right' way, but that requires a majority of MEPs from ALL countries in the union, to vote against it, a very rare occurrence. The simple fact is, MEPs pass into law a truck load of new laws on a weekly basis, to watch them voting on video, is akin to watching a bunch of brainwashed cult members raising and lowering their hands on command. When a vote does say no, the commission takes away that bill, re-drafts it and re-introduces it later as something else.
So who does propose, amend and debate new laws then if it's not the European Parliament? Well I'm glad you asked, that would be the European Commission, a group of unelected bureaucrats, who you have no control over, who have no link with the people and who have no 'face' essentially. These people are usually politicians who've done their time in their local govts and either can no longer be elected at home for whatever reason, or have decided to seek more power, with less of the need to justify themselves to the public. Tony Blair is one politician who sought the office of EU President and thankfully failed to gain the position. Had he done so, he would have been the one in charge of the entire European project, he'd be making up the laws, passing them through the rest of the commission and then down to the MEPs to vote on, without ever having to make a speech to the public, without ever having to ask the publics' opinion, without ever having to be held accountable to the public for his decisions.
Now ask yourself, does that sound like democracy? It sounds like a very skewed form of democracy to me. Yes we still elect MEPs and yes the president is 'technically' elected by the MEPs, but as we've seen recently with the appointment of Mr Juncker to the position of EU President, not a single member of the ordinary public voted for him to be a candidate and more importantly, when the MEPs were given a vote, he was the ONLY candidate for the job, hardly something you can really vote against.
I could go on forever here with reasons that the EU is not in our interests, is undemocratic and is fundamentally flawed in its methods, but doing so would render the post unreadable, so I'll wind up here, by pointing out that we as a country, only have 8% of the MEPs in the European Parliament, one third of those 8% of MEPs for Britain are UKIP MEPs, the rest are made up of Lib Dems, Greens, Labour and Conservatives. The only party whos MEPs vote in Britains' interests, are UKIP with the Lib Dems, Greens, Labour and Conservative MEPs regularly voting in completely the opposite direction to UKIP. If UKIP MEPs make up 3% of the EU parliament as a whole, how on earth do we EVER expect to have any voice in Europe? Remember, even if ALL the MEPs were UKIP and voting the same way, that is still only 8% of the entire European Parliament and we still have absolutely ZERO voice, when it comes to decision making. I don't like the fact that our country has absolutely zero say in how our laws are made, I don't like the fact, that the EUs core, is built on the phrase 'ever closer union' and I don't like the thought, that in another ten years time, if we have not left the EU, Britain will be nothing more than a county, in the EU Superstate they are creating. THAT is why I'm voting UKIP, not just because of the preposterous open door immigration policy that's forced on us by the EU, but because I'm British, proud to be British and I want to remain, British!
Our national sovereignty is being given away, piece by piece to the EU. You hear this all the time, but it doesn't seem to have any impact with voters for some reason and I can't quite figure out why. My assumption, is that the word sovereignty perhaps rings bells with people, as meaning the Queen, or royalty and thus people either think that they (The Royals) will always be there, or perhaps are anti-royal and so don't care. The fact is though, sovereignty in this day and age has really bugger all to do with the Queen in real terms, it's to do with who makes our laws, who directs our country, who establishes things like our foreign policy, defence policy, energy policy. Put simply, sovereignty is our right to self determination, it's our countries ability, to distinguish itself from other countries and make its way in the world, to make our laws, to decide what steps we're going to take, if any, to avoid 'global warming', it's our right to decide who we allow to run businesses, how they run them and who pays what taxes here. Without sovereignty, we are but slaves to whoever dictates that we must do things.
No doubt you've heard that the EU is full of 'unelected bureaucrats' and some of you may look at the MEPs and think, no it isn't, we elect MEPs. But, the fact is those MEPs have no power. Let's compare the EU Parliament to our own for a minute, to get some perspective. In the House of Commons, we have two sets of benches, those of government and those of opposition. With 650 MP seats available in the House of Commons and a party needing a clear majority of those seats in order to form a govt, it's an almost certainty that new laws the govt wants to introduce, will pass the vote. This is how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work, the party who won the Electoral vote has the larger number of votes in the House of Commons and therefore, shy of anything MPs may seriously disagree with, they can create and pass new laws, with relative ease. The fact is though, if MPs do seriously disagree with something, or their constituents have organised a petition, or written to them in large numbers, they can 'rebel' and stand against the govt if they so choose. Something Mark Reckless and Douglas Carswell did rather a lot before defecting to UKIP.
The EU parliament however, doesn't work this way, it can't work this way, because of the disproportionate number of MEPs who sit there, from all of the member states. There is no govt side of the house with an opposition side of the house to argue with, there is just a big mess of MEPs sat together, voting with nearly no solidarity whatsoever (other than party solidarity, or group solidarity in some cases), on the laws that the commission put forward. Now this is where the differences begin, but it's not where they end. The MEPs cannot propose new laws, nor amend them, nor debate them, nor can they reject new laws, even with a majority vote. WHAT? I hear you cry, but if the MEPs can't propose, amend, debate, or reject new laws, all they can do is pass them surely? Correct, MEPs can pass laws, or they can 'temporarily' take them off the table if the vote doesn't go the 'right' way, but that requires a majority of MEPs from ALL countries in the union, to vote against it, a very rare occurrence. The simple fact is, MEPs pass into law a truck load of new laws on a weekly basis, to watch them voting on video, is akin to watching a bunch of brainwashed cult members raising and lowering their hands on command. When a vote does say no, the commission takes away that bill, re-drafts it and re-introduces it later as something else.
So who does propose, amend and debate new laws then if it's not the European Parliament? Well I'm glad you asked, that would be the European Commission, a group of unelected bureaucrats, who you have no control over, who have no link with the people and who have no 'face' essentially. These people are usually politicians who've done their time in their local govts and either can no longer be elected at home for whatever reason, or have decided to seek more power, with less of the need to justify themselves to the public. Tony Blair is one politician who sought the office of EU President and thankfully failed to gain the position. Had he done so, he would have been the one in charge of the entire European project, he'd be making up the laws, passing them through the rest of the commission and then down to the MEPs to vote on, without ever having to make a speech to the public, without ever having to ask the publics' opinion, without ever having to be held accountable to the public for his decisions.
Now ask yourself, does that sound like democracy? It sounds like a very skewed form of democracy to me. Yes we still elect MEPs and yes the president is 'technically' elected by the MEPs, but as we've seen recently with the appointment of Mr Juncker to the position of EU President, not a single member of the ordinary public voted for him to be a candidate and more importantly, when the MEPs were given a vote, he was the ONLY candidate for the job, hardly something you can really vote against.
I could go on forever here with reasons that the EU is not in our interests, is undemocratic and is fundamentally flawed in its methods, but doing so would render the post unreadable, so I'll wind up here, by pointing out that we as a country, only have 8% of the MEPs in the European Parliament, one third of those 8% of MEPs for Britain are UKIP MEPs, the rest are made up of Lib Dems, Greens, Labour and Conservatives. The only party whos MEPs vote in Britains' interests, are UKIP with the Lib Dems, Greens, Labour and Conservative MEPs regularly voting in completely the opposite direction to UKIP. If UKIP MEPs make up 3% of the EU parliament as a whole, how on earth do we EVER expect to have any voice in Europe? Remember, even if ALL the MEPs were UKIP and voting the same way, that is still only 8% of the entire European Parliament and we still have absolutely ZERO voice, when it comes to decision making. I don't like the fact that our country has absolutely zero say in how our laws are made, I don't like the fact, that the EUs core, is built on the phrase 'ever closer union' and I don't like the thought, that in another ten years time, if we have not left the EU, Britain will be nothing more than a county, in the EU Superstate they are creating. THAT is why I'm voting UKIP, not just because of the preposterous open door immigration policy that's forced on us by the EU, but because I'm British, proud to be British and I want to remain, British!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)