Strange Socialism...

Have you ever noticed that anyone from the Socialist Worker's Party or a socialist/marxist in general, is hardly ever a socialist and I do not think any of them could by any stretch of imagination be described as workers. How do I know this my dear ladies and gentlemen? I am at a university and I am literally surrounded by faux-socialists who do not have the faintest idea of what marxism means.

Just to let you know that with regards to left-wing politics and universities, nothing has changed.

The Magnificent 118

No chaps this is not a post about the 1922 Committee, I simply pay my homage and gratitude to them for daring to stand-up to the party machine. On the outside 'secret vote' does what it says on the tin, but in Parliament (I am reluctant to put a capital 'P' in Parliament for it would signify my respect for that institution, sadly that respect is dwindling faster than I thought possible) there is very little which is secret and most people know what is not.

I regret to say that I have been posting very sparsely due to extenuating circumstances; exam week is among us (or me should I say) and spend I most of my days hobbled up in the university library, studying and taking occasional brakes where a lot of anti-PC jokes are thrown about between myself and my peers. Lovely days these would have been indeed, had it not been for the blessed revision; where one needs to somehow fit a year's worth of study into the space of a month and actually know what one is talking about. A daunting task needless to say, but I remain reluctantly confident in not blowing my chances completely.

Until later, rejoice for there will soon be a '2010 Committee' and we can all have a laugh about 'progressive' politics; where apparently we have a new government but it is seemingly turning out to be no different from the past.

Fight on your feat or Live on your knees

What a fucking joke the Conservative Party has become. The only solace that one can take from this is that once there is a new leader he wont be anything but a proper conservative - he would not dare be anything else. Of course by the time that happens, there probably wont be a Conservative party.

If it is not blindingly obvious I just happen to be one of those "right-wing grassroots" that everyone is talking about, and how they will revolt, and we have; here I am revolting. I find Mr. Cameron even more pathetic than I did a year ago but at least now I am 'revolting' about it. I suppose it does feel good to have your long standing scepticism confirmed once and for all. To the rest of my fellow grassroots, if any, please step our of Mr. Cameron's ass for just one second, and realise that you have been royally shafted; there is nothing conservative about the current government and that is the way it was intended. I do not base this upon a Daily Mail article, no, but on every single reaction so far being of muted scepticism from Liberal Democrats. Of course you wont be hearing a lot of noise from the "official" grassroots retreat on the internet, they, you understand, 'support' Mr. Cameron even though he has nothing but contempt for them it would seem. Good thing the new intake of MPs are a lot more independent than the last, three line whip or not, if Mr. Cameron does not take care he will be whipped - out of office, and not too soon either.

Alas, in the meantime, until they get rid of that ridiculous poster boy fronting as a conservative (Mr. Cameron) I think I am going to be an independent. Something of a pseudo-mix of UKIP, American Republicanism (monarchist I remain nonetheless) and a large dose of Libertarian. Same principles but different name, now that my normal abode has been invaded.

This is what I believe in?

I am sure that I am not alone in feeling very betrayed this evening as the party I nominally and instinctively agree with a lot seems to be fading before my very eyes. Sure I could always fall back on UKIP but they have nowhere near the history and excitement of the Conservative Party (yet it would seem) - who really were the only realistic choice in getting us out of the EU. Perhaps 'lost' is the word which most appropriately describes the situation, a situation where suddenly there is nothing even hinting of right-wing in the Conservative party. David Cameron has made it 'modern' (whatever that means) sure, where principles are exchanged for privilege at the blink of an eye, but what should the rest of us do who do not have luxury of controlling the party of Churchill and Thatcher, who actually stick by with what we believe and think, and are not afraid to air our opinions in the face character-assasination and the PC-brigade? I have no power over my principles and cannot just 'replace' them with others like a lot of Tory activists seem to be doing tonight.

Have they actually read the LD manifesto? Researched Clegg? Cable? Ashdown? They are anathema to everything the conservatives, with a small 'c', stand for. Sure some argue that now we can take the LDs down with us when all the cuts that need to be made are made, and then the media has to blame them as well not just the Tory Toffs. But that is opportunism, a strong leader should take responsibility for his actions however harsh they might seem. I am not sure what actually has passed tonight but it feels very very wrong. I could wish for the coalition to fall apart but the same people who made it happen in the first place will still be there, the same people who notionally appear conservative but are in fact something completely different. But maybe that is alright, as a Court of Law has shown; political parties do not need to honour their manifestos. Why should they then be made to honour their principles? I suppose I ought to wish them all the best, and I do, but I was sort of only half-believing what I was seeing until now. That perhaps there was a plan B for the party, a cunning operation whereby we not only sorted out the welfare state but also told the EU to sod off and reinvigorated Britain with a sense of purpose and direction, a place where one could be proud to live and not a place where 75% of the people want emigrate from.

Tory activist tonight keep saying to people like myself who comment on 'certain' pages that 'the country has moved on' and 'your wing of the party is out of favour with the public'. But if that were really true then why did they vote for the Conservatives in the first place then, why did UKIP double their share of the vote? Why is there a consensus in the media that socialismUK has not worked at all and that toryism should be given a shot? Clearly I have got it all mixed up and I feel that I was born 100 years too late, and perhaps I was, I do not know. I made a promise to myself that if Labour won the election I too would emigrate but here again I am stuck in a limbo since that pledge was on the condition that the tories won, not that they won by teaming up with a gang even worse than Labour. You might think that I am bitter, I really am not, trust me on that, just exceedingly confused.

I am not sure what to do now and neither does Melanchtron it seems, but he has at the very least put it a lot better than myself.

Changing the voting system. Fixed term Parliaments. A vigorous opponent of religious freedom as Education secretary.

Maybe I've been looking at this all wrong. I'd been assuming that I was a Conservative, and that the Conservative Party, though its platform had many elements I approved of, had chosen certain non-Conservative paths (I hoped temporarily) which I considered ill-advised both in Electoral terms but also in terms of integrity - because they were non-Conservative they were not True to Who We Are.

But maybe that's back to front. Maybe the truth is that I am not a Conservative, and that although the Conservative Party (sadly, to a true modern Conservative) continues notionally to support some delusional ideas that a non-Conservative such as myself finds attractive, it has moved considerably in the direction of true modern Conservatism and will shortly purge itself of its last residual delusional aspects.

I am a believer in the classical British constitution, moulded and worked over hundreds of years, a mixed creature in which Platonic guardian and representative democrat ideas were intermingled. I believe that Britain is, or at least should be, (to appropriate Henry VIII's phrase) an empire unto herself, making all of her own laws and applying those laws only within her borders. I believe in constitutional monarchy, in an unelected second chamber, in an elected house of representatives (not delegates) who are spokesmen for their areas. I believe that in voting we elect our rulers - we do not aspire to "rule ourselves". I believe that the prime goal of the constitution is the promotion and preservation of ordered liberty.

I favour a constitution that is organic, husbanded by an establishment class of self-sustaining oligarchs who understand their duty to interpret the constitution anew in each age, and apply it for the promotion of ordered liberty whilst always respecting justice and true religion.

I favour law that conceives of itself as in the first instance about natural or divinely-ordained justice and only secondarily about the arbitrary choices of Man.

I want a tolerant society, not a society that is politically correct and intolerant of deviance from secularist, atheist, amoral, libertine norms.

I believe that there is no true peace without justice and that war can be righteous in a righteous cause.

I believe that our rulers should be encouraged to deport themselves with dignity and honour, not vanity and mawkishness.

I have faith that what is right and true will eventually defeat that which is wrong and false, and that if it does not that matters only a little, for all crookedness will be made straight in a Judgement at the End. In particular, I believe that democratic politics is a battle of ideas, not a struggle of classes or interest groups, and that if we argue for what we believe to be right - of course being pragmatic in respect of what can be achieved in any one age and of course respecting the need to cooperate with others in teams to achieve anything at all - that if we argue for what we believe to be right, then if we are correct in our belief we will eventually be vindicated by events and be recognised as such by a fair and reasonable press and voting public.

I had assumed that such beliefs made me a Conservative. But perhaps not. Perhaps the Conservative Party is actually a liberal and Democrat party, in fact, and would be happier if, as Michael Portillo hopes, it has the opportunity of "ditching the Tory party Right wing" (I presume he means the likes of me) which the removal of first-past-the-post would give it. The Party has obviously considered the likes of me an embarrassment since the mid-1990s, what with our wanting the Party to argue for what it believed in rather than what it considered popular (reversing our repeated error of 2001, 2005 and 2010), that the public would see through a lack of integtrity and not trust us, that we should offer policies we considered in the country's best interests and in particular in the interests of the marginalised and the oppressed, both at home and abroad, even if our methods for so doing were not the Statist solutions favoured by the Left. I'd kind of assumed that what was embarrassing about me was that I was a Conservative. But perhaps, all along, I've misunderstood. Perhaps what was most embarrassing about me was that I wasn't a Conservative but the voters might assume that I was. I thought Cameron hadn't changed the Party enough, that it was still ruled by that vanity and fear of the voters that had plagued it since the mid-1990s. But perhaps it's me that's got this wrong all along. Vanity was not an error - it was a brand. Conservatism is not about organic evolution - it is about revolutionary change. Tolerance, self-discipline, honour, dignity - these are not virtuous, but repressive. Truth is not our ally - it is our enemy.

I understand it better now. Pardon my mistake. I withdraw. Might not post in a while whilst I collect my thoughts.

Fury

Words cannot describe the immense anger and resentment I am experiencing right now. Words cannot integrate their poignancy enough to render their typing meaningful. How the fuck could this have happened?

Note: I hope the reader will excuse my adolescence; I will be using a lot of foul language over the coming days for something tells me things are about to get much worse.

Three Proposed Referendums

As we are heading for Dante's inferno it seems to me that there is only one solution to put an end to all our woes and misfortunes. Let it be know that I only agree with one of my proposals but I am not the one who indulges in self-censorship, we have the MSM for that.

1. Referendum on the continuation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
2. Referendum on the UK's continued membership of the European Union
3. Referendum on the electoral system of the UK

I only agree with Nr. 2 where Nr. 3 would be disastrous, FPTP works perfectly well it has just been fucked up by New Labour as has everything else. I would hate for the UK to be broken up for it is a force for good, certainly, but it seems that we are very much at odds with each other; England being very Tory and Scotland simply props up the left all the time. That and a multitude of other problems such a spending formulas and their proportion of the electorate etcetera.

It cannot be emphasised enough that the above three suggested referendums are not mutually exclusive. You cannot have one without the other since they are fundamentally interlinked and interlocked - the former affects the other as much as the latter.

UPDATE: It would appear that I was correct in predicting Nr. 2 and Nr. 3. I suppose you would not have to be clairvoyant to have predicted Nr. 3.

Elections and the Commonwealth

Is it not very strange that Commonwealth citizens can vote in the UK? In General Elections European Union citizens cannot vote - but Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland citizens can still do so, and so can citizens of Cyprus and Malta, which are EU countries, but also Commonwealth countries.

In this regard, MigrationWatch released a briefing paper on the 21st February 2008 on the right of non-citizens to vote, with particular regard to the puzzling permission allowed "Commonwealth citizens". (See MigrationWatch, "The Right of Non Citizens to Vote in Britain", Briefing paper 8.22)

It had these important points to make (my emphases):

British electoral law provides for the citizens of nearly fifty Commonwealth countries, British Dependent Territories, and the Republic of Ireland to vote in both local and general elections in the UK. The Representation of the People Act, 1918, provided that only British subjects could register as electors. However, the term "British subject" included any person who, at that time, owed allegiance to the Crown, regardless of the crown territory in which they were born. This included Commonwealth citizens and has never been revised.

Entitlement to vote in general elections is reciprocated for UK citizens only in the Republic of Ireland and a small number of (mainly West Indian) countries: Antigua & Barbuda; Dominica; Grenada; Guyana; Jamaica; Mauritius; St. Lucia and St. Vincent & The Grenadines.

It points out that the scale of this extension of the franchise is considerable:

Data on International Migration and the UK provided to the OECD indicates that there were 3,353,000 foreign citizens living in the UK in 2006. Of these 1,057,000 are from named Commonwealth countries and we estimate that a further 105,000 are from other Commonwealth countries making a total of 1,162,000 Commonwealth citizens in the UK.

Some of this total will be children. Children under 18 make up 22% of the UK population but it is likely that they will make up a smaller proportion of the population of foreign citizens. The international migration statistics indicate that under 5% of net migration is of children under 15. Migrants cannot acquire citizenship until 5 years after their arrival in the UK so foreign citizenship will be weighted heavily towards recent arrivals. It is likely therefore that children who are foreign citizens will comprise less than 15% of the total population of foreign citizens leaving a population of nearly a million (988,000) adult Commonwealth citizens in the UK. They will have the right to vote in British elections simply by virtue of their Commonwealth origins.

The fact that these people can vote in Britain, but we cannot vote in their countries, and the fact that in a close election their votes will be critical is:

Not only inequitable, but also illogical. It extends the franchise to a large number of individuals whose allegiance lies in states other than the United Kingdom. It is quite clearly an anachronism which, given the recent sustained increase in immigration, is now potentially significant. It should be removed.

MigrationWatch recommends that in future:

the right to vote in British general elections should be confined to citizens of the UK and those countries that offer reciprocal voting rights, namely the Republic of Ireland and certain West Indian countries. Proof of citizenship should be required on first registration on the Electoral Roll. The right to vote in local elections should be confined to citizens of the same countries plus those of the EU where there are reciprocal voting rights in local elections.

National citizenship - as opposed to universalist concepts of "global citizenship" - is undermined if we throw away its key privileges to people who are not entitled to enjoy them. If national citizenship is to be at all special - if it is to mean anything - then it must confer advantages upon national citizens, which are not enjoyed by non-citizens.

Voting rights is one of those key privileges. Meanwhile in Brussels "no taxation without representation" is proving to be a remarkably hollow statement. Jonathan Mayhew would have been shocked if he had been alive today. Boston politician James Otis had a different rendering which is much closer to the truth "taxation without representation is tyranny".

Principles

Well, I for one still despise the Liberal Democrats even if the supposedly conservative Tories (WTF are they 'conserving' ?) have decided to drop that ideological principle. Groucho Marx would have been proud:

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

Historical juxtaposition in its most serene and ironical take on life. If you want to make the 'put the country first' argument then I ask you this; if they really wanted to put the country first, then why the fuck are they arguing about the electoral system when Athens is burning?

Furthermore here is some free advice for Mr. Cameron or the next Tory party leader: throw the eurosceptics a bone for fucks sake. Anything, drop the CAP, Common Fisheries Policy, Elements of the Maastricht, Amsterdam, Rome treaties or a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, do not just repatriate powers from the social chapter dump the whole damn thing, get us out of the ECHR, make British courts the highest legal offices in the land or something else of similar gravity. Just do something, anything. UKIP lost you the election and they vote by principle and not by tactics and their share will not decrease but increase if you do nothing it really is as simple as that. Give a firm pledge that the treasury will hold a full blown cost-for-benefit analysis of Britain's membership of the EU. But whatever you do, do something, Tory EU policy is not up to scratch for the country, which everyone has been saying for the past two years. Please do listen.

Finally I am about to get very unpopular at my university. I am writing a very long and fairly incisive (I think) article in defence of FPTP system (with boundary changes and fewer MPs). As you might have heard those annoying things with completely random and reactionary principles, commonly known as students, habituate the wast realm of universities. Furthermore they for some reason or another decided to vote, en mass, for the Liberal Democrats. Hopefully I have bulked up enough at the gym to defend myself from UAF-like students who do not handle criticism well. Failing that, I will whip out a copy of Milton Friedman's 'Capitalism and Freedom' - it is to students what crucifixes are to vampires.* Trust me, it works and please try it yourself but whatever you do, do not, I repeat, do not confuse any proper work with Marx' 'A communist manifesto' - a great scholarly theoretical piece but to students who fail to grasp its utter ineffectuality in normal life, it is like ecstasy. Student vampires on ecstasy - would you want that? Did not think so, please take care.

*Hayek's 'The Road to Serfdom' has equal if not greater effect.

Round-up

Today in Britain we have; a Prime Minister who has never been elected as leader of his Party or Country, and who came second in a general election with both votes and seats. Tomorrow we fight wars to teach the world democracy.

What a mess.

Vote

I have voted, have you? After I voted I went and bought food and a chinese takeaway, realising that there is not chance in hell of me getting any work done tonight. What is far more likelier is that my long neck will lend itself to the joys of alcohol and fair amounts of it, that and tea, lots of tea will be consumed tonight. Then in the morning I shall study.

Update 2209:

2200 Exit Poll: Hung parliament with Tories as largest party with 307 seats. Lab 255. LD 59. This is utter shite if you ask me. The LDs on 59 when Clegg has had his fat head up everyone's arse the entire bloody campaign? Do not think so.

Update 0758:

Well chaps I just woke up and are reading the results right now and all I can say is, what the fuck is going on? Second general election here we come.

Brave New (Labour) World

Well, if you are still undecided whether to vote Labour or not perhaps this final piece of garbage can convince you to vote anything but. This is what the public sector has become under New Labour. And I quote from this jobs add:

Assistant Director - Adult Services

Employer: LONDON BOROUGH OF RICHMOND UPON THAMES
Posted: 27 Apr 2010
Contact: Julia St Clare
Location: Greater London - South London
Industry:
Government - Local government
Senior executive - Government
Social care - Adults
Contract: Permanent
Hours: Full Time
Salary: Salary up to £94K

Let me highlight that figure for you : £94K

Whoever takes office in the next few days know this; we cannot afford a minute let alone five more years of this inglorious excuse for HM Government. Hence if by some miracle (or fraud* which is far likelier) Labour win on friday I honestly do think that will be it for the British electorate. Protests, even British ones (yes I know, it is almost an oxymoron), have a very high probability. Bring on the soma.

*In London the Metropolitan police have received 28 complaints across 12 boroughs and launched five investigations – one in Ealing and four in Tower Hamlets, which has a history of problems with electoral fraud. West Yorkshire police have received 19 complaints and launched five investigations across Bradford and Calderdale, where two arrests have been made. A little analysis of the areas listed reveals an interesting correlation. A correlation that the Guardian 'appears' to have somehow totally missed.

'Ealing' - Ealing Southall - is a Labour seat; 'Tower Hamlets' could be one of two seats: Poplar & Canning, which is Labour seat, or Bethnal Green which Labour are just desperately keen to pinch back from George Galloway; 'Bradford' Well, that could be one or more of three: Bradford North, which is Labour, Bradford West, which is a Labour seat and Bradford South which is another Labour seat. And as for 'Calderdale' - Calder Valley - you may be astonished to learn this, but that seat is held by Labour. Can you see how these seats might have come to be held by Labour? Can you see how they might manage to retain them in Thursday's election? Does, in short, a pattern begin to emerge?

(Hat-tip Constantly Furious who valiantly summarised above foot-note to which there really was not much to add).

UPDATE: I have decided that after friday I am sending out about 20 FoI:s to the compromised seats, with regards to their electoral rolls. That will be my summer, going through numbers to pinpoint precisely where fraud took place and if it significantly affected the outcome of that seat. Expect a full report in September.

A few Facts about Mr. Brown

Hat-tip: Subrosa

We used to have 6 independent regulators to regulate the different divisions of the financial services industry, including our Banks. (Margaret Thatcher knew what the Banks were like and in the 1988 Finance Act she bound the Banks up in regulation to prevent them from being reckless).

Then Gordon Brown became Chancellor on 6th May 1997

1. Gordon's banker friends said "We want all these regulators to go, we don't want regulators watching everything we do" Mr. Brown said "OK".

So, Gordon announced on the 20th May 1997 (2 weeks after becoming Chancellor) that the six regulatory bodies would be broken up and a new Financial Services Authority would replace them. The FSA had virtually no powers over the Banks and he also took away the powers from the Bank of England to enforce regulation on them.

2. We used to have a Monopolies and Mergers Commission

Then Gordon's friends said we don't want the Monopolies and Mergers commission telling us who we can and can't "Take Over" - Gordon said OK. So, in 1998 Gordon scrapped the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and created a replacement called the Competition Commission, with very much reduced powers and different ideas of what used to be regarded as a "Monopoly".

3. We used to have pension regulations, which included something called "The Pensions Cap"

The pensions cap set a limit on how much pension any scheme member (including directors) could get from an occupational pension scheme, irrespective of how high their earnings were. It was there to protect the ordinary members pensions. To prevent Directors paying themselves obscene salaries and then draining the pension funds with huge pensions.

Then Gordon Brown's banker friends said that they wanted the pensions cap removing so that they could get pensions related to their obscene earnings. (The whole Pensions industry gave him warnings of the effects it would have. Even the Inland Revenue put forward objections). Gordon said "ok". Because Gordon never likes to disappoint his banker friends.

So Gordon took away the Pensions Cap in 2005 and then some of his friends were able to leave their boardroom positions with huge pensions. For example Fred Goodwin was apparently entitled to a pension of over £700,000. If Gordon had left the pensions cap in place that would have been a mere £125,000.

(The Superannuations Division of the Inland Revenue have kept a record of what it should be, in readiness for when we get a new chancellor who sees fit to re-instate it. George Osborne has pledged to do that). The record of Pensions Cap limits are available to view on the Revenue's website.

4. The result of this is that along with Gordon's "Tax Raid" on pension funds starting July 1997, over four thousand UK company pension scheme's have closed their doors to new members and many of them have had to close down altogether, leaving millions of workers without any pension provision. This man Gordon Brown professes to be a socialist and "for" the working man.

The working man's main form of long term financial security had for many years been his company pension scheme, something to look forward to at the end of a life of hard work, his reward, light at the end of a long dark tunnel. Gordon has put an end to that by destroying the most valuable asset of the average British worker.

5. It is one of the greatest travesties of justice that this man, who pretends to be "for the working man" has in fact been his worst enemy for the last thirteen years and will leave a legacy that we will be clearing up for man years to come. The real injustice is that it's all been done in areas which are totally out of sight to the general public and beyond the understanding of many.

Mr. Brown relies entirely on people's ignorance to get away with his indiscretions.

6. Finally what Mr. Brown likes to call the "Global Banking Crisis"

Have you noticed that we were the first to be in it and are the last to be out (and whether we are out is very speculative).

As he has openly admitted, The Royal Bank of Scotland was the world's biggest bank.
So when RBS and HBOS were about to go BUST in October 2008 and they had to be bailed out overnight so they did not take the entire country down with them, (that by the way was almost certainly a decision made by the hierarchy in Whitehall for which Gordon loves to take the credit).

As the world's leading banks now all lend money to each other on a collosal scale, isn't it obvious that the worlds biggest bank going down would have a devastating effect on all the others it dealt with. This "world's biggest bank" had also sold bad mortgage books to other banks.

Most of the Banks in Europe which ran into crisis were dragged into it because of the crooked dealings of our big banks. A fact that both Germany and France were quick to remind Gordon Brown of at the G20 emergency meeting shortly after the crisis.

There are many other of Gordon's indiscretions, far too many to list here, but perhaps the few biggies shown above will give some insight into how Gordon operates.

By the way have you noticed how he has suddenly become interested in Social Issues now an election is looming and seems to be able to promise the world when, as Alistair Darling put it a few days ago, there is not a penny left in the bank.

Death to the Tories

...is how Peter Hitchens feels about the current Conservative Party and its leader David Cameron.

Many people believe that the Conservative Party is significantly different from the Labour and Liberal Democratic Parties. This is no longer true. It has, especially under Mr Cameron, become a copy of those parties on all the issues about which its own voters care most. I go into this in far more detail than is possible here, in my new book 'The Cameron Delusion' ( This is a revised paperback edition of 'The Broken Compass') . I recommend this to any readers who wish to follow these arguments further. But here, for everyone, is a concise guide to the reasons why proper patriotic conservatives should not support the Tory Party at this election. I don't and won't offer any advice on how else they should vote -except to urge them not to vote for the BNP . I would also stress that there is no duty to vote when you are offered an insulting lack of choice. In fact, I would stress that there is an important right not to vote, which sometimes needs to be used against politicians who treat us with contempt. I will not be voting in this election. What follows is a short summary of the main reasons why the Tory party has forfeited the trust - and ought to forfeit the votes - of its traditional supporters.

UPDATE: In a striking display of repartee I have just been notified that a couple of friends are going to pre-election meetings with their respective university societies - but none of them have the right to vote in this country (international students). Noble they are for interesting themselves in a future they cannot influence, it would have been far better if their peers -with voting rights- could have attended those meetings. But I suppose that is a prerequisite for being cool today; do not care about what happens tomorrow. Thanks for that Labour. Yet, I am young cynic so I will reiterate my prediction: this election will mean sweet bloody all. It is the next one that really counts. Now we are basically being asked to pick from three identical shitty old Pandora boxes made from rotten IKEA wood. I would rather have an election where there was more difference between party policies than their leaders' ties.

I think it is worth to note that key parts of the electorate may not consciously have embraced the statist and green and politically correct ideologies of the Establishment. But they have been desensitised to them. They regard any alternative as eccentric or even alarming. They have stopped questioning.

Racism and Inconsistency

This is Racist, where "Get the Lot Out" refers to politicians.

"Islam will dominate the world" is not racist.


What a fucking spineless country this has become.

Do you know what the irony is? The Union Jack colours do not constitute a race and nor is Islam a race. One is a national symbol and the other is a religion. Race is a concept which relates to the physical attributes of the observed as per the perceiver. Racial attributes are things such as skin colour, height, muscle mass and in general bodily characteristics which separates one human from one part of the world from one human from another part of the world. Together we constitute the human race. I would not point this out to a Labour education minister though; it would result in Biology becoming racist and though any form of 'education' has disappeared from British schools (yes I did use a capital 'B' shame on me) lets keep what little there is left and hope that the young agile minds will seek out new horizons for themselves.