Why vote UKIP?

Why Vote UKIP?

WhyVoteUKIP

The UK Independence Party (UKIP) was set up in 1993. It was originally founded by Alan Sked, who had been a member of the old Liberal Party. Alan Sked along with others from different political parties, helped form the cross party think tank The Bruges Group (because they couldn’t pronounce the local Flemish name Brugge), before moving on to form the Anti Federalist League, followed by UKIP. Alan Sked, along with other people from various parties, was opposed to the Treaty of European Union, commonly called the Maastricht Treaty, but he left UKIP after the 1997 election because it had strayed from his vision. He said it had become racist and far right. UKIP was eventually taken over by a group of people who, against its original principles, agreed to contest seats in the European Parliament, then they managed to get some MEPs.

UKIP policy is all about isolationism, mainly leaving the EU, a policy previously supported by the Labour Party, as well as a popular policy with some members of the Conservative Party. Their supporters wrote lots of books against The Maastricht Treaty, etc. UKIP also rejects the idea of membership of the European Economic Area (EEA), and even EFTA because those organisations require there to be free movement of labour from the EU and other EEA and EFTA countries (the EU plus Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein).

The EU was formed as the EEC in 1957, originally made up of just France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg. The original ideas behind it were to provide trading opportunities and some protection against the USSR or Soviet Union, and the USA, as well as to help prevent another war in Europe, or at least between its members.

As For benefits, UKIP has insulted benefit claimants, calling them “a parasitic underclass of scroungers”, planned to stop them from buying alcohol, and has admitted plans to continue with slave labour schemes.

At the end of the day, UKIP is more or less an offshoot of, or the loony right wing of the Conservative Party. Their leader Nigel Farage has praised Mrs Thatcher, so that says it all really.

According to UKIP, there would be lots more jobs for British citizens, simply by leaving the EU. This could mean that there would be little or no harassment of unemployed or unfit people, because hardly anyone would be unemployed or unfit, thanks to deporting most people who aren’t British citizens, thereby creating a lot of job vacancies which they could fill. Unfortunately, this theory doesn’t seem to be true.

The new Labour government was criticised for allowing people from the eight former Communist eastern European countries of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Slovenia, to work in the UK as soon as these countries joined the EU, although the normal practice before this was always to wait seven years for economic conditions in new member states to improve. Poland has by far the largest population of these. Britain was one of only three EU member states, along with Ireland and Sweden, to allow these people to work there from 2004 without work permits.

Unfortunately, I noticed that even before Poland became an EU member there were lots of Poles over here working in Bed & Breakfasts. How did they get these jobs? Apart from this, I saw there were lots of handwritten ads on noticeboards and newsagents’ windows in Russian, or perhaps they were in another language using the same or similar alphabet, such as Serbian, Bosnian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, or Ukrainian. None of these countries are members of the EU, so how did they get in and how could they work here? Years later, I noticed that were were loads of handwritten ads in Portuguese, as well as magazines and other indications that the people who wrote these ads weren’t Portuguese, but Brazilian. Obviously Brazil isn’t in Europe, let alone the EU, so how did THEY get in?

The answers to these questions are as follows. There are other legal ways to come and live in Britain without being an EU citizen. These are Tourist Visas and Student Visas. People can enter Britain on a Tourist Visa, which forbids them from working here. After they’re here, they can go onto a course to learn English or some other pathetic course, then apply for a Student Visa, which also gives them the legal right to work here for as much as 20 hours per week! Of course, new Labour encouraged this instead of doing anything to stop it, while harassing their own citizens half to death for being unemployed!

Another way that foreigners from it seems like any country in the World can come and work in the UK, is because of employers. Under the current system workers don’t have the right to work, but employers have the right to employ whoever they like. If employers claim that there is no one available with the automatic right to work in the UK who can do their jobs, then this entitles them to offer these jobs to people from any country in the World and bring them over here! It seems that no party is advocating any plan to stop them from doing this. UKIP have said that to come and work here people must be “highly skilled”, but I’m fairly sure there are a lot of people in the whole World who either are “highly skilled” or could soon become “highly skilled”, so that won’t stop them.

I can’t help wondering what would happen to Britain if it left the EU. I think it would be totally isolated, threatened in one way or another by Russia, the EU, the USA, and even far off China, at least economically. Some people think that Britain could become a state of the USA, but that seems unlikely. There are already a few US territories, such as Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa, which might become states. Puerto Rico voted in a 2012 referendum to become a state, but not much has happened since then. As a US state, Britain would have a larger population, therefore more influence than any other state, so this is why it’s not likely to ever be allowed to join. Perhaps millions of British citizens would be allowed into the USA to escape the invading Russian army though.

As for an alternative to the EU, Britain could apply to join NAFTA, but this would only be possible after negotiations, or even renegotiation of the whole NAFTA system, so it’s not certain that Britain would get in.

Of course, one thing to remember is that in the EU if you don’t like the current British government, there’s always the option of leaving to go and live elsewhere in the EU. You may even still be allowed to vote in UK elections after doing this.

Why vote UKIP? Don’t bother!

Why Vote Labour?

Why Vote Labour?

WhyVoteLabour

Why Vote Labour?

The Labour Party was set up to represent the interests of labour against the interests of capital. This means representing the interests of the workers against the interests of the bosses. The term “the workers” includes the unemployed and people signed off as sick or declared long term unfit for work.

As an unfit worker, I think my interests include having enough food and drink of a reasonable quality, not living on bread and cheese like people used to do, having a social life, having a constant supply of electricity and gas so I can cook, have hot running water, and don’t have to be cold, a reasonable amount of space to live in, protection from being made homeless, and access to further education.

Labour formed the last government, using the slogan or brand name “new Labour”, indicating totally revamped policies, and were in power for 13 years, after being out of power for 18 years. THIRTEEN YEARS was plenty of time to reverse all the madness of Thatcherism, such as slave labour schemes, mass privatisation, etc, but instead of doing that they actually adopted the insane Thatcherite policies themselves!

Labour’s new policies included rewriting the original Clause 4 of the Labour Party Constitution. Clause 4 basically said that there should be public ownership of “the means of production”. It actually said “To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service”. This was changed, deleting the part about common ownership of the means of production, then emphasising a vague statement that the Labour Party wants to create “for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few”. The full text is on http://www.labourcounts.com/oldclausefour.htm . What this means to me is that if I had common ownership of the means of production, I would have access to any machinery I needed to make any goods I wanted, which I could then sell. Without access to the means of production, I have to look for a “job” working for an employer who owns the machinery. Unfortunately, lots of people are excluded from jobs for not having a “smart appearance” or for having “the wrong attitude”. If I got one of these jobs, then the employer would only pay me a small percentage of the money made from the goods I had produced, just because they own the machinery, or “means of production”. I could then use this smaller amount of money to buy some goods I wanted, while there would be other goods made by me or other workers which I couldn’t even afford, so perhaps I could save my money up in a bank, then the bank could lend it out at interest, or perhaps I could buy the goods on a credit card, which involves paying lots of interest or usury to the bankers.
Labour ended up in 2008-2010 getting together as much money as possible, using some very dodgy techniques, so they could give it to the bankers, who in the period leading up to 2008 had been conjuring even more money out of thin air than ever before, so they could create more debt and take more control over society. After this, the bankers made up a story that the financial crisis was actually caused by governments borrowing and spending too much money, so the governments had to cut public services to pay the bankers as much money as they demanded to make them even richer.

Labour also introduced their concept of “anti social behaviour” which they wanted to cut down or wipe out, enforced by Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs). These are civil matters, but enforced by the Police, and which could add up to a criminal conviction. Luckily, ASBOs have now been scrapped.

Labour Party leader Ed Miliband wasn’t elected as an MP until 2005, but he was already working for new Labour in 1997, so he was totally involved with that government. He was elected Labour Party leader in 2010. After this he tried to con people that the Labour Party had somehow changed by calling it “next Labour” instead of “new Labour”.

A recent Labour Party pledge is to “balance the books”. This means talking about borrowing and a deficit, both measured in billions of Pounds! This is all part of the bankers’ games where only a few per cent of money is actually in circulation, while the rest is represented by debt. What connection does this have with ordinary people’s own budgets of hundreds or even thousands of Pounds paid over periods of a week, a fortnight, or a month? The answer is very little, if anything at all. You’re on a different planet, Miliband!

Balancing the books and wiping out the deficit actually means paying the bankers whatever amounts of money they demand, including interest or usury. Apparently, to do this, the government has to take whatever money they can get hold of, including taxes on money earned from work which hasn’t yet been done, then give it to the bankers, so they can get richer, while most other people, apart from the likes of Alan Sugar, and Rupert Murdoch, get poorer.

How did we get into this mess? The answer is that the seeds of the economic crisis were laid by Mrs Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, etc, with their attitude of “there is no alternative”, and “greed is good”, then continued by politicians with similar policies, such as John Major, George Bush, Bill Clinton (the USA’s version of new Labour), Tony Blair, George W Bush, Gordon Brown, and finally David Cameron and Nick Clegg. They all let the bankers take more control of society, by conjuring even more money out of thin air with nothing really to back it up, except for “toxic debt” such as mortgages given to people who couldn’t pay. Bankers used to be allowed to lend 10 times the amounts of money they had, but that restriction was removed some time ago.

Apart from Rachel Reeves’ comments about attacking the benefits system, here’s a page which contains two threats along the lines of doing as you’re told or losing your benefits http://www.labour.org.uk/issues/detail/young-people .

So, to sum up, why vote Labour? My answer is only if you want more of the same shit!

WHY VOTE LIB DEM?

WHY VOTE LIB DEM?

Why-vote-Liberal-Democrat-Jeremy-Browne-192x300

WHY VOTE LIB DEM?

I was looking round a bookshop when I saw a display of books each about why people should vote for a particular political party. These books are published in the run up to each general election. I thought I should publish at least one or two posts examining the reasons why anyone should or shouldn’t vote for any political party.

I thought I should start with the Lib Dems. This party was forged out of a merger of the former Liberal Party and the former Social Democratic Party (SDP) in 1988. In spite of this, some Liberals and Social Democrats, most famously Dr David Owen, didn’t want to join, so they continued with much smaller versions of these parties, but nowadays you hardly hear anything about these parties.

It was a Liberal government in the early 20th Century which started a benefits system, including pensions. The SDP was a splinter group from the Labour Party, which rejected unilateral nuclear disarmament, their isolationist policies of leaving the then European Community (EC) and NATO, unilateral nuclear disarmament, as well as nationalising almost everything, instead of aiming for a mixed economy. They found a lot of common ground with the Liberals, then formed an electoral alliance. After getting a lot of votes, the Alliance was simultaneously blamed for helping Mrs Thatcher hold on to power, as well as praised for defeating the Labour Party’s isolationist policies. Both parties were committed to demanding that general elections should be fought under a system of proportional representation if they held the balance of power in a hung parliament. Their votes didn’t translate into many seats under the first past the post electoral system, and the number of SDP MPs fell drastically, so then the two parties finally merged to form the Social and Liberal Democrats (SLD), soon shortening this name to the Liberal Democrats or Lib Dems.

The Lib Dems greatly increased their number of seats in 1997 to about 45. This was seen at the time as tactical voting by Labour supporters to help kick out the Tories, but they continued to increase their number of MPs at subsequent general elections, slightly decreasing in 2010, although this was when they eventually held the balance of power.

In 2010, the Lib Dems finally had the chance to implement their policy of “if there’s a hung parliament, then we will INSIST on Proportional Representation as the price of our support”. This was the only policy they could implement without getting a majority of seats in their own right. At the end of the day, they totally REFUSED to implement this game changing policy, preferring to throw away their only chance of this and make a deal with the Devil, alias David Cameron, to be part of a coalition government for five years. If they had implemented it, then Labour and Conservative domination of politics would have been over as soon as another general election could have been held, probably later in 2010. The new coalition quickly passed the Fixed Term Parliament Act, to make it very difficult to hold general elections more often than five years apart. The Lib Dems soon started losing support, and at all subsequent elections, including the Scottish Parliament, European Parliament, and local council elections their representation has either been severely reduced or wiped out altogether.

While in government, the Lib Dems managed to get lots of their policies passed, including some people who had jobs no longer having to pay Income Tax, some more people who had jobs getting a tax cut, and creating some apprenticeships. This meant nothing to people rejected by employers, who then found their whole income of JSA stopped by sanctions (although JSA should have been abolished) and were forced to go to Food Banks, while people who had become “unfit for work” to get away from the Jobcentre harassment who were threatened with the prospect of their income being cut down to JSA levels and being forced to sign on again, or people who had committed the crime of having a “spare room” whose Housing Benefit was cut to punish them for this. I haven’t benefited from their policies at all! It all sounds to me quite like new Labour celebrating their ban on fox hunting!

If the Lib Dems are one of the parties holding the balance of power after the 2015 general election, they now plan to “borrow less than Labour, and cut less than the Tories”, so even five years of cuts weren’t enough, and “help people with mental health issues get back into work” which includes a number of people who were forced to be signed sick to avoid more Jobcentre harassment. You should ask yourself why a government needs to borrow money at all. This plan is just licking the bankers’ boots. Governments have the power to create money themselves. The money isn’t actually worth anything, something known as “fiat” money, but we’ll explore that later.

I think it’s quite safe to say that at the end of the day, a vote for the Lib Dems is a wasted vote. Even if your current MP is a Lib Dem, they’re unlikely to hold on to their seat. This includes Nick Clegg! Their number of seats will be cut down to about 14 or less, or even wiped out altogether.

So, why vote Lib Dem? The answer of course is that you shouldn’t!