Labour Party?

 

 

Keir Starmer: is he a Labour Labour Party Leader?

From the very beginning, and despite a massive majority in terms of number of Members of Parliament representing, the Labour Party has been struggling and will presumably continue to struggle.

None other than Keir Starmer is asking whoever remains loyal to the leadership not to vote for the fuel winter allowance that benefits pensioners in the United Kingdom. Keir Starmer want to get rid of it and cannot trust his own MPs. This week in the House of Commons, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Greens, SNP, Independents and presumably several Labour Party MPs might vote against the Labour goveernment. What will happen is tens of Labour MPs vote against the Labour government? Will they all be suspended?

Speaking openly and directly, many now former Labour voters and former Labour Party supporters are saying the Labour Party is no longer a Labour Party and talking about voting for other political parties because the Labour Party does not represent them anymore.

If Labour Party grassroots turn against the Labour Party, who knows what could happen at the next elections. There will be Council Elections across London in 2026 and guess what.... Keir Starmer's constituency is a London constituency. If as a reaction Labour voters across Greater London turn against the Labour Party the situation will be not just uncomfortable, but also very difficult in political terms. There will also be by-elections coming up. The political honeymoon is over even before the first budget is announced.

If somebody is to be blamed, politicians in Westminster are the ones to blame for lamentable events regarding migration

 

If somebody is to be blamed, politicians in Westminster are the ones to blame for lamentable events regarding migration

The Labour Party and others blamed 'Far Right Demonstrators'. Undoubtedly, peaceful demonstrations can be highjacked by violent individuals, but the fact remains that it was for starters a peaceful demonstration in which ordinary law abiding people tried to express their anger and their frustration when their local communities are flooded with total disregard for public views. Suddenly, local inhabitants see their towns and cities overrun and their economic prospects and peaceful coexistence ruined. They talk about it, but Westminster politicians don't seem interested. They hear that their local authorities are running out of money, cutting down services and having to increase taxes that come out of depleted pockets. They ask their local representatives and their national representatives to speak for them, to actually represent their views, and they are not just blatantly ignored. They are insulted. The vast majority of those taking part in the demonstrations were not Far Right Extremists. They were ordinary people who are suffering and have no voice because those they elect to represent them are not interested in representing their views.

Homelessness amongst the local inhabitants has not decreased. In fact, it has increased. Everywhere you see people sleeping rough. Many are struggling to keep a roof over their heads or living in accommodation that is not fit for purpose. On the other hand, they see thousands of illegal migrants crossing the Channel and being given what they - the ordinary people of Great Britain - are denied. Are there laws in Britain? Are there immigration policies in Britain? Those who have the obbligation of enforcing laws are willfully allowing violation of immigration laws.

National and local authorities have created a fertile environment for violence to occur.  

Jeremy Corbyn: No way back, says Starmer

 

Keir Starmer stated today what right now seems the obvious course of action: Jeremy Corbyn will not be allowed to stand as a Labour candidate. This is the statement today February 15th 2023.

What brought Jeremy Corbyn down was not Anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, but Jeremy Corby's stances on Palestine and the cause of the people of Palestine. 

Jeremy Corbyn was brought down because of issues that very much divide the people of Israel. Jeremy Corbyn was also targetted because of his geopolitical views and because his views on economics. No doubts about that. Now, it is up to those who genuinely support Jeremy Corbyn's views to remain or not to remain as Labour Party members and this is something Labour Party members and voters will have to consider looking forward to the 2024 Parliamentary Election. There is no guarantees either in terms of Keir Starmer being the Labour Party Prime Ministerial candidate in 2024. Keir Starmer was brought in to replace Jeremy Corbyn and now that Jeremy Corbyn is out, why should Keir Starmer remain as leader? This is a case that Keir Starmer will have to make himself and especially when he is at odds with the trade union movement that very much finances the Labour Party.

For a man that does not dare to publicly define what a woman is, things will not be easy as another leader who came up with unsavoury stances on sexuality came to realise. Nicola Sturgeon said that 'the issue regarding transgender and transexuality was not the issue that broke the camel's back.' Well, Nicola Sturgeon in on the way out and perhaps not just because of 'the issue that didn't break the came's back'. As Nicola Sturgeon recognized, Scotland is not a united country and the SNP is not a united party and remaining as SNP leader was not a viable proposition as she defined herself as a very divisive leader.

Having stated that she has campaigned from a very early age for Scottish Independence, she clearly stated that remaining as First Minister would only undermine the cause for independence as more and more people will turn against her because of issues that are not related to Scottish Independence. She clearly stated that the longer she stays as First Minister politics will turn to be more about personalities than about a proper debate.

Failings in terms of governance - the state of the Scottish NHS comes to mind - and controversial policies that are not supported by members of her own party - might have sealed her political fate.

And talking about fate, the Church of England is under assault. Militant Homosexuals are trying to force the Church of England to abandon Christian values in favour of political correctness and this is proving to be extremely corrosive. 

From media reports: 

The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Justin Welby has spoken of being "threatened with parliamentary action" in an attempt to "force same-sex marriage" into the Church of England.

He was speaking at the global Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Ghana.

It comes after reforms within the church allowing the blessing of same-sex couples in civil partnerships.

The change was made after a motion was passed by the General Synod, the church's legislative body, this month.

Its position on gay marriage will not change and same-sex couples will still be unable to marry in church.

The Telegraph reports Mr Welby met with MPs at the House of Commons last month, and pushed back on further changes to its status on same-sex marriage.

Speaking ahead of the changes, broadcaster Sandi Toksvig said a meeting in January with the archbishop, last month was "very disappointing".

Ms Toksvig is a high-profile campaigner on LGBT+ issues, and although not a member of the church, she told the BBC she spoke out because she felt the impact of the message being sent out by the bishops was having an impact far beyond the Church.

The changes in the church have been unpalatable to some conservatives, but also fall well short of what many progressives had wanted.

Giving the presidential address on Sunday, Mr Welby said "many" members of the General Synod have "dismissed" his concerns about recent reforms.

• Sandi Toksvig: I can't let the Church hurt LGBT people
• Church of England backs plans to bless gay couples

He told those at the meeting, held in the Ghanian capital Accra "rules about sexuality in the Church of England" have been tabled for discussion as a "result" of growing atheism in the UK.

The archbishop said in the global north, Christian values of "community and mutual responsibility" have been "almost eliminated" in favour of "individualism".

Undoubtedly, Britain is in a state of flux at every level and there is an abundance of examples showing that the United Kingdom is a very disunited Kingdom. It comes as no surprise that more and more people will be tempted to take matters into their own hands to defend what they believe in and this is certainly a recipe for more and more confrontation.

Keir Starmer: To be or not to be?

 

Keir Starmer: To be or not to be?

There was a Liberal Democrat politician who say that the country needs another centrist political party that could offer an alternative to the Conservative Party and it would not be the Liberal Democrats, but perhaps a blend of politicians of several political parties that could come together.

The Labour Party owes its birth to the Trade Union Movement, but much has happened in Britain and around the world since then. 

Maybe the partition of the Labour Party into two distinct political parties would be the way forward for the Labour Party to disassociate itself from political elements that are now on the fringes of Britain's political life and that very visibly do not share the views of the majority about what should be the political outlook of Britain as a country in Europe and in the World as a whole. The Trade Union Movement is not what it used to be either. The closure of the mines and the loss of jobs in manufacturing weakend the Trade Union Movement as more and more people at work are not affilliated to the Trade Union Movement. When it comes to transport, now that much of transport is delivered via franchises, the Trade Union Movement has less of a say in terms of what happens in the labour market.

When it comes to wealthy supporters, if you are Jewish and run a business, will you support a Labour Party that is visibly anti-Semitic. It could be the case that Keir Starmer never beomes Prime Minister, but it has an important role to play in terms of creating a political party that is a lot less dependent on the Trade Union Movement. There is a new brand of Labour Party supporters coming from Universities. They are not the classical grassroot Labour Party supporters. They are ambitious and much wealthier. They could be sending the message that you don't have to be a rabid Marxist Revolutionary to promote social politicies.

When you look at the history of Socialism, there were plenty of other brands of Socialism before Karl Marx was even born. Getting away from Marxism, the Labour Party could become a more attractive electoral choice for many Britons that profoundly disagree with Marxist and with their methods, that do not want any association with unsavoury regimes.

Covid-19: The Solution as solution and as cause of other problems

 Covid-19 and Lockdowns

Covid-19 and the new realities generated by the measures put in place to deal with the spread of the disease have a turned a health issue into a political battlefield. As if this wasn't enough, social, emotional, and political consequences have made Covid-19 much more than the cause of a pandemia. 

In Britain, a stagnating political system has been proven to be totally incapable of dealing with the realities created by Covid-19. A sizeable number of Members of Parliament never had a real job. They were parachuted into politics with very little or no experience of the real world and they are now trapped when critical decisions are being made. The weight of political allegiances or pragmatic and realistic solutions needed to deal with a crisis. 

Unfortunaltely for them and for the United Kingdom as a whole, party politics will not help Britain tackle what is now running out of control nor tackle the consequences of the measures implemented to deal with the health crisis.

While politicians argue with each other pretending that they are achieving something worth achieving, they are just moving chairs on a sinking Titanic. Whether Lockdown works or doesn't work, there are for starters very stark financial challenges ahead. Not in the long distant future, but in the immediate future. 

Furlough schemes are just a short-term mesure, a delaying mesure. Before the Covid-19 crisis, many were facing the wall in financial terms. All the talk about Britain being all about services in spite of everything and regardless of everthing was based on the belief that Britain could export jobs to China and other developing economies, sacrifice manufacturing, farming and fisheries in dubious dealings witht the European Union and life would be brillian for ever and ever.

In 2008, the "services" ideology was brought into question and Gordon Brown had to plug resources away from the real economy to rescue the "services industries". Having said that, in 2020, the picture is quite different. With the economy in tatters and the prospect of mass unemployment, the British Treasury is hemorraging resources. If there were to be another set of circumstances similar to what happened in 2008, Britain doesn't have the means to save the "services industries" all over again. 

In the old days, the game of chairs was the only game in town. When Labour was becoming unpopular, Conservatives were on the wings ready to jump in. When Conservatives seemed to be going downhill, Labour was ready and waiting. This time around, Neither Labour nor Conservatives are their old selves. 

Covid-19 has long ceased to be a health issue. It is now a political issue and in coming months the knives will be out en force. Suddenly, a whole range of issues will be mixed like in some kind of cocktail Molotov. Covid-19, Mass Unemployment, Illegal Immigration, Brexit and many others. This is war and from now on things will only get worse.

The poisonous snakes of the Left will continue doing their treacherous work to destroy the United Kingdom until their heads are cut off.

 

 

 

Sadiq Khan: London Mayoral Election 2020

Sadiq Khan: London Mayoral Election 2020

Despite what happened in the rest of the country and in the Labour Party in particular, I don't think there is a natural challenger that could unseat Sadiq Khan as London Mayor. 

Whoever aspires to defeat Sadiq Khan will have to have enough political weight to have any chance of winning against a London Mayor that built his own political profile regardless of the troubles of the Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn.

Regardless of his stances on Brexit and his statements on foreign affairs i.e. his war of words with President Donald Trump, I reckon Sadiq Khan could even benefit from his stances and statements because London is a completely different cup of tea when compared to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Who are the other contenders? Well, Shaun Bailey will be standing as Conservative Party Mayoral Candidate. The Liberal Democrats have Siobhan Benita who previously stood in 2012 as Independent. Siän Berry will stand for the Green Party. Sue Black will stand for the Women's Equality Party, Rosalind Readhead would be standing as Independent, and Rory Stewart, former Conservative MP would be standing as Independent Candidate.

Despite the fact that opinion polls indicate that Sadiq Kahn went from 62% down to 44%  (December 2018 until November 2019), none of the contenders seem to have the charisma and the experience Sadiq Khan has. So unless there is a last minute change with a bigger hat being thrown into the ring I reckon the Sadiq Khan's mandate will be extended for another four years. 

Greens and Labour will be fighting for predominance in the London Assembly. As it was stated in a husting in London before the 2019 General Election, the Green Party is a serious challenger and would do well on the London Wide List. The credibility of the Lib Dems was seriusly damaged with the loss of many MPs - including those who defected from the Labour Party and the Conservative Party and their leader Jo Swinson but they could do well enough to get Siobhan Benita elected as London Assembly Member if they play their cards right.

With regards to UKIP and Brexit Party and other political contenders, they were routed or not even stood in December 2019. Therefore, I believe that they wouldn't stand a chance. They would lose not just the election but also all their deposits.

Brexit: Parliament is playing a very dangerous game, an expensive game

Brexit: Parliament is playing a very dangerous game, an expensive game

When Anna Soubry rose in the House of Commons the game was self-evident. Why not a General Election? For the same reasons that the Labour Party doesn't want a General Election. Plagued by internal conflicts and divisions, scandals, it remains to be seen if the Labour Party is not actually the big loser in the skirmishes linked to Brexit.

Jeremy Corbyn knows that this could well be the end of his political career. After all that is happening in the Labour Party, losing a General Election means goodbye to the Leadership of the Labour Party and a reshuffle that will be the end of the road for John McDonnell and others that will be blamed for the context in which many Labour MPs left to become Independents and even joined the Liberal Democrats. For some Labour MPs, all the threats will mean very little either because their majorities look unassailable or simply because after decades in politics they are heading for retirement. For other Labour MPs, the risk of their careers being ended by a General Election is very real and therefore they will drag their feet for as long as it is possible to do so. Other Labour MPs see the defeat of the Labour Party and in particular of Jeremy Corbyn as the best opportunity they have to rebuild the Labour Party. Losing an election would be for them a price worth paying 

For the Liberal Democrats, it is the kind of opportunity that they have been looking for for a vary long time. They jumped at the chance of being in government and this is why they were eager to join the Conservative Party in a coalition under the Leadership of David Cameron. In fact, some Labour MPs asked the Liberal Democrats today if they were willing to join the Conservatives in a coalition if the outcome of a General Election is once again a hung Parliament. There is the suspicion that this is exactly what the Leadership of the Liberal Democrats is looking for as several of them - including its present Leader - were in government with the Conservatives. The main difficulty is that the present Liberal Democratic Party was joined by Labour MPs and Conservative MPs and they would be in a very awkward situation.

For those like Chuka Umunna, former Labour MP for Streatham, to leave the Labour Party was a jump into the unknown. Then came the option of joining another political grouping with former Labour MPs and former Conservative MPs called Change UK. But after a dramatic failure in the European Parliament Elections, Chuka Umunna instinctively knew that the only alternative was to join the Liberal Democrats to stand a chance to try to save his political career. In a General Election, he wouldn't stand in Streatham and therefore he would be standing in the City. He secured his position as Liberal Democrat Speaker on Economic Affairs but, would he be willing to be part of a coalition with the Conservatives? For Conservatives who left the Conservative Party and joined the Liberal Democratic Party to see themselves as part of a coalition with the Conservatives would be a paradox and a very uncomfortable position to be in.

But before we can assume that Labour MPs and Conservative MPs who joined the Liberal Democrats would be re-elected but this time as Liberal Democrat MPs, we need to look at what is happening right now. The European Union suggested that they would agree to an extension - that they called a flexible extension - to allow the UK to finalize all legislative processses including the approval of the Withdrawal Agreement agreed with Prime Minister Boris Johnson but the agreement for a flexible extension comes with conditions attached and they are waiting for the House of Commons to make a decision that the House of Commons is not willing to make. The House of Commons hasn't approved the Deal, the House of Commons doesn't want a second Referendum and the House of Commons doesn't want a General Election. What would then be the point of granting an extension - or even a flexible extension? 

Will the EU deny the United Kingdom an extension at the last minute because the House of Commons cannot agree the way forward? It has been reported that tomorrow, a new motion will be put forward that would make possible to have a General Election despite the Fixed Term Parliament Act that requires a two-third majority of all 650 seats of the House of Commons including the seats that have not been occupied by Sinn Fein/IRA. The Speaker and other officials despite being MPs don't vote. For this reason, in order to have the required number of votes - according to the Fixed Term Parliament Act - a vast number of Labour MPs would have to support the motion. Tomorrow, would be decision time in the House of Commons. Would this be the end of the stalemate?

 

British Politics: When the two main political forces combined can barely manage to get 58% of votes cast the situation is pretty serious

British Politics: When the two main political forces combined can barely manage to get 58% of votes cast the situation is pretty serious

In times past, when the Conservatives were going under there was Labour waiting in the wings. When Labour was going under, the Conservatives were waiting in the rings. Now, we are facing a completely new scenario with both major political forces extremely divided and lacking the trust of the Electorate. In the end, everything depends on Leadership. Neither Jeremy Corbyn nor Theresa May have the support of the political parties they are supposed to lead and this makes both Labour and Conservatives unfit to govern.

The debacle in the local elections could be followed by an even bigger debacle in the European Parliament Elections. Some keep asking for a second Referendum when in fact the European Parliament Elections could be both the equivalent of a Referendum and of a General Election with two major alternatives based on the fundamental choices concerning the European Union. 

I have never experienced in Britain such a political scenario in which so called mainstream parties have appeared so dramatically downgraded. The Liberal Democrats fared well because there was a very low turnout. What will happen when other political forces namely the Brexit Party and the Change Party enter the political arena. Those wanting to Leave will have a clear choice called the Brexit Party. Those wanting to Remain will have a clear choice called the Change Party.

Since the whole process is going to be about Leaving or Remaining, voters will not be limited by the usual party political choices. The European Parliament Elections will not be about Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats or Greens. Those wanting to ensure that their choice regarding the European Union is the winning ticket will put aside their usual allegiances. 

In years past, people did not have to go to the Polling Stations twice in the same month: Local Elections on May 2nd 2019 and European Parliament Elections on May 23rd 2019. 

One understands that at this very minute in the Labour Party and in the Conservative Party major efforts are being made to reach an agreement that could be approved by Parliament to prevent having to have European Parliament Elections. But I very much doubt that any agreement between the Leaders will have the necessary support in the House of Commons.

Is this the preamble of the creation of new political forces to replace the ailing Labour and Conservatives?

Brexit, Theresa May and Votes of No Confidence

Brexit, Theresa May and Votes of No Confidence

If the 2017 General Election and threats of deselection in the Labour Party tell us that even if there is  Leadership Challenge in the Conservative Party or No Confidence vote in the House of Commons the outcome of such events is by no means certain.

Given the rules of the Conservative Party, if the 48 signatures needed are gathered there will have to be enough Conservative MPs willing to support the challenge against Theresa May. Another calculation that needs to be made is if there are suitable replacements. Is there one Conservative MP willing to stand up with enough support from all factions of a very divided Conservative Party? If the number of MPs ready and willing to support the challenge is not found, Theresa May will be confirmed as Leader and a year will have to pass before there can be another challenge.

After the experiences of what happened in the 2017 General Election, many Conservative MPs will think twice or thrice before challenging the present status quo for fear of losing their seats and opening the door to a Jeremy Corbyn government.

In the Labour Party, the threat of deselection of Labour MPs is very real. Will those Labour MPs standing against Jeremy Corbyn want to take the risk of opening the door to a Jeremy Corbyn government and lose their seats in the process? They might also choose to maintain the status quo for fear of losing their seats and of seeing very unpopular policies implemented by a government led by Jeremy Corbyn. Many Labour MPs feel more secure in their seats having a Conservative government and have more in common with certain factions of the Conservative Party than with their own colleagues of the Labour Party.

The SNP and the Liberal Democrats tried to push Jeremy Corbyn asking him to put forward a Vote of No Confidence. Because he knows that despite the fact that many Labour MPs are against Brexit, Jeremy Corbyn knows that a vast number of Labour voters support Brexit. So for the moment, there is no enthusiasm for a Vote of No Confidence. Moreover, the Labour Party has no credible alternative and is very much stuck and unable to offer a solution. All they have been able to do is to attack the Conservative Party to try and hide divisions and lack of alternatives within the Labour Party.

The Labour Party can say that they are very much in favour of General Election but in reality many Labour MPs fear that the prospect of a General Election could lead to a purge of the Parliamentarian Labour Party. To avert the danger of deselection some prominent MPs have said that they would stand as Independent Labour Candidates, trusting that voters would give them the support that they don't have from their own Labour branches.

Britain's recipes for disaster: Policing in crisis via irrational budget cuts

Britain's recipes for disaster: Policing in crisis via irrational budget cuts

The news that local communities are having to step in to replace absent Police Forces that have been cut to the bone to the point that they have become ineffective is not the image a successful country can offer to the world. The news that Britain doesn't have enough Border Police resources to patrol its own coast to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country is not the image a successful country can offer to the world.

We can build very expensive aircraft carriers. We can have a Nuclear Deterrent. We can invest billions in Defence. But if we don't have the minimum resources to deal with vital areas of public security and public safety, we are doomed as a country.

Neither Conservatives, nor Labour, nor Liberal Democrats, none of the so called mainstream political parties have the vision that is need to keep Britain safe and this is why we need National Socialism to deal with public security and public safety, to ensure that everybody is safe without the stupidity promoted by Political Correctness.

When prisons are drugs and violence safe heavens, when we are not safe in our streets and in our own homes, when criminals known to Security Forces can carry out murderous attacks because we don't have neither the resources nor the intelligence to deal with threats we are doomed as a country.

For all the speeches about 'lessons will be learnt', Security Services in this country are not fit for purpose and the Political Establishment and the Mass Media are very much to blame for this nightmare.

Japan: How much is too much?

Japan: How much is too much?

Japanese culture has been for centuries about duty, tradition, responsibility and the combination of duty, tradition and responsibility often collided with modernity and the rising pressures of everyday life.

Japan suffers from very low birthrates and this is not surprising in a country in which working hours have become such a priority that everything else comes second or third. The stress of the struggle to be successful are crippling those who are usually seen as examples of success. One drink too many and people end up sleeping on the streets.

The British newspaper The Guardian publishes an article that depicts a tragic reality that affects one of the most industrious countries in the world. Japan is usually associated with technology, innovation, and creativity but the negative side of the coin is when people are pushed or push themselves to the limit, beyond the point when success turns to catastrophe.

In Germany, there is movement towards the implementation of a four-day-working week. Technological advances should improve living standards and allow people to have more balanced  personal lives and family lives but despite technological advances too many people are losing their humanity and being pushed over the limit.

After the sweatshops of times past, the 40-hour-week was a great achievement but the time has come to think again and look very carefully and ponder about how we could be doing better for ourselves and for the societies we are very much part of. Images like the one shown speak volumes. We are not talking about beggars. We are talking about people who are falling victims of what is usually described as success. Japan is not just facing a demographic catastrophe but also a social catastrophe.

Western Societies should take notice of what is happening in Japan and start moving in the right direction towards a better ratio in terms of working to live and not living to work. Capitalists care when markets crash and they should start caring when people crash.

Both DUP and Conservatives have something to earn from a political deal

Both DUP and Conservatives have something to earn from a political deal

Arlene Foster clearly knows the agenda of Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn and of Sinn Fein, agenda that has been publicised when the notion of a United Ireland was put firmly under the spotlight.

During political campaigning for the 2017 General Election, Jeremy Corbyn was asked repeatedly about his political sympathies and his closeness with Sinn Fein (political arm of the Provisional IRA).

Secessionist political parties like SNP got a cold shower with the advances of the Conservative Party in Scotland but Arlene Foster knows full well that the Conservative Party is the best guarantee of keeping Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom. Should Jeremy Corbyn become Prime Minister, the chances are that Northern Ireland will not longer be a part of the United Kingdom.

Before a meeting due to take place tomorrow in which both DUP and the Conservative Party will lay down the foundations of a political agreement, DUP sources were quick to refute rumours about sectarian issues on the negotiations table. The weight of the public sector in Northern Ireland is considerable and therefore investment in the public sector and the issue of pensions in the public sector are fundamental in any agreement. This is why Arlene Foster spoke about maintaining the triple-lock on pensions. The Conservatives that were not keep in keeping the triple-lock would give way on triple-lock pensions to keep the DUP onboard.

In other areas like cross border transit, DUP is not far away from the position maintained by other political parties including Sinn Fein. Open-Borders between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are seen as a sine qua non condition to allow trade that is vital both for the Republic of Ireland and for Northern Ireland.

Gender issues that deeply trouble the Conservative Party would also be put aside to focus on economic issues that would benefit Northern Ireland and strengthen DUP with more jobs and more investment.

Both DUP and the Conservative Party share an Unionist Platform. They both want to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom. Yesterday, the choice was between an independent Britain and a Britain increasingly dominated by the European Union. Today, the choice is between an United Kingdom as we know it and a fragmented United Kingdom.

As the news from Spain is about a Referendum on Catalonia's Independence, many would be reassured by a move to reinforce the integrity of the United Kingdom. Just a few days ago, SNP decided to put on hold its proposals for yet another Referendum on Scottish Independence after election results that clearly benefited parties opposed to the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Simon Hughes is openly bisexual but Tim Farron constantly struggles with sexual issues

Tim Farron constantly struggles when asked about issues regarding sexuality.

Once again the Liberal Democrats struggles to give a straight answer. He struggled before when asked about homosexuality. Now, he struggles when asked about abortion.

Simon Hughes publicly stated that he is bisexual. I would like to have Tim Farron and Simon Hughes together, in front of television cameras, and ask a whole range of questions about sexuality.

This man has serious issues to answer for. As Liberal Democrats Leader he should be able to give straight answers about sexuality as his inability to provide straight answers on this issues increasingly looks like a very serious personality flaw.

Other political leaders have been very clear about where they stand on the said issues and have prominent representatives that are openly homosexual or bisexual that had stood in the House of Commons. Tim Farron is letting himself down and is letting his political party down by not providing clear cut answers.

Tactical Voting Liberal Democrats attack UKIP saying that UKIP is promoting Tactical Voting

Tactical Voting Liberal Democrats accuse UKIP of promoting Tactical Voting

You couldn't make it up. Tim Farron said that he's relaxed about the idea of tactical voting. Well, the Liberal Democrats printed a leaflet accused UKIP of promoting Tactical Voting.

A very hypocritical Liberal Democratic Party who constantly talks of support for Tactical Voting distributed a leaflet attacking UKIP of supporting Tactical Voting.

In 2005 General Election, the Liberal Democrats headed by Nick Clegg and with Tim Farron as member and candidate talking about abolishing University Tuition Fees. Something they forgot about it completely when the formed a government together with the Conservative Party. Now, they talk about Tactical Voting but criticise other political parties accusing them of promoting Tactical Voting. If Tim Farron himself doesn't see the error of his ways a few weeks before a General Election then somebody inside the Liberal Democratic Party should think very carefully about the content of the leaflets that they are printing and delivering, most probably a few of the only things they can deliver.

At the end of the 2015-2017, this was the distribution of seats per political party represented.

Liberal Democrats in fourth place: Conservatives 330, Labour 229, Scottish National Party 54 and Liberal Democrats 9. A miracle will have to occur for the Liberal Democrats to reach Third Place because when Parliament was disolved for the 2017 General Election, Liberal Democrats were in Fourth Place. Luckily they won one seat in a by-election because otherwise they would be in Fourth Place together with Democratic Unionists.

This was the state of the parties at the end of the 2015-2017 Parliament and they have a few mountains to climb to have the slightest chance of delivering anything more than an explanation of why they lost. If they lose, they cannot blame Brexit.

Labour Manifesto: a lot to worry about and not just about economics

Labour Manifesto: a lot to worry about and not just about economics

For those of us who take the time to read party political Manifestos, the Labour Party Manifesto for the 2017 General Election contains some worrying inexactitudes. I say "contains some worrying inexactitudes" not to say 'incredible lies".

The Manifesto of more than a 100 pages with more than 24,000 words and divided in 12 chapters deals with a number of issues and some very frightening ideas.

We cannot deal with everything in one single article. Therefore I will focus on Chapter 2 - Negotiating Brexit.

On Chapter 2, the Manifesto says that Labour will scrap the Conservatives' Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union.

Now standing by what many high ranking EU representatives including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Jean Claude Junker, Martin Schultz and Wolfgang Schäuble, Brexit means no Single Market and no Customs Union. There could be trade agreements but Britain will not be part of the Single Market or of the Customs Union.

This leads us to the point that the Labour Party is in denial of the nature of Brexit and wants Britain to remain in the EU, going against the will of the British people expressed in a Referendum on June 23 2016 and supported by the House of Commons that acknowledge the will of the British people and gave Prime Minister Theresa May the authority to trigger Article 50.

What follows next is yet another lie. The Manifesto says "A Labour government will immediately guarantee existing rights for all EU nationals living in Britain and secure reciprocal rights for UK citizens who have chosen to make their lives in EU countries. Eu nationals do not just contribute to our society: they are part of our society. And they should not be used as bargaining chips."

"It is shameful that the Prime Minister rejected repeated attempts by Labour to resolve this issue before Article 50 was triggered. As a result three million EU nationals have suffered unnecessary uncertainty, as have 1.2 million UK citizens living in the EU."

Another two lies: One - Britain is not using EU nationals as bargaining chips and Two - Prime Minister Theresa May tried unsuccessfully to get Angela Merkel and other high ranking EU representatives to deal with the issue of EU and UK citizens' rights before Article 50 was triggered.

The EU response was that there would no negotiations whatsoever until after Article 50 was triggered and formal negotiations started. The Labour Party is lying to voters misrepresenting what has been Britain official position on this issue.

The Labour Party explicitly says that "We will drop the Conservatives' Great Repeat Bill, replacing with an EU Rights and Protections Bill". What this means is that the Labour Party will seek to maintain the status in which EU rules will take precedence over British rules.

On the one hand the Labour Party is portraying itself as respecting the will of the Electorate expressed on June 23 2016 and on the other the Labour Party is refusing to accept the will of the people by maintaining the status quo that the Electorate expressly rejected.

A concoction of false promises and lies are not a good start for a Manifesto that seeks to persuade the Electorate to support the Labour Party in a General Election.

Labour and Liberal Democrats: Promises made in Opposition are forgotten when in Government

The Labour Party has been banging about renationalisation of train services for decades. It has been the talk practically every single election including the election of 1997 that Labour won with a landslide majority. Unfortunately, as soon as they got into power for thirteen years, they forgot about and found all kind of justifications not to implement what they had promised in order to get elected.

The same Labour Party while in Opposition under both Margaret Thatcher and John Major, constantly asked for the renegotiation of the Common Agricultural Police and of all treaties that were damaging British farming and British fisheries. As soon as they got in power in 1997, the Labour Party completely forgot about it. As political party in power, the Labour Party created University Tuition Fees. Now, because there is an election, the Labour Party talks about abolishing University Tuition Fees and the Liberal Democrats that promised to abolish University Tuition Fees also forgot completely about its electoral promises as soon as they formed a coalition with the Conservative Party.

When it comes to policing, Labour Party representatives make promises about increasing the number of Police officers. The only problem they have is that they don't have a clue about how much it would cost to fund such increase in numbers of Police officers. They constantly talk about cutting down crime, crime that they themselves created by flooding the United Kingdom with foreign criminals.

Vote for the candidate that believes what you believe

Vote for the candidate that believes what you believe,


Many Labour Party supporters are struggling to decide if they should vote for a certain Labour Party candidate on June 8th, 2017.

For those who support the party leader Jeremy Corbyn this is extremely relevant. They have the options of:

• voting for a Labour candidate for Member of Parliament that is against Jeremy Corbyn
• abstaining, not voting at all
• voting for another candidate that represents another political party.  

By voting for a certain Labour candidate you would be voting against what you think the Labour Party should stand for.

This has come to be because there is not one Labour Party. There are several Labour Parties existing as one that happen to have diametrically opposite views about very fundamental issues. I think that for the Labour Party to stand as one party is extremely dishonest and misguiding.

Lord Mandelson explicitly said that he works day and night to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn and many other personalities of the Labour Party share his views on Jeremy Corbyn and promote a completely different set of views.

Therefore, look at each candidate, regardless of what political party they represent. Analyse their views and if you agree with his or her views vote for a certain candidate regardless of what political party he or she stands to represent. Vote for ideas. Don't vote for labels.  

June 8, 2017 - UK General Election

UK General Election - June 8, 2017

Every election is a box of surprises and this election couldn't happen at a more dramatic time in the political life of the United Kingdom.

This is an election that will be played at different levels and undoubtedly the outcome could be life changing for the mass media including the BBC and Sky and also for the printed media who have absolutely against the idea of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. But it also going to have a dramatic effect in the political balance in the country as a whole and in each of the component parts of the United Kingdom.

There are some fundamental questions. Will Caroline Lucas manage to survive a General Election? The only Member of Parliament representing Brighton could be on the way out. What could happen to the SNP majority in Scotland? Will local issues play a crucial role meaning the loss of seats in the House of Commons. Will they repeat the feat of 2015 when they got 56 out of 59 seats? Will SNP be able to keep its momentum in Scotland? What will happen in Northern Ireland where at the moment there is local government?

In England, a divided Labour Party that has effectively several leaders (the Official Leader - Jeremy Corbyn) and several unofficial leaders and plotters wishing to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn).

The Liberal Democrats hope that disaffected Labour voters will turn out to support them and allow them to overcome the dismal results of 2015 that left them with less than 10 Members of Parliament.

UKIP needs to find its way. The Conservative Party de-facto represents many of the views of UKIP and in fact called for the implementation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. What can UKIP offer that is not already on offer by the Conservative Party?

The vote today in the House of Commons was remarkable in many ways. It was remarkable because of an overwhelming number of MPs that supported the government's call for a General Election. It was also remarkable because 13 Labour MPs voted against but it must be said that tens of MPs abstained.

Soon after, there was a series of announcements of present Members of Parliament that said that they would not be standing for re-election and it would be fair to say that they don't want to stand because they feel that they have no chance of being re-elected and they want to avoid the embarrassment of not being re-elected.

In any case, this promises to be a very interesting time in the political life of the United Kingdom.