Harrow Housing Local Election London

Who I’m Voting For In The Local Election, And Why

On the off-chance that someone who doesn’t already know me reads this, a little introduction.

I am a lifelong Tory.  I have always voted Tory, I am pretty much in love with Margaret Thatcher, I was a great admirer of David Cameron – and I always vote Conservative.

More importantly, I am a free-marketeer, I am an economic and social liberal – though I believe in individual responsibility and minimising government spending.  Though occasionally the Conservative Party can make me wince socially – they have proven time and again that they are the only political party that will allow a free-market economy without endangering it through wasteful spending (though we are still spending far too much – austerity is an illusion…but that is a totally different argument).

Unfortunately, Brexit means that they are no longer following what I believe to be an optimal path in terms of economic well-being – yes I voted to remain, and increasingly strongly feel that we should have remained in the EU.  The Conservative Party has become the Brexit Implementation Party.  Sensible decisions can no longer be assumed.

This is not, however, a national election.

This is a local election, and as much as I would be tempted to use the opportunity to give the Conservative Party a kicking over Brexit – this is a local election and I will be voting on local issues.

My local area is Harrow.  Labour-run, though with plenty of Conservative councillors, a few independents and one Liberal Democrat (in my ward).  My ward is made up of two Labour councillors and one Liberal Democrat.

The council seems at least relatively well-run from my experience.  The bins are picked up on time…erm…what else do councils do?  I have no idea how much council tax is as my landlady pays it.  There is a litter problem in my area but I don’t blame the council for the morons who cannot be bothered to use a bin.  The council have just installed seemingly around 88,000 new bins just on my high street.

The one real issue that a local council can influence is housing, through their respective planning committees.  Like across the whole of London and the south-east of England, houses are extortionately expensive, for renting but especially for buying.  If we don’t build enough houses, house prices will never come down to affordable levels.

The council has approved some nice, elegant, tall blocks of flats near the train station, which will offer many homes.

The Conservative Party in my local area voted against (from my understanding), and are actively campaigning against housing being in the form of flats.

However, unless they are proposing to build on playing fields or parks, there is nowhere in Harrow to build sufficient amounts of semi-detached houses.  It has to be flats.  I even saw one person complaining that a block of flats would ruin their view of a distant church on the hill.

Stuff your view of the church.  People need somewhere to live.  Families need somewhere to grow.  Those in desperate need of social housing need somewhere to stay.

The Conservative Party in my local area are against helping to solve what is one of the largest problems in the country, and the only one of the large problems (in my view) that local councils have any responsibility for.

It should go without saying that I cannot vote Labour.  I spoke to two Liberal Democrat campaigners in my local area who advised that they supported building such badly-needed housing…interestingly, both recent ex-Tories too.  The Conservative Party just post anti-housing leaflets through my doors and offer to keep picking the bins up on time.  Thanks.

And only Liberal Democrats or Labour can really win the council seats in my ward – my loathing for Labour far outweighs my support for the Conservative Party

Nationally it would still require a lot to happen for the Liberal Democrats to persuade me that I should vote for them – they seem to have no leader, I know little of their policies, their MPs often seem weak and uninspiring.

Therefore, with a fairly heavy heart, I have concluded that I cannot vote for the Conservative Party in this local election, and have voted Liberal Democrat.


For those who are passionate, like I am, about more houses being built – may I recommend that you follow and support Yimby.  Yes In My Back Yard.

Anne Marie Morris Racism Woodpile

Racists Not Welcome

I hesitate to repeat the phrase, but “n****r in the woodpile” is not a phrase that you can just come out with inadvertently, as if you have just picked up from popular culture and unintentionally repeated.

If you are using it, then surely it is the kind of phrase that you must be aware of, and be familiar with, perhaps even using it within your vocabulary, or at least associating with those who are (her partner has form).

I had never heard of the phrase before, but after a quick look into the historical meaning of the phrase one can see just how abominable a phrase it is.  Surely, “needle in a haystack” would have sufficed?

Let’s assume her innocence, in that she is not in the slightest bit racist.  Even so, that is simply a totally reprehensible and unacceptable phrase and she cannot be allowed to represent the Conservative Party.  I welcome her suspension, but would go one further and sack her – or at least ask her to resign her seat.

Fuck the by-election in a hung parliament.  This is too important.

Sadly there is no precedent.

In the Labour Party, we have Diane Abbott is shadow home secretary despite her previous racist outbursts.  Jeremy Corbyn’s other good friend, Ken Livingstone, is repeatedly suspended then allowed back later, after varying anti-semitic comments.  Emily Thornberry kept her job after her appalling snobbish comments during the referendum campaign.  Not to mention John McDonnell inciting hatred, and Momentum seemingly encouraging threatening acts towards moderate Labour MPs and Conservatives.

But we shouldn’t be judging ourselves on the standards of others.  The higher moral ground must be taken.

I will understand if Theresa May doesn’t sack her due to the lack of precedent, but it would be a bold statement to take such strong action against racism, set a marker for the standards expected of society at large, and set the precedent expected of other political parties too.

Politically (these things must be considered), a by-election would likely be won, could strengthen Theresa’s place as leader, and help to assuage the concerns of the most liberal-minded voters that were haemorrhaged in the general election.

Time to be bold, Theresa.  Time to be strong.

DUP Deal

No Deal Might Have Been Preferable

It has been amusing over the last 24 hours to see the incredible hypocrisy from Labour supporters over the deal with the DUP – I don’t recall such opprobrium over Gordon Brown attempting a deal with the DUP in 2010, nor do I recall any Corbynistas disowning themselves from a potential deal with Sinn Fein.

Then a complete packet of lies, with the Corbynistas suggesting that there was £1.5bn going straight to the DUP.  The money doesn’t go to the DUP – it will be spent on infrastructure, health, education, etc, and the extra amount going to Northern Ireland is actually £1bn.

Followed by the biggest joke of all – Corbynista comrades suggesting the money is coming from the magic money tree.  So says the party of large unnecessary deficits from 2001 to 2007, with the most unrealistic, dangerous manifesto ever that even Ed Balls confirms would cost the British taxpayer significant sums.  About as fully-costed as a certain someone is strong and stable.

Speaking of whom, didn’t she look uncomfortable when unveiling the deal yesterday?  Oh yeah, she always does.

I cannot say I am comfortable with it either.

The £1bn is just the tip of the iceberg – the unfair, arbitrary 2.5% increase in pensions stays, as does Richard Branson’s winter fuel allowance.  Targets for balancing the budget are being forgotten.

It seems that we are now going to see the effects of a rising opposition.  In recent years, we have seen the damage from a rise in UKIP popularity – a referendum leading now to Brexit.  Now I fear that we are going to see the effects of temporary socialist popularity – the people are apparently fed up of the government trying to live within our means and would like to expand the budget deficit and accelerate the increase in debt – because Corbyn has told them they can have everyone’s cake and the rich will pay for it.

Not only are we now going to have to contend with a potential Brexit recession/slowdown this year, I expect that we are now going to see some form of unaffordable populist spending commitments from the Conservative Party, say for example, pay rises for public sector workers.

I cannot see the deficit falling further this year.  I also cannot see a surplus before the next decent recession, nor a reduction in the debt to GDP ratio.

Only the Labour Party want another election.  The DUP don’t want a Sinn Fein-supporting Labour Party in charge.  The Liberal Democrats need a new leader – and a new direction if they are to compete.  The SNP are close to being in freefall and the last thing they will want is another election.  Leave voters won’t want to put Brexit in any further jeopardy.

We didn’t need to do this deal.  We didn’t need to commit to further unnecessary spending.  We didn’t need to work with those with questionable views on abortion, etc.

But it is what it is.  Anything is better than socialism and the nasty, vile, left-wing bullies getting control.

Just remember – there still isn’t any money.  Your portion of the government debt currently stands around £28,000.

Theresa May Should Stay

May Should Stay – For Now

My two main reasons for wanting a large Conservative majority on Thursday night were to #StopCorbyn and also as an up yours to the vile, nasty left-wing scumbags (not all lefties are scumbags, just like not all Brexiteers are racist).

Corbyn is not Prime Minister – albeit like typical socialist dictators, he seems to think he has won the election and should be Prime Minister instead.

Not only that, but Theresa May – my least favourite Conservative leader ever – a woman I have consistently criticised, compared to a mixture of Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, and whom is generally ghastly, has had a metaphorical punch in the face.

The strategy of chasing the UKIP and soft-Labour vote has backfired, and totally vindicated my belief that you win elections from the centre.  Ignore the centre at your peril.  Ignore the liberal-minded at your peril.  Ignore the Thatcherites at your peril.

Further to that, Thursday night was a rejection of hard Brexit.  It was revenge of the remainers – the young folk that are generally still furious about Brexit had their moment.

Whilst I was disappointed and worried last night, now it has sunk in – I have come to realise that it is the perfect result for a liberal, free-market remain-supporting Thatcherite.

UKIP lost.  The SNP lost.  Brexit lost.  Theresa May lost.

Speaking of whom.

Theresa May is entirely culpable for losing this election, along with her now-sacked advisors and perhaps to an extent, Lynton Crosby.  Running such a negative, miserable campaign – avoiding the debates, rarely meeting any voters outside of stage-managed events.

Some credit is due for daring to take on difficult decisions such as how to fund social care – especially when against arguably the most deceitful opponent since democracy took hold in the United Kingdom – who promised to spend, spend, spend and give you everything you ever wanted.

However it was an utterly abysmal campaign by an autocratic technocrat – no more a leader than Corbyn is an economist.

Yet she should stay Prime Minister.  Everybody knows she is dreadful now.  During the next two years we are going to see unpopular, divisive Brexit negotiations, with a good chance of a Brexit-recession, and the likelihood of a rather unpopular government.

As long as she can run a government and get legislation passed, she should continue to be Prime Minister.  Because, why waste a new leader’s political capital on what is very likely to be two punishingly unpopular years of government.

Best to get the next two years of Brexit bullshit out of the way, then ensure that a true leader is put to the front of the Conservative Party – whether that be a popular, positive (albeit somewhat divisive) character like Boris Johnson, or a formidable tank-driving lesbian like Ruth Davidson.

To me, Ruth Davidson has for the last two years been the true star of British politics.  Not only is she a more moderate, palatable Conservative, but she is a warrior – and most importantly – a leader.

She really could be the best British Prime Minster in decades.  And boy might we need her in a couple of years.

Her time is soon.  Patience, my friends, patience.

Vote Tory

Why I Voted Conservative

Not exactly a surprise, is it?  James Winfield, the self-proclaimed ‘only Tory from Hull’, has voted Conservative.

But this was actually a tough decision for the first time in my adult voting life.  Even a couple of days ago I was having some doubts.

This is not a vote for the Conservative Party and the direction it is going in.  It is certainly not a vote for Brexit.  And it is definitely not a vote for Theresa May – the ghastly leader that I have long been comparing to Gordon Brown (you could call that insightful?).

Sadly this is nothing more inspiring than a Stop Corbyn vote, despite the generally good record that the Conservative party have over the last 7 years.

My main reason is that the idea of that man having control over the finances of this country petrifies me.

The lies, bribery and deceit that has been central to his campaign is a clear reminder of the politics that got Hugo Chavez elected in Venezuela.

Some may think that I am going to far by comparing Corbyn to Chavez, and Britain’s greatest admirer of the likes of Chavez and Castro may indeed not turn out to have any dictatorial whim whatsoever (though you cannot say that about some of those close to him – like the almost-evil Saemus Milne).

However, his fabricated costings of his manifesto, which will likely not only not raise the money he expects, but also probably increase tax avoidance, increase unemployment and be disastrous not for large corporations (they can report their revenue in other countries, or simple move if they have to), but for the small businesses that employ so many of us.  And what do small businesses do when they receive larger tax bills?  Cut staff or raise prices.

This was a straight-forward choice between competency and bribery.

Corbyn has promised the world, and believe it or not, people like free stuff.

Personally, I prefer a stable country with a strong economy (sorry for sounding like her) – one that will actually still be able to afford an NHS in 10 years time – as opposed to having yet another economic catastrophe caused by excessive unnecessary government borrowing – the likes of which we saw before the crash, from 2001 to 2007 under Labour, and the like of which Corbyn wants to bring about again.

I don’t want a government elected on lying to the people.
I don’t want a government elected on bribing the electorate.
I don’t want a government that admires Lenin, Chavez and Castro.
I don’t want a government that wants to overthrow the capitalist system which has made our country so rich, affording high levels of education and healthcare.
I don’t want a government run by people that want to get rid of the Queen, mi5, and have supported terrorist organisation such as the IRA.
I don’t want a government that wants to disband the army, and has already undermined our nuclear deterrent.

Some people say they want change.  But change can be bad.  I don’t want to change back to the 1970’s – a union-controlled disaster of an economy, laughed at throughout Europe – a country with it’s best days behind it.

And I tell you another reason I want the Conservative Party to win.

So those condescending, rude, arrogant shitbags that are supporting Labour, lose.

Not for a second am I putting any more than a small minority of Labour voters in that bucket of deplorables.  But during the campaign, I have been reminded about just how nasty and vile some of these characters are.  I have had so much abuse, so much rudeness – so many nasty, condescending comments from holier-than-though characters (I admit I haven’t been a complete saint).  For these people especially, I really hope that they lose the election and all their hopes of free stuff are squashed.

And we all know who will be rioting if they lose the election.

If Corbyn Is PM

3 Crumbs Of Comfort For Conservatives If Corbyn Becomes PM (***shudder***)

I appreciate that this is a bit of a straw-clutching exercise, and that the idea of Corbyn being Prime Minister is still somewhat in the realms of fantasy – I remain hopeful and expectant that the public at large are wise enough not to fall for what is a Chavez-esque strategy of bribing the voters.

Maybe it is also a bit of psychological preparation just in case Corbyn follows Trump with a victory for populism.  Believe it or not, there is quite a lot in common between Trump and Corbyn, politically.  But this is not the blog post for that.

This is a nice simple list of reasons of why, in the event of a Corbyn victory, Conservatives can take at least a few crumbs of comfort.  It is a more medium/long-term outlook.  Also it does assume that Corbyn, McDonnell and co don’t go down the path of dictatorship – which some of their team have at the least alluded to.

We need an example of failure

Whenever you have an argument, it very much helps to have an example or two to back it up.  So to have the argument against socialism, the two most natural examples to use would either be the United Kingdom in the 1970’s, or Venezuela now.

Except most people under 50 have neither memory of the disaster the union-controlled United Kingdom was in the 1970’s (known as the sick dog of Europe and needing to borrow money from the IMF), nor any education of it – for why would unionised Labour-voting teachers educate young people on the dangers of socialism?

And if I say ‘Venezuela’ to most people, they will just think about pleasant hot South American countries like Brazil, and not have any idea how the populist socialist giveaways of what was once South America’s most prosperous country have turned it into a basket-case of an economy, with shortages of food (Venezuelans are losing weight as there is not enough food), one of the highest murder rates in the world, and now the socialist government is refusing elections.  All whilst having one of the highest oil reserves in the world.  It is now a socialist dictatorship.

Now that took 20 years of ‘more socialism is the answer’.  Even if Corbyn gets in, the chance of him making it that bad is small.  So let’s take something more realistic.  Rent caps were tried in the 1970’s.  I can see why young people, especially in London, would see Corbyn’s proposals and think “oooh a few more glasses of prosecco”.  Yet this was tried in the 1970’s and led to landlords not repairing properties and less rental properties on the market.  Rent caps do not work.  But nobody under 50 has any experience, and very few have ever looked into economic studies of the outcome of rent caps.

Even lefties like Vice understand rent caps don’t work.

So (finally) onto the point of this point.  If Britain goes ahead and elects what I expect would be a Corbyn-led socialist disaster, we, and the rest of the western world would have this necessary example of what a disaster socialism is, which could be used for at least one, perhaps two generations.

It’s about time Labour made some difficult decisions

I’ll try to make this shorter.  Here – have an infographic.

There is a pattern.  Labour bust the economy, the Conservatives fix it.  But fixing it means unpopular measures such as reducing benefits, increasing pension age, reducing police numbers.  Labour can simply sit there, as they do every time, and disagree with every measure aimed at living within our means (aka austerity – the BBC-branded phrase to manipulate the voters in favour of Labour).

In case you haven’t noticed (both Corbyn and, worryingly, May are ignoring economics in this campaign) the job of repairing the economy is not even half fixed, such was the shambles handed over.  The deficit still exists (though a third of what it was), debt is still rising and debt to GDP ratio is far too high for this junction of the economic cycle.

If Corbyn is elected, there will soon be economic difficulties – perhaps in the short-term only something such as higher interest rates for government borrowing.  Whatever form it takes, Corbyn and yes – finally, Labour, would be forced to make some difficult and unpopular decisions.

Whilst I and hopefully a decent proportion of people reading understand that current unpopular decisions are due to Labour’s total mismanagement of the economy prior to the crash, many don’t understand – or simply refute it – blaming ‘evil Tories’ for any decision they don’t like that has been made to help balance the budget.

It really is about time the Labour Party had to take some responsibility for the mess they cause.

Brexit disaster can be blamed on Labour

For those of us who believe Brexit will be a disaster, it will be helpful to be able to blame Labour for the mess.  Both parties are equally responsible for Brexit happening (perhaps Labour more given Corbyn’s total reluctance to campaign for the outcome he professed to desire – where exactly where your remain campaign rallies, Mr ‘I want us to remain in the EU, look I am so honest I even make my own jam’ Corbyn?), but if we are going to have a Brexit recession, better for the Conservatives that it happen under Labour.

I appreciate that for anyone capable of voting Conservative (ie not looking for an immediate handout of some description), a Corbyn government is a pretty bleak outlook.

But in the medium/long-term, there are at least a few crumbs of comfort.

2017 General Election Labour Manifesto

Labour Manifesto

I wasn’t going to bother writing about the Labour Party’s rediscovery of the magic money tree, but it is such a document of deceit, that seems to be deceiving people – given the polls, that I do need to do my bit to debunk it.

You could summarise it by “you can have everything for free because we are going to make the rich pay for it”.

Except it simply won’t work.  This is back of a cigarette packet economics, and that is probably offensive to cigarette packets.

Allegedly the manifesto is fully costed, but I could similarly say that my dream apartment in Ibiza is fully costed.  Let’s break it down.

The Labour Party say that they are going to raise £19.4bn by increasing corporation tax to 26%.  This might sound fine to you – you might think that a higher tax rate means more will be raised in tax.

However, economics does not work like that.  After a point, the more you increase the tax rate, the less total tax will be raised.

The theory behind it is called the Laffer Curve, and anyone claiming that they can raise more revenue just because they are putting the tax rate up, is either stupid – or lying to you.  It is sometimes hard to work out which one is which in the Labour Party.

Since corporation tax has been reduced in this country – total corporation tax take has increased.  Of course, part of that is due to economic growth (in itself partly caused by lower corporation tax), but the Laffer Curve will be playing its part too.

Lower taxes raise more tax.

This is a fundamental understanding of economics that Labour simply doesn’t understand.

They also want to increase income tax on higher earners – you know, the people that open companies, the people that take risks – the people that employ many of you reading this.

Is it a co-incidence that during this period of tax-lowering, that employment is at a record high, or that unemployment is near a record low?  And I assume you know that every Labour government in history has left with higher unemployment than it inherited?

There is also this mysterious £6.5bn that Labour are going to get back from tax avoidance.  Don’t make me laugh. The idea that John McDonnell is going to magically stop companies from avoiding tax, a ha ha ha ha!  In fact, higher corporation tax will likely increase tax avoidance.

This is a completely spurious, nonsensical figure, made up to make the numbers add up.  Utter nonsense.

There is more to criticise, including the proposed increases in stamp duty, increasing capital gains tax and reducing corporation tax relief, to name three, that would likely have a negative impact on the economy.

Then there is the pointless renationalisation of railways, water companies etc – for which they haven’t even bothered to cost – seemingly trying to con me and you, that it won’t be paid for by debt, but bonds instead.  Bonds are government debt!!!

However, I would support scrapping the married couple allowance which seems an utterly pointless Cameron-esque policy.  See, you cannot say I disagree with everything Labour propose!

Then we have the giveaways.

Tuition fees is the big one.  So we are going to go back to fully subsidising expensive university tuition for anybody that fancies going to university.  Hugely expensive and not a productive use of resources, plus reductive to the quality in education.

Free car parking in hospitals may sound good, but who do you think is going to use that?  Nurses and patients?  Or the bloke who works in the office next door, the woman doing her shopping, etc?  Not exactly well thought out policy.

There is a massive £4bn giveaway on benefits (which sounds on paper like it would cost a hell of a lot more – yet more money to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

In fact, there are bribes to pretty much anyone that might normally consider voting Labour – public sector workers, the regions, students, layabouts, the unemployed…

It is quite simply a manifesto to bribe people, pretend the rich will pay for it, and land the country in economic ruin.

Of course, many people are too selfish to care, or too short-sighted to understand.  Some people will think “oooh more money for me” and not think about the consequences for the economy, and the subsequent consequences when economic ruin returns.

Some people actually blame the Conservative Party for having no choice but to reduce spending – when it was Labour that got us into this mess with their overspending – running significant budget deficits from 2001 to 2007 BEFORE the crash – and therefore being totally unprepared for the recession that they were partly responsible for causing.

Unlike previous elections, I am not campaigning for the Conservative Party.  I understand if people don’t want to vote for them and am generally not going to argue against it, except for the enjoyment of an argument.

But I cannot understand why anyone that cares about the future of the economy, the future of their country and their own future in 5-10 years would consider voting Labour.

Shall we try to finish on a positive?

I agree with Labour not setting a pointless arbitrary figure on immigration numbers.  I think their proposed Migrant Impact Fund is promising (though pretty sure we already have/had something similar).

I found one policy I agree with!  Woohoo!  Or is that two?

Overall this is a disastrous manifesto.  Never in my life has their been a more appalling, dangerous manifesto produced for the United Kingdom.

This is one dodgy dossier – a dangerous, delusional document of deceit.  It must be rejected.

2017 Election Conservative Manifesto General Election

Conservative Manifesto

I have finally got around to having a decent look at the Conservative Party manifesto.  Yes, I know it was launched over a week ago but I’ve been busy.  And a lot has happened in the meantime – not only to the manifesto itself.

You’ll likely know that I am no fan of Theresa May.  I find her a cross between Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband – with a bit of Nigel Farage thrown in for fun.  It is absolutely no surprise that she is throwing away the opportunity for a very large majority given her rather ghastly persona – perceived or real.

Yet I was impressed that she is pledging to do something about the generational imbalance.  The disparity between pensioners and younger working folk is immense and unfair.  Why should pensioners have a greater income than working people?

Pensioners have the houses, often excellent pensions, state pensions guaranteed to rise faster than inflation, and they have even got their own way on Brexit.  Yet I often hear from them, “I’ve paid my taxes all my life…” – oh forgive me, have you never used a state-funded hospital?  Your children didn’t go to a state school?  You haven’t ever driven on a road?  All the lampposts go out when you walk underneath?  Pensioners have paid their taxes – and we have a £1.7tr debt.  Thanks.

It really is about time the unfairness was resolved, and I think it excellent that winter fuel payments will be means-tested, the arbitrary and unfair triple-lock on pensions is now a double-lock, and they will now have to contribute more to social care.

This is true progress towards fairness.

Sadly this is balanced out with a Labour-esque non-commitment to the deficit – pledging a balanced budget by 2025.  As if there won’t be a recession by then.  The Conservatives are the only party that can claim economy competence and I don’t want to see that advantage draining away.

There is a touch of arrogance about not fully costing the manifesto – but Labour’s alleged fully costed manifesto is full of lies and deceit, as I will explain in another post – though the IFS do a pretty decent critique of it, albeit not going far enough in my opinion.

I’m neither here nor there with most of the education and health policies – I don’t really get the point of replacing free school meals with breakfasts.

I approve of the raising of the tax-free personal allowance to £12,500 – though a more sensible and fair approach would be to do this with National Insurance instead – as this would benefit the poor more.  Or even just merge NI into income tax.

The immigration target to get it down to the 10’s of 1000’s is utterly pointless and highly disagreeable.  There is a pledge to make it harder for foreign students to stay once they finish their studies – which is a completely backwards policy for the future of our country.

Likewise I don’t get the point of the target on house-building – unless something drastic changes then the targets will simply not be met.  I’m interested in the ideas behind allowing local authorities to build more social housing and would like to know more.  Also, the pledge to eliminate homelessness by 2027 is welcome – but how on earth is that going to be achieved?

You know my feelings on Brexit – I couldn’t give a fuck who is negotiating as I don’t want any Brexit negotiations to be necessary in the first place.

I am, however, pleased to note that the 0.7% commitment to foreign aid has been kept.

That will do.  I could go into some of the less-important policies but I have written enough for a general insight into my thoughts on the manifesto.

I do agree with more of the policies than the other parties.  Hardly surprising.  Though there do seem to be rather a few aims instead of detailed policies.

It is a decent-enough manifesto.  It isn’t going to solve many of the problems of this country – but unlike Labour, it isn’t going to destroy the country either.  If I vote Conservative, then it will not be with enthusiasm or relish – it will be a grudging vote, whilst wishing there was a socially liberal, economically-sensible party.

Oh David Cameron, where have you gone?

2017 General Election Liberal Democrats Manifesto

Lib Dem Manifesto

Given that I am still undecided, I thought that I should pay the Liberal Democrat manifesto a little more attention than usual.

There are some appealing proposals for a liberal such as myself, including the introduction of a regulated cannabis market (why not all drugs?) and the repeal of the Snooper’s Charter.

However, any liberalism does not extend to the economy, with large increases in spending on the NHS and education, which are only funded by increasing the debt.  There is also the reversal of some benefit cuts.

Further to that, they are going to increase income tax by 1p for everyone.


Bad enough when Labour propose to increase the rate of income tax on the rich (you know – the people that open companies and employ many of us), but to increase income tax on everyone will just discourage work and make us all poorer, at a time when living standards are fairly stagnant.

It seems that they are simply trying to appeal to Labour-lite voters.  I am not a Labour voter.

Yes I am missing something.  Brexit.

If you have read any article of mine, you will know that I want no kind of Brexit.  If the Liberal Democrats offered no Brexit – ie that they would stop the Brexit process, then I would vote for them.

To offer a second vote is pointless.  It’s a ratification vote.  If a second vote, on the deal, was lost – the Brexit question is closed.  Lose two referendums and the matter is conclusive for many a year.  And unless there is some kind of significant shift in public opinion (still roughly 50/50 split if you look at polls with balanced questions on Brexit), then I can only see another defeat for those of us who believe the future is dark, outside of the huge single market that is the European Union.

I cannot see that there will be any conclusive shift in public opinion, until Brexit happens, and when people start to notice subsequent negative effects on their lives.  Therefore, just like death itself, Brexit has to happen.  We have to have a Brexit failure to be able to reverse the process and be able to go back into the EU.  This is a long-term game – no point in just putting off Brexit.  People need to experience how bad things will be.

Thereby that policy of a second referendum on the deal is pointless.

I may still vote for the Liberal Democrats in some kind of anti-Brexit, anti-May protest vote, but it remains unlikely.  Who am I going to vote for, remains a good question.

Oh for a liberal party.

Energy Price Cap Fox Hunting Immigration Target Populism Socialism

Vote Tory, Get…Socialism?

Urgh.  The nasty party is coming back.  Socialism, nationalism, populism and killing animals for sport.

Let’s start with fox hunting.  I’m neither hare nor there when it comes to the matter.  I understand the pomp and revelry, I also understand that there should be some kind of control of the fox population.  But why on earth there is need to re-instate it as a sport?

I understand killing animals for food, or for pest control.  But not for fun.  And that includes fishing.

And yes, there will be a free vote on it, so bringing fox hunting back is not government policy per se, but it doesn’t take a genius to work out what the outcome of a free vote with a 100+ majority will be.

Then we have the nationalism/populism, with the reiteration of the 10’s of thousands target for net immigration.

Corbyn has a chance of meeting this but only through scaring anyone that has a level of aspiration greater than collecting benefits, to emigrate.  Why on earth we insist on such a ridiculous target which could only feasibly be met in a recession, especially given our increasing demand for government services (namely pensions, NHS) that have to be paid through increasing amounts of taxpayers.

For example, why do we want to put a limit on the numbers of students coming to study at our universities?  Firstly they pay the full whack of fees, helping to fund our university sector, helping subsidise university costs for UK students, and helping our universities continue to be some of the best in the world.  Not to mention that some of these students, if we actually allow any of them to stay, will be the creators of the next Google – why wouldn’t we want such talented people in our country?

Plus the idea that the government knows the amount of immigrants that businesses need is preposterous.

So then we get onto socialism.

If there is one thing that I cannot abide by, it is economic-destruction brought about my socialism.

Markets sometimes do need some element of intervention – for example where a company’s monopoly position is pricing out customers, or where there is a cartel controlling the prices.

But there simply is no reason for this punitive market-distorting price-cap – something similar of which only 2 years ago was rightly condemned by the Conservative Party as marxist.

Despite the popular misconception, the energy market is neither a monopoly (100+ suppliers) or a cartel.  Yes they make a profit (though 3 of the big 6 made a loss last year) but that is nothing to be ashamed of in a capitalist society.  If you want lower prices, than we need higher supply of electricity and gas.  Though the same people that complain about relatively high energy prices are often those that complain of wind farms being built, or fracking drills proposed.

Or we could look at reducing regulations intended on encouraging renewables.

Price caps tend to lead to higher prices, through lower supply.  For an extreme version, look at the whole economy of Venezuela.

And why just price caps on energy?  Why not on food, housing, clothes, etc?  The answer, is because that it is popular to bash energy companies – a perfect example of populism.

Not only is this policy outright wrong, it also gives bad signals.  Does this mean Theresa thinks that other policies in Ed Miliband’s manifesto of 2015 should be considered?  Is Theresa suggesting that maybe some of Corbyn’s policies are worth considering?

Is Theresa May even leading the Conservative party?  All I see is vote Theresa.  Vote Theresa and her team.  What happened to the Conservative party?

Theresa May seems as interested in asking people to vote Conservative as Labour MP’s seem interested in putting Corbyn on their propaganda.

If I still thought of myself as a Conservative, I would be offended.

Theresa May does not represent the Conservative party of Thatcher, of Major or of Cameron.  It’s a curious mix of socialism, nationalism and populism.  Or simply, anything to keep the Daily Mail happy.

It doesn’t make me happy.  I am further away from voting for Therera’s Team than ever.  How can someone who reveres Thatcher, vote for socialist policies?

It is now only a 30% chance that I will vote Tory, sorry, I mean vote Theresa.  A 10% chance that I will vote Liberal Democrat.  0% that I will vote Labour, Green or UKIP.

Which means a 60% chance that I will spoil my vote.  Unless there is someone else to vote for.  Maybe I should run?  I could be the next Emmanuel Macron.  I used to work for a bank, what more do you need?