Mega LOL

Nick Clegg, bad heir day. This was the day that cleggers became a national hate figure. Nick Clegg Tory boy? Probably not, but still hypocritical nevertheless. It may surprise you, but I agree with an increase to tuition fees. I always were, even before the election. I, however thought 5k was reasonable. 9k however, mega LOL. Well someone from the march last week- which was expected, so get over it and do not look so surprised metropolitan police, had scribled the following on a bedsheet. “I pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees-mega LOL. ”
9k ain’t progressive, but the Liberals will get over it, however much you disagree with me. Just like Blaire got over top-up fees in the millenium. Come 2015 most people would have forgotten about it. More people will be interested about Camerons inability to match his pledge of getting troops out of Afghanistan-which won’t happen by 2014.

K

In it together? What are you on about?!

What does it mean to feel rich? Is it chucking food into ones basket not checking the prices? Is it the ownership of a plasma HD tv? Is it the awareness of the difference between a Gilet and a bomber jacket? Is it eating out on any day of the week because you simply cannot be bothered to cook? Is it the many holidays you have experiances which do not include Spain or Portugal? This week a group of people who had regarded themselves as struggling by on modest means were horrified to hear they are loaded.

What a load of old tosh, families who lose child benefit from 2013 are not in fact the “squeezed middle” they are infact the top 15 percent of wage earners. They are, by all objective well off, yet never had noticed it. As wealth is realitive and synonymous, we hang out with people like ourselves. So we do not notice a 2nd car is a luxury, paying for two kids to go to Uni, yet pulling out 10k from one of the many savings accounts that you own is not the norm.

All I’ll say is, the class gap is as big as ever, we only just notice it when taxes go up.

Get used to it, 7k student loans here I come.

K

Nice little prediction don’t you think.

It was the most electric moment of the TV coverage of election night 2015, and David Dimbleby captured it with his customary finesse: “Here we see Harriet Harman, gracefully accepting defeat and holding back the tears as she thanks the returning officer, congratulates her Tory opponent, and vows, ‘I’ll be back’. She has been MP here since 1982 and finds herself now defeated, by just a handful of votes, by Annunziata Rees-Mogg, who fought a controversial campaign from her Bentley convertible. This surprise Conservative gain in Camberwell and Peckham puts David Cameron in Downing Street for the second time. Over to Jeremy now for the state of the parties…”

At the end of the night, Dimbleby declared, “This really is my last election show”, and ranked it the most dramatic he had presided over. He was right. They wrote a book afterwards, entitled Did You Stay Up for Harman? Though the re-election of the Cameron government on 10 May 2015 came as no surprise, the scale of it did.

During the previous five turbulent years it had been anything but a foregone conclusion. In the midst of the Great Schools Strike of 2013, for example, when the National Union of Teachers closed every classroom in the country for a month, few would have predicted that the Conservatives would win a second term, let alone be rewarded with a majority of 101 in the new parliament. The resignation of a quarter of the Cabinet by 2012, for various “personal” reasons, added to the instability. When the Argentine government launched its August 2014 invasion of the Falkland Islands, which poignantly coincided with the centenary of the Great War, the sense of national humiliation was palpable. Ultimately, though, it was the economic recovery that won the election for Cameron. He was also aided, of course, by the secession of Scotland from the United Kingdom, and the removal of Labour’s overwhelming advantage in Scottish MPs in the Commons.

Commentators had by 2014 started to talk about the Conservatives as the “default party of government”, with political change coming only from the shifting moods and personalities among the Tories and the “Coalition Liberals” – now virtually indistinguishable from their Conservative allies. Candidates of both parties started to call themselves “Liberal Conservatives”.

It was a sweet moment for the Camerons, who had produced two more babies in Downing Street – Gideon and Gordon. US presidential front- runner Sarah Palin was the first to call to congratulate Cameron on his win. President Strauss-Kahn of France was next, and IMF Managing Director Gordon Brown said he stood ready to help Britain if needed (“I did it before. I can do it again”).

Floella Benjamin, Lib Dem mayor of London, said she pledged her support and that of Big Ted, Little Ted, Jemima and Hamble too. Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, was appointed Foreign Secretary; but there were few of his colleagues left among the ranks of what had become, to all intents and purposes, a Tory administration. David Miliband led an opposition of 99 Labour MPs, including his brother. Diane Abbott was favourite to succeed him.

Of all the shocks in the first Cameron term, the Second Falklands Conflict was the most traumatic. Though Lady Thatcher was no longer able to give voice to the ‘Spirit of the South Atlantic’, there were many on the Conservative back benches who demanded that cruise missiles be used to bomb Buenos Aires. Vast oil reserves had made the 2,000 Falklanders the wealthiest people on the planet for a short time, pimping up their Land Rovers.

Billions of pounds in royalties had flowed back to the UK Treasury to dissolve the budget deficit. Unsurprisingly, it was too great a temptation for the Argentinians. The Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, was said to be sympathetic to using the UK’s nuclear arsenal, but American diplomatic pressure meant that such massive retaliation was impossible. And there were no longer any Sea Harrier jets to defend the naval taskforce; they had been finally abandoned by the Labour government back in 2006.

The Argentine government had learnt the lessons of the 1982 war, and their soldiers, sailors and airmen were well equipped, well fed and well motivated. Their preparations were painstaking, and though the British garrison fought bravely the threat to civilian life and the sheer odds against them meant capitulation within days was inevitable. The Argentines had chosen the late summer for their attack, knowing that when winter arrived they would gain an invaluable ally.

In the aftermath and in the official Hutton Report, many blamed the mixed signals that had emerged from the Strategic Defence Review of 2010 and occasional hints from British Liberal Democrat ministers that, while sovereignty was non-negotiable, they sought a “constructive long-term relationship” with Argentina. President Obama was unwilling to countenance covert support for what was privately called “a colonial throwback”. Hillary Clinton’s lack of personal chemistry with William Hague – or “that weird baldy guy”, as she called him – was also a negative factor. Even the efforts of Lord Mandelson, British ambassador in Washington since January 2012, were to little avail. Meanwhile Argentina joined Opec.

And yet in the opinion polls the Government’s ratings were scarcely affected. Of far more interest to the electorate was the surprisingly strong economic recovery, especially as the banking crisis of 2011 had seemed to threaten the very solvency of the nation. By election day in 2015 the UK still owed the IMF a small amount of money for the special bailout provided when the Bank of England and the Treasury ran out of money with which to rescue the Nationwide Building Society, Barclays and the new Virgin Bank.

The failure to anticipate a second banking crash, and the fact that some cash machines had actually refused to dispense money to customers, led to the resignation of George Osborne as Chancellor and Mervyn King as Governor of the Bank of England. But by 2014, and more happily for the new Chancellor David Laws, previously nationalised banks such as Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds had recovered sufficiently for them to be offered for sale to the public. A national advertising campaign – “Don’t Tell Fred” – was highly successful. Sterling strengthened, and unemployment and interest rates fell. Inflation came back under control under the new Governor of the Bank, Adair Turner (the first outside appointment for many years).

So the Cameron-Clegg government’s slogan almost wrote itself: “You’re better off under the Coalition: Let us Finish the Job”. A political broadcast starring Michael, now Lord, Caine called “The Downing Street Job” was praised. VAT was cut to 10 per cent and the 50p top rate of tax was abolished.

The nation seemed relieved that the curtain had fallen on Britain’s half-a-millennium long role on the world stage. It learnt, too, to live with more national assets being taken over by foreigners. BMW bought Rolls-Royce, the jewel of British manufacturing; Abu Dhabi interests made an offer for Marks and Spencer that the shareholders couldn’t refuse; the Chinese bought British Airways; the Koreans took over the Ordnance Survey.

An even larger loss was Scotland, but few south of the border seemed inclined to do much about it. The Scottish referendum on independence, held soon after the SNP won an overall majority in the Scottish parliament, was bitterly and occasionally violently fought there. The 58 per cent vote in favour followed a vicious attack by the London Treasury on Scotland’s funding, and a boycott of “all things English” – highlighted by the refusal of Mr Salmond to take phone calls from David Cameron. Yet the English appeared as indifferent to the loss of their northern partner in the union as they had been to the loss of colonial possessions in Africa in the 1960s.

The Sun headline on Scottish Independence Day, “Sod Off Jocks”, was a crude and insulting last word, and echoed what many thought. Indeed a maverick ‘SNP English Chapter’ sprang up, allegedly with the tacit backing of William Hague. It supported the exit of Scotland from the union purely on the grounds that it would save the English taxpayer money and keep the Tories in power.

After the referendum, the Scottish Prime Minister, Alex Salmond, described the English living in Scotland as “honoured guests” and offered them a form of citizenship, but without the full rights enjoyed by “oor native Scottish folk”. The monarchy was retained and Scotland applied for membership of the “new euro”, the single currency used by Germany and a few others such as Austria and Finland. The Scottish High Commission in London, the Scottish Broadcasting Corporation and the Scottish Armed Forces were novelties, as were border posts on the A1 and M6. Berwick-on-Tweed announced its own plebiscite over which side of the border it wished to be on.

It was not the only schism in the former United Kingdom. Bob Crow, leader of the RMT union, said he “didn’t know what David Cameron means with his Big Society, but if he wants a Big Punch Up with me, he can have it”. Given Mr Crow’s track record, the Cameron government was probably wise not to pick a fight with him and his members over pay; it offered tube drivers a 12 per cent pay deal. Sporadic disputes in the Post Office, the hospitals and in Whitehall were often settled by messy compromise.

Pushed by the impeccably polite, but stubborn, Michael Gove, the Government did decide to resist the National Union of Teachers and its allies when they said they would “shut every school” in the Great Schools Strike of 2013. An upsurge in petty crime and vandalism was reported in the autumn of that year, as schoolchildren were left to wander the streets and pickets closed school gates. Yet the teaching unions seemed even more determined to resist cuts to their pensions, longer working hours and – more than anything – what they derided as “yummy-mummy schools”, the new institutions Mr Gove promised could be set up by groups of parents. Sources claimed the Prince of Wales was “simply appalled” by the fighting outside schools and the sacking of thousands of teachers.

After a four-week dispute, the two sides settled on a deal that made the expansion of Mr Gove’s new independent schools dependent on local ballots and NUT co-operation. The collapse of a few early experiments, including one run by a cult where the classics, veganism and meditation were compulsory, did Mr Gove’s cause little good. The secession of Scotland from the union raised questions about his political future in the new, England-dominated UK. Mr Gove and Mr Fox played up their respective links to Surrey and Somerset.

The biggest casualty of the great coalition experiment was the Liberal Democrats. Individually, many prospered as they turned out to be outstandingly able ministers; by the end of the first term it had become apparent that the Cameron government had found itself a welcome infusion of talent. Lord Mandelson’s role in Washington, and Alastair Campbell’s new job as an EU Commissioner, also suggested that the coalition government was becoming more “national” in tone. But in by-election after by-election the Liberal Democrats suffered, as disillusioned voters turned to the Greens – the new kids on the political block, appealing for “a new politics”, unsullied by power. The Greens’ leader, Caroline Lucas, managed to persuade the broadcasters that the 27 per cent vote that the party gained in the European elections of 2014 entitled her to an appearance in a special four-way prime- ministerial TV debate. “I agree with Caroline” became a new catchphrase, made more comical when Sky, the BBC and ITV made Cameron and Clegg share a podium. Yet in the general election the Greens could only up their parliamentary representation to three seats. Cameron and Clegg pledged to continue the coalition into a second term even if the Tories won an outright majority. A breakaway Council of Liberal Democracy, led by Charles Kennedy, was quickly dubbed the “wee frees”. Plaid Cymru polled strongly, and independence for Wales was being taken more seriously.

It was quite a transformation. In 1997 the Tory Party had seemed smashed, having gone down to its worst defeat since the Great Reform Act of 1832. What was dubbed “the Second Great Reform Act”, passed 180 years later, introduced the alternative vote (confirmed in a referendum), fixed-term parliaments and stringent limits on political funding which slashed the cash the unions could give the Labour Party.

Against all the early punditry, by 2015 the Conservatives once again dominated the political landscape, even though it was littered with the charnel and debris of conflict. People shut themselves away from the gangs, muggers, foreign wars and industrial unrest. They spent more time at home enjoying the latest electronic marvels and their gardens, and less in the sorts of communal pursuits they had once so much enjoyed – going to the pub, the football, the restaurant, the cinema. Voting turnout fell back.

By 2015 we had become a more introverted nation, content with the cap on immigration and a European Union that had retreated into being a mere free-trade zone. The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012, and the England team’s win in the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, were welcome distractions. So too was the surprise marriage of Prince William to Amy Winehouse, and the elevation of her father, Mitch Winehouse, to the peerage. Grazia called it an alliance of two great dynasties.

But the main interest the English had was in their own homes and families; “abroad” was an export market or holiday destination. The Scots, the yobs, the Falklanders, the Welsh, the Europeans and the rest could go hang: Not so much Big Society as Little England.

Technology

One is quite contrite that it takes a holiday of supposed relaxation in the ancient civilisation modern state of Egypt to truly recollect our/my reliance upon technology, but most significantly communication. I digress slightly; the telephone by Mr. Bell I do believe; google is not at hand as I type, was created nearly 200 years ago. In the western world, it is a relitivly inexpensive form of communication; business and social life would grind to a halt if it were not for this medium. In Egypt however, Mr. Bell is unheard of, it is extremely expensive to use a telephone, averaging at £2.50 a minuet. On the basis that the average wage of an Egyptian is £40 a month, this form of communication is reserved for the upper echelon of society.
Mail, however, you would think would take a bit longer to arrive to Britain than say any country in Europe, but not a month. For people who consider themselves not technophobic, as do I, simply cannot contemplate life as we know it to deal with these two simple, yet highly important institutions omitted from our society. I hurry to end this blog due to lack of battery, but please consider a few things, albeit rather mushy concepts. We are truly lucky in the way of life we have, what we take for granted, and may cost relativly apittance in comparison to other household expenditures, they are a vast luxury to the majority of the world. These do not just include technological appliances, but can consist of fuel, clothes, food, water and even health care. In Britain we are lucky, even when times are economically tight, if we simply do not have the money to pay for any of the above items, we will be given them to use free of charge by the state. This is because we can afford them, and in our messed up view of the world, we consider them some of lifes essential pieces of human existance. But it is a shame we cannot apply this model to the whole of planet earth. We are all humans, and we are all brothers of sisters.

K

Coalition talks this morning.

Brown: I’m resigning…… Myself to staying at number 10, so the rest of you can fuck off.
Ashcroft: I didn’t buy the Tories to end up negotiating with the nimby pimby panzies who care about civil rights and helping normal people. A hung parliament is a terrible return on my investment.
Clegg: you should have kept your money in Belize, you barely pay any tax anyway.
Cameron: now, now………. Nick, have I ever told you are an extremely attractive man?
Clegg: keep talking posh boy.
Cameron: the country demands that you and I roll up our sleeves and do a deal.
The country: really? That’s news to us.
Cameron: now here are the ground rules. We possibly can’t agree on porportional representation.
Clegg: but why? 62% of the population want it.
Cameron: because we simply won’t be able to dump you at the earliest possible moment.
Clegg: what about Europe?
Hague: we are going to nuke it!
Clegg: before or after china?
David laws: now can I just say that………
Cameron: who the fuck are you Ginger bollocks?
Laws: ohh I’m a liberal democrat, and I will be your new home secretary. Your Tory one is homophobic, we simply can’t agree to that.
Cameron: mmmmmmmm. One last thing that is non-negotiable. We have to insist George osbourne is NOT chancellor. So do we have a deal.
The country: agreeeeeeeeeed!

So what the fucks happening?

Well, with so much confusion, why not add to it? As no single party won the election on Thursday Gordon Brown is still the Prime Minister. With the markets crashing, which I said would happen if the Tories do well but not enough for a majority, but no-one listens to me, what do I know, it is essential that we get a strong coalition at the helm, before we morph into Greece.
What seems scary to many of the left, in which I have had many people ask me, how can a centre-left party talk to the right? Fucking Clegg! This ofcouse one would argue, not scary of the sort. We are not here, after all, because the Liberal Democrats are weak or inconsequential, or because progressive politics has failed. Instead we are here because the third party has become so strong that it becomes difficult for anyone else to govern without it’s broader reforming support. This is a triumph of the modern!

Infact there are echoes of liberal values everywhere, some from top Tories such as Ken Clarke and David Cameron. The Liberals and Tories are 41 minuets into their meeting, with the Liberals calling for Gordon Brown to go before they will speak to Labour. So Lord Mandelson has been swarmed in, to hopefully remove him, and replace him with one of the Millibands, I pray for David. The Liberals say they want proportional representation, 62% of Britain agree. All I’ll say is watch this space.

K

Just a quick thing.

Isn’t it annoying when you have no computer or motivation to work?! I am led in bed at 5.34 like a common slut, with used fags upon my tallboy and three spliffs resting on my side table enticing me. This Is Uni life? A life Ive so far paid 18 k for, an ever increasing debt of pleasure.

I’m getting sick of all this election campaigning and I am sure you are as well. I just can’t wait until Thursday night, not just to find out who’s won, but so all this fear of who may win can be over.

I will not say who to vote for, I just ask you vote. It’ll be the first time in five years to truely make a difference. People died for the vote forgoodness sake. Don’t make their death in vein.

Also I ask one thing further. Before you vote, make sure your decision is based on sound judgment. Not from fear or hatred of the other. I. E. I don’t want the Tories winning I’m going to vote labour. Find out the truth about what they are standing for. Check the BBC election website, it’s very useful and incredibly easy to use.

Remember, if you want change, then vote for real change, this will be the only chance to decide on how you want Britain to be run for the next five years.

Oh and the bullshit that the conservatives are offering change is an oxymoron.

K

Today the Politicians will all try to woo us youngsters to vote!

I am in my second year of university, almost there, just on my last essay of the term, so my awareness of life is a bit hazzy to say the least. The three main rules of uni life are: don’t do any work, or atleast don’t admit it; never tidy your room, well ive only done it once this year so please let me off; and never ever vote Tory.

Rebellious, arrogant, revolutionary and anti-establishment, and i am all of these, these are the views that are essential to the student psyche since practically forever, even if commitment to the left only amounted to a poster of the great man Che’ Guevara on the bedroom wall. Well i have a metre by metre painting in the living room, and all his diaries and memoirs and of course almost every foreign film recording his life, and i am not even left wing.

True, the occasional Tory did squeeze through the net, but they are losers and stuck up, most lecturers working at the top 30 Universities in the UK tend to be great lefties themselves, so the subject taught is almost always entirely biased, and would add fuel to the great left fire. You can easily spot a Tory by their tweed Jacket and Brown brogues: the hardcore would even wear a waist coast.

The more right wing you are as a student the more you are planned and organised on what life has install for you. Many lefties speak of travelling, smoking pot and letting life take its own course. The Tory however, wants to be Prime Minister, and has mapped out life’s career on the back of an envelope- my being in-between all of these, excluding the envelope.

The Tories however, as students are a rare breed. Collectively, when we graduate we will all fall into a career, being a teacher, working in a bank or doing what our parents had done previously; this is not a significant problem of course.

Regrettably, the Tories are becoming acceptable again, what does this mean to styles and decoration to student pads? The days of paying homage to Che’ and Tony Benn may be over, just like no decent guys have a mass collage of naked girls in their room like the 90’s. What will replace them? Will we have the revolutionary fervour of George Osborne? Although the snob has twattish tendencies, there are far uglier politicians. Or is it no longer on appearance, but on substance? Will that lead to mass artwork of the windswept Boris Johnston; Mayor of London? This shaggy-dogged hair style is exactly what students want!! NOT! It’s not so much the Tories that our parents were rebelling against, but the system. I think we’ve entered the new age of alternativism, and a feel good factor in British politics, just like America with Obama, we may have the Golden Boy Nick Clegg of the LibDems, will he become the new Obama, Che’ or even Winston Churchill after two successful TV debates? Only time will tell.

If however, Mr. Cameron wins the election, give it a few years and the Che’ posters will be out again. Unless of course, there’s a good picture of Gordon Brown in Beret…………..

Why not vote for FAIR taxes for ALL?!

Today’s tax system is one of the most unfair and complex within Europe, built up over the years by Labour and the conservatives (Labservative).  The poorest pay the biggest share of their income rather than the richest. The polluters who harm our world simply do not pay enough, and quite alarmingly tax avoidance costs the economy £40 billion. We all know the conservatives devotion to the rich will not change any of these, and with Labours recent 13 years in government they will not be any different. So I propose an alternative, an alternative to the last 60 years of pretty much the same. I firmly believe that the Liberal Democrats are the only party that will have the courage to make life more fairer. I am not asking for the rich to be excessively taxed or the middle incomes to be left free to their own demise, I just ask for a bit of fairness, and I hope you agree.

Liberal democrats as is proposed in their general election 2010 manifesto will cut taxes for pensioners and working people on low and middle incomes, paid for by closing the unfair tax loopholes for the rich, and making the polluters pay for their damage to our environment. This would be the biggest tax reform that Britain has needed for generations. It would put more money into the pockets of ordinary people, when people need it most, at times of economic hardship and recession. And this would make Britain more fairer.

What’s wrong with Britain’s taxes?

Britain’s tax system is far too complex and unfair for many businesses and people to understand. There are millions of people on low incomes, such as; working single parents, pensioners, students and just poorly paid jobs are forced to pay income tax every year. For many this is the partial cause for many pensioners living on the breadline unable to heat their homes, and for what many of us call ‘scrounges’ living off benefits not going out to find a job, because by paying this amount of income tax, work does not pay. Every person living on the minimum wage is forced to pay up to £1,000 of their earnings on income tax. At the moment for every pound you earn over £6,5000 you will have to pay at least 31% tax, which comprises of income tax and national insurance. For many like my father pay over 60% tax, even for the worst effected they pay 90% tax. This is because of the tax credits and means tested benefits are lost. For many who’ll add the cost of child care, travelling to work, or have an elderly family member within a home to their expenses it simply does not seem viable to work. As a whole people having a squeezed disposable income and less people working would have a negative effect on our economy. We need consumer spending growth!

For families, 1.3 million are over paid due to the credit and tax system, this means up to a year later hard pushed families have to find the money they have over  spent due to an administrative error. Disgusting. The actual take up of these work tax credits is as low as 1 in 5. There must be a problem when the government cannot handout money to people, as the population is too confused that they are entitled to it. It must be wasted money as the billions pumped into tax credits are not deterring the raising inequality.

Tax is a mess for managers too. Managers are constantly confused over what they can and cannot do, and subsequently tax accountants are becoming extremely rich in the process. The conservatives recent business taxes decreases are common place, they are simply written on the back of an envelope, not even thought through, just to win votes. In principle there will be a tax decrease, but so few are entitled to it, and if they are, they would be too confused by the amount of hurdles before they can receive it. This complexity and instability hurts our economy, hurts businesses and damages the overall tax take because it gives companies a huge incentive to stretch the system if they can. Sometimes they can decide to leave Britain altogether. The governments own figures show that we are losing £40 billion in tax avoidance. Wouldn’t that be a tidy sum to help pay back the debt per year?

It is totally obvious to me, and I am  sure to any normal voter reading this that we need a total rethink of the taxing system. The way taxes work indicates a lot about a political party, the Liberal Democrats want to create a fair and less complex taxing system. A taxing system that supports economic growth, rewards hard workers, punishes high polluters and strengthen our society by making fairness the central pillar to Britain. This would be the first time ever seen in Britain.

Liberal Democrat values

As a Libdem, I support the basic social and economic case for taxation; a progressive taxation that rewards hard workers, and helps those who need it most. In doing so it would help widen opportunity, boost social justice and reduce excessive inequality; it allows the state to pay for the security forces that keep us safe, such as the police and army.

We also acknowledge the case for excessive taxation. This would deter competition and innovation, and that constant ambition to do better. They are essential to having a strong economy, which is linked to prosperity. When you keep your own money, you can choose what you spend it on; you are empowered! When the government takes your money off you, they can spend it on what they please. Your power is diminished! Excessive taxation on the poorest family’s cause deep harm, their power in society is already at an all time low. This is why I firmly believe in a progressive taxing system, those with the broadest shoulders should brunt more of the weight. This isn’t vindictiveness, this is fairness, and it is ludicrous that the poorest people still pay the highest proportion of their income in tax.

As quoted  by Why to vote LIBDEM. “That is why Liberal Democrats will cut taxes from the bottom, closing loopholes and exemptions that benefit the best off and ensuring polluters pay for the damage they cause. A fair tax system rewards hard work, enterprise and initiative. It penalises pollution and other threats to the common good. It bears down on unearned wealth. And it should be simple to understand and administer so that everyone, from small business to large, from low paid workers to the very rich, plays by the same rules.”

Solution

Under a Liberal democrat government, people will not pay a single penny of income tax on the first £10,000 they earn. That means up to four million low earners, students and pensioners are tax-free, and millions more pay £700 less tax a year, so for a working family of four that’s nearly an extra £3,000 pound in the household. That you have authority to spend as you wish, maybe a new car or a holiday, or to save for the times ahead. Of course this is not free money, the money to pay for this tax break to ordinary people are paid by the biggest polluters. Secondly, the Libdems will remove all tax loopholes, exemptions and get out clauses that give unfair benefit to the people at the top. But most importantly, the most revolutionary tax on wealth put forward to this British public in this years manifesto. Money will be raised by the new ‘Mansion Tax’, people living in a house excluding pensioners and students worth over £2 million will have to pay a new 1% levy. This is popular because it is fair and right. Currently, a family home worth £750,000 is liable for the same council tax as a £20 million mansion. Under these plans a married couple say a staff nurse and a police officer will be £1,400 better off. A stark difference from the £150 poultry conservative marriage benefit, and unlike the conservatives you don’t just have to be married to receive the tax break. It is for every one earning under £100,000.

Finally

Tax will be one of the biggest dividing lines during this election. You can either choose the overly complex and unfair taxes under Gordon Brown and the Labour party. Or David Cameron and his tax cuts for the millionaires, and a tax increase for just about everyone else. Yes that includes YOU AND ME!!!!!!!!! Or the Liberal Democrats who want fair taxes for EVERYONE!

K

The debate over immigration should not be deemed pernicious, but healthy for a democracy.

For some weird reason many think political correctness prevents the British public from having an intelligent debate and being able to speak freely about immigration. Many Liberals, not just politically think that if such a debate occurred then cries from the mob would be ‘send them back’ and ‘pull up the draw bridge’- this of course is a myth. The only people who would shout such abstract claims clearly do not understand Britain, and if they do, do not like what they see.

Immigration is a most slippery of an electoral issue. Locally politicians always talk about it, but nationally its all but invisible. Because of this, Britain is rarely reminded of such a paradox. That if immigration is a problem, then it is a most beautiful problem. We as a nation should not be scared of immigration, we should have constant smiles on our faces as citizens, that out of every country on earth people statistically would like to come here over our neighbours.

With migrant camps in Calais, the French should be ashamed and embarrassed that so many people commit felonies to leave France to come here! The reasons are countless, they may speak English due to our historic violence, trade and pillage known as colonialism. They may know of our football, or our music, or our literature. Migrants may know of our Britain that many of us have forgotten. This is the land of old Queen Bess, James Bond, William Shakespeare and of course the Beatles and the Spice Girls. A land where the Police and politicians for the most part won’t be bribed. We are according to Radio One a land of Mr. Whippy Ice Cream, Marmite, Stephen Fry and health care for all.

They may be attracted to, which I am, a country of tolerance and equal opportunity, where the hungry are fed, the young are educated and the needy are provided for. Britain is not a country of mass genocide, nor high violent crime, in fact it has decreased by over 50% over the last decade; bet you didn’t know that. Higher even in Liverpool and London. Not all of the world is like this. Not all of the world is so fortunate.

Immigration is almost ignored by the election campaign, the Labour party yesterday in their manifesto have stated all Public sector workers will be required to speak English. To be honest what’s the point? As you read this your probably disagreeing with me already, thinking I am too liberal, but let me digress slightly. A Doctor not being able to speak English may risk lives, If a teacher does not then it would be a waste of a teacher, in all fairness, if a person is working for the public sector who needs to, they will already be able to speak English. But what are we missing if a cleaner or a bins person cannot? Is it that necessary to waste time and resources on educating people to speak English when it is unessential, rather than spending that money on front-line services?

The freedom of movement, endorsed by the European Union is a demonstrable economic good. If it happens to bring problems that the right speak of, such as; over burdened public services, collapsing border controls and community unrest, these are not because of foreigners, but because of mismanagement of the authorities designed to alleviate such problems. Why should we be scared of hitting these problems on the head? I am a big supporter of political correctness, but a little common sense should be used. Nigger- whoa did that make you feel uneasy? Faggott?! As long as we understand their relevance’s and dependant on their context’s, we can have an intelligent debate. Such silence leads to assumptions on who thinks what. Firstly, assuming that immigration cannot be respectably discussed, and secondly, that when it is discussed, the inevitable outcome will be incendiary or at least provocative.

Neither of these assumptions are true. According to the Times- far more respectable than the Daily Mail, one in Britons were born abroad; then filter in parents and grand parents, my being one affected, you have a great many having a part of somewhere else.

The British people know immigration is not something that is done to us, but something that is in some way a tiny piece of our core! We should be happy to reflect this. Indeed, it makes us proud of the country in which we live. If only racists and our politicians felt the same.

K