Why as a Low-Paid Working Class Male I will not vote for the Labour Party.

First off, let me state I'm low Paid. Under 20 grand, which puts me way under the average wage. I'm not on minimum wage (although if the Conservative pledge to bump it up to £10.50 an hour happens, I may well be).

So, I'm working class, low paid. Yet I will not vote for the Labour Party, the traditional home of the low paid working class.

If there is anyone out there reading this that wants to attempt to convince me that voting Labour would benefit me, please do put it in a comment. I'd love the debate.

The reasons are many, but the overall reason is that the Labour Party and it's policies do not represent me. It does not champion the working class. It does not fight for us.

Instead it concentrates on platitudes and virtue signalling.

"More money to the NHS"... which means more taxation of my already meagre wages.

"Better Welfare"... which means even more taxation of my already meagre wages to pay benefits.

"Employers and the Rich should pay more tax"... which means there's a high likelihood that thanks to the already huge pressures on retail companies thanks to increased rates, higher employer N.I. or higher business rates or corporation tax will tip retail companies over the edge into closure. I high chance then that I'll end up jobless and on benefits then.

"Open Borders and Free Movement".... which means more competition for jobs, especially low-paid jobs. Which means there's a higher risk of me and other people like me staying on benefits.

"Free NHS treatment for non-UK nationals"... means that the NHS will not be able to cope as it tries to treat the world's sick and ill. The clamour to pay even more tax money to the NHS will increase and taxation of even low wages like mine will increase. The alternative is to borrow more now and then get the kids and grandkids to pay off the debt.

We had that with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, that cynically borrowed massively to fund their supposed boom. The tax credits system or Tony Blair job creation scheme as I call it. The scheme that rather than reduce taxes at source, set up a huge administration to take a portion of tax to give back to working families and also pay the wages of the new administrators set up to administer it. So wasteful and so cynical as it allows companies to pay even lower wages to families while relying on taxpayers to make up the shortfall. Genius!

As it stands, I cannot see how the Labour party's policies would benefit me. Conversely, all I see is more negativity in my future if Labour get into power.

Nope, I will not vote for Labour.

Lib-Dems capaign for change... but is it for the better?

It's reported that Jo Swinson, leader of the Liberal Democrats said today that the election in December could deliver "Seismic Change" when a "New and different Politics emerges".

Indeed it could if you vote Liberal Democrat.

It could usher in a new politics where the biggest democratic vote in the history of the UK is totally ignored.

A new politics where despite 17.4 million people voting to leave the EU, the political party voted into power will instead keep us inside the EU.

It ushers in a new and different style of Politics where the democratic vote is ignored. It ushers in a version of politics where votes don't count.

It unwittingly a new authoritarian age.

It also unwittingly ushers in an age where political change is not facilitated by peaceful democratic means.

That's not a new and different type of politics I want to have in the UK.

The Corporate Takeover of the Environmental Lobby will Kill us All.

I posted a comment over at Sargon of Akkad's interview of Piers Corbyn (brother of Jeremy and climate specialist) here:

https://youtu.be/grtV811cURU

"I've blogged for years that the climate change business is a con. It's the biggest redistribution of wealth from poor to rich in history. All you have to look at is where the money actually ends up. tariffs are used to "offset carbon".

Sounds innocuous eh? But what "offsetting carbon" consists of is buying carbon credits on the stock market. The carbon credits are traded just like any other commodity by er, traders..those people who make millions on the stock market.

In essence it's making money out of thin air.

The money also goes directly to landowners to pay rent for wind turbines, even the Queen gets a bung from the offshore wind farms. Then the big corporations making the turbines get the money, and the power companies get subsidies.

It's a bloody good confidence trick getting the whole western world panicked into shovelling money to already rich people.

The only people not benefitting are the poor people that can't afford to pay inflated energy bills."

The corporate and globalist takeover of the environmental lobby is worth an article in the press at the very least, but the problem is the press or journalists do not investigate this kind of thing any more. The press is already in the hands of the corporates as is the internet. Dissenting voices are bing silenced and no journalist who wants to stay a journalist will dissent.

It's bad enough that science has been hijacked by the corporates: no science is funded without some payback for the corporation or academic institution doing the science. It's hard for anyone to do any science which pushes boundaries or goes against "settled" science. God forbid that someone goes against the current narrative.

That is not Science as I understand it. Science has to be open and ready to be challenged. The theories are there to be tested and if necessary defeated and replaced with better, more robust theories. But corporations don't like uncertainty, they trade in absolutes. They don't want to spend huge sums of money on new theories (that may lead to lucrative patents) only to find a decade later that someone comes up with "better" science.

So, science is already corrupted by the corporates. The most prominent field being climate science. Some bloke who majors in Statistical science (and we all know the old adage about statistics) brings together some disparate data and then produces the so-called "hockey-stick" graph that purports to show that carbon dioxide produces global warming and that the  increase in CO2 globally is increasing exponentially. The result of man's industrial efforts, so the consensus says.

But hang on... although there may be a link to CO2 levels and global temperatures, there has not been a provable scientific link that CO2 causes global warming: only that the two tend to mirror each other. It could be that warming causes an increase in CO2. It could be that something else is causing the warming. If something else causes the warming, it's especially bad if computer models rely in CO2 level in the atmosphere as the cause of warming. Because those climate models will miss the TRUE cause and result of any changes in the atmosphere and the scientists who are so cocksure of themselves could be leading us into a different sort of climate catastrophe.

The refusal to even converse with dissenting scientific voices and to call them "deniers" is dangerous.
Would you call scientists working to overturn Einstein's theories "relativity deniers"? No, the person provides a new theory and it is tested and if repeatable, it becomes the new doctrine.

Not so with environmentalism. The science is "settled", fixed in aspic and not debateable. But without the correct data being used in the climate computer models, we could be heading for an ice age, or a global drought or some other global event that we are not preparing for.

But science is not the only area the corporations have taken over. The likes of Greenpeace, once a worthy organisation has grown so big it now ranks amongst the biggest corporations. It has a corporate mentality and with it the corruption of ideas that corporatism brings.

It has swung fully behind the climate change pseudo-science.

Extinction Rebellion, notionally a "people's movement" is actually well-funded. Funded by whom? Well, the only people with the money to bring thousands of protesters into London (enough to almost close the city down) are the big corporations, or their beneficiaries.

Compare the numbers with a true people's movement like the pro-Brexit protesters and you can see the difference. The pro-Brexit protesters are financing their protest out of their own pockets.

The pro-Remain and climate protesters are well-funded and well-organised.

The object of all of this corporate activity is political control. In essence the corporates want no boundaries to their activities. They want political control of the population. They want to make the rules to suit them. The want consistent profits. They want no borders, so they can ship goods around the world with the lowest cost. They want to be able to make goods in the cheapest part of the world and sell it in the most expensive part of the world without any tariffs or hindrance of any kind that would affect profits.

They want a cheap workforce. Open borders allows them to ship cheap labour to anywhere in the globe without any regulations. If the indigenous population does not comply with open borders so they can't ship humans seamlessly into countries they need them, they will just replace the humans with the robots they are developing. It may take longer for the corporations to achieve their goal that way, but a worker who's initial outlay is fixed, who never asks for a pay raise and whose maintenance cost is predictable and who never leaves the company is the holy grail for the big global corporations.

You, squishy human, you are just in the way of the corporate steamroller.

Fight back now, while you can, while our political process gives you a mechanism to do so. The time is nearly upon us when the corporates have complete control. Brexit has taught us that we are almost at a stage where voting is useless.

We need to give the corporates another bloody nose at the election and claim back our country. For our children if for no-one else's sake.

Election 2019: Pro-Brexit Options not so clear.

Gina Miller, the woman that loves so much to use money to influence our politics, has set up a website so that remainers can strengthen their vote by tactically voting.

Really, that in essence means voting for the Lib-Dems as they are the only party with a clear policy to revoke article 50 and keep us in the EU.

Labour are so unclear on any subject, you can have two senior shadow cabinet ministers on two separate channels giving two separate policy statements. I've heard about having your cake and eat it, or being everything to everybody, but Labour are just so bloody ridiculous on anything.

So, the remain option is clear: ditch Labour and vote Lib-Dem. At least for this election. And many traditionally Labour voters usually don't have a problem handing their vote to the lib-dems because they're not the Tories. And at the moment those sort of voters will not vote for a Corbyn/Momentum-led Labour party anyway.

The Pro-Brexit option for voting is not so clear.

In Labour heartlands, I would assume that the clear winner in the pro-Brexit stakes will be The Brexit Party. Most people will vote for them as it's still not voting for the Tories. BUT the Brexit Party need to put up some credible working-class candidates. Anyone that looks and talks like a Tory will get slated and at best people will just abstain from voting. If they put up someone who has lived a working class life and talks from the same life experiences will attract votes.

In Tory-held areas, the issue becomes very unclear. A vote for The Brexit Party weakens the Tory vote, which in theory could allow a Lib-Dem victory in marginal TBP/Tory seats.

One thing is clear: the 17.4 million voters who cast their vote for Brexit back in 2016 need to get themselves on the voting register and VOTE!

The pro-Brexit candidates, whether TBP or Tory need an overwhelming majority of voters supporting them to get the pro-Brexit parties into Parliament and get Brexit done.

The thing not to do is bitch and moan and say you're not going to vote again because your referendum vote hasn't been taken seriously.

All I'd say to that mentality is: You have to hit a nail more than once to drive it home.