Multiculturalism is Failing and The Government Know it. They Fear You Realising it Too.

There is a row currently around the Southport stabber.

It's now come to light that not only did he commit the atrocity in Southport, he had downloaded an Islamist terrorist training manual, had actually created and had a quantity of the deadly poison Ricin.

Yet the murder of 3 kids and the maiming of many more in Southport is still being classed by the Government as "just" murder. The other offences and evidence as far as I am aware have not been taken into consideration and the charges against the guy have not yet (as far as is in the public domain) been upgraded to terrorist incidents. 

Why is that?

Given that Grandads and Grandmas in Southport shouting the odds at Police were dealt with with the full force of the law and maximum sentences, where are the Government on the Southport Stabber?

Running away like pussies it seems. Avoiding making any comments, closing down debate in the house of commons. 

At the very least, there should be a debate on how extremism is taking the children of first generation immigrants and radicalising them. 

The Southport incident isn't the first time a child of first-gen immigrants has been radicalised.

Shamima Begum, the poster child of the Left, was a child of immigrants. She went to Syria and joined ISIS. Whilst there she did unspeakable acts and supported many more directly.

The Manchester Arena bomber was the child of immigrants, killed 22 people. 

One of the 2017 London Bridge Van Attacker was a son of immigrants.

The 2019 London Bridge Stabber killed 2 people was also the son of immigrants.

I could go on. What motivates the children of immigrants to become violent radicals?

Is multiculturalism failing? Is it failing the children of immigrants who refuse to integrate into UK society? By not integrating, are they denying their children the ability to bacome part of UK society? Do they actively prevent them from doing so?

There are dozens of cases of girls brought up in UK immigrant families, being married off to men in foreign countries. There are dozens of incidents of honour killings, where girls have wanted to integrate, date and even marry men from the UK, but have been prevented by their families from doing so and in extreme ceases killed for doing so.

Marrying boys off to foreign girls, bringing the girl in from a foreign country, completely unable to speak English and integrate into UK society. Totally reliant on her in-laws, unable to communicate with anyone outside the family. 

There are just a couple of aspects of the divisiveness of the current ideology of multiculturalism. 

It's under these sort of lifestyles, where young adults are not able to integrate, where they have no sense of belonging, that can foster the sense of resentment towards the country that houses them. The apparent oppressiveness of the family and the deliberate control of the young adults, the refusal to allow them to integrate into Western society.

It's these sorts of pressures can that create psychopaths. 

In the West we all know about the smothering mother and the psychopathic tendencies that can be created. 

In immigrant families you can multiply that several fold.

But multiculturalism is a pillar of government ideology. It's clung to as close as a bible is by a Mid Western American.

Government believes, it devotes faith into the mantra that multiculturalism is a successful ideology.

Yet, we all too often see the failings. 

Not only the stabbings, the bombings, the kids going off to fight for armies in direct conflict with our own and lately the calls for genocide of Jews . 

But the failings of multiculturalism are causing a rise in the opposing side. If the government thinks the far-right is on the rise, what is causing it?

If immigrants integrated, there would be no pressure to protest. No opportunity to "other" them.

If immigrants integrated there would be no animosity.

If immigrants allowed their sons and daughters to marry across religious and societal divides, there would be no divide to speak of and exploit.

But no, it's the continued division, the isolation, the refusal to integrate that creates the extremism on both sides. 

And it's the realisation of all of this that the Government cannot, must not allow to become mainstream commentary. 

Hence why any and all commentary on the Southport stabber, whether he is a terrorist and what the government knew when they called protesters (who have since been found out to be correct) as spreading disinformation. The government must have known about the Ricin, must have known about the terrorist documents. 

The only sketchy detail is whether the stabber has embraced the Muslim faith or not. Downloading ISIS material doesn't make you a Muslim. It does make you a terrorist. 

But the current atmosphere of mistrust between the public and the government tends to suggest that if the government went balls-deep in making him out to be a Christian Choirboy, then it's a pretty good bet he's actually converted to become and Islamic Extremist.

The question is when the government knew. Especially for those convicted of misinformation. Because it seems it was not misinformation and the government knew full well it wasn't even before the prosecutions began.

Those in jail are now political prisoners, ideological martyrs, imprisoned for telling the truth the government didn't want told. 

Multiculturalism is not working, it will never work, it is a flawed ideology. It creates extremists. That is what the government don't want you to find out and understand.

My Budget Response

There is one truism in Financial Politics: 

You cannot tax your way to prosperity.

It seems Rachel Reeves has forgotten that, or maybe she's never heard it, or maybe she's just ignoring it.

Not only have the OBR refused to back up the claim of the £20Bn black hole, what we got in the budget was more tax and spend. Piggy banks were raided in order for the Government to fund pet projects.

An Office for Value for Money is being created, more civil service jobs. Another Chairperson on a fat six figure salary no doubt, a few board members on lesser salaries and a team under that.

So much for saving money.

All I can see from this budget is the chancellor has minimised the affect on your pay packet and avoided raising fuel duty (which I'm sure would have caused a riot), but has done some creative raiding of savings to then redistribute to various funds and pet projects.

Unfortunately the chancellor has ignored the truism at the start of this blog. Taking money from interest on savings, or wherever and then using that money elsewhere will not grow the economy. And we need to be growing the economy, because without that pressure, it will continue to shrink. We need investment from outside the government to come in and increase cash flow. 

Right now we are at rock bottom in manufacturing capacity. Sure, we have a few specialist industries that can sell goods outside the UK, but they are not enough. The city of London is an unreliable source of revenue. Dividends can go down as well as up.

We need something inside the UK that people outside the UK will invest in and/or buy for themselves. Spinning the same money round the economy by creating an ever-increasing number of retail outlets cannot grow the economy.

The Small Nuclear Reactors in development at Rolls-Royce are the sort of thing that we need to nurture. We need to be adopting those reactors within the UK in order to develop the technology.

We need to be looking at alternative nuclear energy solutions. Thorium Reactors could be a viable solution using fission. The dream of fusion is just that: a dream, always 10 years away, as it has been for the last 4 decades.

Yet I don't see investment in anything as substantive as this in the budget. It's all pie-in-the sky stuff, nothing tangible. Of course the tax take isn't tangible. That's very real.

Increase in Minimum Wage Will Cause Ceiling Crash

The increase in minimum wage is welcome; If we're able to keep our jobs that is.

After all putting all the economic heavy lifting on small business employers isn't really a wise move. The SMEs are already struggling and those that are not one-man-bands will struggle to employ people with the rise in minimum wage coming after a rise in employer's National Insurance.

I suspect the unemployment rate will increase come the spring. 

But I foresee another unintended consequence of the rise. The crash into teh ceiling of lower management levels.

For instance the wife is a senior care assistant. She is in between the normal care assistant and the care manager.

The new minimum wage equates to just over 25K. My wife erns less than that. The care assistants under her also earn less. So I don't expect their employer to increase the care assistants to 25K and then increase the wife's salary pro-rata. 

They are all going to hit the limit and clump around the minimum wage. Under those circumstances, how are employers going to remunerate those that do a higher-spec job than the base workers? 

What would be the point of being low-level management if you're getting paid the same as an ordinary worker?

At the bottom end, the new minimum wage will sweep up a lot of positions where there will be no differentiation wage-wise.

There will be no incentive to progress, no reward for doing a better job, or moving to management. Under those circumstances, how do you motivate the workforce? 

It's no wonder we are becoming so unproductive. You have the option of sitting at home on benefits and getting everything paid for you. As long as you don't have debt and no expensive vices, you can life a comfortable life if you are careful. If you go out to work, you get minimum wage which won't cover rent etc. but if you do somehow manage to get the system to work for you and you somehow can afford to pay rent, you'll then find there's no progression because employer's can't afford to differentiate between operatives and managers with different pay scales.

There's the so-called glass ceiling for women trying to move up in management positions, but this is the working-class brick ceiling. The inability of employers to continue to differentiate lower levels on a pay basis. 

They may have to start introducing increased holiday terms, thereby reducing productivity even more. Although to be fair, maybe managers could be at work less. 

We really are circling the drain when it come to productivity. 

UPDATE: 

It seems that employers that had the inside scoop to the Treasury's plans were ahead of the curve. My son-in-law works for Euro Car Parts. They made all of their branch managers redundant yesterday including him. I assume they've factored that they can spread the salaries of the branch managers across the lower wage tiers to pay for the minimum wage rise. 

Not a painless payrise for some.

I predict this will not be the last instance of this sort of activity. If employers are forced by law to pay ordinary workers what they would normally pay management, why would they employ managers? The managers will go and the ordinary workforce will have to take on those roles to keep up productivity and/or the wages costs the same.

What is a "Working Person"?

 Kier Starmer has changed his party's manifesto pledge not to increase National Insurance to they will not increase working people's National Insurance. 

A subtle change and in essence what it mans is that Employer's N.I. will increase. Employee's N.I. MAY not increase.

I say may, because I'm not sure what Starmer and his cabinet define as working people is necessarily what most working people think is a working person.

We've all seen before Labour talk about working people, but what they mean is those on benefits.

Or they've meant Public Sector workers.

The concept of workers in the private sector like the majority of people, those of us earning just above minimum wage, those of is with no disposable income and struggling to pay the bills don't seem to compute when it comes to Labour.

The signals are that there will be a slew of increases in indirect taxation in the budget. How that doesn't affect "working people" and make things even harder I don't know. I don't think Labour could explain that one either.

But hey, no increase in direct taxation!

But how many people will be unable to run a car and continue their jobs if road tax increases and insurance tax increases and fuel duty increases? The triple whammy for drivers that will send people off the road. How will the government collect their projected increase in tax if the very poor give up their cars and just don't pay these taxes?

Government need to really understand that people that run cars are not rich and cannot be expected to pay these ever-increasing taxes. They need to look towards the people that can afford an increase in tax. Those funnelling money abroad, those corporations that pay no tax even though they transact with UK residents, those that have bought or are buying up large swathes of the UK property and corporate market.

Caveats to Cover Lies.

The chancellor Rachael Reeves says that working people's pay packets will not be affected by the budget.

Yeah, but every fucking thing else will be. Every single indirect tax will be leveraged.

Fuel duty, car tax, the usual easy targets, cigarettes and alcohol, pension tax, airport tax, the whole gamut will be run. 

The cash couch that is the UK will be turned over and shaken to extract the maximum amount of spare cash. 

The people that won't be affected? The rich elites, the globalists and the rest of the people sucking this country dry.

Rachael Reeves is being economical with the truth. Working people are going to be fucked seven ways sideways.