How Islam Wins at Politics.

I've seen many posts on many blogs and videos about the so-callled special protection for those of the Muslim faith. It's true that a Muslim minority appears to get preferential political treatment. But you have to understand the cause to understand the effect.

You'll hear that the Labour party favour Muslims to a pathological degree, because they rely on Muslim votes and to an extent that's true.

But you need to understand Islam first before you can understand how it can subvert Western laws with impunity, how it can garner political support far in excess of the numbers in the general population.

The first thing to understand is Islam is not a religion, or more accurately not merely a religion. It is many things; it is an ideology, a way of life, it is all-encompassing. It is a good Muslim's duty to embrace Islam in all aspects of his or her life.

This affects the way Muslims view politics. If you take the rule that is is a good Muslim's duty to involve Islam in all things, then you start to understand how Muslims have a greater affect on politics far in advance of their actual numbers in society.

It is a good Muslim's duty to vote for another Muslim if there is one to vote for (especially if the other options are non-Muslim) or failing that the most Muslim-friendly candidate.

No matter how mad, bad, right, wrong..... if the candidate favours Muslims or is a Muslim then Muslim voters understand it is their duty to vote for them.

Now then, given that the average voter turnout in the UK can be as low as 59%, That means that thanks to our first past the post election system candidates only need to get just over half of that to win. So candidates can win elections even if only 30% of the population vote for them.

Now, imagine a block of people in your constituency that vote en-masse in a particular way. They are a useful boost to your chances of getting elected when they start to approach 10% of the local population. When they approach 20% they can virtually guarantee your election and when they approach 30% you lock out any other candidate. Christians? Jews? Atheists? Socialists? Liberals? Don't need 'em. In fact if you are a Muslim candidate and sound moderate, some of the non-Muslim fools will actually vote for you.

You cannot lose because any other candidate has to garner the support of 30% of the population just to get parity. While you are certain of your 20 or 30 percent block vote, your nearest rival is busy herding cats doing deals trying to get the rest of the population to vote for them.

That's why in any situation in local or National politics, the Muslim block vote gets preference on policies. It's how a Muslim population can punch above is weight when it comes to politics. It's why Theresa May wears a headscarf in Mosques, it's why supposedly pro-feminist Labour candidates put up with addressing gender-segregated audiences.

Now then, comes the big question: How do you deal with that bias in the voting system?

I'm not going to deal with how the political elites see the Muslim block-vote as a usefull ally, that's maybe for another time. Especially as to how dangerous it is to underestimate it and just think of it as just a voting "trend". Until it bites them on the arse and they can do nothing about it.

Huge Gains for Swedish Nationalists: We all Know Why

It looks like the Swedish nationalists have made significant gains in the latest elections.

So much for Sweden being a beacon of light and multicultural peace as European leaders keep telling us. Instead the voters there are so fed up with the issues raised by mass immigration the incumbent parties are losing huge percentages to nationalists.

But those of us at the bottom of the pile, forced to suffer the indignities of the muticultural mass-immigration experiment know only too well why these nationalist feelings have come to the fore.

Of course the many stories about immigrants and rapes of femaales, the inability of people to feel safe on the streets are false.  yeah, that's why the nationalists are increasing in popularity.

Let me be clear: this is not a far-right phenomenon.

No, this is ordinary people fed up with the political elite ignoring our complaints about "multiculturalism" and the elites trying to cover up the falout that ordinary people are having to suffer.

As an example, there have been two stabbing incidents in France involving Muslims. Anything on the BBC News website about them?

Nope. Not one iota of information about a serious security issue.

Here's the first: Paris stabbing: Two UK tourists among seven injured in knife attack outside cinema

Considering two UK tourists were injured, you'd think it would be more newsworthy than who Boris Johnson is nobbing. But not a squeak on the BBC News front page. Instead hidden on the world news page without even a picture headline there it lies. It's almost as if someone wants the story to die quickly...

But wait, there was a second stabbing where a postman was stabbed in the throat, hours after the other by an Afghani national:

Man 'stabs postman in the throat and attacks others before police Taser him in Paris' - hours after 'Afghan' knifeman wounded seven people the French capital

Not a peep on the BBC website about that one.

It's this hiding of the truth, the downright lies of the elite that everything is ok that the ordinary people are sick of. If the elites won't get a grip of the situation, then the ordinary people will.

Call it populism, nationalism, whatever. The people will be heard and they will have their say.

UPDATE: I see the Spectator is hailing the fact the Nationalists didn't win, but going up from 12% to 18% is still a gain, to almost half of the vote the two major parties got. They got almost 40% each, so almost 20% is stil a significant block of votes to have to deal with.

Enjoy it Sweeden...

Government must Remove Barriers to Aspiration or We end Up all The Same.

I've long since said that one of the consequences of Labour party policies is keeping people in poverty, rather than raise them out of it. Despite the intention to do more for the poor of the country, their policies have the opposite effect. It's also the bulwarks of a Conservative government to facilitate aspiration, investment and entrepreneurship, but of late their policies have had the opposite effect.

I can't see it's intended that Socialist policies keep people from working, or wages suppressed, I'm sure the opposite intention was true. But the outcomes don't always follow the intention and one of the worst things about governments of any hue is the inability to monitor the affects of legislation to see if they track the intended plan.

So for instance minimum wage: Since it's inception we've seen a rush to the bottom. Many employers that paid higher than the minimum wage before legislation ended up eventually paying it because all their competitors did as a way of maximising profits.

In-work benefits like tax credits are a nice idea, but allow employers to suppress wages and hide the real scandal of employers reducing wage costs as government handouts offset the inability of wages to support a family.

Of course then the other scandal is poverty or "just managing" people that don't qualify for benefits that have to suffer being paid these ludicrously low wages, in fact they get a double whammy of lower wages than would be the case and a higher tax take to pay for all these in-work benefits.

I've also mentioned before about the cost of moving from not working to working. For instance I think the benefits cap is currently set at an effective pre-tax wage of around £35K, which is ludicrous. It's way higher than the national average wage and no-one is going to work for minimum wage, lose all the perks and side-benefits of being on the dole if they are getting the effective wage value of £20-30K. They would be stupid to do that.

So at the bottom end of the ladder, there is a huge step to be overcome moving from being out of work and on benefits, to being in work that needs to be addressed.

So let's now say we close the gap between wages and benefits and you're in a job... working up the greasy promotional ladder and you eventually get to a position where you want to be your own boss.

Here historically the Tory party should be your friend, allowing tax breaks and incentives to new businesses. After all that's where the core Tory vote comes from: aspirational business owners and the self-employed in general.

There is a huge risk in moving from employment to self-emoployment, but the current government is making the distinction between the two increasingly blurred. I'm sure deliberately. Most likely as a carry-over from the Blair years and Dawn Primirolo and IR35. The Tories have failed to roll back that regressive legislation.

For instance if you go self-employed you don't get paid holiday, you have to earn enough profit to pay for time off. You also have to pay for professional indemnity insurance, illness and sickness insurance, pensions, etc.

In recent times the government have been trying to make it more difficult to make the jump to self-employment. The IR35 tax rule is being employed ever more ruthlessly, court cases around the "gig" economy are deciding that a deliveroo rider for instance is a disguised employee, despite there being decades of precedence set by dispatch riders. With Uber, the courts and government again pushing the agenda that working self-employed under the umbrella of Uber is actually employment.

Of course there are advantages to this for the government in the form of extra employer's National Insurance Contributions and higher rate income tax.

There is also the new poeple's pension, where everyone contributes, including the self-employed. Where before a self-employed person would just jump to a personal pension scheme, they have to now also pay into the government scheme both as emplioyee and employer.

The burden of self-employment is now making the reward not worth the risk. The extra burdens mean the reward is minimised to the point you might as well just plod on.

It all creates a fuzzy barrier to self-employment because unless you can make the jump across the hurdles the government puts in your way and can make a clear distinction.

Just as with the leap from benefits to work, there is a huge gap now between work and self-emplyment.

They are both deterrents to aspire to something better.

It should not be the work of government to put barriers in the way of aspiration. Government should be facilitating aspiration and promoting entrepreneurship, not stifling it. Otherwise how else is the economy supposed to grow? It's not for no reason that wages have declined and the economy has flatlined.

So to summarise:

I would lower the cap for benefits to a reasonable level, removing the incentive to become baby factories and restrict benefits to the first two children.

I would at the same time make sure those without children are not left in poverty. Children should not be bargaining chips for benefits and people should not be penalised for not having them. Benefits are universal and everyone deserved to be housed.

But by the same token, those on benefits should not see it as a lifestyle choice. There should be an easy path to work and it should pay more than benefits once there.

I see it unfair that those without children have to effectively pay more tax than those with them. In work benefits just cover the gaping hole in wages. It's not the job of government to bolster wages.
I would taper off in-work benefits until they are gone completely.

I would scrap the IR35 tax rules. Employees should have the freedom to take the risk to work self-employed even if it means working in their ex-employer's premises. That's a deal done between the two parties and government should not be involved. As long as the self-employed person is totally independent, holds indemnity insurance, pays for their own pension, does not get paid for absence and all the other things that denote a self-employed person then the government should not be involved.

Where companies force workers into self-employment and then insist on them wearing company uniforms, bedges,  etc. then the company should be forced to employ the person and pay minimum wage, National Insurance, pension etc.  This would allow freelance workers freedom whilst catching the likes of Uber, Deliveroo, etc who demand control of the look and feel of the service being delivered. The elemnt of coersion is the main force here.

In essence the conveyor belt of life should always be upwards. There should be no benefit in being backward-looking.