The University College London’s Immigration Study & A Healthy Dose Of Skepticism.

The recent UCL study has thrown fuel onto the fire of the immigration debate in Britain. The advocates of mass immigration are already proclaiming victory with regard to the economic benefits, with our Leftist media following suit. I fear that people will look at this issue from now on as clear-cut, all immigration is fantastic spectacle, instead of pursuing reform of our policy to tailor our needs and avoid the negative repercussions, like most countries around the world. In a global sense, Europe is the oddity.

The trouble I have with the reaction to this study is that the middle-class-Guardian-reading-latte-slurping-enlightened have claimed victory on largely false ground. This study has only emboldened their view that all immigration is beneficial and should be supported indiscriminately. The study also found that non-EU immigration has cost a total of £120 billion but this has gone largely unreported and ignored by the pro-immigration lobby.


Despite this debate perhaps being beyond the point of reproach I would like to add a little skepticism into the mix. Statistics and large scale studies can often be misleading and I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if this study is debunked before the week is out.

I don’t remember anybody, myself or UKIP, calling for the closing of our borders completely. The agenda was always a controlled system whereby the Polish engineer can come to Britain, whereas the unskilled down-and-out working on a food production line should face some restrictions.

These two individuals have a profoundly different effect on Britain’s economy and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

The UCL study doesn’t differentiate between the Polish engineer who may earn £70k paying far more taxes then received in state expenditure, than that of a Polish warehouse worker on the minimum wage of £12k. The former responsible for pulling the average up to the supposed £20billion surplus.

I did a little research into the basic economics of unskilled-immigration and compiled the following notes, read into them what you will. At this point I am purely interested in the effect of unskilled immigration on today’s economy excluding unemployment benefits which, granted, EU immigrants are less likely to claim them than British nationals.


A large proportion of our unskilled migrant workers will be earning at or around the minimum wage in Britain.

First we can calculate the minimum wage combined with the standard 37.5 hour work week will total up to £1007.50 per month x12 = a yearly income of £12084

The yearly contribution of said person to the “system” in 2014/2015 would be:

Tax- £417
National Insurance- £495
Total- £912


Considering that the yearly contribution of minimum wage earning migrants is only £912 per year, I find it absolutely remarkable that any intelligent professional can claim this group of low-earners pay more in taxes than they receive.

The following list is not exhaustive but is intended to highlight the goodies that unlimited numbers of unskilled European migrants are able to access, to the same extent as British citizens.

For that £912?

-Working Tax Credits are government cash payments intended to top up low wages.


As you can see, even the “perfect” young single and fit migrant has access to £455 of his tax back immediately for the year.  Those with a partner are eligible for £2450, putting them at a loss to the taxpayer before considering any other benefit or public service used.

Of course, however, many immigrants will have children and those with families, especially, are entitled to much more under the child tax-credit scheme.


-Each child in Britain costs around at least £4000 per year to educate in our state system, which again, the cost alone would completely eradicate any measly tax contribution.“These are the extremes, but there are still wide variations between funding – secondaries tend to fall between £4,000 and £9,000, primaries between £3,000 and £8,000.” BBC NEWS.

-Pensions will inevitably become a burden as immigrants get older. The state pension currently sits at £113.10 per week. This also excludes the next generation of immigrants we will “need” to look after today’s immigrants in old age.

-It is hard to put an exact figure on costs to the health service as it varies individually from person to person, as I am only including facts in these notes I will not attempt to give an amount. We do know, however, that it can only add to the aforementioned monetary deficits caused by the said migrant.

Of course there are a raft of public services that also benefit the working immigrant; elderly care, subsidised transport such as train and bus networks, translators etc. The biggest component of state spending on the economic migrant, however, remains our in-work welfare state.

Given the obvious burden to the British taxpayer we face two logical options; keep our borders porous and dismantle our welfare state, something that I find hard to imagine, as we as a country are hooked on state spending.

Secondly we could mirror our immigration policy on Canada, New Zealand and Australia by accepting only highly skilled immigrants whom don’t fall into the governments fishing net of state subsidy. By doing so this would increase the supposed £20billion windfall from EU immigration even higher still, cash that we are desperate for due to our dire economy. More importantly it would allow the deservedly positive immigration message to shine through, reclaiming it as an inherently good thing and benefiting those already here.

Immigration; We Have A Choice To Make

Until very recently Britain has benefitted from a steady influx of immigration; it has staffed our hospitals, filled skills gaps, and brought us better international cuisine, amongst other things. So why is it that this one issue has crept to first place on the political agenda? Why is it that during the early 20th century immigration was deemed a good thing for a country, yet now it is such a devisive issue?


If you look at our history with immigration we didn’t, for the most part, have a welfare state and so immigrants came and genuinely contributed to our economy. The same can be said for the United States; immigration was encouraged until they followed us into the abyss of welfare.

One of the key issues that has been present in Britain, and most countries around the world regarding immigration is that of wage compression. I believe this issue is a red-herring and not the grounds debate should be fought on. Traditionally, and ironically, the people historically most hostile to immigration have been those who have benefitted from labour shortages, hence unions and labour movements fighting against it tooth and nail. Wage compression in an economic sense, however, is almost always a good thing on the whole; it drops prices for consumers who are also the workers and prevents monopolies on trades etc. Take builders as an example; was it good for most Brits that tradesmen could charge astronomical amounts and complete poor work before the influx of Polish builders?

The impact of immigration on wages, although a false one, is an issue that has always existed even on a national level, with people “taking our jobs” by moving from one town to another looking for work.

Limiting immigration, labour to be precise, contrary to popular belief is fundamentally a trait of the Left, as they seek to regulate markets by manipulating labour, taxes, wages and imposing price controls. Oddly even though the support for curbing immigration amongst the Lefts’ working-class voters is still there, their politicians have abandoned the issue. Immigrations effect on wage compression is now being fought against solely by “The Right”, and wrongly in my opinion, with the Left using free-market logic, as it suits them.

Modern Immigration

The obvious difference between our past and present immigration policies is that of sheer scale.

In 1996 the net immigration figure was around 55,000 for that year; this was manageable and ensured a high rate of assimilation into British society. When the Labour government took over from 1997-2010 net immigration peaked at an unprecedented level in our nations history of 252,000. This policy of EU open borders has continued with the current Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government and at the time of writing net immigration stands at a staggering 243,000 for 2014.

(As a side note I would encourage you to do a Google search for “Labour Andrew Neather Immigration” as to the alleged motives for Labour’s immigration policy)

Although I’m not terribly interested in the social impact of mass immigration, it has changed Britain unrecognisably from that of a few short years ago. Non-english speaking areas have popped up around Britain and I suppose you could argue for and against this diversity.


The area of immigration that I am interested in, however, is that of an economic perspective. I believe that the purported “economic benefits” of immigration have been twisted by the Left to suit their agendas of open borders, social transformation and the EU.

We are told by our political elite, middle class media and giant corporations that immigrants are a benefit to Britain’s economy as they pay taxes into the system. Now this was true until recently, like the waves of immigration throughout the 20th century prior to 1997, immigrants generally paid into to the system more than they received and took low paid work. Our welfare state at this point was only an infant.

However since 1997 the Labour government created all kinds of in-work benefits such as working-tax-credits intended to boost the wages of those at the bottom of the employment ladder. The problem of this goes twofold; it acts as a subsidy to private business, allowing employers to artificially suppress wages where they would of otherwise risen. The second is that those half-a-dozen in work benefits also apply to immigrants.

Considering most of our Eastern European labour takes the poorly paid and ugly jobs, they pay very little tax and national insurance contributions to start with. For that contribution they receive the same unlimited access to healthcare, education and state services as a British citizen. After you add-in the cash bonus of working tax credits, child tax credits, housing benefit, child benefit and pension privileges, the employed immigrant becomes a burden to the British taxpayer by a large sum. Of course it isn’t just immigrants that sap up public funds, anybody on a low wage also has access to these in-work benefits. The basic rule of thumb with our current big-government structure is that those at the bottom, at this moment in time, get more out than they pay in, the technicality that they or immigrants pay tax is redundant in this case.

It is this, now adolescent, welfare state that has given immigration a bad name, not just in Britain but worldwide. Not only does big-government make it tougher for immigrants to move here when we inevitably tighten our borders, but also the migrants from here moving abroad.

A Choice; The Welfare State Or Mass Immigration

As it is unlikely that our new addiction to big-government & welfarism is going anywhere soon, it’s simply not going to be possible to keep open our borders with Eastern Europe. I say not possible as Britain is heavily indebted to the tune of £1.4 trillion, excluding liabilities, a sum that our grandchildren won’t be able to dent the interest of. We soon must either face some tough choices regarding public spending, or default on our debt and face the inevitable decline in living standards regardless. The latter would be disastrous.


The only alternative we are left with if we fail to face up to the problem of the welfare state, is to restrict immigration. I’d argue the least damaging way of doing this would be to adopt a points-based system similar to that of our commonwealth cousins in Australia and the like. By adopting a points based system we can ensure that only migrants with over a certain income can enter Britain, providing much needed skills and an economic surplus to our country. Unfortunately this process will be reciprocated by other countries, leaving unskilled people like myself trapped here by our own government.

Pantomime Politics & The Average Joe; How The Left Wins

Despite politics being a divisive subject for most people, our end goals and ideals on both ends of the political spectrum are the same. If we all want the best for the least fortunate in society, equality under the law, less corruption and wars, then why is it that emotions flare and horns are locked to such a degree? Although we agree on the cause, our means to achieve it varies greatly; from socialist ideals of utopia, to the free-market answer of “the right”. Politics should not be an area of anger and division, but an arena of ideas and debate in which well intentioned individuals can discuss issues civilly. I am equally flustered by the way in which “the right” is considered evil yet “the left” is accepted in commonplace.


The Average Joe

Most people are terribly disinterested in politics, it’s an arena of point scoring and corruption in and to it’s own, enough to put off anybody. As there is little interest in working out issues for oneself, most are forced to rely on sound-bites from the BBC 6oclock news or the like, often after a hard days work. I believe this is where the Left is able to gain ground and trounce opposition with simplistic argument, gaining support from the average voter.

Progressive arguments require little explanation in order to make sense, and rely on almost child-like naivety in their application. To somebody who might spend as little as two minutes considering an issue; taking from the rich to give to the poor is obvious, right?

This is where I confess that believers in liberty and the free market solution fail miserably to make our case. Free market Austrian economics, although relatively straightforward, is a system in which every issue or government policy is understood to have a knock-on effect. Although taxing the rich to feed the poor might sound straightforward and commonsense, what happens when the unintended consequences take hold? In this case the rich may be disincentivised to create wealth, perhaps they will move theirselves or money to Kong Kong, or stop investing in business. The knock-on effect is perhaps that the country, and poor, would suffer as a result, but this is difficult to get across in a such a short time.

The result is that a pantomime politics ensues and “the right” is branded evil and supporters of the rich, haters of the disadvantaged. The Left is able to steal moral superiority and “for the poor” status amongst the audience, due to their motives and sound-bites, despite the real world consequences of their actions and policies.

We can’t watch a comedy show without the right, funny as I admit, being depicted as bigoted and uneducated fools. Why is it that the despite the facts of world history, Leftism is an acceptable viewpoint of the average Brit?


Leftism killed hundred’s of millions throughout the 20th century and has destroyed any economy it has attempted to implement into. Yet variants of socialism/communism are still widely acredited by our public sector workers; most importantly those in positions of influence; the media, teachers and university lecturers. Again I suspect the support comes largely from well meaning individuals whom want a fairer society and different way of achieving it, yet fail to see the big picture.

Politics Of Fear

There has been recent debate throughout the media on the issue of UKIP using an apparent politics of fear tactic. As a member of the party and a supporter of most of their policies I haven’t witnessed any substance to this accusation. On the contrary whenever I have seen a UKIP representative they have been engaging in purely rational debate and striking valid points unanswered by the other parties.

Taking the popular example of immigration into question, if 80% of the British public think something should be done about the issue, should our politicians just ignore it to avoid a “politics of fear” agenda? Are those in Westminster morally superior to that of the voters, choosing to sweep away our democratic concerns by labelling us as irrational?


That said, I’m not sure that one can seriously argue against the politics of fear without accepting that the reverse must also be true. What about the politics of hope? Is it any more rational to simply hope and wish for a better country when our politicians refuse to acknowledge voter concerns? Isn’t inaction, wishing for a world of kisses and rainbows, in the face of very real problems just as dangerous as fear?

The Abolition of Responsibility; Welfare in the 21st Century.

Why is it that the country once world renowned as the land of good manners, Britain, now faces such a societal decay of morality, individual responsibility and work-ethic? Just taking a walk around any town high-street in Britain will almost certainly yield some form of anti social behaviour, drug or alcohol use and rafts of single mothers pushing prams to and from the welfare centre. An entire underclass has been created for the first time in Britain’s history, and forgive the cliché, a Jeremy Kyle generation.


So different it is from the much poorer yet civilized society of less than a century ago. Despite the lack of wealth and poor working conditions back then, any photos will not show antisocial yobs touring the streets dressed in tracksuit bottoms, but smartly dressed, proud, and well ordered people generally going to and from work.

The Past

The direct correlation between the introduction of the modern experiment, the welfare state, and the decay within British society cannot remain unchallenged. I’d argue that more than just a correlation, the welfare state is the cause. How is it then that a safety net set up based on genuinely good intentions has brought us such problems?

Prior to the welfare state there were no anti-drug laws in Britain, in fact all drugs were completely legal. Despite addictive drugs such as opium being readily available at the corner shop, there was very little recreational use and few problem addicts. Alcohol tells the same story, it wasn’t a taxed product and was cheap,  yet there were fewer problem alcoholics, people who couldn’t work for a living, and subsequently did not become a burden to others.

Single parenthood was also very rare. Families generally stuck together providing secure environments for children and, counter to popular opinion, less domestic abuse than the average single parent household of today.

Unemployment was an issue, granted, but very few people remained out of work for lengthy periods of time. The individual remained ready to take any sort of work to get by temporarily, retaining vital employment skills.

As there was no welfare state, private charity played a large part in looking after those who fell on hard times. A community spirit was ignited by private charity, driven by a real desire to help your neighbour and make a personal difference. As private charity comes out of the pockets of working people voluntarily, there was a reluctance to accept it, this could be the reason why it wasn’t exploited. I’d argue that the sign of a truly civilised society is one in which people give to charity voluntarily, as opposed to being forced by government through taxation.

Now of course I don’t want us to return to the very real poverty of back then, but there is no reason why eliminating the welfare state would do such a thing. Our high standard of living in the 20th century rose out of better technological and agricultural advancements, in spite of the welfare state and its crippling taxation and debt. If the welfare state and redistribution of wealth alone could lift a nation out of poverty, North Korea would be the richest country on earth.


The welfare state we see today, however, has all but destroyed private charity and the desire to help your neighbour on a personal level. There is an evident moral bankruptcy in our society in which if we pay our taxes we can shirk off our moral responsibility to our neighbours. I pay my taxes, your not my problem.

It is my belief that within our previous societal structure there was a natural order that kept individuals responsible and in-check. As there was no unlimited goodie bank of the government, men and women had to act in ways that suited their rational self-interests. Taking the example of drug abuse or alcohol consumption; men knew there were consequences of irresponsible behaviour, it could cost your job, and could not waste every day taking drugs or sitting in a drunken stuper. Women  had to try and choose responsible father like role models for their children and future, so different from the female desire for macho-bad-boy-alpha-males of today, whom often leave the mothers to bring up their children alone. Without a government monopoly on pensions, the personal responsibility of retirement was taken more seriously than today. The list of unwanted side-effects of the welfare state is endless. 


Of course if you take away the carrot, all that is left is the stick. Ok fair enough, so in this case the government didn’t take away the carrot, but removed the need to obtain it by giving away free carrots to all.

As the old, natural, restraints of society were lifted when the welfare state was introduced, a new system of restraint was needed and thus led to the creation of the Nanny State. Not only would government provide a safety net, but also inevitable deterrents to stop you falling into it. Men now had the option spend the days drinking or taking drugs instead of going to work, and therefore drugs became illegal and alcohol controlled. Without forced government pension schemes individuals were responsible for their own retirement and made plans accordingly, whereas now they are treated as irresponsible children. The true potential of the welfare and nanny state to infringe in liberty is yet to be revealed with obesity, exercise and crash helmets the new hot targets for government control.

A way out?

As the welfare state intervened to protect the vulnerable, it created yet more of that group by underestimating human nature and the multiplier effect. We have a choice between following the same path and accepting the inevitable growth of this underclass, nanny state, the tax and debt burden that comes with it, or liberty.

With liberty comes the responsibility of being a free man. No longer would we be able to continue acting as children, under permission of a nanny state. We would be forced to become the men of yesterday and stop blaming others for the misfortunes in our lives.

The Minimum Wage; A Socialist Attack on Liberty

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin.

As a strong advocate of liberty, I am outright offended at the concept of the minimum wage. This policy, widely accepted as the norm in contemporary Britain, invites the arbitrary use of force against otherwise peaceful and benign citizens.


Seems like an exaggeration, right? I can hear it now “The minimum wage just protects poor people against those greedy capitalist’s, man!”

The question we should, as a civilised society, be asking constantly when considering new government policy is the impact on liberty, and free contracts between peaceful citizens lie at the heart of that liberty.

Shouldn’t it be between me and my employer to decide on my wage and working conditions? Neither one of us will sign the contract if the deal on offer is not in both of our best interests. The minimum wage purports to supersede my rights, as a private citizen, and to make both me and my employer criminals in the eyes of the law should we mutually agree to terms not acceptable by the “liberal” majority.

At first glance it is easy to be drawn into supporting the minimum wage, emotional arguments and plea’s so often given by the Left make it impossible for the average Joe to disagree. I, however, deem it more useful to illuminate the difference between the intentions of a government policy (hopes and dreams of Leftist’s) against the real world effect of that very policy.


Economics & the Minimum Wage

It is often argued that without a minimum wage, employers would partake in a “race to the bottom” resulting in working conditions rapidly deteriorating and zero contracts for all. By using a little common sense, we can,  of course debunk this nonsense.

Before the policy was introduced in 1999 there was no minimum wage in Britain, yet the average working conditions  continued to rise year-on-year for the average person, £2 an hour was not the norm. As a cynic I find it interesting that the Labour government introduced this policy only two years prior to the borders lifting from Eastern Europe. Was this, then, an admission by Labour that immigrants would compress wages by flooding the labour market?

Economically if the progressives’ argument were true, then the greedy capitalists would today be paying the average unskilled worker exactly that, the minimum. Most employers, however, pay far higher to the average worker, and there is good reason for this.

Employers are forced by what is left of the free-market, to pay close to the value of labour. It’s also often forgotten that capitalists, by nature must compete with each other for the best workers; Tesco’s with Asda and so on.

Of course some employers will be forced by the MW to pay more to a worker than they are actually worth. This might work for some of those employed by a large organisation, like Primark, as employers are forced to up the wages and struggle to escape the law. This doesn’t mean that the same employer can’t find another way of cutting employee costs, enter the modern zero hours contract, automated checkouts etc.


So some workers at the bottom get a pay-rise and the Left cheers on one of our LibLabCon governments who increased it. But aren’t the employees also the consumer? What happens to the prices of everyday products and services that those employees must pay, they rise. Imagine what a tin of beans would cost if the person stacking them in the supermarket, the person scanning at the checkout, were earning £40 an hour. The net-benefit to the disgruntled worker is zero as they must also pay for the beans.

Jobs; Our Biggest Export

Why is it that so many jobs have within the past few decades have been outsourced to developing counties such as India?

As mentioned, the Left, complicit with our politicians now decide which jobs are legal and illegal by using tools like the MW along side other compulsory in work benefits. The flip-side to this of course is that any job that cannot produce its £x worth of labour is unviable in Britain.


Thousands of jobs from call-centres to manufacturing that would have paid perhaps £4-£5 per hour are no longer available for the 2 million unemployed Brit’s. Work that I’d argue should be being done instead of claiming unemployment benefits. It is this insidious process of subsidising non-work by taxation whilst making work illegal and scarce that has caused our mounting unemployment toll.

Most sub-minimum wage jobs were traditionally done by the young, students or non-skilled workers in order to gain a little capital and experience. Of course at that moment in time they wouldn’t be earning fortunes, but with their newly gained work-experience they could either demand higher wages or find better paid work elsewhere.

The socialistic employment structure we see today, however, doesn’t help the very people it seeks to protect. The MW encourages discrimination towards the low-skilled in favour of those with work experience, as the employer wants to get as close as possible return from his MW employee.

The Future?

I don’t see the path of government changing towards liberty anytime soon, on the contrary we will see much more intervention, demands from the Left and far less liberty.

The sooner that we-the-people, realise the economy, wealth and jobs are created by us and not government, that liberty is not something to be traded for material gain, the better.

The Falklands, The Empire, and Common Sense; The Ramblings of an Underachieving Graduate


I am not going to debate the discovery of the Falkland Islands and whether or not they were inhabited when the British settled as this is impotent debate in the present. What may or may not have happened generations ago is simply irrelevant.

What is important, however, is that there is not a single person living on the Falkland Islands today who had any part in Britain’s colonial past, the only crime they could have perceivably committed is being born. So the question then becomes, at least for me, a simple one… Do we start to redraw the lines of history?

If the answer is yes, then the modern world can be easily deconstructed making many stable countries charades worthy of dissolution. Remember that the people of Argentina themselves are an ex-colony sitting on an originally stolen continent by the Spanish and Portuguese empires of the 1400’s, colonialism conquests arguably far harsher than that of the British.

Leftist’s scream compromise

Any settlement between Argentina and Britain would put us, and the Falkland Islanders, in a position of weakness once we have conceded that compromises can be made, Pandora’s Box will thus be opened and we will be left on the back foot. Out of a settlement would swiftly bring Argentina pushing for full control of the islands, probably resulting in the settlers being coerced to British soil.

There are people on the left that hold the opinion that because the Falklanders are only of a few thousand, that this scenario doesn’t really matter. This is a logistical argument, not a moral one, and can be extrapolated to other nations such as Brazil; should their millions of ex-Portuguese population be returned to the “homeland” so many generations later?

The geographic perspective

We are told that it is common sense! Why should the UK hold dominion over some islands 8000 miles away when Argentina is the closest with just 300 miles between separation?

I would argue that the status of any land is determined by the inhabitants of that land; should they choose democratically to join or remain part of another country then that is their decision, colony or not.  The same can be said for Alaska remaining part of the United States, the Canary Islands remaining Spanish, or yes, the Falklands remaining British.

Speaking geographically, it seems purely arbitrary that the Falkland’s are 8000 miles away and is no less legitimate than Britain’s ownership of the Isle of Wight.


A popular Anti-British Sentiment

Would the world still demand the Falklands be handed to Argentina, had they sought independence in the same way that other ex-colonial countries did? I think the answer would be a resounding no. Regrettably I sense what this issue is really about is simply an anti-British agenda, the same sort of ideology that has destroyed any positive remnants of the bygone empire.

The Left has systematically destroyed British involvement with our commonwealth cousins, such as Canada and Australia, driving a wedge between us by signing up the European Union. Prior to the EU our commonwealth ties remained strong, with free trade and generally unrestricted immigration between our countries. Instead by following the EU agenda we have almost ceased trading with our friends by asserting punishing trade tariffs and severe restrictions on immigration, in favour of European trade and immigration, countries that we have very little in common with in both language and culture.


Had we remained strong partners with our commonwealth cousins for the past forty years until now, who knows how powerful the commonwealth nations would be. Free trade would have caused our economies to flourish, immigration would have expanded family ties, even militarily we would be better positioned to defend against global threats. Instead of course we are forced by the left to rely on a European Empire that we neither fit into geographically, nor culturally.

The cynic in me would suggest that the left’s hatred of the British Empire and it’s remains wanted the modern commonwealth to fail, as their ideology deemed necessary. It’s replacement would not be one of democracy, free markets and widespread peace, but an ever encroaching Socialist Empire.

The rise of UKIP; Exciting times for democracy

An observation of our “Elite” politicians.

Regardless of your political position, be you Left, Right or Centre, you will have to admit that politics has become an exciting arena at the moment. For the first time in decades, perhaps since the birth of the Labour party, a new, real, political opposition has come along …enter UKIP.


Perhaps what is most fascinating about this relatively new political party is that most of its MEP´s, candidates and members are comprised of either people from working class upbringings and educations, or at the least have had a job in the real world.
Our political elite, however, and in my opinion the biggest travesty of our democratic system, have almost all had enormously privileged upbringings, studied at private institutions and finished as graduates in subjects such as P.P.E from Oxbridge and such, with the sole intention of a career in politics. These people have no grasp of wealth creation in the productive economy (private sector) yet are keen to enslave us all through constantly higher taxation, a bloated public sector and crippling the future generations with unsustainable debt.

The political elite, without a true opposition, would never make real cuts to the size of the state because of the obvious; its political suicide; it´s much easier to bribe the population with unnecessary jobs, grossly inflated pensions and an unprecedented welfare state. The coalitions “attempts” to cut the size of the state have instead seen it grow significantly. We have had no cuts. Thus we now have a state that spends around half of GDP, produces no wealth whatsoever, acting as an intrusive parasite into both our bank accounts and individual liberty.


The same can be said for our Leftist media, mostly middle-class, benefitting from the privileges given to them by the political elite. Take one example of the minimum wage; at one time working class kids could get a low-paid internship in the media field and scrape by for a year or two, allowing them to get the skills and experience to pursue a career. Our government then brings in a minimum wage, under the guise of helping the poor, yet makes an exception for unpaid internships… the result?

Only the middle-class kids who rely on their parents incomes are able to take the unpaid internships, hoisting out working class competition, who subsequently cannot afford to take them. Are we really surprised, then, that the mainstream media is supportive of a political elite that designates all sorts of privileges to them?

The refreshing change in UKIP is that its candidates have the experience of working in the real world; giving them experience and understanding of how to earn the money our political elite are so keen to steal and borrow to enslave our grandchildren in multigenerational debt, to spend on “us” in the present. The party has been honest enough to come out and say we cannot keep spending at the current rate, there will need to be significant cuts, yet the honesty has been rewarded with voters and party members.

UKIP benefits Left, Right but not so much Centre.

If UKIP continues on course to win the European elections in a few days time, it will quite literally shake our three-party political elite out of its cozy club back to their traditional positions.

The losers in this shake up, however, are the Centre ground wets, like David Cameron, that don’t have any principles whatsoever and talk the intellectual dribble we so often hear on the BBC. So far I am yet to see even a member of the Labour party give any real comeback to a UKIP policy; they simply avoid the debates with flusters of adjectives and emotional populism. These people are being paid huge sums of money to hide in the shadows away from real debate and wait until election time to reap the rewards of the historic actions of their party.

With UKIP draining support from all three major parties, the devastations of the last Labour government and the current coalition, this pattern is due for change. Be you a Lefty-Statist-Freedom Hater, congratulations, the Labour party is due for re-alignment and will have your compulsory ID card and “Telescreen” in the post immediately after reelection. If you’re a true Conservative; the party will be forced to adopt its traditional policies and back off from Leftist gimmicks like climate change targets and such. Liberal Democrats, in all honesty, will probably still wabble around the centre with their bleeding heart save the world agendas.