Political Party Manifestos

I haven’t read any of the party manifestos and have no intention of doing so. What is the point? I mean, what happened to the ‘bonfire of the quangos’? It did not happen. How could it? I have no doubt that the Civil Service would decree that every single one was absolutely essential. The Civil Service might be perfectly correct. Parliament passed a law requiring that cigarette packets must be decorated with medical porn. A department has to be set up to ensure that the law is obeyed, and that every cig packet has the required pictures and colours and text, and that no cig packet is other than perfectly conformative in every way. Once that department is set up, it will never be dissolved. It is permanent just in case a manufacturer, based abroad, fails to conform. Just another unproductive arm of Government. Just another waste of taxpayers funds.

I do not blame ordinary MPs, other than that they are not doing their jobs. That is, I do not blame them for their errors when the pass laws. I blame them for not following up what their decisions entail. My blame attribution extends to ALL politicians from the PM downwards.

If there is anything that the saying, “Never apologise; never explain” applies to, it is politics. Make a one-sided case for PP, get the law passed and then do not mention it again, or, if so, claim that it is a great success. “Never apologise; never explain”.

But, in the end, that is why laws fall into disrepute and why revolutions occur. The failure to apologise means that stupid, harmful laws remain on the statute book long after the harm that they have done and are doing has been universally recognised.

Why has Brexit occurred? It is because the British People have realise that the UK has been treated as though it is physically connected to the continent of Europe. It is not so connected. There are 22 miles of sea separating the UK from the continent of Europe. Thus, the EU cannot really control the movement of people within the EU. The ‘free movement of people’ is not a choice – it is a necessity. Further, it has always been so. People have always moved around on the continental landmass. Resistance is useless. It is silly to believe that the border of Poland and Romania has ever been sealed in some way. Because we in the UK have the English Channel to cause problems for would-be ‘invaders’ does not mean that other countries have the same protection. We have a fault in our thinking that other European countries have the same barrier. They do not. It is hard to believe how carelessly Blair et al threw away that protection. It really is.

But there is a problem, which is tourism.

Tourism is ‘the free movement of people’. Vast numbers of people come to the UK each year as visitors, just as vast numbers of UK citizens visit European countries. All are exercising ‘free movement’. They have passports. Once in the UK, they could decide to stay in the UK. Provided that they could support themselves, who could object? Who wants to have a police force chasing after ‘foreigners’ who can pay their way and are in the UK as tourists?

The situation resolves itself when such a tourist demands ‘Social Support’. In such cases, apart from obvious emergencies, the FIRST thing that must be assessed is eligibility. A tourist is not eligible, unless the country from which he came has a reciprocal ‘treaty’.  In other cases, the tourist must accept the costs or agree to be repatriated. He/she must also accept the debt of being repatriated. The probability is that such debts will never be paid, but the important thing is that on-going vastly greater costs are obviated.

I am not speaking in terms of nasty, vicious, hateful persecution, such as Tobacco Control employs. I am talking about realistic ways of permitting ‘free movement’ without costs accumulating on the taxpayer. I have seen suggestions that tourists should not be allowed in unless they have insurance. Erm… Imagine an airport with thousands of people waiting for repatriation because they do not have medical insurance.

Immigration and tourism cannot be separated in practice without decisive rules. The problem of Calais is not really about gangs trying to get into lorries bound for the UK. That is a distraction. The real problem is that these unfortunate souls in the Calais camps imagine that the can get into the UK by being there.

What is wrong with France as a place to settle? It is a civilised country and far away from Syria. In fact, what is wrong with Turkey? And what is wrong with Italy? As I see it, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON in the Calais camps should be allowed into the UK. My reason is that those people have shown themselves to be unutterably stupid, and I cannot believe that unutterably stupid people should be welcomed. I hate to say it, but it is hard not to believe that many of those people are savages.

But what is a ‘savage’?

In former times, a ‘savage’ was a person who had no understanding of Christian morals. He may have morals, but his morals were superficial. Do not bash and steal from your own people, but it is OK to bash and steal from other people. Christian morals taught that it is not OK to bash and steal from anyone. That was the big change in morality.

I hold that Tobacco Control bosses are SAVAGES. They bash and steal at will. They have no morality at all, and are as far away from Christianity as it is possible to be.

The Labour Party, under Blair, probably without knowing what they were doing, unleashed the SAVAGERY. The smoking ban was modern day SAVAGERY. Slash and Burn.

Why did not Blair et al not see what they were doing, and how their actions would extend into every facet of life-styles and cost millions of pounds to sustain the SAVAGERY?

The probability is that the answer lies in “Never apologise; never explain”. Avoid solving problems which your former policies and actions produced. Let someone else do so, and then blame them for the problems.

Politics must change. The Brexit result show it. Apologies are important and explanations are important. EG, an explanation of why harmless ecigs have been victimised is very important. Who decided to demonise harmless ecigs? An enquiry ought to be set up to find out why ecigs were demonised. Ecig manufacturers and distributors from all over the world should be pestering the Gov to set up such an enquiry.

Will it happen? Dream on.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Political Party Manifestos”

  1. Ed Says:

    It’s interesting to note that May’s manifesto “Forward together” has Marxist, socialist undertones in its title! Red tories eh! Whatever next?

    “Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name “Forward!” or its foreign cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called “Forward (generic name of socialist publications).“The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications,” the online encyclopedia explains”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/apr/30/new-obama-slogan-has-long-ties-marxism-socialism/

    Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Obama and now our dear Theresa adopts the Forward slogan lol

    • junican Says:

      Ed,
      To be honest, I AM NOT SURE! There is a lot to be said for the idea that ‘Global Capitalism’ is not benefiting, say, Africans even though the resources of Africa are being exploited.
      It is a horribly difficult question. I do not know.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: