A brief encounter of the third kind with a Socialist Wxxker Party Member

Fresher’s Fayre I felt like an serial murderer at an axe shop closing down sale. To the far left of me was the Socialist Worker’s Party and the Socialist Labour Party, to the far right of me was UKIP.

I couldn’t wait to have fun with the Socialist Worker’s Party bunch, I love pretending to confuse that they’re the Socialist Labour Party purely to cause offence. No we’re not the Socialist Labour lot exclaims an overexcited gentleman, we’re the Socialist Worker’s. A scene from Monty Python came flooding back, the People’s Judain Front and the People’s Front of Judaia.

Anyhow I was greeted with hi do you like change? Before I could even answer contentiously that I quite like things to be stationary he barked because if you do than you join our party, if you don’t like change then join another party. Which is just as well considering what my answer was actually going to be.

I informed this gentleman that I was in fact a Conservative Party member, to which he stood back as if I’d just informed a Parent Teacher Association that I was a paedophile wishing to become the new PE teacher. Well why are you with them, they’re there to take from the poor and give to the rich he exclaimed with such indignation one could only think bless his cotton socks. I retorted with well if we’re going to play that low level of debate you’re just there to take from the rich and give to the poor, surely socialists agree that stealing is stealing regardless of whether the stolen wallet is made from authentic leather or fake plastic. Which a mistake on my part as I immediately realised that I had assigned this gentleman with the role of being a modern day Robin Hood which somebody like him was all too happy to take on. Bless.

The Conservative Party are fascists and they’re openly homophobic he barks at me. I stopped him there. Sorry, homophobic? I ask feigning interest in his bizarre accusation. In my local constitutency I have eight members’ numbers on my phone, five of them are outrageously and openly gay and another is my girlfriend and the latter is our token hetero, so how can you accuse the party of being homophobic I ask. Well, they’d never give any positions to anyone who is openly gay he exclaims in a way that suggests he thinks he’s just moved his pawn to put me in check mate.

Actually, my good friend, one of them is a Chairman of a local constituency and have you not heard of Alan Duncan I replied moving my Queen (no pun intended) to knock his pawn off its feet.

Anyhow, next up was a discussion about worker’s rights. A touchy subject with me because my view is simple, that if you don’t like a job, naff off. Just as I did when working for the Civil Service. I could have inflicted petty strikes or stood outside with recycled cardboard banners, but I remembered that a) I have a life and prospects and b) to go on strike would be an insult to all those who are on a daily basis literally begging for work. In fact, I’m furious with the postal workers. I rely on my post for various things, at the moment I’m having to live on microwave pizzas because they still haven’t delivered my student loan letter. Whinge whinge whinge, worker’s rights. What happened to the right to actually do some work?

Can you believe it, he cries out, my friend who is coming to help on this stall was told by his boss that if he takes the day off to do this then he’ll be sacked!

I had to bite my sharp tongue to stop myself from saying and so he bloody should. He’s there to work, he’s employed to work and he’s paid to work. This is what frustrates me about the socialist workers’ unions, they’re like spoilt little kids who want and want some more.

Instead of campaigning for people who are forced to work in places where they are paid half the minimum wage they spend their time rabbling and striking about a mere hundred pounds annual wage increase. What an insult to those who actually genuinely need their crusaderous help, to go home having earnt £2 an hour, to switch on the tv and see how tube workers on hugely inflated salaries are going on strike because they don’t think forty-plus thousand a year isn’t enough for prodding a few buttons.

And that is precisely what the socialist workers’ unions and political organisations are, an insult to the real world. A bunch of fairy tale fantasists.

The Conservatives aren't phobic enough to be as sceptical as UKIP

The latest trend within the UKIP is to label the Conservatives as some sort of raging Europhile party, because God forbid there can be no other Eurosceptic party like a UK Independence Party.

Let's get facts straight.  It doesn't require somebody with a batchelors in investigative journalism to see that the Conservative Party is made, largely of Eurosceptics.  The reason this can oft go unnoticed is because the Conservative Party membership refuses to play the putrid Eurosceptics game whereby made in Britain good, made anywhere else evil.  Conservative Eurosceptics are intelligent, not emblazened with potty ideals of what Britain should be and as a result of this Conservative Euroscepticism rarely, if ever gets a mention in the media.

However, UKIP of course, with its bizarre anti-immigration and anti-Islam claims by individuals such as Gerrard Batten will always get press attention.  Who wants to know about a Conservative MEP who is against Turkey joining the EU purely on current economic grounds when they can wheel out barmy aging men like Gerrard Batten to continue his immigrant-bashing crusades and make bizarre claims like "80 million Muslims coming to Britain".

UKIP Euroscepticism is based purely on phobia and negativity.  The majority of its members would not be in the party if it ever decided to cease its anti-immigration stance.  That is an undeniable fact that Mr Farage on a daily basis feels embarassed about and no wonder he has resigned as leader.  Who would want to lead a party full of phobics?

Back to my original point.  Michael McManus in this article accuses Cameron of being a Europhile which anybody who knows Cameron or has been interested enough to research him knows is utter cock and bull.  I advise Mr McManus and other UKIP members who have been lulled in to the delusion that Cameron is a Europhile to research his first campaign literature, before he was leader of the Conservatives.

I believe Cameron was elected over David Davis on one sole issue; his Euroscepticism.  Cameron promised his party that he would remove them from the ghastly European grouping that they were a part of pre-2009.

However I'm not hear to deny McManus, a delightfully intelligent fellow, any agreeance if it is deserved.  For he is indeed right when he says that trouble awaits the Conservatives if the leadership sway towards Europhillia.  There are certainly more Eurosceptic members then there Europhiles, but what outweighs both camps is the Reformists within the party.  These people are neither sceptic or phillic about the EU, but seek to reform it to the best of Britain's interests.

One worry I do have is that a turn towards Eurofederalist ideals within the Conservative Party leadership will lead to far right anti-immigration parties like UKIP and the BNP dredging up more support.

It is great to see the UKIP try to sound certain that the Conservatives are for a Federalist Europe whilst they rock back and forth nervously knowing that this indeed will not be the case.  Only time will tell and time will tell that Mr Farage will be on his way to the Conservatives very soon. 

Tony Kearns, from the Communication Workers' Union calls democracy a disgrace!

Well it seems the socialist rabble are at it again with their utter disregard for the double D's.  No not the putrid double d's belonging to Nick Griffin's overweight and badly formed self but rather, the two d's important in healthy politics: Democracy and Debate.

Tony Kearns, assistant general secretary of the Communication Workers' Union calls it a disgrace that the Labour Party are considering 'sharing a platform' with the BNP.  One can only assume that Kearns isn't referring to the peripheral or spatial entailment of the word platform, but rather Mr Kearns takes issue with anybody daring to enter any form of respectable human communication with the BNP.

Let's not forget, the BNP are a legitimate political party in Britain.  They are not some sort of rogue guerilla political operation.  Let's not forget that 6.26% of the electorate voted for them in the European elections this year.

To dismiss a vote for the BNP as a mere protest vote is as dismissive as one can get.  There were over 15 fringe parties that the electorate could pick from in order to'protest', so why would they have chosen the BNP?

It's simple.  They got those votes because the lefty socialists amongst us gave them license to never have to say much in public, but to do it all in secrecy and under their own caring arms.  An unchallenged opponent is won who has therefore never lost is a saying that I have.  And that is exactly what the BNP have been for all these years.

Don't get me wrong.  I despise the BNP and what they are truly about.  Seeing their overweight oily selves walking on two trotters with their French resembling tri-coloured rosettes makes the idea of watching Danni Minogue crocodile tear her way towards attention on the X-Factor, or Jordan 'baring all' in the latest Heat magazine seem like not such a vomit inducing exercise.  I despise the BNP but I love more than I hate anything, and what I love are those double d's (no not Jordan's)- Democracy and Debate.

There is a famous quote that rings similar to "I despise what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

In the case of the BNP I will defend their right to speak simply because the sad fact is that the majority of people who voted BNP have no idea what they are actually about.  Some of you will refuse to believe this, but remove your self alligned arrogance that everybody has the some political infatuation as you.  When canvassing I had people tell me, proud in their naive way that they were voting BNP.  I'd ask them why and the response would be "because they're the only ones who care about British workers"; and the ironic thing?  The gentleman's name was Mr Singh.

Bring the BNP on Question Time and other shows.  In fact I would happily be on the panel with them next to me.  And do you know what I'd do?  I'd turn to Nick Griffin and say, on behalf of the 6% of the people that vote for you let me shake your hand and tell you that I recognise your right to exist as a political party no matter how putrid you or your party is, for I am not scared of you or what you have to say, I in fact welcome it, because it is about time that the people watching at home were finally stopped being patronised by socialist lefty politicians that think the public must somehow be protected from the big bad BNP, I want those of you watching who voted for the BNP to watch and listen carefully and ask yourself at the end of the show is this truly who I thought I had voted for, a bigotted, hateful and mind numbingly intellectually stagnant party, and finally is this something I can look the children of the future in the face and say they are the sort of people I want dictating to you as to how the colour of one's skin is the difference between being right and wrong.

I'm sick to death of Socialist organisations jumping up and down like overexcited smarties overdosed toddlers at the very mention of the BNP.  While you're jumping up and down in hysterics just remember,you're dancing to their tune.

Michael Heseltine on Britain's "special relationship" with America

This week’s Question Time was interesting listening. It was fantastic to see the Liberal’s show their contentiousness towards devolution when it benefits and to see Harriet Harman refuse to answer a simple question whether she herself or her government would have released Almagrahi.

The highlight of the show without a doubt was the fantastic point made by Michael Heseltine regarding Britain's "special relationship" with America (in the context of discussing of the release of the accused Lockerbie bomber):

"I find it pathetic that we go on talking about a special relationship, this is the most naive delusion fostered on this side of the atlantic, hardly ever mentioned on the other side of the atlantic, if America has a special relationship, it is with Israel... but the idea that Britain ranks above all others, well cast your minds back to the IRA terrorism when we begged them to stop the cashflow to the IRA in this country, minister after minister after minister, but the money kept coming.”

Michael Heseltine is indeed an extraordinarily great politician with a wealth of experience, so who better than to dispel the notion of a “special relationship” between Britain and America than Mr Heseltine?

To watch the full rhetoric just click here where you will be brought to the exact time: http://bbc.co.uk/i/n0p0l/?t=9m35s

Do people REALLY believe St George's day won't happen because it will offend?

I've thought about this carefully and have come up with some possible reasons why you (if you do) might actually genuinely believe bullshit news like St George's day being banned or Christmas being banned so it doesn't offend foreigners.

The possible explanations for your moronicness are that you were/are:

- very badly beaten as a child

- your parents had the social skills of alcoholic gorillas

- your head was used as a basketball at a young age

- have the insecure notion that in comparison to 'foreigners' you are lazy, worthless and jobshy

- read tabloids like the daily star as if it is all facts and think wow yeah they speak for the true Brits

- or you are simply racist and thinking this way is just an excuse for you to be even more racist

Either way whatever the reason is, you're a moron and if anyone should get out of this country, it's you.

All subjects are equal, but some are more equal then others

Michael Gove, the Shadow Schools Secretary has suggested various reforms in the educational system. Mr Gove has suggested ending the measure of GCSE performance that judges a school on how many pupils gain five A to C grades, which according to him, puts too much emphasis on students who were on the borderline between a D and a C grade pass. He proposed a system that would have a set number of points for an A*, fewer for an A, and so on.

Sounds fair enough and sounds like usual straightforward and logical Conservative thinking. However further reading in to this and I found out Mr Gove doesn't want to end it there. Michael Gove proposes that points are awarded according to how hard or 'soft' a subject is.

Which, frankly is rather offensive. An A grade is an A grade is an A grade. The assumption that each subject must conform to a degree of mundanity or academic snobbery is in my opinion archaic and far from the progressive Conservatism that the party now esteems itself on.

Change is important and key to a progressive society. However change for the sake of change is dangerous, as we've seen from the Labour Party. Sometimes the best changes are the smallest. Or perhaps we've entered an era where everything must be supersized to be noticed?

Bestowing Britishness on the British people

Britishness is an area that I'm very much interested in for one reason or another. There are several lessons that we need to learn, too many to list in just one blog. So I'll spread it out.

Today's lesson is- You can't prescribe Britishness

There's been seveal proposals from varying people in politics to encourage, or what I see as to prescribe Britishness on people. For example having an additional bank holiday to celebrate Britishness and another to have children pledge allegiance to our Queen.

Now, what these people don't understand is that you simply can't prescribe, or bestow upon people Britishness. Britishness is an experience related to identity and an identity related to experiences. The best way to promote 'Britishness' as an identity is to make it a positive experience being in Britain.

To have a National British Day is all well, to hand out flags and get people to wave them about but people won't feel British for waving their flag, they'll wave their flags for feeling British.

So let's stop bestowing Britishness on people. Let's give people opportunities, prosperity and a constructive lifestyle; they're all things which will help people love Britain and feel British.

Turkey voting for Christmas? An alternative view on Turkish accession to the EU

When there are discussions about allowing another country to join the European Union there are always heated discussions and opinions based on underlying prejudice and alarmist rhetoric. Turkey certainly is no exception to this fallacy.

For Eurosceptics the overwhelming consensus is that Turkey must not join the EU. The opinions amongst these Eurosceptics vary from geographical, economic or simple racial/religious paranoia. Maybe I’m hanging around with the wrong kind of people, but the latter is worryingly the most common.

As someone born in Turkey I know there’ll be forum trolls or strokey beardists who will jump on my back and think what a surprise he’s defending Turkey. Let me make my position clear. I was born in Turkey, but I live, breath and will die in Britain. I may be staunchly pro-Britain and absolutely anti-EU however that does not mean I will ride on the racial/religiously-phobic train.

Now let’s have a look at the two most common arguments against Turkey’s accession to the European Union. Firstly; is the alarmist point that Turkey is an Islamic state. Wrong. Turkey is a secular country which is not governed by religion. The peoples of Turkey have fought long and hard to ensure that religion does not hinder the country from being a progressive one. Yes the majority of Turkey’s inhabitants are Muslim, but it does not make the country an Islamic state. Usually I’d tend to agree that this is pandering to petty rhetoric nitpicking, however I’m not so stupid to be blind to the fact that people who use the old Turkey is a Islamic country argument are purposefully trying to tar it with the same brush as Middle Eastern countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq etc.

Turkey is a secular country which does not allow itself to be governed by religion, particularly Islam. For example the government banned a movement which wanted to bring Sharia law into the country and the government also banned the headscarf at universities. So for people to use alarmist headlines like “80 million Muslims head to Britain” shows them to be the phobics that they are. To quote a Greek friend of mine who dislikes ‘all Turks’; “I know the Greeks and the Europeans complain about Turkey joining the EU but let’s be fair, if I had to choose from all the predominantly Muslim countries to be near our country (Greece) or to join the EU I’d have to say Turkey would be my choice.” Let’s remember, beggars can’t be choosers. So when there’s a lone predominantly Muslim inhabited country like Turkey which is as secular and progressive as it is, we shouldn’t beat it down with a stick.

Another argument commonly banded towards being against Turkey joining the EU is on geographical grounds. Turkey, for those people is tectonically challenged. It’s interesting to note that the ones who use this argument never seem to be geography experts, but rather arm-chair commentators. Part of Turkey is in Europe. Full stop, no question about it. Ah not enough of it though they say. So where is it in the European Union constitution that specifies a percentage quota of land that must be tectonically viable? Also have these people not looked at a map? The capital of Cyprus is further away from Brussels than Ankara is. So it’s fine for Cyprus to be tectonically challenged but not Turkey?

Those of you reading this will still probably think I’m for Turkey joining the European Union. I am not. I just rather feel sufficiently strongly about it to want to bring together intelligent arguments and to quosh phobic arguments which simply trivialise the matter. I will present my arguments on why Turkey should not be joining the European Union in an article to be published later on today.

EU Commissioner admits that the "Lisbon Treaty has been designed to stifle debate"

It’s worrying enough when it’s only the Eurosceptics can smell the stench that is the Lisbon Treaty, but when EU Commissioners also turn their noses up then something must certainly be up.

Karel de Gucht, EU Commissioner from Belgium has gone on record to admit that the Lisbon Treaty was specifically designed to prevent people from understanding it in order to prevent real debate. He goes on further to say that the European Council made sure that the Lisbon Treaty was unreadable so that no real debates could happen.

It indeed has been a pleasure watching Irish politicians squirm in their seats when asked direct questions about the Lisbon Treaty. Speaking to family from Ireland they certainly were unimpressed by their politicians’ obvious inability to be open about the treaty.

It appears that people intending to vote YES has dropped a few points whilst the NO side has increased its support. I’m not holding out for much hope though. According to the Sunday Times the YES side are outspending the NO side by ten to one; 2.4 million to 270,000.

One thing I am confident about however, is that within 5 years those that voted YES will be regretting ever doing so. I’ve offered a drink to anyone in the Irish side of my family who votes YES and is still happy with their decision in 5 years time.

My prediction is that like in the UK, far right parties like UKIP and the BNP over here will find close cousins in Ireland gathering a lot of support and very fast too.

EU Working Time Directive; breaking down the broken NHS

From August of this year the EU have implemented its ironically named Working Time Directive. I say implemented, I mean enforced. Even the most sceptical or politically aware of us probably wouldn’t have seen this coming 10 years ago, when it was first rubber stamped in Brussels.

Britain was more than happy to be strung along with head buried in sand that the Working Time Directive (WTD) would never come in to force. The time has finally come up for the country to have stopped being strung along and now for it to be strung up.

We all know the NHS is struggling to provide patient care. Population explosion along with the swine flu epidemic and the recession have all knocked holes in to the NHS. Will the WTD be yet another hole in an already sinking ship? Time will only tell, no pun intended.

The WTD, like a skulking predator came to us slowly, bit by bit, by stealth that the EU would be most proud of. Initially it was junior doctors that were first affected in 2004 when their maximum working hours were reduced to 58 hours, than reduced to 56 in 2007 and again to 48 this year. A 10 hour cut in just 5 years.

A pity that the then Health Minister John Hutton gave the EU such benefit of doubt or assumed logic would ensure on their part in assuming that working hours would not include time spent asleep. How wrong he was. In 2000 the meddling European Court of Justice ruled that time spent in residency on call, including time spent asleep, must count as working time. John Hutton’s naivity showing when he remarked that “it certainly was not within the intentions of the United Kingdom Government when we signed up for the Directive that time spent asleep would somehow magically count as time spent at work”.

Maybe he didn’t study history or politics, or had his head buried in the sand along with the rest of Britain in the 1970’s when we signed up to the common market that it would somehow magically, to the extent that Derren Brown himself would blush, count as the common political climate also.

So what will the Working Time Directive cost Britain? Open Europe estimates that it costs over £3.4 billion every year to be enforced. Did someone say recession?

The Identity Crisis Facing British Muslims

Whatever way you want to look at it, British Muslims are facing an identity crisis. I myself still haven’t decided what label to give myself. I could harp on about how labelling of groups is wrong, but in this case it is important.

The liberals or the lefty amongst you will probably whince at such a thought but take a moment to reflect. In the media and amongst members of the public, British Muslims are seen as two dimensional beings. They’re either Muslim or they’re not. This in turn tars every single British Muslim with the crude brush of scorn. So when the Captain Hook tribute, Abhu Hamzar says death to America what happens is that this racist and bigoted view is applied to every Muslim.

Which poses a problem. Hence why I believe we should be careful not to generalise Muslims in to one dumping ground of scorn or opinion. So what are these types of Muslims that we have in Britain? Firstly we have the Islamist. A wonderful caricature which suits both the media and angry little men brigade just fine. An Islamist simply wants to Islamify the world. Everything in the world from politics to law must be governed by Islamic beliefs according to them. These people simply have no place in a democratic and multi-cultural country like England. They are not willing nor are they able to tolerate anything or anybody apart from their small minded Islamist views.

Now I’m not demanding that we ship these people out or witch hunt them all. After all we do live in a democratic country where people are entitled to their opinions, aren't we? We can further break these Islamists down to two more categories; literal or militant Islamists or idealist Islamists. It is the literal Islamists that are a danger to society and to everything this country stands for, whilst it is the militant literalists who are the biggest threat to Britain’s security. They are different from idealist Islamists in that they will act on their Islamists views. Worst still, they see it as their God given mission to embark on some sort of Jihad. So to make it clear an idealist Islamist is one who would, ideally like the world to be Muslim and governed by Islam but will not act on this idealism.

I know the angry little men brigade will read this and think that they do not exist. They do exist. Not every Islamist is a ruck-suck wearing, beard wielding, hate mongering criminal. Whether you like it or not.

Next up we have Secular, Progressive Muslims. A category I attribute myself to. Secular & Progressive Muslims are completely compatible with British society and culture. They are not Islamists, they do not seek to Islamify the world nor do they see Islam as an idealogy. They see Islam as what it is, a religion. These secular and progressive Muslims tend to be born in Britain, however there is still a significant amount who have come from other countries. They believe in living in a democratic society, one which is not governed or dictated by religion or religious idealism but by liberty and democracy. This group of Muslims make up a significant portion of the Muslim population of Britain. Whether the angry little men brigade like it or not.

I have trouble coming up with a catchy name for the final group. I think the best name for them are what a friend of mine said when someone said to him ah you have a Muslim name, are you a Muslim? To which he responded, well by name I am. Muslims by name. In this group we have British Muslims who have been born in to, or have relatives or have a family cultural background related to Islam. So by name they might be Muslim, or see or call themselves Muslims but they either do not adhere to the religion at all or are selective about which parts they do adhere to or believe in. Even with these three main types of Muslims we have in Britain there are certainly some overlaps and differences. For example I’d say I’m somewhere between ‘Muslim by name’ and Secular & Progressive. It is important that we distinguish between the different groups of Muslims in Britain for several reasons. The most important of all being that we don’t force them in to the militant Islamist category. The angry man brigade are professionals at doing this. Claiming all Muslims are war mongering anti-western individuals and to say anything else is political correctness gone mad. In fact some of these belonging to the angry man brigade seek to directly goad Muslims in to a reaction, in to becoming militant to justify their damaged views.

An example of this is when I came across an unfortunate fellow who is still a branch chairman in UKIP, who upon meeting me for the first time absolutely tore in to Islam calling it a war mongerers religion and that I wasn’t a Muslim because I didn’t follow his stereotype of what a Muslim should be in his damaged little mind. I could tell from his body language and his rhetoric how badly he wanted me to react, to which I asked him to let me know when I’m meant to interrupt him and declare a jihad or issue a fatwa. As a British and a Muslim I believe Islamism is not only wrong but completely incompatible with Britain. The literal interpretation of Islam is a dangerous one, as is a literal interpretation of any other religion or idea. If people truly want to rid this country of fundamentalism and people intent on Islamifying everything then all of us collectively have a duty to be careful with our rhetoric and be more specific to whom it is aimed at. Otherwise we’re simply adding another brick in the wall between Muslims and Britain.