When does advertising become counter productive?

OK a departure from politics. A welcome one to be honest.

I don't watch much telly. The 'slebs' that young kids might fawn over I simply wouldn't recognise. I was getting my hair cut the other day (I still have some you'll be amazed to learn) and they had the charts on. I realised that I had not a clue who was 'number one' in the charts. And had not had a clue for about 15 years. That's a combination of me and the fact that it's not the same. I don't think it's what it was when we used to listen as a family and I used to tape the charts on a Sunday evening way back when. Times change.

I do watch some stuff in the early evening with she who must be obeyed. And it's mainly 'Encore' and mainly Poirot. If you haven't watched David Suchet as Proirot you should. It's brilliant. Not necessarily the first time you watch or a single episode, but as a body of work. It's one of those things one appreciates more as one watches more of them and even the same ones again. Gets to know 'him' as it were. It very funny and also wonderful televised 'theatre' - more about performance, setting and story than 'realism'. But I digress.

As far as this blog is concerned, it's the advertisements that I'm interested in and disinterested in and above all, irritated by at the same time.

Every ten or fifteen minutes there's an 'ad' break and on Encore, they're always the same ads. DFS, Dolmio, IKEA, Go Compare, Barclaycard, Twix, American Express, Admiral Insurance, Churchill.

I thought that these ads we're throwback to former times. Crap ads that wouldn't be aired anywhere else and are cheap to run on this particular station. But they're not. I now see them appearing on YouTube as well and occasionally when I watch something decent (perhaps the only decent thing) on ITV - Lewis. So they're current ads.

And their sheer repetitiveness turns me right off the product being advertised - i.e. it has the exact opposite effect to that the advertisers want to achieve.

The twix ad for example. Two brothers who disagreed and then set up two different factories to make the different sides of the package. How patronising and stupid can you get? I will never, as long as I live, buy another twix, because of this utterly fatuous advertisement.

DFS 'hurry the sale ends on Monday'. Fuck off. Your sale never ends and actually I'd like to see you being investigated for this. It is fraudulent. No-one has ever bought a piece of DFS furniture for more than the sale price. So it is not 'half price'; what you pay is the full price. It's ludicrous that they are allowed to get away with this utter bullshit.

Does anyone really choose insurance on the basis that they'll get a free toy if they do? If so I'm amazed that they actually own anything valuable enough to require insurance.

Then there's the Barclaycard ad the 'I'll make the most of it' shite. Featuring a dickhead with an irritating 'son', who, when he does the thumbs up thing when his parents are getting married, I'd just love to clip round the ear.

With a cricket bat. Over and over again.

The thing is this sameness, this utter saturation of the same ads for the same things, every ten minutes, doesn't make me more likely to want to buy their products. It makes me determined to avoid them at all cost.

Then there's the ads for the homespun, small family business offering good home cooked food and ingredients, like Dolmio and Bertolli. Except that the ads end with a drop-down 'U' in the top right hand corner of the screen, telling you that in fact these are Unilever products and consequently as far from 'homespun' as it is possible to get.

The best ad on these channels is the Amex one with the patterns 'that's nine so far'. The concept is very good - essentially challenging the viewer to spot the discrepancies and, therefore ensuring that they pay attention. But after a million views it begins to wane and then irritate. It also smacks of 'big brother' which is not very comforting or attractive in my opinion.

It's obviously cheap to run these commercials now that we have so many channels 'of shit on the TV to choose from..from..from..' but I think cheap may not be 'good' in this scenario any more. When we had fewer commercial channels and fewer ad breaks, there was obviously a much bigger audience per channel and the ads had to work harder, were more expensive to make and to run (airtime) and were 'events', some were even part of the entertainment - the Smash ads, Heineken, Hamlet etc. They were also seen once or twice in an evening as opposed to every ten minutes.

One might even have looked forward to (some of) them.

That is clearly not true now - all ads now play with the sound off during my brief sojourns into the world of telly these days.

Obviously the advertising industry will not want to admit or to research in order to prove this contention, but I do really think that many if not most of these ads are now actually more irritating because of their endless repetition and, therefore, likely to generate a negative response from the 'target audience' than to drive sales. And I do mean 'irritating' in a negative way. The highly irritating 'shake and vac' ads of some years back were extremely effective and successful, so irritating is not always a negative thing.

Anyway thanks for reading, please read again before the sale ends on Monday and I'll send you your free 'Churchie' by return. That's five so far...

Remain?

It's an interesting word to use. 'Should the UK remain a member of the EU?' As previously blogged, I'm happy with any question that is effectively neutral. Obviously one side in the debate will have the 'advantage' of calling for a positive 'yes' and the other the 'burden' of campaigning for a negative 'no'. But overall I'm happy - I think the 'no' campaign can win, whatever the question, but neutrality is always a good thing to start with.

I'd have preferred a slightly simpler 'Should the UK stay in the EU?' But I'm sure that could be construed as negative by our wordsmiths.

But you know what? I think the term 'remain' is good for the 'out' campaign. I've said 'let's not quibble with the question but win the argument'. I'm not quibbling at all, just considering.

'Remain'?

Obviously 'remain' means 'stay where we are'. So the 'threat' of 'change' is in there somewhere. People don't like change, generally speaking, they prefer what they know, the status quo, they sometimes feel threatened by the prospect of 'change'.

And one can guarantee that the 'risk' of change will be at the heart of the 'in' campaign. It has to be because they have very little else to go on.

So the psychologists will see 'yes' as a positive, and 'remain' as 'safe'. I know I'm splitting hairs here, but sometimes it's worthwhile to do so. You also know that I'm vehemently anti the EU so I'm obviously biased, but stick with this if you're interested, linguistically and politically.

'Remain' is not positive. What 'remains' is what has been left behind. What is left after the good stuff has been partaken of.

What 'remains' of the UK - its history, heritage, culture, values - will be swallowed up by the EU if we remain 'in'. What 'remains' of our power, influence, value to the world, will disappear if we stay 'in'.

What 'remains' after a good meal, or a party, is the detritus. The clearing up. What 'remains' is the dregs.

Our 'remaining' influence on the post Empire world, will disappear. What 'remains' of our ability to control our own destiny, will be given up.

We should 'remain' - be the remnants of - what we once were.

'Remain' within an economic community which is devouring the 'remains' of formerly successful countries like Italy and Greece.

I think 'remain' is a mistake for the 'in' campaign. Not an important or decisive one, but hell I'll take any advantage with which I'm presented. The facts will win in the end, and they, decisively 'remain' on our side.

Thanks for reading.

What will the EU Referendum question be?

As the veracity of recent election polls suggest, the question asked is a key element in the result of the survey, poll or the election itself.

Watch this perhaps?

Questions matter. So what will be the referendum question?

Should the UK remain a member of the EU?

That is probably the simplest way of putting the question - and it seems likely that it will be the one that is used as of this evening.

It is relatively straightforward given that the arguments to and forth will hopefully have been properly aired by the time that one is asked it. I'd be happy with it.

It does of course allow the 'in' campaign to use the more positive 'yes' mantra - as in 'yes we can' as used positively so effectively by Mr Obama. Even though, actually, he really couldn't.

It allows this kind of imagery to be used:

But frankly I think this is too important an issue for everyone in the UK for voters to be decisively swayed by this kind of stuff.

Particularly when this (below) is a much more realistic vision of the outcome of the vote:

There are of course alternatives that either side would no doubt prefer:

Do you think that the UK should remain part of Europe?

Do you think the UK should risk its international influence by leaving the world's largest economic partnership?

Do you think the UK should put at risk 3.5 million jobs by leaving the EU?

Which are essentially what the 'yes' campaign will be saying. Or:

Do you want the UK to be governed from Brussels by people you don't vote for and can't get rid of?

Is it better for the UK to trade with the world (including Europe) or just the shrinking Eurozone?

Do you want the UK to lose the pound and join the Euro?

Now my most discerning readers will notice a difference between these two positions. The top three are emotive but not factually defensible. Don't think for a single minute that this reality will stop them being used ad nauseam. Particularly when if one boils the whole argument down to back-uppable facts, the 'yes' campaign will have very few to call on. They also have very few tangible benefits that we secure form being in the EU.

The bottom three are essentially facts. Realities. Consequences. If we vote at the forthcoming referendum to stay 'in' the result will be used as a mandate giving the EU the 'right' to move on towards ever closer union - which is its clearly stated direction of travel in any case. Regardless of how we vote.

And that mandate will mean that we will be governed more by Brussels than by our own Parliament and that our votes, representation and democratic powers will be diminished in terms of our own local, regional and national issues. It will mean that the global trade we are involved in will be via the EU and subject to 27 other nations' views rather than just those that are in the interests of the UK. And, as night follows day, it will, ultimately mean that we will lose the pound and join the Eurozone - there can be no other outcome if we remain within the EU. It simply does not function as an economic model if this is not the case eventually.

I'd like to see us leave the EU for a number of reasons - not all of which are just about the UK by any means. I love Europe, have worked in most European countries, have friends there, love its diversity, culture and regional/national differences that make it such a special place. I think the EU has shafted millions of people, particularly in southern Europe, who now have no way of devaluing their currencies, rebalancing their economies and offering any hope for future recovery, much less prosperity. I'd like us to leave because if we do the EU will fail and that will free these countries and people to embark on a much brighter future, nationally and individually.

But this referendum will be fought on UK rather than international issues. And from the UK perspective we need to govern ourselves and have local democratic representation; have the ability to trade with the world not just the failing EU and we need to keep the pound which is the key to our sovereignty, stability and prosperity.

I'm not involved at the heart of this process but it is one that I have followed very closely for a couple of decades now and I have seen absolutely no reason to change my mind. The EU is bad for the UK and bad for Europe. If the rest of Europe wants to continue down a road that will see everyone dependent upon Germany in quite short order, that's up to them. They're entirely misguided in that desire but Germany's thinly disguised apparatus (The EU) has made it extremely difficult financially for them to choose an alternative route.

But it is not a direction that we want to see and we therefore should not be part of the process and we certainly should not be spending tens of £billions a year to support and fund that process.

I genuinely believe that we can win this referendum in a way which is best for the UK by voting 'no'. I have been cynical about our chances in the past - the power of the 'establishment' the existential desperation and financial/communications power of the EU - will make it a very difficult fight and almost certainly a very dirty one. But in the past few weeks I have noticed a significant change in the mood.

I think social media will have a massive part to play. I think that the facts will come out. And if they do, I think there can be only one outcome.

That's not to say, we're home and dry - far from it. It means redouble your efforts because I think there is now a realistic chance of us exiting the EU. And I have not thought that before in the last 20 years.

Thanks for reading.

The EU is not a 'gateway to the world', it's a 'go slow' area for UK trade

Just as commentators and politicians conflate our leaving the EU - 'Brexit' - as it is termed, with our leaving 'Europe' which is simply not at issue or even geographically possible, they also say that being independent of the world's largest trading bloc would be a disaster for UK trade.

China is not part of the EU. Nor is India, the USA, Canada, Australia. One wonders how they can possibly survive economically, this being the case?

Maybe it's because they can trade on their own terms with growing countries and trading blocs instead of being tied in to the world's only shrinking trading area.

Maybe it's because they can make their own decisions and establish their own trading agreements on a global scale instead of being run by the creaking, corrupt, self-interested machinery of the EU.

You see the thing is that the UK is the Eurozone's biggest customer. In the world. We take more of what the Eurozone produces than any other country on earth. We have a trade deficit with the Eurozone of £46 billion a year (2013). In their favour.

The above (HMRC) graph shows that this trade deficit has continued since 2013 and is, if anything much more than £46billion now. They used to say that when America sneezed the UK caught a cold. As far as the EU is concerned, when the UK catches a cold, Europe gets pneumonia. Without its trade with the UK, the Eurozone would be in economic free fall and not just in the terrible state it is currently in; everywhere in Europe that is, except relatively efficient Germany. (There's a surprise).

The question, and the major headache that our potential 'Brexit' raises, is not what potential damage it might do to the UK economy, but what damage it might do the the already floundering economy of the Eurozone. Or to put it another way, the UK creates £46 billion worth of more jobs in Europe that our being 'in' creates in the UK. So to say that they would even contemplate imposing trade sanctions on us is just ridiculous in economic terms. It simply will not happen.

Staying 'in' will just tie us to a failing economic project; to the basket-case economies of southern Europe, of the new former eastern-bloc entrants and of France which, lovely place though it might be, is a coming economic disaster area.

Leaving will not have any meaningful negative impact on our ability to trade with Europe - they quite simply cannot afford not to trade with us - but it would free us up to trade with the rest of the world on our own behalf. And if you think we need the 'clout' offered by our EU membership in order to strike global trade deals, look at Switzerland and Norway who have recently signed significant trade deals with China and India.

And ask yourself how many potential global trading partners would not want a reciprocal trading agreement with the EU's biggest customer? With the world's 6th largest economy. Would they prefer to be able to agree a trade deal with the UK or Greece, for example? And without being tied in to the Eurozone - able to make our own deals but also having continued, unfettered access to European markets, the UK can offer partners like the US, India and China the best of both worlds - a trusted and financially reliable trading partner with a strong market for their products as well as giving them instant access to Eurozone markets without having to enact their own deals with the EU. Car manufacturers come immediately to mind - efficient and highly skilled UK car plants are amongst the most efficient in the world and are successfully exporting into the EU already.

The UK is the worlds 6th largest economy and the 4th biggest military power. It has the world's biggest economic engine in terms of finance and business in the City of London. Do you think this status is enhanced because we're tied in to the economies of Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal? Albania perhaps? Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania?

The EU is not a gateway to global trade for the UK. It is not quite a dead end but it is certainly a brake on our ability to prosper and a millstone around our necks as we have to pay to be part of this inefficient 'club'. It's time we stopped paying to subsidise this failed project, stood on our own two feet and allowed our entrepreneurial, effort-based population to regain its proper place in the world's economy instead of being tied in to the economic and political failure that is the EU.

Thanks for reading.

The EU has bribed the rest of Europe into aquiesence. It's up to us to stand up for UK and our fellow European citizens

When Germany - sorry the EU - 'gave' Greece €billions in 'free' money so they could all buy BMWs on the never never, they knew that Greeks retire at age 51, work a four-hour day with two hours for lunch and hadn't a hope of paying back the money.

And also that Greece had never met the Maastricht criteria on debt and public finances for joining the EU. Never. Not once.

And they were right. Greece effectively defaulted in 2010. It could not pay back the largess provided by German banks - sorry the EU. So what did they do? They gave Greece more money to piss up the wall but they used most of this new money to bail out the banks that were exposed to Greek debt.

So instead of trying to solve the problem, the EU made Greece even more dependent on the Troika whilst taking back the initial 'loan', and stacking up even more debt on Greece. It (Greece) now has not the remotest hope of paying back what it owes and it will default in the coming months.

It has effectively been lured in to this position and is now almost entirely dependent on the EU for its existence. By which I mean paying its police, it's civil service, its healthcare and education systems.

Very similar practises have been enacted in Eire, Portugal, Spain and Italy who are now also highly dependent on the EU for their existence.

Effectively these countries started with the rich desert, Brandies and cigars of EU membership without having to eat and digest the savoury courses. The EU created a 'boom' in their economies which was based not on their economic performance or their reality, but on 'free' money from the EU in order to suck them in to EU dependency. The 'Celtic Tiger' economy of Ireland, founded on ridiculously inflated property prices was underpinned by the money and myth of the EU community.

And now these countries are entirely dependent on the EU. Staying 'in' for them is not at issue. Because they cannot stand on their own two feet outside the Eurozone. And meanwhile their people suffer the consequences. Unemployment amongst young people in southern Europe is now above 50%.

And they cannot devalue their currencies in order to make themselves more competitive on the world stage because they are now tied into the Euro. There is no prospect of a solution. And German companies - having enjoyed an exchange rate advantage because they have been tied into the Eurozone rather than trading on the real strength of the Deutschmark - are buying up companies in southern Europe at an unprecedented rate.

It is essentially an economic take-over of Europe. By Germany. They couldn't do it by force even though they tried to do so twice in the last century. But they are now doing it via financial mechanisms and with the EU as a smokescreen as described above.

And it's not all about southern Europe. France too has become almost entirely dependent on the EU. Its economy is a basket case and one of the main reasons why France became an architect of the original EEC project was so that it could spread the cost of maintaining it's feudal, subsistence-based agricultural system amongst other countries. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is still, to this day 47% of the EU budget.

And whilst the CAP does make efficient agri-businesses in Germany (and the UK) very rich indeed, it is really about keeping France's rural economy subsidised in a way which it couldn't possibly afford to do on its own.

The UK has a chance of standing up to this EU tyranny by virtue of the fact that we have remained economically strong and independent in relative terms. We can still control our own destiny because we didn't join the Eurozone. Because we have kept our own currency and because we are relatively independent-minded compared to the rest of Europe who just want a quick buck and don't really care how it happens or what the long-term consequences might be.

Essentially we have retained our strength because we are competitive as a nation. We like being able to stand on our own two feet and we are (rightly) suspicious of the offer of a free lunch.

I lambasted the UK political parties during the election campaign when they were offering 'jam today' - a penny off a pint etc - because it was a cynical approach. I think we rejected that as a concept, but it will no doubt be resurrected at future elections.

The difference is that most of the rest of Europe falls for this bullshit every time. Not the Swiss. Not the Scandinavians generally speaking because they are more 'grown up' than the rest of Europe and actually understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

The thing is that if the EU succeeds in creating a single federal Europe it will effectively be Germany. From the Baltic to the Med. In the very long term that might actually be a good thing in terms of efficiency, standards of living work ethic etc. But that will take generations, probably centuries.

And along the way people will suffer massively. And we'll lose what makes Europe a great place - diversity, culture, local cuisine, idiosyncrasies.

We'll all become a single Teutonic state. It'll be like America, but cleaner and much less interesting. Much less fun. Every junction of major EU roads will have a gas station, a nail bar, a crap fast-food restaurant, a self-storage facility and a local 'Mall' where one can buy GAP clothing so that fat people can look OK. And everyone working in these places will eat and shop there and we'll all become automatons and 'epsilon semi morons'. We're close to that now.

It'll be a fucking disaster.

The coming referendum is probably the last chance we have to save Europe. It's not really about what's good for the UK but about what's good for the future of Europe and its people. The threat we faced in 1938 - a German take-over of Europe - is here again now. It's real and the consequences of a single Federal EU state - essentially 'Germany' - is at our doorstep. Again.

It's a bit more civilised this time but millions in Europe are suffering nonetheless. Not being slaughtered this time, but being reduced to living without purpose and without hope. Which is probably the same thing in the end.

We have the chance at this coming referendum to once more rescue Europe from tyranny. If we vote to leave, the EU fails. It doesn't 'soldier on' it fails.

We need to make sure that this happens not for our parochial selfish reasons, but for the people of Europe. Who are being subjugated into being German by this EU project.

If we squander this chance we will not be judged kindly by history. Except we will, because Germany will be writing the history.

We need to leave the EU not just for ourselves but for the whole of Europe. The real people not the governing classes. The coming referendum may be our - and their - last chance.

Thanks for reading.

It's not about being in 'Europe' Dave, George: It's about the 'EU' - they're very different things

OK, first things first. Europe is a place. A geographical construct and we are in Europe. Unless we float off into the Atlantic because of non-existent rising sea levels at some time very soon, that is not going to change. We have an unbreakable tectonic relationship with Europe. We can't leave. We have to stay together for the kids.

And nor can we change the fact that we cannot be governed by a land-mass. We can only be governed by 'people' - ideally with our consent, otherwise it's a dictatorship and I think we've done enough fighting over the centuries to consign that particular option to the dustbin of history. Oh, wait...

It is not 'Europe' that we're talking about here; it's the EU and everyone who comments on the issue should be using this term. The EU is not 'Europe' it is a political 'project' that happens to be being enacted on the geographical continent of Europe.

Splitting hairs? Absolutely not. As always in this (current and coming) propaganda battle, there are subtleties at play here. Just as pro-EU dinosaurs like Mandelson, Ken Clark, Nick Clegg et al will tell you that the EU is not a very important issue for us, they will go on to say that it would be a disaster if we left. So it is important then? Think about this for a moment.

And the same thing is being done when people talk about being in Europe but not run by Europe. It's not 'Europe' it's the 'EU' and that is an entirely different thing.

Why does this matter? It matters because 'Europe' is a positive thing. It's 'home', it's where we live, where we go on holiday. It's a wonderful place with wonderful culture, food, diversity, history, silly yet charming local traditions. Europe is a fantastic place. I adore Europe, have worked there, have friends there, the people are wonderful and they share our values of generosity and community.

The 'EU' on the other hand, is none of these things. It celebrates conformity and standardisation. It wants control not freedom of expression. It wants to suppress quirkiness and diversity. It wants everywhere to be 'German' in outlook in terms of finance, work ethic, governance and taxes. It may not 'want' but it's policies will ensure, that Europe will become a much less diverse, much more standardised place.

If you were Ebenezer Scrooge and wanted to stifle 'fun' and 'wonderfulness' in Europe you'd be embarrassed at the draconian lengths to which the EU is going.

The EU is a bad thing for Europe. It will diminish it's quality and value on a cultural level. That's probably enough for me, but the other realities: That Brexit would not adversely effect our economy or our ability to trade, not only with the Eurozone but crucially with the rest of the world on our own behalf, or the issue about democratic representation - we are represented (to a degree) by the people we elect here at home but not by unelected Eurocrats who care nothing for our local values and concerns, clinch it for me.

So let's call it what it is: It's the EU not 'Europe'. Europe is great, the EU is a threat to that greatness.

And why would we want to be 'in' the EU - paying £28 million a day (net) to support its progress towards a federal state - when that is not what we want? Why would we want to pay for this essentially German take-over of Europe, when we have fought, not just for our own freedoms but for those of the people of all of Europe, quite recently?

Call it the 'EU'. It matters because the EU is killing the hope, aspiration and lives of millions of people who are under the EU yoke, especially people in southern Europe.

People who, like me, are fervently pro Europe but who understand that the EU is anti its people, its freedoms and its prosperity.

Thanks for reading.

This 'reformed' EU we'll get to vote on? Has anyone mentioned this to Brussels?

A 'reformed EU' seems to be the mantra of all UK politicians and commentators these days.

Dave talks about it as if it's a done deal. Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband (where are they now?) talked about it during the election as if it's already happened or as if it was just a matter of our asking the EU to reform itself in the ways we want and it would happen.

Even the BBC is talking about a 'reformed EU' suggesting two things: One is a tacit acknowledgement (by the BBC!) that the EU needs reform if it is to be attractive to UK voters and to the UK as a whole. And secondly that this 'reformed' EU will happen.

It's almost as if we're already in a post-EU-reform-world where everything is just fine and dandy already. That's great. Thanks politicians, you rock.

There is just one thing. One small fly in the ointment.

The EU is not talking about reform. It is talking about pressing on towards a federal Europe.

A single place with a single flag, anthem, central bank, universal laws on tax, employment, pensions, human rights, a single EU army. Free movement of people and goods on an EU-wide basis.

These things are not 'up' for reform, they're set in stone as far as the EU is concerned.

So we're not talking about a 'reformed' EU in any real sense. We're essentially talking about some at best minor reforms to the UK's relationship with the EU. And that is a different situation entirely. 

So what, in your mind, Dave et al, are the reforms going to deliver to the UK?

We want freedom, national sovereignty, control over our own borders, the ability to make global trade deals on our own behalf, the ability to make our own laws where our national government holds sway over Brussels. All of which are anathema to the direction in which the EU is inexorably headed.

Dave is talking about our being able to control our welfare system so that immigrants cannot just turn up and claim benefits from day one and then send the money home to Bulgaria (or wherever) as is currently the case. But that is a minuscule issue in the great scheme of things. It's a bucket to stop a flood. It's tinkering. It's probably fair in broad terms but if we controlled our own borders and were attracting skilled people who will make a positive contribution to the UK and were therefore welcome to come, we would probably also extend our benefits system to help them out in the short term. So it's not a solution, it's actually a pretty mean-spirited attempt to stop immigration without having the fundamental border controls that we really need. 

So these 'reforms' of which they all speak as if they're a 'done deal'? What exactly are they?

We haven't even begun to negotiate yet have we? So to call the EU a 'reformed EU' is a bit premature isn't it? Particularly when the EU has absolutely no intention of entertaining any kind of fundamental 'reform' but might be willing to offer some changes to our relatonship with the EU for reasons of expediency - keeping us on the hook and paying £billions in to fund the project.

And of course we haven't even been told what are the reforms we're going for. We don't know what Dave's 'red lines' are. We don't know what success looks like as far as Dave - and the UK - are concerned. 

And of course we won't be told what they are until Dave comes back from Brussels riding on his white charger with a list of 'achievements' carefully worked out between Dave and Brussels to look great but actually to make absolutely no difference to the EU  and very little difference to the UK. 'Achievements' upon which Dave and our pro-EU establishment will base their campaign for us to vote 'in' in the referendum.

My guess is that we will be thrown a fairly sizable 'fish' by the EU. You have to remember that if we do vote for Brexit the EU will fail. Almost overnight. Not sure about that? Consider the chaos that the prospect of net recipient Greece leaving the EU has caused. If the 2nd or 3rd biggest contributor (UK) were to leave the EU would be in meltdown.

So the big fish will be handed over by the EU. My guess is that it will be about control of our borders and immigration. By no means the biggest issue in terms of our relationship with the EU, but a highly prominent and publicly popular issue that Dave will then be able to shout from the rooftops as a sign of his success.

And the fact that if we vote 'in' in the referendum we will eventually become part of the Eurozone, lose the pound and our status as a sovereign nation state, will be conveniently ignored and forgotten. Until, inevitably, it happens and they use the 'mandate' of our referendum to assume ever more powers over us and reduce us, as night follows day, to bit-part players in a single 'country', a small part of the world's only failing trading bloc and with very little influence to change its direction.

Some commentatiors say that if we don't have a seat at the top table we will not be able to influence EU decisions in future. But in reality, now, when we do have a seat, what influence do we have? Our vote in the EU is currently worth 8% and shrinking as new members join. And even when it was a considerably larger percentage, how often did we secure changes that were in the interests of the UK? We were always ultimately voted down by Germany and France and these days two small countries like Luxembourg and Portugal could combine their influence to veto any changes proposed by the UK.

Having a seat at the top table is hardly of any vaue to us whatsoever - certainly not a good return on our 'investment' of £tens of millions a day for the last 40 years. And yet Dave wants us to continue in this relationship, to keep paying in towards a project that is palpably not going in the direction that we want to see.

If one really thinks about this entire scenario, puts one's apathy and fear of change aside just for a moment, it is not difficult to reach the conclusion that we're all being taken for a ride, for the benefit of Germany and France and in a way that is not good for the UK nor for the millions of young and not so young people across the whole of southern Europe.

It's time we realised this and got the hell out.

Thanks for reading.

What is the point of our staying in the EU if we don't share its vision for a Federal Europe?

In the unlikely event that Dave does secure any meaningful reforms to the UK's relationship with the EU - and in reality, even if (when) he doesn't -  the chances are that we'll be asked to vote to stay in.

In that event the machinery of UK Government, the EU sponsored BBC and the EU itself will pump £millions into pro-EU propaganda and will almost certainly win the day. It will be almost impossible to compete with that power.

And given that it's been 40 years since we had a meaningful referendum on our membership of the EU, which has in that time 'progressed' from being a trading entity to a full-on European Federation, if we do vote for 'in' that'll be that. The vote will be used by the EU and UK governments as a mandate for further integration and we'll inevitably be included in that.

We will probably never have another referendum on the issue of our membership.

It will eventually mean that we will lose the pound and our status as an independent nation-state. We'll be a small state in a bigger European Union with an 8% (and shrinking) share of the vote instead of a sovereign nation with the ability to govern itself and control its own destiny. You know, the things we fought and shed blood for in the very recent past.

But here's the thing. If we don't share the EU's vision for a Federal Europe, with it's own flag, 'national' anthem, army, government, central financial apparatus, universal laws, why do we want to remain part of the project? Regardless of renegotiations?

Renegotiating some of the minor issues when we fundamentally don't share the long-term vision is just tinkering and ignoring the biggest issue.

And by staying in we'll be funding (as the 2nd or 3rd biggest contributor) the EU's project towards full integration. We'll be paying for the integration of countries which are mired in corruption and whose economies are basket cases when we're struggling to adequately fund public services here in the UK. Why on earth would we be happy to do that?

This coming referendum is not about our short-term 'red tape' issues but our long term - and irrevocable future as a nation.

I honestly can't see any 'reforms' to our relationship with the EU that would convince me to agree to vote to stay in. Look at the changes that have occurred in the past 40 years since we last had a vote on the issue. And consider a similar rate of progress for the next 40 years. We'll be swallowed up whole. Tied to the world's only shrinking trading bloc, tied to failing states and economic basket cases (including France, Italy, Spain and Greece - this is not just about Mickey Mouse new joiners) instead of being able to thrive and prosper under our own steam.

There is no danger to UK trade from our leaving the EU. We are their biggest customer globally. There is a £46billion trade deficit in their favour. There is no chance of their imposing trade sanctions against us. It would be economic suicide if they did so.

And we currently pay £28million a day (net) to the EU. In order to help them to eventually bring us down to their failing level?

We're quite mad to even be entertaining staying in the EU. We must win this argument against all odds if we are to prosper in the future and retain our hard-won freedoms.

Thanks for reading.

Farage is not the man to lead the 'out' campaign

I'm a fan of Nigel Farage. I think he's actually a nice guy. He connects with real people - which means, in my book at least, that he's 'real' himself. He's never far away (in interviews etc) from having a laugh about the situation he finds himself in.

It may all be a 'show' but I don't think anyone could keep up that persona as consistently as he does given the pressure he's been under, nor the negativity he's been surrounded by during the recent election campaign for very long if they didn't believe in what they were saying and if they weren't actually genuine about their views and consistent in terms of their personality. 

If you were anti the EU (as I am) how would you have done things differently or better? He's had to shout loudly in order to make his voice heard at times when the MSM (Main Stream Media) would rather ignore what he's had to say. And then when they were finally forced by dint of public opinion to have to listen to what he'd been saying, they portray him as being extreme.

I think he's been shouting, long and loud about the EU and that he's been consistent about it. And consistently right about the fact that the EU is a disaster not just for the UK but for most countries - and most people - in Europe.

Without him we probably would not be looking forward to a referendum on our membership of the EU. He and his party have been setting the agenda on the EU and in particular immigration (which is by no means the biggest issue associated with our EU membership) for the last couple of years. This is a good thing, and whether you support or loathe him, Farage has been successful in getting the issue onto the agenda.

And, again whether you like or loathe him, this is a real achievement because, make no mistake, our membership of the EU is the single biggest issue we face as a nation today. And I am aware that it is not currently at the top of most people's lists of concerns, but it should be since it affects almost everything else.

Because the EU debate is essentially about whether we are free to elect people to represent us who will make laws affecting us all on a relatively local basis, or whether we hand over our democratic representation to people who have never heard of the village, town or city in which we live and who we cannot kick out if we disagree with them.

That way lies serfdom. And it amazes me that so many people support this scenario. Most I think because they simply do not understand what's at stake here.

However, while Nige has done a great job of getting the EU onto the public agenda, he is not the right person to lead the 'no' campaign in my opinion.

I'm not saying that he doesn't have an important role to play - he does - but I am saying that we need a leader for the 'out' campaign who is a bit more objective, reasoned and credible and who is considerably less divisive than Mr Farage.

The issue is, quite simply, much too important to be led by UKIP. There are simply too many people who will not vote for Brexit if they consider their vote s being one for UKIP as opposed to being for an independent, self-governing and 'free' future for the UK.

UKIP has (quite rightly given its success in the EU elections last year and its massively increased vote last week) focused on immigration as a key issue. And it is a key issue for the UK given the pressure that uncontrolled immigration is putting on our infrastructure and public services.

The other parties are now falling over themselves to try to address the issue after all. But UKIP is now closely associated with the immigration issue in many people's minds and many (usually those who aren't adversely affected by it) equate this stance with racism or 'Little Englander' unfairness. It is neither of those things but the feeling persists in many people's minds - and that is the problem as far as UKIP leading any Brexit campaign is concerned.

Being able to control our own borders as a sovereign nation is important - it means that we can plan our infrastructure to meet the needs of the entire population and UKIP is not anti immigrant, just anti the uncontrolled immigration that Labour didn't just 'allow' but actively encouraged.

But immigration is not even close to being the biggest issue when it comes to consideration of the merits or otherwise of our being in the EU. Much more important is our being able to govern ourselves, make and implement our own laws, have voters represented properly on a local basis, being able to make trade deals on our own behalf with the rest of the world and not via the EU's creaking, self interested machinery.

It's also about money. Taxpayer's money. Our taxes, paid in the UK should, first and foremost, be used for the benefit of the people who pay them - i.e. the UK population. If we remain in the expanding EU we will inevitably be paying to address the corruption and poverty of former eastern bloc countries and inefficient southern Europe whilst not being able to afford to pay for problems in our own society. And this is a scenario that will go on for decades, generations, perhaps hundreds of years. It will be a very long time in the future before we get any financial benefit from being in the same club as Albania, Bulgaria or even Italy or France.

So who do we need to lead the Brexit campaign? The truth is I don't know and whoever might take it on would have to do so in the knowledge that it would inevitably be something of a poisoned chalice. They would be attacked by the pro-EU media not just on the basis of their stance but everything else - private life, past indiscretions the whole gamut. It's not an enviable or attractive position to put oneself in.

On the other hand if you believe passionately in an independent future for the UK, that is a considerable driving force in my opinion.

I think it needs to be someone who is not associated with a political party (like UKIP, too divisive) and someone who has credibility in another field, preferably business. Someone who is liked and admired, good with the media, quietly spoken but assured.

Someone like James Dyson perhaps? Successful, no lover of the EU, liked, admired, credible in the business world. A global player rather than just a European businessman. The subliminal association with cleaning up the EU's mess would be good too!

But a massive risk for him.

Anyway, we'll see.

Thanks for reading.

If we stay in the EU...

We'll have to give up the pound. As night follows day.

We'll be governed not by the people we elect to represent us, but by people who've never heard of the city, town or village where you live, much less understand your issues. And who we can't get rid of.

We'll be paying for the corruption and inefficiencies of other countries while being unable to look after people and services here at home.

As the 5th largest economy on earth we have massive international influence - especially as one of the two financial powerhouses in the world (London & New York). As part of the EU we will have an 8% (and shrinking) influence on the world's only shrinking trading bloc.

Unable to make our own trade deals with the rest of the world without going through the EU's creaking, red-tape riddled, baggage-laden foreign policy which is, incidentally, actively stopping Africa from trading its way into the first world.

And we'll be paying £28 million a day (net) for this 'privalege'.

'But jobs will be lost if we leave the EU'. Utter bollocks. We are the EU's biggest customer, globally. There's a £46 billion trade deficit in their favour. They simply cannot afford to impose any trade tariffs on us if we leave. Because we'd respond in kind and then their current recession would be like a walk in the park.

The biggest issue is not even about the UK. If we leave the EU fails. And quite quickly. Look at the chaos that has been caused by net recipient Greece's current travails. If the 2nd biggest contributor (the UK) were to leave it would be terminal.

And then southern Europe would be able to re-establish its competitiveness by devaluing currencies and re-balancing economies and giving hope to its people. More than 50% of young people in Spain, Italy and Greece are currently unemployed as a direct result of EU policies.

The EU is currently the world's only shrinking trading bloc. Staying in is like buying in to failure.

Of course you might see this as a good thing. It's palpably not good for the UK or for the vast majority of people in Europe. It is actually creating more tension, extremism and unrest in southern Europe - the opposite of what the EU was established to achieve.

But you think it's a good thing for us to stay in the EU? For us to lose everything our people fought and died for in two world wars in the recent past?

I have to ask. Why?

Thanks for reading.

Your 'to do' list Dave

First and foremost - and these are in priority order:

NHS. You need to take it out of politics and have a proper review. It needs to change and not just to have money endlessly thrown at it. It's about outcomes not vested interests. Get someone from Lidl or Aldi on your team. I am entirely serious about this suggestion. Go into one of their stores and spend some time in it. You will see that I'm right very quickly.

Education: It's about outcomes too. Stand up to 'the blob' but really this time. It's not about protecting crap teachers but promoting great teachers and getting them to lead the line. One failed teacher is 30+ failed students. And yet crap teachers are'compromised' out to go and ply their failure somewhere else with no stain on their reputation. Enough already. Reduce University tuition fees for science, medical and engineering subjects.

Defence: We need to spend more not less on our armed forces - get the budget back up to 2% of spending, quickly.

Multiculturalism and law and order: These two issues are irrevocably linked in the UK at the moment. We need a definition of what it means in terms of the laws of the land, to live in the UK. This definition can be broad, inclusive and tolerant to a point, but it needs to be consistently and properly enforced - FGM, polygamy, child brides are not lawful in the UK. This needs to be enforced clearly and consistently. This definition also needs to make clear that Sharia law will not be tolerated in the UK. We need to see the prosecution of criminal gangs who have been praying on 'white trash' girls with impunity for decades because the police and local authorities were too afraid of being called 'racist' to uphold our laws. Some of the people who have been complicit in this should also be prosecuted instead of receiving pay-offs.

The EU: You promised a referendum and now you will of course deliver it. Renegotiations first - we need some 'red lines' that are clear and unambiguous. We need to be able to control our borders ourselves. Have our own immigration policy that is not decided by Brussels. We need to be able to make our own trade deals with the rest of the world without needing EU permissions. We need clarity on our status as a sovereign nation - no threat to the pound and no UK commitment to an EU army. And actually Dave, the bottom line here, is that we need a civilised de-coupling process to begin, since the EU is determined to go down its publicly stated route of a federal Europe. We don't want to be part of that so the only option is Brexit. And the only two ways of achieving that is in the manner I describe or via a much messier but also much quicker referendum vote for Brexit. Staying inside a 'project' that is going in the opposite direction to the one we want, is never going to work.

Welfare: IDS has been reappointed tonight. He needs to continue his processes of reducing welfare dependence, making work pay and unpicking the welfare-trap 'client state' that Mr Blair almost succeeded in making big enough to secure power for Labour. We need a fair safety net for those in need, help for people who need it to get back on their feet, but not a welfare state that is so generous as to be a viable lifestyle choice for millions of people. This will of course be highly unpopular but it needs to be achieved for the long-term good of the country.

Overseas aid: This needs radical overhaul. Achieving a 0.7% figure is arguably a good thing but the execution of this programme is fatally flawed with corruption and inefficiencies. We're sending aid money to countries who neither need nor want it. Countries who themselves have a space programme. Countries like Argentina, with whom we are potentially in conflict. It's madness. We should focus on Africa and on trade with that continent, enabling them to trade their way into the first world instead of sending emergency money when there is a crisis that we have helped (with the EU which is the major culprit) to create. We give more per capita than any other nation and yet we face tough times at home? Germany gives 0.19% to our 0.7%.

Foreign Policy: Clearly this is entangled with what happens with the EU but we should be forging our own relationships with the rest of the world in any case. Particularly the Commonwealth and our special relationship with the US, Canada, Australia, China and India instead of relying on our insular trade with the world's only shrinking trading bloc - the EU. We need to take a lead on the Middle East - either we stay well away and reduce the ability for their endless wars to impact upon us here at home, or we go in, once and for all and impose our laws and human rights on these barbarians. Either way is expensive, but in the end we'll have to sort this out in my opinion.

Energy: We should be looking to develop viable and efficient renewables but not with the deeply flawed Al-Gore-shaped gun at our heads. Biomass doesn't work, wind has potential but not in the way it is currently funded. We should also invest in clean coal and make use of the resources like shale gas that we have at our fingertips rather than continuing to be reliant on oil from unstable countries. Like Scotland. (Just kidding). You should commission a properly scientific evaluation of man-made climate change - particularly given that without Russia, China or India agreeing with the forthcoming Paris 'treaty on climate change' it has zero chance of being successful on a planet-wide scale. You should also open up the energy market to greater competition and disallow energy retailers from also being wholesale producers who are frankly taking the piss out of us consumers.

HS2: Should be scrapped in its current form. For the amount we're likely to be spending we should be getting a system that is world-leading not just catching up with where France was in 1985. Look at HyperLoop in California. We could make it work here and then lead the world with the technology. That's where we should be. Ambitious and world-beating not also rans.

Housing: Government should 'prime the pump' on getting as much brown-field land back into positive usage for new homes as possible. It's the only way that this will work. Revisit Labour's SUEs (Sustainable Urban Extensions). They made sense but Mr Prescott was in charge - nuff said?

Historical child sexual abuse: I know this process has been extremely difficult to get under way, but now is the time to press the accelerator Dave. Janner and Brittan should be properly investigated and the inquiry must be speeded up so that justice is not only done but seen to be done, in an even-handed, non-party political way. This will have to come out eventually, better to be the ones doing the exposing and prosecuting than covering it up.

The BBC: Please sort out the BBC once and for all Dave. They've had the chance to reform themselves but have singularly failed to do so. Their corruption, lies, bias and cover-up of monstrous acts in the past has been left unchallenged for too long. It's time to open up this particular Pandora's box and demand - nay impose - reform. They need to be stopped from taking sides on issues like climate change and the EU where they are actively spreading propaganda instead of reporting the facts. Their political bias - particularly pro Labour and outrageously anti UKIP (a legitimate party which represents millions of UK voters) needs not just to be stopped, but also punished. Those responsible for the cover up of child sexual activity - the BBC knew all about Savile and Stuart Hall a long time ago - should also be brought to book. Some elements of the 'service' (arts and world service/own correspondent, Test Match Special - that's about it) should be protected but the rest should be made to pay for itself instead of being funded by the tax-payer.

Chilcot: Tell that nice Mr Blair to 'Foxtrott Oscar' and let's get the bloody thing published. Tell Mr Chilcot that if it's not published in full by September he'll be jailed. He's cost us £11million so far for a report that he said, in 2009, would be 'quick and no whitewash'! 

Hunting: Repeal the ban. It was never about animal welfare but pure vote-securing envy. Just do it. It'll keep the left's minds off of the other, much more important stuff.

And in the afternoon.....

;)

Thanks for reading.

Dave's slender majority is a great thing for the coming EU referendum

Well I'm delighted that Dave secured a majority: If you voted for him I salute you!

Given the parlous state of the global economy and the utter mess that the EU is making of Europe this was not a time for change it was a time for sticking with a party that is certainly not perfect but is at least competent and has got the country moving in the right direction.

Handing back the levers of power to Labour would not have been an experiment. It would have been handing them back to people who are proven to be incompetent. Thank God that didn't happen.

So now we move on after what has seemed to be an interminable campaign thanks to Dave's (I think unwise) move to fixed term parliaments.

And the big issue, for me at least, is now the EU referendum. It will happen. There's no way Dave can wriggle out of it now even if he wanted to - and I'm sure he does given that it will be a potential dividing force in his party.

He'll  have to juggle the anti-EU views of many of his back-benchers with those of the pro-EU elements of his party and it won't be easy.

But for us Euroskeptics this is a good thing. Dave has a majority but a slender one and he'll need to keep his own party onside not just on the EU but for all of his policies. And that suggests to me that he'll have to be even-handed. He won't be able to campaign for an 'in' vote because his party simply will not support it.

Unless of course he secures meaningful reforms on the terms of our membership from the EU: Reforms that a significant number of anti-EU back-benchers will be happy with.

And that means quite serious reforms in terms of sovereignty, nation-status, the ability to control our borders, the precedence of UK law over EU laws, an acceptance of the fact that the UK does not want to be part of a federal Europe; will not give up the pound and will not hand over its armed forces to the control of an EU army - which is very much on the cards.

In essence - and Dave will be waking up to this reality very soon - the reforms we want and need are about free trade - which we signed up for in 1975 - and not about governance from Brussels, which we have never signed up for.

Given the chaos that the prospect of net contributor Greece exiting the Eurozone has caused, Dave could, as head of the Eurozone's biggest customer and second biggest contributor, easily secure these reforms if he wanted to. The Eurozone benefits from its trade with the UK to the tune of £46 billion a year. Without its trade with the UK the Eurozone's current economic crisis would be out of sight. We are effectively keeping Europe afloat and have been for years. If Dave seriously threatened to leave they would have no choice but to accept all and any demands for reform that we made. The alternative would be the collapse and failure of the entire EU project.

Dave may of course have been hiding these aces in order to pull off one of the most momentous winning hands in history. But I think not. Poker? I'm not sure he's mastered 'snap' yet but he'll have to very soon.

The thing is that the EU is embarked upon a federal project with financial and political union as its goal. It wants Europe to be a single country with a single government and it needs the UK to be a part of that and a crucial funder of the whole thing. It has stated repeatedly that it will not compromise on issues like free movement of people (which means border controls) and with it's move towards federalism - a flag and an anthem and an EU-wide defence force - it's direction of travel is simply not compatible with the reforms that we want and need in the UK.

There is very little room for compromise if the UK is to stay in the EU: We want autonomy, a nation state and control of our own destiny; the EU wants to take that away from us.

It is difficult to see any way to match these two approaches into an agreed policy that takes account of both sides' aspirations. And Dave won't play his cards because for some reason he's signed up to the whole UN-based project (essentially Agenda 21 - google it) which is so good for us all that we're not being told about it.

The long and the short of it is that Dave will not secure any meaningful reforms of our EU membership because they are diametrically opposed to what the EU wants. And without 'going nuclear' and really threatening to leave, we'll simply be ignored and sneered at by those Eurocrats whose salaries we pay for.

So the reforms will not be meaningful and they will certainly not assuage the views of Dave's anti-EU back benchers. He might perhaps have been able to sell us the fudge that is inevitable if he were in coalition with the Lib-Dems as a 'practical' 'compromise' approach, but he will certainly not be able to do so within his own party.

All of which suggests to me that Dave will be forced to offer a free and fair referendum. That he will not be able to support one side or the other. That the debate will have to be balanced, factual and honest. Of course the EU (which currently spends  more than Coca Cola in the UK on indoctrinating us that the EU is a great thing) will want to pour money into the campaign - its very existence will be at stake after all - but Dave's slender majority might just mean that he is forced into making this a truly open, fair and logical debate.

That's all I want. I am confident that if the real facts are put before the British people, if the benefits of our EU membership are compared fairly with the downsides. If the reality of where the EU wants to go is compared properly with the interests of the UK - and not just the UK but also with most of the population of Europe - we will be able to make an informed choice on the issue and the 'value' or otherwise of the EU.

If people are allowed to know and understand the reality of the EU they will be able to make their choice accordingly.

And if so, we will choose to consign the EU to the dust-bin of history not just for our own benefit, but also for the millions of people in Europe who are being fleeced and are suffering because of the empire-building aspirations of the monstrously undemocratic EU.

Thanks for reading.

Friday morning..

On Friday morning, this week, it is possible that Ed Miliband will be our Prime Minister, our representative on the world stage. The face of Britain.

In that case, Ed Balls will be our Chancellor. He'll be responsible for the finances of the world's 5th largest economy. There has never been a better named politician - he opposed every single Tory economic policy of the last five years.

Andy Burnham who hid the untold suffering and unnecessary deaths at Mid Staffs will be our Health Secretary.

Harriet Harman who once suggested that the age of consent should be reduced to 10, will be our Home Secretary.

The Hon. Tristram Hunt whose own kids will never see the inside of a state school classroom, will be our education secretary.

The racist Diane Abbott will be in government.

And tax-avoider Chukka Amuna will be our Business Secretary.

If you think that this will be a good thing for the UK, for our kids and their future, you're an idiot.

It's that simple. These exact same people were kicked out for their chronic incompetence 5 years ago, having reduced our once great UK to a basket case economy and now you're contemplating giving them another go?

What's that definition of madness again?

'Grandad will my vote really save the NHS?' 'No love. Just tick the box. Our Labour MP now has three houses. We're doing well.'

Dave has not been perfect by any means but we were a basket case in 2010. We're now the fastest-growing G7 economy having created more new jobs than the EU in its entirety. And Labour opposed every single move in this direction.

It's up to you of course. One would hope that you'll view the long-term good of the country as being more important than short-term vested interests. The wealthy don't suffer when our economy is weak. But everyone else does, and the poor suffer the most. That is, essentially, your choice. 

Thanks for reading.

 

A week to go, so what are the choices?

Best to get the caveats out of the way first I guess? I'm a Tory but also vehemently anti EU (and equally vehemently pro Europe) just so you know!

However I do try to be objective - I probably give Dave more stick than I give anyone else on twitter, largely because I'm disappointed in him and his campaign. It seems to me that he should be miles ahead of Labour if one looks at what has happened to the UK in the past decade but he's not been setting the agenda; he's allowed himself to become mired in the Labour smokescreen tactics about zero hours, the fraudulent save our NHS crap, the utterly fraudulent cost of living crisis and the frankly laughable contention that Labour will secure a prosperous future for us all by continuing to live beyond our means. How Labour can score positive political points from foreign policy when the consequences of their shambolic, 'poodle-to-the-US' policies which resulted in the crisis that is now spreading from the Middle East to right here at home, is just beyond me.

But it has happened and Dave and his team have allowed it to happen.

Being anti EU means that I do have some sympathy with UKIP and whilst I am not a UKIP supporter, I do like Nigel Farage. I think he's the best politician of the past five years and that he does connect with real people in a way which none of the others do. I think UKIP has been (and is) good for UK politics and whilst I am not (yet) an outright supporter, I am a defender of UKIP against the ridiculous negative campaigning against them that we have seen from the 'establishment' including, in particular the Main Stream Media (MSM) especially the BBC. 

So to get to the point then - about bloody time I hear you think. What are we being offered by way of choice and difference in this coming election?

The Tories are offering more of the same. Which is partly why they have found it difficult to control the agenda with a 'big idea'. Dave has never been very good at vision - I have criticised him about this before, here. We've had 'localism, 'in it together' 'big society', 'aspiration nation' and several others, none of which have been committed to, which is why none of them has stuck and become an asset to the party. Quite the reverse - chopping and changing one's vision undermines one's credibility in the long run. And this is coming home to bite Dave right now.

However, the Tories have effectively turned around our fortunes as a nation in economic terms. We have created more new jobs than the rest of the EU combined and the UK is the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Two million new jobs have been created and contrary to what Labour will tell you, the vast majority of these have not been zero hours jobs or non-jobs in the public sector, but real private sector jobs.

Dave may have been lucky in terms of being in the right place when the economic cycle recovered, but he has facilitated the upturn pretty well. His plan (plan A), which was opposed at every turn by Ed Balls and Labour has actually worked.

To me this simple fact should trump any other discussion or consideration as to who should get your vote. But sadly it hasn't done so - so far anyway.

So what is Labour offering? Usually elections are won by parties offering change. Change from failure, change from a failing economic approach, fundamental change to the direction in which the country is headed. Labour isn't offering change. It is tinkering at the margins because it knows that the UK is not failing by any credible measure. Without a strong, thriving and growing economy we cannot afford to provide the infrastructure, healthcare, education, policing, welfare safety net or defence services that the fifth largest economy in the world requires.

So nothing 'big' from Labour either then. No real fundamental change because the current 'direction of travel' is an overwhelmingly positive one. Instead Labour is tinkering. Finding any negative, however obscure and blowing it up into a major issue, supported, inexorably by the BBC, provider of 75% of the media we consume. Zero hours? 2% of jobs in the UK and the majority of people on zero hours contracts are happy with them.

But a few aren't so let's focus on them. Let's find and interview them on prime time television; a small proportion of 2% of UK workers.

Cost of living 'crisis'. Well firstly it is not a crisis. There is no God-given rule that your salary should go on increasing ahead of inflation forever, particularly without productivity gains. And following the 2007 crash - the biggest economic and financial crisis the world has ever seen - a period of more straightened times was inevitable.

That it hasn't been much, much worse is down to the economic upturn and the Tories' policies over the last five years, all of which were opposed by Labour.

Complaining from their London mansions about a cost of living crisis is just a sick joke - but one which their supporters have lapped up.

Food banks? Not a good look in C21st Britain, but if you give people free stuff they'll take it. Whether they really need it or not. As far as I can tell we're not facing a starvation epidemic in this country, but we certainly are facing a massive problem with obesity. How this issue has been allowed to gain political traction just amazes me. It has happened partly because of Dave's failing to address the issue properly and also because the left wing media - particularly the BBC - has 'promoted' it as an issue giving it much more credibility than it objectively deserves.

We're talking about 1 million people getting three day's worth of free food in a year; food provided to them by charities with some government backing. So 1 million out of a population of 65 million getting 3 day's worth of food out of 365. So 0.65% getting 0.03% of their annual food requirement from food banks. It's 0.0195. So 0.0195% of meals in the UK are being provided by food banks. Fewer than 2 in a hundred meals and the other 98.5% are provided by the state in any case.

But it's a big issue? A big stick with which to beat the Tories? No it isn't. And even if it were a big issue, what has caused the need for food banks? Labour's recession and Labour's uncontrolled immigration - not just 'uncontrolled' but their active pursuance of migrants into the UK during their last time in office.

'Save our NHS' is also laughable. Labour introduced private provision into the NHS and it's PFI (Private Finance Initiative) has saddled the public sector including the NHS with ridiculous levels of debt repayment terms of over £300 billion for investment of £85 billion. And they did this while the sun shone - i.e. while the economy was in good shape. Just putting everything, as usual, on the 'never never'. Labour hid the problems at Mid Staffs and elsewhere and has presided over the NHS in Wales which has seen a massive decline in performance over the past five years. But only they can 'save' the NHS? You'd have to be pretty stupid to fall for that one. It's unutterably sad that so many are.

Inequality rose during Labour's 13 years in office last time, inequality has fallen under the Tories as millions of people have been taken out of paying tax altogether. Have the super-rich got richer? Yes they have - they were always going to. But we're talking about 1% of the population. The vast majority of middle and higher income earners are now paying more tax and making a bigger contribution to the less well off, who are themselves paying less tax.

Whether you think this is fair - hitting people who work hard, harder to pay for people who don't bother is a subject for another debate, but this is true nonetheless.

The thing is, I'm finding it difficult to see what Labour will do in a positive sense. They propose to close tax loopholes which the Tories are already doing but Labour did absolutely nothing to address last time. They will tax the bankers again (and quite right too - I think Dave should be much harder on bankers) but they'll also create a Mansion Tax to take more money from people who have worked hard, paid their taxes (at higher rates) all their lives in order to buy a nice home.

How is that 'fair'? These people are already taxed to the hilt, paying 40 or 45% of their income to the government. If this is not enough then it (general taxation) should be increased to pay for the welfare state, not taken from them retrospectively. The issue here is of course that all parties would find it very difficult to justify higher general taxation to pay for a woefully wasteful government, whereas playing the 'envy' card will have popular support from the many who are, well, envious of others' hard-won wealth.

And the argument is that the mega-rich are not paying their way in London. I have news. These people can fuck off whenever they want to. And they will or they'll find some petty cash to pay the Mansion Tax. People who have worked hard to pay for their home, which has increased in value over the years do not have that luxury. And because this tax panders to the envy of people who haven't done so well, they can impose it because it will be popular regardless of whether it's fair. It simply is not. 

Just like zero hours and food banks Labour is targeting a very small percentage of people who lose out as if that means everybody. And targeting its tax take on wealthy people who everyone else loathes because they've been successful. But that is about 2% at the bottom and 1% at the top. It's not about real people. It's not about the 97% of people who don't fall into these categories.

What it is about is using these extremes to garner the support of people who are envious of others. What it is about is giving middle class Labour voters something to hang onto. An excuse to kick the Tories when actually there's not much reason to do so otherwise.

It's typical Labour. The Champagne socialists who are doing very well thank you, lamenting the plight of a few people who are suffering without really doing anything about it. But making political capital out of it nonetheless at their Chablis-fuelled dinner parties. It's entirely fraudulent and sickening, but it's the way things are.

The Tories fix problems with the help of wealth creators who then become more wealthy but create more jobs along the way. Labour create problems by spending money we cannot afford but they and their supporters also become more wealthy along the way too.They make damn sure that they get their 'uplift' before paying lip-service to 'helping the poor'.

So what's the difference? The difference is that the Tories create wealth and jobs; making their own supporters more wealthy yes, but at the same time as delivering a stronger economy and more jobs for everyone. Labour creates wealth for its senior supporters by effectively stealing the wealth created by entrepreneurs for itself, not helping the poor (look at where Labour is strong electorally in the UK and you'll realise that this is true), and then blames the inevitable downturn and failure on someone else.

It has always been thus but Labour has survived against all the odds, because people vote for their ridiculous promises of a better life for no effort and, surprise surprise, their voters still live in deprived areas because Labour doesn't really give a toss about poor people, so long as they get their vote.

Expecting Shangrila and getting Tower Hamlets or Wrexham or Hartlepool every time is just rank stupidity. And they never seem to learn.

So anyway the other options:

Lib Dems? Toast I think. Mr Clegg talks a good fight about being a king-maker but you have to have numbers. Enough MPs to be able to contribute to a coalition government. I think he'll be lucky to retain his own seat and will find himself with very few colleagues to offer to anyone as a king-maker. The Lib Dems will do better than they deserve to do because of our first past the post system, but they're gone as a political force and that's a good thing. A 'brain' for Labour and a 'heart' for Tories? They're a rectum for the country and have been for years.

Greens? I'd be amazed if they got more than one seat and I think they'll probably lose (that one seat in) Brighton anyway. Populist perhaps but also batshit crazy policies on defence, climate change and immigration. The Monster Raving Loony party has more credible policies.

SNP? Well you can't vote for them unless you're in Scotland. And they will do well there, possibly sweep the board. So a 'no' vote in the referendum was really a 'yes' vote but with the safety blanket of Westminster funding. Canny. They win all ways up. And Dave and Ed's totally unwarranted 'Vow' is now coming home to roost. I said so at the time the 'Vow' was made that it was utterly stupid, I was right.

UKIP? If I thought they would win in my constituency I'd vote for them. Farage is a class act. He stands up in front of anyone and debates the issues at hand. He knows his stuff and I agree with almost all of it. And so do the other parties - he's won the debate on immigration hands down and they're all trying to be tough on this issue with their hands tied behind their backs (EU law). So they are (Labour and Tories) trying to be as tough as they can on immigration - via laws on benefits - but still calling UKIP racist? That's completely disingenuous.

UKIP is not racist. Their policies on issues like defence, like grammar schools, the NHS and immigration are spot on. They've been setting the agenda (like Dave should have been doing hut hasn't) for months now. In the face of establishment ridicule - which has pushed me much closer to voting for them than any other factor. He also talks about curbing the BBC and addressing its undoubted and unforgivable bias. If that was truly a live possibility it would get my vote.

Farage connects with real people, doesn't dodge the issues, tells it like it is. If you are in a marginal seat in which UKIP could win, I urge you to vote for them. I would if I was in that position but I'm not. I may still vote for Nige, but it won't make any difference where I am. I happen to know and like my Tory MP - he might be UKIP anyway before long! (Holobone).

Do vote and use your vote wisely. This 'don't vote' mantra is just stupid. It doesn't matter to politicians how many votes they get, just that they get more than their opponents. Not voting on principle achieves absolutely nothing.

Thanks for reading.