English Rights Campaign

to defend the rights and interests of the English nation

Friday, February 24, 2017


The results of the Stoke Central and Copeland by-elections demonstrate the feeble appeal of UKIP to disgruntled patriotic voters. UKIP had been especially hopeful of winning the Stoke Central by-election as Stoke had voted strongly in favour of leaving the EU. UKIP assumed that those who voted Leave would be inclined to vote UKIP.

The new UKIP leader, Paul Nuttall, himself stood as the UKIP candidate in Stoke Central. His campaign started well and victory was expected; even Labour admitted that they were struggling. However the UKIP campaign became mired in tittle-tattle about the embellishment of Nuttall's CV, and as to the details of his attendance at the Hillsborough tragedy – a very sore issue for Nuttall's local Liverpudlians who have fought a hard campaign over very many years to expose the comprehensive dishonesty of both the Police and the various pompous inquiries.

However, it would be a mistake to attribute UKIP's defeat to this tittle-tattle. The Trump campaign had its own difficulties and yet the USA voted for President Trump. That was because patriotic voters were attracted to his ideological stance and believed that he would tackle the USA's serious problems. A similar ideological battle exists across Europe where sensible right-wing parties are doing noticeably better than UKIP, which has struggled to win parliamentary by-elections and failed to advance in general elections. UKIP styles itself as being libertarian rather than right-wing or nationalist.

Immediately prior to start of the above two by-election campaigns, UKIP came out in full support of the May Government's Brexit Postponed strategy (see the English Rights Campaign item dated 19 January 2017), in which Britain will remain in the EU in the short to medium term, will be involved in an interim relationship with the EU in the medium to long term, and might eventually leave the EU only in the long term – and even then the aim is to forge a new partnership. Meanwhile, payments to the EU continue unchanged, immigrants continue to pour in, and the balance of trade deficit continues uninterrupted. All wings and factions of UKIP were positively gushing over the May Government's Brexit policy.

One cannot imagine why UKIP decided to betray their country, their cause, their voters, or their ordinary members in this way. In any event, the Tory vote remained strong, even in Stoke Central which had a low priority as the Tories were focusing on Copeland where they won (it was only in the final week that the Tory big guns, including the Prime Minister, showed up to campaign). UKIP totally failed to make any inroads into the Tory vote.

The poor showing in the by-elections, as with the poor performance at the last general election (see the English Rights Campaign item dated the 30 April 2015), proves that had UKIP controlled the anti-EU campaign in the referendum, then that referendum would have been lost. It was Vote Leave who won the referendum, with much needed support on the ground from ordinary UKIP members and activists.

From what UKIP representatives have said on television, then in the by-elections, for unprincipled opportunism, UKIP scores ten out of ten. For political strategy and tactics, campaign strategy and tactics, policy development and political positioning, zero out of ten on all counts. The patriotic cause in Britain is not owned by UKIP and unless UKIP is able to raise its game then it faces oblivion. One thing that is almost certain, is that whatever form Brexit takes, it will involve the abolition of Britain's MEPs and hence almost all UKIP's elected politicians and their employees, and its infrastructure and funding.

It will be seen whether these dismal results are the beginning of the end of UKIP, or a much needed kick up the backside. Paul Nuttall's leadership abilities will now be put to the test. If UKIP is to achieve success and win parliamentary representation, then it needs to be bold and to think big. It needs to get off the fence.

The fight between patriotism and political correctness is the fight between good and evil. It is as clear cut as that.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017


'It seems to me that the London bubble has to burst if there is to be any prospect of addressing the issues that have brought us to our current situation. There are many millions of people in the UK who do not enthuse about diversity and do not embrace metropolitan values yet do not consider themselves lesser human beings for all that. Until their values and opinions are acknowledged and respected, rather than ignored and despised, our present discord will persist.
Because these discontents run very wide and very deep and the metropolitan political class, confronted by them, seems completely bewildered and at a loss about how to respond (“who are these ghastly people and where do they come from?” doesn't really hack it).
The 2016 EU referendum has witnessed the cashing in of some very bitter bankable grudges but I believe that, throughout this 2016 campaign, Europe has been the shadow not the substance.'

A BBC memo (written by David Cowling, a former special adviser to a Labour cabinet minister in the 1970s and the former head of the BBC's political research unit) that was leaked in June 2016.

Saturday, January 21, 2017


Chief Justice Roberts, President Carter, President Clinton, President Bush, fellow Americans and people of the world – thank you.
We the citizens of America have now joined a great national effort to rebuild our county and restore its promise for all our people. 
Together we will determine the course of America for many, many years to come.
Together we will face challenges. We will confront hardships. But we will get the job done.
Every four years we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power.
And we are grateful to President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama for their gracious aid throughout this transition. They have been magnificent, thank you.
Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another – but transferring it from Washington DC and giving it back to you the people.
For too long a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered but the jobs left and the factories closed.
The establishment protected itself but not the citizens of our country.
Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. While they have celebrated there has been little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.
That all changes starting right here and right now because this moment is your moment. It belongs to you. It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America today.
This is your day.
This is your celebration.
And this – the United States of America – is your country.
What truly matters is not what party controls our government but that this government is controlled by the people.
Today, January 20 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. 
The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer. Everyone is listening to you now.
You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement –  the likes of which the world has never seen before.
At the centre of this movement is a crucial conviction – that a nation exists to serve its citizens.
Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighbourhoods for their families and good jobs for themselves.
These are just and reasonable demands
Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities, rusted out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation.
An education system flushed with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge. And the crime and the gangs and the drugs which deprive people of so much unrealised potential.
We are one nation, and their pain is our pain, their dreams are our dreams, we share one nation, one home and one glorious destiny.
Today I take an oath of allegiance to all Americans. For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry, subsidised the armies of other countries, while allowing the sad depletion of our own military.
We've defended other nations’ borders while refusing to defend our own.
And spent trillions and trillions of dollars overseas while America’s infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay.
 We have made other countries rich while the wealth, strength and confidence of our country has dissipated over the horizon. 
One by one, shutters have closed on our factories without even a thought about the millions and millions of those who have been left behind.
But that is the past and now we are looking only to the future.
We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, in every hall of power – from this day on a new vision will govern our land – from this day onwards it is only going to be America first – America first!
Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs will be made to benefit American workers and American families.
Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength. I will fight for you with every bone in my body and I will never ever let you down.
America will start winning again. America will start winning like never before.
We will bring back our jobs, we will bring back our borders, we will bring back our wealth, we will bring back our dreams.
We will bring new roads and high roads and bridges and tunnels and railways all across our wonderful nation.
We will get our people off welfare and back to work – rebuilding our country with American hands and American labour.
We will follow two simple rules – buy American and hire American.
We see good will with the nations of the world but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their nations first.
We will shine for everyone to follow.
We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones, and untie the world against radical Islamic terrorism which we will eradicate from the face of the earth.
At the bed rock of our politics will be an allegiance to the United States.
And we will discover new allegiance to each other. There is no room for prejudice.
The bible tells us how good and pleasant it is when god’s people live together in unity.
When America is united, America is totally unstoppable.
There is no fear, we are protected and will always be protected by the great men and women of our military and most importantly we will be protected by god.
Finally, we must think big and dream even bigger. As Americans, we know we live as a nation only when it is striving.
We will no longer accept politicians who are always complaining but never doing anything about it.
The time for empty talk is over, now arrives the hour of action.
Do not allow anyone to tell you it cannot be done. No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America. We will not fail, our country will thrive and prosper again. 
We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the earth from the miseries of disease, to harvest the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow.
A new national pride will stir ourselves, lift our sights and heal our divisions. It’s time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget, that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots.
We all enjoy the same glorious freedoms and we all salute the same great American flag and whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look at the same night sky, and dream the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath by the same almighty creator.
So to all Americans in every city near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain, from ocean to ocean – hear these words – you will never be ignored again.
Your voice, your hopes and dreams will define your American destiny.
Your courage, goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.
Together we will make America strong again, we will make America wealthy again, we will make America safe again and yes – together we will make America great again.
Thank you.
God bless you.
And god bless America.

President Donald Trump, speaking at his inauguration.

Thursday, January 19, 2017


In her long-awaited speech, Theresa May, the British Prime Minister, finally gave more detail of what the Government's policy is regarding leaving the EU. The speech has been met with great approval from the media and those who wish to leave the EU – including UKIP. 

Matthew Elliott, the chief executive of the Vote Leave, tweeted: 'Superb speech from PM –  everything we campaigned for @vote_leave. Inspiring vision for #GlobalBritain. Loved "Take Back Control" reference.' Nigel Farage, the former UKIP leader, tweeted: 'I can hardly believe that the PM is now using the phrases and words that I've been mocked for using for years. Real progress.' Suzanne Evans, a former UKIP leadership candidate and someone not in the Faragist wing of UKIP, said: 'I was chuckling at some of it, to be honest, it seemed as if she was channelling UKIP. There were various phrases there that I’ve used myself again and again, and I think her 12 priorities were all extremely sound, good priorities for a proper “clean” or what some people called “hard” Brexit – I overwhelmingly welcome the speech.' Labour have described May's proposals as 'Soft Brexit'.

The English Rights Campaign is unimpressed. In fact, a casual analysis of the May speech reveals it to be vacuous pap, and May's political correctness steadily guides her approach – as does her obsession with free trade. In practice there is a balance to be struck between free trade and a more protectionist approach. The issue is to strike the right balance. Britain's traditional policy of unilateral free trade is not a sensible policy and was largely responsible for Britain's long-term economic decline.

Throughout her speech, May ladled on her belief in globalism. She started in the third sentance: 'They voted to leave the European Union and embrace the world,' in reference to the referendum vote; and that 'It was the moment we chose to build a truly Global Britain', for example. May explained the Leave victory in the referendum as due 'not simply because our history and culture is profoundly internationalist, important though that is,' but also because 'Many in Britain have always felt that the United Kingdom’s place in the European Union came at the expense of our global ties, and of a bolder embrace of free trade with the wider world,' and that the vote was 'a vote to restore, as we see it, our parliamentary democracy, national self-determination, and to become even more global and internationalist in action and in spirit.' This rewriting of history is telling. People did not vote Leave because they wanted more globalization. They were motivated by a rejection of it and were concerned about more down-to-earth issues.

Correctly, May pointed out that Britain should take: 'the opportunity of this great moment of national change to step back and ask ourselves what kind of country we want to be'. Leaving the EU gives Britain the opportunity to tackle its problems. But May ignored this and prefered:

'I want this United Kingdom to emerge from this period of change stronger, fairer, more united and more outward-looking than ever before. I want us to be a secure, prosperous, tolerant country - a magnet for international talent and a home to the pioneers and innovators who will shape the world ahead. I want us to be a truly Global Britain – the best friend and neighbour to our European partners, but a country that reaches beyond the borders of Europe too. A country that goes out into the world to build relationships with old friends and new allies alike. I want Britain to be what we have the potential, talent and ambition to be. A great, global trading nation that is respected around the world and strong, confident and united at home.'

This might all sound nice, with lots of talk of being global, but it is meaningless. What of the size of the balance of trade deficit (a problem totally ignored in the speech despite the EU's responsiblity for a great part of it, it not even being mentioned once), or of how to end mass immigration, or of the need to free Britain from other damaging entities such as the human rights courts and legislation? Leaving the EU gives Britain the opportunity to negotiate a trade deal that will end the trade deficit with the EU, but May did not even see that as an aim! She did mention that the Government would get its spending deficit down and spend more on infrastructure as it does so. In fact the deficit is likely to stay high and the Government is actually increasing it above the level planned by the previous chancellor, George Osborne.

May claimed that Britain’s historical global aspirations are 'why we are one of the most racially diverse countries in Europe, one of the most multicultural members of the European Union'. In fact Britain is 'racially diverse' etc. due to the unwillingness of successive British governments to stop the ever-increasing scale of immigration, despite the firm opposition to mass immigration from ordinary people. Multiculturalism has been imposed on the British public and is not something they have ever voted for.

May set out twelve objectives:

1.    Certainty
2.    Control of our own laws
3.    Strengthen the Union
4.    Maintain the Common Travel Area with Ireland
5.    Control Immigration
6.    Rights for EU natonals in Britain, and British nationals in the EU
7.    Protect Workers' Rights
8.    Free Trade with European Markets
9.    New Trade Arrangements with Other Countries
10.  The Best Place for Science and Innovation
11.  Cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism
12.  A Smooth, Orderly Brexit

May rightly committed to 'convert the “acquis” – the body of existing EU law – into British law', and that the outcome of the deal negotiated would be put to a vote in parliament.

May said that in future laws would be made in 'Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast', that there was a 'a Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations, so ministers from each of the UK’s devolved administrations can contribute to the process of planning for our departure from the European Union', that there had already been a paper from the Scottish Government', and that the Government expected 'a paper from the Welsh Government shortly'; also that the Government looked 'forward to working with the administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to deliver a Brexit that works for the whole of the United Kingdom'. She promised that the Government would work 'very carefully to ensure that – as powers are repatriated from Brussels back to Britain – the right powers are returned to Westminster, and the right powers are passed to the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland'.

But what of the English? Why is there no one representing English interests? Why are the English, who are funding Britain, denied an equal say in Britain’s governance? Why is there not a devolved English parliament? May saw nothing wrong with anti-Engish discrimination and did not even mention the issue, simply taking it for granted as a normality.

The speech did nothing to reassure voters that mass immigration would end. May boldly asserted that 'We will continue to attract the brightest and the best to work or study in Britain – indeed openness to international talent must remain one of this country’s most distinctive assets', and that 'we will always want immigration'. Instead there was a sop: 'In the last decade or so, we have seen record levels of net migration in Britain, and that sheer volume has put pressure on public services, like schools, stretched our infrastructure, especially housing, and put a downward pressure on wages for working class people. As Home Secretary for six years, I know that you cannot control immigration overall when there is free movement to Britain from Europe.' As Home Secretary, May did virtually nothing to curtail either legal or illegal immigration. Immigration is at record levels with roughly 650,000 pouring in each year. Currently, the Government has even been using the Royal Navy to ferry illegal immigrants across the Mediterreanean and has recently been searching Europe for and bringing into Britain mature, if not middle-aged men, who claim to be child minors. May made no commitment that anything would change.

May did rule out continuing membership of the EU Single Market. Although this is seen as radical, in fact it is simply what people voted for last summer (both sides of the referendum campaign admitted that a vote to leave would mean leaving the Single Market). Instead, May committed to 'pursue a bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement with the European Union' that would give Britain tariff-free access to the Single Market, 'on a fully reciprocal basis'. If that commitment holds, then unilateral free trade will not be pursued. But there is no commitment to dealing with the unfair advantage that the north European countries have, in particular Germany, due to, for them, the undervalued euro. There is no commitment to bring trade with the EU back into balance. This is a serious defect in the Government strategy. Furthermore, although May said that Britain would no longer 'contribute huge sums to the EU budget' and that 'the days of Britain making vast contributions to the European Union every year will end'. They key term is 'will end'. This is something that might happen some date in the future – if the May Government does not cave in. It should be noted that May did commit to 'make an appropriate contribution' for specific programmes with which Britain might wish to stay involved.

May enthused about free trade, saying that a 'Global Britain' must enter into 'trade agreements' with countries across the world. She cited China, Brazil, the Gulf States, and India, as well as Britain’s daughter nations of Australia, New Zealand and Canada and the USA (our American cousins), which is now keen to strike a trade deal as soon as possible. May bemoaned that since joining the EU trade as a percentage of GDP for Britain has 'broadly stagnated' and of the need for Britain to 'rediscover its role as a great, global trading nation'. To enter into free trade deals with Third World countries would be ruinous, given their much lower wages, living standards and scant levels of regulation, and any such deals would need to be approached cautiously. A free trade deal with the communist, protectionist China would not be worth the paper it is written on. There is already a wopping balance of trade deficit between Britain and China, and Britain needs a clear strategy to bring its trade back into balance. There is no evidence that May even grasps this. The statistic about trade as a percentage of GDP is irrelevant. What matters is the growth rate of the British economy, which will be determined by the competitiveness of British manufacturing and its ability to successfully thrive, primarily, in the home market. Britain was the superpower of the 19th century because it was a great manufacturing nation. It was the competitiveness of British industry that was the source of British economic power and the engine for the increase in living standards.

In order to avoid a 'cliff-edge' when leaving the EU (the term 'freedom' would be more accurate), May proposed that:

'We believe a phased process of implementation, in which both Britain and the EU institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements that will exist between us will be in our mutual self-interest ... This might be about our immigration controls, customs systems or the way in which we cooperate on criminal justice matters. Or it might be about the future legal and regulatory framework for financial services. For each issue, the time we need to phase-in the new arrangements may differ. Some might be introduced very quickly, some might take longer. And the interim arrangements we rely upon are likely to be a matter of negotiation. But the purpose is clear: we will seek to avoid a disruptive cliff-edge, and we will do everything we can to phase in the new arrangements we require as Britain and the EU move towards our new partnership.'
So, the opening proposal is that Britain, having spent from June 2016 to March 2017 doing nothing other than consider what it might want to do, then spends two years in negotiations, which may or may not even result in an agreement, before putting anything agreed to not only the British parliament but also all the other EU parliaments, including the European parliament, who can veto the deal; then, after all that, it is proposed that there is an interim period before the vote of June 2016 is finally honoured. This interim period could be many years. In the meantime there are not only elections in Britain, but also across the EU and its 27 Member States; and, importantly, the 'vast contributions to the European Union every year' will continue, the flood of immigrants will continue to pour in, EU laws will continue to be enforced upon us, Britain's fishing grounds will continue to be plundered by foreign fishing vessels, and the balance of trade deficit will continue to balloon. And this is May's ideal! From this ideal position, as is the nature in negotiations, there will be compromises, fudges and sell outs. May's opening stance is a losing position – especially so given her desperation to reach a free trade deal with the EU.
Revealingly, May said:

'Trade is not a zero sum game: more of it makes us all more prosperous. Free trade between Britain and the European Union means more trade, and more trade means more jobs and more wealth creation. The erection of new barriers to trade, meanwhile, means the reverse: less trade, fewer jobs, lower growth.'

This is a simplistic presentation of 19th century free trade theories. It is not automatic that free trade increases more growth, jobs or wealth creation. In practice, there is a balance to be struck between free trade and a degree of protectionism. The question is does Britain have the right balance? The scale of, and reasons for, the continuing balance of trade deficits with both the EU and China proves that we do not. Britain cannot continue selling off assets and borrowing to fund its trade deficit, and needs a strategy to pay for imported goods by selling exported goods. Selling more British goods in the British home market is the key part of this long overdue correction.

Interestingly, May pointed out that a failure to reach a deal with the EU 'would risk exports from the EU to Britain worth around £290 billion every year'. A 20% tariff on those EU goods would raise £58billion a year – broadly sufficient to elminate the government spending deficit. Then there is China. In reality the introduction of tariffs would result in fewer imports and exports and more sales in the home market.

The policy should be one of implementing a strategy to bring our trade with the EU into balance (and the same policy should be applied towards China). Taking the deficit with the EU to be in the region of £80billion, then, by definition, British production will increase by £80billion to bridge that deficit. Either we will export £80billion more, or import £80billion less (because we are now buying British goods rather than foreign ones) or, more likely, a combination of both. Those who would now benefit from these extra sales would, in turn, having more to spend, buy more from others, who, in turn, would do likewise. Thus output will increase further (Keynes made much of this multiplier effect).

There is a precedent. In February 1932, after crashing out of the Gold Standard and in the face of tariffs being used by all other developed countries (with Britain clinging to its policy of unilateral free trade), Britain introduced the Import Duties Act which introduced a 10% tariff on all imported goods apart from those specifically exempted (such as raw materials). By April 1932, the tariff rate was doubled. The positive effect of this new policy was dramatic. Britain's output had fallen by 5.6% in 1931. Between 1931 and 1937, industrial production increased by 70%.  Britain's per capita incomes increased by 0.2% in 1932, by 2.5% in 1933, and by 6.3% in 1934.

A policy to bring the trade with the EU and China back into balance would not only eliminate the trade deficit, but also eliminate the government spending deficit, and would also boost growth and  increase living standards. Leaving the EU would mean ending the payments to the EU and free extra monies to put into the overstretched NHS, which is what was promised during the referendum campaign. Yet the May Government chooses not to do any of this.

Britain remains a member of the EU until it repeals the 1972 European Communities Act. It is this Act which makes the EU supreme and only repealing it will restore the sovereignty of the British Parliament. Triggering Article 50 does not get Britain out of the EU, and is a delying mechanism that puts the EU in charge, with Britain seeking permission to leave from the European Parliament and the 27 Member States. Currently Malta is taking a hard line (think about that). In any event, the first paragraph of Article 50 states: 'Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements'. Britain should repeal the 1972 Act at once and leave.

May concluded her speech by saying 'when future generations look back at this time, they will judge us not only by the decision that we made, but by what we made of that decision'. Indeed they will. Britain does not need a policy of Brexit Postponed, but a policy of Turbo Brexit (as has already been advanced by the English Rights Campaign and set out below):

The English Rights Campaign would regard the following points as central for maximizing the benefits of Brexit and the opportunities it allows. This might be termed Turbo Brexit:

1. A complete end to the annual payments to the EU. Any post-Brexit deal should exclude any further payments to the EU. The so-called Norway Model should be rejected. From the money saved, £100million per week should be allocated to the NHS. The sooner the EU payments cease, the sooner the extra funding for the NHS is available.

2. There should be a full restoration of British sovereignty. Neither the EU, nor any other international organization, should have any power over Britain's internal affairs. Britain's laws should be determined by Britain's parliament. Britain should withdraw from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights and repeal the so-called Human Rights Act.

3. Britain should regain full control over its territorial waters and those should be set at the international standard, with the fishing limit extended to 200 miles. Britain should have full control over its fishing policy and fish conservation.

4. There should be an end of free movement of people and Britain should take whatever measures are necessary to bring mass immigration to a complete end. The EU should have no say over who lives in Britain. Illegal immigrants and immigrant political extremists should be deported. This must necessitate withdrawing from the UN Convention on Refugees; help should be given to genuine refugees in their own or neighbouring countries. British citizenship should not be granted until someone has lived in Britain for at least 30 years and is someone of good standing.

5. Overseas Aid should be reduced to a minimum. The aim should be to reduce it by at least £10billion. Those who wish to give donations to overseas bodies and charities are of course free to do so with their own money.

6. Britain's trade policy should be one of balanced trade. Britain has a massive balance of trade deficit with the EU and also with China. Britain needs to adopt trade policies that will eliminate these trade deficits. If necessary, tariffs should be used. In addition, there should be measures to prevent further key British firms being taken over by foreign entities. Other countries protect their key industries and so should Britain.

7. There should be a determined de-Marxification programme to remove the ideology of political correctness from society. Those promoting political correctness should have their access to public monies cut. Political correctness should cease to be the basis of morality and patriotism should be quietly engendered.

8. Priority should be given to reducing the government spending deficit; ending the scandal of councils seizing pensioners’ homes if they are taken into care; and reintroducing a fully transferable married couples tax allowance. To raise money, in addition to the extra tax income from increased growth due to trade being brought back into balance, and the savings on overseas aid and payments to the EU, there should be the introduction of a Solidarity Tax on those who have thus far avoided the extra costs of the political correctness and immigration that they so loudly demand. All organizations bringing in immigrants should be charged the full cost of a house; there is no reason why taxpayers should fund a housebuilding programme to cater for the immigrants brought in to save wages and training costs for business and other organizations; let those organizations which do so well out of immigration pay to house those immigrants.

9. The House of Lords needs to be replaced to better reflect the views of ordinary people and to cull the collection of cronies with which the chamber has been stuffed since the expulsion of most of the hereditary peers; it has become and expensive Ponzi class gravy train and is dysfunctional. There should also be the introduction of an English parliament to give the English an equal footing in Britain. The powers devolved to the various national parliaments should be equalized with a proper federal structure.

10. There should be selective measures taken to tackle crony capitalism, self-aggrandising lawyers and dishonest bankers (including their agents). Monopoly abuse should be met with fines. Lawyers should no longer be allowed to manipulate the law to their own financial advantage (e.g. orchestrating allegations from foreigners against British troops, and exploiting divorce proceedings). It should be assumed that the wealth created during a marriage is split evenly in order to simplify, make fairer and minimize lawyers' fees. Small and medium sized businesses should have the law amended to alter the balance of power in their favour regarding banks. Bank criminality should be aggressively prosecuted.

Thursday, December 15, 2016

Western media lies about Syria exposed (Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett)

Thursday, December 01, 2016

A word to the criminal muslim migrants flooding Europe right now

"You aren't laughing anymore, are you?" - Donald Trump - Deplorables Remix

Saturday, November 26, 2016


'In a study of growth in Western economies since the war, from which he hoped to draw lessons for the U.K., [Nicholas] Kaldor argued that the rate of growth of a modern economy is fundamentally determined by the rate of growth of output per worker in manufacturing, and that this, in turn, is determined by the rate of growth of demand for manufactures. In these two straightforward propositions, Kaldor synthesised the central insights of the classical economists and of Keynes, and verified the peculiar role of manufacturing. He also made clear why productivity growth is a characteristic of manufacturing as a whole. As a particular manufacturing industry grows, its operations can be broken down into a number of specialist activities. This division of labour both increases output per worker in that industry and spills over into other industries. A new specialist toolmaker, for example, may as well provide tools for the motor trade as for textile machinery. So, in a modern industrial country, all sectors are closely linked to each other. One industry's output is another industry's input, and their destinies cannot be separated.
          Growth of demand for manufactures may come from growth either of the home or of the overseas market. In most countries it is the growth of the home market which is the major factor, for not only is the home market by far the dominant element in total demand – typically 80 per cent or more of the output of manufacturing industry is sold at home – but foreign markets are, by definition, less easy to manipulate. A country which relies heavily on export demand to maintain its rate of growth is likely to be dangerously exposed to the slings and arrows of world-market fortunes. So, although a high rate of growth of export demand can be a major stimulus, a high level of foreign trade is no guarantee of success. Of Britain's total domestic production from all industries, 18 per cent comprises exports of manufactures. The corresponding figure for Japan is only 9 per cent.
          … High growth of demand gives productivity growth, which, via price and non-price factors, gives competitive success, which in turn gives high growth of demand, which gives productivity, which gives competitiveness – and so on and so on. This is the principle of cumulative causation.
          The system can work in reverse too. Low growth of demand gives low productivity growth, which gives competitive failure, which gives low growth of demand, which gives low productivity growth … downhill all the way. A country which grows relatively slowly will see its relative position decline as others capture its markets at home and abroad. In the market system zero growth, however ecologically desirable, is impossible. For zero growth begets low productivity growth and so erodes the competitive position of industry until demands falls away completely and zero becomes negative: a recipe for clean air and human misery.
          When demand for manufactures ceases to grow, productivity may still rise as old factories are shut down – even though no new ones are built. Suppose, for example, that the whole of British industry were shut down apart from the Fawley oil refinery on Southampton Water where the value of the output of refined products per worker is enormous. At a stroke output per worker employed (and there wouldn't be many workers) would rise more rapidly than anywhere in the world. Then it would stop rising, for there would be no other factories left to close. Reducing the number of workers on out-of-date machines yields similarly limited productivity gains. This degenerate productivity growth occurs in most slumps and is just what has happened to British industry over the last couple of years, as large sections of British manufacturing have been closed. It is the swansong of a dying industry. Britain may be the best in the world at producing Rolls-Royces, but this will hardly be much good in the battle with Volkswagen, Renault and Datsun.
          It is one of the enduring fallacies of economics, shared by economists of left and right alike, that market economics are revitalised by a slump to emerge “leaner and fitter”. Lean certainly, fit perhaps – fit, and out of date. Reconstruction, which requires investment, takes place in a boom. It is the dynamic of growing economies that ensures true productivity growth. In the market economy the principle of cumulative causation ensures that success breeds success and failure breeds failure.'

– Lord Eatwell, as he now is, writing in 1982 in his book Whatever Happened to Britain?, in which he argued for a more protectionist trade policy.

Although the point made by Lord Eatwell may be sound, it should be recalled that 'Throughout the 1980s British manufacturing firms prioritised dividend payments in preference to R&D; with profits rising 6% a year, dividends rising by 12% a year, while investment rising by 2% a year' (see The Ponzi Class: Ponzi Economics, Globalization and Class Oppression in the 21st Century, chapter 8 The Monetarist Experiment, by Michael William – available from Amazon, Kindle and direct from CreateSpace). Manufacturing output in Britain continues to fall.

It is truly remarkable that in reporting the Autumn Statement from the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, while much has been said of the ballooning government debt and the continuing failure to reduce the government spending deficit, nothing has been said about the balance of trade deficit.