A quick take on this morning’s “State of the (European) Union”, speech

This was Barroso’s last SOTUS (State of the Union Speech) and he was introduced by Martin Shultz – the guy who intends to get his job!

The main thing that stood out was his continued false “optimism”, his continued demand for more EU, and his continued attempts at blaming everyone else for the problems in Europe.

“It is not true that Greece is a victim of European policies. Greece is the victim of the irresponsible behaviour of the governments of Greece” Barroso then added, predictably – “Europe is not the creator of the problems. Europe is the victim of the problems, and it is part of the solution”.

He denied saying last year that the “crisis was over” and this was underlined by Guy Verhofstaft, who said “the crisis wasn’t getting worse, because we have hit rock bottom”…(in the trading environment, when people talk of a bottom, very often others mention that they might find a hole)

Whilst more fiscal union was placed high on the agenda, Barroso also tried to appease those who are asking for a repatriation of powers. But somehow his comment “the EU should be big on big issues and small on small issues” left many people scratching their head as to what he meant.

He did mention work was needed to address the problem of having 25-million people unemployed across Europe “The current level of unemployment is economically unsustainable, politically untenable and socially unacceptable”. He added “Europe needs to avoid a jobless recovery”, (skating over the point that the euro-zone’s relentless austerity programmes are blamed by many for causing the unemployment crisis).

Barroso went on to say that “the people of Europe would vote on the EU’s success in next year’s elections”.

Not only is this completely untrue – as we are not given the option to close this organisation down – But it seemed a bit “rich” that a President who was NOT ELECTED by the European electorate, talks of the importance of getting a mandate from the people.

The response to his speech from many MEPs, especially those from southern Europe, pointed out that his optimism was greatly overdone and that he, and many of his buddies, had no idea of what was happening in the real world.

Cyprus’s MEP, Takis Hadjigeorgiou, also criticises Barroso’s optimism over the European economy. “He can only be so upbeat because he lives in a different Europe than the rest of us…In my country, where the decisions taken by the troika destroyed the economy, the commission is now associated with the economic crisis”.

Laurence Stassen of the Netherlands is blunter, challenging Barroso to take his message that ‘things are getting better’ onto the streets of Europe. “What planet are you on?” she asked.

On more topical issues, he discussed Ukraine’s entry to the EU, which will annoy the Russians, and Europe’s unified view on Syria (which is only unified at the politician level). Moreover, he appeared to slap himself on the back for the EU sending 1.5-billion of European tax-payers money to support Syrian’s, which many poor across Europe may not be too happy about.

Farage had a few words on the eventual collapse of the Euro, but sadly, he wasn’t his normal cut-throat self. He applauds Barroso’s consistent support for federalism — “you probably picked it up as a Maoist” (Barroso was a communist in his youth)…It’s been a good time for some people, Farage says, but it’s been “a disaster” for poor people.

Overall, it was a speech which was thoroughly predictable, which was more noted for the responses it earned, than its contents.

Advertisements

Why Syria must not be attacked by UK forces.

Ever since Tony Blair decided to go into Bosnia, the British government has embarked on numerous wars in foreign lands, and it is impossible to point to any single benefit for the UK.

It is well known that Tony Blair was George W Bush’s “pet poodle”, when it came to foreign invasions, and this ridiculous aim of attacking anywhere in the world in the name of “a war on terrorism” has not gone away.

I am finding it highly suspicious that William Hague, Cameron, Miliband and Blair, continue to promote the need for British military action in a country, which for all intensive purposes, has absolutely nothing to do with the UK…or any other Western country.

Assad is not a saint, and if his people chose to remove him: fair enough! But what has that got to do with the UK? On what legal basis do we have the right to “bomb” a foreign country, even if we do not approve of the actions of its leadership!

We screwed up before, when our politicians told us about a need to strike first, because of “Weapons of mass destruction”, until today, the weapons have never been found!

Now we are using the new excuse of “Chemical Weapons” when we have no absolutely zero proof of who used them.

I know lots of people rightly abhor the idea of any country using chemical weapons on its people, and I am one of them. But this war in Syria has been happening for 2 ½ years: during which time 100,000’s of people have been killed or injured and over a million Syrians have fled to the neighbouring countries. So I don’t really understand this moral argument which implies “it’s okay to kill with bullets and rockets, but not to kill with Chemicals!” – In my book killing is killing!

Syrian politics is not understood by most of us in the west, and the more we hear about what is happening and who is involved, the more evident it is that we do not have enough knowledge to pick sides – therefore it is wrong to do it!

We have to be honest with ourselves, this romantic idea of America and the UK acting as “Global Policemen”, coming over the hill at the last minute wearing white hats, is a bit absurd in the current global environment. And let’s also admit we have not been very successful in the Middle East, as we rarely apply the laws of engagement equally. – (As far as the USA and the UK are concerned, the Saudi’s walk on water!)

I will accept, that whilst the Cold war is over, the new global conflict is increasingly between the western democracies and Political Islam, but “bombing” another Islamic country is not going to do anything to address this problem nor reduce the ever increasing divide.

If we look at the problems in Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan or Pakistan, it is evidently obvious that whether the West send money or rockets, we never seem able to solve the problems in these countries, and, as in Afghanistan – where we have had troops for more years than the second and first world wars combined – we never leave any of these countries with any form of good-will for what we have done, or tried to do for the people.

Russia and China have the right idea: Let the people sort it out themselves and in the mean time we will try and bring people to the negotiating table. And I have to agree.

We all know that politicians do their jobs because they like power, and the wimpier our technocratic governments become, the more they like to flex their puny muscles. But flexing for the sake of flexing is crazy, and for a government to do it in such an open way, it must have some moral justification, and broad public support, which this attack on Syria doesn’t.

Europe and America are weak, because of our historic wealth and lowest common-denominator democracy. We have education, and we might like the freedom our societies still provide us, but nonetheless, our affluence has made us weak, in comparison to less prosperous societies.

Moreover, we cannot ignore that less-educated, or should I say differently educated people, do not look at life in the same “Fairy-tale” way as we do. Inequality and living in unfair societies is for them the norm.

In many Islamic countries, beheading and stoning is acceptable;, woman do not have rights, yet alone equal rights; and leaders rule is by the gun and intimidation, not the ballot box.

As a westerner, I do not like this type of society, and am strongly opposed to the imposition of “Sharia Law” in my own country. But, and it is a big but, “people get the government they deserve”, and I am afraid, in many Middle East countries, this also applies and we in the west will have to accept it and accommodate for it.

Military action in Syria will only strengthen the aims of the people which we today call “terrorists”. As soon as the first child or woman is killed by a western bomb, hundreds of young boys and girls will join a radical Muslim organisation and start to hate us, this is a fact!

Why do our governments seem to hate Assad so much?

The guy is obviously a tyrannical leader, but he is in control of a country in which, for years: Muslims, Christian’s and Jews have lived in relative peace. I know we have a deep dislike of those accused of being grotesque tryrants, but it is going to do nothing to further western aims, or make a more harmonious society in Syria, by removing a strong leader, Look at Egypt, Libya etc

Strong leadership is not wrong in itself – even if in Europe we don’t like it – Strong leadership is only wrong if it is bad! And then, it is up to the citizens of that country how they are going to change it! Surely, for those of us who believe in democracy, it is for the people to decide, not “foreigners!” And definitely not one of the worlds old global colonists!

Geographically and culturally, Syria is a Middle East problem, and needs to be solved by the peoples of the Middle East.

It is wrong for certain Middle East powers to bribe western politicians into doing their “dirty work”, and it is wrong for our governments to provide such help for financial promises – which can be the only reason our governments are getting involved, (just forget the spin our media is flooding us with!).

There is no moral reason for us to attack Syria, and as much as I condone the use of Chemical weapons, we should not be leading the charge on Assad, or indeed, as the EU suggests, provide military muscle to the fractured opposition.

It is painful for us to see women and children dying, just like it is painful to watch our loved ones suffering from a deadly disease. But we are not the doctors, we don’t have the cure, and if we continue to meddle in things we don’t understand, the chances are we will only succeed in making things worse.

Indeed, our risk is becoming “contaminated” by this conflict, and bringing it home to our own people.

No need to qualify…But!

Almost 30-years ago, when I was living in Africa, I met a man, who has since remained the person I consider not only my best friend, but also the guy I respect and trust the most.

We come from different cultures and different continents, and we have different political views on quite a few issues. Yet, most of the things I have learned, concerning many difficult to discuss subjects; such as race, religion, and what it is to be patriotic, I leant from my many serious chats, albeit over a few beers, with my friend.Image

Our friendship was forged in the days before “Political Correctness” became an issue, and during our various conversations, we used words that today would be completely “taboo”.

We never intentionally wished to offend each other and had to rely on our own morality, our appreciation of each other’s point of view, and our sense of humour, to overlook transgressions which occasionally occurred in the heat of the debate.

Yes, mistakes were sometimes made, and when I made them, I recall it hurt me realise I had inadvertently offended my friend, possibly more than he was actually offended. However, I also recall, because we are friends who can trusted each other, any transgressions made were quickly overlooked.

My friend, who is vastly more educated than me, has spent the last 25-years, dedicating his life to improving the situation in his country, fighting for justice and democracy, and working against the “crony-capitalism” which once plagued his country – and in this he has been extremely successful.

I, on the other-hand, have returned to greedy European life-style, and although less opinionated than I was in my youth (many of you won’t believe that!) I have chosen to join a “Patriotic” political party, who wants to take my country out of the EU and have chosen to make comment and enter into debates, regularly, in an effort to support of my party’s objectives.

Sadly, less intelligent people, mistake my patriotism for nationalism, i.e. they accuse me of hating foreigners instead of loving my own country – you see the difference?

Worst still, they mistake my lack of “political correctness” and regularly accuse me of being racist or sexist, of which I am neither. But hey, people have the right to say whatever they want! (Unless it is me: according to my critics!)

It is many years since I first sat under a mango tree with my friend and openly debated political issues, and I do miss our once regular “face-to-face” conversations.

Today, we have these wonderful things called internet and social media, on which everyone can voice their opinions – valid or not – to millions of people, and invariably criticise the opinions of others.  – And because of the way this media works, we can do it without any need to consider whether we are causing offence or not. People forget their moral obligation.

I am extremely lucky, because my friend taught me many years ago, that as long as my morality was sound, i.e. I did not intend to do anyone harm, or have preconceived prejudices against anyone, the freedom to speak out, debate and comment, (even if occasionally not completely “politically correct”), should be a freedom everyone can enjoy.

I also learnt from my friend the necessity to protect one’s own culture and country, and indeed, the value of belonging to a tribe and a family – Something which has always stuck with me.

And finally, I learnt that religion was a good thing – no matter what the religion was called – as long as people practiced the religion according to their holy book, and did not “use” their book to cause harm to others.

All these things were valuable lessons learnt from someone who in many ways was different to me, and yet, in so many other ways is very similar. He taught me that it is never about the differences, it is always about having respect and understanding!

Now, why am I writing this today?

ImageSomeone in UKIP has used a term which, before “Political correctness” was in general use. And instead of people debating the issue he was discussing, they focused on his terminology, which many of his opponents have high-lighted and used, to accuse him, and other members of my party of being racist!

To be honest, I don’t know what the guy’s views are on racism, I don’t know him personally, but in my opinion, the term used was extremely mild, if it was racist at all.

What I do know, is it is the kind of term me and my friend might have used in our debates, and definitely a term we would have used when telling each other jokes – and we would have occasionally used terms which are considered today a lot worse.

Out of common decency and respect, we would never use certain derogatory terms, and I shudder today when I hear certain words used.

However, if, as was often the case and still is, he called me a “honky” or something similar, I would consider that a term of endearment, and why shouldn’t I – in the real world this kind of banter goes on between trusted friends and colleagues all the time.

Yesterday, I wrote in defence of the foolishly used “Bongo-Bongo” statement, because certain sectors of the UK press made a big issue out of it. I can appreciate that a politician saying such a thing, is foolish, especially in “politically correct” UK. But the way the press “jumped all over this statement repeating it endlessly on our televisions, making it a massively divisive and racial issue: for me, because of my personal experience, seemed unjustifiably wrong and quite pathetic!

I admit I don’t have much time for this PC stuff, and whether you agree or not, yesterdays media coverage was a clear indication that, when it gets to a stage when “political correctness” – like anything else – is used by fanatics for political gain, and use it to create division, then it is “no longer fit for purpose”.

We can argue about the abstracts of politics, we can argue the facts of economics, but the media have a responsibility not to create further division in our multi-cultural society, especially over a foolish or inappropriate term used in a hour-long statement. This does nobody any favours!

This morning, following my comments, my friend sent me greetings from “Bongo-Bongo Land”, my response was to invite him to visit his favourite “Honky” … I do hope he accepts!

The media would have a field day reading our communications.

TBH I don’t know if he is a little “pissed off” with what I wrote, I do know he thinks the guy at UKIP was foolish, and also as my mate has socialist leanings, he doesn’t like UKIP because of what he reads about the party…

But I do know, that whatever is said, we both know and trust each other’s morality, so if he agrees with me or not, it will not change or affect our affection and respect for each other, and at the end of the day,  isn’t that what it’s all about!

Many of my critic’s would not write such a personal observation or blog, because they are curtailed by a potential lack in their own morality or because they fear that what they say, might be misconstrued and lead to them getting attacked publically.

I have no such fears. I know what I believe in, people may disagree, but I know where I morally stand.

Moreover, unlike many of my critics, I do not attack individuals, but I am willing to address difficult issues, because no subject should be taboo. (Okay, perhaps I do attack a few EU officials, but they are fair game!)

So, providing you are happy with your own moral values, you make an effort to not personally offend anyone, and you are “as honest with yourself as possible”, I see no problem with a person putting their opinion across … and the occasional bit of Political incorrectness, just adds colour to the argument!

UKIP leaders – wrongly – fail to support “non-Politically Correct” Bloom!

Following a comment from UKIPs Godfrey Bloom, in which he complained about aid money going “Bongo-Bongo” land, the Guardian and the rest of the “Politically Correct” Brigade have launched a widely publicised personal assault on him for using the term “Bongo-Bongo!”.

Personally, because I was born in a time before “Political Correctness” I have never considered this term extremely derogatory, as it doesn’t apply to anyone, although I can understand some “very insecure” people might do.

Popular media have used the term “Bongo-Bongo land” for decades:

It conjures up a picture of a land where the people dress not dissimilar from traditional Zulu’s, and dance to the beat of African drums… Beyond that, it also implies a country which is ruled by an all-powerful tribal chief …not much different from a central American “Banana Republic” where they are ruled by greedy dictators.

Bongo-Bongo may be a bit “colonial” for some taste’s, but at the end of the day, this is a descriptive term illustrating an old-fashioned idea of Africa: An idea which has been universally spread by various comics, books and TV shows, such as Tarzan, and even Tom and Jerry, as well as many other popular Hollywood films, (King-Kong, Zulu, etc etc..)

Back in 1948, Danny Kaye and the Andrew sisters, made a song about Bongo Bongo, and one of the most popular and funny cinema adverts in the 1970s, (albeit for “non-politically correct” cigarettes), was based in Mbongoland

Um Bongo, was also the name of a very popular soft drink in the 1990s… and to my knowledge no African person has ever complained!

Before “political correctness” i.e. before those idiots who ran “New Labour” got into power, various terms were widely used. and although I admit curtailing the use of some “unreasonable and offensive” terms, is fair enough. However, Political correctness is now severely affecting our basic right to use Free speech.

Poiltical correctness is a disease which is eradicating our right to speak “normally”, and for those of us who are a little older, it is hard not to use words which were generally acceptable in our youth.

The term “Bongo-Bongo land” is not a personal attack on anyone or any country, and it is almost comical that Labour politicians, and the socialist media, would pick-up on the use of this term, and succeed in making it a massive political issue.

Godfrey Bloom is no fan of “politically correctness”, he is an old-fashioned Yorkshire man, who uses basic terms to tell it as he sees it, and in all fairness, what he said in his speech, concerning foreign aid, is not far from the truth:

We cannot, as an “almost bankrupt” country, or indeed continent, continue to give massive amounts of “unaccounted for” aide, to commodity-rich countries, when we ALL know certain leaders of these countries are abusing the home-grown wealth … or abusing the money we send as aid, by increasing the size of their oppressive military.

(An amazing example of this misuse of funds was made evident by the President of Gabon, a certain President “Ali Bongo”, who in 2010 bought a 100-million euro house in Paris, (whilst his country men were living on less than 12 euro a day!))

I noted that, whilst there is much media criticism of Godfrey Bloom’s attack on a “non-existent” country, no one complained or wishes to debate his attacks on “real” countries, such as Pakistan and Argentina.

It would appear that arguing against the “economic reality” and the “facts” he stated in his hour long speech, was not possible – So, once again, Anti-UKIP people are attacking the man, not the issue.

However, what upset me the most was the way that the socialist media; the Guardian and SKY TV, for the first time, were able to set the agenda for UKIP, and sucked our leadership into criticising “Godders”, when they should have been supporting him and making a better “fist” of returning Foreign Aid to the centre of the argument.

Nigel Farage is “allegedly”, a bit embarrassed about this comment, and has asked Bloom not to repeat the term. But I am sure this is not because of any serious objection to what was said, but probably because he, Farage, criticised an Italian’s politicians use of the term, and now finds its use, by a senior party official, a little awkward.

The media look for any excuse to play the “racist” card, in their effort to stop UKIP’s rise in popularity, And sadly, for some “unfathomable” reason, Nigel and Party Chairman, Steve Crowther decided to make a knee-jerk decision on this minor issue.

In my opinion, they should have attacked the press and made a better effort to backed “Godders” (Seeing Crowther “bowing down” to Sky TVs, Kate Burley, was a low point of my year!)

It is a well known fact that, UKIP wants “multi-cultural” Britain to leave what is evidently; a mainly, “white-run” EU.

Moreover, UKIP strongly believe “Britain would be better-off leaving the EU and strengthening our trading links with our Commonwealth partners, for “mutual gain””.

How on earth can this be considered a racist policy or Party?

There are simply no reasonable grounds to continually accuse UKIP of being a “nationalist” or “racist” party. It is a party that is simply anti-EU and very patriotic. More to the point, UKIP can proudly boast of having numerous members and candidates who can from all ethnic and religious backgrounds!

This is what Crowther “should have stuck” down Kate Burley’s throat!

The socialists won a small victory today, because in reality, the media claims did not deserve an answer, yet alone an apology.

Are people really concerned about Godfrey Blooms political correctness? or are they rightly concerned about what happens to the €1-billion a month that goes out in foreign aid, and is “never accounted for?”

In my view, people are becoming increasingly annoyed with this constant focus on being “politically correct”. Moreover, I do believe that Godfrey Bloom’s comments might have attracted more people to the party: There are a lot of intelligent people yet to join, who are concerned about the “real” issues, and are becoming increasingly frustrated by all this worthless, socialist, PC bullshit!

Nigel Farage recently repeated that “UKIP is not a party which favours Political correctness”…so let’s keep it that way!

We hold the economic, political and moral high-ground over the LibLabCon’s. Not just because we always proven correct on the tough issues. But also because we dare to speak the truth to the people in a way they understand and appreciate

We stumbled today, but I am sure it wont happen again..,

A Good Team For Povoa de Varzim!

My main political interest lays within what’s happening in the UK, and looking at the macro picture; such as the economic mess in peripheral European countries.

However, I do believe that there are still a lot of things which can be done, at the “local level” to help small towns and the businesses and people in these towns, to grow and thrive. Providing we find the right people – irrespective of political allegiance – to do the jobs necessary!

Take my small town, Povoa de Varzim, in the north of Portugal, as an example.

Here we have an amazing seaside resort, one of the best golf courses outside of the Algarve, a Casino, beautiful and productive countryside; its 15 minutes from an international airport and just a short train ride into the heart of Porto. It is a great place to live, work and visit!

Yet for years the Town Hall acts as if no one wants to come here. It is rarely promoted to foreign visitors, some of the poor developments stink of crony-capitalism, and instead of Portuguese people enjoying the benefits that this town should be offering, bad planning and bad promotion is sucking the life blood out of the town.

This inefficiency is not helping anyone locally – especially in the tough times Portugal is going through – and whilst the national politics is still undoubtedly a mess, local people now appreciate that it is time to change the way things are done in Povoa de Varzim.

In September, we have elections in Povoa de Varzim for a new Mayor, and as the race heats up, one group of people are doing everything they can to get into office, so they can make the necessary changes the county is crying-out for.

ImageThe local candidate for Mayor, Jorge Quintas Serrano, is not a “crony-politician”, who goes around offering certain people deals in return for their support; he does not tell people how wonderful he is, nor does he make false promises to the party faithful and electorate about what he is going to do for the town.

He is a team player, who prefers to stand on a platform with his whole team: a young dynamic team of people, with diversified interests and expertise, which – when elected – will have ample ability and depth to attack Povoa de Varzim’s various problems head on.

He will move the Town Hall away from a culture of “crony-ism”, something which has plagued to town for decades, and he will use his teams, expertise, dedication, and integrity, to do the right thing.

They have a simple aim to put Povoa de Varzim on the map, bringing pride back to its citizens, and attract foreign visitors and investors. And they want to do it in a way that everyone benefits! A simply aim, but lots of hard work!

In today’s political world of spin and false promises, what I like about Jorge and his team, is that there are no egos, no self-interest; i.e. they are not interested in how much they can make from Povoa de Varzim.

The whole team has a genuine desire to do what is truly best for the whole county.

I have been to a few of their gatherings, and for a small team, their knowledge and expertise in a broad range of pertinent subjects is really impressive.

Jorge comes from a well-known, long-established, local industrialist family, yet he chose to work outside the family business and join Deloitte as an accountant, and has always dedicated himself to influence the town for the good. Amongst those I have met in his team, the diversity was impressive, not only the normal economists and lawyers, but it includes bankers, farmers, people from the fishing community and medical experts.

But most importantly, whilst they are focused on bringing wealth and security back to the people of Povoa de Varzim through improved commercial activity, his No. 2 is a woman who has dedicated much of her life running a local charity, supporting those young people in Povoa de Varzim who have needed the most help; someone with a proven track-record of “working with the minimum amount of money to do the maximum amount of good – for others”!

ImageAs I said earlier, this team includes the perfect ingredients to not only make Povoa de Varzim a more dynamic and prosperous town, it is a team which is showing itself to have the interests of others in their hearts. A team that are genuinely willing to work hard and sacrifice their own time for the betterment of their community.

It is obvious that all candidates in the upcoming elections will talk of how good they are going to be for Povoa de Varzim, and will use every argument and tactic to get themselves elected. But what were interesting were my conversations with local people, especially those who have traditionally voted for other candidates and parties.

Everyone in Povoa de Varzim knows that things have to improve, and want a massive change in the Town Hall, and obviously many want their own candidate or party to win. But during my conversations I have heard no one criticise this team led by Jorge Quintas Serrano.

Many have said it is an interesting team, a strong team, and even those who have said they cannot support it because of their national political affiliations, are extremely interested to see how successful this team will be – because many local residents do believe – if he is elected – Jorge and his team will be a positive change for the county.

In my opinion, if this is what your opponents say about you, then you must be doing the right thing!

Make no mistake, the road ahead is going to be very difficult for all Portuguese, and Povoa de Varzim will be no exception.

But if the local people look beyond the political situation at the national level, they will realise that to get the town moving in the right direction, the Town Hall needs a lot of fresh new blood.

It needs a young dynamic team of local people who will be around a long time and can steer Povoa de Varzim, through the rough waters ahead.

The team Jorge Quintas Serrano has put together is a team which is ideally suited for that job, and it is a team which is young enough and fit enough to make things work.

As a foreigner, I do not get involved in local or national politics, but as a resident of this potentially great town, it is in my interest to know what is going on and have an interest in the future direction of my adopted home…

I am sure that if people look at the facts, look at what the Town needs, and look at the strength, focus and integrity of this Candidate and this team, and vote it into office at the next election, Povoa de Varzim will have a bright future ahead, and irrespectively of the direction the country takes.

The truth about the Thatcher years!

I saw people posting anti-Thatcher songs by the singer Morrissey, who entertains – but is undoubtedly “morally challenged”; I have read articles by Russell Brand; who is known not for his intellect, but for his insulting behaviour and the free use of his “dick” on young starlets; And I watched a “disgraceful” performance by Glenda Jackson: a woman who became a Millionaire-actress, living in Hollywood during the Thatcher years, whose venomous comments on Lady Thatcher – on a day chosen for making tribute to our only female Prime minister – were completely inappropriate.

And there are a host of other “entertainers” who made a lot of money out of attacking Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s who today are making comments to our young people. Sadly, much of it is untrue or half-truths!

I think, this lying by popular and influential “celebrities” on political issues is dangerous and irresponsible.

So I would like to put the record straight – albeit from my perspective as a Thatcherite and a person who was a young man during the Thatcher years. Unlike many “celebrities”, I didn’t get paid for telling jokes or writing songs about Thatcher, I worked in the world of economics and remembers very well what life was like before and after she came to power.

I hope that once certain “myths” are dispelled, hopefully our younger citizens can make up their own minds – based more on the facts than on celebrity “spin”!

I will start with Trade Unions and explain how damaging these have been for the British society.

During the Second World War, Durham coal miners were “excused military duty”. Yet whilst many other brave-men were dying, fighting for their country, these miners went on strike for more money.

Under Labour, from 1945 to 1979, the number of miners in the UK dropped from 750,000 to 220,000, mainly because continually higher “labour” costs made it more economical to import coal from other countries.

Mining in the UK, like the Steel industry and many others, was a nationalised industry. And the high salaries paid to these workers cost the country billions, and made power so expensive in the UK, that many of our factories became uncompetitive, costing massive job losses in the wealth creating private industry.

In 1980, the nationalised Steel Industry, which is heavily reliant on coal, was losing £580 million a year, it was in £5-billion worth of debt (which the tax-payer lost) and yet, the Steel workers went on strike for a 20% increase in salary. This is why the industry collapsed.

Nationalised industries were everywhere; the government (or the tax-payer) even owned removal companies and hotels. Most of which were losing money – tax-payers money!

We used to have a massive dock-workers industry – which my own family was part of – but continual strikes, caused wide-scale shortages and disruptions. Ultimately, this industrial action led to the wide-use of containers, and eventually the loss of thousands of dock-workers jobs.

By 1979, the power of undemocratic Union’s, had brought down both the Heath and the Callaghan governments, and as I mentioned in a previous article, this had caused the country to go bankrupt.

These are but a few examples of what was really happening in the UK, BEFORE Thatcher came to power: Examples which many young socialists didn’t experience, and many older socialists “choose” to ignore.

Another popular cultural myth our younger generations should know…

Whilst most Punk Rockers will claim to hate Maggie and what she did to the UK, Punk Rock was before Margaret Thatcher. Real Punks, i.e. The Sex Pistols, Souxsie and the Banshee’s, and Billy Idol, were from 1972 to 1977.

After this time, “Punk Rock” got “hi-jacked” by capitalist producers and the Media, who chose to attack Thatcher, when she became “the establishment”. (Unlike those claiming different, I was a teenager and a big fan during this period, so its first-hand knowledge). Sid Vicious joined The Sex Pistols in 1977, and died in ’79; before Thatcher came to power.

What is important about this cultural reference is that “Punk Rock” came out of despair, despair the country was in, BEFORE Thatcher.

It was big business who attacked Thatcher when she got into power. Media nd Entertainment people attacked her to make money for themselves, and that is why younger people are fooled into thinking “it was all Maggie’s Fault”..It wasn’t, but lots of people in entertainment made a lot of money out of selling these lies to the young!

Another Myth I can “burst”, is about Thatcher’s creation of “YUPPIES”. (Young, Upwardly-mobile, professionals)

I first heard this term in the Early 1980’s. And on hearing what it meant, I realised I had been a “Yuppie” since 1974!

Having left school with just one “O-Level”, in Statistics, I somehow got a job in an investment bank, Merrill Lynch: The World’s biggest Broker!

In all honesty, when I went to the interview I knew absolutely nothing about stock markets, foreign exchange or, which is very strange today, I had never heard the use of the word “commodities”. The phrase “Capital Markets” had not been coined at that time.

Anyway, after a few years in this business, I – a young “Cockney” boy – was mixing with people making millions, and working with people making 1000’s of pounds every month (a lot of money back then). And by 1979, I was making a very good income, working – in all honesty – about 3 or 4 hours a day!

But there is more to the story than that.

I was one of the very few “uneducated” people working in this business, it was generally considered a “closed-shop”, i.e. most of the guys I worked with had good educations and came from a “professional” family back-ground: bankers, lawyers, doctors.

After Maggie came to power, the doors on this business were opened to people with “ability”. The closed-shop or “Old-boy” networks were broken, and I witnessed, literally thousands of people enter the business from various backgrounds. Some of who made fortunes!

I know, because I was there, on the inside: under Thatcher, class structures were broken down. People got opportunity on “merit” – not because of who their parents were.

Therefore, Maggie destroyed “class-privilege”, she didn’t create it!

Another contentious issue is housing. And I hear lots of people claiming Maggie stopped building council houses.

Firstly, anyone who claims home ownership is wrong is lying to themselves. Most of our personal wealth is tied up in the homes we own and cherish.

Under Maggie, home ownership increased from 50% to over 70%. And many people have benefited greatly from being able to buy their first property, at a discount price, due to Thatcher.

But what they fail to appreciate, is that under Thatcher government 80/81, spending on council property represented 5.9% of all government spending, whilst under Tony Blair’s labour government, this reach a low of 1.3% in 1999/2000 (and only stood at 2.7% in 2008/09)… These figures reveal clearly the lies being retold by socialist “Thatcher haters!”.

The greatest error during the “Thatcher years”, was the introduction of the Poll-tax, which caused untold civil-unrest across the country and was eventually changed.

As a “single-occupier” of a house, I was slightly better-off when this tax was introduced, however, many did suffer, and that is why it was changed.

But today, too many are claiming “Maggie created” this massive problem…when in actual fact, the rate of Poll-tax was set by local governments: and the majority of local governments who increased the rate, to a level where it did untold damage, were Labour run councils.

And I will make another observation on the Poll-tax which many choose to ignore.

In the 1970s, the UK experienced a massive influx of immigrants. It was still a very racialist society at its core, and a lot of people, especially those living in areas where immigrants settled, made claims that “it was unfair that “the house next-door was paying the same rates, but had 5-immigrants per bedroom!”.

Rightly or wrongly, this was very much the view of many people, and the poll-tax, i.e. taxing houses based on the number of occupants, was a way of addressing many people’s views on “what was fair or not”, at the time.

Looking back on this today, especially in “multi-cultural” Britain, is difficult to admit this view existed – but none of us who were there, cannot claim this was not the widely held view at the time!

There can be no question that during the early years of her government, life for the average UK citizen was difficult. But we had to pay off our national debts, and she had to “wrestle” power back from the “undemocratic” trade unions – if she hadn’t democracy would have been lost!

Personally, I am upset at our joining of the Common Market, but that is because of what it has become today. At the time Margaret Thatcher joined, it was a trading block – indeed she fought “tooth and nail” to stop this obscene EU becoming the “political” power over British law it is today. And let is not forget, Thatcher negotiated a rebate from the EU which saved British tax-payers £75-billion. Every Prime Minister since, especially Tony Blair, has conceded to give more of our Tax-money to the EU, and conceded more Westminster power to Brussels.

I will concede that not everything Thatcher did was perfect, she made mistakes and errors, and during here period in office, not everyone benefited. But our young need to understand the truth and not the “spin” about the Thatcher years – not what some group of millionaire, “know-nothing”, champagne-socialists, celebrities, want to claim.

As a final note, everything I have stated in this article are checkable facts, they are written with my bias, as I am attempting to put the record straight, but everything mentioned is true.

I will finish on the first headline which made Maggie famous…

”Mrs Thatcher: the Milk-Snatcher!”

Margaret Thatcher was not responsible for this cut in providing “free-milk at schools”, it was a change introduced in 1970, by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Iain Macleod, who died the same year. (his budget was passed 11-days after his death, by Ted Heaths government)… As the newly appointed Minister of education, Mrs Thatcher had to enforce this law – she didn’t create it!

Still, it was a great headline, one I wish I had written!

People may argue about my views on Thatcher…but I challenge them to argue with the facts I have written in this article.

A Response to disrespectful “Leftard’s”!

Baroness Margaret Thatcher. A personal view of a “GREAT” Britain!

The death of Britain’s greatest “peace-time” Prime Minister has been marked all around the world. Leaders from both the left and the right of the political spectrum have shown “massive respect and admiration” for the Baroness.

However, in the UK we have seen ignorant, young socialists, celebrating Thatcher’s maggie1death, which for me, is totally beyond comprehension. Was she not human? Is she not a mother and Grandmother?

The ignorance of young British “Leftards”, (and indeed, of those who are old enough to know better) was clearly exposed yesterday, and as usual, it came from those so-called “respectful, equality-loving, and tax-sucking”, socialists.

Anyone who can remember the UK in the 1970s – and the majority of these idiots cannot – would find it hard not to have some respect and admiration for what Thatcher achieved for her nation.

When Thatcher came to power, Trade Unions had taken over the UK, the country was on its knees, and the Labour Party had been forced to go to the IMF to borrow money, just to keep the country going.

There were power and water shortages; rubbish was not being collected; and many people were forced to work a 3-day week: Britain was, in the 70s, called “the sick-man of Europe!”

Britain was in a similar financial situation to what Portugal is suffering today!

The successive, male-dominated, and weak governments of: Wilson, Heath, and Callaghan, could do nothing to control the Unions, and because of this, the outlook for the country was extremely bleak.

Then, out of the blue, along came this woman: a Methodist grocer’s daughter from Grantham. Who took on her own party, and the nation, and turned the country around.

She broke the power of the Unions, she paid off the nations debts and she created a country where business flourished and people – through hard work – could become wealthy, irrespective of background.

Obviously, to achieve this, she upset a lot of people. Unionists didn’t like her, her own party didn’t like her breaking the “old-boy” network, and the belt-tightening she inflicted on many, obviously didn’t help her to become too popular. But, nonetheless, she doggedly stuck to her goals, and eventually the country became all the better for it.

Beyond the country’s borders, she defended the UK and its sovereignty. She was never friends with Chancellor Kohl or President Mitterrand, (who wanted the UK to become part of the Euro-zone), but she did believe in Europe – or at least the idea of a European Common Market – as long as it didn’t challenge the authority of elected sovereign governments.

thatcher1She survived assassination attempts by the IRA, she defended the Falkland Islands from Argentinian Invaders, and through her diplomatic prowess, brought America and Russia together: allowing for an end to the Cold-War, and a re-unification of Germany.

Not all of her actions were popular, and the introduction of a “poll-tax” is considered to have been a grave error, but this mistake only proves the woman was human.

As she stated herself, when she finally left office after 11 years, “I leave No.10 knowing the country is in a far better place than it was when I arrived”. And this was so obviously true.

The media claim Thatcher had been an extremely “divisive” Prime Minister. What they mean is she was right and those against her – who were predominantly wrong – she simply ignored, and because of this, they didn’t like her.

At the end of her days, Thatcher suffered dementia after losing her husband Denis. But she was always respected by her peers, Every one of her successors have inviting her back to No.10 and all have openly testified that “for the benefit of the country” Thatcher had always been “very supportive” of them whilst in office.

British people either like or hate Margaret Thatcher, but around the world she is broadly respected.

Amazingly a small minority of ignorant socialists in the UK, including the evil socialist media: such as the BBC, The Mirror, and the Guardian, are celebrating her death and attempting to throw shit at her phenomenal achievements.

It goes without saying, that none of Thatcher’s critic’s have done anything for their country. So like the proverbial “empty drum”, all they are doing is just making a loud and annoying, noise.

When watching or reading the media, people would be well advised to realise that we live in a society where we celebrate “celebrity” and scorn achievement, and that, journalists and entertainers get paid – or receive other benefits – for giving opinion to the public. Indeed these people will say any outlandish rubbish to get paid, because unlike Thatcher, they produce absolutely no wealth, except for themselves.

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and the other socialist media are giving a platform for these “know-nothing” celebrities to spout ignorant rubbish about the Thatcher years, and the young members of the general public are being misinformed.bbcsocialists

Too much rubbish has been said about Margaret Thatcher over the past 2-days. Especially when the BBC ignorantly claim its reports, will: explain the truth about “what Thatcher did for the country”, or “what Thatcher’s legacy “really” is”.

Sadly, their reports are far from true and full of propaganda and biased socialist shit.

The real truth about Thatcher is:

Thatcher put people back to work, Thatcher paid off the UK’s debts, Thatcher gave the UK some respect on the global stage, Thatcher helped destroy communism. Thatcher permitted millions of Brit’s to own their own homes, establish their own businesses and – through removing government interference and responsibility – allowed people the freedom to pursue their own dreams.

Thatcher was a libertarian. But when she came to power, she had to make harsh decisions, because the country was in debt, and she knew: without the country paying off its debts, the UK could never be free.

Of course, lazy socialist Brit’s didn’t like Austerity and having to pay the costs. However, you just need to look around Europe today, and you can see that Thatcher was right!

Moreover, it is evidently obvious, that the further people move away from “Thatcher-ism”, the worse every one’s life becomes.

I remember the UK before Thatcherism, it wasn’t good…and it is not too good today, either.

So how come so many people are complaining about what she did.

They are either ill-informed or ignorant, or they just refuse to understand that; without Thatcher, life has slowly become worse.

reaganWe know Americans and Russians are happy the Cold-War is over. Also that and all East European countries – prosperous or not – are happy to be “free” in their own country. This happiness is largely due to Margaret Thatcher’s massive role in helping to destroy communism.

Today her economic influence can be seen all around the world, where free “sovereign” countries are prospering through following the lessons of “Thatcherism”. (And those who aren’t are not!)

It was Thatcher that made “personal freedom and the assumption of responsibility” valuable. And it is probably because of this, that “ignorant socialists” hate her so much…

Of course, as a “Thatcherite”, her passing is a sad loss for me.thatchers family

But Thatcher was also a mother and a Grand-mother.

I believe her family deserve a far better tribute than that being offered by the “Champagne swilling” media.

As for the disgraceful reaction coming from ignorant socialist “plebs and chav’s”. That says much more about them, than it says about the “Blessed” Margaret!

RIP Maggie.