Life's tragedy is that we get old too soon, and wise too late- Benjamin Franklin






UKIP: Change of Approach

Saying no would be wrong, but then so would me saying yes. UKIP have no doubt risen from the outside racist party David Cameron claimed they were 6 years ago. But to say that they were a leading party for the election would be a step too far, in my opinion.

Well, its safe to say that UKIP have stolen the headlines this week. To have a party conference and get such a high level of popularity shows you mean business, but also shows that Labour have been humiliated, and the Conservatives are in hot water.

With the General Election next year, UKIP are clearly going out guns blazing with announcements such as reducing income tax from 40p to 35p if you earn up to £55,000 a year. Or that you'll now have to pay if you earn £13,500 a year, sounds all splendid and wonderful, doesn't it? Well the gain of 2 Conservative MP's clearly justifies this, does it?

Nigel Farage: Who will be laughing in office in 2015?

 They have gained a lot of influence, emphasised in their succes in the EU Parliament election, yet their policies have been strongly based on immigration and Britain's stance in the EU. So much so, that it is only now (8 months before the General Election) that they start showing the country their "other" policies and ideologies.

 It seems too little, too late compared to other parties, such as the Conservatives, who have been justifying their financial role in the aftermath of the triple dip recession. The same could be said for Labour, who have looked for reforms in welfare, particularly in the NHS. So UKIP have left themselves standing on one leg after the EU Parliamentary elections, in my opinion. Gone are the days of haggling other parties in hope of gaining cheap votes, but hopefully justify strong ideologies, with strong policies. But they won't have the time to gain much more influence before the General Election, meaning they won't get into Downing Street... Yet.






Jordan Ifield

We promise according to our hopes, and perform according to our fears.
 -François VI de la Rochefoucault

Redemption Attempt-Labour

Party conferences everyone! Take your seat, gather your note pads and pencils for the game-show where you pick holes in promises across the country. First round, Labour. 

Now, let me get started here. I know, in theory, it sounds like a Utopian wonderland, where the public get a better welfare system, and don't have to directly pay for it. However, as far as I can see, this has been done before, and in the long term, ruined Britain. Britain 1997, Labour gain office, promising a new welfare state and lower taxes. Britain 2008, in triple dip recession, under Labour. My problem is, where is the money going to come from? If it's not coming from the public, where is it coming from? Tourism? Immigration? Where? 

Ed Miliband Party Conference: the size of the problem
he thinks he has

Whilst it has already passed, having been from the 21st to the 24th of September, I just wanted to summarize my personal opinion of what happened. Labour have shot themselves in the foot. Nearly 5 years since the last general election, and Labour have already seemed to have forgotten why they were thrown out of power in the first place, economics. Having been the party to have led Britain into a triple dip recession in 2008, the Tories appropriately adjusted their policies to cutting down financial deficit and debt. However, when the British economy is just growing again, and stable, Labour decide that giving the NHS £2.5 billion, along with caps on taxes is a good idea. 

One of my main concerns for the Labour party, is there constant change of policies to counter UKIP. It's been a recurring thing for many parties, with another Tory MP switching sides as an example. But, immigration into the UK has been a key area that Labour were keen to highlight at the party conference, with "stronger border checks" and "reduce low skilled immigrants into the country" being a main change if Labour came to power. Bonus round: can anyone find anything about what they're actually changing. It's very vague to say the least, and even my anti-UKIP stance will know that they have a better manifesto than that. "Stronger border checks", how? Are we increasing the numbers of security and borders or only allowing a certain amount of people in per month? It's vague enough for me to think, Labour don't know what they're doing themselves.

So, with Labour having (in my opinion) justifying why they shouldn't be in office, can the Conservatives fight back and show the UK they actually politics (instead of sending jets to bomb ISIS). I guess we'll find out on the 1st of September...

Jordan Ifield

We will all, someday, experience death, and become obsolete as a dead leaf falling from a tree, crushed by passersby to ashes underlying the earth.- Kim Elizabeth

Fall from Grace

First things first, whilst I wanted the No party to win, the way that they did it may have annoyed the Scots enough to want a re-vote. At first everything was fine, and inevitable. For one, Alex Salmond went off in a fashion not unlike a young boy caught stealing jam. Giving a resolute "thanks, but no thanks" to his fellow supporters, he left his Deputy First Minister to pick up all the pieces after the result, by leaving her at the counting stations whilst he went home. Nice guy.

Alex Salmond, the phrase "the higher you are, the harder you fall" really didn't occur to you, did it? September 18th 2014, voting begins, and high optimisms run around the Yes and No camps... Until...
Disaster, whilst the Yes party were getting a lot of votes, a majority was almost impossible, with the No party getting a win in every  county, but 4... 28-4... Oh dear

Sulking Salmond: How not to be a good sportsman

Whilst the referendum was not based around how many counties chose yes or no, it did show a substantial amount of people opposed independence, more importantly, a majority was being formed for the No party. So when the inevitable "NO" rang out through thousands of microphones everywhere, there was only going to collateral damage...


Not only that, but (as I predicted!), violence ensued. In Glasgow especially, who voted yes, violent divides were apparent, as Police had to separate the protesters in fear of public disorder. Which wasn't as bad the Northern Irish, but in my opinion is still disgusting, the result is final, you can't go back, so why cause so many problems for nothing?

However, can blame his bad behaviour, on the nature of the No parties win, or rather the reaction of it. David Cameron did the right thing, (the best he could do in his situation) and sympathize with Salmond and the yes party, but start boasting about re-forms and further devolution. What he probably wasn't expecting, was to get stabbed in the back. Good old friend and Labour leader Ed Miliband decided that the best way of justifying independence, is to go back on your plans and tell Cameron to slow down. Whilst this too may be justified due to the feat of the task, it doesn't fall me. With the general elections over the hill, Miliband is concerned Cameron will win favour with the scots, where a large chunk of Labour support is... If this is polluted, as Miliband would say, by the Conservatives, Labour's chances of winning the General Election will be severely damaged. But whilst it gives the "effing torries" a kick, Miliband has just undermined the no party (which he supports), and judging by the lack of response from Cameron, Miliband has just Britain in the foot.

Thank god then that the SNP, half shot themselves in the foot too. With momentum for them at an all time low, nothing it seemed, could be worse. Step in Alex Salmond. Resigning from his position as First Minister in effect of November, Cameron was left with a sigh of relief that Miliband hadn't left too much damage. But as always there is more to come, by May 2015, we'll know...

Jordan Ifield (thank you Scotland, better together)

In my opinion, Scotland has placed itself on a tightrope, vote yes and you fall off one way, vote no and fall off another way. The only difference is the injuries sustained from the fall.

Scottish Referendum: Home Straight

Damned if they do, damned if they don’t
With a day to go before the big day, the world seems to be bracing itself for the biggest decision in political history since Margaret Thatcher was voted in as the first woman Prime Minister. And whilst the thick mist of political confusion looms over, something is clear, Scotland can’t win.

Are both as bad as each other?

Imagine tomorrow evening, independence is declared, wild celebrations in parts of Scotland. Or not? Northern Ireland is a perfect example of how badly independence can be taken, violence and riots break out, to this day, over religion and their differences in independence. If not sorted out, the same could happen, and could undermine how well prepared Scotland is for independence. The same could happen if Scotland said No, so is Scotland stuck? Outside of Scotland, the EU is sweating on allowing Scotland into their ranks, and if there will be resentment by other countries with other “puppet countries” e.g. Flemish Independence.

In the long term, Scotland would have to balance itself economically, which would be an issue. Scotland would inherit large oil reserves, but they will run out sooner rather than later, and its tourism has only prospered during the Glasgow Commonwealth Games, a sign of being part of the British Empire! If Scotland don’t find a good source of income fast, it could look nasty. But don’t worry, Scotland would have already ruined their economy before they even had a chance at finding a source of income. Scotland WILL need a new currency, because to declare yourself independent from a country, and to still use their currency is as about as contradictory as walking in a Scottish Supermarket for fruit and veg.

My opinion, justified by revelations by the NHS and RBS

Then again, problems will still occur if Scotland vote No, with uproar also likely, and the inevitability of Alex Salmond sulking on the naughty step. However, unless a whitewash in the referendum occurs against him, he just won’t keep his mouth shut, posing further risks to British interests. And he’ll snatch Cameron’s hand off for the powers promised to Scotland in a No vote, and despite offering them, Cameron has to admit that the details aren’t finished and that the physical possibility of the reforms are questionable anyway. So has David Cameron bitten off more than he can chew? Tomorrow, we will find out…

Jordan Ifield

Scottish Independence: My Opinion

First and foremost, being English DOES entitle me to an opinion on Scottish Independence. And more importantly, what is the point of being separated? As far as I can see, all of the Yes parties claims about a "better" Scottish Government are based on nothing other than a few politicians dreams. 

Take the leader of the Yes party for example, Alex Salmond exclaiming that "We've gone from a small parliamentary party now to being a large one.", in reaction to the Yes campaign saying that the Scottish will get more powers over there own country from Westminister. And whilst yes he may have a good point, the objective of independence is to gain power of your own country, isn't it? So if we're giving Scotland power over itself without the need for loss of the country, surely it's a compromise that suits both countries, they control themselves and we both benefit each other economically and socially. In the light of this thought, I wonder what Alex Salmond really wants from this referendum, to create a feudal system and crown himself dictator?

"Scotland's future" More dangerous and uncertain than Salmond can handle

Secondly, what do both countries get from an independent Scotland? Firstly both countries will falter economically. The sterling pound has grown stronger than many currencies in the world, including the euro. But with the likelihood that the pound will be withdrawn from Scotland, as we saw when the Yes party won an opinion poll last week, the pound faltered and will likely stagnate further leaving England in a recession. This leaves Scotland to create a new currency and widely spread, which is huge task for any country, and could leave any country in termoil at the thought of this. Embarrassingly for Salmond and the Yes party 2 days ago, was the justification of this, when 5 five banks (including the RBS!) revealed they would relocate in England if Scotland voted for independence.

More uncertainty lies in the military, as England lays claim to it, Scotland need something to defend themselves if they become independent. And with their policy of removing all nuclear weapons in Scotland, the Yes party could render the country defenceless quicker than England can say "I told you so".
Whilst some issues are solved, such as the NHS remaining in both countries, it seems like there are just too many uncertainties and false hope for me to believe Scotland would be a successful independent country. It could pontantially leave both England and Scotland in economic termoil, defenceless wrecks and perhaps more importantly, national pride in ruins.

Jordan Ifield

"If everyone is moving forward together, then success takes care of itself." Henry Ford

Scottish Independence: Avengers Assemble

A lot can happen in 4 days. With the news of the Yes party triumphing in an opinion poll on Sunday filtering through, reality seemed to hit the leaders of the No party. Without intervention, the referendum could end up more of a humiliation than deserved victory, as momentum started swinging in favour of independence. Despite the opinion poll being in favor of Yes by 2%, leaders of the No party had seen enough, and took action 3 days later...

"No turning back" as No leaders reiterate their intentions for
Scotland to stay in the UK.

With David Cameron calling off his involvement in the Prime Minister's Questions, he travelled with fellow leaders Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg to Scotland. Their intentions clear, get momentum back in favour of No.

Meanwhile, that same day, good luck was to boost the No party, with several banks (including the RBS!) declaring they would move to England if Scotland became independent. With Alex Salmond more keen on the leaking of this information, he had inadvertently given the No party the ammunition they needed. 

Why vote YES: Scotland may have different political views to England in any matter
                           Choosing their own Government
                           Scottish resources and oil funds significant, and will go to Scotland
                           Getting rid of nuclear weapons

Why vote NO: The pound may no longer be the Scottish currency, and certainly decreasing its value
                          Uncertain future, Scotland may not have the resources to be Independent
                          Sharing resources and oil funds benefits all of us
                          Keeping nuclear weapons

Upon reaching Scotland, the No leaders set about rescuing their mission, with debating and public speaking, they started to gain the public's attention. Persuading them against a long and complicated split leaving both countries weaker economically and socially. But not being alone, united as the UK should be (as they put it), they justified themselves in a bid for Scotland and England to be united.

“Let no one in Scotland be in any doubt: we desperately want you to stay; we do not want this family of nations to be ripped apart.” - David Cameron

The result of these daring last antics were at first claimed to be "too little, too late", however this was clearly not the case, as an opinion poll the next day showed the No party had re-gained the lead with 53%. So the Avengers have shown what they're capable of, but with a week to go, will the tables turn again?

Jordan Ifield (as you could probably tell, I'm in favour of the No party)