Voters Abandoning Failed Old Parties and Scots Right to Reject ‘Independence’

Perhaps voters are finally wising up to the cruel deception that accompanies mainstream politics. Even the most die-hard supporter can only suffer so many broken ‘promises’.

The two and a half main parties have all, in the past, promised a referendum on the UK’s continuing membership of the EU – while in opposition, of course. Cameron’s latest ‘promise’ to hold one in 2017 doesn’t amount to anything as his previous ‘cast-iron guarantee’ resulted in a three-line whip ordering his MPs to vote against it.

And they always ensure us that the NHS “will be safe in their hands”. If that were the case and as we have had consecutive Labour and Tory Prime Ministers since its foundation, why is it in such a state? The truth is that the NHS is not safe in the mainstream parties’ butterfingers.

And it isn’t even just “bigots” who are concerned about uncontrolled immigration.

As a result, Douglas Carswell romped home in yesterday’s Clacton by-election to become UKIP’s first elected MP by attracting just short of 60% of the votes thus increasing his share of the vote by 7% compared to when he stood in the constituency for the ‘Conservatives’ in 2010. The full result (with changes from the 2010 General Election):

Douglas Carswell (UKIP) 21,113 (59.75%)
Giles Watling (C) 8,709 (24.64%, -28.38%)
Tim Young (Lab) 3,957 (11.20%, -13.84%)
Chris Southall (Green) 688 (1.95%, +0.71%)
Andy Graham (LD) 483 (1.37%, -11.57%)
Bruce Sizer (Ind) 205 (0.58%)
Howling Laud Hope (Loony) 127 (0.36%)
Charlotte Rose (Ind) 56 (0.16%)

UKIP majority: 12,404 (35.10%)

Turnout: 35,338 (51.13%, -13.05%)

Nick Clegg, especially, appears to have ensured that the Lib Dems will be fortunate to be the fifth most popular party, taking just 1.37% of votes, down from nearly 13% in 2010.

And UKIP came within a whisker of winning the other by-election in the Labour heartland of Heywood and Middleton, losing out by just 617 votes.

Liz McInnes (Lab) 11,633 (40.86%, +0.75%)
John Bickley (UKIP) 11,016 (38.69%, +36.06%)
Iain Gartside (C) 3,496 (12.28%, -14.88%)
Anthony Smith (LD) 1,457 (5.12%, -17.59%)
Abi Jackson (Green) 870 (3.06%)

Lab majority: 617 (2.17%)

Turnout: 28,472 (35.96%, -21.57%)

With such a low turnout, all it would have taken for a double whammy against the Establishment was for a few of the many thousands of (potential) voters who feel disenfranchised to have given UKIP a chance.

But at least it means that Labour, along with the Tories, are now running scared of UKIP and with the unpopular Ed Miliband as leader and a shadow cabinet comprised of many proven failures, the presumption that they would romp to victory next year doesn’t look so certain now.

I mentioned Scottish ‘independence’ as well because due to the extra tax-raising powers the Scottish ‘Government’ has been handed as a ‘reward’ for Scotland staying in the Union, they are introducing a replacement for Stamp Duty and slapping on 10 per cent of the purchase price between £250,001 and £1 million and 12 per cent on anything paid above that.

We also read,

The LBTT [Land and Buildings Transaction Tax] was the most high-profile part of the 2015/16 Budget, which Mr Swinney unveiled yesterday, as it is the first tax set by a Scottish Finance Minister in more than three centuries.

Ominously for better-off Scots, he indicated its “progressive” structure would be the template for future taxes set by the Scottish Parliament, which is on course to get significant extra powers.

This is why I wrote in a previous post, As New Poll Puts ‘Yes’ Camp Ahead, Do Scots Know What is at Stake?

“Scotland could be rich, like Norway and Switzerland, but I’m sure we would end up like an impoverished Soviet satellite state. I think it’s the wrong time and definitely the wrong people who will be ‘leading’ us.”

Even with limited powers they already seem intent on driving out the big earners, who only have to move as far as England to escape from them.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Voters Abandoning Failed Old Parties and Scots Right to Reject ‘Independence’

  1. Flaxen Saxon says:

    Good morning Stewart. I often drop by to read your commentary. I don’t always agree with what you say on certain topics, but you are sincere in your convictions and passionate about what you believe. I can’t dislike or castigate a man for that. I’m seriously thinking about writing another post concerning ‘Evolution’. In truth, my previous post on the subject was more about the scientific method, than evolution. It would be an opportunity to dispel some of the myths and misconceptions which enshroud the subject. It seems to me that believers do themselves much intellectual harm by dismissing the theory of evolution outright because of religious dogma. The fact that evolution has been around for 170 years must say something about its robustness from an intellectual point of view. Modern biology makes little sense without the context of evolution. Thoughtful Christians have embraced evolution and can see no contradiction with their belief in a deity. As an atheist I do not have to shoe horn any of my scientific beliefs to fit a none existent god. But with evolution a shoe horn is not necessary for the believer. Evolution is but a comfy, well worn slipper, All you need to do is to try it on.

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hello Flaxen,

    I think I may ‘owe’ you a comment on your last post, but time is not on my side with all that I have to get done. And I’ve possibly been a bit too harsh on you, particularly on Underdogs. That has developed from years’ worth of arguments with Dawkins’ disciples who know (next to) nothing about science and whose defence of the Theory is purely down to belief.

    I would suggest that most believers (Christian ones!) have fallen for the Theory. I know I did until 2005 – until I finally decided to start checking it out, because for almost everyone who believes in evolution theory, it is belief-based due to propaganda-laden media and ‘education’. I hadn’t realised that scripture and the Theory can’t coexist. Not really.

    The harm done to believers who also believe in the Theory is that it has produced confusion and a liberalising in many/most churches. The harm to Christianity is that atheists will argue that if Genesis is not literal truth, when does the Bible start to tell the truth? Which of course, gives them the excuse of disregarding it all.

    The fact that evolution has been around for 170 years must say something about its robustness from an intellectual point of view.

    I know you mean the knowledge of it. Evolution has been around since the expulsion from Eden! Previously, there had been no death or disease and now there are thousands of genetic conditions and it seems to be getting worse all the time – some would say, not just because of better diagnosis, but also due to genetic entropy, a concept which many/most? evolutionists agree with.

    If our genes have been deteriorating over time, how can humans have developed in the first place?

    What Darwin found really was natural selection, which is a fact and no way proves his molecules-to-man Theory. In fact, it’s the opposite. Natural selection produces different traits by removing information from the genome – the opposite needed for the Theory to work.

    I tried on that comfy evolutionary footwear until I was 42 years old. I hadn’t realised until I started studying it that it was three sizes too small and was stunting my intellectual growth and understanding of scripture.

    Creation sandals are far more comfy. The fresh air of truth and reason can refresh you rather than being covered up in the deceit and propaganda of your slippers! Your slippers only feel comfy to atheists because they think it validates their worldview. As Dawkins put it, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”.

    Therefore, only atheists need the Theory to feel comfy in their beliefs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>