Why I'm not wearing a poppy.

Tomorrow is Remembrance Sunday. A day for remembering those fallen in war. Now I am aware this article may well make some people angry at me. Commenting your abuse to me is absolutely fine. If I couldn't take it, I wouldn't post this and I'd conform to something I have some issues with that I am about to note below.

1. The poppy remembers those who fell fighting for Britain and in some cases Allies in war. It does not remember significantly those innocent civilians who died in war or those who fought against is. Now maybe some think we shouldn't remember the people who fought against us, but in many cases, they did not have a choice. And how can we only remember our lost troops when some of our recent wars haven't exactly been legal (Iraq) and others we try to forget that the legacy of our war was to be bluntly honest terrible (Iraq and Libya)
2. Kind of on the same point as the first one, however one war we remember if the war in Japan. Now we remember those who died fighting for America, Britain and other allies, but we do not significantly remember the absolute horror of the nuclear bomb the USA dropped on Japan. We fail to remember those that would have had the most horrible deaths. Now yes, the bomb was dropped by America, but we still have a responsibility on it. We should not be happy that any country has ever dropped such a horrific catastrophe of a weapon, regardless of the circumstance.
3. The poppy has become political. The reality is a lot of people wear them to look good. It feels hypocritical for instance that David Cameron wears a poppy. Why you may ask, well the answer is clear. When we "won" the war, we created a welfare system including the NHS. That was a legacy made to care for all those in the country, to try and make sure we wouldn't have suffering families, women were given an education the equivalent to men and had won the vote for all women over 21 after the First World War. In the last few years we have seen the NHS mistreated, the welfare system damaged and inequality rise. So therefore if David Cameron is thinks about the legacy of the wars he is a hypocrite. 
4. The EU is not perfect, but to an extent the idea comes partly from Britain, even if we as a country weren't directly into it. Now we're being the brattish country trying to cut ties with Europe rather than helping on the inside. Churchill has a legacy in Europe and was quoted as saying "We must build a kind of United States of Europe". The EU has faults, but it was a legacy we created and despite all the lives we sacrificed in the wars we forget the legacies we tried to make and should try to improve. 
5. Everyone has a right to remember in their own way, we don't all need a poppy. And if we do, we don't need it any more than at the service of remembrance, which surely if you're so adamant on wearing a poppy, I trust you will be attending.
6. It's become normal so has lost it's effect. When football teams are going for the gimmick of an embroided poppy doing it, it proves a point. The poppy being worn from Mid October takes away any power it has.

One other point worth remembering that isn't a reason not to wear a poppy is, not wearing a poppy does not make you hate the military, just like not wearing the AID's ribbon doesn't make you hate everyone effected by AID's, just like not wearing the pink ribbon doesn't mean you hate everyone with breast cancer and just like not growing a moustache (if you're a male, obviously) does not mean you hate everyone with prostate or testicular cancer.

Now finally, one point that I think to an extent sums up my view and the opinion I will give anybody who asks me is the fact that people fought for my freedom. I am respecting them by remembering them, but I am also respecting them by expressing my freedom in having an opinion on the poppy. I respect them by my beliefs for a fair welfare system, for a top quality NHS, for nationally owned vital public services, by wanting and speaking for equality.

And that is more respect than wearing a flower of any kind on my shirt.

Rant

Fuck it, fuck it all. What's the fucking point?

What I've been thinking with all the job rejections I manage to get together.

Honestly, I'm not going to cotton wool feelings on this now. I've had enough.

The country is fucked. I'm fucked. So are many of the country.

Do a Criminology degree. Look for chances. Entry level. Ways in. Apply for PCSO job, essentially the entry level of the police here. Get to the first stage, that of an interview? No? Fuck off.

Apply for Tesco's. A supermarket. Once? No. 42 times. 1 store? No. 6. 5 in Cardiff, 1 in Newport. Interview? No. Just a casual 42 rejections in 5 bloody minutes.

Other places? Yes. Over 800 applications. Nothing. Treated like a number, sent a rejection email with no reasons, no "this is why". Just a "we had a lot of applicants and we are not taking you forwards".

Would have more respect if these read "You're shit. Fuck off. Don't apply here ever again".

Should the rich tell the poor how to control their money?

Okay, so this started with this news article that the Chancellor George Osbourne (also the man trying his best to get us a terrible deal in Europe because he doesn't like the facts that despite it's faults the EU as it stands makes us a far stronger country) wants to make a law with how future Governments do their budgets.

My Facebook post on the matter

We all know the perceptions of the two main parties, the Conservatives do stuff for the 1%, Labour are meant too (and I stress meant too, because they have failed numerous times since "New Labour"...Iraq, NHS, ID Cards, Royal Mail...but that's not the feeling members give you when you hear how they'd prefer the party to go and their might be a chance to change it in the coming months...a post for a later day) represent essentially the 99%.

• Of course the 99% needs a good level of policing, to keep it as a service rather than as an aggressive force, to keep the communities feeling safer, feeling like they can talk to Police Officers, or PCSO's etc. 
• They also need a quality NHS, that strives to be the best health service, not just possible for the taxpayers, but in the world, with good response times, quality doctors and brilliant nurses, regardless of any of those staffs nationality. 
• They also need a fire service that will be quick to respond to any times. 
• A quality education....(personally I'd close private schools, as it would allow the complete diverse culture to meet, to socialise and so on rather than create a divide with places such as Eton, or the majority of any local private school). To have a quality state education the state needs the best teachers to be in their schools. 
• Proper support for the jobless, homeless, disabled, elderly, victims of crime, victims of abuse, people with massive life changes (such as a divorce, death in the family, a newborn child), families who need that little extra so not to depend on foodbanks and many more. 
• Legal aid should be available to all people, forget means testing, the reality is lawyers would get pretty good incomes if legal aid covered everyone when going to court as an individual. The best lawyers should represent a wide range of people, not just the ones that can dig deep into their pockets.

Of course, this may come at a cost, especially initially and that cost could see any budget not run at a surplus I'm afraid. But it's about what is morally right for Great Britain, not about what costs more, what costs less. If you need the best teachers, maybe you have to pay a few percent more for it. 

Before the election 33% of MP's were privately educated whilst 24% were OxBridge educated. So bought up hugging elitism, rather than the hoodie David Cameron claimed to hug when he came Tory leader. 

We need to break these walls down, by making sure the items the state have an obligation to provide (and as a public we should make sure these things remain an obligation) and making the public services mentioned in the bullet points above the best they can be. It's basically making what was the American Dream into a British Reality. Then we can be proud of Britain. 

And I can also promise you, that maybe these things will run at a deficit for a while, but in the long term, well it would make you be able to run a sustainable balanced economy rather than the rubbish we have today.

Celebrity Culture - Is it killing Britain like it has America?

It is common that in the morning I look at Twitter, at the moment to see if my favourite football team has signed anybody to make me excited for next season and other pieces of news regarding current affairs, the issues around the world, the next political joke of a policy or finding out a few days late that Plymouth have sacked their manager (well he resigned, but he clearly walked before he was pushed if we're honest).

Usually though on Twitter at least one one of the following is trending:

• Justin Bieber
• One Direction
• Kim Kardashian

But what I ask is why does someone who drives under the influence, an artificial band or someone who as far as I know is only famous for their arse whilst ironically having the face of a slapped arse (and I guess married to an extremely average rapper who promotes the "n word" in his music) this consistently talked about?

Well I guess these people are a bit like religions. This said, religion is partly there to give hope to people that there is something after death, I don't know what hope these celebrities are giving other than the tweet announcing their 100% retirement from the "entertainment" industry. Also religions pass on morales, some of them incredibly outdated, I am aware, but they form a fundamental background to the laws countries around the world initially made that still form the backbone of society today. 

One of the three I mentioned, Kim Kardashian is also a terrible role model to youn girls, making them think they should get plastic surgery to look "perfect". Honestly though, is there an ounce of beauty to Kim Kardashian? She looks like a badly gone wrong Madam Tussauds waxwork that's so bad it's hidden in the basement of it's Blackpool museum! Children shouldn't think this is the way to look. What we should be celebrating is people who accept themselves, who aren't spoilt brattish adults deciding they  want their nose this way, nor should we be celebrating artists who formed their band in an easy manufactured way like they're gods gift, or a "pop star" who simply is just a monumental f*ck up.

I know what some of you are thinking "But James, people including your good self, worship football clubs amongst other things". Maybe so. But a football club isn't an individual, if a player leaves Liverpool, in my case, I won't support the club where they are at because they played for Liverpool (for instance, I'm having a hard time picking who I want to win the Champions League, the underdog or a team that includes Suarez amongst others, not just picking Barcelona on players). Sport is also competitive, last time I checked being plastic or a distinctly average singer/group of singers wasn't competitive, it wasn't something that gave you a real satisfaction of winning. Football does this. As do many sports (particularly team sports domestically and internationally, individual sports just don't give you that, plus eventually they retire etc that is unless they're representing their nation). Therefore I don't buy the idea of that at all. Plus sportsmen usually have talent, some can even be humble, very few but there are one or two. They also can be a role model to someone as well to have a fit and healthy life.

Two of the three people/groups I mentioned don't do this. You can't live like a Kardashian and have a fit and healthy life, you'll always be in having balloons put into your gluteus maximus. You could be drink driving if you wanted to be like Justin Bieber with tattoos that can only be poorly based on Martin Skrtel. And unlike Justin Bieber, you won't afford bail and won't afford the best lawyer in the state and will have some time in a prison, whether in the UK or the USA.

So on the day where the Kardashians try to press some of the most insignificant news I have heard (news that makes me see Royal Babies as major) let's not worship them, lets try to get some real talent on TV, some real talent on TV and most importantly, some women on TV that won't make girls think they need surgery to look good! Let's create an accepting culture where nobody feels down because of their natural looks or personality. 

The Queens Speech - Are These Tory Bills good?

So today is the queen speech. Luckily the BBC have a page on the policies the speech will use, so I shall use it's descriptions for each and then explain what I, as a reasonably normal young person of the UK makes of each possible bill.



EU Referendum Bill





This is high up on the list of the government's priorities. David Cameron has promised to renegotiate Britain's terms of membership of the European Union and put it to a public vote by 2017 at the latest. To do this he'll need to publish a parliamentary bill to pave the way for a referendum - so it's a definite to feature in the speech.


James Thinks: This is not a good idea, we have already seen how the British Electorate vote and for too many people, life depends on being within the European Union. Cornwall and Wales are two places that have a funding match from the EU and without this these two relatively deprived places would be further deprived. Therefore a vote on this matter isn't a good idea as it seems that far too many people will vote with a severe misunderstanding. Some will argue the EU needs change, but you can't change anything from the outside. Plus it could mean removing the free movement we currently have around Europe.




Income Tax Bill





During the general election campaign, David Cameron vowed to introduce a law guaranteeing no rise in income tax rates, VAT or national insurance before 2020. He said workers already paid enough tax and he would focus on other ways of clearing the deficit, such as reducing the welfare bill and tackling tax avoidance. The PM has also pledged a law to ensure that "no one working 30 hours on the minimum wage pays any income tax at all". Writing in the Sunday Telegraph about his first 100 days in office, he said: "It is a permanent measure to re-write not just the laws of this country but the values of this country. And it will be there as the centrepiece of the first Queen's Speech of my new government."


James Thinks: You shouldn't need a law to ensure you won't increase taxes. It's therefore ridiculous and the question that then comes out ends up being "where are you going to cut to make up for this". If the answer is welfare, health, public services or education then it's nothing short of a disgrace.




Immigration Bill





The government is promising a crackdown on illegal immigration, and has already set out a number of new offences to try to "control and reduce" migration to the UK. These include a specific offence of illegal working - with police given the power to seize the wages paid to illegal workers as the "proceeds of crime". Among other proposals being considered are new powers for councils to deal with unscrupulous landlords and to evict illegal migrants more quickly, while all foreign criminals awaiting deportation will be fitted with satellite tracking tags. It will also become an offence for businesses and recruitment agencies to hire abroad without first advertising in the UK - a policy which featured prominently in Labour's election manifesto - and a new enforcement agency will be set up to tackle what the prime minister called "the worst cases of exploitation".


James Thinks: We need to take people who need sure that all people who need to get away from their country due to issues are able to come. For instance Iraq, where some of the blame of what's going on has to come down to the United Kingdom for destabilising the country. It's about human lives, not anything else. And we owe a duty of care. It would be a more productive thing than to waste resources sending people out to fight.




Policing Bill





Home Secretary Theresa May has pledged to ban the use of police cells for the emergency detention of mentally ill people under the Mental Health Act. In a speech to the annual conference of the Police Federation in England and Wales, Mrs May also outlined plans to extend police-led prosecutions, overhaul the complaints system, and change the use of bail.


James Thinks: The Coalition couldn't be trusted with the police making them considerably weaker, I have a horrible thing this will happen again. They cut 34,000 police staff in the last election and many think it'll be similar again. This means that anything that happens within a police bill is likely to actually end up not being able to be enforced successfully as the stress of the job gets higher and higher.




City Devolution Bill





We know that proposals to devolve more powers to England's cities will feature in the Queen's Speech. Chancellor George Osborne said as much in first post-election speech, in which he outlined his vision to give English cities powers over housing, transport, planning and policing. He said Greater Manchester - which will take on the powers when electing a mayor in two years - should become a blueprint for other large cities.


James Thinks: It should be regional...not city. How can Devon or Cornwall have devolution by City? Or many other smaller places. Also Newcastle and many other Cities voted against elected Mayors.




Strike laws reform





The new business secretary, Sajid Javid, has said it will be a government priority to reform strike laws. Specifically, it is proposing to ban strike action from taking place unless 40% of all eligible union members vote in favour of industrial action. The government also wants to lift a ban on use of agency staff when strike action takes places. "That's something we'll give more detail on in the Queen's Speech but it will be a priority," Mr Javid told BBC Radio 4's Today programme earlier this month.


James Thinks: It's removing employees rights, at times there may be a legitimate right for a few to enter. Also ironic that a Government elected by less than 40% of the British Electorate who voted and less than 25% of those eligible could demand 40% of the vote for a strike...




Employment Bill





The Conservatives have said measures on work will be at the heart of their legislative programme, with David Cameron saying during the election campaign that the UK should aspire to "full employment". He has pledged legislation on "day one" of the new Parliament. Among the priorities will be a push to create two million more jobs and three million more apprenticeships over the course of the Parliament. The boost in apprenticeships is to be paid for by reducing the benefit cap from £26,000 to £23,000.


James Thinks: They haven't succeeded with employment issues and I know it...This'll probably at some point see workers rights fall like the bill above.




Schools Bill





The prime minister has pledged to bring in a bill to "deliver better schools - with more radical measures to ensure young people leave education with the skills they need". He said the legislation will "include new powers to force coasting schools, as well as failing schools, to accept new leadership, continuing the remarkable success story of Britain's academy schools". The Conservatives want to expand their free schools programme - which Labour opposes, with Mr Cameron committing to creating an extra 270,000 free school places by 2020.


James Thinks: Two words Michael Gove. They saw that man fit to deal with the education system 5 years ago. Now, how can things get better...well let's start with scrapping free schools and making academies go back to schools run by Governors and the more successful systems before these changes 5 years ago?




Childcare Bill





Another stated key priority of the Conservative government is childcare. Currently, all three and four-year olds in England are entitled to 570 hours of free early education or childcare a year, which works out as 15 hours each week for 38 weeks of the year. During the election campaign, the Conservatives promised 30 hours from 2017. The prime minister has also said he wants to introduce tax-free childcare for every child.


James Thinks: Three words: Labour offered better




Enterprise Bill





The government has outlined plans for a bill to cut red tape for British business by at least £10bn and, for the first time, independent regulators will be expected to contribute to that target. The bill is also expected to propose a new Small Business Conciliation Service, to help settle disputes between small and large businesses, especially over late payment practices.


James Thinks: It's not easy to set up a business and many can't afford to it, where is there help? It's important we see people do well, but we need to do this in ways that also help people who don't own their own business. Also Labour also offered help to small business whilst keeping in mind those who don't have their own.




Scotland Bill





The prime minister has pledged to include a bill on devolution which would be based on the cross-party Smith Commission agreement on Scottish devolution. The Smith proposals included giving Holyrood the power to set income tax rates and bands, as well as control over a share of VAT and some welfare benefits.


James Thinks: Scotland's going to be better to live in than England very very soon.




Human Rights Act Repeal Bill





The Conservatives have pledged to abolish the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. The Conservative manifesto says: "This will break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights, and make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK."


James Thinks: It's a disgrace that we even consider removing this. It is Churchill's legacy and it's an important act. Only one country in Europe isn't signed up to this and this country is also the only dictatorship.




Counter-extremism Bill





The government is expected to bring forward a new bill to crack down on radicalisation. It will include new immigration rules, powers to close down premises used by extremists, and "extremism disruption orders". Mr Cameron has repeatedly stressed the need to confront and defeat the "poisonous" extremist ideology. The proposals are likely to encounter some opposition in the new Parliament on the grounds that some of the plans could infringe people's right to free speech, BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said.


James Thinks: This simply comes down to whether it effects our privacy. Which is a right.




Communications and Data Bill





This was the bill that the Conservatives' smaller coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, refused to back in the last Parliament. Current legislation expires in 2016 and will have to be renewed. So now the Conservatives are governing alone, they can bring back what opponents call the snoopers' charter. The previous plans proposed to extend the range of data communications companies have to store for 12 months. It would have included, for the first time, details of messages sent on social media, webmail, voice calls over the internet and gaming, in addition to emails and phone calls. Officials would not have been able to see the content of the messages without a warrant. Currently communications firms only retain data about who people send emails to, and who they ring.


James Thinks: And this is exactly what I mean when I said it comes down to the privacy. We should not live in a society where people can see everything we are sending. It's not private and could be used for the wrong reasons. The Snoopers Bill can't happen. End of.




Housing Bill





Housing was a hot topic during the general election, featuring in all of the parties' campaigns. One of the Conservatives' key pledges was an extension of Margaret Thatcher's Right to Buy scheme to 1.3 million housing association tenants in England - and the government has confirmed this will feature. Under the plans, housing association tenants will be able to buy the homes they rent at a discount. Communities Minister Greg Clark told the BBC the government wanted to extend the opportunity for people to own their home. There will also be help for first-time buyers, with 200,000 starter homes made available to under-40s at a 20% discount - another Conservative manifesto pledge.


James Thinks: See this article.




NHS Bill





The Conservatives made several commitments on the NHS during the election campaign - and David Cameron used his first major post-election speech to focus on his plans for the health service in England. He has pledged to boost funding by at least £8bn extra a year by 2020 and to create "a truly seven-day NHS". The government is also promising to recruit 5,000 new GPs.


James Thinks: Let's wait and see, I have a funny feeling we could be waving goodbye to our NHS sooner rather than later.




Wales Bill





David Cameron has pledged to implement "as fast as I can the devolution that all parties agreed for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland". Wales Secretary Stephen Crabb has said his officials were writing legislation to transfer further powers to Wales, so these could be included in the Queen's Speech.


James Thinks: I've got a feeling this won't go brilliantly for Wales. But again, could this mean the Government just wiping their hands and trying to set a rival party up. It wouldn't surprise you.




Hunting Ban Repeal Bill





Could David Cameron throw a bone to his Conservative backbenchers and introduce legislation to repeal the law that bans fox hunting with dogs? The ban has been unpopular in many rural areas since its introduction by Labour in 2004 - and David Cameron has indicated he would like to undo it. Their manifesto stated that a Conservative government "will give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government bill in government time".


James Thinks:Fox hunting is wrong and elitist. We should be trying to eradicate elitism. Watching the Queens Speech we are a long was off being successful with removing elitist rubbish. First elitist establishments that would need sorting are Eton (close the place) and a bit of a nudge on Cambridge and Oxford who have no right to regard themselves as supreme to others (I would make the boat race have a week of time trials before a race between the top 2 or 3 rather than the Elitist rubbish that it is).




Legal highs ban





Legislation to introduce a blanket ban on so-called legal highs is expected to feature in the Queen's Speech. The proposal was included in the Conservatives' general election manifesto, which stated: "We will create a blanket ban on all new psychoactive substances, protecting young people from exposure to so-called 'legal highs'." A Home Office source told the BBC that the proposal would be enacted upon.


James Thinks: If you cut the police, good luck enforcing this!

Liverpool FC Season Review 2014/15

Initially this post was going to be about the European Cup Liverpool won ten years ago after a magical night in Istanbul, however yesterdays performance meant that a radical rethink and an earlier season review post.

Yesterday saw the end of the 2014/15 Barclays Premier League season for Liverpool FC, where the team took part in a match, if you can call it that, at the Britannia, where Liverpool suffered their record Premier League defeat losing 6-1. Definitely the most embarrassing defeat I have ever known as a Liverpool FC fan. 

But what about the season overall? Well it all started to go downhill right at the death of last season where Liverpool lost their chance to win the league accumulating in a shoddy defensive display against Crystal Palace, letting a 3-0 lead slip to only draw the game now known as "Crystanbul". The defensive displays all through that season led to concern, however the one thing Liverpool had was the goals, experts at outscoring their opponents. Then Luis Suarez left. And in came what turned out to be pretty inadequate and/or overpriced replacements such as Lambert, Lovren, Markovic, Moreno, Lallana, Balotelli, Can, Manquillo. Liverpool also signed Origi, who for some reason went back to Lille on loan, Origi has just finished in Ligue 1's worst team of the season.

Now I'm not saying all these players need to go, now we have Lallana we should keep him, but we paid far too much, Can, Markovic and Moreno all have some brilliant potential, but have either been misused or underused. And these players were meant to take Liverpool to a next level with Liverpool knowing they could attract a certain calibre of player being back in the European Cup since 2009/10. 

I'm trying to think of matches now that I can be positive about, matches that I can say Liverpool turned up. I can find one match and that was the away game against Spurs where Liverpool won 3-0. That was really the only time the Liverpool that myself and many other Liverpool fans had come accustom too.

Now negative games, losing 3-1 to City was argued as "oh it's the champions and it's away" yet a week later Stoke won there, then there was a 1-0 home defeat to Paul Lamberts Benteke-less Aston Villa, a 3-1 defeat to West Ham at Upton Park and at this point the only positive was how badly United had started. Then there was that Champions League campaign where Liverpool mustered a measly 5 points, 4 of them earn't against Ludogorets from Belarus and the final point in what was a piss poor performance against Basel in a game Liverpool had to win, yet other than Gerrard the team looked content to lose. Then there's the humiliating 3-0 defeat to Manchester United before Liverpool went on a welcome unbeaten streak, even if it included poor results against teams such as Swansea, Bolton, Blackburn and Burnley. But after another defeat against United and a hugely controversial interview from Raheem "I need a dollar" Sterling everything capitulated and the season died, losing 4-1 at the Emirates but then it got even worse as Liverpool's one chance of silverware remaining disappeared as the team lost 2-1 despite briefly having the lead against Aston Villa.

Obviously, since January 2nd the second we all were aware that Steven Gerrard had decided to end his career in the MLS, but in May all we found ourselves playing for was Steven Gerrard, to send him off in style. Something you would imagine would fire up the players. But did it? No, Liverpool conceded 9 goals, scoring 2 in their last two games of the season going down 3-1 to Crystal Palace, again despite having the lead briefly before the biggest defeat in over half a century against Stoke City leaving Gerrard humiliated as he left Liverpool. This was subsequently followed by the majority of the squad going on a holiday to Dubai whilst fans were left absolutely furious by the lack of passion, desire, character or whatever else you want to call it!

But who can you blame for such a disastrous season? Well you start with the manager. Any manager that signs a right back and refers to another less than a year before as "one of the best", regardless of anybody disagreeing, should start with one or the other rather than a midfielder like Emre Can who is utterly exposed there. His last team used him once or twice, as a left back, but only as a last resort, however it is quite obvious that despite his talent, he is as bad as it gets as a right back. Any manager that doesn't realise the talent that a team like Palace have on the wings and therefore plays no full backs is also a big factor to his blame. A manager that changes nothing as a match goes from 0-0 to 5-0 down is completely unacceptable (especially when it's completely obvious it's not working at 1-0 down, never mind 3,4 or 5 down!). A manager who spends £116m but gets 22 points less, regardless of "mitigating factors" is appalling. Especially when you have a whole summer to sort one of those factors out (Suarez) and the other one is well known about before (Sturridge - spent a lot of last season out - people just don't notice because a certain Suarez went on a mental scoring run). Therefore this makes both less of a mitigating factor. So honestly, I didn't say it until yesterday this season but Brendan Rodgers has to go. Klopp is my first choice on the basis Carlo Ancelotti at Real Madrid has said if sacked he will take a year out, Benitez is another option and even Big Sam would be an improvement putting some iron and brute into the performances, his defensive way of playing with West Ham, Bolton or Blackburn wouldn't be so much the case either, being that he is a brilliant manager and makes the most of whatever he has, still he's a way off top choice with the others mentioned being considerably preferable and much more "Liverpool".

Regarding players, I'll start with Sterling, if he wants over £100k a week, sell him, he's overrated, he can't shoot nor can he cross, Suarez made him look so much better, Sturridge helped too, without them, he is dreadful, so get as much as you can and run to the bank. Regarding new signings, Balotelli and Lamberts use depends really on who manages Liverpool next season, if they somehow don't change the manager, it's clear neither will suit the tactics, to the other new signings, they probably all need an extra year, some need a different manager who will use them though. Six months ago I'd have told you Mignolet needed to go, but he has massively improved since and warrants a season, however Jones is being released, rightly and Liverpool need a very good keeper to challenge Mignolet, like Chelsea, United and Arsenal have. I would also release Toure, no pace left, makes mistakes, but apparently he's getting a new deal. I'd consider keeping Johnson if Liverpool didn't have enough money for a new right back as this season proved that four at the back is better than three. 

In conclusion though, ten years on from the greatest night of football in my lifetime, ten years on since the pinnacle of my Liverpool supporting life, rather than celebrating we as fans should be looking at how it's come to this shambolic state of affairs and asking how can this be fixed. Because right now another night as great as Istanbul looks centuries off. 

Aidy Ward

In recent days the whole Sterling situation has taken a turn. Apparently now he won't even sign for essentially £1m a week at Liverpool. All this according to agent Aidy Ward. Also according to Aidy Ward, Jamie Carragher, long term Liverpool vice-captain and Champions League winning defender is a "knob". Is there really a place for Aidy Ward and agents in football or are they just a waste of time.

Whilst this was happening, Jordan Ibe another Liverpool youngster signed a new five year deal for Liverpool. About a week before this deal, Ibe was quoted in the media as saying "I don’t believe in having an agent. I don’t really see the need for one to be fair. My parents do the same job and they are my family which is number one to me. I can trust them and they are the best people.".

In fairness, I agree with Ibe, parents and family, maybe even friends are better to talk to than a man, like Aidy Ward, who know that a move will also see them get a big pay day. This is especially the case when agents try to ruin the clubs name, which Mr Ward did say he didn't care about.

To finish this I thought I'd include Liverpool fans views on Aidy Ward:

The Idea of Arming Police, an American ideology

In the news last night I noticed the Police and Crime Commissioner of Dyfed-Powys Christopher Salmon had set up an online poll for people about all police carrying a gun on duty. Here I address in a letter to the elected Commissioner as to why this would be a huge mistake. 


Dear Christopher,

I couldn't help but notice on the news you had been asking whether the police should carry around guns on general duty and as a graduate in Criminology and the Criminal Justice System I felt obliged to write to you about this.

I honestly from my studies think there could be no worse ideas than having police with guns on the street. The idea carries one hell of a lot of risk. And here are some reasons why.

I'm sure you will agree that America isn't exactly totally unlike the UK, however this is a country where guns are readily more legal and the police do carry guns with them. Now all police having guns does enter a slippery slope of how many people actually can get their hands on guns and this leads to more murders, America for instance has a five times higher murder rate than the United Kingdom. Why? Because they have more access to firearms. And when you look at this stat regarding homicide, you also need to bare in mind that cases such as Zimmerman wouldn't count thanks to a not guilty verdict.

There is also the problem with the police having them on them if they fall into someone of the wrong hands somehow when they are out, this could lead to chaos. On top of this, without knowing every bit of detail about the personal lives of these police officers you don't know whether one could be close to cracking, again you have seen officers in America in recent months shoot innocent people to death. They could claim a hard time, but they still killed somebody, just because we are British does not mean we can rule that out from happening. In fact there have been two obvious occasions in London where people who should never have been shot, were killed by the police. Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes and Mark Duggan. The latter of those killings led to the London Riots. The reality here is that the police often get it very wrong when it comes to a gut reaction such as in these two incidents because they had guns.
So rather than listening to a pretty unrepresentative poll on your website, I advice you to think about the safety of people and therefore reject the idea of police having guns on them in general duty. We already have arguably too many armed police officers as it is.

I say these comments as somebody who once aspired to be in the police but down to the cuts it has been impossible to find a route in. I hold nothing against the police therefore, but I do regard the idea of police having guns as creating a much more unsafe community. Maybe we need more police on the streets, but for that I realise you'd need money off the Government, money that probably is there but won't be given to the police, but guns is never the way to fix something.

Yours Sincerely

James


Update - 23rd May 2015
I have received a reply from this email and will share it here

Dear Mr Martin,

Thank you for your message. I'm not in any sense suggesting the police should be armed. I'm just asking the public how they would like currently armed specialist officers to be deployed.

The survey will help me understand how the public to view the issue and inform my discussions with the chief constable. We've had a massive response and I will publish the findings shortly.

Thank you for your interest.

Kind regards,

Christopher

General Election Evaluation

So last week the Conservative party got a majority of 12 seats. In all honesty, this wasn't the result that the majority of us wanted based on votes. So in this post I will sum up where it all went wrong.

People thought until 10pm that there was a huge chance that Ed Miliband would be walking into 10 Downing Street eventually as the Prime Minister from the 2015 General Election, offering a living wage, preventing tax evasion, keeping the UK in Europe, keeping employee's rights. Instead we saw Ed Miliband unfortunately resign from Labour and David Cameron enter 10 Downing Street, essentially promising us what the S*n newspaper (don't buy this paper...ever JFT96) have decided should happen, in other words, we are run once more by an Australian who has decided it's in his best interest to randomly become American. Rupert Murdoch.

The Sun Newspaper Announces Cameron has used their manifesto.

Now this is one of the areas I fear the election was lost. If you read the Mail you will dellusionally disagree with me, but the right wing papers played a fear game. A game of "do you want this guy, who looks dodgy in a freeze frame running (improving) this country we live in? He may join the Scots, wouldn't you hate it if the Scottish had a say? 

Let's be honest here, the idea of the Scots having a say isn't exactly invalid. They are a country in the Union but our papers did decide the only way to run an election campaign with the Tories winning was to in fact make us hate another nation in our Union at a time when the nations are already divided after the referendum on Scottish Independence. Surely if the Conservative party was that brilliant:

1. They wouldn't have needed scaring the public to vote for them to win
2. The Scottish Nationalist Party wouldn't have opposed them as strongly as they did (ie "we will block any Tory Government on the back of a hung parliament) 

Anyway we have elected to be controlled by Rupert Murdoch, so for the good of me and my career prospects I should probably congratulate him. So here is a picture of the winner from last Thursday.

The most powerful man in (well not in) Britain Rupert Murdoch

I shall also now send my condolences to all foxes seeming the Government want to bring back the most cruel activity of them all. I can only apologise for the way our country voted (well 24% of those eligible to be precise).

A fox, unaware that soon it will be hunted down and ripped into pieces.

And in all seriousness. What did Ed Miliband do wrong?

Well I am of the opinion some of the people coming out to attack Miliband from inside Labour are totally out of their minds. And let me explain why! When we look at countries like India we look and imagine their poorest range of people living rather than the few millionaires, when we looked at Brazil in the World Cup a lot came up about the poor people living in Shanty Towns. Just because the UK is apparently richer and more developed, shouldn't we judge ourselves on the same basis as we judge them? Shouldn't we judge ourselves on the issue of the poorest? Shouldn't we judge ourselves on how our disabled, our young, our single parents, our homeless, our carers, our low wage workers are treated? The majority of Labours policies actually helped these people at the expense of those that could afford to pay a little more tax or in the form of non doms a lot more tax. 

Maybe going against the non doms was a bad move in terms of elections for Miliband because the owners of the right wing media get let off on tax in non dom schemes and similar ways and therefore were bound to go against the guy. But really shouldn't they look at the poorest people in the country with empathy and want to pay their part? 

Yes, he wasn't the same sort of speaker as Obama, but he was a man who genuinely wanted to make lives better for people, a man who was determined to change. Maybe not enough, but in many aspects in the right direction. A man who wanted to give us a full democracy in regards to the House of Lords, a man that wanted to see the NHS public, rather than private. 

Miliband didn't fail. We failed. 

And I have a feeling we may also miss those Lib Dems. Well other than Vince/Danny.

Now let's rebuild, regroup and fight for a fairer Britain. 

I will post in the future regarding the poor appointment of members of the cabinet and the proposed loss to our Human Rights.

Tomorrow We Have A Chance to Change This Country...To Save This Country...Let's Not F*ck This Up! (Also, should we condone the media bullying parade?)

May 7th 2015. The UK General Election. Some are calling it the closest ever, many the most important in a generation. But are they giving the real reasons as to why? What can change? Did the last Government actually succeed?

I know that with sending this on my Facebook/Twitter a lot of people reading will be or have been students, so let's start and see what the Government did there as an example of the current failings.

• Went and increased the average debt of a student leaving University (the original student loan idea was by the Tony Blair New Labour Government). The average debt someone leaving University has is well over the £40,000 mark. I can admit here, I'm lucky being in the last year before these changes, however I am not naive. These people are our future, but we've burdened them with ridiculous debt.

• The Last Governments System:The idea of paying towards this higher education is not something I will claim to be an evil idea. Up till a point there was evidence that graduates would get paid more in their lifetime than people who didn't attend university. Obviously these things have changed. Still paying for higher education probably is right. But £9,000? For a year of uni? That's way over the odds. Numerous reasons apply, especially the fact that other than a lecture per module per week and a few tutorials and meetings, how well you do in your degree really isn't up to the lecturer but your work ethic.
• There are alternatives and this is what needs to be stressed. Labour offer us a tuition fee decrease to £6,000 a year. Is this still too much? Yes. Perhaps the elitist establishments of Oxbridge, St Andrews and a few others could warrant £5,000 a year. But a tuition fee debt shouldn't really put anybody into more than £10,000 of debt. Although I believe that really, tuition fees shouldn't be charged like this, they shouldn't put one in debt. The Green Party are the other party that offer change by wiping tuition fees. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party have officially not ruled out rising fees OVER the £10,000 barrier.
• What Should Happen: Simple Really. Graduate Tax. Scrap tuition fees completely. The graduate tax would gain similar money back in comparison to the tuition fee system. The difference is the Government would not have to write off a debt in a few decades time for anyone. It also would send graduates into their working life with a lot less debt. These people are the future. Some people may say "But mature students may not work a lot more to pay these taxes", well true, but is this a problem? The art of learning and the ambition to learn whatever age you are should be encouraged. It's good to have multiple ages learning together at University as it sets people up for the real world. It's not like 19 year olds will all work with people within 2 years of their age group when they leave uni. 
• Reality: The Graduate tax probably won't be enforced by any party standing in the election. However here you need to consider, which Prime Minister would listen to normal people should they come to this idea? I really doubt that David Cameron or Nick Clegg would. Miliband on Russell Brand's Trews implied that people should be active in political ideas all year round, not just at the election, an indication he may listen to some ideas. Although it would be unlikely that the Labour party would push this through, we could make steps towards it if we get Miliband in. Especially if the Green Party can also hold a voice in the next Government. Possibly even the dreaded SNP when it comes to the tuition fee idea considering the Scottish people do not pay fees,

Conclusion

It would be criminal to elect a Government who haven't ruled out increasing fees for the future generations. People shouldn't leave University with debt, they should leave with hopes and prospects and a career within sight. Giving them more debt in the last Government was a massive failure of trust, giving even more would be criminal. It has already left young people feeling alienated. Let's not completely lose them!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Job Market is another thing that's up for debate tomorrow when you vote. Now we hear all about the amount of jobs that are apparently there for us in comparison to when the Gordon Brown's Labour Government departed 10 Downing Street. However I would believe we need to look at the bigger picture when it comes to this statement. So here we go.

Job Quality

Obviously I am a graduate, as explained on most of my social networking accounts. I have been looking for full time work. I briefly held a pretty demeaning zero hour contract at Wetherspoons (personal advice, don't work for them, especially Lloyds Great Western in Cardiff. Management are a joke...but that's another story). But I can tell you from that experience, everybody should have the option to say that they don't want a zero hour contract. 700,000 people have their main job as a zero hours contract. Employers such as Wetherspoons, Sports Direct and more use these contracts. And you cannot say to these employers that you wish to have the security of a job with a certain amount of hours. This is wrong and these companies need to change. We need to force this change as a community. Sure some people may want zero hour contracts, but if you want the security of knowing you have 16 hours a week at least, you should have it. It should be your right to have it. 

The other reality is that despite the claims of more jobs...39 jobs out of 40 created since the recession are part time jobs. These clearly have negative effects on people. They also lead to the question of what people who were in jobs with services such as the police in 2010 who had their jobs cut by the Government (34,000 of them!) are now doing. Are they earning similar wage packets? Gaining similar job satisfaction? Having their range of skills efficiently used?

The reality is, many are probably lucky if they're hitting half of what they were. 

Then there's the other big dilemma here. The Conservatives want a country where you are rewarded for working. So if we have all these jobs, I'd like David Cameron, William Hague, Ian Duncan Smith or Eric Pickles to answer these questions:

Why is there a record number of working families below the poverty level due to low wages? 

Why are food banks seeing the numbers of people significantly rise (almost to the million mark)?

Why in a country with a target of no children in poverty, why have we seen child poverty rise?

If we have these more jobs and if these jobs are a reason to claim success, these questions should not have to be asked. End of.

------------------------------------------------------------------

My other issue is the issue of elitism, which also comes to the issues of equality. 

We are in a nation that lives in a history of elitism. We saw women throw themselves under horses for the vote, we were one of the countries that led slavery. We still have a lot of people in this country with views on other people that are prejudice whether it be because of their nationality, skin colour, age, religion, gender or sexuality.

One thing we have seen a rise in the last 5 years though was the elitism in class. This elitism includes such things as the celebration of the boat race, the gaps between Eton and a normal state school. One that I noticed in a twitter argument with someone I can only describe as a biggot however was the idea of The Russell Group. The brilliant thing with this group is Russell is perceived as a working class name (bit of elitism coming there). We need to see elitist establishments realise they are no more special than any of the others. Eton should realise that they are no more important than a state school like my own Bideford College or a private school like Kingsley. Personally I'd scrap all private schools as it benefits to have all sorts of people in a school, well nearly all sorts but I guess I may come to that. But also private schools create an unhealthy divide. The best teachers should work with normal people. America failed with the American Dream but the American Dream should really be the British Aim. I'd also have Cambridge and Oxford realise they are no more important than Exeter University who in turn are no more important than Plymouth University. Allow underrated Universitys to become the countries top if they're run better. The reality is the days of Cambridge and Oxford producing all our MP's for instance should be over. It's elitist and isn't in the interest of anyone reading this. Just because you've gone to a different University it doesn't make you any less able. 

Things like the boat race should be made so that all the Universitys have a chance to qualify. As someone who has rowed, I know it's not too hard for them t set up a time trial for instance with the top 2 going into a race. A proper boat race should take into account EVERY higher education establishment, not the two who have their heads up their own ass, thinking that their only rival is the other. We've moved on from the Tudor's. 

Which brings me on to the other issue of elitism. As someone called James I was VERY worried by the outcome of the gender of the royal brat baby seeming it was expected a boy would take my beloved name. Luckily for me, it was a girl. But should we really be looking up to an elitist family we have no say on changing. No say on reforming. Should we really be happy about a baby we will never meet? Or should our politics actually be elected more so than it is today. Believe it or not I am in favour of the queen remaining queen, however I believe we should consider what to happen when she dies. Is it fair on George or Charlotte to live a life that is totally elitist. It's not. It's not fair on them or us. In a time where we cut benefits for people who can't get work we let these babies and their families live on cloud nine. In a world where they know little about a normal person. We need radical change. However, the monarch can wait...because my main issue, yes, you may have guessed it...is the House Of Lords.

The House Of Lords prevent us from having what would be regarded as a full democracy. We need to take a step into the end of elitism by making this house FULLY elected. From there, maybe our nation will take some steps forwards to become great once more. You'd also like to hope it could be a sign to the EU that we would also like an elected group of EU Commissioners. 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Should We Realise And Condone The Media Bullying Parade.

If it wasn't the day before the election this would be another post. But in the last 24 hours I have become the most liked post on a Daily Mail article, possibly with more than 10,000 likes pointing out one of the reasons they fear the Labour Government is to do with the whole idea that their owner will have to pay taxes. But are some of the media bullying Ed Miliband. 

For instance here is the Sun's headline today:

Now I'm guessing we all knew bullies in school. But whilst some went to prison for thuggery and others ended up changing and improving as people...it appears some ended up at the Sun Newspaper and other tabloids. 

Should we be allowing OUR papers to tell us who to vote for because they aren't shown incentives that will benefit by the party? Should we elect a man on his ability to eat a bacon sandwich? Or should we elect a man because he cares about the country, about normal people and wants to do his bit in changing the country to make it a better place?

If the Tories win tomorrow, it's because too many Sun readers (they're not the brightest, bless them) and Mail readers (to be honest, they're not the brightest either) have been scaremongered into voting for the Conservative party. Well here is the fact:

IF the Tories win, the Scottish Nationalists will swing further towards another cry for independence with a Government they don't trust and have a hatred towards. The Tories would then also stand a far bigger chance of winning elections WITHOUT Scotland and therefore slyly benefit to an extent once the Union is broken...

So tomorrow when you vote...and you should vote...if you live in Brighton, keep Greens in. But if you live anywhere else in England, Scotland or Wales, vote Labour, vote for the first baby step towards a better Britain, a brighter future. 

Then on May 8th all the way through the parliament, don't stay silent on your opinion, let it be known. It matters. Tomorrow is the start of changing the country.

Just don't f*ck it up! 

Forgetting My Degree....Or Not

So today I got told whilst on a "Work Placement" (with the highly incompetent HMRC) that today I would be looking for jobs. Something I could do and do do at home at my desk in my room. This was told to me (and two others) with no further warning. It almost seemed insulting at the beginning like I had no knowledge of applying for jobs but I guess it is better than taping bloody grids onto white boards, something I never thought I'd be doing almost a year after giving in my dissertation at University. Mind you I guess Andrea Dossena didn't think he'd be shoplifting at Harrod's when he lobbed Casillas in 2009.)

Furthermore from this I was told that for applications I should consider removing my degree from my Curriculum Vitae (albeit I couldn't exactly show my CV considering with no warning and no access to cloud computing I couldn't exactly magic it along). 

This isn't what you want to hear, especially when someone else being "advised" is told they need to say what they did with their last 12 months on theirs. Why wipe out three years of mine that saw me get my highest qualification then?! I was pretty furious on this. 

I'll admit when I went into do my degree, I was hopeful there would be jobs going, obviously that hasn't happened. Apparently the London Riots (oh and Birmingham and Manchester) showed that we could have less police for instance (don't ask me how the Government came to this conclusion). And if the Conservative Party win the election it appears this will still be the same given that in the televised "debate" between the two possible prime ministers this happened:

“I know that you put your lives on the line very day to keep us safe and I have huge respect for what the police do for us.

David Cameron

Mr Cameron added: “Police budgets came down by some 20 per cent but at the same time, police have done such a good job, crime has come down by almost 20 per cent.”

When asked for his response Mr Malik answered “no comment” to sniggers from the audience.

Reported by the Coventry Telegraph (see article here)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So does this mean that whilst this sort of service isn't going to be generally recuiting from outside, or training in many ways that I should forget the three years I spent at University and forget my degree on my CV. I must admit I find this utterly insulting. The people who have studied degrees have generally worked hard for degrees. Yes we had some fun along the way,

And then we see Conservative voters like the pretty useless Apprentice contestant, who it seems ironically spends more time on a beach than working said a stereotype on students on BBC Free Speech : Ask A Tory ‘I would rather employ someone with life experience, than someone who fannied about getting drunk at uni.’.


Surely students deserve more respect and more help and support from services to find jobs in the sector they worked in. Even if it starts with work experience, rather than making young people particularly work in places they have no interest of working in in the future, who don't have a plan on what you will be doing the next day and so on. 

Surely this should be beneficial? Surely the next Government needs to change this. I'm pretty sure they'll get more out of me in a positive ambitious mood than a disillusioned mood. and I'm sure this would be the same with many more,

Remember you have until April 20th to register to vote, click here to find the registration page. Let's change this country for the better!

General Election Letter To Local Tory Candidate

As you know the General Election is only a month away now and as I believe the current system is flawed for many, I thought I would send emails to all local candidates to see the response. The first party I have emailed was the Conservative party.

I will copy the letter into a post and I shall update it when/if I receive a reply. If it helps one more person vote then I regard it as a success. If the outcome of the election see's no real notable positive change then I believe it is down to us as one to stand up and let our opinions be known one way or another. Anyway here we go:

Email sent: April 7th 15.36

Dear The Conservative Candidate for West Cardiff,

I am a constituent to the area you propose to be a member of parliament for. It will be my first election as a voter with myself being finally over the age barrier (which I personally believe should be lowered to 16 giving the fact I had many friends in my 6 form last election who were into the general election). I lived in Torridge that time and although I wanted the Conservatives to win I didn’t want the Tory candidate to win due to his pretty appalling attendance rate in Parliament due to his second job (Geoffrey Cox) and therefore for that seat was preferable to the Liberal Democrats, especially with their tuition fee pledge being much liked by my age group. Their tuition pledge which rather than holding onto when you formed coalition with them, was scrapped for one of the most pointless referendums in mankinds history. A pledge which after being broken, had salt put into the wounds with the fees going up to £9000. This put a lot of my better friends into an average of £44k of debt. Is this fair for our future generation? Do the future decide to be punished for the presents faults with the economy? We feel used, your party told us there were no plans, the Lib Dems told us they would scrap them. We end up with £9000 tuition feels for sometimes 10 hours of lectures and tutorials a week If we were going to pay a bigger loan perhaps paying a bigger maintenance loan would have annoyed us left with many people having to scrap money off their parents or out of their savings to even cover their rent in Plymouth or have more than £10 to live on a week. How does this make you feel like the party of the normal people? The people trying to make a way in life? Doesn’t it just feel like a punishment for having ambition? And how are we not going to feel the pinch when we wipe the majority of it off?  However I am finding it difficult to find reasons to vote conservative in this general election.

I have since been to University, in Plymouth where I studied Criminology and Law. Aims included looking into such careers as the police, or doing a Graduate Diploma of Law and begin my training to become a lawyer. However since leaving university I preferred the idea of the first more. However cuts to public spending makes it very difficult to find any way of applying to be a PCSO or a Police Officer never mind get in. Plus the Police and Crime Commissioner is one of the most pointless posts in the world, with it just leaving to public disillusion with how the police are run. This is proven by the low turnout in the election for them and to an extent it politicalises the police which is something that should never happen. We’ve all heard about some of the misdemeanours of South Yorkshire police with the mining strikes with some alleged Government involvement.

Beyond my aim for this career, it is also difficult to get a job. I want full time work, but when I search it isn’t readily available to an entrance level, with mainly part time and zero hours available. I had a zero hours contract at Wetherspoons, however turning up at 10 and finishing at 1 was a waste of time for me with it taking an hour to walk too both ways. So it really only lasted a few weeks when the Autumn rugby was on.

So I have found myself on JSA. And whilst I look for a job that's fine. Better that than nothing, despite the total control they try to get to your life, almost making you feel like a criminal, a scrounger when you go in. Is that fair? I’m active in looking for work! I prefer to apply for a few hours every other day however I am told then it looks like I haven’t applied certain  days but I’ve applied for 20 jobs a week in average the last 6 months? Am I a criminal for that? Is this Big Brother society in the DWP fair? What would you do about this?

Add insult to injury I was put onto a Movement to Work course. Now okay, work experience can be important. I’d much prefer it to be in the sector I have done a degree to go into of course (but those good old spending cuts have ruined my ambition of that for now, seen a decrease in reported crime but a rise in unreported crime with the police lacking the resources and public backing nowadays), but my real problem with this is, when I see your stats about how many people are in work, I count as someone who does work. I don’t get paid for it! Okay I get my Kob Seekers but then if you call that a wage, that’s £2 an hour. If that counts as employed by the Government, they might as well include any form of slave labour! There isn't a real option of a job at the end of the four weeks, but I count as employed which makes me wonder what are the figures of employment when you take away the people that aren’t actually employed? Does your party know? Or do you just have these fake statistics, as that’s what they are the way they currently are formed. So when I see this Tory job miracle I’m left thinking its b*ll*cks.

And finally, if your policies are so damn good, why when I go on facebook, or see a tory campaign poster, or when I see your chancellor (who despite people like myself having the issues I have listed above, wont rule out a tax cut for the wealthy) and leader make an appearance on the news do I just get the perception that your campaign isn’t based on policies, it’s based on slating the leader of the opposition, Ed Miliband? The personal swipes are just bullying and I’ve seen nothing in your leader to say he’s a better leader than Miliband or indeed Clegg. Why do I open a newspapers website, a newspaper that’s openly Tory, and rather than see “look at this amazing policy” do I see “vote us because Miliband is incompetent” or “they might go into coalition with the SNP”. It’s not like your party haven't had a coalition, plus the SNP, Plaid and the Greens would only want a vote by vote alliance. And it’s not like your party’s coalition stuck to all their policies. And can you rule out a coalition with UKIP who want to split us up with Europe who poorer parts of the nation such as Wales and Cornwall need?

After all of this, can you explain to me, why your party deserve my vote?

Thanks,

James.