Lets start by taking a look at what an economy is and how it is supposed to work. An economy, in terms of a country or nation, is the system by which we organise the totality of human effort; it is the buying and selling of goods and services, it is the investment of spare money in to future projects, it is how we house, feed, clothe and care for our people, it is how we facilitate productivity in the Nation. It is how we borrow and lend money to achieve things and it is how a government controls what happens to surplus and defects of money in the financial system.
An economy is supposed to facilitate people doing things and living their lives. It is supposed to take care of them so that they are able to do things and live their lives. An economy is supposed to allow people the means to be able to buy and sell things, both between each other and between people and businesses.
The goal of a business within an economy is to produce or sell something for profit. To do this, they need to employ people and these people are paid a proportion of those profits for their work; the people sell their labour to the company which in turn sells a product or a service to the people, with a little bit staying in the company for expansion, guarding against risk and potentially research and development of new products and services. The remuneration given to the workers can then be spent with other companies, buying food and goods, paying for housing or paying for leisure activities and holidays as these help to keep people healthy and fresh, which in turn allows them to remain productive for longer. The government’s role in this is to act as a lubricant; the government should be providing cheap public transport so people can get to work or the gym or to a holiday destination. They are supposed to provide high quality and timely healthcare to ensure that people remain healthy and can live a long life so that they can continue to be productive. They are supposed to ensure that everyone in the economy can afford to live in a good quality home. They are supposed to provide facilities to look after children and young people if both parents, or a single parent goes out to work. They are supposed to provide places where people can get help if something goes wrong. They are supposed to provide culture; art galleries, music events, third places for people to congregate, museums… things that enrich peoples lives, and,… they are supposed to provide rules that stop people being taken advantage of by those in power. By doing these things, people feel happy, taken care of and have the energy to go out and produce and to remain productive.
This is what an economy is supposed to be and how it is supposed to work.
How does the government fund this lubricity? Both private business and the government are supposed to invest in the economy; a private business does this through spending profits to create more jobs, build new buildings and create more goods and services. The government does this by spending money first and recouping it later through taxation. The government can borrow or it can print new money to spend on all of the projects it needs to do. If a nation has the people with appropriate skills and resources, along with the political will and a targeted goal, any scale project can simply be paid for by the government through printing money and, if desired, through borrowing. If this was done without end, it would cause inflation but the way we avoid inflation is for the government to recoup that money through taxation. And this is not taxation of workers, though that is important for other reasons; this is taxation of companies that are the end beneficiaries of that government investment as wealth in ANY economy will eventually flow upwards. Taxes on corporations need to be high, not just for reducing inequality, but also to control inflation. Taking this money back through taxation of companies allows the government to control inflation, to reduce inequalities and to further invest in public services. This isn’t a never ending, continuous cycle though; this is how we fund large scale projects and change. In this way, very large sums of money can be spent up front and then recouped gradually over time. In this way, defects and surpluses are controlled. In lean times, the government needs to spend and invest; this pushes money in to the economy and keeps it going and keeps it growing. This creates a government deficit that is a private surplus. Companies make money from the government spending as it is companies that fulfill the work. More people are hired and wages should be high, so both workers and companies own the private surplus. Then, when times are good, the government can recoup that private surplus through higher taxes on companies and the ultra-wealthy to repay their deficit and create a public surplus and a private deficit. This is how money is supposed to flow between the government and the populace.
Our actual economy.
So what is the reality of our current system? Whilst the Neo-liberal uni-party has consistently changed laws and regulations to benefit business since 1979, there was a step change in 2008. The entire global banking sector collapsed as a result of incredibly corrupt financial practices such as the sub-prime mortgage scandal, where banks would lend money to people to buy overvalued homes, knowing that these people couldn’t repay the loans. When they failed to repay, the bank came along and seized the property, wiping out their own debt to themselves and giving them more assets, houses, that they could then sell for massive profits. When the bottom fell out of the banking sector, the cost to the US economy alone, was more than $47 trillion when all effects were tallied! The cost to the UK was initially £137 billion in government bailouts to save the banks. After recouping what they could, this still left a deficit of £23 billion owed to the government, meaning that a total of £114 billion had been recovered… but it wasn’t the banks that paid this money back. David Cameron’s Conservative government introduced massive austerity packages that meant that it was the taxpayer that paid this back. Given that the population of the UK in 2008 was around 61 million people, this works out to an average of £1868.85 taken from every man, woman and child in the country, or if we look at the working age population, it works out to £2746.99 for every working age person, just to pay the government back for bailing out the super rich. And this was whilst bankers were still being paid massive bonuses and attracting astronomical salaries. As this money was taken back from the taxpayer rather than the banks, it allowed bankers to keep their bailout money whilst also taking the same or more amount out of the economy, triggering a massive recession which in turn triggered more austerity. This was politics being done against us. Even after this was paid back however, austerity continued as individual tax thresholds either increased below inflation or were frozen entirely, meaning more and more people paid higher taxes, with the number of people paying higher band tax more than doubling since 2010, with more than 7 million people paying 40% tax and this is expected to increase again by 2028. Meanwhile, corporation tax fell from 28% in 2008 to just 19% in 2022. Even the 28% was a massive reduction though from the 52% in 1982. This has risen in 2025 to 25%, but this is still far, far below where it needs to be, and the higher earning tax threshold has been frozen since 2021 and is expected to remain there until 2031. This means that a multi-billion pound company, even if it doesn’t take advantage of all of the tax loopholes and tax reliefs available to them, a company committing wage suppression of it’s workers and greedflation against it’s customers, would pay 25% corporation tax, meanwhile, someone earning over £50k, which, lets be honest, is not a massively high wage today, has to pay 40% income tax on anything over that £50k… This is government facilitated movement of wealth from the working class to the ultra-rich. So, because of austerity, companies earn more and more profits every year. These companies lobby the government to reduce workers rights meaning that workers now get significantly less pay than they used to do and have far fewer collective bargaining rights to try and improve their pay. The workers then pay more in taxes from their lower pay and the government keeps cutting public services, meaning that the cost of living is constantly increasing as workers have to pay more and more to survive. The freezing of personal tax thresholds means that more and more people will be dragged in to the 40% tax bracket and that those already in it will pay more and more tax, even when getting below inflation pay rises. If this trend continues, first of all, those earning below £50k will effectively be priced out of existence, with many of those people already having to rely on the benefits system to survive. The £50k threshold will effectively become a poverty wage and all of the financial capital will flow up to the top. The number of UK billionaires has already more than doubled since 2008.
As a result of consecutive governments refusing to change their plans from the austerity mindset, the average person is now significantly poorer, works longer hours and spends less back in to the economy than before, with most of their spending now going either to landlords or directly to banks. In 2017, 18.6% of the UK population were below the poverty line. This placed us behind countries like Belarus, Vietnam, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. In fact, there were 61 other countries ahead of us. Looking at wealth distribution per capita, in 2025, the UK ranked 21st on the list with an average of just over $55,000 dollars or £41696 per person. A quick google search shows that only about 30% of the population actually earn this amount or more, so 70% of the population earn less than this. Think about this for a minute; the UK is the sixth richest country in the world by GDP, yet we had more than 18% of the population in poverty and 70% of the people earn less than the average wealth distribution per capita. Another way to think about this is that, according to the government’s own data, the average household expenditure for 2024 was £623.30 per week. That is £32,411.60 a year that is needed AFTER tax just to live your life at a time when the median salary was £28,000 a year. This is not including paying for holidays or buying a car or paying off any debt other than mortgages. Meanwhile, Billionaires have doubled with a combined estimated wealth of more than £600 billion and the number of millionaires has increased 6 fold. Almost all of our nations wealth resides at the top of the financial tree. Since 2008, consecutive governments have been gaslighting us all, saying that there is no money for public services, saying that we can’t unionise or pay higher wages because what about the poor billionaires and saying that to make things better, we have to work longer and harder and get rid of migrants and get rid of worker’s rights and that its the responsibility of workers to pay for the upkeep of the nation and to fund the ultra-wealthy. It is time for change. It is time for a politics that is of, for and by the people.
The Green Solution.
So, what’s to be done? The conservatives and Labour are promising more of the same whilst Reform don’t actually seem to have a real economic plan other than vibes, rich people and no brown people. The Green Party on the other hand, have a comprehensive suite of policies to tackle the issues and offer real, meaningful change.The main thrust of the policy catalogue around the economy though is this; make normal people better off so that they can spend money and drive the economy… because that’s how an economy is supposed to work, and then place limitations and controls on the banks, big business and councils that force them to favour an economy for the majority.
Starting with their economic policy, it begins with laying out the objectives, some of which are equality and social justice, decentralisation and devolution and self reliance with interdependence. These objectives aim to bring the power of the economy down to the lowest appropriate level, to give people the means to participate fully in the economy no matter what level they are operating at and to make it easier for economic flows in all directions rather than just one, all with the broader aim of reducing inequality.
The policy aims to recognise and empower the informal economy; this is the economy of trade between people, the economy of the unpaid work such as stay-at-home parents and the economy of those who volunteer in the local community. For these people, credit often plays a vital role in their lives and the policy aims to tackle unscrupulous lending practices and extortionate interest rates, forcing lenders to use reasonable lending rates linked to the Bank of England base rate.
For the local economy, the policy aims to aid local communities to be more in control of the parts of the economy that affect them, with devolution of decision making down to the local level. As local economies start to grow and strengthen, the way that taxes are paid and used will change, with a larger percentage of our taxes being paid to local, rather than national government and will be spent by them on projects that affect the local economy. There will still be national investment in local economies to protect against inequalities between local economies, which will help to combat things like the North South divide.
The policy aims to invest heavily in supply and infrastructure to to repair both the physical and economic environment.
It will place limitations on companies so that shareholder profits can no longer be the primary driver, relegating them to a position behind prioritising the wellbeing of all living things and avoiding negative environmental and social impacts, meaning that companies would have to invest their profits in a just transition of the company before paying any shareholder dividends. Companies will be required to pay their employees a fair wage and to limit excessive pay rises for executives and senior managers.
The policy aims to promote and support cooperatives, democratising the workplace and bringing the means of production back in to the hands of the people actually producing.
Maybe more importantly than all of this, the policy will transform banking. Currently, only 3% of money in the economy is actually cash; the remainder is digital currency that banks both create and decide how it is initially spent. The policy will end this, moving the responsibility of creating money away from the Bank of England and to a new independent body, the National Monetary Authority, so that money can be created without the false debt created alongside the creation of money when the Bank of England create it. Lobbying or applying pressure to this organisation by anybody, including government officials will be prohibited and the NMA will be responsible not just for the creation of new money, but also for the management of the national stock of currency, thereby removing banks from the equation entirely.
Additionally, banks would have their roles limited and the different types of activity undertaken by banks would be separated out so that banks would not be able to invest in a market that they control.
The way that private finance is used to pay for public investment will also be transformed to stop long term profiteering by private financiers at the expense of public services. The economic policy also covers all areas of tax, pensions, international trade, finance, debt and foreign aid, intellectual property, e-commerce and a host of other areas, all in great detail. It is an enormous policy that would see significant change in how we think about and interact with the economy.
The housing policy, energy policy, industry and jobs policy, forestry policy, agriculture policy, the countryside policy and many others all tie in to the economic policy through job creation and recognising the unique challenges faced by communities and they aim to work with communities to help to develop local economies that are sustainable and where the vast majority of profits are kept within the community. And finally, the policy around the EU is to rejoin the EU and reopen all of the trade routes that we lost when leaving, restoring billions of pounds to the economy.
In summary, both the Nation and the world in general, is at crisis point; capitalism is failing. The disparity between the rich and the rest has never been greater. Inequality is reaching unbelievable proportions and and the current government along with almost all parties can not admit that they need to move away from capitalism and, by doing so, are pushing us ever closer to fascism. Exactly this has happened before and the governments of the day decided to try and protect and revive capitalism, which subsequently failed and threw the entire world in to global conflict. People have been gaslit in to believing that capitalism is the only way and that without it, we would all die. The ultra-wealthy and elite politicians who serve them are using race, religion and nationality to distract us from the fact that they are actively trying to price us out of existence so that we have no choice but to choose the most aggressive form of politics there is as that makes it easier to control us and ensures that they remain in power. The lie of capitalism is easily disproven though if people spend a second or two thinking about it. Remember Clement Atlee and Harold Wilson. These were two British Prime Ministers who proved that socialism and socialist policies work. Under them we built hundreds of thousands of council houses per year, we got the NHS, we got the cradle to grave welfare system, we got strong employment rights and both Britain and British society prospered. Under these Prime Ministers, the top rate of tax was 83% and the tax on unearned income, which would later become known as capital gains, was 98%. We had no billionaires because of this, but we did have a much fairer, more equitable society. If we elect a socialist or democratic socialist government, the wealth will not flee the country. This is a lie sold to you by the wealthy. The didn’t flee en-mass before and they won’t now. We have a choice to make; we can try to protect capitalism as it flails around in it’s final moments, harming everyone except the ultra-wealthy and risking the reality of fascism, or we can learn from history and avoid that this time and move to a more progressive, socialist society.
The economic policy of the Green Party, when read in conjunction with their other policies, offers a real alternative that is fiscally sound, environmentally and socially responsible and brings normal people back to the decision making table. It offers a path that leads away from fascism and towards a future of care, respect and personal prosperity. There will be lots of people that deny this or try to pick fault with it, but the reality is that those people can not accept that capitalism is already done for and can not accept that we need actual change and that the only way to achieve that change is to understand that the power of wealth and the power of the elite that is entrenched in capitalism is a lie and that it only exists because we have allowed it to. We need to remember that real power, the power that nobody talks about any more, is the power of the people when we organise and vote collectively.
Vote for real change. Vote to end capitalist cuckoldry. Vote for fairness and equality. Vote for an economy of care. Vote for a politics that is of, for and by the people. Vote Green!
The only sensible place to start with this subject is to outline the actual problems that we face with migration.
There is, of course, a problem with people crossing the channel in small boats, there is a problem with asylum seekers being housed in hotels and there is a problem with undocumented migrants in wider society. There are also perceived problems around migrants committing crime, depleting the already stretched welfare state and not integrating in or contributing to society.
In 2025, there were roughly 41,000 people who arrived in the UK by small boats and, since 2018, there have been a total of 194,000 people. The number of people crossing the channel in small boats for the year ending the day before we left the EU was 1843 people. The following year, 2020, this figure quadrupled to 8462. This almost quadrupled again in 2021 to more than 28500 people and has risen almost every year since then.
Why? Why has this risen so quickly from a very obvious starting point?
The answer is not that difficult to get to the bottom of: According to the government’s own statistics on asylum, in 2019, there were 35,737 main applicants for asylum to the UK which is actually more than the total number of asylum claimants in 2020, though it subsequently increased massively. In January of 2020, we officially left the European Union and as such, withdrew from the Dublin protocols. As I’ve said in previous videos, if an asylum claim is rejected in any EU country, then under these protocols, they are forbidden from claiming asylum in any other EU country and can be returned to the first country in which they tried to claim asylum, and from there can be returned to their country of origin. This gives asylum seekers very limited options; return to their country of origin where they were being persecuted (assuming that their claim is genuine), or find a none member state to travel to; namely, the UK. This meant that there were far fewer safe and legal routes to come to the UK to claim asylum. In addition to this, the Conservative government at the time started to massively slow down the asylum process and further close safe and legal routes, meaning that more and more people were forced to use illegal methods of arrival to claim asylum; small boats. Currently around half of all asylum claimants arrive in the UK by small boats. Initially, the numbers didn’t change, the law did.
As for the subsequent rise, just look at what has happened around the world since Brexit; a global pandemic, war between Russia and Ukraine, human rights abuses all over the Middle East after the unilateral withdrawal of all Western Forces from the region, the significant lack of political freedom, forced indefinite conscription and human rights abuses in in Eritrea and ongoing civil wars in Sudan. The world has become a significantly more dangerous place for a lot of people and this drives both migration and asylum and given that large swathes of the pant have English as a second language due to our very problematic and oppressive colonial past, it is understandable that lots of these people choose to come to the UK if they can’t claim asylum elsewhere.
These massive numbers of asylum claimants are obviously a new phenomenon though, aren’t they? Well, no they are not. These are the same numbers that we had in the mid 1990s up to 2003, and nobody was saying we were being invaded then!
Both asylum and migration ebb and flow over time in line with global politics and conflict. In 2003, migration fell sharply due to the war on terror and it stayed relatively low, roughly 2019 levels or below, until Brexit. So, if we have had this level of asylum claimants before, why are we now wearing flags, painting roundabouts and shouting at hotels?
Well, we have had successive Prime Ministers under the conservative government that have tried to run the country as a business rather than a country; they have continuously sold off public assets for personal profit, cut public services for efficiency and savings and increased the tax take from ordinary people through stealth taxes like freezing tax thresholds. The current Labour government are doing more of the same because they are part of the Neo-liberal uni-party. This has led to people being significantly poorer and angrier.
Next, those same governments have continuously cut the Arts and Humanities from school curriculums in favour of focussing on STEM subjects (yes those subjects still exist in some schools but not all subjects exist in all schools). I’m all in favour of STEM; my degree is in Engineering and I work as a professional engineer, but as is shown in the American education system, teaching a subject like engineering without also teaching the arts and humanities leads to engineers who do not understand people, human needs or even basic humanity and many of these engineers end up designing against the end users rather than for them, which frequently increases inequalities and fail to address societal issues. In the case of the UK’s education policy, this has resulted in two outcomes; people who did well at school have that have effectively been trained as technical bureaucrats with little to no training and understanding of the human condition and people who did not do well at school; these people not only failed to achieve in the STEM subjects but were also possibly denied the chance to study other subjects in any detail. We have a very polarised, two tier education system; the uneducated and the technical bureaucrats. Obviously this does not apply to everyone, not even close, but there has been a sharp decrease in educational standards over the last two decades.
Finally, two more things happened; the far right rose in America and the right gained ground here, so we had poorer angrier people with lower standards of education being influenced by rage politics imported from America whilst Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, Suella Braverman, Robert Jenrick, Kier Starmer and Shabana Mahmood weaponised asylum claimants by making their passage to the UK illegal, then housing them in shitty hotels so they can point at them and say ‘Look at them… staying in hotels… they are the problem’ whilst ignoring the fact that they themselves had ruined the country.
As a nation, we are stupider, poorer and angrier than we used to be and the political elite have provided an extremely convenient scapegoat to point the finger at as a distraction from their ineptitude.
If we set aside the rhetoric and rage for a moment, what is the truth of those coming here to claim asylum? 75% of claimants are men. This is because the journey from their country of origin is often highly dangerous so the men often come alone, claim asylum and then attempt to get a family reunion visa afterwards. According to the Refugee council, in 2024, 43% of asylum claims were successful on application. In 2025, it was around 50%. Most of the failed claims however, were overturned on appeal. This significantly draws out the asylum process and in many instances, the process can take years. Whilst awaiting a claim result, asylum seekers are housed in either detention facilities or in low quality hotels and they are not allowed to work. For income, the government gives them £7 per day. When was the last time you survived on £7 a day for an extended period of time? In 2024, 4% of asylum claimants were unaccompanied children and, when a claim is finally successful, the claimant is given 28 days to vacate the hotel or detention facility, meaning they have 28 days to find a job, try to find a home, try to find the deposit for that home, try to open a bank account and try to set up the rest of their new life. Obviously, this is ridiculous and many end up homeless as a result.
So, a person who is being persecuted, abused or is in mortal danger flees their country, often with nothing but what they can carry. They then spend months travelling, with no money or safety to get to a European country where they try to claim asylum and are refused. They make their way to France, to the beaches where they try to obtain passage from criminal gangs but whilst there, are routinely beaten, tortured and abused by French police who are paid to do this by the British government. They finally get on a small boat, risking their life crossing the channel. They arrive in Britain and are immediately detained and sent to either a detention facility or a crappy hotel and given £7 a day to try to survive on whilst being barred from working and ostracised by local communities, only to then have to face hotel shouters who are being radicalised and incited to burn them alive. If they are lucky enough to have their claim approved after potentially living like this for years, they then face the very real risk of becoming homeless yet again. If by some miracle, they manage to find work and somewhere to live, they then try to apply for a family reunion visa only to learn that since September 2025, the government had frozen this program; no new applications have been allowed to be made since. 30,000 people are currently living like this in the UK. Whilst that number would only fill on third of Wembley Stadium and is not a large number on a national scale, on a human scale, it is an awful lot of people. Meanwhile, the hotel owners have taken £5.4 billion of taxpayers money… and you are angry at the asylum seekers.
With specific respect to Asylum, the policy offered by Reform simply will not work. Their policy, and I am paraphrasing and abridging here to make the point, is to reject claims of asylum and to try and dissuade crossing in small boats by using the Royal Navy as a bulwark. First of all, the asylum seekers are already risking their lives on the crossing, so having the Royal Navy there will only encourage them as it increases their safety. The Navy can not open fire on them so would have to pick them up. They can not take them back to France, so they would have to put them ashore in the UK. Once ashore, they would still be able to make an asylum claim that could be appealed if refused and, even if they were prevented from claiming in the first place, they wouldn’t be able to be removed from the country as no other country wanted them in the first place and now they would be taking them back without any due process? It is all smoke and mirrors from Reform.
The Green Party on the other hand, would make all routes to the country legal. This would almost eradicate the small boat crossing over night. Next, asylum claimants would be treat fairly and would be given temporary accommodation whilst their claim was assessed along with access to the NHS. Claims would be assessed within 3 months. If successful, the claimant would be granted indefinite leave to remain and if the claim failed, they would be free to go to another country, but if they had not left the country within a 6 month grace period, they would then be classed as a normal migrant with no need for protection. Whilst there is much more in the policy, this is the important part of it. Make all routes legal to stop the small boats, treat all applicants as people and if it turns out that their claim is genuine, provide protection for as long as they desire it and if their claim is not valid, treat them as a migrant. I honestly can not see anything controversial in that. Certainly not when compared to the barbarism of the current system.
Moving on to normal migration, there are a few arguments against migration that I hear regularly. These are to get rid of all illegal migrants, that migrants do not contribute to society, that they come here as health tourists to take advantage of the NHS, that they don’t integrate, that they are all criminals and that we are being invaded by millions of migrants. I’ll tackle each of these points individually.
Starting with the concept that they don’t contribute to society, when we look at all migrants who have been here for 10 or more years, so this is people who have had their migration status settled, have moved in to and settled in communities and have had a chance to set up their new lives in the UK, as a percentage of their demographic, people who came here to seek asylum are almost as likely to be in employment as UK born people, only a few percent more likely be economically inactive or unemployed and much of this can be explained by the specific challenges faced by asylum seekers that I have already outlined, but when we look at regular migrants, they are MORE likely to be employed and less likely to be economically inactive than UK born people. Next, when we look at earnings, in every salary band up to the 75th percentile, so those earning more than 75% of the population, those who have claimed asylum earn significantly less than than UK born people but regular migrants earn more than UK born people on average. This means that those who have claimed asylum tend to be heavily discriminated against but regular migrants pay more in tax than UK born people, so the argument that they don’t contribute is nonsense; one group of people are often prevented from contributing as much whilst another group contribute more. This argument then is not a valid argument against migration.
Next, they come to use the NHS as health tourists; asylum claimants can utilise the NHS for free until their asylum status is either settled or refused, at which point, they either obtain indefinite leave to remain and can continue using the NHS for free, or for a rejected claim from a non EEA resident, they can not access secondary NHS care for free and are charged for that treatment. Regular migrants have to pay the Immigration Health Surcharge as part of their Visa application and this is currently £1035 per year, every year. This is a specific fee to use the NHS. Do you know who does not pay a specific fee to use the NHS? UK born people. Yes, we pay taxes, but there is no specific fee for the NHS. Given this, the health tourism argument against migration is not a valid argument.
The integration argument is more complex; if you look at large cities like London, Manchester or Leeds, many migrants integrate perfectly well. In those cities and elsewhere in the country though, they may live in more isolated pockets, remaining in communities with others of their own nationality and not integrating as well. In these cases, we need to ask why. There are lots of reasons for this but most of the reasons essentially boil down to the fact that they are not made to feel welcome by white British people. There is a lot of racism and bigotry within our society including institutional racism form employers, the police, the government, all of our media…this would understandably make migrants feel uncomfortable or potentially threatened, so they turn to their own communities for help, support, friendship or anything else they need. Over time, this becomes the community norm and we end up with isolated communities that reinforce this behaviour on both sides of the equation. The integration argument has some validity, but the reasons for this are of our own making as a society and to try and deny this or shift the blame for this is disingenuous and continues the harm done by this.
Next, the idea that all migrants are criminals; this is by no means a simple problem to tackle as the police and government do not record the migration status of people committing crimes. In fact, the statistics only capture arrests and convictions, not offending, and it takes no account of the length of time someone has been resident in the country or a million other important details, so migrant populations could be either under or over represented in the data. This means that the only way to make any assertions about this subject is to look at the data we do actually have and this shows that non-UK nationals make up 12.4% of the prison population. Meanwhile, non-UK nationals make up around 14% of the general population; 16% of the population are born outside of the UK but some of those will be UK nationals. If we were to take this data at face value, it suggests that migrants are less likely to commit serious crime than UK nationals. The truth of the matter is that there is not enough data either way to make any realistic claims, but there is in general, no reason to suspect that migrants commit more crime than UK born people and as such, this is not a valid argument.
Next, the legal status of migrants; estimates for the numbers of migrants in the UK illegally are difficult to estimate due to the illegal status of those people and not wanting to be found, but most come in at an average of about 800,000 people. This statistic however, includes those applying for asylum and those who had visas but have overstayed. This is a lot of people to be here illegally, but what is the actual problem with their illegality? I would suggest that it is because they can not legally work and therefore can not pay taxes, that because they are here illegally, they are harder to track for all sorts of purposes including potential criminal activity, health status , education status or whatever else might be important. This is a legitimate concern. The current government, along with Reform and the conservatives believe that we should be hunting these people down and deporting them. Think about the costs involved in that process; they would be huge. Then think about the benefits of it if it were successful; not much as they are already not able to access the benefits system and are already not paying tax. The Green Party have a better solution to this; undocumented migrants will be given free advice and support to help them to regularise their status without penalty for being undocumented and if they have been here for more than 5 years, they will be invited to apply for settled status providing they do not meet any of the exclusions. This would instantly allow them to work and pay tax and means that the police and judiciary would not be held up with countless cases of undocumented migration, meaning they would be free to pursue the types of crime that we all actually worry about. This means that the illegal status of migrants is a valid concern and under current rules is a real problem, the Green Party have a real solution to it.
Finally, the idea that we are being invaded by millions of migrants, there are two answers to this; if you are making an argument about this because you think white British people are under attack or that we are being replaced by migrants or you think that whiter people will end up as a minority, all of these ideas are based on the great replacement theory which is an aggressive ethno-nationalistic idea with no basis in reality. It is highly racist and bigoted and is used by fascists to facilitate abuse of people who are not white and in many cases, who are not white Christians. If you fall in to this category, we have nothing to talk about as you will likely not listen to reason and even if you did, you probably don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand the arguments. If on the other hand your argument is centred around population growth and its economic effects, then yes, we can talk.
Net migration ebbs and flows with all sorts of political, societal and global issues. In 2025 for example, net migration was around 204,000 people which is much lower than previous years. Given the already discussed aspects of migration, it is more useful for the rest of this section to talk about population growth as this encompasses regular migration, asylum births and deaths and is therefore a more holistic way to look at the problem. There is no denying the fact that the population of the UK is growing. Over the last 26 years, the population has grown by about 10 million people. This is a problem for a few reasons; the UK already relies on imports of food to feed the population. Using current methods of farming and food production, we will never be able to meet these demands on a national level, so the more people we have, the more we have to rely on imports which significantly reduces our sovereignty and increases the risks from global instability. Next, public services have been cut year on year for the past 47 years so now there are significantly fewer, lower quality public services being stretched across more and more people as the population grows. There is a housing crisis in this country with something like 700,000 houses sat empty as landlords use them as land banks, there are too few new houses being built and the vast majority of those are entirely unaffordable, meaning that supply and demand are becoming ever more separated as the population grows. As more and more people are choosing to live in large towns and cities, these spaces are becoming more and more cramped and expensive. The current government, along with Reform and the conservatives have no real plans to tackle this. The Green Party’s migration policy is often lambasted for being too generous. Objections about open borders are invalid and just show that people haven’t actually read the policy. The policy does however, potentially allow for significantly more migration as it aims to have a fair migration policy that treats migrants as human beings rather than as objects of scorn. The problem of criticising this policy on the grounds of increasing population size however, is that it ignores three very important things; Since the year 2000, the global population has risen by 2 billion people and this is set to continue past 2050. Given the increasing affects of climate change, war and political instability, migration is set to increase year on year to all countries in the global north, which can be read as Western nations. As this happens, all of these countries will be left with a stark choice; allow migration and asylum or allow those people to die. And before anyone jumps to the ‘let them die’ conclusion, remember that these are people. People with hopes, dreams, ambitions, fears, joys and loves, parents, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters just like us and just like us, they have the same right to live and to live without prejudice. They are human and are covered by the same human rights that we are and their human rights are just as important as ours. Ignoring this fact is sociopathic.
Next, the criticism assumes that all of these people want to come to the UK. This is blatantly ridiculous; look at the numbers of migrants going to other European countries. Looking at total migration numbers, in 2023 the UK had a total migration of 897,000 which was the highest of any individual country in Europe. Remember, this is total migration though, not net migration. The next highest number was for Germany at 793,000. In 2024 by comparison, Germany took more migrants than the UK. On the face of it, this seems to show that migrants are more likely to come here than anywhere else. But what happens when we look at say the next four most popular countries combined, Germany, Spain, France and Italy; just these four countries alone took almost 2 million migrants in 2023, with all other European countries taking migrants as well. What this actually shows is that migrants are significantly more likely to migrate to the European mainland than they are to migrate here.
The final thing that the critique misses, is that the Green Party has a full suite of developed policies, including one on population size. This policy looks at managing population size holistically and based upon consumption and sustainability, but importantly, a part of this policy is to open the subject up to democratic debate so that fair and realistic limits as well as methods of limitation of population size can be discussed.
Given this, the argument against migration based on population size and population growth is valid, but the only party proposing anything realistic surrounding the subject is the Green Party, and their approach is based in fairness and democratic decision making.
In summary, both asylum and migration do pose challenges to the UK, but I hope that throughout this, I have managed cut through the propaganda and to highlight the truth of the matter. Remember, that all of the sources of information I have used here can be found in the description below. Whilst there are challenges, there is one party that has realistic proposals to tackle those challenges in a fair and humane way and, when their policies are read holistically rather than in isolation, the feasibility of their plans only increases. None of the other parties even come close to this. It is also worth mentioning, that if you agree with some parts of the policies but disagree with other parts, you can change those policies by joining the Green Party and campaigning for change. All policies in the Green Party are developed and selected democratically. One final thing to say about this is, whilst migration and asylum are an issue for the UK, do not believe the propaganda being pushed on us from all sides that this is what you should be most concerned about or that migrants are responsible for the state of the country. What you should be most concerned about is that for decades, the Neo-liberal uni-party has consistently cut public services and has consistently voted to make you poorer and remove power from you whilst simultaneously voting to give your hard earned money and power to the ultra-wealthy. The government and the ultra-wealthy are why the country is broken and why your life is worse than it used to be. The government and the ultra-wealthy are the ones that have been consistently acting against your interests. The government and the ultra-wealthy are the ones that have been doing politics against you. Fuck them. Vote Green and vote for a politics that is of, for and by the people.
I’m going to start this with a caveat; the scientific consensus is that human caused climate change is real, it is happening and it is happening fast. The consensus is not just scientists agreeing; it is multiple, independent studies carried out by multiple institutions over decades that have all come to the same conclusions and, when those studies have been examined by other experts, have been found to be of sound methodology and the results agree with the data. Next, this is based on a report that was commissioned by the current Labour government. It was conducted by both MI5 and MI6; the governments own national and international security apparatus, and the report is their threat assessment of climate change. The report was so damning and so severe that the government tried to bury it as not only were the conclusions extremely dire but, according to a recent article in The Canary, it also highlights the government’s complete failure to act. It took a fierce freedom of information battle to get something released, but what was released is not the full report; it is a watered down version of it.
The joint security services climate change threat assessment report identifies six critical ecosystems around the world that are crucial to the survival of the UK. Whilst there are lots of ecosystems that are important to us, the assessment highlights these as if any one or two of these collapse, it would be devastating for the UK. The ecosystems are:
The Amazon Rainforest, the Congo Basin, the coral reefs and the mangroves of South East Asia, the Himalayas, the boreal forests of Russia and the boreal forests of Canada. These are all places that either directly supply our food chain or resource chain or are critical for our survival through oxygen release, carbon storage or controlling weather systems etc. The report sates that there is a strong possibility (around a 40% to 50% chance) that some of these ecosystems will begin total collapse by 2030 and the remainder by 2050. It needs to be emphasised that the possibility refers to the timescale. The actual collapses are guaranteed without significant intervention. Due to cumulative effects of the contributory factors, the timescales have relatively large uncertainties, but as pointed out in the report, this shouldn’t be taken to mean that it is farther away; it could be, but it also may be much closer. We may have already entered one or more ecosystem collapses without knowing it as the results may not begin to manifest for several years.
Along with these imminent collapses, the report also highlights that it is likely that we are already in the middle of the sixth great extinction; since 1970, vertebrate species population size has decreased by 68% whilst freshwater species population size has decreased by 84%. The total average including invertebrates is a decline of 73%. The rate of extinction is tens to hundreds of times higher than the average of the last 10 million years! It should be noted that food production is the biggest causal factor in biodiversity loss.
What does this actually mean for us in terms of threat?The report highlights the treat very clearly; crop failures, intensified natural disasters, infectious disease outbreaks, conflicts both within and between states, political instability and erosion of global economic prosperity.
We are already seeing a lot of this; political instability and conflicts around the world over resources like oil and natural gas. We are seeing increased rates and intensity of natural disasters and we are seeing repeated crop failures in the UK due to seasonal changes meaning either overly prolonged periods of rain or increasingly hot summers. The report goes further though, expanding on all of these issues, and I quote:
‘Migration will rise as development gains begin to reverse and more people are pushed into poverty, food and water insecurity. A one percentage increase in food insecurity in a population compels 1.9 percent more people to migrate.
Serious and Organised Crime will look to exploit and gain control over scarce resources. More people pushed into poverty will mean more opportunities for SOC to exploit (e.g. people trafficking and black markets in scarce food, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals).
Non-state actors including terrorist groups will have more opportunities resulting from political instability – e.g. acting as mercenaries or pseudo-governments. They may gain control over scarce resources.
State threats become more severe as some states become more exposed than others to food and water insecurity risks.
Pandemic risk will increase as biodiversity degrades, people move between countries and transfer of novel diseases between species becomes more likely.
Economic insecurity becomes more likely. Nature is a finite asset which underpins the global economy. It would take resources of 1.6 Earths to sustain the world’s current levels of consumption. The total annual value of ecosystem services to the UK was £87 billion in 2022 (3% of GDP).
Geopolitical competition will increase as countries compete for scarce resources including arable land, productive waters, safe transit routes and critical minerals.
Political polarisation and instability will grow in food and water insecure areas and as populations become more vulnerable to natural disasters. Disinformation will increase.
Conflict and military escalation will become more likely, both within and between states, as groups compete for arable land and food and water
resources. Existing conflicts will be exacerbated.’
What this is describing is that as the climate crisis worsens and ecosystems begin to collapse, access to food, water and other resources will become increasingly scarce even in currently wealthy areas of the world like the UK. This will lead to significantly higher rates of conflict, terrorism, authoritarianism and political misinformation as political parties try to control the narrative and the populace. As I said earlier, we are already seeing the beginnings of this and it will only get worse. Most of the political disinformation out there at the minute revolves around two things; migration… the reason why things are bad is because of people from other countries, and that climate change is a hoax and net zero needs to be scrapped.
Given the overwhelming and ever increasing amount of evidence that anthropogenic climate change is real, it’s happening now and it will lead to the collapse of everything we know with billions of deaths, ask yourself why would certain politicians lie to you.
The answer is very simple; look at their donors. Fossil fuel companies, international food monopolies, weapons manufacturers, venture capitalists with billions of dollars in housing stock… they all profit from this. All of them. And they donate to people who want to keep things the way they are. Once again, you are being lied to by people who want to continue profiting from destroying our lives and keeping us in the gutter. Once again, this is politics being used against the people.
So, does the report offer a way out? Yes it does. Just one. And it needs to be adopted immediately if we are to avoid this future. Whilst it does state that there are technologies that could help, all of these need significant research, development, time and money before they could be rolled out at scale and therefore, it is cheaper, quicker and more reliable to restore and protect these ecosystems. That’s it. That’s our way out; repair and protect our ecosystems.
What would this look like? Well, lets take the Amazon Rain Forrest as an example. It is predicted that the Amazon would face total ecosystem collapse at somewhere between 20% and 25% deforestation, though this estimate could be wrong, it could be more, but it could be less. The Amazon is currently at 17% deforestation so there is a chance that the collapse may have already started and we just won’t see the effects for a few years. How do we prevent this? We plant more trees. It sounds ridiculously simplistic but, the report gives a concrete example of doing exactly this working to restore an ecosystem:
In Malawi, an initiative was rolled out to restore the environment. They planted 20 million trees and rehabilitated 42 thousand hectares of degraded land. This has supported half a million people in the local area with improved access to water, diversified food production and jobs. The number of people in the area that depend upon humanitarian aid to survive has fallen by 60%. This shows that restoring these ecosystems works.
The next big question then is, how do we go about changing the path that we’re on? Reform, Restore and the Conservatives want to roll back net zero targets and the Labour government actively tried to bury the report that I’ve discussed. The Green Party on the other hand has a solid plan and a very well developed policy surrounding this. As with all Green Party policies, due to it being fully developed, it’s a very long document so I’ll highlight just a few areas that combat precisely what I’ve been discussing here.
The Green Party recognises that no matter what we do, at this point, some level of global disruption due to anthropogenic climate change is inevitable and that we are actually seeing this play out now in many areas of the world. They actually admit that there is a problem, which is always a good start. Additionally, they recognise that this is intrinsically linked with inequality; the biggest producers of emissions and ecosystem degradation are the richest in our societies but they are also the ones who pay the least and shift the blame on to the poorest in society. The idea of the carbon footprint was a lie sold by fossil fuel companies to shift the blame of their emissions on to us. Billions of annual flights, hundreds of thousands or millions of journeys from cargo ships with diesel engines larger than houses, logistics road transport ferrying all of the good, fossil fuelled power stations burning billions of tonnes of fuel… these are the polluters that need to be tackled. You and me driving to work in fuel efficient or electric cars are not the problem here; yes we do contribute to it, but our global contribution is a tiny percentage of the whole. If we all stopped driving tomorrow, it would make only a very small difference, but if industry stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow, climate change would be immediately halted in its tracks.
With regards to restoring ecosystems, the policy is to work with the international community and within our own borders to conserve and enhance carbon sinks including increasing forestry, restoring peatlands, repairing coastal and estuarine environments and tackling ocean acidification. In terms of human activity continuing to harm the environment, the policy is to decarbonise our energy infrastructure, cut all greenhouse gas emissions, not just carbon dioxide, and through other areas of policy, to decarbonise all other areas of industry. From a technological standpoint the policy is to further develop and roll out carbon capture initiatives to remove carbon from the atmosphere. It is estimated that just for the UK alone, we may have to remove up to a gigatonne of carbon per year for the next century to stop and partially reverse the effects of climate change.
The policy outlines in great detail how difficult achieving this will be, but between this policy and a whole host of other policies, describes how they will go about achieving this gargantuan goal in a fair and equitable way.
In summary, we are being lied to; conflict with Russia or China, along with race politics, division and hatred, it’s all a distraction so that the Epstein class can continue to exploit both us and the environment to maintain the status quo and continue to profit at the cost of the world we live in. Whilst some of those are threats, they are not the genuine, primary threat we face. The destruction of our environment is the real threat and it has already begun to show its effects. It will only get worse. Even if you don’t care about climate change, it is and will continue to effect, in increasing amounts, our economy, migration, conflict and the way we live our lives.
Another way to look at this for those of you who refuse to believe all of the evidence we have is this:
Either climate change is real or it is not. The potential worst outcomes of these two contradictory stances are:
If climate change is real and we do nothing, ultimately we become extinct after a prolonged period of immense suffering.
If climate change is not real and we invest billions, or hundreds of billions of pounds in to tackling it, then we don’t stop it because it is not real, but in the process, we would have created whole new industries, countless jobs, made energy far cheaper, insulated all of our homes, grown our economy, reduced conflict restored trust in politics, restored the natural environment to a semblance of it’s former beauty and massively, massively reduced inequality.
One of these worst case options leads to total ruination and the extinction of our species whilst the other worst case option improves our society and the way we live our lives beyond measure. Even if you do not believe in climate change, you need to be voting to tackle it. To not do so is beyond insane.
There is only one party that has a comprehensive plan to save us all from this very real threat, and that is the Green Party. It is time to stop being selfish. It is time to put racism, division and hate away; it’s just a distraction. It’s time to stop the cuckoldry to the ultra-wealthy. It is time for us all to come together for the good of all humanity. It is time to elect a Green government!
If you are a committed Reform voter, this probably won’t change your mind, but if you’re Reform curious or planning on voting for them because you want change, please watch to the end as this might help to persuade you one way or the other.
The propaganda that we’re looking at today is the idea that Temu-Fuhrer Nigel Farage is a man of the people and the he is going to work in your best interest if you just vote for him, but to start with, let me tell you how you can access and search the Epstein files.
The first method is to go to the DOJ website, then, ironically, click to say that you’re over 18 and then you can use the search feature to look for files. The search feature is very basic, doesn’t seem to use boolean operators and doesn’t seem to organise the results in any way. Additionally, the files are displayed as PDFs so it can be difficult keeping track of everything.
The second and much more user friendly way is to use JMAIL. You can just google JMAIL Epstein files and, at least in my browser, it is the first link. Once inside JMAIL, if you move your cursor to the bottom of the screen, you will find some icons. On the left, you have access to all the files from his emails. Moving right, you then have access to the released photos; at least, the none-sensitive ones. Next you have access to the file server, then flights, then the ‘more’ option. Clicking on this will give you access to his WhatsApp, Spotify, Amazon shopping list and some other stuff.
Funding
We’ll come back to the Epstein files shortly, but let’s start with Nigel Farage’s funding for 2025. All of this information is public information that Nigel Farage has declared, and I emphasise the word declared here, and its available on the parliament UK website, link in the description.
Nigel Farage campaigns on a platform of being a man of the people. He is an elected MP for Clacton. For this, he receives a ministerial salary of £91346 plus expenses. For this salary, in 2025 he did not hold a single constituency surgery and only spoke in parliament 45 times, which is less than once a week. He did however indulge in multiple foreign trips on speaking engagements for all sorts of organisations. He also took some time out to be a brand ambassador for a gold bullion company and spent an awful lot of time giving interviews. For this side of his life, last year her received £1,135,551.45. Most reports round this to ‘just over one million pounds. This means that the rounding error on the financial remuneration that Nigel Farage received last year, outside of his role as a Minister, that the UK tax payer pays him for, would pay the salaries of thee NHS nurses with money left over. Let me say that again; for the interests he peruses outside of his job, the rounding error on his remuneration would pay for three nurses with money left over. Meanwhile, for the job that we pay him to do, he hasn’t held a single constituency surgery. He does not represent the people.
Going into a bit more detail, as well as taking salaries from GB News (almost half a million pounds a year) and the Telegraph newspaper (£4000 per month), some of his notable donors are:
The Conservative Political Action Conference in the US.
George Cottrell; a former politician and convicted felon having spent time in prison for fraud but who was also indicted on a further 20 counts of money laundering, wire fraud, blackmail and extortion. He took a plea deal which is why the 20 other charges were dropped.
Google.
X.
Baron App Inc; An American video sharing service that was fined $100,000 for failing to identify paid promotions.
Multiple crypto firms and tech billionaires.
The government of Abu Dhabi.
Direct Bullion; literally a dealer of gold bullion.
Obviously, both X and google are companies that an elected official should not be taking money from, but also, receiving money and having very close ties to George Cottrell, a convicted fraudster who still engages in suspicious activity, is not a good look for Farage. After serving time in prison in the US for wire fraud, Cottrell now resides in Montenegro and has been embroiled in multiple scandals and legal cases in the country but also still engages in UK politics, having set up a new company called Geostrategy International Unlimited in March of 2025, that according to the Goodlaw project, doesn’t seem to have any clients or members of staff across its four international locations. The address given on the company website for its US office is in a completely different state to the address registered in official records. There are genuine concerns that this is a money laundering operation, though I need to be clear: I am not saying that it is a money laundering operation, just that there are genuine concerns that it may be.
In 2025, Cottrell’s mother donated £75,000 to Reform UK Ltd. George Cottrell still maintains close links with Farage.
Next, let’s take a look at the Conservative Political Action Conference (or CPAC for short) as this is where it starts to get a bit more interesting.
The CPAC is an annual Conservative conference in the US that has very close ties to white nationalism and far right ideology through many of its speakers and guests, not least the demonstrably extreme far right ideologue Steve Bannon. The conference has been accused of spreading white nationalist ideals along with other far right ideologies.
In 2025, not for the first time, Farage was invited to speak at CPAC. And the organisation paid for his accommodation during the visit. Whilst the financial value of this is almost nothing, it does does show that Farage and Bannon are moving in the same political circles; far right groups in the US.
Steve Bannon is the key player behind the scenes here. The relationship between Farage and Bannon is a close working relationship but Bannon also has close ties to both super-villain Peter Thiel of Palantir fame along with the arch-paedo Jeffrey Epstein.
Brexit
Nigel Farage has spent the vast majority of his political career campaigning to leave the EU. Given his outlook on the world, I suspect that his real motivation behind the push to leave the Union was simply because the EU regulates against uncontrolled asset accumulation, though not very successfully, and tends to resist fascism in favour of neo-liberalism. Farage has always served the interests of business over normal people but he never really had a large platform until the early 2010s.
In 2014 Farage became the MEP for the UK and immediately got to work sewing the seeds for Brexit. Remember, this is two years before the referendum, His very first contribution to the European Parliament was a response to a statement in the conclusions of the European Council meeting on the 26th to 27th of June 2014 where he replied:
“What you are going to have to get used to – all of you – is the idea that across the political spectrum there are now more Eurosceptics in this Parliament than there have ever been, and many of them do not subscribe to ever-closer union, they do not subscribe to that flag and they do not want a European anthem. They want a modern Europe where we can trade together, cooperate together and have mutual respect for each other. I will tell you this, Mr Lamberts: do not worry too much about my presence, because within the next five years, I will not be here, all right?”
He was only 6 months out on his statement. Prophetic or planned, even at this early stage? From this point on, his relationship with with the European Parliament was entirely combative, often pitting the UK against our European neighbours, slowly eroding our national reputation. On that point, it is worth noting that currently, most Europeans see the UK as the ‘Florida of Europe’. Hardly an epithet to aspire to.
Farage would continue on over the next two years, garnering more and more publicity and airtime, publicly pushing for the UK to leave the EU on a platform of uncontrolled immigration and the promise of tax cuts; neither of which were founded in reality. At the same time, the incumbent government treat him as a joke and as a result, did nothing to dispel the story that he was weaving. All of this was taking place amidst the fallout of the banking crash and subsequent scandals. The people of the country were rightly angry and Farage’s words found a home in many of the otherwise centrist and left leaning populace.
This finally built to a head and forced then prime-minister and accused pig-botherer David Cameron to call a referendum on the matter.
The resulting media campaign was an absolute shambles. On one side, you had Nigel Farage spreading lies every time he opened his mouth, pulling statistics out of thin air and painting them on the sides of buses and the anti-leave campaign basically doing nothing to disprove his lies and instead, resorting to name calling and making up their own lies about how wonderful the EU was. This resulted in half the population not even turning out to vote because they were both confused over the constant nonsense, but also because they didn’t believe that people would realistically vote for something so idiotic. As a result, just over half of the very small voting turnout ended up voting for Brexit. Brexit succeeded on a tiny majority of a very small electoral turnout because most people in the country underestimated the stupidity of the rest of the country. How very British.
Some of Farage’s notable lies were:
Brexit will give the NHS an extra £350 million per week. This turned out to not only be a completely made up number, but any actual national savings from Brexit were immediately outweighed by the slowdown of the economy and higher costs of everything due to Brexit.
We can control our borders and control immigration. This turned out to be one of the biggest lies. First of all, immigration numbers in the post Brexit years did not fall at all, but, more importantly, having left the EU, we automatically left the Dublin Regulation. If you are not familiar with this, this is a piece of legislation that states that any claim of asylum must be processed by the first member country in which the claim was made and that if it is rejected, then the seeker is barred from resubmitting the claim in any other member country. This means that if an asylum seeker has had their claim of asylum rejected anywhere in the EU and then comes to Britain, we can not send them back. Given the general shift to the right of most European countries and the rise of open racism due to prominent political figures like Marine Le Pen, along with the continuing conflicts in the Middle East, both asylum claims and asylum claim rejections rose in the EU. This meant that the rejected asylum claimants had nowhere to go other than a none EU member state. Basically, they could go home or come to the UK. As a result of the border issues around Brexit, this effectively removed many of the legal, safe avenues of arriving in the UK to claim asylum. You can probably guess what happened next; The number of illegal channel crossings in small boats absolutely exploded, quadrupling in 2020 after the UK left the EU and by 2022 had risen to more than 80,000 crossings; an increase of around 3900%. So not only did net migration not fall, but Nigel Farage, as a result of Brexit, directly caused the small boats crisis. It’s worth pointing out here that this happened under the Brexit deal that was actually negotiated. Farage wanted a no-deal Brexit, which would have made things far worse.
Brexit will boost the economy. This turned out to be entirely false. The economy has suffered massively since Brexit. It’s estimated that business investment has fallen more than 12% and maybe as high as 18% since Brexit and that employment levels are around 4% lower than they would have been if we had remained in the EU. It’s also estimated that the UK’s GDP per capita has fallen by around 6% to 8% and that total GDP is around 4% lower as a direct result of Brexit.
Brexit will restore sovereignty. It turns out that Brexit actually reduced our sovereignty; not only are we still bound by the majority of European laws (thankfully), but now we have no say in how they are created or amended. In addition to this, as we are now a small, isolated island, trade pressure from the US and other areas of the world ends up dictating our foreign policy and as a result, we have become an entirely vassal state to the US. Thanks Nige, you twat.
Brexit will allow for tax cuts, including scrapping VAT on fuel bills and reducing cooperation tax for small businesses. This barely needs an explanation. It was a lie and all of those things have increased in cost, not reduced.
Apart from the economic fallout from Brexit, the country has seen an increasingly hostile divide between normal, hard-working people who believe in the common good and and the increasingly fascistic, billionaire funded far right. The vast majority of the real problems that people experience in the country today are a direct result of Nigel Farage being given a free pulpit by our billionaire owned media. As an aside, this is just one more reason why billionaires shouldn’t exist.
The Epstein Files; Farage and Bannon try to create an axis of evil.
Nigel Farage has been mentioned in the Epstein files numerous times, though there is no communication from him to either Epstein, Bannon or Thiel. What is there, is a picture of how the Brexit that we ended up with; the worst of all possible worlds, was likely planned and carried out between Farage and foreign actors.
In June of 2016, Epstein emailed Peter Thiel saying that “Brexit was just the beginning”. When Thiel asked “Of what”, Epstein gave a chilling reply:
“A return to tribalism. Counter to globalization= amazing new alliances. you and I both agree = zero interest rates were too high, and as i said in your office… finding things on their way to collapse, was much easier than finding the next bargain.”
This starts to paint a picture of a developing plan to engineer the fall of democracies in to authoritarian states purely for profit.
In a WhatsApp communication in March of 2018 between Epstein and Bannon, Bannon boasts that he is now an advisor to multiple people in far right organisations such as the AFD in Germany, Victor Orban of Hungary and others, but importantly, also of Nigel Farage. In the same message, he claims that they might be able to go to 200 seats in the European parliament which would allow them to, quote “shut down any crypto legislation or anything else we want”
In July of 2018, Bannon and Epstein share an email conversation with a publication excerpt sent from Benjamin Harnwell, a right wing Christian nationalist. This excerpt details how Steve Bannon is moving into the heartlands of Europe to set up an organisation that will act as a far right think tank to provide advice to far right movements across the region but will also help to organise funding them and help to undermine democracies. In the article, it outlines that he has already met with many of the leaders of these movements, including Nigel Farage. In this email conversation, Epstein also tells Bannon that though he is unsure of Bannon’s play book, whatever Bannon is doing he is in on it.
In 2019, Alison Klayman, a film maker and journalist, made a documentary called ‘The Brink’ which followed Bannon from his final days in the Trump administration through to after the 2018 midterm elections in the US. In this video, there is a discussion between Bannon and Farage where Bannon proposes the idea that Farage help him set up some sort of convening authority over these right wing, fascistic organisations as a global revolt, using immigration as the vehicle. Farage then laughs and jokes with Bannon about his rise to arch-villain after his speech in Alabama where he jokingly called his audience ‘a bunch of ‘deplorables’. This speech was aimed at getting Roy Moore elected and in the speech, he attacked republicans, defended Moore against allegations of sexual misconduct. Moore had been removed from judicial office twice for judicial misconduct.
All of this is now openly available in the public domain and the only way to phrase what was going on here, is that Farage and Bannon were trying to create an Axis of Evil.
Though none of this is conclusive evidence against Nigel Farage, I think it does warrant a full investigation.
One last point; In the Epstein files there was a document stored on a drive. It is a 2017 study of the rise of authoritarian governments, written and published by Freedom House. Freedom House is a non-profit organisation that advocates for democracy, freedom and human rights. Now, whilst the organisation and indeed the study are coming from a place of advocacy and information, this study is comprehensive in its detail and in the wrong hands, could be used as an instruction manual. The title of this document is ‘Breaking Down Democracy: Goals, Strategies, and Methods of Modern Authoritarians’ and talks about all of the things that authoritarian and fascist governments do to seize and maintain power, from rigging elections to spreading propaganda and treating your own people as the enemy within. Given the revelations that Epstein was a firm believer in eugenics and wanted to wipe out all poor people, given his relationship with Steve Bannon and Peter Theil and given Bannon’s relationship with Farage and the far right across America and Europe along with Epstein seemingly being involved with the organisation of right wing movements alongside Bannon, I think that the chances Epstein had a copy of this in his document drive purely as a point of academic study is precisely zero and that should worry us all.
This effectively brings us to the end for this video and as I said at the beginning, If you are Reform curious, I hope that this helps to dispel some of the propaganda that they tout. Just as a closing reminder of the key points of this essay:
Nigel Farage claims to be a man of the people; he is a multi millionaire funded by billionaires and foreign governments.
He says he will be tough on crime; he takes donations from convicted felons and companies that have been fined for unscrupulous behaviour.
He says that he is not racist; he takes donations from white nationalist organisations and has repeatedly been involved with far right, fascistic movements across Europe and America.
He says he cares about democracy and sovereignty; many of his donations come from right wing American political organisations and he actively tried to set up a pan-European, cross Atlantic Axis of Evil with one of the most reviled men in politics currently.
He continually avoids doing anything for his constituency and actively works against the interests of the nation.
He says that he will be tough on immigration; He directly caused the small boat crisis and despite his horrifically racist rhetoric, has done absolutely nothing to bring down immigration because it is an incredibly useful tool to drive his agenda.
He says that he cares about working people; as a result of Brexit all of us are poorer.
In short, he is a liar and a con-man; a grifter who only wants your votes so that he can profit and turn our nation into the heart of the Fourth Reich.
Before we dig in to this, I want to say something that most people might disagree with, but it needs saying as we need to change the lens through which we view politics.
There are many things, that if we pay attention, Reform voters and Green voters tacitly agree on. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we agree on almost all of the problems that this country faces, and we only disagree on the proposed methods for dealing with these problems. With that in mind, we need to stop focusing on ‘the left and right of politics’. The left and right of politics don’t really exist other than as a distraction designed to pit us against each other. In reality, there is only the politics that is of, for and by the people and the politics that is against the people.
Billionaires and elites directly profit from us squabbling because it stops us collectively organising. If there are roughly half the population siding with billionaires because they’ve drunk the Koolaid, then change can never happen and the elites continue to profit. Over time, we get what we are currently seeing now; billionaires making money at a rate never seen before directly off the backs of working people, making us poorer and poorer and poorer.
If the higher earnings tax threshold had kept up with inflation since 2010, it would currently be sat at about £58,509 rather than the £50,000 it is currently at. This threshold has been frozen from 2022 and will remain so until 2031. We have the highest tax burden on working people in generations and we are getting nothing for it; public services have been decimated, the NHS is entirely broken, everybody is skint and the whole country are angry and depressed. This isn’t because of immigration or poorly managed public services, it is because politics has been consistently done against us.
Following the 2008 baking crash, a political decision was made by Peter Mandelson to pass the burden of the bankers’ mistakes onto working people rather than on to the bankers, whilst at the same time, giving the bankers bonuses. This was politics being done against us.
Under multiple Conservative and Labour governments, our Armed Forces were absolutely gutted, with the Army alone being reduced from 155,000 troops in the year 2000, to 100,000 today. That figure includes the reserve forces. The actual total number of full time regular soldiers we have today is 73,000. Our entire Army could be seated in Wembley stadium with 17,000 seats left empty. This has left us entirely defenceless without the aid of our European allies or America. This was politics done against us.
During the COVID 19 pandemic, the government gave away tens of billions of pounds in contracts for PPE to their friends and donors, almost all of which ended up being below specification and getting incinerated as it was unusable. We had to foot the bill. This was politics done against us.
Workers rights have consistently been eroded in favour of corporations so that now workers can be made to work significant amounts of unpaid overtime, taking away their free time and being defrauded of tens of thousands of pounds a year under unfair legislation. This is politics being done against us.
The government sold off our national water to venture capitalists who extract the maximum profit from the system whilst investing nothing in return until the system crumbles, then putting prices up again as they pump raw sewage into our waterways. We are the only nation in the whole of Europe and Asia along with almost all of Africa that has privatised water. Water is a minimum requirement for life and we privatised it. This is politics being done against us.
The current government are passing seemingly innocuous laws then altering them to sneak under the radar extremely regressive surveillance measures. They are changing them through regulation rather than legislation, meaning that nobody gets a say. In their own words, they want the eyes of the state on us at all times. They are trying to say that this is for safety and security, to protect people, but the people that we need protecting from is the government. This is politics done against us.
This same government has legislated against Trans people and the wider LGBTQIA+ community, they have tried to go after the poor, pensioners and disabled people, they have proscribed a protest group and made it illegal for people to hold signs in support of wrongly imprisoned people, people who have been denied trial for far longer than the legal limit, against their human rights and are now arresting people on the streets for this whilst the government supports a genocide in Gaza. They are embedding American surveillance companies into our NHS as they systematically sell it off to their friends under our noses. This is politics being done against us.
We are now significantly poorer, work significantly harder, have far less free time, have far fewer rights and are at much higher risk of the government acting against us, the people. It has to stop.
If we want to change this it will require all of us, together, to bring about a politics for, of and by the people.
The Relevant Parties
The party name for Reform is probably the most sensible place to start as it instantly highlights something; they are not a typical political party with collective agreement and organisation or a membership that can vote on policy. The are a limited private company with a top down hierarchy where the top person and their immediate confidants and consiglieres decide on policy and hand it down to everyone else. The limited suffix is carrying a lot of weight here as this means that they do not have a party leader; they have a director and they have shareholders. It also means that if things go catastrophically wrong, the owners and shareholders are only on the hook for up to the amount that they have invested. Think about this for a second; if someone is injured, killed, wrongly accused or suffers negative actions as a result of either their policy or governance and they are taken to court, the amount that they can be made to pay out is limited to the amount invested in the company. Now ask yourself; who does this serve? Does it serve working people or does it serve the directors and shareholders? It should be obvious that this only benefits the shareholders and owners of the company.
By setting up Reform as a limited company rather than a political party, the owners have consciously designed the system so that they can do politics against us.
In contrast, the Green Part of England and Wales is an entirely democratic organisation. The leader and co-deputy leaders have been chosen by the membership as have every person that holds office within the party. Every single policy that the Green Party has, has been put forward by a member of the party and has been voted on and approved by the membership. If a single member does not like a policy or has an idea for a new policy, they can put forward their idea, campaign within the party to spread their idea and then the membership can vote on it at the party conference, which is open to all members. Hannah Spenser, the Green Party nominee in the Gorton and Denton by-election did exactly this with the policy surrounding greyhound racing and, as a result, the policy changed. This means that no matter who you are, as long as you are a member of the party, you can directly affect policy. This is politics of, for and by the people.
The People.
The leader of Reform UK Ltd is the ambulatory phallus Nigel Farage, MP for Clacton. Good old Nige is the son of a stockbroker. He went to private school and before becoming an MP, was himself, a commodities broker. He was a member of the Conservative Party and in 1989, whilst a member of the Conservative Party, voted for the Green Party in the General Election. Farage is a multi-millionaire.
The deputy leader of Reform UK Ltd is Richard Tice, MP for Boston and Skegness. He is the son of a philanthropist and the grandson of a property developer. He went to private school before becoming a property developer and subsequently being a CEO of multiple property companies, TV presenter on Talk TV and GB News and was a member of the Conservative Party for many years. Tice is a multimillionaire.
MPs:
Sarah Pochin, MP for Runcorn and Helsby. She attended private school and worked as a Justice of the Peace as well as working for Shell oil and Gas. As a Justice of the Peace she was reprimanded by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office for using her judicial position to influence colleagues’ views in a political context as well as breaching confidentiality by publicising the complaint against her. She was a member of the conservative party and is a millionaire.
Danny Kruger is the MP for East Wiltshire. He is the son of a property developer and was privately educated at Eaton College. After leaving university, he immediately became the director of research at the Centre for Political Studies, a centre-right think tank. He then became a political advisor for the Conservative Party and then was elected and served as a Conservative MP before joining Reform UK Ltd. He owns multiple properties and land.
Robert Jenrick, MP for Newark. He is the son of a finance director who later became a managing director. He is privately educated and qualified as a solicitor working in London and Moscow before becoming a Conservative MP. He is a multimillionaire.
Suella Braverman, MP for Fareham and Waterlooville. Born to working class parents but the niece of the former Mauritian High Commissioner to the UK. She was privately educated on a partial scholarship. After graduating, she worked as a solicitor and joined the Conservative party, campaigning for election in multiple seats as a parachute candidate before becoming the Conservative MP for Fareham and Waterlooville. As home secretary, she became known as Cruella Braverman for her consistently vile, racist rhetoric and plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. She is a multimillionaire.
Andrew Rosindell, MP for Romford. One of the few genuinely working class politicians on this list, he is the son of a school dinner lady and was educated in a state school. He joined the Conservative party at 14 years old and worked as a local councillor before becoming the MP for Romford. He is staunchly anti-LGBT and was embroiled in the MPs expenses scandal
Lee Anderson, MP for Ashfield. He is the other MP on this list that is genuinely working class. The son of a coal miner in Sutton-in-Ashfield, he was educated at the local school and became a coal miner in his local pit. He was a Labour supporter and part member for years and was actually a Labour councillor from 2015 to 2018 when he was suspended from the Labour Party for using boulders to block the travelling community from setting up camp. He then defected to the conservative party. His time as a conservative MP was spent in what seems like almost constant conflict with his peers. He defected for a second time, to Reform UK Ltd in March 2024. He is a multimillionaire.
In contrast, from the Green Party, we have:
The party leader, Zack Polanski was educated by a mix of private and state education. He has worked as an actor and a hypnotherapist and before joining the Green Party, was a member of the Liberal Democrat Party. Zack is the democratically elected leader of the Green Party, being elected by the membership on a massive majority of 85%. He is not a millionaire.
Co-deputy leader Mothin Ali is the son of a unionised steel worker who lived in Sheffield after emigrating from Bangladesh in the 1960s. Mothin is a Green Party councillor in the ward of Gipton and Harehills in Leeds. He was democratically elected to co-deputy leader of the party in 2025 from a pool of 9 candidates with the largest share of the vote at 33.51%. He is not a millionaire.
Co-deputy leader Rachel Millward was privately educated and after graduating, worked as a researcher in the media industry before setting up a film festival to promote and show films made by women, which are significantly under-represented in the industry. She is the deputy leader of the Wealdon district council. Whilst there is no readily available information on her net worth, her family home is valued at around £1.6 million.
MPs:
Siân Berry, MP for Brighton Pavilion was state educated then went to Oxford University where she graduated with a Masters degree in Engineering. She has worked as a medical copywriter and as a campaigner for a charity. Her only job is as an MP with no other regular roles in her parliamentary registered interests.
Ellie Chowns,MP for North Herefordshire is the daughter of a Methodist preacher. She holds a PhD in international development and has worked overseas for various charities as well as being a lecturer at the University of Birmingham, where she completed her PhD. She is not a millionaire.
Carla Denyer, MP for Bristol central. Her mother was a scientist and her father worked for both the MoD and a third party supplier to the MoD. She was state educated and studied mechanical engineering at University. Following University, she worked in the renewable energy sector and became a councillor on the Bristol council. She is not a millionaire.
Adrian Ramsay, MP for Waveney Valley was state educated and at University, studied politics. After leaving university, he has worked for and in the Green Party as well as serving as the CEO for an alternative energy charity that demonstrates and teaches sustainable development. He is not a millionaire.
Looking at the patterns, we can see that the Reform UK Ltd MPs and leaders are not only mostly millionaires or multi millionaires but, with the exception of Lee Anderson and Andrew Rosindell, have all worked in fields that either generate wealth and funnel it upwards, away from the working class like property developers and stock brokers, or involve control over people, like judges and solicitors. These are the regular funnels for political careers and all of these people have vested interests in protecting their capital. Additionally, most of them come from privileged backgrounds and as a result, have no idea what it is like to live as a normal person. If you then look at their voting records, the trend continues; they generally vote against workers rights whilst voting in favour of protecting capital. They tend to vote against equality such as same sex marriage and continually vote against environmental issues which have a disproportionate negative effect on the working class and poorer members of society. I urge you to go in to the video description where you will find links to the voting records of every MP mentioned here; both Reform UK Ltd and Green. See for yourself how Reform UK Ltd MPs are voting against everything that would benefit the working class and against the interests of normal people. See how they are doing politics against you.
In contrast, the Green MPs are a representation of broader society; mostly state educated, mostly from working class backgrounds and whilst some of them have had very successful careers, they have all worked either normal jobs or in roles that directly benefit society. These are roles that are not particularly common in the political funnel as they are roles that normal people, from a variety of backgrounds would normally do. This is because these people, in general, came to politics later as a result of being negatively affected by politics being done against them in their normal lives; being a politician was not the original goal for the majority of them. Then, when you look at their voting records, without fail, they vote in the interests of both working people and broader society. They vote in alignment with the democratically elected party policies. This is politics that is of, for and by the people.
The Policies.
Given the rise of Reform UK Ltd and the massive increase in membership of the Green Party, it isn’t unreasonable to suppose that the next general election could be fought between Reform UK Ltd and the Green Party. I’m not saying that it will be, just that it isn’t ridiculous to think that it might be. I’m now going to take a look at a few of the key policies from each party. The Green Party website has a direct link to their 2024 manifesto. This can be viewed digitally as a list of policies or the manifesto can be downloaded in either short or long form. Conversely, the Reform UK Ltd website only shows a list of policies digitally.
Starting with some of the policies of Reform UK Ltd, I want to say that I found the research for this segment particularly challenging as their policies are all insane. They are full of lies, gross misrepresentations of the truth, numbers pulled out of thin air, unrealistic assumptions about other countries, plans to weaken our national defence infrastructure and plans to do away with our human rights along with plans to impoverish children, give massive tax cuts to the wealthy and to torture and disappear people.
I also want to digress for a brief moment to talk about human rights. If we choose to collectively live in a society with other people, there has to be a set of principles that protects that society from the basest impulses of humanity. To not have these protections would be entirely incompatible with society. To say otherwise is ridiculous. I am pretty sure that every single one of us would say that if I was walking down the street, it would not be okay for me to randomly kidnap and torture someone, or that if I was an employer, I should not be able to reduce your salary to almost nothing because I wanted to buy myself a new car, or that it would be unacceptable for the government to say we don’t need the working class any more, so lets eradicate them. It would be unacceptable for me to say that I like your house more than I like mine, so I’m just going to take your house then sell mine for profit. All of these things would be unacceptable to each and every one of us. So we have protections; we have rights that allow us to live our lives in peace, without fear of these things. But human rights only work if they are applied to all people. They are not negotiable and they are not exclusionary. When you make them exclusionary, you get Hitler exterminating 11 million people. When you make the exclusionary, you get Saddam Hussein gassing tens of thousands of his own people. When you make them exclusionary, you get the state of Israel trying to wipe out an entire people. Closer to home, when you make them exclusionary you have a government that illegally imprisons people and allows them to starve then suppresses the media to try to hide it from the populace. Human rights are there to protect everyone, or they are not human rights, and to not have them would bring about the collapse of society.
Now, on to the policies of Reform UK Ltd. The first of which is Operation Restoring Justice. This is the Reform UK Ltd plan for dealing with immigration. I can’t convey how bad this is by just paraphrasing and selecting certain bits, so I’m just going to read through it and discuss each part as we arrive at it. After an introduction full of inflammatory language and numbers pulled out of thin air, with no references at all, the document then begins in earnest with:
Operation Restoring Justice.
‘The Legislation
Upon winning a general election, a Reform government under Prime Minister Nigel Farage will:
Leave the European Convention on Human Rights
Repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights
Pass the Illegal Migration Bill.’
It is important to note at this point, that the supposed Bill of Rights does not exist. There are no ideas put forwards for this in this or any document and that is because they have no intention of actually passing such a bill. They do outline the Illegal Migration Bill below and in the crypto policy, there is an actual drafted Bill. If they had put any thought into a Bill of Rights, they would have published it here.
It goes on:
‘This Bill will:
Create a legal duty to remove illegal migrants for the Home Secretary. The Bill opens with a blunt obligation for the Home Secretary; The Secretary of State shall ensure the removal from the United Kingdom of each person who does not have an extant leave to remain and is not an Irish citizen or otherwise protected by regulations made under this act.’
What they are actually saying is that if you have not already applied for and received your right to remain paperwork or you are not Irish, you will be deported. This means that legal migrants will be deported. Americans, Europeans, Chinese, Japanese… nobody is safe.
It continues:
‘The following parts of the legislation are introduced on an emergency basis, with an in-built sunset clause after 5 years (though it does not say what that clause is):
Disapply the 1951 Refugee Convention, The UN Convention Against Torture and the Council of Europe Ant-Trafficking Convention. Derogation is justified under the Vienna Convention doctrine of state of necessity: Britain faces a national emergency in which uncontrolled migration undermines public order. These treaties will otherwise be used by activist judges to frustrate deportations, even after the repeals of the HRA and ECHR.’
This should be ringing all of the alarm bells in your head. They are talking about making refugee status illegal and removing laws against torture and human trafficking. Why would they do that unless they are going to torture and traffic people. Remember that repealing these laws and treaties means that they can also be used against all of us. This would make it legal for the government to torture and traffic British Citizens. It also starts to paint human rights solicitors and judges as enemies of the people. It gets much worse than this, but we will come on to that later. The document continues:
‘Create Detention Power Without Hardial Singh Constraints. This means illegal migrants can be detained until they are deported. Activist lawyers routinely use Hardial Singh to secure their client’s bail, after which the client absconds.’
This part is extremely unscrupulous as the Hardial Sing constraints already allow a person to be detained for deportation. It does say that the detention MUST be for the purposes of deportation and that the Secretary of State must act with diligence to effect the removal in a reasonable time frame. Removing these constraints means that they can imprison a person for anything and just say that it is for the purposes of deportation. It also means that they can detain said person indefinitely with trial. This is talking about changing the law to allow them to disappear people. Even America’s I.C.E aren’t that bad, because although they are doing this, it is still illegal there and when the regime falls, they will be prosecuted. This would make it legal for the government to disappear any of us.
It then goes on:
‘If you came to the UK illegally, you are ineligible for asylum. End of story. All asylum claims will become inadmissible if made by a person within the Act’s cope. If you came to the country illegally, you are ineligible for asylum in the UK. This strips the Home Office, the immigration tribunals and the higher courts of jurisdiction to even consider claims. A claim that cannot be considered cannot suspend removal and therefore, cannot delay a flight.’
This states two things; unless you have already received your leave to stay paperwork or are Irish, it will be illegal for you to claim asylum. It also removes any legal right of challenge. This paragraph would make all claims of asylum illegal. This means that all of the Ukrainian refugees that fled the war and came to the UK, that the whole country rallied around… all of them: illegal. Deported back to the Ukraine.
It continues:
‘Re-entering after deportation and destroying ID becomes a serious criminal offences. Both offences will be punishable by up to 5 years in prison.
Lifetime re-entry ban. Everyone deported will be banned from re-entering for life.’
I don’t even know where to start with this one. It is obscene. As if all of this wasn’t horrific enough, it gets worse:
‘The operational plan.
We will create an enforcement unit called UK Deportation Command, including an Illegal Migration Identification Centre – harnessing cutting edge data fusion. A reform government will create a cutting edge enforcement data centre to relentlessly identify and detain all illegal migrants in the UK. Using powers granted by the new legislation, it will automatically share data between the Home Office, NHS, HMRC, DVLA, banks and the police. It will power bulk warrants, including mandatory biometric capture during any police encounter. Each power addresses a failure mode observed over the past decade – for example, banks and GP surgeries unaware of a customers’ status, or overstays slipping through because a warrant covered only a single property.’
This creates the British Gestapo. They will be able to stop anybody they like, using AI to try to identify you whilst also spying on the medical, driving, banking, tax and police records of every single citizen to try to identify illegal migrants. It allows them to automatically break in to any property to carry out a search and every time anybody is stopped by the police, they will be forced to submit biometric data. This isn’t just against migrant, this applies to all of us. Read the words and then read between the lines. Both explicitly state that this will apply to all of us.
It continues:
‘Secure Immigration Removal Centres (SIRC) will be built rapidly to detain up to 24,000. Detention capacity for up to 24,000 will be created within 18 months. The Home Office will build SIRCs. This will be modular accommodation built in remote parts of the country. Conditions are basic but not punitive; prefabricated two person rooms, canteen catering, on-site medical suites. Robust perimeters and internal movement controls prevent escapes. This enables detention-on-arrest; no more bail. This capacity would allow for up to 24,000 illegal migrants to be deported per month.’
I can’t believe that in 2026 I am talking about this. This is flat out concentration camps. Out in the middle of nowhere where accidental oversight is near impossible. The Hardial Singh constraints removed so that they can pick people off the streets, take them straight to a camp where they can be detained indefinitely without trial. What if they make a mistake and you’re not a migrant? Tough; you don’t exist any more. This is what the Nazis did to Jews, Roma, Black people LGBTQIA+ people, academics who disagreed with the brutality… anybody they deemed other. In this document, Nigel Farage and the Reform UK Ltd party are explicitly stating that they are going to open concentration camps, have gangs of people hunting brown people in the streets and that they are going to disappear them to concentration camps without trial, straight from the street, that they will be allowed to torture them or even disappear them to other countries and that there will be no legal recourse. Additionally, having on-site medical suites rings alarm bells. Many of the people that are taken to these camps will die through insufficient medical treatment after being tortured.
It continues:
‘Initial Voluntary Return Window. A six month Assisted Voluntary Return window precedes large-scale raids. Illegal migrants will be offered a financial incentive to self-deport. An app will be launched to facilitate this.’
This short paragraph is saying that the carnage that we have seen on the news in Minneapolis at the hands of I.C.E, will be coming to out streets. This is insanity. I mean, how can anybody still support them after this? It continues:
‘The Deportation Flights. The Home Office will scale up charters to 5 flights per day. To guard against last minute unserviceability, the RAF will keep one Voyager aircraft on six-hour ‘hot-spare’ readiness. If a commercial charter breaks down, detainees can still be flown out that night, preserving operational integrity. The legal reset will mean activist lawyers will no longer be able to prevent flights from departing.’
This is acknowledging that civil aviation companies might not be okay with this plan, so they are going to weaken out national defence to cover that probability. Of course, they wouldn’t penalise an aviation company for a “breakdown” as they are owned by the billionaires, just like Farage and the rest of the Reform UK scumbags.
It continues:
‘Return Agreements. As Prime Minister, Nigel Farage will ensure the Foreign Office make its highest priority the securing of return agreements with all relevant countries to take back their illegal migrants. Consulates will also be required to send staff to assist in identifying illegal migrants. Countries of origin are triaged into three diplomacy tracks based on current diplomatic relations. A carrot and stick approach will be used. Aid will be offered as an incentive, the stick will involve the cessation of visa approvals and potentially sanctions.
Third country partners. The Foreign Office will rapidly negotiate deals with third countries, and a budget has been allocated for this. British Overseas Territories also offer a strategic fallback. Ascension Island’s isolated airfield can handle A330 aircraft, enabling rapid transfer of Channel arrivals.’
These last two paragraphs are an absolute joke. Remember that despite the wording, we are in fact talking mostly about asylum seekers who, thanks to no longer being a part of the Dublin regulations, have had no choice but to try to come to the UK to apply for asylum. They are going to try to force countries of origin to take these people back. These countries will either simply refuse or they will accept them back, then either imprison or kill them. There is a reason why people apply for asylum. The Reform UK Ltd company know this, so they have deliberately targetted British Overseas Territories as a fallback because it is easier to to apply pressure to these countries.
There is then a final paragraph that makes unsubstantiated claims about long term cost savings before the end of the document.
Any sensible, moral person, having read this, could never support such a thing, but it gets worse. I am now going to go through the policing policy of Reform UK Ltd as when read in conjunction with the immigration policy, should stop all of us in our tracks.
It starts with:
Britain Is Lawless.
‘Get Offenders of the Street. Zero Tolerance Policing. Restore law and order by acting against every reported crime. This means investigation and possible arrest. We will take
back control of the street with saturation stop and search affecting up to 1 in 5 people in high crime areas. Targeted curfews for under 18s in crime hotspots. Mobile knife arches to catch knife carriers.’
Stop and search has already been demonstrated to both not be particularly effective and also having a disproportionately negative effect on young black men in particular. The very nature of it results in racial profiling. Imposing a target of 1 in 5 people, when combined with the planned repeal of the human rights act along with the conventions on torture, trafficking and the Hardial Singh constraints could be a recipe for massive human rights abuses. Additionally, imposing curfews is highly aggressive and would only be enforceable through extreme policing
‘Fast Track Arrest. To arrest and charge a criminal now takes huge amounts of police time and resources. We will open pop-up custody centres on high streets in crime hotspots to ensure swift and certain justice for offenders and get police out on the beat again.’
This seems to be implying that the police will be the arresting officer, jury and judge. No single authority should have this power.
‘30,000 More Police Over a 5 Year Parliament. Fast track recruitment of military veterans. Ensure more police are on the beat and use better technology. Scrap all Diversity, Equality and Inclusion roles and regulations to stop two-tier policing. De-politicise the College of Policing.’
The first half of this paragraph, I actually agree with. More police on the street, if correctly trained governed and monitored, would be welcome, as would fast tracking veterans provided they passed all the same assessments as non-veterans. The second half of the paragraph though is an absolute abomination. Having DEI roles and regulations is one of the things that stops two tier policing. Removing this just legally allows police to unfairly target brown people, literally creating a two tier policing system. Again, taking this in conjunction with the planned repeals and the massive increase in stop and search, what they are actually saying here, is that they don’t really care about your immigration status; if you are brown, we are probably going to put you in a camp.
‘Justice
Fast Track Courts. 24/7 justice if necessary. No bail for serious violence or sexual offences. Recommission old court premises if necessary. Call for retired magistrates to return.’
In principal, I do not disagree with this, but care is needed with fast judiciary as it can lead to kangaroo courts. Additionally, multiple members of the Reform UK Ltd leadership have been committed domestic violence, but apparently, it’s okay for them as long as you don’t do it.
‘More Crime, More Time for Repeat Offenders. 10% of criminals commit 50% of all the crime. Stop the revolving door for criminals who commit multiple offences. More than 3 serious offences and you could end up with life imprisonment.’
This is importing the American penal system and this does not work. All it does is harden criminals and make it much more likely that they will re-offend. A much more nuanced approach towards rehabilitation has been repeatedly shown to work better.
‘Commit the Crime, Pay the Price. Prison with no early release and no suspended sentences for serious violent offences, sexual offenders and knife possession. End the £200 shoplifters’ charter. All shoplifters face arrest. Mandatory life imprisonment for drug trafficking.’
Keeping prisoners in prison costs the tax payer a fortune. Some people should indeed be kept in prison for a long time, but what about people who go to prison for minor offences? Someone not paying their TV license or committing minor shoplifting from a supermarket is a significantly different proposition that committing murder or rape. Murder and rape are crimes that are entirely incompatible with civilised society. People who commit these crimes absolutely should not be released. People who do shoplift from billion dollar corporations on the other hand, do not pose a threat to society and therefore, if they behave well, should absolutely be released early. What purpose does it serve to keep them inside? Realistically, community service is a much more reasonable response.
‘Keep the Public Safe
12,400 New Prison Places on MoD Land in Under 18 Months. We will end the prison place shortage. During the covid crisis, NHS Nightingale hospitals were built in weeks with help from the British Armed Forces. We would build 5 new Nightingale Prisons with the assistance of the Army. These would be low cost, high security, pre-fabricated modular structures of concrete and metal. Prisons would be named after historical figures involved in policing reform, Ex. Sir Robert Peel.’
Do Reform UK Ltd not know why those hospitals were called Nightingale hospitals? After Florence Nightingale, the sweetheart nurse of the Armed Forces? Naming prisons after her is nothing short of insulting. Additionally, building prisons on MoD land and Using MoD personnel to do this would significantly weaken the military capability at those sites. Moving on to the construction, what they are describing here are hot boxes. They were a form of torture that Japanese soldiers used against allied PoWs in World War 2.
‘10,400 More Prison Places by Transfer of Foreign Prisoners to Country of Origin. Bilateral agreements will be made so foreign offenders finish their sentence in their own country. Already accepted practice by the EU and UN. Denmark has an agreement with Kosovo.’
So every migrant that ends up in prison gets deported to their country of origin? What if they’ve lived here for a decade or two and have family here? This is a ridiculous, brutal and unnecessary step to take.
‘10,000 + Additional “Dynamic Prison” Places Overseas. Serious offenders will serve their time overseas. We will acquire flexible, low cost prison capacity through rented prison cells in third party countries. We would consider multiple partners including El Salvador.’
Transportation. They’re talking about transportation. With imprisonment added on. This is another reason why they want to repeal the Human Rights Act and the Human Trafficking conventions. Nowhere in this paragraph does it mention migrants. It also does not specify what a ‘serious offence’ is. Colonial Britain did this to it’s prisoners. Stalinist Russia did this to it’s prisoners. The French used to do this to its prisoners. Transportation has been illegal for a long time for very, very good reason. It is an extremely brutal form of punishment that is often a death sentence for transportees and even if they survive, many will never see their families again.
‘Cut Costs
Cut the Cost of Prison by 20%. Last year, a UK prison place was around £51,800. Almost the same as school fees at Eton. Annual prison costs in France are around £40,000 per inmate, In some EU countries like Romania and Slovakia it is half of that.’
The costs in other countries are irrelevant as they have different economies. Secondly, prison for prisoners is already a bare bones existence. The reason why prison is expensive is because of the involvement of private companies, just the same as its the reason why treatment on the NHS costs the NHS so much. This is an obscene statement to make from a party that want to increase private capital investment in all of our public services.
The ‘Save our Pubs’ policy.
I’m going to keep this one short. Reform UK Ltd aim to cut 5 pence off a pint of beer and they plan on paying for this by reimposing the two child benefit cap. This will put 450,000 children back in to poverty.
Making Britain A Crypto Hub.
This one is also short. It aims to make bitcoin, which Nigel Farage is a substantial investor in, a legitimate, government backed currency that banks can not refuse. The aim of this is twofold, firstly this is a direct snub towards Coutts Bank for refusing his custom, but secondly and far more importantly, because crypto is untraceable, which means all the backdoor political donations, bribes and pay-offs will be invisible to any regulator that may still exist at that point.
These are just four of their policies, and nowhere on their website is a policy about the NHS. This is by design because Nigel Farage has repeatedly said that he wants to move to an insurance based system for the NHS.
Apart from these policies being direct analogues of historical Fascist regimes, apart from these policies specifying ‘Under Nigel Farage as Prime Minister’, making him a de-facto leader despite supposedly being a party of the people, all of these policies directly, negatively effect every single person in the country other than those in power and their donors. As terrify as these policies are if they came to pass, the reality is that even if Reform got in and actually attempted to enact these polices, which they may not given the number of U-Turns they perform, they would probably fail as they rely on the cooperation of other countries, who would likely not want anything to do with us for this. We are seeing the same ting currently with the US. The entire world is against them. This is the absolute worst demonstration of politics being done against us.
Moving on to the Green Party Policies:
The Green Party Migration Policy.
‘How we treat people who have chosen the UK as their home says a great deal about our values and national character. Greens are proud that we are country forged by migrants and welcome the economic and societal contributions that immigrants and refugees make to British society. We understand that migration is inevitable, and that people have always moved around. We also recognise we all have a collective responsibility for the climate emergency and that the UK has a duty to support people forced to move due to changes
in their home environment, whether internally or overseas.’
It is important to note here that the UK as we know it has indeed been forged by migration for thousands of years, starting when our land mass was connected to mainland Europe via Doggerland and that migration after World War 2 and in to the 50’s has actually given us most of our multicultural society as we know it today. The policy continues:
‘Green MPs would advocate for inclusivity and an outward-looking approach to the world. We want to be welcoming, promote social cohesion and support migrants to put down roots. Elected Greens will push for:
An end to the hostile environment.
An end to the minimum income requirements for spouses of those holding work visas.
Safe routes to sanctuary for those fleeing danger, persecution and war.
Asylum and protection:
No one becomes a refugee lightly. People leave their homes, friends and often their family because they are forced to do so through circumstances that are intolerable. The Green Party acknowledges the right to claim asylum, in any country, as set out in the United
Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Elected Greens will campaign for a system of asylum and humanitarian protection that treats the applicant fairly, humanely and without discrimination. Elected Greens will push for:
The United Kingdom to work with other countries to establish safe routes by which those fleeing persecution, war, or climate disaster may arrive in the country of their choice to make their case without having to risk their lives.
A fast and fair process to assess asylum applications.
Those seeking asylum and protection to be permitted to work while their application is being decided.’
This is a really important section as not only does it reaffirm the commitment that we made to the United Nations, but it does three other really important things: firstly, by creating safe and legal roots for asylum claimants, it would cut the number of small boat crossings drastically. Secondly, it seeks distribute the responsibility of asylum more evenly across partner countries rather than forcing asylum claimant towards particular countries, like the UK since we left the Dublin agreement. Thirdly, it allows claimants to not just work, but more importantly, to pay tax whilst their claim is being assessed so that not only are they not a burden on the public services but they also directly contribute to society.
‘Ending the hostile environment:
The hostile environment approach has not only been found at times to be unlawful, it has caused immense suffering for those who have been caught up in it, including the Windrush generation. Green MPs would campaign to abolish the No Recourse to Public Funds condition that exacerbates social, economic, and racial inequalities. We would also campaign to abolish the ten-year route to settlement which unfairly traps people in poverty and hardship.
We believe that migration is not a criminal offence under any circumstances and that there should be an end to immigration detention for all migrants unless they are a danger to public safety. All visa-holding residents should have the right to vote in all elections and referendums.’
This section aims to reset the damage to public perception of asylum that has been done by successive governments over the last couple of decades.
‘Fixing a broken system:
We will push to dismantle the dysfunctional Home Office and create a new Department of Migration alongside a Department of Justice, thus separating functions around migration and citizenship from the criminal justice system. The system of visa applications should be simplified and all applications should be processed swiftly, and with empathy and intelligence. We would seek the end to the exploitation of people for profit and only charge application fees at cost. Access to the NHS should be free and comprehensive for migrants with visas.
Workers, students and families:
We want to attract the best researchers for our universities, the top talent for our start-ups and to welcome those who come to work in our health and social services, on our farms, and in our offices. Elected Greens will therefore push for migrants, including students, to be allowed to bring members of their family to the UK who would normally live with them in their country of origin, or would do so if it were permitted by law or custom.’
One of the many reasons that we have such an issue in dealing with migration in this country is because the system has always been tied to the judiciary, which means that any asylum claims or visa applications are unnecessarily slow. It also states that if you are working or studying here, you bring value to our economy so providing you have a Visa, healthcare will be provided for. This is motivational and encourages potential immigrants to apply for the correct Visa and follow the rules. It also means that no matter what industry you work in, there will be a place for you and your family if you are willing to contribute.
‘Elected Greens will push to remove minimum income requirements from all applications
including spousal visas, because all British citizens should have the right to reside with their loved ones no matter their income.’
This one is a no-brainer. The current minimum income requirement is £29,000 per year. In contrast, the current minimum wage for the average 35 hour week is £22,200. According to the Migration Observatory, last year, net migrations was around 204,000 people but more than 2 million people are on the minimum wage in this country. It is grossly unfair to expect a migrant new to the country to earn so much more than the minimum wage.
‘Migration and climate breakdown:
People have always moved in search of better lives, but famine and the increasing conflict in the world is driving an increase in involuntary migration. As the climate crisis worsens and the impacts on people in marginalised communities become more severe, more people may be forced to leave their homes. Our proposed significant increase to the overseas aid budget, as well as our policy of supporting lower-income countries to deal with the climate crisis, are vital to ensure people can stay in their home communities, but
we will also ensure that those who are forced to leave can do so safely and with dignity, without fear or intimidation.’
This section does quite a lot. Firstly, it accepts that developed western nations are largely responsible for the conditions that these countries are facing, particularly in the global south. Secondly, it acknowledges that no matter what we do, it is already too late and the situation is only going to get worse. Thirdly, it promotes a methodology for removing the need for migration in the first place for many people whilst still allowing entry to the neediest.
This is not a policy of open borders, it is a policy of sensible, fair and controlled migration that, for the first time, allows migrants and asylum seekers to actually contribute to the society that is adopting them before their application is complete, so that they do not become a burden on the state but can actually contribute to it. It seeks to undo much of the discriminatory damage done to the migration system by successive governments and it seeks a way to more fairly distribute the responsibility of asylum and migration across many more countries. This is politics of, for and by the people.
Moving on to the policing strategy, this is a very well worded document that requires almost no explanation so I will just read it.
Policing.
‘Everyone has the right to feel safe – on the street, in their home or online. Simple things like more police on the beat and greater support for domestic violence units can make a huge difference. But Greens recognise it’s time to do more – so we will tackle structural injustice and transform our policing and justice system.
Green MPs will expand restorative justice when crimes do take place, both to give victims a voice and to help offenders take responsibility for the harm they have done. We will focus on the prevention of crime through restoring the funding withdrawn from youth services since 2010 and through community-based policing. We will focus on rehabilitation through investment in the probation and prison services; Greens choose to rebuild people’s lives rather than condemning them to a downward cycle of crime and imprisonment.
It is a cliché that justice delayed is justice denied, but it is also true. We would invest in criminal justice so that defendants are brought to trial quickly in the interests of both victims and the people accused.
Elected Greens will work to:
Restore trust and confidence in the police.
End violence against women and girls.
Repair and renew our court system with a £2.5bn investment.
Trust and confidence in the police:
We believe in policing by consent, but this can only work if the police can rebuild trust with the communities they serve. Police Services need to acknowledge the institutional racism, misogyny, homophobia and ableism that have dominated policing for so long. They must root out any officers who hold views incompatible with serving as a police officer.
Many communities, especially Black communities, are disillusioned with the police after experiencing decades of disproportionate policing and traumatising tactics like stop and search and the use of force. Rebuilding trust and confidence and earning the consent of communities to being policed is critical for the future of policing. Police Services should be accountable to elected local government and to the communities where they work.
Elected Greens will push for:
An end to the routine use of stop and search and to the use of facial recognition software.
Police Services to deliver ongoing fitness to practice assessments on diversity for all
police officers and relevant civilian staff.
Police and Crime Commissioners, and local councillors on police and crime panels, to have open access to the data needed to enable effective scrutiny of operational policing.
Restorative justice and a practical approach to prosecution:
The Green approach to crime is grounded in a restorative approach and a belief that
rehabilitation is the best way to reduce future offending. Prison is a demonstrably ineffective way of reducing re-offending: evidence shows that short prison sentences are especially ineffective and lead to higher rates of recidivism. There are some people who need to be imprisoned for reasons of public safety or the seriousness of their offence. For others a restorative approach, forcing criminals to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, is better for the offender, the victim and society at large.
Elected Greens will seek to break the cycle of re-offending through legislating for a presumption against custodial sentences under two years. The Green Party welcomes the greater emphasis on diversion in the criminal justice system.
Green MPs will ensure that diversion programmes are in place for:
All low-level drug and alcohol related offences.
Young offenders arrested for low-level offences.
End domestic abuse and violence against women and girls:
The continuing murder, abuse, harassment and denigration of women and girls is a stain on our society. It is a Green Party priority to end domestic abuse and violence against women and girls.
Elected Greens will push to:
Make misogyny a hate crime across the UK and increase the police’s capacity to deal with domestic violence.
Develop and implement a new UK-wide strategy to tackle gender-based violence, including domestic violence, rape and sexual abuse, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), and
trafficking.
Ensure that domestic abuse and gender-based violence is a key measurable priority for all police forces and that all police officers are trained to recognise and tackle domestic violence.
Fund local authorities so that domestic violence, rape crisis and other provision can meet local needs.
Decriminalise sex work.
Tackling the court backlog:
The court system is in chaos and it’s letting down victims and the accused, whilst large numbers of prisoners on remand and endless court cancellations create knock-on effects for the prison and probation services too.
The Green Party will invest £11bn in restoring the Ministry of Justice budget over the course of the next parliament. This would be used to restore legal aid budgets, to ensure that the Criminal Bar is sufficiently well funded and to repair court buildings. Elected Greens will push to recruit more judges and to ensure that they are representative of wider society.
A public health approach to tackling violence:
Violence is experienced by communities across the country. The evidence supporting a
public health approach to reducing violence is compelling. The Green Party supports the use of violence reduction units and the need for them to be a focus on multi-agency working. In Scotland, the introduction of violence reduction units, coordinated with the Scottish Government’s control over public services, has delivered a welcome decrease in violence. Elected Greens will push for more local control over public services and more effective joined up working across public services to deliver violence reduction strategies.
Communities all over the country experience youth violence in particular. Many of the Green Party’s proposals will, over time, reduce the level of violence affecting young people.
Elected Greens will also campaign to ensure that:
Local authorities are properly funded to deliver youth services including the youth workers who play a key role in keeping young people safe.
Safeguarding is the priority in encounters between young people and the police.
The use of traumatising tactics like stop and search becomes an exception, not routine.
Children and young people are never strip searched without an appropriate adult present, and only in very exceptional circumstances.
Youth workers rather than police officers work with pupils in schools.
Reforming drug laws:
Elected Greens will push for the establishment of a National Commission to agree an evidence-based approach to reform of the UK’s counterproductive drug laws. Neither prohibition nor the policing of low-level drug offences, especially cannabis possession, have reduced use and consequently have had no impact on the size of the criminal market or the profits made by organised crime. Elected Greens will therefore push to decriminalise personal possession of drugs, diverting people from the criminal justice system towards support with addiction, housing and employment, from health workers focused on drug harm reduction This would free up hundreds of thousands of hours of police time, which could instead be invested in tackling other priorities which benefit wider society.’
These are long documents, so I’m not going to read any more, but almost all of the Green policies follow this format; evidence based approaches that reset the balance of power in society to make living in the UK a much fairer, worthwhile endeavour that we can all be proud of and that restores public services so that our lives become more affordable again, restoring that missing quality of life that we have been forced to suffer for too long. The Green Party also have a comprehensive policy on bringing our NHS fully back under public control, restoring its capability and protecting it in to the future. This is politics of, for and by the people.’
Evidence From Around the Country
So, how are Reform UK Ltd and Green councils stacking up around the country? I am using councils here as that is effectively how most policies are enacted either for or against us; by local councils.
Well, starting with Reform UK ltd, despite only controlling 10 councils, since May last year, 51 councillors have either been sacked for racist or offensive comments or incompetence, or have resigned because the council is ineffective at delivering any actual reforms, including four councillors under police investigation, one for “malicious” election comments, one councillor threatened to kill his wife, another was charged with assault and one tried to bribe voters outside of a voting station with free ice cream.
Conversely, the Green Party during the same period, had no resignations or expulsions of elected councillors.
Every single Reform UK Ltd council has had to increase council tax after the party promised it wouldn’t as a result of systemic overspending, with Kent County Council having overspent by more than £46 million pounds just before announcing a budget that has been called both reckless and casino style by a Lib Dem councillor on the council and announcing council tax raises. Warwickshire council have failed to agree on a budget, causing chaos in the county. Nottinghamshire County Council has spent £75,000 on flags despite promising to cut waste spending and having to put up council tax. Durham County Council has had multiple resignations, with the latest one being Councillor Nick Brown who resigned citing, amongst other things, a failure to fund the long promisedA68 Tofthill Bypass despite the council having received full funding for this. This is highly incompetent politics being done against us.
Meanwhile, the Green Party have a long history of both running County Councils and of councillors challenging the status-quo; Stroud County Council has built 300 new council homes since coming into office in 2014 with another 100 planned. Oxford councillors campaigned for the utilisation of brownfield sites; e.g. old industrial sites, above car parks, to build affordable, zero carbon housing. They supported the purchase of long-term vacant properties, for social housing, backed by compulsory purchase orders if needed. They opposed evictions which result from cuts or delays in benefits or Universal Credit and argued for the establishment of a new Council-backed letting agency offering fairer rents and more secure contracts.
Brighton council have successfully secured budget amendments for more housing for adults with disabilities, more specialist housing for children in care with specialist needs, climate change planning, street improvements and more action on fly tipping – funded by charging commercial landlords whose buildings do not meet the energy efficiency requirements, funding the local crisis prevention fund, tackling Bristol’s housing crisis by creating extra rooms in existing Council Housing where possible. This has created more space for larger families and given foster families the space they need for extra children and they have allocated funding to train council staff and apprentices to install low carbon and green technologies like heat pumps in housing, to help tackle the climate crisis and support the growth of green jobs.
The pattern is repeated across all Green councils; if the council has a Green majority, they achieve big. If the council has a Green minority, they still successfully campaign for and achieve real change for residents. This is politics of, for and by the people.
Conclusions.
Reform are offering a platform of change, but their entire line-up is literally the same people from the last Conservative government who broke the country. The same immigration ministers, the same Home Secretary, the same housing ministers. These are specifically the same people that were responsible for the state of immigration in the country, in charge of the housing crisis, in charge of selling off our NHS and who were responsible for the terrible state of the nation’s finance. The party are set up under a dictatorial model where membership can not vote on anything; they are simply told what is happening and if they don’t like it, they are eject from the party, usually under a smear campaign for anyone of significance. Whilst the policies that I’ve highlighted from Reform UK Ltd are quite extreme, most of their policies are business as usual; reduce worker’s rights, reduce you freedoms and funnel money from you to billionaires. Additionally, the Reform UK Ltd MPs have consistently voted in favour of protecting capital and disenfranchising the working class and their councils have brought nothing but chaos and scandal. This is a display of their absolute litany of politics being done against us.
The Green Party MPs were all selected to stand democratically before winning their respective election campaigns. Both the Parliamentary and local government history of the Green Party is one of fighting continually for the rights of workers, for local community issues and fighting to protect our environment from the worst ravages of uncontrolled capitalism. They both a history of and a mandate to hold power to account and all of their policies are democratically elected. Their entire policy catalogue is developed around making genuine, radical improvement and change to the way we live our lives and they want to bring in Proportional Representation, which would bring true democracy to both local government and Parliamentary general elections.
We all agree on the problems; lets start working together on the solutions; a vote for the Green Party is a vote for real, meaningful reform in our beloved country, whilst a vote for Reform UK Ltd is a vote for business as usual with added cruelty.
I had a conversation a few weeks ago with a friend. This friend is intelligent, driven in their professional life, is a partner in a small business and in all respects is what you would consider a valuable member of society. I can’t remember quite how the conversation came up, but I mentioned the recent success of the Green Party massively increasing their membership and how that might translate in to votes. My friend’s response was ‘I don’t vote. I’m not in the right tax bracket to vote’.
This was an unexpected reply. The idea that voting only matters if you’re well off or rich firstly implies that working class people can’t change their lot in life because their vote doesn’t count as much as someone with a lot of money and secondly, that voting only affects us financially. Both parts of this idea arise because for the last 47 years, the only party that has been in power is the Thatcherite Neo-liberal Party. Sometimes in a blue tie, sometimes in a red tie. This Thatcherite Party has continually acted to protect capital and frame the health of the Nation in purely fiscal terms as this allows them to justify the privatisation of our national industries, to decimate public services and to promote landlordism so that they can funnel wealth upwards to the ultra-rich. Thatcher famously said two things:
‘There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.’
And when asked what her greatest achievement was, she reportedly replied ‘Tony Blair and New Labour’
These two quotes show two things; that starting with Thatcher, the idea of the state having any real impact on peoples lives was to be shunned; that people should be self-reliant and that it’s up to people taking pity on others to help those in need… spoiler alert; that didn’t go too well. We now have billionaires in the same country where nurses are going to food banks. It also shows that the policy stance of New Labour was taken directly from Thatcher. It’s an admission from the former PM that there is no distinction between Conservatives and New Labour.
I think for anybody with a modicum of functional intellect, it is blatantly obvious that Neo-liberalism has failed. All of the capital in the country is concentrated at the top. An example of this can be demonstrated with the recent publicity around multi-billionaire Jim Radcliffe; He has approximately £17 billion. He moved overseas to avoid paying tax on that to the tune of £4 billion. In terms of GDP, £4 billion doesn’t sound that much but let me reframe this for you. Total local authority spending for the UK in 2024-2025 was £135 billion across 317 local authorities, averaging out to £425 million per authority. Of course, you have places like London, where their actual budget is multi-billions of pounds and then you have tiny authorities with budgets of tens of millions of pounds. Taking the mean of £425 million though, just the tax that Radcliffe should have paid would cover the entire annual budgets of almost 10 local authorities. If you take the smaller authorities, it could have paid for multiple tens of annual budgets. If he had to pay tax at the same rate as none-millionaires and billionaires, he would have owed double the amount of tax. Tax isn’t the only issue here though. It’s the rest of his money; the other £13 billion. All of that money has been taken out of circulation from our economy. The personal wealth of a single man has removed 12.5% of the total annual budget for all local authorities in the UK from the economy. We currently have 171 billionaires in this country. All of the nation’s wealth is sitting in their bank accounts. Meanwhile, the cost of the average house outside of London costs between a third and a half a million pounds but the first time buyers, mostly young people, are on wages from £22k to the low thirty thousands. The current generation of first time buyers have been entirely removed from being able to buy a house because we have consistently voted to protect capital and we have voted for that because all other options were realistically removed. We have only had the illusion of choice.
The point that I’m working towards here is that for 47 years, the British people have been consistently told and shown that our votes do not matter; it doesn’t matter who gets elected, nothing will change for you other than you will get poorer despite working harder and longer and the only people that can realistically effect policy are those with enough money to buy politicians. My friend was correct about the historical context of voting in our lifetimes. We are now at a stage where voter turnout is incredibly small comparatively but, importantly, for the first time in my lifetime, there appears to be a cultural shift. People are finally demanding real change and in response to this, two political parties have put their heads above the parapets to offer something new.
On the one hand, we have Reform UK, a highly conservative party in multiple ways; first, the party is filled with ex-Tories, many of whom are directly responsible for the current state of the country and, despite saying they are offering change, are using the same rhetoric as before and offering broadly the same policies but with added cruelty, but they are also conservative in terms of their values; they want to protect capital at the expense of ordinary people. Look at recent comments from former Conservative Home Secretary Suella Braverman when she said ‘Working class people in this country have had it too good for far too long’. Or the comments from Richard Tice saying that ‘We need to lower the minimum wage for young people’ or when he said that Reform would increase people’s energy bills. Or what about when Zia Yusuf tried to tell us that poverty in this country was only in small pockets of the population despite the actual figures being 21% of people in the UK being in poverty. That is 1 in 5 people. For every five people you see in the street, one of them is in genuine poverty, having to make decisions between heating and eating, having to decide if they can afford to buy a replacement pair of shoes.
On the other hand, we have the Green Party of England and Wales; a social democratic movement that is offering genuine change; a return to wealth taxes for the ultra-rich, a root and branch reform of policing, proportional representation, an actual workable immigration policy, an evidence based approach to health, housing, criminality and reducing inequality. They are offering a platform of uplifting the social state; more social housing (not to be confused with private affordable housing), a welfare system that actually looks after people, a reform of the taxation system and a reform of the education system to reintroduce essential subjects like the arts and humanities that have been missing from state education for too long.
Given that both of these parties have only a tiny amount of representation in Parliament, why is this now an important crossroads; simply because the the Conservative Party no longer exist is a meaningful way any more and the Labour Party have performed so poorly that they are unlikely to be elected again any time soon. As a result, both Reform and the Greens are surging in the poles. In recent by-elections and local council elections, Labour have more or less collapsed, with a few exceptions, and it has been predominantly a competition between the Greens and Reform. It is likely that one of these two parties will form the next government.
Here is why it is more important than ever to get out and vote; both of these parties are offering the polar opposite to each other so it does matter which party wins now. And it isn’t just about winning; voter turn out has been consistently declining, meaning parties are winning majorities on smaller and smaller voter turn outs so even majority governments are not representative of the vast majority of the populace. In addition to this, a party with a small majority will struggle to enact their policies, meaning wishy washy small scale change and compromise. If a party wins a super majority, they can enact their manifesto in full. Please, get out and vote. Please encourage your friends to get out and vote. For the first time in their lives, it does actually matter and can result in real political change that will have profound effects on all of our lives.
I want to quickly cover some of the policies from both parties that highlight the differences and why it matters who gets in:
Reforms UK’s immigration policy is offering to repeal the Human Rights Act, leave the European convention on Human Rights, diss-apply the 1951 Refugee Convention, the UN convention against torture and the convention against human trafficking. It aims to remove the Hardial Singh constraints which stop people being indefinitely imprisoned without trial under the guise of deportation. The policy wants enact broad ranging warrants and to establish the UK equivalent of the barbaric I.C.E agency in the US; effectively creating gangs of state sponsored thugs to go and kidnap people from their homes in the middle of the night. It explicitly outlines plans to create concentration camps where people can be sent, directly from the street without trial or investigation and it aims to spend a fortune on chartering multiple civil aviation flights per day to deport people.
Their policing policy aims to massively increase the demonstrably unsuccessful and discriminatory stop and search strategy and to give custodial sentences for the vast majority of crimes. It aims to deport prisoners who have come from other countries, even if they have been living here for decades and it aims to bring back transportation for UK citizens, a punishment that was so barbaric that it was ended in 1857.
Their Save the Pubs policy aims to cut 5 pence of your pint of beer by putting 450,000 children back in to poverty when a 5th of the nation are already in poverty.
Their crypto legislation aims to make crypto currency, specifically Bitcoin, a nationally backed currency that would be illegal to refuse and is not controlled by the central banks. This would allow for money laundering, bribery and corruption by state officials on a scale that has never before been seen on the face of the entire planet.
None of this is hyperbole; it is all explicitly stated in their policies. Whilst all of their policies are either barbaric or legalise state corruption, they are also largely unworkable. Their immigration and policing policies for example, rely on other countries agreeing to this nonsense. Think about that; just withdrawing from the UN conventions on human rights, trafficking and torture would immediately kill the policies as the UN consists of 193 active participant countries and 2 countries that are observers of the statutes. That covers all of the 195 countries in the world. The policy is entirely unworkable and is just a piece of racist propaganda to shift the blame from billionaires to the poorest in society.
Their other policies will simply disenfranchise the working class both financially and by removing your rights whilst continuing to funnel wealth upwards.
In contrast, the Green Party immigration policy, which many who support the billionaire class constantly decry as a policy of open borders, is actually fully workable policy of controlled migration and will financially benefit the UK. Currently, when a European member state refuses an asylum claim for whatever reason, the claimant is banned from applying in any other member state, leaving them no real options other than returning to the country that they are fleeing, or coming to a European country that is not a member state; the UK. As we are no longer a part of the Dublin protocols, when they come here from Europe, we can not return them. The Green Party policy aims to hold the other 192 UN signatories to account on their commitments to refugees and asylum, therefore spreading the responsibility of asylum across all of those nations and opening up safe and legal routes for asylum claimants, thereby massively cutting the number of small boat crossings. Further, it allows for any asylum claimants that subsequently do come to the UK to start working and paying tax almost immediately. This will not just increase the tax intake, but their wages will be spent in our economy, keeping that money here. The policy aims to allow people on the correct visas to come here, with their families and work, allowing them to settle and contribute to a healthy society but, simultaneously, it would stop people without appropriate visas from using the NHS, thereby massively cutting health tourism.
Their policy on policing would reform the police services, making them accountable to the communities they serve and focusing on crime reduction, domestic violence, applying prison sentences where appropriate but using a rehabilitation and public health approach to cutting re-offending where that would be more appropriate.
They aim to build significantly more social housing, train council workers to be plumbers, electricians and builders to start to rebuild public sector jobs and investment. They have a policy to reduce and begin to repair the damage to the environment which is one of the biggest threats currently facing us. They have a policy that protects and rebuilds our NHS. They have multiple policies on tackling inequality and poverty as well as reforms to education.
One of these parties is offering a politics of brutality, increased capitalism and never ending divisive finger pointing at the least fortunate in society. One of these parties is offering genuine societal change and promising to correct and enforce the social contract. I think it is obvious who we want in power, but to achieve that, we must get out and vote. If we do not vote, the reality is that the party that is offering the status-quo with added cruelty will win by default.
In summation, we are at a crossroads where voter turnout has never been lower but what is being offered has never been more important, at least not in my lifetime. We need to decide who we want to be as a nation moving forwards in to the future. We are being offered on one hand, cruelty, poverty, discrimination, brutality and small minded isolationism and on the other hand, we are being offered a social revolution that would reset the social contract, enrich all of our lives and once again lift our international reputation to its former glory as a bastion of honesty, integrity, fairness and justice that the rest of the world could look to as an inspiration.
In 2001, Portugal decriminalised all drugs, meaning that possession and use were no longer a criminal acts, but were instead, dealt with through the country’s administrative systems. If a person was caught in possession or using, they were referred to a regional panel, staffed by legal, health and social work professionals. If the person was a casual user, they would receive a ‘case seen’ and sent on their way with no repercussions. If it was determined that they had problematic drug use, an individualised plan was developed for them with regards to treatment. Whilst it wasn’t compulsory for the user to attend this, this results of the program show that the vast majority of problematic users do attend these, providing there is no risk of legal ramifications.
According to a 2016 paper by the United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime, the results were:
Drug use fell across all demographics but particularly in 16 to 24 year olds, the age group most likely to start using drugs.
Rates of ‘past year’ and ‘past month’ drug us fell; these are the rates that best describe evolving drug use.
Rates of problematic drug use and injected drug use fell.
Adolescent drug use fell.
The proportion of the population that have ever used drugs fell.
The number of people contracting HIV and Hepatitis C along with deaths from AIDS as a result of injecting drugs fell massively.
The number of deaths as a direct result of drugs fell.
The number of drug based homicides and other crime fell.
And as a result in the drop in crime, the number of prison places occupied by drug users fell.
Many people like to say that ‘yes, it was successful but it cost too much and they abandoned the policy’. This is completely untrue. As with many countries, Portugal went in to a recession as a result of the 2008 financial crisis and, as a result, much of the funding for the program was removed. This did result in an up tick in all of the areas that had improved, but as the country came out of recession, the program started to recover.
A 2021 update paper on the project shows:
Drug related deaths are still hugely lower than in the rest of the EU, and whilst deaths have increased recently, much of this can be attributed to both the rise of fentanyl and the fact that funding, whilst still in place, never recovered fully. The numbers are still incredible though; Portugal’s drug death rate is 6 per million. To put that in to context, if the whole of the UK, at 70 million people had the same rate of drug related deaths, 420 people per year would die as a result of drugs. Meanwhile, the actual figures for the UK for 2025, excluding Northern Ireland as those results are not yet available, was 6582 deaths as a direct result of drugs. Let that sink in; the Portuguese drug death rate per capita is just over 6% that of the UK! This alone should be enough to convince you that at the very least, decriminalising drugs works.
The paper goes on to state:
The proportion of prisoners serving a sentence for drug related crime has fallen.
The levels of drug use have remained consistently below that of all other European countries and in particular, drug use amongst those aged between 15 and 34 is significantly lower than every other European country.
New HIV infections as a result of injecting drugs is now down to around 13 cases per year (yes, that’s one three cases per year) and similarly, new cases of Hepatitis C are down year on year for the past 2 decades. The cost to society of drug use in Portugal had fallen by 18% as of 2010. What does this tell us? Well, it clearly shows that the decriminalisation of drugs significantly reduces drug related deaths, new infections of transmissible diseases, drug related crime and even drug use across society. This can only be a good thing.
Moving on to the Green Party’s stance on drugs, lets start by taking a look at the problem: The 2025 National Crime Agency Threat Assessment for Drugs says that drug use and drug deaths cost the UK £20 billion per year. They say that drug deaths rose by 15% compared to last year, and that last year, they had risen by 30% in England and Wales, by 29% in Scotland and by 6% in Northern Ireland. It also highlights that heroin imports are funding the Taliban, Cocaine imports are not just funding the cartels, but also transnational drug organisations. Cannabis, the UK’s most imported drug, is being imported from the US and Canada along with Taiwan through black market criminal routes. Let this sink in; not only is our current drug policy seeing significant increases in deaths from drugs year on year, but it is also actively funding international terrorism and organised crime, but for some reason, the Government don’t want to change this. Why do you think that is? Well, according to a recent BBC article, all the toilets in parliament are basically decorated with cocaine; our politicians are all coke heads.
So, what do the Green Party want to do about this? In the first instance, they want to deliver on their manifesto commitment to decriminalise drugs, just as Portugal did, but beyond that, yes they want to legalise, and I’ll explain exactly what this is about.
One of the big drawbacks of the Portuguese approach was that it didn’t tackle the organised crime component and street dealing remains rampant. This means that users are ingesting drugs of unknown origin and quality and the black market is still funding international crime.
The Green Party recognise that no matter what a government does or how much it spends, people will always take drugs. We can not stop it. Currently, two drugs are legal and regulated; tobacco and alcohol. This will become more relevant shortly. The long term plan from the Green Party, and it should be emphasised that reaching the end goal would be done one step at a time and analysing the evidence before going on to the next step, is to legalise all drugs and control both supply and response on an individual drug level, with the minimum age for access to any drug being 18 years old.
For example, in contrast to the media headlines and the Parliamentary Labour Party claiming that they will be turning children in to heroin and crack cocaine addicts, the much lambasted policy around heroin and crack cocaine actually specifies that these drugs would only be available on prescription from a doctor in a healthcare environment and only as part of a treatment plan for existing addicts who can not take heroin or crack cocaine synthetic analogues. Additionally, the roll out of Overdose Prevention Centres, OPCs, both as traditional healthcare environments and as mobile units staffed with medical personnel, will allow users to use their own supply, but with clean needles in a safe and monitored environment with people trained to save their lives should anything go wrong. These OPCs will also be equipped to test the quality of the drugs so that users know what they are taking. The mobile OPCs are aimed at homeless users as these people are some of the most at risk users in society. As you can clearly see, the act of legalising but heavily controlling these substances will encourage users to come forwards and use the OPCs without fear of legal ramifications, like in Portugal, but with the addition of the staffed OPCs, will save even more lives and making the substances available as a treatment for the worst cases will help alleviate immense suffering.
Recreational party drugs like speed and MDMA would be available from specialist pharmacies on request. The user would have to go through a short interview and education session before being allowed to purchase the drug, first to discuss the use case to see if their use is problematic or a single recreational use, and then to inform them of the dangers, expectations, warning signs and what to do in the event of an issue. If their use is deemed problematic, they would be referred to the relevant specialists depending on their specific use case. MDMA may be made available in low doses from bars and clubs under license providing the venues can demonstrate that all staff are trained to recognise symptomatic behaviour that leads to problems and that they are also trained to deal with those problems
The much criticised drug GHB, known for its use in date rape cases would also be legalised. The plan with this drug is to make it available only from specialised pharmacies and at much lower doses than those required to render someone unconscious. At these doses, the drug is often used on the club scene as it induces euphoria and in some cases, mild hallucination. This drug, along with any drug from a special pharmacy, would be subject to the same interview process and all venues would need to be trained to recognise the drug and its effects along with how to deal with issues surrounding the drug and taking extra precautions around consuming it with alcohol, and the dangers of drink sharing. Again, it is important to remember that currently, this drug is available from anywhere, in any concentration and staff at venues are not trained to recognise it or respond to it which leads to horrific outcomes for many young women. This policy will significantly reduce the harm that this drug currently does.
Cannabis, the UK’s most used drug, alongside hallucinogens like mushrooms have been shown in the most part to be exceptionally safe when used in appropriate contexts; this means not driving or operating machinery under the influence, not being in a decision making role whilst under the influence and not looking after children under while under the influence to name a few. The plan with these drugs is simple; for cannabis, the policy would allow community cooperatives, under license and regulated, to grow and consume their own cannabis. They would be limited in amount and would also need to provide information and support to the community. Hemp farmers would also now be able to harvest the flower for resale. The smoking of cannabis would be regulated the same as cigarettes, which under this policy, would be much more tightly controlled than they are now, including not being allowed to smoke in publicly accessible areas, like outside schools, so you won’t be walking down the street through clouds of smoke. Mushrooms and other hallucinogens would also be allowed to be used in both research and therapy for cognitive disorders along with being allowed to be used more widely for recreational purposes.
These are just a few examples of how different drugs would be controlled, with the least harmful drugs like cannabis having very light control, moving up to amphetamines and other party drugs having stricter control and the hardest drugs having exceptionally strict controls around them. And for anybody that thinks that this will increase drug use, it didn’t in Portugal and, more importantly, the people that will be taking these drugs are already taking them. It’s just currently illegal and significantly more dangerous as the supply is not controlled.
In addition to this, the plan for education around drugs has been absolutely slammed in the press, but once again, the idiots that call themselves journalists these days have missed all of the nuance around the issue and are deliberately misleading people.
Yes the policy is to educate people about drugs from primary school age, but that is not the same as teaching primary age children how to taker drugs safely; Teenagers, who are already the most likely to start taking drugs, will be taught how to do so safely, but they will also be taught about the health dangers, the societal impact and all other aspects of drug use so that they can make informed decisions. Primary school children will not be taught this, but they will be introduced to the concept of drugs with the aim of the education to dissuade use. If you think this is a bad idea, let me give you an anecdote;
I grew up in a relatively impoverished town in West Yorkshire called Keighley. I grew up around drugs; heroin and cocaine use and addiction were rampant in the town and softer drugs were very widely available. Between the ages of 14 and 17, I spent the whole of those three years stoned beyond reason. I can not begin to tell you how much cannabis I smoked. I also took quite a lot of speed. That all stopped at 17 when I joined the Army. Whilst I was smoking pot like it was on a fire sale, a lot of my friends were trying a lot of other drugs. They ruined a lot of lives and caused more than one death. This was because we had absolutely no education on the subject. We didn’t know the dangers beyond some drugs could kill you if you got a bad batch. We had no idea about dosages and safe ways to consume, we used them in dangerous environments and hung around with dangerous people. A few of the lucky ones like me escaped by enlisting or moving away, but those that didn’t, ended up in most cases, ruining their lives. Some are dead, and others are still addicts now. But the point is, those deaths and those ruined lives would likely have been spared if we had had education given to us around the subject, so for any of you who think teaching kids about drugs is bad, all I can say is that you are idiots and by fighting this, you are actively endangering the lives of young people and you should be ashamed of yourselves. Most young people who are in those situations are not as fortunate as me. Joining the Army likely saved my life, but given the changes in drug policy since I was young, even that option has been removed for most. For the record, with the exception of trying cannabis once when I first left the Army and finding out that I absolutely hated the experience, I have been drug free since 1998, I don’t smoke any more and I barely drink alcohol. Which is great for me.
Coming back to the drug policy, I have only highlighted a very small part of it here, as it really is quite comprehensive. It covers a far wider spectrum than I could realistically cover here, from purity testing at festivals and venues, through controlling supply chains and combating international drug related crime. For those of you who are Green Party members, please log in to the member’s area of the website and use the link in the below to read the full policy. For those of you that are not members, in the short term, please talk to a Green Party member who has read the policy and, as soon as the policies are republished for the public, I will update the link.
Summing all of this up; based on all of the evidence from Portugal over the last 25 years, as someone who has used drugs, grew up around the most problematic use of the hardest drugs and has lost friends to drugs, as someone who now hasn’t used drugs in almost 3 decades and in the context of the National Crime Agency’s Threat Assessment for drugs, I can say this with absolute certainty; The current way we deal with drugs does not work. It is killing an increasing number of people every year; thousands upon thousands of people. It is ruining countless lives. It is filling our prisons with people who need a holistic approach to defeat addiction and is denying them this, increasing the risk of greater use and greater harm on release. It is wasting police and judiciary time, resources and money. It is destroying families. It is funding international terrorism and international crime. It directly causes drug use to be a scourge on our society. It has to change. The Green Party policy, if enacted in full, would almost eliminate drug deaths, would massively reduce drug use, would hugely limit the harm that drug misuse causes, it would save society a lot of money whilst at the same time, allowing those who already use drugs recreationally and none problematically to not only use them legally but to have access to cleaner drugs and to be able to take them in a safer way. It would massively reduce crime, both street level crime and dealing, along with organised crime and would severely affect the funding of international terrorism. This policy treats drugs, drug use, drug misuse and addiction as though we are a society far more advanced than we actually are. It treats people as responsible adults, allows them agency over their own lives, gives support for problematic use and treats the most desperate and vulnerable in our society with compassion and care. It is a policy that we should all not only support, but should be actively proud of supporting.
From my life experiences, the reading that I have done around the subject and from what is blatantly evident if we open our eyes, the current governments reaction, along with that of both the tabloids and broadsheets, is almost criminal and severely lacks any imagination for doing things differently despite massive amounts of evidence. It really is crazy that this policy is not just the way we do it already.
If you are going to leave a comment arguing against this, please, at least have an actual argument other than ‘drugs bad’ or ‘but the kids’, because in the face of all of the evidence and the detail of this policy, they are simply not valid arguments and will make you look entirely foolish. If you don’t support this policy, you either do not understand it, or you do not care about the drug problems we face.
