Is the free market the barrier to solving social problems or the remedy?

Despite what we hear in the news media the free market (less government intervention) does not practically exist. However, that does not deter commentators discussing the negatives and positives of the so-called free market that democratic countries seemingly operate in.

Whilst economically protectionist policies (more government intervention) can have detrimental effects in markets (countries) they are implemented in, they also can serve to work to the advantage of a trading economy.

Matthew’s sliding market economy scale 🙂


In reality, economies of all major trading blocks and nations are best described as being on a sliding scale, with more open economies (less barriers) the UK be considered one, to more planned economies (increased barriers) North Korea at the extreme end.

It is important to keep in mind that despite what is perpetuated on the news and by commentators, the “free market” does not actually exist in reality, and is more theoretical. In practice, all markets in the world are mixed economics.

It is also important to remember that the economy is connected and not independent of other aspects of the world, like the environment, health and future well-being. Economics degrees at some universities are rigid and dictate that economies are separable. However, the work that groups such as rethinking economics is doing to change economic curriculums is outstanding.

The Social Problem and the 2019 General Election
In the 2019 UK General Election this falsehood continued to be perpetuated. The Labour party pushed the narrative that the free market is detrimental to the UK by pushing for more government intervention, through renationalisation and much tighter regulation of the way business operates (Elliot, cited in The Guardian, 2019).

The Labour party focused on its big selling points in its manifesto; free broadband, free adult learning, free dental care, the biggest council house building in a decade, abolishing tuition fees and the establishment of maintenance grants (Elliot, cited in The Guardian, 2019). None of which are bad socially, although how effective a policy of free broadband is questionable (how would the market correct itself in the case of a market failure?). For example, if the sole free broadband provider begun to experience severe technical issues then where does that leave customers?

Freer markets as a solution to societal issues
So, why do those who advocate for free markets or shall we say “freer” markets think of them as solution to all manner of society’s problems?

Solving the societal issues with less intervention
Let us go back to a definition of what a “free market” is, Britannica defines one as:

An unregulated system of economic exchange, in which taxes, quality controls, quotas, tariffs, and other forms of centralized economic interventions by government either do not exist or are minimal (Orlitzky, 2018).

Many economists hold that no one can be made better off without making other individuals worse off, (like the absence of externalities or informational asymmetries, among others) (Orlitzy, 2018).

According to this theory, the indivisible-hand mechanism of self-regulating behaviour, society benefits by having self-interested actors make free economic decisions that benefit them (Orlitzy, 2018).

Many arguments are put forward for using increasingly freer markers with less regulation for solving social issues. From homelessness to climate change, or the quality and safety of council homes.

Indeed, the desire for freer markets can go full circle and begin to adopt protectionist elements. Some advocates for less government intervention in markets, are in favour of the UK leaving the European Union. Such an exit no matter what the end deal is, does lead to a scenario where additional trading barriers are put up with the UK’s largest and closest trading partner.

The advantages of freer markets: Innovation
There are many advantages of freer markets, however, I have decided to focus on one area for clarity and to keep this article concise.

Freer markets are advantageous in that they can provide freedom to innovate more easily. This is probably the strongest argument for less government intervention in markets in the 21st century. A lot of social problems are the result of the lack of innovation.

Depicting the effect of a negative externality and market failure

Without innovation we would not have had steam engine technology or information technology, which has opened markets, created new business models and connected those disadvantaged and excluded from society.

The disadvantages of freer markets: Market Failure
The disadvantages of freer markets are numerous, from profit being the motive for success, market failure, and equality not always equating to equal opportunity. I have selected the one disadvantage that I believe to be most pressing. A free market requires consumption to survive and it requires it at unsustainable level, in a finite world.

As the COVID-19 pandemic is proving if people stop spending instead of spending on goods and services a freer market will struggle to stay alive.

Freer markets require spending and production, which consumes vast amounts of natural resources. Freer markets can contribute to increases in pollution, however, they can through emission trading schemes also be used to cut emissions, with intervention! (such as the European Union’s ETS scheme).

You can see that issues are not black and white and a combination of intervention and freer markets’, work together to achieve targets rather than orthodoxy.

Shifting the sliding scale: Freer markets in the age of Brexit and COVID 19
The challenge the UK faces at present with Brexit and COVID 19 poses significant challenges.

The UK’s withdrawal from the European Union is bringing with it a huge number of unintended/unseen consequences.
The proponents of the UK leaving the European Union argued that a free trade deal negotiated with the European Union would more advantageous than membership itself.

However, the pursuit for freer trade has led to an increase of trade friction (through being a third country) with Department for International Trade officials to advising British business to form EU-based companies to circumvent border issues.

This is an example of an unintended consequence of leaving the European Union, it could be argued however, this was forecast. What this shows is the pursuit for freer markets can in fact have the opposite effect.

COVID 19 poses a significant economic and social threat globally. There is no doubt that economic competition in the pursuit of self-interest between various large pharmaceutical companies aided the rapid development of vaccines. However, those private sector achievements were only matched by public sector intervention.

In Conclusion
This article is not comprehensive but does bring key points to the fore.

Both interventionism and non-interventionism in markets have drawbacks. What this article shows is that the trade-offs have undesirable outcomes, which is too damaging for a country to go one way over the other.

For this reason, countries deploy a mixture of the two. The COVID 19 pandemic is one such example with many large economies intervening in markets to bail out businesses and support citizens.

——

Coronavirus: The Importance of food security

The Coronavirus pandemic has shaken the globe. This once in a lifetime disaster has claimed over 100,000 lives globally and continues to do so. Most international crises do not directly lead to job losses, death, economic insecurity or food insecurity. However, this pandemic has trigged all three.

Food security, or insecurity is largely a problem of the developing world. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) defines food security as “existing when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO, 2020).

To put this into context in the developed world, people do not have to grow their own food for survival, or additional sustenance, however, in the developing world this is more common. Smallholders are dependent on their land, and in many cases are not fortunate to have access to supermarkets as those in the developed world do. This month bare shelves brought the long neglected issue of food insecurity to the unaware rich world.

Panic Buying

As grocery items on shelves disappeared, panic further increased. Shelves in supermarkets that were stripped bare of hand sanitiser and handwash the previous week were soon stripped, of toilet rolls, fresh fruit and veg, tinned food, cereals, crisps, meat, fresh and frozen. Supermarkets imposed limits (arguably way too late). Shelves that were restocked by night workers in supermarkets, were quickly stripped bare by shoppers who rushed in when the stores opened.

What all this demonstrated, is that the supply of food, particularly in the end stage, delivery to customer is especially fragile. Whether through online delivery, or in store. The supermarkets have assured the general public that enough food is available which may be true but the delivery of it to consumers is the weak link. It is possible to see supply disrupted by a number of sick delivery drivers causing issues for supermarkets in a region of the country.

Supply of food in the developed world in normal times is rarely a pressing issue. As Tim Laing professor of food policy at London’s City University puts it “panic buying aside, our supermarket shelves are usually full. We have access to a greater range of ingredients at better prices than at any time in human history” (Laing, 2020).

As a researcher on this topic its interesting to see an actual focus on short and long term issues of food security globally.

Laing in his book warns that the UK is food system is “stretched, open to disruption and far from resilient” (Laing, 2020).

Laing goes further to state the bitter reality that faces us ‘we have a massively fragile just-in-time supply chain which could easily collapse; a depleted agriculture sector which produces only around 50% of the food we actually eat, leaving us at the mercies of the international markets; and production methods which are damaging to the environment and human health’ (Laing, 2020).

With UK overeliance on international markets and an inability to grow enough food (due to lack of usable land) for its citizens, which is not solely a UK issue. We have to turn to researching into other means of production and look into altering the means of consumption incrementally.

The food system is fragile, complex and not able to react to the demands of panic buying without interventionist policies, food is very much a finite resource and the production of it even more so. A good thing was at the time of this crisis there were no high rates of food loss present in the UK. This would have put untold strain on the food supply system. The panic buying has now ceased, largely because people have stocks of food to last over two weeks and also because of the restrictions in place at the major supermarkets.

One thing the pandemic is demonstrating is that policymakers must be proactive with regards to the food system, it is not enough for policymakers to take a laissez-faire approach.

More updates on the topic of food security, particularly in this context will be posted here.

References:

Rayner, J. (2020) ‘Diet, health, inequality: why Britain’s food supply system doesn’t work’, The Observer, 22nd March [Online]. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/22/tim-lang-interview-professor-of-food-policy-city-university-supply-chain-crisis (Accessed 13 April 2020).

Wood, Z. (2020) ‘Supermarkets ready for a new week of rising to the virus’s challenge’, The Guardian, 29th March [Online]. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/29/supermarkets-ready-new-week-virus-challenge (Accessed 13 April 2020).

Why is being housed by the state perceived as a personal failure? Part 1

Social housing debates are at centre of the political discourse right now, and they rightly should be following the Grenfell Tower tragedy and the ongoing UK housing crisis.

We need to ask ourselves collectively some very important questions. It is time to move away from the strong doses of individualism we’ve shot ourselves up with and start thinking together as a collective society.

No civilised country, can call itself civilised unless people have housing rights which includes having somewhere safe and secure to live, from the richest to the poorest.

I would like to turn attention in this blog post to the following. Listening to Leading Britain’s Conversation (LBC) earlier in the week, tackling the question of social housing. A caller rang in and stated “Why don’t people work to move out a council home. Why do people in this country think the state owes them everything? My parents came to this country in the 1960’s and they worked and they never relied on the state”.

This sort of viewpoint in regards to council housing is unfortunately far too common in the UK. It’s rather elementary to put your experiences, or someone else’s, as indicative to what everyone being housed by the state should do, or be doing. The world is extremely complex, no two people are the same, no two groups of people are the same, no two parts of the country are the same, the environment you grown up in is not going to be the same as another persons.

The thrust of this blog post though isn’t why some hold such views (as crazy as they are). The caller stated his parents came to the UK in 1960’s and have never relied on the state, that may well be the case but when we read behind this we see the statement holds value judgements. Not everyone is like necessarily like yourself. If you are not lucky enough to have come to the country in the 1960’s when jobs were more easy to come by, or are/were more reliant on the state in the sixties because you have less capital you fall into a category that this caller presumably has.

Statements such as these lead those living on a council estate to fear openly admitting that they do.

‘Social shame’ is present in UK society. This goes for all areas of state dependency, not just social housing.

Grenfell Tower Burning

The Grenfell Tower tragedy highlighted the many failings of UK society. Not just of local government, but by how people who live in social housing are viewed by those who do not or never have resided in social housing.

By this I am referring to both citizens and politicians. Those that have never lived in social housing tend to hold positions of power, over those who do.

This very imbalance is a danger to British democracy, at a local and national level.

The image of the blackened hull that is Grenfell Tower should wake us all up to the dangers of lack of empathy and understanding. It should also wake us up to the face that we need to think collectively in order to help others out. So we too may lead lives that are happy. The more people in our country that are happy and not living in terrible conditions the better it is for society collectively right?

We also need to focus on power, who has power. Why do they have it? How? We need to forever question what government is doing, and be critical. At both national and local level, here it seems in Kensington and Chelsea local government were/are able to do as they please without very little oversight from anyone with power. The residents were disempowered and nobody was listening. This HAS to change but can only be done by mobilisation of the people on mass. The Grenfell Silent March which begins at Kensington Town hall and ends at the Lancaster West Estate is one way of doing this, as well as remembering the 72 victims of the tragedy. Now with Brexit and many other issues on the central agenda it is critical that this does not fall off the political agenda. The people of North Kensington need our support not just for a brief moment, but a lifetime.

Only if the citizens of the UK mobilise can we rid ourselves of the class system that has plagued the UK for centuries, and finally tackle rising inequality. We cannot go on creating areas where there are shops implicitly stating to one section of society this is not intended for you and just (2 minute’s walk in North Kensington) short drive away there are shops targeting a different class of person. It is clear that this will take time, primarily as the upper classes/elites who actually most likely prefer the status quo are more than likely to be in positions of power.

To make matters worse the new leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council (appears she is not so new). Has NEVER set foot in Grenfell Tower or any other tower block at all. I wonder if you can guess which part of Kensington she is living in? 😕

There is a massive disconnect between those in power, and classes. Nowhere is this more poignant then in North Kensington, with similar cases up and down the country.

Clearly, as someone senior in the council she should have visited the tower, without question. This involves conversing with residents, and investigating the many complaints. If she had actually visited the tower in the many years in which residents were complaining, she would may herself have acted. Her position in my opinion is surely is also untenable.

A clear problem is representation, if someone is unable to take the time to step foot in any tower block in a borough they have a deputy leadership role in, how are they supposed to represent all the people in that borough? Especially if this said person is middle/upper class, visibly. Everyone needs to connect with the people they should be working on behalf of, and that means everyone a borough. Nobody in this council appears (or actually cares) about representation of the poor, traditional working classes or service class. I am aware by simply mentioning the class system in this way, I am partly responsible for upholding it.

And finally, Grenfell Tower has clearly changed how these country perceives social housing. Has it truly touched all corners of society? Probably not. For too long social housing tenants have been held in contempt by councils and housing associations. From my own personal experience of living in 1970’s tower block (featured image on the right) reporting issues to Enfield Council and them not being acted upon, often with that familiar response that KCTMO residents had, stating that nobody else has reported the issue and issues often taking long to resolve.

To conclude. Why is Social Housing considered a failure?

Being housed by the state is considered a failure by some in society because of the increasing lack of empathy, the overuse of value judgements, lack of care, lack of oversight by us collectively towards those less fortunate. The over focus on owning property and gaining wealth through property has led to a destruction of society as we know it. This over focus on purchasing property is partly fuelled by the fact that the rental market is poorly, regulated with poor securities.

We have allowed society UK society has become more individualistic, more about “keeping up with the Jones”. The idea that people live in council homes out of choice rather than need as the LBC caller suggests is another reason. It is clear not everyone is the same, and tarring everyone with the same brush is a problem that a majority of UK society appears to have.

Too little oversight at local government level has allowed for conflict of interest, corruption, or just general disinterest all of which seem to be rarely picked up in any official statistics (which is equally worrying!).

This is a tragedy that we are all responsible for. Lacklustre politicians and indifferent citizens. We are all responsible.

(In a few weeks in the top menu, I will add a link with videos of various events recorded post Grenfell for viewers. For those wishing to understand more about the problems residents faced in Grenfell Tower and the Lancaster West Estate the Grenfell Action Blog is a good place to start.)

UK General Election 2017

The political landscape has been shaken up as Theresa May u-turned on yet another promise. The conservatives are very far ahead in the polls now and Mrs May announced that she chaired a meeting of the cabinet where they agreed the government should hold a general election on the 8th June.

In the recent local council elections, Labour was trounced. This election holds importance in the type of Brexit the UK faces will largely be decided come June 8th. Most policies enacted by government aren’t as wide sweeping, and certainly aren’t as destructive over the long-run as leaving the European Union will be.

Therefore, it’s not only critical that everyone gets out to the ballot box. It’s also crucial the public make an informed choice on the type of Brexit (as well as type of governance) they want. Already we have felt the sting of food price rises due to a weakened pound. As prices continue to rise and real wages stagnate over several years this will only compound those at the lower end of society. The social cost is high, as will be the political cost of any government who commits to Brexit in the long-run.

Public opinion can change and political parties would do well to remember that. The public should too. The reality is only starting to just starting to bite, when the Brexit pain really starts to dig in it will be interesting who the new bogeyman will become. Will discourse simply deepen its focus on the other? With people saying we didn’t go far enough about rejecting immigration. Will it just continue to be the EU? The conservative, right-wing dominated media controls information in the UK at the moment so we can make a prediction based on that.

These are all pitfalls that will beset any new government, and could make them unelectable at the next election in 2022.

With all this in mind, choosing the next government is not a decision that any voter should take lightly. This is the most important election of the 21st century so far.

Tim Farron, Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn

Main party leaders: Tim Farron, Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn

Appleton’s election tip:

Think wisely about the main issue that affects you. Whether that’s the environment (clean air), the NHS (which certainly is from what I’ve experienced recently at breaking point), Brexit (will affect this, and future generations including tie up government resources and development for years to come), immigration (because a sizeable chunk of the population perceive this to be the issue of our times), disability (major cuts over the past 7 years) or if it’s something I missed. Have look at party manifestos see what party best stands up to fix the issues you face. I’d recommend this approach, and not basing it on personality, a leader is an important part of a political party no doubt but the people behind it and the values/issues they wish to tackle are as important.

This marks my first post since December 2016. I want to continue on a little more but I have just come out of a two night stay at Barnet Hospital due to severe glandular fever. I was not able to swallow at all, only spit and was on the verge of throwing up, my tonsils were killing and almost touching.

Hope all readers are well. I’ll be back posting soon. Even more so as I’ve finished and passed my masters for this year. Just one year left 🙂

It’s been a great 2016, now to 2017

Happy New Year!

2016, WOW. What a year.
No, I’m not just talking about Brexit or Trump here (equally big, but on a negative level). But personally!

This was the year of the graduation. The completion of my degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics (PPE). The beginning of a MSc in International Public Policy at Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) and a couple of interesting study trips.

The end of the year also marks the reshaping of this blog. It’s no longer going to be known as it once was. Some readers may already have noticed this but it going to taking on a more professional, politically inspired form.

I hope everyone has a great remainder of 2016, and a very happy new year 🙂

Take care!

UK votes to leave the European Union

Lack of understanding..

The ref exposed a large lack of understanding

The UK has voted to leave, and thus will cease to be part of the European Union (at some stage).

A relationship that is part of the greater good, it might not be perfect but what form of governance is. The UK has voted to leave an important block, in an increasingly interconnected, interdependent and globalised world.

Let me get to what I believe we have just caused through our decision to leave both nationally and on the continent.

It’s all self-inflicted harm

We’ve produced a period of self-inflicted instability nationally and throughout the continent through these areas;

• Economically, the market has crashed. The pound has dropped and has stabilised at its lowest level since 1983

• The UK Economy and the Eurozone could suffer from more Economic turmoil if decisions aren’t made quickly and rationally to instill business confidence. The Eurozone affects us in or out of the EU. As we live in an interconnected world, with a full globalised economy.

• Socially, areas which benefited from EU funding such as Yorkshire, Hull (marina and port areas entirely built on EU Social finds), Cornwall now need to worry about where investment will come from. The many care institutions and other institutions. Who were funded in total or part by the EU now need to worry about their future existence

• Again, products that are protected under the EU. Like Melton Mowbray pork pies etc, may be concerned about region protection but we should get a deal that allows us to continue protecting these inside the single market. Albeit at greater cost

• Our European soft power has now been diminished in one move politically, economically, and diplomatically

Now some of the specifics. The quitters sold the public a line that they should pass more sovereignty back to Westminster. To analyse the sovereignty issue:

• Sovereignty is not a whole. There is no such thing as overall sovereignty as politicians have continually alluded to. Sovereignty is split into three parts; international legal, domestic, and Westphalian-Vattelian sovereignty.

• Sovereignty is fluid. Not absolute in the 21st century, there is no empire or commonwealth (as there before was)

• Globalisation has eroded sovereignty more than the EU ever did, or will. The EU provides a mechanism for democratic control over the pooled or contracted out Westphalian sovereignty. Transnational corporations, the media etc, lobby parliaments and invest large sums into campaigns, and in some cases directly target politicians. In an effort to influence them. Some even use threats of leaving a market (for another country) or threaten intervention in the market through other forms (not just capital flight). This is one reason many countries are increasingly being held hostage by the likes of Amazon and Google etc.

• Without a regulatory body or large block that has a lot of influence the trend will continue. Just ask Microsoft or Google about business in the EU. It’s been regulated very well for the most part, to make sure people are not exploited and that corporations do not run a mock. There is a fine balance but the UK alone will struggle unless it co-operates more in this area. The laws that are often passed in business and the tax world thus often favour these corporations massively.

The End Result

End result: We most likely will end up with the Norwegian model. Inside the single market, and contracting out our Westphalian sovereignty. The difference being where it was once pooled out democratically in the EU and we had influence on laws and any potential reforms of the democratic process. There will now be none. So, we have no democratic input on the Westphalian-Vattelian sovereignty that we will contract away under ANY future model. Of course we could opt for nothing at all of course (which means not trading with the EU and being in the single market!). So, we we’ve given away democratic control (which you can reform and change) for none at all on the sovereignty that will have to be contracted out.

There will be a constant erosion of Westphalian sovereignty, the state system itself is eroding. There was a good quote, I can’t remember where it came from but it was basically along the lines of; Europe is where the sovereign state was born, there it shall end.

Globalisation is the largest threat to sovereignty but that doesn’t have to be all bad, As long as there are checks and balances, which by the vote to leave yesterday we’ve removed another layer of.

The 350million a week figure which was a lie was more like 180 after our rebate, most likely won’t be spent on NHS or other services in this country. Nigel Farage said so, so hey it must be right. Of course we already knew that. The cost of any other agreement with the EU will probably be quite significant, along with replacing any social funding that we now may have to provide to institutions or under developed regions. The EU did quite well with wealth redistribution in that sense.

Of EU, Empire and Commonwealth

The EU project is something very unique and is so difficult to quantify. A project looking to promote and nurture peace, freedom and security in a very unstable world. For those who say NATO gives us security. Well, they’re right but so does the EU. The member states work through diplomacy, soft power, and economics (the ability to apply sanctions). It’s not all about hard military power. Border disputes must be settled before any country is admitted into the EU. The African Union, Caricom, ASEAN use it as a model for security and trade.

What we can look forward to is a government full of hard right-wing, casually racist prats. Boris Johnson, I don’t think he knows where he is on the political compass, just snaking his way to the leadership of the Tory party. Jacob Rees Mogg, and Daniel Hannan. We can’t rule Mr. Farage out too of course, can see him defecting back to his old party to party in the sun.

But hey, we got the commonwealth and the empire right? Right? Haha.
I’ve not been a fan of direct democracy and referendums due to the amount of misinformation sides can promote, and the public can often vote on issues for the wrong reasons. I feel this has pretty much proved that case.

If you made it this far, congratulations. I didn’t mean to make it this long.

What this vote has shown is that we are a nation divided. We now project ourselves as insular and at worst living with some past notion of empire. Britain is better than this.

“When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice” – Rupert Murdoch

As you notice, racism has reared its ugly head again in this country 🙁

A petition that made me chuckle. Including all countries of the commonwealth (sarcasm). Except the Brown people, yes those people. If you are an ethnic minority and you voted to leave on the hope that there would be a deeper connection with the commonwealth. You will be let down. Especially if you are brown. The petitionhttp://tinyurl.com/l272w2k 😆

Conclusions

By now it’s clear to see the quitters have no central plan. The Tory leadership is a poisoned chalice. The opposition along with the elected party is in a total state. Those poorest will suffer first, particularly in poor regions of the UK that benefited from the EU social development fund, regions like Kingston upon Hull, and Cornwall. The economy is taking a battering and the racists/xenophobes are out in force. We got to brave our self-inflicted storm and try to re-unite what now is a very divided, inward, and increasingly intolerant country.

Some hard-hitting images post-referendum

EU referendum – Fact and Fallacy

British and EU flag

Britain and the EU need each other.

The EU referendum isn’t far away, both campaigns are in full swing.

With just 3 weeks I can’t help but feel concerned. First, the narrative of the referendum is negative largely coming from the Leave campaign (Boris and his Hitler remarks, Racist comments from some Brexit supporters), although the remain campaign have had to put up with the Prime Ministers comments (R.E World War three).

When history is made, people in the future should learn not to make the same mistakes. Let’s go back to 1929, a global financial crisis. Then the rise of the far right. Hard economic times feed political extremism and reactionary politics. This is no time for nationalist policies and history has taught us what turning to the far right can do. Fractious, aggressive and divisive politics is not what Europe or the world needs. What’s needed more then ever coming off the back of a financial crisis is cooperation, internationally and within continents. Turning to nationalism as the past has shown leads to uncertainty.

Another concern with the recent populist/nationalist rise is that it largely ignores the world around it. The economic crisis that created citizen concern for the “other” or immigration was global. The Eurozone had differing issues on top of this, but the UK isn’t part of the Eurozone.

A large percentage of claims the leavers make are inaccuracies or just blatant lies (see the leaflet images below). I will tackle these in my post referendum analysis (when I have some free time). For now I hope all will make use of balanced sources, I’ve provided an independent source below.

Independent referendum research and Conclusions

For an independent source, take time to head over to fullfact.org. Probably the best source for anything related to the referendum. From their about page:

Full Fact is the UK’s independent, non-partisan, fact-checking charity. We check claims made by politicians, the media, pressure groups, and other voices in public debate, and push for corrections where necessary. We also work with government departments and academic research institutions to improve the quality and communication of technical information at source, and campaign for greater transparency in the public arena.

I have much more to say on this but no time. I had a leaflet come through my door the other day from vote leave.

I posted this along with a poll on the recently relaunched political debate forum (Let Politics Talk). You can view it here. I’d be glad to debate with some readers 🙂

So, I’m campaigning with StrongerIn, doing some phone banking and taking part in battle bus events.

Yet, again I really want to expand on this all more but I really have had absolutely no time.
Hoping for a Remain result. Though it doesn’t look too good at the moment.
Come on Britain, we are stronger and greater in!



More to come soon. Stay tuned.