.

• CHECK OUT the following:

The National Liberal Party Says From Aberdeen to Acle Via Abingdon-On-Thames & Accrington … Shop Local!

http://nationalliberal.org/thenational-liberal-party-says-from-aberdeen-to-acle-via-abingdon-on-thames-accrington-%e2%80%a6-shop-local

The National Liberal Party Says From Acton To Aldeburgh Via Adlington & Alcester … Shop Local!

http://nationalliberal.org/thenational-liberal-party-says-from-acton-to-aldeburgh-via-adlington-alcester-…-shop-local

National Liberal Party Says From Aldershot To Alnwick Via Alford & Alfreton … Shop Local!

http://nationalliberal.org/thenational-liberal-party-says-from-aldershot-to-alnwick-via-alford-alfreton-…-shop-local

The National Liberal Party Says From Alsager To Altrincham Via Alston & Alton … Shop Local!

http://nationalliberal.org/the-national-liberal-party-says-from-alsager-to-altrincham-via-alston-alton-shop-local

THIS EXCELLENT article was published by the ‘rogue’ journalist, Caitlin Johnstone. We found it interesting as it indicates that Joe Biden will be just the same as virtually every politician before him. They promise the earth, but change their tune as soon as they’re elected. Biden was only sworn in as US President on 20th January & has already broken several election promises.

On the surface there are many differences between US President Biden and his predecessor, Donald Trump. Trump was known for his brash style and trademark orange skin & strange hairstyle. He run the White House like it was a business and seemed to ‘hire and fire’ people at will. He was unusually straight talking and hated Mainstream Media – MSM – with a vengeance. All we ‘know’ of Trump is that he allegedly held politically incorrect views, had a lurid sex life, was ‘linked’ to Russia & displayed Hitlerite tendencies.

Biden, on the other hand, is not as media savvy or media friendly as the previous Democrat president (Barack Obama). However, MSM certainly seems to give him a ‘by-ball’. This is particularly so when it comes to Biden’s record as a War Criminal (he’s supported US ‘intervention’ in Iraq, Serbia, Syria & Libya) alleged dementia, & and – what looks to be – odd & creepy behaviour when in the company of very young girls.

The differences between Trump & Biden look vast. However – at root – they’re really just cosmetic. President Biden, like virtually every president before him, will be a prisoner of the US Military Industrial Complex. Other special interest groups – including the banksters – will also have their hooks into him. Thus, he’ll be a controlled puppet – but a powerful puppet nonetheless. Sadly, it’s only a matter of time before the US embarks on its next (overt or covert) imperialist venture.

With all the above in mind, we’d encourage readers to study Caitlin Johnstone’s article. Like her fellow independent (non-MSM) journalists Eva Karene Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley, she thinks outside of the box, has a unique view on events & isn’t afraid to speak her mind.

It goes without saying that there are no links between Caitlin Johnstone, Eva Karene Bartlett or Vanessa Beeley & the National Liberal Party. You can read the original article here: https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/02/02/everything-about-the-biden-administration-is-fake/
Please note that we have left any North American spellings & phrases as they are. The National Liberal Party would be more than interested on your views. Simply add them to the comments section when this article appears on the National Liberals Facebook page which you can find here https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313

.

Everything About The Biden Administration Is Fake

By Caitlin Johnstone

Despite outward appearances, at root, there isn’t much difference between current US President Joseph ‘Joe’ Robinette Biden Jr. (right) and his predecessor, Donald John Trump (left). Biden, like virtually every president before him, will be a prisoner of the US Military Industrial Complex. Other special interest groups – including the banksters – will also have their hooks into him. Thus, he’ll be a controlled puppet – but a powerful puppet nonetheless. Sadly, it’s only a matter of time before the US embarks on its next (overt or covert) imperialist venture.

A new exclusive from The Daily Beast titled “White House Reporters: Biden Team Wanted Our Questions in Advance” – https://archive.is/1rO9X – reports that the White House press corps is being pressured to provide briefing questions ahead of time in a way that makes even mainstream media journalists uncomfortable.

“While it’s a relief to see briefings return, particularly with a commitment to factual information, the press can’t really do its job in the briefing room if the White House is picking and choosing the questions they want,” one White House correspondent told The Daily Beast. “That’s not really a free press at all.”

“It pissed off enough reporters for people to flag it for the [White House Correspondents Association] for them to deal with it,” another source reportedly said.

While Obama’s deputy press secretary Eric Schultz calls the move – https://archive.is/1rO9X#selection-1029.9-1029.37 – “textbook communications work” designed to ensure that Biden’s press secretary has answers ready instead of having to “repeatedly punt questions”, clearly the reporters on the job feel differently.

“The requests prompted concerns among the White House press corps, whose members, like many reporters, are sensitive to the perception that they are coordinating with political communications staffers,” writes the Beast.

Having questions in advance would indeed be a good way to help insulate press secretary Jen Psaki (for whom liberals are already developing – https://www.vox.com/2021/1/20/22241632/jen-psaki-first-press-briefing-biden-administration – an unwholesome celebrity crush – https://www.washingtonian.com/ 2021/01/29/jen-psaki-now-has-a-twitter-hashtag-psakibomb/) from hard questions. This would avoid sticky situations like when Psaki deflected inquiries about treasury secretary Janet Yellen’s conflict of interest with the Citadel controversy by babbling about Yellen being the first woman – https://twitter.com/Quicktake/ status/1354496816738422789?s=20 – in her position and claiming – https://twitter.com/IsicaLynn/status/1354894529208348673 – that receiving $800,000 in speaking fees from that company is no reason for her to recuse herself.

So this is just one more item on the steadily growing pile of fake things about this administration. Everything about it is phony. This is the Astroturf Administration.

Biden and his cohorts point-blank lied – https://twitter.com/demswatchdog/status/1356282041889861632 – about sending out $2000 checks.

Deportations are continuing unimpeded – https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-jamaica-honduras-immigration-guatemala-482889ed56ed3cd02c9c61ebd1e3fbb7 – despite all the campaign pledges to the contrary.

The kids in cages that made Rachel Maddow cry – https://twitter.com/TVwithThinus/status/1009429027109724161?s=20 – on air during the Trump administration are still in their cages – https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/01/25/biden-pledged-to-sign-executive-order-about-separated-migrant-children-on-day-one-he-still-hasnt/? sh=3910aeaa399b – and will remain there for the foreseeable future.

The pro-environment candidate has authorized dozens of new oil drilling permits – https://www.afr.com/world/north-america/biden-issues-dozens-of-oil-drilling-permits-in-first-few-days-20210128-p56xgs – within days of taking office.

Re-entering the Iran nuclear deal seems as far off as ever, – https://news.antiwar.com/2021/01/19/bidens-intel-chief-says-we-are-a-long-ways-from-returning-to-iran-deal/ – with the administration continuing – https://thegrayzone.com/2021/01/25/biden-administrations-coercive-iran-regional-crisis/ -Trump’s “maximum pressure campaign” even as Tehran says – https://news.antiwar,com/2021/01/29/iran-says-it-will–not-comply-with-nuclear-deal-until-us-lifts-sanctions/ – the US ending its cruel sanctions is a precondition to resuming the deal.

Biden still hasn’t taken any solid steps to end the horrific war on Yemen, or even to end US facilitation of the slaughter as he promised – https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/real-journalists-would-grill-biden – on the campaign trail (he could have taken major steps – https://inthesetimes.com/article/joe-biden-yemen-war-saudi-arabia-presidential-election-foreign-policy – toward doing this the day he took office and chose not to).

While this president hides from the press due to his rapidly deteriorating ability – https://consortiumnews.com/2020/03/06/stop-calling-it-a-stutter-dozens-of-examples-show-bidens-dementia-symptoms/ – to answer questions in complete sentences, the mass media churn out think pieces – https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/31/joe-biden-spotlight-464003 – about how taking himself out of the spotlight is actually a brilliant political move.

As Our Hidden History recently put it, – https://twitter.com/OurHiddenHistry/status/1356418884778221570 – “We got sold a sack of political oregano.”

And that’s all the US empire ever is, really: a murderous, tyrannical planetary oppressor covered up by varying degrees of dishonesty. During the Trump administration the depravity was a little more honest about itself, now during the Biden administration it’s a little more dishonest. The only major change is the thickness with which the makeup is slathered over the skull.

Everything about life in our current world order is dominated by phoniness. Our culture is manufactured by Hollywood. Our dominating political structure is manufactured by think tanks. Our perceptions of what’s going on in the world are manufactured in Langley and Arlington. The whole thing is so fake and stupid. We’ve got to figure out a way to snap out of these artificial boxes they are placing over our minds and these perceptual filters they are placing over our eyes, and birth something real and authentic into our world.

• IN OUR introduction, we mentioned that Caitlin Johnstone is interesting in that she thinks outside of the box, has a unique view on events & isn’t afraid to speak her mind. If you’d like to read articles that don’t conform to official Establishment narratives, we’d highly recommend her Facebook page – https://www.facebook.com/ CaitlinAJohnstone/ – and Twitter feed – https://twitter.com/caitoz

• IF YOU’RE a fan of her ‘rogue’ journalism which features direct & alternative views, you can support her efforts to expose & explain how the Establishment manipulates events via Patreon – https://www.patreon.com/caitlinjohnstone – or PayPal – https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/caitlinjohnstone

• READERS MAY like to check out this previous article by Caitlin Johnstone that we serialised way back in 2018:

Trump Isn’t Another Hitler. He’s Another Obama. (Part 1) https://nationalliberal.org/trump-isn’t-another-hitler-he’s-another-obama-part-1

Trump Isn’t Another Hitler. He’s Another Obama. (Part 2) https://nationalliberal.org/trump-isn’t-another-hitler-he’s-another-obama-part-2

Trump Isn’t Another Hitler. He’s Another Obama. (Part 3) https://nationalliberal.org/trump-isn’t-another-hitler-he’s-another-obama-part-3

AS FAR as we’re aware, the National Liberal Party is the only political grouping in the UK (and maybe within the British Isles) that promotes Distributism.  For those who don’t know, Distributism is a visionary idea which offers a genuine alternative to orthodox capitalist and socialist (or communist) solutions.

Distributists – those who advocate Distributism – believe in the widest possible spread of ownership of land, property, or workplace.  The phrase ‘where owners work and workers own’ sums up this position fairly accurately.

With the above in mind, our attention was recently drawn to an article – http://oldthunderbelloc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/neither-capitalism-nohtmlr-socialism.html –  which appeared way back in 2014 on the Old Thunder Belloc blogsite.  ‘Old Thunder’ refers to Hilaire Belloc and the blog describes itself as ‘a place to appreciate the works of the renowned Roman Catholic, Anglo-French historian, essayist and poet’.  Belloc (along with GK Chesterton) remains one of the most well-known advocates of Distributism.

This article – entitled Neither Capitalism Nor Socialism – was first published in the July 1937 issue of The American Mercury.  During the 1920s & 30s it featured articles by some of the most important writers in the world.  We feel that it presents a very clear explanation  of Distributism – an idea that we hope to promote to a wider audience.

As we’re passionate believers in free thought and free speech (‘speech is free with the NLP’) we invite our readers to share their thoughts when this article is reproduced on our Facebook site – https://www.facebook.com/groups/52 739504313 It goes without saying that there are no links between The American Mercury, the Old Thunder Belloc blogsite & the National Liberal Party.  It should also be noted that whilst Belloc was a Catholic, the NLP welcomes members & supporters from all religions and none.  Please note that we’ve kept the original US spellings as they are.

Known as ‘Old Thunder,’ Joseph Hilaire Pierre Belloc (1870–1953) was born in La Celle-Saint-Cloud, France. His father, Louis Belloc, was French & his mother, Bessie Rayner Parkes Belloc, was English. Hilaire was brought up in Slindon, West Sussex, and became a naturalised British subject in 1902. He sat as a member of Parliament for Salford South in Lancashire from 1906-1910, first as a Liberal and then as an independent. As well as being a well-known Distributist he wrote more than 150 books on subjects as diverse as history, politics, economics, travel, warfare and poetry. His Catholic faith had a strong impact on all of his work. Belloc died in a Guildford, Surrey and is buried at the Shrine Church of Our Lady of Consolation and St Francis, West Grinstead, West Sussex.

DISTRIBUTISM is a long clumsy word which is coming into use for a very simple and normal thing: the system of society in which the average citizen possesses enough property to give him and his family economic freedom.  There was a time when everyone took it for granted, especially in the United States, that the typical free citizen would be an owner – generally an owner of land and if not the owner of land then the owner of a business or the master of a craft.  But today, wherever industrial capitalism rules – and it rules in our main industries, including our transport system – a perilous and unnatural state of things has come to pass.  The bulk of men are still called free citizens, for they are still politically free; but they are no longer economically free.  They no longer possess the wherewithal to live.  They live only at the mercy of employers who possess the means of life – the reserves of food and clothing and house-room and instruments of production – or by support from the community doles out by the officers thereof.

In the presence of this unprecedented arrangement of society, a new word had to be found for the old thing, which had been nameless mainly because it had been taken for granted and was universal. For myself I should have preferred the word Proprietary, though this is rather long and pedantic. But on the existing models of Socialism and Collectivism, it was agreed to take the word Distributism. As the Socialist desires or accepts an arrangement of society wherein the means of production are vested in the community (society itself, the collectivity), so the Distributist desires a society in which the means of production are distributed as property among the several units of the State—the families and the individuals which compose it.

Now to begin with, let me emphasize certain negative points with regard to this creed of ours, which was, within living memory, a matter of course, and yet now sounds so odd in the ears of many contemporaries. Distributism does not propose the equal distribution of the means of production among the several individuals or families of the State. That is a mechanical, inhuman conception opposed to, and even contradictory of, the spirit which has moved men to attempt a return (if it be possible) to a good distribution of private property. A man is not unhappy or degraded because another man is richer than he; his suffering only becomes inhuman and abnormal when he has not the wherewithal to live as a free man. One can be free without being rich, but one cannot be free without the means of livelihood.

Again, Distributism does not mean the possession of sufficient land or capital by all families or all individuals of the State. That might be the ideal, but it is not the practical goal which we aim at, which we think possible. There will always in practice be among men, even where property is well distributed and guaranteed a certain minority who cannot handle it, a certain exceptional number, large or small, who are incorrigible spendthrifts. What is more, there will always be a certain exceptional number, large or small, who not only have no appetite for economic freedom but positively dislike it, and prefer to shift onto other shoulders the responsibility of keeping them alive.

No, the goal of the Distributist in a society wherein so many of the citizens are economically free that they give their tone to the whole community. We all know the difference between a countryside where farmers live securely upon their own land, and industrial urban quarters where great herds of men turn to their ineluctable labor at the sound of the factory siren. In the one place there may be considerable numbers who possess nothing, who are working for hire under the farmers, or who are in domestic service with the wealthy of the neighborhood. But the tone of the place is a tone of ownership, of economic freedom. In the second instance you may have many a small shopkeeper possessing some economic independence, you may have many a man owning his own home, and not a few possessed if industrial shares or city or national bonds on a small scale, but the tone of the whole place is proletarianism, just as the tone of the first place is distributist.

Lastly, Distributism is not, most emphatically not, the ownership of the means of production in small units of simple instruments. It does not mean the return to the carpenter’s bench, the local blacksmith, the hand-weaver, and the hand printing press; nor does it mean, in transport, a return to the carrier’s horse and cart. A simple society, based upon small craftsmanship, may be preferred to the highly complex society based upon concentrated machinery; it may even be held that the small craft and the small industry alone are permanent and that our great modern concentrations must inevitably crash sooner or later; but all that has nothing to do with the definition of Distributism. A railway between two great cities involves high concentrations of capital, but it does not of itself involve the possession of capital by one or a few men. The capital may be possessed in shares, and those shares widely distributed. The management of a national loan involves high concentration of capital, but there is no necessity for the bonds being held by a few; they could just as well be held by individuals and families composing the mass of the community.

Given the global ‘lockdowns’ throughout this and last year, the Self-Determinist pressure group Nations without States decided to petition the Government to provoke a debate on Kashmir, given that the region has been under a (politically driven) lockdown since August 2019.

An initial Parliamentary petition was abandoned, due to Covid concerns, but a second one was raised by NwS Executive member, Upkar Singh Rai, in the latter part of last year. We were delighted therefore when the signatories of the petition asking for that debate, were advised by the Parliamentary Petition Committee that MPs had agreed to one! asking for a debate, were contacted by the Parliamentary Petition Committee. They advised that there would indeed now be a debate on the issue on Parliament TV on the 13th January!

The Debate

Sponsored by Sarah Owen MP (Luton North), a number of MPs expressed their concern over what is happening in Kashmir. Topically, they reminded viewers that the region had been ‘lock downed’ for political reasons by the Indian Government for 17 months straight, on far stringent terms than ours.

Most agreed that the human rights of residents’ are being breached and a handful mentioned that this also includes their ‘Right to Self-Determination’.

The one discordant note, and unlike the other Labour speakers, was that of Barry Gardiner MP (Brent North) who focused on Azad Kashmir (the smaller area under Pakistant control) and criticised Pakistani human rights record and political mistreatment of citizens. It was disappointing however that he did not also talk about Indian Kashmir (the main reason for the debate). One suspects this is a reflection of the new Leader’s policy of courting Indian voters by reducing their traditional criticism.

Most telling of all were the remarks of Paul Bristow MP (Peterborough) who pointed out that the Government supports self-determination for Falklands and Gibraltar citizens as it is enshrined within the UN Charter. Thus, “what is good for the Falklands and Gibraltar, is surely good for the people of Kashmir!”. We agree and, as our petition says, there must be a UN supervised plebicite (referendum) on Kashmir, as promised since 1948!

You can watch the proceedings here: https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/dbffb1d7-6d27-40e3-b145-67553f04c89b (between 16.30 and 17.30).

Although a debate had been achieved you can still sign the petition (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/551582)

NATIONAL LIBERALISM is neither of the left or the right. Nor is it capitalist or socialist. Whilst we have ‘points of reference’ – people who may have said and/or done something that we find of interest – who’re not National Liberals, we genuinely believe that our ideology goes beyond all of the ‘traditional’ descriptions & ideas.

So what is ideology & why is it so important to National Liberals?

In layman’s terms, ideology is a belief system where core characteristics are shared between various individuals. Some of these individuals may well have their own particular area(s) of intense interest – or ‘tendancies’ – but ideology is the ‘glue’ that binds them together. Ideology is also important because, again in layman’s terms, it sustains those who adhere to it in both good & bad times. In other words it’s a form of ‘nourishment’.

The ideology of National Liberalism – indeed its raison d’étre – can be summed up in the slogan ‘SelfDetermination For All!’ And for National Liberals, self-determination applies to three main areas – National, Political and Economic. In practical terms, we support

• Social and Economic Justice

• Democratic Renewal

• Anti-Globalisation

• Anti-Corruption

• Consensus Politics

With the above in mind, this article (which first appeared in issue 1 of New Horizon – the online ideological magazine of the National Liberal Party) looks at the possibility of building a ‘Centre’ movement of groups & individuals who share these goals.

.
Strategy: Building a Grand Coalition of the Centre

National Liberals wish to build a movement of the ‘Centre’ in the UK. Based on a sound ideology – the ideal of ‘Self-Determination For All!’ - it should accommodate those who have their own particular areas of intense interest – say, the environment. However, it should exclude those who’re more than happy to remain in the political ghettos of (what many people would regard as) the extreme left & right. Bizarrely the likes of the Socialist Workers Party (above left) and British National Party (above right) both claim to represent elements of the working class. However, they seem at times more interested in attacking each other, thereby falling into the ‘Divide & Conquer’ trap set by the Establishment.

ALL POLITICAL PARTIES, let alone ideologies, believe that they have the answers to their countries problems. Some may consider their role to influence the many, but most believe that only by achieving undiluted ‘power’ and the implementation of their policies can they deliver salvation.

Of course, most never even achieve recognition, let alone exercise any influence or power. There are many reasons for that e.g. a political system that rewards the big, established parties and seeks to deny minor parties representation, a public culture that absorbs its’ ‘political’ knowledge via the mass media (which is inevitably linked to the establishment) and the basic ‘conservative’ nature of the voter.

The National Liberal Party is no more protected from these influences than any other. Yes, we have an ideological basis for existence, we attract a lot of interest, even more so sympathy, and we have some attractive policies. We would be naive however to believe that we will grow at some point exponentially into ‘power’ or that something will propel us there as some form of political ‘sling shot’ e.g. a recession or social meltdown.

Sole power unobtainable

The reason is not down to having/not having the ingredients for a successful political movement, something altogether different (although an important factor – see p17) (1). It is simply that voters/activists in today’s Western society, with its many social attractions, with complicated lives and vulnerable financial structures, are not committed to political struggle. And of those that are, there is no reason to believe that they will embrace only national liberalism, or any other radical idea, but more likely to be split, for many reasons, along multi-ideological or party lines. If then, most radical yet centrist parties (our milieu) are doomed to, at best exist, or at worst wither and die, what should they do?

Unity in Diversity

Some may suggest they should seek unity. There may indeed be some parties that are so close ideologically (or have none at all) that they could merge? However, for various reasons (good and bad), this is unlikely to attract the majority. Ideological nuances, policy focus and ego’s will preclude any ‘unity’ and end in ‘disunity’ if forced. The National Liberals, for example, would not expect to attract all disaffected activists/voters to its banner. Our focus on liberal issues e.g. civil liberties, would not motivate everyone even if in agreement. The same could be said for other parties. However, the issues such centrist parties hold, and it has to be said many Independents, e.g. democratic reform, civil liberties, Euro-realism, (nonracist) patriotism, could form the basis of agreement. Those issues could be promoted by a loose co-operative body. Those issues could even be promoted in turn. If certain parties (or individuals) focus more on promoting their ‘hobby horses’ so be it. By maintaining party identities we allow people to express their ideological differences. By working in a voluntary campaigning body we benefit by sharing resources where appropriate. Thus the phrase ‘Unity in Diversity’ perhaps ideally describes the concept of a working coalition.

A ‘Grand Coalition of the Centre’ would work by bringing together all small centrist parties and Independents working in a loose campaigning body. This body would from time to time mobilise its’ constituent parts to promote an idea through literature distribution or to campaign/protest on the streets if some principle e.g. civil liberties were under threat. The National Liberals have supported an embryonic coalition in recent times known as the People’s Alliance (UK), an all-party campaigning body. It is a template for cooperation. It could also develop into an electoral alliance and even a legislative coalition.

Let us build the centrist, common-sense alternative!

It won’t be easy dropping egos and putting aside policy differences or emphasis but the end result would be worth it. It would benefit from the synergy of its parts working together. If it cannot be brokered, the country will continue with a Lab/Con see-saw with only extreme alternatives realistically on offer. If a member of another party reads this and is inspired, then contact the National Liberals (natliberal@aol.com) for further discussion. From small acorns….

(1)  This is a reference to the next article – What are the ingredients of a successful political party?: An idiots guide – which we hope to feature towards the end of February.

• ALSO Check out:

Build New Horizon! http://nationalliberal.org/build-new-horizon

New Horizon – Head & Heart http://nationalliberal.org/new-horizon-head-heart

New Horizon – National Liberalism In Action – Civil Liberties http://nationalliberal.org/new-horizon-–-nationalliberalism-in-action-–-civil-liberties

New Horizon – National Liberalism In Action – The Nature of Democracy http://nationalliberal.org/newhorizon-–-national-liberalism-in-action-the-nature-of-democracy

New Horizon – Ecology: The Silent Fourth Pillar of National Liberalism https://nationalliberal.org/ecology-thesilent-fourth-pillar-of-national-liberalism

New Horizon – ECONOMICS Part 1 – The Economic Roots and influences of National Liberalism http://nationalliberal.org/new-horizon-economics-part-1-%e2%80%93-the-economic-roots-and-influences-ofnational-liberalism

New Horizon – My Concerns For The NHS https://nationalliberal.org/new-horizon-–-my-concerns-for-the-nhs

YES it’s that time of year again – Christmas is coming! But in your haste to do the shopping, don’t forget the local shops and businesses in your area. Give them an early Christmas present by shopping locally today.

The National Liberal Party knows that times are hard and price considerations are obviously very important, but many small shops depend on their Christmas trade to see them through much of the following year.  And this is particularly true of the money they make in the fortnight just before Christmas itself.

However, this year will obviously be different – and that’s due to the Tory government’s response to Covid-19 (which has been supported, to one degree or another, by all Establishment parties).  A series of never-ending lockdowns has meant that every shopkeeper in the land is facing an uncertain future.  Closing shops for long periods of time is social & economic suicide. Indeed, it’s hard to know how many local shops will ‘go under’ in the very near future.

Many shopkeepers recall the recession of the late 2000s – which was brought on by ‘casino capitalism’ – a mixture of greed and mistakes made by the politicians, bankers, ‘fat cats’ and speculators. Now they face another recession.  To add insult to injury, shopkeepers are also hit hard by high interest rates, the criminal bank debt-system, out-of-town outlet centres and on-line shopping.

The shopkeeper, as a self-employed businessman or woman, plays a vital role in the local economy. (And don’t forget that these small shops collectively employ hundreds of thousands of workers throughout the length and breadth of Britain). Local shops are not only important for the elderly and young mothers, but are part of the glue that helps to maintain community spirit – a place to bump into friends, neighbours and relatives.

If we don’t support our local shops and businesses today, we may lose them forever. Then people will have no other choice to travel directly into the nearest city or town centre for the smallest of items. This may be ok if you have your own transport and are fit and healthy. However, the elderly or young mothers wouldn’t really look forward to beating a path through the massive Saturday shopping crowds found in our large towns and cities.

The message is clear. For the community spirit to survive and prosper, we must give local shops as much trade as possible. The National Liberal Party says support your local shops, shopkeepers and shop workers. Shop locally this Christmas!