Tyler

Wait until you get to 0:11 😂

Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is MY LEADER.

It’s all so tiring. Another lecture from someone who hasn’t read the policies or understands the party.

Judge us on policy. It doesn’t take a genius to figure this out.

I don’t want to move goalposts. I want to tear down the establishment and start afresh. We are not here to conform with your Fabian and socialist views to comply.

If your idea of strategy is endlessly watering down what needs to happen so you can stay “electable,” that’s your problem — not ours.

British universities are advertising government-backed “interest-free” Sharia-compliant student finance (Alternative Student Finance) for 2026-27, using a Takaful mutual fund whose repayments are ring-fenced for future participants rather than the Treasury.

My questions on this:

1. What is the total cost to date (including consultancy, legal, Sharia certification, systems development and ongoing administration) of designing and implementing Alternative Student Finance, broken down by year and by organisation?

2.Which public bodies (DfE, Student Loans Company, Treasury, others) have been involved, and which officials or teams hold overall responsibility?

3. What is the precise legal basis for creating a separate, ring-fenced Takaful fund whose contributions never return to the Exchequer, and has the scheme been subject to equality impact assessment under the Equality Act 2010?

4. On what evidence of unmet demand, and after what consultation, was it decided that a faith-specific product was required rather than reforming the existing student loan system for everyone?

5. Will participants and non-participants make identical total contributions over the life of the scheme? If an “equivalent of interest” levy is applied to maintain parity, where is that documented and how is it calculated?

6. What modelling has been done of the fiscal impact of permanently ring-fencing repayments (i.e., the cost to the taxpayer of never recovering the capital/interest that would otherwise return to the public purse)?

7. Is the product open to any eligible student on the same terms, or are there practical or eligibility differences? What safeguards prevent non-religious opt-in purely for financial advantage?

8. Who appoints and oversees the independent Islamic Finance Supervisory Board that will certify compliance, and what is the cost and contractual basis of that arrangement?

9. Has any assessment been made of whether a parallel, faith-based funding stream creates a two-tier higher education finance system or differential treatment on the grounds of religion or belief?

academiamag.com/news/uk-plans-…

Englishness is ancestry.

It is the inheritance of a people — not a Home Office decision, not a census box, and not something you become because it’s convenient this month.

You cannot legislate or self-identify your way into an ethnicity.

Britain is not demanding the impossible. We are simply asking for the same basic standards that other functioning countries already enforce without apology.

Denmark treats asylum as temporary and refuses to turn its welfare system into an open invitation. Australia turns boats around and does not offer free healthcare or housing to people who arrive illegally. Japan deports overstayers rather than subsidising them, and only opens the door to those who fill real skill shortages. Singapore treats illegal entry as a crime and offers no free ride on the public purse.

No free NHS. No free housing. No cash for people who arrive without permission. Remove those who break the rules. Keep a narrow door open for the highly skilled who actually contribute.

That is not radical. It is ordinary practice in countries that still take their own citizens seriously. It is time we did the same. Elect us and we will make it happen.