Thanks! High praise indeed. I love Fire Flies.

@@DJDruid Me too. The video is amazing ☺

Thanks for your kind words!

@ yw!

Thanks. Trying something a little new, might do one for each of the 8 book series.

@@DJDruid Please never stop your Witcher passsion DJ

Thanks for your kind words. I have another Witcher related track coming out later today, the new one is about Yennefer at the Battle of Sodden Hill.

@DJDruid cool. I'll have a listen 🙂

@@DJDruid I'm looking forward to tonight then This year is the year I'll read the books once more once again

Thanks for the comment. There's quite a few Utopias in the Trance scene, which one are you referring to?

Thanks! Glad you liked it. Its one of my favourites off this album, I really like the upbeat energy of the track!

Thanks! I am working on another trance album at the moment. :D

Thanks for your kind words, glad you liked it.

Thanks for your kind words. If people get enjoyment out of these tracks, its all worth while!

Not true for the following points. 1. Reform UK's status as a political party Reform UK is registered with the Electoral Commission as a political party, which is a legal requirement for contesting elections in the UK. Its official documentation and operations align with the rules governing political parties, including financial transparency, donation reporting, and adherence to electoral guidelines. Describing it as "a business" oversimplifies its legal and political standing. This is the same for any party in the UK. 2. International corporate media links While it’s true that Reform UK’s messaging may resonate with certain media narratives, there isn’t strong evidence to suggest that it is "the spearhead of the international corporate media." The party is generally supported by specific segments of the British press, much like other parties, but implying it is controlled by corporate media lacks substantiation. Many of its leaders, including Richard Tice and others, position themselves as critics of what they perceive as mainstream establishment politics and media bias. If you watch main stream media's biased reporting, then why would Reform be the brunt of many of their attacks if they were being "spearheaded" by the corporate media? 3. Representation and policies Reform UK has positioned itself as a populist alternative, focusing on issues like Brexit, reducing immigration, and reforming public services such as the NHS. While these stances can align with certain right-leaning or business-focused media narratives, calling it "the very establishment" conflicts with its self-presentation as an anti-establishment force. It criticizes traditional political parties and governmental policies, which does not align with a definition of being part of "the establishment." Conclusion Labelling Reform UK as "not a political party" and dismissing it outright as a "business" without recognising its legal and operational context as a political entity weakens your argument. Instead, maybe, critique its policies or impact to foster a more balanced discussion that has merit.

@ladruid That is certainly a more fullsome and erudite response than expected, and so worthy of respect. However, having read their frankly frightening manifesto, seen the damage their luminaries have done through Brexit, and watched its evolution from the fat right dregs of the Tory party over the last thirty years, I am not dissuaded.

Thank you for engaging with such a thoughtful critique. It’s clear you’ve considered the implications of Reform UK’s policies, its roots, and its impact on broader UK politics. While we may differ in conclusions, your perspective underscores important concerns worth discussing. 1. On the manifesto: Reform UK's manifesto indeed reflects a particular vision, prioritising areas like immigration control, tax reform, and public sector efficiency. While some might find these ideas aligned with solutions for current challenges, others see them as extreme or potentially divisive. The "frightening" aspects you mention may stem from bold proposals that, without sufficient detail or support, risk alienating those who value stability and inclusivity in governance. I think they could go into more detail, but no political party really goes into detail as they can be held accountable in the future. This is no different from Labour or the Tory's. 2. Brexit’s legacy: The role of Reform UK's luminaries in Brexit is undeniably polarising. While Brexit has brought about significant change-good or ill depending on one's perspective-it's essential to evaluate policies and politicians on their broader actions and potential for future contributions. Brexit was a collective decision, in fact it was the majorities position (just under half of us hate referendums), and as such should be implemented as mandated. It was not just the product of any single party or group, and its outcomes should be assessed in the context of national and international adjustments. And in reality, did the Tory's implement Brexit? 3. Evolution from "Tory dregs": Criticism of Reform UK as a successor to disaffected Conservative members highlights its ideological roots. However, the party argues that its focus is on creating a distinct path addressing issues it claims mainstream parties overlook. While this might feel like a continuation of historical divisions, for some, it represents an attempt to challenge the political status quo. If you feel your voice is not being heard by the political overclass, what should you do? You have to take the least worse option, and when you have had option A or B for the past 30 years and the country just gets worse, option C looks more appealing. Ultimately, whether one supports or opposes Reform UK, you have to realise there are a growing number of people who believe the main two parties do not align with their ideals, they move further away from British culture towards more globalism. Instead of bashing reform, the main parties should see why voters are becoming disillusioned with their governance.

@@DJDruid There is a massive and increasing wealth division in this country which Reform show absolutely no intention of remedying, on the contrary it actively promotes the new corporate feudalism which is the blight of disenfranchised youth. Instead, they push the tired old tabloid Tory lie that nothing has changed since 1964, there is full employment for all and an abundance of well-paid jobs just waiting to be filled. Whilst instead increasing automation and increasing concentration of wealth in ever narrower hands have rendered mass employment a thing of the past. I well remember the future ‘leisure society’ of the 1970s when all citizens would benefit from the fruits the machine, and not as now, the increasingly wealthy few. And it is this class of people who favour the likes of Reform, and the tabloid readers of the working class, beguiled by comic book simplicity. I’ve seen my local community devastated by fourteen years of weaponised Conservative austerity, which the so-called Labour seem to be doing little to relieve and Reform nothing at all, unless we are to blame everything on impoverished people in little boats. I feel the bloated monarchy might deem some scrutiny in that department. As for Reform’s manifesto. Well, that was Moslyism on steroids if I recall. An immediate imposition of ‘emergency measure’, thinly disguised martial law and ‘ten thousand new detention (concentration) camps. An arbitrary two strikes and you’re out cap on benefits, regardless of circumstance and the usual tax breaks for the wealthy. That is fascism in a nutshell, everything two generations gave their blood and lives to defend, betrayed by their dependents eighty years afterward. For this reason alone, I despise Reform with every facet of my being. As for Brexit, I have watched the tabloid machine slander the EU for at least thirty years. I watched Brexit campaign’s misinformation trail with a sense of profound disgust, ans my opinion my Mr Farage, is best left discretely undivulged. In that time, I’ve watched as my British identify has been eroded away, not by left-wing woke culture, but right-wing economic policies dividing communities and starving them of funds in the name of economic dogma. Anything remotely human is derided with a derogative whilst the bulwarks of what I can only describe as neo-feudalism are bolstered, with the active support of Labour and Reform. As I said any sense of patriotism, I might have had died a death in 2016 with a stake through its heart three years later. The irony for me is that 2015 was my most European year, attending an Italian artist friend’s wedding in Italy in March, being included in a joint art expedition in Berlin, funded by the EU in Berlin in October and attending a poetry event with a good friend in Sweden the same month. I was envious of the standard of living of ordinary Swedes and felt more European than I now did British. I was in Sweden this October and, after Brexit, felt even more so. And now the UK finds itself alone, on the doorstep, and in competition with, the biggest trading block in the world. An exclusive club we were once a member of and had access to its apparatus of decision making. Now we must dance, not just to their tune, but to Uncle Sam’s, China’s and just about everyone else. When I saw Nigel Farage smugly encouraging a room for senile Daily Express consuming pensioners all cheering on the British Empire during the Brexit campaign, and knowing how manipulated these fools were, and how the outcome would affect not only my future but generations to come, I truly lost respect for England. You are absolutely right voters are not only dissatisfied with the two political parties but, those who have been paying attention, are thoroughly alarmed as we are effectively in a one-party state, with Reform being offered up as a bogus alternative that we are supposed to be drawn to whilst the others wither on the vine. I watched the dule purge. The one politician that did break the mould and did have the popular voice was Jeremy Corby. One of the few personalities, for all his many faults, with a conscience, but he never stood a chance when the full wait of the establishment mobilised against him. Not just the Tories and the fourth estate of the fully mobilised press, but the bought and paid for conservative, and mainly Zionist, establishment of his own party. The same thing happened to the Conservatives under Johnson. Two identical skittle parties obedient to the cooperate will, with a safely choregraphed, seemingly popular alternative with ear the press to safeguard the wealthy and insulated and hoover up the unthinking, ensuring the whole process goes on unhindered.

Your comment makes several important claims, but it's important to address these points with a clearer understanding of the underlying facts. Let’s break down the arguments and explain why they don’t hold up under scrutiny. The claim about corporate feudalism and wealth division: You describe the concentration of wealth in a few hands as a "new corporate feudalism." While it's undeniable that income inequality has been rising, it's not accurate to say that these problems are primarily caused by reformist or conservative policies. Globalisation, technological advancements, and policy choices over decades have all played a role in the widening gap between the wealthy and the working class. However, contrary to your suggestion that mass employment is a thing of the past, there are many examples of successful, job-creating industries. The rise of the tech industry, green energy, and medical fields offers real opportunities for well-paid jobs that didn't exist before, even if they require different skill sets. The view that automation destroys all jobs overlooks the new types of employment that have emerged, often due to automation itself. Socialism's effectiveness: You express nostalgia for a “leisure society,” which was part of socialist thought in the 1970s. The issue with that line of thinking is that socialism, as a model, has not worked in the long-term. Whether it's the Soviet Union or Venezuela, socialist economies have repeatedly failed due to a lack of market incentives, inefficient allocation of resources, and the erosion of individual freedoms. Sweden, which you cite as an example of socialist success, is a capitalist nation with a strong welfare state. It's not a socialist utopia; rather, it balances market economics with progressive social policies, ensuring that capitalism functions alongside generous public services. Reform and fascism: Your accusation that the Reform party represents fascism because of its proposals for emergency measures and detention camps seems like an exaggerated interpretation. There is no evidence that the Reform Party's policies are anywhere near resembling fascism. When we think of fascism, we think of extreme authoritarian regimes that suppress dissent, abolish democracy, and often engage in violent tactics. Reform's policies are more aligned with conservative principles that advocate for stronger border security and fiscal conservatism-traits that may not align with your values but are far from the authoritarian, totalitarian systems you suggest. Brexit and the majority vote: On Brexit, you state that you "watched the tabloid machine slander the EU" and criticise those who voted for it. While it's clear that misinformation played a significant role during the Brexit campaign, ON BOTH SIDES, it is important to acknowledge that the referendum was democratic. The majority of voters chose to leave the EU, and that decision must be respected, even if one disagrees with the outcome. The result doesn’t negate the importance of continuing to have debates about its impact, but it is undemocratic to continue dismissing the will of the people. If you disagree with the outcome of a democratic referendum, that by definition makes you a fascist. British identity and European identity: You speak about losing your British identity post-Brexit, while also describing a stronger European connection. The reality is that European identity doesn't dissolve with the UK’s exit from the EU. Many still feel deeply connected to Europe in cultural, social, and political ways. However, the decision to leave was an expression of sovereignty, and many voters felt that the UK's future lay outside the EU's structures. It’s also worth noting that the UK continues to engage with Europe in trade, culture, and diplomacy despite Brexit, we never had a true Brexit and are still more aligned than you realise. Labour, Corbyn, and the political system: Jeremy Corbyn may have been a popular figure with some, but he was also deeply divisive within his Labour. His leadership was marked by internal strife, frequent accusations of anti-Semitism, and a failure to form coherent policies that appealed to the broad electorate. The political establishment certainly worked against him, but this doesn’t absolve him from criticism. Labour’s electoral defeats were not just about outside forces but about policy choices that failed to resonate with a majority of voters. Most people just don't want communist policies. Ultimately, your statements are heavily idealised and overlook practical considerations. The reality is that no political system is perfect, and even the most progressive policies must contend with economic and social realities. Instead of disregarding opposing views, it’s crucial to engage with them constructively, work within the system to make changes, and recognise that the political landscape is more complex than just a battle between good and evil. All political parties have the right to exist, even if they are the Monster Raving Loony Party. I say live and let live, let Reform exist and if people don't like Reform, don't vote for them... soon as people start saying they should not exist because of X/Y/Z, well that's quite telling... quite fascistic in fact. Never expected to have a political debate in KZbin comments, but /shrug. Enjoy your evening.

Thank you for your kind words.