Labour - one step forward, two steps back

WRITING IN THE New Statesman (NS) under the heading 'While Labour supports working people, the Tories prioritise the privileged few', Chris Leslie, shadow financial secretary to the Treasury castigates the 'Tory toffs' for,' giving 13,000 millionaires an average tax cut of £100,000' while 'Bonuses soared by 82% in April as bankers deferred their payments to take advantage of the tax cut'. He continues in this tabloid style until he comes to his 'Great Leader' who promised in Brighton last week to squeeze the power companies until the pips squeak.

                        I am not a Tory voter, but had been a Labour one from the day I turned 18 up to the last election. I am 63 years-old, and, unlike many Labour MPs and party members, I can remember living through the 1970s, and supporting the likes of Arthur Scargill, Tony Benn, 'Red' Robbo (God forgive me); and reading Ralph Miliband's[1] pieces in the New Left Review.

                        My mother owned a small grocery business (and when the nation's lights went out as they often did during that decade) she remained loyal to the Labour Party despite the ill-afforded loss of frozen food products that needed electricity to remain edible.

                        I have written the above two paragraphs because I do not want to be thought one of Mr Leslie's 'Tory toffs' and therefore be dismissed as such after what I am about write.

            THE SHADOW  secretary to the Treasury, in his piece for the NS only reinforces the Tory charge that Ed Miliband is returning the Labour Party to the socialism of the 1970s. Any treasury spokesman, from whatever party, should be simpatico with the free market in a capitalist society, and accept the profit motive for what it is - a truly progressive force for scientific, technological and economic advancement.

                        Socialism never did and never could match capitalism in such an arena; simply because under such a system there are no incentives to individuals to encourage them to invent and help to advance society's economic and social progress. The word 'progressive' has been hijacked by the Left; but socialism is no such thing. It stifles enterprise, ambition, and sees the profit motive as a disease - with socialism being its only 'cure'.

                        It was the likes of Bill Gates who delivered Soviet Communism up to capitalism and democracy. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was left looking like a puzzled and innumerate child when the age of the computer arrived in people's homes, followed by the internet and social media. Socialism could never compete; and it did not. Even today the citizens of Cuba are driving around in 1950s vehicles while their leaders work out a face-saving blueprint for bringing their country into the modern world.

TALK OF privilege, as Chris Leslie does in his NS piece, inspires in me only contempt; for it does not make reference to any other organisation than the Tory Party. The New/Old Labour Party still thinks that privilege belongs to either the monarchy or the Tory Party; and conveniently neglects the appurtenance that their own party enjoys as a member of the political class overseeing the less privileged which covers the UK outside of London.

                        Labour is a party of  privilege; while it debases wealth creation, many of its MPs send their offspring to private schools, or privileged state schools, and still have the impertinence to condemn private education.  

                        Privilege no longer applies to one party, but to the whole of the political class. In making his case against the Tories, Chris Leslie attacks the coalition tax cuts to '13,000 millionaires'. What New/Old Labour has retreated back into is the politics of envy that Blair sought to steer them away from - yet another sign of a return back to the 1970s.

                        People who create wealth, and in doing so employ people who have to support their families, deserve the money they earn from the product they produce. Why on earth should they have to pay more than the ordinary taxpayer? They create jobs which all the politicians agree are needed. But when they do so, the Labour Party comes along, and, brandishing the envy card, demands that such millionaires pay what they describe as a 'fair' share in taxes.

                        Such taxation against millionaires is not fair…especially as their companies have to pay a business tax on top of their individual contribution. Millionaires will never be popular with the ordinary people (unless they win the national lottery - where no taxes are paid).

                        City bonuses are Leslie's next gripe. These bonuses, at the moment bring in £1 billion to the Treasury in taxation. The City of London as a whole brings in £20 billion in taxes to the Treasury. Yet we still hear gripe after gripe from the Left and in particular the New/Old Labour Party.

CHRIS LESILIE alludes to his Great Leader's promise to ; '…reset our energy market so it works for Britain’s families and businesses, with a new tough regulator to stop overcharging. While we put that in place, the next Labour government will freeze gas and electricity prices until the start of 2017. This will save a typical household £120 and an average business £1,800'. 

                        This announcement secured the Labour Party a spike in the polls after their conference. But what exactly would such a policy herald? The 20 month freeze on gas and electricity prices promised would be gotten around. The power companies would no doubt increase their prices before this freeze came into being.

                        The saving on the average fuel bill would amount to £120 in savings; but as much as this could be saved by merely getting rid of the green energy tax on average fuel bills which would reduce bills by 10 per cent. But no party, including Cameron's are prepared to countenance such a move - although many thousands of pensioners, facing a winter which many may not survive, may do so if the wretched green tax was done away with.

                        The green energy tax was Labour's child, as was, in their term in office, the 160% increase in gas bills, and the 89% in electricity bills. Yet they still have the gall to attack their 'class enemies' in order to garnish their supporters vote.

                        Chris Leslie, like the rest shadow cabinet, should never be allowed within a mile Downing Street. They spent 13 years ruining this country and leaving the coffers empty, and the country living with an exorbitant amount of debt; which will take years to clear if the Tories stay in power; and decades if Labour comes back into power.

                       

             

                       

 

                         

                       

---

[1] Ed and David's daddy.

Kenya should serve as warning to West, just as it serves as a victory Islamism

EVERY POLITICIAN IN Britain should read Manzoor Moghal's article in today's Daily Mail . He reminds us that, because of years of political correctness and fear of the 'R' word, we have allowed Muslim extremism to get a grip within our society. Our fear of upsetting Muslim communities has lead to criminal acts going unpunished; as was the case in Rochdale, where the abuse and rape of white children by a gang of Muslims flourished freely for so long without police intervention.

            

            Then there was Finsbury Park Mosque which once boasted the hate preacher Abu Hamza al-Masri as its imam; and where  the 'shoebomber' Richard Reid, and Zacarias Moussaoui attended. The mosque was also used for weapons training[1]; but the entrance to the mosque was buttressed by political correctness. The police, schooled in diversity training, allowed radical imams like Abu Hamza to preach. The politicians turned way, and more likely than not prevented any action being taken by the Met.

            

            Other radicals also attended. In 2004 it was revealed that Kabal Rabat Bouralha, loyal to the Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev who boasts that he was behind the assault on the school in Beslan Russia which ended in the deaths of 380 children.

WHENEVER A HORRIFIC terrorist event occurs like the one in the Kenyan shopping mall over the weekend, commentators and columnists in the UK are keen to lay emphasis on the fact, and it is a fact, that the majority (if not the vast majority) of Muslims living in Britain are law-abiding, tolerant people. As the nationality of these Kenyan terrorists were Somalian and Muslims[2]; the UK media are quick to reassure the indigenous population that the reported UK Somalian population of between 150,000 and 250,000 are law abiding and tolerant… etcetera, etcetera.

            

             The simple fact is that 2,869,000 Muslims according to the 2010 census figures live within the UK  which is the third largest European population (it would not of course include illegals) after Germany and France. We have been told that young British Muslims have been recruited to jihad against the West, particularly (but not exclusively) in Syria. Our own intelligence services are scratching their heads over the possibility of what may happen when these British harvested jihadists return home[3]; and find security within our country's Muslim centres.

           

             The phrase 'having created a rod for our own back' is the most appropriate expression describing this country's dilemma - was it not, after all, Enoch Powell, whose various deliberations served as a warning for us of what may lay ahead; and may now be about to overtake us?

IF A MERE ONE PER CENT  of the British Muslim population shared jihadists sympathies, it would amount 143,450 people: and if a mere one per cent of those sympathetic to the Jihadist decided to actively participate in terrorist acts in the UK, it would amount to 1,434 Muslim terrorists targeting us. These terrorist could hide in cities such as Leicester or Bradford, where the indigenous population are now in a minority. This comes on top of British Muslims returning from Syria.

            

            It would be a nightmare for the security services, challenged as they are on an almost daily basis by organisations such as Liberty, as well as the many other liberal human rights lobbies: and as all such lobbies enjoy the ear of a liberal political class unwilling to be thought of as tyrants; then the security services face a desperate situation.

            

            I used to believe, that when our intelligence services warned us of terrorist attacks within our towns and cities, it was just special pleading for increased resources: but no longer. Today, I believe the only reason there has not been an attack in this country comparable to that which occurred in Kenya over the weekend, is because of MI5, MI6, and GCHQ; and when these organisations make requests from government for the right to take certain actions in their fight on terrorism which may be controversial, then they should be granted, and groups like Liberty should be sent away.

           

           We are at war with the Islamists, as they are with us. Because it does not feel like it as we go about our day to day business, it does not signify safety; but merely the fact that the intelligence services are containing it; and we must not deny them what they ask for to make it less and less likely that a tragedy like we have just witnessed in Kenya, cannot unfold in one of our shopping centres.

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

---

[1] According to a report in the Guardian

[2] One at least being reported as a British Muslim convert (that most disproportionate breed).

[3] A home created by Multiculturalism

Labour needs a period in the wilderness

IT IS NOT A JUST WORLD. If it were, the Labour Party would never be elected again until this generation of its politicians had been replaced. The whole process should take just over a decade to accomplish; then hopefully, the Labour Party will be fit once more to govern this country.

            

           Politicians by their nature have to be a thick skinned lot in order to survive the jungle they have thrown themselves into. But the likes of Milliband, Balls, and all of those who served in government between 1997 and 2010, must either have elephant hides, or despise the people they expect to vote for them - and they do. Especially those unquestioning life time believers who would vote for a stick of Brighton Rock, if it had Labour running through it.

            

           Over a 13 year period of governance, the Labour Party ruined the country economically and, out of pure political vindictiveness[1] opened the floodgates to immigration, with little or no thought as to its cost to their much renowned health service, education system, or housing policy. This piece of wickedness alone should have sent them into the wilderness; but there was more to follow.

            

            An even more pernicious form of social engineering appeared - because, unlike Blair's ill-considered attempt with immigration, Multiculturalism and its appendage in the form political correctness, and the consequent flowering of the hate crime, required much thought and planning.

            

            Multiculturalism's origins[2] have little to do with New Labour, but New Labour implemented it with rigour having allowed an open door policy to migration. Migration became the seed corn of Multiculturalism. Multiculturalism was the perfect vehicle for seeing come to fruition what the vast majority of the indigenous population rightly set themselves against - the destruction of their indigenous British culture.

ONCE MORE THE Labour Party are gathering in Brighton for their yearly conference; and Milliband, Balls, and the whole of the shadow cabinet seem to perceive the British public as they would a school of goldfish swimming endlessly around a pond  handicapped by their three minute memories. Which no doubt, is why they have the front to stand beaming in front of the cameras. It is as if their recent past was another country where things were done differently,  and little remembered.

            

            The Left, whether Labour or the Liberal Democrats are addicted. Their addiction is not for alcohol, A or B class drugs, gambling, smoking, or sugar baring confections. No, the Left are addicted to taxes, spending, borrowing, and printing; the latter when all the former activity runs into the buffers.

            

            This week in Brighton will be no different to any other Labour conference. Spending on childcare and promises by Ed Ball's that all their manifesto spending pledges will come under the scrutiny of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). On the surface a neat move. But it now appears that it would be illegal for the OBR to cost any party's election manifesto - quite right to.

            

             It is interesting that such a manoeuvre[3] was deployed: for it proves that the Labour Party are as distrusted on the economy by the British people as would be a recovering gambler if insanely given the levers within the Treasury. The OBR was never intended to cost any political parties manifesto pledges; for to do so would invite criticism and challenge the OBR's existence as an impartial analyst. If they granted Ed Balls his wish and gave its approval to his manifesto costing; the OBR as part of the civil service, would only invite its own demise and replacement.

            

            Balls is desperate that Labour should be considered at least competent in economic matters by the British public; and his attempt at sequestrating the independence of the OBR on behalf of the Labour Party is part of his desperate strategy - 'it's the economy stupid' is engraved on Milliband and Ball's heart, as it was on Bill Clinton's.

THE LABOUR PARTY does not deserve to be allowed anywhere near the seat of government. The party has done irreparable damage to the nation; and a simple apology by Ed Miliband is inadequate compensation for the irretrievable damage the Labour Party as done to this country. I only wish that those supporters of Labour who represent their core vote would come to their senses and realise what the party they put their faith in, has done for the indigenous working class people who they support.

            

            The halfway house between the Tories and Labour is Ukip; they are hated by the Tories, so such Labour voters need fear not voting for them. The traditional working class Labour voter is as patriotic as the traditional Tory voter, and each should put their traditional party loyalties to one side and vote Ukip.

            

             Labour needs a period of reflection and recovery in opposition: while the Conservatives need a return to Conservatism. Both Labour and the Tories need taking down a peg. At the moment they both represent social democracy, the political ideology that governs throughout Europe.

           

             

---

[1] It was Labour's intention to get one over on the Tories, whose lack of opposition was guaranteed, for fear of  being called racist.  Labour also, with the decline of their white working class vote, hoped that migrants would see things their way come an election.

[2] I read that one of its founding fathers was Roy Jenkins; who I believe later recanted.

[3] Intended, no doubt, to get  the Labour Party through their conference without the press leaning to heavily upon them about their spending commitments.

Viva the UK

JOSE MANUEL BARROSO, the unelected European Commission President and one time Maoist, has exercised his bureaucratic lungs once more to attack the British Tories and their counterfeit Eurosceptics. He rightly suggests that true Eurosceptics in the UK should vote for Ukip. After all when it "comes to being against Europe people prefer the original to the copy".  He  also suggests that were the Eurosceptics to win the argument and his European super state fails to materialise, then  Europe would be taken back to the same divisions that created the First World War and "the trenches".

            

            The whole  raison d'être for the creation of  a European federal political and monetary union has been that the existence of the EU has prevented the addiction to war between nations in Europe; and full Federal Union will make such conflicts impossible.

            

             First of all the peace in Europe ever since the ending of the Second War was kept by NATO (with America being the greatest contributor). The EU was an impotent force and did very little if anything to stave off internal aggression; yet the myth continues to be propagated by the Europhiles that the union has prevented wars from breaking out in Europe for the past 68 years - it has not.

            

              In fact, I suggest that a federal Europe will be more prone to internal squabbles between what were once nations, than had the history of European nation states. The trouble is the people of Europe have been led by the nose by Europhiles such as Barroso, Nick Clegg, David Cameron, and Ed Miliband.

IN THE BRUSSELS hub they use phrases such as the 'post-democratic' age for 'modern' Europe. If this Orwellian reference to the EU's future does not prick up more than few ears of true democrats, and make them go back to the drawing board if they support European Federalism; then there is more to come to convince them.

            

              A Europe without nation states is the prospect offered up; to be replaced by a continent of regions. In England nine such regions will replace all of the English counties; each with a partially elected regional council whose candidates will be chosen through the wretched party list system; and once elected will have no power of enacting laws and legislation; but merely (like the European parliament today) rubber stamping the decisions made by Brussels - the post democratic age indeed.

           

             The British Parliament will no longer have a function. The regional councils will be the one and only vehicle of 'representation'. There will, once the full realisation of what the Barroso's have intended for the people of Europe, be a resistance.

            

              In the UK with our 2,000 year island history and 300 year democracy (however limited it was until women were given the vote); if the English people discard such a history to become a series of regions within a Federal European Union then they will have dug the grave of their very hard won democracy.

JOSE MANUEL BARROSO, one time prime minister of Portugal (in office
6 April 2002 – 17 July 2004) is eager to cement the continent into a super state; but if he thinks this will bring an end to internal military conflict - then he (like his many admirers throughout the ruling classes of the EU -  including the UK) will face disillusionment.

            

             Nationalism as Nigel Farage says, comprises, "Those of us who believe in national democracy [that] do not want to take us back to the Western Front or 1914. Those of us who believe in national democracy will say to you that it is a healthy assertion of identity." A healthy assertion of national identity indeed. National identity is our passport; it embraces our culture and our history; a history that has woven our character as a nation. The nation state is our home - not a super region within a European superstate under the governorship of European bureaucrats operating as functionaries within a Kafkaesque hell-hole.

THE ENGLISH PEOPLE MUST REALISE            before it is too late, that they are being wheedled and cajoled toward the oblivion of their nationhood; for nationhood is what European Federalism seeks to stamp out. The EU wants the abolition of all the nation states within the continent of Europe. Even America, which would defy such an arrangement if applied to the USA - as it was once tried during their civil war by the South; now insists that we British would be better off as a region instead of a nation.

            

            Seven out of ten of our businessmen, whose national loyalties are tied to the profit motive, believe we will be better off as a mere region of Europe, instead of a nation without Europe.

            

            They simply dismiss this historically great nation in the search for greater profit. They cannot look beyond the business opportunity (as businessman have sadly done in the past), when seeking to prosper under various dictatorships of both the Left and the Right.

            

            Businessmen will adapt to any market opportunity despite the cost in human terms to liberty. Our businessmen do not care whether we as a nation sink or swim, providing they flourish. They have no loyalty other than to their own self interest, and would not care one way or the other if the English people were left without any functioning democratic voice. Richard Branson, the Virgin mogul has recently signed a newspaper letter supporting our continued membership of the EU.

            

             He, no doubt, like many of the other signatories, probably spends more time abroad than he does do at home. These signatories have no nation to speak of; their loyalties are to their bank balances. Branson owns an island (I believe somewhere in the West Indies) which he has more loyalty to than the UK. Businessmen of Branson's stature see the world as their opportunity. While those of us who live in the world see our nations as our one and only home.

SO IGNORE THE businessmen, as well as the one time Marxist Barroso, all of whom incongruously find themselves in alliance with the other; and remain cemented to the nation state and defend and protect it.

            

             The nation state was the outcome of the combining of tribalism and regionalism. The time line between the two resulting in the nation state cost many thousands of lives in the evolution of the United Kingdom - and it is worth preserving.

           

             

  

           

           

           

            .

            

YET AGAIN THE CRY 'LESSONS WILL BE LEARNED' IS HEARD TO NO AVAIL

IT  SEEMS THAT, when you work in the public sector, you are untouchable when serious errors of judgement are made; and this situation is especially sickening when it comes to mismanaging the protection of children. The fad expression in the field of sociology is the 'multi-agency' approach. Which means that the police, social workers, teachers, and health care workers combine in a co-ordinated approach to the many examples of brutality to children - usually by  members of their own families.

            

            There have been numerous cases of horrific parental abuse of children that have gone either unnoticed or ignored by this so-called multi-agency approach. The latest is the appalling suffering inflicted upon four-year-old Daniel Pelka, whose treatment by his parents induces in ordinary people, a righteous thirst for revenge on his torturers. But what of those who either stood aside or ignored what was happening before their very eyes.

            

            The awful details of this child's suffering have been included today in the publication of Daniel's case review, where those with the stomach to do so can indulge themselves in discovering what young Daniel had to endure in the final months of his short life.

            

             His mother Magdalena Luczak, and his stepfather Mariusz Krezolek, have been brought to trial and sentenced for little Daniel's murder. But what of the so-called  'professionals' who were part of Daniel's life while he was enduring his suffering. The police, who were called 26 times to Daniel's home but failed to ask any searching questions. The teachers who failed to ask questions when Daniel attended school with two black eyes: or the social workers who refused to 'think the unthinkable'[1].

NO ONE  from any of the public bodies involved in Daniel's welfare and the failures that surrounded it, have been sacked or even disciplined. The only response from these agencies, is a repeat of that by now tired old mantra 'lessons will be learned'. This is unacceptable, but as those involved in his welfare worked for the state, little or nothing will be done regarding punishment.

            

            However, unlike the case of  'Baby P' for example; there was something more than simple neglect and incompetence at work in little Daniel's case. Something not touched upon by the case review, or from the media following the publication of Daniel's review.

            

            I believe that something overhung the multi-agency's approach to little Daniel's case. Something which transcends the child's treatment by his mother and stepfather, and casts aspersions on the way we train and teach our social workers and policemen.

            

            There was an element associated with the way Daniel was treated that has not been mentioned, let alone considered by the media. When, for instance, the police attended Daniel's home 26 times did they consider Luczak and Krezolek's nationality when investigating Daniel's case. Remember the Rochdale case where a group of Asians were involved in procuring white children to be sexually abused or raped. At the time the police were loath to act because of the Asian background of those they perceived guilty of the crime. Political correctness obstructed their enquiries and I believe that the same process of indoctrination determined the way little Daniel met his fate.

            

              Those agencies who let little Daniel down, were either the willing recipients of the ideology of Multiculturalism, and its concordant political correctness; or who were led, through their training, to accept such a concept: and this coloured their perspective in the case of little Daniel.

IT WAS pointed out to me; if little Daniel's parents had been British chavs, he would have been taken immediately into care. But when it comes to a someone within an ethnic minority, political correctness lends a hand; and the indigenous population are left incredulous.

            

            Political correctness must have played a part in little Daniel's fate. Fearful of the charge of racism[2] if they acted prematurely, the actions of the police, social workers and health care workers were left impotent. The welfare of the child took second place to the political morays of the day.

            

            I cannot believe that the wretched state of this child could have been so ill-excused as it was by those involved in his welfare. Heads must fall. But the cry falls on deaf ears as far as the state sector is concerned. Once more the cry of, 'lessons will be learned', will emanate from those who were responsible for a child's wretched fate: and once more they will go unpunished for their complacency. 

           

---

[1] According to the report

[2] As was the case in Rochdale

'Tough on crime. Tough on the causes of crime'

FIGURES PUBLISHED in today's  Daily Mail make shocking reading. The paper reports that last year 56 murders were committed by people given bail, and an average of two rapes a week were committed by those on bail. In addition there were 16 convictions for manslaughter, and 684 for violent assaults. In total there were 60,120 crimes committed last year by people given bail; of these 42,302 were classified as indictable offences.

            

             Meanwhile, according to Ministry of Justice figures, repeat offenders are committing 500,000 new crimes a year; and only one percent of those sentenced served the full term. Of the 10,000 burglars convicted in 2008, none received the maximum sentence. A mere 39 out of  3,000 sex offenders were handed the maximum term; along with four out of 6000 fraudsters and two out of 5,000 convicted robbers - in total just 79 people served the maximum sentence in 2008.

THEY ALL flourish the right rhetoric; they all create the snappy catchphrase that captivates the feeling of the electorate; but when it comes to performing, our political masters are tardy or  unresponsive. On the road to power they create the right script - the one they hope will give them that power. But once they start overseeing the nation, a different picture unfolds.

            

             Some of the successful ones go to their various ministries and go native; serving senior civil servants instead of the nation. Others, on the other hand, go determined not to fall foul of high priced civil servants and stick to their party's manifesto.

            

             A strong Home Secretary determined to be 'tough on crime', and strong enough to resist the contrary advice of his civil servants, will come to parliament to announce new legislation to that purpose; and, given that his party has a generous majority, his legislation becomes enacted into law.

            So he begins pulling the leavers like some demented railway   signalman…but…nothing happens. The levers work, but the reforms go ignored; ignored by magistrates, judges and parole boards who work to their own agenda and give little credence to the ignorant politicians, whose election they see as an irritation to them.

            

            However politicians are nothing if not deceitful. In opposition they demand that criminals should  pay their full whack when it comes to sentencing; but when faced with prison overcrowding and a multi billion pound deficit, they give a nod and a wink to the justice system to send less people to prison.

THIS IS THE SITUATION TODAY.  Our prisons are overcrowded and have been for many years; yet the current coalition are set to close four prisons, and  to replace them with £250 million 'super' prisons; either they are being built or due to be built; but either way, it is surely premature to begin closing prisons until the 'super' ones are fully functioning.

            

            How many politicians will be counted among those 56 murder victims listed above? How many will be counted amongst those 16 victims of manslaughter, or among those 684 who were violently assaulted listed above? All by people receiving bail.

            

            Most of our politicians live in low crime areas and hide behind that drawbridge. Affluence is their moat that separates them from the community they are meant to serve.

            

           The politicians however are not alone. The whole political class, which incorporates the world of journalism and the media, are tucked safely away from the high crime post code areas; with probably one exception - those belonging to the Guardianista liberalarti, who make a gesture of living among the lumpen proletariat providing, that is, they are from the vast array of multi-ethnic communities that now adorn this once great nation.

            

            The British people now put little faith in the criminal justice system; or any belief in the politician's ability to match their words with the appropriate action. I am afraid the rot has set in. The criminal has little to fear from our courts; and makes the simple calculation of halving whatever prison sentence he is given.

            

            There has never been a better time for criminals to practice their trade. Whether shoplifter or burglar; all so-called petty crimes are becoming seen by the police as not worth the effort, and almost wasteful in terms of their limited resources - besides which, the police, like the British public, are all too aware of the hideously lenient sentences handed out for such crimes. Why waste your resources on such crimes if the justice system does not take them seriously? Better to target murder, rape, and manslaughter - and who can blame them for so doing?  

           

           

            

Tax avoidance among the 'bruvvers'

ACCORDING TO Conservative research, the Unite union paid no taxes for the year 2011-2012 because they found what the Daily Telegraph described as an 'obscure accounting loophole' that allowed them to avoid paying. It was all quite legal, and, if there are legal ways of avoiding tax then good luck to those who find them. It is up to the government to make tax payments water tight, and not for the public to volunteer them. If those PAYE taxpayers had the same recourse to the same form of accountancy as the Great and Good then they would avoid taxes in the same way.

            

             However the General Secretary of the Unite union, Len McCluskey seems, like his Labour Party 'colleagues' to be behaving hypocritically. It was Labour, you may remember, who accepted John Mills' (owner of JML) contribution of £1.65 million to the party's coffers  in the form of shares, thus reducing the amount of tax payable. Once again perfectly legal, and innovative - but was it not also Labour who, you may also remember, that launched an attack of such bile on Amazon, Google, and Starbucks for their own creative behaviour regarding tax avoidance?

            

             If Ed Miliband's distancing of his party from the  unions come to fruition, then the Labour party will find its finances depleted - so the party may need more private donors like John Mills armed with his same tax avoiding novelties. So if in the future, when Ed's union reform has bedded in;  the Labour Party wishes to avoid going cap in hand to the taxpayer to finance them; then they had better get used to the creative measures adopted by the likes of Unite, JML, Amazon, Google, and Starbucks.

LABOUR ARE NO LONGER the party of the working class. They need no longer seek to justify themselves using old fashioned class politics. Yet, although they realise the one time socialist dream has long since been abandoned; the Labour Party still uses its class based rhetoric to turn people away from the  'Tories'. Such rhetoric keeps the Labour hard core vote on board - but then, they would vote for a chimpanzee if it wore a red rosette.

            

             Even Unite turns to this country's financial centre, the City, to protect its £51.6 million portfolio and freely use socialism's antithesis to stay solvent and wealthy: only to then behave toward the hand that feeds them like a pauperised 19^th century factory worker would behave toward a 19^th century top-hated, paunch-bellied cigar smoking capitalist.        

            

             Tony Blair, for all his many sins, realised Labour's socialist days were numbered and sought a new beginning. It was first attempted, somewhat prematurely, in the 1980's by the SDP. Blair knew that socialism's days were long over - debunked by history and finally brought to book with the collapse of the Soviet Empire.

THE UNITE union is not the only union that profits by its relationship with the City. The many funds harvested by its other union brethren, also seek financial security, and will indeed profit from the financial markets. Soon also will the Labour Party, if it seeks to remain solvent. Capitalism works. Socialism stagnates, declines, and eventually rots the society it is master of. Capitalism will, from time to time flounder , but the very same forces that caused it to do so will eventually lead to its recovery, if politicians keep their distance.

           

             It never ceases to amaze me how the Left falls silent when some of their own kind practice what their class enemies preach. Has Margaret Hodge, for instance, railed against comrade McCluskey, as she did Amazon, Google, and Starbucks? And I have yet to hear any complaint about the six figure salaries and bourgeois social lives of many of the unions general secretaries - yet those working in the City are pounced on without a moment's reflection by such hypocrites.   

           

             There is little, ideologically speaking, to divide the three main parties. The Conservatives are no longer conservative; the Labour Party are no longer socialist; the Liberal Democrats, however, remain liberal. But all this means is that the three main parties are all social democrats; as the unions are about to find out.

            

             The trade unions are about to give Ed his Clause IV moment, as they did Tony Blair, and helped give birth to New Labour, and 13 years in power. The union's only playable hand is that Ed Miliband is no Tony Blair.           

Polemic: The BBC must go further…it must go it alone

Polemic: The BBC must go further…it must go it alone

Red Ed Moribund takes on the unions

THE MADNESS THAT IS LABOUR continues. Remember the shady dealings in Falkirk, where the UNITE union was accused of fraudulent behaviour by signing up some of its members without their knowledge to the Falkirk constituency Labour party in order to rig the selection process in favour of Karie Murphy, a friend of the UNITE boss Len McCluskey?

            

             When the story broke, Ed Moribund, the 'leader' of the Labour Party, ordered an inquiry, and the police were called in to investigate. On the back of the Falkirk business Ed set in motion a package of reforms meant to keep the unions at arm's length, including union members opting in to paying the party levy. The unions went spare, and the GMB union only this week reduced the amount they gave to the party by over £1 million.

            

             Now it has been announced that no rules were broken after vital testimony was withdrawn by key witnesses. Karie Murphy, who was suspended by the party, has been reinstated; but she has chosen not to stand as the Falkirk candidate for the sake party unity.

SO WHERE DOES this leave the pitiful Moribund? Well, his spokesperson has promised that the reforms will continue. As a 63-year-old, and a Labour voter from 1968 to 2005[1], I knew[2] what the unions were capable of. The leadership of the biggest unions throughout much of the 1960s and the 1970s had always been in the hands of the Left[3] who were determined to impose a Marxist society on Britain; and many Left-wing Labour party activists had shared loyalties, along with some of the members. Many were clandestine members of the  Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB), the Soviet's official representative in the UK[4].        

             

            The Labour party leadership has always been at war with their union brethren. Like Ed Moribund, Labour Party leaders have always had to court the unions in order to stand any chance of becoming leaders of the party - and have always faced the charge of betrayal once in government.

            

            The block vote determines the party leader even to this day (as David Miliband found to his cost); so the unions were always courted by potential leaders using socialist rhetoric and promises of policies that matched their rhetoric - all such promises of course were broken in order to remain a credible party of government serving the national interest.

            

             There was one leader however who steered the party away from the unions more so than any other. I believe Tony Blair has effectively destroyed this nation and its indigenous peoples, as well as the one great institution that Labour created - the NHS. He opened the floodgates to immigration incurring a population explosion that has put ever greater demand on the NHS, schools, housing, and welfare.

            

            But one thing he did that was good for the Labour party was to temporarily release the stranglehold the unions had on the Party. It was through the abandonment of the dystopian Clause IV[5] of the party constitution, that helped Labour to become a party of government once more.

            

            As far as the party he once governed was concerned; he did much good through this one simple act than he ever he did for his country. But Ed Moribund has, unfortunately, by making himself available to the unions when seeking to betray his brother over the party leadership, has now restored the unions to the limelight again.

           

---

[1] My disillusionment with Blair ended in this year, although I had stayed loyal to the party leaders rather than the party since Michael Foot's dark and abysmal 1983 challenge.

[2] As many Labour voters of my age knew

[3] One such leader, Jack Jones of the TGWU, has since been accused of working for the Soviet Union

[4] Apparently the Soviet embassy bought up much of the circulation of the Morning Star to help keep it solvent.

[5]'To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service'.