Friday, 26 March 2010

Why Labour ever got into Power?

In my darkest hours, I am known to contemplate this tangled question. The answer, once upon a time, was to do with the British workforce – that is to say “the common man.” The Labour Party was created in 1900 to represent just that – the labour force. Subsequent successes under the likes of Clement Atlee were celebrated as socialist victories by the working classes to establish the State as a benevolent force capable of improving the living conditions of the masses as opposed to the few.

One might say that they had a point. Anyone in the possession of a time machine would find themselves transported to the squalid, basic working conditions of the time of World War 2 and beyond, whereby huge families would dwell in a single room, forced to survive on a partly income and no access to public services. How things have changed…

Since the sixties, however, the Labour party has frequently attempted to distance itself from its socialist past. Why? Well, firstly because their job was done – to an extent that is. Secondly, because it became clear that socialism didn’t work in relation to the best interests of the UK economy. People don’t like being taxed to death – they prefer an incentive to work. Harold Wilson only got into power in the sixties as a result of his ability to align himself with the “average Jo” and bear in mind that this was a time of social change and liberal beliefs. That said, even the Beatles slated him for his super tax policy in their songs, such was the resentment towards state fiscal policy.

Move forward to the seventies and the only reason Labour were voted back in was due to the fluctuating state of the UK political system. The country had become governed not by a political party with a set of values, but by an army of powerful trade unions – the combined might of which were able to take down companies, businessmen, mps and indeed whole cabinets. Not even their beloved Labour party could contain them. They were individually and collectively a behemoth of seismic proportions, seemingly intent upon reducing the UK to a communist block where every individual was treated as a soulless robot devoid of inspiration, aspiration and dedication.

It took a woman to do what men had failed to achieve. In 1979, Margaret Thatcher was voted into power in the wake of a feeble James Callaghan-led Labour Government that had capitulated into oblivion. In the years that followed she took on the might of the unions and systematically crushed them – the most notable victim being Arthur Scargill following the 1984 miners strike. Throughout the 1980’s, the Tory party were all-powerful, winning countless elections and giving economic prosperity to millions, during which time the Labour Party were being led by a dour Welshman who spent his time falling into the sea whilst gesturing erratically to anyone who would watch.

But power is a dangerous seductress. In the mid eighties, with the world at her feet, Thatcher had the opportunity to reach out to those who had suffered in the wake of the unions defeat and offer an olive branch of comfort. Hiding behind her belief in a new, modern Britain, there were a great number of workers – Dockers, miners, factory workers and the like – who were in a position to move skill sets. However, her stubbornness that won her those many victories was not to be stifled, nor would she forget the vitriol to which she had been subjected by the left. They would remain unemployed. And they would not forget.

In 1997, a creaking Tory government under the beleaguered, uninspiring leadership of John Major was forced to call an election, giving Labour the first sniff since the mid-seventies of a return to power. Their champion was a grinning, Cheshire cat, Uriah Heap-esque former socialist by the name of Tony Blair. Those of us who looked on in knowing horror as he led the likes of Margaret Beckett, John Prescott and Robin Cook (God help us) into a landslide victory, realised the extent of the damage he could potentially cause the UK – but to most, hoodwinked by Alistair Campbell’s all-consuming PR machine, he was their saviour. He had ostensibly distanced himself from Labour’s red past. No more unions. No more super tax on the middle classes. A New Labour, a new way.

So what difference to the Tory party? None. Not, at least, in the eyes of the majority – the key voters. Simply, a kinder, ,more compassionate Tory party with a leader who had the common touch.

However, as most of us discovered during the dark days of the Iraq War several years later, the only talent which Mr Blair was adept in was fibbing. Conning, Weaselling. Toadying. Bullshitting, if you like.

Stealth tax. Transfer of powers to the EU. Welfare system expansion. Explosion of Human Rights Framework – not for the benefit of the victims, but the lawyers (led by his unelected wife). A leash upon Middle England that would choke them to the core for the next decade without them realising it.
And where had this led us? To financial ruin, that’s where. Not to mention social despair. Historically, a Labour government has always been followed in close succession (within two elections) by a Tory government which had tidied up the nations depleted finances. Not this time though. Thirteen years of tax and spend have caught up with the UK. This government has no money. Nor have we.

So, given the circumstances, why on earth would the UK populace vote the Labour Party back into power this year? Because we will be told to do so? Who by? By the BBC, who fear their licence fee will be reduced or scrapped if the Tory party are elected to power. By the New Labour Spin Machine. By Piers Morgan with his sycophantic presentation of Gordon Brown as a “real person”. By JK Rowling, whose pro-socialist sub plots within the Harry Potter series bear a spin of their own. By the legion of “New Age” Celebrities created by Tony Blair in order to back their ambitions. So called working class heroes such as Melinda Messenger and Sir Alan Sugar haven’t forgotten their Labour roots despite the fact that their recent wealth and status have taken the need for their involvement in politics far away from the burden of necessity.

These are the reasons why people could vote Labour in this time around. Poor reasons, yes. Feeble, yes. Pathetic, true. But it is a real possibility. Make it, for pities sake, not true. Not again.

Sunday, 21 March 2010

JK Rowling the Labour Party Donator...

JK Rowling the Labout Party Donator...

You may have read a number of my article criticising JK Rowling for her heavy-handed political agenda on completion of the Harry Potter series. Her decision, for instance, to reveal the fact that Dumbledore was, in fact, gay AFTER the final book was published, pushed my opinion of her over the edge. To me, this smacked of someone who:

a) despite her millions, is still desperate for an increase in sales, publicity and, sadly, dosh. Isn't it great when socialists tell us how to think and act whilst sipping their champagne?
b) is determined to win the gay vote. How cynical can you get – as if gay people are that stupid to think – "yep, Dumbledore is one of us now!" I would personally feel insulted.

And in any case, if he were gay, then why not reveal it in the books? She had perfect opportunity throughout 7 books (she claims she has been planning the series since 1990) to make this clear – why tell us now? It's irrelevant once the final book is written!

Her left wing zeal has aimed to bring about a sway in middle class values from right to left in the United Kingdom. However, the hypocrisy and pointlessness of this soon becomes clear when one examines the books beyond their metaphorical meanings. Hogwarts is, after all, the equivalent of a state school, responsible to a minister (Its intake is comprehensive). The books' attitude to anything which smacks of "elitism" is spiteful and venomous. The worst sin is "racism" of course, closely followed by snobbery. Conservatism is grudgingly tolerated, but characters who exhibit it even in tolerant, consensual form - who are wealthy, say, or who gladly rejoice in the luxuries of life - are usually guilty of cowardice. Ravenclaw house - note the animal and its feature - omen of wickedness with sharp talons - is elitist on academically selective grounds, but it is dangerously close to Slitherin, the snob racist house. Comprehensive Hufflepuff, meanwhile is close to noble Gryffindor. It is all too obvious. The drumbeat of propaganda is ever present in all the books, but becomes loudest in the last. For this reason, the characters are thin; for this reason the overall impression left by the stories is one of sour-face self-righteousness.

Great books, great stories, annoying message. Oh, and this is the woman who is chums with Gordon Brown, our celebrated Prime Minister – the man now responsible for government over-interference (particularly in schools) and the nanny state, amongst a range of other issues. What was the message of the Ministry...oh yes, over-interference in the school (Umbridge, etc...) and that we should question authority? So it's a little bit rich for a Multi-Millionaire, to promote the merits of the Labour government when they may just as well be run by Cornelius Fudge himself!

One million pounds of her personal wealth has been ploughed into the Labour party. Do not let it buy your vote!

Sunday, 14 March 2010

Labour Hates the Countryside

Foot and mouth. Disaster. Bluetongue. Disaster. Their efforts at handling those crises were at best inept and at worst viciously destructive. But then they have little interest, as they despise the countryside.

In the summer of 2008, Gordon Brown spent a short holiday in the Suffolk countryside, during which time he was quizzed by a reporter as to whether he was enjoying himself.“My wife and I are having a lovely time,” he lied. By the accounts of his closest colleagues, he spent the week moaning to Sarah Brown, complaining that he hated the place, didn’t want to be there and that he didn’t even know where he was anyway. She only made him go with her in order to be shown enjoying the English countryside. Cynical, yes. Surprising, no. After all, this is a man whose political party have systematically ruined the countryside.

Ask people in the countryside about the availability of Broadband. It’s been pathetic. Ask the people in the countryside about inheritance tax on larger properties, even when the occupants have no liquid assets. Ask them about the protection of the Green Belt. Actually don’t – ask that idiot John Prescott instead. In fact, better still, ask Hazel Blears who, when quizzed on a radio phone-in in 2007 as to whether she felt that the UK was over-populated, replied: “No, I still see green fields in the countryside. As long as there are green fields, there is land to build on and no reason for migrants not to come here.”

Ask young people who have grown up in the countryside whether they intend to stay there. Ask them if there are any opportunities to work there. Ask what Government has done for them. Ask them about affordable housing, or telecommunications or further education.

Ask nature experts about the lack of game control. Ask them about the lack of understanding of our native wildlife – of birds, red squirrels, badgers and foxes. Actually, you may as well ask the foxes themselves as there enough of them now in both the cities and towns, for since the hunting ban, there doesn’t exist the regulations for their number to be controlled in way that benefits our ecosystem as a whole. This is why they scurry through bins and kitchens scavenging for food that doesn’t exist.

I recall before the ban on fox-hunting that the late, lamentable MP Tony Banks made several arrogant comments, claiming, “Don’t worry, we’ll get this ban passed.” This was a man who was Member of Parliament for West Ham. That’s right West Ham, in London. Of course, his knowledge of the countryside must have been truly phenomenal…

On the subject of the ban, it is interesting to note that more Labour Party whips were enforced by Tony Blair to ensure the ban was passed in the Commons, than was the case for his Child Cruelty bill. Can you believe that? This is on the back of the fact that most people were against it in the first place.

The people of the English countryside hate Labour. Because Labour has hated them.

Friday, 12 March 2010

The Labour Home Secretary…

I seem to recall the legal system under Michael Howard in the 1990’s as being fairly tight. The killers of Jamie Bulger, for instance were sent down and it was felt unlikely that they would re-appear for quite some time.

2001 was a good year to bury bad news – not my words, the words of Alistair Campbell. So it was that they were released by David Blunkett, having served about seven or eight years (not even in prison).

If they hadn’t been, there would not even be the question of re-offending at this moment in time. But nobody seems to have picked up on that one…

Wednesday, 10 March 2010

All dog owners to be forced to provide insurance…

So, our government’s latest scheme - dog owners will be required to insure themselves against the risk of their pet attacking someone.

These proposals suggest forcing every dog owner to take out third party insurance and to have their dog microchipped. No sign, however, of greater prison sentences or fines for those in possession of dangerous dogs without licenses or those involves in illegal dog fights, etc...

Once again, the law abiding majority pay for the mindless few. Genius!

Monday, 8 March 2010

Labour and the BBC

The BBC love Labour. They can’t get enough of them. Jeremy Paxman. Andrew Marr. Adrian Chiles. All socialists. Nick Robinson political analyst. Loves Labour. You watch any political news story on the BBC. Despite the fact that Labour are in power, the story almost immediately descends into anti-Tory conjecture. Watch Paxman getting all chummy with Ken Livingston whilst scorning and ridiculing Boris Johnson or Teresa May. In short, there is nothing they wouldn’t do to promote the merits of Gordon Brown and thre Labour party whilst undermining every essence of the opposition parties.

Why? It has little to do with politics or a lack of impartiality. It is because they afraid. They are VERY afraid.

There are two things that could happen if the Conservatives get into power. Thing one, is that the central apex of power will be pulled back into Westminster and we could see the first stages in a move to break up the act of union. The United Kingdom as we know it could eventually be broken up to leave an independent England, Scotland and Ireland (Wales is currently a principality, not a country). The very idea of the British Broadcasting Corporation is something that could be redundant within the next decade if things continue to unfold as they have been. Thing two is that the Conservative party would undoubtedly cut the television licence – possibly even scrapping it once and for all. Margaret Thatcher was keen to do this back in the eighties and got as far as to appoint close allies to the BBC Board of Governors, but this fizzled out as her tenure came to a close. They see the licence fee as a bloated, unnecessary item, undemocratic in principle and alien to the concept of fair competition.

But then, Labour have never understood competition, because they do not understand business. I have never understood why, in a modern age where many organisations, large and small, are fighting against costs of entry in order to educate, inform and entertain (precisely the BBC’s mission statement – ha ha ha, don’t make me laugh), that this extremely high fee should go to the BBC. I have been told when I have pushed this point, that it doesn’t simply cover the costs of television, but also the BBC World service and BBC research throughout the globe? Why the hell should it? Do other countries pay us for this? No they don’t, so why should we?

What we have currently is a symbiotic relationship between New Labour and the BBC with the reds happy for the BBC to carry on their pro-Labour message and the BBC happy for their benefactors to remain in power and therefore keep the golden tap of prosperity running. And for what? To rip us all off? To provide crap television? To fail miserably to bid for any worthwhile sporting events, thus allowing a power monopoly to be held by SKY television? Everyone else has to pay their way via advertising – why the hell should the BBC be exempt? If we should pay a licence fee, it should be equally apportioned between all the channels.

It should certainly not be an exclusive, unchallenged subsidy for a left wing, biased division of Gordon Brown’s Spin Machine.

Saturday, 6 March 2010

The General Election

With an election now looming and likely to take place within the next two months, I have decided to compile a series of blogs dealing with the small matter of politics in the United Kingdom, being as our country is in such a mess at present.

I should warn you that I am not interested in slightest in remaining impartial. Why should I? Nobody else is. Not the major news channels, media outlets, newspapers, celebrities. Nobody. Nor shall I be. I shall tell it like it is. After all, I've never been interested in democracy unless I am in charge.

It's for the best....