Jeff Randall on Labour's evil master plan

[Cyberman]

The Tories have no interest in sustaining an underclass because:

1. they wont vote Tory
2. The prescence of an underclass gives the socialists a platform of power which again the tories dont like

The fact is that the Tories do not have the ideas or the will (to take on the socialist institutions, such as the Unions and those that run the education and health services) to get rid of the underclass.

Whilst it is all very well people like you equating the Tories with Labour there are too many people who are either too apathetic, too smug or with too much vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

It is only when things get really bad as they did under the last labour government that there is ever any appetite for real change or reform.

Socialists are like locusts. They contribute nothing to the growth of economies, yet strip them bare and return them to the dark ages of poverty.

WHS !!

[Cyberman]

Oh yes they have, and they did. By Pushing people onto social security they were able to manipulate the unemployment figure. No government would suddenly move these people to unemployment benefit and double unemployment. Therein lies the problem, ALL governments want to maintain the status quo less otherwise they look bad. It is not some design to create popularity, if it is, it's not working is it? (local and euro elections?).
Someone on disability benefits for 15 years, isn't going to change from Tory to Labour and back. Voting patterns are not dependant on who are handing out the benefits.


Anway, where is this notion that the underclass vote, let alone vote Labour ? Can you provide any factual evidence?

Your post nowhere addresses the main issue of high immigration under the Conservatives

So the Tories manipulating employment figures gets those people to vote Tory. You really are a thicko.

[Bagpuss]

You aren't really as daft as you pretend or are you?

You tell us providing long term benefits is a plot to get people to vote Labour. Then why did the Tories when in power actively seek to shift people onto long term benefits? Did they want people to vote Labour (as per your thinking)? or was there another reason? Is there in reality no actual link between benefit provision and voting patterns?

Are you totally blindsided to the fact many of the things Labour have done were done by the last Goverment for the same reasons. You simply chose to pretend the Tories never expanded the benefits system or presided over mass immigration.

[Gonzo]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...p-on-them.html

Some great comments below as well, e.g. Zoe (near the bottom)

I have read and re-read that article and can't see any reference to a master plan anywhere in it. I don't care for socialism and socialists very much but even I don't think that they deliberately plan to feck up the country.

As for this comment

Labour didn't want to enrich us, they wanted to import masses of cheap labour from an immigrant underclass to do all the dirty, thankless work, and to make us such a globalised patchwork of differing peoples with differing outlooks and sympathies that the nation state as we know it would be destroyed, paving the way for mass globalization and eventual submersion into the emergent EU superstate. Their future is a massive, supranational proletariat where dissent is hate speech and you can be monitored from cradle to grave. It's Labour's brave new world.

How long has a nation state of England really existed - 1,000 years or so? I do think that the concept of the nation state will outlive its usefulness in the current millennium, not in my lifetime though.


I didn't realise this about the leader of UKIP

of Nigel Farage, a booze-and-fags-loving habitué of London's clubland

He has gone right up in my estimations, shame I don't vote anymore.

[DodgyAgent]

You aren't really as daft as you pretend or are you?

You tell us providing long term benefits is a plot to get people to vote Labour. Then why did the Tories when in power actively seek to shift people onto long term benefits? Did they want people to vote Labour (as per your thinking)? or was there another reason? Is there in reality no actual link between benefit provision and voting patterns?

Are you totally blindsided to the fact many of the things Labour have done were done by the last Goverment for the same reasons. You simply chose to pretend the Tories never expanded the benefits system or presided over mass immigration.

The Tories were in power to sort out the economy and free it from the grip of the Unions. As far as they were concerned high unemployment was a sacrifice that needed to be made. As I said the Tories have no will or no idea of how to deal with the unemployable.

It doesnt take a brain surgeon to see that the areas of high unemployment are more likely to be labour voters than conservative voters.

[expat]

How long has a nation state of England really existed - 1,000 years or so? I do think that the concept of the nation state will outlive its usefulness in the current millennium, not in my lifetime though.

The Kingdom of England, about a thousand years (slightly less than the Kingdom of Scotland, and a good bit less than the Kingdom of Cumbria, which trumps us both). But the Sovereign Nation State, only since Henry VIII at the earliest, IMHO.

[GreenerGrass]

Bagpuss said: "capitalist economies always use immigrant labour" but look at how they utilise immigrant slave labour in Dubai and many other countries compared to this country.
They concentrate the wealth generated amongst the indigenous population, the immigrants are kept housed in separate areas and take no benefits from the state no matter how long they are resident for. They never get to become citizens even though they are not a drain on society (they have no option - they would starve if they didn't work).
You could argue it's racist and not fair etc, but it makes perfect economic sense if you ignore the human rights aspects.
We employ almost the exact opposite approach here. It's not for the economic good of the country, which was the myth pedalled for so long.

So the only question is was it just total and utter incompetence from Labour for over a decade? Or a deliberate plan to destroy the fabric of British society in order to make it easier to manipulate votes and hand any remaining power over to the EU. With the country largely split into either a slave labour class or a civil servant class, and the skilled working class and middle class private sector shrunk to keep the Tory vote under 20%.

I think they've finally realised they've gone too far and alienated the white working class vote, hence they will have to start adopting watered down UKIP and BNP policies.
It displays gross hypocrisy of course, if UKIP or the BNP suggested a UK Border Force which put illegal immigrants in camps before sending them "back home" it would of course be called "racist". It's far easier to concentrate on joke figures like Nick Griffin rather than focus on why your ridiculous policies have caused people to vote for a neo-fascist party in the first place.
Frankly the government propaganda machine and Mandelson terrify me more than a group of idiots who secretly think Hitler had some good ideas. Mandelson is a greater threat to democracy in Britain than Nick Griffin.

[Bagpuss]

It doesnt take a brain surgeon to see that the areas of high unemployment are more likely to be labour voters than conservative voters.

Right so you mean when the Tories increase the number on social security the voting patterns are uncontollable they have no ulterior motive. BUT when Labour do it they are doing so to get more votes

[Fred Bloggs]

Mandelson is a greater threat to democracy in Britain than Nick Griffin.

The most sense I have seen posted here in months, well done. The idiot even wants us in the Euro, FFS!

[bogeyman]

Frankly the government propaganda machine and Mandelson terrify me more than a group of idiots who secretly think Hitler had some good ideas. Mandelson is a greater threat to democracy in Britain than Nick Griffin.

WHS.

Griffin is a buffoon, but he does 'address' (forgive me if I'm dignifying the odious little twat) the concerns of many in this country. People who are utterly ignored and held in contempt by mainstream politicians.

The 'Ponce of Darkness' on the other hand is a creature whose very existence depends on the prevailing weakness of democracy in this country. To further his ends, he will aim to undermine our democracy still further.

We are effectively being 'conditioned' to accept unelected robber barons in positions of great power, as though it were a perfectly reasonable thing, rather than the insult to democracy it really is.

Where was the outcry from the gallant press corps about Mandelson snatching the reigns of power? Oh, I see - they were too busy being outraged at Griffin.