Reply to: Oh Dear : new labour conference

[mcquiggd]

The irony is that many western countries had, for want of a better description, 'evolved' to a low or 'replacement' birthrate.... which may well be an indication of 'this is a sustainable level of population for that area of the world'. It is probably due to economic factors, but perhaps, it was a good thing. People are living longer... less people die at birth.... why should the UK suddenly need to import millions of people ...?

Now that is being undermined, as for various reasons, the companies in charge of those same countries are simply saying 'quick, get more people in from somewhere else!'

So, although people warn of drought in the UK - companies are still applying for 'drought orders' - we lose more greenbelt land, and the country becomes a multistorey shopping centre without any visible means of support, the same 'more people is best philosophy' permeates lefty policy in the EU.

[stackpole]

Let's be fair here - there are people who are dieing from starvation: of course in principle it is their fault, but it seems rather humane for very rich countries to do something to at least prevent them from dieing from hunger, AIDS, maybe even war. Instead the West gets into stupid was in Iraq that so far cost far more than it would have cost to get food for all starving people, find cure from cancer, AIDS and probably even enough left to bribe CUK Admin to allow inlined images.

If none of them died of hunger, AIDS, etc, they'd be landing by the boatload on our doorstep within a few years because they would have filled the desert up.

Harsh and unpleasant it may be, but dying is the natural way of moderating unsustainable population growth.

[mcquiggd]

Well at least someone in new labour realises what they have done...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5387066.stm

Deputy leadership challenger Jon Cruddas says he cannot look his constituents in the face and tell them things have got better under Labour.
The Dagenham MP said wages were falling - driven by migrant labour - and there were shortages of low-cost housing.

This picture jarred with the successes trumpeted by Tony Blair who he said was "living in a parallel world".

"They look at you and they think you are trying to mug them off. They think 'hold on, our real wages are in decline'.

He said it was no longer enough to brand the BNP racist and ignore the real concerns of people about migration and the "race to the bottom" in wages caused by globalisation.

His constituents had seen their wages undercut by migrant workers, he told the meeting, and he cited the case of a "gang of Lithuanian blokes" he discovered who were earning £15 a day working on a public contract.

"Migrant workers have been tacitly used to deregulate Labour markets.

"This celebration of this flexible modern labour market that we have is not a panacea for a lot of the people I represent.

"It means that there is a race to the bottom of the labour market occurring," he told the meeting.

[Dundeegeorge]

Alexei, that's easy for you to say

That's nothing IMO.

The biggest issue is huge debt - it was bad enough that industry got decimated and western economics became mainly "service based", but now they are "based" on debt of horrific proportions: add to this negative balance of payments and the West is in real danger. The debt bubble is based on house pricing bubble and it would have happened under Cons just like it happens now under NL.

Coming from a totalitarian dictatorship, whoops, excuse me, coming from a socialist utopia, you expect the police to make it up as they go along, you expect corruption to be part of everyday life, you expect to be lied to and cheated at every turn by duplicitous public officials. Before this shower, even vote-rigging was (almost) unheard-of.
McQ is correct, this bunch have damaged democracy very badly and the worst aspect is, polticians being what they are, don't expect to see the next government rushing to restore our freedoms.

[mcquiggd]

Is that why the (real) economy was so much better in 1997 than after 9 years of new labour...? Why debt was so much lower?

Debt can eventually be overcome through fiscal policy - however painful it may be - the points I highlighted are more difficult to fix - the fabric of government has been damaged.

[AtW]

The overuse of the Parliament Act to push through unpopular legislation.
The reduction of the role of the House of Lords.
The policiticisation of the Civil Service.
The neutering of the Police.

That's nothing IMO.

The biggest issue is huge debt - it was bad enough that industry got decimated and western economics became mainly "service based", but now they are "based" on debt of horrific proportions: add to this negative balance of payments and the West is in real danger. The debt bubble is based on house pricing bubble and it would have happened under Cons just like it happens now under NL.

[mcquiggd]

The full extent of the damage done by the current 'regime' will not become apparent until they are out of power, and can no longer control the release of information to the taxpayer.

Possibly the most damaging - and almost accidental - aspects of their reign is:

The overuse of the Parliament Act to push through unpopular legislation.
The reduction of the role of the House of Lords.
The policiticisation of the Civil Service.
The neutering of the Police.

... as they were fundamentally undermining the natural checks and balances on government policy, which by its very nature is transient.

All of the above were undertaken to allow them to push through their actual ambitions - partial devolution, immigration, and finally, taxation - all weapons designed to create a firmly labour voting electorate and hamstring their traditional opponents; those who are self-employed, earn medium salaries, traditionally voted tory...

You could compare their targets as being the modern UK equivalent of the 'Kulaks'. If you aren't powerful enough to threaten new labour, and you aren't poor enough to be dependent on new labour (whatever country you come from), then you are new labours enemy. If you are somewhere inbetween, and they have chosen you to vote for them, by favouring your industry (e.g. legal 'profession'), you are fine.

Until someone uncovers brown's 'second set of books'... and the full horror is revealed.

[AtW]

From financial point of view the war is cheap (to the UK), and from harsh but real point of view it is good for troops to be in action - how else will they learn?

The growth in house prices is not UK only phenomenon - the bubble happens everywhere: USA, Russia, etc. The only thing NL did is not to fk up economy as obvious as Old Labour did. That's why I state categorically that house pricing bubble would have happened even if money was in power, certainly the Convervatives.

I agree that the UK would have been better off without NL, but such examples are necessary for people to know the difference - Cons had to be punished for the crap they had in their Govt, so one might say all that happens in this country follows natural path of development, it's evolution.

[BoredBloke]

"Do you think house prices would not have risen under Convervatives? "

Yes! Stealth taxes, spin and the massive creation of non jobs to produce a false economy is what this shower will be remebered for. Oh and a war which was entered into on the back of lies and a thesis nkicked off the internet.

In years to come they will be hated due to the massive amounts of cash Brown has ferreted away in his dodgy PFI deals.

[AtW]

Do you think house prices would not have risen under Convervatives? Any politician would love to be under such situation, the only difference it would have been with Cons is, probably, less stealth taxes, not so sure about that - rip off fuel duty for example is not invention of New Labour.

They are all scum, that's my point - maybe some less than others.

[BoredBloke]

It would be so good if after everything Brown didn't get the top job. Won't happen though.

[mcquiggd]

Apart from getting this country into serious debt I don't think NL is that bad: Conservatives would have probably done similar things.

"Apart from getting this country into serious debt I don't think NL is that bad"

Beggars belief....


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...15/ixcoms.html

"
In 1997 household debt stood at £500bn...now it's £1,158bn
By Edmund Conway, Economics Editor

(Filed: 15/02/2006)



Gordon Brown is now spending most of his time out of the Treasury, laying the ground for his ascension to the top spot. But while he is keen to talk up government initiatives on a range of topics from security to being British, it is his economic legacy on which he will be judged.

advertisementAsk City experts to list what he will leave behind as Chancellor and the answers are likely to be the same.

His greatest achievement? The decision in 1997 to grant the Bank of England independence to set interest rates. This radical move meant the Government could no longer use monetary policy to its political advantage, and laid the foundation for low inflation and interest rates.

His worst legacy? The massive debt mountain threatening economic growth.

This comes in two flavours: the huge government deficits generated since 1997 and - more worrying still - the record levels of personal debt facing families.

It emerged this week that the amount families have borrowed has now overtaken the size of the country's entire economic output. At £1,158billion, the debt mountain was £30billion bigger than Britain's gross domestic product and, unlike the economy, shows little sign of slowing.
"
(continued)

[AtW]

Apart from getting this country into serious debt I don't think NL is that bad: Conservatives would have probably done similar things. Almost all politicians are scum, they just happen to have made a choice (which party) at some point and had to stick by it.

[DimPrawn]

People deserve the Govt that they have.

No one, and I mean no one, deserves the New Lie.

[AtW]

People deserve the Govt that they have.