The BNP is a Far Left Wing Party

No other party is as heavily defined by its immigration policy as the British National Party. Its sensationally populist and xenophobic beliefs in this area should not distract from the rest of its policies, which are most certainly left wing. According to its manifesto the party is committed to establishing external trade tariffs, raising taxes, creating nationalised manufacturing industries and workers' councils to run them, increasing funding for the NHS, increasing state pensions, improving worker protection and placing key industries under the ownership of the state. Furthermore, it calls for “the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports,” and promises to “restore our economy and land to British ownership” and “to give workers a stake in the success and prosperity of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates by encouraging worker shareholder and co-operative schemes”.

Branding the BNP as a right wing party is undoubtedly an attempt by the Left to exploit the confusion between libertarian, right wing ideologies and fascism, a national socialist movement. Such a tactic is typical of the Left, which uses its perceived moral superiority to vilify the Right and guilt their own voters into remaining loyal.

Gordon Brown IS to Blame

By KEITH MARSDEN From today's Wall Street Journal Europe.

Shocked by the parliamentary expenses scandal and suffering from the recession, British voters have shown their displeasure with Gordon Brown's government. Labour was trounced in local and European elections earlier this month.

Despite this electoral drubbing, Labour lawmakers expressed their confidence in the prime minister on June 8. Given his supposedly successful management of the economy while chancellor of the exchequer, the majority felt that he was best qualified to lead Britain out of the recession, which, they claim, was caused by external forces, not by Mr. Brown's policies.

The facts show otherwise. Britain's economic downturn began when its house price and household debt bubbles inevitably burst, beginning with the run on Northern Rock in September 2007. These bubbles had swollen to higher levels, relative to average price and income levels respectively, than in the U.S. and other major economies.

In relation to their long-term average, British house prices soared by 88.5% between 1997 and 2007, according to the OECD. In the U.S. the rise was 64.5%. Britain's household debt rose to 176.9% of disposable income in 2007 from 104.8% in 1997. During the same period, U.S. household debt rose only to 105.8% of disposable income from 64.3% in 1997. The increases in Germany and France were considerably lower.

Gordon Brown tolerated and even encouraged the formation of these bubbles for several reasons. The traditional sources of Britain's economic strength, the mining and manufacturing industries, shrank during his term as chancellor. Total mining sector output, including oil and natural gas, dropped by 31% between 2000 and 2007. Total manufacturing production was stagnant during this period.

The gross value, in inflation-adjusted prices, of output from all production industries combined fell by 3% between 2000 and 2007. Their employment level dropped by nearly 1.1 million over the same period. These trends were not an inevitable result of shifts in comparative advantages that are said to occur in advanced economies. Real manufacturing output rose at an average annual rate of 2.2% in the U.S., 1.2% in Germany and 1.1% in France between 2000 and 2006, according to the World Bank.

Eager to achieve the illusion of steady progress in the overall economy, Mr. Brown needed the rapid expansion of financial services, and the real estate and business services industries. Their output soared by 48% and 33% respectively from 2000 to 2007, compared with 19% for the overall economy. Their combined employment level reached nearly 6.7 million in 2007, an increase of more than one million.

Rapid expansion of consumer credit in turn boosted demand for wholesale and retail products and services. The booming financial and real estate sectors, with their inflated salaries, bonuses, and profits generated by unsustainably rapid credit growth, also filled Mr. Brown's tax coffers.

Thus, despite the decline in corporate and personal income and national insurance tax revenues from the production industries, he was able to fulfill Labour's 1997 election promise of expanding public services. The output of health and social services increased by 26.3% from 2000 to 2007. Employment in the category "other service activities," which includes public administration and government services, grew by 1.3 million between 2000 and 2007, reaching almost 10 million -- nearly a third of all British jobs.

So the boom in the financial and real estate sectors served Mr. Brown's political interests well. And he was by no means a passive bystander to their growth. He urged them along in several policy speeches. Introducing on April 1, 2005, a policy document entitled "Homebuy: Expanding the Opportunity to Own," he insisted that "this Britain of ambition and aspiration is a Britain where more and more people must and will have the chance to own their own homes."

Ignoring the inability of many house buyers to pay their mortgages, he touted this message to City bankers in successive annual speeches at the Mansion House in London, promising them "light-touch regulation." Already in 1997 he transferred the responsibility for bank regulation from the Bank of England to the inexperienced Financial Services Authority. He also curbed the central bank's ability to keep asset inflation in check by removing housing costs from the price index.

Mr. Brown also repeatedly praised the City's "innovative skills," bragging in 2006 that it was responsible for 40% of the world's over-the-counter derivatives trade -- which includes the now infamous repackaged subprime mortgages. He gave financial institutions a false sense of security by telling them on June 16, 2004, that "I am determined to ensure that we can lock in greater stability not just for a year, or for an economic cycle, but in this generation."

With this assurance from the chancellor, how could anyone expect bankers to forego juicy profits and bonuses by avoiding innovative but unduly risky practices? Because of the large size and global reach of Britain's financial sector, and the many newfangled financial instruments it created and marketed, Mr. Brown cannot honestly deny all responsibility for Britain's recession.

Given these historic facts, Britain's Labour legislators should think again about sticking with the prime minister. Choosing a new leader with integrity and managerial competence is the party's best chance to win greater respect from voters.

Mr. Marsden, a member of the Council of the Centre for Policy Studies, was formerly an operations adviser at the World Bank and senior economist at the International Labour Organization.

A Very Iranian Democracy

"The elections are a matter for the Iranian people, but if there are serious questions that are now being asked about the conduct of the elections, they have got to be answered" Gordon Brown - Unelected Prime Minister of Britain

Gordon Brown can have no criticisms of the Iranian elections. After the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the recent elections, it is rich for a man who was;

-Not elected by his own party to be leader.
-Not elected by the people to be leader.
-Only elected in a safe Labour seat in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, which quite frankly a sack of potatoes could win with a Labour rosette pinned on it. (I would also like to add that this sack of potatoes could probably do a finer job managing a G8 country)
-Has filled the cabinet with the likes of the unelected, disgraced Lord Mandleson, "The Prince of Darkness" who is now as good as number 2, aswell as Lords Adonis.

Brown should spend more time thinking about an election domestically rather than commenting on those of other nations.

Gordon Brown Cannot Count

Today in Prime Minister's Questions, Brown was out by over a factor of 1000 in his quotes on public spending. He refers to pubic spending in terms of 'millions' rather than 'billions'. If only this were the case, his manic spending binge would not have crippled the country as much.

He criticises the Conservatives for wanting to cut public spending by 10%. The only criticism I will make here is that this is not enough! Let me put it simply for you Gordon in terms of small scale economics.

"Mr and Mrs Jones and Family live comfortably, they take out credit cards and loans and begin to spend more than they can afford. Mrs Jones loses her job (political correctness in action here!) and their income is reduced. They DON'T keep on spending, they cut back and spend within their means."

Brown and lets not forget Tony Blair should have put money to one side when times were good. Brown is a liar, he promised prudence and could not have broken this promise any more than he has done.

The Beast is Down... Time to Destroy It for Good

As we speak the EU election results are coming out with Labour expected to fail horrendously. This comes on the back of a massive failing in the Local Elections last Thursday. Brown is handing the Tories not just power after the next election but for years and years to come. He has shattered Labour into pieces. For every week he is in power in the weeks to come, this will probably give the Tories an extra year in power. At this rate it will be better for Britain if he stays in power until the next election in order to give the country time to recover from the last 12 years of failed socialism, social engineering and totalitarian control of the population.

The current situation was inevitable. There was no need for the Conservatives to try and model the 'New' Labour victory of 1997 by shifting to the centre. The Labour party would have eventually destroyed itself without the need for help, the Tories did not need to go soft. Every Labour government; Callaghan's, Wilson's and Attlee's has gone a similar way, but NEVER this bad. None of these men were as insane as Brown. At least they knew when their time is up, Brown is going through a breakdown and dragging us along for the ride.

A Second Unelected Prime Minister? - Labour hijacking democracy to serve Party needs

Many commentators expect that Gordon Brown will resign as prime minister in the forthcoming days or weeks and will be succeeded most likely by Alan Johnson. Whilst this is constitutionally acceptable, as the prime minister is merely regarded as the representative of the party that wins an election, the effect of having a second unelected prime minister, even if only for a few weeks, undermines our democracy and the legitimacy of the Labour Government. At a time when constitutional reform and modernisation is on the agenda and when arguments that the current spending rules permit excessive expense claims from MPs are rejected, it would be equally as inappropriate to take advantage of the antiquated rules regarding the succession of a party leader/prime minister, especially when such an expedient move can only benefit the Labour Party.

It has been said by numerous constitutionalists that the high concentration of power in the figure of the prime minister effectively means that voters elect a democratic dictator. This level of power therefore should not be passed on in a hereditary, nonchalant manner and without popular consensus and democratic legitimacy. I wish to reiterate that I understand that our votes elect a party to occupy the position of government. However, contemporary politics in all western democracies is inalienable from the party leader or candidate for the premiership. It is this figure which receives the democratic mandate to govern as leader, whilst the governing party occupies the majority of parliamentary seats to facilitate the promulgation of legislation. I was pleased to read that the Queen has been advised to intervene and warn a newly unelected prime minister to establish a time table for an early election. This precaution evidently supports the premise of my argument; hereditary prime ministers undermine our democracy and the constitutional rules which permit them should be made redundant.

As such, the more favourable outcome to the current situation would be for Gordon Brown to ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament as soon as he accepts he can no longer continue as prime minister. This would save the country the time and the embarrassment of pointlessly having to endure the undemocratic process leading to the coronation of Alan Johnson, or any other equally worthy figure, especially when it is likely that he will be forced to call an election in any case. So why change leader when many of Brown's most ardent supporters have condemned these fractures and disputes for occurring during the economic and financial crisis? I believe that the Party's true concern lies more with hanging on to power than responding to the recession. Undoubtedly a new leader will renew confidence amongst Labour MPs and buy them enough time to futilely attempt to limit the extensive damage believed to be dealt through a general election. Has our democracy become something for the Labour Party to abuse and undermine to their advantage? Tony Blair's third election victory was not meant to consign British democracy to the servile subjugation of Labour. The outcome will prove where Labour's true interests lie; with itself or with the country.

The Chancellor Needs Tax Advice

taken from http://cloudedyellow.wordpress.com

It has come to light that the Chancellor, Alistair Darling has taken tax payers money to pay for personal accountancy advice. He is not the only one, you may recognise some of the other offenders; Jacqui Smith, Hazel Blears, David Miliband, James Purnell, Douglas Alexander, Geoff Hoon and Hilary Benn. It is strange how the same names appear to crop up again and again. The money is not the worrying fact from this, it is a terrifying thought that the man who is responsible (along with Brown) for living in an orgy of government debt which costs more than state education per annum on servicing the interest alone, cannot even submit a simple tax return! We really have no hope if this is the case. Could the accountants not advise him on how to run the economy at the same time?

The only solution is an election to clear all of this rot.

You wanted equality! Well done, you've got it!

With the ongoing recession and the Labour policy of continued MASSIVE borrowing in order to cushion the debt rather than simply limit the spending, a brief review of history is needed which shows that under the Labour this would eventually happen. It was only a matter of time for this economic oblivion to occur due to Labour's luck, the economic legacy of the Conservative Party, the endless credit limit and the favourable global economic conditions running out.

Daniel Hannan in the Daily Telegraph recently stated “Poverty is not simply an absence of money. Rather, it is bound up with a whole set of other circumstances: lack of qualifications, demoralisation, family break-up, substance abuse, fatherlessness.” If you look at the history of the Labour Party, particularly in the 60's and 70's, it has been based on high taxes to the middle classes, high benefits to the lower classes, business decline due to over-regulation, high corporation taxes and stringent employment regulation, which is a result of the spine of union support running through the Labour Party. These areas could be regarded as the true sources of wealth. The old saying of not 'biting the hand that feeds' has never been learnt by the Labour Party. The givers of wealth are not tied to these shores; they can and WILL leave; they are not going to sit back and let Robin Hood, aka Alistair Darling, take another 10% of their income. There are plenty of other nations that wish to accept these talented individuals. The net gain for the government will be small in the long term. It is another scapegoat for the recession from a government that is only interested in winning votes through their decision making (in this instance by trying to start a class war). I have not seen one economic expert who has complemented the latest budget in any way, shape or form.

Every government since the Second World War that has attempted to throw money at the lower classes on the basis of improving “equality” has failed. They do not deal with the root causes, as highlighted by Daniel Hannan. Again and again, the words of 'a fairer society' and 'narrowing the gap between rich and poor' have been mooted around by Blair, Brown and other members of this regime. For most Labour voters this is arguably their primary reason for voting. At this point I feel I need to congratulate Labour on making this policy come to fruition (which can rarely be said). The gap between rich and poor, middle and lower class has become smaller, however the lower classes are still at the same point that they have always been at. The middle classes have been forced down the ladder and are now worse off than they have been for 30 years and they are the ones who will have to pay heavily over the next 23 years (as predicted) for the mismanagement of this regime. Life is not going to get any better for anybody except the 30,000 public service workers whose jobs were created in March (100,000 were lost in this time). Do we really need any more NHS middle managers, council consultants, community support officers? Over the next 4 years £4 billion is to be spent on extra consultants for the public sector. This is a staggering amount of extra money to spend when every other developed country is cutting back. Worryingly there is another year to go until the financial crimes inflicted by the current regime can start to be undone; however this is going to take decades in order to repair.