If they'd said

new posting on Ashley Mote's Britannia Rules website)





And Now They Want to be Re-Elected???





Would Nu-Labour have won the 1997 election – for all the faults of the Major government at the time – if Blair/Brown had said their real agenda was to multiple the public debt tenfold, to the point where it was out of control? And then do nothing about it?



If they had said they aimed to reduce the UK from the 7th most competitive country in the global market to 13th? Reduce the 4th most lightly taxed country to the 84th? Reduce the 4th least regulated country to the 86th?



If they had said they intended to turn the UK into a multicultural country by abandoning our border controls? That they would allow a near 50% increase in immigrants from Africa, and over half a million more people from Europe to take up residence in the UK?



That they would encourage immigrants to introduce their own standards, laws and life-styles, and ignore those of the country providing them with a new home?



That they would support immigrant families with the resources of the welfare state – housing, income, health services, free education? Allow the least well-educated, and those most ignorant of the British way of life, to become the fastest-growing community in the country?



They would provide that group with all the protection of British law, including changing the law to accommodate them, and asking nothing by way of commitment to the British way of life in return?



That they would victimize true-Brits who stood in the way, by creating laws to make difficult, or even forbid, criticism or opposition to these profound changes?



That they would, in effect, create a form of dual or parallel citizenship in which the members of one ethnic group in the UK could gain preferential treatment by the state to the disadvantage of the majority who were paying for their benefits?



That they would turn Britain into a nanny-state in which the government assumed the right to control almost every aspect of the lives of those who elected them?



That they would seize the right to snoop on everyone – and encourage neighbour to snoop on neighbour?



And now, as Brown seeks re-election, Blair’s successor tells us the tax man will be empowered by law to open our mail even before it reaches us.



And where has all this got us?



Over the last thirteen years Nu-Labour has created 5000 new crimes at the rate of one every day.



It has passed over 500 new Acts of Parliament, six on immigration, eight on terrorism, 12 on education, 11 on health and social care, and 25 on criminal justice. Many of them were enacted simply to comply with new EU directives.



Another 40,000 EU regulations passed into UK law without a single one of them ever being debated in the House. They were all nodded through by Statutory Instrument, because the EU forbids amendments.



And that’s before we get to all the wishy-washy grand new ideas Nu-Labour repetitively rolled out as policy, and later either forgot or diluted.



The latest – free care for the elderly – has no timetable, no budget, no detailed planning and no hope of becoming law.



It is just another vague, utterly unrealistic carrot to attract voters who are naive or foolish enough to believe this bunch of crooks.



And then we come to the money…



What a legacy they leave us, after squandering the golden economic scenario they inherited from the Tories in 1997.



(Just for the record this is the third time in my lifetime Labour has left office with the economy in a shambles. The claim is valid : successive generations never learn, and people who refuse to learn from history are condemned to make the same mistakes over and over again.)



The most serious economic crisis in half a century, if not ever, has been brought on by profligate spending on bloated public services which lacked clarity of purpose, lacked effective managerial control and which more often than not failed to deliver.



Are our hospitals any better for the billions spent on them in the last 13 years. No they are not. Are our schools any better? No. Are the police doing a better job? I don’t think so.



Because what matters far more than throwing money at a problem is ensuring that it is then used effectively. Worse, Nu-Labour’s abysmal ignorance of resource management is compounded by its obsession with endless targets which add layers of useless bureaucracy, absorb time and effort for no benefit, remove any clarity of purpose, and weight down and mis-direct the efforts of capable people trying to do the job they were hired to do.



No wonder public debt is out of control. It was out of control even before the financial crisis hit us.



Total state debt will be over a trillion pounds before we know it, and may even exceed the UK’s total gross annual income for the first time ever within a few years, unless we make draconian cuts. They are needed fast and need to go deep.



Alternatively we end up monetizing the debt and raging inflation then kicks in to diminish its true worth.



Slashing public spending to the bone would not be difficult.



We all know about the billions sent to Brussels, and the hundreds of billions wasted by British industry and commerce on compliance. That could be saved overnight by telling the EU that we will be good neighbours, trade with them, but only on our terms.



The message is simple enough : they have to understand they cannot be masters in someone else’s house.



Back home, think of the money being squandered on many hundreds of quangos and the tens of thousands of people they employ. Between the lot of them they contribute almost nothing but trouble and aggravation to the people they are supposed to serve.



Think of the sheer numbers of incompetent employees at every level of the civil service. We have all encountered them and their pedantic questions and paperwork.



They may be civil servants but they rarely display any understanding of the word ‘civil’, and usually do not regard themselves as providing a service. We are usually left with the impression that, if they can create trouble and cause inconvenience, that is what they will do.



Then there is the cost of administering our labyrinthine tax system. Why not, as Kit Malthouse argued in The Times this week, abolish the lot and just use a higher level of VAT, or a new sales tax, to collect all taxation, subject only to nil rates on essentials. He is right. And I’ve been saying it for years.



Suddenly, there are tens of thousands of officials and accountants re-deployed into the private sector, many involved in new businesses. Vast amounts of management time and huge compliance costs are saved by every business in the country. Investment in new enterprises and in established businesses erupts.



The explosion of free enterprise, new jobs, new wealth-creation and new exports would transform our economy in no time. We all become winners, including the exchequer.



Such a nuclear change in our tax system would also turn the UK into the biggest off-shore tax haven of modern times, and force fiscal discipline on the governments of many other profligate countries. That, after all, is the supreme public-interest benefit of all tax havens. (No wonder Blair/Brown never told you that.)



Back here on earth, however, we still see money wasted on enforcing the nanny state, including millions spent on adverts on TV - to discourage smoking, on the radio to encourage people to apply for a new driving licence when they reach 70, in the media extolling the common sense virtue of not throwing good food away.



What business is it of government to waste our taxes on adverts like that? What happened to personal responsibility?



And why do we British taxpayers have to finance thousands of foreign students from Europe, and elsewhere, taking places at our universities, while our own children are deprived of higher education?



Last year nearly 120,000 students from the EU countries alone were educated in the UK at our expense, while 120,000 of our own children missed out.



We are now told we need another 20,000 new primary schools to educate young children.



But we are not reproducing ourselves fast enough to fill the places we have already.

Every one of those schools is needed to educate the children of immigrants.



Meanwhile, despite the UK spending nearly £90 billion on education this year (80% more than when Labour took office), there is absolutely no sign of the children already in school being educated properly, taught self-disciple, self-worth, self-reliance, or – for that matter – any British constitutional history.



Instead we continue to produce tens of thousands of ill-educated youngsters who are almost unemployable, and take their frustration out on the community that has failed to raise them properly.



Even if we started to sort out that problem it would take two generations to correct it, as we wait for those already on the streets to grow older.



Then there’s the EU, now set on a new mischief. Its latest lunacy is a threat to use the Lisbon Treaty to create a new form of economic government from Frankfurt, run by the Germans and the French, which would seize control of the City of London and the UK’s global financial services markets.



And what does our crass, certifiably insane government do about it? Absolutely nothing – because it knows it cannot, and is terrified to admit it.



Instead, it has the unbelievable audacity to ask us to vote them back into government.



If it wasn’t so catastrophically tragic, it might almost be funny.

Labour’s Climate Change Act: A Conspiracy to Defraud

Labour’s Climate Change Act: A Conspiracy to Defraud
6.4.10

The revelation that the Government’s Climate Change Act will cost the taxpayer up to £18.3 billion per year between now and 2050, together with its sanitising “enquiry” into the Climate Studies Unit (CSU) scandal, proves that it is working hand-in-glove with the United Nations (UN) towards their “global governance” objectives. The British National Party recently revealed the UN’s covert plans for their “Green World Order” and “global governance”, terms widely interpreted as euphemisms for global government. These plans call for the transfer of some $54 trillion in the form of green taxes from the world’s richest nations to the poorest between now and 2050, and the establishment of global governmental political structures. A huge problem for the UN has been the discrediting of its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the damaging accusations following the publication of controversial emails from Britain’s government-backed CSU.
This is because the science underpinning the UN’s project is almost entirely based on the “findings” of the IPCC and bodies such as the CSU. The UN has set up a supposedly “independent” enquiry into its IPCC. This will be conducted by an organisation largely comprising individuals and organisations known to be “man-made” global warming advocates; suggesting that the exercise is little more than a whitewash. Similarly, the recent Government enquiry into the CSU — which blatantly avoided the real issues — has largely exonerated it from any criticism; this was as entirely necessary as it was predictable.
Now details of the most expensive piece of legislation ever put through Parliament have been revealed. According to Labour’s Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) the Climate Change Act (2008) is set to cost the British taxpayer up to £18 billion per annum between now and the UN project’s implementation target date of 2050 That works out at over £700 per year in unnecessary taxation for every household in the country, to combat non-existent “man-made” global warming. As part of this Marxist “redistribution of wealth” between rich and poor nations, punitive regulations came into force last week in the form of new road tax rules which will force the owners of larger “CO2 producing” vehicles to pay even more tax. In addition, the DECC has introduced its Carbon Reduction Scheme (CRS) which requires, by law, Britain’s 30,000 largest energy users to register with the Environment Agency. Not only does the act of registration involve the payment of an “administration” fee to the Government from every user but it also requires the applicant to conduct an expensive evaluation to quantify its “carbon-footprint”.
All this so that they can be taxed at £12 per year for every ton of CO2 they produce.
It is also envisaged that, in time, not only will the Government increase the tax payable per tonne, but also the number of registered users through a lowering of the “qualifying threshold” requirement, as measured in tonnes of CO2 created per year. Furthermore, in order to administer this totally unnecessary scheme, the Government intends to hire thousands of officials to check up on registered users to ensure they have not underestimated their CO2 output and hence their tax liability. Heavy fines will be imposed on “cheats.” As many of these licensed users will be energy producers, manufactures, farmers and supermarkets, there can be little doubt that these costs will be passed to the consumer. To add insult to injury, this development comes hard on the news that the Government has contributed to green carbon-credits, said to be worth hundreds of millions of pounds, being paid by Western nations to India’s giant TATA Corporation — so that it can build that
country’s largest coal-burning power station at Mundra, in Gujarat province. It is claimed that the plant will generate 26 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year — far more than any British plant. Like everything else associated with Labour, the Climate Change Act is just another excuse to de-industrialise Britain and rip-off the British taxpayer in the furtherance of its and the UN’s globalist projects.

Are going to allow this con to continue?