Thursday, November 12, 2009

The poor you will always have with you – and they shall vote Labour

In his conference speech this year, David Cameron received a rapturous standing ovation when he said: "Who made the poorest poorer? Who left youth unemployment higher? Who made inequality greater? No, not the wicked Tories. You, Labour: you're the ones that did this to our society."

And a few days ago, he gave his much-lauded ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ speech, outlining his plans for social renewal. He spoke of community, of relationship, of civility and courtesy – of the need to change our culture.

Today, there is a by-election in Glasgow North East where a scandalous 30 per cent are unemployed and claiming benefits; life expectancy in the poorest areas is just 60.2 years – worse than Bangledesh, Iraq and Uzbekistan. Several primary schools are facing closure, healthcare is manifestly deficient, and poverty abounds. The former-Speaker’s constituency is ranked 7th in the UK for the highest rate of benefit claimants.

And Labour will win the seat, just as they have for the past 74 years.

There is no salvation in Socialism. There is no social justice, no economic sense, no equity, no progress.

Statistics sometimes speak for themselves: sometimes they are convoluted and complex; sometimes they just confirm the bleeding obvious. In this case, it is simply that Labour relies on the votes of the poor. The more people are dependent upon the state, the more likely are they to vote Labour. Ergo, in the naked pursuit of power, there is no incentive for Labour ever to tackle poverty, unemployment or the spiralling welfare bill which presently stands at a colossal £165 billion a year.

The Lord said that the poor will always be with us. He must either have foreseen the rise of Labour or the invention of 'relative poverty'.

Commons seats ranked according to the number of benefit claimants:
(click each table for a clearer view)

70 Comments:

Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

It is only labour that care about the poor. The tories are just getting on an election bandwagon and will do nothing to help the poor once in power.

The tories are going to cut public services, whatever their protestations now, whilst we invest on them. Don't vote tory if you want to see the NHS and Education sold off to a private conglomerate in the name of free enterprise.

Don't vote tory if you don't want to see the return of the Victorian poor law. The tories would drag us back to the 1800s, whereas Labour is helping the poor, the young unemployed and is seeing the country through a grave economic crises. Which the tories would make worse by cuts, cuts and cuts ! We need labours investment, investment , investment !

12 November 2009 at 09:56  
Blogger TreeSleeper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 November 2009 at 10:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's all cast iron to me YG, but the blue variety tends to be more expensive, and I have noticed that it's more available in certain areas. Whereas the red stuff is cheap and cheerful and anyone can have it. The strange malleable qualities of cast iron.

12 November 2009 at 10:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It must be a real bloody nuisance letting working class people have a vote. What a task it must be to try and convince people that eating their own blood and sweat is good for them.

Good Luck though.

12 November 2009 at 10:44  
Anonymous working urchin said...

Tories supporting the working class is just a joke. They don't care about the working class, only the rich toffs in the south east of england and the city of london.

Only labour looks after the working class. Anything else is just , as Marx predicted, false conciousness, spread by the likes of religion, the opiumn of the people.

12 November 2009 at 10:49  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

I can only presume - and hope - that Christian Socialist was being immensely ironic.

If not, it does demonstrate the depressing fact you have pointed out Your Grace,"And Labour will win the seat, just as they have for the past 74 years."

Is there anything that can possibly stop this lemming like unthinking, lemming like mentality?

There are only 2 routes I can see bearing any fruit:

(1)Trying to persuade the vast swathes of people in these constituencies who don't bother to vote at all that it is worth voting, and not for Labour. This would require giving free lifts to the polling stations, a free lottery ticket and/or some free lager and so could prove quite costly ... and there's no guaranteeing they wouldn't just vote Labour anyway (though many could be persuaded to vote BNP quite easily I think).

(2) The method that is probably easier to achieve than trying to persuade the apathetic to action - is obfuscation . Given that the vast majority of those who vote Labour must surely be politically illiterate, we need to register dozens of alternative Labour parties to appear on the ballot paper [Real Labour, Old Labour Labour Socialists, Traditional Labour etc]. I'm willing to fund one such bogus party in the Bradford constituency I am part of. If there are 6 other of Your Grace's communicants who'd like to help me conduct the experiment and who are willing to form other bogus Labour parties I'd very much like to give it a try and unseat my thoroughly unpleasant incumbent Labour MP

Of course, we can't point the finger solely at the Labour voting electorate. The amount of people on Right of centre blogs recently who've said they'll be voting Conservative at the next election 'so that Labour don't get in' despite the fact that UKIP or the BNP share their primary convictions is also depressing.

We need to get to the tipping point where people will make informed votes for the person who shares most closely their own political convictions rather than sticking with traditional party lines.

12 November 2009 at 10:49  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

I think it is factually untrue that we have a political system based upon class alone.

If this were true , then the supposed 'toff party' - the conservatives would not have been the most electorally successful of the major parties during the 20th century.

If anyone care to google it, the tories have been more successful the wider the franchise has become, especially in attracting the votes of women , and the tories have averaged about a third of the working class vote.

It is also fair to say that the left has had its fair share of non working class support- the champagne charlies- such as the fabian movement and of course leaders such as Blair and which can be seen in the readership of papers such as the Guardian.

12 November 2009 at 11:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rebel Saint

It's the only way to produce a real opposition party. It's like the building of sewers in the Victorian era. It was fine to fill the streets with shit until it started to seep into the wealthier areas, then by God it was time to build sewers.

Same deal now, until the shit starts to seep into Tory houses we will never have any real opposition to it. So voting Labour is all we can do. If the Tories get in now they will change nothing for us, they simply dam up their own gardens.

12 November 2009 at 11:09  
Blogger TreeSleeper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 November 2009 at 11:16  
Anonymous doxology said...

Clearly another sign that we are approaching the end time as written in Revelation and the creation of a new jerusalem.

12 November 2009 at 11:31  
Anonymous Pro EU Socialist said...

Don't worry Christian Socialist, even if we loose the election (which i don't believe for a second) , the tories will be forced to continue our marvellous social engineering agenda, because we are fully signed up to Lisbon and the EU and the wonderful social charters and workers rights.

Never again can we have another Thatcher, holding down workers rights, unions and spreading inequality.

12 November 2009 at 11:45  
Anonymous The Vicar's Wife said...

Your Grace, could this table be correlated with voter turnout? The impression I get here in the inner city is that the poor, and especially those on benefits, don't vote. Most of the folk I speak to here feel totally disconnected from politics and aren't even on the electoral roll.

12 November 2009 at 11:50  
Anonymous irredeemably evil said...

There is a darkness born over centuries, born of the pain it takes to live the day. It's long lasting down the ages and it courses through everybody's blood, I guess even mine. Now, after all of this, I have come to wonder why we're so surprised when it wells up and bursts into the light of our lives, when we've known all along it's wrapped up in us, dug deep into the fibres of our own flesh. I'd eat it away if I could, we all would, but then we'd only be half a person, or maybe even less.

Prepare for the end of the world as we know it!

12 November 2009 at 11:50  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

It seems to me that the reason why socialists are unable to drive people out of poverty is because of their fundamental ideological commitment to the Critical Marxists base and superstructure model of society. It that model that has been taught in our universities for the last thirty years.

Essentially ‘the base’ is the economy (which contains all the economic relationships) and this base determines ‘the superstructure’ where all the ideological, legal and cultural relations are located. In other words money (taxes and expenditure) determines all else. That is the reason why socialist governments throw money (taxes) at problems.

For example, take the NHS. For decades staff would ‘do that little bit extra’ (without being paid overtime) as staff worked on the Christian principle that to work in such an institution was a vocation, a calling. Even though the Christian faith in that institution degenerated over time – staff still worked on its basis as an ‘institutional memory’.

New Labour comes along and pours in billions of pounds believing that money makes everything all right (the base determines the working culture). NHS staff realise they have billions of pounds and if they don’t use then up then they might get less next year. The result, new tiers of management, overtime claims multiply, and middle-class consultants get large fee cheques. Everybody is rolling in tax-payers money.

It was never the economic relationship that came into existence in the first place. It was the social relationship. To do business requires trust. The socialists have got this back-to-front.

It was never ‘parliamentary sovereignty’ that was superior. In order to have a parliament you must have a people. In order to have that demos you must form social relationships.

The people are sovereign.

12 November 2009 at 11:56  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

D Singh, so you oppose labour's funding of the NHS ? Yet another right wing example of how the NHS would be abandoned in a tory government.

Labour investment, not tory tax cuts.

12 November 2009 at 12:00  
Anonymous Pro EU Socialist said...

Why are some posters fussing over the end of the world ? A tory victory might seem like that I know, but when we have a new leader like Harman (and David Miliband as deputy) , we shall be out of office for 1 term only.

12 November 2009 at 12:14  
Blogger Preacher said...

Your Grace.
In the light of the last decade it would appear obvious that Nu Labour have nothing in common with the original Labour party.
Most of the M.P's in Westminster are there purely for their own gain. It is up to the populace to decide who they think will do the best for them, but one would hope that it will be an informed choice rather than a automatic cross on the voting slip. Given the broken promises of Labour over Europe one feels a great lack of trust, but I'm afraid Mr C did his party no favours with his volte face on Lisbon. With Lisbon in mind, it probably matters not a jot who gets in as we will all be ruled by Belgium before the end of 2010 anyway.

12 November 2009 at 12:15  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Christian Socialist

ASK!

Ask the taxpayer!

Seek the taxpayer!

Know the taxpayer!

12 November 2009 at 12:20  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

D Sigh

Yes we have asked the country about this and for over 10 glorious years they have responded we want labour and its progessive agenda on the NHS, equality, diversity and Europe.

Thanks to Brown's wonderful tax credit system, labour are helping hard working poor families.

In order to finalise our economic recovery, we need one final massive stimulus package to invest in people. What Brown needs to do is get his confidence back overule the defeatist Darling and make sure we really do end tory boom and bust.

12 November 2009 at 12:27  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Why didn't you ask them if they wanted Brown?

Why did you lie, cheat and deceive them about the fascist EU and the promised referendum?

British jobs for British workers? The EU says Nien!

Why don't you tell the post office workers about the EU directive that is behind their destruction?

Why don't you tell Christians about the EU laws that bring them before Industrial Tribunals - your own brothers and sisters in the faith.

Go on get Cliff Richard and Tony Blair to sing a song?

12 November 2009 at 12:37  
Blogger John M Ward said...

Well, ignoring the (rather obvious) Labour trolls in this comments thread, who are probably professionally paid to troll by Labour Party HQ (as so many are known to be), the key point is what the more experienced politicians and insiders have known for decades.

You got it absolutely right, Your Grace: it is Labour's *dependency* upon what one might term "poverty demographics", either to ensure votes for Labour on the blackmail-like basis of "anyone else could cut-off your welfare handouts, only we shall not", or at least to ensure that enough electors don't vote for anyone else.

Either on the positive side of "voting for" or the negative side of not voting at all, that is how Labour seek to rig things to their advantage. It is nothing knew and is well understood.

All the diversionary attempts by the trolls here can be safely ignored and the core principle — so clearly demonstrated in those tables — remains undiminished: Labour *desperately need* poverty and State dependency for their own survival. They have nothing else whatsoever to offer the country as a whole.

12 November 2009 at 12:42  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

Are 'Christian Socialist' (an oxymoron if ever I saw one) and 'Pro EU Socialist' one and the same person?

I think we should be told.

Whoever he/she/they are, I think he/she/they has/have a wonderful talent as (a) stand-up comedian(s)

12 November 2009 at 12:44  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

D Singh

MY REPLIES TO YOU ARE IN CAPITALS.

Why didn't you ask them if they wanted Brown?

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN THIS- JOHN MAJOR WAITED 2 YEARS FOR AN ELECTION AFTER BEING PM.

Why did you lie, cheat and deceive them about the fascist EU and the promised referendum?

WE HAVE ALWAYS SAID WE WANT TO BE AT THE HEART OF EUROPE. WE PROMISED A REFERENDUM ON THE CONSTIUTION OF EUROPE AND NOT THE TIDYING UP EXERSISE OF LISBON.


British jobs for British workers? The EU says Nien!

NO THE EU SAYS IT WILL PROTECT WORKERS AND UNION RIGHTS UNDER ITS SOCIAL CHAPTER.

Why don't you tell the post office workers about the EU directive that is behind their destruction?

THE PROBLEMS AT THE POST OFFICE ARE TO DO WITH THE MANAGEMENT NOT LISTENING TO THEIR WORKERS


Why don't you tell Christians about the EU laws that bring them before Industrial Tribunals - your own brothers and sisters in the faith.

MORE EU BASHING. PERHAPS YOU WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN THIS ONE .

Go on get Cliff Richard and Tony Blair to sing a song?

GOOD IDEA .

12 November 2009 at 12:47  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

John Ward- rest assured I am not a paid up troll of labour party- people get paid for writing this kind of crap? .

I am actually posting quite deliberatly in order to provoke some proper debate. My apologises for any offense caused.

12 November 2009 at 12:51  
Blogger Old Slaughter said...

@Christian Socialist

"we have asked the country about this and for over 10 glorious years they have responded we want labour and its progessive agenda on the NHS, equality, diversity and Europe."

Now go back to 1997 and ask them again. No positive effects and national bankruptcy.

New Labour, same results.

These things you and apparently they stand for are just words, Labour can 'fight poverty' all they like. Poverty is up. They can promote 'diversity' all they like and we get division. They can be pro the NHS until the cows come home. Productivity is down, 300,000 people a year are getting infections and their are more pen-pushers than medical staff.

Stop living life by the slogans on political posters and start thinking of the actual results of the policies.

You are killing people with this socialist nonsense. But then I suspect the warm self-righteous feeling you get from these 'eye-catching initiatives' is more relevant to you than genuine human happiness.

12 November 2009 at 12:57  
Anonymous Pro EU Socialist said...

Yes we are related and I am glad that someone has a sense of irony. (although there are people that spout these lines).

I would be interested in how D Singh argues out the last post- he likes a good debate .

12 November 2009 at 12:57  
Blogger Old Slaughter said...

Oh and as for....

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN THIS- JOHN MAJOR WAITED 2 YEARS FOR AN ELECTION AFTER BEING PM.

Blair and Brown stood under the promise that Blair was in for the full term. This was a straight lie. Nothing more and nothing less. A barefaced lie to the British public. How do you reconcile that?

Thatcher was ousted which was beyond her control, Major actually went through a leadership election (unlike Brown). He was also then able to secure the most votes ever recorded by a PM.

Try Apples with Apples next time.

12 November 2009 at 13:00  
Anonymous Highveld Brit said...

Your Grace

Your facts are unarguable, but the conclusions you draw from them are dubious. You say that Labour is interested in keeping the poor poor because the poor vote Labour. Fine up to a point. But unless you believe that the poor actively want to stay poor, this strategy would only last for a couple of election cycles at most - not the better part of a century - after which the poor would have cottoned on to the fact that they'd be less poor under a right-wing government.

Rather, it is surely in Labour's electoral interests to make life better for the poor so as to make them feel more positive about the party. You can argue about the merits or otherwise of Labour's policies, but to say that their aim in politics is to stop the poor from leaving poverty smacks a little of conspiracy theorising to me.

12 November 2009 at 13:01  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

Old Slaugter

Always one for a good debate, I would also add there is nothing in the British constitution that prevents PM's becoming PM's if they are not elected by either a party or at a general election. The Tories have done this as much as labour. After 1945:

1) Eden replaces Churchill. No vote by the party. election 12 months later.

2) Macmillan replaced Eden. No vote by the party. election 2 years later.

3) Douglas Hume replaces Macmillan. No vote by the party. Election 1 year later.

4) Major replaces Thatcher . Party vote but election 2 years later, when it suits the tories.

Labour :

1) Callagham replaces Wilson. Party election. no general election until 3 years later.

2) Brown replaces Blair. No party election- brown is only candidate. no general election as no requirement to do so under british law. Also you could argue that Blair was forced out in the same way thatcher was forced out by her own party.

Discuss

12 November 2009 at 13:10  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

Also Old Slaughter, whilst on the subject of lies, does anyone remember the 1992 election campaign in which labour lost because of the open tax rises they had promised ? Then who had to raise taxes as a result of failed Tory policies during 1992-97 eh?

You also talk about national bankruptcy. What fools were in charge when Britain got chucked out the ERM and waste billions in reserves and had to raise interest rate about 5 times in a day?

Yes it wasn't labour.

12 November 2009 at 13:18  
Blogger TreeSleeper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 November 2009 at 13:21  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Good grief. Now treesleeper is being paid to post as well?

So people really do get paid to leave comments on blog sites?

What about because you want to contribute to the issues on the post ?

Guess I am being naive.

I suppose it keeps people in work.

12 November 2009 at 13:27  
Blogger Hamish said...

Your Grace,
This is not a word I would generally apply to you, but you are being disingenuous, in talking about the poor, when you say "statistics sometimes speak for themselves".

I have read the statistics you posted, and yes they show a clear correlation between receiving state benefits and voting labour.

Apart from the disconnect between receiving benefits and being poor,
you postulate a simplistic one-way cause-effect relation between the two.

12 November 2009 at 13:39  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Why did you lie, cheat and deceive them about the fascist EU and the promised referendum?

Socialist answer: WE HAVE ALWAYS SAID WE WANT TO BE AT THE HEART OF EUROPE. WE PROMISED A REFERENDUM ON THE CONSTIUTION OF EUROPE AND NOT THE TIDYING UP EXERSISE OF LISBON.

Response: ‘Every provision of the Constitutional Treaty, apart from the flags, mottos and anthems, is to be found in the Reform [Lisbon] Treaty. We think that they are fundamentally the same, and the Government have not produced a table to contradict our position.’

Michael Connarty MP, Labour Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee.

‘The substance of the constitution is preserved. This is a fact.’

Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, speech to the European Parliament, 27 June 2007.

‘There’s nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed.’

Astrid Thors, Finnish Minister, TV-Nytt, 23 June 2007

‘We will put the European Constitution to the British people in a referendum and campaign for a ‘Yes’ vote.’

Gordon Brown, unelected British Prime minister

British jobs for British workers? The EU says Nien!

Socialist answer: NO THE EU SAYS IT WILL PROTECT WORKERS AND UNION RIGHTS UNDER ITS SOCIAL CHAPTER.

Response: That is propaganda. The issue centred round the EU’s Temporary Posted Workers Directive which permits foreign companies to hire workers in Portugal and Italy (which they did) and exclude British workers from British jobs. The EU only ‘sees’ EU workers and not English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish workers.

12 November 2009 at 13:47  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Christian Socialist, Sir, your point about elections and Prime Ministers is half valid . But you are using facts to fit your view.

The Prime Ministers you mention either retired due to age and ill health (Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, Wilson) and only 1 was forced out by their own party- and this after an election by party MP's.

Blair was , in my mind, hounded out by Brown's supporters and it was certainly not by a vote of no confidence by the party or whatever mechanism labour uses to ditch its leaders. And this was after it was agreed Blair would be Prime Minister for a full term.

The Blair/Brown split had nothing to do with policy (the conservatives could at least claim that) and all to do with one man's selfish ambition to become Prime Minister and his anger at being passed over for the leadership 10 years prior.

When it looked like Brown was going to win, there was speculation about a snap election, but he bottled out when he realised that he could not be certain of victory.

That is what makes Brown's position so untenable and why people are critical of him is his ability to not even being able to face elections either to depose Blair , become elected as leader or face the country in a general election.

12 November 2009 at 13:54  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

Lord Lavendon

Pot, Kettle Black ! Since when have you done

1) A Day's work in your life ?

2) ever had to face election ?

Well we should abolish the House of Lords and ditch the powers, privildges and titles of the landed elite.

12 November 2009 at 14:03  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

D Singh

You clearly have not listened. The Labour govt. only promised a referendum of the EU consituiton and not the treaty of lisbon. They are 2 different things, there is some overlap, but it is propoganda to suggest that this is anything other than a tidying up excercise of all the other EU treaties which will help the EU be better run.

Also you talk about British jobs for British workers- how many jobs would be lost if we pulled out of the EU ? We need to EU to trade with and to prosper.

Our place should be at the heart of europe. The one thing I think brown got wrong was not joining the euro. then we would be in the union for ever.

12 November 2009 at 14:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its hard to convey to those that don't live in places like Glasgow and other Labour heartlands on the lists the loyalty to Labour and the hated of the Conservatives that remains from the Thatcher Government and the miners strike and when it still resonates as strongly among the current Generation maybe you start to understand why any Conservative politician who talks about welfare reform is measured by action not nice words by these communities.

But Labour must take its share of the blame because its not surprising that many of those places have not felt the full benefit of 12 years of the Labour Government's economic success and as a result of trying to help lift people out of poverty by increasing benefits many families have continued a trend started under the last Conservative Government of being locked into a spiral of worklessness which both the benefit recipients know and Government's accept is a price worth paying for the UK’s overall economic success, so where is the incentive for these people to try and improve their lives a happy medium is need surely but isn’t on offer from any party

All the talk of cutting budgets from the Tories for areas like this means more labeling of people as workshy and cutting Benefits and they can't fight back for fearing of losing the money they have to live on because they are reliant on the State for money.

Add all this together and you start to have and idea why David Cameron's speech while praised by the media, charities, the commentariat, the middle classes and bloggers, will be viewed with a mix of suspicion and so what were being targeted again in places like Glasgow.

Maybe its best summed us as voting Labour is the lesser of two evils, nothing more.

12 November 2009 at 14:14  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Is Christian Socialist a racist with regards to supporting the EU in excluding British workers from British jobs?

Race Relations Act s.3 (1) defines ‘racial grounds’ and ‘racial group’, both of which are used as the foundation for the definition of ‘racial discrimination’, as follows:

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires –

‘Racial grounds’ means any of the following grounds, namely… nationality… or national origins;

‘Racial group’ means a group of persons defined by reference to… nationality… or national origins…

British workers were discriminated against on racial grounds by EU companies when they recruited workers in Portugal and Italy to work in Britain.

That in my opinion, given Christian Socialists support of the EU, defines him as a racist.

12 November 2009 at 14:19  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Christian Socialist

YOU ARE NOT LISTENING TO YOUR OWN MAN:

‘Every provision of the Constitutional Treaty, apart from the flags, mottos and anthems, is to be found in the Reform [Lisbon] Treaty. We think that they are fundamentally the same, and the Government have not produced a table to contradict our position.’

Michael Connarty MP,

Labour Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee.

12 November 2009 at 14:21  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

D Singh

That is untrue and you are clearly loosing the plot here. How can I be a racist when the EU is made up of 27 different countries? How can I be a racist when I support an open borders policy within the EU? How can I be racist when I support labour's equality bill ? Perhaps you should look at some of the far right groups that are allied with the Tories. The see who is really racist. Clearly you have lost the argument and are now trying some rather desperate fall back position. I had expected better from you.

12 November 2009 at 14:24  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

D Singh @ 14.21, this statement was not from a government minister and secondly we are a parliamentary system in which we do not have referendum.

In any case there was only a promise to hold a vote on the CONSTITUTION and not anything else. Therefore there have been no broken pledges or lies.

12 November 2009 at 14:29  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Christian Socialist asks:

How can I be a racist when the EU is made up of 27 different countries?

No! No ! No!

Are you stupid or what?

Have you not read the federal treaty? There are not 27 countries.

12 November 2009 at 14:32  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Christian Socialist asks: How can I be a racist when I support an open borders policy within the EU?

Texans can travel to New York. ‘How can I be a racist…?’

12 November 2009 at 14:34  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Christian Socialist asks: How can I be racist when I support labour's equality bill?

Why don’t you sonny, go and sort your thinking out? Eh? The equality bill establishes a hierarchy or rights – when different ‘strands’ of equality collide with each other in an Employment Tribunal: one has to lose and one has to win. ‘How can I be racist when I….?

12 November 2009 at 14:38  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Christian Socialist

So yer support the EU do ya?

The Yanks get to elect their president.

The EU imposes one on us.

Democracy? Or National Socialism?

National Socialism.

Sit down and think it through

12 November 2009 at 14:41  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

D Singh

The EU comprises 27 different countries who speak 27 different langugages and is not a state, as much as you may delude yourself that it is; it is an international grouping of states with different agendas, languages and traditions. If I support an international coalition of states as diverse as this ,how can you say that I am a racist?

I do not understand the logic of your argument .I have never heard of anyone on either side of the EU debate call a Pro -EU person a racist.It doesn't make any logical sense to me .

12 November 2009 at 14:42  
Anonymous Andrew K said...

I am wondering from the standard of logic and literacy in his posts whether Christian Socialist is also Dirty European Socialist (AKA Dirty Euro)

12 November 2009 at 14:45  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Christian socialist

It doesn't make any sense to you because you have not studied the effects of the EU's Temporary (Posted)Workers Directive.

Are you denying the provisions of the 1976 Race Realtions Act as I have applied it to you?

12 November 2009 at 14:46  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

D Singh

Whilst I understand the eurospectic viewpoint, you are not arguing you case well at all.

I am not sure how you can compare the EU with National Socialism.

Which I presume is a reference to Nazi Germany. The EU has its faults , but

1) I cannot see that it is trying to conquer or crush any other country by force or with a large standing army.

2)I cannot see innocent people being put into death camps because of their creed and race.

3) I cannot see the burning of books of learning and the adherence to the cult of a leader.

4) I cannot see that the countries of Europe are no longer free to democratically elect their own leaders and parliaments .

5) I cannot see that the EU is a one party state.

Clearly as you can see from the examples above, the EU is not even anything like the third reich.

Please get real and make a half decent anti EU argument and not something a six form student comes up with. Until then I cannot see the merit in debating with you further.

12 November 2009 at 14:54  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Dear Mr. Singh -

You are very patient with these trouble makers.

I assume this is could be a run up to euSSR day.

Or perhaps they're combining it with an early approach to an 'election' campaign.

All the Best -

12 November 2009 at 15:00  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Christian Socialist said:


1) I cannot see that it is trying to conquer or crush any other country by force or with a large standing army.

European Union’s rapid Reaction Force

2)I cannot see innocent people being put into death camps because of their creed and race.

EU Arrest Warrant.


3) I cannot see the burning of books of learning and the adherence to the cult of a leader.

Unelected President.

4) I cannot see that the countries of Europe are no longer free to democratically elect their own leaders and parliaments .

Leaders? Parlaiments for what? Belgium has no government and is run by Luxembourg.

5) I cannot see that the EU is a one party state.

Its MEPs are elected but devoid of power. Its Council of Ministers (27) are unelected and have all the power.

STUPID SOCIALISTS

12 November 2009 at 15:01  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Chrsitian Socialist

Get out of my sight.

You're out of your league.

Why don't you go back to the nice Guardian or Bedlam.

12 November 2009 at 15:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D Singh

I appreciate that you are clearly living in a different reality , but

I cannot see how you can equate the EU warrant with concetration camps under Hitler's Germany.

Also I cannot see how you can equate the European Rapid Reaction force with Hitler's Panzars.

The EU is not a one party state. If it were why does Britain alone have Labour, Liberals, Tories, UKIP, BNP, SNP, Plaid, Greens, Ulster Unionists etc etc ? Are the leaders of the non government parties in prison or shot? No.

12 November 2009 at 15:11  
Blogger D. Singh said...

How much longer do I have to put up with you? Do you not have eyes to see with? Do you not have ears to listen with?

'The philosophical root of Marxism is found in Hegel. So is the philosophical root of racism, and so too is the root of totalitarian nationalism. If the EU/NSU bans the nation-state, it risks leading either to the anarchy, the gangsterdom, of class, race, tribal, linguistic, or religious self-interest or to the authoritarian imposition of empire. (The scenarios presented at a seminar a couple of years ago by the EU Commission's Forward-Planning Unit all envisage some variant of chaos followed by the imposition of authoritarian "European" rule.) "Classes," in all countries, and races, in many countries, interact with each other on a daily basis. If there is class or racial conflict it is immanent. Nations are, in contrast, geographically distinct from each other. The whole point of the nation-state is to maintain at least some aspects of separateness from other countries while creating a national community that minimizes the risk of class or race conflict within the nation. That is, a nation-state is defined by the willingness of its citizens to say, "We, and only we, will make the laws that govern us, and only us." '

Bernard Connolly, The Circle of Barbed Wire

12 November 2009 at 15:24  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

I think that Mr Singh has finally got rid of the silly that silly bunch of trouble makers.

Getting back to the topic of the poor, whilst they will always be with us, are we not, as Christians, called to help the poor by good works and mission?

12 November 2009 at 15:25  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Sorry meant to say "that silly bunch of trouble makers"- my eyesight is not what it once was !

12 November 2009 at 15:27  
Anonymous Richard B Dune Esq said...

Does D Singh write with irony or is he for real? I hope he is for real because he's showing up that silly socialist up, good and proper.

12 November 2009 at 15:38  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

His Grace has clearly hit the nail on the head with this posting. It has been some time since the champions of the left have been stung into such an animated response.

Ah yes - their glorious equality bill that drags all religions down to equality with cults, and all philosophies down to the level of the shallowest mindset. That puts depravity on a par with the natural expression of human sexuality.

But of course:

Clearly those who are opposed to these reforms are bigoted, right wing, racists, homophobes.

This is the classic leftist response to any opposition. Shoot them with the 'label' blunderbuss.

Socialism is the equality of misery and the triumph of the lowest common denominator. A system where mindless TV entertainment has become the opium of the masses and binge drinking a national pastime. Millions trapped by benefit dependency and the degradation of unemployability. Family life devalued, social breakdown and brazen child abuse. British cultural identity wrecked by mass immigration and deliberate policies of Europeanization. The economy dragged down into penury and money created out of thin air to stave off bankruptcy.

And lets raise a cheer for the EU with its Commissioners who are nothing but an unelected Politburo. Undemocratic, unaccountable. A union now evolving into a self-perpetuating super-state with an insatiable appetite for power and control achieved by stealth and deception. A Neo-Stalinist paradise in the making. The quality of its ruling elite ensures that corruption riddles its core. It will surely guarantee the next European civil war not prevent it.

12 November 2009 at 15:45  
Anonymous Howitzer said...

D Singh

I wouldn't take much notice from the socialists on this thread. They trying to provoke you on purpose.

12 November 2009 at 16:12  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

Question.

Suppose we could over 5 years and with targetted supportive help, get people into self respecting self supporting work, how many would want to go back to welfare dependency?

That could be the big challenge

12 November 2009 at 16:20  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Thankyou your grace a thoughtful article !

christian socialist seems to be unable to explain why unemployment is rising and banks are doing well , mmm best not mention the banks I mean you would then have to admitt that poverty is created by pandering to the corporate ideas .

Poverty ! What are we trying to define when we talk about poverty ??, there is spiritual poverty , financial poverty , educational poverty, health poverty .

the other words perhaps missing are caution, moderation and saving .

I can think of people who are well paid and yet are poor because they blow it all on booze.

poor incomes who dont have a credit agency and are made poor by legal and illegal loan sharks.

The ability to earn and look after what you have isnt just a conservative value its common sense and a basic freedom of deicidng your own life and outcomes .

The tradegy of this disatrous run of socialism is that after 12 years it has blown all the real wealth for a set of politcal paper wealth figures , how does a christian socialist (alledged) goverment end up with £300 bn of toxic assetts i.e £300bn of poverty that the tax payer must now cover .

I mean how can it claim to be for the poor when it runs the economy in such a way as to make more of it !

Whislt benefit improvement is no doubt welcome , wouldnt earning somthing in a stable economy be more valuable , would people be free. Perhaps state benefits are in some cases the smiling face of tyranny or a fake form of justice .

Wouldnt it be better if we ......

Too late the socialists have bust the country !

12 November 2009 at 16:41  
Anonymous Son of Belial said...

Ah, where would the poor be without Labour? And more to the point, where would Labour be without the poor? In perpetual opposition, that's where. No wonder every Labour government busts a gut to pauperise as many of HM's long-suffering subjects as it can. No wonder Mr Brown boasts so complacently.

Another thing, Your Grace: are poor people Labour because they're poor, or (subversive thought!) are they poor because they're Labour?

12 November 2009 at 16:46  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

It's the tories who kept the poor poor; it was not easy to undo all the damage done to the country after 18 years of tory misrule- selfishness, greed, no such thing as society. Are these really things that people believe in?

12 November 2009 at 16:51  
Anonymous Maturecheese said...

If these people want to vote for socialists then why don't they vote BNP. The BNP's manifesto is more akin to old Labour than the bunch of corrupt spivs currently masquerading as the Labour Party.

I am still pretty confused as to who represents me as I like a lot of the Libertarian policies especially personal responsibility and accountability but I am unhappy with their open borders ethos. Also they are so small that most people haven't even heard of them. Alas, Your Grace, I have no faith in the current Conservative party as they are led by a Tony Blair clone and all of the Identity destroying PC madness that has been forced upon us, will continue under the Tories. This pretty much means that I will continue to vote BNP until a viable alternative that isn't 'the establishment', or perhaps I mean Status Quo, presents itself.

12 November 2009 at 17:00  
Blogger D. Singh said...

WHO HAS DONE THIS?

Who left the back-door open so that socialist racist can creep back in?

He lurks, like sin that wishes to master us, at the door.

We must master him.

12 November 2009 at 18:38  
Blogger D. Singh said...

You - yes You, bring me another socialist.

12 November 2009 at 18:52  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Of course there is a relationship between the level of poverty and how people vote - that much is obvious. What isn't obvious as you state without any intellectual support whatsoever is that there is causality between the two factors. This is just an abuse of statistics and a statement of prejudice.

There is a clear correlation between D Singh's comments and your posts - but that alone doesn't establish cause and effect.

12 November 2009 at 22:31  
Anonymous non mouse said...

"If these people want to vote for socialists then why don't they vote BNP. The BNP's manifesto is more akin to old Labour than the bunch of corrupt spivs currently masquerading as the Labour Party." ~~Mature Cheese - doesn't somebody keep telling them BNP is far right?
Actually, I wonder if 'Divide and Conquer' isn't coming back to bite the manipulators, after all these millenia!!


D. Singh - love that Connolly citation. Great adjunct for my argument that this 'class' hatred business is connected to 'race.' After all, our indigenous Celts have fought, or been enslaved-dispossessed by a series of invaders: Belgic Celts; Romans; A-Saxons; Normans. And now the present lot are at it again and taking us back to 'Belgic' days: Celt against Celt, (so never mind the real aliens).

We began to work it out with the Saxons and later the Normans, though: to achieve the unity Connolly suggests. But the Marxists have to destroy that, in order to establish themselves. Part of that campaign is to tap the fighting spirit with their labels, and then incite our hatred against each other.

No wonder I never heard about 'hatred' and 'incitement' until they started overworking it!! They're projecting.

13 November 2009 at 03:41  
Blogger ZZMike said...

"The poor you will always have with you – and they shall vote Labour"

We have a similar situation here in the U.S.

The difference is, they vote Democrat.

Perhaps it is the best interests of both Labour and Democrats to insure that the supply of the poor does not dwindle.

15 November 2009 at 05:24  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older