The link between immigration, unemployment and the culpability of the last Labour government

What more needs to be said? The change in immigration policy as Labour tried to 'rub the right's nose in diversity' and to create a Labour voting client state of white British on benefits, whilst also increasing the profits of their corporate donors, was a disgrace and in a sane world would see Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the rest of those responsible on trial for their crimes against the country.

A national broadcaster interested in truth and fairness not attacking Conservatives at every turn and in supporting multiculturalism no matter what would give these sort of figures large exposure but the BBC have an agenda so this news will disappear almost without trace.

When local councils cut front line services remember this - 'Local authorities have taken on an extra 180,000 workers since 1997, with the total number not employed in traditional front-line roles now standing at almost 750,000, according to ministers. '

The Telegraph reports that:

'Local authorities have taken on an extra 180,000 workers since 1997, with the total number not employed in traditional front-line roles now standing at almost 750,000, according to ministers.

...

Bob Neill, the local government minister, said: “These figures reveal the explosion in town hall jobs and bureaucracy under Labour and reinforce the need for some councils to start cutting out middle management.

“Crazy non-jobs like cheerleading development officers and press officers tasked with spinning propaganda on bin collections provide no value to the public.

...

According to the data, the number of people employed by local authorities in Britain stood at 2,728,000 in 1997 when Labour came to power. Last year the figure was 2,907,000.

There were 741,702 people on council payrolls who were not in traditional “front- line” jobs such as those in education, social services, recreation, libraries, planning, environmental health, culture, heritage or trading standards.'

This rise in the numbers of back-room staff employed in local councils and other state owned enterprises (especially the NHS) was a deliberate policy of the Blair/Brown axis of evil. They were trying to create as large a client-state as possible and that included paying people to do politically correct non-jobs as well as feather-bedding the unemployed. Of course Labour councils will try and cut front-line jobs as that affects the local residents more and, they hope, will create more anti-Conservative sentiment.

'Sixty years it has taken, just two generations of Fabian Government to turn us from strong, reliable, honest, brave, hardworking individuals to frail, dependent, high maintenance, benefit addicted little cogs in the huge State machine, serviced by an army of "maintenance" engineers.'

Old Holborn is not happy with what happens 'When the state boots out the concept of self responsibility and becomes the parent' because then 'citizens become children'. Do read the whole piece, there is much truth in it.

'Sixty years it has taken, just two generations of Fabian Government to turn us from strong, reliable, honest, brave, hardworking individuals to frail, dependent, high maintenance, benefit addicted little cogs in the huge State machine, serviced by an army of "maintenance" engineers.

Instead of breaking the chains, we simply demand more oil on them. We really do deserve everything we have coming to us, just as the spoilt brat eventually finds out he is no longer the centre of the universe, our citizens are about to hit the brick wall of the real world. There's nothing left for the State to bribe us with. It spent all our money doing exactly that. Ask Ed Balls.'

Nearly but it's actually worse than that

David Vance on A Tangled Web picks up on something that is in today's Express newspaper:

' Britain’s culture of benefits dependency is exposed today as new figures show 1.6 million “workers” never had a job.

Relying on the rest working hard to pay their way, it is now clear that generations have embraced a life of idleness funded by the taxpayer.

The findings will appal the millions of families who are seeing their wages plundered by the Government to meet the country’s £200billion annual welfare bill. And they reveal an urgent need for reform if Britain is to claw its way out of recession and wean people off state-funded handouts.

Analysis by the Department of Work and Pensions shows that more than 700,000 young people between 16 and 24 have not held a job, while more than 800,000 adults from 25 to 64 survive on benefits. The 2010 data shows an increase of 300,000 non-workers on the 2009 total when 1.3 million people were recorded as never having had a job.'

David Vance writes:

'So, we have 1.6 million who don’t/won’t work meanwhile we have over a million coming into the UK to do the jobs that allegedly Brits won’t do? It all sounds rather odd. The facts are simple. Labour created a dependency culture, many embraced it, the cost is massive and it has to come to a shuddering halt. If people will not work, the State does not owe them a living. Under Labour, the UK became the sick man of Europe, again.'

He's right, but it is worse than that, Labour have created a 'client state' of people dependant on state benefits, those who enjoy the fruits of immigration and those paid by the state to manage the whole system. This 'client state' votes Labour and is what kept the Conservatives from forming a government by themselves. Until this issue is tackled this will be a one term Conservative lead government, however dire a Labour leader Ed Miliband is.

Building a client state - US style

Last year I blogged about Barack Obama creating a client state in the USA just as Tony Blair's government did in the UK. Last week I blogged about Barack Obama's Democratis party's plans to '...drastically transform America’s population through mass immigration in order to guarantee their own and their allies’ dominance in U.S. government, society, and culture. The plot itself is simple: reshape the American electorate through mass immigration to reduce the political clout of the native white middle class.'

So I was unsurprised to read on Fox that:

'The Obama administration has been holding behind-the-scenes talks to determine whether the Department of Homeland Security can unilaterally grant legal status on a mass basis to illegal immigrants, a former Bush administration official who spoke with at least three people involved in those talks told FoxNews.com.

The issue was raised publicly by eight Republican senators who wrote to the White House on Monday to complain that they had heard the administration was readying a "Plan B" in case a comprehensive immigration reform bill cannot win enough support to clear Congress.

The White House would not confirm or deny the claim. It's unclear what section of the illegal immigrant population such a move would target. But the former Bush official said the discussions are real.

"The administration at the very minimum is studying legal ways to legalize people without having to go through any congressional debate about it," the source said, calling the senators' claim credible. "Whether somebody pulls the trigger on that, that's another issue." '

Ensuring an enduring Democratic party government, will they get away with it?

Thanks Gordon

Burning Our Money has the details behind this video showing how much time it takes every day to pay the taxes levied on us to support Labour's client state.

Does Gordon Brown really think we are stupid

Gordon Brown's comments on Government Waste are widely recorded today and I found this passage almost beyond belief:

"Money which should be spent on health, schools, policing and social services is in some cases going on excessive salaries and unjustified bonuses far beyond the expectations of the majority of workers. This culture of excess must change and will change."

Has Gordon Brown really just worked out that not all of his 'investment' was going to front line services and some might possibly be being spent on highly paid Labour voting bureaucrats? This pretence anger at the waste that he has discovered really angers me. The man has deliberately created a Labour client state with our money and now he seems to think that we will believe him when he seems to state that it all grew up without his knowledge.

Creating an American "client state"

Just as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown used public spending to create a Labour voting client state, Barack Obama is trying the same trick in America. As Mark Steyn writes:

"If you expand the bureaucratic class and you expand the dependent class, you can put together a permanent electoral majority. By “dependent”, I don’t mean merely welfare, although that’s a good illustration of the general principle. In political terms, a welfare check is a twofer: you’re assuring the votes both of the welfare recipient and of the vast bureaucracy required to process his welfare. But extend that principle further, to the point where government intrudes into everything: a vast population is receiving more from government (in the form of health care or education subventions) than it thinks it contributes, while another vast population is managing the ever expanding regulatory regime (a federal energy-efficiency code, a government health bureaucracy) and another vast population remains, nominally, in the private sector but, de facto, dependent on government patronage of one form or another – say, the privately owned franchisee of a government automobile company, or the designated “community assistance” organization for helping poor families understand what programs they’re eligible for. Either way, what you get from government – whether in the form of a government paycheck, a government benefit or a government contract – is a central fact of your life."

The land of the free is about to become the land of state dependency; welcome to socialism America.

Soft jobs or non-jobs?

This pathetic excuse for a Government is now set on spending £1 billion on creating tens of thousands of "soft" public sector jobs for unemployed people including dance assistants, tourism ambassadors and solar panel engineers. The Telegraph reports that:

"The taxpayer-funded jobs are being created by councils, quangos and charities under a Government scheme to remove 150,000 people from the unemployment register over the next two years.

The first 47,000 jobs in the scheme, costing about £300 million, are to be announced on Wednesday by Yvette Cooper, the Work and Pensions Secretary."

Yes this Labour government, who have bloated the public sector to unprecedented levels, have now decided that the best path to follow is to bloat it some more. A non-job is not a job it is a way of reducing the unemployment figures and maybe persuading people provided with such non-jobs to vote Labour in order to keep their jobs.

What more strokes will this Labour government try and pull next?

Cricket as a metaphor for the Welfare State

A Very British Dude manages it quite well, here's two extracts:

"So like the ICB trying to make the supposedly more exciting game even more exciting, the Labour Government tinkered with the rules. Seeing "a problem" that there are some people who don't earn very much, it was decided to give those people money. So that this could be targeted at labour voters the most needy, the system designed was incredibly bureaucratic. Because of the bureaucracy in accessing the rest of the benefits system, people choose not to take up work because of lost benefits, because short periods of temporary work just do not pay; or they decide to work cash-in-hand. To counter this, Labour forces its clients to accept unsuitable work, and criminalises those who take cash in hand."



So just as Cricket authorities spoiled the game to satisfy their hard-on for television ratings, Labour, in attempting to make the unequal equal have turned the UK into a hellish panopticon, causing misery for all. Of course, of the two problems, the growth of so much limited overs cricket is by far the more serious of the problems, cricket being cricket, whereas politics is, well just politics."

Do read the whole piece...

Some confusion?

The BBC loyally report that:

"Gordon Brown has insisted Britain has the resources "to do the job" in Afghanistan, amid claims troops serving there are under-equipped.

The prime minister told MPs helicopter numbers had increased 60% since 2006 and UK forces were the best equipped they had been in 40 years. "

Apparently:

"In his statement, Mr Brown said troop levels were kept under review but he had been assured by commanders on the ground, and top level military chiefs, that they had the manpower needed "for the current operations"

Meanwhile it seems that last month, military chiefs were dismayed to learn their requests for 2,000 more troops had been turned down because of a Treasury spending cap. So which is true? Have military chiefs said they have sufficient manpower or have they asked for more? Is this another "Brownie"?

Gordon Brown has wasted billions of our money, not his, by spending (sorry "investing") to make him popular and help to create a Labour voting client state, meanwhile the armed forces doing this Government's bidding are under-resourced and under-manned. The next time Gordon Brown gets up at PMQs and leads with his condolences on the death of yet another British serviceman in Iraq or Afghanistan, a serviceman whose death will likely be at least partly, due to his parsimony, I suggest that someone raise a point of order on just that matter - a person partially responsible for the death of a British serviceman should not be the one to lead the recognition.

Gordon Brown is odious, almost beyond belief. I thought I detested Tony Blair, and I did and still do, but Gordon Brown reaches new levels of vileness almost daily.

Where is the money coming from

As I listened to Gordon Brown's launch of "Building Britain's future" one phrase kept coming into my mind - "Where is the money coming from". The UK is massively in debt, the governor of the Bank of England and the OECD call for spending cuts but Gordon Brown is going to ignore every expert and spend spend spend. Is he that stupid? Is he that delusional? Actually the answer is probably "no". I think Gordon Brown knows exactly what he is doing and the proof is coming out with his guarantees of personal tutors, his guarantees of no more than two weeks waiting times to see cancer specialists. Gordon Brown is attempting to raise spending as much as possible before the general election so that the required spending cuts will be even larger than would currently be required. Thus the Labour party and the BBC will be able to decry evil Tory cuts and as the necessary medicine is administered to the economy, Labour will sit and wait for the next general election when they will try to compare Tory cuts with what life "would have been like under Labour". The trouble is having built up an enormous Labour client state this tactic will probably work.

What is poverty?

According to Barnardos:

"The main poverty line used in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the European Union is a relative poverty measure, a level of income set at 60 per cent of the median household income."

So for Barnados poverty is a relative measure, which makes the end of the Barnados article all the more interesting:

"In 1999, the then Prime Minister, Rt Hon Tony Blair MP, made an historic pledge to end child poverty within a generation – by 2020. The milestones along the way involve reducing child poverty by 25 per cent by 2004/05 and halving it by 2010."

If poverty is a relative measure then how can child poverty be ended? Presumably Tony Blair was as serious about this promise as most of his others...

Barnados then report on "How are we doing?":

"* The first target to lift 1 million children out of poverty by 2004/05, was missed by 300,000. It will now be even harder to reduce poverty as the easiest to reach families have already been helped.
* To meet the 2010 target, the number of children in poverty must fall to 1.7 million, currently 2.9 million (before housing costs). On current policies this will not be achieved."

How appalling, the UK is failing to meet an artificially set impossible target to cut poverty. So why set the target? The answer come next: "What else do we need to do?"

"* In order to meet the 2010 target, £3 billion must be invested in tax credits. In order to meet the target, this money must, at the very latest, be committed in the 2009 budget.
* Meeting the 2020 target will take much more than simple redistribution. Focusing on making work pay; sustainable and progressive jobs; and adequate, appropriate and affordable childcare will be vital."

Some good old-fashioned Labour redistribution of income allied with increasing the size of Gordon Brown's Labour voting client-state; doesn't it make you proud to be British?

News roundup

What a busy day, so here are some snippets:

1. British Public Sector Debt 'To Hit £180bn' - Sky report that:

"British public sector debt is set to balloon to a colossal £180bn as the recession worsens in the next financial year, experts have warned.

The prediction by a leading independent forecasting body suggests the Government will have to borrow some 12.6% of GDP in 2009/10 to counter a rapid surge in unemployment, a sharp increase in spending and a plunge in tax receipts.

Borrowing nearly double the amount taken from the public funds this financial year would leave the Government a miniscule amount for further stimulus efforts, economists from Ernst and Young's ITEM Club said.

"The public finances are continuing to deteriorate at an alarming rate and as the economy continues to shrink, the outlook is bleak," said the ITEM Club."

Can you say the word "bankrupt"?


2. The BBC report that Labour

"Employment minister Tony McNulty has said he did nothing wrong by claiming second-home expenses on a London house where his parents live.

He received allowances worth thousands of pounds for the property in his Harrow East constituency, which is eight miles from his main home."

Are they all at it?


3. The BBC report

"The UK is planning an updated anti-terror strategy aimed at tackling the immediate threat of terrorism and the longer-term causes of extremism.

The Home Office says the proposal would give the UK the most comprehensive counter-terror strategy in the world. "

A Gordon Brown "junta" with a new "anti-terror strategy", now why does that instill me with a sense of fear rather than reassurance?


4. Technology to the rescue as CTV reports that:

"A Concordia university student is being credited with foiling a troubled British teen's plot to firebomb his high school.

J.P. Neufeld, a music student, had logged onto an online chat forum over breakfast Tuesday when he spotted the threat to burn down Attleborough High School in Norfolk.

He took it seriously and immediately called local police using his Internet phone service after doing a quick Web search to find the phone number.

Within half an hour, Norfolk Constabulary officers had seized a 16-year-old at the doors of the school. The teen was carrying a knife, matches and a canister of fuel. Police later searched the boy's home and confiscated his computer.

The teen, identified only as T.B., was arrested on suspicion of threats to commit criminal damage and possession of an offensive weapon. He's in custody under the U.K.'s Mental Health Act. "

5. The Times reports that:

"WHEN the White House announced last week that President Barack Obama will be returning to the nation’s television screens on Tuesday for a prime-time press conference that will postpone the latest episode of American Idol - the talent show watched by 25m viewers - fans of the programme were quick to respond.

“Stop, please stop, Mr O, we can’t take much more,” one angry viewer wrote on an Idol-related website. “Not again!” complained another. “It’s the same speech he’s been giving for the past year.”

There were dark mutterings that by commandeering evening programming only a few days after he appeared on Jay Leno’s popular late-night chat show, Obama was “just like Fidel Castro [of Cuba] and Hugo Chavez [of Venezuela] - always on camera, always giving speeches and lecturing”.

The barbed response to the prospect of yet another mass-media dose of Obama’s economic prescriptions underlined the dangers the president is facing as he struggles to sell his recovery efforts to a country seething with anger and anxiety over the costs, effectiveness and potential abuse of the government’s trillion-dollar bailout programme. "

Are the masses realising that President Obama may not be the answer to everything?



6. The Times reports the totally surprising news that: "Minister in charge of offshore clampdown ran tax haven firm"

Apparently:

"THE government minister in charge of stamping out corporate tax avoidance has himself set up a business in the tax haven of Bermuda. Lord Myners, already under fire for approving Sir Fred Goodwin’s massive pension from Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), was part-time chairman of an offshore company which avoided more than £100m a year in taxes.

Details of Myners’s involvement in Aspen Insurance Holdings (AIH) have emerged as Gordon Brown seeks to win the backing of heads of government to prise open tax havens at a meeting of the G20 in London on April 2.

Myners, who earned nearly £200,000 from AIH in one year, is also facing questions over share options he accrued during five years as chairman of the Bermuda-based company. Accounts for AIH show that at the end of 2007 Myners held 318,338 share options. On Friday the shares, which are listed on the New York Stock Exchange, closed at $21.64, which would value that stake at £4.8m.

Myners, financial services secretary to the Treasury and former chairman of the Guardian Media Group, was awarded the majority of the share options at an exercise price of $16.20 a share in August 2003, a year after he helped to start the company.

When he stepped down in May 2007 he was given until August 2008 to buy the shares. If he had bought the shares between January and August last year, when Aspen’s share price fluctuated between $22.59 and $29.90, he would have made a profit of between £1m and £2.1m.

When approached by The Sunday Times on Friday morning, Myners declined to say whether he had exercised the shares. On Saturday afternoon a Treasury spokesman said that Myners had not exercised the share options and owned no stock in Aspen. "

Are they all at it?


7. The Telegraph reports the unsurprising news that: "Labour spends 'more on rail consultants than trains' " Apparently:

"Outside advisers on the new intercity train earned £6.7 million from the Department for Transport between late 2005 and December 2007, the Government said in a parliamentary written reply.

This figure soared to £14.94 million in the period between December 2007 and January this year.

More than £2 million was spent on financial advice alone as the Government decided on which consortium was to provide a replacement to the ageing intercity fleet.

The final decision was delayed and then the Government ran into criticism over handing the £7.5 billion contract to a Japanese-led consortium at a time when unemployment in Britain was rising.

Theresa Villiers, the Tories' transport spokesman, condemned the Government for spending millions of pounds on outside advice during the current economic climate.

"I was staggered to learn that Labour has chosen to double the money spent on consultants for the IEP during such a serious economic recession," she said. "

How do we rid ourselves of this incompetent Labour rabble that are spending our money on fripperies and building a client state to ensure that the UK "enjoys" a perpetual Labour government?

Just remind me what the official language of this Country is

The Mail reports that:

"One in seven primary school pupils does not speak English as a first language.

The number who normally speak a foreign language rose last year to 565,888 - 14.3 per cent of the total.

In some areas, English is a foreign language to more than 70 per cent of four to 11-year-olds, putting enormous pressure on teaching staff. And there are ten schools without a single pupil who has English as a first language, new figures show. "

"The soaring figures reflect the fact that immigration into the UK is now five times higher than when Labour came to power in 1997. Net immigration has increased from 48,000 that year to 237,000 in 2007. "

"In the London borough of Tower Hamlets, only 23 per cent of pupils speak English as their first language.

At one school, Nelson Primary in East London, three-quarters of pupils are not native English speakers and some 56 different languages are spoken."

And under the heading of "too little, too late" comes this:

"Communities Secretary Hazel Blears will tomorrow call for an 'honest debate' about the pressures that migration can put on local public services.

She will announce that anyone from outside the EU applying for a student or work visa will be required to pay a special tax levied on migrants.

The cash produced by this will go to local authorities who are currently struggling to cope with the impact of immigration on their schools, GP surgeries and other public services.

Ministers hope the tax will raise £70million over the next two years."

Unemployment

It's as though the Labour Government had never existed! If only that was the case, but news that unemployment was back over two million for the first time since 1997 does make a point I feel. Of course real unemployment is well above the three million predicted for next year and is probably nearer five million by the time you take into account the other economically inactive hidden from the official unemployment statistics by various ruses.

Of course Gordon Brown's client state is unaffected as the ONS data shows that whilst the number of people in employment in the private sector employment dropped by 13,000 to 23.6 million, the number of people with public sector jobs rose 15,000 to 5.78 million. Got to keep those Labour voters happy.

Two interesting pieces of Opinion Poll news

The first is from America and relates to the US Presidential elections. From the BBC coverage of these elections you would assume that a Barack Obama victory was a dead-cert as almost every interviewee expresses a preference for Obama. However I see on Gallup that

"Obama Has Modest 4-Point Lead" and that "Barack Obama maintains a modest 46% to 42% lead over John McCain among registered voters nationally in Gallup Poll Daily tracking, with no sign yet of a significant "bounce" from Obama's high-visibility world tour."

Meanwhile I noticed a very telling remark on Political Betting where in an article on the latest MORO opinion polls I read (my emphasis)"

These are the figures with comparisons on a month ago CON 47% (+2): LAB 27% (-2): LD 15% (-2). These figures, like all MORI surveys are based on those “certain to vote”. The fieldwork ended on July 20th - so it’s up to date.

The pollster which is the only one that does not applying a political weighting to its samples. has undergone a major methodological review which took place following the London Mayoral election. All surveys are now done by telephone and the pollster takes measures to ensure that it is not over-representing public sector workers in its samples.

Now why would not over-representing public sector workers be important? Could it be that Gordon Brown's client state is more likely to vote for the hand that feeds it than the rest of the population?