New Labour, New Danger

513-new-labour-800

Over recent weeks I have had a number of people, who admittedly aren’t the most politically active, say to me that for the first time they are actually beginning to feel something is seriously wrong with this country and the way it is being governed. As far as they and indeed many others of us are concerned this country is moving ever closer to totalitarianism, and films such as ‘V for Vandetta’ could well be seen as documentaries.

Whilst I do not believe Britains transition in to a totalitarian dictatorship can or willl be achieved in the next few years, I do believe that crucial precedents are being set which can be used and abused by future governments. Now I am all for defence of the realm. I am all for strong government. But the issue is where to draw the line. Labour fail to see this line and have crossed it on a number of occasions.

The detention of opposition MP’s, its desire to keep tabs on the people through national ID cards or DNA databases, the support of policies such as phone tapping and detention without charge and even their action in the banking crisis leads me and many others to believe that under this government we are heading for a totalitarian regime in the non too distant future. Many of you will be wondering how on earth the economic crisis highlights this governments interfering, totalitarian, bullying nature, well I shall attempt to tell you.

The government has been infuriated by the banks’ unwillingness to lend money readily (even though it was lending money too readily that got them into so much trouble in the first place), so what does the government do? They threaten to take them over. They use the language of moral outrage to justify the threat of nationalisation: the banks are behaving “selfishly” and “irresponsibly” by refusing to offer easier credit (even though it was also “selfish” and irresponsible” of them to offer credit that was too easy)

Such a nationalisation of the banking system constitues nothing less than the true Marxist dream of “seizing the commanding heights of the economy” and taking control of the means of production. And since financial services are now Britain’s most important industry, taking over the banks could be understood as achieving the chief communist goal of taking that vital “ownership of the means of production”.

But no one is going to put it quite like that. The language of all this is terribly important. The Labour stooges of course use the most attractive words, such as “fair” and “progressive” in which to package their repeated attacks on personal freedom and private responsibility. They take even more control of our lives under the guise of ‘national security’. This is where this government is dangerous. In its use of fluffy language to justify totalitarian acts. They are like the wolves in the sheeps colthing. I am fast coming to the conclusion that if we don’t win the next election this country is in serious trouble.

Heres a tip Gordon: Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-four is a novel… not an instruction manual.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “New Labour, New Danger

  1. Yes, because we are the only country in the world who has nationalised the banks! Not one of the banks was forcably nationalised apart from Northern Rock. All the banks had a choice of finding their own funding or having Government funding which was in return for shares. HSBC and Barclays chose not to take this up, other lenders did. You don’t get something for nothing, hence the reason the Government got shares in the companies. Now as shareholders they are making demands on the board, same as every other shareholders do.

    Without an increase in lending from banks, small businesses will collapse, home owners will struggle and the housing market will continue to plummet. It is vital that banks keep the money flowing, hence why the Government is taking the action it does. This is what many other countries are doing as well. The US Government have nationalised the two largest mortgage institutions in the world. To let them collapse would have been catastrophic.

    The consequences of doing nothing would be far greater than the consequences of the Government’s actions. This article to me smacks of a desperate attempt to claw some credability back while the Tories are being thrashed in the polls, with the once huge lead diminishing by the day. I’m not even sure what point the article is trying to make. It starts off with the usual rant at privacy etc and then gets muddled in with the economic climate. There’s even the usual insulting logo at the top, and linking the Labour party to the Nazi party is an act of desperation.

    As for the Sky link, you don’t win an election without the support of The Sun. Hence why David Cameron is doing all he can to butter up Sun readers.

  2. Shall I ignore the transparent attempt to change the subject away from civil liberties to the economy? Yes, because Mark’s ‘analysis’ is so amusing.

    “Not one of the banks was forcably nationalised (apart from Northern Rock).”

    Lol

    “The US Government have nationalised the two largest mortgage institutions in the world.”

    Their mortgage book was already guaranteed by the government…

    “Without an increase in lending from banks, small businesses will collapse, home owners will struggle and the housing market will continue to plummet.”

    This is happening anyway. Your government allowed a credit and asset bubble to happen. You have no idea how banks work and unfortunately neither does the government. We are indeed on the slippery slope to state ownership of banks. An appalling prospect.

    “while the Tories are being thrashed in the polls”

    Roflmao.

  3. Actually PT, it was the original blog entry that raised the economy issue, I merely responded to that. However, don’t let the facts get in the way eh? ;)

    Regarding Freddie Mac and Fannie May, they were nationalised by the US Government. You can argue all you want but that is the bare fact. So it is not just in the UK where nationalisation is on the agenda.

    The Conservative party don’t seem to have an idea on how the banks work either because there are no coherant policies coming from the opposition.

    Regarding the thrashing, not so long ago the Tories were 20% ahead at their best. Now they are as low as 4% ahead. I consider that a thrashing.

    By the way, the Government didn’t order an PM to be arrested, that is the police’s job. They are the ones that keep DNA on file. If the Government was telling people who they could and could not arrest, then that would be a Stalinist state. Good Governments let the police do their job with limited interference.

  4. Do you seriously expect the tories to take lessons on economic from the Labour party?! Don’t forget Mark New Labour only got in to power by promising to rigorously follow and extend Conservative economic policy. Once in government however whilst I agree with some things they did, they tried to put their own little spin on it which has put us in the situation we are in today. They should have done what they said they were going to do, and incidently what they were elected for, which was to follow Conservative economic policy…. at least a Prague states they are picking up on our welfare policy! Its about time ‘on yer bike’ came back….

  5. I’m loving the fact that you introduced Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into your argument. These congressionally chartered organisations are superb examples of why government involvement in banking is damaging and illustrates why the current banking crisis is a failure of socialism not a failure of capitalism.

    You and Brown don’t understand the nature of the problem and as a result are both proposing remedies that are 180 degrees away from what is needed.

  6. There is a polite convention in British politics that we assume our opponents, however misguided, to be well-intentioned. I know it is a terrible thing to believe anyone capable of deliberately promoting human misery for political profit, but having grown up in the Labour heartlands, I am afraid I do. The greatest threat to the future of the Labour Party is prosperity. Apart from a few tens of thousands of votes from eccentric aristocrats and Guardian-reading, middle-class sentimentalists, Labour depends on the votes of two categories of people; state employees and the poor. It is in the interests of the Labour Party to maximise the numbers of both. Like Karen Matthews, whom it resembles in so many ways, the Labour Party is a “rational actor.”

    Tom Paine

  7. The poor are defined by the fact that they have much less than average. Are you suggesting that we should equalise wealth across the country?

  8. “Do you seriously expect the tories to take lessons on economic from the Labour party?! Don’t forget Mark New Labour only got in to power by promising to rigorously follow and extend Conservative economic policy. ”

    Considering the rehtoric that was being spouted by the Tories in 1997, that’s hardly a convincing assertion. Many of Michael Foot’s ideas had been ditched but that doesn’t mean that Labour’s promises were inherently Thatcherite.

  9. “You and Brown don’t understand the nature of the problem and as a result are both proposing remedies that are 180 degrees away from what is needed.”

    Neither does David Cameron because he doesn’t care about the people who are suffering, just strengthening his core vote. There’s only a bunch of half baked policies that have been rubbished. If you’re trying to tell me Cameron understands what’s needed then you’re as deluded as you seem to think I am.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s