However, Fraser Nelson has written a piece for the Spectator in which he assesses Labour according to its own definition of success or failure - i.e. has it helped the poor? Like him, I would be willing to grant Labour some credit if, despite screwing up the country for the rest of us, they had managed to lift some deserving people from suffering. However, his analysis shows that they have not only failed to do so, they have actually made things worse. Unsurprisingly, this process of hurting the poor has accelerated under our Dear Leader The Appointed One.
Just take one of his graphs, that showing "inequality" by Labour's preferred definition, the Gini index:
Yes, there is inequality, rising dramatically under Thatcher, staying steady under Major, and then continuing to rise from 1997 onwards - particularly during Brown's years as PM.
So, even on their own figures, marked against their own score-card, Labour are failures. Utter failures.
Time, I think, to return to capitalism. I've never claimed that it is a perfect system, but as a method of lifting people out of poverty, it offers more help to more of the poor than any other method. Why is why my contempt for socialism is so deep, and so visceral.
O/T but the new citizenship test is up for your attempt.
ReplyDeleteNew citizenship test
Yesterday, in the House of Lords, the Government opposed an amendment protecting free speech. It seems that even if they have lost interest in the poor, Labour have maintained that traditional Soviet need to control the thoughts of the people.
ReplyDeleteThe weather is better under Labour, and England has only ever won the world cup under Labour!
ReplyDeleteYou make an interesting points, but there is a contradiction in your argument. You despise socialism and yet express your disappointment regarding the failure of Labour's policies. :-)
ReplyDeleteMay I extend your reasoning?
1. Identifying a problem is halfway to solving it. Given how definitions and underlying data can be manipulated, perhaps civil servants have had enough of their masters and/or can disguise the situation no longer. Definitely time for a new government.
2. Mr Nelson, the hero of the hour, should identify where these trillions have gone. Namely:
i) subsidising the US by way of mortgage-back securities
ii) to China and elsewhere funding consumerism for imported goods
iii) the repatriation of funds to Asia, Eastern Europe and Africa owing to families, wars and subsidies.
None of these in themselves are bad as they benefit people but at the cost of the population of the UK, especially the poor. A government's responsibility is to safeguard the interests of the country.
3. The UK now has a significant unskilled underclass that will be a burden on society for generations. We need to adopt a robust approach to compel these people to attend mandatory adult education classes. Yes, socialism, but targeted, delegated to a local level (not just through government agencies) and designed to impart self respect, discipline and understanding to all those involved.
Will someone give me a job now?
You misunderstand me, Measured. I despise socialism, but accept that others have opinions that differ from mine.
ReplyDeleteSo, setting my own views aside for a moment, I looked at Labour's record and measured it (as it were) against their own standards and their own aims. Even on that basis, they fail miserably.
Of coursde, the reason they fail is that their approach to solving poverty is intrinsically wrong; being based on socialist principles, it must be. So the outcome of the exercise is to confirm my contempt for socialism.
Your analysis is interesting; it would be a good line of enquiry to investigate. From my own perspective, if those trillions have gone to the Eastern poor, then that is good. They will have gone there, of course, because those governments adopted (some) capitalist/free trade principles, which is of course illuminating!
Blue - Quite! Of course, the last really good summer was 1976! Maybe you are on to something?
Albert - sad but true. They are here to control us and spend our money for us on things they wnt it spent on, principally to keep them in power. The mask has slipped?
Bill - as I posted on your thread, your version is much better than the official one. I commend all my readers to try it!
Ah yes, so what you should also have pointed out is that
ReplyDelete4) capitalism strengthens the value of a currency which in turn raises the standard of living for the entire population in a number of ways.
Labour have allowed others to benefit during a period of such prosperity, and yes, not those that they targeted.