The Collapse of Labour Party Credibility and Principles
By Peter Mills MA PhD.
I can remember the poster shown in the banner of this article. We saw it here and there on walls and windows. I lived in London before I retired and as World War 2 ended the Labour Party made great sweeping promises about elevating the ordinary British People, giving us all jobs, homes and social security, and placing the interests of the British People above those of any other country in the world.
Great promises. And we believed them! We actually believed them – we poor fools! Small wonder, in the face of such propaganda, that the Saviour of Britain Winston Churchill lost the general election of 1945 to the landslide victory of Clement Attlee, when Labour won 393 seats to the Tory’s 197.
(The Liberals, with an amusing 12 seats, were then – as now in their new LibDem disguise – a party of sad self-deluded losers who counted for nothing – no change there, then. Do you remember the name Winston Churchill? Do you remember the name Clement Attlee? Do you remember the name Archibald Sinclair? Who? He was leader of the Liberal Party at that time, the 1945 version of Nick Clegg. His biggest achievement was to be defeated in his own constituency, where he accomplished the rather astonishing feat of coming third.)
In those dim and distant days, Labour did some good things for British society. The National Health Service was the envy of the world. Unemployment Benefit (known affectionately as The Dole) was introduced. Affordable Council Housing replaced slum tenements and endless acres of filthy Victorian hovels (the posher hovels had outside toilets in a shed in the garden. The poorer ones shared a communal toilet and cold tap on a standpipe used by perhaps ten families). Council Housing gave many thousands of British families a bathroom and hot water for the first time – we thought we had died and gone to heaven! This was the good side of Labour.
Then it all went wrong. In 1964 Labour Party Leader Harold Wilson became Prime Minister and immediately (amongst many disastrous measures) greatly relaxed the laws governing immigration and capital punishment, so that murderers could no longer be hanged for deliberately depriving someone else of their own life. Unable to understand the more complex convolutions of world economic factors, Wilson’s solution to the problem of Britain’s balance of trade deficit – that is, why Britain’s foreign sales brought in less money than the sales of Britain’s exports so that the country went further and further into debt – was not to raise the price of exports but, instead, to famously devalue the pound sterling, making the pound worth less and thereby making our prices to foreign markets more attractive.
This cure turned out to be worse than the illness. In a 1967 radio broadcast, which I also remember clearly, Harold Wilson spoke to the nation, assuring us that this devaluation of sterling “…will not affect the pound in your pocket!” In fact, the value of the “pound in your pocket” has been shriveling continuously ever since. That’s why a loaf of bread in 1967 cost about five pence (that stupid little tiny coin we still have which looks like an undernourished proper sixpenny piece) and today can cost over £1. Of course, wages have risen as well, so that the average wage packet today can probably purchase as many loaves of bread as the average wage packet in 1967.
On the strength of rising wage packages, house prices have also rocketed. Can this be a good thing for the ordinary British citizen? My father proudly bought our family a 4-bedroom semi-detached house in Greenwich, London, in 1948 for £560. He was a company director and earned the executive salary of £25 per week, before stoppages as we used to say. On this scale, it would take less than 6 month’s total salary to purchase a 4-bedroom house. My dad paid it all off in 7 years. Earlier this year, our same old family home was sold. It went for £450,000. To buy the house in a six-month period today, then, you would have to be paying-off some £18,750 per week. (All prices here, of course, are not including any interest.)
So – has today’s rose-tinted (or at any rate, rose-emblem) Labour Party managed to fight its way out of the wet paper bag it has been imprisoned in since the 1960s? Clearly, it has not. Despite getting more votes than any other party in the recent local council elections, their overall popularity is not such a big percentage as it was in 1945, so it is therefore true to state that their downhill slalom is still ongoing.
The best example of the mental, sociological and political ineptitude of today’s Labour Party comes – as I suppose it ought to – from its current leader and chief spokesperson, Ed Milliband. His inability to understand politics, the British people and the best policies to preserve the integrity of our country is nothing short of breathtaking. As quoted by the BBC on their website (1), when confronted with the proportionately poor number of votes cast for Labour councilors nationwide, he retorted that “…the results were not a reflection on his leadership” and that “…discontent had been building-up for decades about the way the country has been run” and “…about the way our economy works and people feeling that the country just doesn’t work for them.”
Err – hang on Mister Milliband! Who was governing this country for the last decade or so? From May 1st 1997 to May 5th 2010 we had over a decade and a half of Labour government… So your excuse, Mister Milliband, is rather like the nose blaming the feet for running into a lamp-post!
Please God, let Britain not have another Labour government! Or another Tory government! Or another coalition… What Britain desperately needs in order to survive AS Britain and begin to repair the damage inflicted upon our country over the last 70 years is a Nationalist government.
I doubt that I will live to see the general election after the next one in 2015, but for the sake of my descendents, I hope they can manage to break out of the slave-like chains binding them to Europe and to the three traitorous “mainstream” political parties who between them have succeeded in wrecking Britain for the British even more thoroughly than Hitler managed! The idea of a Cameron, a Clegg or a Milliband as the next prime minister is totally abhorrent.
(1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27542435
3
I hope you do live on, but the Conservatives and associates won 213 seats in 1945,not 197.
Thanks Mark. I need to point out that I took my information from the website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1945 which gives the 1945 election results (in the big “Results” box beneath the write-up and “contents” box) as: “Labour: Standing, 603; Elected, 393; Gained, 242; Unseated. 3; Net, +239” and; “Conservative: Standing, 559; Elected, 197; Gained, 14; Unseated, 204; Net, -190.” 2 “Independent Conservatives” were also elected, but as these were outside the party and therefore also outside the Party Whip, they need to be listed separately.
(Party Member) What a superb article ! When young I could not understand how Winston Churchill , having won the war, lost that General Election. As, aged fifteen, I started to ‘ read up ‘ on my interest in Politics I soon realised the social forces at work. People now wanted better. After forty years of striving for Nationalism I believe that we have ‘ turned the corner ‘ and our time is now. Traditional Labour and Conservative voters are starting to break ranks, because they want better. Liberalism is in decline and with ‘ false flag Nigel ‘ opening the door for us, we need to step up to the mark, with our decent British Democratic Party.
I too think things have turned a corner but too much change at once is simply too unsettling for most people. They are dipping a toe in the water of change with UKIP but cautiously not committing themselves to anything too radical.
Nationalists tend to demand of voters an embracing of their world being turned upside down all at once. And then get annoyed when the public are reticent.
Nationalists tend to make the perfect the enemy of the good.
(Party Member) Good point mike, however I still think IF YOU LIKE UKIP,YOU WILL LOVE THE BRITISH DEMOCRATS is a great slogan and sums up our way forward.
The Labour Party encouraged people to think that getting an ever increasing standard of living was a lot easier than it actually is. All you had to do was soak ‘the rich’ because money grew on trees or was magicalLy produced in factories regardless of how many strikes there were. And regardless of competition from Japan and elsewhere.
And hence credit card living and running up huge national debts which will pass the burden onto future generations. Meantime, we must pay the interest on this debt which has more than doubled since the present government came into power.
We are told the interest rates will be around 3 per cent in two or three years. When they rise to this level, the cost of servicing both the public and private debts will produce excruciating pain on the people of Britain,
Whilst the setting-up of the NHS and a decent welfare state were very good achievements of the post-war Labour government they should have attended to Britain’s economic difficulties first in order to provide a firm foundation for the financing of them.
The problem with socialists is whilst their hearts are occasionally in the right place they often forget that money doesn’t grow on trees as you say and they failed to prepare this country adequately for competition from the nationalist ‘Japan First’ economic policies of post-war Japanese governments and replicate them here so that Britain could compete with that country. Mind you, that is a fault of all the globalist parties not just Labour.
As Margaret Thatcher cleverly put it, ‘ the problem with socialism is that eventually they run out of other people’s money’
Indeed.
(Party Member) The myths invented and perpetuated by the Labour Party have always infuriated me. Although the worst one is ” We are a Nation of Immigrants and they have always been here and we would be lost without them “. The concept and structure of the N.H.S. was created by an all party committee, set up by Winston Churchill. I remember reading of this, many years ago. The arrangement was that whoever won the next general election after the war, would bring in the new creation, called the National Health Service. The Labour Party won the election and duly introduced the fantastic idea. They have always claimed the idea as their own and that they are the only ones in favour of it and therefore the only ones to be trusted with it ! What a myth. Had Churchill won that election he would have introduced it as arranged ! The N.H.S. does not belong to the Labour Party, but to all of us.
The Labour party has truly lost its way. Mind you, the Conservatives are no better either. We must never forget that it was they who started mass immigration from the Commonwealth, and it was they who took us into the EU (Common Market). The Labour party have followed on from their disastrous and anti-British policies by adopting the same plans, for different reasons of course. The LibDems aren’t even worth a mention.
Peter is right, of course, that we desperately need a Nationalist government. The traitors of the LIbLabCon have damaged Britain so much, and made the lives of its native people miserable in so many places, that any more of their globalist policies may well bury us for good. UKIP have made advances but we have yet to see if this is merely a protest or not. I have my eyes on next Thursdays by-election in Newark. Let’s see how much people really want a change. UKIP are not what their voters think they are, we know that, but when voters break decades of habitual voting for the LibLabCon this can only be positive for a newer party like the British Democrats. Our goal now must be to grow as rapidly as possible and get well-known by the electorate. To remain a small and unknown party is simply wasting our time dreaming.
(Party Member) I agree with Geoff Crompton that ” our goal now must be to grow as rapidly as possible and get well known by the electorate. To remain a small and unknown Party is simply wasting our time dreaming.” There is no possibility of a merger between Nationalist Party’s and movements and the old Party will ALWAYS be controlled by Mr. Griffin. We need to up the pace now in our own right and to this end I hope we open a Press Office next week. Like Ukip, then you will Love the British Democrats !
If Scotland votes for independence then England becomes independent whether the English like it or not. It may give everyone a chance to cast the dice again and maybe win a better future.
This isn’t true. The United Kingdom will continue even if the Scots do (very sadly) leave. It is Great Britain that will end on September the 18th this year if the Scots unfortunately fall for Salmond’s spin.
Remember, the Union comprises the people of Northern Ireland and the people of Wales too!
The former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ended in 1922 when the 26 counties of what is now the Republic of Ireland SECEDED from it. A few years later (1927) the resultant state was renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
If they vote Yes, then Scotland will SECEDE from the United Kingdom and will form a new state in international law and we in the rest of the present United Kingdom will form the new continuator state:
http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scotland-analysis-devolution-and-the-implications-of-scottish-independence
http://www.gov.uk/government/collections/scotland-analysis
http://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com
However, if they do leave then the United Kingdom will be effectively destroyed in all but name. It will stagger on for a few years probably and then end totally.
If Scotland leaves the UK then it consists of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. As a British Nationalist and Unionist, I would turn the clock back, abolish Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies, back to pre-1964 counties and boroughs with six county councils in Northern Ireland, election by STV with referenda on major issues, and one system for the whole country combining the best of the English, Scottish and Northern Irish systems.
What is happening at the moment in Scotland is that they are still on the ‘slippery slope’ towards outright separation which they have been on for at least the last twenty-odd years and some would say considerably longer. John Major got few things right when he was PM but he did warn that devolution could prove to be this ‘slippery slope’ and instead of ‘killing nationalism (or more accurately separatism) stone dead’ it would instead embolden it still further.
If they do reject separation, then we might need to have some sort of written constitution defining Holyrood’s powers because there does need to be a point where this devolutionary journey ends instead of just giving it more and more powers till you reach separation.
Just a thought which occurred to me – if Scotland leaves the United Kingdom, and if the remaining UK afterwards manages to quit the EU, then the English, Welsh and Irish would need passports and probably visas to enter Scotland. Nice one!
According to Mr Salmond, we’re all be a part of the Common Travel Area (CTA) but that depends very much how he approaches the subject of immigration in an ‘independent’ Scotland. If he intends to be very liberal (that is his aim) then we in the ‘RUK’ would have little alternative but to impose border controls ON OUR SIDE of the border in order to maintain the integrity of OUR borders.
Simply put, Mr Salmond and the SNP haven’t really thought through all the possible consequences of what they are proposing. He still hasn’t come-up with a viable ‘Plan B’ for his currency options! The SNP still reckon there is a chance of a durable currency union using the pound Sterling as at present even though it has been categorically ruled-out by George Osbourne, Ed Balls, Danny Alexander, and the most senior civil servant at the Treasury (the Permanent Secretary) who happens to be a Scot.
http://www.bettertogether.net
I had a chuckle at the possibilities – I want to move to Scotland in a few years time, when I have sufficient money to buy a country house in the Highlands or Islands to complete my retirement. If Mr. Salmond is not as liberal as people anticipate, I – a genetically confirmed Anglo Saxon – could end up being classed as an immigrant!!! Talk about the “boot being on the other foot”. Nevertheless, I tend to support the notion of Scottish independence. I see it as an escape from the corrupt and traitorous clutches of Westminster. (I admit that I might be naive.)
Two other good websites:
http://www.votenoborders.co.uk
http://www.toscotlandwithlove.co.uk
(Party Member) Well written Mr. Peter Mills. The last seven lines of summary is exactly how I feel for our long suffering People and Country.
Peter Mills, I doubt very much whether ‘independence’ would make Scotland more ‘Rightwing’. It is likely, if anything, to have the opposite effect. This is because the vast bulk of the electorate live in the central belt and this area has always had strong socialist voting tendencies. This is reflected in it having many Labour Party and SNP (a leftist separatist and NON-nationalist party) representatives.
Scotland breaking-apart the United Kingdom would have big consequences for it AND England:
http://noscotland2014.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/welcome-to-the-north-briton/
http://www.aforceforgood.org.uk/shared/british2
It’s good news that today ‘Harry Potter’ author J.K.Rowling has given the Better Together campaign a £1 million donation.
(Party Member) I disagree with you steven. You do not understand the Scots, as you repeated claims that nobody in Scotland would ever vote Ukip !
http://www.bradburyalliance.org get rid of LibLabCon now