It's Official - Brown Hates Britain

Yes folks, it's official - Gordon Brown is arrogant, cares nothing for others opinions, the electorate, our views or the fact that he's selling the country down the river in Europe and on Immigration.

Despite a report that immigration has "little or no effect" in helping the UK economy, here the gutless PM refused to even consider capping immigration.
Instead, he proposes to train more people to work in curry houses!

And these are just the immigrants that are known! There is little or nothing about the hundreds of thousands of illegals who pile into our over-crowded country every year as labour open our borders to anyone who wants to waltz in and claim benefits, and this is before we get to the bogus asylum seekers after nothing except a free ride at the expense of the taxpayers.

Yes, it's true, immigration under labour is a shambles.

Conveniently, it was Harriet Harmen who had to face the questions, where not surprisingly the issue was not raised - this is the same Harmen who is afraid to walk at night in her own constituency at night and yesterday on a tour of it, she wore a stab proof vest despite being flanked by police officers.

A clear indication then that this government is tough on crime and the causese of crime - stated very clearly as an election promise on many occasions.

All this comes just weeks after brown effectively handed our country over to brussels - refusing to give us the promised referendum, because "it was a different issue, and didn't need one"
This despite the fact that EVERY other EU country has said that the document is effectively the same as the EU constitution.

Of course, none of this should come as a surprise - new labour has been nothing but arrogant since they came to power.
Anyone who raised the issue of uncontrolled immigration was immediately branded as racist, and people became afrid to speak out.

Education is a joke
Crime figures are scary
There are more long term unemployed
Immigration is out of control
We are being taxed out of sight, by a party that said they wouldn't put up taxes - except by stealth apparently
Cost of living is increasing almost daily, whilst wages (except those of MPs) are pretty much frozen
A recession is looming because of browns economic policies
His borrowing has been out of control for years, and he raided our pensions
THEN bailed out a private bank to the tune of billions - which we continue to pay for (another broken promise)
His own ministers are scared to walk the streets of the area's they represent without a police escort AND body armour
He expects our troops to fight on the front line with sub-standard equipment - if it's provided at all.

And what does brown want to do?
Train more people to work in curry houses.

I feel for ya'. Really.

Oh .. you should probably add THIS to your (understandable) shopping list of complaints. It's pretty bad when the religious leaders of the country not only endorse breaking their own religious laws but call for breaking of the national laws as well.

I remember it well - although in fairness that blokes a bit of a numpty - as are most of the general synod.
Totally out of touch with reality and impervious to popular opinion and what the populace really want - it goes for the CofE and the government both.

I'm sure European immigration has been good for the economy. There are still vaccines at my Tesco (and there were before) but many badly needed jobs have been filled. Before stuff was usually out of stock because no one had the time to put it out on the shelf, now it's no longer the first reason.

It's probably racist to say; but equally true that non-whites, Europeans, (whatever) fill more of our prison places as a percentage of population.
E.g. Black men fill up 11% of the countries prison places
www.statistics.gov.uk...
Despite only 2.2% of the country being actually black.
news.bbc.co.uk...

Non Europeans-whites also have a much higher level of unemployment.
E.g. Muslim men are 13% unemployed, compared with only 4% Christian (predominantly white).
www.statistics.gov.uk...
The politically correct have always blamed culture clash and discrimination for this problem. I say go ahead.
Because it still doesn't change the fact that non-Europeans are far more likely to turn to crime, or be unemployed.

If immigrants are of little benefit to the U.K I personally believe it's only possible if the statistics mix Eastern Europeans with other races. It’s either that or we would be richer with a smaller population (something at odds with the official facts, not least because it’s not like the government has had to spend money educating these Europeans who work).

P.S Reading this post is an act of thought crime punishable by political execution at the slip of a tongue i.e. no candidate standing rights for any the three major political parties, reduced job prospects, life time ban from TV appearances, ect (sorry I forgot to put that at the start!)

Immigrants must have something to offer, they must contribute at least as much as they take out, and they must not be a burden on the taxpayer except in circumstances of asylum.

Yep, G. Brown and his cohorts would love to have you arrested for your post - trouble is, it's not racist, it's the truth.

Hmm it's frightening and again, the only thing I can put it down to is a secret agenda. I hate to turn the conspiracy spotlight on this but when a government does so many things counter-intuitively, against the wishes of the majority, agains the logical route to stability and against that which their forefathers have built - well I can't help but entertain the possiblity of a hidden agenda. Perhaps because it's the only way I can see so many ridiculous policies (or lack thereof) justified. It's frightening, but I hope that the fast-growing number of dissidents (for example the growing support for right-wing politics in the face of uncontrolled immigration) make their views known come voting day.

Well, there does seem to be an increasing amount of discontent on the Labour back benches. Even the beginnings of a plot to oust Gordon Brown before the next General Election and replace him with someone who stands a better chance of winning (David Miliband, perhaps? He seems to be the only realistic candidate).

"They don't understand the depth of alienation of our supporters," another backbencher told me yesterday. There's even some desperate late-night talk about a move to oust Brown before the next election if things get much worse.

See this article.

Of course, it doesn't mean anything yet. But the fact that some have started talking about it must be worrying for Brown.

I would suggest that it isn't necessarily the Labour Party that's out of touch (I'm sure you all saw Ivan Lewis, a health minister, admit that the government was losing support because people didn't perceive it as listening to them) but certainly some of the key figures in the upper echelons of the party seem to be.

[edit on 3/4/08 by Ste2652]

im actually from america but i have been paying some attention to british politics lately. i was hoping for a change on the uk's stance on the war in iraq when blair left office but when i realized that brown wasnt going to do anything to stop bush, i pretty much gave up hope on the matter.
im not sure what a "numpty" is but from what i gather from your posts he is not a good prime minister in general
well...its nice to know that we are not the only ones with a pres/pm that sucks :]
(no offense btw)

Browns unofficial "stance" on the war is far different from bliars - I think that brown wants to pull the UK troops out, but knows that leaving now before the job is done, would be disastrous for iraq.

I also think he wants to get us out of afghanistan - he really is a lot more old style labour on issues such as conflict.
In other words, he see's some conflicts as a return to the days of colonialism and gunship diplomacy, which the trendy left hate with a passion.

I'm pretty sure that brown won't be with us for too much longer - whether it's his own party that kicks him out or not, it's pretty clear that he's something of a despot who listens to no other views - apparently his own opinions are much too loud to hear anyone else's, especially the electorates...

Interestingly, this poll just how dis-satisfied the electorate is with the government.

[edit on 7/4/2008 by budski]

Originally posted by budski

I think that brown wants to pull the UK troops out, but knows that leaving now before the job is done, would be disastrous for iraq.

That’s just the official propaganda line.
We screwed Iraq up the moment we removed a secular leader (and his leadership) who unlike over 23 governments before (which shared for about 30 years between them) had actually kept order in Iraq for nearly 35 years.
No matter how you frame the argument, a man like Saddam who was alleged to have killed 350,000 people in 28 years of direct personal rule is a lot better than the consequences of an occupation which has almost certainly killed anything between over 650,000 and a million; in little over 5 years.

We may have known it all along but there are certain areas of the world where democracy just doesn’t work. E.g. those areas of the world where the majority of the population believes woman should be stoned to death (as my profile underlines).

However this argument became unfashionable since it seems to make the West superior in something, and is therefore xenophobic anyway. Now we have been reminded of its wisdom (just at the cost of many, many decent people’s lives; especially when one takes into account of the terrorism we have unleashed).

The thing that’s really wrong about your statement is that Iraq will only begin to stop collapsing when a dictator is found.
If we wait till Iraqi elections 2009 then it will be an Iranian loving Muslim Fundamentalists, and people of the Arab world will have done a “Palestine” where they our golden theory of “democracy does no harm” to be the #te it is by electing something not dissimilar to Hamas.
The other option would be to find another Saddam, a secular leader capable of imposing control at less cost in blood than the fanatics (and that gives quite a bit of lee way).

See this thread (I did) for the statistics and facts for what I just said: www.abovepolitics.com...

I also think he wants to get us out of afghanistan - he really is a lot more old style labour on issues such as conflict.

That would actually be a good idea that would save many lives if we left…
1. Using fungus spores against Afghanistan’s opium crops (apart from those areas we can feasibly use for legitimate medical purposes)
news.bbc.co.uk...
More on the Technology: news.bbc.co.uk...
Sadly the United Nations pulled out of the idea…
www.sunshine-project.org...
(The United Nations would do; I mean it would present a solution to a problem, rather than just a talking shop).

2. Left leaving a few million landmines behind between the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. This isn’t so hard, some landmines can be both mass produced and aerially deployed (a Soviet world war two design actually uses a plunge as a timer), and although this border area is very mountainous every mountain has a dip-ridge, which is something the Soviets took full advantage of during their little war. Compensation to whoever owns the mountains is obviously voluntarily, and difficult given the absence of a land registry. Although morally it’s a nice idea especially the little money needed.
3. Left the Afghan’s with a few helicopters to redeploy any mines the Pakistani militants decide to clear.

Sadly in order to do this England would need to consider reversing our Princess Diana landmine treaty, which we so politically correctly signed (even though we never used the landmines like savages, just the people we sold them to, which meant the real problem was an arms control one all along).
The main problem facing the Americans is changing the biological warfare convention which makes destroying even drug crops a crime.

So there you have it, the real reason why our troops are dying in Afghanistan is because our frontline leaders lack the political will (or I.Q) to change a few (sometimes) convenient bits of paper. Till then they, the Afghan civilians, and the Afghan fanatics who make it through, continue to die in Afghanistan.

However I would caution you that even if we went for and obtained military victory as I outlined in the strategy above, it would still be almost 100% worthless when dealing with real political problems.
The reason is quite complex but probably best illustrated by the Afghan journalist sentenced to death, and only saved because it caught the attention of the mass-media press.

1. www.independent.co.uk...
2. www.dailymail.co.uk...
3. www.foxnews.com...

Remember the journalist was sentenced to death for reading about women’s rights by the current Afghan government.

If you can’t see anything, at least see our troops are wasting their time. Even if you can’t explain or comprehend how it’s the case without it better being talked about, at least understand it.

In the absence of the above we will loose the war in Afghanistan because they will breed to replace "Martia's lost" well after you and me have died of old age. However loosing the war in Afghanistan would probably make us safer from terrorism than we are now, but then it's not really for terrorism.

Side Note: Understanding the Nature of this countries 3 Evils
In my opinion Party politics is for 3 types of people…
1. Fools.
2. Those who like to reap the rewards of evil.
3. Those who know the above but who want to find ways to improve the above (either to make it less destructive or more efficient). (We by the way are the little people who sometimes get shot).
P.S. Don’t get confused with the Objectives of a Political System…
Political Stability: Domestic Politics (there is indeed some freedom and democracy here)
Wealth Creation: Serving Corruption (sparsely owned press, pressure groups ect)
Military Security: Keeping the wheels rolling (justifying-finding something to bomb, whether it needs it or not).

Originally posted by Cythraul
I hate to turn the conspiracy spotlight on this but when a government does so many things counter-intuitively, against the wishes of the majority,

Thought I would highlight this little bit here...

Labour, in 2005, where elected with only 37% of the popular vote. The Tories polled 34% However, due to the rather un-representative electoral system we have (First Past the Post), Labour have a majority in parliament of around 100 seats, with a total of 356 seats.

The Tories have only 198 seats, a difference of 158 seats, despite only trailing Labour in the polls by 3%.

How is this fair?

Answer, it isn't.

For example, in a constituency of 30,001 people, a candidate could win with as little as 10,001 votes, if the other two main parties each picked up 10,000 votes themselves.

The winning candidate doesn't need a majority, just more votes, so instantly, before any other constituencies are even taken into account, nearly 2/3rds of the voters are disenfranchised.

In order to have a Government that truly represents the people, we need a major overhaul of the electoral system. It is out of date, outmoded and simply unworkable in the long run.

Is it any surprise people have given up on Politics, when a party needs only 37% of the vote to run roughshod over your views?

[edit on 11/4/08 by stumason]

reply to post by Liberal1984


A couple of points - as much as I dislike brown, he is not the lapdog that blair was, and nor is he as fond of war.

My second point is that I consider the indiscriminate use of landmines and the advocacy of it to be barbaric.
Perhaps you consider the loss of life and limb, in many cases of innocents to be acceptable.

I don't and never will - it's bloodthirsty, barbaric and beyond the pale to call for increased usage of these abhorrent weapons.



[edit on 11/4/2008 by budski]

I fully agree stumason. But which government will green-light a legislation contrary to the one that got them in position in the first place? That's a rhetorical question of course - I'm sure we all know the fundamental predicament that British politics has grown to face.

When the tories were in power, labour were forever going on about proportional representation, then they got in power and started to change boundaries in order to favour themselves at election time, and wouldn't even enter into debate about pr.

This is coupled with the massive civil service recruitment, in order to generate more votes by making people reliant on them by instilling a culture of fear for the opposition:

"If they get in, you'll lose your job"

I won't get into the smears, because both partys are guilty - and the Libs would be as well if anyone took any notice of them

Brown doesn't "hate Britain", don't be so silly.

This thread is so full of one-eyed distortion and unpleasant propaganda I was inclined to just ignore it entirely but sadly that just leaves scope for others to get the wrong impression.

I guess the claims that the 'PC police' would arrest someone for making the sort of simplistic nonsensical claims (that were made here without any difficulty at all, actually) are just to be written off as absurd.
Unless those making them ended up being arrested?
No? No-one was? What a surprise.

This Gov has indeed, contrary to the claims made here, imposed further restrictions on immigration (as in fact has every UK Gov since the late 1950s) and has introduced a points based system of immigration link.

The highly selective stats are amusing but far removed from the economic reality most face today -

UK enjoys longest period of uninterrupted growth in 200yrs

UK living standards to outstrip US for first time in a century

UK child poverty falls by one third

UK pensioner poverty falls

UK employment at all-time high

UK unemployment in 2007, lowest for 22 years

UK average earnings accelerate

Private home ownership remains close to all-time record high

minimum wage up 60% since 1999

Of course people will always grumble and it might not be nirvana (as if it ever could be) and it is true that the present US-sourced economic problems are a worry but nevertheless it's a 10yr economic record of positive performance that most Govs in the UK since the war would have killed for.

Equally the idea that Labour's investing in the public services (an example of an incoming Gov responding to the clear & obvious wishes of the electorate if ever there was) is in no way anything like the caricature you have painted it budski.

UK employment is at record hights link and in fact public sector employment (as is so often the case in the last almost 30yrs) is set to fall substantially - Tens of thousands of public sector jobs to be cut and if that's not recent enough for you here the DWP announcing 12,000 job losses in feb 2008 link.

Then there's that incredible & grotesquely ridiculous claim that the Gov are responsible for constituency boundary changes in the UK.
You might want to check out that independent body The Electoral Commission before throwing such outrageous statements about.

As for PR?
Well of course all the political parties here examine all the electoral methods and have weighed up the value of each depending on how appropriate they see the merits of each type to the application they would be put.
It is simply not true to say Labour were only interested in PR when they were out of power.
Labour has introduced PR in several areas - you might care to look at how the devolved authorities are elected for a start.

But that does not however mean that they have to agree that PR is suitable or desirable for the general election where the 'system' is deliberately designed to give a definite and clear result.

That is hardly an inconsistent view.

Unfortunately that sort of actual reality does not accord with the glib comments of those far more interested in making superficial (and often incorrect) broadly critical claims.
As per.

reply to post by sminkeypinkey


Possibly the quiet before the storm?

Many of the new ideas put forth in the US worked good at the beginning but are now the reason we are ailing.

i.e. NAFTA - epic fail.