Skip to main content

The Truth about New Labour

The way the Labour Party tells it, they are simply preparing to return to office.

In the Labour Playbook, the Coalition is a minor aberration, and the compromises that it contains will eventually lead to the British electorate to abandon it and gratefully return to the embrace of New Labour.

Or Newest Labour.
Or Post-New Labour.

The self indulgent scribbles of Peter Mandelson that have been published (in great haste) over the past few days not only spike the guns of Tony Blair- whose own confessions of a justified sinner are due out in the next few weeks- they also reveal quite plainly the depths of the nightmare that we have just escaped.

Essentially the Labour Party mortgaged the future in order to fund its own clients. The first estimates of the true state of the balance sheet of the UK after the years of New Labour make for appalling reading. In addition to the near one thousand million Pound cost of the bank bail out, there is the one thousand two hundred million Pound cost of state pensions: mostly unfunded. Then there is the three hundred billion Pounds of unfunded PPP and PFI projects. Thus the total debt of the UK is not the widely quoted One thousand million Pound figure at all. It is in fact somewhere above three thousand eight hundred million Pounds. This is nearly four times the total GDP of the UK, which is roughly one thousand million Pounds.

Thank you Peter Mandelson and Good Riddance.

The self indulgent re-re announcements and political spin, together with light character assassination of which the "Dark Lord" was the foremost exponent was not a "third way" of politics, it was a get now-pay later politics of short term greed and selfishness which has left the UK in debt to its own great-great grandchildren.

Meanwhile the greenery-yallery of New Labour's incestuous bitchfest- sorry I mean the Labour Leadership campaign- reveals an intellectual bankruptcy that is almost total and almost totally unsurprising. After all the brace of Millibands, and the rest of these Labour hacks that we are invited to consider- God help us- as potential Prime Ministers look like clodhopping sock puppets compared to the overweening and posturing vanity of the precious Lord Mandelson. The contemptible repudiation of the need for constitutional reform by Andy Burnham simply underlines the opportunism and vacuity of all of these "heirs to Blair".

Now we can read the memoirs of Peter Mandelson and realise that all our worst fears for the shallowness and stupidity of the Labour Party were as nothing compared to the grim reality.

Never Again.

Never Again, should these pygmies be permitted to misrule our country.

Condemned out of their own mouths. Condemned by their own actions. Guilty before the bar of international law and of public opinion. One can only hope that as the British people truly understand the scale of the con-trick with which New Labour has stolen the inheritance of the next three generations, and as they also understand the facile lies and unprincipled greed with which the millionaire Mandelson lined his own nest as the result of his position as a nominal public servant: then the justified rage of the British people will fall upon the travesty which is the modern Labour Party.

Personally I think that charges could be brought against some of the ring leaders, and for the sake of real political reform I think it could even be necessary to do so, if only "pour encourager les autres".

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...