The inequality of equality arguments

Why do socialists fervently believe in only one type of equality? Why is it they only take any notice of eqaulity of outcome? There are two types of equality. There is the equality of opportunity, and the equality that socialists so love to focus on, the equality of outcome. As long as governments ensure equality of opportunity for all, the equality of outcome is irrelevant. People are responsible for the outcome of their actions, not the government. Poverty in this country is practically non-existent. It is an argument built up by socialists to attack the middle classes with punitive tax rates, and then they redistribute wealth. Nobody in this country goes without healthcare, shelter or food for free

LEAKED!!! Gordon Brown letter to youth wing of the Nationalist Labour Party

To fellow young nationalist socialists,

Big government is back. And it is here to stay. It will be prudent big government. By that I mean I will not spend a penny that belongs to me. It is your patriotic, nationalistic duty to fund my government. We know best. We know what your best interests are. Sure, you could have a low tax, free market economy. But what you could possibly due with all of that freedom? And remember, low taxes mean that nurses, policemen and doctors die. Low taxes mean we cannot torture those horrible Afghans' from Cuba, or those dirty little separatists in Wales. We will be prudent with torture, because we will not torture our own people.

We will have prudent boom and bust. Well, maybe a big bust. Perhaps Jordan will suffice. We cannot have a small bust, because nurses, policemen and doctors die. It is our patriotic duty to take their money away and spend it for them, because we know best. We are Marx's chosen people. And Marx says that if we don't take their money away and spend it for them, nurses, policemen and doctors die.

I urge all of you to go and fight. There is no place where they can hide. On the beaches or in the sky? NO! We are prudent. We are fiscally prudent. And this time...

It's fiscally personal

The Rt. Hon Gordon Brown
Prime Minister of the Socialist Republic of Westminster
SW1A 00A

Response to Michael Tomasky: Obama's speech to Congress

Obama should cut the pretence that he is offering change. He is not. For two years, he has criticised the FAILED economic policies of George W Bush. George W Bush was the most profligate President in recent times. He was also not representative of true Republican ideology. He increased the size of the state, and he gave himself the power to suspend the Constitution. Obama has closed Guantanamo Bay, but he has given permission for suspects to be taken to Morocco in the shadow CIA prisons, and they can still be tortured. So much for a change in foreign policy. America isn't using smart power. It's using brute power.
Obama is also gambling his entire Presidential legacy on a Keynesian theory that has never worked and isn't likely to work.

The New Deal was an economic failure, as it did nothing to ameliorate the effects of the depression. Indeed, the unemployment figures never fell below 14% of the population under FDR. These are the words of Henry Morgenthau, ''We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot." Mr Morgenthau was the Treasury Secretary under Franklin Delano Roosevelt. George Bush rapidly expanded the national debt and built up massive deficits. The Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibilty, yet George Bush abandoned all pretence to fiscal prudence, and he increased spending on health and education way above the rise in inflation. Yet Barack Obama, for all his criticism of ''the failed economic policies of the last eight years,'' is actually following the Bush doctrine of spend, spend, spend. This is a crisis partly caused by overborrowing and too much debt. You don't solve that sort of a crisis with even more borrowing and even more debt.


Unreconstructed Keynesians may think so, but it is deeply immoral to saddle future generations with huge debts just because the current generation has been far too profligate. We need a combination of a fiscal stimulus funded by spending cuts. Spending cuts should be made in the parts of the public sector and transferred to the private sector in the form of tax cuts. He should cut corporate tax at all levels, but because of Obama's secret socialism, he has actually surreptitiously passed a law that redistributes the wealth. He is proposing increased taxes on those earning $250,000 a year. This is mistaken on so many levels. Firstly, it is immoral. The government has absolutely no right to help itself to money earned from our own hard work, and those earning over $250,000 a year are generally very hard workers. Small and medium sized businesses typically generate that much a year, whereas big businesses and corporations typically turnover billions. That new tax is going to be used to fund tax credits for those on low incomes. However, those earning less than $50,000 don't pay tax on income. They do pay Social Security etc. So the government is taxing the rich to give to the poor. Socialism dosen't work. If he continues down this path, he will cause a brain drain.

Obama is abnormally arrogant. He was dismissive of the newly reignited Republican Party opposing his reckless American Recovery Act, and when asked about whether he was disappointed that he didn't achieve bipartisan support, he said, ''We won.'' He labours under the illusion that he is right and that anybody who disagrees with him must be a fascist gasbag who dosen't care for their country. That is typical with most self proclaimed ''progressives.'' They think they are the only ones who are ''progressive,'' and that conservatives are embarrasing and backwards, despite the conservative tradition being home to some of the best intellectuals in Britain, whether it be Roger Scruton, Professor Tim Congdon, Simon Heffer and Peter Hitchens. Who do the ''progressive'' left have? Polly Toynbee, who said in a recent column that it dosen't matter if 3,000,000 become unemployed because 90% of the population will still be in work. She also believes Gordon Brown is an economic heavyweight, despite him selling around half of our gold reserves at the bottom of the market, and building up the fourth largest budget deficit in the developed world, being Hungary, Egypt and Pakistan, despite 66 new taxes or tax rises, massive earnings from stamp duty after the housing boom and the increased corporate revenue from the expansion of the economy.

Obama is a hypocrite. It's about time people realise that the sun dosen't shine out of his rectum, and those who sycophantically dribble whenever he appears on the television would be advised to use independent intelligence, and not follow the crowd.

However, with his Recovery Act, Obama has now shouldered all of the responsibility for the outcome of the crisis. The deficit now belongs to him, as does the national debt, the unemployment figures. However, I doubt he will accept his responsibility. He fulls expects to be a two term President. He desperately wants to imitate Franklin D Roosevelt. So he wants to be a fascist corporatist. Well, he has Warren Buffett as an advisor. Anyway, expect to hear lots of blame for the crisis directed at the hapless George W Bush. One cannot deny the policies of George Bush, principally the massive expansion of the budget deficit and the national debt have exacerbated the crisis. However, this is a crisis whose origins were borne out of Democrat administrations. In 1977, Jimmy Carter passed the Communities & Reinvestment Act, which forced the two massive investment banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to lend to those with a bad credit rating, and therefore not typical recipients of mortgages. They also tended to be ethnic minorities. There you have it, social engineering has contributed to a new depression. Jimmy Carter attempted to distort the market in order to improve his minority opportunities record. Instead, he has saddled the black and Chinese minorities with huge debts, along with most of America. A lot of people mention the deficits run up during the Reagan years. These deficits were primarily caused by the arms race and massive military build up, especially the Star Wars programme. The previous 40 years of detente had done nothing to placate or reduce the power of the Soviet Union, and the exceptional courage of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher helped to free over 300,000,000 people from tyranny in Russia and Eastern Europe.

Anyway, as well as Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton also deserves to shoulder some responsibility. He was a fiscally responsible President, turning the deficit into a surplus, and reducing the national debt. But he repealed the Glass-Steagall act, which legislated to separate investment banking from retail banking. He repealed it and positively encouraged financial irresponsbility. Barack Obama conveniently, perhaps naturally, dosen't mention these, but the Republicans need to hammer this message home, just like the Conservatives in Britain need to hammer home the the facts regarding the mess that Labour will bequeath to the next government. Obama will be seen as the most underwhelming and disappointing President in history. I hope I'm right, because I hate being wrong, but I desperately want to be wrong, because if the dollar crashes...

Tributes to Ivan Cameron

Gordon Brown made a very classy speech today. It was heartfelt, emotional, and you could see he was genuinly moved by David and Samantha's loss. It was sad to hear his voice wavering, and he did look close to tears.

William Hague also made a very warm, classy speech. George Osbourne, who is the Godfather to David and Samantha's children, looked heartbroken and close to tears.

I thought Vince Cable's speech was a little short, but words are not the best things for times like these. I also think Mr Brown deserves credit for the suspension of parliament for a short while as a mark of respect.

RIP Ivan

Rest in peace little man. My deepest sympathies go out to David and Samantha Cameron, as well as their immediate and extended families.

A change in culture

The amount the government receives in tax is down 11% compared to this time last year. Yet public spending this year has increased by nearly 7%. Unreconstructed Keynesians would argue deficit spending is necessary to mitigate the worst effects of the recession, but I doubt even JM Keynes himself would argue for sustained public investment when the budget deficit is forecast to hit 10%. And an official report released today has shown that national debt could soar to £1.5 trillion. To those who don't believe the spin about our national debt being low, it passed that figure long ago, because of the numerous debts the government keeps off the balance sheets, such as PFI, pension liabilities and bank nationalisations.

I would cut government spending first and foremost. Cut the number of useless departments. For example, creating a Justice Ministry was a waste of time and money, and should become part of the Home Office. The Department of Children, Schools and Families should be split. Children and Familes should be put into the Home Office, because they are there to protect us. The Schools brief should be put into an education post, combined with the Department for Universities and Skills. The Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform should be merged with the Chancellorship. International Development should be merged with Foreign Affairs. The newly created Energy and Climate Change brief is pointless, and should be put back into Hilary's environment brief. The Cabinet positions for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be abolished altogether. That alone would save billions from pointless Cabinet positions.

Secondly, because spending should have risen in line with inflation, we are spending £200 billion more than we should have been. Cut £100 billion and direct it towards tax reductions on income. Slash corporation tax. Slash National Insurance contributions. Then, use the rest to put into paying debts and if necessary, cut more to reduce the budget deficit. If the British government makes it clear to the markets that it is dedicated to clearing up the fiscal mess caused by reckless spending, they may be more willing to invest in this country, and when the recovery comes, we will be in a much stronger position to accomodate new enterprise and investment.

Finally, put Gordon Brown where he belongs. Away from all of us

What if?

Jon Cruddas has expressed his support for Harriet Harman in an article in today's Independent. I sense a little political manouvering there. Let's consider the 2014 General Election. On the one hand, you have David Cameron and George Osbourne. In 2012, George Osbourne unveils a budget similar to Geoffrey Howe's 1981 budget. Robert Peston follows his father's footsteps, and with 363 economists, they write a letter to the Times, criticising the policies of the Cameron government. On the other hand, you have Harriet Harman as the Leader of the Opposition, with Jon Cruddas as her deputy. Both are on the left wing of the Labour Party, whereas Brown can be put on the centre left. As we have compared Osbourne to Howe, let's consider the ticket of Harman-Cruddas. Michael Foot replaced James Callaghan. James Callaghan was on the Right of his party, whereas Michael Foot was an unreconstructed socialist, whose 1983 election manifesto was the most extreme and radical manifesto ever unveiled by a political party. Harman and Cruddas are definately to the Left of Gordon Brown and Captain Darling. They paint Cameron's government as the party of avarice and cupidity. They unveil a manifesto in which they propose full scale nationalisation of the banking system. Cameron and Osbourne unveil their manifesto, where they propose further spending cuts to finally turn the once enormous budget deficit into a surplus, and the tax rises announced in the 2012 budget are reversed, but the spending cuts are larger than the tax cuts. They then say once the budget is in surplus, they will offer further income tax reductions and corporate tax reductions. And with the resultant strong economic growth, spending will rise in line with inflation. In Gordon Brown had increased spending in line with inflation, we'd be spending approximately £400 billion a year, not the £650 billion we currently have to fund.

The 2014 election is a milestone election. For the majority of their term in office, Cameron's government had been extremely unpopular. Like Mrs Thatcher during her first term, he had to impose severe restrictions on spending and wages, because the supposed deflation had now turned to rampant inflation because Brown's government, with characteristic hubris and obfuscation, had set of a wave of panic about deflation in order to get public support for their horrific expansion of public spending and quantitive easing. The 2012 budget did much to correct this. And in 2013, Britain finally pulls out of Afghanistan, victorious, leading to a massive wave of patriotism and support for the government for being steadfast on foreign policy, and for not shying away from the problems of the economy.

Because the public can see that the market does work when it isn't distorted by governments, the increasingly left wing campaign waged by Harman and Cruddas falls flat on its face. They then resort to personal attacks. They mock Cameron's baldness, as four years in office under extremely strenous conditions have caused him to lose the remainder of his hair. They try to play class warfare, leading to Eric Pickles and William Hague, two bald Yorkshiremen, to denounce Harman and Cruddas as sour, and to gain more support amongst the aspirational working classes, they paint the Labour duo as the enemy of ambition. This causes the Labour Right to split away from the party, defecting to the Lib Dems, who have managed to build themselves into an electoral alternative to Labour, eating away at Labour's heartlands in the North, Scotland and Wales. Chris Huhne welcomes the defectors with open arms, and Cleggover, who has been relegated to the bankbenches, welcomes them with open legs.

Cameron goes to see King Charles III, who dissolves parliament. The campaigning begins.

The counting begins, and the results pour in. David Dimbelby announces a whole swathe of newly Conservative constituencies. Labour's share of the vote falls to it's lowest level since Michael Foot, and the Lib Dems also win new seats, but the Conservatives win 50% of the vote, on a 79% turnout. Cameron wins a mandate for his second term, and because of Osbourne's sound stewardship of the economy, he can focus on the social reform he made such an issue of during his days as Leader of the Opposition. Harman and Cruddas are deposed, and a welsh windbag who happens to be called John Smith replaces them, with a fat Yorkshiremen as his deputy, Eric Illsley. I do hope the comparisons between Neil Kinnock and Roy Hattersley are evident.

The 2014-2018 government is one of the most radical and sucessful periods in British politics.

These are just predicts, but the increasingly obvious parallels between Gordon Brown's government and Jim Callaghan's government cannot be ignored for much longer. Both bottled an election and it cost them hugely. Both are going to leave an economic disaster to their sucessor, though I doubt Gordo will accept a peerage, and I doubt even more that he would be offered one. The Labour party is going to overtly distance itself from the legacy of Blair/Brown, and Dennis Skinner will be revered as a God.