First you need to go here and read this. More importantly, you need to scroll down and read the comments. The censored comment – No.4 – was the first half of my single comment, which started in 4, and was continued in comment No.5.
http://www.wigantoday.net/wigannews/Asylum-seekers-numbers-fall.4435516.jp
Assuming you have read the entire thing in the link, and so know what this is about, here is the complete comment I posted; what’s above the dotted line is/was the censored comment No.4:
“Ahhh - I see everyone misinterprets the numbers. Nobody asks the question: "WHY is the number of asylum seekers falling?"
So in 2003 there were 921 of them, and now there are only 433. So everyone just assumes that they are all going away again? Sorry to tell you: wrong! And many more came since 2003, too.
The process:
1. You illegally enter the country. (International treaties say you must seek asylum in the nearest safe country ... which means that unless you originate in that circle of European countries on the other side of the North Sea and the English Channel, then we are not your nearest safe country. Hence, illegal entry)
2. You apply for asylum.
3. Asylum is approved (or exceptional leave to remain is granted). Usually.
Step 3 means that you are no longer on the list of asylum seekers and move onto the list of either refugees or those otherwise granted exceptional leave to remain. Both of those things mean that the list of 'Asylum seekers' has reduced. It does not mean the people concerned are not still here, as implied by this story in the paper (and story it is - and a misleading one at that - either deliberately or through ignorance of the process. I wonder which?)
I wonder how long it will be before this comment is removed?
As soon as it goes up, I'll take myself a screen-grab ... just so I will later be able to prove on my local shared blog what is and isn't allowed to be said in the Wigan media. I do know the Wigan BNP was refused access to place a full-page advert at the latest council elections in two Wigan newspapers because a mention in said advert of the plight of the Tibetans was considered unacceptable. I always used to think that the main purpose of the media was to inform. I later came to believe that its purpose is to mislead. Stories like this one, without adequate - or indeed any - explanation of the process relevant to the story only serve to confirm that my later view is nearer correct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conjunction with this story should also be told the figures for the changes in numbers, in Wigan, of people granted refugee status and those granted exceptional leave to remain. I'm willing to bet that as numbers of asylum seekers go down, the other categories go up - and stay up.
Also: the private sector is responsible for housing asylum seekers, with central government grants. Who becomes responsible for their housing once they change status as detailed above? And who pays? And are they then still only on £39 a week, or 'subsistence only'?
Is this comment a "Hate Crime", Mr Elliot 'Wigan and Leigh Hate Crime Co-ordinator' Brown? (I have screen grabs of your last contributions to these comment columns, so this time please be a little more careful with what you say. Try a little less gratuitous offence this time. And I hope you have taken some grammar lessons since then).
Mr Brown? “
Censorship in action. Doesn’t comment No.5 in the Observer make a lot more sense now?
So: is comment No.4 more “offensive” than comment No.5? No, of course it isn’t. So why was it censored?
The problem with comment No.4 was that I was explaining to people how the media and politicians use sleight of hand (sleight of language? Sleight of thought?) to fool ordinary people into thinking that things must be getting better, so maybe the Labour party/government/council isn’t so bad after all – maybe still worth voting for. And maybe the immigration problem is cooling off. After all:look everyone, the number of asylum seekers is tailing off – there is an end to it after all.
Most people don’t look any deeper than that. Most people don’t ask that crucial question: Why are the numbers going down. After all, there just seems to be more and more immigrants in the town centre every Saturday. But it must be tailing off because “the paper says so”. So the elites succeed yet again in fooling we proles. I’m not criticising anyone here; this is a perfectly normal way of thinking, especially given the impoverished education we’ve been raised on for the past 20-30 years.
Every time I see sleight of hand like this being practiced by the politicians and media, I will point it out. And I can do that. They made a mistake with me: they let me get a proper education (well, the last Tory government did). They let me go to a quality university in my late thirties (Uni. Of Wales, Bangor) as an undergraduate, where I got good Honours in Psychology. So I do know a little about thinking and behaviour. While I was there I did two years’ of Philosophy, including logic, which means I can detect the tricks involved in deceit, and am able to point them out. I also studied a full year of Linguistics, so know a little about Language and how it’s used. In addition, did two years’ Statistics to well past ‘A’ level, and Philosophy of Science.
Then I went to an even better university (Uni. Of Birmingham, Edgbaston) as a postgraduate student, where I studied Cognitive Science (calls itself the Science of the Mind, but in reality is the science of using knowledge of the mind to program computers to do clever things). Students of other subjects thought we were a bunch of weirdos – they were probably right. We studied: the mind, the brain all the way down to molecular functioning level, memory, more philosophy, more logic at a higher level, more linguistics, computer science – a whole tangle of stuff that we had to integrate.
A potted history of Morg’s education – not bad for someone who officially left school with nothing (stopped going at 13 and got a job in a bakery) at 15 and immediately enlisted the day after leaving. Smart move – Enlisted as an aircraft technician apprentice … what are known as ‘Trenchard’s Brats’, or ‘Halton Brats’. So by the end of my teens I was a qualified aircraft Instruments and Electrical Tech. Over years of work I found myself forced to learn about Nav. systems, Radio etc. Basically, if it is touched by electricity, it’s mine, including just about everything in the cockpit.
So, despite being raised a prole and getting almost nothing out of school, Morg is no one’s fool. I’m not saying the politicos and media will never pull a fast one on me, but they will have to work harder at it than the Wigan Observer did with that asylum seekers article. What a load of tosh it was.
The Wigan Observer (and group) is the paper that refused to allow the BNP to run two full-page ads at last May’s council elections. The excuse they gave was our reference to the plight of the Tibetan people as they are being colonised by China.
Wigan Observer group, we are monitoring you (as you no doubt monitor us). Let’s have less bull shall we, a bit more factual reporting when it comes to political matters, and full explanations of what’s happening when you cite numbers like the dodgy set in that article. Stop treating the native Wiganers like the fools Elliot Brown thinks they are. Every time you do that, and we see it, we’ll correct you first in your own comments. If you delete the correction, we’ll correct you here on this weblog. Between myself and Lanky, on this weblog we can muster an education and life experiences that most of your people can only dream of. You watch the BNP, the BNP watches you. We are not a party of knuckledraggers, as usually portrayed in the media.
If anyone wants a copy of the screen grab I took of that entire Wigan Observer page, if you don't know me and require PROOF that I'm telling the truth here (which includes the comments before the censorship, and after it), just email me via my "Contributors" button, and I'll send you a copy by return email.
Morg
Thursday, 28 August 2008
Wednesday, 27 August 2008
THE HISTORY OF SLAVERY
The government has said that the history of slavery is to be taught in schools. No doubt emphasis will be placed on the transatlantic slave trade for which we are to be eternally ashamed and in so doing appease those of Afro Carribean descent.
I presume it will not be emphasised that the slave trade continues to this day in Arab countries and that over the ages far more Africans have been enslaved by Arabs than Europeans.
Light will be made of the fact that this country was the first in the world to abolish slavery and to enforce this with the Royal Navy.
Slavery is and was a crime there is no doubt, but why should the average British person be continually blamed for the sins of 200 years ago.
WHY ARE ALL THE WRONGS OF HISTORY OUR FAULT?
WHY DO WE HAVE TO FEEL GUILTY FOR THESE FAR OFF CRIMES?
WHY DO PEOPLE OF AFRICAN ORIGIN HARBOUR THIS PERSECUTION COMPLEX?
After all AFRICANS SOLD THE BRITISH THEIR SLAVES.
Remember decades after slavery was abolished in Wigan ,in 1841--
35 children aged 6-7 were employed in Wigan pits.
324 aged 7-8.
166 aged 9-10.
plus thousands of women employed pulling sledges full of coal in the darkness of the pit harnessed like horses.
Thousands of children worked in mills.
AS THESE WERE "FREE" PEOPLE AND DID NOT BELONG TO A MASTER --
THEY HAD NO VALUE. THEY WERE PAID BARELY ENOUGH TO LIVE ON. IF THEY DIED THEY DIED. NO LOSS TO THE BOSS.
THEIR LOT WAS WORSE THAN THAT OF THE SLAVES.
WILL THEIR PLIGHT , THE PLIGHT OF OUR ANCESTORS ,BE MENTIONED IN THESE SLAVERY LESSONS?
YOU CAN BET YOUR LIFE IT WON'T.
YET WE, THE DESCENDANTS OF THESE ABUSED PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO FEEL GUILTY!
IF APOLOGIES ARE IN ORDER FOR THE AFRICAN DESCENDANTS OF SLAVES--
HOW ABOUT AN APOLOGY FOR US ?whose ancestors were more abused than the African slaves.
I presume it will not be emphasised that the slave trade continues to this day in Arab countries and that over the ages far more Africans have been enslaved by Arabs than Europeans.
Light will be made of the fact that this country was the first in the world to abolish slavery and to enforce this with the Royal Navy.
Slavery is and was a crime there is no doubt, but why should the average British person be continually blamed for the sins of 200 years ago.
WHY ARE ALL THE WRONGS OF HISTORY OUR FAULT?
WHY DO WE HAVE TO FEEL GUILTY FOR THESE FAR OFF CRIMES?
WHY DO PEOPLE OF AFRICAN ORIGIN HARBOUR THIS PERSECUTION COMPLEX?
After all AFRICANS SOLD THE BRITISH THEIR SLAVES.
Remember decades after slavery was abolished in Wigan ,in 1841--
35 children aged 6-7 were employed in Wigan pits.
324 aged 7-8.
166 aged 9-10.
plus thousands of women employed pulling sledges full of coal in the darkness of the pit harnessed like horses.
Thousands of children worked in mills.
AS THESE WERE "FREE" PEOPLE AND DID NOT BELONG TO A MASTER --
THEY HAD NO VALUE. THEY WERE PAID BARELY ENOUGH TO LIVE ON. IF THEY DIED THEY DIED. NO LOSS TO THE BOSS.
THEIR LOT WAS WORSE THAN THAT OF THE SLAVES.
WILL THEIR PLIGHT , THE PLIGHT OF OUR ANCESTORS ,BE MENTIONED IN THESE SLAVERY LESSONS?
YOU CAN BET YOUR LIFE IT WON'T.
YET WE, THE DESCENDANTS OF THESE ABUSED PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO FEEL GUILTY!
IF APOLOGIES ARE IN ORDER FOR THE AFRICAN DESCENDANTS OF SLAVES--
HOW ABOUT AN APOLOGY FOR US ?whose ancestors were more abused than the African slaves.
Tuesday, 26 August 2008
TWO KINDS OF CELEBRATION
THE BENEFITS OF DIVERSITY
Compare and contrast these two photographs. The top one was taken yesterday at the Notting Hill Carnival, the celebrationof Afro Carribean culture brought to our capital by immigrants.
It shows the "vibrant" and "diverse" nature of society in London, with litter everywhere and police making an arrest.
The police were happy with the event as owing to "proactive"policing "only" 500 arrests were made.
WHAT A FINE CULTURE THESE PEOPLE BRING TO OUR LAND!
THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT TO ENCOURAGE IN OUR COUNTRY.The second photo was taken in 1947 of Billinge Walking day. Not quite as good a photo but it shows the activities of an unenriched society with people united. I was somewhere at the back of the half mile long procession but there is no photo of me (possibly a good thing)
There was order, no litter and NO ARRESTS.
It is claimed that poverty and lack of opportunity are the cause of the violence in the immigrant community.
THERE WAS POVERTY IN BILLINGE IN 1947. Many people worked for little in the pits, mills or glassworks--but there was NO CRIME.
People then would have been glad to have had the same standard of living as the participants of the Notting Hill Carnival, which cost £6 million in police costs alone.
WHY THE DIFFERENCE? HAS SOCIETY GONE TO THE DOGS?
Well not altogether. At another celebration of culture, our culture,the RWB, there were NO arrests of the participants but 33 arrests of supporters of diversity.
Of course church processions can not be held in many parishes in Wigan as the costs of policing are said to be too high. The same goes for St Georges celebrations.
but--MONEY IS NO OBJECT when ethnic celebrations are concerned.
WHAT KIND OF SOCIETY DO YOU WANT, PICTURE 1 OR PICTURE 2?
CHAOS OR ORDER? DIVERSITY OR COMMUNITY?
If you want the second of these options--
SUPPORT THE BNP!--- before it is too late.
Monday, 25 August 2008
POST CODE LOTTERY IN WIGAN
Wiganers are losers in a postcode lottery for cancer treatment a report has stated.
Drugs such as the cancer drug "Sutent" are being denied to patients in Wigan as not cost effective even though it is prescribed routinely in Bolton, Bury,Rochdale,Tameside and Oldham.
Patients in these towns are thus given a chance to survive their cancer or at least a bit more time with their loved ones.
Why this discrepancy?
We pay our taxes just as the other towns do and are all in Greater Manchester.
Could it be that we are not sufficiently enriched and thus don't matter?
Could it be that our MPs have safe seats and take us for granted?
WIGAN INFIRMARY
Drugs such as the cancer drug "Sutent" are being denied to patients in Wigan as not cost effective even though it is prescribed routinely in Bolton, Bury,Rochdale,Tameside and Oldham.
Patients in these towns are thus given a chance to survive their cancer or at least a bit more time with their loved ones.
Why this discrepancy?
We pay our taxes just as the other towns do and are all in Greater Manchester.
Could it be that we are not sufficiently enriched and thus don't matter?
Could it be that our MPs have safe seats and take us for granted?
WIGAN INFIRMARYWhatever the reason it is a fact that----
THE DEATH RATE AT WIGAN INFIRMARY IS HIGHER THAN AVERAGE FOR THE REGION.
Is there a connection?--We don't know for sure. What we do know is that a larger proportion of Wigan inhabitants have lived here all their lives than the inhabitants of other towns and worked and paid taxes longer. We are entitled to better treatment and the authorities --
SHOULD SEE WE GET IT!
WE'VE PAID FOR IT!
Wednesday, 20 August 2008
INTERESTING ENCOUNTER IN WIGAN TOWN CENTRE
I had an interesting little encounter today, near the town centre.
I was making my way to the post office from the bus station; this route goes past our M.P. Neil Turner's office. Outside the office I saw a council traffic warden ticketing a parked car. I have no idea who's car it was, but as I was passing I said
"I hope that's our M.P. Neil Turner's car"
"It's always possible" said the warden "but very unlikely. They have private parking behind those big gates"
Why is that interesting?
It's interesting because it's a perfect illustration of how our politicians, national and local, make the rules for policing us in matters large and small, and send out their cash collecters to collect all the fines they can impose. Kerrr ...ching!
Then they set in place arrangements that exempt them from those rules. One law for us, another law for them.
This reminds me of the Labour governments plan to set in place an ID register for all the nation's children ... except that the children of politicians and other prominent people will not be included.
Tired of this sort of thing?
Vote BNP.
I was making my way to the post office from the bus station; this route goes past our M.P. Neil Turner's office. Outside the office I saw a council traffic warden ticketing a parked car. I have no idea who's car it was, but as I was passing I said
"I hope that's our M.P. Neil Turner's car"
"It's always possible" said the warden "but very unlikely. They have private parking behind those big gates"
Why is that interesting?
It's interesting because it's a perfect illustration of how our politicians, national and local, make the rules for policing us in matters large and small, and send out their cash collecters to collect all the fines they can impose. Kerrr ...ching!
Then they set in place arrangements that exempt them from those rules. One law for us, another law for them.
This reminds me of the Labour governments plan to set in place an ID register for all the nation's children ... except that the children of politicians and other prominent people will not be included.
Tired of this sort of thing?
Vote BNP.
Monday, 18 August 2008
RWB, PICTURES,THE EVENT
An excellent RWB was enjoyed by thousands last weekend. We were lucky with the weather and the forecast rain did not come until Saturday evening and it did little to disrupt our enjoyment although some may have lost a little sleep because of it.
The friendly atmosphere at these gatherings has to be experienced to be believed, a spirit of unity of purpose which is so lacking in the rest of society.
Some latecomers were delayed by the undemocratic trash who were intent on preventing this very private celebration of British unity,led of course by the loony Left Bob Crow and the ugly and odious Weyman Bennett. What right have these two and especially the latter to try to prevent our celebration.WHAT FASCISTS!
Unlike the Notting Hill Carnival and Glastonbury there were no arrests on our site and no drugs taken or knives used.
The police were out in force at great cost. This would have been un necessary if the Reds had left us alone and the higher taxes used to pay the police are caused by them.
I believe the police were there partly to protect this rabble as if they had managed to gain access there could have been injury to the protesters such was the anger when it was rumoured there had been a break in.
The fact that we were banned from selling alcohol did not stop us having a good time, in fact some had too good a time and woke up the next day regretting it.
The ban was just a peevish effort to spoil our fun but we carried on.
This must have annoyed them as they came in with a council official (on overtime on Saturday night) to find fault.
SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND, if you look hard enough, and we have been told to expect action to be taken for holding an unauthorised Punch and Judy show without a licence and playing "live music". The music was away from the road in the Marquee and was only on for 30 minutes so they must have been waiting to pounce.
ANY FINE IMPOSED WILL NOT BE PAID!
What a propaganda coup---BNP man jailed for not paying a fine imposed for holding a Punch and Judy show----Bring it on!
Below are some pictures taken on Saturday. I have filmed some of the excellent speeches and will copy them as soon as possible.
The chairman discussing ?dogs
Chopping wood for the camp fire
Children's "Rocket Range"
The chairman meets "Captain Mainwaring"
A picture of my wife taking a well earned rest. Well I have to put her in don't I?
Three" likely lads"
A scene round the food tent.
A party from St Helens (there were no Wiganers about).
Another scene in the outdoor caff.
The friendly atmosphere at these gatherings has to be experienced to be believed, a spirit of unity of purpose which is so lacking in the rest of society.
Some latecomers were delayed by the undemocratic trash who were intent on preventing this very private celebration of British unity,led of course by the loony Left Bob Crow and the ugly and odious Weyman Bennett. What right have these two and especially the latter to try to prevent our celebration.WHAT FASCISTS!
Unlike the Notting Hill Carnival and Glastonbury there were no arrests on our site and no drugs taken or knives used.
The police were out in force at great cost. This would have been un necessary if the Reds had left us alone and the higher taxes used to pay the police are caused by them.
I believe the police were there partly to protect this rabble as if they had managed to gain access there could have been injury to the protesters such was the anger when it was rumoured there had been a break in.
The fact that we were banned from selling alcohol did not stop us having a good time, in fact some had too good a time and woke up the next day regretting it.
The ban was just a peevish effort to spoil our fun but we carried on.
This must have annoyed them as they came in with a council official (on overtime on Saturday night) to find fault.
SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND, if you look hard enough, and we have been told to expect action to be taken for holding an unauthorised Punch and Judy show without a licence and playing "live music". The music was away from the road in the Marquee and was only on for 30 minutes so they must have been waiting to pounce.
ANY FINE IMPOSED WILL NOT BE PAID!
What a propaganda coup---BNP man jailed for not paying a fine imposed for holding a Punch and Judy show----Bring it on!
Below are some pictures taken on Saturday. I have filmed some of the excellent speeches and will copy them as soon as possible.
The chairman discussing ?dogs
Chopping wood for the camp fire
Children's "Rocket Range"
The chairman meets "Captain Mainwaring"
A picture of my wife taking a well earned rest. Well I have to put her in don't I?
Three" likely lads"
A scene round the food tent.
A party from St Helens (there were no Wiganers about).
Another scene in the outdoor caff.
Sunday dawned dry after the overnight rain and there were excellent speeches by Richard Barnbrook and Peter Strudwick culminating by the chairman's inspirational closing address delivered from the "Truth Truck" which entered the field to the strains of "I vow to thee my country".Following the speech the festivities ended with our hymn "Jerusalem".
Everyone left the field feeling united and inspired to continue our struggle for justice for the British people.
Afterwards an emergency General Meeting was held where it was decided to continue the practice of allowing leadership challenges each year provided 5% party members signed the nomination form of a candidate.
After a free discussion where points for and against were made the amendment was passed by an overwhelming majority.
Thursday, 14 August 2008
RWB PICTURES
Yesterday we went to the RWB festival site to give them a lift with the putting up of the marquees. Good progress had already been made but there was still a lot to do. The pictures show about half of the tents which have been erected. Not seen is the big tent where the political programme takes place. Also is the food tent and a dedicated North West tent.
The top picture shows the fairground in the early stages of erection and surprisingly the field is remarkedly dry.
There have been minor incidents irritations by the Fascist Left. Graffiti has been sprayed on the entrance to the field and used syringes left in front of the gate. I suppose this trash has to have somewhere to dispose of their syringes and they are not the most tidy people.
Alan Warner the farmer is confident the police will have everything under control and the occasion will be a safe one.
The only possible difficulty could be the weather but there is adequate cover and plenty to see and do.
The best thing about these gatherings is the cameraderie , meeting good people in a friendly setting with children playing unmolested by perverts as they could be elsewhere. You always leave invigorated and happy to meet so many like minded people.
I urge any members and their friends to make the effort to attend, it will be well worth it.
Hope to see you this weekend.
Monday, 11 August 2008
MANCHESTER CONGESTION CHARGES
People of Greater Manchester are to be asked to approve a congestion charge for vehicular access into the city.
The cost of entry into Manchester per day could be as much as £10. This and the added complcation of obtaining tickets and the liability to be fined for late payment would cause endless of trouble for workers and businesses in Manchester.
In exchange for all this cost and inconvenience we are told to expect improvements in public transport and a general improvement of the business and work environment.
How these idiots think costing people £10 per day improves the business costs and efficiency is beyond me.
It shows how far they are for the realities of real life for business and workers.
We already pay enough taxes to pay for the projected public transport improvements,and if past experience is anything to go on most of the revenue generated by the charge would be swallowed up in administering the scheme.
Inadequate planning over the past 60 years with jobs sited too far from people's homes and too much concentration of work in one place in Manchester and other cities has caused many of the problems with the daily commute.
How to find the money for public transport without finance from charges?
Give these featherbedded bureaucrats a shovel or change their job description from planners to builders.
They created the problem in the first place, let them fix it.
But not at our expense!
VOTE AGAINST THE CHARGE.
Friday, 8 August 2008
HUMAN RIGHTS
People from the media have been scouring China looking for instances of human rights abuses while our government has also complained about these abuses.
Speaking freely can result in arrest.
People belonging to organisations the government does not approve of can be discriminated against.
Failure to toe the govenments line can lead to victimisation in the jobs market.
People's houses can be taken off them to make way for government projects such as the Games.
How terrible! How unlike the situation here,where in free Britain we have
People jailed for using the word P*** to describe someone from a country whose name starts with those letters( note how in this "free" country I am afraid to write the word)
So much for our free speech then!
Legal organisations hindered from holding festivals to celebrate their beliefs and unity, like the BNP is with the RWB.
So much for the freedom of association then!
People losing their jobs when they are found to be members of the BNP.
So much for freedom of concience then!
People having their property compulsorily purchased to make way for government schemes.
So much for property rights then!
THINK ABOUT IT.
In 20 years China will be richer and may have a new government which could give them more freedom.
If things continue as they are we will be poorer, disunited and---
Will have lost our country FOR EVER! There will be no turning back the clock!
What about our human rights? What about our right to have a country of our own?
Who cares about us?----THE BNP.
Speaking freely can result in arrest.
People belonging to organisations the government does not approve of can be discriminated against.
Failure to toe the govenments line can lead to victimisation in the jobs market.
People's houses can be taken off them to make way for government projects such as the Games.
How terrible! How unlike the situation here,where in free Britain we have
People jailed for using the word P*** to describe someone from a country whose name starts with those letters( note how in this "free" country I am afraid to write the word)
So much for our free speech then!
Legal organisations hindered from holding festivals to celebrate their beliefs and unity, like the BNP is with the RWB.
So much for the freedom of association then!
People losing their jobs when they are found to be members of the BNP.
So much for freedom of concience then!
People having their property compulsorily purchased to make way for government schemes.
So much for property rights then!
THINK ABOUT IT.
In 20 years China will be richer and may have a new government which could give them more freedom.
If things continue as they are we will be poorer, disunited and---
Will have lost our country FOR EVER! There will be no turning back the clock!
What about our human rights? What about our right to have a country of our own?
Who cares about us?----THE BNP.
Thursday, 7 August 2008
"RIGHT TO BUY", STEALTH TAXES AND ASSET STRIPPING FROM LESS WELL OFF PEOPLE
All - all - of this instantly exploded into my head after reading just one number in the summary of Wigan council's annual accounts - 75%. That is the proportion of the nett take from all council house sales that the council is forced to pay to the Treasury.
And sorry folks - this is going to be long and possibly very dull - it's about numbers, politics, housing, laws, Conservative and Labour governments. It has several threads which I'm going to have to try to introduce in some sort of order and try - try - to mould into some sort of coherent story. I'm so enraged this is not going to be easy. If you decide to give it a miss, I wont blame you. But I had to spend most of the night writing it, so at least give it a try ...
First thing to note is that the Housing Revenue Account (HRA - remember that, I refer to it frequently) is ringfenced. There are no financial interactions between the HRA and the rest of the council. The ratepayers - Council Tax payers - do not pay the money used to subsidise council rents. Not. Not. Not. If the HRA wants something from some other part of the council, it has to pay. Indeed, in 2007-2008 the HRA paid £2,530,000 for services and facilities. This comes out of rents paid to the HRA by council tenants. It gets nothing for nothing. So please everyone, get rid of that idea that council rents are subsidised by ratepayers. They categorically are NOT. Council tenants get nothing from your local taxes. From general taxes then? Wait and see - it gets complicated.
In October 1980 Mrs Thatcher pushed through the "Right to Buy" legislation. This underwent major amendment in 1985, 1988, 1995 by Conservative governments, 1998 and 2005 by Mr. Blair's Labour government (with Mr. Brown as Chancellor). There have probably been more amendments, but these will do for now as I'm only trying to establish that both major parties have played with this legislation. I'll be back for another nibble at this later on.
Throughout this period, up until 1999 when I finally (I'm stubborn) admitted to myself that I saw through Mr Blair and his entire project, I was a member of the Labour party, and I can recall nothing but opposition within the party to this legislation. The main reason for opposition, as I recall, was that yes, this was selling off social housing stock, but also that councils were only to be allowed to use 25% of the nett take to build replacement housing. The other 75% was to be "set aside". The reason given - and the Labour party have stuck to this too, was that if the councils were allowed to use all the net take to build replacement housing, they would have to borrow money (don't ask me: we're trying to fathom the minds of politicians here) and the debt involved would be too much (I simplify enormously). But is this the whole story for that 75% of the take? Where, actually does this "set aside" money go? What was/is done with it? I don't know what specifically is done with it; I do know where it goes. And considering councils all over the country are decidedly NOT sitting on reserves of billions of pounds, I can at least guess what's generally done with it. Can't you? You will soon. And why was "Right to Buy" really instituted – and then maintained by the Labour party despite all its opposition to it?
In there is the dirty little secret of "The Right to Buy". And it has been from the start. For participating individuals the policy has been superb; almost everyone who's taken advantage of it has gained. The excuse for it has been empowering poorer people, and frankly, it has done that for those individuals (but has it for the country as a whole?) and that has been the Media take on it for 28 years. They've mentioned the 75% that's set aside but never really talked about it, explained it. But was that the REAL reason for it, and is that the real reason this government continued, and in at least one way intensified, the policy when it came to power in 1997 despite having opposed every bit of it right through the Conservative years?
Let me give you some much needed numbers.
I'm just talking about Wigan Council here, but do remember this is happening all over England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland at the same time. All councils with housing stock. The money numbers get quite staggering.
Residential property sales in Wigan.
In 2007-2008 "Right to Buy" legislation was used in the sale of:
4 x 1-bedroom houses
50 x 2-bedroom houses
128 x 3-bedroom houses
3 x 4-bedroom houses
11 x 1-bedroom flats
10 x 2-bedroom flats
That's 206 property sales in all. The council did not, of course, get full market value for those properties because of the discount rules (more later). None of this is to be blamed on the council: if a tenant meets the conditions legislated for, the council must sell, and must do so at the legislated discount. This piece is not hitting out at the council - the council has no choices in this - it has to sell at a loss.
Rent subsidy.
I have to go back to 2006/2007 first.
In that year, rent subsidy paid to the HRA by the Treasury (technically, The Secretary of State for the Dept. of Communities and Local Govt., and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is mixed in there somewhere - but whatever - the Treasury, which was then and still is now Mr. Brown's empire). was:
£6,647,000 (roughly 11% of the total rent income to the HRA, and in addition to the rent take)
Fast-Forward to the year 2007/2008 and the rent subsidy to the HRA was:
£4,806,000. (a drop to roughly 8% of the total rent income to the HRA, in addition to the rent take).
So from one year to the next, the subsidy dropped by £1,841,000
In 2006/2007 the total rent take was £59,778.000.
In 2007/2008 the total rent take was £63,529,000
So the rent take rose by £3,751,000 while subsidy dropped by £1,841,000. And there are 205 fewer council homes in that second year - they've been sold. Properties go down, total rent goes up. What's going on here? Subsidies drop by a sum way out of proportion to the drop in number of properties due to sales. And what's going on here? At the least it means that rents have risen by more than they would otherwise have needed to. An extra rise in living costs for the poor. What is going on? Does the subsidy drop year by year every year? Have to wait until next year to see.
Bit more to look at first before we can see what's going on. Mrs Thatcher's government, whatever you thought of it, was clever. Mr. Blair's, now Mr Brown's government, whatever you think of it, is cleverer. They are decidedly not incompetent. The problem is with us - we think they're doing one set of things that governments should do, but just not this incompetently, when they are actually following an entirely different agenda and we don’t even notice. Very clever.
Nett take on housing sales in 2007/2008 (numbers rounded to nearest thousand)
The nett take after all costs, including discounts, are deducted was £10,257,000
The amount the HRA was permitted to keep of this money was £1,651,000
So where did the missing £7,693,000 go? It went to the same place as the subsidy came from and via the same route - Treasury via the ODPM. The HRA didn't get to keep it in an account, as set aside, but earning interest for the HRA. It went to the Treasury. Just starting to all pull together isn't it.
Subsidy to Wigan HRA: £4,806,000
Payment to the Treasury from Wigan: £7,693,000
Total funds transfer: £2,887,000 FROM WIGAN HRA TO THE TREASURY.
Who’s being subsidised by who?
Now then, you might think that's a lot of jiggery pokery for a relatively small sum. Here I'm going to have to make an assumption or two - reasonable ones: the only council I have data for is Wigan, so I'm going to assume that Wigan is exactly the average council nationwide i.e. everything that happens to Wigan happens to all councils, and everything Wigan does all councils do, in respect of this housing business. If I had more data from more councils I could refine; but I don't so I'm going with what I've got and accept that my eventual numbers will be out, but probably by not an enormous amount. Some councils are bigger, some smaller, some have more council housing, some fewer, some take more money, some less, some send more to the treasury, some less. So I assume we are average i.e. for calculation's sake, every council produces exactly the same numbers we do. How many councils?
There are exactly 472 District, Borough, County and City councils, and Unitary Authorities. Assume the same house sales, on average, for each. Assume the same amount paid to the Treasury by each. What number are we looking at?
472 x £7,693,000 = £3,631,096,000.
Over three and a half billion pounds. Now that's a tidy little take. From council house sales nationwide, supposedly to empower the "working man" (and to be fair, individually it does for those who participate) the Treasury gains £3,631,096,000.
So, far from the treasury subsidising council tenant rents by, nationwide (Wigan as average):
472 x £4,806,000 = £2,268,432,000,
it turns out that council tenants (and council HRAs) have subsidised the Treasury and central government by:
£3,631,096,000 - £2,268,432,000 = £1,362,664,000.
That's money available towards hundreds of thousands of non-productive nanny-state and admin. jobs to micro-police us; in the building of a voting clientele; in addition to funding mass immigration, so building another voting clientele. Also used towards tax cuts for wealthy and generally well-off people. One thinks of the tax status of non-doms. All very nice for not only building a voting clientele, but also for massive donations to the party from those wealthy people and businesses that benefit from this. All coming to an end now, of course. Why? - Later.
Oh ... and illegal wars of aggression, gifts - sorry - "Aid" - to corrupt friends abroad - never really ends does it, with this government.
Housing Revenue Accounts across the country (and thereby council tenants) are not being subsidised by the Treasury - they are paying into the Treasury by that above amount. And the councils are getting asset stripped of their housing stock to do it. Inadvertently by the buying tenants, but knowingly by the Treasury.
But the Treasury's gained more than this hasn't it! Reduced rent subsidies compared to the year before, by the jiggery pokery of Treasury methods of accounting can be made to read like gains and then spent! The money isn't spent as subsidies, so it can be spent on other things.
Taking Wigan as average again, and there being 472 councils as above, the Treasury has cut rent subsidies to the working man by:
£1,841,000 x 472 = £868,952,000.
Therefore total spending-potential gain from reducing subsidies, asset stripping local authorities and the working man of their social housing stock, to be used for the above mentioned alternate spending - and more - purposes:
£2,231,616,000.
Or the best part of two and a quarter billion pounds at the expense of, essentially, the poorest people in the land, for the benefit of the comfortable and rich. Now that is really expert stealth taxing - and the media says not a word. None of the media, anywhere. And that's just one year. This game has been going on for 28 years.
Now my figures may not be spot on; Wigan may not be an exactly average council; some of my calculations may be a little out; and maybe one or two things I've done are no better than the Treasury methods of doing things. But I am definitely at least in the right ball park.
Now then: Mrs. Thatcher, the then asset stripper extraordinaire started this off, but the new Labour – Labour, note - government of 1997 actually intensified it! A LABOUR government? How? And why?
I mentioned at the beginning that there have been several amendments to the original Right to Buy Act. Mrs Thatcher made various amendments. Fair enough - we expect Conservatives to rip off the lower classes – it’s what they are for (both the conservatives and the lower classes). But what did Mr. Blair's and Mr. Brown's so-called Labour party do to itensify that rip-off?
Well, whatever the drawbacks of the asset stripping of the public housing stock, at least with the Conservatives the individual purchasers did make huge gains, with cost discounts nationwide uniformly going as high as a cash value of £50,000 . Sure there was a large 75% take for the Treasury, but at least the buyers did well.
Certainly better than they do these days.
In 1998 the Labour party claimed that uniform nationwide discounts of up to £50,000 was a cost to the public of £400,000,000 a year too much and that this money could be used to build additional housing (yeah, sure). So naturally enough, it being a LABOUR government, they lowered the cash limits for discounts, regardless of the percentage discount tenant purchasers were entitled to. Instead of a discount limit of £50,000 nationwide it became, for example, a limit of £38,000 discount in London, £22,000 in the North East, £26,000 in the West Midlands and £24,000 in Wales. The effect of this is to increase the purchase prices for Right to Buy purchasers – on top of the higher current valuations due to rampant house-price inflation. So: higher prices but lower cash limits to the discounts. Very nice I'm sure. For someone anyway. Just not the purchasing tenants - supposedly the very kind of people that the Labour party was originally created to benefit. This might have been a good thing if a house-building boom had ensued. Well, all you people out there involved in the building trade - has there been a boom in building social housing? I think not.
But again, what was REALLY going on there? We know Mrs. Thatcher was a pure asset stripper. But Misters Blair and Brown have been even keener asset strippers - nailed down or not, they've sold it to finance the increases in voting clientele and other illicit purposes - but Mr. Brown also has a well-deserved reputation as a stealth taxer extraordinaire. What was the result of reducing the cash limits on discounts? That's right: higher purchase prices, on top of already inflated prices - and the Treasury gets 75% of the nett take from sales of council houses .... Bingo! More money for the treasury. Stealth tax. Note that the media doesn't talk about this. Oh sure, the media whinges regularly about stealth taxes - but those stealth taxes that effect their own kind of people - generally the comfortable classes. They have never mentioned these stealth taxes that are being levied on the poorer people, for example the council tenants. The asset stripping of council social housing ... to the general benefit of, well, their own kind of people. Comfortable people.
I doubt if the media even notices.
And given that the new Labour government in 1997 didn't end the Right to Buy, so to maintain a higher level of public housing stock, and so more tenancy availability and less need to enter the housing market, why didn't that governemnt at least allow councils to keep 100% of the sale price to build as much replacement housing as possible for maintaining the rental stock (and less need to enter that housing market)? Councils are allowed to keep 25% of the nett take and can use this for building. However, without massive borrowing, at best they could build one house for every four sold. As building costs have risen in line with all other prices in recent years, the ratio of house numbers possible to build compared to those sold is actually far far worse than this 1:4 - perhaps even as bad as 1:10. And that pyramid selling scheme known as the housing market really does need a continuous stream of new suckers coming in at the bottom ...
Why wouldn't a LABOUR government do this for the benefit of it's traditional client electorate? Well, there's the stealth tax component, of course, but also the rise in house prices we've seen over the past few years. If councils could build more houses for rent at reasonable rents, then there would be less demand to buy into the housing market - price rises would moderate. Again, apart from the loss of the 75% from Right to Buy sales, the smaller increases in house prices would lead to lower stamp duties etc, and also, to less equity withdrawal, so less improvements in the feelgood factor - i.e. people wouldn't feel they were doing so well, so may not vote Labour, there'd be less spending, so less tax taken. So less money to spread in giveaways to comfortable people, less to spend recruiting for the nanny state, less to fund immigration … Can you see the economic circles this all goes in?
And where has it led us? An economy almost entirely dependent on house price rises (and financial speculation in the City casino), and apparent, not real, wealth based on a house price bubble. Now the bubble's bursting. And we are in for an economic depression that is going to make the 1930s look like a Buckingham Palace garden party. Got nothing much to sell now - it's already been sold. And virtually no manufacturing industry to perhaps sell things abroad, ruined agriculture and fisheries so any spare money we do manage to put together will have to be used to import food. There’s been virtually no real investment in energy and it gets cold here in Winter …
It's all part and parcel of the asset strip that started in 1979 and didn't stop with the advent of Misters Blair and Brown and their LABOUR government, but intensified. The asset strip has created the illusion of wealth and a healthy economy. But it has only been an illusion. Now we are going to have to pay for it as reality bites. This here isn't the whole story, but it's a part of it - just another component of the asset strip - part of the bit about asset stripping and stealth taxing the poor on behalf of the comfortable. A Labour government? Really? Extracting from the poor to give to the rich. I wont go into the withdrawal of the 10p tax rate eh?
I wish you all good luck. We are all going to need some of that. That includes a great many of what I’ve here called the comfortable. Very few will escape unscathed. But then - you voted for it.
If you want to read a related story in government weasel-words, without the asset stripping and stealth tax interpretation, go here:
http://tinyurl.com/6jtta9
only now as you read it, you'll have those things in mind and recognise it everywhere you read.
I have separate hard copies of the council accounts department summaries of the numbers for Wigan. Will provide copies to anyone requesting them.
I have tried to make this a coherent and readable account. There are so many threads to pull together, so many numbers - and I am so enraged to the point of incoherence at the whole business, that it has been difficult. I hope it all makes sense.
Thank you for persevering.
And sorry folks - this is going to be long and possibly very dull - it's about numbers, politics, housing, laws, Conservative and Labour governments. It has several threads which I'm going to have to try to introduce in some sort of order and try - try - to mould into some sort of coherent story. I'm so enraged this is not going to be easy. If you decide to give it a miss, I wont blame you. But I had to spend most of the night writing it, so at least give it a try ...
First thing to note is that the Housing Revenue Account (HRA - remember that, I refer to it frequently) is ringfenced. There are no financial interactions between the HRA and the rest of the council. The ratepayers - Council Tax payers - do not pay the money used to subsidise council rents. Not. Not. Not. If the HRA wants something from some other part of the council, it has to pay. Indeed, in 2007-2008 the HRA paid £2,530,000 for services and facilities. This comes out of rents paid to the HRA by council tenants. It gets nothing for nothing. So please everyone, get rid of that idea that council rents are subsidised by ratepayers. They categorically are NOT. Council tenants get nothing from your local taxes. From general taxes then? Wait and see - it gets complicated.
In October 1980 Mrs Thatcher pushed through the "Right to Buy" legislation. This underwent major amendment in 1985, 1988, 1995 by Conservative governments, 1998 and 2005 by Mr. Blair's Labour government (with Mr. Brown as Chancellor). There have probably been more amendments, but these will do for now as I'm only trying to establish that both major parties have played with this legislation. I'll be back for another nibble at this later on.
Throughout this period, up until 1999 when I finally (I'm stubborn) admitted to myself that I saw through Mr Blair and his entire project, I was a member of the Labour party, and I can recall nothing but opposition within the party to this legislation. The main reason for opposition, as I recall, was that yes, this was selling off social housing stock, but also that councils were only to be allowed to use 25% of the nett take to build replacement housing. The other 75% was to be "set aside". The reason given - and the Labour party have stuck to this too, was that if the councils were allowed to use all the net take to build replacement housing, they would have to borrow money (don't ask me: we're trying to fathom the minds of politicians here) and the debt involved would be too much (I simplify enormously). But is this the whole story for that 75% of the take? Where, actually does this "set aside" money go? What was/is done with it? I don't know what specifically is done with it; I do know where it goes. And considering councils all over the country are decidedly NOT sitting on reserves of billions of pounds, I can at least guess what's generally done with it. Can't you? You will soon. And why was "Right to Buy" really instituted – and then maintained by the Labour party despite all its opposition to it?
In there is the dirty little secret of "The Right to Buy". And it has been from the start. For participating individuals the policy has been superb; almost everyone who's taken advantage of it has gained. The excuse for it has been empowering poorer people, and frankly, it has done that for those individuals (but has it for the country as a whole?) and that has been the Media take on it for 28 years. They've mentioned the 75% that's set aside but never really talked about it, explained it. But was that the REAL reason for it, and is that the real reason this government continued, and in at least one way intensified, the policy when it came to power in 1997 despite having opposed every bit of it right through the Conservative years?
Let me give you some much needed numbers.
I'm just talking about Wigan Council here, but do remember this is happening all over England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland at the same time. All councils with housing stock. The money numbers get quite staggering.
Residential property sales in Wigan.
In 2007-2008 "Right to Buy" legislation was used in the sale of:
4 x 1-bedroom houses
50 x 2-bedroom houses
128 x 3-bedroom houses
3 x 4-bedroom houses
11 x 1-bedroom flats
10 x 2-bedroom flats
That's 206 property sales in all. The council did not, of course, get full market value for those properties because of the discount rules (more later). None of this is to be blamed on the council: if a tenant meets the conditions legislated for, the council must sell, and must do so at the legislated discount. This piece is not hitting out at the council - the council has no choices in this - it has to sell at a loss.
Rent subsidy.
I have to go back to 2006/2007 first.
In that year, rent subsidy paid to the HRA by the Treasury (technically, The Secretary of State for the Dept. of Communities and Local Govt., and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is mixed in there somewhere - but whatever - the Treasury, which was then and still is now Mr. Brown's empire). was:
£6,647,000 (roughly 11% of the total rent income to the HRA, and in addition to the rent take)
Fast-Forward to the year 2007/2008 and the rent subsidy to the HRA was:
£4,806,000. (a drop to roughly 8% of the total rent income to the HRA, in addition to the rent take).
So from one year to the next, the subsidy dropped by £1,841,000
In 2006/2007 the total rent take was £59,778.000.
In 2007/2008 the total rent take was £63,529,000
So the rent take rose by £3,751,000 while subsidy dropped by £1,841,000. And there are 205 fewer council homes in that second year - they've been sold. Properties go down, total rent goes up. What's going on here? Subsidies drop by a sum way out of proportion to the drop in number of properties due to sales. And what's going on here? At the least it means that rents have risen by more than they would otherwise have needed to. An extra rise in living costs for the poor. What is going on? Does the subsidy drop year by year every year? Have to wait until next year to see.
Bit more to look at first before we can see what's going on. Mrs Thatcher's government, whatever you thought of it, was clever. Mr. Blair's, now Mr Brown's government, whatever you think of it, is cleverer. They are decidedly not incompetent. The problem is with us - we think they're doing one set of things that governments should do, but just not this incompetently, when they are actually following an entirely different agenda and we don’t even notice. Very clever.
Nett take on housing sales in 2007/2008 (numbers rounded to nearest thousand)
The nett take after all costs, including discounts, are deducted was £10,257,000
The amount the HRA was permitted to keep of this money was £1,651,000
So where did the missing £7,693,000 go? It went to the same place as the subsidy came from and via the same route - Treasury via the ODPM. The HRA didn't get to keep it in an account, as set aside, but earning interest for the HRA. It went to the Treasury. Just starting to all pull together isn't it.
Subsidy to Wigan HRA: £4,806,000
Payment to the Treasury from Wigan: £7,693,000
Total funds transfer: £2,887,000 FROM WIGAN HRA TO THE TREASURY.
Who’s being subsidised by who?
Now then, you might think that's a lot of jiggery pokery for a relatively small sum. Here I'm going to have to make an assumption or two - reasonable ones: the only council I have data for is Wigan, so I'm going to assume that Wigan is exactly the average council nationwide i.e. everything that happens to Wigan happens to all councils, and everything Wigan does all councils do, in respect of this housing business. If I had more data from more councils I could refine; but I don't so I'm going with what I've got and accept that my eventual numbers will be out, but probably by not an enormous amount. Some councils are bigger, some smaller, some have more council housing, some fewer, some take more money, some less, some send more to the treasury, some less. So I assume we are average i.e. for calculation's sake, every council produces exactly the same numbers we do. How many councils?
There are exactly 472 District, Borough, County and City councils, and Unitary Authorities. Assume the same house sales, on average, for each. Assume the same amount paid to the Treasury by each. What number are we looking at?
472 x £7,693,000 = £3,631,096,000.
Over three and a half billion pounds. Now that's a tidy little take. From council house sales nationwide, supposedly to empower the "working man" (and to be fair, individually it does for those who participate) the Treasury gains £3,631,096,000.
So, far from the treasury subsidising council tenant rents by, nationwide (Wigan as average):
472 x £4,806,000 = £2,268,432,000,
it turns out that council tenants (and council HRAs) have subsidised the Treasury and central government by:
£3,631,096,000 - £2,268,432,000 = £1,362,664,000.
That's money available towards hundreds of thousands of non-productive nanny-state and admin. jobs to micro-police us; in the building of a voting clientele; in addition to funding mass immigration, so building another voting clientele. Also used towards tax cuts for wealthy and generally well-off people. One thinks of the tax status of non-doms. All very nice for not only building a voting clientele, but also for massive donations to the party from those wealthy people and businesses that benefit from this. All coming to an end now, of course. Why? - Later.
Oh ... and illegal wars of aggression, gifts - sorry - "Aid" - to corrupt friends abroad - never really ends does it, with this government.
Housing Revenue Accounts across the country (and thereby council tenants) are not being subsidised by the Treasury - they are paying into the Treasury by that above amount. And the councils are getting asset stripped of their housing stock to do it. Inadvertently by the buying tenants, but knowingly by the Treasury.
But the Treasury's gained more than this hasn't it! Reduced rent subsidies compared to the year before, by the jiggery pokery of Treasury methods of accounting can be made to read like gains and then spent! The money isn't spent as subsidies, so it can be spent on other things.
Taking Wigan as average again, and there being 472 councils as above, the Treasury has cut rent subsidies to the working man by:
£1,841,000 x 472 = £868,952,000.
Therefore total spending-potential gain from reducing subsidies, asset stripping local authorities and the working man of their social housing stock, to be used for the above mentioned alternate spending - and more - purposes:
£2,231,616,000.
Or the best part of two and a quarter billion pounds at the expense of, essentially, the poorest people in the land, for the benefit of the comfortable and rich. Now that is really expert stealth taxing - and the media says not a word. None of the media, anywhere. And that's just one year. This game has been going on for 28 years.
Now my figures may not be spot on; Wigan may not be an exactly average council; some of my calculations may be a little out; and maybe one or two things I've done are no better than the Treasury methods of doing things. But I am definitely at least in the right ball park.
Now then: Mrs. Thatcher, the then asset stripper extraordinaire started this off, but the new Labour – Labour, note - government of 1997 actually intensified it! A LABOUR government? How? And why?
I mentioned at the beginning that there have been several amendments to the original Right to Buy Act. Mrs Thatcher made various amendments. Fair enough - we expect Conservatives to rip off the lower classes – it’s what they are for (both the conservatives and the lower classes). But what did Mr. Blair's and Mr. Brown's so-called Labour party do to itensify that rip-off?
Well, whatever the drawbacks of the asset stripping of the public housing stock, at least with the Conservatives the individual purchasers did make huge gains, with cost discounts nationwide uniformly going as high as a cash value of £50,000 . Sure there was a large 75% take for the Treasury, but at least the buyers did well.
Certainly better than they do these days.
In 1998 the Labour party claimed that uniform nationwide discounts of up to £50,000 was a cost to the public of £400,000,000 a year too much and that this money could be used to build additional housing (yeah, sure). So naturally enough, it being a LABOUR government, they lowered the cash limits for discounts, regardless of the percentage discount tenant purchasers were entitled to. Instead of a discount limit of £50,000 nationwide it became, for example, a limit of £38,000 discount in London, £22,000 in the North East, £26,000 in the West Midlands and £24,000 in Wales. The effect of this is to increase the purchase prices for Right to Buy purchasers – on top of the higher current valuations due to rampant house-price inflation. So: higher prices but lower cash limits to the discounts. Very nice I'm sure. For someone anyway. Just not the purchasing tenants - supposedly the very kind of people that the Labour party was originally created to benefit. This might have been a good thing if a house-building boom had ensued. Well, all you people out there involved in the building trade - has there been a boom in building social housing? I think not.
But again, what was REALLY going on there? We know Mrs. Thatcher was a pure asset stripper. But Misters Blair and Brown have been even keener asset strippers - nailed down or not, they've sold it to finance the increases in voting clientele and other illicit purposes - but Mr. Brown also has a well-deserved reputation as a stealth taxer extraordinaire. What was the result of reducing the cash limits on discounts? That's right: higher purchase prices, on top of already inflated prices - and the Treasury gets 75% of the nett take from sales of council houses .... Bingo! More money for the treasury. Stealth tax. Note that the media doesn't talk about this. Oh sure, the media whinges regularly about stealth taxes - but those stealth taxes that effect their own kind of people - generally the comfortable classes. They have never mentioned these stealth taxes that are being levied on the poorer people, for example the council tenants. The asset stripping of council social housing ... to the general benefit of, well, their own kind of people. Comfortable people.
I doubt if the media even notices.
And given that the new Labour government in 1997 didn't end the Right to Buy, so to maintain a higher level of public housing stock, and so more tenancy availability and less need to enter the housing market, why didn't that governemnt at least allow councils to keep 100% of the sale price to build as much replacement housing as possible for maintaining the rental stock (and less need to enter that housing market)? Councils are allowed to keep 25% of the nett take and can use this for building. However, without massive borrowing, at best they could build one house for every four sold. As building costs have risen in line with all other prices in recent years, the ratio of house numbers possible to build compared to those sold is actually far far worse than this 1:4 - perhaps even as bad as 1:10. And that pyramid selling scheme known as the housing market really does need a continuous stream of new suckers coming in at the bottom ...
Why wouldn't a LABOUR government do this for the benefit of it's traditional client electorate? Well, there's the stealth tax component, of course, but also the rise in house prices we've seen over the past few years. If councils could build more houses for rent at reasonable rents, then there would be less demand to buy into the housing market - price rises would moderate. Again, apart from the loss of the 75% from Right to Buy sales, the smaller increases in house prices would lead to lower stamp duties etc, and also, to less equity withdrawal, so less improvements in the feelgood factor - i.e. people wouldn't feel they were doing so well, so may not vote Labour, there'd be less spending, so less tax taken. So less money to spread in giveaways to comfortable people, less to spend recruiting for the nanny state, less to fund immigration … Can you see the economic circles this all goes in?
And where has it led us? An economy almost entirely dependent on house price rises (and financial speculation in the City casino), and apparent, not real, wealth based on a house price bubble. Now the bubble's bursting. And we are in for an economic depression that is going to make the 1930s look like a Buckingham Palace garden party. Got nothing much to sell now - it's already been sold. And virtually no manufacturing industry to perhaps sell things abroad, ruined agriculture and fisheries so any spare money we do manage to put together will have to be used to import food. There’s been virtually no real investment in energy and it gets cold here in Winter …
It's all part and parcel of the asset strip that started in 1979 and didn't stop with the advent of Misters Blair and Brown and their LABOUR government, but intensified. The asset strip has created the illusion of wealth and a healthy economy. But it has only been an illusion. Now we are going to have to pay for it as reality bites. This here isn't the whole story, but it's a part of it - just another component of the asset strip - part of the bit about asset stripping and stealth taxing the poor on behalf of the comfortable. A Labour government? Really? Extracting from the poor to give to the rich. I wont go into the withdrawal of the 10p tax rate eh?
I wish you all good luck. We are all going to need some of that. That includes a great many of what I’ve here called the comfortable. Very few will escape unscathed. But then - you voted for it.
If you want to read a related story in government weasel-words, without the asset stripping and stealth tax interpretation, go here:
http://tinyurl.com/6jtta9
only now as you read it, you'll have those things in mind and recognise it everywhere you read.
I have separate hard copies of the council accounts department summaries of the numbers for Wigan. Will provide copies to anyone requesting them.
I have tried to make this a coherent and readable account. There are so many threads to pull together, so many numbers - and I am so enraged to the point of incoherence at the whole business, that it has been difficult. I hope it all makes sense.
Thank you for persevering.
Wednesday, 6 August 2008
RACIST INCIDENT IN LANDGATE
Two days ago there was a report in the Wigan Evening Post of a man of Asian genetics being racially abused on the Landgate estate. Death threats were made, his house and car vandalised, he was spat upon and his dog threatened.
He has taken some of the offenders to court but the punishment has been only "a slap on the wrist"
Meanwhile minor insults to recent immigrants are met with jail sentences.
You may ask why? You may ask why is a BNP blogger taking this man's case up?--read on.
This man was born in this country of Asian parentage 62 years ago. He acts like a Briton, thinks like a Briton, talks like a Briton (geordie actually) and has lived here all his life. But he is not a muslim in spite of his name.
In fact apart from his Asian genetics he is as British as any one of us.
Could this be the reason the authorities are not taking it very seriously---he is too British.
It is strange how the authorities jump on the slightest incident involving recent immigrants while tending to ignore this man's plight.
He is on our side,unlike many who come here from abroad and therefore "must be welcomed"
We should be on his side and protect him from the trash who persecute him. He would be safer under a BNP administration as we believe in justice.
Tuesday, 5 August 2008
PHOTOS? OK, LET'S AMUSE OURSELVES
Let's take a look, using a short series of photographs, at the real significance of the leaders of our society and world in the grand scheme of things. Let's use Jocky Broon as our example.
Well, on the small scale of just the inner planets and Pluto (the rocky planets), even his vast girth doesn't amount to so much as a speck of dust. Not very significant then eh? Let's take a look at all the planets together.
Good Lord, even the Earth itself doesn't look too significant now. What does that make Jocky? Ah, ok then, perhaps he'll seem more significant if set against a grander background. Shall we look at the whole Solar System?
Jocky, Jocky, wherefore art thou Jocky? We know you're in there somewhere. But do you amount to anything more than a hill of beans in the significance stakes? Does anyone? The Earth itself doesn't look more than a speck of dust set on this scale. Let's take a larger-scale look at this.
Oh dearie me - on this scale even our Sun is next to nothing - just one pixel in size. A speck of dust. Now I happen to know that there are stars out there in ... never mind the Universe ... our Milky Way galaxy alone that in comparison to Antares, make Antares look like our Sun looks here: invisible, it's so trivial. So on this scale, and on the scales in the following film, how trivial is our planet, and how trivial is Jocky on that planet? Jocky, like the rest of us you are nothing so lets be having less of the Prime Ministerial self-importance shall we? Fewer of those table-thumping tantrums when addressing junior staff would be a welcome start.
Well, on the small scale of just the inner planets and Pluto (the rocky planets), even his vast girth doesn't amount to so much as a speck of dust. Not very significant then eh? Let's take a look at all the planets together. Good Lord, even the Earth itself doesn't look too significant now. What does that make Jocky? Ah, ok then, perhaps he'll seem more significant if set against a grander background. Shall we look at the whole Solar System? Jocky, Jocky, wherefore art thou Jocky? We know you're in there somewhere. But do you amount to anything more than a hill of beans in the significance stakes? Does anyone? The Earth itself doesn't look more than a speck of dust set on this scale. Let's take a larger-scale look at this.So now the Earth isn't even a speck of dust. On this scale it's trivial. Where's Jocky? How significant is he? Still, at least we can still see our Sun. Our Sun's big - surely we'll always be able to see that even if Jocky has become the incredible shrinking man. We'll always be able to see it - even if Jocky's nothing, our Sun will always be something. Wont it? Let's see.
Oh dearie me - on this scale even our Sun is next to nothing - just one pixel in size. A speck of dust. Now I happen to know that there are stars out there in ... never mind the Universe ... our Milky Way galaxy alone that in comparison to Antares, make Antares look like our Sun looks here: invisible, it's so trivial. So on this scale, and on the scales in the following film, how trivial is our planet, and how trivial is Jocky on that planet? Jocky, like the rest of us you are nothing so lets be having less of the Prime Ministerial self-importance shall we? Fewer of those table-thumping tantrums when addressing junior staff would be a welcome start.Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL4cFjmnQT8
"The Prime Minister has been taking morning workouts with Millie Dobie, a £50-an-hour coach, according to reports."
Don't bother Jocky; save your (probably our) money: you are already small, trivial and insignificant enough despite your apparent vast girth. If you really want to lose weight, it might help if you stopped eating your bogies ... at least when you're on camera in Parliament. Yes, we've all seen it.
And if you want to read my idea of a morning workout, go read the later comments on this post:
http://haddock-somethingfishy.blogspot.com/2008/08/expert.html
When I'm feeling a little cocky, I like to look at this series of photos, and that short film, to give myself a sense of how insignificant I really am in the grand scheme of things. Don't you all wish our self-important world "leaders" might take a leaf out of my book? Proper humility is good for the soul.
Monday, 4 August 2008
WHAT EVERY BNP WOMAN ALREADY KNOWS
Link at bottom.
When I tell my women friends that I want to save the males, they look at me as if noticing for the first time that I am insane. Then they say something like: “Are you out of your mind? This is still a male-dominated world. It’s women who need saving. Screw the men!” ...
... For the past 30 years or so, males have been under siege by a culture that too often embraces the notion that men are to blame for all of life’s ills. Males as a group – not random men – are bad by virtue of their DNA.
While women have been cast as victims, martyrs, mystics or saints, men have quietly retreated into their caves, the better to muffle emotions that fluctuate between hilarity (are these bitches crazy or what?) and rage (yes, they are and they’ve got our kids). ...
... Something that’s hard for many women to admit or understand is that after about the age of seven, boys prefer the company of men. A woman could know the secret code to Aladdin’s cave and it would be less interesting to a boy than a man talking about dirt.
... From their mothers, boys basically want to hear variations on two phrases: “I love you” and “Do you want those fried or scrambled?” I learnt this in no uncertain terms when I was a Cub Scout leader, which mysteriously seems to have prompted my son’s decision to abandon Scouting for ever.
My co-Akela (Cub Scout for wolf leader) was Dr Judy Sullivan – friend, fellow mother and clinical psychologist. Imagine the boys’ excitement when they learnt who would be leading them in guy pursuits: a reporter and a shrink – two intense, overachieving, helicopter mothers of only boys. Shouldn’t there be a law against this?
We had our boys’ best interests at heart, of course, and did our utmost to be good den mothers. But seven-year-old boys are not interested in making lanterns from coffee tins. They want to shoot bows and arrows, preferably at one another, chop wood with stone-hewn axes and sink canoes, preferably while in them.
At the end of a school day, during which they have been steeped in oestrogen by women teachers and told how many “bad choices” they’ve made, boys are ready to make some really bad choices. ...
... As luck would have it, a Cub Scout’s father was semi-retired or between jobs or something – we didn’t ask – and could attend the meetings. He didn’t have to do a thing. He just had to be there and respire testosterone vapours into the atmosphere.
His presence shifted the tectonic plates and changed the angle of the Earth on its axis. Our boys were at his command, ready to disarm landmines, to sink enemy ships – or even to sit quietly for the sake of the unit if he of the gravelly voice and sandpaper face wished it so. ...
... As long as men feel marginalised by the women whose favours and approval they seek; as long as they are alienated from their children and treated as criminals by family courts; as long as they are disrespected by a culture that no longer values masculinity tied to honour; and as long as boys are bereft of strong fathers and our young men and women wage sexual war, then we risk cultural suicide. ...
... When women say, “No, honey, you stay in bed. I’ll go see what that noise is” – I’ll reconsider.
Well worth reading the lot:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article4448371.ece
When I tell my women friends that I want to save the males, they look at me as if noticing for the first time that I am insane. Then they say something like: “Are you out of your mind? This is still a male-dominated world. It’s women who need saving. Screw the men!” ...
... For the past 30 years or so, males have been under siege by a culture that too often embraces the notion that men are to blame for all of life’s ills. Males as a group – not random men – are bad by virtue of their DNA.
While women have been cast as victims, martyrs, mystics or saints, men have quietly retreated into their caves, the better to muffle emotions that fluctuate between hilarity (are these bitches crazy or what?) and rage (yes, they are and they’ve got our kids). ...
... Something that’s hard for many women to admit or understand is that after about the age of seven, boys prefer the company of men. A woman could know the secret code to Aladdin’s cave and it would be less interesting to a boy than a man talking about dirt.
... From their mothers, boys basically want to hear variations on two phrases: “I love you” and “Do you want those fried or scrambled?” I learnt this in no uncertain terms when I was a Cub Scout leader, which mysteriously seems to have prompted my son’s decision to abandon Scouting for ever.
My co-Akela (Cub Scout for wolf leader) was Dr Judy Sullivan – friend, fellow mother and clinical psychologist. Imagine the boys’ excitement when they learnt who would be leading them in guy pursuits: a reporter and a shrink – two intense, overachieving, helicopter mothers of only boys. Shouldn’t there be a law against this?
We had our boys’ best interests at heart, of course, and did our utmost to be good den mothers. But seven-year-old boys are not interested in making lanterns from coffee tins. They want to shoot bows and arrows, preferably at one another, chop wood with stone-hewn axes and sink canoes, preferably while in them.
At the end of a school day, during which they have been steeped in oestrogen by women teachers and told how many “bad choices” they’ve made, boys are ready to make some really bad choices. ...
... As luck would have it, a Cub Scout’s father was semi-retired or between jobs or something – we didn’t ask – and could attend the meetings. He didn’t have to do a thing. He just had to be there and respire testosterone vapours into the atmosphere.
His presence shifted the tectonic plates and changed the angle of the Earth on its axis. Our boys were at his command, ready to disarm landmines, to sink enemy ships – or even to sit quietly for the sake of the unit if he of the gravelly voice and sandpaper face wished it so. ...
... As long as men feel marginalised by the women whose favours and approval they seek; as long as they are alienated from their children and treated as criminals by family courts; as long as they are disrespected by a culture that no longer values masculinity tied to honour; and as long as boys are bereft of strong fathers and our young men and women wage sexual war, then we risk cultural suicide. ...
... When women say, “No, honey, you stay in bed. I’ll go see what that noise is” – I’ll reconsider.
Well worth reading the lot:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article4448371.ece
Sunday, 3 August 2008
RWB Festival August 15, 16 and 17th.
This is just a reminder that our annual Red,White and Blue festival will take place in two weeks at the same site as last year.
This is in spite of the obsticles put in place by the police and local authorities who have been intimidated by the threats of the fascist Far Left.
We have been deprived of a licence for live music and a bar but this will not detract from the occasion as people can take their own drink which in my opinion will probably taste better.
There will be stalls selling local specialities and all the usual events of a summer festival including childrens attractions and "the fun of the fair",with the added attraction that they will be safe.
The main attraction in my opinion, is to have a weekend or even a day in the company of like minded patriots from all over the country and even abroad, a bonding period, reinforcing our unity of purpose. It is a unique atmosphere where we share our experiences and compare notes and leaves us invigorated for the challenges ahead.
Sunday of course is for the speeches, always very interesting and in many peoples opinion the highlight of the weekend.
In view of the difficulties put in our way for what is really only a summer carnival, I think everybody who can should try to attend should do so.
Safety for all will be assured as our security is more than a match for the unwashed trash who threaten to try to disrupt us. They have not managed it in the past and they will not this year.
We are determined to exert our democratic right to hold our function but we must combine to protect that right, and make the event a success.
So come on folks--Party for Britain!
If anyone needs transport please ring 07779 321542 and I will try to arrange it.
This is in spite of the obsticles put in place by the police and local authorities who have been intimidated by the threats of the fascist Far Left.
We have been deprived of a licence for live music and a bar but this will not detract from the occasion as people can take their own drink which in my opinion will probably taste better.
There will be stalls selling local specialities and all the usual events of a summer festival including childrens attractions and "the fun of the fair",with the added attraction that they will be safe.
The main attraction in my opinion, is to have a weekend or even a day in the company of like minded patriots from all over the country and even abroad, a bonding period, reinforcing our unity of purpose. It is a unique atmosphere where we share our experiences and compare notes and leaves us invigorated for the challenges ahead.
Sunday of course is for the speeches, always very interesting and in many peoples opinion the highlight of the weekend.
In view of the difficulties put in our way for what is really only a summer carnival, I think everybody who can should try to attend should do so.
Safety for all will be assured as our security is more than a match for the unwashed trash who threaten to try to disrupt us. They have not managed it in the past and they will not this year.
We are determined to exert our democratic right to hold our function but we must combine to protect that right, and make the event a success.
So come on folks--Party for Britain!
If anyone needs transport please ring 07779 321542 and I will try to arrange it.
Friday, 1 August 2008
NICK GRIFFIN IN LIVERPOOL
We went to a meeting in Liverpool last nigh where Nick Griffin gave an inspirational speech (he always does) to a capacity crowd.
If people could just hear him and see the sense he talks I can not see how anyone could fault his assessment of what is wrong in our country and ideas to correct these faults. He presents his arguments, unscripted,( take note Mr Cameron) in a logical easily understood way. The difference between him and Mr Cameron being that we have policies and the Tories do not. They will not commit themselves to an agenda which means that even at this late stage they can not see what is wrong with our country.
We know what to do and they don't!
Unfortunately we are up against a hostile media which will not report our policies and if they do distort them to make them unacceptable to the voters.
They are afraid of the truth but through the medium of the internet we are bypassing them to get our message out.
Nick Griffin is by far the most intelligent politician in this country and his speeches are truly inspirational .I have several on DVD which I will send to anyone free of charge if they ring me on 07779 321542 and I defy anyone not to be inspired.
If people could just hear him and see the sense he talks I can not see how anyone could fault his assessment of what is wrong in our country and ideas to correct these faults. He presents his arguments, unscripted,( take note Mr Cameron) in a logical easily understood way. The difference between him and Mr Cameron being that we have policies and the Tories do not. They will not commit themselves to an agenda which means that even at this late stage they can not see what is wrong with our country.
We know what to do and they don't!
Unfortunately we are up against a hostile media which will not report our policies and if they do distort them to make them unacceptable to the voters.
They are afraid of the truth but through the medium of the internet we are bypassing them to get our message out.
Nick Griffin is by far the most intelligent politician in this country and his speeches are truly inspirational .I have several on DVD which I will send to anyone free of charge if they ring me on 07779 321542 and I defy anyone not to be inspired.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)