British government is racist

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

An 18 year old girl has been refused permission to apply for a job with the  Environment Agency because she is white and English.

The application form asked for ethnic origin and included “White Other, eg. Irish, Welsh, Scottish”.  The application said that preference would be given to those from minorities.  When asked if being White English ruled her out for the job, Abigail Howarth was told by Bola Odusi of PATH National Ltd, the company running the recruitment scheme, “Thank you for your enquiry unfortunately the traineeship opportunity in targeted towards the ethnic minority group to address their under representations in the professions under the Race Relations Act amended 2000.”

However, the Environment Agency admits that it has “no evidence that white Welsh, Scottish or Irish workers were under-represented” in the area where Abigail Howarth wanted to apply but claims that the Commission for Racial Equality has confirmed that it is acting lawfully in racially discriminating against white English people.

Mary McDowell from PATH National Ltd said “The White Welsh, White Irish and White Scottish is a technicality in law – if they are a minority, they are entitled to places on these schemes – they are not part of the majority group, which is White English.  “The White English in this area are the majority group and hence could not apply.”

So, the recruitment officer from PATH National was black, the Organisational Development Manager from PATH National was Scottish, the head of the Environment Agency is Scottish and the Commission for Racial Equailty is headed up by a black person and people are acting surprised because White English people are being discriminated against?  This oppresive, politically correct, racist bullshit has got to stop.  Why the fuck should White English people be prepared to be discriminated against because of their colour and their nationality in their own country?  PATH National should be immediately sacked as a public sector supplier and the staff involved in this racist campaign should be prosecuted for racial discrimination.  The Chief Executive of the Environment Agency should be hauled in front of the Parliamentary Standards Committee and the Commission for Racial Equality after which, the CRE should be wound up and all “positive discrimination” laws repealed.  You cannot positively discriminate against anyone, discrimination is exclusively a negative action and to discriminate against someone for belonging to the majority colour and nationality in their own country is indefensible.


  1. Sarah (21 comments) says:

    I’m not even sure how you could check that White Scots and Welsh were under represented. I’ve never seen one of those ethnic monitoring forms they stick on every job application that had Scots, Welsh or English on it. You get Irish or White Irish but White S/W/E are either White, White British, White European or White Other.

  2. Dark Heretic (15 comments) says:

    Well said Wonko. I hope that she tests PATH’s assertion that this isn’t racism in the courts

  3. William Gruff (138 comments) says:

    It is extraordinarily difficult for an Englishman or woman to make a complaint to the CRE as those who try are invariably dismissed, fobbed off or constantly redirected (I have tried myself) and it comes as no surprise to learn that a Br*tish government dominated by Scots has rewritten race laws that were already biased in favour of incomers to create further disadvantages for the indigenous population.

    Like the blacks in South Africa, we have been reduced to second class status in our homeland. This is because we have, by our misguided sense of ‘fairness’ allowed foreigners (viz people who are not English) who actively dislike us to govern us.

    The next general election may be the last opportunity we have to save ourselves.

  4. Steve (38 comments) says:

    English need not apply in McBritain!, this is the way every company and institution are set up, following McLabours McBritish legislation….which applies only to England of course, have you noticed how many non English weather presebnters there are on every channel?, it is now institutionalised, English…..dont bother applying!!.

    New McLabour!
    New McBritain!
    NO England!

    And McLabour are soaring in the polls!!…..we either deserve all we get or the polls are rigged!….oh im sure McLabour and their arse lickers wouldnt dream of doing such a thing!

  5. M Anderson (47 comments) says:

    Oh the polls are definitely rigged. So are the so-called elections.

    This bloke knows what he’s talking about.

    we have, by our misguided sense of ‘fairness’ allowed foreigners (viz people who are not English) who actively dislike us to govern us.

    One question Do these enemies of ours think we’re just going to disappear then? Do they think we’re not going to try and stop what they’re doing? I think they’ve made a huge error of judgement.

  6. David Albion (8 comments) says:

    I have been telling the readership of The daily telegraph for many months that we the ENGLISH have to take control of our country and discriminate in favour of ourselves and our children.

    This means discriminating against all foreigners whether scots or whatever.

    I have no problem whatsover in doing this.

    Join the only party with the interests of our people at heart.

    Join the BNP.

  7. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    Oh dear. Don’t the BNP campaign in Wales and Scotland? Are they not a Unionist party? Think about it David, the *British* National Party…

  8. Calum (183 comments) says:

    Mr Albion, you are a prat.

    Furthermore Mr Albion you don’t even know all that much about your own party. The BNP do run in Wales and Scotland. They were sadly in fact the only political party in the UK to have a candidate in every constituency (not in every ward) in the recent local elections.

    Furthermore, the fascist barstards almost won a seat in the Welsh assembley, narrowly missing out on winning a top up seat in Wrexham.

    However, thankfully the BNP were totally demolished in Scotland.

    I feel glad that i did my bit to stop them in Dartford, where the ward i was working in saw the BNP soundly defeated, with Labour retaning all our ward councillors, abet by a narrow margin.

    Mr Albion, you are an ignorant Biggot. You don’t even know all that much about the party that you support. Why do you vote and support the BNP? Because you are a racist biggot. You know very little about the rest of your parties policy platform, such as some of their mussolini-esk policies. The BNP are very much in the mould of the early C20th third way politics. They are racist Fascists.

  9. peter (2 comments) says:

    Callam, Mr albion may be an ignorant bigot but only a fascist would try to surpress freedom of speech, what is wrong with the BNP?
    I would remind you to look back and read enoch powell’s speech rivers of blood and realise what is happening to this once great nation of ours.
    Even whiston churchill wanted to keep england for the english.

    I am pleased you found the time off work to go to dartford and protest, you do have a job l hope. Others like myself are too busy trying to earn money to pay to keep all of the people coming to the uk in benefits .

    I have always been a labour voter but after reading your attitude to Mr albion have now decided to join the BNP.

    Last but not least, regardless of what happened to abigail, the job should go to the best applicant not because of the colour of her skin or ethic origin

  10. Calum (183 comments) says:

    Well i am sorry Peter for disliking racists. I oppose the BNP, yet i don’t oppose their right to exist. I would defend their right to say what they want, but that doesn’t mean that i can’t criticize what they then say. I may not like what they have to say, and i’d rather no have to listen to it, yet i still think they should be allowed to say it. But part of freedom of speech is being able to deride what other use their freedom of speech to say. I doubt very much if you would think ‘eh, what is that about. I don’t like the way you spoke about bla bla bla’ had Mr Albion been saying that i was a PC lefty wanker. It is the same thing, he can say whatever he wants about me, and i can say whatever i like about him.

    Furthermore, i seriously doubt that my words have stopped you voting Labour, i’d say from your quotation of Powell that you agree with much of the BNP’s racist platform and have done for some time, as if what i said to Mr Albion has suddneley given you some epiphany wherein you suddenley “realised” that “enoch was right” then, well then i’m amazed. The truth is probably that you have for a long time been sympathetic to the BNP and misguided racists such as Enoch Powell. His river of blood speech was a load of shit, with every world laced with so much hatred and malice. If Powell is your idol then you are screwed.

    So if my words have made you into a BNP supporter than i am sorry, but all if that is why you support then BNP than it just reveales how ignorant you are. Plus, i fail to see how what i said could have possibly turned you to support the BNP, all i did was say that i think Mr Albion is a racist and a biggot, and that he doesn’t know all that much about his own party.

    Finally, i do agree with you that the job should go to the most qualified candidate, regardless of race, ethnicity, weather the person is disabled or not and so on. One thing on that, the BBC in a programme called ‘is it because i is black’ on BBC3 did a mini experement, where a white male, muslim male and disabled male, all of the same age and all submitting an identical CV. The results were as i had expected, not at all what the reactionary right wingers in the ‘anti-PC league’ (i think that was there name, it may have been the campaign against political correctness or something like that) had expected. The results showed that of the 100 jobs applied for, the white male was offered around 69 jobs, the muslim was offered around 30 and the disabled guy was offered around 20, i cannot remember the exact figures, but they were around the number given. Not what many of you ingorant biggots expect.

    The job should go to the best qualified candidate, regardless of any other factor. Yet this doesn’t appear to be the case in the UK, with not as you suggest the PC lobby winning out, but with employers prefering white males to others.

    I am not convincecd by either the PC lobby argument or that of thise such as yourself. I think that in some situations either argument is valid, there is much +ve and -ve discrimination in the UK, we need to eradicate that. We shouldn’t see people as white or black, we should just see them as people. People such as the BNP obviously don’t help this, yet the so called PC lot don’t help in this either. We need to stop categorising people as this or that, and just accept them as people. When we do that, there will be no need to ethnic minority pannels and what not. As people will just treat people as people, not as blacks, whites etc…

    Anyway, i am going on a but and have to go. I’m sure we will contonue this later.

  11. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    Enoch Powell invited people from the colonies of the British Empire to work in the UK in the fifties… Why? Cheap labour for the bosses, of course!

  12. David Albion (8 comments) says:

    Dear Calum and others.

    It is the case that the right of free speech in England has been eroded for some time especially under the mutil-cultural by order govt these last ten years.

    I am sorry that you cannot express yourself any better than you do but realise that when making ones views known those who have no arguments only insults and abuse will succeed in making themselves look small.As you have done.

    It is for the rights of england and Wales that I and others oppose this change of laws and usurping of all things brought about here for the good of us all.

    High crime figures are the consequence of unemployment and poverty both of which has been created and imported by uncontrolled immigration.

    The majority of unemployed in this country are kept that way whilst importing cheap labour from abroad.

    I say we look after our own before the world.

    Unless of course you would prefer to see discrimination against the English?

    What say you calum?

  13. David Albion (8 comments) says:

    Charle marks,
    You are quite correct but in view of recent changes and the opinions of their people it has become clear to me at least that the Welsh and Scots prefer to decide their own fate.

    I would prefer that we each have our own parliaments and band together in a Commonwealth of British isles call it a Union if you will as it means the same things.

    I would prefer we all rally to the Union Flag but if needs must I will be happy to follow ours.

  14. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    Who supports mass immigration, David? It is the ruling class. The capitalist class lives off the sweat of others — workers here and abroad. The BNP does not make a case for working class unity against the bosses but working class *disunity*!

    I am glad that you can see that Wales and Scotland are becoming independent nations, and hope you will support the right to national self-determination, but not the racist politics of the BNP. Those guys don’t act in the interests of working people!

    When you say “our own” do you include non-white english people? I’m not sure the fascist BNP would call non-white people “our own”…

  15. David Albion (8 comments) says:

    This question has been posed before som let me ask you this question.

    What is a non-white English person.

    Please define.

  16. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    Erm, someone who is English but does not have white skin?

    Is this a trick question?

  17. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    You don’t have to be white to be English.

  18. Calum (183 comments) says:

    sorry Mr Albion, but your last post was totally unrelated to what i had said before.

    The UK relies on our migrant workforce to do many menial tasks that we Brits would rather not do ourselves. Immigrants merely fill a gap in the labour market. If there is a job vacancy, which nobody else has filled then in order for it to be filled migrants will fill it. Immigrants don’t wrestle jobs form Brits, they merely do jobs which aren’t currently being done. So to blame them for all our economic ills is wrong, for they are a key part in the British economic sucess (which is about to come to an abrupt end with the financial crisis in the US over sub-prime mortages, there will most probably be disaster here soon, not as a result of government nor immigrants, but as a result of banks making bad decisions in lending etc…).

    Also, on other points. Mr Albion, why do you think that you must be white to be English or British? Are you really that narrow minded and ill educated? You are a total prat, and i despise everything you stand for. Yet, unlike you who probably feel the same way about me and everything that i stand for, i would defend your right to say what you want, even though i think it is wrong and morally abhorant. I’d ranter not listen to your shit, but i support your right to say it. And the best thing about letting nutters like you talk, is that you quickly reveal how deeply unpleasant and ignorant you are, thus invalidating most of you fragile argumeny.

  19. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    Calum: Whilst there is little evidence that migrants take the jobs of settled workers, you can’t say that they merely do the jobs we won’t… Migrant workers are favoured by the ruling class because they are easier to exploit — just look at the recent Dominoes pizza scandal!

  20. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    Ah but Calum, you’re making the same mistake that you’ve made before. Yes, immigrants tend to do the shit jobs but is it because the “natives” won’t do them? The answer is yes and no – there are several reasons why immigrants do the shit jobs.

    They’re cheap, they’ll work long hours for shit money and they’ll accept appaling working conditions. The “natives” aren’t encouraged to work – it’s too easy not to work and just play the system. If it was harder to live off benefits then people would do the shit jobs. In fact, if people on benefits were forced to do the shit jobs in return for their benefits then we wouldn’t need immigrants to do them. I’m afraid that’s yet another one of the inherent flaws in socialism.

  21. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    The natives aren’t encouraged to work? What about the millions of jobs lost because of the government’s policy of “managed decline” of manufacturing?

    “I’m afraid that’s yet another one of the inherent flaws in socialism.”? What do you mean? We don’t live in a socialist country. If we did, all those who could work would be working — there would be no need to have a reserve army of labour, no need to use unemployment to extract more surplus value out of workers and through “flexible” labour markets, etc. Unless you use the word “socialism” as losely as the Tories to mean any public provision for welfare and social services.

    Those people who are on benefits because bosses would rather outsource to low-wage economies would be employed under socialism, and so wouldn’t need to be forced to work. I don’t know anyone whose been on benefits who has thought that it was an easy ride or that wanted to stop work completely — there will be a minority, but as a trend it is blown out of proportion by the ruling class to keep working people divided.

    It’s wrong to say that migrant workers accept appaling working conditions — any more than settled workers. The reasons for putting up with bad conditions is usually because there is no easy way to challenge it — speaking out might mean losing out on employment. It is true that migrant workers have worse working conditions, however, and the solution to bad working conditions is organisation…

  22. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    I mean socialism as in the champagne socialism of New Liebour where the welfare state is abused as a political tool through a system deliberately engineered to keep a large proportion of society reliant on benefits.

    Migrant workers accept shit working conditions because they either don’t know they’re entitled to better, don’t know how to get better conditions or don’t want to rock the boat. I didn’t say they liked it, just that they accept it.

    Outsourcing is a real problem but it’s market forces. If people complained enough about the quality of outsourced services then it would eventually stop. The British government has gone some way to stemming it by banning outsourcing in some of its PFI contracts but it’s not enough.

    I live on what used to be a council estate – most of the single mums and young lads you see around during the day don’t seem to be short of cash.

  23. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    “I mean socialism as in the champagne socialism of New Liebour where the welfare state is abused as a political tool through a system deliberately engineered to keep a large proportion of society reliant on benefits.”

    One of the first things they did upon attaining power was to cut benefit payments to single parents…

    “Migrant workers accept shit working conditions because they either don’t know they’re entitled to better, don’t know how to get better conditions or don’t want to rock the boat. I didn’t say they liked it, just that they accept it.”

    Agreed. Let’s hope there are more workers like those at Dominoes who won’t take it anymore.

    “Outsourcing is a real problem but it’s market forces. If people complained enough about the quality of outsourced services then it would eventually stop. The British government has gone some way to stemming it by banning outsourcing in some of its PFI contracts but it’s not enough.”

    Consumer demand is not the route through which outsourcing could be stopped, though. People aren’t going to complain about cheap clothing, etc. If your getting a bargain, hey, what’s the problem. And if it doesn’t last, well then its cheap enough to buy another.

  24. David albion (8 comments) says:

    To each and all Greetings.

    Even to those of the p[arties who wish to convert us all into unifrom citizens if region 12 of the socialist State of Eurograd.

    The Govt of Labour has created a crime wave by allowing migration from the poverty stricked lands around the world.


  25. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    I don’t know that migrants commit more crimes than the settled population, but I do think it is more desirable that people have homes, jobs, and security where they live.

    I come from an immigrant family, and know that it isn’t easy coming to live in a different country away from family and friends.

    As for Neo Labours crime wave, lets see:

    Wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc; complicity in the bombing of Lebanon…

    Cash for honours, the BAE Systems/Saudi probe, rampant unchecked insider trading in the City…

    But that’s just the crimes of the powerful, acts that are in the interest of the capitalist class — so naturally they don’t count, and aren’t reported as crimes in the capitalist owned tabloid press…

  26. Calum (183 comments) says:

    Mr Albion, you are an idiot and a waste of time arguing with as you are so full of rubbish.

    I agree with much of what you have said Charlie, Labour have sadly rejected much of socialism, something i would like to see change. Yet i am afraid that i wouldn’t call of the same sort of socialism as you would.

    Labour have done much good for this country, and they have done much good for the British worker, take for example the introduction of the National Minimum wage along with the creation of millions of jobs along with an increase in benefits and a masive increase in education and traning programmes such as the New Deal. Yet i agree that it is not enough, that the collapse of the british manufacturing industry has been disastrous, Yet we live in a globalised market economy, something from which we benefir masivley. Here in the UK we simply aren’t efficient at manufacturing, hence it make sense for such items to be produced elsewhere and imported and traded into the UK – division of labour and specilisation, basic economics.

    I have more to say, but i will have to wait untill the morning.

  27. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    Sounds like you don’t mind imperialism, Calumn. For that is what the “globalised market economy” is…

    We aren’t efficient at manufacturing? What this means is that the bosses can get more value out of workers paid the absolute minimum, with next to no safety standards…

    Safety and a living wage doesn’t matter to the bosses…

  28. David albion (8 comments) says:

    you are so worked up with hatred for anyone with a differing opinion you miss the points.

    This country created the modern world via the industrial revolution.
    this was created with ideas, borrowed money and failures,hard work from people just left fields who were worked to an early grave.

    as time goes on the people gain benefits from education,housing and health but only slowly.

    by allowing in millions of unnecessary migrants most of whom are not earning but a costly burden upon the country the people here already suffer as they do today.

    the crime wave has increased because people do not have the education and training they should have had but has been given away by those who deny themselves nothing.

    most people without employment do not get any benefits as they are means tested out of the figures and resources by Gordon brown.

  29. Calum (183 comments) says:

    Charlie, i believ in the free market simply because central planning doesn’t work. Anyway, globlisation is merley part of the dialectic course of history new marxists may argue, it is further growth of capatlism is it not? If Marx’s view of history is correct (of which i am more than doubtfull) then Globlisation is merley an unforceen growth of the capatlist class. Hence would any future revolution not be between the capatlist bourgeois nations of the ‘developed world’ and the exploited working class proletariat of the ‘developing world’. If there is ever to be a marxist revolution it will truly be a global one, one which would be more between the true global proletariat where the workers of the world would truly unite in a single world revolution, manefesting itself as a war between the ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ nations. Well that’s my take on how if Marx were right his inevitable revolution would pann out.

    However, i subscribe more to John Stuart Mills free market liberal socialism and think that Webbs ‘inevitability of gradualism’ is the more likley way things will go, as capatlism slowly becomes more compassionate and fair as welfare and social responsibility cames to the fore.

    The UK is right to support workers rights, health and saftey is key, this being just one of millions of reasons why i oppose and despise those like Redwood and his report where he claims to save 14bn quid a year by screwing the British people over.

    Mr Albion, you seem to be the one who cannot stand anyone disagreeing with you. You are simply a racist ignorant biggot, and you quite frankly aren’t worth my bother. You have a warped view of the world, one seen throught ignorant reactionary eyes. Migrants don’t come here and committ crime like some incidious beast, nor do they take our jobs, they simply fill gaps in the labour market. Furthermore, immigrants are ststistically far more likley to be a victim of crime that Brits and are far more likley to be a victim of crime than a committer of crime. The stats don’t lie, i’m sorry i can’t reference them, i can’t find a copy of the report online but if you look you should be able to find it.

    Unemployed Brits are far more likley to become involved in crime than unemployed immigrants. Migrants workers work hard and contribute massivley to the economy. They are exploited and ill treated and live a hard life in the UK, they don’t sit at home on Benefits, that is BNP and (far) right wing scaremongering – i.e, it’s a load of balls.

  30. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    Calumn, you “believ in the free market simply because central planning doesn’t work.”

    Do you really think that the free market exists?

    Oligopoly is what we have. *Monopoly* capitalism.

    “The UK is right to support workers rights, health and saftey is key,”

    I seem to remember that when it was suggested that the EU constitution would include workers’ rights greater than the feeble ones that we have now (thatcher’s kept in place, just like Saddam’s anti-union laws) New Labour were all against it…

    Sorry if I can’t be bothered to critique your barmy notions on the developed nations at war with the underdeveloped ones… I doubt if Karl were alive today he’d be all, “Oh, wow, good to see we’ve still got the capitalist class running things…” Which is what the bullshit about the “free market” means…

  31. Calum (183 comments) says:

    My “barmy notions” are merley an attempt by me to apply Marx’s flawed theory to the modern world in an attempt to put you at ease. I happen to think that it is a load of shit, but it is the only way that any such revolution could feesably happen.

    I disagree with your view on the free market. I thnk that we have a truly free market, and i think that the free market is the best form of economics, why? Because supply and demand are met, people get what they want in terms of goods. Then when the market fails, and there is inequality (an inevitability) then the state should step in. I think that worker control of industry is a good idea, yet not essential.

    Also, Charlie, i’m not a devolted New Labourite, i think that New Labour should become more left wing. I disagree with some of what we have done, such as PFI and allowing the private sector to do much of the states work, such as in the NHS. Also, i would like to see the full scale nationalisation of the rail ways. I am not New Labour, nor am i “old Labour”. So don’t lump me with the entire new labour dogma. I am a commmited Labour man, and i support Labour with all my heart, and i support Brown with all my heart. I’m probably more left that the Labour establishment, also, Charlie you don’t know what i think, so don’t make such quick judgments. You are blinded by Marxist dogma, Marx was an utopian idealist. If things went as ideology said then i’d be a Marxist, as the Marxist ideal is just that, and ideal. Yet it is impossible and simply wouldn’t work, why? Not least because man is selfish and egotistc. Also, Marxist theory is masivley flawed, especially Marxist-Leninism, it is sadly impracticable, an impossibility and something that will inevitably lead to tyrany in reality.

  32. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    First things first, my last reply was a bit terse and rude. Sorry.

    I’m not a dogmatist. No, I don’t have an essentialist view on human nature — neither did Marx, as it happens. Far from being an idealist, he was a realist. Human nature is determined by situations, not some essential being. Naturally, we are self interested, if we want to go on living! — but this results in co-operation as we can better survive if we work together.

    You seem quite the idealist — inevitability? A strong word. What part of Marxist theory is flawed? Do you deny the existence of social classes, with competing interests? If we find out something’s bunk, then we reject it, right? So what’s bunk. You really must back up these assertions, Calumn.

    To be a committed Labour supporter means that you have survived ten years of Labour decay — half the party’s gone, millions of working people stopped voting Labour, and the belief, formerly common, that Labour is the party of working people is not held by many. I admire your loyalty, but I can’t understand why you are loyal. There’s no way to influence party policy unless you have a few million quid…

    It makes sense to me that the trade unions should disaffiliate from the Labour party — it was set up to represent the interests of labour as discrete from capital — and fund a party or parties that meets the interests of their members. This might mean continuing to back people like John McDonnell and other socialists within the party, but not funding the party machine.

    Now, supply and demand. If the free market is the best form of economics, why does it fail? Supply and demand are met in the market, but only if there is effective demand — only if you have the money! So, a big flaw. I would say that free market theory is ideological in that it does not describe reality, it disguises it. Why can’t the free market provide a decent railway network? Because profit is the motive, not public interest.

    If you are interested in socialist economics that takes into account the critiques of Marxism by Von Hayek and others, you should check out Pat Devine or Albert and Hahnel.

  33. David Albion (8 comments) says:

    In reading my latest entry you of course saw what you wanted to see and not what was written.

    This is a common mistake by people who are so taken up by their worship of someone who is in fact conning them.

    The fact is that crime is a direct result of immigration on a massive scale.

    This does not mean the immigrants commit crime which in fact many do just by being here illegally as one example.

    Having millions here has caused the welfare system to overheat and the results are ever around us with positive discrimination leading to discrimination against English men/women which is after all what the blog is about.

    Your seething hatred for any worthwhile opposition leads you down the avenue of not having an argument only insults.

    Your hero Brown has led and ruined the finances of this country.The mess he leaves will never be revealed rather like the mess major/Lamont/cameron left behind which was said to be £10 billion but was in fact four time larger and kept to the knowledge of MP’s but never us.

    When this country is rid of the foreign element which burdens us and clears up the mess then looks to the people then we can all look forwrd to a country where goods are made here and for us but not in some slave labour camp in China or India where the parts and paint would never pass inspection over here.

    You will know I am right when that time is here again and we do not waste money on useless causes around the world.

  34. Calum (183 comments) says:

    Mr Albion, i am not even going to credit you with a response. You are a deluded fool, set in you ill informed ways.

    Charlie. Thanks for wishing me a good birthday, had a good day, thanks. I can now learn to drive, so i gues that’s good.

    I am not saying that the free market is the best soultion for every situation. There are market failures, yet they are few and far between. Whereas, cetral planning leads to constant misallocation of resources, with supply and demand not being met.

    I think that the public interest should allways be paramount. Profit shouldn’t take precedence over welfare. I therefore think that things such as the railways should be nationalised, as having been ran for profit their quality has suffered, and the rail network is substandard. You only need to look at the differences in London, where the tube is of high quality, and it is state owned, compared to the private overground, which is crap.

    I agree that the unions should be beter looked after, i think that Labour keeping in most of Thatchers union restrictions is simply criminal. Yet i don’t think that someone such as McDonald would do any good. We cannot revert to a radical socialist agenda, as we would become unelectable.

    We must slowly shift the focus of British politics. There was a recent fabian report on British democracy which spoke of such things, yet in a different context, it spoke of things in terms of political involvment. What we need to do is slowly shift the focus of British politics leftwards, so that good left policies can become the norm. Britain today is very different to the UK of 10 years ago. British politics has shifted subtily to the left,a dn this progressive politics should continue. I am a socialist, more so that the mainstream Labour, yet i think that we are better served by slowly advancing the progressive cause, as opposed to springing things upon the public in an istant. Hence, the inevitability of gradualism will triumph.

  35. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    Glad you had a good time Calum.

    I should have made by point about the “free market” a bit better, but what do you have to say about effective demand?

    “There are market failures, yet they are few and far between. Whereas, cetral planning leads to constant misallocation of resources, with supply and demand not being met.”

    It rather depends what you mean by failure. For example, people not being able to afford housing, healthcare, or food and consquently going without decent housing, the requisite healthcare, and sustinance does not count in economics as market failures. The market recognises effective demand and if you cannot make an effective demand your can demand all you like but you won’t be supplied!

    For example, at the start of the year there were protests in Mexico because the price of bread had doubled — it is a major part of people’s diet and for such a commodity to double in price hit people hard. But the government refused to intervene in the “free market”. The price of bread was going up because, as is often the case in poor countries, it is more profitable to export because there is more money in the world market than the domestic market…

    “Market exchange involves the buying and selling of the output of existing productive capacity. The operation of market forces is the process through which the structure of productive capacity in a market economy is changed by investment and disinvestment. This involves the buying, hiring or borrowing of the fictitious commodities labour, land and money, as well, of course, of real commodities in the form of capital goods. The driving force behind this process is the decisions made by the owners of capital in pursuit of the highest expected rate of profit. However, these decisions are made atomistically even though their outcome depends to a significant extent on the simultaneously made decisions of other capital owners. These interdependent decisions are coordinated after they have been implemented, in response to the pattern of profit and loss that results from their aggregate effect, as new decisions are made on the basis of what are now expected to be the most profitable areas for investment. This is the self-regulating market at work. The distinction between market exchange and market forces is essentially the same as Polanyi’s distinction between the market and the market system, with markets for products clearly distinguished from markets for factors of production.

    “In the model of participatory planning, market exchange is retained but market forces are replaced by a process of negotiated coordination between the social owners at the relevant level – industry or sector, local, regional, national, international, global. Whereas the self-regulating market results in an outcome no one willed, oblivious of the human, social, environmental and ecological consequences of its operation, negotiated coordination enables those who are likely to be affected by the outcome to engage in a deliberative process of democratic decision making, which takes account not only of the need to use society’s productive resources efficiently but also of the social and natural consequences of alternative courses of action. Thus, participatory planning through negotiated coordination based on social ownership is a form of reinstituting economic activity by transcending the separation of the economy from the rest of society. It provides an institutional framework for the social relations necessary to re-embed the economy in both society and nature.” -

  36. Calum (183 comments) says:

    I have to be quick, will do a better response in a few days.

    The housing market is one market failure after another, that is why i think that the state should build houses, as opposed to asking the private sector to do it, as then they will be built for profit, not for welfare. It is in estate agents interests to limit supply, so they can maxamise profit, something which is morraly reprehensable.

    Sorry to tush. I’ll do a fuller response later.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.