Is Britain so rotten?

This was sent by the inimitable Lord Somber, an American and so we might not wish to listen to how others see us.  I do though and this is how the Library of Law and Liberty sees it [excerpted]:

On the night that ended  seventeen years of Conservative rule, Labor party activists celebrated by dancing until dawn to the strains of their campaign song ‘Things will only get better’. In reality, as Butler shows, they were about to get progressively worse, if you’ll pardon the expression.

One by one, Eamonn Butler explains how each of the country’s traditional constitutional restraints on uncurbed executive power was deliberately weakened, if not altogether discarded, by New Labor in pursuit of their master political project which was, having come to equate the national good with that of their own party, to perpetuate their hegemony indefinitely.

Their first step was to effect a massive centralization of power in the hands of the Prime Minister and a small clique of unelected advisors that led to a systematic downgrading of Parliament, the Cabinet and civil service.

He writes:

‘[Under] Tony Blair… [reform of the constitution] became entirely tactical. House of Lords reform would demolish a Conservative bastion. Elected mayors would keep key cities under Labor control… Devolution would undermine the Scottish and Welsh nationalists. English regional assemblies would bottle up the Conservatives in the South East and drain local power from the Liberal Democrats… [A] ragbag of random, opportunistic, self-serving, partisan measures [were adopted] which pass for our constitution today.’

Under New Labor, so Butler further argues, Britain also became a nanny state in which its citizens have been confined within a straitjacket of regulations issued in the name of their health and safety.

Here are some illustrative vignettes:

‘On health: ‘We spend more than any other European nation on cancer treatment, but still have some of the worst cancer survival rates in the European Union… We are the fifth richest country in the world, but we are far down the league tables in terms of medically preventable deaths.’

On welfare: ‘Nearly a third of state spending… goes on various kinds of welfare benefit. After a decade of rising economic growth and prosperity… you might have thought that the need for social benefits was falling.

Comments:

#  If the UK is rotten, the rest of Europe (exception Germany) is putrid. The United States has been going the way of Europe and the UK but much more slowly thanks to our Constitution and the existence of an entrepreneurial class that will thrive once we get rid of the Socialist-Marxists

#  On the basis of my experience, Britain was rotten long before New Labour came to power. I moved to England a few weeks before Thatcher resigned, and lived and worked there on and off for most of the 1990s, and what I saw was a country with capitalism for the rich, feudal serfdom for the middle class, and feral anarchy for the underclass. Hard to believe that things got worse after I left, but I guess that’s possible.

Tocqueville already lamented the state of Britain in his Memoir on Pauperism.

That’s a good point. I’m not one who thinks it is all down to Labour – rather that they brought in the destructiveness of out-and-out-socialism, married to and subservient to the EuroMarxism of Barosso and Co, in line with the UN/globalist push – to act as a counterpunch to the rampant greed of Thatcherism and the treachery of Heath, following the selling out by Wilson.

Nor do I think the whole 650 are rotten to the core. Maybe only 600 of them. There is a sprinkling of decent people, more in the Tories but also in Old Labour [Marxist-lite]. Still, the above is pretty much the way it is though.

Solution? Obvious but unachievable. Ranty wrote recently about how they are 650 and we are 62 million. Yes but those behind the 650 have history on their side and know just how far people can be manipulated to this or that, even revolution. It’s factored in. Put simply, people will not combine unless someone defines a common enemy and then you need to look at the person who gave the rallying call.

What’s his agenda?

11 Responses to “Is Britain so rotten?”

  1. Moggsy June 26, 2012 at 12:26 Permalink

    Well lots of what LS says I do agree with.

    I don’t think Britain is putrid so much as it’s government and the political elite.

    He says “On the basis of my experience, Britain was rotten long before New Labour came to power. I moved to England a few weeks before Thatcher resigned, and lived and worked there on and off for most of the 1990s, and what I saw was a country with capitalism for the rich, feudal serfdom for the middle class, and feral anarchy for the underclass. Hard to believe that things got worse after I left, but I guess that’s possible.”

    So this is on the basis of his experience. I can see where he is coming from but from what he says I am guessing his experience is limited to maybe London? I would say from _my_ experience many of his comments don’t apply so much to Britain, as to London, and some of the other major cities.

    I guess by “fudal serfdom for the middle classes” he means being tax cows?

  2. James Higham June 26, 2012 at 13:39 Permalink

    Moggsy, I think you’re right.

  3. Nigel Sedgwick June 27, 2012 at 03:28 Permalink

    Here is a plot of UK government expenditure per capita (inflation adjusted to 2005 £s): http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1940_2010UKd_11c1li011lcn_F0t

    Whatever else were the problems, I think that treating its citizens as ‘tax cows’ is a bit harsh on Thatcher. That would have been just about every other longish-term post-WW2 government, except those of Thatcher, Eden and Churchill.

    Best regards

  4. Moggsy June 27, 2012 at 06:53 Permalink

    Nigel, Good point, interesting graph, I figure it is not corrected for inflation? Or the relative value of the GB Pound against the US Dollar, but still tells us something.

  5. Nigel Sedgwick June 27, 2012 at 09:46 Permalink

    Moggsy writes: “Good point, interesting graph, I figure it is not corrected for inflation? Or the relative value of the GB Pound against the US Dollar, but still tells us something.

    Well, I wrote that it was corrected for inflation and the linked website allows you to plot the uncorrected graph with 2 or 3 mouse clicks, as is done here (though for the whole population rather than per capita): http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1940_2010UKb_11c1li011lcn_F0t

    If you have cause to think that the graphs are not correct, I suggest more description than mere assertion in double contradiction: to the stated source and to my explicit reference to it. Note that the referenced website gives tables of the figures year-by-year, as well as the graphs.

    And what does the $/£ exchange rate have to do with it; you and I were both talking about UK taxation.

    What you (and others) might be finding somewhat unusual is that the graphs/figures I reference are per head of population; thus (I think usefully) equating government expenditure to what each person has ‘received’, as distinct from what the whole population has ‘received’. Over the 60-year period from 1950 to 2010, the UK population increased by a bit over 24%, which is not insignificant when discussing the effect of taxation on individuals.

    Best regards

  6. Moggsy June 27, 2012 at 10:16 Permalink

    Well that’ll teach me to read more carefully and not be distracted by pretty graphs ^_^ Just me being slapdash and dumb.

    The rise looked so dramatic. Knowing it was corrected (James this is an example where it is ok to correct historical data) makes it much much more scary.

    Per head seems ok

    Some external reference to “Value” might be interesting as the value of the pound should not have too much influence on purly domestic spend but might have some impact on things like government transport costs, some NHS drugs and equipment, some defence spending, as an examples

  7. James Higham June 27, 2012 at 10:47 Permalink

    Moggsy [wince], there are people one takes on and those one doesn’t. I would not take on Nigel Sedgwick, Dearieme [or Xxxl who used to be here] on facts because they’d run rings round me. That’s just me though – you go for it. ;-)

  8. Nigel Sedgwick June 27, 2012 at 12:10 Permalink

    Just to lighten things up, it is a fact that I have been wrong (and in blog comments too).

    IMHO, it is important not knowingly to leave a trail that misleads others. Thus I appreciate Moggsy’s response (and hope I always do as well).

    On James’s point, and rather generally, I nearly always try hard to get things right, and that is much easier on facts (with the Internet) than it used to be – but is not without some effort. Deductions still need great effort, but checking one’s results against the reality one personally knows, at each step and for the overall conclusions, is most helpful.

    Best regards

  9. Moggsy June 27, 2012 at 13:58 Permalink

    Thanks Nigel. There you go James, someone who can tell the difference between being “taken on” and general (basically agreeing with the point) conversation ^_^ I also admit if I make a mistake. ^_^

  10. CherryPie June 27, 2012 at 23:58 Permalink

    And just to add into the mix. I still miss the the thoughts and ideas that xxxl shared with us.

    As you say (J) his facts were quite clear. His thoughts may have been uncomfortable reading, but they were always enlightening. He could always back his thoughts and comments up with additional sources… And his thoughts were always open to discussion….

    There is one other person that you have not mentioned who merits inclusion in your thought… But I will you leave you to work out who that is.

    The only clue I will give you is that it is not me ;-)

  11. CherryPie June 28, 2012 at 08:22 Permalink

    Well there are several really ;-)

Leave a Reply

Please copy the string Ec15P8 to the field below: