More electoral fraud from Labour....

Labour - rotten to the core.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1719968.ece

"In the car park the students were told to trawl the surrounding streets collecting postal ballot forms from voters and, if necessary, to help residents to complete their ballots. Hyde warned: “Put the postal vote form out of sight...Don’t get caught with any on you. We are not supposed to collect them.”
He appeared well aware of the ramifications of what he was suggesting. One of the students conspiratorially told the group he believed that what they were doing was “illegal”. Hyde responded: “Yes it is. But we’ve done 25% already, so...” "


I think that there is a deeper psychology behind Labour corruption. Britons, as an envious people and with a generally Left-leaning media, perceive the Tories as "them", the "Toffs" - and are apt to squeal loudly when the likes of Archer lies for personal gain. However, although Labour's squalid record in office has eclipsed any Tory wrong-doing many, many times over, there is that almost unconscious perception that Labour doesn't have any pretensions or obligation to honesty anyway - after all they're proles-in-power aren't they? - that's how they're supposed to act. There's no overt contradiction.

"Relative Poverty" - an essential tool of the Left.

As everyone's standard of living increases with the relentless march of technology, socialists need bad news to keep their client voters unhappy. Enter "relative poverty" - as opposed to absolute poverty (ie real poverty). The way this term (and its subordinate term; “wealth gap”) has been sneaked in to everyday usage, it will soon be the orthodoxy in regard to assessing poverty. The beauty of this - for socialists at least - is that there will always be poverty.

There are people in genuine hardship, of course. Some people are mentally incapable of looking after themselves or disabled through no fault of their own and must be cared for - it is right, we are a caring society, after all. But I don't think that they are numerically sufficient for the poverty campaigners - there must be more. In 20 years time, even if the least wealthy of British people have the disposable income and quality of life currently being enjoyed by today's middle classes, you can be sure that they will still be in "poverty", for those on the Left who exploit them require that it is so.

I speak of those who over the years have traditionally exploited the worse-off in our society. They are the likes of the Labour Party of Great Britain and The Daily Mirror. These people see the exponential rise in everyone's living standards as a threat to their very existence. They feed the worse-off with disaffection in order to harvest the resulting envy and it's crop of votes and print sales. For these exploitative forces there must be poverty, even if there's no poverty.

On 27th Sept 2005, the Guardian's Micheal White, reporting on the Chancellor's Brighton speech, propagated a Gordon Brown lie: "Mr Brown focused his concern chiefly on children and blamed the Conservative legacy for Labour's grim inheritance of one in three children born into poverty". Under no stretch of the imagination could anyone believe that one third of children were born into poverty in 1997. Only that statistical conjurer's trick - relative poverty - could embolden a politician to make such a ludicrous claim.
But back to the present day and things aren't looking too good for our confident class warrior in number 11, as his liberal friends at the Guardian report: "....the government published the latest figures on poverty and inequality.

The statistics were bad news for Labour. In case you missed them, these were the headlines: child poverty was up by 100,000; absolute poverty was up; there was a widening gap between rich and poor."

Absolute poverty up, eh? Now that takes some doing.