Of Myths, Deceits and Dam Lies.

Of Myths, Deceits and Dam Lies.

Or the loss of veracity to conceited schemes including Gold, PFI & immigration.   

I know this is a waste of my time in expressing ones views on the perversity of elements of the traits of personalities that infest humans but as I have plenty of it, unlike some and as a measure of just what one can waste time on; one can do no better than take an interest in the pronouncements of those puppet individuals that have been demonstrating their best educated ignorance and self deception convinced that they hold the keys to a fountain of knowledge, a vision, that no others can approach, or indeed nor do others have the requisite understanding to offer an alternative weakly definite view. As these marionettes extol on public platforms, to perform and counter other views that argue against them, they become more habituated in their own self deceptions without even acknowledging their own past inability to sustain previous presented visions. For any individual to make a proffered statement as a path they would intend to take and have all others follow, is all pure guess work and fantasy. Assertions expressed in forums where the main principle hold sway to self selected believers, in attendance, for them to vigorously applaud (when dutifully prompted) the envisioned declarations and give standing ovations as a sign of loyalty or patriotism to their anointed leaders and favour gathered acolytes, is no more than the praying to dogma of ideologies with no idea of how to implement the mechanisms of the ideas or often not having the intention of doing so; especially when to do so goes against the long established foundations ‘beliefs’ of their own support base. One can see this played out time and again with the annual political party conferences whose attendees are hardly impartial from any responsibility to collude with presentational success over hidden failures.    

It can be very illuminating to observe, over a period of time, the presentation of a group of people gather together under their mantle of an organised party system. If one had the patience to script, analyse and compare over the years when these gathering have taken place, one cannot but fail to understand that these representative people have little grasp of the diverse realities that surrounds them. They manifestly succumb to the cadre of their party system, a contractual bubble of self importance which excludes the sights, smell and noise of those mostly outside their adopted roles.

Any other selection of ‘ordinary’ people not enlisted as supporters of a particular focus, may in time be open to persuasion but what these ‘ordinary’ people do have is a measure of impartiality not necessary held in thrall to a political party system and though they are fenced in with dealing with the daily issues of their lives, they do so without a massed gestalt from which to gain any defensive comfort; unlike that which would seem to be on offer for those being in a glorified party system.

Over decades a whole range of platitudes have been expressed by all parties in their annual conference gatherings and the similarities of their sales pitch rolls over from year to year with little substantive meaning. Their rehearsed speeches are devoid of any practical context; reliant only on strap lines, sound bites, vacant verbosity and hyping themselves and dogmas above all else, if of course they can get a castigation dig at the opposition or individual within, so much the better.

However looking at the performance of political parties, they are of little relevance to the wo/man in the street. Many people have absolutely no interest in these glad handing party conferences, what matters to them is what is made existent as an improvement to their ability to develop a better life for themselves and families. It is probably true to say that 30% of the voting population has no interest in Politian’s, parties or what they ‘stand’ for. Of the rest 50% generally hold to a particular party with some 20% others vacillating between whatever sound bite is on offer. As there has never been a 100% electorate turn out, this lack of engagement has always suited Politian’s as it gives them a free hand to pursue a dogma of their choosing i.e. under the democratic mandate – first past the post, which does not convincingly numerically represent the concerted ‘will of the people’, but never mind.  

Myths: One can go back decades and hear the main speeches from party members, the rebel rousing, the cant, the hubris and righteous visions etc all for the ears of believers and media fodder. These speeches are generally confoundedly insincere sermonised scripts, which rely on a majority of member to think there is a glorified obtainable vision the party can create for all to live by. It is a myth however the myth is cast in the denigration of any proponents with other views and the longer a vilification can be perpetuated onto others ideas the more enthusiastic can be the ephemeral myth be propagated.

One might observe that there have been a number of examples of disseminated myths that all political establishment have been tempted with to bolster their position and obscure an actuality of facts. Fortunately they often fade within a parliamentary term but over the past decade there has been one party within the UK, which has been very successful in tainting another party so badly that it finds it difficult disown the myths created for them. Of these myths there is one so prevalent that many people today still believe and accept it as a fact even though they are suffering from an action that is by some measures substantially worse caused by the deceits of the accusing party. In one action caused by the tainted party, it gave the accusers all the ammunition they could hope for and it was, an action that was meant to be privately humorous as it was a convention undertaken by the office holders since 1930 played out when one party takes over from another; in this case it was when the Labour Party MP Liam Byrne, chief secretary to the Treasury under Gordon Brown, left a note for the incoming coalition liberal chief secretary to the treasury David Laws who released the note, which said to the effect ‘Dear chief secretary, I’m afraid there is no money. Kind regards – and good luck! Liam’.”  

This at the time when the Labour Party lost the 2010 election despite taking steps to put the economy on an improvement path after the disaster of the Credit Crises for which they get little credit in tackling. This in the face of Cameron and Osborne of the Conservative Democratic Unionist Party, during the CC, calling for people to stop spending and for banks in difficulty to let go bust! Their grasp of the mechanisms of the UK economy was less than astute compounding their deceitful action into the later years.

Credit Crises to Austerity: There is little need to enumerate the prime steps that led up to CC in 2007/08 other than one will say the problems that caused it went back as far as 1976. Since 2008 no one has been jailed, too few blocks are in place to avoid another collapse, global economy has still yet to recover (particularly in the UK) and the cost to the UK has been £500bn of “last resort” bailout support to financial systems. From this has come the unnecessary severe austerity drive, forced onto a population under the mantle “the mess we were left with” as a dogma to keep spinning to fool the less informed voter. Behind this constant message to justify action of the austerity drive is hidden the deceit of how well the economy is supposed to be doing; but offering low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment, low public and private investment, low waged economy, practically stagnant GDP, decimated public services, local governments in financial crises some on the verge of bankruptcy, infrastructures crumbling away, persistent insufficient housing stock, hospital waiting times increasing, and the increased use of stealth rationing of medical  / social care cannot be by any stretch of deluded imagination an country in the best of heath. From that note, it was very useful to continue blame the Labour Party for the CC as a means of justifying the unnecessary austerity curse as a constant diversionary tactic from the actuality of the inexcusable mess the Conservative DU and Liberal Party government (coalition 2010-15) has created. O’ and do not suggest that the country is on one measure bust, even before the self inflicted Conservative DU Party Brexit exit day runs amok!

Gold: A further example of a myth that is still running is one that seems simple to understand by the uninformed yet they believe the simplicity of it rather than be bothered with the technicality but it only becomes comprehensible when giving a bit of thought to pivotal facets of the times. This myth is under the guise of, an expression one often hears, “they sold all our gold”! This generally aimed at the Labour administrations. The actual story of Gordon Brown selling gold was a much played headline and pushed by the Conservative DU Party in opposition at the time. Gold is by many holders of it, kept as a hedge against a catastrophic collapse in commodity markets and conflicts on the basis of its rarity, portability (for fearful individuals) and its possible conversion to a fruitful gain. As it is no longer supports or has any direct link to currency in circulation, it is only a hard asset which is worth what it is as and when it is sold. Its price fluctuates according to events of reassurance or confidence upsets and it is impossible to predict what the value gold would fetch at any future time date.

Therefore around 1999 to March 2002 (over 3 years) Gordon Brown’s government sold 359 tonnes of UK gold which was some 50% of the government’s total reserves of 715 tonnes down to 355.25 tonnes. This was explained as a way to diversify the country’s assets but it was a way to raise capital for more rewarding investment. The holding onto gold by governments is essentially a meaningless action, as government do not generally indulge in manipulate speculate action with any assets for speculative vacillating returns. And in this case converting the gold to money, can earn a known controllable interest and that is what happened to the £3.5bn of money, which the government made from the sale that was invested in foreign currency interest-bearing assets, 40% in Dollars, 40% in Euros and 20% in Yen.

The problem for Brown was in doing so he helped (it is said) to depress the gold market at the same time (flooding the market) and subsequently lost the opportunity benefit by selling at the lower end of the market rather than waiting for a high point at some volatile years later. The future values of which is something that no one can foresee. The hypothetical loss to the tax payer/treasury from the sale between the high and low point years was something that the Cameron/Osborne Conservative DU Party continued to vilify and push the hypothetical ‘loss’ at some circa £10bn but fail to mention what has been gained from the conversion of gold to interest bearing assets nor do they wish to delve onto the history of gold sales to show how ridiculous such accusation of the gold sale and hypothetical losses is; particularly when the Conservative DU Party in 1970/71 (In one year) also sold 508 tonnes 42.5% of the gold stock ( of 1198 tonnes) conveniently forgetting what lose there was to the tax payer / treasury and arguably at a much greater lost cost then than it later blamed on the labour administration. Had they all waited to the height of the ‘crystal ball’ market, everyone’s a winner.

Pertinent to the above is this:-

In 68 year since 1950 when gold stood at 2543 tonnes it has been sold off 35 times in 35 separate years by a UK government and in only 15 of those years was there a slight increase in stock with just 18 years (inc.2018) when stock was held steady. During those 68 years Labour has held office for 26 years and sold gold on 17 of those years; whereas the Conservative DU Party held office for 42 years and sold gold in 19 of those years. Furthermore over those years the approximate total nett gold sold by each was: - for a Labour administration 429 tonnes and for the Conservative DU Party 674 tonnes. As the UK gold stock is now at some 310 tonnes, this is after all governments have been rifling the gold pot, no one can be certain where the money went too or for what purpose, nor has any ‘hypothetical’ lose or assumed benefit been calculated but if gold were the measure of how rich a country is (which it is not) one can see the trend for the UK; so gold is only worth what it is worth on a day subject to willing buy and willing seller.

With a fait monetary system it is of little use and now there is an intergovernmental agreement to limit the selling gold onto the open market. So it does not matter what gold is sold or how much might have been gained or lost, although the Conservative DU Party have sold considerably more gold during their administration; all government are and have been responsible for massive ‘hypothetical’ billions of pound of losses shaken from the “magical money tree” a tree so cynically decried by the current incumbent of the Conservative DU Party, in defence of austerity, it is all lies!    

PFI: Two further myths constantly used by the Conservative DU Party to stoke public support for themselves to hide behind, whilst playing down their own description of themselves as the “nasty party”; that has been used to bedevil a Labour administration, are the problems around the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and immigration. With PFI, the idea was started by the Conservative DU Party under PM John Major in 1990 in Scotland as a test with the building of the Skye Bridge, replacing a free bridge with a toll one. It was not popular, eventually made free by the Scottish government (this like the poll tax explains a lot about the English vs. Scotland distrust) and was a way to ‘avoid’ an increase in the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement (PSBR) as it was not counted as public spending, it also met the long held policy dogma of the Conservative DU Party for the privatisation of all public services. Central Government would not directly fund infrastructure works like schools or hospitals, PFI would offer up to a consortium of private sector banks and construction firms to finance, own, operate and lease them back to the services users. Assets created under this scheme were reimbursed via the UK taxpayer, over a period of 30-35 years with domination privileges to the build consortium to service and maintain them for all that time, the contracts of which created under PFI  cannot be challenged?.

The ‘New Labour’ Government significantly expanded PFI as a convenient way of funding a whole range of much needed new and the replacement of public infrastructure and from very early on it was of concern to many MP’s about the hidden long term cost. Yet although Conservative DU Party with George Osborne expressing an end to the funding scheme, whist in opposition, he continued with the increasingly derided scheme when in government from 2010 under “PFI 2”.  PFI deals have been audibly commonly criticised as atrocious value for taxpayers, financially obscured and akin to paying for goods on the “never never” rather than having the cheaper direct Government funded projects. The cost of such off book borrowing is at least twice as high had they been via Government own financed works according to a 2011 HM Treasury Report, with very poor value for money and no practical financial / commercial risk to the PFI owners. With PFI schemes, whatever is provided for public services, is no longer owned by, nor the running of it, is openly accountable to the public via elected officials yet the risk and multiple expanding cost eventually falls on the taxpayer. 

A recent report by the National Audit Office shows that there are currently 716 operational private finance deals with a capital value of around £60bn with annual charges for these deals amounted to £10.3bn in 2016-17. Even if no new deals are entered into, future charges will continue to accrue until the 2040s amount to £199bn. It is due to these extortionate schemes that the whole NHS (hospitals / primary access / social services) is in such financial difficulty as well as projects for Departments for Education, (schools) Local Government, Defence, Transport, and Justice. The Audit office found the contracts for PFI distinctly commercially in detail opaque, flawed and of unconvincing for value to the public purse.

Although Labour has been blamed for the instigation of PFI, it was not the case. Both Labour and the Conservative DU Party have used the scheme for their own political purpose and do not as yet have the will to break them open even though it is cheaper to invest in building capital assets from the tax revenue or PSBR. PFI avoided placing the immediate capital cost onto the public purse disguised into trusts accounts to hide expanding debt. Albeit that it suited the privatisation dogma of the Conservative DU Party to continue them and derided labour for its use, they did nothing role them back; Jeremy Corbyn under Labour have said there will be no more and he will forcibly take back key PFI schemes if in government. One can say it is another myth of the “mess left” levelled at the Labour Party, parroted continuously by Conservative DU Party. All deceits from reality of the need for public investment rather than admit how each party has used ponzi practices with the private sector on public funds. To see how out of control and misplaced such PFI schemes are the recent ‘Carillion’ fiasco ought to be the end of them all.

Immigration / Migration: To make a distinction first; immigration applies to people moving permanently into the country. Migration applies to short term movement of people that move back and forth, mainly as a result of seasonal employment. Of the two, migration is a comparatively recent development due to ‘labour shortages’ in seasonal sectors over the last 30(?) years and the two descriptions are often conflated in people minds into one, immigration.  One does not wish to be embroiled in the complex issues that are enmeshed in this subject, other than to state that this is currently a very serious contentious issue created on the back of long standing arrogance of class, political business interest and social integration cohesion ignorance. There has always been an element of immigration, people settling into the UK from mainly commonwealth countries as a results of past empire activities. The speed of movement has generally been slow, in the range of low 10’s of thousand from 1940’s to about 100k pa by mid 1970’s with limited controls in place. This also took place without steps to manage the slow influx and inculcation of a UK culture for those being brought in. The proffered rational for immigration was “to do the jobs none else would do” at a time when there was a great deal of manufacturing and service low skill jobs vacancies (comparatively low pay as well) however the economy overall was fitfully buoyant with a slow expansive labour demand to match. But with organised labour seeking better terms and conditions, this was pushing labour cost up creating problems for large sector employers unwilling to meet demands to match inflation rises or invest in up skilling / modern productive capacity. From the 70’s the rapid increase in overseas competition with better capital investments exposed UK labour cost and at the request of business, as has been admitted, one way to staunch wage demands was to increase the labour supply via volume immigration.  At no time was any thought given to the social implication of such action, the policy was to maximise supply (labour) and kill a demand for high wages. (‘supply & demand’ or ‘pricing labour into a job’)

The main cause of the start of the mass rise in immigration into the UK, to solve the labour shortage after the war, was the British Nationalities Act 1948 by the Labour party. This gave all Commonwealth citizens (est. 800 million) free entry into Britain. It was thought that this was not likely to happen as it “was never intended to facilitate mass migration”. It did though offer an open door and what has become of late an incendiary sign of the unintended consequences and policy stupidly, was started with the arrival in 1948 of some 500 Jamaican immigrants arriving at Tilbury dock on the Empire Windush. This has now become since 2017, onwards the “Windrush Scandal” exacerbated by the Conservative DU Party’s policy of creating an immigration “harsh environment” to dissuade movement, negate the pull factors, deport non authorised and generally make it more difficult for those wishing to reside in the UK unless there was a specific job or had resources to fund their own relocation. As a policy to reduce immigration / migration it is an ongoing failure even the deigned setting of “a target of achieving 12,800 enforced returns in 2017-18” and the resulting derided actions specific to the Windrush generation, only serves to reinforce the toxic nature of tackling out of control immigration.  

Commonwealth immigration, rose from 3,000 per year in 1953, up to 47k in 1956 and then to 136k by 1960’s.This was followed, due to turmoil in former commonwealth country, a further influx from Kenya of ‘Kenyan Asians’ and Ugandans seeking refuge around 1968 – 1972. At which time the immigration population stood at some 3m. Unfortunately this crass unmanaged action and lack of integration planning saw riots unfold starting in Liverpool in August 1948, and in the 1950s to Birmingham, Nottingham and west London with an undercurrent of tension still operating today in high immigration / migration areas. New immigration acts came about to selectively adjust the flow in: - 1962 (C), 1965 (L), 1968 (L), 1972 (C), The British Nationality Act of 1981 enacted in 1983, (C)

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality act 2006 (L) and Immigration Act 2016 (C)  (a).

In some respects although the diverse influx mixture and lack of integration was a difficulty due to voluntary ghetto patterns forming or prejudice, the real modern tensions started to manifest from the European Union membership expansion in 2004 onwards under a Labour administration. All governments refused to see that there was a growing dissonance with accusation of ‘out of control immigration’ which had seen since 1980’s under the Conservative DU Party a consistent rise in the number of immigrant getting into the UK. Although each government said it was in control of it, in effect they were inept in tackling it and held to ransom for fear of being seen as racist. There continued to be an increase in the number of people being allowed into the UK and at the 2011 census, 7.5 million people, born overseas were resident in the UK, with people of Indian origin becoming the largest immigration group.

It was later supposedly stated that it was a deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until early-2008 to be open to mass migration into the UK as it was seen to be of economic (dubious) benefit, supporting multiculturalism (very contentious), help maintained a flexible labour market, and filled a shortage of skilled / professional demand even though most of the workforce went into many areas of the service sectors.

In February 2011, the Leader of the Labour Party, Ed Milliband stated that he thought that the Labour government's decision to permit the unlimited immigration from 2004 of eastern European migrants had been a mistake, arguing that they had underestimated the potential number of migrants and that the scale of migration had a negative impact on wages, this after the rapid influx of eastern Europeans from Romania, Bulgaria, Poland etc. When at the time the government could have introduced a time and limitation delay to control numbers, it did not do so, unlike other EU countries such as France and Germany.

It is estimated that since 2008 some 5M immigrant have settled into the UK with a potential 500K illegals. Although for the moment it is unlikely the UK can control immigration / migration from the EU (disregarding Brexit) there is little to stop controls on economic migrant / asylum seekers from countries external to the EU, this may be particularly important when approximately two thirds of all immigration over the past few years have been of this category.

The lack of comprehensive immigration considerations and the tensions growing was a politically inept deliberate disregard by all governments made more contentious by the drive to be Politically Correct, non racial and maintain a labour supply. All governments have since 1970’s have had to modify positions on immigration with, in recent years, adopting a position to be “tough on immigration”. It is unfortunate that the Labour Party has been particular weak on immigration control, based on their stance historically that has been overly liberal and it is this stubborn perception of weakness, held by some, that continues to undermine them on their proposed management of immigration. However it is true to state that all government political parties have had and still do have an unrealistic understanding of the effects on the social structures of elements of society. To continue to believe in the (un)tenable benefits of ‘multiculturalism’ linked to immigration without investment in assimilation, it will continue to be contentious subject.

Unless radical actions are taken on the underlying causes and pull factors of immigration / migration, it is preposterous to assume that any government will be willing to control immigration / migration, to the “low tens of thousands”. As it is also ridicules to believe that immigrants / migrants are arriving in the UK to (it is said) “help us out”. They come to be paid for the jobs and associated benefits that are unavailable from their own home / countries and will continue to arrive so long as the UK is a signatory to the (unrestricted) concord of the (all non-bordered) EU free movement of people, United Nation High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

  

Behind the entire scope of above one might discern deceits that are propagate to maintain delusional myths. The most potent ones (Gold, PFI, Immigration / migration) are placed on the Labour party, yet all government have been responsible for erratic policies and the loss of countless billions of taxpayers’ money via ill -considered actions and by being economic with the truth to consistently misinform the public. It is only by being interested and scrutinise progress over a period of time can one begin to appreciate their dam lies. Well of course those in government do get away with making disastrous decisions, they have immunity from prosecution; so can lie, be flexible with pertinent information, be disingenuous, dishonourable and walk away to affluent rewards after wasting billions of tax revenue even if some is used purely to sustain a centralized economy, London. (b)

As we are in the era now of state engendered derisive misinformation, false news, deliberate ambiguity, inundating divisive media, evasion and stupefying secretiveness, there is little chance, one may think, of seeing a reduction in myths, deceits and dam lies. Perhaps it is too late to care, so don’t waste your time thinking about it all.       

(a) C = Conservative DU Party.  L = Labour Party

(b)

The poll tax

The Exchange Rate Mechanism £15bn

 IT failures NHS Patient Record System & NHS Reformation £13bn+

The Millennium Dome.  £800m

 Metronet collapse £2bn

The Assets Recovery Agency £60m. Later merge into Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA)

Iraq and Afghanistan 28bn

Immigration 15bn pa   

Tamiflu. 500m

HS2    £56bn? Ongoing.

Brexit £100bn? Ongoing.

Crossrail. £15bn.
Assemble your own list?

© Renot

1010181850