Defying Terror Is Not Done By Breeding Hatred: An Open Letter To Katie Hopkins

We do not need a 'final solution'.

Last night an atrocity took place. Last night innocent children and teens, some as young as eight, went to a pop concert and were denied the chance to come home. They were denied a future when a coward detonated a home made device. A coward, who does not deserve any other title because - to attack children - a person cannot be anything but. 

In the wake of such an atrocity we should come together to prove our culture - our multicultural, welcoming, caring, brave, progressive society - is not terrorised. We have not been cowed into change or submission. We are still who we have always been, people who want bright futures for our children, people who want freedom, tolerance, and peace in a world devoid of senseless death and suffering. 

Yet there are some who deny we are such a society. They use this tragedy, an abhorrent attack on our children, to spout their vitriolic lies. They encourage hatred and retaliation, but it is not retaliation against the perpetrators they incite, it is not justice. What they encourage is attacks on other families, other businesses, other women and children. They breed hatred which in turn leads to fear among the very communities we need to work with, not against. It breeds further opposition where hatred festers, spreads, grows and creates an environment where others become entrenched in angry, hate filled dogma. In such environments, extremist views fuel atrocious acts.

One such 'person' is Katie Hopkins. We all know her; that loud mouthed apprentice with the IQ and personality of a tapeworm (or so it seems). Today, in the wake of a disgusting attack on children, she incited hatred using the very words Hitler used when planning his sustained attack of the Jewish population. The Nazis used the term 'Final Solution' to disguise the nature of the Holocaust, and now Hopkins is calling for a 'final solution' to terrorism. The underlying message is clear, when she says we need a final solution to extremist mosques and schools, she is actually encouraging an Islamic Holocaust which would not only affect extremists. She seems to be encouraging the replication one of the most horrific crimes of the twentieth century, where 6-11 million men, women, and children where exterminated following a protracted period of fear mongering and propaganda designed to breed hatred between religions and races, between the 'good' and the 'undesirable'. 

I doubt she is blind to the insinuation which using such language as 'final solution' makes, but even if she is, that it breeds hatred is clear for all to see. Her twitter stream is awash with people demanding Muslims be deported, demanding mosques and schools are closed, and even demanding Muslim homes are entered. She demands we rise up, and calls us cowed ants for preaching solidarity and a continuation of our lives rather than roaring hatred at other members of our society, whether or not they're guilty of a crime. She implies our politicians and men are eunuchs, emasculated cowards who fail to protect their women and children. She shames normal, good people by encouraging behaviour which is just as bad or worse than that of terrorists. 

She is encouraging a holocaust. 

Take a moment to think about that.

As many as 1.5 million Jewish children died in the Holocaust. 

1.5 million children. 

That is what the likes of Katie Hopkins encourage, knowingly or otherwise, when using terms such as 'final solution'. 

Is anyone really alright with that?

This so called 'columnist' and 'television personality' has gone so far as to write an article, painting herself as a distraught, keeling, saintly figure, horrified by the atrocity and by society's cowardly response. She attacks politicians and common people, she uses the death of a family's precious eight year old and the wonderful work of first responders to further her own hate-filled agenda. She writes as if she has the right to claim a child's death for such a purpose, not even a day after the attack.

What kind of person does that?

She describes deaths, with no regard to families grieving for those lost. She turns their loss into a mouthpiece for her twisted hatred, and yet she is still given a platform on which to speak. She is every bit as bad as any extremist Islamic cleric; a loathsome figure with a stage on which to spread hatred as though it were some brave resistance rather than extremist terrorism. She speaks for a minority, just as an extremist cleric speaks to a minority. She no more represents us than an extremist cleric represents most Muslims. So why is she given air time and print space?

Her followers and even some other 'journalists' claim to be horrified that the public have replied to her hate-speech with anger. They claim to be horrified that people are more angry at Katie Hopkins's tweet than we are at the senseless murder of children. But such a claim isn't true, we are angry at the senseless attack on our children. We are horrified and we are furious. It is that horror  and fury which also makes us so angry at Katie Hopkins tweets and articles, not because she is an easy target, but because she incites more of the same.

Up to 1.5 million Jewish children died in the Holocaust.

Think about that for a second.

Now tell me you aren't angry that Hopkins is preaching the need for a 'final solution'.

I would advise you to avoid her article. Do not read it. Boycott her commentary. Report her tweets but do not retweet them or share them.  Doing so only spreads her message. Katie Hopkins only has a voice while she makes money for her employers; boycott her and she will disappear. 

Why do we need her to disappear?

We cannot root out the hatred of others while hatred spreads amongst ourselves. Those preaching hatred in our communities are the easiest to remove because they are in the open and think they have our ear. Get rid of Hopkins and her ilk, then we can focus more of our attention on defying terrorism. We can focus without resources being wasted fighting our own hatred and bringing to justice those who set fire to mosques and attack innocent women for wearing a hijab. It is in our best interests to root out all hate speech, not just Islamic extremist hate speech, because when we act with intolerance and hatred we had extremist terrorists an excuse to resist.

I replied to Hopkins tweets about her article, but I would like to make what I said then the basis of an open letter to the slimy pond scum columnist. She probably won't read, but as a mother, as the grand-daughter of a Polish-Ukrainian taken from home as a boy by Nazis who were collecting children to use as forced labour, as the grand-daughter of a Polish-Ukrainian boy who never saw his parents or siblings again, I need to say this.

An Open Letter To Katie Hopkins

Katie Hopkins,

I unfortunately made the mistake of reading your article regarding the Manchester Arena bombing. I was numb by the word 'bed', at the end of your first sentence, and to answer your question 'are we too sick to be saved?' I'd like to answer that you certainly seem to be.

We need a doctor, do we? Do you know what doctors do? They give people a chance hope, hope that they can carry on as normal. They may carry on with amputations, or carry on with removed organs, or carry on after a period of suffering, but they carry on. That is what we need. Doctors don't breed further illness. They let us carry on after a period of suffering or injury, and so your whole metaphor is flawed. 

You show no regard for grieving families as you describe how people died in order to incite fear.  You do not speak for first responders or the dead. You create vivid imagery, painting yourself as some saintly, kneeling mother, distraught and unprotected by leaders and 'eunuchs', when really you are a poisonous snake, whispering hatred and inciting fear, showing abject disrespect and disregard to those who died because of hatred.

You should be ashamed of yourself, as a mother, as a commentator on national affairs, as someone with influence. Instead you spout hatred to further your infamy. You disgust me, who - as a mother of two, as someone who has been to a gig at that arena, and as someone whose ancestry is rich with those who were subject to hatred, who survived oppression, and who fought to defy those who would see them succumb - is appalled by this attack on children. You disgust me, as a British European, as someone with spiritual faith, and as someone who knows there are times when fighting is necessary. You disgust me, because your writing is not the courage of the resistance but is an echo of Hitler's 'final solution' propaganda.

You do need to be fired. You need to be locked up and kept from inciting further hatred while we channel resources into defying terrorism, because that's what we should be doing, Katie. We should be defying terrorism, not breeding more of it, not encouraging citizen to attack citizen. 

You are a waste of resources, Katie; a black hole paid to spew fecal matter. What we need is real hope; the type found in Muslim and Sikh taxi drivers giving free lifts to those caught up in the attack, the type found in a homeless man rushing into the arena to help and to hold the dying, the type found in visiting doctors and surgeons offering their help at hospitals where the wounded were taken, and the type found in people rushing out to give blood in case it's needed. The hope we need is found in people coming together despite an attack on a gathering. It is found in people saying 'We are still here, we will not become monsters who give further excuse to attack. We are still here, unified, because only unified can we be strong.' 

No, a vigil does not bring back the dead. A vigil does not remove a terrorist from our streets. What a vigil does, is tell those who are grieving that we are there for them if they need us, while also telling the perpetrators that we will not be cowed or controlled.  A vigil, a lit candle, a call for calm and to carry on, such things respect the dead by not encouraging further death and by not diverting focus and resources from finding the perpetrators of such crimes. A vigil is far more respectful than any call to 'rise up' and create a 'final solution'.

Keep calm and carry on is the British response to a tyrant seeking a 'final solution'. We should remember that. It has served us in the past and it will serve us again in the future.

What we need is real hope, not your false sainthood and message of hatred.

Up to 1.5 million children died in Hitler's 'final solution', Katie. Is that really what you want to repeat? Is that really the message you wish to be remembered for? I hope not, for all our children's sakes.

Regards,

A concerned member of the public and a mother.

To anyone else who stumbles upon this.

Please, give your children an extra kiss tonight. Phone your parents and tell them you love them. Help your neighbour carry heavy bags from their car, regardless of their religion, race, nationality or orientation. Cuddle up on the sofa with your partner. Welcome every person you meet with friendship rather than judgement because - while friendship can be refused - you lose nothing in offering it. Judgement and hatred will only ever deprive you of friends, of allies, and of people who could care for you.

To any journalist or member of the public who speaks in support of Hopkins or in outrage at the anger directed at her, remember that the Holocaust started with hatred. It started with blaming a people and claiming there needed to be a 'final solution'. Then remember that up to 1.5 million children died in the Holocaust. Do you really support such incitement? Are you truly unable to appreciate why people are angry?

To anyone who has lost a loved one to such senseless violence, or who has been a victim of it, I cannot understand the depth of your suffering. I truly hope I'm never in a position to understand it. All the same, you have my sympathy, my condolences, and my anger that you have been made to suffer because of senseless hatred. Anyone involved in such atrocities needs to be brought to justice, and we need to work towards ensuring further atrocities do not take place.

Carmine Raven

Correction On Deficit

In previous posts I said the graphs included bailing out the banks, but I have been informed that this is not included in the ONS figures quote. This does not change that Labour's outgoing deficit and debt were a response to the global crash and not the cause of it. The deficit covered unemployment benefits caused by the crash and other crash related spending. Tory debt since then has continued to spiral due to successive years of high borrowing and compared to productivity which is only now come down, but at a huge increase in debt. In '97 it was Labour who took us out of deficit, into surplus, and lowered debt as a percentage of GDP. That is still their legacy as opposed to the Conservative legacy of high debt, high borrowing, high taxes, and similar spending despite cuts to spending on welfare and public services (where does the money go? Nobody knows). The point remainst the same, even without considering bank bail outs. Labour did better than Conservative governments before or after.

Carmine Raven

Debt, Deficit, Borrowing, Surplus, Tax, and Spend

I am going to explain this only once because I'm beginning to get truly frustrated with the ignorance I face from Conservative voters who don't want to accept that Labour has done the economy more good in the last three decades than the Tories. This really isn't that complicated.

Debt: The amount the government owes from borrowing, including the addition of any interest.

Deficit: The difference between budget spend and budget income leading to a negative balance.

Borrowing: The amount the government borrows.

Surplus: The difference between budget income and budget spend leading to a positive balance.

Tax: Money the government recoups from the populace through income tax and other taxes.

Spend: What the government invests in infrastructure, assets, welfare, and services.

So how do Labour and the Conservatives compare?

Debt

On its own and as a percentage of GDP, debt is consistently higher under Conservative governments than under Labour. Debt both prior to the Blair/Brown government and after it has been higher than during it.

Deficit

This is actually largely irrelevant. Large deficit isn't necessarily bad (unless the government are lying about their targets to lower it, but that's more because it shows government smoke and mirrors for the incompetence it is). Deficit is simply the difference in budget income and outgoings. Deficit is better than surplus in some respects as it shows money is going into the economy rather than being kept out of it in a surplus, although sometimes it is beneficial to be in surplus for a few years, pay off debt, and then start spending again. Under Labour, the Tory deficit was lowered, a surplus was created with fed into lowering debt, and then they began to invest, keeping the deficit stable. The rise in deficit came as a result of the GLOBAL crash, not as a cause of it, as government spending included bailing out the banks to stop a full scale crash of our economy.  This indicates anomalous spending in the years of the crash to save the economy, not recklessness on Labours part.

Borrowing

Under Labour yearly borrowing remained low and steady, the only exception was during the crash when the government borrowed to save the banks and the economy along with them. This was an anomaly, not a trend. However, since then, the Conservative government have continued to borrow at high levels. In 2015 their borrowing was still almost twice that of Labour's in 2007. Such borrowing while our debt remains high is reckless. It lowers the deficit, because it's 'income', but it doesn't improve our economic stability. In fact, high levels of debt are known to slow economic growth. As the conservatives are supposedly using cuts to welfare and public services to 'pay down the deficit'  and they aren't bailing out a new back every year, you have to wonder where all this borrowed money is going? Tax cuts for the wealthy? Ignoring corporate tax avoidance? Battle buses? I don't know, but it's an interesting question. 

Surplus

See Deficit

Tax

Despite a reputation for giving tax cuts, the Tories have a history of high taxation. They use stealth taxes to acquire income. Under Margaret Thatcher, effective tax reached a peak. It reduced under Labour, but rose under the Conservatives. We don't have any figures, but we can only presume the Tory dementia/death tax is intended to increase taxation further.

Spending

The government can invest in a number of ways, by purchasing assets which offset debt and can provide income or lower expenditure, or they can invest in infrastructure to improve productivity, or they can invest in welfare which has the twofold benefit of ensuring more people have money to spend, therefor increasing economic growth, and by ensuring recipients have some level of security and dignity, which in tern encourages productivity. Labour tends to invest in infrastructure, increasing economic productivity, while the current Conservative government seeks to cut spending which both slows economic growth and creates poverty. Child poverty has increased hugely in the last seven years, undoing the last Labour governments success and lowering it. 

Conclusion

The last Labour government had a policy of low levels of controlled debt, low levels of controlled borrowing, low levels of effective tax, productive economy, and investment to encourage productivity. The country made a lot compared yo what it borrowed. This placed us in a strange position during the global economic crash. Our accounts were in good enough shape that the government could borrow and bail out the banks to save the economy. The current Conservative government and the Tory government under Thatcher have high levels of debt, high levels of borrowing, high taxation, and slow economic growth, leaving us in a precarious position where another crash (such as that likely to follow Brexit) will have far greater impact than the global crash of 2008. And a future crash may well be the direct result of Tory policy and the Brexit referendum, as opposed to the 2008 crash which was global and not to be laid at Labour's door.

For a more in depth look at Tory and Labour policy, see my post Strong and Stable, or for more facts and figures on the economy, along with references for graphs shown here, see my post Debt, Deficit, and Deceit.

And remember, vote Labour for low debt, low borrowing, sensible spending, and low, stable, and open taxation.

Vote Conservative for high debt, high borrowing, spending on the already wealthy, and high, hidden taxation.

Carmine Raven

Vile, Awful 'It'

Today on twitter 3 tories decided to call me 'thicko', 'vile', 'awful', and 'it'.

Why?

I pointed out that I'm disabled, in poverty, a parent, that welface cuts cause poverty, and that it is not 'mismanagement' when you get pregnant before you know you're going to be made reduntant or end up on long term sick. I would rather work. I would rather have money to buy my daughter a birthday present, any burthday present, than get to the point where I have £13 in my bank account and four weeks of bills before I get paid. I would love to have the independence and future I had when I qualified under labour with a first class degree and a professiobal job. I would love not to worry all the time. I didn't choose or cause my situation. But sure, I'm the vile, awful, thicko of an 'it'.

This is how Tory policies of dehumanising the poor, sick, elderly, and impoverished translates to their supportors. It's ok to say this stuff, and to turn people into 'its' rather than people. How do they think this affect someone with a mental illness? If I told them, they'd probably say I was 'manipulative' or 'whinging'. Are these sorts of people really the ones we want to listen to?

For goodness sake, vote Labour.

Image from Pseudonymous Zombie

Carmine Raven

Strong and Stable Or Weak and Wobbly? You Decide

Jeremy Corbyn walks out on stage at a stadium to speak to 20,000 people and does so with confidence and animation. The crowds chant his name and video footage streams to thousands more. 

Meanwhile, Theresa May enters community centres through the back door to avoid angry service users at the front, and she speaks to whichever Conservative activists she can fit on her bus because when she is questioned by members of the public, the public reveal her policies are failing and are worth less than the uncosted manifesto they're written on. I do hope she's bothered to properly declare the cost of her battle bus and is ensuing her serving  MPs and candidates are doing the same, we'd hate to repeat that farce...

We can see who's strong and stable, and it isn't May; the farce is strong with that one.

Help us, J.C; you are our only hope.

Corbyn; If you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. 

Corbyn has withstood character assassination and smear campaign, he has stood firmly despite the weight of misinformation and prejudiced propaganda levelled against him. He came back stronger from his leadership challenge and he looks stronger now, speaking to the people, than our current Prime Minister could conceive. May isn't even brave enough to enter a TV debate with the leader of the opposition, which is usually standard practise...

But then we know why she won't debate with him. She'd lose. Even in the commons, during debates, May has to resort to personal slight against Corbyn because he holds her accountable. That works in the commons because the press can then selectively choose what to show in the 6 o'clock news and put there own spin on it.

So many times even the supposedly impartial BBC show May making personal slights rather than dealing with the matter at hand and call that behaviour 'strong' then take one line of Corbyn's reply out of context to misreport it and ignore everything else he's said to expose Mrs May's failings. This attitude to 'news' encourages a bullying approach, spits on fair and honest debate, and is specifically designed to fuel the propaganda machine rather than provide quality journalism. It's not on, and it's time we stood up to it. Who pays licence fees? Who buys papers? We should expect more.

We only need to visit YouTube to see how low the BBC go when discussing May vs Corbyn. In fact, much as the Tories U-turned on the policy mentioned in the below video, some sources are already reporting that they have dropped the 10,000 promised mental health nurses from their manifesto just a week after they were promised! (This fact needs verified, but to see how the Conservatives manage mental health services, simply Google how many nurses we've lost over the last seven years - it's a lot.)

This behaviour in the media sets the tone for Conservative MPs, spin doctors, activists, and even Tory voters in general. During the course of the last week I've spoken to numerous Conservative voters through social media and I've discovered something. When faced with facts and figures they either go silent (like May when asked onto debate shows, or to nursing conferences) or they spout outright lies with no evidence to back them up (like the Tory propaganda machine), or they resort to personal attacks (much like May and the mainstream media). They'll trot out the 'loony lefty' line, or they'll say you're lying without having any evidence to dispute the wealth of evidence you've provided. They'll tell you that the Tories 'always have to clean up Labour's mess', despite the evidence stating that it is Labour who clean up the Conservatives mess. I have yet to receive any real debate in face of my Debt, Deficit, and Deceit post. I've been called a liar. I've been told pigs might fly. I've had outright disbelief. No one can dispute it though, because the figures reveal the truth.

The best anyone has managed to come up with, is 'but look at the 1970, Labour had highest rate income tax up at 98% and they still got us into debt by reckless spending'. At first glance, it would seem that tax rate was far to high for no benefit as that chased the wealthy away from Britain. But no one is suggesting we go back to 98%. Labour aren't even suggesting we go back to the 60% tax which Thatcher was reluctant to drop below. No one is intending to return to the 1970s and to claim that's where labour will lead us is nothing but scaremongering. Yes, a 98% tax would be damaging. A 50% tax? No, because as discussed in Debt, Deficit, and Deceit, if the rich were to pull investment on that, it'd be cutting their noses off to spite there faces. We need to stop spreading this lie that the wealthy will only receive 2% of their higher bracket earnings (those earning above what most of us can dream of, remember, they still have  personal allowances and basic rate earning, higher rate tax is only applied to income over the threshold). Labour still want the wealthy to keep 50% of higher rate earnings. That's 10% more than Thatcher and only 10% less than now. To keep mentioning the 70's is baseless scaremongering when what they should be worried about is the Conservative dementia  tax.

Let's have a look at that, then. The plan is to have the elderly who need care to sign up to an insurance policy which allows them and their partner to live in their home until they die, but upon death the money to cover care cost's is taken from the sale of the property, from equity over £100k. The average house in the UK is worth well over £100k, and it seems there is to be no real limit on the amount which can be taken from equity over that first £100k. These insurance policies will also be able to force the sale of a property at less than market value, reducing the amount any children will inherit with no recourse. People will see their inheritance slashed by such a move, and while inheritance is a luxury many don't enjoy, it does mean that even the average working family who have their own homes could see them taken from their families.

Such a tax would affect working and middle class families, and only serves the top earners who have enough to pay for care anyway. Why are families being asked to pay National Insurance to fund care and public services, only to be told their children will also lose their inheritance in order to pay for care for a second time?

This policy also flies in the face of parity of esteem between mental and invisible illnesses, and physical illnesses. 

Cancer patients will continue to be treated for free (as they should be. My father died last year on a palliative care ward of this terrible disease), but dementia patients will be forced to give up most of what they worked to have to pass on to their children. Perhaps it is a mercy that winter fuel allowance is being cut, some of us might freeze to death before we have to take such drastic measures. Also, on the note of winter furl allowance; the plan is to make it means-tested. This is a terrible decision.

Many people will fall through the net with such a system, either being daunted with the application process (as is the way with Universal Credit, PIP, ESA, etc) or they won't want the shame of being means tested. People will die for no reason other than the fact a simple systems suddenly becomes overly complicated and denies self-respect. Means testing is an accusatory process. You apply and then government bodies assess you to see if you're trying to steal the paltry amounts on offer. I know, having recently been scrutinised for PIP, after having worked for 15 years, right from 16, and having professional experience and a first class degree. I have aspirations, drive, a willingness to work, but saying I need temporary help is a shaming process. No one should be ashamed because they are sick, old, were raped, or because their parents decided to give birth to them...

Means tested benefits are also hugely inefficient. This is because they involve an application process which means paying staff to sort applications, award payments, and handle appeals. The current benefits system is hugely inefficient for this reason. It would actually be cheaper to award everyone a basic, living income, and then recoup the costs as taxes or National Insurance from those who earn enough not to need it. That's not to say the wealthy will pay extra or pay twice, they will simply pay back a benefit they don't need. They'll get no benefit and suffer no loss. However, government finances as a whole would benefit because they'd reduce the cost of labour and IT systems needed to deal with means tested applications, there would be lower levels of poverty, so more people would be spending money, which would strengthen the economy, people who suffer ill health or homelessness due to poverty would be taken out of poverty and become less of a burden on public services, whilst also regaining autonomy and therefore some dignity, which will improve productivity.

The productivity bit stumps a few people, people who claim that hand outs encourage people to live off the state, and that we should stop hand outs. If anyone was suggesting we hand out the average wage, I would agree, but no one is suggesting that. What is being suggested is that people are given enough for food, because poorly nourished people are unhealthy and unproductive, money for clothes, because looking smart helps get and hold onto work and respect, and money for basic essentials like heating and a roof, because people die of hypothermia and worrying about homelessness causes a cycle of depression and low productivity. A little stress is good for people, it's a driving force, but when this becomes prolonged it starts to lessen productivity. Constant worry about money lowers productivity, it makes people less capable of getting or retaining work, it makes people more prone to mental and physical illness, it costs government finances more by creating problems than it solves. Making sure people have a basic income lowers that stress and worry, and allows them to look above the parapet, to see that the can do more and start working towards aspirations. It encourages people, rather than discourages them. If you tell a man he's worthless for long enough, he will believe himself worthless. If you allow a man his self respect, most will seek to remain respectable.

Now, back to Tory voters and their claims I'm lying. One told me yesterday that Labour policies have always been 'high tax, high borrowing, and high spending'. This is a fundamentally flawed argument based on the '70's 98% higher rate tax and the lie that Labour borrows and spends more than the Conservatives. Yes, Thatcher cut higher rate tax to 60%, but she also introduced huge amounts of stealth tax, which mean the effective tax rate peaked under her leadership. People paid more in tax under Thatcher than they did under the preceding Labour government. The last Labour government lowered this rate.

Yes, that's right, under Labour we paid lower taxes. 

Source: The National Archives (with annotation)

When I pointed this out to the 'gentleman' I was debating with, announced that if the Conservatives taxed more, it was because they always have to tidy up after Labour's spending. At this point, I reminded him that Thatcher also spent more than the preceding labour government. He then reverted to the line 'lies, damned lies, and statistics'. I pointed out he had indeed told lies, damned lies, but had skipped the statistics entirely and ended the debate. He was too stubborn and to wilfully misinformed to keep spending time on, but I hoped someone else may read the information I'd posted and draw their own conclusions.

Source: Economics Help

Now posting that graph is a risk, and I expect a backlash of Tory voters claiming 'but look, under Blair's government spending went up! That just proves how reckless Labour are!' At which point I'd refer again to my previous post on the subject, Debt, Deficit, and Deceit. Labour's increased spending was due to better economic productivity and investment in infrastructure, not due to increased debt or taxation. As previously stated in this post, the effective tax rate was lowered, and as discussed in the aforementioned article, borrowing as a percentage of GDP was also lowered.

Under Labour we had less debt, and we paid less tax, despite increases in public spending, because we had such a strong economy.

Under the Conservatives, we have skyrocketing debt, slow growth in the economy, historically they require higher taxation through stealth taxes, which is a trend Theresa May's manifesto of misery seems intent on continuing. 

Under Labour, child poverty fell dramatically and the gap between the wealthy and the poor reduced. The NHS ran at a surplus, and numbers of nurses and teachers training remained stable.

Under the Conservatives, child poverty is rising and while it hasn't yet reached Thatcher's levels, it is heading that way and may well surpass them. The gap between the top 5% and the rest of us is increasing. Our public services are in huge deficit, and the numbers of unfilled nursing posts are increasing, nurses in training are decreasing, and larger classes are being taught be fewer qualified teachers.

• Our children are malnourished.
• Our elderly are dying of hypothermia.
• Our workforce is impoverished.
• Our homeless and starving are increasing. 
• Our public services are failing.
• Our economy is teetering on the brink of free fall.
• Our wealthiest politicians and business owners  grow wealthier through our suffering.
• Our populace is, by majority, worse off now than they were ten years ago.

What more do you need to know in order to #VoteLabour?

If you do one thing on June 8th, then go and vote for your Labour candidate. If you don't have a Labour candidate, then vote Co-op (if you have a co-op working in conjunction with Labour), or vote Green, or vote for your independent representative (not to be confused with UKIP, votes for whom may ensure Conservative victory). Do it for your children, your grandparents, the disabled, the sick... Do it for yourselves by supporting economic growth rather than debt and economic stagnation. Do it because it's the only decent thing to do.

Carmine Raven

What We Stand To Lose

There is a lot riding on this general election. The NHS and social care are already in crisis, education isn't far behind, child poverty is rising by the day, as is national debt, and already the Conservatives have pledged to SCRAP both free school meals for infants and winter fuel allowance for OAPs. All this, on top of previous cuts benefits, cuts to tax credits, forcing even working families to use foodbanks, losing vast numbers of mental health staff and creating a mental health crisis... The message is a simple one; if you value our public services, our elderly, our disabled, our children, or even just our economy, then Vote Labour before the Tories drag us down.

Carmine Raven

Debt, Deficit, and Deceit: How Labour Caused the Crash and the Conservatives Saved Us

An election is coming, and we want to make sure we're in safe hands, don't we?

In advance of the General Election, it's prudent to take into account the past history of parties with government experience and look at their track record. Let's start with what we 'know'.

• The exiting Labour government left us in massive debt, with a huge debt following a policy of borrow and spend.
• Coalition and Conservative austerity has brought down the deficit as promised in successive election campaigns.

Those facts form the basis of much Conservative support. It is assumed that Labour will borrow billions and send us spiralling back into deficit. We've all seen the matter raised in the commons and on the news. We don't even need to look at Conservative campaign material to see that this is the truth; Labour caused the economy to crash and the Conservatives are cleaning up their mess. The Conservatives are taking us from deficit to surplus.

Right?

Well, the subject of debt and deficit is not that simple. Many people confuse the two. In fact even David Cameron, while in power, spoke of bringing down national debt when he actually meant deficit. So what are debt and deficit?

Debt

• Money borrowed. Often stated as net debt, being the money borrowed minus the value of assets. It's what the government owes.

Deficit

• The difference between budget income and outgoings. Deficit happens when income is less than outgoings. Surplus happens when income is greater than outgoings.

So in terms of debt, what is the track record of current and previous governments? 

To say the Conservative record is 'poor' would be an understatement. The current Conservative government have increased debt and debt as a percentage of GDP by quite dramatic amounts. They are borrowing in far greater amounts than Labour, which is all well and good in some respects as it provides us with income... until those debts are called in. Then we have one awfully big expense to pay off. That's extremely risky. 

Borrowing is not always a bad thing. Sometimes it is necessary, but it is a calculated risk, one the Conservative government is willing to put far bigger bets on than Labour ever did, and they are gambling with our economy. Not only is it risky because debts can be called in, but huge national debt can also slow economic growth as its lessens likelihood of other investment. It's a two pronged risk which the Conservatives are taking with apparently little concern.

However, this behaviour is nothing new to the Conservatives. It follows previous trends.

The last Labour government brought down debt as a percentage of GDP from that during the term of the exiting Conservative government. Under the Conservative led coalition, this rose sharply, surpassing even the previous levels under the previous Conservative government.

Source: Daily Mail, referencing ONS

In fact, here we can see exactly which party's policies lead to increased borrowing. Under Labour, borrowing as a percentage of GDP dropped to its lowest level in the two decades shown, while Conservative/Coalition governments have been blighted by vast amounts of borrowing compared as a percentage of GDP.

Source: Daily Mail, referencing ONS

Now, lets look at some current public sector debt data... This speaks for itself. We're still up to the eyeballs in debt.

Source: Office of National Statistics

OK, the debt's looking unhealthy, but what about deficit? That's coming down, right?

Well, yes, it is, but it would have done even without Conservative austerity because the huge deficit left in the wake of the global economic downturn was something of an anomaly. It didn't cause the downturn as many would like to imply, but rather it was a response too the downturn. The Labour government who were in power at the time were faced with the prospect of our financial industry collapsing. If the banks failed, they would wipe out savings. They would also have call in debts, including mortgages, loans, etc. The economy would have bombed ever worse than it did, and so the government bailed out the banks. That is what the huge expenditure was about. It wasn't reckless investment or unwise borrowing, it was an attempt to save our economy from the affects of a GLOBAL (rather than UK/Labour caused) downturn. It was a response, not a cause, and therefore an anomaly. 

So if we discount the deficit caused by the economic crash, how does Labour's track record stack up compared to the Conservatives?

When Labour came into power, the Conservative government left them with a deficit. The Labour government brought this into surplus where it remained for four consecutive years, longer than the previous and short lived Conservative surplus which preceded a Conservative deficit which was greater than Labour's at the height of their pre-crash bail-out spending. In fact, in recent decades, Labour have had us in surplus for a greater length of time than any Conservative government has managed, that is despite the Conservatives being in government for far more of the time.  The Conservatives had plenty of time to prove their policies were financially sound, but it was only under labour we had any substantial surplus. Even the later Later deficit was coming down again - under Labour... until the global crash.

Source: The Guardian

So how is the deficit doing now?

Source: BBC News, referencing ONS (annotation added).

It's come down, but not at the speed promised. Under Conservative election pledges, we should've been back in surplus by now. We aren't near. We have gotten back to a deficit equivalent to that before the crash, but we're no where near in surplus. That reduction in deficit has been paid for through austerity measures, cuts in funding to the national health services, education, welfare, and so on, while being somewhat slowed by tax breaks given to the wealthiest members of society and corporations. In other words, the reduction in the deficit is being funded by the poorest members of society and the working class, while big business continue to increase profits and the wealthy continue to hoard wealth - keeping it out of circulation and therefore slowing economic growth.

But who cares who paid to get the deficit down? It doesn't matter, right? At least it's down, so the Conservatives have done a good job?

That would be a rather narrow view. The previous Labour government took us from deficit to surplus without austerity and without reaching the deficit of the previous  Conservatives at its worst.  As much as I resent giving a thumbs up to Blair's government, they did a good job. They took us from deficit to surplus without the NHS going into free fall and without workers relying on food banks. They did so without the disabled committing suicide rather than losing their homes due to lost benefits. The did so, without spitting on the poor by giving tax breaks to the wealthy.

Now, some economists say that surplus is bad, that it takes money out of circulation and causes economic crashes. However, Labour's surplus bucks that trend. They balanced the Tory books, paid off Tory debts, and then started investing while keeping debt at a stable level as a percentage of GDP. Even in Labours second year, investment was up on the previous Tory governments final year, then it dropped for a year, then it went back up, and Labour managed to invest without causing debt to rise as a percentage of GDP. The Tory government have severely cut investment while dramatically increasing debt as a percentage of GDP. In other words, they pose greater risk to the economy.

Labour did a good job. The Conservative legacy is less positive.

Yes, the deficit is down almost to what it was before the global downturn, but at what cost? The NHS is on the brink of collapse. Food banks are back. National debt and the associated risk has risen dramatically. The government is hiding reports indicating that their strangle hold on welfare is costing lives. Meanwhile, they can't even account properly for election spending (battle buses) never mind the economy. On top of that, they have sold off national assets for less than they were worth to corporations in which they or their friends have interests. We now have a huge amount of debt and far fewer assets to balance it with. But sure, the deficit is down compared to at the height of the crash...

That the number of working families in poverty has increased shouldn't matter, should it?

That the number of children in poverty has increased shouldn't matter, should it?

That the NHS is collapsing shouldn't matter, should it?

That funding to mental health services has been cut to the point of crisis in the last seven years shouldn't matter, should it?

The fact student debt isn't being paid off because even the employed aren't earning enough to live, never mind pay off loans, shouldn't matter, should it?

The fact our disabled are being deprived of security shouldn't matter, should it?

It's all OK, because the current wealthy Prime Minister who went to university for free, with her supportive and wealthy husband who has interests in a company which is getting away with not paying full UK task is bringing down the deficit...

We all have the national debt around our necks, and the Conservative government is increasing that debt. As far as track records go, the Tory government has spent a far greater percentage of the time in office in deficit over the last few decades than Labour. And they too left a deficit as an outgoing government in '97, without being in the midst of a global downturn. 

• Labour did not cause the crash, but they did act to prevent it becoming worse than it was.
• Labour has a better record of surplus than the Conservatives.
• The Conservatives are bringing down the deficit at great cost to the poor and working class.
• The Conservatives are giving tax breaks to the wealthy and selling off public assets.
• The Conservatives are increasing national debt.

The Conservative government is carrying out a two pronged attack of economic growth, first by running up huge debts, and second by reducing investment in infrastructure. Both slow economic growth and while yes, the deficit is down, that doesn't actually benefit economic growth and therefore isn't a long term policy. It's also a bit of a fluke, and however you look at it, they've failed to reach their targets. What we do know, is they are borrowing huge sums and gambling with the economy, and they aren't investing, meaning the majority have less access to services or financial security. The Tories have done far more damage in seven years than Labour did.

Incidentally, welfare can be regarded as positive investment because welfare money doesn't leave the economy. It is given to the poor who have to spend, so the money goes back to local businesses or goes towards items which then earn the government both VAT and income tax from the wages of those supplying goods. What doesn't benefit the economy is the rich getting richer. If a person's bank balance or worth is rising, then that money has been taken out of economic circulation. It slows the economy. Amassed wealth doesn't improve a countries economic stability, what it does do is create poverty.  Money is not infinite, to have the super rich there needs to be the super poor. The wealthy are not philanthropic investors providing jobs to working man, they are creators of poverty and class division in order to amass their own personal wealth which is outside of our economy.

You will see a lot of posts at the moment about how if the rich are attacked and taxed more they will remove investment... Will they? 

Well, no. They wont. Why? Because that's cutting their noses off to spite their face. Paying more tax lowers profit - that earned on top of expenses, and in addition to already amassed wealth. That's not to say it removes profit, it doesn't, it simply takes a very small percentage of it to give back to the poorest people in society, who then spend that money in businesses owned by the wealthy, so it still goes back into the 'pot'. It gives the wealthy a larger client base and promotes economic growth. The wealthy still make a profit and grow their personal wealth. It doesn't stop the wealthy becoming more wealthy, it simply slows that process down fractionally to make like better for the poorest members of society - the children, the sick, the elderly - while also ensuing economic growth. Withdrawing investment as a response to higher taxes would mean yes, the wealthy would keep the money they have, but they would no longer be investing to increase their profits. No investment, no return. No investment, potential for profit decreases. No investment, and the wealthy stop getting wealthier. Everyone ends up worse off. And if the economy crashes because the wealthy don't invest? Well, thanks to Tory debt, I doubt we'd be bailing out the banks a second time, so who's savings will vanish as the banks collapse? Well it isn't the savings of the poor because they don't have any savings. It would be the savings of the wealthy. The poor would suffer immeasurably, but currently wealthy people would also go bankrupt. It seems a rather silly risk to take, because of a 10% tax increase on earnings over what most of us could dream of earning anyway. 

Also, the past proves that taxing the rich doesn't cause economic gloom. Labour increased tax on wealthy earners while keeping debt at a stable level compared to GDP. Investment didn't stagnate under them. People were investing and the economy was the strongest it had been in years before the global economic crash. The current Tory legacy on the other hand, is one of tax cuts for the rich, low investment, rising debt, and economic uncertainty.

Oh, but if you're still worried about a tax hike on the wealthy, Labour's proposed tax rate is still less than it was for nine of Thatcher's eleven years is office, until her chancellor cut it, close to the end of Maggie's popularity and while causing her concern. So when you hear people claim that taxing the wealthy is 'politics of envy' or 'communist', ask yourself this, was Thatcher practising the politics of envy or was she a closet communist? Well it's not the latter, as she was openly anti-communist (as most of us are). The former also seems unlikely, she wasn't really in a position to envy the wealthy who kept her in power and have granted her an almost saint like position among politicians. If anything, her legacy was a standard Tory legacy of high debt as a percentage of GDP and securing the wealth of the already wealthy while child poverty remained high. She was neither envious, nor communist. Nor was she philanthropic.

It actually provides a more stable economy to tax the wealthy a little more to keep the poor afloat - after all, it's the poor who are renting from the wealthy landlords and paying for whatever they have to sell or are invested in. Lowering tax on the wealthy while creating massive amounts of poverty and debt leaves us in a position of economic uncertainty, failing public services, and rising child poverty, alongside rising rates of homelessness, suicide, food bank use, and preventable deaths of the elderly due to lack of heating and social care.

Conclusion? If you care about national debt, the NHS, education, the disabled, the impoverished, or even just getting the taxes due, then vote for Labour, because the Conservatives are playing Russian roulette with national debt and systematically destroying our public services, while also increasing national and child poverty.

Please note that I have used a range of sources from the Daily Fail Mail, to what I'm told is the 'twisted lefty' Guardian, as well as the not so impartial BBC and going straight to the sources with the Office of National Statistics. I've done so specifically to show how the figures remain the same across a range of sources. These aren't biased, labour leftist statements, they are facts and figures I'm giving you to draw conclusions from, alongside my own thoughts. What you do with that information is up to you.

But I'm team #VoteLabour.

Carmine Raven