LEICESTER DEMO

Please find below a notice for a demo in Leicester:

Leicester is the City in England predicted to be the first to have a minority of Indigenous English in the near future.
This is non other than ethnic clearing.
This is a National Demo calling on the ethnically English from all over England to come and show support for the English in Leicester.

It is also a Demo for us to state that WE ARE THE ENGLISH, not British!
and we have wishes, needs and sensitivities just like any other ethnic group.

A message to all English woken up enough to care....
LEICESTER'S ENGLISH NEED YOU NOW!

This Demo will be at Leicester's City Centre, Clock Tower - 1pm on Saturday the 28th of March 2009.
_______________________________________________

THIS DEMO IS NOT CONNECTED TO ANY POLITICAL PARTY.

Please do not bring Union Jacks - WE ARE THE ENGLISH -NOT BRITISH!
Feel free to bring the Cross of St George - the flag of England & the White Dragon Flag of the English, which has become the symbol of the Indigenous English.
You can buy White Dragon flags from here http://www.whitedragonflagofengland.com

This is to be a good natured, law abiding Demo not aimed at any other ethnic group BUT is aimed at the authorities.

WE ARE THE ENGLISH! AND LEICESTER NEEDS US NOW!
PLEASE SHOW YOUR SUPPORT AND COME ALONG.

PLEASE FORWARD TO AS MANY ENGLISH AS POSSIBLE

facebook group
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/event.php?eid=57870188746

HOOD ROBIN

Labour’s commitment to bankers has reached a new scale of largess with English taxpayers’ money, verging on madness.

In a free market economy, if a company fails then it is either restructured, or taken over, or closed down. Labour are intent to keep the insolvent banks intact whatever the cost may be. They are quite open about this.

A failure of a bank might call into question the confidence in the banking system, and there is therefore some need for government intervention for the wider economic interest, which is why the banks should have been properly regulated. But that need only go so far as protecting the savings held by depositors. Rather than restrict themselves to that, Labour are trying to overcome the damage caused to the economy by the banks’ hording of cash by throwing so many £100billions at them that they will have so much money that they might start to lend some of it again. Yet the policy is not working.

In assessing the scale of the bank bailouts it needs to be remembered that the City pocketed £17billion last year in bonuses! With this level of reckless greed it is little wonder that the banks are insolvent. It is to be noted that Lloyds Bank has continued paying bonuses after receiving its first tranche of taxpayers’ money. Now it wants more.

Some of the measures announced make sense. The £50billion that the Bank of England might lend direct to large companies is good in that it by-passes the banks. The alteration of the terms of the Northern Rock bailout is sensible. If the main competition that the banks face is from a nationalized bank which is refusing mortgages and is withdrawing funds from the mortgage market then it makes it far easier for them to do likewise.

But to continue to pour good money after bad by offering the banks a blank cheque to underwrite their bad debts is irresponsible. The total cost, excluding that of the Northern Rock nationalization, is now edging towards £1trillion. It is predicted that even this will not be enough.

One needs to understand the logic. The government either prints money [a favourite socialist method of paying for things - although it is called quantitative easing in polite society] in which case savers will lose out in the following inflation, or uses taxpayers’ money, which the taxpayer must pay for, in order to give that money to the banks who in turn lend it back to the taxpayer and charge interest on it.

Oh wow! We can hardly wait.

Ordinary people are very unlikely to borrow money they cannot afford, and increasing living standards by borrowing more is a short term remedy. In the long term living standards are decreased as the borrowed money has to be repaid with interest. Taking out a mortgage is necessary to buy a house which, hopefully, will increase in value in the long term and provides somewhere to live in any case.

Firms borrow money to fund investment. Retained profits are their primary source for this. The do not borrow just for the sake of it. Returns on the investment should repay the initial cost and interest, leaving a profit.

If Labour decided to increase demand in the economy, then why were not these sums given to the private and business sector in the form of tax cuts - or else increase government spending on capital projects. That would have been the Keynesian approach. The Keynesian approach would not be to give even more huge sums of money to those who are insolvent and are hording cash.

Furthermore, Keynes was trying to solve unemployment which is not what Labour are doing. They are simply bailing out the banks in the hope that somehow, with all the printed money and taxpayers’ money circulating about in the banking system that it will eventually circulate out into the wider economy. They have not even demanded that the banks end their lavish bonus payments. Gordon Brown sees nothing wrong in taxpayers’ money being used to fund this [see the English Rights Campaign entry dated 21 October 2008].

This is not Keynesian economics, nor crass Keynesian economics [see the English Rights Campaign entry dated 12 December 2008]. This is spiv economics.

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

‘Three final considerations remain. The first concerns the general tendency for leading industrial countries to find themselves obliged, as other, low-wage areas begin to compete with them, to shift the weight of their operations within the international division of labour, away from industry first to commerce and ultimately to finance. The Dutch in their golden age, and before them possibly the Italian cities, might furnish earlier examples of this sequence. Might it then have been correct, even if not chosen deliberately but by a kind of unconscious collective drive, to neglect the declining manufacturing sector in favour of the sectors of the future, commerce and finance? Voices were not lacking, then as well as among those who are presiding over the far more devastating period of decline of British manufacturing in the 1980s, to claim just such a prospect.

However, the argument remains just as unconvincing in the context of the Victorian and Edwardian as in that of the second Elizabethan age. First, it is clear that the favours extended by the Government to the financial/commercial sector were not due to the recognition of the new, but to the survival of the old. The City, as we have seen, had gained its initial foothold in the centres of power in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and had kept it ever since, not so much by the economic significance of its contribution, but by the kind of social, familial and political links and by the snobbery with which the British ruling elite traditionally recruited itself. Next, a successful high-wage economy might well sustain itself by a shrinking manufacturing base and a growing tertiary sector, but only if the manufacturing sector which survives, remains technically up-to-date and able to sustain the high incomes consistent with the incomes realized in the financial sector and with the expectations of an advanced country.

It cannot be achieved by the kind of governmental neglect of industry characteristic for our period. Furthermore, such modest attention as was claimed by and granted to industry by the British Government, tended to be given to the old staples. The new high-tech, growing industries on which future development should have rested were, as noted above, treated with particular lack of understanding and helpfulness.

Thirdly, the argument for a major switch to the services neglects the enormous social costs of transferring half the British population from its north-western, formerly industrial base, to a new geographical and occupational environment. At least one generation would remain immobile among the kind of dereliction which is visible in northern Britain today, even if the following generation might possibly be willing and able to move. And lastly, the argument overestimates the employment possibilities of the tertiary sector, even if we make the totally unrealistic assumption that Britain, having failed to modernize her industries, retained a world monopoly of invisible exports. It might, conceivably, be a solution for a small country like Singapore or Switzerland, though even that is doubtful; it is certainly not conceivable for the 50 millions who have to be maintained in the British Isles.’

Sidney Pollard, Professor of Economic History, writing in 1989 about the British economy 1870-1914.