Why did the BLAIR/brown Labour government and the top execs of the BBC think they owed more to the world's poor than Britain's poor?
Is that still their true position?
20.8 The New Labour years were characterised by a change in culture that was not shared by the wider public. The mood at the top of government circles (politicians and senior government officials) was distinctly internationalist in its outlook and viewed national borders as an...
Charity SHOULD begin at home,but it doesn't grab the International Kudos,that feeding blacks does.
Unfortunately the metropolitan elite see the process of getting elected and forming a government as some kind of University practical project for which they might, if lucky, get a 2:2. It's 27 times worse in the EU version of contemporary reality.
Every region in the world is connected to the next and all others in some way, like the butterfly effect if there is instability in one region it is felt in others. so if there is a conflict in say an African state that we acquire minerals from it would effect the price of those minerals and consequently everything else and who would lose out the most in the UK if prices went up?
Helping the worlds poor is helping Britain's poor, internationalism is the highest form of patriotism.
Could it be that they were all servants of HM the Queen, who is the ruler supreme of her farms and estates.
The indigenous British didn't need her so she set about ridding her estates of them.
Possibly having never suffered poverty themselves, they thought Britain was comparatively wealthy, in comparison to some other countries, ie those of the empire Britain as GB had made use of liberally.
Blair like Cameron belong to the God brigade. "My brothers keeper". That undoubtedly influenced the outlook.
As for the BBC the number of times it goes on about War 1 & 2, it could hardly pretend it was "us that won the war, singlehandedly". And the top executives DON'T come cheap! So no hardship there!
And journalists make a pretty good living!
After the Thatcher years, not altogether surprising! She introduced the Big Bang, flogged everything at basement prices, all for the sake of ideology!
State monopolies became privatized money milking monopolies!
Crushed the Unions, and it was the BBC' use of language, implying that the miners had given in, when they actually hadn't, that demoralized and broke the miners strike.
Only have to look at the inbred hierarchy to see those at the top are none too bright.
Barings bank wasn't duped. Those at the top loved the mega profits, but just couldn't be bothered to understand the risk!
As for the British poor, Thatcher wasn't bothered.
As for Blair he was Thatcher' heir.
Blair at least tried to take care of the British poor. Or at least he said so.
Ultimately Blair took care of himself, used his contacts after leaving office to become a millionaire.
Plus those who were paid well, recognized fusing in new blood from abroad, would ultimately spread their cultural outlook, export their ideology. Which in turn would mean flogging them British made weapons! Britain does a roaring trade flogging arms, especially to those very regions from which they take in the most!
Thatchers attitude was bound to rub off.
The poor in Britain had the possibility of getting an education, doing something worthwhile with their lives! But just chose to not go to college, preferred not to acquire any employable skills. Bosses moaned "can't read, can't spell accurately, can't write, turn up for interviews inappropriately dressed, ill prepared".
Thatcher ability to keep wages down only worked if there was a ever willing supply of cheap exploitable labor. And without those pesky unions, easy peacy.
And as for immigrants they worked long hours, lived in cramped space, saved, brought up their kids to value education.
Not to mention all those who did quite well out of the 1960', fled Britain rather then pay their fair share. All British, born & bred! So much for British working class solidarity. They had made it, out of their class, and weren't about to share their well earned wealth!
They supported Thatcher & Blair.
Blaming the immigrants is much more easier.
For the other side of the story, you need to look at what those same individuals were perpetrating overseas. Flogging British arms in akin to playing a role on the world stage, still make believing GB had never declined, relinquished, vanquished to US.
http://"The poor in a rich country are, in fact, three times richer than the rich in a poor country, defined as that top 10% and not just the tiny number of the super-rich".
Michael Howard' stance, as the offspring of immigrants.
Poor Fergus, poor Jamie, poor Ian, poor Frank...poor everybody!!! ? #OutlanderCAN #Outlander
Why wont #lab17 admit last Labour govt could have stopped poverty but imported 6million worlds poor & housed them before Brits? #PMQs #bbcdp
Oh dear poor Lady Nugee - someone really should have told her the last major sale to Saudi was under a Labour government. #Lab17
#ADEatMEL glad I rarely watch this shit game. Poor poor poor excuse of a sport. That was terrible!!!!
Good talk by @Asda - today's mums are cash poor, time poor and hope poor #kidsconf17
"Then I must tell you. To begin with, I am employed by the Government and
am in the President's confidence. The country is poor and depends for its
development on foreign capital, while it is important that we should have
the support and friendship of Great Britain and the United States.
Perhaps you know the latter's jealousy about European interference in
Such is our apology for Mr. Harcourt. A very poor one, the reader
will say, turning from that gentleman with disgust. It is a poor one.
Were we all turned inside out, as is done with ladies and gentlemen
in novels, some of us might find some little difficulty in giving
good apologies for ourselves. Our shade of brown would often be very