Labour's Real Cause for Shame

"In any reshuffle a prime minister will look at every post and decide what he chooses to do, I'm still the chancellor. There is no problem. Gordon and I will work as closely as ever."

"I'm very confident. I want to see this through and I am determined to see it through."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not delivering the same message as other Labour ministers. They are all declaring that Gordon is the man to lead them and in charge of his administration and his Party - those of them who are left after the mass exodus last week, that is.

The Chancellor states flatly that although the Prime minister will look at every post and decide what he chooses to do, Brown was not able to do that in the case of the post that is as powerful as that of the prime ministership itself. Blair could not dismiss Brown, now Brown cannot dismiss Darling. Yet neither chancellor was doing what the prime minister of the day wanted. More importantly, while the Chancellor today gave little emphasis to Brown being accepted as Leader of the Party, he did speak of the Party.

He spoke to something of much greater relevance. He spoke of Labour's shame, it's historic failure, the absolute and unavoidable responsibility it bears, through the policies that it has followed for the last long years.

The Chancellor spoke of the Labour party providing a platform upon which not one but two standard bearer's of the British National Party have been elected by popular vote to our continent's Parliament, representing parts of England.

We know that the British National Party is not a party of the right. It is an authoritarian, statist party committed to central planning, and to the close control of civil society. It's voters would have some difficulty in distinguishing many of its policies and objectives, and their means of delivery, from the Labour party. Except for its stance on the migration of peoples. And even there, the same principles are being used by the two parties, but with different objectives.

The Labour regime does discriminate by ethnicity, by economic status, by gender. It does collect, insists on collecting, data using those categories. It explains this behaviour by the justification that it intends to 'stamp out' certain kinds of discriminatory practices in the allocation of the big-state social wage, and in the labour market. What a dangerous set of practices to have allowed to become the modus operandi of the welfare state. Can there be any surprise that now the electors want discriminatory practices used to different groups' advantage? Labour has set in motion the overt mechanisms for discrimination. A dreadful thing to have done.

The Prime Minister himself demands British Jobs for British Workers, while woman after woman leaves his administration owning that the masculinist vulgarity of Brown's clique is unbearable. The Leader of the BNP demands the same but identifies British by the colour of the skin and the characteristics of the culture. This pair of disgraceful social and political bullies, each pretending that only the other is politically and morally unacceptable, are thinking and acting with the same improper categories.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has identified social housing as the take-off point for BNP electability, while the Prime Minster has identified labour migration; over all, Brown's regime, his Labour party, has provided a blue print for the centralised, authoritarian big state, discriminating in favour of its clients.

At least the Chancellor is acknowledging the shame and speaking of changing Labour's policy directions to push any version of such a state and its governance outside the Pale once more.