The Left, making the lives of poor people worse

An interesting ‘chicken and egg’ type question to ask when it comes to craphole Labour areas in the UK, is do people in these areas vote Labour because they live in a rubbish area or has the area become rubbish because they vote Labour? I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that voting Labour is the best way to impoverish and in some cases utterly destroy an area.

I look at those areas that are run by the Labour party in Britain and at how they are full of broken families, those who are welfare dependent, appalling schools, with minorities, amongst others, living in abject poverty and which are cesspits of crime, and it seems to me that those who back Labour on the grounds that they will help the poor are mistaken.

Socialists create poverty and despair wherever they try to put their theories into practise, and don’t do much to give succour to those at the bottom, in fact they often, especially Leftist educationalists, create more people at the bottom. In other words, the Left hurts, and sometimes even helps to destroy, the very people that it says it wants to help.

This phenomenon of socialism as an angel of death in the guise of good Samaritan is not confined to the United Kingdom. In the United States socialist policies, whether Federal, State or City, put in place by the Left in the form of the Democratic Party, have made the lives of any Americans, most notably Black Americans, worse than they may have been under regimes that respected and encouraged personal and economic freedom…

  • moraywatson

    Socialism only works until you run out of other people’s money. Right Maggie!

  • Dana Garcia

    Democrat-run, over-regulated, over-immigrated California is thrilled that unemployment has fallen to 6.9 percent. I wonder what the numbers would be without the San Francisco Bay Area tech boom.

  • Surele Surele

    We were always told that in order for future generations (sounds familiar?) to have better lives, we need to make sacrifices. Of course, the party echelons did not need to sacrifice anything. And they were doing to for a betterment of humankind.

  • Make your choice – socialized North Korea or capitalist South Korea.

  • Jason

    It seems to me that conservatives tend to be pragmatists, to be willing to go with what works, politically, economically, in their daily lives. Leftists are often idealists in the sense of preferring the theoretical to the practical (so they can be intellectual snobs.) They can be so wedded to their ideas that they become hopelessly inflexible and refuse to adjust their strategies even when evidence piles up that those strategies are not working (green energy, multiculturalism).

    • dance…dancetotheradio

      The thing about control systems is that positive feedback systems eventually crash.

      • Frau Katze

        Eventually. But in the short term, the leftist pols can be in power.

        • dance…dancetotheradio

          Yeah, and then you get people like Warren Kinsella saying Tory times are hard times when they finally get elected to clean the place up.

  • Martin B

    If there really was such a thing as a Poor Man’s Party and a Rich Man’s Party, only an imbecile would vote for the Poor Man’s Party. If a poor man got rich, he’d vote for the Rich Man’s Party, so the Poor Man’s Party needs to keep people poor so that they’ll keep voting for them and keep making them rich & powerful. It was Labour that opened the floodgates to indiscriminate immigration, which depressed wages and filled poor neighbourhoods (not the rich neighbourhoods Labour bigwigs live in) with unassimilable welfare parasites & criminals who vote Labour.

    This seems to make sense, except for the fact that the supposed Rich Man’s Party keeps supporting so many of these impoverishing policies…

    • Frau Katze

      They Rich Man party presumably wants to siphon off a few votes too. Plus the financial interests are extremely pro mass immigration. Cheap labour.