Labour councils cut jobs

In view of the hot air currently being expended by Union bosses, Labour spokesmen and others on the political left about "the cuts" (which haven't happened yet, but are being blamed for all and sundry occurring now) it is worth reminding ourselves that all of this posturing is complemented by politically-motivated manoeuvring.

For Labour and teh Unions, people's jobs and interests are of little actual value: they always treat people (including Union members) as expendable pawns in their political games. There is plenty of precedent to demonstrate this beyond any element of doubt, though the information isn't easy to come by as it inevitably contains personal and case details that would identify the individuals affected. The parties involved are of course well aware of this, and hide behind it.

Today's lesson is that, in similar vein, Labour-run councils are scrapping jobs at a much higher rate than other councils, rather than dealing with the issues of inherent waste and duplication. As the headline at the linked page indicates, Labour-run councils are "eager" to cut front-line services first.

Of course, quite apart from causing as much dismay to their affected population as they can, giving them political leverage, this also protects their subversive placemen in many back-office posts, such as Common Purpose types and others whose primary actual function is to destroy our society from within such organisations as local councils.

Thus we see the ultimate corruption pervading the political left, and we must not be fooled by it. Fortunately, we do of course have the non-Labour run councils to use as a yardstick; and their approach tends to be far straighter. Where I am, virtually on the border separating two Labour-run London Borough councils, I can expect service reductions in the most sensitive areas (for greatest political effect) in my home area.

At least I shall know what the real cause and motivation is, and shall be seeking ways to publicise this, using other councils' approaches for comparison, and perhaps even looking at the possibility of legal action against those responsible for targeting front-line services. Those two councils can take it that they have now been warned!