Search This Blog

Wednesday, 18 August 2010

Protect the British economy by cutting Waste says Manchester British Worker

Protect the British economy by cutting unnecessary expenditure

 AUGUST 2010: THE increasing cost of traveling to and from work is eating further into an already meagre wage packet. That's the concern of a constituent from Manchester who has written to Nick Griffin.
He tells his MEP that his son has to budget carefully for travel and this amount is increasing each year:
"I worked for companies in Holland and Belgium for 23 years and all employees received expenses to cover the distance they travelled from home to their place of work.
Why is that not the case for British employees? 
"I also used to receive an extra month's pay when I took my summer holiday, and, at the end of the year we all received another month's pay which went under the heading of "sharing in the profits".
"This meant that I received 14 payments per year plus travel expenses and this was the reason why I stuck it out for well over 20 years.
"British workers seem to be missing out - can anything be done about this?" he asks.
Responding on behalf of Mr Griffin, constituency office manager Tina Wingfield wrote:
"Your suggestions that employers should pay employees travel-to-work expenses, provide a bonus for annual leave and offer profit-sharing schemes as a matter of course, are certainly something that ‘good’ employers should strive towards as an ideal.
Unfortunately, given the difficult economic climate we are presently enduring, the provision of such employee incentives would, no doubt, bring many British businesses to their knees.
It is a sad fact that the globalist economic policies of successive British governments have forced UK businesses and their workers to compete with Third World nations that can produce the same consumable and provide an equivalent service, at a fraction of the cost to UK-based concerns. The lower standards of living in such countries means the average wage is much lower, production costs can be kept to a minimum and the goods or service produced can be sold at prices which undercut their British competitors.
It is only possible to offer generous packages for employees, in addition to a decent average living wage, in times of economic prosperity.
As a British National Party MEP, Mr Griffin believes that government has a duty to protect the British economy and to create conditions within which domestic industry and enterprise can thrive.
Such conditions clearly do not exist at the present time. A vast swathe of our manufacturing base has been exported to foreign shores and our service industries are rapidly following suit. Multinational corporations who have no loyalty towards any particular country or people, have inevitably based their operations where they can reap the largest profits. In addition to this geographical displacement of our industry, open border immigration policies have resulted in Britain being swamped with incoming cheap foreign labour - all in the interests of providing ever-increasing profits for companies who have no compunction about casting British workers onto the dole.
The British National Party is committed to the principle of British jobs for British workers. While this is a slogan that disingenuous political leaders might carelessly throw into a speech, it is not in reality, a principle that the Government can promote or adhere to because it simply doesn’t mesh with its total commitment to globalisation, which recognises no national boundaries nor any non-economic ‘greater good’, in its blinkered pursuit of maximum profit.
A British Nationalist government would protect the British market, so that the goods and services required by the British people could (where feasible) be made and provided in the United Kingdom. There is no reason, for instance, why the majority of consumer goods cannot be made in this country - as long as manufacturers are protected from being undercut by foreign imports. This can be done by introducing steep import taxes which will level the playing field, and by providing the finances and resources necessary to reinvigorate and rebuild our domestic manufacturing base.
It is also essential that Britain’s skills base, depleted through decades of deindustrialisation and short-sighted higher education strategies, is replenished - again through incentive schemes and targeted subsidies.
Joe Public might wonder where the finances to fund such initiatives can be found, given that the long-term economic forecast for the British economy looks bleak, courtesy of recent governments who have generated a staggering national debt that will have to be serviced by generations of future taxpayers.
The future needn’t however, be as grim as predicted - revenue raising is not actually as difficult as our Establishment politicians would have us believe. Funding for the proposed regeneration projects can be raised simply by cutting unnecessary expenditure, such as the £18 billion spent on “climate change” initiatives; £17 billion spent on immigration and asylum, £15 billion spent on EU membership, £9.1 billion spent on foreign aid, and the £billions spent on fighting illegal and immoral foreign wars.
The lives of British workers, and the prospects of British businesses - could be dramatically improved, if only the government in power had the will and recognised the way."