Bad things come in three's, so the saying goes: 3 billion, 3 million, 3 hundred thousand...
The first is the increasing size of the 'black hole' in MoD procurement which "increased by £3.3billion in Labour's final year in office alone to reach around £36billion". [Link]
The second is no real secret and I've certainly banged on about it for years: 'Immigration Under Labour – Chaos or Conspiracy?' from Sir Andrew Green's Migration Watch press release: "It is no exaggeration to say that immigration under New Labour has changed the face of the country.":
"Every country must have firm control over immigration and Britain is no exception." Labour election manifesto 1997From the Migration Watch briefing paper (PDF). Net immigration to the UK quadrupled under Labour, bringing more than 3 million immigrants to Britain (more than this arrived but of course some others left and also a million British citizens emigrated)...almost literally 'changing the face of the country'. Pressure on housing, pressure on schools, pressure on services. Pressure on spending.
The third, for those of you concerned about my lack of slagging for the Coalition, you know who you are: when David Cameron stripped Vince Cable of certain responsibilities re the BSkyB takeover - handing responsibility for the decision to media secretary and Conservative Jeremy Hunt - it cost the government (the taxpayer) £300,000. Not a lot in the great scheme of things BUT to quote one ex Chancellor when concerning the taxpayer's money (and the economy):
The Chancellor of the Exchequer should boldly uphold economy in detail; and it is the mark of a chicken-hearted Chancellor when he shrinks from upholding economy in detail, when because it is a question of only two or three thousand pounds, he says it is no matter. He is ridiculed, no doubt, for what is called candle-ends and cheese-parings, but he is not worth his salt if he is not ready to save what are meant by candle-ends and cheese-parings in the cause of the country. No Chancellor of the Exchequer is worth his salt who makes his own popularity either his consideration, or any consideration at all, in administering the public purse. In my opinion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the trusted and confidential steward of the public. He is under a sacred obligation with regard to all that he consents to spend.With thanks to Voyager, in the comments over at Cranmer's, oh, and to Gladstone...
"But let the working man be on his guard against another danger. We live at a time when there is a disposition to think that the Government ought to do this and that and that the Government ought to do everything..."