Category: British Politics

Desperate measures: turning on one’s own, the anti-fascist option and the resurrection of UKIP

”Revolutions do not happen in this country, but every now and then the public gives a great heave of boredom and impatience, and something is done with forever.”

These words of the American literary critic Edmund Wilson, writing of Britain in April 1940, contain the explanation to a modern media mystery: why did the Telegraph play Pandora, and launch its ruthless two-week offensive against the political class?

”Radical reform of discredited Commons system” and ”many MPs will be suspended from Labour over expenses” scream the headlines.  This is a political earthquake.  Why would the Telegraph, a party to every level of the Establishment, unleash it?

One is left pondering what might have been said to tip the editorial balance in those chic, glass-walled offices overlooking the Telegraph’s newsroom.  I can think of three factors that might have done that.  There is only one commending caution.

The “go” factors are:-

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 at 08:22 PM in British Politics
Comments (117) | Tell-a-Friend

Tough decisions for Brits to make

It’s just the beginning for the good men and women who will vote for the BNP for the first time in the upcoming European elections.  After that, they have a lot to think about.  What will make up their minds for nationalism?

by David Hamilton

There is a relentless and deadly war being conducted against the people of Britain.  That realisation is what distinguishes the mere protest voter from the committed BNP supporter.

So ... where did it begin, this war on our blood?

The ruling-class changed after the Second World War.  They became obsessed with an ideology that calls for sensitivity towards the Third World.  The previous posture of “white man on top” was discarded. The humiliation over Suez put the lid on it.  It was not the loss of the canal but the sheer incompetent debacle of it all that showed us up as being weak and no longer one of the top nations.

The ruling-class had introduced minorities into several countries for commercial reasons.  They introduced Tamils into Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) for rubber. This has saddled the Singalese with a vicious minority.  They spoke a different language and had a different religion from the natives.  It was similar in Malaya were the ruling-class introduced Chinese, then Tamils.  In Guyana they introduced Indians.  There had to be laws introduced to protect the Malays.  That happened, too, in Fiji where the ruling-class imported Indians to cut sugar cane.

In the Malaya of 50 years ago little more than half of the population was Malay.  The ethnic differences showed themselves in the Malays’ lack of commercial mindedness while the Chinese flourished commercially and pushed the Malays out.  The symptoms of discord were already evident in the early part of last century as the Chinese gravitated to the cities, while the Malays lived in the country. 

As early as 1940 the famous politician of the old elite class, the diarist Henry “Chips” Channon, had remarked on the moral failings of the rulers.  There was appeasement of the Nazis in the 30s and appeasement of immigrants since the 50s.  There was a perceived need for a larger body to shelter behind.  The League of Nations was seen as a vehicle for morality and this replaced the quest for power and self-interest.  The dainty British rulers renounced the balance of power for the moral superiority of the League.  The plan to disarm as much as possible when we were the most powerful nation was enshrined in the Covenant of the League.  Since the Second War it was the Commonwealth, then the EU, and ultimately it will be World Government to look after the interests of these poor tender things.

Of our interests they care nothing.

There was racial conflict from the beginning of mass immigration in the UK.  But the elites have avoided having to face it by making us the scapegoats.  If they blame someone else like ordinary British people they don’t have to face their own inadequacy.  In 1948 between 31 July and 2 August in Liverpool, in Deptford on the 18th July; and Birmingham between the 6th and 8th of August 1949 but the idealists ignored them as they had in 1919 when after the racial battles in Liverpool and Cardiff Lord Milner wrote in a Memorandum of June 23rd, On the Repatriation of Coloured Men:  ”I have every reason to fear, that when we get these men back to their own colonies they might be tempted to revenge themselves on the white minorities there…”  Milner’s comments on Britain in Egypt are telling: “It is a force making for the triumph of the simplest ideas of honesty, humanity, and justice… If Egyptian prosperity is a British interest so is Egyptian independence.”

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Monday, May 18, 2009 at 05:45 PM in British Politics
Comments (30) | Tell-a-Friend

The state of the body politic

Today the Telegraph leaked some delicious details of MP’s expense scams, beginning with the PM himself and his senior cabinet members.  They include Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, Hazel Blears, the Communities Secretary,  David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, Geoff Hoon, the Transport Secretary, Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, Caroline Flint, the Minister for Europe, and Paul Murphy, the Welsh Secretary.

In high dudgeon the Telegraph leader proclaimed a scandal at the heart of our democracy:-

The systematic misappropriation by MPs of the allowance paid to defray the expense of keeping a second home is one of the great scandals of modern public life. It is a story that our readers, indeed the whole country, need to be told. Now, for the first time, it can be.

As The Daily Telegraph discloses today, it goes far beyond the now familiar tales of barbecue equipment, bath plugs or adult movies bought at the taxpayer’s expense. Many honourable members (of all parties, because this is, explicitly, not a party political matter) have been complicit in what amounts to an officially sanctioned and sustained abuse of public funds perpetrated against their own constituents over many years.

The extent of their rapacity is astonishing; and its scale can only be fully appreciated with the disclosure of the information being published by this newspaper. It will make uncomfortable reading for the MPs, for their families and for their voters. But it is right that the public should know what has been going on.

Not everyone is at this game.  Some honour still obtains.  But not much.  Setting the tone, our beloved leader blames the system for dealing with MPs’ expenses.  It made him do it, apparently.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, May 8, 2009 at 06:54 PM in British Politics
Comments (20) | Tell-a-Friend

Peter Hain, history and the BNP

Today the disgraced former minister and Cabinet member and founder of violent anti-racism, Peter Hain, graced the Guardian today with another of his graceless scribbles.  It was titled We need to wake up and tackle BNP poison head on.  This is the gist of it:-

Unless the rest of us get our act together, the British National party could easily win three seats - and quite possibly six or more - in June’s European election ... the most successful fascist party in Britain ... far-right and fascist parties in Europe ... the BNP’s racist and fascist politics ... the BNP needs to be confronted wherever its supporters march or appear in public ... They wear suits rather than openly flirt with nazism ... scapegoating of black people, Muslims, Jews, foreigners, gays and lesbians for social and economic problems ... racial violence and racial hatred are barely beneath the surface ... desperate to conceal its fascist and racist instincts ... Its poison should be combatted on the doorstep ...

Etcetera.

I don’t think I have left anything out.

On their respective blogs Simon Darby and Martin Wingfield both celebrated this new free exposure for the BNP.  Darby noted:-

This is the best bit though:

There is also a debate on whether leaders of established political parties should steer clear of leading the fight against the BNP. Campaign groups such as Searchlight, the anti-fascist magazine, believe that attacks from mainstream Westminster figures will only add to the BNP’s anti-establishment credentials.

In other words here we have an actual admission that figures like Peter Hain and Ian Austin are so publicly despised that criticising the BNP actually swells the BNP vote. How must that feel, to be told that you are so ineffective that it is in the Labour Party’s best interests to keep your mouths firmly shut?

For his part Wingfield noted:-

This is what Hain has to say in The Guardian this morning:

“The lesson of the Anti-Nazi League’s success is that the BNP needs to be confronted wherever its supporters march or appear in public.”

Well, we know that the “success” of the Anti-Nazi League was based on its violent attacks on innocent people. The BNP don’t hold marches, so it seems Hain is advocating attacks on BNP supporters out campaigning for the forthcoming European and County Council elections.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 at 05:48 PM in British Politics
Comments (20) | Tell-a-Friend

Cameron and the Anti-White Alliance

By David Hamilton

On Tommy Boyd’s talkRadio show of 17 February, Weyman Bennett described David Cameron as a supporter of the Marxist UAF! Are the Conservatives, we wonder,  still the patriotic party or a Con that pretends to support the nation but, when in power, will carry on with the work of the Labour Party? Bennett accused the BNP of violence but at 2008 Red White Blue, 33 arrests were recorded - including left wing thugs throwing rocks at children and elderly people. Yet no members or supporters of the BNP were arrested. What is Cameron doing with people like that if he is a Tory?

The Daily Mail of 22 January reported his speaking to think tank Demos, which is running The Progressive Conservatism Project to develop policies and ideas that are radical. Conservatives are now pursuing progressive goals like social justice, social mobility and an end to poverty, all of them once left-wing . How, they ask, can these be achieved through “conservative” means? They are turning the Conservative party into a neo-Marxist outfit like Nulab!

Cameron said his party wants to abolish child poverty and increase social mobility. He listed the aims of ‘progressive Conservatism’ as:-

1. Fair society
2. Green environment
3. Safety for citizens
4. Equal opportunity

... and said:

‘Yes, they are ends that we share with people in the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrat Party and right across the mainstream political spectrum. But no, we do not agree about how best to achieve those ends.”

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, March 1, 2009 at 12:42 PM in British Politics
Comments (41) | Tell-a-Friend

Ed Balls’ confession of systemic anti-white racism

I don’t do much in the way of copy ‘n paste posting.  But this story, following on the heels of the BNP’s fine showing in yesterday’s four council elections, is politically interesting.  It appears to represent something of a breakthrough in that government has admitted not only that racist attacks by foreigners are committed in our schools, but also that school, police and legal authorities try to look the other way.  In other words, they are institutionally racist.

Swindon school faces inquiry after brutal ‘racist’ attack by Asian teenagers

It has taken two years, a sustained lobbying campaign and an exhausting round of letter writing for Liz Webster to get some justice for her 17-year-old son.

In January Mrs Webster, 44, met schools secretary Ed Balls, who recommended an inquiry into the savage attack, on school premises, on Henry Webster by a group of Asian teenagers.

It was January 11, 2007, when Henry, then 15 and a ginger-haired star rugby player, popular with his class mates and with no history of being disciplined for poor behaviour, arrived at the tennis court at The Ridgeway School in Swindon to settle, “one on one”, an argument with a fellow pupil. Only it was a baying mob and not a single opponent waiting for him.

What happened next, witnessed by more than 100 pupils – and even filmed by one on a mobile phone – was an ambush so vicious that, at the subsequent court case, the judge described it as a ‘‘savage and sustained attack”.

It was, said Judge Carol Hagen when she passed sentence on 13 boys and young men who set upon Henry, a ‘‘miracle’’ that Henry had survived.

Though the 13 Asian teenagers and young men who attacked Henry – all members of a gang who called themselves the ‘‘Asian Invaders’’ – were given sentences of between eight months and eight years for grievous bodily harm and conspiracy to commit GBH, no independent inquiry into how Henry was brutally assaulted, while at school, in an attack that was described in court as ‘‘something out of a Quentin Tarantino film”.

During the trial, Judge Hagen was highly critical of the school, asking why there were no staff present in the tennis courts at the end of the school day, since it was known there had been trouble earlier in the day.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, February 21, 2009 at 09:14 PM in British Politics
Comments (57) | Tell-a-Friend

Mandelson!

Peter Mandelson, already a resignation veteran, the architect of New Labour and of spin in British politics, and possibly the most despised politician of recent times, is returning to the cabinet.

Normally, I would attempt to formulate some sort of response of my own, beyond the obvious single word offering of “Gobsmacked”.  But the Guardian’s on-line Labour-lovers are coming up with much more jaw-dropped, wide-eyed bemusement that I ever could, all in answer to a Mandelson eulogy by another despised spin-person, Derek Draper (yes, the guy who once boasted “There are 17 people who count in this government, and to say I am intimate with every one of them is the understatement of the century”).

Enjoy the thread here.

One slightly wierd side-note ... a commenter named Pinktaco sensibly asked how Mandelson, who is not a member of either house, could serve in a cabinet post.  The comment was removed by the moderator.

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, October 3, 2008 at 07:37 AM in British Politics
Comments (4) | Tell-a-Friend

Clueless Tory patrician quote of the day

For a fleeting moment this morning I was stopped in my tracks by a single sentence from a Guardian interview given by Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve MP QC:-

“We’ve actually done something terrible to ourselves in Britain.”

But then came this intellectually flabby, depressingly predictable explanation:-

“In the name of trying to prepare people for some new multicultural society we’ve told people, particularly long-term inhabitants, ‘Well your cultural background isn’t really very important, or it’s flawed, or you shouldn’t be worrying about it’. And then we’ve been shocked that far from producing the new model citizen who easily adapts to multiculturalism, people are very resistant, very fearful and very lacking in self-confidence.”

So, the English are “long-term inhabitants” (the Third World invaders are “second- and third-generation immigrant communities”).  I’ve been called a few things in my time, but never a “long-term inhabitant”.  What kind of idiot thinks like that?  Apparently, one that, if the polls are to be believed, has a very good chance of becoming Home Secretary in the next year or so!

To compound matters, he doesn’t even appear to have noticed the culture war that was fought by the Birmingham Schooled left from the 1980s onward.  It was only preparing people for “some new multicultural society”. So that’s alright, then.

It’s enough to want to grab him by his expensive lapels and bellow, “Look, you clueless prat, what has been done to us is a crime against humanity ... an effing genocide!”

But he would only think that I lack self-confidence.  Obviously.

He says:-

“In this vacuum, both the BNP and Hizb ut-Tahrir rise. They are two very similar phenomena experiencing a form of cultural despair about themselves and their identities. And it’s terribly easy to latch on to confrontational and aggressive variants of their cultural background as being the only way to reassure themselves that they can survive.”

So the BNP is the moral equivalent of a radical Moslem organisation that, only last year, David Cameron asked Brown to hurry up and ban.  And, of course, it’s all about despair.  We are just in need of a bit of good old reassurance.  Something like: “You long-term inhabitants have absolutely nothing to complain about as your precious homeland passes slowly and irrevocable into the hands of much shorter-term inhabitants.”  No, nothing at all.  Dominic has it all worked out.  All we have to do is to be tolerant since, as everyone knows:-

“Our country has adapted because people have been tolerant, which has often required a lot of forbearance and acceptance of things they didn’t like. That is how Britain has evolved.

You see.  Government-organised race-replacement by negroes and Moslems isn’t genocide at all.  It’s evolution.

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, September 27, 2008 at 06:51 PM in British Politics
Comments (38) | Tell-a-Friend

The unbearable lightness of BNP-ing

This link will take you to the BBC-televised Q & A session held by the Mayor of London.  Basically, once every month Boris Johnson fields business questions from the twenty-five members of the London Assembly.  One of these is the BNP’s second-greatest “asset”, Richard Barnbrook.

He is evidently having a fairly torrid time in the Assembly, which is to be expected.  Bravery and doggedness, both of which Barnbrook possesses, are admirable qualities for, say, an army corporal or a even a warrant officer.  But other qualities are required in representative politics - all the moreso when one carries on one’s shoulders the burden of representing the truest interests of every native Londoner.

Click on the BBC link and slide the programme forward to precisely 2:16.07.  You will hear Barnbrook being called to ask his question of the Mayor.  But you won’t see him on the screen - presumably because he cannot bear to take his seat in the Assembly chamber without his party apparel (“banners, posters, materials, props”), although the consequences of doing so have been explained to him.

The question he wants to ask is an important one about the harm to London caused by the riotous, costly and dangerous Notting Hill Carnival.  This is the first mayoral questions since the Carnival, and no other Assembly member has the principle, never mind the political independence, to question it.  It is a right and proper use of mayoral questions to do so.  The aura of smugness of the political Establishment in London deserves to be elegantly skewered on this and a great many other issues.  But Barnbrook cannot do elegance.  He cannot even follow the precedent of the other Assembly members of all parties, and address the Mayor in a non-partisan way.  He cannot organise his own thoughts.  He quickly loses the thread, finishing without asking a proper question at all.  Naturally, he doesn’t engage Johnson for one moment.  He is easily ridiculed and very brutally despatched, to general laughter and applause.

He is a wire terrier by nature.  He will come back as game as ever, bristling with BNP indignation, having learned nothing from this or any previous encounter ... and certainly not having learned how to square up, within Assembly rules, to a class political act like Johnson.

The 130,714 Londoners who voted for the BNP on May 3rd deserve something better than this.  We all do.

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, September 15, 2008 at 10:55 AM in British Politics
Comments (31) | Tell-a-Friend

Welcome to the Gangathon

Excerpts from the leaked Home Office Report “Resounding to Economic Challenges”:-

We can expect additional pressures on acquisitive crime, police finances (and officer numbers), citizen attitudes to migration, and pressure on our fee income.

Our modelling indicates that an economic downturn would place significant upward pressure on acquisitive crime and therefore overall crime figures.

Cost pressures, such as high fuel costs and rising salaries, might leave forces facing financial pressures and require difficult decisions over officer numbers and priorities.

In an economic downturn we expect a significant increase in smuggling in particular of fuel, alcohol and tobacco, but also across a wider range of goods.

An economic downturn could mean an increase in illegal working if migrants’ opportunities for legal working decline and employers are seeking to save costs.

There is also a risk of a downturn increasing the appeal of far-Right extremism and racism, which presents a threat as there is evidence that grievances based on experiencing racism is one of the factors that can lead to people becoming terrorists.

… a real or perceived sense of disadvantage held by individuals.  Grievances based on experiencing racism is one of the factors that can lead to people becoming terrorists.

We are confident that we have the right systems in place to respond flexibly to changing economic needs, and are well positioned to face future challenges.

We have record numbers of police officers and commensurate supporting investments such as police and community support officers.

In the last 11 years crime has fallen by 39 per cent while violent crime is down 40 per cent.

So let’s pull together some of the pieces on the board.

This year two populations forecasts for Britain - one by the Office of National Statistics and the other by the Eurostat - have seriously alarmed the turkeys.

Integration is failing.  Talk of enrichment is a thing of the past, even for a Holocaust survivor!  The stabblings continue unabated:-

… a violent feud had rumbled on in Hackney between a gang from the London Fields area and a group from the E9 postcode.

“This isn’t a feud - it’s a war now,” he said.

“This all goes back to the (Notting Hill) Carnival 2006.

“There was a fight between one of the youngers from London Fields and an older from E9.

“The olders saw it as a disrespect thing.

“It’s gone from fist fights to knives to guns and back to knives.”

Members of the London Fields gang would travel to E9 to attack teenagers simply for hanging out in that area, he said.

“When I was younger they tried to come down and shoot us nearly every day, but people like me got older and got tired of it,” he said.

Shaquille’s murder was likely to provoke revenge attacks, he said.

“We don’t know exactly who did this but we know it’s London Fields,” he said.

“They will do something to every one of them till they find out who stabbed Shaq.”

Meanwhile, “Moderate Islam” is still a government project.  But the government is clinging to the fantasy that white racism, rather than Saudi Wahhabism and Western actions in Moslem lands, is the cause of the terror attacks.  In fact, nobody wants to make a sound about the religion - and the religionists - of peace in case this important electorate takes its support elsewhere.

Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the least popular Labour administration in history tells the country that the economy is going to go all to hell.  We know it, of course.

And, finally, the Home Office responds with this conveniently leaked report, which should have been titled “Welcome to the Gangathon”.

It’s not a pretty picture - unless, of course, you happen to be selling security solutions.  Or nationalism.

Could Nick Griffin ask for a kinder set of circumstances?  Quite amazing.  So, if he can’t make some sort of breakthrough now, one is bound to ask what kind of extremis will be necessary for him to do so.

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, September 1, 2008 at 07:57 PM in British Politics
Comments (19) | Tell-a-Friend

Time travel and a pol in the MultiCult

Lord Salisbury, three times a Conservative Prime Minister and a political giant in a more enlightened age, once remarked, “English policy is to float lazily downstream, occasionally putting out a diplomatic boathook to avoid collisions.”  English, no less!  But I digress.

To illustrate the Anglo-centric point a little further, here’s what the New York Times reported on 4th March 1900:-

Regarding Lord Salisbury’s point of view, for some time past he has taken little interest in American politics, and he is averse to any form of an Anglo-American alliance, believing that the Constitution of the United States is unsuited to such a bond.  To use the words of one who is in the closest confidence of the Premier, “the politics of America have such an influence on foreign policy, and render the duration of supreme power so uncertain, that any alliance would kill itself quicker than any one could kill it.”

Lord Salisbury feels under no obligations to foster pro-British sentiment in the United States.  In fact, for the most part he remains in profound ignorance as to the trend of American public opinion.  His idea, as represented by the speaker just quoted, is to trade fairly and squarely without embroiling himself with any extraneous matters ...

Today, though, English politicians - if that is what they really are - have an altogether different view of their and our priorities.  Here’s Boris Johnson, Mayor of London and currently the most powerful Conservative politician in the country, talking to a reporter from Square Mile magazine about Barack Obama:-

“I was looking at him on the news and just thinking what an amazing moment this is, watching his speech in Berlin and thinking what a critical moment this is for America and for attitudes towards what they can achieve amongst the black community.

“If Barack Obama can do it, it will be the most fantastic boost, I think, for black people everywhere around the world.

... I think a Barack Obama victory would do fantastic things for the confidence and the feelings of black people around the world - that they can win.”

Unfair comparison? The last of the great Conservatives ... and Boris. With a friend.

Asked if his words consituted an endorsement of the Democrat hopeful, Mr Mayor said pithily, “Yes”.

Well, I’m just wondering what a time-travelling Salisbury might have thought about Obama and the American body politic, and the “feelings of black people around the world”.  Presumably, he would have held on harder than ever to his boathook, and to English national interest.  He was flatly against what he called “black men” in the English Parliament, and opposed the Liberal candicacy of Dadabhai Naoroji at the 1892 General Election (Naoroji was elected nonetheless and became the first Indian sitting at Westminster).

Salisbury happens also to have been the man who set up the first city-wide authority in the capital, London County Council - something he later came to regret as “the place where collectivist and socialistic experiments are tried. It is the place where a new revolutionary spirit finds its instruments and collects its arms.”  And, these day, puts them around the nearest example of “black people”, apparently.

In any case, the time-travelling Salisbury would be able to judge from the incumbent at City Hall how completely successful those revolutionaries have been.  We are all MultiCultists now.

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, August 1, 2008 at 10:10 AM in British Politics
Comments (47) | Tell-a-Friend

An interesting precedent

David Davis MP, the Conservative Shadow Home Secretary and runner-up to David Cameron in the party leadership election in December 2005, stunned the House today when he resigned in protest at yesterday’s passage of the 42-day terror law.

Here is the full text of his resignation speech, delivered outside Parliament to the press:-

The name of my constituency is Haltemprice and Howden - Haltemprice is derived from a medieval proverb meaning noble endeavour. Up until yesterday I took a view that what we did in the House of Commons representing our constituents was a noble endeavour because for centuries of forebears we defended the freedom of people. Well, we did, up until yesterday.

This Sunday is the anniversary of Magna Carta, a document that guarantees the fundamental element of British freedom, habeas corpus. The right not to be imprisoned by the state without charge or reason. But yesterday this house allowed the state to lock up potentially innocent citizens for up to six weeks without charge.

The Counter-terrorism Bill will, in all probability, be rejected by the House of Lords very firmly. After all, what should they be there for, if not to protect Magna Carta? But because this is defined as political, not security, the Government will be tempted to use the Parliament Act to overrule the Lords. It has no democratic mandate to do this since 42 days was not in its manifesto. Its legal basis is uncertain to say the least but, purely for political reasons, this Government is going to do that. Because the generic security argument relied on will never go away - technology, development complexity, and so on - we’ll next see 56 days, 70 days, then 90 days. But in truth perhaps 42 days is the one most salient example of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedom.

And we will have shortly the most intrusive identity card system in the world. A CCTV camera for every 14 citizens, a DNA database bigger than any dictatorship has, with thousands of innocent children and millions of innocent citizens on it. We have witnessed an assault on jury trials, a bolt against bad law and its arbitrary use by the state. And shortcuts with our justice system, which will make our system neither firmer nor fairer and a creation of a database state opening up our private lives to the prying eyes of official snoopers and exposing our personal data to careless civil servants and criminal hackers. The state has security powers to clamp down on peaceful protest and so-called hate laws to stifle legitimate debate, whilst those who incite violence get off scot-free.

This cannot go on, it must be stopped, and for that reason today I feel it is incumbent on me to take a stand. I will be resigning my membership of this House and I intend to force a by-election in Haltemprice and Howden. Now I will not fight it on the Government’s general record. There’s no point repeating Crewe and Nantwich. I won’t fight it on my personal record - I am just a piece in this great chess game. I will fight it, I will argue this by-election against the slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms by this Government.

Now, that may mean I have made my last speech to the House. It’s possible. And of course that would be a cause of deep regret to me. But at least my electorate and the nation, as a whole, would have had the opportunity to debate and consider one of the most fundamental issues of our day. The ever-intrusive power of the state on our lives, the loss of privacy, the loss of freedom and a steady attrition undermining the rule of law. And if they do send me back here, it will be with a single, simple message - that the monstrosity of a law that we passed yesterday will not stand.

The Liberal Democrats, who opposed the 42-day bill, will not stand a candidate in the by-election.  There are signs that the Labour Party, not wanting to submit to the inevitably kicking, may not do so either.  Doubtless they are calculating even now whether they would be more despised by the nation for ducking the issue, and leaving Davis to stand alone on election night, than for trying to defend the indefensible.

They do at least have something to work with electorally, namely that Davis’ slippery leader has refused to campaign at the next General Election to repeal the 42-day law (a decision he has probably had ripped away from him by Davis today).  Anyway, I hope the Labour leadership will realise that it has no choice but to appear, at least, to have the courage of its convictions, and to take what’s coming at Haltemprice and Howden.

What’s coming more generally may be considerably enlivened by Davis’ novel action.  He has created an opening to like protest by senior Members, on matters, of course, of suitably high import.  The Lisbon referendum issue is one.  But Davis himself used the phrase “so-called hate laws to stifle legitimate debate”, and that points clearly enough to another.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, June 12, 2008 at 09:47 AM in British Politics
Comments (32) | Tell-a-Friend

On an interesting election night

Thursday’s tranche of local authority elections, which comprised about 37% of the country’s council seats, have delivered a withering if hardly unpredicted verdict on Gordon Brown and his exhausted administration.  At 24% of the total of votes cast, Labour is languishing in third place behind the LibDems (25%) and twenty points adrift of David Cameron’s Tories.

In general election terms such dominance could deliver Cameron a parliamentary majority in the range of 150 seats.  Labour will now slowly, but slowly come to terms with its two available choices:-

1. The high-risk strategy of dumping Brown within the next twelve months to give young master Balls time to win the public over, or

2. Running with Brown in the knowledge that the 2010 election cannot be won, while accepting that the zeitgeist has shifted away from them and a lengthy period of self-examination must be entered upon before change is made.  In this event Harriet Harman would shoulder the task of temporary party leader, as Margaret Beckett did after the sudden death of John Smith in 1994.

I think the party will choose the second option, and I will predict now that the run-off for the leadership will be between Ed Balls and John Cruddas, with David Miliband as the kingmaker.

Either way, it will be Cameron in Downing Street.  That is clear.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, May 3, 2008 at 04:57 AM in British Politics
Comments (79) | Tell-a-Friend

Richard Barnbrook airheads like a pro

Three weeks today Londoners elect their Mayor and Assembly members for the next four years.  Under the complex party list voting system, any party bettering 5% of first choice votes is thought likely to win one of the 11 indirectly elected seats on the Assembly.  No one doubts that the BNP vote will pass the 5% mark.  So this will be a significant first for them, and a step nearer to challenging for representation in parliament.

The leader of the London party of the BNP is Richard Barnbrook, and today he was accorded a Q&A interview by the BBC News website.  Considering this was the same BBC which sent in mole Jason Gwynne to “report” on the party in 2004, the questioning seems to have been pretty friendly.

This unfamiliar situation begs correction.  Accordingly, I have decided to report on the BNP’s steady progress towards electability, as it is expressed in Barnbrook’s bite-sized politics.  I’ve cheated a little, of course, by reconstructing the questions and answers from the BBC article.

The BBC: You have said that you want to give the real people of London a voice.  Who are real Londoners?

Barnbrook: I mean the indigenous population first, and the post-war immigrants who came over to rebuild Britain, such as Caribbeans who arrived on the Empire Windrush, second.

The BBC: You have said that immigrants arriving in the last 15 years are taking more from British society than they are putting back.  Who is to blame for that?

Barnbrook: It’s not immigrants that are at fault here.  Never has been.  It’s the establishment, our own governing powers and their greed or their ignorance or their simple gutlessness to do anything about it.  They feel if they try to look at immigration they will have the finger pointed at them - ‘racist’.  This is an easy get out clause - this is bullying people.

The BBC: Is the BNP a racist party?

Barnbrook: We’re not racist at all. We do not perceive one person’s religion, identity, culture or way of life as being better or worse than our own, we are simply different.

The BBC: Would you characterise the BNP as a far right party?

Barnbrook: Not at all - not far right, not far left, not too wrong.

The BBC: If elected to govern at Westminster one day what would your party do on the immigration question.  Would you like to repatriate the immigrant population?

Barnbrook: I would like to see a freeze on immigration, which I believe influences all aspects of our existence, from health and crime to water supplies.  Legal immigrants would stay, illegal immigrants would go - as would those being released from prison.

The BBC: What is Britishness?

Barnbrook: Britishness is the shake of a hand that is a guarantee, the humility, the honesty and the benevolence - all these elements are what make the British people British.  Language, religion, humour and law are around the periphery.

The BBC: Can there be British Muslims?

Barnbrook: The answer is yes, but on the grounds that you follow all of the identities being described of living in this country and benefiting this country.  You may have your religion behind your closed doors but you don’t bring it onto the streets. You can be gay behind closed doors, you can be heterosexual behind closed doors, but you don’t bring it onto the streets, demanding more rights for it.

The BBC: Can you win the Mayoral vote?

Barnbrook: Realistically it’s unlikely but who knows?  Immigration has moved up the political agenda and the mainstream parties have been adopting issues raised by the BNP.  Where we lead, they are following.

If the other parties had done their jobs properly in the first place, this party wouldn’t exist.  It’s as simple as that.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, April 9, 2008 at 06:56 PM in British Politics
Comments (54) | Tell-a-Friend

No way out for the white working class

For several days now the BBC has been lauding its White season of five programmes.  It begins tomorrow night at 9pm on BB2 with “Last Orders”, a documentary about some supposedly plain-speaking nothern lads in an ailing Bradford working men’s club.

I must say at the outset that I watch so little TV, I can scarcely raise the enthusiasm to wade through all this - though I know I probably should, if only to better understand the internet commentary which will flow from it.  But I am less interested in the programmes themselves than in trying to understand the Labour Party’s new-minted consciousness of its old client-group, the jilted “white underclass”.

For two years now, since the arrival of the well-aired Dench-Gavron book on the East End, there have been more and more expressions of urban liberal concern.  Here’s the BBC executive producer of White:-

‘The white working class feels alienated, threatened and voiceless,’ says BBC boss

The white working classes feel “politically alienated” and frightened to speak out, a senior BBC executive has claimed.

Richard Klein said poorer whites believe they are “threatened economically and stifled socially” and that they no longer have a voice.His latest comments come ahead of a season of BBC2 programmes under the banner White, which he is overseeing and which he believes can play a part in easing the anxieties of that section of the community.

He said: “You don’t hear white, working-class opinions often enough on TV.

“There’s a large group of people who feel politically alienated, threatened economically and stifled socially. They feel they haven’t got a voice.”

He said many people interviewed for the programmes felt they could not say what they really thought for fear of being criticised.

“I wanted to change that. And I think it was important for the BBC to try and have a go at it.”

And here’s a gnashing of teeth from the Guardian in 2006:-

Who has failed the white working-class?

Given the general frenzied tone of most articles covering race or faith related issues, one emerging trend seems to have escaped attention. Last week the Economist carried an article on Britain’s “forgotten underclass”, with a tagline stating: “Muslims and blacks get more attention. But poor whites are in a worse state”.

This is a bold statement to make but not without merit. The article briefly examines three issues in turn: education, unemployment and crime; citing statistics to show that while poorer ethnic minority kids are doing their best to get ahead in society, white working-class kids are languishing behind.

And just this week, also in the Guardian:-

How Britain turned its back on the white working class

What do you think of when you hear the phrase ‘white working class’? Tattoos? Dangerous dogs? Shellsuits? Scratch cards? Chips? Binge drinking? The BNP? It would be no surprise if the images conjured are negative; in the past four decades, the image of the white working class has gone from hero to less than zero.

In these tolerant days, the one underprivileged group that it’s OK to find intolerable is the white working class. In our multicultural society, they’re the unlucky ones deemed to be without a culture. Last year, for example, the editor of Eastern Eye went on television to condemn Channel 4 for allowing ‘illiterate chavs’ on to Celebrity Big Brother. Eyelids remained unbatted. Trevor Phillips was not called upon to issue a statement. The Sky News presenter to whom this comment was made simply nodded his head in silent agreement.

It’s the same story on the right of the governing party.  This from the Telegraph, again in 2006:-

Why is the white working class so roundly despised?

Our politicians are so obsessed by race that they have forgotten the importance of class. They agonise about racial segregation, while generally ignoring the exclusion of the white working class from our politics.

Lord Bruce-Lockhart, the head of the Local Government Association, this week recommended ethnic quotas for state schools, to end the division of neighbouring schools along ethnic lines. But, while ethnic divisions are certainly deep in some areas, they are nothing like as widespread – and in many respects nothing like as pernicious – as the scornful treatment by our overwhelmingly bourgeois political establishment of the white working class. While a brilliant campaign has been waged against racial prejudice, prejudice against the white working class has flourished as never before.

And this from the Daily Mail just a few days ago:-

White and working class ... the one ethnic group the BBC has ignored

Over the past two decades, Britain has been through a revolution.

The extent of the change, in both scale and speed, has probably been unique in the peacetime history of our country.

Globalisation, mass immigration and economic upheaval have helped to transform the fabric of our nation. Today, we are one of the most culturally and racially diverse places in Europe.

These changes have been the subject of noisy debate within the media, politics and academia, yet it is a curious irony that, in all the heated discussion about the consequences of this revolution, one voice has been largely absent: that of the white working class.

Politicians pontificate and academics argue, yet the voices of the British working-class public have been all but ignored.

Given that they are the people most affected by all this upheaval, this is a bizarre omission.

In case you think this is all just a Fourth Estate issue, take a look at this video, which is the first and, from our point of view, most interesting of a three-part programme on the educational failure of the white working-class.  The star of the show is Philip Beadle, a rather extraordinary teacher who has taken it upon himself to enlighten school heads and their staff about the issue.  Here he is speaking at the HQ of the National Union of Teachers (it gets interesting from 1 min 46 sec in):-

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, March 6, 2008 at 07:04 PM in British Politics
Comments (43) | Tell-a-Friend

Utopian idealists against the nation and the people

by David Hamilton

We are led to believe that mass immigration is a blessing to us, and that only Enoch Powell and a few narrow-minded and prejudiced people have ever seen danger in it. All decent folk of good will, we are told, have embraced this break in our national continuity as a sign of enlightenment progressing to a higher state of civilisation - that of a one-world utopia made up of coffee-coloured persons. It also has been presented as an ideological battle between left and right.  But actually it is between people of common sense and, at best, utopian idealists.

Most ordinary people relate to the world by common sense.  So the impracticable dream of a multi-racial utopia has had to be socially engineered, which requires totalitarian methods. The Utopians see immigrants as essentially good, and if we are nice to them they will be nice to us.

This utopianism does not engage with human nature, and does not need to.  Actually, we find people being brought in as cheap labour, with all the idealism a mere smokescreen. If the high-minded ones are so benevolent and moral, why have their plans been underhand ... and why public infamy for those who foresaw the danger in just letting it happen?

Multi-Racialism follows on from the French Enlightenment in trying to create a society on rationalist principles and ignoring human nature as was the Soviet Union too. Those who wished to preserve our traditional way of life knew how human nature works from their experience of how people treat each other and what they are capable of doing to each other. They learnt from history how different ethnic groups have vied with each other for power and territory and looking at the world around them see that in practice immigration is not assimilation, but the colonisation of our territory. Conversely, Multi-Racialists never describe reality but appeal to a vague future utopia, not facing that if we have been cruel to them in the past then these newcomers could be cruel to us in the future. Further, people from all walks of life have now given warning of the practical consequences which shows the British people as essentially conservative. Some have made crude remarks but most bring common sense to an irresponsible series of idealists who just let things happen with no control. All have suffered and some have been openly persecuted.

Two days after the Empire Windrush docked on the 22 July 1948 with 790 west Indians, J.D.Murray and ten other Labour MP’s wrote to Labour Prime Minister Clement Atlee, asking for legislation to prevent an influx. Atlee replied, that he thought they would “make a genuine contribution to our labour difficulties at the present.” There had been racial battles in 1948 between 31 July and 2 August in Liverpool, in Deptford on the 18th July; and Birmingham between the 6th and 8th of August 1949 but the idealists ignored them as they had in 1919 when after the racial battles in Liverpool and Cardiff Lord Milner wrote a Memorandum of June 23rd “On the Repatriation of Coloured Men.” ”I have every reason to fear, that when we get these men back to their own colonies they might be tempted to revenge themselves on the white minorities there…” ( Panikos Paranyi (ed) “Racial Violence in Britain in the Nineteenth Century.” (Leicester University.1996).

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Friday, December 21, 2007 at 04:44 PM in British Politics
Comments (204) | Tell-a-Friend

The BNP trial of strength steps up - UPDATE

Tonight, far from showing any signs of weakening, the BNP rebels have issued an expanded list of demands to Nick Griffin:-

1. The five sacked personnel to be reinstated and the nullification of the resignations tendered by dozens of local, regional and national office holders.

2. The removal of David Hannam and Mark Collett from their positions.

3. Nick Griffin to remain as political leader of the Party.

4. The creation of a formal management system separating external political matters from internal management issues, enshrined in a redrafted constitution.

5. To make further progress on the implementation of the Voting Member structure, together with the retention of the Advisory Council.

Meanwhile, Griffin made his peace gesture some days ago in the form of a weak-tea reshuffle and, in a local party meeting in Bradford, a proposal to reinstate Sadie Graham and Kenny Smith to the party – a proposal seconded by Mark Collett.

Since the failure of this manoeuvre Griffin and Co have moved on to make serious allegations of financial impropriety and spying against Graham and Smith.  This appears only to have seriously weakened Griffins position with the rebel half of the party (and it is that big).

So, how will it all end?  I see absolutely no sign that this Humpty Dumpty can be put back together again.  These people are not going to trust one another, not going to be willing to work together.  What has been done cannot be undone.

So here are three of many possible futures for nationalism in Britain:-

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 at 08:33 PM in British Politics
Comments (29) | Tell-a-Friend

Feet of clay

The BNP is tearing itself apart somewhat tonight.

While 2007 has seen a variety of political advances for the BNP, the party has to an extent been held back and troubled by a string of leaks and misinformation briefings to political opponents, and by internal rumour-mongering designed to damage morale and confidence in the workings of various party departments, and in the leadership generally. Had this continued the result, whether by accident or design, would have been to disrupt, perhaps fatally, our all-important drive to break through with victory in the London Assembly Elections next year.

Some months ago, a BNP Intelligence Department was set up, with one of its key initial targets being to track down the source of these problems and provide the evidence needed to expose those responsible and put an end to their subversion.

Working closely with several other BNP Departments and following discussions with the BNP’s independent auditor, our Intelligence team – headed by Lance Stewart, a long-standing British nationalist and a former high-ranking officer in the South African Police - have now completed the first stage of their investigations.

As a result, two junior level national officials, Administration Officer Kenny Smith and Group Development Officer Sadie Graham, have today been removed from their posts with immediate effect on the grounds of gross misconduct and now face disciplinary charges over alleged offences against the BNP Constitution and Code of Conduct.

The degree of damage is difficult to assess, but it will go a lot deeper than the two who have been named here, and already expelled.

These two, it is claimed, established a blog titled Enough is Enough Nick with the object of forcing Griffin to fire three others whom they accuse of gross incompetence and bringing the party into disrepute.  One of these is Mark Collett, the party’s Director of Publicity, who twice stood trial alongside Griffin and, of course, twice won.

A few moments reading this blog will apprise you of some fairly colourful histories and rumours of histories.  American nationalists will recognise the moral template.

I suppose that rumours of MI5 black ops will also now play on everyone’s mind.  A second nationalist party may well emerge.  There is, of course, room for a second one in England, but not predicated principally on fighting Labour in the Islamic North.  Its orientation towards the BNP, therefore, and towards the electorate will tell us whether those black op rumours have any substance.  Let us hope not.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, December 9, 2007 at 08:47 PM in British Politics
Comments (53) | Tell-a-Friend

Thou shalt love thy enemy

Instead of regressing to narrow xenophobia, it is time to build on the Human Rights Act. The aim of our British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities will be to clarify and explain the obligations which come with rights

Jack Straw, writing in the Telegraph subsequent to Gordon Brown’s speech on Thursday announcing this forthcoming Bill of Rights and Duties.

Because liberty as it is pursued today contains not a single seed of European survival, I spend a good deal of my thinking time trying to undermine its centrality to political life.  The problem, of course, is that Man is not perfect, and the least perfect of men seem to proliferate among those ambitious for power.  Some restraint on power, then, is essential for an equitable life.  In feudal Germany there was the Comitatus.  In our time there is democracy, and there are the Bills of Rights.

But democracy has spawned a traitorous, internationalist power elite that authors all our political misfortunes.  It denies us recognition of who we are or what unites us, so thereby it can remove from us ownership of that true guarantor of survival: our homelands.

In Britain, as Jack Straw states, this treachery is to be codified in a redefinition of the rights enshrined in the English constitution since the Bill of Rights of 1689.  Crucially, this redefinition will be cast from the Human Rights Act 1998 - specifically, one expects, from the qualifications to Article 10 on freedom of expression and to Article 11 on freedom of association and assembly, and from Article 14 on prohibition of discrimination.

This will be a highly positive (or governmentally prescribed) dispensation of rights, there being little or no sign of the negative rights enshrined in America’s Bill of Rights.  Straw’s reference to responsibilities is perfectly clear.  Big government will coerce us to deny our true self as the people of England, and to be, instead, the MultiCult.  This is a duty to die – eagerly if possible or, at worst, unknowingly.

Keen to discover more about our forthcoming new duty I consulted the words of the Prime Minister Who Is Not Tony Blair, as they were spoken at the University of Westminster, Thursday 25 October 2007, and appear now on the Labour Party website.

The speech is quite refreshingly free from the usual political-aspirational double-talk.  It makes a serious play for academic learning but, happily, is a little too self-serving and reverse-reasoned to succeed.  Its historical references are there solely to represent British history as the midwife not only of liberty but all the exotica of postmodern tolerance.  Everyone from John Milton to Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs gets pulled into the effort.  Thereby the dour son of the manse steadfastly dilutes the heady, 70% proof intoxicant of real liberty - after all, drunkards tend to be free with their tongues, and freedom of speech is something no postmodern Prime Minister can allow.  He establishes to his own satisfaction, at least, that England is the home of happy anti-racism and, naturally, we all want much more of it.

Here, in his own words, is how he picks his path to that goal:-

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 08:07 AM in British Politics
Comments (13) | Tell-a-Friend

The Green Belt and the carrying capacity of England

In October 2005 the UK government Actuary released forecasts for medium-term population growth:-

The United Kingdom population is projected to increase by 7.2 million over the period 2004 to 2031, according to a new set of UK population projections released today. The increase is equivalent to an average annual rate of growth of 0.42 per cent, or 12 per cent over the 27 years. In the longer-term, the projections suggest that the population will continue rising beyond 2031 but at a much lower rate of growth.

The UK population will increase gradually from an estimated 59.8 million in 2004, passing 60 million in 2005 and 65 million in 2023,
to reach 67.0 million by 2031.

... The projected total population of the United Kingdom at 2031 is 1.3 million (2.0 per cent) higher than in the previous (2003-based) projections. This is due to a combination of higher
assumed levels of net migration, higher short-term birth rate assumptions and slightly higher life expectancy assumptions.

Perhaps the first point to make here is that the government actuary has apparently missed some factors trending to a shortfall in housing supply, among them the later age of marriage and the trend towards smaller houses.  However, the picture was bad enough.  It backed up the long and largely failing struggle John Prescott has had to force a major housebuilding programme on councils in the South-East (which, with London, receives 75% of all migration to the UK).  Gordon Brown made it clear earlier this month that there would be no more failure.

Gordon Brown has set out his ambition to build three million more homes across the country by 2020 to address a crisis in the supply of affordable homes.

The figure was 250,000 higher the Government’s previous target and reflects Mr Brown’s determination to make housing a top priority.

And this morning the papers carried the news that the Green Belt, that stubborn, beautiful rural abutment to urban sprawl, must begin to be sacrificed:-

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, August 30, 2007 at 07:30 PM in British Politics
Comments (13) | Tell-a-Friend

Regardez-moi, mon petit Sémite

The BNP was vigorously chasing new writers a few months ago.  I know of two whom they approached, only to be turned down.  Here is a sample of the writing that meets the required standard of intellectual enquiry:-

The suggestion that a French President, who is of second generation Hungarian Jewish origin may be an (admittedly), unlikely candidate to receive the accolade of the most nationalist head of state, will doubtless seem controversial to the many adherents of the old style nationalist parties across Europe, who have regrettably inherited and furthermore institutionalised some degree of anti-Semitism.

However the BNP looks forward, not backward and looks beyond such blinkered vision and while acknowledging that President Nicolas Sarkozy was elected on a populist patriotic nationalist platform at the expense of the BNP’s friends in Le Pen’s Front National, there is no doubt that Le President is continuing to deliver the goods to the long suffering voters of France.

... President Sarkozy is definitely one to watch. As all of Europe faces the common enemy of militant Islam; the scourge of Marxist-liberalism; the interference of the unelected European Commission and the widespread decline of an industrial economic base, it remains to be seen whether Sarkozy’s actions are merely headline grabbing window dressing or genuine action to rescue a nation under threat from within and without. How France responds to these issues could set the scene for replication across all of Europe, including the UK.

Well, style aside, let’s strip away one or two layers of this so very forward-looking nationalist substance, and see what lurks beneath.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 05:56 PM in British Politics
Comments (14) | Tell-a-Friend

Watermelon smiles and piccanninies?  Great, let’s have a mayoral election about racism.

Doreen Lawrence, OBE, mother of Saint Stephen, speaketh mutlicultural wisdom and the world doth quake:-

Boris Johnson is not an appropriate person to run a multicultural city like London.  Think of London, the richness of London, and having someone like him as mayor would destroy the city’s unity.  He is definitely not the right person to even be thinking to put his name forward.

Those people that think he is a lovable rogue need to take a good look at themselves, and look at him.  I just find his remarks very offensive.  I think once people read his views, there is no way he is going to get the support of any people in the black community.

So Boris Johnson is aiming to defeat the racial Marxist and white self-hater Ken Livingstone, and become Mayor of my sad, meaningless capital city.  Fine.  But let’s get one thing straight.  Boris is a liberal Tory.  He is on message.  Really.  His campaign team said so:-

[He] loathes racism in all its forms.

Naturally.  Don’t we all flop down and loathe, loathe, loathe five times a day, just like the jihadis?  Except one faces Eltham, of course.

Not that it does Boris any good.  He just can’t flop down enough for the likes of Labour’s black female MP’s:-

Dawn Butler and Diane Abbott, Labour MPs for Brent South and Hackney North respectively, said his views on race harked back to the 1950s.

... Ms Butler highlighted a 2002 article in which Mr Johnson referred to the Queen being greeted in Commonwealth countries by “flag-waving piccaninnies”.

She claimed he also said that he expected, during a mooted visit by Tony Blair to the Congo, that “the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief”

Ms Butler, whose Brent South constituency is the most ethnically diverse in the UK, said: “These are disgraceful comments that shame Boris Johnson and shame the Conservative Party.

“This is the most offensive language of the colonial past and it shows that the Tory party is riddled with racial prejudice.

“No one with such views can be the mayor of a city with the largest black population in Britain.”

Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, said: “David Cameron is fooling himself if he thinks that Boris Johnson’s 1950s attitudes to race will be acceptable to Londoners, both black and white.”

Well, keep shouting, girls.  Keep pushing the racial unity line at the top of your testosterone-modulated voices.  Let’s see if you are right that English London loves its NuLab vibrancy as much as you say.  First signs are not encouraging.  The Independent leader reported a poll that gave Boris a clear lead over Livingstone.

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, August 4, 2007 at 07:34 PM in British Politics
Comments (18) | Tell-a-Friend

Enoch Powell and Keith Best, and the life or death of race.

I am fast coming to the conclusion that, Jewish activists aside, the British political Establishment does not know what it is doing about race and the future ... does not know the real precondition for a victory over the blood of its own people.

I don’t mean that it is making this up, this attack by migrant proxy, as it goes along.  It is following the general policy of the global elite.  But it is not the global elite itself, merely the executive at national level.  To paraphrase Irving Krystol, it is operating under “truths appropriate for educated adults”, not the global elite’s “truths appropriate for highly educated adults”.

There is an inherent instability to this arrangement that it is our task and privilege to exploit.  The means to do that is a real debate about the blood-reality of Establishment politics.  As the extremis mounts, it should not be, must not be beyond us to organise to that end.

The desire of the Establishment, then as now, will be for guilt-avoidance.  It will evade the terrible meaning of its politics by sheltering behind the barrier of abstract thinking.  That way “race” is an abstract, and so nation, so tradition, so everything.  It works for them today: our arguing from realities declared abstract necessarily consigns us to frustration.  This pattern we must break.  The protective outer layers of liberal self-justification, the faux-moral public breast-beating about fairness, equalness, tolerance etc, must be winnowed away.  A real debate in this context is a debate solely about ethnic survival, about real life and real death.  It is a debate in which, for example, English advocates of race replacement must be forced to answer in terms which it is by no means unrealistic to call genocide.

For this is our ground, our frame of reference in which the Establishment must defend itself against our charge of blood betrayal.  We have understood that this is a blood issue.  We have always done so ...

We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.

Enoch Powell, from his speech to the Annual General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre, Birmingham, April 20, 1968.  It remains the last occasion on which a major public figure speaking on race has used the words “we” and “nation” to mean “we the British, owners of these isles”.  There have been no greater British patriots since, and today no man more commands the respect and affection of the aware and the loyal.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, July 14, 2007 at 07:31 PM in British Politics
Comments (118) | Tell-a-Friend

The Migration Advisory Committee and Migration Impacts Forum ... just talk

I have been trying to get some perspective on the two bodies announced over the last few weeks by little Labour big man, Liam Byrne.  He is the Irishman appointed by Irish-at-heart John Reid to succeed Irishman Tom McNulty in keeping English race replacement running smoothly.  This is a job also known as Immigration Minister.  McNulty succeeded Scot Des Browne who succeeded the disgraced but apparently English Beverly Hughes who succeeded Irishman Mike O’Brien who succeeded Jewish floodgate operative Barbara Roche ... hope I didn’t miss anyone.

For six years after New Labour’s dash for Third World genes got underway, Ministers blithely and, as it turned out, wrecklessly expected multiculturalism to deliver a smooth transition to a white minority.  They have had to face a few unpleasant and unavoidable realities since.

Multiculturalism was laid to rest by Trevor Phillips in 2004.  After that, there was only the counter-terrorism route and three political policy tracks for the government to follow:-

Track One: Increase pressure on aliens to integrate (at the same time finessing into existence a civic patriotism to accomodate them).

Track Two:  Do everything possible to induce greater passivity among the natives.

Track Three:  Professionalise government handling of all initiatives to the above ends.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, June 9, 2007 at 07:34 PM in British Politics
Comments (15) | Tell-a-Friend

Brown’s puzzle for the BNP

In the English local authority elections of May 2006 the BNP scored a phenomenal success in Barking & Dagenham, a much-enriched district on the eastern edge of London.

The local Labour MP, Margaret Hodge, picked up a good deal of the blame for the BNP’s performance.  Instead of refuting its line on preferential housing allocation for migrants, she had managed to make it almost respectable for English residents to vote for the local BNP candidates.  There were calls - unheeded, naturally - for her to resign from her government post in the Department of Trade and Industry. 

Now, hard on the heels of Gordon Brown’s little eco-stratagem - the planned building of thousands of new council houses - Ms Hodge has outraged Labour supporters in the same way again.  Writing in the Observer she declares:-

A message to my fellow immigrants

In our open, tolerant country, there are, thankfully, few issues that remain taboo.  But, motivated by the fear of both legitimising racism and encouraging the extreme right, migration is one.  Yet for many voters, it continues to be a top issue.

My constituency of Barking in east London has experienced rapid change, moving from predominantly white neighbourhoods to many multiracial neighbourhoods.  At the same time, my constituents are facing other challenges.  Young families on low wages cannot afford to buy a home and the council house stock has shrunk with tenants exercising their right to buy.  These young families enjoy few choices.

... For some, it is easy to blame the new families for the frustrations they feel.  As people living in Barking see new faces and hear new languages, they often link the problems in their community with the migratory changes.  Unless we listen, we shall be unable to convince people that we are on their side as they learn to live with new neighbours in the tolerant and strong multiracial society we on the liberal left desire.  This stifled debate means we have missed the opportunity to articulate more clearly the huge benefits to our economy, our culture and the evolving nature of our Britishness that migration brings.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 08:19 PM in British Politics
Comments (44) | Tell-a-Friend