Majorityrights Central > Category: British Politics

Free Movement of People: Bulgaria and Romania

From 1 January 2014 the transitional controls on free movement included in the accession treaties and adopted by the UK and seven other Member States when Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU in 2007, will end.  From that date Bulgarians and Romanians will have the freedom to live and work in those eight Member States (and in Spain, which has only had transitional controls on Romanian nationals).

… There has been a lively debate in the UK about how many Bulgarians and Romanians will come to the UK after 1 January 2014 and the British Government has announced it is looking at the rules governing social security claims as a consequence of this and future EU enlargements.

Do you want over a million Romanians and Bulgarians moving to crowded, bankrupt Britain?

Spain and Italy have not had restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians. So let’s see what has happened there. Currently there are about 920,000 Romanians and 170,000 Bulgarians in Spain. In Italy there are about 997,000 Romanians and over 70,000 Bulgarians. Britain has much more generous benefits and more jobs than Spain or Italy, So the absolute minimum number that will be moving here will be well over one million. Probably it will be closer to two million.
Now, let’s look at some other figures. Unemployment amongst Romanians and Bulgarians in Spain is 36.4% – that’s about 396,760 immigrants who are unemployed. So we can expect somewhere in the region of 400,000 Romanians and Bulgarians to be claiming benefits for housing, council tax and unemployment here in Britain.

READ MORE...

by David Hamilton

The “progressive” views are now demonstrably failing but the fading generation of the 1960s cannot accept that they are causing all that they wanted to avoid.  Progressive values are no longer progressive, their moral arguments no longer moral, and they are no longer supported by the majority of the younger generation.  A serious empirical examination of the situation they have created reveals that they are not engineering a multicultural Europe but a mono-cultural one by replacing us with Muslims.

One only has to consider the Stockholm riots and the slaughter of a British soldier on a London street to see what a mess they are making of things.  Those riots and that slaughter were acts by enemies who proclaimed their loyalty to outside countries and acted in the interests of those countries against us.  That was their human nature.  But “progressives” try to pretend the attackers are as “British as you and me”!  Then the politicised police arrested Britons who reacted for comparatively petty things like “racist tweets” - while allowing Muslim preachers of hate to say what they like and convert young people to terrorism.  A “far-right” group challenged the police to arrest Anjem Choudary(1) or they would put him under citizens arrest. The Metropolitan Police rushed him and his family to safety to protect him from justice.

It is not easy to come to the realisation that the three main parties are against their own people and act as one on the central, core issues of the multi-racial, PC ideology.  They differ on emphasis, and some fringe members of the three-in-one party can express rebellious views on many things, but not the central ones - anti-racism, globalism, and loyalty to the EU.  The elites are an “Ideological Caste” and any who say the wrong things have their careers destroyed unless they publicly abase themselves, their careers enhanced if they vociferously make the right statements.

READ MORE...

This post is a response to a multi-part question posted by Ex-ProWhiteActivist on the after Eastliegh thread.  I am only setting out the four possible paths that UKIP can go, or be driven, down.  In the conclusion I will also reply to another multi-part question asked on the same thread by Leon Haller.

So ...

The path to marginalisation

... is the Conservative Party’s preferred outcome for UKIP.  Conservative MPs and party managers seem to believe that it is in the gift of the party to engineer it (which it isn’t if the UKIP phenomenon is fundamentally a rage against the political class).  Conservatives must, of course, believe in the marginalisation thesis or they have to relinquish all hope of a 2015 election victory.

In reality, though, there is little hope.  First, quite without the UKIP problem, the Conservative Party is in terminal decline electorally.  Eddie George has turned out to be right when he said in 2010, prior to the General Election, that the party which entered government would be picking up a poisoned chalice, given the unpopular decisions that would have to be taken to pay-down sovereign debt.  He may have signalled some small change in that last week, with the BoE’s forecast of growth.  But the damage is done.  The coalition government has served only to confirm the public in its contempt for the political class.  Even prior to the UKIP explosion, Opinion polls have shown support for the Conservatives only hovering around 30%.  The first ICM survey after the local authority elections had them at 28% as UKIP surged to a new high of 18%, since when a (possibly rogue) Survation poll has put them at 24% and UKIP at 22%.  The Conservatives will not recover popularity now and the Prime Minister will not suddenly become liked or respected (though he may be replaced by someone who is).

Second, this bleak picture masks a bleaker crisis in the Conservative election machine itself.  Local association membership has halved in a decade, and it is the younger and more energetic members who are deserting fastest.  Conservative activism is grey-haired and suffers joint pain in many areas of the country.  It is also outrageously abused by the leader’s inner circle as well, of course, as utterly confused by their liberal metropolitan appetites.  Yet, to be in any position to form a government in 2015, the party must fight an aggressive campaign on the ground and win votes off the other parties. Lose their own core constituency to UKIP and that’s it.  They can’t get back from that.

READ MORE...

Today Sean Thomas, the Daily Telegraph blogger, journalist and, under a pseudonym, author, posted a piece about the latest case of Moslem Grooming, this time in Oxford.  It was titled “Oxford gang rape: did people ignore this sort of scandal because racist Nick Griffin was the first to mention them?”

The article skips through a little of the history of the offence before arriving, in the last two paragraphs, at the efforts made by Nick Griffin to raise consciousness of it and shame the police into action:

There’s one more figure who played an important role in this saga. As long ago as 2001, Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, was making claims about Asian grooming gangs. In 2004 he repeated these allegations in a speech clandestinely recorded by the BBC for a TV documentary, Secret Agent. He was arrested and charged with inciting racial hatred.

Which is exactly what he was doing, of course. He was making his allegations to stir up ethnic strife. Right-thinking people, aware of the BNP’s record as liars, presumed that these stories were just racist demagoguery. No doubt Griffin feels vindicated today: for telling the truth before anyone else. And yet it was thanks in part to his thuggish intervention that society felt able to ignore the scandal. And thus the abuse continued.

Comments on the article were disabled.  But appalled commenters raised the concerns on an unrelated thread, myself among them.  Thomas let it be known via a tweet that his original article had been doctored by a DT editor but it had since been amended.  It was still bloody awful, obviously.  So I emailed him to tell him so:

READ MORE...

The final opinion poll is in - in fact, it’s the only council-dedicated poll that has been done - and the British public, or at least that section who will be voting in the local elections tomorrow, are poised to deliver their verdict for real.  There is, of course, huge speculation about the fortunes of the United Kingdom Independence Party.  Will its support be spread too thin to deliver the seats it deserves - the enduring penalty of the First Past The Post system?  Or is this going to be the election when the party jumps forward and announces itself as a truly broad-based, national party of, if not yet renewal, certainly protest?

We will start to find out about this time tomorrow night.  Meanwhile, the smear tactics of the mainstream parties and their friends in the media leaves little doubt that UKIP’s rise is real and significant.  We are in for a very interesting next 36 hours.

A good result for UKIP would be to win 100 new council seats across the areas where voting will take place (mostly Tory shire counties).  The Comres poll in these areas produced a 22% voting intention for the party.  It should be remembered that protest voters are motivated voters, so that 22% could punch above its weight.  But I think it’s wise to temper any such expectations with the knowledge that UKIP is a young party without a political history in many of the wards it is fighting.  Electoral politics, at least in Britain, is not a five-minute packet soup, and elections at local authority level frequently favour well-regarded personalities, and hinge on particular local issues.

But ... if the present, very exciting signs are borne out by the ballot box, we may be at the start of a genuine challenge to the parties of the mainstream - something we might have hoped, a few short years ago, would come from the BNP.  But better UKIP than nobody.

I will post interesting results and commentary on the thread.

Yesterday, the United Kingdom Independence Party, a collection of “nutcases, fruitcakes and closet racists”, to quote David Cameron from 2006, ran the Tories into third in the Westminster by-election at Eastleigh.  Today the quality press is resisting offering the usual excuses (ie, it’s mid-term madness ... a mere protest vote, etc).  It is asking a few significant questions about UKIP, in particular.  The most interesting is: how much of its support expresses that exasperation and exhaustion with the professional political class that is now known by the term, anti-politics?

Anti-politics is a completely normal response on the part of any electorate confronted with a self-referential elite that has forgotten even how to feign representation of the people.  Lower order politicians are only too well aware of this failing. After the Eastleigh result Stewart Jackson, MP for Peterborough, told the London Evening Standard:

“Unless things are demonstrably different in terms of public perception by the early summer he [David Cameron] will have great difficulty in persuading the electorate that we can win a general election.

“He is out of touch with the party. Both gay marriage and EU migration feed into a narrative that too much emphasis is going to the liberal metropolitan elite and not enough to the blue-collar working vote that Margaret Thatcher had the support of.”

So while the speed of UKIP’s rise might surprise some, the rise itself shouldn’t.  The straws were in the wind for both right and left with the early Tea Party movement and, later, the Occupy Movement.  Now we have the rise of, among others, Syriza and Golden Dawn in Greece, the youth identitarian movement in France, the astonishing success of Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Party in Italy ... all non-Establishment or anti-Establishment movements.  Has the grand political project of The Globality reached the stage where it is no longer possible to advance its agenda and affect an interest in the opinions of their supporters?  Are electorates of European descent finally awakening to the nature of modern political elitism and internationalism?

If so, Eastleigh offers little encouragement to British nationalists beyond the unsatisfactory proxy that is UKIP.  The BNP did not stand.  The fatally civicist English Democrats, to which the Butler retinue decamped, did stand.  Its candidate polled just 70 votes in a constituency of 79,004.  The Elvis candidate finished above them.

It looks very like UKIP is our only horse in the race, and must be supported accordingly.  We have to hope that there will be no electoral pact with the Tories in 2015 but, on the contrary, Nigel Farage’s party will literally kill the Tory Party - just as it did in Eastleigh - as the political right’s natural party of power.  Beyond that we must hope that no new alignment of the right in Britain takes place along the lines of that which brought Stephen Harper’s Canadian conservatives into existence in 2003.  Nationalists must find some way to influence a realignment process so that any new party will, first and foremost, be loyal to our people rather than to a set of easily “liberalised” and corrupted, petty principles about self-improvement or personal liberty.

To do that we have to work from within.  We have to join the party if we can (and former BNP members can’t - they are pre-banned), and stay in the party.  I wonder how many nationalists have the requisite degree of focus to pull off something like that.

One of the arguments I am disseminating regularly these days is that a vote for the United Kingdom Independence Party, notwithstanding the obvious deficiencies of its platform, is the most productive for a Brit who loves not just his country but his people.  As usual this argument is framed within the English context.  It goes something like this, as posted this evening on the thread to Janet Daly’s current DT piece, The Tories can win if they put real people first:

There are two issues arising from Janet’s analysis.

First, the Conservative Party is a party of the City, big business and, like the other two mainstream parties, global elitism.  These are the interests Conservatives serve today.  They cannot turn to serve the people without turning away from their present beneficiaries.  They will never willingly do so.

The only event that can produce change here is the confiscation of any potential Conservatives possess to form another government.  If Conservatives are sufficiently electorally degraded, the political right will re-form - it must.  And that’s where the people’s interests come into the equation, for no party will gain support by openly declaring for narrow elite interests.

That is why a vote for UKIP is the most valuable vote you have.

The second question arising from Janet’s article is this: who are these people she refers to?  We no longer live in an England of distinct class interests; we no longer live in a white England but in a slowly browning England.  The immigrant populations do not have the same interests as the English - the exact opposite, in fact.

So the problem for the right is this: it can serve a people but not the people ... not all the people.  It cannot serve two masters.  Thus the will to political power necessarily becomes entrapped in the rising racial consciousness of the English people. The more awake are the English, the more the right must reflect that in its politics.

In the absence of a nationalist revolution, this is the way to the future life of ethnic England.  It is deliverable.  It may be the only possible result of all the dynamics in play at this time.  If not ... if it fails, the next grab for English freedom and life in the MultiCult will be the final one; and it won’t be political at all.

Now, if one accepts the logic here the next thing to watch for is how successful UKIP is in the run up to the 2015 election.  If the support achieved at the last round of by-elections is maintained or increased the destruction scenario can become a reality for the Tories. Yes, general elections are a much more difficult ask for a minor party than mid-term by-elections.  Yes, David Cameron will be able to nibble away at the softer end of UKIP’s support by his “negotiations” over a new relationship for Britain within the EU.  But still, the damage that has been done by Cameron to his party is unprecedented - he truly is to Conservatism what Tony Blair was to Labour.  I find it hard to believe that he will not pay some substantial electoral costs.

Of course, I may only be grasping at a few nationalist straws.  What else is there for an Englishman to do, frankly?

As well as the publication of the Leveson report, tomorrow sees three parliamentary by-elections - in Middlesborough, Croydon North and Rotherham (all currently Labour-held). Of these, it is the latter that Labour is concentrating resources on.  A combination of factors - the date (which will reduce turnout), the child grooming scandals, Denis MacShane’s resignation over false invoices, a divided local party and, most recently, the UKIP fostering row - means that the result is increasingly hard to predict.

The opening paragraph of a New Stateman article on the forthcoming by-election in Rotherham, South Yorkshire.

About this time tomorrow night we will know something new about a question which nationalists ask themselves whenever conversation drifts onto electoral politics.  What does it take - indeed, is it even possible - for a minor party to win a Westminster seat under First Past The Post?  The United Kingdom Independence Party, a one issue party of disaffected, golf-club Tory Eurosceptics, is thought by some to be in with a shout of overturning the disgraced Denis MacShane’s majority in one of the safest Labour seats in the country.  That is unlikely, and probably highly so.  But there appears to be a tide flowing for change in the constituency.  The Labour Party has taken an enormous knock in the town, and to continue voting for it requires either a considerable act of political faith or pig ignorance.  In the past the party has always been able to rely on a heavy supply of both.

Anyway, I thought it might be worthwhile to start a thread on the by-election.  A solid result for UKIP would be third.  But it would not surprise anyone if they finished one place higher, ahead of the Tories.  They don’t have to win to provide at least a partial answer to the question, “What does it take ...”  But they do have to get close.  That, though, would require both a collapse in the Labour vote (currently running nationally at 43%, while UKIP is at a record 11%) and a major shift of Tory, Libdem and Labour votes to the challenger.