“Live from Portsmouth Cathedral, in the heart of one of the country’s most important maritime cities,” runs the blurb on the BBC Radio 3 website, “... a concert marking the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar and the death of Admiral Lord Nelson.  Presented by Susan Sharpe.”

The centrepiece of the concert, having its world premier indeed, is a composition specially commissioned by BBC Radio 3.  It is titled, fittingly, “Our English Heart”.

There is a host of young English composers who would grasp the chance of putting music to this occasion.  And to do so in the name of that which is most intimate to Englishness would be an honour any of them would cherish forever.

The BBC, in its incorrigible, painfully “correct” wrong-headededness has seen fit to commission one Errollyn Wallen.

Nothing on earth can convince me that the decision to award the honour to a black woman was not taken in full knowledge of its political significance.  It is racism.  It is an act of outright bad faith towards BBC Radio 3’s audience of genuine Englishmen and women.

England expects something other than culture war from its national broadcaster.

Of course, we all know that the BBC leads the world in broadcasting excellence.  Even vicious catfights between celebrity pensioners are done with that effortless touch of class.

But just not this time, that’s all ...

Darcus Howe - not his real name - and Joan Rivers - not her real name - spectacularly disagreed today on BBC Radio 4’s Midweek.  It’s Alien vs Predator all over again.  You can listen to it here (from 20 minutes in).

Couldn’t have happened to two nicer people, really.

According to John Ray it is a “grave misconception” to believe that Asian cultures are tribal.

Asians, John believes, do not show preference according to ethnicity, but will reciprocate any favours shown to them on an individual basis. As John himself puts it,

“I am not remotely of their tribe. They do not treat me well because of my tribe. They treat me as an individual and treat me unusually well because I treat them well.”

This, no doubt, is a comforting thought for John. It means that he can support mass Asian immigration but not worry that he might be discriminated against by the newer Asian population. He will continue to be treated well according to his individual merits.

READ MORE...

In my not wholly affectionate paean of two days ago to the people’s Prime Minister, Anthony Lynton Blair, I called attention to his government’s not wholly noble or far-sighted educational policies.

They are, you see, a bit strong on the old social engineering, especially if you happen to be middle-class and would prefer little Twystrum and Tabitha to be schooled with other English children like themselves.  It’s so much easier if their new little friends haven’t got to flop down in the direction of Folkestone five times a day or haven’t started thinking about sex yet.  But that doesn’t mean that all those other funny little fellas aren’t jolly nice little chaps, too.  Oh no, no, no.

And, certainly, it doesn’t mean that the Prime Minister’s courageous policies aren’t slap bang out of the centre of British politics.  As we all know,  he really, really is a moderate, centre-of-the-road sort of guy.  After all, he gets criticised – actually criticised – for gluing himself to the latest focus group findings.  I mean , how consensualist is that?

Or this?

READ MORE...

The old left of the Labour Party has bitched that “Blair is a Tory”  since 1983, when he entered parliament at the age of 30.  Certainly, since the affair of the infamous “evil eyes” poster the real Tories have hardly quibbled with this analysis, and regularly complain that New Labour steals their clothes.  For his part, Blair the consummate professional certainly affects to command the political stage from the centre, though if pressed he will qualify it as the centre-left.  Whenever the opportunity arises he chides the Tories for being “right-wing” and, of course, nasty - that’s guaranteed to put them in a hell of a bind.

But there is a problem with this notion that Blair and his Party occupy the centre ground of British politics.  It is the appalling, long-term consequence to the English, in particular, of eight years of Labour rule.  If opening the borders and letting in an uncontrolled flow of Third Worlders is the politics of the centre I’m Adolf’s uncle.

READ MORE...

Each time I journey through my capital city I find myself shocked by the quantity of aliens I see.  There is no doubt in my mind that this has been an extraordinarily sudden and recent development.  Before 1997 there were, of course, far too many immigrants around.  But nothing like what I see today.

I have it on unimpeachable authority that, until this year, the government had no idea how many of our, of course, always vibrant new countrymen were here illegally.  Too many of the leading demographers couldn’t be trusted by the Home Office because they were associated with the stirling MigrationWatch.  When, finally, ministers could commission one who wasn’t, they found themselves staring at a June 2005 report giving a:-

... best estimate of 430,000 but the number could be between 310,000 and 570,000.

The Tories claim the estimate shows an immigration shambles and say it should have been released during the election.

... The Home Office estimate does not include asylum seekers whose claims are being processed, or who are appealing against a refusal.

It was produced by taking the numbers of foreign-born people living in the UK recorded in the 2001 Census and subtracting the estimated number of legal immigrants.

Home Office officials say they have sought to take into account the fact that some illegal immigrants may not have filled in their census forms.

Immigration Minister Tony McNulty said the figures were a “best guess”.

“By its very nature, it is impossible to quantify accurately, and that remains the case,” he said.

READ MORE...

David Cameron, the young lion of the left of the Conservative Party … and the centre … and everywhere, really, where desperate men dream, has spoken.  And he has written.  So there is no longer any cause for doubt about what this blank-faced, almost smart, tolerably personable font of ambition stands for.  Besides himself, of course.  We have been told.

We have, in fact, been told this:-

Our task now is to move the argument forward: to show how a changed Conservative Party will offer an attractive alternative programme at the next election.

To be attractive, our programme must be balanced, compassionate and modern: balanced in the sense of improving the quality of life as well as creating prosperity; compassionate in the sense of helping people in Britain and the world who are least able to help themselves; modern in the sense of recognising the challenges of today’s Britain and offering effective solutions. And our programme must be based on optimism: trusting people and giving them the responsibility and the power to do the right thing for their families and their communities.

Oh dear.  Changed.  Attractive.  The man has been thinking about change and attraction.  As if the electoral angst of politicians hadn’t done enough to change Conservatism and repel people already.

What, young lion, is the history of post-Reform Conservatism but the failed effort to adapt to the sinking game of One-Man-One-Vote democracy and a liberal polity?

READ MORE...

A month or two ago, I warned of plans to merge Australia, New Zealand, PNG and a dozen smaller island nations into a Pacific Union. These plans have now been taken significantly further. The Australian Labor Party, one of the two major political parties here, has

released a policy paper

setting out the design of what they call a Pacific Community.

READ MORE...