As perennial as the weeds that blight our gardens is the news story about the latest Tory MP to make concerned noises about mass immigration, whilst not actually intending, or proposing, to do anything about it. Today, it was the turn of Nicholas Soames to riff upon this familiar theme, with The Daily Mail honouring him with a piece entitled 'Heads must come out of the sand': Tory MP warns about scale of immigration as he predicts population will hit 70 million by 2027. Unfortunately, the heads in question would appear to be firmly wedged elsewhere, into something far less pleasant than sand, although seemingly perversely agreeable to the head wedgers.
Citing last year's petition against mass immigration initiated by Migration Watch, the Mail quoted Soames as stating:
It is time that voters realised, that people such as Soames, or any of the other Westminster MPs, with perhaps a handful of exceptions, are not willing to do anything concrete to genuinely limit mass immigration; moreover, none of them are advocating the sustainable demographic policy that our country so desperately needs. We require a party that will put in place realistic, workable and firm measures that will bring the demographic situation under control. This is what most members of the public desire; it is what we need, and what, ultimately, we must have.
Do you recall Cameron's Munich speech about multiculturalism, and how it was made out that he was against it? How, since then, have his actions tallied with his words? Has there not been a glaring discrepancy between what was said, and that which has subsequently been done? Treat Soames's words on immigration with the same scepticism, for it is not a question of needing to remove heads from the sand, but of advocating, implementing, resourcing and maintaining the policies that will stop mass immigration permanently, and ensure that our population is eventually brought down to a sustainable level. This will ensure a better future for all of us, and for our countryside. Cameron may consider that it is worth sacrificing our greenbelt for the sake of millions of unbidden incomers by removing planning regulations which inhibit its destruction, but it is not the so-called "dithering" over housing that should be a matter for concern, but his "dithering" over mass immigration. Do not be fooled. Do not vote Conservative.
Citing last year's petition against mass immigration initiated by Migration Watch, the Mail quoted Soames as stating:
This is a clear indicator of the very great public concern about the scale of immigration to this country.Yes, indeed it is; but just what does he propose to do about it? Having made this attention grabbing soundbite, what said he next? As in any statement about this depressingly familiar problem, Soames immediately followed this up with the rider that immigration constituted a 'natural and essential part of an open economy', thereby rendering his initial words about this theme largely irrelevant. Does he, or do any of his Westminster colleagues, believe that members of the public any longer believe in this elaborate charade of mock concern over this issue? Perhaps so, for the Mail is certainly complicit in revving up the public mood into an impotent fury over such matters.
It is time that voters realised, that people such as Soames, or any of the other Westminster MPs, with perhaps a handful of exceptions, are not willing to do anything concrete to genuinely limit mass immigration; moreover, none of them are advocating the sustainable demographic policy that our country so desperately needs. We require a party that will put in place realistic, workable and firm measures that will bring the demographic situation under control. This is what most members of the public desire; it is what we need, and what, ultimately, we must have.
Do you recall Cameron's Munich speech about multiculturalism, and how it was made out that he was against it? How, since then, have his actions tallied with his words? Has there not been a glaring discrepancy between what was said, and that which has subsequently been done? Treat Soames's words on immigration with the same scepticism, for it is not a question of needing to remove heads from the sand, but of advocating, implementing, resourcing and maintaining the policies that will stop mass immigration permanently, and ensure that our population is eventually brought down to a sustainable level. This will ensure a better future for all of us, and for our countryside. Cameron may consider that it is worth sacrificing our greenbelt for the sake of millions of unbidden incomers by removing planning regulations which inhibit its destruction, but it is not the so-called "dithering" over housing that should be a matter for concern, but his "dithering" over mass immigration. Do not be fooled. Do not vote Conservative.
whay they say and what they do.
ReplyDeletelight years apart, why would any one listen to the smoke and mirrors of the vested-interest-three parties?
lying scum, the lot of them.
Thankfully, I've given up being outraged by them, for once you manage to crack the code that they use, you can never be disappointed, for you learn that they never in reality promise anything anyway.
DeleteI believe that nothing meaningful ever happens regarding migration is because governments only listen to and consult special interest groups and vetted focus groups. Scameron aka call me Dave aka posh boy aka Mr Slippery like other PM's before him, remember Brown and his name calling a working class female Labour supporter, consider the white general public as racists. Their mindset after listening to these various groups is that to take measures to radically curb migration is giving in to the 'extreme right'
ReplyDeleteYou are quite correct SBD: any hint of actually moving to act to resolve this clearly defined problem is immediately stigmatised with the 'extreme right' label. Both Conservatives and Labour have their own reasons for favouring high levels of immigration, whereas the Lib Dems simply believe it to be a wonderful thing in its own right. For such people, any objection to their dogma on this score will result in you being branded a 'knuckledragger' irrespective of your behaviour, manners or education. Now, which of the following would you say better met the criteria for being designated a 'knuckledragger': David Starkey or Bob Crow?
DeleteThe CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element is Governmentium ( Gv ). It has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lefton-like particles called peons.
ReplyDeleteSince Governmentium has no electrons or protons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction normally taking less than a second to take from four days to four years to complete. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 6 years. It does not decay but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.
This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass. When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium , an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons. All of the money is consumed in the exchange, and no other by products are produced.
Durotrigan this is not a comment on the article but I thought that you would enjoy a nice chuckle. I found it on Hodjas blogg
http://hodja.wordpress.com
hodjas Blogg is one of the best of the Anti Jihad bloggs in Denmark There are about six who post regularly it is a sort of collective. Skoldungen who posted this ( literally translated means The boy who carries the shield } we would say squire) who I know personally is a Dane who served in the French Foreign legion and is now a surgeon at a hospital in Jutland he has a very acerbic sense of humour. I don't know where he pulled this one from but I am certain he wouldn't mind you republishing it. You will have too pull the illustration off yourself if you do it. It is not a bad idea if you have the time too scroll down at look at some of the other postings they usually have a good collection of videos, many you wont see in England.
Deep Regards
Yorkshire Miner
Thanks YM! That raised a smile. I'll take a look at Hodja's Blogg as suggested when I have time later in the week.
DeleteYou are quite right in saying that Nicholas Soames was the wrong person to have given the opening speech of that motion. He is simply too much of a toff to be taken seriously in such an "earthy" matter. However, I feel a mention in dispatches should be given to Tory Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight). I'd never heard of this backbencher, but he alone was willing to raise the subject of repatriation (albeit after some prodding from Chris Bryant). The problem is that it seems only an unknown MP would have the bravery to mention it, therefore it will never be given the discussion and debate it deserves.
ReplyDelete