Share |

Friday 11 June 2010

Labour Leadership Hopefuls: a Comparison

Well, the aspirant candidates for the Labour leadership are now busy setting out their stalls and I for one must confess to being deeply underwhelmed by the entire process. Why? It’s the policy stupid (or should I say, lack of it).

So, given that nobody else has bothered to prepare a guide to Labour leadership contenders for British nationalists, I thought that I’d devise one of my own, comparing the stances of the candidates on a range of key issues of concern. Are you excited? Me neither.

Anyway, so who are the contending 'colossi' of the bogus flat-cap, abandoned whippet, prawn cocktail munching, ‘Allahu akbar’ appeasing, globalist, warmongering, British betraying Labour Party? They are: Diane Abbott, Ed Balls, Andy Burnham, David Miliband and Ed Miliband. Four of these have held ministerial portfolios and they were all dreadful at their jobs. However, I would like to start this ‘analysis’ by ditching any concern for policy and having a straightforward snipe at personalities. We take can look at the ‘substance’ of policy ‘differences’ later.

Diane Abbott, as you know, is black and a woman to boot. This obviously qualifies her to be leader in the eyes of the majority of Labourites because none of her opponents are black or a woman. If she lost, the Labour Party would be ‘racist’ as well as 'sexist' wouldn’t it, which couldn’t possibly be right, right?

Two of the contenders have peculiar untrustworthy eyes. There is something of the goldfish about Ed Balls and his bulging ocular orbits, whereas Andy Burnham for some reason brings to mind a soft toy with his wide lachrymose eyes. I’m not convinced that ‘Tiny Tears’ Burnham is altogether human, and it’s probably the case that he was fabricated from plastic in a dodgy Chinese mannequin plant: “squeeze me and I cry.” Both Balls and Burnham are rumoured to be English, but they would probably go the extra mile to deny this fact.

Then we have the Miliband brothers, scions of leading Marxist Ralph, writer of The State in Capitalist Society which used to be (and probably still is) compulsory reading on undergraduate sociology and politics courses. Just for fun, I’m going to borrow a piece of nasty yet appropriate jargon from the period of high Stalinism: these two are what jovial Uncle Joe would have referred to as rootless cosmopolitans”. True to “rootless cosmopolitan” form, the elder Miliband brother was a disaster as Foreign Secretary and seemed to view his task as being the dismantling of any concept of the national interest that remained rather than its furtherance.

Anyway, let’s move on to boring old policy. I say “boring” because none of these Labour droids will actually possess any policy differences, and the line that they take will be uniformly anti-national. Still, let’s check and take a look at their stances on the following: Islamisation, mass immigration, the EU, multiculturalism, political correctness and globalisation. Having carried out an exhaustive analysis of their respective positions I can tell you that each and every one of them is rabidly in favour of every single one of these. Oh hang on, it does seem that I may have rushed to a precipitate judgement, for ‘Tiny Tears’ Burnham dissented from one of these positions when the Archbishop of Canterbury made his idiotic statement in favour of Sharia. Burnham is quoted as saying:
This isn't a path down which we should go... the British legal system should apply to everybody equally. You cannot run two systems of law alongside each other. That would, in my view, be a recipe for chaos, social chaos.
Still, he like Balls and Abbott has only been whingeing about white Eastern European immigration, so his policy position would continue to fan the flames of Islamisation as immigration from the Muslim world would in effect be unimpeded.

So, there you have it: Labour of our grandparents RIP. A plague on all their houses. I don’t give a hoot who becomes the new leader of the Labour Party: same old Labour, same old lies.


  1. The photos here go particularly well with your description of the eyes.

  2. Thanks for the link Abu. The pictures provide some truly spectacular examples of their ocular oddities.


Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.