Who will govern after 7 May 2015? Readers' opinions

This year’s General Election promises to be the most unpredictable in living memory. For months, as assiduously documented by UK Polling Report, opinion polls have shown a narrow gap between the two leading parties – Labour and Conservative – with the former generally maintaining a narrow lead over the latter. However, this promises to be no typical General Election, for politics in the UK is no longer the traditional two-horse race that dominated the twentieth century after the demise of Lloyd George’s Liberal Party. Old party loyalties have frayed, with many voters displaying an increasing willingness to lend their votes to newer smaller parties, despite the limitations placed on their likely success imposed by the first-past-the-post system (with the exception of the SNP in this respect).

Labour, having sowed the seed of devolution, are shortly, it would seem, about to reap the whirlwind. Following the SNP’s defeat in the independence referendum but subsequent victory in Scottish opinion polls, we could be about to witness the death of the Labour Party as a national force as its MPs in Scotland are swept away by a rising nationalist tide. The Conservative Party has already undergone this process, having effectively become a party restricted to England and Wales. Given the projections relating to the SNP’s likely share of the vote in Scotland, with its rise in popularity being largely at the expense of Labour, Miliband’s party could be heading for near electoral wipeout north of the border in May. Nonetheless, it is clear that the SNP would make for natural bedfellows with Labour rather than the Conservatives. A minority Labour administration propped up by the SNP is a highly plausible scenario, as well as the least desirable, for Labour has indicated that it is in ‘principle’ against the concept of English votes for English laws, which whilst anti-democratic, plays into the narrow self-interest of the Labour Party. We could well therefore witness a situation in which Scotland effectively holds the rest of the Union to ransom, with the SNP exacting as many financial concessions as possible from Westminster, whilst facilitating the implementation of policies not supported by the majority of the electorate in England or Wales. The SNP leadership probably realises that such a tactic would also cause such an adverse reaction in England that it would prompt mass English support for Scottish independence, so as to be rid of an interfering deadweight. However, quite what the recent OPEC-engineered slump in oil prices will do to the long-term fortunes of the SNP and their budgetary credibility, remains to be seen.

A couple of weeks’ ago, a poll was opened to blog readers to gauge their opinions as to the likely shape of our next Government. Unsurprisingly, few believed that a majority Government will emerge on 8 May: some 7% stated that they believed we would have a Labour majority, whereas 14% thought that a majority Conservative administration would be returned. Readers were presented with a wide range of coalition options to choose from, as well as ‘some other configuration’. A total of 14% of respondents opted for this latter category, so perhaps they are placing their faith in the rather distant prospects of majority Liberal Democrat, UKIP or Green administrations.

Readers clearly did not share the view of the pollsters which currently indicate a Labour-SNP coalition as the most likely outcome, as only 7% selected this as the likely result. Even more surprisingly, perhaps, is that nobody thought that there would be the likelihood of a continuation of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition. The second most likely outcome of the General Election was adjudged by 21% of respondents to be a Labour Coalition with the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Greens. Topping the list of likely outcomes, securing 28% of this poll’s vote, was a Conservative Coalition with UKIP.

The only clear conclusion that can be drawn either from this readers’ poll, or from national opinion polls, is that there is massive uncertainty around the outcome of the next General Election. A new poll opens today, gauging readers’ opinions as to how many MPs they believe UKIP will have on 8 May.

Dire: 'UKIP: The First 100 Days'

Should national broadcasters be permitted to run 'docudramas' with the intent of interfering in the political process during the run-up to a General Election?

Last night's Channel 4 offering, 'UKIP: The First 100 Days', was as predictable and dull as it was woodenly acted and blatantly partisan. How could a review conclude anything else? (Admittedly, I've not read the Guardian review, so it may well praise it for its 'objectivity' and great 'public service'). From the outset, it was obvious that this programme had been commissioned and screened with no other intent than to portray UKIP as the new 'nasty' party; a party of not-very-closet 'racists', frightfully white and not very bright. Although Channel 4 sometimes commissions and delivers excellent documentary programmes, such as Dispatches, last night's drama could not be adjudged to meet the broadcaster's often high standards, falling instead into a knee-jerk pantomime Leftism, that characterised anyone with concerns about mass immigration, the undemocratic nature of the EU or globalism, as racist, xenophobic and innately stupid. If it was intended to be political satire, it was about as funny and cutting edge as David Cameron delivering a stand-up routine, or George Osborne shoving an unexpected tax demand in your face.

That its central character - a fictitious female MP of Sikh extraction - should eventually 'see the light' and turn on UKIP, was a known given of the drama as soon as the camera first alighted upon her. What else could such a character do? The writer evidently thought that both she, and the programme's viewers, needed to be awakened from their state of false consciousness.

Although, obviously, the UKIP platform - so far as we can make it out - being anti-EU, anti mass immigration and anti-multiculturalism, lies in direct opposition to Channel 4's pro-EU, pro mass immigration and pro-multiculturalism editorial stance, should this fact alone allow the broadcaster to screen such a programme at this time? If so, surely for the sake of political balance, we ought to see analogous documentaries dealing with the other 'major' political parties operating across the whole of the UK? Channel 4 could portray Ed Miliband as an out-of-touch elitist intent on wrecking the public finances, or David Cameron as a friend of transnational corporate capital selling off the country's economic assets to hostile foreign investors; Nick Clegg as . . . Nick Clegg, or Nathalie Bennett of the Greens as a vegan totalitarian with a soft spot for ISIS (not the Egyptian goddess) and a desire to extinguish Britain in an immigration tsunami from Africa and Asia? That would strike me as being both as fair and as objective as the 'docudrama' that we saw last night.

That complaints should have been submitted to Ofcom in the wake of 'UKIP: The First 100 Days' is perfectly understandable. Will Ofcom take any notice? What do you think?

SNP: ‘The more seats we have here, the more powers we’ll have in Scotland.’

Thus runs the slogan on the first welcome image (reproduced below) displayed on the SNP’s website landing page. However, for the English this statement, given projections regarding the possible composition of the next House of Commons, would be better displayed next to the SNP’s peculiar logo, which looks for all the world like a noose.   

Opinion polls indicate that we are heading towards a second Parliament with no party possessing an overall majority. For a number of months, the national polls – at the headline level – have remained relatively static, but what has changed, as widely noted by commentators, is the situation in Scotland. As matters stand, the SNP is on track to oust Labour as the leading parliamentary party in the country, routing the latter in a number of its historic strongholds. Rather than laying to rest the question of Scotland’s constitutional status within the United Kingdom, last September’s Independence Referendum has bequeathed a situation in which the Scots have come to perceive themselves as very much separate to the rest of the UK, albeit whilst remaining part of it.

Much of this change in national self-perception can, perhaps, be attributed to the Westminster panic over the possibility of a ‘Yes’ vote, and the associated granting of additional concessions to the Scottish Parliament which amounted to the ‘Devo Max’ that had previously been denied as an option to Scots. Having woken up to the efficacy of voting SNP in leveraging additional powers and privileges from Westminster, Scottish voters seem intent to play the nationalist card in pursuit of further concessions from the rest of the UK, to pay for policies that are deemed unaffordable in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Doubtless, Ed Miliband’s lacklustre leadership of the Labour Party and absence of a coherent political vision also plays poorly with Scottish voters when contrasted with an SNP, which is making a direct play for the traditional Labour vote north of the border. 

Amongst the SNP’s pledges is to continue to ensure that ‘There will be no tuition fees for Scottish students’. This situation understandably makes many English students envious and resentful, particularly so when considering that whereas English and Welsh students studying in Scottish universities have to pay fees equivalent to the maximum chargeable to domestic students in England and Wales - £9,000 per annum – if you happen to come from anywhere between Lisbon and Tallinn that happens to be part of the EU, you pay nothing. Not only that, but even ‘if you’re the child of a Turkish worker in the UK’ you can apply to have your tuition fees paid in full. You could not devise a more unjust anti-English system if you tried. Alongside this remarkable pledge, is a statement that the party wishes to see ‘a minimum income of at least £7,000 for the lowest income students’ (although presumably not for sub-Turkish English students).

This SNP approach to policy, with its pronounced anti-English tenor, spells trouble ahead. According to today’s UK Polling Report rolling average of polls, Labour stand on 33%, Conservatives on 31%, UKIP on 15%, the Liberal Democrats on 8% and the Greens on 6%. The others, amongst whom are included the SNP, account for the remaining 7%. However, whereas UKIP are highly likely to end up with far fewer seats than the Liberal Democrats, possibly winning a handful in total, the SNP, because of their natural concentration in Scotland, look set to play the role of power brokers, just as the Liberal Democrats have done since 2010. Such an electoral outcome will doubtless fuel pressure for both constitutional and electoral reform, given the far higher number of votes that will accrue to UKIP, but failing to yield electoral MPs. 

On 3 February, UK Polling Report reported that the four opinion polls carried out thus far this year in Scotland revealed the following stated voting intentions: Labour 27%, Liberal Democrats 5% and the SNP 47%. This represented swings of 21% from Labour and 20.5% from the Liberal Democrats to the SNP. However, swings are never uniform, so although the polls suggest a near if not complete wipe-out for Labour in Scotland this May, most pollsters believe that Labour will retain some seats. Nonetheless, it is generally anticipated that the SNP will take upwards of 40 Westminster seats if current voting intentions hold firm. This raises the spectre of a Miliband minority administration propped up by the SNP, possibly, depending upon the precise distribution of seats, also being reliant upon a cobbled together coalition including one or two Greens and the Liberal Democrats. This would probably be the worst possible outcome for the UK, running the risk of fracturing it irrevocably, whilst ceding further sovereignty to the EU and sinking ever further beneath the weight of near-untrammelled mass immigration. Who would pay for Scotland's spending spree, particularly during a time of likely declining North Sea oil income? 

A Labour minority Government with SNP support could sound the death knell for the United Kingdom. Wouldn’t Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon et al be delighted with the anti-democratic havoc that they could play with the Sassenachs! 

Ed Miliband’s ‘One Nation Labour’: hearing, but still not listening

Today witnessed Ed Miliband’s third speech in less than a year that was delivered with the intent of generating headlines that he and the Labour Party had finally awakened to the fact that the majority of people – British people that is – had neither wished for nor endorsed Labour’s policy of encouraging mass immigration. In this respect, the BBC dutifully reported today’s speech addressed to the Fabian Society as constituting an admission that Labour ‘did not do enough for ordinary people, becoming distant on issues such as immigration.’ What Miliband then went on to emphasise, as in his previous speeches on Englishness in June and immigration in December, was that he was unapologetic for the fact that the ethnic and cultural fabric of society had been radically altered, and that on the contrary, he rather liked it and that it was something (to use a much abused word in recent years) to be ‘celebrated’. In a telling sentence he stated: ‘I bow to nobody in my celebration of the multi-ethnic, diverse nature of Britain.’

Since last June Ed Miliband has plainly be toying with Blue Labour rhetoric as advocated by Jon Cruddas, in an attempt to reconnect with Labour’s neglected and alienated former bedrock of support: the indigenous working class. However, Miliband has made it clear on a number of occasions that he finds the substance of Blue Labour rather too strong to stomach, so he has chosen instead to don patriotic drag in an attempt to portray a party that is still wholeheartedly in favour of mass immigration, muliticulturalism and the promotion of non-indigenous interests (I hesitate to employ the term ‘ethnic minority’ for the English are now a minority in their own capital) as standing up for the national interest. His arrogation of Disraeli’s ‘One Nation’ phrase is a conscious part of this attempt to dupe and manipulate public opinion. People would be advised to consider that when Miliband speaks of ‘one nation’, he is referring to all of the populations of the globe resident in our country, not to our nation: 'I am proud to celebrate the multi-ethnic, diverse nature of Britain.'

Although Miliband is correct in criticising the Conservatives for fostering divisions in society, he is wrong in positing Labour as the answer to these divisions, for he is intent upon cementing and widening the divisions that he and his party so assiduously cultivated whilst in power. If voters wish to find the positive political substance of ‘Blue Labour’, then they are going to have to look for it outside of the Labour Party. Miliband’s three speeches relating to this theme illustrate that although he and his likeminded confederates have heard the discontent emanating from the British public on this score and been unnerved by it, they have not listened, and they will not act upon it.

Ed Miliband's vision of 'One Nation' revisited for a third time

Ed Miliband’s Immigration Speech: celebrating national dissolution

As with Ed Miliband’s speech on ‘Englishness’ in June, his speech on immigration at the end of last week was used as a pretext to launch into another ‘celebration’ of Britain’s, particularly England’s, newly found ethnic ‘diversity’ (i.e. Balkanisation). Whereas the first of the speeches was trailed as Miliband recognising that Labour had ‘got it wrong’ with respect to its routine demonisation of Englishness and its equation with ‘racism’, and the second as an acknowledgement that Labour had ‘made mistakes’ in its open-door immigration policy, neither in fact proved to be the case; Miliband provided his own definition of ‘Englishness’ that denied the English the right to their own identity, and ‘apologised’ for mass immigration by stating that we had not done enough to help the immigrants. So, for all of his toying with ‘Blue Labour’ rhetoric, even the substance of that strand of thinking within his party proves to be excessively unpalatable for him.

Following the Olympic opening ceremony, I noted how ‘It was not so much a celebration of national identity, as of a post-national notion of Britain as a hyper-globalised space, in which its people were depicted as being displaced by incomers at an every-accelerating pace’, and indeed, Ed Miliband picked up on this theme, but not as cause for lamentation, but for ‘celebration’. Miliband stated:

‘the whole Olympic experience reflected the diversity of modern Britain. So it was an immense achievement for our country and it reflects a crucial reality about our nation today. Social, cultural and ethnic diversity has made us stronger.’

What facts does he provide to back up such assertions? Why is it ‘crucial’? How has it ‘made us stronger’? Clearly, it is not 'crucial' and it has not 'made us stronger', and he did nothing to bolster his argument other than continue to repeat such assertions in a variety of verbal forms throughout the remainder of his speech. The reality is that the ongoing Balkanisation of Britain has helped to fuel riots, demands for special religious privileges, restraints upon freedom of speech and expression, discrimination in the workplace in favour of those of a non-indigenous background, a diminution in animal welfare standards, and increased stress upon our public services, whether they happen to be health, education or social security.

The Daily Mail was not impressed with his speech, and noted that ‘There are now around a million households where no on speaks English.’ What do these ‘million households’ add to our country, other than a deadweight? How many millions live in these households altogether? They constitute an extreme drag upon our economy, and deny homes to our young couples who wish to start families but are unable to do so because many larger dwellings are filled with non-English speaking immigrants. Furthermore, the enormous decadal increase in population brought about by mass immigration and the immigrant-descended population has assisted in inflating the property market and making homes unaffordable; it is an increase that has helped to choke our roads and to overburden our trains. All of this we must now suffer at a time when our economy is at best at a standstill. Our standard of living, whether measured in monetary terms, in the quality of our housing, in the general standard of our environment or in the services that we receive, is falling, and yet we are told that it must fall still further because of the ‘decarbonisation’ of the economy, whilst we make room and accommodation for more immigrants. And these observations of course, do not take into account the broader negative cultural impacts. Miliband, naturally, does not see let alone acknowledge any of these objections.

A thread that ran through both of Miliband’s speeches was his reference to his ‘refugee’ parents, to his family’s Jewishness and to ‘the terrors of the Nazis’. This, evidently, he perceives to be a useful means of implying that anyone who should object to mass immigration and the impact that it has wrought is somehow spiritually at one with ‘the Nazis’. It is of course a nasty and baseless insinuation, but he is happy to use it. In this latest speech, he made this incredibly explicit, by praising the Babel at a London school and claiming that ‘the British people have embraced this diversity’ before immediately launching into the observation that:

‘frankly we’ve had our fair share of doomsayers in Britain over the years. From Oswald Moseley in the 1930s, Enoch Powell in the 1960s to Nick Griffin today.’

This theme was later picked up when he asserted:

‘Division, racism and prejudice were features of everyday life for far too long in the Twentieth Century.’

So, there you have it: to object to mass immigration, globalisation and ensuing national self-dissolution is according to Miliband tantamount to fascism. Out of the three men he mentioned, Powell was the only one who was decent, and he has, contrary to Miliband’s speech, been proven correct in his observations and predictions. Whereas Miliband’s speech upon immigration will be largely forgotten in a decade’s time, Powell’s is an historical artefact that will remain.

As is customary not only for the Labour Party, but also for the BBC and UKIP amongst others, Miliband chose to emphasise Eastern European migration, omitting to mention that the majority of immigrants over the past 15 years have not come from within the EU, but from Asia and Africa. The census figures released this week confirm this.

Miliband announced that the learning of English was key for future ‘integration’ and stated that ‘We must live together across communities’. Already we have seen our capital city become not only non-English but also non-British, and if you live in a small town or in rural England, do not think that Miliband does not have plans to transform your world, for he also stated: 

‘Mixed communities are the key to making integration work. And mixed income housing is the key to creating mixed communities.’

So, if you should think that the building of social housing in our county towns and villages would be primarily to accommodate local people who cannot afford to buy their own homes, think again. Under a Labour administration – and probably under the current Condem Government – such homes may well be used to help enforce ‘mixing’, with immigrants being relocated from the globalised urban centres which were once English cities to a location near you. Will there be a Somali ‘community’ in Bridport for example? Ed Miliband would doubtless be delighted at such a prospect.

Labour's 'One Nation' is no nation at all

Whither the Liberal Democrats?

With the results in from the three parliamentary by-elections held in Corby, Manchester Central and Cardiff South and Penarth, and the outcome of the first elections for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) filtering in from across England and Wales, a number of clear messages are becoming apparent. The first of these relates to widespread voter apathy, with turnout – particularly for the PCC elections – being remarkably low. So unmotivated to visit the polls were electors, that the Corby by-election turnout of 44.79%, which in itself would normally be seen as low, looked very high compared to what was achieved elsewhere. In Cardiff South and Penarth, turnout was a meagre 25.35%, whilst in Manchester Central, the corresponding figure stood at 18.2%. The last of these figures was noteworthy for being the lowest turnout in a parliamentary contest since the Second World War, but even so, it seemed high when compared to the percentage turnout in the PCC elections, which in many areas was below 15%.

Whereas these figures in themselves constitute an indictment of the current state of our democracy and of the wasted £100 million allegedly spent in introducing elected PCCs, they also contain some interesting messages for our existing political parties. Although Ed Miliband’s Labour Party may be trumpeting its relative success today, the clearest message for any party has been delivered to the Liberal Democrats, and its content cannot be seen as anything other than highly disagreeable for its membership; overall, the party has been resoundingly crushed. In Corby, its share of the vote plunged from 14.5% in 2010 to just 4.96%, with its candidate Jill Hope losing her deposit. The party was squarely beaten into fourth place by a robust performance from the UKIP candidate Margot Parker who took 14.3% of the vote. As UKIP did not stand a candidate in Corby in 2010 and the Conservative share of the vote went down by 15.6% on this occasion, it seems clear that many traditional Tories disaffected with the Cameroonian coalition switched their support to UKIP. Other candidates fared so poorly as not to be worth a mention.

Although the Liberal Democrats managed to hang on to second place in the Manchester Central constituency, their share of the vote collapsed from 26.6% to 9.4%, whilst in Cardiff South and Penarth they narrowly held onto third, place despite their corresponding share falling from 22.3% to 10.8%. Whereas UKIP may have been ebullient about Corby, their shares in these two by-elections were rather more modest, although they were both up from the last General Election: 4.5% and 6.1% respectively. UKIP are therefore enjoying something of a fillip in their fortunes, but the percentages that they are polling fall way short of offering them the prospect of winning any Westminster seats. However, from the perspective of the Conservative Party, a resurgent UKIP that could potentially ‘rob’ them of anywhere between 10 and 15% of the vote in any given constituency, might cause them to lose many more marginal seats to Labour. Farage’s party could therefore be strong enough to damage the Conservatives, but not robust enough to take any power for itself. This in itself is indicative of two of UKIP’s primary weaknesses: its embrace of Thatcherite globalism, which is justifiably unpopular with all but a minority of the electorate, and the manner in which the party is run.

The experience of coalition government has clearly done the Liberal Democrats massive damage. Their unpopularity should not be seen as the straightforward consequence of Nick Clegg reneging over his promise regarding university tuition fees, but as indicative of a wider discontent with Liberal Democrat policies. Whilst I am no fan of our mainstream political parties, when the Coalition Government formed I had a glimmer of hope – admittedly illusory – that the fusion of the separate policy agendas of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats could result in something more positive than either alone would impose. Like many people, from the Conservatives I hoped for a robust approach to the EU which would have presented us with the option of withdrawal, as well as an end to mass immigration and to the legislation that muzzles free speech in the name of political correctness, whereas I wished for the Liberal Democrats' approach to economics to temper the asset-stripping globalist monetarism of the Conservatives.

This best of both worlds outcome however, was not to be, for we ended up with an inversion of this scenario: the rigorous promotion of Liberal Democrat policies in favour of the EU, mass immigration and political correctness, combined with the ongoing ruinous globalist economics promoted by Osborne. Who therefore, other than the stereotypical sandal-wearing bearded liberals of yore, would have any positive regard for the Liberal Democrats today? Personally, I know people who have supported the Liberal Democrats and their predecessor parties for decades (none of whom wear sandals or sport beards of any description), and yet they are disgusted with the party’s attitude towards the EU, mass immigration and political correctness, as well as of course, tuition fees. They would willingly support a party that put an end to this ongoing undermining of our national sovereignty and social fabric, providing of course that it was reasonable, in favour of genuine freedom of speech, assembly and expression, and not some monstrous authoritarian entity harbouring tacit agendas imbued with sinister motives. In this respect, they are like many people today, who feel that they possess no real political choice and no viable political party to vote for. A new mainstream anti-globalist party with a libertarian streak is required, and the various alternatives currently being hawked in the political market place do not fit the bill.

Returning to the question of the future electoral prospects of the Liberal Democrats, what lies in store? One development that could have a major bearing upon their prospects relates not to their current unpopularity in England and Wales, but to the future status of Scotland, for it could, after all, theoretically have left the Union by 2015. Scotland is home to 11 Liberal Democrat MPs. Another major bailiwick for the party is the West Country, where it has for many years provided the effective opposition to the Conservative Party and has won an impressive number of seats. Quite how many of these it might lose in 2015 however is moot, for the West Country is also one of the strongest areas for UKIP, which given its current stronger showing could take considerable numbers of votes from Conservative candidates in many seats where they are challenging the Lib Dems, potentially allowing the latter to retain their seats. It is a complicated picture, and we have another two and a half years before the next General Election, so much could change in that time. Nonetheless, whatever should happen, the future does not look bright for the Liberal Democrats who could be replaced by UKIP as the nation’s third party. Then again, what impact might a new political entity with the correct policy formulation make? Time will tell. 

Liberal Democrats: not flying high

Cameron’s weasel words over EU referendum

A piece been penned by David Cameron in today’s Sunday Telegraph reveals his concern over the increasing disaffection of a section of his party and of the electorate with the Condem coalition’s position on the EU. In recent months, UKIP have been enjoying the highest level of support in opinion polls since the height of the parliamentary expenses scandal, on a number of occasions attracting a higher level of declared support than the Liberal Democrats, taking a 9% share amongst prospective voters. Although such a figure does not put UKIP in a position to win Westminster seats, what it does do is imperil the parliamentary majorities of a number of Conservative MPs. If such figures did translate into real votes at a General Election, this could cause enough damage to the Conservative Party to deny it a parliamentary majority. It is this fear, combined with the perceived need to address a heightened level of public apprehension over the crisis in the eurozone, that has prompted the Prime Minister to write.

Although it is to be expected that the BBC would portray his piece in a manner which would suggest euroscepticism, it is surprising that the Sunday Telegraph, or at least its political editor Patrick Hennesy, should also fall for Cameron’s ruse. The BBC introduces its report on Cameron’s article with the heading David Cameron ‘prepared to consider EU referendum’ which would seem to imply to the casual reader who does not bother to read further that Cameron is willing to contemplate a referendum on EU membership, when in fact what is being suggested by the Prime Minister is nothing of the sort. Hennesy’s piece is entitled ‘EU: New Tory battle lines drawn’, which once again suggests that a very robust and significant change in attitude towards the European Union is being signalled, with Hennesy describing Cameron’s article as constituting a ‘landmark move’. However, we have witnessed such distorted hyperbole in the media before, one striking example relating Cameron’s speech on multiculturalism delivered in Munich, which was said to signal a radical shift in policy resulting in the ditching of the concept, whilst since that date we have in reality seen an ongoing commitment to multiculturalism and, in some instances, increased state funding for it (e.g. state-funded Muslim schools).

Turning to Cameron’s article itself, rather than to mainstream media commentary upon it, certain key passages and phrases reveal the Prime Minister’s true position and intent. Firstly, he deliberately chooses to open his piece by referring not to our relationship with the EU – a political construct – but to our ‘relationship with Europe.’ This, of course, is a common tactic adopted by those in favour of EU membership, for this device is used by them to equate being anti-EU (a rational and democratic political position) with being anti-European (an irrational and xenophobic position). However, most of us who are anti-EU are thankfully pro-European, whereas many of those who are pro-EU are conversely anti-European.

In essence, Cameron wishes the UK not only to remain a member of the EU’s single market, but also to be a political member of the club because of his globalist political stance, which he rationalises through employing the pretext of co-operating ‘with our neighbours to maximise our influence in the world and project our values of freedom and democracy.’ We have in recent years done far too much of this ‘projection’, in terms of becoming militarily involved in complex conflicts overseas in which we have no interest, accompanied by, so it would seem, little genuine understanding on the part of our policy elites of the countries that they insist on meddling with. Thus it is that there has been an ecstatic embrace of the ‘Arab Spring’, although wherever it has been successful it has brought the Islamists to power, and in Libya, where we had direct military involvement, the country now lies shattered and divided between the claims of competing warlords. The drumbeat of war now sounds for Syria, with William Hague and the FCO being at the vanguard of the party of international hawks. No, let us have no more of this. If we are to ‘project our values of freedom and democracy’ to other peoples, then we should do so through the strength of our example, by being genuinely free, democratic and worthy of emulation. We are currently neither free nor democratic enough.

Although Cameron’s article is presented as offering the public a the prospect of a choice over EU membership, this is not the case, and Cameron makes it absolutely explicit that he is not only in favour of EU membership, but that he will ensure that if any referendum is held over any aspect of this country’s relationship with the EU, then it will be at a time that is conducive to securing the result that he desires, thus:

I don’t agree with those who say we should leave and therefore want the earliest possible in/out referendum. Leaving would not be in our country’s best interests.

. . .  I will continue to work for a different, more flexible and less onerous position for Britain within the EU.

How do we take the British people with us on this difficult and complicated journey? How do we avoid the wrong paths of either accepting the status quo meekly or giving up altogether and preparing to leave? It will undoubtedly be hard, but taking the right path in politics often is.

As we get closer to the end point, we will need to consider how best to get the full-hearted support of the British people whether it is in a general election or in a referendum.

As I have said, for me the two words “Europe” and “referendum” can go together, particularly if we really are proposing a change in how our country is governed, but let us get the people a real choice first.

This article is very much of a piece with Ed Miliband’s recent speeches on England and Englishness and mass immigration. Miliband realised that the Labour Party’s approach to both of these issues has alienated a significant stratum of former Labour voters and supporters, thus he attempted to give the impression that he shared their concerns and views on these matters, whilst actually using both speeches to reaffirm his commitment to multiculturalism, mass immigration and globalisation. Miliband attempted to bedeck himself in national bunting to sell a globalist multicultural political product, and Cameron too has chosen to take out the national bunting today, using it to mask his pro-EU stance. Neither Cameron nor Miliband has the national interest at heart, and neither man believes in a democracy that gives voice to the genuine public will.

Many will see through Cameron’s cynical attempt to appeal to those of us who wish to leave the EU, but many will not have the time or the inclination to read beyond the headlines, and thus gain the impression that the Prime Minister intends to offer us a genuine referendum over EU membership. This is the real intent of his piece: to manage public opinion to his political advantage whilst offering nothing of substance. As it is with multiculturalism, so shall it be with the EU: Cameron makes public announcements critical of each of them, whilst enthusiastically promoting both. 

Ed Miliband and Peter Sutherland: united in anti-European Bigotry

In political, economic and demographic terms, we are living through remarkable times. The news, whether it be domestic or international, is almost uniformly bad. And yet amidst this maelstrom, the helmsmen of the emergent global economic and political order continue to chart a course that they set long ago, cognisant of the storms that their policies must surely engender, yet happy for us to suffer the ill-effects of their globalist tempest, utilising the naïveté of those who believe in the ideal of a global village, to aid in their construction of a global prison, from which none, they hope, will be permitted to escape.

Bound by fetters of debt, intellectually and emotionally crippled by decades of propaganda instilling self-doubt, guilt and self-loathing, the peoples of Europe – in particular those of the West, for those of the East have not yet fallen prey to this singular psychopathology – edge towards embracing oblivion in the name of ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’. Globalisation, they are told ad nauseum, is not only inevitable, but also beneficial. We are told so by our politicians and our bankers; by our broadcasters and big business; by our press, trades unions and ‘anti-racism’ campaigners. From the dope-addled hippy, to the calculating corporate fascist; from the Trotskyist subversive to the Islamist longing for the introduction of a universal caliphate, all yearn for the destruction of nations and peoples, specifically, of European nations and peoples. As such, they are united in a desire to snuff out freedom and political will. They are the totalitarian advocates of a post-political future, in which choice is removed, and individuals become the objects of administration, rather than the subjects of politics. The detail of each of their globalist visions may be divergent, but their consequence is the same: the purging of human agency from history, and the end of freedom for all but a narrow stratum of a governing global oligarchy.

Strange, is it not, that those of us who oppose this process, are the ones stigmatised with the label of ‘fascist’? Only the genuine political self-determination of peoples across the globe, can serve as both the guarantor of human freedom, and the preservation of true cultural diversity. Agencies of supranational governance, the free movement of global capital and transnational corporations guarantee something quite different: perpetual insecurity and the end of freedom.

 

It is against such a backdrop, that speeches given earlier this week by Ed Miliband and Peter Sutherland should be viewed. Miliband, naturally, requires no introduction, but the figure of Peter Sutherland is altogether more shadowy, although out of the two, it is Sutherland who wields the more genuine power. What is the influence of an MP or an aspirant Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, compared to that of such a man as Sutherland? Non-executive Chairman of Goldman Sachs International; Bilderberg Group Steering Committee member; UN Special Representative on Migration, Head of the Global Forum on Migration and Development? Still, it matters not that Miliband’s existing and potential power should be the lesser of the two, for both men share a mental outlook and policy platform, neither possessing any notion of responsibility to, or affection for, the peoples and nations of Europe.

Miliband’s speech, like his recent speech on Englishness, was essentially devoid of content. Its intent however, was just the same as its forerunner: to generate headlines conveying the impression that he cares about the ostensible topic under discussion. Whilst sections of the media and some trades union spokesmen have dutifully complied with this charade, feigning outrage over his touching upon such topics as national identity and immigration, both speeches delivered the same message as found expression in the policy of the last Labour Government: immigration and globalisation are positive, and should be promoted as such. This can be demonstrated through reference to key elements of Miliband’s speech reproduced below (I have added emphasis in bold).

Excerpt 1: “Britain must control its borders but it must always face outwards to the world.

The Britain I believe in is a confident and optimistic country, not one which is insecure and inward looking.

If people are looking for a politician who says immigration is just bad for Britain, that's not me.

I believe immigration has benefits, economically, culturally and socially.”

Excerpt 2: “I am the son of immigrants and I am hugely proud of it.

I will always talk about immigration in a way that is true to who I am, to my heritage, to my mum and dad.”

Excerpt 3: “Providing a refuge for those fleeing persecution.

And a new approach to immigration based on building a different kind of economy.

An economy that doesn't leave anyone behind.

That continues to attract people from abroad who contribute their talents to our economy and society.

That offers proper wages and good conditions.

That's the kind of economy that will enable Britain to compete with the world.”

In summary the core message of Miliband’s speech was this: Labour made a gaffe in selling mass immigration from the EU accession states to the public and this backfired electorally, not because the party believes this to have been wrong, but because it handled its propaganda maladroitly. The Labour Party needs to repair its image with its traditional indigenous (although Labour’s upper echelons would never use such a term) working-class supporters, who have to a considerable degree deserted Labour; it would still like their votes. By talking about “immigration” in a manner which suggests to the public that Miliband is recognising Labour’s mistakes and addressing their concerns, whilst in reality simply acknowledging that there had been public disquiet and then reiterating the message that Labour still advocates mass immigration and thinks that it is beneficial, Labour hopes that it can pull the wool over the public’s eyes and win back the support of ex-Labour voters without changing policy. Miliband wishes to change the presentation of policy, whilst retaining its essence: open borders and the deculturisation of the United Kingdom, especially England.

Another highly noteworthy aspect of Miliband’s speech was the target that he selected in his discussion of mass immigration: white Central and Eastern Europeans from the EU member states of the former Soviet bloc. Nowhere did he have a critical word to say with respect to the far larger, as well as more culturally and economically problematic, influx of immigrants from Asia (predominantly Pakistan and Bangladesh) and Africa (e.g. Somalia and Nigeria). It seems that he is perfectly at ease with this mass settlement. Why? Although it is true that mass immigration from the EU accession states of the former Soviet bloc has lowered wages, increased unemployment and placed an increased strain on housing, education, health and utilities, there is not so great a cultural gulf between these immigrants and the host population as that between us and the incomers from Asia and Africa. Although the press are keen to run stories about ‘East European’ or ‘Romanian’ criminal gangs, these are predominantly Roma, and thus should not be conflated with ethnic Romanians or other immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe.

So, why is it, taking into consideration the additional problems associated with significant elements of the immigrant populations from Africa and Asia, that Miliband chose not to focus upon them? Given Miliband’s glaring omission, it could give the impression that he has some issue with white European peoples that he does not have with non-Europeans. In this respect, his sentiments are very much at one with those of Peter Sutherland, who according to the BBC told the House of Lords this week that:‘The EU should "do its best to undermine" the"homogeneity" of its member states.’ His recommendations, that fly in the face of the bloody experience of history and of many ethnically cleft states around the world today, were not backed up by evidence, but rather by mere assertion, resting upon some spurious sense of deferential morality that places the interests of peoples outside Europe, above those of Europeans. Thus it was that he insisted that: 'the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural. He also suggested the UK government's immigration policy had no basis in international law.’ 

Sutherland’s stance is utterly brazen. Those who have accused the Bilderberg group of attempting to swamp European states with non-European immigrants have been accused of being ‘conspiracy theorists’, but in Sutherland’s statement and in the policies of the UN, the EU and the UK Government, we see the same open-borders globalist logic at play, and it betokens a dark future for all Europeans. He continued:

It's impossible to consider that the degree of homogeneity which is implied by the other argument can survive because states have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them. Just as the United Kingdom has demonstrated.

He also ‘urged EU member states to work together more closely on migration policy and advocated a global approach to the issue - criticising the UK government's attempt to cut net migration from its current level to "tens of thousands" a year through visa restrictions.’

How, in substance, does Sutherland’s position differ from that of Ed Miliband’s? I see little if anything to distinguish these two advocates of an open-borders Europe, the future of which they would seem to believe ought to belong to the peoples of Africa and Asia. What is it that imbues these men with such an animus towards Europeans and their democratic right to national self-determination? Their views alas, represent the dominant perspective in elite – or more accurately, oligarchical – decision-making circles. It is thus up to true democrats in each European nation to make their opposition to this intent and associated policies known, so as to preserve a future for our peoples, our liberties, distinctive cultures and overarching civilisation. Without our active opposition to globalism, our progress, indeed our existence, is finished. A new political party, founded upon such democratic anti-globalist principles, is coalescing in Britain right now, and will be ready to contest the EU elections in 2014.

Ed Miliband: Globalism Repackaged

Ed Miliband’s bloodless Conception of Englishness

This morning Ed Miliband delivered a speech at the Royal Festival Hall, ostensibly addressing the question of England and its relationship to the United Kingdom, even touching upon the nature of English identity whilst predictably recoiling from recognising the English as a distinct people. Naturally, the fate of the United Kingdom is of rather more than theoretical concern to the Labour Party, for if Scotland were to become independent, it would remove a large tranche of Labour MPs from Westminster, perhaps depriving the party of the chance to again form a government in a truncated union or England.

That Miliband has bothered to mention England and the English highlights growing Labour concern that the party has lost touch with the English working class, and must be seen as in all likelihood prompted by Jon Cruddas who is working on a policy review intended to renew Labour’s appeal to its traditional support base. Whereas Miliband’s speech was not billed as such, its content could thus be viewed as presaging the tentative introduction of the ‘Blue Labour’ concept (although 'Blue Labour' is said to have been "effectively disbanded" in July 2011, the party would be wise to heed its recommendations with respect to immigration and its critique of neoliberalism) of which Cruddas is said to be one of the leading exponents, occupying to a certain extent the territory claimed by the ‘Red Tory’ idea. Although both seek to capitalise upon a sense of English alienation from mainstream political parties generated by the latter’s promotion of globalisation and mass immigration, the ‘Blue Labour’ and ‘Red Tory’ approaches affect concern about these issues, whilst neither tackling them nor wishing to do so. Each is fashioned so as to present a reassuring message to the electorate, an anodyne for the dying English patient which is being ushered out of existence to make way for new blood from overseas.

Returning to the ‘substance’ of Ed Miliband’s speech, he emphasised how he believes that “multiple allegiances” are stronger than single ones and that the “debate about nationhood and identity can’t be left to one part of the United Kingdom.” As ever, although this speech was billed as being about England and Englishness, Miliband could not restrain his enthusiasm for globalist internationalism from breaking through, referring to the need “to embrace a positive outward looking version of English identity” and an outward looking patriotism. Heaven forbid that the English should for a moment reflect and perceive themselves to be a distinct nation and people bound by common ties of culture, history, language and descent!

Miliband, as in previous speeches, employed the parental refugee theme, outlining his parents’ flight from Nazism and subsequent settlement in England, which whilst offering them “a new home . . . allowed them to stay true to who they were.” In this way, he underscored his belief in multiculturalism: “Britain is a country where you can have more than one identity; more than one home.” Yes, that is the case, but it does not strike me as desirable for swathes of the population here not only to self-identify as Pakistanis, but to also possess Pakistani passports, Pakistani attitudes and a Pakistani animus towards the English. “Multiple allegiances” in this case are no “source of strength”, but rather one of discord and weakness.

One of the most striking aspects of Miliband’s speech was that he repeatedly referred to the Scots, the Welsh and the English and the “false choice” that was proffered between these various identities and Britishness. Of course, in this respect he is correct, for we are all native peoples of the island of Britain and thus by definition simultaneously a member of one of these three peoples and British, but it did seem to be telling that he did not acknowledge the real problems that can arise from cleft identities nurtured by multiculturalism such as ‘British’-Somali or ‘British’-Pakistani, etc.

In mentioning English culture, Miliband emphasised that musicians, artists and scientists were characterised by their “constantly moving across national boundaries”, and his speech was peppered with references to being “outward looking” and “internationalist”. In other words, whilst purporting to address and acknowledge the importance of England and Englishness, Miliband was simultaneously reducing England to a territorial expression and Englishness to a bloodless malleable cultural construct essentially devoid of substance, continuity and distinctiveness. By adopting such a vapid approach to the question of England and Englishness, Miliband was thereby able to talk about “English identity [which for the Labour Party] has tended to be a completely closed book that people have shied away from.” Although Miliband may today have opened a book whose cover displayed the Cross of St George, its contents consisted of the same old Labour globalist internationalism. Whilst those such as Miliband may think that Englishness consists of nothing more than a flag and a bit of bunting, the English themselves know this not to be the case.

Ed Miliband's Scottish Muslim Misadventure

Poor Ed Miliband. He is not having a very good day. There he was thinking that a little light aping of George Galloway's antics would secure him the Muslim bloc vote in Glasgow's forthcoming local elections, but his "dhimmitude lite" approach seems to have left resident Muslims - one wealthy Muslim in particular - unimpressed. Muslim millionaire Mohammad Ramzan has switched his backing from Labour to the SNP. Embarrassingly for Miliband, Ramzan is both brother of ex-Labour MPMohammed Sarwar as well as the uncle of Anas Sarwar who happens to be Scottish Labour's deputy leader.

Labour's allure in its Glaswegian heartland is beginning to fade, and its power to crumble, Michael Crick noting that the party lost control of Glasgow Council a few weeks ago and that the SNP is exerting a strong appeal to traditional Labour voters. It has taken a while for indigenous Labour supporters to notice that "their party" is theirs no longer, and is instead a party obsessed with courting ethnic minority votes and bestowing privileges upon members of ethnic minorities. In Scotland at least, it would appear that what is now a misplaced age-old Labout tribalism is finally disintegrating. What is equally interesting is how Labour's automatic assumption that it can secure the Muslim vote is dissolving, with Ramzan's move here, and Galloway's success in Bradford West, seeming to indicate that it can no longer be taken for granted. Still, these changing political realities do not seem to have awakened Miliband to the folly of Labour's policy of non-indigenous ethnic preference, and its recent destructive embrace of "faith" as a valid facet of identity and basis for policy. Balkanisation proceeds apace.

Into this post-industrial and post-ideological (in terms of the big three parties in Britain) age, the new sectarian divide in Glasgow is not between Protestant and Catholic, but between Muslim and non-Muslim as in so many other cities across Britain. Some might term the distinctive sense of Muslim identity "vibrant" and "assertive", whereas others might perceive many of its characteristics to be alien and aggressively domineering. Nonetheless, Labour's love of multiculturalism will not suffer the party's members to entertain any apprehensions about the overwhelmingly positive and cuddly contribution of minorities to life in this country, hence Miliband's craven courting of the Muslim bloc vote which has this evening led him to a Glasgow mosque. There he will be inaugurating a new group named Muslim Friends of Labour in Scotland. He will doubtless have warm words to lavish upon his Muslim hosts, but what thoughts will his audience harbour of him? How readily might they turn their coats and become Muslim Friends of the SNP?

If Labour support slumps in Scotland next week, how secure will Ed Miliband remain in his post as Labour leader? Ed Balls, amongst others, is probably feeling quite happy. 

Mohammad Ramzan

Taking the Piste: Davos on a Dinner Lady's Wages

“Irresponsible, left-wing and weak”. That is how David Cameron described Ed Miliband at today’s Prime Minister’s Question Time. I would prefer to characterise Miliband the Younger as an ignorant little rich boy, completely out of touch with the living standards of ordinary people. Why do I take this view? Well, how else could one possibly interpret his following retort to David Cameron:

“Unlike the Prime Minister, I’m not gonna demonise the dinner lady, the cleaner, the nurse. People who earn in a week what the Chancellor pays for his annual skiing holiday.”

Jesus! Unless George Osborne is booking last minute no-frills out-of-season deals in Bulgaria when there’s not a flake of snow to be seen, and is cashing in his loyalty card points on some supermarket special offer, cleaners, dinner ladies and nurses must be coining it. I’ve evidently gone into the wrong career and am now contemplating picking up duster, bucket and mop and getting down to work.

Cleaners typically earn the minimum wage of £6.08 per hour, as do dinner ladies. Nurses, naturally, earn rather more. So, assuming a standard 37-hour working week, a cleaner would earn £224.96 before deductions for tax and National Insurance. Dinner ladies tend to work part-time, so let’s be generous and say 25 hours on £6.08 which yields £152 gross. Are we then to assume that George Osborne spends in the region of £150 to £225 for his annual skiing holiday? Now, I’m thrifty, but even I’d be dubious about taking a skiing holiday (if I could ski) costing that amount. So, how much do such holidays actually cost?

Casting around the internet, I came across some good deals, the cheapest being 7 nights self-catering based on four sharing in Andorra. Including the flight from Manchester it came to £199. Another of the cheaper destinations – the Bulgarian resorts of Borovets and Bansko – offered skiing holidays from £342 per person. However, I am not convinced that Osborne would favour Andorra or Bulgaria, and might instead prefer somewhere with a little more snob appeal, such as Val d’Isere. Here, the cheapest deal on offer clocks in at £285, although there are some snags such as the following not being included: flights; food and bed linen. So, if the Chancellor should be tighter than old man Steptoe, be flexible enough to be able to go on holiday at the drop of a hat, and have eaten and imbibed enough to sustain himself for a week without recourse to meat or drink, then he might be able to survive for this period at an Andorran ski resort on a cleaner’s average wages. Even then, he’d have to walk to and from the airports both at home and in Andorra, so Miliband’s claim doesn’t really seem to add up.

Having looked at bargain basement ski deals, let’s take a look at what the Chancellor might actually spend on a week’s skiing holiday in Val d’Isere or Davos. I suggest that he would want at least four-star accommodation which would need to be exclusive enough to avoid the unwanted attentions of the ‘hoi polloi’. As you can see from the following link, he might just be able to get a good deal for £929 in Davos next month, or shell out somewhere in the region of £1,400 or £1,600 if he’s not quite so flexible with his dates.

So there we have it: Miliband claims that “the dinner lady, the cleaner, the nurse. . . . earn in a week what the Chancellor pays for his annual skiing holiday.” Nice work if you can get it: £1,400 a week for cleaning. Count me in! Evidence, if any were needed, that Miliband lives in La La Land, or, more accurately, a £1.6 million home in Dartmouth Park. 'Red Ed?' He ought to be red with embarrassment at today’s gaffe. Does he really have any idea of how much working-class people earn? Incidentally, the Milibands must have a cleaner or two. Does anyone know how much they earn? Watch Miliband make a fool of himself in the House of Commons today below the charming picture of the Davos piste.

Piste in Davos: is that a dinner lady or George Osborne?

The TUC march against Cuts: why not against Globalisation?

An estimated 100,000 people are said to be heading to London today to participate in a TUC-organised protest against government spending cuts. Of course, there is a justifiable and palpable sense of anger at the axing of jobs and public services, but I wonder, how many of those people taking to the streets today actually comprehend what lies at the root of the cuts and the economic crisis that has brought them about? I am of course, referring to globalisation. Given that the TUC and the last government (as well as the current one of course) are vigorous advocates and enablers of this process, this protest is utterly misdirected and quixotic. If those who march today genuinely wish to defend public services and jobs, they should be marching against globalisation.

Whereas the BBC and other media outlets invariably highlight the expense arising from the policing of EDL demonstrations, there is no such mention of the costs of deploying 4,500 police in London today.

Disgracefully, one of the unprincipled architects of our current economic plight – Ed Miliband – will be attending the march, despite the fact that he has no alternative suggestions to remedy the budget deficit or our economic malaise. His profligate globalising policies would only serve to hasten our terminal decline. According to the BBC, Miliband yesterday stated

‘that “the voices of the mainstream majority” would be making themselves heard.’

“I think the government will be making a great mistake if they somehow dismiss all of the people on that march as troublemakers or just ‘the same old people’. They are not.” '

If you took part in this march today, please wake up to the fact that what you are doing will count for absolutely nothing if you do not actively oppose globalisation and instead seek to defend our national interests and national sovereignty.

“The Muslim community provides a huge vibrancy and richness to British life”. Ed Miliband

Thus said the leader of the Labour Party in a recent interview. Like his brother, the Islamophiliac David, Ed believes in promoting multiculturalism red in tooth and claw and is probably tattooed with a halal kitemark: 100% dhimmi. In response to a question from the editor of The Muslim News, Ahmed J. Versi, as to what his “relationship with the Muslim community” will look like, Miliband replied:

I want to make a new start with the Muslim community. The Muslim community provides a huge vibrancy and richness to British life. It is very important that we acknowledge that and it is something that I am seeking to do that as a Leader of the Labour Party. I want to do and will do, in terms of my outreach conversations with the Muslim community. I had very interesting experiences when I was Minister for Voluntary Sector in talking to various groups that were involved in the Muslim community.

Of course, I’ve never trusted either of the Miliband brothers, or for that there political home – the Labour Party – for many years. Nonetheless, it is worth repeatedly drawing our people’s attention to the fact that Miliband the younger, just as Cameron, Clegg and Simon Hughes, is very actively courting the Muslim bloc vote. All are willing to maintain and extend Muslim special privileges in doing so, irrespective of Cameron’s cynically calculated public condemnation of state-promoted multiculturalism.

What is Miliband referring to when he refers to “a huge vibrancy and richness”? Any suggestions? A few curry houses and mosques sprouting like toxic toadstools? The abuse of language by the advocates of multiculturalism in recent years has come to stigmatise previously innocuous terms such as ‘diversity’, ‘vibrancy’ and ‘enrichment’, for they have been employed as euphemisms for ‘Balkanisation’, ‘aggressive and shrill minority assertiveness’ and ‘erosion of indigenous culture and confidence’. And what does Miliband imply when he says that Labour must “acknowledge” these putatively positive contributions? Additional legal concessions to Islam and targeted investment in ‘deprived’ Muslim colonies (‘communities’ in newspeak)?

It was sad to see the return of a Labour candidate to Barnsley Central recently, with 63% of the 37% of voters who bothered to turn out putting their cross in the Labour box. People in places such as Barnsley need to wake up to the fact that this inherited tribal party loyalty is long since past its sell-by date. Their Labour Party of old died decades ago, and embraced the principles of the New Left with its obsessive focus upon ethnic minority special privileges, jettisoning its previous concern with the bread and butter issues of the daily welfare of the working people and the protection of their jobs and standard of living.

The mainstream Labour Party view today is that Barnsley fully deserves its pariah label as a ‘racist town’, simply because it still contains an overwhelming majority of English people. They would much prefer Barnsley if it were to have a large ‘vibrant’ Pakistani ‘community’. How about some Somalis with an admixture of Kosovans for good measure? Who knows what the future could bring: a sprinkle of Libyans and Tunisians perhaps? Barnsley folk however, are I daresay all too aware of the ‘vibrancy’ of nearby towns and cities such as Dewsbury, Bradford and Sheffield, and would rather cleave to the pleasantly non-vibrant social milieu of England in its pre-‘enrichment’ years. The Milibands of this world however, will never deviate from the view that ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ and that the English are essentially a vile bunch of ‘racists’. Don’t vote Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat. Look elsewhere for parties to support, which care about our country and our people, and do not seek to provide privileges to aggressive minority interlopers.

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.