Channel 4’s Immigration Celebration

Channel 4 is seemingly going into overdrive in the run-up to the election, churning out a greater than usual stream of pro-mass immigration propaganda. Just over a week ago we had its defamatory hatchet job on UKIP with ‘UKIP: The First 100 Days’, whereas this evening we’re treated to an immigration double bill with ‘The Romanians are Coming’, followed immediately by ‘Immigration Street’. Its senior editorial staff are clearly hoping that they can assist in neutering UKIP’s influence on the immigration debate through endlessly repeating the mantras of ‘diversity is good’ and ‘mass immigration is good’, with an aim of making the UK ‘safely’ hyper-diverse forever.

Why is the channel doing this? Well, turning to ‘Immigration Street’, with a director named Afi Khan and a producer called Masood Khan, would we really expect to see a programme that was anything other than ‘celebratory’ about enforced ethnic hyper-diversity?

Channel 4 has also been giving the Green Party a fair amount of airtime. Part of it this evening was perhaps not that welcome, owing to Nathalie Bennett’s earlier bungled radio interview in which she made a fool of herself by being unable to answer basic questions about the Green’s much-vaunted flagship housing policy. The channel’s ‘Political Slot’ after the Channel 4 News allowed Caroline Lucas to talk about the Green policy of renationalising the railways and the goal of cutting rail fares by 12% (although she did not say over what period). How was this to be paid for? By cutting the road budget, apparently. One also harbours the suspicion that the Greens would introduce a swingeingly punitive set of taxes against motorists, being enemies of the car and individualism. Moreover, one must not forget their ridiculous policy of introducing a 20mph speed limit in all urban areas, which would increase pollution and decrease fuel efficiency.

Still, at least it can be hoped that an increase in support for the Greens will damage the Labour Party, although it seems more likely that it will hoover up more former Liberal Democrat voters.

What are your thoughts on ‘Immigration Street’? How has your neighbourhood changed since Tony Blair vowed to destroy the ‘forces of conservatism’? How many of us realised that by ‘forces of conservatism’ he was referring to the very existence of the nation and its continuity of history across the generations?

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?

Readers’ General Election Poll Results

In the best tradition of John Snow’s “just a bit of fun”, I am about to introduce readers to the results of the past week’s readers’ poll as to their voting intentions in the forthcoming General Election. It may not come as a huge surprise that the results here diverge somewhat from the national opinion polls, but one characteristic is shared by both: the unpopularity of the Liberal Democrats. If this blog’s readers were to determine the future composition of Westminster the Liberal Democrats would be wiped out, for in total, 0% of this blog’s readers voted for them. Likewise, nobody declared in favour of either Respect or Plaid Cymru.

Turning to the ‘don’t knows’, readers are rather more likely to know whom they wish to vote for than the electorate as a whole, with only 9% stating that they do not yet know which party they will vote for on 7 May. Next come four parties with 4% apiece: Conservatives, the English Democrats, Labour and the SNP. Securing the support of 9% of readers are the Green Party, which would become the official opposition in the House of Commons elected by Durotrigan’s readers. However, storming home with a landslide majority are UKIP, who secured the support of 61% of poll participants.

Thus, if we omit the ‘don’t knows’ for the time being, blog readers would return a Parliament looking as follows: on the government benches, led by Nigel Farage, would be 445 UKIP MPs, whilst leading the opposition would be Natalie Bennett with 69 Green MPs. The Conservatives, English Democrats, Labour and the SNP would each ‘boast’ 34 MPs. Somewhere, in a far distant galaxy, perhaps this will be the outcome. As for here, well, we’ll have to wait and see. Watch this space for election commentary.

In the meantime, please feel free to take part in the new readers’ poll ‘What will our Government look like after the 2015 General Election?’ which has now opened and will run until next Sunday evening. 

Green Party Immigration Policy: Reckless and Destructive

Feeling tempted to vote Green? Then think again. Yesterday, the Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett sought to grab the headlines by announcing that the Greens wish to increase spending on social housing from £1.5 billion to £6 billion per annum by 2017, building an additional 500,000 rented ‘homes’ by this year. ‘Homes’? What form would these ‘homes’ take? Would they be the ugly, diminutive battery-style units that have shot up in our increasingly overpopulated land over the past couple of decades, or something else? Where would they be built? Who would occupy them? In fact, if we dig a little further, it is evident that this policy, given the Green approach to immigration, is both ill-founded and grossly inadequate, revealing the Green Party to be anything but environmental in its orientation. Its policies actually veer towards communism rather than towards environmentalism, and if implemented would result in a marked decrease in both environmental and living standards in the UK, in England in particular. 

If one looks at the party’s statements on migration (note its use of the term ‘migration’, rather than ‘immigration’) which were last updated in September 2014, it is clear that these proposed new ‘homes’ would in themselves not meet the demands of the many hundreds of thousands, if not upwards of a million, immigrants who would enter the country if the Greens got their way, for they believe in a world without borders. For most people in the UK – who have not arrived here recently, or who do not who view themselves as possessing a hyphenated identity linking them to some other country – the Green approach to immigration cannot be viewed as appealing in any way. In fact, it is nothing short of recklessly irresponsible, being to the clear detriment of our national environment, way of life, and, indeed, survival. Am I lapsing into hyperbole with respect to their approach to this issue? Judge for yourself by viewing these statements taken from the ‘Migration’ section of its website:

MG102 We are aware that, in the 21^st century, there is likely to be mass migration of people escaping from the consequences of global warming, environmental degradation, resource shortage and population increase.

MG203 Richer regions [by which they mean ‘regions’ of the globe, i.e. nation-states or the EU, for example] do not have the right to use migration controls to protect their privileges from others in the long term.

MG300 We will work to achieve greater equity between the UK and non-Western countries. In step with this, we will progressively reduce UK immigration controls.

MG420 We will resist all attempts to introduce a 'barrier round Europe' shutting out non-Europeans or giving them more restricted rights of movement within Europe than European Nationals.

There are many other statements in line with the above, which make it clear that other than limiting population influxes into Antarctica (scarcely a popular destination for humans, but favoured by emperor penguins) and national parks, the Greens are seemingly open to the idea of concreting over anywhere and everywhere in pursuit of their open-bordered dystopia. Their 500,000-home proposal would not even be adequate to meet the pent-up demand for social housing, for there are currently 1.8 million people on the waiting list. All of these homes, and more, would be needed for a nigh on limitless supply of immigrants, from countries such as Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Nigeria, etc. As well as imposing massive strains upon the economy, public services, utilities, transport infrastructure and the environment, what would this do to an already intensely cleft and fractured ‘society’, lacking any cohering values and sense of identity? 

The Greens are utopian idealists who, if they were provided with the opportunity to actively influence policy, would bring about a deliberate and calculated massive decline in the living standards of people in this country, as well as a significant degradation of this country’s environment. The Green Party cannot be adjudged to be an environmentalist party, for its policies actively promote massive population expansion at the expense of the natural environment. It cannot claim to be a party of social justice, as it seeks to snuff out the existence of the peoples of Europe and to reduce the living standards of UK and European citizens.

The Green Party gives expression to a poisonous strand of masochistic thought in the UK and other European societies that sees our country, and other European and developed nations, as being the authors of all of the ills in the world. The Green Party seeks to punish us for ‘sins’ that we have never committed. Given this, who, in their right mind, if they happen to be English, Welsh, Scots or Irish, would vote for the Greens? If you genuinely care for the environment and a sustainable approach to population and resource use, do not vote Green. If you support the principles of democracy, and subscribe to the belief that politics, ultimately, should be concerned with the business of improving the wellbeing of the citizenry, then do not vote Green. If you believe that the Green Party will be different to all of the others because it is more honest and will not lie, think again. On 18 January the Guardian reported that Natalie Bennett had stated on the Andrew Marr Show that ‘the party did not have an open-door policy on immigration, but those who have a right to immigrate should be entitled to exercise that right. She also questioned why Germany had been willing to take 20,000 refugees from Syria, and the UK figure was in the low hundreds.’ How does that square with the Green Party’s clear and unequivocal policy statements on immigration? It doesn’t. The Green Party might look fluffy, but at its heart, lies something rather sinister, and fundamentally anti-progressive. Do not be duped!

No Respect from Salma: Yaqoob quits

Not so long ago, George Galloway was cresting the wave of media popularity born of his spectacular success in the Bradford West by-election, but this evening he may be a little crestfallen following the resignation of colleague Salma Yaqoob. Not only has she resigned as Leader of Respect, but she has left the party altogether. This move, it seems, has been precipitated by Galloway's recent notorious comments about "bad sexual etiquette" in connection with the rape allegations made against Julain Assange. Yaqoob issued a statement on the Respect Party website that read:

It is with deep regret that I have decided to resign from Respect. The last few weeks have been extremely difficult for everyone in the party. I feel necessary relations of trust and collaborative working have unfortunately broken down. I have no wish to prolong those difficulties, and indeed hope that they may now be drawn to a close.

I remain committed to the principles and values that led me to help found Respect. The policies we have fought for need to be voiced as loud as ever in opposition to a political establishment that remains out of touch with working people.

I would like to thank everyone in the party for their support over the years; I wish everyone the very best for the future and in those common struggles for peace, justice and equality that I am sure we will all continue to be involved in.

Other than Galloway, Yaqoob was the most publicly visible member of Respect, and quite where her resignation leaves the party is an interesting question. According to The Telegraph and Argus, Galloway himself is tomorrow due to address an all-female audience in the form of the Bradford Muslim Women's Council, which should, given recent events, lead to some interesting questioning. It would seem that Rula Lenska's pussy won't be purring by this time tomorrow evening. Another question begs to be answered: will Yaqoob join the Green Party? In terms of policy, it would seem a natural fit for her. Wherever she goes, The Guardian will obligingly swoon about her every move.

Rula Lenska's Pussy

The Green Party (“Green” as in Naïve)

Widespread disaffection with mainstream political parties appears to have caused many people to despair of party politics altogether, but for some, they have posed themselves the question: “Where can I find a new political home?” Many have yet to move beyond this stage, for they have not seen anything that appeals to them; but, at a guess, a natural political home for some grassroots Liberal Democrats, disgruntled at their party’s partnership with the Conservatives, could lie with the seemingly cuddly Green Party. Not only are members of the two parties said to share a penchant for sandals, but also a passion for open borders, multiculturalism and reducing our standard of living through radically increasing the cost of the one thing upon which modern life and conveniences are dependent: energy.

This weekend sees the Green Party hold its annual conference in Bristol, its yearly opportunity to enjoy a fleeting moment in the media spotlight (or preferably, candlelight derived from non-tallow based sources), following its canny move of changing Leader one week in advance of the gathering and thereby providing an extended period of media coverage. Gone is Caroline Lucas, replaced by former Guardian Weekly editor and ex-Aussie Natalie Bennett. It is therefore unsurprising to find that her former employer is offering the Greens - a 'new force on the radical left' - considerable coverage and support, in which it becomes evident that most of Bennett’s political flak seems to be directed towards the LabourParty, whose voters she seeks to court.

Although the Green Party is still relatively small, possessing in 2010 a membership of 12,768 (I hesitate to refer to “national membership”, for as you will see below, Greens really don’t like the word “national”, considering it to be a ‘nasty’, ‘bigoted’ and ‘racist’ term), it did manage to win two seats in the EU elections in 2009, and Caroline Lucas succeeded in taking the party’s first Westminster seat the following year in Brighton Pavilion. In 2009, its size and degree of electoral success were roughly on a par with that of the BNP (which subsequently went into terminal meltdown), but unlike the BNP, the party has always enjoyed a degree of sympathetic media coverage, which, owing to the radically destabilising nature of its policies were they ever to be implemented, it really does not merit.

The Greens, somehow, have come to be thought of as the ‘nice’ party, and their general philosophical stance – anti-Western, anti-national and anti-science – has for some inexplicable reason been deemed to be acceptable; an acceptance indicative of a strong current of generalised cultural masochism and misplaced ethnic and national ‘guilt’ that has polluted mainstream thought and discourse in Britain today. If one song could be said to encapsulate Green Party sentiment, it would be John Lennon’s tuneful but rather sickly Imagine; a song justly parodied, owing to Lennon's and Ono’s lifestyle, by a certain Reg Dwight, who was moved to write:

Imagine six apartments

It isn’t hard to do

One is full of fur coats

The other’s full of shoes

Anyway, I digress. Returning to the Green Party, it would be a great pity if voters were to remain ignorant of its actual policies rather than its cuddly-sounding name and image, and were thus to mistakenly lend its candidates their votes. People need to be made aware of what it actually stands for, which really is not very pleasant at all; moreover, in reality it is not very “Green”, for the policies that it advocates would lead to a significant deterioration in our environment at home, as well as our general standard of living.   

There are many things deeply wrong with the Green Party’s approach and policy platform, but two key aspects of its policy work strongly against preserving the environment: its advocacy of an open borders policy and ongoing mass immigration coupled with an unwillingness to recognise that only the economically undeveloped peoples of Africa, Asia and elsewhere can solve their own problems of overpopulation and resource depletion through the widespread use of contraception. The Green’s immigration policy for Britain would be a disaster. Taking into consideration the massive strains already placed upon national infrastructure, housing, social services, water and food supplies and our countryside by our ineffective immigration regime, consider the implications of the following statements taken from the Green Party website:

Statement on the Coalition’s Immigration Cap, Party Conference, Sheffield 2011

The Green Party reaffirms it's commitment to a liberal immigration policy. Everyone is equal no matter what the colour of their passport. The Coalition's policy of introducing an immigration cap restricts people's rights based purely on their nationality, harms the economy and is not conducive to a free and happy society. The Green Party is in favour of a real review of border controls that takes in the full benefits of immigration and stops treating those who are not native to the UK as a problem.

Green Party Policy Statements
MG300 We will work to achieve greater equity between the UK and non-Western countries. In step with this, we will progressively reduce UK immigration controls.

MG405 Migrants illegally in the UK for over five years will be allowed to remain unless they pose a serious danger to public safety.

MG420 We will resist all attempts to introduce a 'barrier round Europe' shutting out non-Europeans or giving them more restricted rights of movement within Europe than European Nationals.

MG102 We are aware that, in the 21st century, there is likely to be mass migration of people escaping from the consequences of global warming, environmental degradation, resource shortage and population increase.

MG430 We will produce and implement contingency plans for the future financial and other support of environmental migrants. We will encourage such planning by international agencies, non-governmental organisations, other countries, the European Community and local government.

MG103 The Green Party recognises the contributions made by many migrants to their recipient area or community. We value the cultural diversity and intercultural awareness resulting from both temporary residence and migration.

MG205 Migration policies should not discriminate directly on grounds of race, colour, religion, political belief, disability, sex or sexual orientation. Preference should not be given to those with resources or desirable skills.

When it comes to nationality policy, its objectives are chilling:

NY100 Over the last decades, British nationality law has been used to restrict the number of Black people having the right to live in the UK while maximising the opportunities for white non-residents with British ancestors to retain this right. The Green Party believes that such nationality laws must be reformed.

Objectives

NY300 We will work to create a world of global inter-responsibility in which the concept of a 'British national' is irrelevant and outdated.

The Green Party wishes to eradicate not only the nation-state, but also any natural common affective bonds of culture and kinship. Although it also portrays itself as being in favour of women’s rights, it, like the rest of the hard Left of which it is in reality a part, shows itself to be in league with a certain misogynist and anti-rational creed named Islam. Speaking at the Muslim News Awards in April 2007, Green Party Principal Speak Dr Derek Wall stated:

Islamic teachings work in a holistic system which recognises the interactions between the diverse areas of life and society such as economics and health, peace and conflict, within which environmental care is also integrated.

The emphasis on spiritual development, on our relationship with the world around us, means Islam has many things to teach the environmentalist movement.

There is a strong concern with environmental protection and sustainable stewardship in the Koran, which has something to teach all of us Muslim and non Muslim alike.

If you have ever considered voting Green, I hope that after reading this small selection of Green Party policies you will desist from doing so. If you are genuinely interested in conserving our environment, protecting our countryside and following a sustainable economic and demographic policy that does not entail destroying your standard of living, a new political party will be launching very soon that will have such concerns at the heart of its mission. For more information, return here in the weeks ahead. 

The Greens are waiting with arms wide open, just as in The Camp of the Saints.

The Green Party: recycling bad ideas