Sayeeda Warsi plays the Race Card

Why was Sayeeda Warsi created a life peer at the age of 36 in 2007? What has she done to merit the title of ‘Baroness’? A failed Conservative candidate, who specialised in immigration law who is said to have opportunistically selected the Conservative Party because it seemed to offer her the best chance of career progression, and who has spent time working for Pakistan’s ‘Ministry of Law’. How does that experience and background translate into the right to hold such an honour, or to take on the role of Chairman of our governing political party? The number of better-qualified candidates is legion, so why was she selected? What does she have to offer, that others could not? In what manner does she purport to defend and advance our national interests? How can she speak, with any authority, on behalf of the nation, or of the English?

I ask these questions today, as Warsi once again takes up the baton to fight on behalf of maintaining the right of chain-migration from outside of the EU, using the spurious pretext of familial reunion, which of course is only invoked when those in question wish to be reunited in our country rather than in their familial country of origin (remember the case of Rashida Chapti?). Warsi has knowingly chosen to play the race card, claiming that Theresa May’s proposed immigration reforms ‘could be considered racist’ because of the stated intent of preventing ‘UK citizens earning under £40,000 to bring in a foreign wife or husband,’ although this has subsequently been reduced to £18,600 with a £2,200 allowance for each child. Warsi claims that this will effectively be a ‘whites only’ policy.

Now, might this outburst from Warsi have something to do with the fact that she is currently under scrutiny for ‘possible breaches of the ministerial code’ and thus may be considering a forced return to her old field of legal practice, immigration law? What would she do if she couldn’t return to the profitable business of expediting Pakistani chain migration? Quite clearly, Warsi is not fit to hold a position of political influence in this country because she actively undermines the first principle of democracy – the right of a people to political self-determination – by seeking to change the human fabric of the body politic itself, thereby denying our right to national self-determination. It should be up to us, and to us alone, to determine who may live here and who may be granted the rights of citizenship. We should not be in a position, where decisions upon the allocation of such a status are within the gift of an individual possessed of a cleft identity, who in ethnic and religious terms clearly identifies more with her ancestral familial homeland and culture, than with the native people of her country of residence. Her stance and actions pave the way for national dissolution through mass immigration, as advocated recently by European-nation despising Peter Sutherland. 

How many conservatives with a small ‘c’ genuinely support what the Conservative Party has become? Do they really think that it seeks to represent them today, being as it is pro-EU, pro-mass immigration and pro-multiculturalism? Isn’t it time that they started looking around for other political options to support? 

The Politics of the eternal Mirage

The Conservatives will bring us a referendum over EU membership! The Conservatives will scrap the Human Rights Act! This, so the Daily Mail and Telegraph would have you believe, is what is going to happen. Really? David Cameron gave his “cast-iron” guarantee that we would be allowed a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and the Conservatives in office have pledged to cut immigration to the UK to “the tens of thousands”. What happened? You know well enough: no referendum over Lisbon, and the first year of the Conservative Liberal Democrat Coalition witnessed an increase in net immigration to the UK.

The Daily Mail’s near-hysterical jubilation over an announcement that there would be a debate in the House of Commons over whether or not to hold a referendum on EU membership would have the reader think that the UK’s withdrawal from the emergent superstate was a done deal. Quite clearly, it is not, for other than the miniscule cross-party ‘Better off out’ group (despite its title, it should not be confused with anything to do with Peter Tatchell’s hobbyhorse) in the Commons, who is there who would wish to ‘risk’ the public expressing its desire to leave the EU? Next to nobody. Both William Hague and David Cameron have been quick to stress their belief in the benefits of EU membership. The reality is, the only elements of the EU which they would like to see removed are those which accord some form of protection to people in low-paid and precarious employment. 

Theresa May says that she supports scrapping the HumanRights Act. This is about as meaningful as Obama saying that he supports a manned mission to Mars. Both May and Obama feel favourably predisposed towards these eventualities, but both know that they don’t stand a chance of coming about whilst they’re in office. Whereas the prospects of a manned Mars mission are held back by a combination of an absence of financial resources, an ailing NASA and a lack of real political will, the repeal of the Human Rights Act is blocked by the visceral opposition of the Liberal Democrats. Any move to jettison the act could put the Coalition in jeopardy, and that is why it is going to stay in force.

Thus, in an effort to portray the Conservative Party in a favourable light, both the Mail and the Telegraph have in effect run two ‘non-stories’ over the past week, tapping into the frustrated desires both of typical Tory voters and of the wider British public. “Are you thinking what I’m thinking?” Conservative talk about these matters and its reporting in the slavishly obedient Tory press should thus be perceived as nothing more than populist mood music intended to improve the image of the Conservative Party rather than being indicative of any actual intent, let alone impending political action. This, naturally, is highly cynical and what we have correctly come to expect of the careerist politicians in our mainstream political parties. This is the politics of the eternal mirage: the mirage of democracy.

Is the Conservative Party a nationalist party? No. Is the Conservative Party a patriotic party? No. Is the Conservative Party the cod-British façade of globalist financial oligarchy? Yes!