And another thing…

The Swiss Vote

Your chance to take part

HERE

Indeed. It’s high time Scottish immigration into England was acknowedged as the problem it is.

All these pale blue punters, and I can’t understand a word they say. SPEAK ENGLISH, MAN.

Seriously, though, after thirteen years of betraying your core voters and the UK at large, it takes quite breath-taking cheek to start banging this drum now.

Its all far to late for Labour over this. The BNP is on the way thanks to your voting system

The screams of racism have drowned out what should have been an informative debate between two sides, each with valid points.

As it stands, anyone who thinks immigration is a bad thing is a racist xenophobe and is in league with the BNP. This schoolyard level of debate is not helped by the media but politicians must also take their share of the blame. To whoop and cheer when a Tory says something about immigration because Labour then get to call him a racist demeans all of politics and the country as a whole. For top Tories to avoid the subject doesn’t help either.

Perhaps we could have a televised debate that was accurately reported in the papers on some of the issues mentioned. Then the people could see that there are competing arguments and trade-offs are constantly being made when public policy is decided. Or we can just call each other names.

Scottish immigration into the UK is very important. No Englishman would accost me in the street begging for a “poond”, smelling of drain cleaner and looking like he lost a fight with a ginger cat (who has now taken up residence on his head).

We need to the Scots to remind us of how bad things can get.

The bare-faced cynicism of this almost takes the breath away. With an election some six months away, NewLabour has decided it better start “talking the same language of the people” you claim to represent.

Surprise, surprise.

Fortunately for the rest of us, it’s too late for your ideologically bankrupt party.

And by the way, I think you’ll find that the “economic growth to 2008″ you’re so proud of was actually fuelled by catastrophic levels of public and private debt. All the unfettered immigration did was allow millions of UK residents to sit on the sofa and claim benefits.

Well done.

People do not respect those whom they perceive to be dissembling.

That is why Chameleon is very likely to lose.

The BNP is on the way thanks to your voting system

No doubt.

The first past the post system has failed, leaving us with a choice of two parties that are pretty much the same thing. And both of them have been busy appeasing the BNP on topics such as immigration, getting tough on asylum and all that.

Oh and Mr Brown’s cracking “British jobs for British workers” springs to mind. Doh!

And when you talk immigration Mr Harris, what aspect of immigration are you actually talking about?

It was after the Labour government that opened the doors wide for workers from the EU succession countries (in 2004 was it?), while everybody else kept the doors firmly shut firmly shut.

Britain’s economic growth to 2008

Aye, very good Tom. Shame it’s evaporated, eh? Looks like we are going to spend the next ten to twenty years paying for New Labour’s fantasy growth.

Most of this is bang on the money and you only have yourselves to blame.

So concerned were you with being “nice” and chasing the rainbows of the politically correct agenda, that the only class you’ve being fighting for for the last 12 years is the Islington chattering classes. The Toynbee faction.

The working class have been left aghast time and time again as you’ve abandoned them to their fate whilst indulging in an almighty orgy of incompetent policy driven by middle-class, handwringing, liberal guilt.

You’ve done nothing for them and only served yourselves and now the reaper is waiting to claim his rewards.

The arrogance and delusion has been gut-wrenching but nowhere near as bad as the hypocrisy and corruption of traditional values.

The shame, and the guilt my friend, is all yours.

“No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

One of Nulabour’s many failures has been allowing 5.25 million people to sit on benefits while parroting the line that, ‘immigrants do the jobs the British people don’t want to do.’ Ignoring the inconvenient fact that those on the dole aren’t supposed to turn down the opportunity of work.

On balance though would I rather be served my coffee by an Eastern European girl who’s happy to be doing it rather than some ill-brought-up, ill-educated Brit who isn’t? Absolutely.

An unintended consequence then of Nulabour’s failed immigration policy is that we end up with a productive workforce camouflaging the consequences of Nulabour’s failed education policies.

Nice one, Sammy.

There’s more sense in that one post than in the entire annual output of Demos, The Fabian Society, and Compass put together.

(Labour Lost doesn’t count as a think-tank)

There’s a lot of angst about immigration (illegal or otherwise) that needs addressing by us effectively.

However, as you rightly noted, using the facts to say “actually immigration is very beneficial economically speaking” to somebody who has just lost their job tends to fall on deaf ears.

So how do you reconcile government policy between economic sense and populism? “Well if we new that, we wouldn’t need to ask the question in the first place.”

Tom, what exactly do your constituents say about immigration? Please be specific. Please tell us if you believe what they say about immigration is true and what you think should be done about it.
You seem to want to have it both ways in some respects, Tom. On the one hand you align yourself with government policies re asylum and then claim to be opposed to an elite with regards to immigration. How much more elite can you get than the government? It is the elite by definition isn’t it?

It’s good that you are coming to terms with the fact that there is an elite acting against the best interests of the country.

“Now, I’m not saying Merrick is entirely right about this”

So, Tom, just out of interest, which bits of this has he gotten wrong?

One by one, it seems that the social and cultural outlook of many is scorned upon by an elite who, whilst laughably painting themselves as on the side of the ‘oppressed’, choose to studiously ignore this particular subjugation. On issues ranging from school/parental discipline (’child abuse’), to capital punishment (’barbaric’), to patriotism (’Little Englander’), to Euro-scepticism (’xenophobic’), to immigration (’racist’), to morality (’bigoted’) – across all these issues and more, the general beliefs of vast swathes of the electorate are demonised and ridiculed by an elite interested only in securing the dominance of their own particular worldview.

Very true. But he forgot to mention the smoking ban, and us 15 million demonised and ridiculed and forgotten smokers. We haven’t gone away.

Has the penny honestly just dropped or is it all down to the election?

Stop being so two faced. You made your bed now lie in it.

This is one of the best posts (including most of the comments) ever, on this blog. It has captured the zeitgeist entirely.

FWIW, I don’t think Tom is guilty of being one of the “chattering classes” or a rocket munching Islingtonista. This post is one of several that have given clear signals about the dangers of swallowing the myths of the liberal elite, and as I implied yesterday, the tumbleweed could be heard wafting around the HoC in the arid wilderness of political imbecility.

If, as some think, the worm is turning, it is because people are smelling change. There is probably going to be a change of government in May. It is here that history, in one crucial respect, will repeat itself. Margaret Thatcher stands in symbolic relations to the end of union tyranny. She did not destroy the unions – they were decadent and moribund and had run out of moral authority. Everyone knew that the driving mandate of Trades Unionism was not fairness, it was greed.

What is happening today is that the liberal elite have run out of moral authority; they are revealed to be empty of goodness, of patriotism and of principle. If nothing else “climategate” is a paradigm.

Why did they do this? Well, it’s mostly their own guilt at being an elite in the first place, mediated by fuzzy existentialism and belief in nothingness.

The deserving poor, in their opinion, are conceived in the crucible of cynicism and sentimentality, not reality.

If you have lived at the bottom, if you have known what it is to be the only person in your family who had a job or a degree or achieved any measure of success, you know that to be poor is not noble, it is shit.

“They” just don’t get this. Unable to really identify with normality: perpetual poverty, low peer expectations, lack of opportunities, they impose top down solutions which are predicated on revenge and expiation of guilt, not the apotheosis of excellence.

Paulo Freire, in what can truly be said to be a seminal work, “The Pedagogy of the Opressed”, nailed the dilemma. To outrageously precis his libellus, Freire says that unless the poor (the oppressed masses) can appropriate their due degree of hegemony, of due status in the world, they must first appropriate the word. They must, take ownership of the the narrative, take ownership of the meanings of everyday words and use them to engage in the dialectic.

Perhaps, Tom, your constituents may be on the verge of snatching back that dialectic, the one that has been stolen from them, the one that the liberal elite has viciously kept to itself.

They may not say it right, but you are right – they generally mean well and they deserve to take hold of the narrative.

I wish I could say there is a figurehead, the kind that Thatcher was, that those who are denied a voice can rally around. Sadly there is not such a person. There must then be another way.

Off-topic I know, but too long for a tweet;
Have you got any links on that Total Politics event you apparently attended?

I’ve looked on their site and can’t find anything. Was it purely about the usage of new media?
I’d also be interested to hear your speech, although I’ll probably once again be frothing with pure rage at how foolish/stupid/misguided/wrong/ignorant/etc. you are….
Or not. I’ll reserve judgement…

“And they’re talking about their concerns now because it’s only now they feel they have “permission” to do so.”

That’s a very telling remark. Who would ever have imagined that, in Britain, people would one day feel that they needed ‘permission’ to voice their concerns. And where has this permission come from? Perception of a growing BNP or the dying days of this Government? Either way it’s not looking good for New Labour. After twelve years of ridicule, demonisation and spin, the electorate isn’t going to buy a change of heart in a Party six months before a GE, especially one that has reneged on manifesto promises.

Interesting article here, mentions immigration as a “weapon of destruction” and also lists Labours core achievements

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2216734/posts

This is a great post, Tom, well said.

It’s such a shame that it’s taken so long for some of these valid points to be raised (in general I mean), undoubtedly prompted in part I’m sure, by an upcoming election and the rise of the BNP.

Sadly though we’re seeing the same problem occurring again with the climate change (lack of) debate.

Like with immigration there appears to be an unwillingness to discuss it and those that do get shouted down with; ‘deniers’ or in Kerry McCarthy’s case, compared to Nick Griffin.

What is particularly notable with the CRU email leaks is that, although the science has been significantly undermined, there has been no calls for an inquiry or an investigation – the response in general has been, from politicians and media alike, silence…absolute silence.

Which brings me neatly onto ‘cast-iron windmill’ Dave. It appears his oh-so- clever policy on the EU has not gone down well with his party.

The latest poll clearly supports the recent trend of the Tories hemorrhaging support to UKIP. Dave of course is relying on the ‘boot Brown out ‘ factor, but if Labour were to get rid of brown before the election…

@Iain Gill

Whenever I mention that the NHS (and other forms of welfare) is coerced charitable giving that disproportionately hits the wealthiest in society, people always shout about their own self-interest, worried they will lose access to subsidised (by the rich) healthcare. Your example just shows how wrong that view is. In a fair society those that have paid into a so-called National Insurance program would be protected and those that haven’t (illegal/recent immigrants) would then have to rely on the non-coerced charity of others.

Should the wealthy give to charity to help those less fortunate? Morally, of course they should. Should I, and other poor folks, be able to force them to do so? Of course not, that is the politics of jealousy – should we be able to look at the US and say “you’re richer than us so you must give us some money.”? That is exactly what progressive tax funded welfare and income redistribution does.

I think we should be quite clear that much of the hysteria about Islam (rather than about islamo-fascists) comes from those for whom such antagonsims are a substitute for colour prejudice.

To differentiate between xenophobes, clear cut racists and those whose extreme religious prejudices is rather academic in my view because the effects are so similar.

The key connecting concept seems to me to be “untermenschen.”

http://britishnaziparty.blogspot.com/2009/06/2009-what-is-nazi.html

Frank Davis
But he forgot to mention the smoking ban, and us 15 million demonised and ridiculed and forgotten smokers
*********************************************

Aw let it go, mate.

For years I was told – if you don’t like cigarette smoke then don’t go to a pub.

Well, it gives me great pleasure to advise you (and the mythical 15 million) – if you *like* cigarette smoke don’t go to a pub.

Anyway I’m doing a 9 mile run this evening, you’re welcome to join me if your tar-caked lungs and diseased heart are up to it – I can always bring my cattle-prod just to help your tired carcass along.

Those who hate Muslims, Jews, or Roman Catholics or Protestants, or Pagans or Jedis simply because of their religion are as blinkered as those who hate black people, or brown people or white simply for their colour.

The key connecting concept seems to me to be stupidity.

And we are way, way past the point at which we can sneer “racist” at good people for daring to hold a view with which we’re uncomfortable
*********************************************

It is also heartening to note that, ‘we are way, way past the point at which we can sneer “Tory cuts” at good people for daring to suggest that perhaps public spending is just a tad too large.’

@Simon

“…Those who hate Muslims, Jews, or Roman Catholics or Protestants, or Pagans or Jedis simply because of their religion are as blinkered as those who hate black people, or brown people or white simply for their colour….”

Absolutely. One should only fear and hate those religions which have at their core the sacred requirement to seek out and destroy those who do not share their belief.

Religion is simply a choice, so is fully open to anyone’s contempt or dislike.

Colour is not, so hatred of it is insane.

@sammy – I think you’ll find that the £12 billion a year that the Government takes in tobacco duty doesn’t come from mythical people.

As a smoker who was once a non-smoker, I have sympathy for those who dislike smoke and had no objection to areas being set aside for non-smokers. How disappointing that anti-smokers like yourself are unwilling to reciprocate. Perhaps you’d like to voluntarily increase the tax you pay so that you needn’t accept the fiscal coantribution made by those you despise and believe shouldn’t be accommodated.

@Liberanos “One should only fear and hate those religions which have at their core the sacred requirement to seek out and destroy those who do not share their belief.”

Hating a religion is very different to hating the follower of a religion.

It’s wrong to hate Muslims because some fanatics murder innocent people, just as much as it’s wrong to hate Catholics because the IRA murdered innocent people.

Brave post, Tom. The British are an incredibly tolerant people, and have coped with the appalling levels of immigration over the past decade with forbearance and decency; one only has to look to the way in which the ordinary people of Brussels or Calais treat immigrants to see true intolerance.

It’s because of our good nature that we don’t blame the immigrants for immigrating, but rather blame the myopic regime responsible for allowing it – and for the good of the nation, Labour’s going to have to take a huge kicking on this one.

Labour’s alternative is to use government spin to switch blame and hostility to the immigrants themselves – not a course of action any right-minded person would support.

Your response is about the best available; ‘I’m sorry, we really screwed up.’ At least it has the virtue of honesty.

Jay
@sammy – I have …no objection to areas being set aside for non-smokers
*******************************************

No objection – wow – you’re all (distended, diseased and sclerotic) heart.

For 12 years NuLabour have followed the agenda of the Frankfurt School.

Rest assured that we, the silent people of England know and we will not be silent much longer.

In 12 years you have wrecked my country.

Race is separate from religion in those countries that have a civic notion of citizenship.

Asking somebody who decides to take advantage of our secular capitalist ways to tone down their religious identity is both sensible and fair.

By tone down I mean repudiate those aspects that conflict with the nature of the society you have chosen to take advantage of.

Labour and indeed the leftist movement have worked hard to ensure immigrants can both have cake and consume it. Neither achievable nor logical.

We now enjoy the results.

@Simon

“…It’s wrong to hate Muslims because some fanatics murder innocent people, just as much as it’s wrong to hate Catholics because the IRA murdered innocent people…”

Agree completely. It’s only a relatively few, deeply devout adherents who obey the core tenets.

Most Muslims are nowhere near that standard of piety.

Welcome to the Tory party Tom.

Oh, as for your ‘best intentions’, yeah, winning the debate was the intention.

It is a long observed leftie trait to assume not only no difference between their point of view and the public good, but that they can never be different.

For a leftie to win is a good intention. therefore anything goes.

A fine and ballsy post by the way.

@sammy – thought some places wouldn’t be enough for you – you want every, single place. That’s called selfishness. Living in a society necessitates tolerance and, you know, you, yourself, might actually indulge in behaviour which other people find inconsiderate, offensive or inexplicable.

So, when are you going to write to your MP to suggest that the Government should prohibit tobacco or do you think that it’s morally permissible to accept payment from people whose interests are to be totally disregarded?

@Simon & Liberanos
“It’s wrong to hate Muslims because some fanatics murder innocent people, just as much as it’s wrong to hate Catholics because the IRA murdered innocent people.”

Can I hate Catholics (or all Christians) because they tell me I will burn for eternity in hell because I don’t follow their brand of lunacy?

Can I hate Muslims for thinking that a better way for all women to dress is in a dress with a slit for the eyes and nothing else?

Can I hate Jews for commanding the genital mutilation of children?

Religious people are not separate from the religion they claim to follow. If they don’t agree with the central tennets of their religion they should cease to say they are Muslim, Christian etc. While you cannot blame moderates for the actions of the extremists you can blame moderates for the inherent hatred/intolerance in their religion.

It’s like hating someone who agrees with capital punishment, they may say they do not agree with killing the innocent but it is inevitable so they are culpable.

For those who didn’t read my link, here is the central part of the paper.

To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution – but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future – the School recommended (among other things):

1. The creation of racism offences.
Labour – TICK

2. Continual change to create confusion
Labour – TICK

3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
Labour – TICK

4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
Labour – TICK

5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
Labour – TICK

6. The promotion of excessive drinking
Labour – TICK

7. Emptying of churches
Labour – TICK

8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
Labour – TICK

9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
Labour – TICK

10. Control and dumbing down of media
Labour – TICK

11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family
Labour – TICK

One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pansexualism’ – the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:

• attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
Labour – TICK

• abolish differences in the education of boys and girls
Labour – TICK

• abolish all forms of male dominance – hence the presence of women in the armed forces
Labour – TICK

• declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’
Labour – TICK

Munzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation thus: ‘We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.’
Labour – TICK

We have been defeated from within.

@Paul “Religious people are not separate from the religion they claim to follow. If they don’t agree with the central tennets of their religion they should cease to say they are Muslim, Christian etc. ”

I’m not sure it’s our place to say what constitutes a Muslim or a Christian. Jesus never mentioned burning in hell.

And the central tennets of Islam are the 5 Pillars, none of which say it’s your duty to kill non-believers.

Oh and by the way, today is a special day (hat tip to Archbishop Cranmer)

On this day, the ‘Constitution for Europe’ becomes law, and the ‘President of Europe’ becomes our head of state. The Queen is still the Queen, but she is now subject to the provisions of the new constitution. The Prime Minister is still the Prime Minister, but he is now obliged to promote the aims and objectives of the European Union over and above those of the United Kingdom.

Talking of immigration…

@Simon

“…And the central tenets of Islam are the 5 Pillars, none of which say it’s your duty to kill non-believers…”

Clearly,someone needs to tell this those hundreds of proud families rejoicing at the martyrdom of their sons, and then inform the hundreds of senior clerics all over the world, including many here, who join them in exhortation and celebration.

Pretending the rules are not as they are is probably not the best way of removing the danger.

@Simon
“I’m not sure it’s our place to say what constitutes a Muslim or a Christian. Jesus never mentioned burning in hell.”

Pretty sure it is. Either their story book is inspired by the inerrant creator of the universe or it’s a bunch of nonsense. If they believe the former then we can entirely judge them based on that book, if the latter then they are NOT Christian/Muslim/Jew/whatever they choose to call themselves.

Someone who wants no government spending in a recession can call themselves a Keynesian but they’re not. Someone who thinks we are all saved regardless of our position on Jesus may call themselves a Christian but they’re not. Someone calling for a minimalist government may claim to be a socialist but they’re not.

We do not let people self-define themselves when they contradict that with their words and deeds.

Jesus said we are ONLY saved through him. The New testament is full of passages saying belief in Jesus is a pre-requisite for eternal bliss in heaven. I never said anything about Muslims killing non-believers, but their funny book does say that it is their duty to kill anyone who leaves their religion, anyone who blasphemes, anyone performing witchcraft (as indeed does Christianity).

@Sergeant Plodder – what was the ultimate aim of Frankfurt School? And why was teaching children about sex and homosexuality a central part of it? Sound like a bunch of loonies to me.

Puerile to imagine that the literal reading of religious texts by those who loathe the adherents of any religion defines the faithful.

Just the sort of attitude the nazis had towards the jews.

Paul

Read the link. Post Marxist loonies (Herbert Marcuse et al) wanting to overthrow Western Society. Why? Because they know what is best for us (heard that before?). Do read the link – the article is silly at the end, but the first third or so, which is largely descriptive of the movement, is very good. Lots to be found by good old Google.

@Quietzapple
“Puerile to imagine that the literal reading of religious texts by those who loathe the adherents of any religion defines the faithful.”

We’ll ignore the Godwin and move on to the intentional misunderstanding of my comment.

Mistake number 1: I never said or even intimated that most religious adherents had a literal interpretation of their holy book. The vast majority view most of the book as moral lessons. This in no way detracts from the parts that are completely closed to interpretation, the parts I mentioned before.

Mistake 2: Most people claiming to be religious have never read the religious text that they claim to believe in: most Christians have never read the Bible and would be shocked by half the stuff in it if they did; most Muslims cannot read the Qu’ran (being only valid in Arabic as their god is a monoglot).

Mistake 3: Being an apologist for the genital mutilation of children does not put you on the moral high ground.

I don’t hate people who are religious, I was simply putting forward a two part argument that 1: it isn’t irrational and 2: that if you claim to be religious you cannot escape the immoral central parts of your religion – assuming you know them.

I’ve been thinking about this essay of Merrick’s, and Tom finding his constituents only speaking out because they felt they had ‘permission’ to do so.

But you can probably guess what I bang on about in Permission to Speak.

@ Paul:

Your attempt to tie religions to the books they hail in the fashion you do is a waste of time, it just ain’t so, however you put it. You’ll find at least one bizarre medical treatment the NHS wouldn’t approve of in the Bible, and no religious fundamentalist would use it either.

‘A two part argument’ intended to libel muslims for tendentious reasons, and dragging in christians to pretend it is anodyne, is just what it self evidently is.

@Quietzapple
I don’t know where you get the idea that I am anti-Muslim any more than anti-Christian. In this country: Who is it that sits in the House Of Lords? Who sits on the throne? Who has limited marriage to ONE man and ONE woman? Who has tried to restrict stem cell research? Who has limited licensing laws for puritanical reasons? Who stopped shops opening on a Sunday? Who implemented a blasphemy law? Who commits most terrorist attrocities? Who has created divisions within local communities by insisting on their own faith schools? Who has repeatedly tried to ban abortion?

These are all Christian acts. I will wait until some Muslims affect me or mine (or try to) before having a specific go at them.

But to your first point, if a Christian isn’t a reader/believer/follower of the Bible then in what sense are they Christian? Evidence for the existence and works of Jesus Christ are almost exclusively Biblically based so how can you be a Christian without the Bible?

The problem in justifying religious belief is that it has no basis in fact.

If it had, there would be no merit in faith.

So most religions conjure up a book of magic and follow parts of it as if its contents were a kind of partial proof of their delusions.

The bible contains huge tracts of frighteningly violent nonsense which sensible, modern people ignore.

The Koran does exactly the same. The trouble is, the adherents are not allowed to alter or ridicule a single word. They must accept it as the word of Allah.

The result is shockingly obvious all over the world.

A christian is someone who follows Christ.

The Bible is the Word of God and is there, among other things, to be understood – it was not written by The Readers Digest DIY Household Maintenance editorial team.

I suspect the Koran is much the same.

Quietzapple: “A christian is someone who follows Christ.”
Without the Bible you cannot follow Christ! You must accept that what the authors of the New Testament wrote about Christ is factual otherwise it is impossible to follow Him. If you accept what they wrote is factual then you have to accept what Jesus said is factual and he was pretty big on quite a few of the older Jewish laws. e.g. Mark Chapter 7 appears to have Jesus say that you should kill any child that speaks ill of its parents. And He does go on about the 10 Commandments and Moses’ teachings.

The Qu’ran is actually the Word Of God and so to understand or interpret it is not the place of man. Allah has spoken, obey or you are not a Muslim. It says so in the book so it must be true.