Search by category
Browse by category
- Book Reviews (7)
- Conquest by other means (98)
- Economics (98)
- Elite Mischief (144)
- England (15)
- Europe (23)
- Evolution (15)
- Fifth Columns (17)
- Film reviews (22)
- Getting Wealthier? (24)
- Greenery (8)
- NuLabour news (11)
- Our Toytown Armed Forces (5)
- Philosophy (69)
- Politics (136)
- psychology (63)
- Social Policy (135)
- Technology out of control (13)
- The marching morons (10)
- The Scandalous Blairs (44)
- The willing censor (32)
- Uncategorized (10)
- Unreason (6)
Browse the archives
- August 2014 (2)
- July 2014 (4)
- June 2014 (5)
- May 2014 (3)
- April 2014 (4)
- March 2014 (5)
- February 2014 (6)
- January 2014 (4)
- December 2013 (4)
- November 2013 (5)
- October 2013 (4)
- September 2013 (6)
- August 2013 (5)
- July 2013 (6)
- June 2013 (4)
- May 2013 (3)
- April 2013 (5)
- March 2013 (4)
- February 2013 (5)
- January 2013 (3)
- December 2012 (3)
- November 2012 (6)
- October 2012 (6)
- September 2012 (5)
- August 2012 (5)
- July 2012 (3)
- June 2012 (4)
- May 2012 (6)
- April 2012 (5)
- March 2012 (6)
- February 2012 (13)
- January 2012 (7)
- December 2011 (6)
- November 2011 (7)
- October 2011 (6)
- September 2011 (5)
- August 2011 (9)
- July 2011 (9)
- June 2011 (8)
- May 2011 (10)
- April 2011 (15)
- March 2011 (18)
- February 2011 (20)
- January 2011 (15)
- December 2010 (27)
- November 2010 (33)
- October 2010 (31)
- September 2010 (13)
- August 2010 (1)
- 104,014 hits
Aid authoritarianism banks BBC career politicians censorship computers crime David Kelly defence democracy education employment ethnicity feminism fifth columns food security freedom free expression free markets free speech free trade genes global warming panic greed health healthcare housing ideology immigration intellect intelligent design internationalism IQ Islam justice laissez faire law Leveson Inquiry liberal bigotry libertarianism media morals multiculturalism nationhood NHS NWO Operation Elveden patriotism Plutocracy Poetry police political correctness poverty Press public order public ownership public service public services quislings race railways religion robots science security services sport surveillance tax technology Tony Blair trade treason wealth welfare
- Politically incorrect film reviews – Belle
- The BBC decide one call with a minute to go is enough for immigration on Any Answers
- Elizabeth Butler-Sloss and the worthlessness of public inquiries
- Piers Morgan’s illegal receipt of information from the Met Police referred to the IPCC
- Politics has no place in a charity
- Film review – Transcendence
- The Commons Education Select Committee and the libel of the white working-class
- The curse of the Blair Doctrine
- The reckless mass medication of Britain
- Wall Street, the Wolf of Wall Street and the decline of moral sense
- Civitas Meeting – The trouble with Europe 19 May 2014
- Surveillance and the insurance industry
- The Camp of the Saints tested against reality
- Operation Elveden and Piers Morgan – My attempt to enlist the help of Leo McKinstry
- If there had been no post-1945 mass immigration into Britain …
Category Archives: Conquest by other means
Any Questions (BBC R4 1 August 2014 ) included a question on whether immigration had made Britain poorer. The question provoked an extended debate which would have been much longer if the chairman had not cut the discussion short.
Both the time devoted to the question in the show and the fact that every poll shows immigration to be at or near the top of the public’s current political concerns should have made it one of the primary subjects of the following Any Answers. The reverse happened.
First, the presenter Anita Anand put the question down the batting order as she introduced Any Answers by asking for questions on the subjects discussed – she placed it very near the end – then she took just one call with 29 minutes of the thirty minute programme, a call which lasted a few seconds.
There is no reasonable explanation for the failure to relegate the question to a point where it virtually vanished from Any Answers. The one caller who got on did complain about the late introduction of the question and was fobbed off with the usual BBC excuse of the weight of calls on other subjects driving it down the list. The excuse was particularly absurd in this case because the interest immigration provokes. It is reasonable to believe that the BBC deliberately kept callers about immigration off the air to further their own political agenda. The fact that Anand ancestry is subcontinental adds to the suspicion.
As the BBC is a closed shop when it comes to how prospective callers to are chosen, there is no way to get an independent check on what they are doing. It is also true that they operate of telephone system which blocks out callers deemed to be a nuisance – details below.
Please investigate how the BBC chooses who shall be put on air during phone-ins and how the extraordinary treatment of immigration on this Any Answers programme occurred. I would be delighted to come on to Feedback to question whoever the BBC puts up to justify their behaviour.
I have submitted a complaint to Roger Bolton at the BBC’s Feedback programme. The email for those wishing to complain is firstname.lastname@example.org.
For details of the censoring of phone-ins see http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/10/02/how-the-bbc-surreptitiously-censors-callers-to-phone-in/
The sole speaker was Roger Bootle of the Daily Telegraph and Capital Economics
Bootle was promoting his book The trouble with Europe. The main thrusts of his argument were
- Europe is a declining political and economic power.
- The growth rate within first the EEC and then the EU has been poor overall compared with economies outside the EU.
- The EU has undermined European economic performance through promoting too generous welfare states.
- That much of the regulation comes not from the EU but national governments within the EU.
- That the EU has smothered competition between nation states and this has hindered innovation and enterprise.
- That Europe’s period of greatest world dominance was a time of intense competition between European powers.
- That EU countries have suffered a loss of identity through mass immigration and those with empires had a further blow to their national self-confidence through their loss.
- That European elites have had their energies eaten up with trying to create uniformity within the EU to the detriment of such things as investment and productivity.
- That the Euro is the biggest economic disaster the EU has suffered, dwarfing the Common Agricultural Policy.
- The EU as it is presently constituted is obsolete.
Bootle laid down his terms for Britain remaining within the EU: an end to ever closer union, a guarantee of no second class status for the UK if she remains a member, a reduced EU budget, repatriation of powers to EU member states. National governments to be empowered to reject EU legislation and restrictions on the free movement of labour.
These conditions are so improbable that it is reasonable to conclude that Bootle in reality wants Britain out of the EU. If Britain does leave the EU, Bootle is in favour of what he called the WTONLY option if a good free trade agreement with the EU cannot be arranged. The WTONLY option is to simply leave the EU and then rely on World Trade Organisation rules to give Britain access to EU markets.
During questions it was heartening to see how many of the questioners were utterly hostile to the EU, despite the fact that many of those there came under the heading of the great and the good, the sort of people who would normally be considered unvarnished Europhiles. Most promisingly, voices were raised against the wholesale takeover by foreigners of British business and the ill effects of multinationals.
I raised the question of how Britain should deal with the mechanics of leaving bearing in mind that the entire British political elite were Europhiles who would do everything to subvert the wishes of the British electorate by stitching Britain back into the EU through an agreement which included the four so-called EU freedoms, the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour within the EU. I suggested to Bootle that Article 50 was a poisoned chalice which would enable British politicians to do just that. Rather surprisingly Bootle said that he did not think that the mechanics of leaving were important. I was not able to question him further because of the number of people wanting to ask questions. However, I have addressed the subject and others in the email I sent to Bootle after the meeting. If I receive a reply I will add it to this blog post.
E mail sent to Roger Bootle 31 5 2014
Dear Mr Bootle,
A few points I was unable to put to you at the Civitas meeting of 19 May.
1. How much do you think the status of the Euro as the second largest reserve currency has contributed to the survival of the Euro? I enclose a note on this at the bottom of the email.
2. You advocate giving both sides of the story, of admitting that leaving the EU will not be without costs both material and moral. The problem with that is twofold.
a) political knowledge and understanding amongst the electorate as a whole is minute. Most will respond to the fear factor points not the reassuring points simply because they do not know enough to assess the situation rationally.
b) all the STAY IN camp will be peddling is the fear factor. Hence, the electorate will be hearing the fear factor language from both YES and NO camps but only the reassuring points from those who wish Britain to leave.
3. How the UK leaves the EU is not a trivial matter as you suggested. The danger is that regardless of the wishes of the electorate , the British political elite will stitch us back firmly into the EU if they are given a free hand over the negotiation. This is so because we have a political class – especially the leading members of the class – which is overwhelmingly prepared to act as Quislings (Quislings in the service of the EU in particular and internationalism in general) to ensure that Britain does not escape the tentacles of the EU.
Of course such a betrayal could apply regardless of whether article 50 is activated or a simple repeal made of the various Acts binding us into the EU, but Article 50 carries far more dangers for those who want us out of the EU than a simple repeal of the Acts would do. If Britain accepted the legality of Article 50 we would have to put up with any amount of prevarication and dirty tricks for two years. Worse, the time to reach any agreement between Britain and the EU under article 50 can be extended if both parties agree.
As those negotiating on behalf of Britain would inevitably be politicians who have sold their souls to the “European Project”, the odds are that they would use any obstruction and delay by the EU to justify making an agreement which would practically speaking nullify the vote to leave. As sure as eggs are eggs, the agreement would place us firmly back into the EU’s clutches by signing Britain up to the four EU “freedoms” (freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and labour) and all the rules regulating the single market. If the break with the EU is done simply by repealing the various Acts which bind us in, our politicians will not be able to use the restrictions and difficulties raised by Article 50 as an excuse for selling the voters down the river with an agreement such as I have described. Instead, they would have to take full responsibility for whatever they agree to. Article 50 is a particularly toxic poisoned chalice. Don’t drink from it.
It is essential that before any referendum takes place that all mainstream UK parties make it clear that whatever agreement is reached by those negotiating on behalf of Britain this should only be ratified if the British people vote for it in a second referendum. Unless this happens the political class will give us something which binds us back into the EU.
5. It is a dangerous argument to claim that competition between governments is a good thing if you are relying on the historical example. In your Telegraph article Europe’s politicians must embrace competition or face slide into obscurity (19 May) you write:
It is very striking that Europe’s golden age, when European countries bestrode the world and European influence was at its height, was an era of competition between nation states. Admittedly at times this competition went too far and spilled over into war …
The reality of European history is that it has been primarily a history of war as far as you care to go back. War not peace has been the norm. The period of European ascendency was no exception to this and because of technological developments became more and more efficiently brutal. Use the European historical example and you are simply inviting the Europhiles to say “Told you so. Nation states can’t be trusted to behave”.
6. At present I also have a problem with all political discussions and especially those referring to the economy. We are within striking distance of the production of general purpose robots which will be able to do not only most of the jobs humans now do but most of any new ones which arise. The implications of this are so profound that they bid fair to render any political solutions or policies currently in play obsolete. Politicians should be planning for such developments but they are simply ignoring them. If you read these two pieces you will see where I am coming from:
English translation from the French by Norman Shapiro, Professor of French Romance Languages and Literatures Department 3089, Wesleyan University, Connecticut, USA. Email email@example.com
The full English text can be found at https://archive.org/stream/CampOfTheSaints/Camp_of_the_Saints_djvu.txt
The French writer Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints was published in 1973. It is notorious or famous, according to your politics, for its story of the Third World poor successfully invading the First World. The invaders come armed not with guns and bombs, but the potent weapons of their huge numbers and the knowledge that the self-destructive ideology of Western elites – what we would nowadays call the “anti-racist” part of political correctness – had warped the minds of most of those elites and also those of the masses of the First World, who have been beaten into a state where they either cannot see when their own interests are being sacrificed on the altar of one worldism or are cowed to the point where they are paralysed into inaction.
At the time of its writing the book was set in twenty or so years in the future. As the story opens a fleet of 100 ramshackle ships dubbed the Ganges Armada gathers in India and soon sets off for Europe. In the ships are one million of the subcontinent’s poor. The intention of the Armada is to run the ships aground on European shores – this is a strictly one way voyage – decant their cargo and present the land on which they descend with a dilemma, namely, allow the million to invade or resist them with force with the ultimate sanction being mass slaughter of the invaders.
It takes the ships fifty daysto arrive on the northern shores of the Mediterranean with Southern France as the final destination. As the Ganges Armada sails the Western elites are either starry eyed about their dream of a world in which there is no us and them – no nation states, just Mankind with a capital M – or paralysed by the one-world propaganda which has been so assiduously fed to them.
Even those members of the elite who do not believe in the One Worldism have developed the peculiar state of mind which arises when propaganda is not only incessant but gainsaying the propaganda is seen as dangerous. Such people do not embrace the content of the propaganda, nor play along out of abject and immediate fear. Rather, they sublimate the fear and develop a feeling that to rebut the propaganda is somehow wrong, although if asked they could not say exactly where the wrongness lay. The state of mind is akin to that of a person who feels that a sick joke is inappropriate if expressed in company even if it makes them inwardly laugh. In short, they have been conditioned to think of certain ideas and words as unclean for no other reason that they have been told over and over again that these things are beyond the Pale. As for the masses, they have variously bought into the propaganda, had their true feelings suppressed by the constant propaganda as described above or been censored out of public life.
But human nature has not been utterly transformed. There is the natural human response to trouble of thinking it will not happen. While the Ganges Armada is a long way off heads are buried in the sand with non-pc thoughts such as that the ships will all be sunk by rough weather and seas before they reach Europe because of their decrepit state. Hardly anyone in a position of authority or influence is realistic and honest about the outcome of the Armada if it reaches its destination , namely, that it will be an invasion which if not resisted will overturn the societies into which the human cargo, full of misery and entitlement, is decanted. Instead they either preach the message that the arrival of the Armada will be a great blessing for it will allow the West to show its generosity of spirit by welcoming the invaders with open arms or indulge in the hypocrisy of secretly hoping the ships will founder at sea.
But the weather is unusually clement and the Ganges Armada comes closer and closer until its arrival off the French Mediterranean coast is imminent. This causes the vast majority of the population of the South of France to abandon any pretence of seeing the ships’ arrival as anything other than a threat and the vast majority flee to the North of France. This is only a temporary place of safety and before long much of the French elite also hot-foot it to Switzerland , thinking wrongly that it will be a haven against the One Worldist mania –eventually the Swiss fall prey to the same lack of will to resist the invaders and open their borders to the invading Third World hordes.
The most naïve of the One Worlders advance towards the point at which the ships will make landfall in the sublimely silly expectation that they will be welcomed with open arms by the invading one million. Once they arrive the One Worldist simpletons are at best ignored and at worst attacked. They also find that they are at risk from the Third World immigrants and their descendants who are already in France.
When the Ganges Armada finally arrives and sheds its cargo of one million there is little resistance because not only have most of the population fled , but the French armed forces prove worthless, most having been robbed of the will to resist the invasion with brute force by the ceaseless propaganda which has been fed to them. The result is mass desertions.
The Ganges Armada is only the beginning. Other fleets full of Third World misery to west upon the West are being prepared. Nor is it just a seaborne invasion. Even as the Ganges Armada is at sea huge numbers of Chinese are massing on the Chinese border with the Asiatic Russian territories.
The novel ends with France overrun and the white native French population reduced to not exactly slavery but an irrelevance as power shifts to the non-white migrants who were either in France before the Armada arrived or are part of the Armada and its successor Third World invasion. The same general thing happens throughout the West, with the white native population everywhere becoming subordinate, becoming strangers in a strange land which was once theirs but is now utterly changed.
How prophetic is the Camp of the Saints? Raspail understood when he published the book that it would not be prophetic in the detail of his imaginings, but only in his general message. Indeed, in his short preface he admits that the detail of the action in the book is unrealistic: “I had wanted to write a lengthy preface to explain my position and show that this is no wild-eyed dream; that even if the specific action, symbolic as it is, may seem farfetched, the fact remains that we are inevitably heading for something of the sort. We need only glance at the awesome population figures predicted for the year 2000, i.e., twenty-eight years from now: seven billion people, only nine hundred million of whom will be white.”
The invasion of the First World has not occurred as dramatically as Raspail portrayed it. If it had perhaps even the Quisling politically correct politicians of the West would have been forced to resist it with force, both because they feared the fury of the people they supposedly represented and for fear of what the reality would be if such an invasion force had landed. Instead the immigration has happened piecemeal, surreptitiously. There has never been a dramatic massing of Third World immigrants to gain entry to the First World Promised Land in one fell swoop, just an incessant trickle through numerous points of entry. The nearest events to what Raspail describes are the various boat people arriving in the West from Latin America, Africa and Asia. But although large in aggregate, each individual attempt at invasion contains hundreds at best and most commonly in numbers of less than ten. When seaborne they come not as an imposing fleet but singly or as a small flotilla at worst. More commonly their illegal entry is by plane, train or motor vehicle, a handful at a time.
Where Raspail was strikingly astute is his prediction of the immense weight of “anti-racist” politically correct propaganda which the West has seen. He l catalogues all the politically correct grotesquery we have today with definitive characters. There are those in positions of authority and influence such Albert Dufort, the trendy radio journalist, who prostitute themselves and their country by representing the Ganges Armada and the other soon to be launched Third World invasion fleets, not as a threat but as a great opportunity to show their humanity. There are those drawn from the ethnic minorities already well ensconced in French society such as the Algerian Ben Suad (who goes by the name of Clement Dio) whose lives are devoted to biting the hand that feeds them. Perhaps most forlornly there are the French young who have had their natural tribal feeling sucked from them: “ That scorn of a people for other races, the knowledge that one’s own is best, the triumphant joy at feeling oneself to be part of humanity’s finest — none of that had ever filled these youngsters’ addled brains, or at least so little that the monstrous cancer implanted in the Western conscience had quashed it in no time at all. In their case it wasn’t a matter of tender heart, but a morbid, contagious excess of sentiment, most interesting to find in the flesh and observe, at last, in action.” Chapter 1
All of this is most impressive because when the book was written political correctness was in its early stages. In Britain a couple of Race Relations Acts had been passed in 1965 and 1968, and one worldism, especially with a Marxist tinge, was very popular in academia. But there was no general propagandising of the British population and punishments for being non-pc about race and immigration had barely begun to get a hold on British society. Even in the United States, the most advanced of states promoting “anti-racist” measures , measures such as “positive discrimination” and “affirmative action” were still in their infancy. The secular inquisition of individuals accused of pc “crimes” that we know today with people increasingly being sent to prison or routinely losing their jobs did not exist. The long march through the institutions still had a good distance to go.
The book’s general argument that the West would be subject to massive immigration which would radically change their societies is correct. In Britain the last national census in 2011 showed this for the population of England and Wales combined :
White was the majority ethnic group at 48.2 million in 2011 (86.0 per cent). Within this ethnic group, White British1 was the largest group at 45.1 million (80.5 per cent).
The White ethnic group accounted for 86.0 per cent of the usual resident population in 2011, a decrease from 91.3 per cent in 2001 and 94.1 per cent in 1991.
White British and White Irish decreased between 2001 and 2011. The remaining ethnic groups increased, Any Other White background had the largest increase of 1.1 million (1.8 percentage points).
The population of England and Wales at the time of the census was” 56,170,900 in mid-2011, with the population of England estimated to be 53,107,200 and the population of Wales estimated to be 3,063,800”. In a generation the white population, British and foreign , has dropped by 8% and those describing themselves as white British were only 45 million out of 56 million.
There is also strong evidence that the idea of deliberately encouraging mass immigration of the unassimilable to change Western societies has been practised by Western Governments. Think of the words of a Tony Blair special adviser Andrew Neather :
Eventually published in January 2001, the innocuously labelled “RDS Occasional Paper no. 67″, “Migration: an economic and social analysis” focused heavily on the labour market case.
But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date. That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far.
Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing. For despite Roche’s keenness to make her big speech and to be upfront, there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour’s core white working-class vote.
This shone through even in the published report: the “social outcomes” it talks about are solely those for immigrants.
And this first-term immigration policy got no mention among the platitudes on the subject in Labour’s 1997 manifesto, headed Faster, Firmer, Fairer.
The results were dramatic. In 1995, 55,000 foreigners were granted the right to settle in the UK. By 2005 that had risen to 179,000; last year, with immigration falling thanks to the recession, it was 148,000.
In addition, hundreds of thousands of migrants have come from the new EU member states since 2004, most requiring neither visas nor permission to work or settle. The UK welcomed an estimated net 1.5 million immigrants in the decade to 2008.
In May 2014 the British think tank Policy Exchange published a report on racial and ethnic minorities entitled A portrait of modern Britain. The headline grabbing statistic in the report is the claim that ”the five largest distinct Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities could potentially double from 8 million people or 14% of the population [now] to between 20-30% by the middle of the century. Over the past decade, the UK’s White population has remained roughly the same while the minority population has almost doubled. Black Africans and Bangladeshis are the fastest growing minority communities with ethnic minorities representing 25% of people aged under the age of five.”
Because immigrants and their descendants have a substantially greater propensity to breed than that of the native white British population and that fact coupled with the much younger average age of immigrants than that of native Britons means that the Policy Exchange projections are realistic.
What the Camp of the Saints should do is force people to accept at both an intellectual and emotional level what mass immigration represents. It is a form of conquest, and conquest of the most pernicious and fundamental kind when it consists primarily of those who cannot or will not fully assimilate into the native population. Oncesuch immigrants are in a country in large numbers, the country is faced with two terrible choices: either capitulate to the fact of their conquest and allow the country to dissolve into a motley multicultural mess occupying a single territory or forcibly remove the immigrants and their descendants through expulsion or massacre. Nor should it be imagined that the dissolution of the country into racial/ethnic blocs will mean an absence of war. History tells a single simple story about racially and ethnically divided territories: violence is an inevitable and ineradicable part of such societies and the more the different groups within a territory begin to be of equal size the greater the risk of conflict.
The question which Raspail brings us to is this, is the invasion to be permitted through an excessive and fatal excess sentiment or is it to be resisted through force, including in the final extremity the mass killing of men , women and children, or will the invaders be permitted to come, breed and settle the territory of the original population? Mass immigration is conquest, just as surely as an armed invasion is conquest. A people who forgets that or buries their collective head in the political sand hoping the bogeyman will go away is doomed.
There are weaknesses in the novel purely as a literary work, although the fact that I am commenting on an English translation should be born in mind. There is little character development, the dialogue is feeble, the language flowery, there is a good deal of Gallic intellectual exhibitionism and a considerable amount of what I can only describe as a third person stream of consciousness. The last I must confess is not to my taste. Raspail also gives his story a strong flavour of the leftist student protest of 1968 and the widespread attraction to the Western intelligentsia of Marxism, especially in its Troskyite manifestations. This seems like another world today even though the period is only 40 odd years ago and may make the work seem alien or simply dated to some readers.
But these weaknesses do not diminish the importance of the book, for it is Raspail’s general message which matters. The message is important both because its general thrust is true and for the shameful fact that it is saying things which if expressed in a new work being offered for publication today would ensure that it did not find a mainstream publisher in the West.
Without mass immigration we would not have ….
1.. A rapidly rising population. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/06/uk-population-rise-ons
3. Race relations legislation, most notably the Race Relations Act of 1976. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/74
4. Gross interferences with free speech such as those in the 1976 Race Relations Act and 1986 Public Order Act arising from the British elite’s determination and need (from their point of view) to suppress dissent about immigration and its consequences.
5. Native Britons being charged with criminal offences and, in increasing numbers of cases, finding themselves in prison for expressing their opposition to mass immigration or for being non-PC about immigrants and British born ethnic and racial minorities. http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/the-oppression-of-emma-west-the-politically-correct-end-game-plays-out/
6. Native Britons losing their jobs simply for beings non-pc about immigration and ethnic and racial minorities. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1239765/Park-ranger-sacked-racist-joke-wins-40k-compensation-tribunal-tells-council-skin-colour-fact-life.html
7. Such a virulent political correctness, because the central plank of the creed – race – would have been removed or at least made insignificant. Without large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities to either act as the clients of the politically correct or to offer a threat of serious civil unrest to provide the politically correct with a reason to enact authoritarian laws banning free discussion about the effects of immigration, “antiracism” would have little traction. Moreover, without the massive political leverage race has provided, political correctness in its other areas, most notably homosexuality and feminism, would have been much more difficult to inject into British society. But even if political correctness had been robbed of its dominant racial aspect whilst leaving the rest of the ideology as potent as it is now, it would be a trivial thing compared to the ideology with its dominant racial aspect intact. Changes to the status of homosexuals and women do not fundamentally alter the nature of a society by destroying its natural homogeneity. Moreover, customs and laws can always be altered peacefully. A country with large unassimilable minorities cannot be altered peacefully.
8. State sponsored multiculturalism, which is now institutionalised within British public service and the state educational system. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994
10. The creeping introduction of Sharia Law through such things as the toleration of sharia courts to settle disputes between Muslims provided both parties agree. The idea that such agreement is voluntary is highly suspect because of the pressure from within the Muslim population for Muslims to conform to Sharia law and to settle disputes within the Muslim population. But even if it was always entirely voluntary, it would be wrong in principle to have an alien system of law accepted as a rival to the law of the land because inevitably it would undermine the idea of the rule of law and further isolate Muslims from the mainstream. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10778554/The-feisty-baroness-defending-voiceless-Muslim-women.html
11. Muslims Schools which fail to conform to the national curriculum at best and at worst are vehicles for the promotion of Islamic supremacist ideas. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10777054/Ofsted-chief-to-take-charge-of-probe-into-Islamic-school-plot.html
12. A calamitous housing shortage. http://www.jrf.org.uk/media-centre/shortage-homes-over-next-20-years-threatens-deepening-housing-crisis
13. Housing Associations which cater solely for ethnic and racial minority groups. http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/the-truth-about-social-housing-and-ethnic-minorities/
14. A serious and growing shortage of school places, especially primary school places . http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23931974
- Health tourism on a huge scale http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8880071/international-health-service/
16 Benefit tourism on a massive scale. http://www.migrationwatchuk.co.uk/pdfs/BP1_37.pdf
17 . Such crowded roads and public transport. http://www.london.gov.uk/media/assembly-press-releases/2013/10/fears-of-future-overcrowding-due-to-167-million-more-london-bus
18. Such a low wage economy. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/17/eastern-european-immigration-hits-wages
19. Such high unemployment and underemployment. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/13/uk-employment-figures_n_4265134.html
20. Such a need for the taxpayer to subsidise those in work because of the under cutting of wages by immigrants. http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/majority-of-new-housing-benefit-claimants-in-work/6521183.article
21. Areas of work effectively off limits to white Britons because either an area of work is controlled by foreigners or British born ethnic minorities, both of whom only employ those of their own nationality and/or ethnicity, or unscrupulous British employers who use foreigners and ethnic minorities because they are cheap and easier to control. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/800000-uk-jobs-advertised-across-europe–and-foreign-jobseekers-even-get-travelling-costs-8734731.html
22 As much crime (and particularly violent crime) because foreigners and British born blacks and Asians commit a disproportionately large proportion of UK crime, for example see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2522270/Foreign-prisoner-total-11-000.html
23. Double standards in applying the law to the white native population and immigrants, with the white native population being frequently treated more harshly than blacks, Asians and white first generation immigrants. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/12/07/female-gang-who-attacked-woman-spared-jail_n_1133734.html
24. Female genital mutilation. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/15/fgm-first-suspects-charged-court
25. “Honour” killings. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/honourcrimes/crimesofhonour_1.shtml#h2
26. Forced marriages. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/honourcrimes/crimesofhonour_1.shtml#h2
27. Widespread electoral fraud. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10557364/Election-watchdog-demands-action-amid-fears-of-Asian-voter-fraud.html
We would have ……
1. A very homogenous country, as it used to be.
2. No fear of speaking our minds about race and immigration.
3. No fear of speaking our minds about foreigners.
4. No fear of being proud of our country and Western culture generally.
5. No people being sent to prison for simply saying what they thought about race and ethnicity.
6. Much less political correctness.
7. Equality before the law in as far as that is humanly possible.
8. A stable population.
9. Plentiful housing, both rented and for purchase, at a price the ordinary working man or woman can afford.
10. Abundant school places.
11. An NHS with much shorter waiting lists and staffed overwhelmingly with native Britons. Those who claim that the NHS would collapse with foreign staff should ask themselves one question: if that is the case, how do areas of the UK with few racial or ethnic minority people manage to recruit native born Britons to do the work?
12. A higher wage economy .
13. Far more native Britons in employment.
14. No areas of work effectively off limits to white Britons because either an area of work is controlled by foreigners or British born ethnic minorities, both of whom only employ those of their own nationality and/or ethnicity, or unscrupulous British employers who use foreigners and ethnic minorities because they are cheap and easier to control.
15. A much lower benefit bill for those of working age.
16. Substantially less crime.
17. An honest electoral system.
Chairman David Dimbleby
The full debate on IPlayer can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0401ht2/The_European_Union_In_or_Out/
It will only be up until 10th April so catch it while you can. Here is what may be a permanent recording link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd9rsmD4HiM
The re-match between Farage and Clegg resulted in an even more humiliating hour for Clegg than the first debate. YouGov and ICM polls taken shortly after the debate had Clegg and Farage scoring as follows:
The YouGov poll gave Farage 68%, Clegg 27% Undecided 5%
As last week, this YouGov survey for The Sun questioned just over 1,000 people who viewed the debate. We weighted the data to ensure that it was representative of Great Britain as a whole by voting intention and attitudes to the European Union, but did not weight demographically; it therefore reflected the actual audience by age (older than average), gender (more male) and social class (more middle class). It was a fresh sample: we did NOT re-interview people we questioned after last week’s debate.
It is clear that Farage gained ground most among the very people LEAST likely to support his party or his cause:
The proportion of Labour supporters saying Farage performed better rose from 42% after the first debate to 57% after the second
Among Liberal Democrats, Farage’s figures are: first debate 20%, second debate 33%
Among people who told us ahead of the debate that they supported British membership of the EU, his figures are: first debate 30%, second debate 45% (http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/04/03/farage-wins-round-two/)
An ICM Poll had Farage at 69% and Clegg on 31%
These polls compare with a 57% Farage, 36% Clegg 7% undecided YouGov poll result after the first debate.
This was a tremendous result under any circumstances, for, as I wrote after the first debate, it is rare indeed for such a crushing advantage to exist in a two-horse debating race. In the context of Clegg’s many advantages over Farage – the profile of being deputy PM, endless appearances before the TV cameras, widespread mainstream media contempt for Farage and UKIP , leading a party with sixty odd seats in the Commons and, compared to UKIP, considerable financial and organisational resources plus the experience of a public leaders’ debate behind him – the results of the two debates are nothing short of astonishing. It was nothing short of an humiliation.
Why did Clegg do even worse in this debate than the first one? Many of the media commentators are putting this down to a more aggressive attitude by him and certainly his adolescent gibes at Farage will not have helped his cause. Here are few samples:
“He’s [Farage] one of those people who see conspiracy theories everywhere. I wouldn’t be surprised if he tells us next that there wasn’t a Moon landing, Obama isn’t American, and Elvis isn’t dead!”
“If I’m the leader of ‘the party of in’, he’s [Farage] the leader of the party of Putin!”
The general problem with Clegg’s aggression is that it looked, as with everything about his public persona, manufactured. The hand and arm gestures were wooden and studied to the point of being ridiculous, the voice insincere and tremulous by parts. He was a very bad advert for whoever provided his media training and an even worse one from those who advised him on how to approach this debate.
Worse of all Clegg did what Europhiles have long done, simply chant pro-EU mantras without giving any thought to justifying them or of rebutting opposing arguments with anything more than a bald assertion that they are wrong. This was unsurprising because Europhiles are almost invariably intellectually lazy. Instead of doing the hard graft of mastering the facts they simply take on board dubious assertions such as “three million British jobs are dependent on the EU” and “the EU has prevented war in Europe” which they present not as the highly questionable opinion they are but as objective fact.
While the Europhile ideology dominates and controls public life generally and in particular the mainstream media, they can get away with reciting slogans which are not only debatable but often palpably untrue. I dare say that Clegg has gone through his entire life until these debates without ever having to defend in public the subject of the EU in circumstances where he had to either produce arguments in favour of the EU which stood up to real scrutiny or find replies to the ideas of an opponent who was radically opposed to the EU. There was nowhere for Clegg to escape to. Being unused to having to think on his feet or provide reasons other than the well-worn Europhile clichés, Clegg simply fell back on those clichés with adolescent abuse mixed in. Often he simply repeated, almost verbatim, what he had said in the first debate, the most blatant and extended example occurring when the subject of an In/Out referendum arose, viz: ‘I [Clegg] believe that when the rules change, when there’s a new treaty, when powers which rightfully belong to you are being given up to the EU, it shouldn’t be for the Government to decide – it should be for you to decide…
In contrast, Farage was vastly more impressive in his energy, verbal delivery and body language. What nervousness there was in the first debate had vanished. There was nothing coached about his manner. He looked and sounded like someone voicing simple truths.
On both immigration and an In/OUT referendum Clegg refused to meaningfully engage with the questions. Farage produced the LibDem poster from 2008 which Nick Ferrari had introduced into the first debate. This had Clegg promising a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. During the first debate Clegg had claimed the poster promised the same position he occupies now, namely, that the LibDems would support a referendum on any further Treaty which removed further substantial powers from Britain. Farage pointed out that the poster had no such qualification of its general promise of a referendum. Clegg waffled so blatantly at this point that Dimbleby asked him the important unasked question I highlighted in my account of the first debate, namely, why not have a referendum on all that has already been passed without a referendum:, viz: “ We last had a referendum 40 years ago. You have described everything that has happened since, the Lisbon Treaty and all those things. Why can’t there be a referendum on all the things that have happened ? Why wait for even more change before you agree to a referendum, why not have one now? (Go into debate at 50 min 30 sec). All this produced was reiterated Clegg waffle about waiting for a new treaty. On the face of it this is really very stupid of Clegg because he could quite easily commit the LibDems to an In/Out referendum knowing full well he would never be in a position to deliver it because his party will never command a Commons majority. Clegg does not do so because he is trapped by his Party’s mainlining addiction to the EU.
On immigration Farage told the simple truth ….
‘We have no idea how many people are coming here from the European Union next year, the year after or the year after that, because unconditionally we have an open door to 485million people.
‘Immigration on this scale has changed fundamentally the communities, not just of London, but actually of every city and every market town in this country. But worst of all what it’s done socially, it has left a white working class effectively as an underclass. And that I think is a disaster for our society.
‘[Large scale immigration] is good for the rich because it is cheaper nannies and cheaper chauffeurs and cheaper gardeners.
But it is bad news for ordinary Britons. We need to have a control on immigration, on the numbers who come here and over the quality who come here.’
….while Clegg lied and dissimulated:
“He [Farage] claimed that 485million people were going to vacate the whole of the rest of the European continent and turn up in Britain.(This was a direct lie because Farage had already made his position quite clear in the first debate when he said correctly that 485 million had the right to come to the UK).
“Let me just show you, this is a leaflet from UKIP. It’s a picture of a very unhappy-looking native American.
It says, “He used to ignore immigration, now he lives on a reservation.” We are not – by staying in the EU – going to be cooped up on a native American reservation. What are you going to say next? That you’re Crazy Horse or Sitting Bull?” (Farage said that he had no knowledge of where the leaflet had come from and disowned the message).
Clegg’s dishonesty on immigration was shown vividly after Farage quoted a Migration Watch report that immigration to the UK over the next four to five years would mean , even at its current rate, the building of a city the size of Manchester which has a population of 500,000. Clegg said this was nonsense because the Greater Manchester area had 2.7 million. Clegg must have known that Greater Manchester is not Manchester and consequently deliberately tried to mislead. Clegg also repeated the falsehood from the first debate that UKIP’s claim of 29 million Bulgars and Romanians who could come to Britain was absurd because there are not 29 million Bulgars and Romanians. The 2012 census figures for both countries show they have is a combined population of more than 28 million. Why Farage did not thrust the census figures at Clegg is a mystery.
When Dimbleby pressed Clegg (Go into the recording at 22 min 46 sec) on the effect of massive immigration on infrastructure such as schools and hospitals Clegg responded hesitantly and incoherently with “There are always problems when you have people”. Dimbleby was palpably surprised and he asked Clegg what he meant. Clegg waffled on about how there would be such problems whether or not Britain was in the EU.
Clegg was positively shameless when Farage raised the matter of Clegg’s claim in the first debate that only 7% of legislation going through Parliament was inspired by the EU. Farage produced a copy of the House of Commons Library note which Clegg had relied on and read out the passage which showed that that the HoC paper note was much more nuanced and undogmatic and gave estimates of its own of between 15% and 50% percent of UK law from all sources . (http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/RP10-62/how-much-legislation-comes-from-europe) .
Clegg tried to wriggle out of being caught in what to any normal human being would count as a straight forward lie by referring to the 6.8% primary legislation figure quoted by the HoC note. However, as Clegg must have been well aware there is a great deal of EU inspired law which consists of statutory instruments (the secondary legislation which provides the mechanics to implement primary legislation). Farage called a spade a spade, viz: “You are lying willingly to the British people about the extent we have given away democray”.
Inevitably Farage was taxed with his remarks about admiring Putin as an operator. However, this rather backfired because both Dimbleby and Clegg manifestly misrepresented Farage as being a general admirer of Putin and Farage used the opportunity to not only expose that misrepresentation (which gained him the sympathy of the audience) but to lambast Clegg as one of the cabal of career politicians who had kept Britain interminably at war:
Farage: “I don’t admire Putin, what I said was, he’d outwitted and outclassed you all over Syria. I also said I didn’t like him as a human being and I wouldn’t want to live in Russia.’
“You were absolutely hell bent on getting involved militarily in the war in Syria and I personally am delighted we didn’t go to war in Syria.
“This country has had enough of getting involved in endless foreign wars, there is no evidence that our intervention is making life better. I don’t want to be part of a European foreign policy.”
Farage’s strictures against the British political elite’s warmongering got the loudest applause of the night. (Britain has de facto been continuously at war for nearly a quarter of a century starting with the first Gulf War).
Another strong Farage showing was on energy, viz: “The Chinese and Indians have gone for coal on a scale we can’t fathom, the US has gone for shale and we have gone for wind energy.” He warned that the European Union’s “unilateral” approach to climate change was damaging businesses by pushing up energy bills and driving energy greedy industries such as metal smelting to the wall and concluded that Britain should “Scrap wind energy, scrap the subsidies, get shale”.
Farage also pointed out that many leading politicians who were significant landowners had benefited from the wind industry.
Clegg response was to call for more renewables to prevent e “over reliance on oil and gas from Nigel Farage’s friend Vladimir Putin”.
The final question from the audience was “What will the EU be like in ten years?”
Clegg said that he thought it would be much as it is now, which tells you how far his head is buried in the sand. In ten years three scenarios are more probable than the present status quo, namely, a federal super state, a free trade area or it will have simply disappeared..
Farage foresaw a Britain outside of the EU after a referendum, hoped that other countries in the EU would also leave and warned against the dangers of violence if change in the EU could not be achieved by democratic means, pointing to support for nationalist parties such as Gold Dawn in Greece as evidence of the frustration which was building:
“We see in Madrid, we see in Athens, very large protests, tens of thousands of people, a lot of violence.
“You take away from people their ability through the ballot box to change their futures, then I am afraid they tend to resort to aggressive means.”
Clegg’s thoroughly shoddy performance did not help his case but the prime reason why he was beaten so comprehensively was the simple fact that he has a thoroughly bad case to argue. It is impossible to make a sound case for being within the EU on any grounds which are acceptable to either the British public now or which accord with what politicians from all the main Westminster Parties have claimed since Britain became part of what is now the EU. For over forty years British mainstream politicians have repeated the sordid, treasonous lie that no real sovereignty has been given away and that Britain is still a fully functioning Parliamentary democracy. The naked lie has been modified over the decades as the loss of sovereignty became ever more apparent to the casuistry of saying Britain has not lost her sovereignty but merely pooled it with other countries. The more adventurous Europhile fantasists or liars (take your pick) say that by joining with 27 other EU states British sovereignty has been amplified.
In addition, the Labour, Tory and LibDem parties still claim that Parliament is sovereign because in principle Parliament can refuse any legislation put before it or simply repeal any legislation relating to the EU up to and including the Act which gave power to the Treaty of Rome, the European Communities Act of 1972. The reality is that even where the national veto on EU law has applied it has very rarely been used – and is now very restricted because most EU decisions are made these days by qualified majority voting – and there has been no instance in over 40 years of Parliament rejecting legislation introduced because of the EU. Practically, British sovereignty has been a dead letter since Britain joined the EEC.
The audience reaction throughout was decidedly interesting, both because of its consistent support for Farage and for the fact that the BBC had not done their usual and packed the audience to reflect Europhile views. This could either be because a strategic decision has been made by the BBC that they will move with the political wind and allow Eurosceptic views on air because to do anything else would be too blatantly biased as public interest in and anger about the EU grows or simply because they could not find enough unquestioning Europhiles applying to be audience members . I suspect it was the latter because not only is Europhilia growing more and more unpopular, even many of those who say they support the EU often have a considerable dislike of certain EU issues such as uncontrolled immigration and the imposition of regulations which interfere minutely both with business and the intimate details of their private lives.
The two debates told us is this:
That the British are deeply dissatisfied with their political class.
That the British want an IN/OUT referendum on the EU
That the British deeply dislike the EU as it is whether they are in favour of leaving or not
That for the British immigration is a prime political issue, probably the prime political issue
That the British detest the perpetual liberal internationalist warmongering
That Clegg is a very empty vessel indeed .
It remains to be seen whether the British political class will respond to what the British people want . On the evidence of the past 40 years don’t hold your breath.
Boris Johnson has suggested that the radicalisation of Muslim children should be treated as child abuse and children subjected to such an environment should be taken into care:
“At present, there is a reluctance by the social services to intervene, even when they and the police have clear evidence of what is going on, because it is not clear that the “safeguarding law” would support such action. A child may be taken into care if he or she is being exposed to pornography, or is being abused – but not if the child is being habituated to this utterly bleak and nihilistic view of the world that could lead them to become murderers. I have been told of at least one case where the younger siblings of a convicted terrorist are well on the road to radicalisation – and it is simply not clear that the law would support intervention.
“This is absurd. The law should obviously treat radicalisation as a form of child abuse. It is the strong view of many of those involved in counter-terrorism that there should be a clearer legal position, so that those children who are being turned into potential killers or suicide bombers can be removed into care – for their own safety and for the safety of the public. “(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10671841/The-children-taught-at-home-about-murder-and-bombings.html).
Even for the Old Buffoonian this is extraordinary obtuseness. Johnson has failed to recognise three very obvious facts: (1) removing Muslim children from their parents will also certainly radicalise the children; (2) it will provide potent ammunition for Islamic extremists and (3) you can bet your life that once the principle of “bad” ideas is established as a reason for the social workers to come in, it will be extended to many other “bad” ideas, for example, in these pc times anything which is non-pc. Let us have a look in detail at those disturbing implications of Johnson’s proposal.
To begin with at what age would children be removed from the family? If at birth or shortly afterwards, the child and eventually the adult will feel that their lives have been ruthlessly changed by the state and may well turn to extremism to revenge themselves on the society which has treated them so. If taken away at an older age the child, especially if they are old enough to have imbibed the radical message, is likely to be not merely confirmed in their radical ideas but have them substantially amplified.
Of course it is not only parents who could be a radical influence within the home. What about brothers, sisters, Aunts and Uncles and cousins who were Jihadists? Would they be grounds for removing children? Would they have to be banned from having any contact with the children?
There is also the ticklish question of what constitutes an idea radical enough to sanction removal of the child. Would it have to be direct exhortations to kill non-Muslims? If less than that, where would the line be drawn? At Muslims telling children non-Muslims are damned to Hell? At Muslims simply telling their children that they should not associate with non-Muslims?
Then there is the question of where the children would be placed after they were removed. Most would probably end up in care because if the policy was enforced rigorously, thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands, of Muslim children would have to be removed. This might seem extreme but think of the hundreds of Muslims who have already been convicted in Britain of terrorist related crimes (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24454596) Think of the hundreds or even thousands who are reported to be fighting abroad in places such as Syria and Afghanistan (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25893040). They will often have children or be uncles, cousins and aunts to Muslim children.
Even with much smaller numbers the chances of a Muslim child being left in care would be strong because Muslim adopters and foster parents are thin on the ground. If they are left in care that would be likely to provide an unhappy childhood which would engender a strong sense of victimhood, fertile soil in which to plant Jihadist ideas. The child would also be brought up as a Muslim to ensure that he was not denied his “cultural heritage” and would consequently be exposed to other Muslims who might well be Islamic radicals.
Adoption and fostering might provide more palatable lives for the children than care, but they would have difficulties of their own. The current politically correct adoption and fostering policies very strongly favour placing a child in families which are racially and culturally akin to those of the child. That would mean most, possibly all, of such children ending up in a Muslim family. That family might be moderates who treat their religion in the same way that the average C of E worshipper does, as a tepid private observance rather than a fervent matter of public policy. But even in such circumstances, the child would still be regularly be exposed to Muslims with more rigorous Islamic ideas and could easily become radicalised or have radical ideas obtained before their removal from their birth parents enhanced.
Then there is school. Whether in care, foster homes or an adoptive home, the child is likely to be in a school with a significant number of Muslims because of the emphasis on providing a racially and ethnically environment which matches the child’s original circumstances. To achieve that the child will almost certainly be living in a town or city which has a substantial Muslim population. There will also be pressure on those responsible for the child to place them in a school with a healthy Muslim intake. The child might even be placed in a Muslim school if he or she is adopted and the adoptive parents favour such an education.
Aside from all this, there is the Internet. Any child forbidden to have contact with anything whether it be radical Islam or pornography is likely to be drawn to it like a moth to a flame.
The propaganda value of Muslim children being forcibly removed would be immense. Muslim terrorists would use it to justify their violence and, because the issue is such an emotive one, they would gain sympathy from Muslims generally in the way IRA bombers enjoyed a sympathy amongst the wider republican movement along the lines of “I don’t agree with their methods but…” the practice would undoubtedly resonate throughout the Muslim world and have effects far beyond those willing to engage in violence. In particular, it could seriously affect trade with Britain.
Such a policy would almost certainly have an antagonising effect on other minorities, both because they would fear that the same might happen to them and because of a sense of solidarity with Muslims, for they are all part of what one might call the victimocracy, the army of those who harbour a grievance, justified or otherwise, simply because they are minorities or from some notion that white Western society owes them something. The policy would also be a fundamental questioning of the policy of multiculturalism which has ruled the British elite roost for over thirty years.
There would also be the danger that in a bid to boost their pc credentials to offset the non-pc draconian removal of children. For example, concessions could be made to Muslims generally by the British political elite, concessions such as the relaxation of immigration rules for Muslims and allowing sharia law to be expanded in Britain from the supposedly voluntary sharia courts which now exist to Sharia courts which were compulsory for Muslims.
In short doing what Johnson proposes would make matters considerably worse for all concerned, for Muslims and the general population of the UK. What should be done? We need to start from the fact that there is no realistic way that Muslim children can be shielded from radical Islam. Nor is there any hard proof that most radical Muslims in Britain were radicalised by their families or became radicalised when they were children. Radicalisation within mosques or through a radical preacher operating outside the mosque at a fairly advanced stage of childhood or in early adulthood seems far more common. Moreover, Britain’s inability to control her borders whilst within the EU will always allow radical Muslims to come from abroad. Short of expelling every Muslim in the country (several million) and allowing none to visit the country, the danger of Islamic terrorism, home grown or otherwise, will be a constant. Just as Irish republican terrorism had to be managed rather than exterminated, so Islamic terrorism will have to be managed.
All of that is depressing enough, but the really sinister aspect of what Johnson proposes is the opportunity it would provide for the interference by the state in how parents generally bring up their children. This could be in part a politically correct desire to create a spurious equality between Muslims and non-Muslims, but it could equally be an ideological vehicle for the extension of political correctness.
As things stand, the politically correct legions in our midst incessantly chomp at the bit as they try to ensure that any opinion but their own is at best driven from public debate and at worst made illegal in any circumstances. An excellent recent example of the totalitarian mentality of such people is the leader of the Green Party Natalie Bennett’s call for cabinet ministers, senior public officials and political advisers to be sacked unless they unquestioningly backed the idea of man-made global warming (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/the-british-green-party-expose-their-totalitarian-mentality/).
If it was allowed that Muslim children could be removed from their homes because of the beliefs of their parents (or any other family member), why not permit the removal of children whose parents disapproved of mass immigration, were members of the BNP or the EDL, refused to accept the claims of the man-made global warming believers, thought gay marriage was a nonsense or simply ridiculed the idea of human equality?
This might seem fanciful at first glance, but think of the absurdities the politically correct have forced upon us in the name of racial and sexual equality and multiculturalism and the use of the law to intimidate and increasing charge with criminal offences those who speak out against the effects of political correctness, for example, http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/courage-is-the-best-defence-against-charges-of-racism.
Debate about the costs of mass immigration in mainstream politics and media concentrate overwhelmingly on the economic costs. Indeed, public debate is very often solely about the economics, whether that be the difference between tax paid and benefits drawn by immigrants or the supposed need for immigrants because of their alleged superior skills or work ethic . These costs are important – although never honestly calculated: see http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/what-a-true-assessment-of-the-economic-costs-of-mass-immigration-would-include/ – but the more damaging costs are the non-economic ones which change the tenor of a society. That is not to say that the non-economic costs do not have economic implications, for example, the 2011 riots in England did, but what I am considering here are the psychological and sociological costs. I concentrate on Britain, but the vast majority of the points listed apply to any first world society with a large immigrant population and many of the points apply to any society, rich or poor, which has suffered a large influx of immigrants. The non-economic costs to Britain are:
1. The colonisation of parts of the UK, especially in England, for example, much of inner London, Leicester, Birmingham and Bradford by immigrants who create separate worlds in which to live with next to no attempt at integration. This makes living in such areas for native Britons very problematic, because not only will they feel they are a minority in their own land, a severe psychological burden, those native Britons who are parents will have a very real concern that the state schools (where the large majority of British pupils are educated) in their area will be Towers of Babel in which their children will be neglected, taught more of the cultures of immigrants than their own culture and quite probably bullied simply for being native Britons. The poorer native Britons in such areas will often not have the option of moving – as white liberals frequently do – to an area where there are few immigrants because of the cost of moving, especially the cost of housing. It is also much more difficult for someone in an unskilled or low-skilled occupation to find such work in areas without a large immigrant component.
2. The damaging effect on the morale of the native British population of seeing parts of their country colonised with the connivance of their elites.
3. The damaging effect on the morale of the native British population of employers and politicians claiming that immigrants are more able and possessed of a superior work ethic than the native Briton.
4. Immigrant Ghettoes. Their formation is a natural tendency amongst immigrants which was given a great deal of added energy by the British elite’s adoption of multiculturalism in the 1970s. This was both a consequence of the Left-Liberal internationalist terminally naïve happy-clappy “we are all one big human family” ideology and an attempt to ameliorate when it became clear that assimilation/integration had not taken place amongst the black and Asian immigrants of the fifties and sixties after several generations had been born in Britain. The effect has been to create long-lasting ghettoes which are not only separate from the British mainstream but hostile to Britain, its native population and its culture
5. Censorship. The need by the British elite to suppress dissent amongst the native population at the invasion of their country has resulted in a gross diminution of free speech. They have done this through legislation, for example, the Race Relations Act 1976, Public Order Act 1986 and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000; by creating a willingness amongst the police to intimidate by pouncing with the greatest zeal on those who dare to be any other than rigidly politically correct in the matter of race and immigration (this done frequently with no intention of bringing charges because no law on the statute book will fit the pc “crime” but simply to frighten), and through the complicity of those in the media and employers (especially public sector and large private employers) to punish the politically incorrect heretics with media hate campaigns or the loss of jobs.
6. Double standards in law enforcement. As mentioned above, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service show great eagerness in investigating and prosecuting cases when a white person (especially a white Briton) is accused of being racist on the flimsiest of evidence and a remarkable sloth where someone from a racial or ethnic minority group has been blatantly racist. The case of Rhea Page is an especially fine example of the latter behaviour whereby a vicious indubitably racist attack by Somali girls on a white English girl and her boyfriend did not result in a custodial sentence (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html#ixzz1flw8TY6p.) The strong reluctance of the British state to act against crimes specific to ethnic and racial minorities can be particularly seen in the case of “honour killings”, Female Genital Mutilation and the clearly racist grooming of white girls by men from the Indian sub-continent.
7. The general privileging racial and ethnic minorities over the native British population. The incontinent pandering to immigrant cultures, especially Muslims, by politicians, public service organisations, large private businesses and much of the mainstream media. The pandering ranges from such material advantages as housing associations which cater only for specific ethnic and racial minorities (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/the-truth-about-social-housing-and-ethnic-minorities/) and a toleration of customs and morals which would be unreservedly declared to be wrong if practised by the native population, for example, the ritual slaughter of animals.
8. The incessant pc propagandising in schools and universities, even in subjects which do not seem to readily lend themselves to pc manipulation such as economics and geography. The most pernicious effect of this ideological corruption of schooling is to effectively rob native British (and especially English) children of their history. This occurs because the general history of Britain (and especially that of England) is not taught (there is no meaningful chronology of British or any other history delivered to children because themes rather than periods are the order of the day) and the history which is covered is heavily slanted towards portraying the British as pantomime villains forever oppressing subject peoples and growing rich on the wealth extracted from them. The upshot is the creation of several generations of native British (and especially English) children who have (1) no meaningful understanding of their history and general culture and (2) have acquired a sense that any praise of or pride in their own land, culture and history is dangerous and that the only safe way to get through school is to repeat the politically correct mantras of their teachers.
9. The piggy –backing on “anti-discrimination” laws to do with race of the other politically correct mainstays of sexual and gender equality and lesser entrants to the equality game such as age and disability. Racism is undoubtedly the most potent of all pc voodoo words and without it the present gigantic edifice of the “diversity and equality” religion would in all probability not exist, or would at least exist in much less potent form.
10. The claustrophobia of diversity (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/02/12/the-claustrophobia-of-diversity/). A sense of paranoid claustrophobia (something common to totalitarian states) has been created amongst the native British population by the suppression of dissent about mass immigration and its consequences, by the imposition of the multiculturalist creed and by the ceaseless extolling of the “joy of diversity” by white liberals who take great care to live well insulated against the “joy”. The effect of this claustrophobia is to generally reduce the native British population to an ersatz acceptance of the pc message, but the discontent every now and then bubbles over into public outbursts such as those of Emma West (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/emma-west-immigration-and-the-liberal-totalitarian-state/). Such outbursts, which are a basic form of political protest, are increasingly visited with criminal charges and jail sentences.
11. The enemy within. The creation of large communities of those who are ethnically and racially different from the native British in Britain produces de facto fifth columns. We are already seeing how countries such as India and China respond to any attempt to restrict future immigration for these countries by making veiled threats about what will happen if Britain does this. At a less direct level of foreign threat, British foreign policy is increasingly shaped by the fact that there are large ethnic and racial minorities in Britain. There is also the growing numbers, especially amongst Muslims in Britain, of those who are actively hostile to the very idea of Britain and are willing to resort to extreme violence to express their hatred, actions such as the 7/7 bombings in London and the recent murder of the soldier Lee Rigby.
12. Violence based on ethnicity and behaviours peculiar to immigrant groups such as “honour” killings”, street gangs and riots. Every self-initiated British riot since 1945, that is a riot started by rioters not violence in response to police action against a crowd of demonstrators, has its roots in immigration. The Notting Hill riots of 1958 were the white response to large scale Caribbean immigration; every riot in Britain since then has been instigated and led by blacks or Asians from the Indian Sub-Continent. This includes the riots of 2011 in England which the politically correct British media have tried desperately to present as a riot which in its personnel was representative of modern England. In fact, it began with the shooting of a mixed race man in North London by police and even the official statistics on the race and ethnicity of those convicted of crimes in the riots show that blacks and Asians comprised more than fifty percent of those brought to book (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/the-black-instigated-and-dominated-2011-riots-and-the-great-elite-lie/).
13. Uncontrolled immigration. The larger the number of immigrants, the louder voice they have, the greater the electoral power. This in practice means ever more immigration as politicians pander to immigrant groups by allowing them to bring in their relatives or even simply more from their ethnic group. This trait has been amplified by the British political elite signing treaties since 1945 which obligate Britain to take large numbers of asylum seekers and give hundreds of millions of people in Europe the right to reside and work in Britain through Britain’s membership of the EU. Britain cannot even deport illegal immigrants with any ease because either the originating countries will not take them or British courts grant them rights to remain because of Britain’s membership of the European Convention of Human Rights. The overall effect is to create de facto open borders immigration to the UK.
14. The introduction of ethnic based voting. This is phenomenon which is in its infancy as a serious threat, but it can already be found in areas with a large population of Asians whose ancestral land is the India sub continent. This is a recipe for eventual racial and ethnic strife.
15. The corruption of the British electoral system. Voter fraud had been rare in Britain for more than a hundred years before the Blair Government was formed in 1997. This was partly because of the general culture of the country and partly because of the way elections were conducted (with the vast majority of votes having to be cast in person) made fraudulent voting difficult. The scope for postal voting was extended from special cases such as the disabled and the old to any elector by the Representation of the People Act 2000. The frauds which have been discovered since the extension of the postal vote have been disproportionately amongst Asians whose ancestral origin were in the Indian sub-continent (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1271457/General-Election-2010-Postal-vote-fraud-amid-fears-bogus-voters-swing-election.html). The influence of fraudulent voting could be substantial because around 20% of votes cast in the 2010 General Election were postal http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/105896/Plymouth-GE2010-report-web.pdf).
All of these things gradually erode the fundamentals of British society including immensely valuable and rare values and behaviours such as respect for the law, trust between the population at large, mutual regard and a large degree of tolerance for others. Most fundamentally, the native British, and especially the English, have been seriously deracinated. They no longer know their history and worrying many seem to view their nationality as merely one ethnicity competing with many others. That is a dangerous mentality because no people will survive if it does not have an innate sense of its own worth and fellow feeling for those sharing the same territory. In short, patriotism is not an optional extra ( http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/patriotism-is-not-an-optional-extra/).
The British elite since 1945 has been programmed to attack the very idea of nations. Mass immigration has been the tool they have chosen to attain that end in Britain. We have the word of Andrew Neather, a special adviser to the Blair government that the massive immigration (over 3 million net) during the Blair years was a deliberate policy to dilute the native culture of the UK:
” I [Neather] wrote the landmark speech given by then immigration minister Barbara Roche in September 2000, calling for a loosening of controls. It marked a major shift from the policy of previous governments: from 1971 onwards, only foreigners joining relatives already in the UK had been permitted to settle here.
“That speech was based largely on a report by the Performance and Innovation Unit, Tony Blair‘s Cabinet Office think-tank.
“The PIU’s reports were legendarily tedious within Whitehall but their big immigration report was surrounded by an unusual air of both anticipation and secrecy.
“Drafts were handed out in summer 2000 only with extreme reluctance: there was a paranoia about it reaching the media.
“Eventually published in January 2001, the innocuously labelled “RDS Occasional Paper no. 67″, “Migration: an economic and social analysis” focused heavily on the labour market case.
“But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
“I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date. That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far.
“Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing. For despite Roche’s keenness to make her big speech and to be upfront, there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour‘s core white working-class vote.
“This shone through even in the published report: the “social outcomes” it talks about are solely those for immigrants.
“And this first-term immigration policy got no mention among the platitudes on the subject in Labour’s 1997 manifesto, headed Faster, Firmer, Fairer.
“The results were dramatic. In 1995, 55,000 foreigners were granted the right to settle in the UK. By 2005 that had risen to 179,000; last year, with immigration falling thanks to the recession, it was 148,000.
“In addition, hundreds of thousands of migrants have come from the new EU member states since 2004, most requiring neither visas nor permission to work or settle. The UK welcomed an estimated net 1.5 million immigrants in the decade to 2008.
“Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.”
That should be seen for what it was, the most fundamental form of treason, because it is far more damaging than selling a nation out to a foreign invader arriving by military means. Such invaders can be eventually driven out or the invaders assimilated because the numbers are not massive. Mass immigration totalling millions of those determined to retain their own culture can never be undone by such means.
The politically correct never cease to tell us that mass immigration is a net benefit to Britain. By this they mean that immigrants pay more in taxes than they cost in publicly funded services. To make such an assessment the following statistics would be needed:
1. The amount of income tax and National Insurance paid by immigrants. Because of the type of work involved – seasonal, work offered by foreign gangmasters and so on – it is reasonable to assume a disproportionately large proportion of those working in the black market are immigrants. There is also a practice of immigrants working and paying tax until they exceed the single person’s tax allowance in a tax year, ceasing to work in the UK for that tax year and then reclaiming all the income tax paid at the end of the tax year. That rebated tax needs to be deducted from the tax paid figure held by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC).
2. The costs arising from the native population who are denied jobs which immigrants have taken. This will involve the benefits native workers have to collect because they cannot find a job, the costs of having to move to a new area to either seek work or because the new benefits cap will not meet their rent and the costs of having to take children out of one school plus the costs of registering with a new GP because a family is forced to move .
3. The cost to the native population of a reduction in wages caused by immigrants increasing the pool of labour. This will mean less tax paid and more in-work benefits
4. The cost of benefits drawn by immigrants when they are not working.
5. The cost of benefits drawn by immigrants when they are working, for example, working tax credits, housing benefit.
6. The cost of NHS care given to immigrants.
7. The cost of education given to immigrants, this to include the additional costs arising from those with poor or non-existent English.
8. The cost of benefits, education and NHS care for the children of immigrants born in the UK.
9. The costs of benefits paid to immigrants to support children born abroad and living abroad.
10. The inflation of housing costs caused by immigrants and their children born in the UK increasing the demand for housing.
11. The costs involved in a decline in the quality of NHS care and educational standards because of the pressure placed on the NHS, schools and higher education by immigrants. The inadequate English of many immigrants employed in the NHS in particular must reduce the efficiency of the service and increase the likelihood of error. The difficulty of teaching in schools with huge numbers of pupils lacking English as a first language speaks for itself.
12. The costs involved in the British economy generally from a loss of efficiency through the inadequate English of immigrants and their lack of understanding of British customs. It may be cheaper for an employer to employ an immigrant in terms of wages, but, especially where the immigrant is dealing with the public, there must be a substantial the loss of efficiency in terms of extra time taken to conduct conversations with customers, misunderstandings of what is wanted and an inability to explain to customers what is on offer.
13. The loss of expertise to Britain of skilled Britons who seek work abroad because of opportunities the UK being blocked by immigrants, for example, newly qualified British doctors and nurses have encountered difficulty in obtaining British posts despite the frequent claims of NHS staff shortages (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9272640/New-doctors-will-face-unemployment.html), while positions at British medical schools are cut and large numbers of foreigners recruited (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2407585/NHS-recruits-thousands-doctors-Third-World–limits-places-deny-British-students-chance-study-medicine.html)
14. The costs – which can be lifelong – of the loss of work experience for Britons unable to get work at all, whether skilled or unskilled. This is particularly important for the young.
15. The costs in terms of wear and tear on the roads because of increased traffic arising from immigrants.
16. The cost of criminal activity amongst immigrants.
17. The cost of criminal activity amongst the descendants of immigrants.
18. The costs of guarding against Islamic terrorism.
19. The costs of the remittances made by immigrants and their descendants to their ancestral countries.
20. The costs of meeting the requirements of the “anti-racist” legislation which puts considerable burdens employers. These are particularly severe for any employer who is funded in whole or part by the taxpayer. Such employers have to not merely be non-discriminatory, but they have to prove that is what they are as a result of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/34/pdfs/ukpga_20000034_en.pdf). The police are particularly keen to show how PC they are (http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/edhr/2010/201001EDHREDH01.pdf)
21. The cost of dealing with visa requests, asylum claims, claims regarding family reunions and claims based on compassionate grounds. The costs include employing civil servants to process claims to stay in the UK, the cost of staffing of immigration tribunals, the costs arising from the court time taken by the cases which go to the courts, the legal costs of those trying to stay in the UK (which are normally paid by the taxpayer), the cost of running immigration detention centres and the cost of removing people from the UK .
22. The ongoing cost of the descendants of immigrants – potentially through many generations – of racial and ethnic groups who continue to display high levels of unemployment, high benefit dependency, low-skills, poor educational attainment, low payments of tax and abnormally high levels of criminality.
I defy anyone to find a piece of research which comes close to including all those costs or even a majority of them.
Of course the economic arguments are not the most important thing about mass immigration which is that it changes the nature of a society because immigrants arriving in large numbers from the same country will invariably colonise parts of the country and resist assimilation. Nonetheless, it is important to thoroughly examine the weaknesses in the economic claims made by the politically correct because it is their favoured ploy to try to pull the wool over the public’s eyes.
The costs fall most heavily on the poor, the rich being, as yet, largely untouched because they arrange their lives so that they do not encounter the supposed joy of diversity and have no need to seek work in a competitive situation.
Civitas meeting: Transforming the market: Towards a new political economy 13 November 2013
Speaker: Dr Patrick Diamond
Diamond’s talk was based on his recently published Civitas tract http://civitas.org.uk/press/EAdiamond.html
Diamond is firmly in the NuLabour camp, having been involved in various positions servicing the last Labour government, including that of head of Policy Planning in 10 Downing Street. He now holds several academic positions at London and Oxford universities. He is also a Labour councillor for the London Borough of Southwark.
What is his recipe for “transforming the market”? This extract from his Civitas tract give the bare bones of it:
“The government is an enabler, directing strategic investment to growing sectors and firms, providing fertile conditions for entrepreneurship.
The government is a regulator, managing the inherent volatility and instability of markets, while promoting competition in product and capital markets.
The government is an equaliser, ensuring the supply of public goods and human capital helps the least advantaged, while ensuring the basic distribution of household income accords with basic principles of fairness and social justice.
And the government is an innovator , promoting experimentation, technological adaptation, alongside the discovery of new markets, services and the advancement of knowledge.” pp49/50
This has the ring of someone reciting a catechism whose end is in its saying not in its doing.
Diamond’s buzzwords for curing the ills of the British economy are decentralisation and localism. This dovetails with the Labour version of the Tories’ risible “Big Society” which I heard John Cruddas outline not so long ago (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2013/10/20/one-nation-labour-work-family-and-place-a-taste-of-labours-next-election-propaganda/). Read this in conjunction with this report and you will have Labour’s economic and social programme for the next general election.
There is a good deal of “back to the future” in his programme. He wants to create a ‘super ministry” combining the Department of Business, Innovation and skills (BIS), the Department of Communities and Homes and some Treasury functions to “ decentralise and devolve economic power away from London.” Older readers will be irresistibly reminded of the first Wilson government in the 1960s when work, and especially public sector work, was to be sent to the less prosperous parts of Britain. Thankfully Diamond at least spared us any ancient embarrassing rhetoric such as “the white heat of technology” or “picking winners”, but that is what he thinking.
Diamond’s wish to see Britain’s economy “rebalanced” away from services and towards manufacturing also resonates with Wilson’s desire to shift more people into manufacturing. This he attempted to do with arguably the most absurd tax ever introduced in Britain, the Selective Employment Tax (SET). This was placed on service companies only, the idea being that this would make more people seek manufacturing jobs because service employers would find it more expensive to employ people and the number of service jobs would fall. In turn the hope was that manufacturing wages would be lowered because of increased competition for such jobs. This last was an heroically optimistic scenario because of the power of the unions at the time.
SET failed for the wondrously obvious reason that it increased the costs of service employers without improving the circumstances of manufacturers, whose wages remained much the same, while demand for their goods was at best not increased and at worst might have even fallen if unemployment in the service sector rose due to the increased cost imposed by SET and reduced overall demand. This meant manufacturers could not employ more people. All SET could do in the circumstances of the 1960s, if it had any effect at all, was reduce employment and/or raise retail prices.
So many things are to Diamond’s mind “too centralised” or overly concentrated in particular areas . Apart from general economic power and government, he pointed to banks, infrastructure such as airports and even the Arts. Leaving aside whether localising affairs is desirable, there is an inherent problem with making things more local and decentralised. There needs to be not merely the bricks and mortar of regional banks and companies, councils with much more responsibility and so on, there needs to be a class of people who can handle such responsibilities at the local and regional level. None exists at present. Nor can such a class be created by conscious policy. It is something that happens, if it happens at all, naturally.
At one time Britain did have a healthy political and managerial class who were willing and able to assume the burden of exercising local power. But that class grew naturally from the fact that the whole of society was of necessity conducted at the local level because of poor communications. But from the advent of the railways onwards localism became less and less the natural state of affairs. We have now reached a point where the exercise of political power and initiative at the local level is feeble because those with real political ambition do not see serving at the local level as important. It is all very well to lament this and say power and influence should be shifted back to the local level but how able and ambitious people can be persuaded to confine themselves to local government is another matter. Frankly, I doubt whether the clock can be turned back.
As part of his worship of the local Diamond is much taken with Germany with its regional banks, workers directives and technical schools. He wants Britain to copy them. In this he is making the profound but common error of believing that what works in one society will work in any other society. This was doubly odd because he recognised in one part of his talk (and does so in his written tract) that the transfer of methods from one society to another was problematical, but still went on as though the problem did not exist when he got to the detail, such as it was, as to what should be done in Britain.
Germany is decentralised because that is the way it has always been. A latecomer to the nation state (1870), the German state has always been in practice a federation with some of the larger components such as Saxony and Bavaria having histories as substantial kingdoms in their own right. The consequence is that regionalism comes naturally to Germany in a way that it never would do in Britain and especially England, because England has been centralised in the sense that it has been a kingdom encompassing those with a broad common ethnicity for many centuries. In modern Germany the sixteen Lander form political entities which each have both size and a separate history to create and maintain regional loyalty. In England there are no such hard core regional loyalties. Regional sub-divisions of England are no more than geographical expressions, the South West, the North West, the South East, Midlands and so on. Even the North East – the region of England often put forward as having the strongest regional identity – is far from being an area with a separate identity around which all the inhabitants can coalesce.
Diamond’s scheme for remedying the ills of the British economy has many other weaknesses. He is sold on predistribution. This is, almost inevitably these days, an ideological import from the USA. It is the political equivalent of selling snake oil to the ill. The idea is that silly old traditional methods of redressing inequality such as progressive tax regimes and benefit support (which actually work) are forsaken for ethereal aspirations that encourage long-term investment, providing good quality public services, particularly healthcare and investing in the skills of the young , workers on company boards, a minimum wage pegged to inflation and so on. The problem is these will not work while mass immigration and relatively free trade exists both in terms of imports and the export of jobs through outsourcing.
The broad sweep of Diamond’s ends I would have sympathy with, the re-industrialisation of Britain, greater material equality, an end to the worship of markets, long term planning by companies and so on. The problem is his means. They will not work because he is always trying to work within the context of both a market economy and globalisation. Take his strategy for manufacturing. To increase this, especially in terms of making it much broader as well as larger in GDP terms, some form of protection would have to be used, be that traditional controls such as quotas and tariffs or state control of vital industries together with fiscal measures to ensure the price of essential goods and services are within the reach of the poor. We can be sure of that both because economic history has no example of a country industrialising except by protecting its domestic market and because simple logic tells you that it is impossible to compete across the economic board with countries whose labour forces are earning a fraction of British wages, who have scant regard for health and safety and whose governments ensure that it is very difficult to enter their markets by economic regimes which are anything but laissez faire.
Diamond’s attempt to get round this problem is for Britain to concentrate on high-tech industries. There are two problems with this. The first is strategic whereby it is dangerous for any country to leave itself at the mercy of world events by being unable to produce a wide range of products either at all or in sufficient quantity to tide the country over in an emergency.
The second difficulty is the sheer impossibility of creating sufficient jobs to employ enough of a large population like that of the UK to compensate for the export of lower tech, lower skilled work. Even if it was in theory possible, it would be impossible to find enough people capable of high tech work because the way IQ is distributed means that even in a country with a strong average IQ such as Britain will have huge numbers of people who have mediocre to poor IQs –for example, there are around 6 million people with IQS of 80 or less in the UK. Thus two reasons for a broad-based economy come together: the impossibility of providing enough high tech, high skill jobs and the need to cater for the less able in society.
The audience questions and remarks
What was heartening was the anger which quite a few of the audience (it was a deliberately small gathering of around 25) expressed about the way British governments had failed to protect British companies and British economic interests generally. “Britain is becoming a servant economy” was probably the best of the comments summing up where Britain is headed if the current laissez faire policies continue to be followed.
These points were made by other members of the audience:
- The takeover of British companies by foreigners was made much easier with the abolition of the Mergers and Monopolies Commission (which had a public interest test) and its replacement with the Competition Commission (which has no public interest test but simply a test for the proportion of the market a takeover would involve).
- Manufacturers comprise only 11% of GDP but 50% of British exports.
- Manufacturing jobs are generally better paid than service sector jobs so their loss is more keenly felt both by the individual and in terms of GDP.
- Foreign direct investment is often concerned with the acquiring of British assets rather than new investment.
- Energy costs are killing manufacturing in the UK.
The owner of JLS Ltd, John Mills (who is currently the largest Labour Party donor and a one-time Camden Councillor), advocated a deliberate 20% devaluation of the pound . I have discussed this with him on another occasion and the problem with it is this: starting the devaluation is easy enough, but stopping it at the level you want it is not. The danger is that the currency will deflate way beyond the desired point because the brakes fail to halt the decline in its value. It is also worth remembering that the value of the Pound against major currencies has dropped 20% or so since Lehman Bros failed in 2008.
I managed to make a few points. These were:
1. That it is impossible to rebuild manufacturing except behind protectionist barriers, official or unofficial, the proof of this statement being the fact that it has never been done.
2. Most immigrants are not engaged in highly skilled work but low-skilled or unskilled jobs, which in itself gives the lie to the idea that immigrants are doing jobs which Britons could not or would not do. I further pointed out that many of these jobs involve dealing with the British public – in shops, cafes, call centres and so on – and that many of those so employed have completely inadequate English. To claim that a foreign worker who cannot speak fluent English is a better employee in such posts than a native English speaker is a self-evident nonsense.
3. That British unemployment, especially youth unemployment, cannot be cured while our borders are effectively open both because of the EU and the unwillingness of all the major parties to halt immigration from outside the European Economic Area. (Diamond flatly refused to discuss the question of immigration, contenting himself with “We shall have to differ on immigration”).
4. Diamond stated in his talk that healthy economies relied on “efficient, effective and non-corrupt public sectors”. I broke the dreadful truth to him that Britain no longer has such a public sector. Privatisation (especially PFI) has greatly increased the opportunities for corruption in public service. Increase the opportunities and corruption increases. It is a very simple equation.
Diamond accepted that corruption had worsened in central government public service but bizarrely claimed it had reduced in local government circles. The reality is that corruption has increased not decreased in local government because so much of local government work has been contracted out. Diamond attempted no justification for his claim merely asserted it. (It is a very strange thing but I have never been to a meeting dealing with the same general subject area as this one where anyone other than me has raised the issue of corruption, this despite the fact that there are regular examples of it in the mainstream media).
Privatisation has also reduced the efficiency of public services, because where used it destroys the chain of command within the public service. This occurs because where there is a private contractor involved the public service provider cannot instruct those employed by the private contractor but must work through the contractor’s management. This can lead to very complex arrangements. I gave the example of major London hospitals where there are routinely PFI contracts for the food, the laundry, the ward cleaning and the maintenance and cleaning of the multi-media installations (TV, phone, internet).
5. That giving more power, including greatly increased borrowing powers, to local councils is a recipe for disaster because of the lamentable quality of the large majority of councillors. I urged anyone around the table who doubted this to go and view their local council in action, especially in the committees and subcommittees.
6. The laws which allow directors who do not meet their statutory responsibilities to be punished are rarely enforced. I gave as examples the provisions within the Company’s Act to remove the personal; limited liability of directors and to ban people from being directors. I pointed out that these provisions had not been used against any of the directors of RBS, HBOS, Lloyds or Northern Rock, despite their extremely reckless behaviour. Had the limited liability of directors such as Fred Goodwin been removed the directors could have been sued for every penny they had. As for banning directors, I told the meeting that from my own experience with the Inland Revenue of trying to get even the directors of tinpot concerns banned was well nigh impossible and that to get a mainboard director of a Footsie 100 company banned was in practice impossible unless the director was convicted of a criminal offence against the company such as embezzlement.
What needs to be done
If Britain’s economy can be reshaped it can only be done with a judicious use of protectionist measures, the renationalisation of vital services such as the utilities and an end to mass immigration. Diamond will not even consider doing any of this.
There was one issue which I did not get a chance to raise because of the constraints of the meeting. Nor was the issue touched on by Diamond or any of the audience. It concerned technological changed. Robotics and 3-D printing bid fair to turn our economic world upside down. I include below links to a couple of articles which deal with problems they will create. Just in case you are tempted to say Oh that’s just sci-fi, especially in the case of robotics, go online look at the latest robotic developments, for example, a humanoid robot which can walk over rough ground (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10360951/Meet-Atlas-Boston-Dynamics-unveils-robot-that-can-walk-on-rocks.html)
and a humanoid robot that has human eye movements very well imitated. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/10413987/Meet-ZENO-R25-the-first-affordable-human-robot.html)
The implications of Robotics are explored in these essays:
Making plans on the basis that our economy and society will remain in broad terms similar to what it is now is a mug’s game.
Robert Henderson 29 11 2013
Civitas meeting at 55 Tuftn Street Westminster SW1P3QL
14 October 2013
One nation Labour: work, family and place
Speaker: John Cruddas MP
The speech was howlingly vacuous, full of trite phrasemaking and statements of the blindingly obvious added to a rich menu of vague aspirations. Here are a few examples:
“Families come in all different shapes and sizes”.
“Some of our families trace their English roots back generations, and for some their children are the first born in England.“
“We will improve our schools so they can help children develop good character, and learn the values of respect, honesty, compassion, trust and integrity.”
The only surprise is that Cruddas did not tell the audience that he believed in motherhood and apple pie.
But empty as it was of hard policy, this speech is important because Cruddas was laying out the general propaganda strategy of the Labour Party for the coming General Election. The strategy was noteworthy for its unmitigated cynicism, it being a shameless attempt to cloak the true intent of Labour with words which until very recently the Party would have treated as beyond the politically correct Pale.
Cruddas’ engaged in dog-whistle politics. For Labour’s historically core vote, the unalloyed white working class, he used words and phrases such as patriotism and national renewal, but in a way that would have met with the firm approval of Lewis Carol’s Humpty Dumpty. They meant whatever Cruddas meant them to mean rather than what any normal person or a dictionary would take them to mean. Nation did not mean a natural nation but a bogus one centred around civic ideals. Patriotism did not mean wanting to express a sense of nation but pride in the civic ideals. Being English did not mean being English in the cultural or historic sense, but English as simply a coverall term for those living in England. (In passing, I could not help wryly wondering if Cruddas was unaware of the fascist echoes in his language: One Nation; National Renewal, the new England…. )
Cruddas had other electoral wares to peddle. To entice Tories alienated by Cameron’s NuTory social liberalism and the aspirational working-class vote, Cruddas put forward what might politely be called the NuLabour version of that risible Tory phrase The Big Society. This consisted of a condemnation of centralisation and a devolution of power and responsibility to the local level in general and the individual in particular. Here is a flavour of Cruddas’ general thrust:
“One Nation begins in local places. It is in our neighbourhoods that we express our cultures and identities and the new England taking shape is happening where people meet and greet one another, neighbours help one another and watch and learn from each others different lives and so build up trust and in the process make a home together. “
“They are the people who tend to think of themselves as both English and British. They care about their families and work hard for a better life. The ethic of work is deeply held because it is about self-respect and self reliance. They are responsible and look after their neighbourhoods. But they don’t feel they get back what they deserve. “
“They are powerfully aspirational but they are struggling to make ends meet. The better life they have worked for, and their hopes for their children are under threat due to the cost of living crisis. Labour should be their natural home.”
Despite the Thatcherite tone, this was The Big Society NuLabour style. Consequently, it also contained a good deal of political correctness, including a seeming acceptance of male employment providing less than enough money to support a family as a permanent fixture in the British economy. Indeed, there was even an undertone of this being a good thing because it furthers the cause of gender equality, viz:
“Millions of men no longer earn enough to follow their fathers in the role of family breadwinner. More and more women are taking on the role of breadwinner. Families thrive when there is a partnership and teamwork amongst adult relations We need a new conversation about families and their relationships that is jointly owned by women and men. “
“We need to value father’s family role as highly as his working role, and women’s working role as highly as her domestic one. And we need to have high expectations of fathers because otherwise we collude with those men who don’t step up to the mark.”
“We will look at where we can make greater use of a ‘whole family’ approach to public services which assumes, where it is safe and appropriate, that a child needs a relationship with both parents.
- exploring changes to maternity services to engage the whole family and include fathers.
- looking at paid leave for prospective fathers to attend antenatal sessions and hospital appointments during pregnancy.
- developing services that facilitate mutual support between families.
- helping family self help initiatives in the community and letting finance follow.
Helping children take responsibility for their own actions, also means improving sex and relationship education for boys and girls with zero tolerance of violence at its core. “
The third prong of Cruddas’ propaganda method was to speak of England not Britain:
“It is a sentiment that is shared by a large part of the electorate today, particularly in England. Patriotic, love of family; live and let live. Committed to the virtues of responsibility and duty; fiercely democratic and individual. “
“We are a country of many roots looking for an identity. Some of our families trace their English roots back generations, and for some their children are the first born in England.“
“One Nation begins in local places. It is in our neighbourhoods that we express our cultures and identities and the new England taking shape is happening where people meet and greet one another, neighbours help one another and watch and learn from each others different lives and so build up trust and in the process make a home together.”
This is not Englishness at all but a substitute for the increasingly meaningless use of British, a term which has become a semantic umbrella to obviate the need to call immigrants and their descendants English. There is to be a new Englishness, not one born of the organic formation and shaping of a nation across a millennium and a half, as has been the genesis of England and the English, but a cosmopolitan multicultural politically correct mess which no English man or woman would recognise as English.
In true Labour fashion his speech was also packed with uncosted spending commitments such as paid antenatal paternity leave, guaranteed work for the long-term unemployed, increased childcare payments, cutting and then freezing business rates for small and medium sized firms and putting more money into vocational training. Incredibly, Cruddas claimed that these new costly policies will be made whilst government spending reduces overall, viz:: “We will govern with less money.”
There was a strong hint to what the devolution of power would really be about in Cruddas’ housing proposals, viz:
“Local people need local homes and we will devolve power to local authorities to negotiate with private landlords reductions in rent and use the savings to build new homes.”
The device is transparent: the responsibility is moved from national politicians and any failure rests with local politicians. And so it will be with anything else devolved under a Labour government if one is elected in 2015. As for the housing proposal, If there were no legal power to force private landlords to reduce rents, and there was no suggestion from Cruddas that there would be, it is the purest pie-in-the-sky.
On the subject which most exercises the native English, immigration, all Cruddas had to offer was first this:
“Change brings both a sense of loss as well as hope; across the country there is a powerful sense of grievance and dispossession. A loss of culture and a way of life. We have to engage with the visceral politics it creates. “
With this as the risibly inadequate solution:
“On immigration, Ed Miliband has set out a new approach which combines tougher controls on people coming in from new EU countries with measures to help stop low skilled migration undercutting the wages of workers already here.”
Cruddas also had the effrontery to claim The Conservatives are dividing Britain when of course the greatest cause of division is mass immigration which increased hugely under Blair and Brow with a net inflow of more than three million to the UK.
It would also be interesting to know how Cruddas could square his wish for Britain to be “fiercely democratic” with the mass immigration which has been the prime policy exercising the British electorate for a long time when they have been denied any say on it because neither of the major parties has any real intention of preventing it, not least because both major parties are committed to Britain’s membership of the EU.
There was also a feeble apology for the mess created by the Blair and Brown governments. Reflecting on the 2010 election defeat Cruddas mused “did we spend too much attention treating problems in society rather than preventing them? We moved thousands more people into work, but did we pay sufficient attention to the type of work performed and the rewards received? Were we attuned to the scale of low skilled immigration and across its impact in communities? “ before concluding baldly “We got things wrong.”
Needless to say, Cruddas’ conclusion that serious mistakes were made did not lead him to suggest that he , and all the other Labour MPs who served in the Blair and Brown governments who are still in the Commons should resign in disgrace because of the mess Labour left on leaving office. An admission of fault without proportionate or indeed any penalty suffered by the wrongdoers is meaningless, a taunting of the public.
The full text of Cruddas’ speech is at http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/earningandbelonging.pdf
Come question time I managed to get the first question. I launched it with a decent preamble during which I pointed out the three to four million net immigration under the last Labour government; the reckless spending with government spending deficits totalling more than £200 billion before the crash of 2008 and the millions in full-time work who could not earn enough to support themselves and were heavily dependent on benefits. I ended by asking the question “In view of the mess the last Labour Government left behind them in 2010 why should anyone trust the Labour Party enough to re-elect them at the next election? Had there been time, I would have added in the perpetual warmongering of Blair, the handing to the EU of ever more power without the British public being consulted in a referendum, the disastrous neglect of the UK’s energy supplies, the vast expansion of the racket that is PFI and the institutionalisation of political correctness within the British public sector.
Cruddas gave me a non-answer, being reduced to saying that I had not given a nuanced view of the last Labour government, followed by a claim that all had seemed going well until the crash of 2008, with an implied shrug of the shoulders that the crash could not have been foreseen. Contemptibly, he tried to hide behind the Tories by saying they had supported the economic policies of the Blair government. The latter was of course true, but being wrong with along with your political opponents is no excuse. The reality is that the crash was about as obvious as Christmas coming at the end of December if one looked at the economic indicators. (I publicly predicted the crash in July 2007. By then house prices had risen so high that in the large majority of English council areas it was impossible for someone earning the average wage to buy their first house, despite the ease with which mortgages could be obtained with loans of up to 125% of the property’s value being offered. It was clear that the housing market, which underpinned the gerrymandered NuLabour boom, would collapse and cause a severe recession).
The rest of the questions were curiously bloodless. Depressingly, no one else at the meeting seemed to be angry about what had happened to Britain under Blair and Brown.
The one thing of interest which came from these questions was Cruddas’ definition of what constituted a sense of nation and patriotism. It was the “civic patriotism” so beloved of the left at the moment, the ludicrous idea that a nation can be formed around nothing more than a set of self-consciously arrived at values such as a belief in representative government and the rule of law. Any sense of belonging arises organically from the natural human traits which create “tribal feeling” not from governments telling people what to believe.
The “values” which Cruddas was speaking about were in reality those of political correctness. This meant he was purveying not one nonsense but another one on top of it – nonsense on stilts – because political correctness is in itself an exercise in denying reality.
After the meeting I email Cruddas this without receiving a reply:
Dear Mr Cruddas,
I was the person who asked the first question at the Civitas meeting tonight. Apart from the points I made in the preamble to my question, I would say that your emphasis on localism and community self-help sounded remarkably like a NuLabour version of the Tories’ Big Society. Both ideas are non-starters because you cannot create social networks and community spirit self-consciously. It can only develop organically. For the same reason a civic citizenship cannot be created to stand in the stead of Man’s innate tribal feeling.
What the Labour Party needs is a return to a firm and clear understanding of what things should be private and what public and to defend public ownership and intervention where it is appropriate. The long essay below (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/public-and-private-confusion-and-yes-there-is-an-alternative/) examines that proposition in detail
At present all your party is trying to do is patch a few social and economic grazes when what is needed is major surgery.
In your answer to my question you said the picture I painted was not nuanced. To that I would reply how exactly does one nuance over 3 million net immigrants under Blair and Brown or massive debt they ran up from 2002 onwards? The detailed debt figures are
Labour ran a surplus for each of their first four years of government:
1998 £ 703 millions
1999 £11,976 millions
2000 £16,697 millions
2001 £ 8,426 millions
Total 1998 – 2001 surplus of £37,802 millions
Labour ran a deficit for the rest of their time in government:
2002 £19,046 millions
2003 £34,004 millions
2004 £36,797 millions
2005 £41,355 millions
2006 £30,755 millions
2007 £33,718 millions
2008 £68,003 millions
Total 2002 – 2008 Deficit of £263,678 millions
2009 £152,289 millions
2010 £148,774 millions
Total 2009 -2010 Deficit of £301,063 millions
Net total debt accumulated in the period 1998 – 2008 £225,876
Net total debt accumulated in the period 1998-2010 £526,339 millions
These figures understate the true increase in public debt because of the Enron-style accounting which kept most the PPI and PFI debt incurred under Blair and Brown off the books.
As can be seen, the present Labour claims that the financial mess is all due to the post-Lehman global crash is embarrassingly untrue.